Slashdot Mirror
Civil Liberties And The New Reality
Politically, America is an intensely polarized country, where discussion of issues quickly tends to bog down in notions of what is "left" or "right," thus ideologically pure, and consideration of a wide range of issues, from gun control and abortion to privacy and surveillance -- quickly freeze people into opposing camps characterized by rigidity, hostility and absence of communication. On the Net, people with particular interests increasingly often talk only to one another and consider only their own particular values and beliefs.
In fairness, let me declare my own warped perspective at the moment. I live just west of New York City, felt much affected by a visit to the attack site, and live in a town which has apparently lost somewhere between 30 and 40 people. Elsewhere in the country, life is beginning to move on, as it should, but in greater New York, it's still all death, all the time, on TV and in other media. As bits of bodies get pulled out of the wreckage, people give up hope of finding people from the wreckage, people give up hope of finding the people they love, and disruptions continue as the funerals and memorial services increase. People here remain numb and heavy-hearted.
It's easy to be suspicious of Attorney General John Ashcroft and of the FBI he heads when they say they need broader powers to wiretap, monitor the Net and conduct surveillance of Americans. Many people worry that once these powers are granted, they will never be given back. And some of these people don't have a comforting record of sensitivity when it comes to protecting privacy, free speech and individual civil liberties. But the terrorist attack has changed the entire context of these discussions, putting the issues far beyond knee-jerk reflexes.
But there is also something reflexively knee-jerk in the automatic "they-are-taking-our-freedoms-away" response from certain quarters online. The Justice Department isn't proposing dropping all restrictions or warrants or oversight regarding wiretapping and surveillance. They propose to ease some of them. This may or may not be a good idea. But it needs -- deserves -- to be rationally and openly considered.
First- and second-generation Internet dwellers value their freedoms, and have often had to defend them. Our government, sponsors of the CDA, Carnivore, and the DMCA -- it doesn't have a noble history here. Few people in government have ever made privacy and freedom online a political priority.
But the cataclysm at the World Trade Center is a historic event, and many people do, in fact, need to "get it." We will be living, thinking and behaving differently. Many of us -- if we and our families want to live safely -- will have to redefine our traditional politics, and consider new ways of defining certain rights.
The night of the attacks, reporters asked a New York City fire official why the city put out a desperate call for gas masks and vaccines that morning. "We thought one of the hijackers might possibly be carrying Anthrax -- there were some intelligence reports about that." The official stopped. "If they had been," he told reporters, "there might be 100,000 dead people, maybe more."
My own record of yowling about privacy and the First Amendment ad nauseum is clear enough, so I feel entitled to consider some other points of view, especially this week.
Certain rights -- equality, liberty -- are considered inviolate. But almost all rights are subject to a series of checks and balances, always subject to circumstance, never absolutes granted without reservation, in perpetuity, regardless of external circumstance. Yes, people online have the right to keep their communications private and people have the right -- I believe -- to move online and travel in the real world without their movements being monitored and recorded by governmental authorities. But people have the right to go to work without buildings falling on them, too.
This is how the WTC attacks have challenged our system of rights. The thousands of dead and millions of others who work in vulnerable office towers, or travel or study or live near airports (or schools, or ports, or national symbols) have rights too, and they have been grievously violated.
The government has an obligation to protect them.
These terrorists are technologically skilled, government authorities say. They use the Net to e-mail one another, and to send encrypted files, sometimes online, at other times via Zip disks or other media. They move money online, make plans there, thus avoiding possible interception by traditional intelligence monitors listening to phone and cell calls. Is it really totally unreasonable for authorities to seek broader powers to follow these conversations? Wiretap laws are not adequate for teaching these kinds of criminals. Existing wiretap laws require warrants for each telephone, even though criminals and terrorists might use dozens of phones or a variety of communications systems.
If terrorists are proven to be using encrypted files, aren't government agents entitled -- even obligated, on behalf of the thousands of innocent victims and many more future victims -- to get warrants to intercept them? Would we really rather that our water systems be poisoned, or our cities choked with gas, or planes flown into schools and City Halls? This would have seemed silly hyperbole to me a month ago, but all of these things are now plausible in the post-World Trade Center world.
Many of us have already happily and willingly surrendered some privacy to Napster, Amazon, gaming sites, EZ-Pass toll systems, online retailers and other Web tracking services which have lists of our shopping, reading, entertainment habits and preferences. Corporations have abolished many conventional notions of privacy, while most Americans shrug it off as a new convenience. Is it really our position that Wal-Mart can own the details of our lives, but that government agents tracking those people who murdered 5,000 of our fellow citizens can't?
Nobody in his right mind would support a blank check for government authorities. Any new laws to fight this new kind of war ought to be temporary, and self-expiring, perhaps subject to annual review. There ought to be clear civil and criminal penalties for wanton violations of privacy and excessive monitoring.
But when something like the World Trade Center attacks occur, the challenge, it seems to me, isn't to retreat into our knee-jerk positions, but to pause and carefully consider the new reality. Any government's primary obligation is to protect and defend its citizens. The failure to do that last week occurred primarily, many terrorism experts say, because our existing intelligence institutions don't have the human resources, the technology or the laws to keep up with a sophisticated, well-funded, technologically-savvy network of murderous enemies. We might want to ponder what rights we owe the living and owed the dead -- the right to live, to be and have parents, to work or fly without being torn to bits or crushed in a collapsing inferno.
I liked his previous comment that the media is full of rhetoric. I think his articles prove it.
I swear that sumbitch has been reading my mind these past few days.
Best Slashdot Co
If we allow our rights to become significantly abridged, then we have let the terrorists win. I do not claim to have the answers, but we are treading on a slipperly slope that could lead to the loss of more than just a little privacy.
Certainly, we would all be physically safer if we lived in a totalitarian regime with no privacy protection. Would that be worth the cost? No, Katz does not advocate this, but the very subject of the erosion of our civil liberties is a dangerous one. Yes, we need a national debate on this. Hopefully cool heads will prevail.
Ben Franklin said it best.
When you give up your freedom for security, you can have neither...
"Those who would give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Think about it. Are you willing to trade the sacrifice of all those who have gone before us on the chance that it MIGHT save some people down the road?
I'm not.
I wonder if all the people who failed
in the chain of events of last week will
lose theirs. Will there by a trial for
something like criminal negligence against
the federal government, NSA, CIA, FBI, FAA,
USAAF, canadian border patrol and the Massport authority ?
I am not speaking of course of the 5$/hour
security staff at the airport, who did what
they could and where motivated to do.
Google passes Turing test : see my journal
As recently as three weeks ago I heard anti-globalization protesters (as a group) described as terrorists by a politician. The majority of these people protest peacefully because their views do not receive proportional coverage by the media. At the same time that peaceful protesters are branded "terrorists", we have web sites such as the nuremberg files actively encouraging mayhem and murder brought upon citizens who are doing nothing illegal. Which group is more deserving of the label "terrorist"? Does either group pose a threat to national security? Does excercising the rights of protest and free speach make you a terrorist only if you disagree with the party in power?
The State will always use a crisis to increase its power, size, interference, control. This is old hat.
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
Every measure restricting freedom taken to ferret out mid-eastern terrorist will create MIDDLE AMERICAN terrorists. Don't be a fool. It would be easier for an American to get a weapon of mass destruction or hijack a plane over American airspace than a foreigner.
The question then becomes, where is the balance. What amount of freedom are you willing to give up to feel safe?
I have to agree... I am a member of the eff, and feel it is very important to defend our eroding civil liberties. When I see any attack on privacy, I automatically feel my temper flare and want to fight it. Katz is right. It is time to step back and think about the trade off between safety and our civil rights. I'm not saying that the trade off will always be worth it, but we should take the time to understand it before condemning it.
This was true in the Civil War, certainly. It was also true in World War I and World War II.
I have no objections to temporary measures designed to prosecute this war against medieval extremism.
What I fear, and I think what most people fear, is "mission creep." The "temporary changes" made during the war would become permanent.
We saw that in the aftermath of WWII. No one objected to the measures of that time (although there was, later, guilt over what happened to Japanese-Americans). But the attitudes of us vs. them, of absolute war, were carried over for political reasons into the horror we now call McCarthyism.
Any suspension of any of our rights, then, must be a war-time measure, part of the government's war-time efforts, aimed solely at prosecuting this war the President has declared. (Personally I'd like a Congresssionally-approved declaration, but they're having difficult defining the enemy.)
I have no objections to measures enacted with the aim of winning this war. I do object, strongly, and will lay down my life, against their being made permanent.
The primary rationale I see bandied about is that during wartime every populace has to give up certain rights or to allow the governement the ability to infringe on those rights if need be. Be it the ability to free movement during World War II (what with gas rationing and etc) or freedom of the press (to not relay possibly sensitive information). But most of the civil liberties that have been infringed upon in the past have seemed to be ones that are very apparent.
The problem I have with the current batch of liberties to be thrown away is that they aren't that apparent. Sure wiretapping laws are making news right now, but 4 or 5 years from now they won't be slapping you in the face in the same manner that gas rationing would. (Does that make sense?)
Past liberties given up have been so apparent that as soon as the crisis/rationale was over, people would've clamored for those rights back. However with wiretapping/backdoor encryption/etc the process is so transparent that I can't see enough people even realizing that they're still in place to create enough of an outcry to get them back. (whew... thank god for runon sentences)
But all that being said, if that's what it actually takes then I'm for it. If it's just the FBI using the current crisis as a free ticket to push the same agenda that they've been pushing for the past few years... well...
'Life is like a spoonful of Drain-O, it feels good on the way down but leaves you feeling hollow inside'
afghanistan is a wasteland of people dying
please stop the violence
im pleading for a humane approach
the 5.5 million afghans under the usa supported taliban regime are as innocent as the people trapped in the wtc
no one can be free while they oppress others
and that includes the new restrictions to the civil liberties as well
back in the day we didnt have no old school
Too much circular inconclusive logic...
...My head is spinning...
...Experiencing....Katz...Vertigo....
Hello:
i n.html, Franklin says "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
[Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.]
Made a mistake on the quote: from http://www.cp-tel.net/miller/BilLee/quotes/Frankl
These new rules WILL NOT prevent future disasters. These rules will not only be used to spied on suspected terrorists (read every group that disagrees with our government or those in power.) We need to get out from under this rock that GW has put our country. We need to participate in the world, we need to cooperate with foriegn countries and work together to stop this stuff. We need to stop pretending that the USA is the end all and be all of the world and that we can go it alone. I will not give upmy freedoms because some a-holes decide they are going to blow stuff up.
How far behind are ID cards and strip searches to get in the mall. Screw that, I say we actually enforce the laws we already have and cooperate with other countries. That is the best way, not trampling the rights of everyone.
Friendly
They would rather restrict certain rights (because they aren't terrorists, so they have nothing to fear).
What's wrong with this idea is that in countries where there are armed guards in airports, malls, etc., the people do not consider that to be infringing on their rights, or to be evidence of a police state.
Most of the people I've talked with would definately give up their liberties (privacy, etc.) for a sense of security (not having armed guards). I guess WE, collectively, deserve neither.
P.S. One woman in my PhD program is a former judge, she was one of the people I've spoken with who see this propblem, so, hopefully, the cheques and balances may actually prevent this.
I'd rather have someone respond than be modded up.
But giving up freedoms in exchange for less security is another. Restricting cryptography will not keep tech-savy criminals from using it - they'll just use it in combination with stenography. Meanwhile, all of our legal communications will become less secure - poking holes in the security of law-abiding citizens. There is no good way to police anti-encryption laws - they will do little (if any) good.
Last time I checked, Walmart was unable to put me in prison based on the information it has on me. The point of checks on the government's powers over us is that it is inherently coercieve, whereas we'd at least like to believe that corporations operate under a system of free choice within a market. But that's another debate.
Lets assume cryptography laws are passed.
How would you know this message is not encrypted some how?
Maybe I just passed a phone number of somebody,
or an address,
or the name of a person that
somebody should
contact.
To put limits into encryption is silly because
ther is
no way that
you can police it...
&@^%@$!@& YUYUUWBWQM
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
I'm not sure I'm ready to tell those kids whose parents didn't come home last week that they and others down the road just have to suck it up because people may be unwilling -- even temporarily -- to lose any measure of privacy.
Thank God someone doesn't have to hear katz speak...
But it's important that we think about each liberty, each law that goes through Congress, instead of writing a blank check for the gov't to cash. Some things make sense; wiretap procedure could be cleaned up slightly. On the other hand, there are issues like the potential ban on strong (un-backdoored) crypto. How does a single country banning this tech hurt the terrorists, and is it anything more than a knee-jerk reaction?
I'm not worried about compromising on a few areas, especially when they make sense. I am concerned that we're going to give the green light to every sort of incursion on our freedoms, even if it does little to stop terrorism.
You'd think that the CIA could track the enemies that it created itself, such as bin Laden.
I can't believe that people are beating the drum to increase funding for the CIA, or to cut the CIA loose. Heh, they set bin Laden up to start with, and encouraged Islamic fundamentalism in the anti-Soviet cause. Now he's Blowback. And what about that fundamentalist terrorist group, the KLA, that we've funded and supported? And we want the CIA to get _more_? To do _more_? Of what? The same old thing? No, thanks. No people who truly love liberty would tolerate such a vile organization like the CIA on its own shores.
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
Do you actually know anything about the Muslims than what you see in the media when they're talking about terrorist attacks?
The Muslim religion does NOT breed violence and hate... that seems to have more to do with the geography and history of that religion. My roommate of 4 years in college was a Muslim, and he's told me a good deal about his religion. It doesn't preach hate or violence. That's a human trait. Hell, look at the things the Catholic church has done.
Don't group all Muslims together. They're as varied as any other group.
I don't think that I would be nearly as concered about this discussion if I believed that all of the proposals from the FBI and CIA would be openly considered. If these discussions take place in the open where citizens like the people here can have some input then I think everything will work out fine. If the discussions are closed then we can expect mostly "knee-jerk" overreactions.
>:]
I'm not sure I'm ready to tell those kids whose parents didn't come home last week that they and others down the road just have to suck it up because people may be unwilling -- even temporarily -- to lose any measure of privacy.
I'm totally with you here. Absolutely.
If terrorists are proven to be using encrypted files, aren't government agents entitled -- even obligated, on behalf of the thousands of innocent victims and many more future victims -- to get warrants to intercept them?
Yup. And you used the magic words: "to get warrants." This warrantless-wiretap stuff is scary. It would be one thing if it were windowed (a sunset date, say, 90 days from now), which I think we could tolerate for the purpose of the immediate crisis. But to forever and ever have wiretaps without a court order? That's no good.
But here's the part about your statement that makes me uncomfortable. I assume that by "intercepting" "encrypted files," what you mean is not merely for federal officials to possess the encrypted data, but to be able to decrypt that data. And I can't say that I agree with that. Firstly because of the technical problems: any encryption with a backdoor is much, much easier to crack. (IANAC [I Am Not A Cypherpunk], but this is what I gather to be the case.) Secondly because what that really is, is a law against secrets. "There can be no secrets." And a law against encryption is as worthless as a missle defense shield. If people want to tell secrets, they'll meet in person in a dark alley. But to fatally weaken electronic secrecy for this purpose, I think, is going too far.
I'm willing to give up a lot of privacy on a temporary basis (and some on a long-term basis) to prevent this from happening again. But to permanently surrender electronic secrecy? I think that's asking too much.
JM2C,
Waldo
-Dave
Security and freedom are not inversely related! You can easily take away someone's freedoms without giving them any more security (and the government is poised to do just that with anti-encryption laws).
Blaming the WTC attacks on the privacy of the internet is ridiculous. There were plenty of opportunities for intelligence agencies to learn of these attacks, and having everyone's email to read would not have helped. If they do enact these laws, from now on I will put a signature on every internet communication with all the keywords listed over and over, something like:
------------------
John Doe
kiss@my.ass
bomb fertilizer chemical nuke terror kill america die capitalist pig biological innocent civilian fire attack etc etc
~ now you know
"WASHINGTON, Sept. 19 ? The Justice Department has drafted legislation allowing the U.S. attorney general to lock up foreigners deemed to be terrorist suspects and order them deported without presenting any evidence."
http://msnbc.com/news/631008.asp
That makes me just a tad uneasy.
http://pebkac.net
That is a fallacy Jon, or at least a distortion. The implication is that people have a right to be protected from bad things by society, and I strongly disagree.
If the government were dropping buildings on people, then clearly that would be as criminal as if a terrorist were to do it, and I would expect some consequences. But in much the same sense, I do not have a right to be free from disease. I do not have a right to be ensured that my car will not be stolen. I do not have a right to not be robbed by a criminal.
Think of it this way: a particular sort of crime -- that is, an act defined societally as a crime -- does not imply that potential victims have a right not to be victimized. Society condemns and punishes perpetrators of crimes, and on popular agreement puts in place systems and mechanisms to make perpetration of crime more difficul. None of that implies that citizens have unlimited rights to safety.
As Jon knows, but ignores, the difference is, we willingly give our details to Wal-Mart, or they illegally bought them after we opted-out. The government should be in the same position: they can ask me to give up my details, or they can buy them from someone violating my having opted out, same as anyone else.
The government is not a knight in shining armor, and they don't deserve any extra priveliges over me.
Don't tread on me.
The whole reason we are being attacked is
because we HAVE the very rights he is now
whining about.......
Now for a couple more things,
1st Can we not already wiretap FOREIGN nationals
regardless of where the are? If not, then change that part of the law. This was not done by americans, so don't change the law to allow them to be wiretapped.
2nd Stop student visas/ etc from islamic countries. (Tough, sad and a tad racist maybe, but realistic too.)
What right are we willing to sacrifice over the other? The right to live or the right to privacy? Personally for myself, the desicion is quite easy.
Over the past decade, people have become more infactuated with their rights to privacy then ever before. Why? What exactly are we emailing and telephoning our friends about? Is it so disturbing, so mentally insane that others would be disgusted by hearing it? For the sake of my life, I would have no problem with the government looking at my emails. What I am to hide? What do I care if they read a reply made to another business? What does it matter if they read an email to my friends in collage?
The truth is, it doesn't. Chances are more than one person recieved that message at that business, and there is a good chance that my friends at collage had at least one person eavesdropping over their shoulder while reading email.
Do I care?
Are we concerned about gossip? Perhaps we'll look bad as people begin to know what we talk about in our spare time. Is this privacy meant to replace the need for integrity?
Its almost been an identical transformation in our society, as the need for privacy grows, there is an equal and opposite reaction for the need of integrity. We find ourselves demanding privacy in email, phone conversations, etc, so our wives don't find out we've been cheating on them, or looking at hardcore porn on the net, etc.
So does the right to privacy, which is relative, equal the right to life? I hardly believe so.
Politically, America is an intensely polarized country, where discussion of issues quickly tends to bog down in notions of what is "left" or "right," thus ideologically pure
/. However, it's important that we might have to let go of certain rights, even permanently to preserve the safety of the nation.
This is most true, as seen on many arguments here on
It's a mixed bag. even though we lose certain rights to privacy especially through wiretapping, hopefully it will only be used when there is probable cause to wiretap. Therefore, most "personal" conversations will likely go unmonitored. Not a total loss of the right to privacy by any means.
The root of this matter is, how much privacy do we forego to reduce the chances of this tragedy occurring again?
All we Americans can think to do is blow some people up, batten down the hatches (and in the process attack america by taking away basic freedoms that are the very heart of our country and for which we have allegedly fought and died for) and hope for the best. It's time to look up from your shoes, folks. Building our own Wall Of China is not the solution.
--- What?
Is that it's rare to "temporarily" give up any privacy rights.
Global, sweeping legislation is going to do about as much as your commentary to protect human lives. Terrorists don't care about laws, and to prove this to you, Check the FAA regulations about hijacking planes. If terrorists are willing to commit murder, they are certainly going to break the laws which make it more difficult to plan to commit murder.
I am not saying that my personal rights outweigh the rights of the 5,000+ dead, but I think that the rights of the entire country, and the world as a whole, do. This may seem cold and callous, but I am not ready to submit to unwarranted search and seizures, or trial without due process for any reason.
There is no guarantee that by having my rights revoked I will help even one life be saved, and the potential for abuse when civil liberties and rights are revoked escalates to a plane which I do not want to go.
I would rather let a thousand criminals go free than hang one innocent man, and if we allow ANY of our rights to be revoked, we will hang more than just one man.
Angry White Guy
You think that I'm crazy, you should see this guy!
I agree with arstechnica.com "Privacy: it's good for the economy" little tidbit about it. We'll lose business for encyrption and no foreign countries will purchase American software. That's why China has invested in Linux. So maybe this is a good thing. Linux will flourish if not also having to have a backdoor. I mean the terrosists used Mailbox Etc. for a mailbox drop. Let's outlaw P.O. Boxes are if they're allowed to still exist announce random searches of mail. Also a good law would be to outlaw licking your envelope sealed so law enforcement monkeys can open at will without ripping the birthday card and check. One thing I guess is if we do lose privacy rights they go all out and ream us up the rear and we deal with it for 3 or 4 years and after a few thousands lawsuits and our goverment paying out billions for this and that then we'll overturn them in a big way and be back to sqaure one where we were 2 weeks ago.
I'm not sure I'm ready to tell those kids whose parents didn't come home last week that they and others down the road just have to suck it up because people may be unwilling -- even temporarily -- to lose any measure of privacy.
It just sucks it had to be somthing like this to wake people like JonKatz up. I was surprised (though, not offended) at the level of security in customs when my family would fly back and forth to Europe during my father's assignment in Italy. Since then, I was always amazed at the lack of true security at most US airports. When's the last time you saw a team of dogs searching every suitcase?
Let someone have their suitcase sniff-free and remain zippered to agents, but please don't put him on my plane.
Is it really our position that Wal-Mart can own the details of our lives, but that government agents tracking those people who murdered 5,000 of our fellow citizens can't?
Damn right it is. If I don't want Wal-Mart to own my information, I won't shop there.
If I don't care that Wal-Mart has it, that doesn't mean that the government should be allowed to it.
J Edgar Hoover ran the FBI for 48 years, and became the most powerful man in US history (including all the presidents) by spying on it's citizens and using that information.
I think this shows that the dangers are very real and that the government can not be trusted to only use spying powers for good. They'll use it however they please.
Of course, spying technology has advanced immensly since then.
I think that what is driving Americans' fear of wiretapping, eMail privacy revocation, public surveillance, and airport bag-sifting stems from our incredibly litigious nature. It's very true that criminals no longer adequately suffer for their crimes, but it's also true that legal cases can be the ruination of anyone, regardless of whether they are truly in the wrong or not, as long as someone cares enough to make a case out of it.
How would any of you feel if your personal activities, which may now be perfectly legal if not savoury, were recorded, tracked, and filed? Furthermore, what would happen should these activities be made illegal in the future? While I'm certain no one would be prosecuted for such actions, such records would provide perfect opportunity for one's enemies to cast aspersions and defame one's character.
While it may be necessary to give up certain conveniences in order to regain our former safety, it is certainly not wise to give up our freedom and privacy for such comfort.
The deaths in the WTC and Pentagon crashes were not the attack. As confusing as this may be to some, American deaths were only symbolic. The true damage the attack is producing could very well have been done without large loss of human life. We have been emotionally crushed, and made to feel afraid. Economic damage was the target of the terrorists' actions, and it is now quite apparent that the terrorists intended to profit from the damage dealt to our national economy.
Surrendering our civil rights and the privacy afforded us by our lawmakers and constitution is only able to cause more damage -- not anything as grand as the loss of life, but most certainly the lessening thereof.
True science means that when you re-evaluate the evidence, you re-evaluate your faith.
Though these abuses are rare, they are not as rare as a hijacking.
I do admit on a wiretap order a person versus a phone makes sense.
Fight Spammers!
I will leave the country and not look back. It will stop being the America I believe in.
I guess what I'm really saying is that I do not have the right to go to work without a building falling on me.
To me, rights are inviolate principles of interaction that are firmly based in ideas of what it is and is not possible to do. The constitution doesn't outline a right not to be murdered because that right is not a reasonable consequence of being alive.
I think the rights the constitution outlines are as much to protect the government from doing stupid things in an attempt to achieve the impossible as they are an attempt to protect people from government.
I need to read John Locke, and a few of the other philosophers from around the time the constitution was crafted. I don't think I have the intellectual tools to articulate my argument effectively without their words.
Perhaps it's just that I shall always be a freelance bacterium instead of a cell of a body. But, I think the organism of a state can exist without every little manufacture of a signalling chemical being noted by the brain.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
In the 20th Century, governments literally decimated the world population - murdering the equivalent of one out of every ten people alive at the beginning of the century. That doesn't count soldiers killed on the field of war: just murder - terrorism by government - civilians killed in concentration camps and carpet bombings and starvation-by-policy and the like. (ref.)
Avoid the temptation to respond to this comparatively amateurish terrorism and murder by demanding more power for governments.
Quiquid latine dictum sit altum viditur
With regard to mandatory back doors in encryptions products, it just won't work. There's already plenty of knowledge on how to securely encrypt transmissions and plenty of products out there. Even if key-escrow becomes mandatory, there's nothing to prevent people from just not upgrading to the key-escrow version of the product.
A particularly silly idea, I think
I think that the key is to ensure that the curbs on freedom are always the minimum necessary.
Take for instance the old example of identity cards, which have always been viewed with suspicion in the UK, where I am from.
What harm would it do to have them I have heard ask? Well of course it depends on what is on them and when you have to carry them.
For instance we already have identity cards whilst flying on commercial flights anyway. They are called passports. I don't think that anyone has any real problems with this. This is follows the idea of the mimimum requirement. On a plane there is an overridingly good reason why ID is required. This is different from saying we should have to carry ID all the time.
What should be on them? We could just have names for instance. Okay that's probably reasonable. But what if they had addresses? Okay you say whats the problem. Well if you live in a region where you are likely to be mugged you probably would not want to carry something with your address on it. What about religion? In the light of recent attacks on Mosques in Manchester where I live, I can see many people who would have great worries about this.
The danger at the moment is that every time some one criticises official policy, suggests that they might be wrong, they get accused of being supportive of terrorism. Its a very dangerous state of affairs. We need criticism more now, and not less. We need to ensure that any curbs on freedoms are necessary, that they are likely to effective in what they are supposed to achieve, and that they are proportionate to the threat.
News that Bush has decided to launch a crusade on a terrorist jihad do not fill me with hope that this will be the case.
Phil
We must be flexible in times like this. The ocnstitution was penned by wise men understanding that our civil liberties must go with the ebb and flow of the times. This is what makes our country powerful and hopefully lends to our longevity.
Many people, myself included, have no problem with authorities having powers so long as there is proper oversight (warrents, involvement of judiciary, eventual reporting of activity, etc..). But you -cannot- trust paranoid services like the NSA/MI5/Mossad to do this volanterraly, they always seem to have to have it forced on them (and often appeat to ignore it anyway).
Those who are currently pushing for massive secret surveilance are wrong, those who are pushing for no survelkiance ever.. are also wrong.
A balance must be struck, and one we can trust.
At present I do not trust the branches of government that want to erod my freedom and I'll fight them all the way. By taking an extreme position myself, I help balance the scales a bit.
This is despite the fact that I'd actually accept some erosion of specific liberties if rights were given -back- in some other areas, and accountability and trust became something other than a NSA spin campaign.
"Oops, I always forget the purpose of competition is to divide people into winners and losers." - Hobbes
The article assumes that we give up our rights to privacy in order to have more effectiveness againt terrorists. Well, this doesn't work! If the government is monitoring the net, terroists won't use it. If the government requires backdoors in security software, the terrorists won't use the backdoored software. What we get is that the power-thirsty authorities control all our rights with no change in the terrorists abilities.
Also, monitoring cannot help because terrorists can apply stegnography and hide thier messages in innocent pr0n images. The government can't intercept all this data and could never be able to catch the terrorists.
There is no need to surrender our rights for absolutely nothing.
Make even shorter URLs - 8LN.org
while (WTC_Horse.isDead())
{
WTC_Horse.beat();
}
Thank you. Get on with your lives, please, and let the rest of us get on with our lives, too.
I've yet to hear any good arguments that opening backdoors in cryptography or increased surveillance would do anything to actually help prevent future terrorist attacks. Is there anything that makes you believe the current attack wouldn't have happened if the govt. could snoop on all encrypted communications traffic? It's one of those things that sounds almost obvious, but when I start to think about it further, I wonder if it really would do any good. Wouldn't terrorists just work outside the areas of communication these laws cover? I'm betting the terrorists didn't use encryption this last time. Weren't some of these guys wanted by the feds anyway? Why weren't they just picked up? Cracking encryption isn't likely to help you find someone is it? Just watch for encrypted traffic and set up surveillance on the sources... ?
-beme
1971
Hey Jon, have you ever considered that the whole damn thing might have been a government/corporate conspiracy just to generate a political whirlwind that would make it easy to pass freedom-restricting laws in the wake of a furious public?
If you ask me this is the fertile ground these behind-the-scenes manipulators have needed to plant the seeds of a police state in. Video surveillance, warrantless wiretaps, crypto crackdown...what's next prohibitions on firearms and public assembly?
Hell, until recently the CIA was funneling arms, equipment and who knows what else to bin Laden.
It sure makes a thinking man wonder....
Yeah, the government's done such a great job making the world a safe place for Americans let's just give up _all_ our rights; that way we can be assured of complete safety. Since the government does everything else so well I'm sure we can count on them to do the right thing.
Remember, war is the product of governments, not peaceful freedom-loving people. Those politicans in DC are overjoyed at the prospect of more power and money for themselves, not to mention the fact they get to _save_ us from the very same problems they created, while it's ordinary Americans that will have to die for their decisions.
That seemed like a well thought out piece that takes a very reasonable stance. The only thing I would strongly disagree with is the implied need for mandatory Governmental back doors in encryption software. If those back doors are there, they will be found and exploited by entities other than the US govermnent. Currently "trusted" crytographic systems will no longer be able to be trusted to secure information from those engaged in industrial espionage or other criminal activities.
a rational article by Katz.
Who would have thought?
Hopefully more people will begin to take this mentality as the initial shock of the attack wears off. Rarely are we as Americans forced to choose between what we view as definite rights and the safety of our families. Many people say we must balance safety and our rights. Well, in my opinion, safety is a right in and of itself, at least in a society such as ours.
When adopting certain types of governments, you automatically give up rights in exchange for new rights you did not have before. Such as the right to protection by the government in power. We give up the right to keep all of our money (taxes) in exchange for protection and aid from the national government (military, social security, etc.)
The bombings recently have not completely changed this, they have merely begun to tip the scales in a direction we are not used to.
To what extent does personal privacy outweigh the safety of the nation? I do not envy our elected officials the decisions they must make on this topic. But keep in mind that this freedom does not need to be given up for increased surveillance on our communications. Warrants and court orders would still be needed, it would just be easier to get them. I realize this is a slippery slope, as some have said, which is why now more than ever, we need to become involved in what our government is doing. We must take an active role in watching our elected officials and keep a close eye on what they do and what they ask for. Strong public involvement will help us all to take what steps are necessary, and those steps only, towards making our nation stronger and safer than ever before.
"There can be only one... I am not the one!"
The biggest problem with what America is trying to do is to make more things illegal. To make more people into criminals. However, if someone is willing to commit suicide to kill a lot of people then does anyone really believe that they are going to balk at breaking a law about encryption? The only people that the government will be able to catch through these new laws are going to be the very minor criminals who don't know better.
Intelligent people like these terrorist leaders will simply use another method such as the Spam encryption technique or what they've already done by hiding information in web sites.
We have to protect our freedoms. We want to be safe, but let's be realistic and realize that making privacy illegal is not the right way to go about it.
Travis
80 years of playing at empire created the injustices that caused the hatreds.
50 years of victim disarmament laws created yet another weapons-free killing zone that the terrorists used to their advantage.
Increasing freedom is the answer: Put the US government back inside the Constitution. Get out of all of the foreign entanglements.
This is in the US interest: Empires don't last very long in the modern world, and the parent state often disappears along with the empire.
Lew Glendenning
"The Constitution, the WHOLE Constitution, and nothing but the CONSTITUTION."
Ben Franklin said it best.
When you give up your freedom for security, you can have neither...
Ben never had to deal with situations where thousands of people could be killed in a single attack.
I don't have the freedom to cultivate Anthrax in my basement, but then again I have the security to know that it likely won't be available to terrorists. I think that's a fair trade.
Cringely has an excellent piece on hastily carried-out laws. Everyone screams, "something must be done," so they start doing what they can with very little fore thought.
Quoting Jefferson on this would just be hella redundant... but let's hope some actual thinking goes into any new legislation: if it was in place before the WTC tragedy, would the attack have been prevented? At what cost are we making these new laws?
I understand Jon doesn't want to have to tell some kid that their mommy or daddy isn't going to come home again. I don't want to have to do that either.
But in the process, let's not forget hundreds of thousands of people have died to give us these rights. In the rush to prevent having to tell little Johnny his father isn't coming home, let us not have to tell those hundreds of thousands that they died for something we're just going to give up.
Try:
WTC_Horse.dead = TRUE;
while (WTC_Horse.Dead())
{
WTC_Horse.beat();
}
Your code gave me a kernel panic.
I agree that reasoned thought needs to be given to how we can defend both our nation and our rights.
I haven't heard ANYONE in the government ask for a blank check to combat these terrorists. If we give them that power along with a series of checks and balances to make sure that power isn't abused, then how could anyone reasonably protest.
Obviously, I don't think anyone wants to see a repeat of last weeks events.
If the government says we can't protect you if you don't let us change our methods, then we need to listen to what they want to do and help determine a way to accomplish this while protecting our rights.
Unfortuneatly, I think you've posed these questions to the wrong crowd. While I have no doubt that many of the slashdot readers could help come up with a reasoned recommendation, I think their anti establishment leanings will prevent it.
We are but the sum of our experiances
The US government is demonstrating an unprecedented amount of unity. Which of course is a very bad thing. The main reason why our government is often unable to screw people over effectively is the automatic opposition across republican/democrat lines. Without that, and with the full support of other important officials, just about anything can become law if it can be called "antiterrorism." Add in the fact that congressmen don't listen to engineers, and even good ideas could result in bad implementations. Our government has the capability right now to make some very big mistakes that could take years to correct, so there is no such thing as overreacting. We must substitute our voices for the usual voices of opposition that have gone silent, so that our nation's delicate emotional state does not give the terrorists yet another victory to celebrate.
I don't think you need to reply to someone with a -1 default score. I doubt he cares.
For the record, though, you're right about Islam, maybe more so than you think. Islam is actually one of the most tolerant religions out there, even towards Christianity and Judaism. Even their bible, the Qur'an, explicitly forbids violence against such people (the typical targets of 'Islamic' terrorists) There is a quote from Allah stating the He himself will damn anyone who harms a Christian or Jew. Muslims are forbidden from declaring Jihad, 'Holy War,' against Christans and Jews.
Islam is the only western religion that I know of which recognizes other religions as believers as well. Both Moses and Jesus are mentioned in the Qur'an, and while they name Mohammad as the prophet of God, they still recognize the wisdom of them.
In short, even true Muslims would agree that these terrorists are probably burning in hell right now. If I was the religious type, I would be proud to call myself a Muslim.
-Space for rent
These terrorists are technologically skilled, government authorities say. They use the Net to e-mail one another, and to send encrypted files, sometimes online, at other times via Zip disks or other media. They move money online, make plans there, thus avoiding possible interception by traditional intelligence monitors listening to phone and cell calls.
I have yet to see any proof of this; there is no evidence so far that any of the terrorists involved in the WTC disaster relied on anything more technological than a telephone to plan and execute their plans. The idea that the Internet is a terrorist medium seems to be mostly played up by a bored media.
I actually find the idea that someone like Bin Laden (who is probably living in a cave right now) would jump aboard the Internet as the ultimate terrorism organizational tool highly questionable. The concept of encryption is familiar to us on Slashdot, but to most other people it's really voodoo. The Internet is primarly an American invention, it would be prudent for someone to be wary of placing so much faith in the device of his enemy.
If the Gov't institutes the propsed new laws then the terrorist win. Take Carnivore for example, what's to stop them from catching my emails that are unrelated from terrorism and doing something about my warez?
"I think you know what I'm talkin' about, Mr. President; We're gonna kill us a mummy!" - Bruce Campbell as Elvis Presley
Hindsight is 20-20.
You look back, and you can clearly see that the US and other governments were heading this direction.
It's little surprise, then, that they are taking advantage of this opportunity to achieve their goals much, much faster, with far, far less trouble from the masses.
We'll soon have a passively numb population who have no expectation of privacy, no desire to become informed, and no passion for influencing the direction of government.
Baa! Baa! Baa!
Sheep are good. They buy consumer products without questioning their value, quality, or necessity. They pay their taxes without questioning where the money goes. They go to work and meekly accept lousy pay and lousy conditions. They don't challenge the laws. They don't cause trouble.
That's what the corporations want. That's what the governments want. And that's what we're going to get.
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
Baloney. Nobody could defend themselves in the 'weapons-free safety zone' created by FAA regulations and US law.
Consequently, there was an easier killing zone, much larger than ever before.
Abrogation of basic human rights caused this problem. A human should never be denied the ability to defend him/herself.
This is what "shall not be infringed" means.
Lew Glendenning
"The Constitution, the WHOLE Constitution, and nothing but the CONSTITUTION."
The solution is not to give up some civil liberties, but to provide Human right to the rest of the world.
The terrorist feed on injustices, the fact is that muslims have been subject to too many of them.
Most of the almost 1,000,000,000 of them have just accept them but some not.
Terroris is not right, but just remember that Labin is a product of CIA training, we was suported, armed and trained as a weapon against The soviets...
What can you tell to the thousand of children that died or are wounded each year with american land mines? the US has refuse to stop the fabrication of this weapons that affect the civilian population.
The list could be endless. But this can lead to some people, stupid, fanatics or both, to comit atrocities, in the name of justice.
sorry if this is a bit garbled, but my english is not enough explain my mixed fellings about all this.
JavierD
If anyone should be allowed to spy on anyone else, then it should be the citizens of the US whom are allowed to spy on their own government in order to keep them in check, not the other way 'round. Allowing a government to spy on its own people is right up there with the KGB and Communism. Didn't we fight that once?
--- What?
I agree with Katz, surprisingly, but I do find that he has some problems with his statement. I don't think there is such a thing as 'post-WTC attack'. We've always lived in a world that has terrorists, it's just that America has been fortunate enough not to have to deal with too much of it (unlike some other countries). I don't think we need to take any liberties away, we only need to re-evaluate what is needed to make the intelligence gathering easier when certain giveaway signals are given.
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/19/national/19CI
Bush has approved detaining immigrants indefinitely like some Banana Republic despot or some Marxist leader. "Sorry if you weren't born here, but if you're a suspect, you can go to jail until we decide what to do with you."
This is only one step away from detaining whomeever for whatever reason in the name of national security.
-Russ
Me
The "one step beyond" Phenomenon. Why is it difficult to check Drug on Olympics ? Because drug maker are already One step beyond. Why will backdoor on encryption program and other wiretap things be next to useless ? Because forewarned is forarmed and terrorist will either use under the hands encryption without backdoor or use uncrackable method like one time pad, imbed into other file type, whatever.
Then what ? Make encryption illegal ?
But nothing will stop any governement once it has taken the first step on restriction ladder : it will ask for more : Drug dealer are using encryption too, right ? And they do more death pro year. And then it will be another group and so on.
In the evry End the terrorist are using "terror" to paralyse, cripple the population or throw the opposition into incosiderate steps. By just implementing the above , Katz, not only you do not rise the chance of getting terrorist caught on security alone, but you acknowledge their terror and show them that they have WON. Their ACTION pushed YOU into COUNTERREACTION.
After Pearl Harbor, Admmiral Kimmel and General Short were relieved of their commands. They were fired and disgraced. We can expect some fairly high ranking people to be fired, but proving criminal negligence would be tough.
Best Slashdot Co
If they *truely* want safety, Then there should be Nothing carried on the person except their id and ticket when they are on the plane or in the concourse. Almost anything you carry in your bags could be used/modified to be a weapon.
Myself, I will not put up with the new security regs and will never fly again. If the airlines go under, fine. If tickets go up to 600$ coach, then only businesses will send persons on the planes.
When you have a free soceity, you must put up with people that dont like what you or your country are doing and stop at nothing to make the point. You try to detect them and stop them, but some will exploit a weakness that they discover to make a tragic point.
In the end, the WTC was the equivalent of a bloody nose on a person. The economy was damaged but it will not collapse even if the DOW goes back to mid 90's levels. (around 7000)
Chris
Last week, living here in D.C., I heard a news commentator use the phrase "Marshall Law" when describing planes overhead and armed troops around the White House. Putting my head in my hand, I mumbled "whatta idiot".
My wife asked why, I explained to her that generally one considers the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus to be Marshall Law. Mind you, I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on T.V.
However, it raised the question in my mind last week, are we going to be compelled by current circumstances to forgoe some freedoms in exchange for not loosing them all ? Opinions ?
healyourchurchwebsite.com - WWJB?
If I don't have the freedom to travel in my own country to a football stadium, then my other freedoms aren't worth a damn. Your freedom has already been curtailed by the terrorists in reality far more than the government ever will in theory.
I think some people need to clue that life is a bit different than a week ago. To be honest, I think that is the root of the problem here... too many people think it's a movie, and it hasn't really sunk in that it really happened, there really are evil people in the world whose only goal is to destroy democracy, and that there come times in history when the world has to stand up to evil.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
This isn't some new thing brought about by encryption/free speach/gunpowder/airliners.
If anything encouraging free speach will help prevent terrorism. If extreamists are allowed to sprout there crap freely then they won't feal the need to kill people to get our attention.
Example: In the UK free speach/assosiation laws allow the existance of Nazi scumbags. Result, Nazis talk there crap and nobody pays them any attention.
In Germany Nazis are outlawed. Result, big problems with Neo-Nazis, Nazis look glamerous to some and have a large membership. Hostels for imigrants attacked.
Remember Voltare?
"I disprove of what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it"
If we give up our rights then the terrorists have won
Anyone quoted by a reporter knows how little they understand
Don't believe what you read is the truth.
...katz proves he's never suffered anything more than a delay in getting his burger at the drive through. Once they take away his right to free speach, maybe (but probably not) katz will wake up and smell the smoke...
To start I would like to point out that Income tax was also a "temporary" measure to cover the costs of the WW's. There is also a thing called precedence, and it is very dangerous.
n ews-wto-c hina
Second there are lots of open and readily available algorithms for encryption, ones that are very difficult to crack and have no back doors, you don't think that they will be able to write their own encrypted communications software?
Have you ever seen an individual who suffers from paranoid delusions. My aunt does, she started off as a fairly normal person, but over 5 years with 9 deaths in the family she slowly slipped down this slope to near insanity. After nearly ripping apart our family with paranoid acusations of attempted poisonings and sewing discord in her immediate family leved at the rest of the extended family and generally distrusting everyone, she saw a psychologist and is now on some meds that have sort of turned her into a zombie.
As well has anyone noticed that China was granted entry into the WTO yesterday. No fanfare at all, you would think that it would make at least a bit of a splash!
http://news.excite.ca/news/ap/010918/05/
slashdot shenanigans
What I am worried about is knee-jerk, feel-good legislation. Passing sweeping legislation right after a tragedy of this magnitude is underhanded and deceitful. It is playing off of the emotions and ignorance of the general populace.
Banning unbackdoored strong crypto will have a devestating effect on world commerce. Except for a short (few months, maybe) period following 9/11/2001 most people will be more concerned with the security of their bank account than with a potential terrorist attack.
The National Counterintelligence Center (http://www.nacic.gov/) is well aware of the legitimate uses of strong crypto: banking, commerce, protecting trade secrets, etc. The U.S. loses billions of dollars a year to industrial espionage -- much of it State sponsored.
The entire world banking system relies on strong crypto.
Terrorists can easily switch to something else -- like code words; written instructions; steganography.
How many BILLIONS of web pages are out there? Does anyone really believe anyone can monitor them all for "suspicious" traffic? Sift through them for hidden messages; code phrases; etc.
Yes, the gov't has to do something. However, that something should be an intelligent, well thought out response, not knee-jerk feel-good legislation that really won't solve the problem.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
We'll NEVER invade/infringe on your privacy/anonymity at ScaredCity(?tm?). In fact, we don't care who you are at all. plus, you could be crafty enough to acquire this descriptive (of the brave new world of open/honest communications/commerce) URL, from us. better get used to the notion of communications being monitored. looks like some of the criminals probably used quite a lot of "anonymous" ip communications. if you don't want IT "eXPosed", don't say it.
Our founding father's had to fight for the freedom that we have now. After that war, America began to spread freedom and democracy to other places, we were on the offensive. Now, we must fight to maintain that freedom, we are on the defensive again. I am willing to fight evil to keep our freedom, but I will not just hand my freedom over to our government for protection. We must provide our own protection to keep our freedoms.
Soon US will be like orwells 1984, worst of all, thats what people what...
Even worst, people think they can trust, and give more powers to agencies that have done terrible things, like killing an american president or fundint those crazy talibans...
Would you accept more
government involvement in
your life if it meant more
security against terrorism?
Last check:
Yes 71% 44,665 votes
No 29% 18,202 votes
Perhaps part of freedom is being able to surrender rights, at best only temporarily.
Of course the question that always hangs in the air is: Who will be the watchers?
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
all we need to do is to do a more effective job of communicating between agencies. The CIA was told by Isrial that a terrorist attack was eminant on a major target in the US. Did the CIA tell the FBI to keep a heads up and to start auditing those visas? No, they placed it in the "not enough info to care" file and threw it aside.
the FBI care very much about dommestic security, if they had been given that info, they would have had INS locate everyone from the middle east who has a visa, and they would do intel checks on them. the CIA however, does not have, as its main focus, the duty to keep an eye on terrorism, they are out to collect intel for international policy.
typical Government workers, "well it aint my job to worry about terrorism"
Kennedy had it right when he wanted to merge the CIA and the FBI into one super agency.
better intel from abroad means better security at home, as long as there is communication between the two
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
...when they pry the keyboard from my cold, dead fingers.
'nuff said!
How about we compromise, everyone who wants to give up their privacy for a little security are free to do so. Those of us who do not want to, do not have to. See we can all get along.
Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power - Benito Mussoli
MOD this troll down !
And what if all those terrible acts are only the excuse that the government was waiting for... to take away our privacy...???
For Americans, freedom is our birthright. If you had to sum up what the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and the Revolutionary
War were all about, undoubtedly you would arrive at the word freedom. As the shock and sting of last Tuesday's events begins to dull a bit,
we must all keep in mind that freedom is our birthright.
Peace is something we strive for. Americans are a peace-loving people. Our history is one of war when necessary, but long stretches of
relative peace. Peace, however, is not our birthright. We have been able to enjoy peace only because when push really comes to shove,
America always defends herself, to the fullest extent possible, with all her might.
In recent days, I have been hearing some people suggesting that we should not overreact, or that we should "carry out justice" but not engage in a war. Carrying out justice, these people say, amounts to arresting some bad guys, locking them up and throwing away the key. This, of course, leaves their cohorts, their accomplices and host
countries free to carry out another attack. That?s OK, they say, we can just add more security at airports, and give the feds broad new powers
to search for more bad guys.
What these well-meaning people seek to do is to trade freedom for peace. We'll give up some freedom so that we can avoid going to war.
The problem with this thinking is that freedom is not an option. It is not to be given away willy-nilly. It is our birthright as Americans. It
is part of the deal. Citizens of our country are entitled to go as far as their dreams and muster will carry them, and they are entitled to
live free. We should not surrender our freedom so easily.
And we should rise to the occasion when we must fight to protect it. Our Founders did. Yes, it will be messy. People will get hurt. Some
will die. The people who say we should carry out justice, but not war, are like little children: they want all the good this country has to
offer, yet are not willing to pay the price when necessary.
Our birthright as Americans is freedom. Despite its name, freedom does not come for free. Sometimes, freedom must be defended. When we do so, we must do so mightily, so that it is indeed a long time before we have to do it again.
the important difference between this "war" and any other is not that we don't know who the enemy is; it is that it is that the suspects are quite often citizens of this country. in previous wars rights were given up to help defeat a foreign enemy; in this war (like in the war on drugs) rights are being taken away to attack our own citizens.
/. user page. is _yours_ ?
now then. my pgp key is posted on my
There isn't any way the government is going to be able to monitor these communications and what not and get any advantage over terrorists. With regard to back doors in encryption, I would venture to say this is similar to gun control. While law-abiding citizens would have encryption methods the government has the ability to access, criminals, terrorists, etc., will be using illegal methods. What's one more law to break? Just like gun control, law-abiding citizens won't have guns, yet the criminals will.
While I think what happened in New York City, Washington, D.C., and Pensylvania is absolutely terrible, I feel that if we start giving up these freedoms, the terrorists have won the war. I seriously doubt once any of these methods is approved (unlimited wire-tapping, backdoors in encryption, and so on and so forth) the freedoms will never be given back to the people. Isn't this what terrorists want?
Nobody could defend themselves in the 'weapons-free safety zone' created by FAA regulations and US law
Uh huh.
Tell that to the passengers of flight #93.
'Life is like a spoonful of Drain-O, it feels good on the way down but leaves you feeling hollow inside'
So, the WTC got attacked, "we must fight back," and "security is more important than privacy," or the good old "I have nothing to hide, why should I care" are all we hear.
Everyone wants to talk about bombing these guys and no one wants to talk about WHY it happened. About WHY so many people around the world hate the United States. And about why can be done to make the United States more likable.
I will first say, what happened in New York is discusting. The hitting of civilian targets, the killing of innocent people, is an aweful thing. Those responsible should be brought to justice. However, we're talking justice, not revenge.
Perhaps if the United States weren't such corporate imperialists, if the American government didn't meddle in the affairs of so many countires this wouldn't have happened.
And no BS about being humanitarians and the world policeman. That's a load of shit. The American government only does what's in it's best interests. They dragged their feet on helping the people of Rwanda against the genicide occuring there. They refused to help the people of Kashmir enforce the UN resolution calling for a referendum on who to join, India or Pakistan (as Bob Dole aparently said, "Do you have oil? If you don't have oil why should we help you?"). For supporting the corrupt UNdemocratic government of Saudi Arabia while spewing rhetoric about "upholding democracy." Are these the actions of a humanitarian state? I think not.
Katz spews about why should corporations be allowed to invade the privacy of people while the government can't in order to catch criminals. Well maybe the solution isn't further degrading our rights, but strengthaning them. I remember a few months ago the outrage on slashdot after companies like microsoft said it would be 'too expensive' to strengthan privacy laws. How people were calling for restrictions on what information corporations could keep on us. Well maybe we shouldn't be justifying the destruction of our rights and privacies, but continuing to say enough is enough, we have a right to privacy.
I'm sure glad here in Canada we have stronger privacy laws. That we actually do have some rights to privacy from the eyes of the government and corporations. And I'm continually fearful that our government will cave in to the will of the American government and corporations.
Wake up America. Don't let the government or corporations push you around. Stand up for your rights!
Please, before you flame me, try to think of a specific example of a situation where a government entity knowing the contents of your email would actually be harmful or dangerous to you, and be prepared to defend that position intelligently.
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
government involvement in
your life if it meant more
security against terrorism?
Last check:
Yes 71% 44,665 votes
No 29% 18,202 votes
Perhaps part of freedom is being able to surrender rights, at best only temporarily.
"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." --Samuel Adams
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
I do hope you're referring to "checks and balances" and not, um, influence peddling...
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
Security and freedom are inversely related.
No, this could not be more wrong. Security and convenience are inversely related. Security and freedom are not. This is a very important distinction.
-- http://frobnosticate.com
If you want to live at a lower technological level, then you can find places where the people have more rights, at least as far as their government is concerned.
Best Slashdot Co
In some ways you have to agree with Jon (omg I said it). But let me say first off, being that Jon stated he lived just west of New York City (e.g. New Jersey), makes me want even more so to hunt him down. Jon, New Jersey isn't *THAT* big *grin*.
Anyway...
I don't think giving up our civil rights is a good thing. I was just reading the book Secrets & Lies by Bruce Schneier and he said the Supreme Court has said we have the right to privacy. Well, we all have to agree. Just as I have a right to encrypt the love note to my mistress, a terrorist has the right to encrypt a confirmation of attack of some suicidal extremist... despite the *nature* of the contents of the e-mail.
Coming in from the other side of the argument, the problem is that the gov't does NOT have the resources to track every phone conversation and every e-mail sent in the world... or even the U.S. Just the amount of spam transmitted at any given second on the Internet would keep the CIA up for days filtering through it. The likelihood that our individual rights would be violated is highly doubtful just from the sheer magnitude of information.
Honestly, I personally feel we cannot come up with a definitive end to this arguement. Arguements can be made from both sides.. both being valid. Any person that can not see the validity of arguements from both sides is just plain ignorant. (Many posts I have seen so far go against Jon, and prove ignorant). Maybe it's time for investigators to find new ways of gathering vital information... maybe the old ways need to be modified to work with modern public-key encryption... who knows....
It's easy to be suspicious of Attorney General John Ashcroft and of the FBI he heads
Yes, it is easy to be suspicious of Ashcroft, but he doesn't head the FBI. That is someone else.
room101 -- how much can you stand before they break you?
(they always break you eventually)
I think the first thing that needs to be asked about all these proposed new laws is, "Would they have done anything to stop the WTC incident had they been in effect before it?". For example, would the new wiretap powers have done anything given that the government doesn't seem to know that communication between the terrorists was going on at all? If US-made crypto tech has back doors or key escrow or other access mechanisms installed, do you think the terrorists will give up what they already have and switch to it? And if they don't, will those access mechanisms help one bit? Will additional restrictions on checked luggage and manifest checks stop someone who walks past a bored security guard carrying a knife in his pocket and boards the plane?
This is my heartburn with a lot of what's being proposed. Not that it may restrict our rights, but that it will restrict our rights without doing anything about the problem being used to justify it.
Thank-you for the exact quote.
It takes on a interesting shade of meaning when fully and correctly quoted doesn't it? Consider the word essential.
What is an essential liberty? Is freedom of movement? Yes. Is boarding an airplane essential? No. Is the freedom to associate? Yes. Is using electronic communications? No.
The difficulty is when you attempt to live in world full of artifical dichotomies. "It's this way or that way." The world is fully of shades of gray, but many people insist on black and white.
Dropping the word "essential" from Benjamin Franklin's quote is a convenient way to force the discussion into black and white terms.
Being FORCED to surrend rights is the OPPOSITE of freedom.
All of the changes being suggested and argued about have one thing in common--they provide a cheap alternative to actually solving the problem.
It would be possible to solve the problem of security in our skies without taking away any of our liberties. Make sure there are (frequently) law enforcement officers on board flights. Yes, this is being considered, but it is expensive. It's cheaper to build a database and track each person flying. It is an invasion of privacy, but it is cheaper.
It would be possible to solve the problem of Middle Eastern terrorism, but it is expensive. It would require assistance to the desperately poor parts of the region, to build schools, hospitals, and the other things they need to support a decent life. It would require us to be willing to pay a higher price to get oil that is not purchased from tyrants. It would require us to give up our notion of "client states" and recognize that the people who are considered too poor and powerless to worry about today will be desperate enough to follow a madman tomorrow. But it's cheaper to try and spy and assassinate our way out of the problem. It won't work, of course, and will create bigger problems down the line, but it is cheaper than solving the problem.
The world didn't change last week, really. Many innocent people lost their lives in a senseless tragedy. The tragedy will be compounded if we don't start educating ourselves about the world we live in, and if we don't realize that there is no person on this planet too poor, too different, or too desperate to be important.
Does the FBI NEED broader powers to prevent what happened at the WTC?
How on earth could we as the American people know the answer to that? All we know is that it did happen and that now, the FBI says that they NEED.
It would be reckless to take them at their word alone.
In the corporate world, it is common, in the aftermath of some botched project or some internal disaster for those responsible to say "We needed better equipment", or "We were limited by internal regulations."
The answer is to investigate their claims. Was it as they say, the internal regulations, was it the equipment? Had they throughout been requesting change and warning of disaster if it did not occur? OR as it so often is, was there a lowering of daily vigilance or a failure to operate according to established protocols?
At this point, I cannot as a citizen, know with any certainty. The FBI may have done all within their power, may have utlized every tool at their command and still failed. But we would be fools to believe them without inspecting their efforts.
No. When you give up your freedom believng you will receive a safe, secure environment what you actually receive is a facist, nazi government hell-bent on killing its people who want their freedom back.
There's no automatic relationship between freedom and security. Many times in American history, when we have suppressed freedom in wartime we have gained no additional security at all. For example, the interning of Japanese Americans didn't increase our security. Banning the teaching of German during World War I didn't increase our security. Hoover's FBI blackmailing didn't increase our security.
It is a serious error to assume that because sometimes increased security reduces freedom, anything that reduces freedom increases security. Things don't work that way.
InstaPundit! Ahead of the Curve Since 30 Minutes Ago
In a SYSTEM, you don't get to choose just one thing.
If we choose a 'war on terrorism', we also choose:
Slower growth of medical technology. (More people die this year from the effects of WWI than at the height of trench warfare.)
Slower growth of the economy. (Lots more poor people, including some reading this.)
Abrogation of Civil Rights on a large scale. (The WOT will make the War on Drugs look benign.)
More terrorism. (The 20th century is a cascade of ever-larger gov solutions to problems caused by the previous gov solution. Terrorism against the US is CAUSED by our government's policies. Switzerland doesn't have a terrorism problem.)
Systems such as our computer systems, or international relations and warfare, are too complex for off-the-cuff analyses, such as those by Jon Katz, to be useful. In fact, Katz wouldn't attempt it for a computer system, and none of us would allow him to pontificate on something he knows so little of.
Lew Glendenning
"The Constitution, the WHOLE Constitution, and nothing but the CONSTITUTION."
Yes, it's said on all sides that we are in a state of war. Yes, it's true that under a state of war the civil rights of people get abridged, that is indeed the usual case. Yes, it's also true that essentially negating crypto is a small price to pay compared to, say, the internment of Japanese-Americans in WWII.
HOWEVER, the most current argument that I hear about this, and apparently the most widely-accepted reason behind these measures, is that this is war and that measures have to be taken. This is an extremely dangerous argument, and one which I fear most people are taking way too lightly. This same line of reasoning has been used in the past to detain Japanese-Americans without any other stated reason; it has been used during the so-called "war on drugs" to pass all sorts of laws that directly violated a number of constitutional protections... you know where I am going with this, I think.
If we blindly accept this as a reason to accept repressive government measure without giving the matter another thought, who knows where it might go?
As Katz mentioned, this is no time for knee-jerk reactions, but I think that this goes for both sides. While the current situation pretty much explains itself, I think we ought not to forget that America tends to spend its time involved in some "war" or other and use this self-described state of affairs to justify way too many things. I mean, we gave the Taliban millions of dollars under the guise of the "war on drugs", and more millions to fight the "war on the Soviets" (back when they were just the mujaheddin), so the historical record seems highly doubtful on whether the US response will end up easing the situation or merely making it worse.
Sorry if this is not what people want to hear these days, but the observations are valid. The last thing I want to see is more of what took place last week -- I live and work right across the river from the scene in NYC, and the images are burned in my mind, I assure you -- but I don't think it really serves the greater good if the events make us all turn into unquestioning yes-men.
My sig is too lon
There is no new information here, nor has the nature of the enemy in fact changed.
The only thing I can see that's new is that this thing has made it more difficult for people in the US, and maybe some other places, to maintain their illusion of safety. Is a change in illusions now considered enough to be a "new reality"?
In fact, I'd argue that one reason some of the things that are proposed are counterproductive is that all people really want is something that restores precisely the illusion of safety. Reality is less important; as long as, by avoiding thinking too hard about it, they can convince themselves that something helps, that's good enough. People don't want to look too hard at what they're suggesting, because they may find something wrong with it... and they're afraid they may not come up with any better idea.
I'm not sure I give a damn about privacy any more myself, but that's not related to this incident.
And voluntarily giving them up means their servility is heartfelt. The will for liberty is dead.
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
The polarization of the political system is an illusion created by media representations of our system. Does the press write stories about how "middle of the road" some politician's stance is? No. We hear constant discussion of extreme right wing people wanting to axe wellfare, and give guns to every man woman and child. We hear discussion of extreme left wing people wanting to turn us into a giant socialist state. While all these are true in a certain context they are false in a broader one (and certainly meaningless in others but I digress).
When you talk to real people in the world you get a much better sense that we aren't so polarized. We all care about our personal liberties, we all care about safety, we call care about having a good government. Sometimes we may disagree on what those things mean, but overall I think most people aren't as polarized as we've been lead to believe.
We are constantly seeing opinion polls about people's stances on issues, and the very nature of these polls leads to an apparent polarization. Polls, in order to be statisically useful, must limit the possible answers to a question, such as, "are you for or against a woman's right to choose?"
This is yes or now, 1 or 0, left or right. Really, most people have much more subtle opinions. Where's the room in this question for somebody who believes that women need to have a right to choose, but only because there exist no adequate alternatives (fully subsidized day care, college education, etc). That perhaps given a better alternative, the right to have an abortion would be rendered somewhat irrelevant.
The problem isn't that we are a polar society, but rather we choose to frame our perceptions in terms of binary questions. Why? because it's easier that way. I think if we got beyond trying to measure things statistically using simplistic questions we'd rediscover the fact this this nation isn't as polarized as some would like us to believe.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
This is not the case. There are many ways in which the security of this country can be improved without infringing upon our liberties. To take just one example, we have all heard many times in the past week about the lax security in airports. Security could be significantly improved if existing security procedures were implemented the way they were supposed to be.
"Many of us have already happily and willingly surrendered some privacy to Napster, Amazon, gaming sites, EZ-Pass toll systems, online retailers and other Web tracking services which have lists of our shopping, reading, entertainment habits and preferences." A strawman. For the most part, these involve people voluntarily giving up privacy. If you prefer not to give up that privacy, you don't have to do business with Napster, Amazon, etc. The thing that makes a world of difference is that some of the proposed measures invade citizen's privacy without the consent of those people. Likewise, when a corporation violates a customer's privacy without the customer's permission, slashdotters (rightfully!) complain loud and long.
Never take moderation advice from sigs, including this one.
I'm afriad. I'm truly afraid of the things that the government will do in the name of 'National Security.' Look in the past what has happened when we write a blank check to our Government. Look in the 'red scare.' People were denied work, followed, wiretaped, ect. on the thought they may be communinists.
I want to be able to talk with my doctor, lawyer, and accountant without having the communications reviewed by nameless, faceless government organization who is never held responsible for anything (See FBI, CIA, local law enforcement, ect). We can't trust our local law enforcement with our license plate information (Here). How can we possibly trust a federal agency with an unlimited ability to wire tap for fourty eight hours without a court order?
Just think, how long is it until speaking out against the government in a private email to your wife or husband is a matter of 'National Secuirty?'
So you say. I say that we hold certain rights to be self-evident and unalienable, creator-granted. While you can pretend to take these rights away from me, you can't actually do that. Even if a majority believes in violating those rights, the rights themselves do not change. They are inviolate. What you are in effect doing is demanding to violate these rights.
You can make yourself feel better by saying that it was necessary. You can come up with catch-phrases, nightly news encouragement, pop culture peer pressure, even the words of elected officials, and you can make yourself feel better. But understand this: it does not diminish these rights, not one bit.
Is it really our position that Wal-Mart can own the details of our lives, but that government agents tracking those people who murdered 5,000 of our fellow citizens can't?
Unless I give my consent, that is exactly my position. As far as I can see, and I have been paying attention, nobody has ASKED for my consent yet.
We might want to ponder what rights we owe the living and owed the dead -- the right to live, to be and have parents, to work or fly without being torn to bits or crushed in a collapsing inferno.
If our rights are collapsed, it will be a bigger collapse than if all the towers in every city were downed.
And when you think about such matters, think about this. Every patriotic song, every homily memorized by school children, every wartime slogan in US history basically says the same thing: we fight to protect the rights that we enjoy.
If we end up protecting the country the "easy" way - the way that doesn't work, if you take a look at what other countries have experienced terrorism - we will be defending it from a principle that no longer exists. When we sing "the land of the free" as the second-to-last phrase in the song that defines our patriotism, we will be hypocrites.
What rights do we owe the living and the dead? The very rights the country was founded upon, of course. If you believe that you are "safe" in a country that ignores not only its founding principles and the words of the document that describes exactly what the country is, what it can do and what it can't, you aren't paying attention.
6000 dead? Danger of 100,000 dead? It's a drop in the bucket -- and please, I am NOT being heartless here -- compared to the numbers of people killed by their own governments during the last century. We're talking into the hundreds of millions.
And if you want defended, let me tell you this. I personally am VERY willing to die to defend FREEDOM and LIBERTY. I would do anything to defend those principles. I am, however, completely UNWILLING to die to defend "the American way of life" where freedom and liberty are so easily given up as a part of that life.
Republicans are least likely to curtain free speech. At the same time they are more likely to broaden the powers of the police and special services (FBI, CIA and the like).
The key here is not that they have more powers to obtain information, but what is done with that information, especially if it does not further the investigation. I have no problem expanding the wire tap laws to allow these groups more leeway, but I want them balanced by the requirement of utmost sensitivity of what is collected, and the requirement of destruction of said documents within 30 days if their value is shown to be non existant. (for non-Americans I think this rule could be extended to 90 days or ignored).
The terrorist won't win if we allow more investigative powers, the system will win. Criminals are gradually reducing the ability of our Police and government from protecting us. Did you see the case in Washingston state where they ruled the local police could not use taps and undercover investigators because it wasn't "honest". What kind of crap is that? I'll tell you, when you put don't allow these people a chance to protect you they will not be able to.
Its a small price for freedom, just as 5500+ we lost on 9/11 was a small price. Freedom costs lives, unfortunately most of this generation never understood that. They do now.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
That's a description given in the fantastic movie "Fight Club", and it very accurately portrays the absurd series of arguments that have been brought forth to justify some of the knee-jerk reactions that people have brought forth in the wake of the tragic WTC disaster. In the past couple of days ID cards, checkpoints, banning of violent movies and games (yet again), encryption backdoors, etc., have all gotten some pretty good press, and some lawmakers have been quoted as saying that they want to push through new legislation as quickly as possible, presumably under the subtext of "while the naive public foolishly accepts it as a patriotic duty" (which is what you see on here a lot. Question the push for encryption backdoors and damnit you're going against that flag waving . The simple reality is that none of these measures would have made an ounce of difference! While I can't say with 100% certainty, it does appear that most if not all of these individuals got into the US legally, going through US checkpoints and passing US security: They would have been given ID passes and could pass with no problem through checkpoints if such a thing existed. As far as encryption: These people used LIBRARY COMPUTERS to communicate so this perception of brilliant mad geniuses with complex encryption with the FBI hot on their trail but thwarted by strong encryption is so very laughable.
It's the illusion of safety that people are after though.
Certain rights -- equality, liberty -- are considered inviolate. But almost all rights are subject to a series of checks and balances, always subject to circumstance, never absolutes granted without reservation, in perpetuity, regardless of external circumstance.
Yet we continue to allow citizens to bear arms, despite the overwhelming evidence that this 'right' is costing thousands of lives every year. We continue to sell alchohol to anyone of age that wants it, even though drunk drivers kill thousands of people a year. The blatantly unconstitutional sobriety checkpoints do little, if any, to rectify this. Yet we submit to them under the same 'doom & gloom if you don't' mentality.
The thousands of dead and millions of others who work in vulnerable office towers, or travel or study or live near airports (or schools, or ports, or national symbols) have rights too, and they have been grievously violated.
So your proposed solution is to save the terrorists the effort and eradicate our rights ourselves?
These terrorists are technologically skilled, government authorities say. They use the Net to e-mail one another, and to send encrypted files, sometimes online, at other times via Zip disks or other media. They move money online, make plans there, thus avoiding possible interception by traditional intelligence monitors listening to phone and cell calls. Is it really totally unreasonable for authorities to seek broader powers to follow these conversations? Wiretap laws are not adequate for teaching these kinds of criminals. Existing wiretap laws require warrants for each telephone, even though criminals and terrorists might use dozens of phones or a variety of communications systems.
So clever, in fact, that they will quickly find alternative means of secure communication, leaving the less clever of us to try to salvage what we can for ourselves. Closing the barn door after the horses have escaped doesn't catch the horses, but it sure makes the animals still in the barn uncomfortable.
They did defend themselves and this country with the hands they were giving when they were born.
If you talk about living all of them living because someone could have had a gun, then that means everyone who flies should be a pilot as well as a gun holder so they can protect everyone and themselves.
There are no absolutes, this is a discussion of the pros, cons and beliefs on this issue.
Flight 93 did what was to themselves the protection of other innocent people. No gun could have stopped that.
Say a person did have a gun, did that person toting the gun not think the bomb was real? Does that person now make the determination that his acts killing everyone on the plain are more justifiable then the acts of multiple people standing up and defending themselves without a gun? Does everyone need a gun so they could all choose who was wrong or right?
Infact, i find more honor for these people in what they did without a weapon and what they did to save lives of other people. Gun or no Gun they did what was right.
I don't know the answer, won't claim to.
He can't. They're dead. And it is because of exactly the reason he points out.
Okay, so you give expanded wiretapping power to the government, so they can tap ALL the phones of a suspected terrorist with one warrant.
/.er: Get a fucking clue.
So he uses SpeakFreely, an encrypted telephone program that runs on a PC with a 14.4 modem or faster.
All right, you pass a law requiring him to give his keys to the government. He refuses to do so, and he's arrested for violation of the new "Big Brother Protects Americans Against Evil Encryption Act". He's sentenced to ten years under the BBPAAEEA.
As he's being led into the jail, another terrorist, this one acting alone and having planned everything outside the USA, detonates a car bomb right outside the first suspected terrorist's cell.
Any expanded power on the government's part will give the FBI, CIA, NSA, etc. only a temporary advantage at best. Terrorists have spent their entire lives adapting and reacting to government actions-- why should this be any different?
And putting an "annual review" clause into any proposed legislation is bullshit. It will be miraculously amended out. If not, we'll get speeches every year about how there haven't been any planes flown into the WTC since the law was passed-- and it will be renewed by near unanimous votes. Maybe a senator will, in his infinite wisdom, pass more legislation that amends the expanded wiretap legislation to waive the annual review requirement.
What's it going to take to get the point across that violating civil liberties simply DOESN'T solve the problem? Do we have to institute a police state, and watch as the Empire State Building is bombed before we realize that freedom doesn't cause terrorism?
Come on, Jon. At the risk of sounding like the typical
These terrorists were willing to die for their beliefs. Are we willing to die for ours? If safety is the sacrifice we make for the rights we hold dear, then that's effectively the choice we are making. It isn't to say that we shouldn't do something, but maybe we need to draw the line and say, that we'd rather be blown into oblivion than to lose those liberties and rights we cherish.
Personally I feel that we need to draw that line, to be willing to take that risk. Granted I say this from a perspective of not having lost anybody close to the attacks, so I might not sing the same tune if I was there. But I don't know, what do others think?
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
From a civil liberties point of view, I have few problems with investigation (aimed at specific people, with probable cause and court approval). I have a lot of problems with surveillance (aimed at large groups, without oversight). The reason surveillance is scary is that now it's cheap. The constant monitoring on display in "1984" is becoming feasible, thanks to automation.
Previous suspensions of civil liberties eventually went away because they were too expensive to keep up after the threat was over. The new ones being proposed won't have that drawback - if we give up oversight this time, we'll never get it back.
To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
That poll is as worthless as it is vague. What sort of government involvement? Are we talking about computerized facial recognition programs in airports or random strip-seach checkpoints on our streets?
rights are rights, not facts. every person in the WTC towers held their right to life, but it sure didn't prevent them from being taken.
your right to privacy will always be your right, but it sure as hell won't make you invisible all of the time.
right now, the U.S. government will need to tread on those rights. stop whining that they're "taking your rights away". no person, group or government will ever be able to give you or take away your rights - you have none to begin with. they're ideals. and right now, IDEALS aren't gonna hold much water against the FACTS.
we have a fight over who's allowed to hold what rights where, and it seems that terrorists are going to use cruel means to "trick" us out of them. ignore them - stick to people that share your ideals. you might not agree with what the government needs now, but rest assured that they're probably more on YOUR side right now than terrorists. they're gonna do what needs to be done, and you'll have to live with it.
feel like the government is callously saying "sorry folks..." ?
you have the right to do whatever you want, and the duty to take the consequences. live by that.
Time can heal all wounds they say,
Were they present on this tearful day?
Watching in horror as lives fell apart,
Images rending our sorrow filled hearts.
An icon of success they have achieved,
Unable to be destroyed, or so they believed.
Crumbling down with so many inside,
God rest the souls of those who died.
Filling us with our most dreaded fears,
Let us never forget this day of tears.
Why doesn't the world change every year when tens of thousands of people die in car accidents (most of which are usually not the fault of the people who die, just as in most terrorist attacks)?
My theory is that the world is exactly the same as it was before, but now many Americans have come to realize that they are, in fact, not invincible. You aren't "protected" from planes by driving a bigger SUV. Result: Goodbye civil liberties!
Not surprisingly, this issue is not simply a choice between A and B. Most of the replies disagreeing with Katz seem to be from people who lean way toward one side of things and view the slightest move in the opposite direction as all hell breaking loose. We can't just treat this issue the same as the Python advocates trying their darndest to put down Perl users. I've never understood that kind of unflinching devotion to one idea at all costs. We're not playing the same goofy game as usual here, the one where people scream that their civil liberties have been taken away because they can't afford to buy a new CD and want to justify ripping it instead. This is real. Being a miltitant and out-of-context radical is not a worthy alternative to a huge future terrorist act that kills half the population of LA. This cannot be viewed in such a simpleminded manner as "If we crack down on security then the terrorists win."
Well, to start with we Americans have a greater notion of what can be private than many other countries. Certainly, we give up a certain amount of privacy already to facilitate safety during our freedom of movement. Even before this tragedy, in order to fly safely we had already subjected ourselves to a level of intrusion that we tolerated in no other mode of transportation.
Our protections against unreasonable searches and seizures is an area of the law that the Supreme Court has been actively involved in for at least the past four decades. The Supreme Court defines the minimum level of rights that must be observed. Government is not allowed to respect less, although it may respect more. The goverment is currently being pressured by events to grant only the minimum it must to its citizens.
A packet does not, by being a packet define an appropriate level of privacy rights. A packet destined for a public IRC channel should probably not have any more privacy before arriving at the server than after being distributed by the server. The sender's reasonable expectation of privacy upon transmission is zero. However, it is generally illegal for anyone other than the recipient to read unencrypted email. Therefore, there is a reasonable expecation of some privacy.
The reasonable expectation of privacy in electronic media, is then defined by social norms regarding the application that generates or receives the packet, but not anything much else about the packet itself.
One would think that the use of strong encryption would lead to a reasonable expectation of privacy. Which is to say that when someone reads the packet and sees that it contains encrypted data, while the headers might or might not be deemed private, encryption sends a signal about privacy apart from whether or not it really is effective.
In the end, privacy (as defined socially rather than technologically) requires establishing a public norm that can be understood by legislators, law enforcement, prosecutors, and, in the end, judges. Political and social isolation is a recipe for losing privacy in an evolving electronic world.
One of the great misconceptions about life in a police state is that it is somehow "safer". Was Nazi Germany safe to live in? You could be arrested and killed just for angering the wrong person. Was Stalinist Russia safe? You could be sent to a concentration camp just for being the first person to stop clapping.
When we give up our rights, we're far less safe, because all we're doing is legalizing violence.
We need to all remember this cornerstone of liberty: Freedom is our strength.
Miko O'Sullivan
millions more are in danger of losing certain rights because of the new wiretapping and surveillance authority the Justice Department is seeking.
That is correct. The way Americans have been talking, they are ready to sign away the constitution. "Sure, search my email, scan my phone calls, whatever it takes" has been the rally cry of the people. The government doesn't have to try too hard to justify the removal of privileges. Don't you ready your own message board? In a different article (search is down), a representative in congress said "Once your rights are taken away, they are rarely given back. No one in Congress wants to seem soft on terrorism or soft on Crime." We are talking about amending surveillance rules, and they may never be amended back.
Many people worry that once these powers are granted, they will never be given back.
Yep. See the above. Laws made in the heat of passion stay on the books. Law makers won't change the law for the appearance it makes. Try reading the article that was posted by CmdrTaco about the subject of liberties and the rush to have them taken away.
These terrorists are technologically skilled, government authorities say. They use the Net to e-mail one another, and to send encrypted files, sometimes online, at other times via Zip disks or other media. They move money online, make plans there, thus avoiding possible interception by traditional intelligence monitors listening to phone and cell calls. Is it really totally unreasonable for authorities to seek broader powers to follow these conversations?
The short answer is Yes, it is unreasonable. "Here is a good idea. Let's ban crypto. And screen cell calls. And read all email. And Faxes. What? You are against this? You must have something to hide!" I can see it now. Besides, if you implement the above, the bad guy can always use another system. The Bad guy will figure out a way to communication. Meanwhile, the good guy (you too Jon) will have all our private communications analyzed and recorded. (sarcasm) Sounds like a peachy system to me! (/sarcasm)
Many of us have already happily and willingly surrendered some privacy to Napster, Amazon, gaming sites, EZ-Pass toll systems, online retailers and other Web tracking services which have lists of our shopping, reading, entertainment habits and preferences.
Damn, looks like you don't read slashdot after all. Most of us are FAR from happy about giving up our rights. Most of us hate to register (which is why every time there is a reg. required link in a slashdot story, someone always posts a way to get around it). You are really out of touch Jon if you think the people are happy about our losses of privacy and the sharing and selling of personal information.
. Any new laws to fight this new kind of war ought to be temporary, and self-expiring, perhaps subject to annual review.
HAHAHAHAHAHAH. Yea right! Even if they were self-expiring or needed to be reviewed, no one would ever dare vote against a proposal that "fights crime." They wouldn't have a job any more. Even if the law did go away, you are still talking about a couple of years of impeding MY and YOUR freedoms. I don't remember a suspension clause in the Constitution........
I will NOT support any measure to take away MY freedoms, even for a little while. If the CIA (or whomever) wants more power to spy over seas, I can support that. I will NOT support any measure that increases the government's ability to spy on Americans like myself. ABSOLUTLY NOT!!!
Sounds like pretty good words to remember at a time like this. What price are you willing to pay for freedom. I will protect the security of the United States, but I will NEVER agree to ANY SUSPENSION of FREEEDOM!
Lawrence Lessig is my personal hero.
I'll play Devil's Advocate among this largely Libertarian crowd. Why is privacy important to us?
If we are not ashamed of our actions, why do we care if anyone observes them?
If we are ashamed of our actions, shouldn't we change our behavior? (Either don't do it or don't be ashamed of it.)
Don't you think this world would be a better, safer place if everyone behaved as if they were being watched?
Zen
The terrorists apparently (according to media reports) used the NYC public library and Hotmail to communicate. Neither place stores such messages in any way beyond what the users keep. And there's no indication that they used encryption for these communications - they just used public access and free accounts to fly "below radar". You can also encode messages into the content - as a series of text messages or encode it inside images or MP3 tracks - rather than simply encrypting text.
Going lo-tech like this (and using phone cards like the OKC bombers did) drives law enforcement crazy trying to recreate/retrace steps. If the terrorists are as tech savvy and wiley as the Justice department paints them to be then they'll just shift tactics giving them the same protections they have now - but stripping Americans of their personal privacy protections..
I fully support the right of (and agree with the needs of) law enforcement to protect us and pursue people who break the law - but I don't trust law enforcement to "police" themselves when given wide berth to perform their duties.
While I sympathize with the idea of feeling a deep personal loss that is the wrong time to enact laws, strike back blindly or make rash decisions. (I admit that other than finding out that one of the terrorists lived about a block and a half from my house my personal involvement in the tragedy is relatively limited.) The law is suppossed to be the fair handed and impartial enactor of what society views as necessary - that's why the state can execute someone but you can't - even if you're the aggrieved party.
Anyway - I didn't mean to go on like that... this is my first post since last Tuesday - suddenly my karma points seemed unimportant... The bottom line is - remedies NEED to address REAL problems and provide REAL solutions to those problems not just band-aid fixes that hurt in the long run and don't help - even in the short term. I don't trust our (largely) tech-ignorant Congress to pass good laws on difficult issues on such short notice when they have (mostly) law enforcement as advisors and consultants.
=tkk
Bill Gates - Creationist?!?
You have to take it all into consideration with the audience, or population as the case is. Who are "they"? Who are "we"?
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
If you haven't already awakened to the fact that people are inherintly (sp?) evil in this world, not good, then you'll never understand how to 'take care of the problem of terrorism.' I'm sorry Jon, usually you have some interesting stuff to say, but I disagree with you on the needed extra security. I feel everyone in NY's pain, really I do, but I'm not giving up the freedom generations before me fought and died so hard for. Besides, I DO NOT value safety and security (which this world can NEVER fully offer to us) over the freedoms to act responsibly in my daily life. Besides, if you're afraid of dying in a horrific massacre perpetrated by a few evil people, you might want to rethink why you're afraid. I'm not afraid of such because of what I believe in (email me for more info if you want - and NO, I most certainly do not believe that Islam provides a 'peaceful' or 'civil' method of finding assurance in what happens after death).
I find it interesting that when the media talks about tragies, they always have "knee-jerk reactions". The first and foremost is to limit personal freedom. I remember the 'Save our Children from Guns' campaign, that Columbine(sp) produced.
I need to state that I can not sympathize enough with the victims and their families of this tragic event. I do not think, however, throwing up roadblocks on major highways and requiring State Patrol 'Safety Checks' is the answer. Will every payphone have a sticker that it can be monitored and tape-recorded, because a terrorist might use it? America is the "GREATEST" country in the world because of one thing, Our freedom.
I would love to have world peace, but I'm not that naive. Barring that I would rather every country in the world 'feared' us. I'd rather we grew balls again and told countries that support terrorism, if you do, we will consider you an enemy.
There are pros and cons to every argument, but I can't believe that allowing more freedom to slip away is the answer.
This is of course IMO. Flame away.
Vertical
72 CD D7 52 D0 7E D8 47 44 91 D5 84 D1 59 F1 A9-This is my 128bit integer. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
I know that I'm feeding the trolls, but...
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.
And I'd say that freedom of any and all religions is an essential liberty, seeing as it's part of the First Amendment, and all.
Katz used to refer to every event as "post-Columbine."
Now he will refer to everything as "post-WTC."
Spot this phrase and win $10!
:)
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
Worry #0, I actually agreed with JonKatz...
/. about steganography. Just sitting here for 5 minutes I've come up with at least 4 ways to exchange encrypted and non-encrypted information in ways that don't involve sending obviously encrypted information via email. They don't involve email at all. I'm not going to out line them because I'm suddenly very paranoid about who may by reading this...
Worry #1, we are making the assumption that we CAN identify encrypted communications. We've seen a number of posts on
Worry #2, "it starts when you're always afraid, step outta line, the man come and take you away, we better stop..." Will the simple act of sending and encrypted email make you a suspected terrorist?
Stonewolf
Quotation from "For What It's Worth" By Stephen Stills
The terrorists will have won. Period.
Punish the terrorists, not the citizens
otherwise we are only paying lip-service to
freedom.
Also, I have written a song about this horrible
event. It is called "The Eagle Still Flies on"
it is in MP3 format on Gnutella etc.
God Bless
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
and the airline can supply us with cotton robes an d sturdy slippers in the very rare event of a crash landing that doesn't kill everyone instantly.
Or we could just fly naked. These terrorists spend years in the hills away from women, and then they get on a plane load of naked hotties. What do you think would really be on their mind?
JonKatz is absolutely correct -- it is imperative that we look far beyond knee-jerk reflexes, which it is only natural to have in a situation like this. We as a nation have a responsibility to protect ourselves. To protect our way of life.
It is easy in what is perilously close to being a time of war to think of nothing but getting a bigger hammer. If he hits me, I will simply hit him back harder. Perhaps, in fact, we ought to have hit him back first. Maybe that would solve everything? Or maybe not.
It would be easy for us to slip right back into the Mcarthy mindset of the 1950's, having learned absolutely nothing in the past half a century. It was 1949 when George Orwell wrote about what happens when government interferes too much with the citezens' private lives. Do we want for him to have been right after all?
We Americans are now being called on to look into our hearts and weigh our freedoms against protecting our national identity. A difficult proposition for a country whose national identity is freedom. A country under attack because of our freedoms. Now more then ever it is vitally important that we not let go of those freedoms. That is just what the terrorists want us to do.
We're at war ,whatever you want to call it.
The encryption techniques are making us possibly
more vulnerable to attacks.
The speed at which encrypted messages can be broken and analysed is critical.Messages that
use encryption are literally dangerous to the
national security.An obstacle to information gathering by the legitimate agencies.
We as citizens of the world,must give up on our little comforts,our little privacy in order to have a fighting chance against more attacks which will certainly come.
As of now, i wont use encryption in my messages or emails.I wont refuse to have Carnivor look at all my communications.
I do not object to them recording my phone and cell calls.For two basic reasons.
1 - They are trying to save our hides
2 - they are trying to save our hides.
Simple enough ! I am willing to let them do
whatever is necessary for them to protect my family.
If it means for me to loose my privacy as a
form of collaboration with them to make it :
so be it !
The ones who have nothing to hide are in the clear.
They have nothing to fear.
Those who have something to hide are the ones being targeted.And i beleive the institutions
and people in position to make these calls right now, will all be making this in the common interrest.War is war .
I strongly urge all to let em do their jobs
give up those little insignificant fights about individual rights to privacy for the common good of this country.
When war is over then ill be making my way back to the barricade and make sure that all
is back to normal.But for now.Even if i havent been in the USA but for a bit over a year, i give my vote of confidence to the agencies and the hell with privacy till all this mess is over.
Once again the only ones who have to fear anything are the ones that have something to hide.
However, some of the things being proposed on the technology front, (specifically Encryption Backdoors), will do absolutely nothing to make us more secure, and will in fact, make us less secure. All it does is show us how ignorant our legislators are w/r/t technology. Terrorists won't upgrade to the Govt-approved Crypto software, or will encrypt their messages before using it (just using Pronouns can go a long way.). Non-terrorists will have traded some security for absolutely nothing. When terrorists find the back door, we'll all be in trouble.
I know this and you know this, but I just don't have the heart to write Hillary or Chuck (my senators) and tell them this while the state and the country mourns.
While you are solving last weeks problems, don't forget about the others.
1) Fossil Fuel Dependency (World, but especially USA) It sure would be nice if SUV's had some minimum fuel economy requirement. As long as I'm wishing, it would be nice if bumpers could be standardized at ONE HEIGHT. It would save car owners a lot of money. Q: What would the USA do if the OPEC refused to sell oil to America anymore?
2) Science & Philosophy. The capabilities of science are beyond any common philosophical debate on the subject. We are allowing Capitalism to drive the world, for a profit. And the USA is determined to make sure everyone is on that page. The Taliban are backwards as hell, but at least they have a moral doctrine (wacked out as it may be). Q: Wouldn't it be better to iron out the moral issues before scientists drop the smelly pile onto our plates in the name of progress?
3) Education. Last year Bush seemed to be (rhetorically) determined to be the education president. It was pro-active at least. May it not be totally forgotten as USA gears up for "Good guys vs. Bad Guys". Q: "Won't somebody please think of the children?" -Mrs. Rev. Lovejoy, Simpsons.
4) USA Public Transportation. This would be a damned good time to think about installing a decent national rail system. You can't really drive a train into a building, can you? The French TGV is one SWEET ride, even if you do wonder what would happen if someone pushed a boulder onto the tracks.
5) Starving Children in Africa. Hell, probably 5,000 die everyday. Not to mention the raging AIDS epidemic over there. Unfortunately we don't know (as an American society) how to react well to others peoples weakness. We figure everyone should earn their own way. It's what makes us act weird around handicapped people. We could bail them out, at some great expense, but the chinese obligation could be worse. It's their mess--let them straighten it out, right?
That's all I care to mention. It's enough to paralyze you into inaction. It must be why people champion one cause.
Bollux
beware the jabberwock, my son! the jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Hey, I think you guys replied to the wrong person. :^)
I was pointing out that the passengers of Flight #93 were able to defend themselves to the extent that they were able to thwart their kidnappers. Yes they died, but they had the choice and they took it. And I'm sure that we're all thankful that they had the resolve to do so.
If they'd all been armed would it have come out differently? Perhaps. Perhaps the terrorists wouldn't have tried taking over the plane in the first place. Perhaps the passengers would've restored order. Perhaps half the passengers would've died due to friendly fire on the plane, and the plane would still be hijacked. Maybe the plane would have been explosively decompressed due to some idiot taking a loaded weapon onto a plane.
You (in general) don't know what might/might not have happened, and to tell you the truth all the 'Monday Morning Coaching' that's going on is slightly disgusting.
'Life is like a spoonful of Drain-O, it feels good on the way down but leaves you feeling hollow inside'
I remember ages ago some kid at one of the hohocons (I was in hs or ugrad or something) got busted for basically carding his brains out.. He gave a talk at the hohocon and was basically like, "look, you know the feds sat me down and played gobs and gobs of this stuff they had snagged and basically most of the stuff was w/out a court order".. Basically what the feds and cops do and what they have always done is wiretap to see if you are doing anything interesting.. (Who gives a fuck if it can't be used in a court of law, they are just looking for leads).. once they find something interesting they will go out and get the proper orders and/or gather the proper evidence *afterwards* to use in court for when they prosecute you. In looking for leads they don't *really* need the court order.. yes its "illegal", yes it "can't be used in a court of law" but its not exactly as if most of the people they are trying to bust are going to go through a court of law to begin w/ and those who are, there will be plenty
of other evidence that they can use..
In a crisis like this (and in our complacency beforehand) we need to look to first principles rather than get caught up in the momentary crisis and so do irreparable harm to our liberties.
First we need to realise that government is not the only threat to our rights. In fact the whole purpose of government (in American political philosophy at least) is to protect our rights from the threats posed by other governments, organizatons and even other individuals. Or, as the Declarations puts it: "...That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men" If we define our rights so broadly as to paralyse the legitimate obligation on the part of the government to protect our rights from threats other than our own government those rights will be trampled just a surely as if we lived under a dictatorship.
Against this is the fact that government itself, the body charged with protecting our rights is very often the greatest threat to our rights. After a crisis like this people will be willing to trade all of their other rights to enhance the power of government to protect their right to life. In other words they will be tempted to trade their liberty for security.
Some of the changes this tragedy will bring will be a justified clearing away of an accretion of rules that do less to protect our liberty than harm it by making government impotent to protect it from other threats. Some will simply be adapting the old balances to new technologies. Some will go too far and be more of a threat to our liberty than the dangers they are designed to protect against. It will take more careful thought than simple knee-jerk reactions either way to protect our rights.
The 4th amendment isn't knee-jerk... history has shown it to be worthy of careful regard, and worthy of being defended to the greatest extent possible. To the extent that e-mail is like snail-mail, pouring through all private communications in hopes of snagging some luck is "unreasonable". It ought to be incumbent on those seeking expanded powers to explore in public the ramifications. "Because they're in a hurry" is not an adequate response.
People here remain numb and heavy-hearted.
I certainly sympathize. I've long been heavy-hearted over the foreign policy decisions and attitudes that have helped to create this situation. We have paid a heavy cost as a nation to learn where those policies have led us.
This is how the WTC attacks have challenged our system of rights.
Indeed they have. And it would certainly be a "knee-jerk reaction" to dismantle that system of rights in the name of expediency. That would be a victory for the perps. There is time for an open discussion. Our president tells us that we're strong. Not so? Knees a little weak?
Many of us have already happily and willingly surrendered some privacy to Napster, Amazon,
And many of us have not. Because we're not criminals, and therefore it ought to be noone's business until such time as charges have been filed. Refer to our friends in Europe who understand all too well why privacy is worthy of vigilant protection.
If we feel we need to have fishing expeditions, there still needs to be a paper trail describing what data was taken, how it was used, how it was protected, and how it was destroyed once investigation has finished. Because just letting it float around out there in justice-land is an opening for all kinds of mischief.
"You must try to forget all you have learned. You must begin to dream." -- Sherwood Anderson
Yeah, those court recorders are sneaky bastards.
Having a gun on an airplane doesn't protect you from another person with a gun on the same plane. All he needs to do is shoot at any of the windows and you're in a virtually uncontrollable 28,000 foot free-fall. Of course, he probably won't have to cause Mr "I live to blow away prairie dawgs with my AK47" would have already shot through the window trying to "protect" his redneck self.
This is not a big deal really, the courts have held over and over again, that foreigners don't enjoy the full rights a US citizen does.
There's a good reason for this: to allow them easier access to wiretaps, such as they are seeking, was seen right from the start to make it too easy to slip into a police state. That hasn't changed, and mustn't.
The nation's police must be held to a higher burden of proof before they can trample on the rights of citizens. For a counterexample, see 1984.
Twoflower
--
Twoflower
are you telling me that the Freedom Ben was talking about was the Freedom to walk onto an airplane with barely a shred of security measures?
or the Freedom for non-citizens to use our infrastructure to communicate plans of attack?
lets face it, we live in a different time and we have to make up our own rules as best we can. applying these panoramic-view quotes simply shows that you can't see the trees through the forest (i know that's backwards).
move a layer, or level, lower and focus on specific problems rather than these blanket responses that prove nothing except that you are unable to put some real thought into these problems.
"Oh, you hate your job? There's a support group for that, it's called everyone, they meet at the bar."
A crisis is striking our nation, not only that which has struck New York and DC, but also one that strikes every citizen of this great nation. Jeffersonand the founding fathers created this nation with every citizen given the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
As Katz mentioned, the terrorist took attacked the right to life of those in the WTC, the Pentagon, and those in the planes. We cannot allow this attack on our own rights to allow the government to inflict injustice upon the nation, while seeking justice for those lost. The lowering of wiretap restrictions does not bode well for liberty. You must consider that these restrictions were put in place to protect individual civil liberties from a sometimes corrupt and over-zealous police force. When we remove these checks and balances we invite tyranny. Without court oversight, how long until the police force can use the information they tap against not only the terrorist forces, but those who would seek to reinstate the rigorous wiretap restrictions. A few well placed leaks and recorded phone conversations could affect many representatives votes and campaign donors' contributions (Yes I'm talking about blackmail).
I miss that sense of safety. I miss feeling that terrorist attacks were something that happened in the West Bank and third-world nations. We have all been shocked and forced into a state of war. I know that after this war is over and we are victorious, I want that sense of safety to be returned. Knowing that wiretaps can be anywhere, my calls are being recorded, my emails being parsed by Carnivore, and my face and location being scanned by hidden cameras, how can I feel safe again?
I wholeheartedly believe that the acts of September 11 demand justice and retribution. But as Jefferson said, "What signify a few lives lost in a century or two?" We must sacrifice lives to remind us of and defend our liberties. To those who died I thank them for reminding us of this important fact. I believe that as they now see a nation more united than ever before not only in seeking justice but also cogniscent of our freedoms that they know their lives were not lost in vain, but contributed to the continuing health of our nation. We must each defend our liberty from any who might threaten it, whether it be Osama Bin Laden, terrorists, or our own government.
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.
-- Thomas Jefferson, Nov. 13, 1787
Backdoors into encryption techniques is ridiculous. Hamstringing the software sold in the states will not affect the ability of terrorists to encrypt their software. The code is already out there. Discussions of coding practices are available in a variety of areas. The genie is out of the bottle. Fight it in the same way we have fought every increase in encryption technology. As with the gun control issues, it only hinders the law abiding citizens, not the criminals.
Cryptanalyst can come up with a method to break the current encryption technology. There is nothing wrong with figuring out how to make encryption transparent. That is just improved knowledge. Putting backdoors into software makes the software worthless to anyone. All it takes is one person slipping the backdoor to a friend, who then gives it to our enemies, and voila, no more secrets.
Oh, but our government will have enbreakable codes, cause they will use their own software for encryption.
We open a new Box every day that cannot be closed again. Accept it. You can try and find another Box that makes the old one obsolete, which will of course release new problems, but you cannot backtrack.
We as a country have to come to terms with this and come up with new ways to attack the problem.
God: "I don't leave footprints!"
This may be just the kind of mechanism that is needed here.
Paul Leader
If you let these terrorists change your way of life, then they win. We cannot let them win. We must not.
I am willing to risk being attacked and killed by random violence to keep my way of life. I plodded through the mud with an M-16 (well, actually, I drove through the mud in a Humvee, but that's beside the point) to do my part to keep our country the way that it is. The fact of the matter is this: what happened was terrible, but we cannot, MUST NOT, change the way we live becuase of it.
These terrorists did nothing that changes our country and what it means, what it stands for. We are still strong, and we are still great.
Don't throw away that which better men and women than you have died to protect. If you do so, you disrespect thier memories and thier lives.
Brant
Argle. Bargle.
I'm willing to give up some privacy if it will help to stop killing Americans. Hell, I'm willing to go fight if it comes to it (gimme a helmet and a gun and point me in the right direction)
In teh event of an actual emergency this space might provide useful information.
I have to agree with Katz here on most of the points he's raised. However, I don't think the argument is so much about what to do in this particular situation. I think many people would be agreeable to giving up many of their rights if it would help to identify those responsible for this particular act. However, as other respondents have pointed out, privacy rights and the like are not elements that are really in the forefront of the public eye. If laws/regulations are passed/eased in order to resolve this particular situation, without a careful examination of the duration of the new laws or easments, we could end up giving up those rights for far longer than we might desire.
The key point I take from Katz's note is that we need to avoid "knee-jerk" responses. Simply because a particular solution potentially deprives us of some protection with respect to civil rights does not mean that the overall level of safety or protection will not go up in the long run. It's just essential that we keep the long term in sight while attempting to resolve issues in the short term.
"But people have the right to go to work without buildings falling on them, too. "
No they don't. Where did you get the idea that they did?
The scale of the WTC attack was shocking. But terrorism is not. It's normal. What's odd is that the U.S. never had much of it before (and I personally doubt that they will have much in the future).
You know what we in the mainland UK had to give up as a result of 30 years of sustained (as in monthly / weekly) terrorist attacks?
We had to give up trash cans in train stations, as they make good hiding places for bombs.
We had to give up ignoring unattended luggage.
We had to introduce a dubious rule allowing police to hold a terrorist suspect without charge for 30 days (I think 30...). Not often invoked, as it caused an escalation of violence when it was (IIRC).
We had a laughably stupid rule preventing terrorists from being intervied on the media, which was famously sidestepped by interviewing them privately and having an actor appear on the media speaking their words.
Other things that happened were:
1. Some high profile cases of police illegal action, driven largely by the need to satisfy public revenge-lust after the more harmful bombings.
2. A permanent debate over whether terrorists should be treated as criminals or prisoners of war. No one in the US is talking about this, which worries me.
3. A permanent debate over whether the counter-terrorists shoul behave like soldiers (shoot to kill policy, etc) or police. Again, not much talk of this in the US.
The situation in Northern Ireland itself was very different, but to be honest the situation in the US is entirely dissimilar to NI, and much more similar to mainland UK, with sporadic bombings and attacks.
The way we avoided these attacks was not with the introduction of ID cards, mass phone tapping, or anything else.
We infiltrated the IRA heavily with agents. This is something that the CIA seem quite incapable of doing with Middle East terror groups. We collected and efficiently processed massive amounts of intelligence. The ability to do this is more important then draconian new laws to get the data in the first place. We worked hard to prevent the supply of weapons and money from abroad. The US did not make this easier.
-----
...is when are we going to stop oppressing other countries? When are WE going to stop remaking other nations in our self righteous image?
When iraqi's saw American's destroying their cities, they felt the exact same way we all felt when we saw the trade center get destroyed. When serbians saw American warships dropping bombs on their hospitals, you can bet they wanted so badly to hurt us back.
But Americans live in this little dream world where they can go around the globe bullying anyone and everyone and expect no retribution. That dream has ended. Those people were not cowards who did this, I dare say that very few of our elected officials have the guts to die for something they believe in, but that's exactly what the people who did these things did. I'm not saying they're heroes, but I am saying that Americans should wake up and smell the coffee. These people hate our war machine and the businesses that finance and manipulate it so much, they are willing to give their lives to rid the world of it.
Only emotional tripe sees it as anything else. Anyone with half an ounce of reason left in them will ask themselves "Why do they hate us so much?" An objective look at our foreign policy of the last 50 years will turn up an obvious answer. Just pretend that America was on the recieving end of all the campaigns that we dished out, and very quickly you can clearly see the hate that we have fostered towards ourselves around the globe.
The curse causeless does not come. Neither does a man harvest grapes where he plants brambles. You do not reap peace where you have sown war. Anyone who wants you to believe otherwise has a hidden agenda, or is a complete idiot.
We need to change our foreign policy and to quit fostering hate among the nations. This makes alot more sense than giving up the very things which make America great, our civil liberties. "Good will and free trade with all, entangling alliances with none."
God Bless America and my fellow Americans who have been harmed by these bombings. My advocation of peace and a change of our unjust foreign policy, does not in any way mean I think what happened was just. It was horrific, and I have shed more than a few tears for the pain that has been visited to all those families out there. My heart goes out to you, but we must not be ruled by emotions, but by reason, and we must not make decisions based on fear. Fear is a bigger threat to our nation than any terrorist.
Show me an effect without cause and then I'll believe in chaos.
It shouldn't need mentioning that the source code to crypto and steno are already in the hands of nearly every orginisation on the planet. Making it illegal now would be like making the secret of how to make an A-bomb illegal after it was published in the New York Times.
Being the patriotic person that I am, I want my government to spend my money wehre it will have the most effect against these types of evils. History has shown that this is not the place. Did internment of the Japs and price controlls really help us win WWII? did the suspenion of Habius Corpus and freedom of the press really help us win the Civil War?
Actually, in times like this liberties should be maximized. A 2nd terrorist wave would be much less effective if everyone on a plane was 'required' to carry a knife. People wanting to turn in terrorists, but not reveal their identies would feel alot more secure with TRUE internet privacy. What if security units stationed at the top of the WTC were allowed to purchase anti-aircraft missles?
and we should be asking serious questions like, did our war on drugs drive up the price of afgan narcotics helping finance the Talaban? Did our overly restrictive immigration policy lead to chanels of established smuggelers that the terrorists could have used. Chanels that would not have been there if we had a reasonable policy for letting in people who honestly want to work here.
I have two comments regarding this article, and the situation in general.
First, a quote from the article: But people have the right to go to work without buildings falling on them, too. There is no provision of such a right anywhere in the Constitution. Inventing "rights" so that people can argue a case is an abuse, and pollutes the discussion. What people have a right to is life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Their right to life was infringed; nothing stated about buildings. This sort of tactic was frequently used in the late 80's and early 90's when everybody thought rights grew on trees... right to fresh water, right to be paid the same as a more qualified person doing a similar job, etc. If you're going to argue law, be a lawyer first. FWIF, IANAL either, just annoyed.
Second and more importantly, technology is a tool. If you were to replace all the details of the terrorists using computers, using Zip disks, and so forth with them knowing how to drive cars, calling people on the telephone, and similar commonplace tools that are familiar to everyone (today), the analogy holds that people unfamiliar with those tools would wish to restrict them!!! This happened at the turn of the century when horse and buggy was common and cars were not. Legislation was introduced to keep cars from scaring horses, people, and upsetting towns. The fear is less that of terrorists using technology against us, but rather of technology itself. By reducing the tool's utility, our government can only accomplish a reduction of the users of those tools. Terrorists will find other ways.
What concerns me most is that people somehow think we've become insecure physically through use of intellectual technology. I'm sorry, but the attacks were purely physical. The communication leading up to it was what they are attacking. Rather, focus on preventing the physical attacks and leave communication alone.
Any connection between your reality and mine is purely coincidental.
If you did some time researching the religion Allah is the same meaning as our word God.
Another thing, how can you call a religion stupid, if someone believes something different than you - does that make it stupid, their religion says nothing about killing people to go to heaven, the only thing i find stupid is the fact that people kill in the name of God.
Where on the 10 commandments or in any scripture is there:
"Thou shalt not kill.* "
-snip-
"*(Except in Gods name.)"
Contempt is bred through ignorance.
Please do some studying before relaying views on something as delicate as religion.
prolly get modded down for this but i got some spare karma. =p
---
ps -aux | grep mind
Fine, except that after 9/11, you have to assume that that's going to happen no matter what. Frankly, I'll take the 1% chance of survival that Buford and his piece give me over the 0% chance that the hijackers are going to give me.
ABSURDITY, n.: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion.
What the fuck is the matter with you people ? Katz lives a short distance from the Site of the disaster... he posts a well-written article about the potential change in perspective in YRO, drawn from his own recent experience... and what follows ? "STFU Katz". Do you even read the articles anymore ? This isn't intended so much as an information piece as it is a thought piece. If you don't have anything interesting to say, then STFU Snapple boy.
I alternate between posting +5 and -1 Comments. Karma: +53 -47 = 6
And these children have the right to expect that their government will not fail in protecting them. Let's be honest here, I felt a vulnerability that I've never felt before and also that my Government let me down. This is the same government that was elected to protect it's citizens and it failed to do just that. If the Government needs to propose more strict guidelines when it comes to my safety, go for. Video tape my face, read my email and tap my phone, I don't care and do you know why I don't care? I don't care because I'm not a criminal. I don't plan to kill and hurt thousands of innocent people.
These changes cannot be temporary either. The terrorists have been planning this attack for years and they have proved to me that they are patient enough to wait until the security of the country lessons to make their next attack, even if it take five-ten years.
I'm flying halfway around the world in less than a week and I expect to see guards with guns, police dogs and encounter long lines. If this means I land safely, so be it. As far as I'm concerned we can't be protected enough.
I love the smell of Karma in the morning
The poll is meaningless. The people of the United States of America and their government simply do NOT have legitimate authority to abridge any of the aforementioned rights. As in "born with certain inalienable rights." The Constitution protects rights that EVERYONE was born with, it does not grant any rights. Any government which does not honor this basic fact is setting itself up for eventual destruction when more people are able to justify revolution.
Samsung took back my unlocked bootloader because Google wants me to rent movies. They're both evil.
There is a quick pole on cnn.com web site. Here is the question. "Would you accept more government involvement in your life if it meant more security against terrorism?"
When I submitted my "NO" vote approx 70% of the us would like more goverment involvment in their lives. I think that sick.
I always love these quotes. Paricularly since they're frequently given by those who were among the privileged, land owners, slave holders, men only, etc. Granted they were often learned men they didn't have the dangers we have today. Survival is adapting, even a rabbit returns to the security of a burrow, rather than rant on about it's rights in the face of a fox. There needs to be dialogue. Simply stating there doesn't, quotes or not, is already denying freedom to those who wish for some security in an uncertain time. Laws or statutes on the books tomorrow, are no guarantee they'll be there the next day.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
personally i don't really see the large fuss here other than a bunch of socialists wanting total freedon and total security - we've read enough about that for me to continue down that line.
firstly let me ask what really constitutes privacy. for the last decade or so, we have been walking into shopping malls and being recorded on CCTV. oh no, my privacy is invaded! somewhere in some great big "vault o' videos" there is my personal life sitting there recorded.
ok. so now the bigger threat to privacy becomes more evident - technology and CCTV. the ability to digitally identify somebody by their face. how does this really infringe on your privacy...
CCTVrec.software: Bing. There goes Joe Soap walking into the cafe.
CCTVrec.software: Bing. There goes Fred Smith walking into the gym.
CCTVrec.software: Bing. There goes Bill Gates walking into Linux World.
um yes. so we are going to have a billion Bings a second. like somebody is really going to bother with that.
do you really think the FBI is going to read my email to my mother asking her how the cat is?
do you really think that the CIA is going to watch me showering. if they do, i actually don't care because i would rather have the CIA watch me showering at night than have a GREAT BIG FUCKING 767 FLY THROUGH MY WINDOW!
if the fbi did have a ninja-decrypt key that they could read emails with and stuff, they are going to decrypt bin laden's emails, not my mothers. there are too many uninteresting people of the face of the planet for the fbi to bother about.
i know what the risk is. the risk is the ubercorporation purchasing the CCTV tapes and figuring out that Fred Smith goes to gym three times a week and so they send him a catalogue of tight cycling shorts and muscle tops. i think he would quite like that!
am i missing something here. do you people really feel so strongly about being recorded on CCTV and having the fbi scan your emails for "bomb, plane, nuke" to the extent that you would rather jump out of a 100 story building than allow that to happen?
We as a society built on liberty and freedom cannot allow fear based tactics to dictate policy.
Once you head down the road of restricting personal liberty in the name of security no matter how small, undermines the very fabric of this counrty with distrust and discrimination.
First will be the erosion of personal privacy but this won't solve the problem. Then will be the restriction of freedom of movement, this will not be enough. Then the prevention of the ability to gather in protest. (This already evident this past election and World Economy protests that require permits...) Then will come social classification based on position, wealth, religon and finally race. (Your Credit Report will form the basis for this information. The infrastructure is in place.)
The powerful and wealth will be immune from the security checks and denial of freedom. Now, the noose tightens to protect the security of these individuals from harm. Eventually internal revolt builds momentum and revolution occurs.
This is the scenario. Study and young democratic state and you can see this occur.
I for one would rather die in a hideous attack that to see this great county reduced to roadside checkpoints, security checks, domestic passports, unreasonable search and seziures.
Did'nt we learn ANYTHING in the Cold War??!!!??
Revival of House Un-American Activites Comitte is even begin discussed in some radical right circles. I've even heard talk of domestic passports!! Okay I'm pulling over at the state line to be searched and have my papers checked...
This whole thing sucks, stinks and it goes deeper than just Radical Islamic terrorism...
Tell me you are not afraid RIGHT NOW to stand up and fight for the freedoms granted us in the constitution. I am! YOu'll be labeled un-american and callous to not repect the thousands that died in last weeks covert operation.
Everyone's waving the Patriotic Flag and draping themselves in fear and the Administration is milking this fear for all its worth. I don't like it. I ultimately think that we are all in much greater danger RIGHT NOW from our own government than terrorists.
I am anonymous coward(really??? Am I...??)
There are some things that I have trouble getting past in his arguement. If you find a flaw in his logic early, its hard to follow it seriously.
Katz makes the assertion that US of America is a politically polarized nation. Then he makes a logical error in saying that this is why we get bogged down in "what's politically left or right." The fact that we put so much effort into distinguishing between left and right exposes the fact that we really are a politically moderate nation. If we were polarized, it would be obvious who was "left" and who was "right" and there would be no discussion of the matter.
The fact is that the public at large is having trouble seeing the value of privacy without safety. Why would we preserve our privacy at the expense of safety from terrorists -- better to have the government playing a big brother than have them aloof. Sort of a "devil-you-know" situation.
Privacy itself does not seem to be the issue to me. If there are sufficient checks in place to see that the information that had been private is not used to harm you in any way, than life without privacy will be as good as a private life. If that adds safety, then you are better off.
The discussion is about whether or not we should fear a 1984 scenario, rather than how to avert it. There should not be a knee-jerk reaction that "oh the government is out to get us". They are currently a better alternative to anarchy, and if we put our heads together, we might be able to make them work for us.
Troll Like a Champion Today
Yes, Ashcroft wants more authority, but not in the knee-jerk manner everyone seems to fear. He wants to able to get a warrant for surveillance. Not a warrent to tap this phone, that phone, etc., just quite simply - a warrent for surveillance of a person or groups. If you're not breaking the law, they're really not going to waste their time watching you - there's plenty of others they need to watch.
:)
The fact is, we've hobbled their ability to do an effective job. We require them to protect this country for our enemies, foreign and domestic, and make thousands of rules that they must follow in order to satisfy the most ridiculous requirements. Then we chastise them for not doing a good job.
What I'm really saying is, they don't need any MORE authority than they have now. They need to have fewer regulations on HOW that authority can be exercised. [I just know people are going to take this wrong...] Please, just let them do their job and deal with the violations of liberties AND LAWS as the situation dictates.
If they catch a guy in his house with 1000 lbs. of cocaine when they were looking for stolen TV's, it doesn't make the guy any less guilty. His 'rights' weren't violated because they stormed his house looking for something else - he just broke a different law than they expected (this is not a hypothetical situation by the way, it happened in Az). And if they storm his house and find him watching Jay Leno, they get to fix whatever they broke on their way in, and owe him an apology. He should understand that they were doing their job, and work with them to find out why the hell they thought he was breaking the law.
Final thoughts Springer style - If you can't trust law enforcement, then you can't have law - let's work on finding out why we don't trust our law enforcement agencies and start weeding out those we don't trust.
Start with this - when a department has a group of officers that engage in the blue wall of silence (ala Rodney King, etc.), fire the whole damn department for breaking the public trust. Obviously some people in the department can't bring themselves to come forward, so the department is closed, everyone is layed off (and forbidden from serving in law enforcement anywhere else, ever), and recruiting for a new department can begin. Yeah, eventually we'll get to Congress, the House, etc., but you've got to start somewhere.
Ctimes2 - just my 2.
My cube. My friend. My solace. My prison.
You are obviously very stupid if you think that enforcing backdoors in encryption will do anything to stop terrorists. If they wanted, they could have encrypted their messages on paper, are you saying that mathematical algorithms should be restricted?
You are naive to think that your congress had your best interests at heart when they were discussing this. They were actually thinking "Ok, now we've got them hooked on the patriotism crap and the anti-terrorism shit, what outrageous laws can we pass without them noticing."
It was the governments, and the airlines/FAA's responsibility to make sure terrorists could not hi-jack planes. Once a terrorist has hi-jacked a plane, Hollywood will tell you, that they can do anything they want with it. Ignorance is no excuse to the politicians, people have tried (and succeeded?) to suicide-bomb planes into things in the past. The government made a mistake in not planning for this and producing proper safety measures, (they were to busy taking bribes and passing the DMCA) and now, instead of paying for it, they want to pass the buck.
Instead of reviewing how we can reduce the amount of rights people have, there should be a rethinking of how a government system should work, and how, in a society that bases its self on freedom, laws such as the DMCA, SSSCA, and encryption restriction can even be considered, let alone passed.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
You've raised some important points about our privacy and security concerns. You have however forgotten what our part in this tragedy has been.
I think that the balance that will allow us to keep our privacy and security is within our treatment of other people and beings. These events didn't happen in a vacuum, these people didn't just wake-up one morning with the idea to fly a plane into the WTC! This process happened over years, through our mis-treatment of other beings.
When Wallmart and Amazon record our actions without our consent, they are mistreating us. They are reducing our lives to an entry in a database, and trading that information for money. This type of mistreatment is certainly not on the scale of the Muslims in Indonesia or Afganastan, but it reduces human life to a comodity. When we do this, we foster extreemism and terrorism.
To me, the answer is to remember that people, as a rule, need to have contact with other people. It's through this contact that morals are formed and social conventions are created. Somebody else knew about the plans for this disaster. They had an obligation to the community to try to "talk them out of it" or to stop the terrorists from acting (by hook or by crook)if talking fails. Our problem is that we were never really in contact with these people. Sure, they lived in our community long enough to pass by un-noticed, but what type of communication and education were they getting when they were all 10yrs old?
We don't have to give up our rights! That's what old Ben Franklin was talking about when he made that now famous quote. There are other answers to be looked at. Giving up or freedoms is just the simplest/quickest answer, but certainly not the best. More difficult would be to extend these freedoms to the people of East Temor and to the people of Afganastan. Make sure that they are treated fairly and not exploited. Show them, through positive action, what we mean by "freedom." They will respond by turning Osama Bin Laden over to us! The environment that created him will cease to exist!
Just some thoughts
"I'm sorry Osama, we could only hijack four planes instead of ten."
"Why you infidel? Allah will not be pleased!"
"Well, the other six leaders had drives that developed the 'Click of Death' and couldn't read the plans."
"I'll give you Click of Death!!!!!"
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Taking away essential freedoms does not guarantee security. In fact, reduced freedom can often reduce security. If we had a police state, sure we would have a somewhat easier time nailing terrorists. But how secure would you really be? You've just traded the occasional terrorist for an ever-present government tyrant.
It is our freedoms that *provide* our security. Restrictions on governmental/police powers promote the fairness and honesty that enable all citizens to be safe. This is why we require warrants before allowing the government to spy on you or search your property. This is why the police have to have probable cause to arrest you, rather than because "he looked like he was up to no good". If we give up these kind of freedoms in an attempt to fight terrorists, we'll only be less secure. And the terrorists will have won.
It's interesting to note that of all the countries in the world, Americans are probably the safest. And we're the most free. Coincidence? I don't think so.
I'm all for giving the government new tools to help in the fight against terrorism. Reform wiretap laws to have wiretaps be on a per-person, not per-phone basis. Expand the ability to wiretap in cyberspace to match the equivalent in phonetap law. These will help fight terrorism without destroying our freedoms.
Other proposals do the opposite. They remove freedoms without helping the terrorist fight. Mandated encryption backdoors or bans on encryption are a good example of this. While they would appear to help, they really wouldn't. Terrorists would just get their crypto from abroad, while ordinary citizens are now more susceptible to the snooping of cr/hackers and the government.
What is really needed is a cool-headed assessment of what we can do to promote security without jeopardizing our freedom and our way of life. Decreasing our freedoms will only decrease our security in the long term. Let's make ourselves more secure, not less.
I think crypto-guy Bruce Schneier put it well when he said:
"The ideals we uphold during a crisis define who we are. Freedom and liberty have a price, and that price is constant vigilance so it not be taken from us in the name of security. Ben Franklin said something that was often repeated during the American Revolutionary War: 'They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.' It is no less true today."
OK -- get back to me when the government has established a credible track record of prosecuting its agents and sending them to prison (the real kind, not Club Fed) when they commit such abuses. As it is, these guys get away with murder (literally, as in the case of Lon Horiuchi).
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
Don't you know the first thing about programming?
Idiot.
I don't think that the government intends to infringe upon rights or abuse power, it is a natural response to wanting to do their jobs correctly. The FBI is paid to catch criminals, those who catch criminals do well and are promoted and people want them to catch the "bad guys". To acknowledge that and then expect them to apply these broad powers while protecting indiviudal liberties is asking them to disconnect reality
Katz's assumption that "Many of us have already happily and willingly surrendered some privacy to Napster, Amazon, gaming sites...." fails to realize that these are organizations with which we chose to do business. Amazon cannot draft me, Napster cannot imprison me (though perhaps through the DMCA!!)
Mr. Tom Utley (USNID-3304820198),
We have ascertained that you may be a considerable threat to the national security of the United States of America. Using keywords that are clearly defined in the FBI Counter-Terrorism Handbook as "red flag checks", you have violated US statute 1448.17d on terrorist speech (&United States -vs- Wajiid, 2003). Since this is your first offence, we require that you immediately attend your local PRI (Political Rehabilitation Institute) for no less than 2 days. Your employer/school has been notified of this misdemeanor and you will be placed on probation for sixty days.
Please call the National PRI Enrollment Hotline within 3 days to schedule your classes.
Thank you for your cooperation,
PRI-4493792028
Hammer of Truth
When our government says something will be temporary, mean is that it will be "temporary" in so much that it will exist until it benefits the politicians to eliminate it.
The best way to prove this theory out is Income Taxes. Remember how the income tax was a "temporary evil" to finance a war? Yet some Americans pay as much as 50% of their income every year out to satisfy state and federal income taxes today. The politicians will never end it because they are addicted to the power that the income tax gives them. Why?
The constitution gives congress the power of the "purse": the ability to spend the government's (your) money. If they eliminate the income tax they would be ending their own gravy train. After all, who's going to lobby congress for appropriations when they have no public money to give away? Who's going to pony up giant campaign contributions if congress can't dole out pork projects and corporate welfare tax breaks? No, they are far too addicted to a kushy six-figure salary and the ability to dole out "favors".
Just as the politicians have become addicted to the income tax, so will law enforcement become addicted to "stepping on a few constitutional freedoms" in the name of justice.
Applying this same principle to the constitution, if we allow the "temporary" suspension of one or two rights we can extrapolate that, by 2020, the CIA will be monitoring our thoughts for impurity and punishing evil "thought crimes".
To sum up: Temporary my ass.
Who did what now?
If there's one thing a bureaucracy likes to do (I'm talking about our government, here) it's make lists. Lists of people who receive pinko literature (McCarthy), people who express unAmerican sentiment, people who don't follow the party line. Pick up any hornbook on 1st Amendment law to get a history of the court's decisions and the government's attitude towards free speech during wartime. Here's a quote from Schenck v. U.S. (1919)
The opinion was written by Justice Holmes.And let's not forget the chilling effect that wiretap legislation would cause. Would you still feel perfectly free to say whatever is on your mind, not knowing whether someone's listening, or not? Actually, that's a bad example (but one that seems to be fairly common). Your e-mail won't be displayed just long enough to be read to insure it's not a terrorist document and then erased. Instead, it'll be stored, indexed, and available for later searches. When the war is long past and the FBI is looking for more bogeymen, they'll go to their archive and type:
Keywords: government bomb overthrow
And you better hope that you haven't expressed any unamerican sentiment. Or, what if it's not even political. What if you say something like, "I think that virtual child pornography should be legal. As long as no actual children are involved, it's a victimless crime. I believe that people should be punished for what they do (child abuse) not what they think or feel (child eroticism)" It's a controversial, but still valid and constitutionally protected opinion. Do you want it in the FBI's database?
I think that most of us would gladly allow the FBI to snoop our shopping lists if it would help prevent people from dying. But it's not going to be about snooping shopping lists, it'll be about finding terrorists and terrorist sympathisers and terrorist supporters. And it won't just be over the next month, two, or six. Once it's in place it won't be dislodged.
And it won't matter if there's legislation that prevents your e-mail from being used directly against you, because, after all, if you've said something that'll get you in trouble once, you'll probably say it again. It just requires a little diligence on the part of our justice department to catch it legally. Or, it doesn't even have to go through due process. The FBI can get a warrant on suspicion, take apart your house, confiscate your computer equipment, and release a statement to the press that you're a terrorist sympathetic pedophile -- and then never press charges. (Good luck getting your computer equipment back.)
Ceci n'est pas une
Those who are shouting loudest about freedoms are those who were least (physically) affected by Tuesday's catastrophe.
Note that I emphasise the physically part. Everyone on the planet (well, maybe with the exception of some stone-age tribes in the Amazon jungle) was emotionally affected. The biggest distinguishing factor was the physical impact. The loss of a family member or friend; or even just being in New York has altered some people's worlds drastically.
Yes, I really do believe it's that polarized, and yes, I really do believe that many of the arguments are entirely selfish ones. Me, me, me. Give it a rest! There happen to be 5,999,999,999+ other people who happen to be affected by all of this. For once, humanity needs to think on a GLOBAL scale, not merely on what they can personally get out of it.
To those who advocate the loss of freedoms -- exactly what is this supposed to achieve?
Ok, now to those who argue that freedoms should be protected at all costs...
The bottom line is that NEITHER approach works. No great surprise. You cannot add an unbalanced approach to an unbalanced situation, and get a balanced society.
It is impossible to prevent these kinds of hostilies by adding yet more hostility to the equation. The maths is very simple, but those in England and Ireland learned that it is also painful to accept. The only answer to war is peace and the only answer to factionalism is unity.
Sure, there's still violence in England and Ireland, but people aren't living in fear that pubs in Birmingham, or shopping centers in London or Manchester are going to turn to smouldering rubble the next day. Disarmament on a real scale has become a very real possibility. A BIG change from the last 20 years, where bomb drills were routine in schools, celebrities got gunned down or blown up, and transport systems were regularly targetted.
There may very well be "sleepers" in the American population, agents from all sorts of countries. America has probably more than a few of its own in other countries. The ethics and international legality of such agents can be debated to the ends of the earth, with no solution likely.
But if there ARE "others" amongst us, how are they remaining others? How are they able to have zero empathy for those they live around, every day of their lives? (After all, if they DID have empathy, they could not do anything to harm those they cared about. Empathy is a far stronger force than all the agencies in the world.)
In short, why are Americans so bloody frigid that Afghans can live here for many years and not gain one iota of compassion? Sure, they're the ones who flew those planes, but ALL OF US are responsible for creating a world in which they were emotionally capable of doing so.
THAT is the key to all of this. Meaningless phrases and turgid responses don't bring people closer. They are the wall we hide behind, to avoid people. We avoided them, alright. We avoided them so bloody well that 18 of those people decided to wipe out 6,000+ others.
Pink Floyd has it absolutely right. Our callousness, coldness, cruelty, emotional abuse, our entire self-centered perspective, are just bricks in The Wall. And, as their video described, The Wall leads to militancy, extremism and violence. Just as we've seen in Afghanistan.
The choice would seem to be simple - polarity and the continued building of The Wall, or tolerence & peace.
I know which I'd prefer, but I also know which way the world is heading. Does anyone have a spare cryogenics facility they can lend me?
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
The abridgment of our rights is in no way a "win" for terrorists. Yes, it is a loss for us, but I have trouble with the idea that a bunch of l33t h4x0rs not being able to sit around chatting about their latest music swaps in total anonymity is anywhere near the loss of, say, containment around the Monticello Nuclear Power plant, just NW of Minneapolis (leading to 7 figure death tolls in the Minneapolis area and the forced evacuation of everything between here and around South Bend). A light plane loaded down with fuel could break through quite easily, with a clean hit. That, however, requires organization and planning. They need schematics of the plant, they need access to a plane (which will either be registered or suspiciously unregistered), they need to make use of a legitimate airport to avoid blowing up on take-off with all the bouncing barrels of gas, etc. The FBI has had remarkable success preventing this sort of thing by knowing what to look for. But over the last few years, they've increasingly lost the ability to look.
And there's the big hole in the "Oh no! We're losing our freedoms!" position. Let's say that we give every single government emplyee the right to read everyone's email and access everyone's web habits and everything else. We STILL haven't lost any "privacy" that we had 20 years ago. Human's have never had anything like the ability for anonymous, private communications that we've developed in the last 3-5 years. It's NOT something inherant in the human condition. It's something we allot to ourselves, and, as such, needs to be alloted reasonably. Now, when you've aquired a controling interested in every internet backbone in the country, you can make everything private and anonymous. Until then, you have NO RIGHTS not allocated you by contract or law. You're using an artificial communications system owned and maintained by other people, for which you're not even playing close to enough to cover the costs incurred by your usage.
Still, I can't help but think that you've forgotten why those rights are granted. They're granted because we live in a country that was formed out of a history of oppression. Those rights are not there simply because people like them. They exist as safeguards and protections against the type of governments that oppress their people, that forbid them basic human rights. The rights to privacy ensure that our government can't simply weed out its detractors. It exists to prevent our government from becoming a powerful tyrant. It's already powerful, and it is through the vigilant exercise of our rights that it doesn't become a tyrant, capable of disposing of its detractors or those who might possibly restrict the exercise of that power.
I think you've written a great piece that needs to be part of the discussion. And I agree that some of our rights may need to be temporarily adjusted. But any sort of permanant abridgement of the basic rights that define our country is treading on very dangerous ground. The basic rights that I'm talking about, the ones that define our country, are set forth in our Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the amendments to our Constitution. Any permanant restrictions of those rights will open up a threat that is at least as big as the threat of terrorist attack: a powerful and tyranical government with no restrictions on what it can and will do. And that threat is more insidious than terrorist attacks. It kills silently, not in one big explosion. It takes out people with very little fan fare, and whatever does happen to make the news, it spins into crime fighting, or outright suppresses altogether.
That threat is real. It's defenses have only existed for 225 years. The rest of human history is riddled with governments that tyranized their people. In our attempts to address a terrorist threat, we should not forget the other threats that we must always continue to address.
Key to financial independence: Spend less than you earn. Save and invest the difference. Do it for a long time.
Here's the letter I sent to my congressmen, composed in AbiWord.
Lester Marks
5905 North Hills Drive
Raleigh NC 27609-4237
(919)-782-2009
To the Honorable Senator John Edwards
Dear Senator Edwards,
I am concerned about the future of email and privacy in my email communications. In the wake of our National Tragedy, it is my understanding that the Justice Department is asking for legislation granting them less restrictions on obtaining and using a wiretap, both for telephone and internet communications.
With any greater power granted, lies the possibility for abuse. I fear that wider use of wiretaps in the way that the Justice department proposes will lead to abuse.
Email is commonly assumed to be a private communication between the sender and the recipient. In reality, it can be intercepted and read, much the same way that a postcard can be read while in transit. Encryption is a technology that secures a message or document so that only the sender and the intended recipient can read it, much the same way that an envelope prevents mail handlers or others from casually reading your postal mail. Encrypted mail cannot be considered secure if it can be decrypted and read by anyone other than the intended recipient.
As a private citizen, and one of your constituents living in Raleigh, I do not want my private communications spied upon by Law Enforcement without probable cause and a court order. If, as I fear, greater power over wiretaps is given to Law Enforcement, I will increase my usage of encryption in my emails and other communications. If legislation is introduced that requires encryption to have "back-doors" that allow Law Enforcement to read my encrypted emails, then not only will I have suffered the loss of my right to keep my private communications private, but terrorists and criminals will still have use of the encryption technology that doesn't have "back-doors" for Law Enforcement.
I understand the need for swift action in the wake of the National Tragedy, but I don't want to lose the civil liberties and freedoms that I currently enjoy, in the name of security measures, temporary or permanent. If you vote for or approve any legislation that grants wider use of wiretaps and surveillance on U.S. citizens' communications, I will be sure to vote for your opponent when you next run for re-election.
Sincerely,
Don't forget creating a society where the state or religion is higher than the individual is just the kind of system that produced these bombers willing to kill themselves and counteless others.
If you repress something, something somewhere else has got to give. What happened last week was a product of one of the many Islamic regimes which places the greatest restrictions on civil liberties and rights of the individual.
Why was there such a big deal about apartheid in South Africa but no-one seems to notice or care that millions of women in Moslem countries have no right ot vote or show their full face in public?
Let the rabbits wear glasses (but no to Dolphin Operated Cabbage)
So the citizens of Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union who had no freedom were the most secure people in history? Somehow the dozens of millions of them that were murdered by their own government seem to contradict that
Do you know what I'm tired of?
I work on the 21st floor of a large building in downtown Tampa. Our building is in between the tall Federal building and the Federal courthouse. I can see TIA (Tampa International Airport) from my window.
I am tired of looking at every plane that goes by, and wondering. Yesterday we had a rally, in memory of what happened, outside, and when a plane flew over 80% of the crowd looked up, no matter how much they didn't want to.
I am also a firefighter. I am tired of having to worry constantly about where our trucks are at, who is coming in, what type of call we are going to have to go on. There are risks involved, but worrying about a bomb from some stupid moron while I am trying to server my duty is rediculous.
I am sick of worrying, of being scared. I am scared of losing my freedoms, and my privacy, but I think that my life balances that out to a degree. But worrying is something I will always do, and will always have to live with regardless.
Random Musings
I would like to retain my right to tell JonKatz to FUCK OFF!
I wish I could trail little fish behind me
What concerns me most is when authorities take rights away or impose limitations in times of crisis, but then don't give little old you and me those rights back after the crisis has passed.
In some situations I can accept the need for governments, the police, military or whoever to impose certain restrictions for safety or security. But (certainly in the UK) there is a long tradition of laws or restrictions being imposed in times of crisis and...suprise, suprise, those restrictions not being lifted after the situation has been resolved.
It would be great if we could persuade politicians to only grant certain laws for limited periods of time and stick to that duration. Unfortunately laws with limited durations seem to get their duration extended again and again, and laws being enacted for one crisis are kept in the police's arsenal in case they need to use them in a different situation. This year in the UK the police used a law designed to stop football hooliganism in the immediate vicinity of football grounds to declare *the whole of central London* an area in the vicinity of a football ground so they could stop and search anybody they fancied, anywhere in central London when there was a Reclaim The Streets demonstration occurring. On a lighter note, we have drinking laws in England (last orders at 11pm) which were brought in to stop workers getting too drunk and not contributing to the War Effort - in the First World War....
Anybody got any solutions for how we balance the need for security in a crisis with the creeping encroachment on rights? I think this is a crucial issue.
I don't know how to describe a lot of "safety" advocates in the media this week, except, maybe -- Cowards.
That's one thing; while I honestly don't think freedom and privacy are as sacred as you Americans do, I must say that the initiatives that are being contemplated are simply stupid. 'The Authorities' - who knows what that is going to mean some time in the future - want backdoors etc etc. Surveillance like that is going to be incredibly unwieldy and probably rather less useful than they hope. And a number of innocent people will come under suspicion, simply because they express certain opinions, use a certain jargon, say certain jokes or whatever. E-commerce is going to be difficult too.
Of course this won't worry me; I don't elive in e-commerce anyway. And I will probably move to China, that's one place where the US government won't boss me around
If passengers on a flight crew can take the time to vote whether to take back a jet from hijackers, should our country not at least make a concerted effort to involve it's citizens in the decisions which will have such a profound longterm impact on our own lives, as well as the lives of our grandchildren?
As interesting your comments are, these words "people are able to justify revolution" is permisable within the constitution. SO yes, we can go to war with ourselves and we can loose all our inalienable rights.
I will say this. I am greatful that I have these freedoms. I know of others that don't even have half of ours.
-onepoint
if you see me, smile and say hello.
The point is, having access to the information is good. It may be very hard up front to identify the nature of the information or specific issue that will be identified, or the specific problems that will be avoided, since the neccesary supporting information is not available. How many admins would consider running their systems and services without logs, and just turning them on when there is a problem?
Likewise, how can we ask the intelligence agencies to protect us from the activities that would undermine our nation (from any aspect), without allowing some reasonable level of monitoring.
I understand the argument that, human nature being what it is, abuses will happen. I for one would be willing to accept the monitoring, and subsequent reduction in privacy, if the penalties against abuse of the information was severe. Something on the order of 10 year minimum mandatory jail sentences, with reparation to the victims of the abuse.
I don't think that the average NSA/CIA/whatever agent would have a problem with that. Their resulting efficiency should be improved so greatly they would be too busy. :-)
I hate the idea that someone is watching me post to a political discussion like this, or emailing my friend about my gout. But I really hate the idea that someone could be poisoning my water supply, shipping bombs to my office, or worse, even more.
In this country, we generally give our law enforcement and emergency personnel some legal flexibility to do their jobs. Those that abuse that privilege bring shame and disgrace to their peers, and are punished as criminals. Why would this be any different?
Can You Say Linux? I Knew That You Could.
The idea that terrorists can be caught by blanket scanning all public communications is so fundamentally flawed.
Imagine you're a terrorist. You know that your cell phone and emails will be scanned. Why not set up a non-internet connected dial-up BBS in some remote country and leave encrypted messages there instead from a public phone? There are millions of ways of bypassing the usual channels of interception and its naive to think that terrorists wouldn't be capable of this too.
All blanket surveillance and interception privilidges will catch are those terrorists too dumb to be a real threat anyway.
You didn't have to do anything as blatant as what you describe to be killed.
In Nazi germany 6 million were killed for just having the wrong parents.
I Stalinist Russia the security forces, like every one else, had production targets and has to produce a certain number of executions or face the consequences. Anyone who was within convenient reach could and did get killed.
I'm a typical 20-something, and all my life we've made forwards progress towards equality. When I was young, the "N-word" was acceptable to say, and you could bash gays all you wanted.
When my parents were children, african-americans didn't have equal rights, Hoover kept a file on everyone, we had that great Senator McCarthy, and police could beat a confession out of you.
We've made great progress. I hope the golden age of civil liberties haven't passed us by.
First off I believe that free speech should never be restricted regardless of what consequences might befall us. A good example is the billions of dollars wasted in the x-rated category by expensive and continuous litigation. No nation can afford continuing legal battles over the edge of free speech. In the end it dooms the nation just because the expense of enforcement drags the system downward.
The next issue is the power of the government to snoop. I think that any person should have the same power to snoop as the government. That is what equality is all about. Let everybody spy endlessly on everybody else. I have no problem with the entire world studying every breath I take endlessly. And I believe that every person should be able to deeply encode anything that they want to. If people do evil things then catch them and do what needs doing but do not restrict the ability to try to encode messages.
The thing that strikes me is the height of the WTC and the fact that they wanted to hit a target that is so visable. That tells me that they wanted the world to easily see the terror. Now they can not get aircraft to do similar deeds but their mode of thinking will not change. I suspect that bridges will make a highly visable target that photgraphs well and they can show the world what they have done. Therefore we need to really watch out for trucks or even car bombs on our nations greatest bridges. Tunnels are a less likely target because the media can't fix their gaze on the rubble of a tunnel. The Golden Gate or the Brooklyn Bridge or some other bridge that is known around the world may well be their next target.
Yes, the people making these statements were rich, privileged, white men. But look at what happened to the foremost among them - the fifty-six signers of the Declaration of Independence. Twelve lost their homes. Seventeen lost their fortunes. One had his sons captured. Two had their sons killed. Five were themselves captured. Nine lost their lives in the war for independence. Yes, it may seem like it was easy for them to make high-sounding statements, but they put their privilege, their fortunes, and their lives behind their statements. That doesn't mean that those statements are automatically applicable today, but don't automatically dismiss them because they were rich, privileged, white men either.
the USA implement the swedish "OffentlichkeitPrinzip"
all government information, project, paper of any kind, has to be public and published. The government is subject to scrutiny by the people, not the other way around.
Wouldn't that prevent these things from happening ? Since the unsavory practices from certain agencies would not happen anymore, covert actions, etc. would not exist, and all things that triggers the hate would go away, eradicating, effectively, terrorism.
In the UK, the governement here _still_ have the ability to imprision without trial indefinitely on the statute books, when it was brought in a "temporary" measure from 1971-1975. Operation Internment had a terrible backlash which, instead of reducing the problem, gained tremendous support for those imprisoned. The UK act ("prevention of terrorism act") still has to be renewed annually, but it always is - who would vote against it with a name like that? So, the whole idea made things worse, and even the clause of an annual review wasn't a sufficent counterbalance to remove it from the laws.
Giving up freedoms to defend freedoms, is like comiting suicide in self defence.
Exigo spamos et dona ferentes
You (in general) don't know what might/might not have happened, and to tell you the truth all the 'Monday Morning Coaching' that's going on is slightly disgusting.
... the only real deterrence is that of mass destruction of the thing is fired while in flight, a deterrent which probably doesn't do a whole hell of a lot to stop a suicide terrorist.
I agreed with all of your points until you said this. Monday Morning Quarterbacking is exactly what is needed now, to analyze and ponder where we made mistakes, what tradeoffs we need to make to thwart these sorts of murderous people in the future, and so on.
The argument that a plane full of well-armed passengers might have had better luck against an armed hijacker vs. a more stringent effort to keep arms off the plane is a valid one to make. I don't agree with it (everyone could have carried on 4" knives up until last Tuesday, and some passengers almost certainly did, at least in the form of a swiss army knife, yet the results were inconclusive). Everyone having a gun in a pressurized aircraft is more akin to everyone having an H-Bomb strapped to their back
The answers aren't easy or obvious, but decrying discussion as "disgusting" is IMHO not at all helpful.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Abrogation of basic human rights caused this problem. A human should never be denied the ability to defend him/herself.
This may be the most reprehensible, and absurd, claim that I've yet heard in the wake of this tragedy. If everyone on board airplanes had guns, how many cases of air rage would have ended in tragic deaths or even plane crashes? How many stupid yahoos would be looking for an excuse to pull a gun and be a hero? "I thought he was reaching for his gun so I started emptying my clip..." How many inebriated passengers would accidentally discharge their guns, taking the plane down? How many distraught, disturbed, and jilted passengers would decide to take their own lives and the lives of everyone else by starting a gun battle? The terrorists would be thrilled by your idea. They could sit at home and watch passengers take down U.S. commercial aircraft with disturbing regularity.
No "basic human right" was taken away. If you are such a weak little man that you can't defend yourself without a gun, you are a truly pathetic specimen. If you are not man enough to travel without your gun, then stay home. The brave passengers on flight 93 who overpowered the hijackers would have been disgusted by some pussy like you cowering in the back of the plane saying "I can't do anything because I don't have my gun."
Something that has been bothering me about the debate surrounding what action should be taken by the United States regarding the events of the 11th is the severe lack of a historical perspective, not only on why the events took place but our imminent response to them, here and abroad.
Benjamin Franklin said in 1775:
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety"
It always bares remembering that it's much easier to give up freedoms than to win them back.
~raum
Remember that it is easy to conceal messages as low order bits in images and music.
Also recall how hard it is (supposed to be) to break 2048 bit encryption.
Given the above, I'm willing to try a fixed period of time - say 8 years - of reduced personal liberties if the government will take responsibility for the misuses.At the end of that time, a review would determine whether the law would continue for another 8 years.
"Take responsibility" might mean - each attack that gets through the new "secure/low privacy" system means everyone gets 5% back on their taxes.
"Take responsibility" might mean - in each abuse of the system, those individuals who allowed the abuse (not the agencies they work for) must each pay $10,000 for each abuse, This would include the judge who issued the "tap" order, the boss who OK'ed the use of it, the tech who added the person's name to a system for monitoring.
"Take responsibility" might mean - the "vicitms" of such abuse are awarded a minimum of $1million.
"Take responsibility" might mean - all those involved (judge, boss, tech, etc.) have their names exposed.
I understand that there are many situations where you don't want watchdog committees, etc. approving every wiretap. In those situations, a small group of people have to decide to take measures to protect our country.
There will be abuses of the system and there will be times where the proposed changes really help catch the "bad guys."
I appreciate having the government work to protect me.
I also understand that mistakes will be made. I've made a few and I'm willing to accept that others might not be perfect.
I dislike having anyone in a position where they can ruin my life with no responsibility for their actions.
I doubt if I could sue the FBI for illegally tapping my phone. Even if I could, it comes out of some legal budget and whoever did it would get a slap on the wrist.
Personally, I doubt if the US government is willing to be responsible for the misuse of the "tools" being discussed. Therefore, I'll end up protesting having my rights taken away.
David
Laws are effective at controlling the behavior of people who choose to obey them. The usefullness of regulating behavior drecreases as people become inreasingly willing to violate the law.
The law cannot eliminate crimes. You can hang each pickpocket on the first offence but you will not stop pickpocketing from occuring. You can take away tweasers from all passengers at the airport but the determined crminal will simply make weapons from the tray table or what he can scavage from the bathroom. You cannot stop a determined crminal willing to sacrifice his life 100% of the time.
The government is the ultimate 500 pound gorilla. It is too slow and too plodding to stop a motivatd individual. The government was warned by the French and warned by Isreal yet was unable to stop it. Turning loose the police state won't help, it will bury them in irrelevant information and errode our cival rights.
Terrorists are not effective becasuse of encryption or stenography despite propoganda to the countrary. They freakin' use AOL and Earthlink.
I realize that nearly everyone is upset & angry right now. That's one of many reasons we should think carefully, act slowly, and not have midnight votes taking away our cival rights.
BTW, fax congress and urge restraint now!
~~ What's stopping you?
I know Katz words are unpopular. I'm sure he does too. But if you read his words, he is not saying we should surrender our freedoms cartblanc. He is saying we should listen to all proposed ideas and take time to reflect on them before we automatically attempt to discredit them. There are some excellent ideas being proposed.
There are people who love to quote the founding father who says (paraphrased since I was not there to hear him) One who would trade liberty for security deserves neither. Those are grand words. But if you take them too the extreme, then we have no security because the government can't protect you without depriving the person who just killed 5000+ people of their liberty.
Think about it.
Quack
The best stenographic techniques find a way of taking an innocuous data stream and extracting something that looks like noise from it. If you can arrange for that "noise" to contain custom messages which still look like noise, there is no way for someone to tell that your message is not perfectly legitimate.
Therefore you need four pieces. The first is a way of producing meaningful messages that look like noise. The second is a way of putting your meaningful message into an innocuous message. The third is extracting out the apparent noise. And the last is turning the noise into a meaningful message.
If you skip the first and last steps you will get a message that passes casual inspection, but the message will be findable by appropriate techniques because it is too regular, it doesn't look like noise but should.
And the best way to produce noise from your meaningful message is to first compress your message, then encrypt it. The initial compression both reduces how much you have to send, and makes the subsequent encryption much harder to break. Assuming that either the encryption or the compression technique is even half-way decent, that will result in a message that is indistinguishable (to casual analyis) from pure noise.
is sticking to your principles even when they are not convienient"
I don't know who said it but I think this applies
Jon
Do terrorists pay for dozens of phones? Public phones may already be tapped without a warrant. I don't agree with the decision but the precedent has been set.
Besides which, when they let someone suspected of taking part in as many as six previous hijackings enter the country they should automatically ask for warrants to track and trace him. And do they even need warrants to investigate foreign nationals?
And Katz's suggestion that these deprivations of our rights would only be temporary flys in the face of history and common sense.
The removal of our civil rights is not necessary to investigate terrorists. Let the FBI do their job without accomplishing the terrorists objective which is to cause emotional distress to Americans. Because that is what spying on US citizens will cause.
It seems to me that Bush and Co. are working on the Lt. Calley theory:
"We had to destroy the Constitution in order to save it". -- G.W. Bush, 2001
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
In Chris Roberts' game series, Wing Commander IV, in the first cutscene movie, a guy in a bar tells Mark Hammill the following:
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance"
It's not about losing civil liberties. Nothing has changed after Sept 11. We always had and always will have evil around. The only difference is that over the centuries the destructive power of the individual has grown.
the only reason the terrorists who attacked the world trade center didn't use nukes is because they didn't have them. bin Laden supposedly in anewspaper accounts has been spending money to get the components. If that time ever comes we are cooked. The only thing that kept a nuclear war from happening during the cold war was the certainy of MAD (mutually assured destruction). the terrorists really don't care about that, because they are ready to get wiped out. so what we really should be deailing with is the fact that we face a nuclear threat. under these circumstances individual rights are unfortunately secondary.
Yes John, when the government proposes compromising freedom for security, i do have a knee jerk response. See, it's because the government is, in essence, asking me to trust it to use such legislation for the purposes that it was intended. Well, as the old saying goes, trust is earned.
When I see federal anti-crack-house legislation being used to prosecute the organizer of a music festival, I shudder to think what they will be able to do with anti-terrorism laws (that's right, they're attempting to send a man from new orleans to jail for the rest of his life because he organized an event where there was likely to be drug use despite the large security presence looking for drugs!).
I do not advocate drug use...in fact I belive that it is one of the scourges of our society. But I fail to see how drug sniffing dogs walking around an airport will increase the safety of air travel (This was the case in many American airports this past week). I can see the headline now..."The terrorists had no guns, knives or weapons of any kind. They were able to quickly gain control of the airplane thanks to the two kilos of uncut heroin that they managed to sneak on board."
It's not that I don't advocate security measures. They are necessary. But there's more than one knee-jerk reaction happening here. The government reacts by passing any peice of legislation that "could have helped prevent this tragedy." We need to have a healthy debate about every security measure that we enact. We can't let the emotions of this past week cloud our judgement, resulting in the complete freedom of the justice dep't to do whatever they want.
</$0.02>
...computer science taught me that two wrongs don't make a right, but two rights make a wrong...
"Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!"
Katz lives 40 miles away, and "felt personally affected by a visit to the attack site." What a crock. He's a vulture who went there to prey on the greif of others.
We have NO right not to have buildings fall on us, anymore than we have the right to not drown at sea.
Terrorism can NOT be stopped, with or without wiretaps, strip searches and manacling every passenger on a plane. One could simply become a pilot, whack the co-pilot, lock the newly secured door, and ram the building of choice.
There is nothing you can do to stop a determined attacker. They're worse than slashdot trolls.
What you can do is survive. You can rebuild, and you can go on. When your car gets a flat, you don't rubbercoat the worlds roads, you put on an extra tire. The old tire may be repairable, it may be gone. That doesn't really matter, anymore than a few thousand deaths to a terrorist attack matters in the larger scheme of things.
Sound callous? Maybe, but it's also true. 100,000 people die every year from autoaccidents. Why not ban the auto? Because its impractical - no one wants to take the bus or train everywhere. No one wantsa to pay for a rail link to every place someone might possibly want to go.
THAT would be cheaper than "stopping" terrorism.
Israel has all the wiretap power they want, and that doesn't stop them from having terrorists bomb cafe's every few weeks. Don't pretend that the US with an ethnically diverse population of CITIZENS could screen better than a (justifiably) paranoid nation in the midst of hostile territory. (The legitimacy of their location is a seperate topic, I make no claims one way or the other here.)
If you can't stop something, you must learn to deal with it. Have a backup center, hire more brokers and paper pushers and secretaries and firemen and everyone else who you lose.
The way to "stop" people who are willing to die for their cause is to let them die, to have their compatriots see that however successful the attack may be tactically, it's negligable strategically.
Suicidal bombers believe in a cause, and that their attack will aid that cause more than they could in a lifetime of work. As spectacular the WTC attack was - since every station replayed it ad nauseum - most of manhattan was unaffected. The day after people were in the park, walking dogs, playing soccer and football.
The world is not changed forever, we have not lost any innocence we still had, life will be the same.
And FYI, New York is not all death death wtc death on the tube anymore, the broadcast networks stopped over the weekend. Simply because it's replaced Conduit as the lead off story on news shows doesnt really matter. Jackie Chan's cartoon show is back on and life is back to normal - for those who were not directly affected by the loss of a job. Otherwise, its no different [individually] than a bus crash, or even a slip and fall broken neck death. Your loss is not greater simply because its yours.
And to you Mr. Katz - Your writing is almost always based primarily on 2nd hand knowledge and misinformation, and occaisionally amusing when treated as such - like any good troll. This article is the worst in a long long line of bad OpEds. Your obviously not an investiagtive journalist and it seems you can't even reports simple data anymore. Slashdot would be better off with a link to the AP newswire site instead of your tired, trite opinionitorials.
Unlike you though, I would not try to pass laws restricting YOUR freedoms. To sell out one groups liberties to live and die, according to the lifestyle thay have chosen, whether as a free speech advocate, a gay christian preaching in Afghanistan, or a race car driver is not just wrong, it's evil.
Personally, I would rather my death be caused by a criminal element's fiery blast than a strangulation of my lifestyle condoned by my government.
Getting in deeper and deeper threadwise. :^)
You're right and I apologize for that statement, since it didn't come out as I meant it.
But be that as it may, this needs to be a time for open discussion about what to do... and what went wrong. But people using this as a platform from which to jump into their own pet soapboxes, I do find disgusting. (And the pet soapbox this time was the "My President is Charleton Heston" variety.)
'Life is like a spoonful of Drain-O, it feels good on the way down but leaves you feeling hollow inside'
Mr. Katz,
Thousands died to *gain* us these liberties you so blithely offer up. Though you are willing to give up your privacy, *I* am not. I am willing to die to protect that right.
You say that people have a right to go to work without having a building fall on them? The world is a dangerous place. People have the right to drive on the freeway without dieing in an accident. But it happens.
We shouldn't expect a building to fall on our heads. But our *government* didn't abridge that right, some jerkoff fundamentalist psychos did.
Our government has the responsibility to guard us as best as possible. But if someone commits murder, does it prove our government has failed? No. It just means that our government has a *new* task, to find and prosecute that murderer.
If I thought for one minute that giving up our rights would stop thousands from dieing, I would gladly give up those rights. But the terrorists have already worked around the restrictions already in place. You cannot believe they won't work around online surveilance.
The hijackers' biggest weapon was not the knives they snuck aboard, or the 'net as a communications medium, but their willingness... no, their *eagerness* to die for their cause. And that is something you simply cannot legislate away.
Your suggestion is flawed in the same way the new airport restrictions are flawed-- they would *not* have prevented this horror. Instead of box knives, the terrorists could have snuck aboard glass knives taped to their backs. An obsidian knife is substantially sharper than a box knive, and is useful in stabbing as well as slashing.
Another example: you can no longer discharge or pick up travelers at curbside. What is this supposed to prevent? Car bombs going off near the airport? The marine barracks in Beirut had an armed guard, a gate, and many rules against blowing up marines. That did not stop one terrorist with a willingness (Eagerness!) to die for his cause-- one kamikaze truckload of explosives, and all the rules, armed guards at gates, and paranoia of serving in a volatile country did not stop another terrible incident.
Rules will not suffice. Infringing our liberties will not suffice. As someone else in this forum suggested, we must become a *decent* world citizen. We must participate in Kyoto Treaties; we must put the welfare of the citizens of the world above the welfare of our corporations (like *that* is going to happen); and, mostly, we must honor our own liberties, and take an interest (as a country) in the events going on around us.
I wish the death of thousands would be enough to shock this country out of its apathy; but, somehow, I fear we are just as willfully-ignorant today as we were two weeks ago.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
The Fourth Amendment was adopted in direct response to the English Parliament's practice of giving colonial revenue officers complete discretion to search for smuggled goods by means of writs of assistance. The writs permitted colonial authorities, including British troops, to enter homes and offices at will and search any person or place they wanted. The early Americans rebelled against these general searches, and on the eve of the Declaration of Independence, Samuel Adams said he regarded the opposition to general searches as "the Commencement of the Controversy between Great Britain and America." It is fair to say that absolute protection from general government searches is one of this country's founding principles.
When the framers struck the original balance between personal privacy and the needs of law enforcement, remote listening devices had not yet been invented. But it is clear that had they existed, the framers would not have approved of them. By definition, electronic surveillance constitutes a general search, not a search limited to specific objects, people and places as required by the Fourth Amendment. Wiretapping, bugs, and keys to encrypted messages intrude on the most intimate aspects of human life. They hear/see everything and everyone, indiscriminately. Like vacuum cleaners, they sweep up all the details of innocent and often intimate private conversations. A tap on the phone of one person necessarily captures the conversations of anyone who happens to use that phone or call that number. Unlocking one person's encryption code subjects all who electronically communicate with that person to government surveillance. Even obtaining a court warrant does not fix this problem. Electronic eavesdropping cannot be regulated by a warrant precisely because of its dragnet quality; the object to be seized or the premises to be searched cannot be limited or even specified, because it is in the very nature of the technology to catch everything.
In 1927, during the height of federal enforcement of National Alcohol Prohibition, the Court attempted to come to grips with electronic eavesdropping for the first time. Roy Olmstead, a bootlegger convicted entirely on the basis of evidence from wiretaps, argued before the Court that a search had been conducted without a warrant and without probable cause in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. In a 5-4 opinion, the Court ruled that a physical entry (a "trespass") must be committed before the Fourth Amendment's protection could be invoked. Since the wiretaps were physically placed outside Olmstead's home, the Court reasoned, there was no government intrusion and therefore no Fourth Amendment protection. The Olmstead decision defined the law for forty years, and during that period, the government was able to engage in virtually unrestricted electronic spying.
The Olmstead case, by a narrow 5-4 margin, destroyed the original balance of the Fourth Amendment, but it was also the occasion for Justice Louis D. Brandeis' prescient dissent in which he warned that, "The progress of science in furnishing the government with means of espionage is not likely to stop with wire-tapping." Brandeis wrote that because wiretaps indiscriminately pick up every conversation within their reach, they constitute the kind of general search prohibited outright by the Fourth Amendment, and that even a warrant requirement would not give sufficient protection. Unfortunately for our privacy rights, Brandeis' dissent has never been adopted by the Court, although it did overrule its Olmstead decision in 1967 when it belatedly recognized that the Fourth Amendment applied to wiretapping and electronic spying (Katz v. U.S.). Nonetheless, Justice Brandeis' account of the framer's intentions is right on the mark:
"The makers of our Constitution...sought to protect Americans in their
beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations. They
conferred as against the Government, the right to be let alone -- the
most comprehensive of the rights of man and the right most valued by
civilized men."
Cryptography can help shift the balance of the Fourth Amendment back to what the framers originally intended. And that is what the FBI is against.
The government's own records show that electronic surveillance is of marginal utility in preventing or solving serious crimes. It did not, for example, stop or lead to the apprehension of the Unabomber, Timothy McVeigh, or the first World Trade Center bombers. Those crimes were solved by good detective work. Serious crimes of violence, including terrorist crimes, are almost never the targets of electronic surveillance. Electronic surveillance does, however, lead to violations of the privacy rights of vast numbers of innocent Americans. According to the government's own statistics, 2.2 million conversations were intercepted in 1996, of which 1.7 million were deemed innocent by prosecutors.
Electronic surveillance is absolutely inconsistent with a free society. Free citizens must have the ability to conduct instantaneous, direct, spontaneous and private communication using whatever technology is available. Without the assurance that private communications are, indeed, private, habits based upon fear and insecurity will gradually replace habits of freedom.
I sent Mike Honda an email expressing a couple specific concerns: the expansion of wiretap authorization to US Attorneys and the encryption backdoor issue. I requested that he oppose such legislation.
His response was drivel. A little speech about how bad the WTC attack was, and how displeased he was about it.
That is all the evidence I need to ensure he gets no vote from me next time. There isn't any incumbent Congresscritter from California to vote for, since Barbara Boxer is silly anyway, and Feinstein is a co-sponsor of one of these "Terrorism Bad! Government Good!" bills.
If you send mail to your critter, and you get anything intelligent, perhaps you'd post it as a counter-example.
Simply put, the nation is in a state of terror. People are acting irrationally. The law makers and the president are all looking to be the hero. Fear is the tool that terrorists use to take our freedom, contrary to the points of view of what seems to be the many. Some very bad things where done during the arms race out of fear. Things that looking back we know we shouldn't have done. Can we not learn from these lessons?
Point one: Is there any evidence that if the FBI had the ability to listen in on conversations that Tuesday's incident wouldn't have happened?
Point two: Have we considered all possibilities other than self destructing the US Constitution? How about locking the pilots into their cockpit? How about security guards on planes?
I think it is manditory before we knock the foundation out from under America that we at least resolve those two points. If someone died for my freedom, I'ld like their deaths to not be in vane.
Karma Clown
Timeo idiotikOS et dona ferentes
Hello:
As per your thanks for the quote: you're welcome. And I thank you for adding much to my appreciation of Franklin's quote; I actually never thought how much the "essential" meant in his quote until you pointed it out. Thanks again!
On April 19, 1993, the US attorney general ended a standoff near Waco, TX with one of the worst outcomes possible. US Gov action taken during the standoff is universally denounced as reactionary and far from ideal. Forces surrounded a compound of religious extremists for an expensive standoff, during which both sides suffered severe casualties. In 2001, US forces will again surround a group of religious extremists for an expensive conflict, from which nothing will be accomplished other than slaughter and the incitement of millions of similar extremists. The slaughter and enemy-making will be justified by the increased approval rating US politicians will receive as their angry redneck constituents watch people die on television.
/. readers out there with historical knowledge of the American Revolution, it would be interesting to know what kind of "terrorist acts" the rebels performed on the British Empire to help gain their freedom. Muslims that support Osama (and there are many more of them than a few Palenstinians and Afghanis) see themselves the same way American rebels viewed themselves, as victims of an evil empire's imperialistic policies.
No matter how powerful and frightening the US military is, US citizens will never be free from "terrorism" by radicals. As long as an establishment exists, there will be extremist rebels that will attempt to thwart the establishment through violence. Just as the sun creates shadows, authority and power will always create opposition and rebellion. Violent, religion-based exremeists (quite willing to die for their cause) will only grow stronger as their opposition (the authority and power of the US goverment) is exercised.
If there are any
some simple wiretapping. If you are ready to throw the 1984 arguement, you'd better have more than some privacy complaints to back it up...because if that's all you've got, then you haven't READ 1984.
No, Jon, you're wrong. "We need a broader discussion" of that.We hold these truths inalienable, not "balanceable". There are no contradictions. A is not not-A.
It don't confront me what you think, though. It's completely irrelevant.
If you want to do something useful, however, how about lobbying Congress and the Bovernment to use some common sense, like training, deputizing, and arming regular flyers, instead of confiscating fingernail clippers. Apply this simple type of principle everywhere and you'll have no need to aggrandize the already excessive powers of the govt. at the expense of our rights.
Rogue Bolo
It surprises me that the government does not even seem to be asking themselves: will these changes in the law really help us? Do you really believe that a terrorist who's willing to commit suicide by flying himself into the WTC will care whether he'll also be charged with using an encryption method that does not have a backdoor for the American government? Aside from that: why would he/she use plain English? Just use codewords for everything, and no encryption backdoor will do you any good.
The only people affected by these laws are the common (American?) citizens, who suddenly cannot rely on their rights to privacy anymore. If a backdoor exists, then crackers will find it, and all that information you'd like to keep private will be open for all to read...
I'd rather live in the fear of terror than live in terror.
I'ts been said that WTC was an attack on all free democracies and we must defend them with all means.
But doing this by removing all that is free and democratic, namely civilrights, then what's left to defend?
a rabbit returns to the security of a burrow, rather than rant on about it's rights in the face of a fox.
The US is not the rabbit and terrorists not the fox. The US is an elephant, the terrorist a mouse (possibly with ticks). And in the real world, an elephant is not afraid of mice. Perhaps you would rather cower in a burrow. I suggest you move to Iran, which is unlikely to be bombed in the near future by the US or terrorists. Sure, you'll have to give up some freedoms, but you'd be able to feel safe. Just like (Goddards Law time) the Jews who stayed in Germany, since the Jews being rounded up had "probably done somethign to deserve it."
Certainly, we would all be physically safer if we lived in a totalitarian regime with no privacy protection. Would that be worth the cost?
Unfortunately, that is not true. We MIGHT be safer from external threats. But we would be wide open to threats from the members of the regime - both abuse by individual functionaries and institutionalized mayhem.
Historically this has been a recurring theme, with the INternal attacks amassing a body count that dwarfs the extrenal. Consider the Gulags of the Soviet Union, NAZI Germany, the Inquisition, the religious wars throughout Europe just a few hundred years ago, Apartheit, "Ethnic Clensing" in a dozen countries, just to name a few.
The US is far from immune, both historically and recently. The Trail of Tears, the Civil War, the Klan, the Zoot Suit Riots, Ruby Ridge and Waco, again to name a few.
But despite the distortions presented by the media and government-school history, people are far safer in the US than in virtually all other countries. And one of the greatest factors is that when attacked, individually or in mass, they have the ability to fight back. This is by design.
The government can't be everywhere and guard everything and everyone all the time. But every competent adult could easily have his or her own personal armed guard: theirselves.
There is NOTHING magic about the necessary skils. They are easy, quick, and inexpensive to acquire. Police and private guards spend only a few hours learning them. Civilians who chose to go armed generally also chose to train themselves to a far higher standard than that required for police. They have a far better record of defending against "bad guys" and NOT damaging bystanders.
And this is EXACTLY what the founders of the country intended: For the individual citizens to be armed. For them to be their OWN armed guards and their OWN army. So that an armed guard was always available when needed. So that the army was the size of the population. So that the guard and the army always had the citizen's interest, rather than their own or their employer's, as their primary motivation.
The hijacked airliners each had 5 to 6 hijackers and over 50 passengers. If even one in ten of them had been armed the hijackers would never have been able to take down the towers. And if an unknown fraction of the passengers had a habit of traveling armed the hijaclers never would have tried.
But the passengers were NOT armed - even though some of them MIGHT have been able to be armed while going about their daily lives - because the government DISARMED them. And as a result the hijackers were able to convert aircraft into incindeary missiles, and kill over ten thousand people who had NOT chosen to go through the airport search and board the ill-fated planes.
Clinton talked of 10,000 new policemen - even though his program produced nothing of the sort. But if relegalizing concealed carry resulted in even 10% of the population chosing to carry, you're talking over 20,000,000 do-it-yourself armed guards, "working" double shifts, scattered quite evenly through the population (and concentrated at potential trouble spots).
Experience with CCW shows that such people are far less of a danger to each other than professionals would be (even in the total absense of official misconduct). But can you imagine a small band of terrorists trying to pull something in such an environment?
And with that level of physical security who needs wiretaps?
(I'd go into that subject too, but I have to take off now.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
The problem of protecting a nation does not truly lie in the scope of a government.
The government may orchestrate this defense in a time of full scale conventional war, but, it will never be able to cope with the granularity required to stop one dedicated person causing horrifying harm.
That responsibility lies with the people. And it's a responsibility that happens when the questions of personal rights stop being considered.
The example that displays this most, is the one of the plane where the passengers voted to try to overpower the hijackers.
Not all laws and regulations in the world could force a group of human beings to stand up, and take responsibility for a greater number of other lives, at a likely complete cost to themselves.
Each of those who stood up, as individuals taking responsibility for the protection of the lives of countless others, as free people, did, and always will have more power to protect the world from greater harm than any government passing gargantuan laws and restricting freedom.
I think it's something understood by almost every doctor, nurse, fireman, policeman, and so on...
Sometimes, bad things happen. Nothing could stop them happening.. But when free people stand up, and take responsibility for the lives of others, the magnitude of these disasters is vastly reduced.
Sometimes, acting early can prevent the whole thing. Not always, but sometimes..
With the larger plans of terror, part of the planning is to make sure you operate in a manner that nobody knows what you plan. For every restriction on communication, then there will be one of myriads of ways of communicating that those who wish ill will stop using, at least blatantly. It will not, however, stop them communicating.
The solution of safety to travel and work, and live isn't, and never will be, in the realms of the powers of any Government, no matter how many measures are taken, or how strict the police state.
It's not a question of telling the children of those that were lost that the action being taken is to remove the freedom of many in an effort to prevent this kind of thing. That's tantamount to telling them they're useless, and there's nothing they can do. It's to let them know that they can help prevent it happening again, and they matter in the world. They may be a single person, but many single people with a common wish are what changes the world. When everyone has the wish to protect others, that's when you'll really be safe. Not when a government tells you.
I apoligise in advance, if this post offends any who are affected by the devastation. I just see the true heroes and the people who made the most difference are the people who stood up, and tried their best to help. No amount of bullets and bombs and political posturing will ever do as much good as those individual souls acting together for the benefit of all.
That's just the way I feel.
Malk
We need to get out from under this rock that GW has put our country.
We've been under a rock for a lot longer than the last eight months. While I agree with the rest of your point, I don't think this has anything to do with the current administration.
Nope, no sig
Watch and see if we ever get back a right that we lose. I doubt it, personally. I am willing to wait through longer lines and whatnot to get through enhanced airport security, but I am not happy at the concept that every minute of my life may be scrutinized. But hey, they say that if I have nothing to hide, I have nothing to fear...
They are people going to a site to see photos of the worst terrorist attack in the known universe. Talk about begging the question.
A more accurate poll would be: Do you favor banning freedom of speech, public distribution of all your personal data, criminal, medical and sexual history, with no ability to correct inaccurate information, nor the ability to sue those who discriminate against you based on that data; without the right to know who has seen that data; and without the ability to perform those same audits on others, such as those who create, maintain or contribute to these databases?
It's the same thing.
Crisis and Leviathan is a book by Robert Higgs that looks at how government power grows during crises, and does not shrink back nearly as much when the crise is over.
I'll take the liberty of quoting an Amazon reader review:
Reviewer: Donald J. Boudreaux from Irvington-on-Hudson, NY:
Robert Higgs is a first-rate economist and economic historian who sets out a provocative thesis -- namely, that governments exploit crises (real and fabricated) as excuses to grow and to strip people of their wealth and liberties. Higgs skillfully and carefully tests this thesis against history. The thesis stands. Governments do indeed exploit crises as opportunities to confiscate ever-greater powers. After each crisis, the amount of power recently added to government's stock might shrink somewhat, but very seldom back to what it was prior to the crisis. This is one of the most important and compelling books published during the 1980s.
When the heck did these millions die for civil liberties?
Some civil rights maybe...but I don't the dead much give a flying fuck about your telephone privacy.
Technically, they are NOT willing to sacrifice themselves for their beliefs. They are willing to kill others for their beliefs, then disappear into death to hide from the repercussions. THERE IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE. It is the difference between the Taliban Government, a group that enforces DRESS CODES with lethality, and my country, that tries to avoid bloodshed and make the best humane decision.
Never, ever, ever, EVER, admire someone who is a butcher. Does anyone admire the fact that Stalin and Hitler killed so many people, based on their religious beliefs? The Muslims in power in the Taliban regime, and the terrorists that are being bankrolled by them are killing American citizens because they are majority Christian. That is all. They see no other dileniations in life. Muslim or infidel. They care about nothing else. They would go door to door and kill your children if they could. They are insulated from reasoning. Just like Hitler and Stalin were insulated from reasoning. Good luck pansies. They are not going to give up, ever. Better learn how to fight or learn how to run... because they will actively try to kill you, FOREVER. You can't re-train a group of feral dogs. You have to shoot them. Or let them eat you. I may be a Christian, but I am not going to let these bastards eat us. If this President will not solve the problem, then the American people will get a new one who will in four years. Just keep in mind that you can't reason with these people, and that all of this negotiation is to let the pansy parts of the world feel good about it, until they blow up their country too. Guess what, we're not the only ones. They better get tough too, or deal with it.
I don''t shop at walmart, and I don't give personal information to anyplace I do shop.
Last time I checked, Wal/Kmart couldn't compel me to make a list of my political affiliations before I could buy a 12 pack of tube socks.
And Walmart can send you to jail. Try walking out with a pack of tube socks and about 50 pounds worth of their jewelry without paying. Their word vs. yours = you go to jail.
Historically, we have used temporary laws to get us through tought times (WW2 rationing laws being an excellent example). I personally do not oppose temporary restrictions, but I have heard nobody talk about temporary solutions and writing up laws that self-expire. Everything I have heard so far has been in regard to permanent laws as a reaction to the attack. Perhaps I have missed this key point amid all the rhetoric, but I don't think our legislators have anything temporary in mind.
And while our attention is directed with pin-point accuracy to the deaths that occurred in the WTC attack, let us not forget that thousands die every year in the US by our own hands. Just not all at once and in the same place.
A coworker and I were arguing the issues around curtailing liberties and he said, "What if reading everybody's e-mail kept you from being killed tonight? Would you allow it?" My response: "I have an excellent chance of being killed every day during my drive to and from the office. Giving the government access to my e-mail isn't going to change that."
Chances are, I would not be as defensive about my liberties if I felt the government always acted with sanity and didn't try to overrun the Constitution every chance it got. If I trusted the government, perhaps I would be granting it more lenience in my concerns and arguments. But I don't. I've seen it act in the best interest of ratings and newsbites. I've seen it claim to defend democracy and freedom in the pursuit of oil (if only Tibet had oil fields, we would have liberated it from China). I've seen it decide that the morality of the few was so important that it deserved the censorship of all (the CDA). And you want me to trust this government now that they have been handed a tragic scepter that grants them temporary kingship?
Sorry. I can't do that. Of any time in recent history, now is the time to be most vigilant when it comes to watching what our government does in response to this awful attack. Make sure that what they propose to do will actually increase safety instead of simply increasing the mass belief that safety has been achieved (there is a crucial difference there).
Thank you for calling me a gun nut. The hijackers would never have attempted this particular set of actions had they known the people on the plane could easily defend themselves. You can decry it as disgusting (to you) Monday morning coaching whatever. But what/ifs/might of beens would have been totally avoided since the terrorists who planned very carefully would not have taken the course of action they did on Tuesday had regular people not been in a position of helplessness. They would have chosen somthing entirely diferent as their modus operandi.
I would not be surprised at all to see any new wire tapping, internet surveillance, etc, used against ordinary citizens. Here's a very real scenario:
government surveillance of unions and activist groups under the guise of "terrorist threat." That's right. The next time the WTO/IMF circus comes to town, expect all your rights to fly out the window. And why limit it to just the times the G-8 huntin' buddies are in your neck of the woods? I would imagine constant watch of unions would be necessary (to make sure they are not secretly funding bottle throwing black bloc anarchists, err... terrorists).
Of course what could be the harm of worker's unions being spyed on by Bush Inc?
All he needs to do is shoot at any of the windows and you're in a virtually uncontrollable 28,000 foot free-fall.
This is a common misconception. Airplanes do not stop being airplanes due to a cabin depressurization. Yes, the first thing you will notice after such a depressurization is a rapid loss of altitude. This is caused by the pilots' training - they will attempt to get the plane down to 12,000 ft. asap to provide sufficient oxygen for the passengers. Other than that, the plane would very happily fly along unpressurized (ex: Payne Stewarts plane went hundreds of miles after a decompression. They died because they were over 40,000 ft. high and there is no time to react when that high. It's a different story at airliner altitudes in the low 30's where there is a good number of seconds to react).
Karma: Professionally Doomed (mostly affected by inability to keep opinions to self)
September 18, 2001
... than in 1990."
... you'll be fighting all Islam."
Major Business News
Middle Eastern Support for U.S.
Is Far From Certain, Bush Finds
By HUGH POPE
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates -- Contrary to first appearances, President Bush may find it far more difficult to build a coalition in the Arab world for a broad "crusade" against terrorism than his father did as he set about reversing the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait 11 years ago.
If the U.S. response to last week's lethal airline hijacks is limited to an attack against suspected bases of Saudi dissident Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan, all may yet be well. But even so-called moderate Arab states in the region are likely to resist a broader U.S.-led effort.
The pro-Western United Arab Emirates, for instance, has made an unprecedented vow to take part in a focused military action against terrorist targets, and says it will even reconsider its ties to Afghanistan's Taliban regime, which is protecting Mr. bin Laden. But the UAE wants something in return: "We require, too, that your governments should work in a parallel and effective way to ensure a just and lasting peace in the Middle East," UAE Foreign Minister Sheik Hamdan bin Zayed Al Nahyan told envoys of North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Russia and China Sunday.
Such Arab formulations -- empty rhetoric in the past -- have now become an important fault line between the U.S. and the generally pro-Western Arab states of the region. The support of these states -- the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Bahrain, Qatar and Kuwait on the Persian Gulf; Jordan, Egypt and Morocco further afield -- will be key to the legitimacy of any U.S. enterprise in the region. Saudi Arabia alone commands more than one quarter of the world's oil reserves.
"International efforts to combat terrorism must also deal with the state terrorism practiced by Israel," said a blunt editorial on Sunday in the Saudi newspaper al-Jazira, which reflects official thinking.
In fact, diplomats say, the opposite may happen. After its latest experience, the U.S. looks even less likely than before to restrain Israel, the Mideast country it feels closest to, especially when Israel justifies its actions against Palestinians as punishment for or deterrence against suicide bombings.
This divergence of views is one reason that Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, leader of the most populous Arab state, says he won't join any antiterror coalition unless it is under the aegis of the United Nations, not the U.S. -- even though he receives $2 billion in U.S. aid every year.
"Watching CNN, you get the impression the Arabs are coming through [for the U.S.]. They aren't," said Joseph Teitelbaum, a Tel Aviv University professor and the author of a book on the Islamist opposition in Saudi Arabia. "I think the U.S. is going to find it more difficult
A major change has taken place in the key state of Saudi Arabia since power shifted to Crown Prince Abdullah, Mr. Teitelbaum said. This happened after the heart attack that King Fahd suffered in 1995. "Fahd was seen as doing the blind bidding of the United States," he said. "But Abdullah has made peace with the Islamist opposition. He has made his peace with Iran."
All over the Arab world, an outpouring of sympathy for Americans has often been qualified with a reflexive twinge of satisfaction that the U.S. was at last paying a price for its strong support of Israel and its insistence on sanctions against Iraq, Libya, Syria and other states.
"I disapprove of those displays of happiness. But it was not because of what happened. It was a feeling that people in the top country of the world can now know the same feelings that people here have had for years and years," said Omar Bahlaiwa, a commerce official in Riyadh.
One word has made matters worse. President Bush's talk of a Christian-style "crusade" has sent hackles rising all over this conservative, deeply Muslim part of the Arab world. The label spread quickly over Arabic forums on the Internet, bringing up associations with the bloody European-Christian occupation of Jerusalem and what is now Israel for much of the 12th century.
"This is a dangerous word," Mr. Bahlaiwa said. "Most Saudis don't see these suicide hijackings as an 'Islamic' act. But this takes me back to the Middle Ages, to all-out religious war
Write to Hugh Pope at hugh.pope@wsj.com
i would give me life for freedom. Freedom to live does not exist.
As it happens, this is Hollywood movie fiction rather than the actual physics of the situation. Sorry.
There were two partial victories that day: because of them, the White House and the Capitol are intact (but rather the Pentagon and some Pennsylvania countryside were hit). The only thing that could have saved the World Trade Towers would have been passengers willing to take out the terrorists (hopefully with weapons adequate to the task) -- ESR is right about that. And (as others have observed), if this had been tried during the forties or fifties, the passengers would have been a lot more willing to take on the terrorists than they are now.
Treat it as an ecology-modeling problem, with populations of terrorists and citizens, with some fraction of the latter armed. Under all realistic initial conditions (citizen population much larger than terrorist population), where the armed fraction is positive, the terrorists get killed off and the situation assymptotically tends to negligible terrorist activity. The bloody-minmded way to think about is is that quite a bit of damage may be done while achieving this limit, but (realistically) you do run out of terrorists before running out of citizens.
And this admittedly-oversimplified kind of model ignores an important psychological impact: the last thing a terrorist wants to do is to appear stupid and futile:
"My opinions are my own, and I've got *lots* of them!"
Let's not go overboard here. This past Sunday I watched ABC's "This Week", featuring an interview with the U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft.
If you listen to what Mr. Ashcroft is specifically asking for, it is simply for the ability to let law enforcement authorities have the ability to tap phone conversations by individual rather than by an idividual phone number.
The main problem is that people have many phone numbers these days, plus when a suspect moves from county to county within the U.S., new wiretap warrants must be processed. A criminal could simply move every day or so and escape law enforcement official indefinitely.
For a transcript of John Ashcroft's news conferences, and to see specifically what he is after regarding new wiretap legislation, see the Department of Justice website.
Thanks.
I'm a 2000 man.
It is ironic in the extreme that G. W. Bush and other government leaders here are calling last week's attack an attack on Liberty, and at the same time asking us as Americans to sacrifice some of our freedoms in the name of "National Security". Ask yourself who is attacking liberty in this country.
The attack on the WTC was clearly an attack on a capitalistic system run amok. Our government places a higher priority on corporate profits and greed than it does on human rights and freedoms. We export this system throughout the world. The WTO protests in Seattle were a precursor to this. Do not fool yourself. American Capitalism was the subject of last week's terrorist attacks. As the preserver of that system, our own government seeks to restrict our freedoms.
Our government already has tremedous power to preserve National Security. The secret FISA court already has extensive authority to order wiretaps, read email, and perform physical searches to combat terrorism and preserve 'National Security'. Did those powers prevent the attacks? The NSA has a huge black budget. Did they see this coming? And what sort of intelligence did the CIA provide us with? Did our already stringent airport security (served up by $5.25/ hr security) prevent anything? It seems to me banning guns would make this country a lot safer than banning butter knives on airplanes.
The reality is that terrorists use primitive methods. Sure, they may use technology like encryption and email to communicate, but who doesn't? Those technologies are not critical to their operations. We have not seen any evidence that any such technologies were used in these attacks. All we know is box-cutters and airplanes were used. Should we ban those? The human body can be an extremely effective weapon when properly trained in the martial arts. Are we going to ban humans from airplanes next?
Modern life is so complex, we cannot eliminate all the possible dangers and threats. As we eliminate one path, another will be found. A motivated and intelligent asssailant will always be able to do harm to others. As much as we might like to, we cannot turn our world into a Playskool world for adults.
When America starts World War III, far more than 5,000 Americans will give their lives to the cause. Many, many more innocent civilians of other nations will give theres. Will there be any winner to such a war? I can think of only one: the military-industrial complex. For them, war is good business.
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
~Mahatman Gandhi
Many of the laws that abut privacy and public saftey and policy are from a time where the infrastructure was built owned and operated by the government. Think roads, bridges, canals. Think the early days of the net. Flash forward and much of the infrastructure is private like the phone systems, the internet now, private databases, ariline ticket systems, weblogs and so on. So the question you have to ask yourself is just exactly who does the expansion of these government privileges to search and monitor help? Does it help them, does it help WalMArt, does it help WorldCom, does it help you? Sometimes those are tricky questions. Now certainly there is some merit to changing the wiretapping law to follow a PERSON insead of a FIXED NUMBER but what is the new context for requesting a wiretap at all? Suspicion? Someone else's vague reference to what might be you, online? The movement of your car tracked by Onstar? A cell phone call sent or received somewhere in the vicinity of your home? Those are tough questions. And partially the answer has to do with how will such and such actually help.
I still maintain that you have to follow the money. Is there not some direct benefit to be gained in breaking open international banking secrecy laws so that Swiss, Cayman, Panamanian banks can't launder the money used to kill people. And is not that benefit at least as great as the benefit to be gained by applying open ended survellience on large segments of a profiled population?
There may well be countries in the world that sacrifice virgins to the volcano god, or execute people on the spot for insulting a police officer. I'm not one to feel grateful because someone else is worse off than me.
It is not enough that I can post an anti-government comment on slashdot. The whole enchilada, and nothing less, is required. There can be no compromise here, essentially because there is absolutely no one in the universe with the LEGITIMATE authority to make me compromise. There are plenty of people who can effectively take away my freedoms (Jessica Alba), but my post was about the fact that people already have the concept in mind. As long as people are forced to compromise on this then there will be potential for revolution or terrorism, and we should minimize this potential not give it food by forcefully curtailing individual freedoms.
Samsung took back my unlocked bootloader because Google wants me to rent movies. They're both evil.
how the FUCK does a post like this get moderated down? you moderators are fucking retards.
This argument seems to avoid taking a causal/historical perspective to the problem.
Understanding the cause of a disease is the best way to cure it. We only have one world. We can't hide from the fact that people can turn to violence if their emotions are not under control of their intellect. Like it or not, there is a threshold of freedoms people can do away with before the incremental security gained is no BETTER than CHANCE, averaged over all the population and ALL events, natural or man-made. And that applies to victim AND aggressor.
The terrible events of the past week were enacted by (admittedly evil) forces for which the historical causes are rather well known: geopolitical chess games of the West, in which ideologies of another culture were used to serve one's own self interest in that region by converting insecurity of OTHER peoples into extreme ideological positions SUITED to a war in which U.S was one of the beneficiaries.
Who is the cause: a neighboring school's child who commits a crime against our children or we, the teacher, who train and incited them to commit crimes against their OTHER neighbor (and "suddenly" realize that the child possesses a GENERIC capability to commit crime when it hits US)?
I'm wondering what will happen to all the weapons that U.S sells to the world, if there are no outside buyers? Or what people will do when the possibility of un-warrant-ed intrusions into their private lives limit their ability to SPEAK freely of ideas, wishes, dreams, nightmares etc. Will we lose in arts and free flow of expression what we gain in material comfort?
Immigrants know that the US is the best place to go, unless you like the cold, which makes it Canada.
They know what non-open and non-free politcal regime life is. Most Americans are lucky enough not to know that fear, which is why they don't fear it like they should.
If Bush were President for Life, we would have a more continuous governmental rule, which would make everything "safer" according to the CIA, etc.
Do you support that?
Banning refined sugar, much less tobacco, alcohol, caffeine, guns, knives, rocks, sticks, fists or jet fuel, would save 400,000 lives a year from heart disease, diabetes, etc. It would also improve the visual appeal of much of the population.
Do you support that?
If you don't support bannign EVERYTHING, practicaly/enforcable or not, then please shut the hell up. I have stuff I want banned - religious views being voiced by government officials or loudmouthed neighbors - you have stuff you want banned - free speech, human rights of others, etc.
Neither is suitable. I don't pretend mine is, you should do the same.
Jon, this article seems like your attempt to turn face after being the heel for so many months.
You "journalists" are nothing more than wrestlers without the color--you embrace current trends, and seek to maximize your connection to them by your "expert" opinions, all to get the harangues or allocades of the commonweal you constantly, if secretly, hold in contempt.
NO RIGHTS SHOULD BE GIVEN TO *ANY* GOVERNMENT THAT THE PEOPLE ALREADY POSSESS. It is not "knee-jerk" to be alarmed about the discussion of banning crypto, increased wiretaps, etc. in a response to an event that literally billions people live in fear with already. The fact that this crime has come home to America is what this is *really* about. And weak, pandering, and, yes, un-American deep thinkers like you try to give away WHAT PEOPLE DIED FOR LONG BEFORE YOU WERE BORN. (Yes, crypto is new, but so are surveilence satellites. The Man has *plenty* of tools; one should *really* be asking why a "former" CIA asset has such an extensive network in an allegedly foriegn and hostile land.)
If you're not seeking to hold the line, then you're little more than a Stormtrooper in service to the New World Order.
You seem to contradict yourself within a single sentence:
Everybody was so terrified by the all-powerful police that crime was almost non-existent.
Are you saying the police never engaged in a little recreational brutality, rape, bribery, thievery, knowing that nobody would dare call them up on it? I don't mean to disregard your feelings on what must have been a terrible situation many times, but if you were safe, why were you terrified? Somehow that just doesn't sound "safe" to me.
Miko
Miko O'Sullivan
Why do I get this feeling that Slashdotter's calls for absolute freedom have to do with being able to anonymously download pornography & copywrited files or programs. It's like a child trying not to get caught instead of just obeying the laws....
September 14, 2001
America in the Eyes of the Arab World: A Complex Mix of Emotions Fuels Hate U.S. Is Resented for Its Power, 'Godless Materialism', Revered for Its Democracy, Principles of Due Process
By Peter Waldman, Stephen J Glain, Robert S. GReenberger, Hugh Pope, and Steve Levine
Staff Reporters of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
Among the many questions smoldering in the ruins left by this week's terrorist attack is this: What possibly could have driven 18 presumably young hijackers, all of them now believed to be of Mideast origin, to sacrifice their lives in a mission to kill so many faceless Americans?
Answers may well surface someday, in elaborately detailed last wills and testaments prepared, often on videotape, by most Islamic suicide bombers. Until then, Americans are left to ponder the image of themselves in Islamic cultures arrayed from Morocco to Pakistan, societies with abiding differences among themselves yet with an increasingly shared antipathy toward the U.S., experts say.
This resentment is deeper and more complex than mere hatred of the U.S. for its support of Israel, say Arabs and Mideast scholars, though the daily images of embattled Palestinians on satellite TV have certainly fueled Islamic rage. Anti-Americanism has also taken root among well-educated middle-class professionals and businesspeople in the Arab and Muslim worlds, born of frustrations much closer to home: the perception that unlimited American power is responsible for propping up hated, oppressive regimes.
The Arab-Israeli conflict, in this sense, is a surrogate in many places for the discontent that people feel with their own governments. Because it is dangerous in most Muslim countries to express or act upon such political frustrations, people lash out at the U.S. and Israel instead.
And in places like the Gaza Strip, Egypt and Pakistan, there is a ready supply of poor and desperate young men to provide the blood and brawn for terrorism, Mideast experts say. Yet it takes the encouragement and support of better-heeled elements of society -- bankers in Cairo and Bahrain, say, or doctors and lawyers in Algiers and Islamabad -- to make suicide bombing acceptable.
"I've been bombarded all week with e-mails and calls from friends throughout the Muslim world who've expressed their outrage at what's happened here," says John Esposito, a Georgetown University professor who runs the school's Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding. "But what's struck me is how many of them have also said they hope America will now take a closer look at its foreign policy. Many are businesspeople who deal with the U.S. all the time but who feel our presence in the region, especially in the Gulf, is forcing economic and military dependency. A great deal of disappointment involves their own rulers."
The main political grievance is well-known, frequently aired in the region's media: America's alleged double standard in defending Israel's occupation of Arab lands while continuing to hit Iraq with economic sanctions and military attacks for what some Muslims consider essentially the same behavior. For many Arabs and Muslims, this humiliating disparity is compounded by the fact that so many of their own authoritarian rulers have not only acquiesced in this state of affairs but also actively helped maintain it by cooperating with the U.S. military.
Then, when Muslim countries such as Algeria, Jordan and Egypt attempt to elect parliamentary representatives -- often Islamic fundamentalists -- who challenge the regimes' pro-U.S. stance, their rulers thwart democracy with hardly a protest by a U.S. government fearful of change.
Enter the late Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran, Saddam Hussein of Iraq or Osama bin Laden, now in Afghanistan -- men, in the eyes of their followers, not afraid to resist U.S. hegemony and thus lionized by many Arabs and Muslims.
"Osama definitely touched a nerve, even among people who don't agree with his methods," says Philip Robins, a Mideast expert at Oxford University. "The U.S. would be well advised to try to think of the way it conducts itself internationally, at the U.N., at the way it presents itself to the world."
Mr. Robins says the U.S., in Mideastern minds, conjures up "an undifferentiated ball of different emotions" -- it is both resented for its power and "godless materialism" and revered for its democracy and principles of due process.
That's why the U.S. arouses such passion and anger in the Muslim world, among all segments of society: The realpolitik of its diplomacy, particularly in the oil-soaked Mideast, has seldom lived up to its cherished ideals. An oft-heard lament from Arabs and Muslims is: Why, if equality and freedom are so important in the West, doesn't the U.S. stand up for them in the Muslim world?
Implicit in that question is one of the cruelest ironies of this week's wanton bloodshed: that America has been victimized by the exalted expectations it instilled in others. "We are sorry about the civilian victims, and cannot but condemn this terrorist act," wrote the London-based Arabic newspaper al-Quds al-Arabi in an editorial this week. "But we call upon American citizens to ask, why among all the embassies, buildings and defense establishments of all the Western powers, it is theirs that are targeted by terrorist actions?"
The heart of the matter is pride, say Mideast scholars, the pride of Muslim peoples who know from their religion, history and traditions they were once a dominant civilization but who now feel subjugated by an American superpower they regard as culturally shallow and by what they see as its warship, Israel. Many Arabs and Muslims feel the normal ways societies pick themselves up -- developing their economies, renewing their governments -- aren't available to them, again because the U.S. has propped up oppressive regimes.
Take Jordan, for example, one of the U.S.'s closest Mideast allies and a country that has been thought since its peace with Israel nearly a decade ago to have bright economic prospects. Yet as its population has grown nearly 3% a year, its economy has barely kept up.
"Economic malaise is becoming a permanent condition," says Labib Kamhawi, an opposition member of Jordan's parliament.
This year, Jordan's King Abdullah circulated a memo to members of his royal family ordering them to "avoid overspending and accumulating debts." Some Jordanians believed that the notice smacked of a public-relations gimmick to make the monarchy sound frugal. The rest of the population, meanwhile, is so uncreditworthy that most merchants refuse to even accept checks. For decades, Jordan and its monarchs have been recipients of direct and covert U.S. aid.
"I have six lawyers and can arrest people who write rubber checks," says Abdulmajeed Shoman, the chairman of Arab Bank, Jordan's largest bank. "Not everyone else can do that."
Write to Peter Waldman at peter.waldman@wsj.com, Stephen J. Glain at stephen.glain@wsj.com, Robert S. Greenberger at bob.greenberger@wsj.com, Hugh Pope at hugh.pope@wsj.com and Steve LeVine at steve.levine@wsj.com
Or if your son was detained and accidentally killed for fitting the profile of a known criminal archetype. That applies to most black male kids for about 10 years of their lives. We have rules to prevent that from happening, and it still does.
Arab kids have it much worse right now, though hopefully people like you will eventually learn better and that indiscriminate bias will stop.
you are a sick motherfucker
I hope you get fired when a customer complains there are no pickles on their big mac
-- www.globaltics.net
Political discussion for a new world
DEPORTATION is not imprisonment!
Not really-- we've given up lots of convenience with the new FAA regs, but not gotten one iota more security than we had before.
Under the new rules, a terrorist could *still* get on board with knives (say, obsidian blades taped to their body). So we are in just as much danger today as we were two weeks ago.
Of course, the outcome of pulling a knife on an airplane will be different. I don't know of anyone who wouldn't tackle and pummel someone idiotic enough to try that now.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
My druthers would be to draw the line between Timothy McVie's and Osama bin Laden's crew, precisely in this way: Citizenship should continue to have its full privileges, in so far as technologically possible. Noncitizens, however, should be segregated in at least the following ways: (1) no university study in sensitive areas unless they are full citizens of absolutely friendly countries which share the fundamentals of our culture, (2) no right to operate a motor vehicle, (3) full strip search before any use of public transport as at least a random possibility, (4) no right to use unsurveilled communications or encryption over communications. Because citizens' rights can be preserved at the cost of further raising the borders to non-citizens, let's do it!
Sure, we'll get occassional local kooks doing harm. That may be the acceptable cost of freedom - sometimes a few score of lives, but not thousands. For the freedom of the road, we also tolerate traffic deaths. The difference with foreigners is that the cost of lack of vigilence there is as demonstrated in the thousands. Curtailing citizens' freedoms to stop this is like poisoning the rats to keep away the wolves, at best.
Yes, we're an immigrant country. Every country has been beyond our original home in Africa. Our borders are much too open, especially to those from cultures that don't share the values of civilization. To remedy that there are two things to do: (1) spread the values of civilization, yes, even in a crusade and (2) close the borders to those without our values.
Okay, now show how this is wrong, how we can preserve both the rights of citizens and the rights we have so far generously granted to foreigners. Because if it's a choice, I think we ought to preserve the rights of citizens which establish the foundation for our social and material civilization, without which foreigners wouldn't be attracted here anyway. So let's largely lock them out until they attain civilized maturity. Again, these are dark thoughts. But far darker the thought of taking from ourselves our own hard-earned liberties.
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
Do we need to give up liberties or encourage our intelligence agencies to read global newspapers. If I'm not mistaken Bin Laden forwarned us. Why didn't we listen?
Let's not forget that in world war II, the government /asked/ us not to travel and to ease up on certain kinds of foods to save resources for the troops. We also suspended production of automobiles, among other things. No one is proud of what happened to Japanese and German-Americans, but please, I'm talking about something completely different: let's not forget that war is all about sacrifices, and I think trading a little privacy for safety is a perfectly fair tradeoff.
I'm sick of that bullshit 'if we change our way of life then the terrorists have won' bullshit too. Newsflash people: it's all changed, you'll never sprint through an airport 8 minutes before takeoff.
Thank god the crybabies who consistently misquote Jefferson and Franklin's thoughts on liberty and safety didn't have pseudo-intellectual message boards back in WWII...you think Franklin and Jefferson foresaw this?...Quit quoting them. I repeat, it's all changed.
I personally don't think the government has the resources to really 'profile' each of us based on an analysis of our emails and communications, not to the extent that say, a corporation does. Sure, they'll flag our files if we quote the Koran and talk shit in chat rooms, but really, that's just going to catch the sloppy terrorists...and so what if they do keep files on us? We enjoy more freedom and liberties than practically anyone on the planet, and we're worried that this is a prelude to McCarthyism? Please. Go visit any other country in the world and let me know if they have a better plan.
A family friend (in his 50's) lives in Norway and he is a reservist who happened to be trained in Planning and Management in case of a national emergency (the reasoning is that he's too old to actually fight). He's been called up! A wealthy successful man with kids, and he doesn't mind a bit doing this to protect his way of life...yet here we all are, debating as to whether or not every human has an inalienable right to hushmail.
September 18, 2001
Business and Finance - Europe
Affluent Egyptians in Cairo Gloat Over Attacks While Eating Big Macs
By YAROSLAV TROFIMOV
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
CAIRO, Egypt -- As the Bush administration works to draw moderate Arab states into its coalition against terrorism, it must consider the mood at a gleaming McDonald's outlet here on Arab League Street, a cosmopolitan avenue in a well-heeled neighborhood of Cairo.
Sandwiched between a Rolex watch store and a BMW car dealership, the restaurant is packed with affluent university students dressed in American garb and aware of the billions of dollars in foreign aid that the U.S. has pumped into Egypt. It's the sort of place where one would expect to find sympathy for the American cause.
But listen to what they're saying.
Sitting under a poster advertising "Crispy and Delicious McWings," Radwa Abdallah, an 18-year-old university student, is explaining that she rejoiced when she learned that thousands of Americans had probably died in the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. "Everyone celebrated," Ms. Abdallah says, as her girlfriends giggle. "People honked in the streets, cheering that finally America got what it truly deserved."
Fellow student Raghda El Mahrouqi agrees: "I just hope there were a lot of Jews in that building," she says. Sherihan Ammar, an aspiring doctor in elaborate makeup and tight T-shirt, sums up her feelings this way: "America was just too full of itself," she says with a dismissive gesture.
Many Americans and Europeans have been shocked by television footage of Palestinians celebrating the terrorist attacks. But such feelings are hardly limited to Palestinians who live on the West Bank and Gaza and find themselves, all too often, looking down the barrels of American-made weapons. A trip around the capital of Egypt, one of America's main Mideast allies and the biggest Muslim recipient of U.S. foreign aid, shows that educated, relatively wealthy and seemingly Americanized Arabs just as openly express their joy at the carnage in the U.S.
Those sentiments, shared by about half of several dozen people interviewed in Cairo, also provide a clue to the motives of the hijackers themselves. They, too, appear to have come from relatively well-to-do families and had little in common with the desperate and usually uneducated Palestinians who make up most of the suicide bombers in Israel.
Although all Arab governments except Iraq's have condemned the U.S. attacks, the prevailing view even among those horrified by the killings is that what happened in New York and Washington isn't all that different from what America itself has inflicted on Iraqis, Palestinians, Sudanese and other Muslims. That sentiment isn't limited to Arab states, either: Opinion surveys conducted in Greece, a NATO ally, indicate that anywhere between 5% and 17% of those polled believe that the U.S. somehow "deserved" the attacks, according to the Greek media.
In the Arab world, public opinion doesn't have the same importance as in the West: No Arab ruler has to worry about winning Western-style elections. But there's only so much that the region's governments can do to help the U.S. without risking serious upheaval at home. "Any Arab country that will ally itself with the U.S. will incur public-opinion losses, and will see its stability undermined," warns Gehad Auda, professor of international relations at Egypt's Helwan University.
Irritation with American foreign policy runs right through Egyptian society. Sameh Ashour, head of the influential Egyptian Lawyers Association, greets visitors in a building whose facade is draped with a black banner that reads, "Jerusalem Calls! Where Are the Muslims?" He dismisses the attacks in New York and Washington as a "natural result" of American foreign policy. "The U.S. itself practices terrorism when this suits it around the world," he says, "and tries to prevent terrorism when it doesn't suit it."
Mohammed Tantawi, editor of the government-controlled Akhbar Al-Youm newspaper, wrote this weekend that the attacks should be seen as a rather ordinary event. After all, he wrote, "thousands of innocent people, including many children, women and elderly citizens are being killed every day" in Palestinian territories by U.S.-supplied Israeli jets.
This might be a gross exaggeration: About 630 Palestinians, including gunmen and suicide bombers, were killed in the 12 months since the latest round of the Palestinian uprising began, while Israel counts about 170 deaths among its own. But that's exactly how the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is perceived by many in the Arab world. That perception is fueled by independent Arabic-language satellite TV channels, which tend to give gruesome details of Palestinian suffering and pay scant attention to victims on the Israeli side.
Even in thoroughly Western-oriented countries like Morocco, a nation far removed from the Israeli-Palestinian struggle and a one-time applicant to join the old European Community, many voice sneaking admiration for the terrorists. In a convenience store in Er Rachidia, a sand-swept town at the threshold of the Sahara, the first television images of the World Trade Center towers engulfed in smoke were greeted with a roar of approval. "Of course we are happy," says the storekeeper as he invited a group of foreigners to stop and watch the news.
In Marrakech, the hub of Morocco's tourist industry, reactions were only a little more guarded. "What happened is a terrible thing for all the people involved," says Abdou Hamaoui, a 29-year-old civil engineer sipping a glass of lemon Schweppes at the Cafe Glacier on the main square of the city's old town. "But the U.S. government deserves this."
Herwig Bartels, a former German ambassador to Morocco who now runs the lavish Riad El Cadi inn, says that sentiment reflects "a very strong resentment toward American politics, which is fuelled daily by television reports showing Palestinians being killed." He thinks initial jubilation among Moroccans has waned "now [that] people have seen the civilian side of the attacks." Yet he's still bracing for a drastic decline in American tourists.
Back in Cairo, those cheering America's loss in Cairo see no contradiction with the fact that they also eat American foods, wear American clothes and watch American movies -- nor with the fact that their country receives $2 billion (2.17 billion euros) in U.S. aid each year. "It's OK to eat at McDonald's because it is managed by Egyptians," says Ms. Abdallah, the 18-year-old university student. "But in general, I do try to avoid American companies -- because, you know, every Saturday they give money to the Jews."
In an outdoor cafe a short drive away, Ahmed Ahmad Tarif, a 21-year-old business-administration student, is wearing a Nike T-shirt. He bought it, he says, because it's good quality, even though he believes that "America stands for racism and for being against freedom and democracy."
Fellow student Ahmed Hussein, bespectacled and with a thin mustache, reflects for a moment when asked about U.S. economic assistance for Egypt. "The money we receive from America and the hatred we feel for America are two separate things," he finally says, "and should not be mixed together."
--Alessandra Galloni in Marrakech, Morocco, contributed to this article.
Write to Yaroslav Trofimov at yaroslav.trofimov@wsj.com.
Hi, I like your post, can I redistribute it, intact or otherwise? Thanks...
Actually, that's an urban legend.
Extra text to beat the @#$! postercomment compression filter. Taco, learn to code, OK?
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
Why in Hell couldn't you have been on the 95th when the plane hit?
The artical betrays a profound misunderstanding of simple civil Libertarian concepts. If we followed Libertarian principals we would never have been in this situation in the first place because we would have never been engaged in imperialist strategems through military and economic coercion... Oh heck forget the words, we wouldnt have been poking americas stick where it doesnt belong. America is responsible to its people, nothing more nothing less, If we believe in freedom, we have an obligation to let other countries persue thier paths, accept those that want to be americans with open arms, and lead the world through example. NEVER through bully tactics.
Now its too late? Not really, we do have to do something but one thing we need to do is change our collective attitude while making a measured response.
Putting more money into the allready bloated FBI will do nothing but make its ineficiencies worse, giving them power to do do more electronic servailance will give them more crap to sift through allowing still more to slip by in the rush.. WHat we need is a small FBI using old school methods, Personal infiltration, put crooks on the payroll for info, and finally assasinate leaders once operatives identify them. Its easiest to get your info from within a group . It takes only a few people where electronic servailance takes thousands, and they tend to overlook stuff in the morass.
As always dont be willing to give away your freedoms temporarily, how temporary was Federal Income tax? Is 40 percent of your paycheck enough?
Lets look at what big government accomplishes...
War on Drugs: Huge money spent, Black market doing fine, maybe it has never done better, in the end shouldn't we have the right to deside what we ingest.
NASA, When nasa was much smaller we went to the moon, where have we been lately? How many more dollars were spent. (Ok I know thats an over simplification but jeez, cmon!)
Police, Crime is bad but we have more police than ever requiring more traffic tickets to support them.
Tax System: Noone is accountable for federal tax spending, and in fact our representatives try to bring home as much money as the can back to thier states because hey, the feds took it right. Once states payed dues, THe congress tried to keep expenditure low because thier constituents didnt want to be taxed to much, and at a state level we all know whos accountable... Going to Federal level with things just isnt frugal, and is less effective.
Welfare:
How big can we grow it, you dont know, lets put more money in and find out...
Sorry for the ramble , but i hope i painted a collage that communicates something important other than my inability to spell without a spelling checker.
The argument "we allow companies do it, why not feds" does not fly for one very simple reason - there's no "voting with your feet", or wallet, or whatever, when it comes to government - we are all its customers, regardless of our desire (or lack thereof). If you don't like people at RadioShack nosing at your phone number - don't shop there. But what do you do if you don't like Carnivore, or national ID? Tough. Besides, no government measure advertised as "temporary" or "emergency" has ever been such. Who remembers now that 1942 payroll tax witholding directive was sold as war necessity (can you imagine the repercussions on the current tax system if everybody received what they earned, and then had to cut an actual check to IRS every three month)?
I can assure you, the best way to get rid of dragons is to have one of your own.
If one could be reasonably assured that that government involvement would actually be effective. It's been a long, long time since most people reacted to the phrase ``Hi. We're from the Government and we're here to help.'' with anything but derisive laughter.
From what I've been reading in the papers and hearing on the radio and TV, the government had been receiving intelligence that could have warned them of these attacks for some time (as long as years) and little-to-nothing was done. IMHO, new laws that further restrict citizens' freedoms and reduce privacy do nothing to offset the incompetence of the people who failed to act on the intelligence they had in their hands. If the reports of some listening posts receiving 2,000,000 messages per hour are correct -- heck, if it was 2M/day it'd still be an impressive amount -- how will collecting even more information eliminate the terrorist threat?
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
The Washington Post has a very nice article about the only member of the house who voted against the grain last week.
...
Congresswoman Against Use of Force
By Peter Carlson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, September 19, 2001; Page C01
"We need to step back," said Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.). "We're grieving. We need to step back and think about this so that it doesn't spiral out of control. We have to make sure we don't make any mistakes."
She was walking down a hallway in the Cannon House Office Building. A plainclothes police officer hovered a few steps away, looking very serious. The Capitol Police began guarding Lee on Saturday because of death threats she received after voting against a resolution authorizing President Bush to use military force against anyone associated with last week's terrorist attacks. The resolution passed 98-0 in the Senate and 420-1 in the House. Lee's was the sole dissenting vote.
"In times like this," she said, "you have to have some members saying, 'Let's show some restraint.' "
Led by her police bodyguard, she moved along quickly, slipping into her office and closing the door behind her. Inside, the phone lines had shut down under an onslaught of calls from all over the country -- many of them irate, some of them downright nasty -- and her voice mailbox was too full to take any more messages.
"We've gotten thousands of calls and thousands of e-mails," she said. "People are very emotional. . . . They're frustrated and they're angry."
She's 55, a small woman with short black hair. Normally, she has a bright smile, but these days she looks sad, worried, harried. She is quick to point out that she voted to condemn last week's attacks and to allocate $40 billion to fight terrorism.
"I'm just as American and just as patriotic as anybody else," she insists.
She does not rule out military action, she says, but she voted against the authorization to use force because she opposes giving the president the sole decision on when and where to make war. "I believe we must make sure that Congress upholds its responsibilities and upholds checks and balances. This is a representative democracy and it's our responsibility."
War, she believes, is not the most effective way to fight terrorism. "Military action is a one-dimensional reaction to a multidimensional problem," she says. "We've got to be very deliberative and think through the implications of whatever we do."
This is not the first time Lee has stood alone against war. In 1999, during the crisis in Kosovo, she was the only House member to vote against authorizing President Clinton to bomb Serbia. "I'm not a pacifist," she says, "but I don't believe military action should be the only action we embark on."
Fortunately for Lee, she represents one of the most liberal congressional districts in the United States -- California's 9th, which includes Berkeley and Oakland. It's the district that was represented by another antiwar dissident -- Ronald Dellums -- for nearly 28 years. Lee served as Dellums's chief of staff for a decade before she was elected to the California State Assembly in 1990. When Dellums retired in 1998, she won the election to succeed him, and was reelected last year with 85 percent of the vote.
"I would have voted the same way," says Dellums, now president of Washington-based Healthcare International Management. "We need to think this through and ask, 'Are there better ways to do this?' "
"I agonized over this vote all week," she says. "I searched my conscience. I talked to many people. Ultimately, on some votes, you have to vote the way your conscience dictates."
Her agony was exacerbated by the knowledge that her chief of staff, Sandre Swanson, was mourning the death of his cousin Wanda Green, who was a flight attendant on the hijacked United jet that crashed in Pennsylvania.
"I support her decision," Swanson says. "The principle on which she based her decision was that somebody should stand up and say that only Congress has the power to declare war. . . . People say she was unpatriotic. I think it was very patriotic."
"I admire the courage of Barbara Lee," says Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), who spent the 1960s in the front lines of the civil rights movement. "She demonstrated raw courage to stand up and vote the way she did. She stood alone -- one against 420. Several other members wanted to be there also but at the same time, like me, they didn't want to be seen as soft on terrorism."
Lewis voted to authorize military action but, he says, he came close to joining Lee in opposition. "I was probably 99 percent of the way there in my heart and my soul," he says, "but in the end I wanted to send the strongest possible message that we can't let terrorism stand."
Lee's vote is reminiscent of the first woman ever elected to Congress, Jeannette Rankin of Montana, who voted against the nation's entry into World War I and World War II. It also brings to mind Wayne Morse and Ernest Gruening, the two senators who voted against the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin resolution, which gave President Lyndon Johnson the power to wage war in Vietnam.
On the House floor last Friday night, Lee quoted Morse: "I believe that history will record that we have made a grave mistake in subverting and circumventing the Constitution of the United States." She added: "Senator Morse was correct, and I fear we make the same mistake today."
Out in Oakland, Lee's vote is the subject of much debate, some of it heated, says Don Perata, the Democratic state senator who represents Lee's district.
Perata calls Lee's vote "wrongheaded" and he isn't impressed with her explanation of it. "There wasn't a lot of clarity there," he says. "I would have cast a different vote. This is a time for a united front in America, particularly in Congress."
But, he predicts, Lee's vote probably will not affect her chances for reelection.
"The district is overwhelmingly Democratic," he says. "There are probably more people who are to the left of the Democrats than there are Republicans."
Also, he adds: "Barbara is very popular here. She's just a very, very nice woman -- and in this business that counts for a lot."
On Monday, Perata says, California talk radio was abuzz with callers denouncing Lee as a communist.
"I was wincing," he says, "because that's not Barbara. She did not cast that vote because she's unpatriotic. She loves this country and its opportunities as much as anybody."
Meanwhile, back in her office on Capitol Hill, Lee was furiously working the phones, talking to constituents and local media outlets.
"I hope that when I get my message out," she says, "people will understand why I did what I did. Whether they agree with me or not, they'll understand that I want to bring these [terrorists] to justice as much as anybody else does."
She declined to speculate on the effect her vote might have on her popularity. "This was not," she says, "a poll-driven vote."
I don't own a gun but have eyed the crime stats of place that make laws more liberal or require them and thought hmmm.... I might have to rethink my position on guns and the redneck attitude......
No one can be universally liked, or loved. However, one can act in such a way as to minimize the dislike of others. Our government has been maximizing dislike around the world since the end of the second world war. The only way we can really feel more secure in the world is to follow the Golden Rule. We've been doing unto others so long, it was just a matter of time before we got "done unto." Sacrificing civil liberties or privacy will certainly make government officials happy, but we will be no more secure than we were last year, or 10 years ago.
If we hadn't spent the last 30 years pissing off the smaller nations of the world, they wouldn't have motive to do this.
People are plenty capable of inadvertantly dreaming up scapegoats to need a real motive to attack a group of people (Neo-Nazi's, the KKK)
All you need is ignorance and very little critical (skeptical) thinking...
"Communism is like having one [local] phone company " - Lenny Bruce
Folks, a reminder -- arguing about this here isn't going to accomplish much. The people making the decisions aren't reading Slashdot.
f m
If you have an opinion, then now is the time to express it where it matters. Send a calm, reasoned note off to your Congressperson, expressing your concerns. Postal mail generally gets more attention than email, but the sheer bulk of email can matter as well. As a reminder, you can find (and write to) your Representative via this page:
http://www.house.gov/writerep/
and find your Senators' email addresses from this one:
http://www.senate.gov/contacting/index_by_state.c
Personally, I recommend urging calm and balance at this point. If you come off as an extremist, odds are you won't be listened to. Most Congresspeople right now are feeling an enormous pressure to Do Something Now. Make clear to them that, while the people may well want action taken against the terrorist threat, we're also paying attention to what those actions are. The appropriate steps need to be carefully designed to have the maximum effect upon actual threats, while minimizing the effect on civil liberties. Legislators are used to compromise; if you make it clear that their constituency cares about both sides of the issue, it may get through to them that extremism here is a bad idea.
(I'm quite certain that at least one or two truly stupid laws are going to come out of this mess. But injecting a note of calm may help to keep the number and severity down...)
steganography \Steg`a*nog"ra*phy\, n. [Gr. ? covered (fr. ? to cover closely) + -graphy.] The art of writing in cipher, or in characters which are not intelligible except to persons who have the key; cryptography.
Whoops!
Ummm, NO!
Because my gov't was too unconcerned with having actual SPIES ON THE GROUND in a foreign country, we should therefore put up with assorted harebrained THEORIZING about how having some restrictions on computer encryption might help?
Why didn't we hear about this when it was being discussed in Abdullah's tent? SO, somehow, having the ability to tap into private conversations inside the US would have stopped these guys? I would rather imagine they had the details all settled by the time they arrived in US and weren't emailing back and forth on AOL using PGP with messages like "attack is on for tomorrow".
You guys are just as off base with all this concern about techno-fixes as the Pentagon was with worries about missile shields. The terrorist method is as someone else said "low-tech, high-concept" involving usually very ordinary methods like for example easily purchased cellular phones with prepaid time on them. Use it a couple of times and dispose of it. Perhaps you should focus a little less on fighting the last war with the wrong weapons, and get on with life. I go about my daily business. If terrorists decide to take a whack at my city, so be it, I will not change my life one whit or I will have surrended to their terror. This reminds me overmuch how focused our intelligence groups have been on getting new satellites and expensive toys, and completely neglecting spy networks. You guys are doing the same thing. It's much more FUN and less risky to have a comfy office in Virginia where you can sit back and push buttons and spy on people isn't it?
I feel like bashing Katz is something we all do too easily, but the fact of the matter is that his constant flirtation with hyperbole and sensationalism is a transparent attempt to lend excess weight to his subject. Not every technological issue deserves to be heralded as "reality-changing," Jon. For goodness' sake -- closing my right eye "alters" my "reality," but you don't see me with jaw clenched, writing an article about it. Until writers like Jon emerge from their Neal Stephenson-esque penchant for technological melodrama, their ideas -- most of which are well-informed and worthy of serious discussion -- will be ignored by readers like me, who demand sensible, rational journalistic prose.
The poll also says "if it meant more security against terrorism". To assume that losing civil liberties would achive this is naive, but I think many Americans will make that assumption.
More govt intervention in people's everyday lives won't stop terrorism, but it would give polititians something 'good' to wave around when the next election comes. I suppose they are just betting on people's anger lasting that long...
___
The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason. --Ben Franklin
"The government will make use of these powers only insofar as they are essential for carrying out vitally necessary measures...The number of cases in which an internal necessity exists for having recourse to such a law is in itself a limited one,"
On September 11, 2001, the Reichstag Burned.
Those who give up Liberty for safety, deserve neither.
Farewell, land of the free, home of the brave. Looks like terror will win in the end.
In what way are you giving up your freedom?
You are still free to say whatever you like, to whomever you like, in whatever form you choose.
But you also have an obligation not to abuse your rights: and just as the freedom of speech does not extend to shouting "Fire!" in the proverbial crowded theatre, neither should your right to privacy cover your desire to drop airplanes on cities.
We all value the rights we possess; we should, and do, defend them jealously. But keep them in perspective - you do not now, never have, and never will possess a right to do any god-damned thing you want.
It *does* bother me that government agencies might snoop my e-mail, might break my encryption or whatever. But it bothers me more that they *need* to. And in the end, you have to ask yourself this question: "What the hell do I have to say that is so bloody secret anyway?"
"Your suns and worlds are not within my ken, I merely watch the plaguey state of men."
This isn't the historical America. This is a new America, one that has completely lost touch with its forebears.
As Ben Franklin said;
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. "
Saying America deserved this is silly. I think Clint Eastwood said it best in Unforgiven. "We've all got it coming."
We have nukes. Lots of nukes. Sure its silly and ineffective and ultimately detrimnental to use them on anyone, but so is crahsign planes into civilian buildings (WTC - which IS different than the Pentagon bombing.)
Did London florists killed by IRA bombs in the subway deserved too? How about Brit WW2 vets killed by Nazi's? They invaded Germany after all, and the German's LEGAL territory of France after France surrendeered.
How about the Kuwaiti's killed by Iraq? Did they deserve it? The Iraqi's killed by Americans? The Palestinians killed by Israel? The Israeli's killed by Palestinians? The Palestinians killed in retaliation for that?
How about the lion killed by a crocodile? The lion killed by a wildebeast? The 30 wildebeast that lion killed?
Anything we had coming, compared to this, means that someone else has a whole lot more coming.
And the US will deliver. Just hope we're rational enough not to do it nuclearly, because the rednecks who haven't studied radiation push for it, the same as Falwell pushs agfainst gays, and the Taliban preaches against the West.
It's not "Judge not lest ye be judged" that matters. It's "Judge others as ye would be judged."
We've all got it coming - never, ever forget that.
I'm glad to see that all the previous comments that got modded up so far were pro-privacy. Katz needs to wait for a good long while and then see how he feels about giving up his freedoms, he's obviously letting his emotions get the best of him. Let me address a few points he made: Yes, people online have the right to keep their communications private and people have the right -- I believe -- to move online and travel in the real world without their movements being monitored and recorded by governmental authorities. But people have the right to go to work without buildings falling on them, too. Not necessarily, the risk of having buildings falling on people due to terrorist attacks may in fact be the price of freedom in our world. We have recently gotten far too enamored with our security IMHO, and the result is we have a plethora of "nanny government" laws to keep us from hurting ourselves and others (seat belt laws, helmet laws, incredibly strict drunk driving laws, gun laws, and endless laws to "protect" children to name a few). Apparently a majority of Americans think these laws are a good thing(tm), I personally would rather have my freedoms back and take my chances. Please don't allow an emotional response to this tragedy to make things even worse. If terrorists are proven to be using encrypted files, aren't government agents entitled -- even obligated, on behalf of the thousands of innocent victims and many more future victims -- to get warrants to intercept them? Would we really rather that our water systems be poisoned, or our cities choked with gas, or planes flown into schools and City Halls? Intercepting criminal communications obviously does nothing to help victims, they are still dead. To prevent future victimization, we already have laws in place to allow government agents to get warrants to perform wire-tapping. If we give any additional powers to any government agencies we might consider removing the assassination ban from the CIA, I think the Israeli Mossad have been pretty effective against terrorists and war criminals, although these methods may go against our collective ideals, getting rid of the wealthy and charismatic leaders of these terrorist groups would likely be the most effective way of reducing overall terrorism. This would have seemed silly hyperbole to me a month ago, but all of these things are now plausible in the post-World Trade Center world. Nothing has changed, all these things were plausible MANY YEARS BEFORE the WTC attack. They are no more possible now than they were then, it's just that a particularly nasty possibility has been realized. I would rather the U.S. citizenry take it upon themselves to help alert the appropriate authorities if they see something suspicious than give those authorities sweeping freedoms to monitor our citizens. I fear I cannot trust the authorities not to abuse that kind of power even though I generally respect them.
There is no such thing as temporarily when you deal with giving up freedom.
I am a republican not by choice, but rather by lack there of.
Handing over all your liberties won't stop terrorism (so don't hand over mine, thank you). I'm sad to read not one /. comment asking the question "what causes terrorism", "what kinds of conditions breed a fundamentalism that would lead someone to commit suicide in the course of such an act" (don't blame is on islam - a fundy christian might believe that by bringing about Armegeddon he is doing God's will...) - Instead I read about the rush to concede liberties - "it's all the rage they say so we have to go along with it" - bunk. The $40 billion that Congress just gave Bush to wage war would produce better results if spent on waging peace - alleviating the conditions that breed terrorism. But US Bloodlust must be appeased!
The cowards post is obviously flamebait, but I'll bite
You are saying the executed women support the Talibans.
You are saying that 'all Germans were responsible for Hitler' - including the ones that were killed by the Nazis.
It follows from your arguments that everyone in the occupied territories in Europe actively supported the Nazis just because they allowed them to exist.
Afganistan has been ruined by (externally funded)war for 20 years and now most of it is controlled by the oppresive regime of the Talibans. The people of Afganistan have suffered far more than the US and far more people have been killed directly and indirectly in Afganistan than the few thousand people in the USA.
Exercise some taste where you post your racist and idiotic flames please.
and no I'm not arguing against taking some action against Bin Laden or any of his allies, just against calling all Afgans guilty.
>Is using electronic communications? No.
I beg to differ, unless you have another way to associate with someone on the other side of the country in a timely fashion. [Having things done in a timely fashion is also an essential liberty outlined by the requirement of a timely trial in American law]. Telephones, the most used, and most preferred (in fact, today the de facto) method of communication in the USA are electronic. You are very much more likely to strike up an interesting dialog with someone today by giving them your phone number rather than your home address. (Actually, many in the US feel unsafe about giving their home address to strangers, whereas a phone number provides better communication without the risk.)
Writing letters on paper doesn't work -- by the time the letter has reached the recipient in today's world interest in the matter has already feigned beyond making it particularly interesting (or to some degreee, useful) to read.
That is, unless it's one of those "Hows the weather, blah blah blah" kind of messages, and not something particularly thought provoking...
Letters are specially protected from anyone but the recipient opening them because at the time of the laws being written, they were the most popular, and de facto method of communication. Now, again the phone is, and email is rapidly catching up (that is, if it hasn't already surpassed phone use). They should be protected in the same manner as written letters, IMHO.
Just a thought.
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
That "if" is a very big if. Quite frankly, even if we lived in a 1984 style state where we are constantly spied on, it would still be impossible to prevent terrorist attacks.
If you were watching the news around 6PM Tuesday then you'd know that the people of Afganistan were subject to terrorism too. N. Ireland isn't exactly the safest place in the world either.
The point is, that Afganistan isn't at all free, and there is limited freedom in N. Ireland. And there is still terrorism. There isn't an instance I'm aware of where a gov't released a new power it was granted even on a temporary basis. That emergency income tax measure, Amendment XVI, really faded into the night after Reconstruction didn't it?
Any freedoms we give up will not make us safer, and will never be returned to us. If you believe otherwise then you are fooling yourself.
The gov't has made clear by the DMCA & SSCA among other blatant special interest attacks on Free Speech and the right to due process under the law that it simply cannot be trusted. In the US, people used to be innocent until proven guilty. If there is no legitimate enough belief of wrongdoing to convince a federal judge then the gov't has no right to violate my privacy.
If warrants may be needed on a moment's notice then a solution that wouldn't violate the 99.999% of the population would be to have some judges on call 24/7 to authorize or deny such warrants. Unless the FBI is just fishing for terrorists, they can get warrants to read terrorists email and leave mine and the rest of the country's email alone.
I've been real paranoid myself lately, I mentioned on one of my posts a few day's back that security around bay area watersheds has increased 6 fold.
/.'ers that have no idea what its like to live through a war. I was adopted by my grandparents at an early age, and heard all the stories from the depression and WWII.
.gov sentiment on /. since the WTC, and I wonder, what do those people against these new wiretapping bills have to hide? Instead of bitching about it on slashdot and saying poor me my goverment is stealing my rights, why don't you do something about it?
/.ers. Isn't the internet public? Like our roads and highways? Don't you think it's about time we had some speedtraps to catch terrorist, kiddie porn traders, and anyone else doing "bad" stuff? Would we really be giving up civil liberties? Now honestly ask yourself that. You only have to worry if your doing bad stuff yourself.
It's really a shame the amount of
The one quote I keep hearing is "Those that would give up essential freedom for liberty deserve neither freedom nor liberty", Well, the man that wrote that flew kites in the rain hoping lightning would hit them. Time's were different then, crypto was barely emerging, there was no weapons for mass destruction. No electricity or piped in water.
You can't really compare what Ben Franklin said then to what could happen today. It may have applied 200 years ago when USA was still a baby fighting the english, but we're all grown up now, part of being grown up is being responsible for your family. Would BF change his tune if he saw what a little anthax released into the local water can do?
I've seen a lot of anti
How about a de-crypto@home program that takes all our spare CPU cycles for US decryption efforts?
Considering america invented the IC, the PC and the TCP, we've basically invented the tools the terrorist used to communicate. We should start supporting our goverment in taking whatever steps needed to get em.
Here is the one debate I wouldn't mind getting from
Terrorism is to us, what communism was to my grandparents generation. We need to pull together as american geeks to win the war of GenX.
--toq
An analogy for you:
An anti-terrorist law is passed. Now, three times a week, randomly timed, a uniformed policeman will come to your home and rummage through your belongings. He will be looking for signs of terrorist activity, and if he finds none, he will tip his hat to you and leave quietly.
Would you be anxious about this? I would.
Many will claim "If you're not a terrorist, you have nothing to fear from this." Well, perhaps. But there are a couple of other concerns:
* What criteria are used to determine what is "terrorism-related" and what isn't?
* Will all citizens be searched at equal frequencies and with equal intensities, or will certain individuals or groups be profiled as worthy of closer scrutiny before finding any evidence? (i.e. will belonging to certain ethnic groups, organizations or such be "probable cause" in and of itself?)
* What guarantees are there that the watchman is searching solely for terrorism-related activity, that he won't take notes about other interesting things he finds, and that he won't use that data for other purposes against you some other time?
Unless I have VERY clear answers to all three of those issues -- and evidence that there's an impartial body willing to enforce them, which is extremely unlikely -- it's not going through without a fight from me. I simply cannot believe that the data wouldn't end up being used for highly partisan purposes.
But there is some middle ground between "give the feds any and all freedoms" and "don't give the feds a &*#% inch, they'll take a mile and we'll live in a police state". Specifically:
-->How about expanding their rights for this particular investigation? Any "extraneous" information gathered could be made inadmissable, so they can't arrest you when they find the Traci Lords pics. It sounds like there is going to be an office of terrorism established (like the DEA), it is important that there be balance between their right to stop terrorism and our rights to live normally.
-->Even if the feds can't expand their authority, we as free citizens of the good 'ol US of A have somewhat broad freedoms to investigate on our own. Uncle Sam wants geeks...maybe, just maybe there are some slashdotters with skillz that could be put to use. Terrorists use technology? No surprise there. Do you think they use it well? Do you *really* think they are smarter than even 10% of the slashdot community? I point out that AOL was one ISP asked to provied information. Need I say more? You know where you're local FBI office is...feed them regularly.
-->How about more rigourous checks on persons entering the country? Perhaps I'm jumping to conclusions, but I *think* these terrorists were not citizens, no? We do not have to choke our own citizens because some aliens/tourists/etc. acted irresponsibly...make that monstrously.
I'm also curious if anyone knows how limited law agencies are to act against non-US citizens (inside and outside our borders). Info on this welcome.
The bottom line is, I think most people agree that investigation/pursuit needs to happen. But I'm sure a reasonable balance between investigative freedom and freedom to be free can be found. I welcome other suggestions as to how this can happen.
No, it doesn't work that way, unless you live in a war zone.
And as much as you would like to rhetorically spin it as such, Mr. Katz, we do not live in a warzone. Wiretapping, Survelliance, etc.... will not prove effective at stopping terrorists. Why? Because all of their activities start internationally. Sure, you might get a few extra leads here or there regarding their behaviors in the United States. But that will only last through one iteration of terrorist activity. Think about it. The group of terrorists who took down these planes didn't really establish bizarre lines of communication, didn't talk to each other on cellphone about death and destruction, and didn't send Osama Bin Laden pretty little post-cards discussing 757s and 767s. Terrorists will just plan everything ahead of time, open up a checking account instead of paying cash, and talk only in person, and in safer places, like cabs, or the subway.(maybe those aren't the safest places, but I am sure there will be places in the U.S. that will not be under surveillance).
Rather, instead of domestic surveillance, or stupid immagration limitations (which I don't think will stop terrorists, either), we need to engage in proactive, specific measure to stop terrorism.
1. Air Marshalls. These will work to prevent hijackings. If terrorists don't have guns, and the Air Marshalls have their sweet rubber pellet guns, Air Marshalls win. Always.
2. Better scanning technology for airline baggage. 'Nuff Said.
3. No carry on luggage (well, that isn't very well x-rayed, anyways).
4. International Anti-Terrorist regimes. And I don't mean the current ones which exist, like the half-assed U.N. commission on Terrorism, INTERPOL, or the extenstion of various NPT-related organs. We need a multinational coalition to stop terrorism. And preferably, which should be able to get the entire world to work with us on this one. Even states like Iran and Afgahnistan. How do we do that? Look at Israel/Palestine. Excellent example. We bribe whoever we need, into being peaceful. Brillant, isn't it? Bribe Iran, bribe Afganhistan. Then make it one of the tennants of the multinational to be really, really harsh against these terrorists. Everyone wins. Underdeveloped rouge nations become interdependant upon the world trade regime, stability abounds, the fascist leaders of those nations would slowly become more prosperous and maybe even lenient. A good of example of that is Iran vs Iraq. Since the revolution in Iran, slowly, the majority of the world has started trading with Iran (except the U.S.). And, even though Iran's human right's record still blows, it is a democracy, they have a pro-reform leader, the fascist mullahs are on the declining end of the political spectrum, and the masses are becoming more prosperous. Now look at Iraq. Although we have let more money in the country than most American radicals admit ($30 billion every six months since the oil-for-food deal began, but Saddam has stolen all the money), lack of trade has prevented any sort of domestic economy from developing. People have placed more faith in fascism than ever, and Saddam, who is a rational actor, has increased in domestic political power, and has played himself off as the vicitim international.
Iran is clearly the preferable outcome. The only problem is Iran's hatred of the U.S. But surely that would decrease if we started trading with them again. After, the majority of people in Iran do not hate the U.S. How do I know? I am from Iran. It is a question of the governments response to a continually negative attitude from the U.S. As much as I am a libertarian domestically, we can buy this stability in the international arena, and I think that and universal, multinational regime against terrorism can be bought with a degree of patience from us, and a fair, multnational development system.
And, if individual countries refuse to cooperate (which I don't believe would happen, as even Afgahnistan has approached the U.S. trying to negotiate, and Iran has been trying to negotiate forever, as are most rogue states), we bomb the ever-loving sh*t out of them.
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
We could play Mariah Carey songs as an offensive weapon. Her high pitched banshee voice would subdue any attacker, and there's no messy cabin decompression! Troll me, I dare you! IH
Jon, there's a reason why something like this never happened in the heyday of hijacking, back in the 1970s; we had all the terrorist groups infiltrated, and half the Middle Eastern leaders on the CIA's payroll.
More Elint and Sigint won't fix this; getting rid of the stupid rules that all but prevent dealing with the folks with the information, and funding the Operations folks to get more Humint into the field, is what will solve this, assuming America doesn't decide to get out of the business of funding the other side in all these regional conflicts.
All the encryption in the world does you no good if the guy on the other end of the wire is forwarding them off to Langley in exchange for booze and hookers, and conversely all the laws against encryption in the world do you no good if the bad guys aren't saying "next week we blow up America real good, comrade" in their emails.
Keeping everybody's encryption keys on file just makes it easier to spy on the law-abiding, not the criminals.
Nobody in his right mind would support a blank check for government authorities.
Exactly. Many people are not in their right mind these days.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
I think maybe this debate is getting a little overbroad, maybe we should start addressing specific security precautions. I find that when you begin to apply these vague arguments to specific instances, they begin to fall apart.
Ex: I think the cabin door should impervious from an attack, and under no circumstances should a co-pilot open the door.
1. This doesn't really affect the freedoms of passengers.
2. This doesn't really affect the convenience of passengers.
3. This would prevent anyone from further using a plane as a missle.
Maybe we can keep our debates in perspective by running them through various scenerios.
Personally, I think we can achieve A LOT of security without infringing on too much freedom and convenience.
What security precautions do you think we need to take?
"Communism is like having one [local] phone company " - Lenny Bruce
As a mid-level software engineer who's worked with encryption code, I believe I have a better understanding of these issues then most of the people posting comments. By reducing encryption levels or providing the government the keys, we won't do anything to make us more secure from terrorist but it will make us less secure from FBI surveillance.
a ct oring/faq.html
I could, if I wished too, write an application to take encryption algorithms currently mirrored around the Internet and modify them to take exponentially large bit keys e.g. (5000 bit+). This would push the decryption effort required past what is currently possible. Next I could change the email header information so that it doesn't appear to be encrypted and then rename the attachment to "family_vacation_pics1.jpg".
This would likely confuse the pattern matching techniques that Carnivore uses. Even if the FBI, CIA, or NSA intercepted the attachment, it would still a decryption effort well beyond a reasonable amount of time.
http://www.rsasecurity.com/rsalabs/challenges/f
Number Length (bits) Machines Memory
430 1 trivial
760 215,000 4 Gb
1020 342,000,000 170 Gb
1620 1.6 x 1015 120 Tb
I could do all this in a day or two, and a junior engineer could copy this in a week. There are probably several hundred thousand similar engineers in US and possibly in the millions worldwide who could also complete this.
Summary!
A) It would take a fairly small effort for a group or Country to bypass America's decryption efforts.
B) Many software engineers could accomplish this, if they so desired.
C) Terrorists won't care about laws banning high encryption.
D) We won't be anymore secure with this proposed system, if anything we'll be less secure with these laws.
I'm saddened and angered as much as anyone over these latest attacks. I don't know what the answer is but I know that it's not an encryption key repository.
IMHO - flame away!
Any new laws to fight this new kind of war ought to be temporary, and self-expiring, perhaps subject to annual review.
It never works this way, Jon. The income tax was supposed to be temporary, to be abolished after we won *that* world war. Has it proven to be? You ought to listen more closely to libertarians when we say "War is the health of the state."
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
This problem is not new. After WW2, Karl R. Popper wrote a book called "Open Society and Its Enemies". Popper is one of the most influential Philosopher of the 20th century and this book is worth reading.
I think the big question in all of this is do you feel unsafe after the recent terrorist events? My answer is that I don't feel unsafe AT ALL! There were 3 buildings hit out of millions of buildings in the United States. You have a much much better chance of winning the lottery than to have an airplane come down on your house or place of business. You would think that our shores are being overrun by terrorist or something. Three buildings out of millions! We would do more damage than that with one bomb in a real war. Let's get some perspective people! Let's not let our freedoms be stolen by the government because of one terrorist incident.
Maybe you folks have forgotten that you are not terrorists. In all likelihood nobody you know is a terrorist. However, any antiterrorism law, any weak encryption law, any national ID card, any "war on terrorism" does effect you.
Does any rational person honestly think that another peice of plastic in your wallet will prevent hijackings? Does any rational person think that terrorists send email between one another to organize bombings? Do you really think Hamas uses out-of-the-box encryption techniques? Do you honestly think the airport security zero tolerance of anything remotely pointy is going to be any more sucessful than the zero tolerance policies in our schools?
Good lord people, some of you are old enough to remember when the IBM corporate motto was "THINK."
So in all the shuffle everybody seems to have forgotten Dmitry. How are he and his case doing?
-- I Am Not A Terrorist.
The US government doesn't get to pick which rights I can have. It can't temporarily revoke them. It doesn't get carte blanche to take a single right of mine. It should work to ensure all of my rights, because it is my government. Non-infringing protections have been mentioned on slashdot and other technical groups I read regularly (such as making aircraft modifications like pilot-specific biometrics and adding overrides against entering protected airspace). So far, as one poster said, the professionals (engineers and experts on technical aspects of security) aren't being heard on the news.
I've had to turn off the news countless times to save my blood pressure after hearing some YAITH [yet another (idiotic | inane | insane) talking head] blather about the internet-as-breeding-ground- for-childpornogr-I- mean-terrorism (without a mention of the mail, UPS, faxes, phone calls and the likes) or restricting e-tickets as a solution to airport security.
After all that, frankly, I wouldn't trust most of these bozos within a thousand feet of any technical project I have ever done, up to and including arranging my sock drawer (with their remarkable empathy and speedy grasp of the situation, they might decide my one pair of red wool hiking-n-huntin' socks are evidence of comunist sympathies and get all distracted from sock-sorting by the ensuing press conferences they call).
Trust & respect are earned. Will I listen to a reasonable request to add technological checks and balances the war against terrorism? Sure. Once trust is earned. Give me a source-audited (or open source) terrorist-face-recognition database that must publish all access logs within a given period of time to catch any abuse, and I'll consider it. Better still, explain how you'll protect my rights by not collecting info on me and still have a system useful for tracking people not yet suspected of terrorist plans. It's a serious clash that I don't see being resolved. Show me that you're putting in place a shared-warning mechanism across all relevant agencies that will make it so that agencies trigger alerts to one another when a 'wanted' individual surfaces, or so a hijacked plane over PA finds out that three other planes have been hijacked before being hijacked itself. Show me plans to give those systems failsafes that engage when these grim events happen. Full failsafes, preferrably, that seek to land the plane quietly every time. Again, the technological challenges and contradictions make me doubtful this will happen quickly. But they'd be uninfringing solutions worthy of us.
In closing, Katz, please don't tell me I need to relenquish my rights because you're grieving more than me and thus should know better. That's a subtle oxymoron, in my book. We're all grieving. But we all have family histories littered with the byproducts of the sorts of fixes I'm seeing presented. We've got uncles that were devastated by the 50's Red Scare, great-aunts that disappeared in Germany, classmates whose parents died in dictatorial purges, and friends who endured undeserved legal battles for contradicting powerful governments and corporations.
In the end, freedom has a price. Lately, we've had it easy and the loss of life in my generation pales next to earlier generations. We shouldn't surrender easily any of our freedoms just because we're finally face-to-face with a very dangerous enemy. Especially one that hates us having those freedoms.
A wiretap on a person is a euphamism for wiretapping everyone near that person, as opposed to those who directly contact that person.
h ol d=-1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&pid=2320369
For example, if a "suspect" stood behind you in line at Walmart when you buy tube socks, you are now sucject to that wiretap as well, and by extension everyone you directly (friends, co-workers, family) associate with as well as indirectly (the guy aheadof you in line at Walmart the next time.)
In short, a wiretap on a person is the same as unlimited warrantless wiretapping = no 4th Amendment.
For a better post than mine on the 4th, see:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=21746&thres
comment # 2320369
There are no complete things in this world: there is no absolute favorite food, no perfectly happy people, no totally free lunches and no absolutely free people.
Each part of our everyday lives is influenced by that: we limit the rights of persons who commit crimes, we violate property rights by collecting taxes, we limit the people's freedom of movement inside and around airports in order to prevent terrorist attacks.
It is therefore apparent for me, from the moral point of view, that we are obliged to give up some of our rights in favor of the general good. It could be used against us later; however for now there is no alternative.
It's "martial law", not "Marshall Law".
The more I read on here, other places, listen on the Radio, and watch on TV the more my blood boils.
People are screaming "WE MUST DO SOMETHING!". I agree 100%. We must do something, and that something is THINK. Quit trying to solve problems that don't exist or are just symptoms/side effects of the real problem.
We have to ask the question "Does this fix the problem?".
National ID Cards
What genius thought this one up? What problem is this going to solve? "Can I see your papers please?", "Uh I forgot my ID at home". Off to jail you go. I already have a "National ID", is called a Social Security Number.
Curb-Side Check-in Discontinued
What problem does this solve? Does anyone know if the terrorists even had luggage? I know that I have taken several trips with only a carry-on. The person doing the curb-side check-in still looks up my information on the computer and verifies everything before hand. This solves nothing, except to give the public a "Warm Fuzzy Feeling" that we have "Heightened Security".
Banning Knives, Box Cutters, etc..
Would this solve the problem? Doubtful. The problem is the conditioning of the public that if the plane is hijacked, the best thing to do is just sit there. The hijackers will make their demands, and eventually, we'll all get to go home. This incident changed that. The next time someone tries to hijack a plane, (hopefully) everyone on the plane will try to take them down.
Banning knives and such wont fix the problem. A pencil is just as good a weapon as a knife. Should we also ban these? What about people trained in Hand-to-Hand combat? People can kill with their hands, feet, etc...
Back-Doors in Encryption
How is this going to help? Has it even been proven that they used encryption? What type did they use? How did it help them? Everything I have read so far has been 100% speculation.
Do you think the Government is going to have back doors in THEIR encryption? I don't think so.
What chilling effects are going to come out of this? Banks encrypt their transactions such as money transfers, etc... Now what happens if that "Back-Door" falls into the wrong hands? What about e-Commerce? Will your on-line transactions be safe anymore? Faith in on-line transactions such as buying goods, paying bills, etc.. will plummet if the "Back-Door" becomes public knowledge.
But then again, as one radio talk show host here in Phoenix, put it "Who cares?". These are things about convenience, right? No, these things are about Freedom. The Freedom to do as we want when we want to. The only time we are not allowed to do that is when it infringes on the rights of others. This is true for the most part, however, there are plenty of exceptions to this rule, take the DMCA for example.
Again, how is this going to solve the problem? So we put back-doors in our encryption, now what? The terrorist simply change to other methods. They drop a letter in the mail, and it arrives at the destination in as little as a day. Are we going to allow the government to open every single letter that travels through the post office?
Who says they have to use typical Modern-day encryption? There are many ways to send "coded" messages that appear harmless to anyone looking at them.
Problem: Hijackers took over the controls of the plane
Solution: There are several that I have read about that actually make sense and would probably help this problem. Make the cockpit self-contained. No access to it AT ALL from the rest of the plane. If you can't get to the controls, you can't take them over and fly the plane into a building.
Problem: Hijackers take hostages and claim to have a [insert device here]
Solution: Everyone on the plane attack that person or persons. After the event on September 11, you would have to be stupid to just sit there.
Problem: Security check-points at the airport are a joke
Solution: Do not leave security to people who have no clue about it. The private sector is not interested in security; they are interested in the bottom line. The government either federal or local needs to be in charge of security. Pay the people who do the security better.
Problem: This person is a known terrorist
Solution: Kill them before they can do it again.
Before you go and piss away your rights, take the time to think about whether or not its actually going to help things, or just make life for most Americans that much more difficult. If it really had a good logical reasoning behind it, I'd take it into consideration, and might even vote for it. The problem is, is that everything that people have been suggesting is knee-jerk reactions that only give the perception of "Solving" a problem when in fact they actually don't solve anything.
Do we really need more laws? The government has already found 180+ people that might be involved with this with the laws we already have. Would adding new laws make that much of a difference? The terrorists worked with-in the system, and if the system changes, they will probably adapt as well.
Visit the Arcade Restoration Workshop @ http://www.arcaderestoration.com
By the IDIOTS who think you can TEMPORARILY(???!!! What the FUCK!!!) give away your rights.
Once you become a slave, you don't have a right to make demands. You have to trust the person to whom you have enslaved yourself. And frankly, I'm not that stoopid.
This country won't be destroyed from outside, it will be destroyed from within due to the sheer ignorance nd weak will of people who do not understand that the Rule of Law requires righteous and honorable people of character to maintain it.
I'm really sickened to see supposedly intelligent people indicate how fully they lack any ability to think critically and see the bigger pictures that come from your decisions.
Look beyond the smaller details as well as at the details.
The people who died are gone. The people still living need to make there deaths count for something. Doubling over and crying and accepting
the idea of being fucked out of your rights and dragging along those who don't agree with you is unacceptable, and traitorous. The kind of reactions I have been hearing are the mewlings of wimps with no will, no guts and no brains. Strategy involves responding intelligently not REACTING like bitches.
You're perfectly correct. Just like gun control disarms victims, encryption control disarms victims. You want to protect yourself from terrorists? Use cryptography so they can't listen to you. Use crypography so they cannot pretend to be you.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
Check out the Quick Vote on CNN's home page:
Would you accept more government involvement in your life if it meant more security against terrorism?
The "if" is the critial bit here. Quite a few restrictions on civil liberties may do nothing to increase security against terrorism. Indeed some may well actually be helpful to terrorists...
at the wtc it looks like 5500 died this is the wrost day for a loss of life in the usa ever but tell me how many more have died to give us our freedoms?
if we take away our freedoms for them they win
Most of the time, I think people here on Slashdot who hate Katz hate him because he's preaching to the choir: he wraps up Slashdotish ideas in mainstream journalistic prose, and those of us who can't stand being told what we think we already know (especially in the rhetoric of modern journalism) make fun of him and try to rip him to shreds.
Today he presented a viewpoint that was his own and probably different from the majority of slashdotters. That's the first brave part of
Katz's article. The second brave part is that he's essentially telling people -- even us intelligent tech-savy geeks who tend to think we have it all figured out -- that we too need to not simply give our usual knee jerk reactions to the situation. Yes, calling for increased eavesdropping powers and mandatory backdoors for encryption are knee-jerk reactions. But rather than jerking back, we need to education and also seriously consider what we CAN do for greater security.
Yeah, I've heard the quote: if you trade freedom for security, you'll have neither. It's partially true. But it's shallow as a complete policy guide.
It's worth some measure of hassle and even loss of privacy if we really can make society safer. Giving up a bit of convenience and privacy is not the same thing as losing freedom. I think that's what Jon's asking us to consider. That doesn't mean that we put up with patently stupid ideas like mandatory backdoors in all encryption, which likely won't help us at all, but it DOES mean that we need to seriously consider possibilities for increasing the governments capacity to watch people at the same time as putting in checks for abuse.
Libertarianism is rich wolves and poor sheep playing gambler's ruin for dinner.
If we give up our freedoms then what exactly are we fighting to defend? Buildings? If you are in such fear of bad guys around every corner then move to China, I hear they keep a tight lid on things over there.
We don't need another red scare and we definately don't need another out of control J Edgar Hoover FBI state.
It's a very well-written, well thought out comment. Just because it's an AC doesn't mean it deserves a -1. Is it flamebait just because it doesn't call for unconditional, mindless war on Afghanistan?
Katz is a proposing the eliminiation and/or restriction of rights, without any evidence that in fact this will make us safer.
Let me attempt, perhaps in vain, to address some of the issues Katz tries to raise...
But there is a new reality in the post-World Trade Center world, one that now may have to balance some rights against others and prepare for aircraft-bombs, biological and chemical attacks,and horrific assaults on civilians.
Reality didn't change - our perception of it has.
The perception is that nobody is safe anymore, and that significant measures need to be taken to provide a safe environment for American citizens.
The reality is that have always been fragile, continue to work in buildings that can collapse on impact, and some bad people exploited a specific vulnerability in airline security and the structural integrity of some buildings.
I postulate that the restriction of basic rights and freedoms will move American citizens from the frying pan into the fire. The delicate balance of power that has existed between the government and citizens for two centuries could be shifted in an irreversable fashion.
The Justice Department isn't proposing dropping all restrictions or warrants or oversight regarding wiretapping and surveillance. They propose to ease some of them. This may or may not be a good idea.
The United Kingdom took a similar measure during the height of their domestic terrorism crisis. It allowed them to hold prisoners for questioning virtually indefinitely and it lead to an unprecidented abuse of government power over its citizens.
Yes, people online have the right to keep their communications private and people have the right -- I believe -- to move online and travel in the real world without their movements being monitored and recorded by governmental authorities. But people have the right to go to work without buildings falling on them, too.
People have the right to walk down the street without being mugged or raped. When someone's right is violated, we seek justice. We find the perpetrator(s). We try them in a court, and we punish them if they're found guilty.
Our system of justice protects our rights, not by limiting other rights. People have a right to live safely, and these rights are upheld, in general, through a system of freedom and justice.
The cost, you might ask? The cost is the risk that someone could have his or her rights violated. When I walk down the street, someone could mug me. It would be illegal, and subject to prosecution and punishment, which serves as an effective deterrant and underpins a system to justice.
We generally accept the risks of walking down a street, because the likelihood of having our rights violated is relatively low. We make choices about what streets we walk down, at what time of day or night, and whom we are accompanied by.
Freedom and justice are inextricably bound together. One may not exist without the other. It is an illusion to believe that by restricting some rights, others will magically be better protected.
The government has an obligation to protect them.
The government has an obligation to uphold its system of justice. People have an obligation to protect themselves, by making choices about the circumstances they place themselves in, and by defending themselves when under assault.
This assault on 5,000 lives was an assault virtually impossible to repel. This is why justice is so important in our political system. It realizes that people will be assaulted and provides a system of consequences to punish attackers and discourage prospective attackers.
Is it really totally unreasonable for authorities to seek broader powers to follow these conversations? Wiretap laws are not adequate for teaching these kinds of criminals. Existing wiretap laws require warrants for each telephone, even though criminals and terrorists might use dozens of phones or a variety of communications systems.
It is unreasonable for citizens of the United States to be protected from unwarranted search and seizure. But more importantly, wiretaps are useless for sophisticated criminals, because these criminals have sophisticated tools (lawful or not) at their disposal to avoid government surveillance.
I'm not just talking about cryptography. I'm also talking about steganography. You might outlaw cryptography, and it might be quasi-enforceable, but the result is users of cryptography will revert to steganography to keep their covert communication secret. This is ultimately unenforceable, because it is virtually undetectable.
And, where will be be? To borrow a phrase from the PGP movement (which they borrowed from the NRA), if cryptography is outlawed, only outlaws (and government) will have cryptography.
Freedom comes at a price. The price is that we run some risk of having our rights violated. So far, we have accepted the tradeoff, and generally relied on justice to prevail if a violation occurred.
If enough people talk and vote like Katz, America will no longer be the land of the free. At best, maybe Americans can call their nation the land of the safe.
My car gets 40 rods to the hogshead, and that's the way I likes it!
1%? -- I've sat next perfectly normal looking businesmen that looked like they were about to snap because the flight was delayed and then the stewardess gave them Sprite instead of 7Up. Yeah, give that guy a gun. If it's a tourist flight, throw in a bunch of drunk yehaws that don't know the difference between an airplane and a pit toliet.
Guns on planes wouldn't be a problem if people had somewhat civilized standards of behavior. Maybe they generally do, but crowd them in with the masses in an airport and at least 10% of them turn into apes. At least the homeless losers on the city bus are predictable.
No matter what security measures you implement, no matter how tightly you regulate people's thoughts and actions, there will always be a way around those restrictions. Everyone who works in security should know this.
I will not give up my freedom for your peace of mind.
She sat at the window watching the evening invade the avenue.
I was reading the link I suggested, and went on a rabbit trail regarding then Chief Justice ... the name stuck, I foobar'd ... like the times I use they're when I should use their ... comes from spending too much time writing crap like
= unx"C*",$_)
, ch r($_^$a[--$h+84])}
( or d$b[4])>8^($f=($t=255)&($d>>12^$d>> 4^$d^$d/8))>8^($t&
; eval for a living.
Marshall's involvement with habeas corpus
$_='while(read+STDIN,$_,2048){$a=29;$c=142;if((@a
[20]&48){$h=5;$_=unxb24,join"",@b=map{xB8,unxb8
@ARGV;s/...$/1$&/;$d=unxV,xb25,$_;$b=73;$e=256|
($g=($q=$e>>14&7^$e)^$q*8^$q>=8)+=$f+(~$g &$t))for@a[128..$#a]}print+x"C*",@a}';s/x/pack+/g
healyourchurchwebsite.com - WWJB?
The response that "we need more restrictions and tougher laws/more athority to combat these menaces" is itself a knee-jerk reaction.
I don't know which authorities are saying that these people used email to communicate, and did it encryptedly, but I've never seen any terrorist activities linked to the internet substantively (by which I mean they actually siezed somebody's pc and used the key on their hard drive to decrypt messages plotting terrorist attacks, rather than simply "we suspect" and "authorities think")
The attack itself was painfully low-tech. Why? Because all our countermeasures are aimed at preventing technological threats. So a low-tech threat slips past them. Thus there is reason to believe their coordination was low-tech as well: With all the emails, pagers, and telephones in the world you still can't beat good old face to face contact when you don't want to be snooped on. Once again, our countermeasurse are directed at a high-tech threat, and a low-tech approach can bypass them completely. The depressing thing about the new airline regulations prohibiting box cutters and all knives is that I could still get weapons onto a plane if I needed to. (no I'm not saying how, better I'm the only one who knows than some crazy kook who would actually do it finds out how)
Assuming the key players met face to face to plan this out (the smart thing to do since any other way would be subject to electronic monitoring) they could have easily established code words/phrases, like for instance "I bought a new pair of shoes" would mean that tomorrow morning the attack was to be carried out as discussed, "I need to go do laundry today" would mean to abort the plans. We would now need to suspect everybody who emails/phones each other discussing the mundane details of their personal lives! You could hide things in plain sight and crypto-busting power wouldn't mean shit.
Even if the perpetrators of this attack weren't doing things the good old-fashioned way, if we gave our government sweeping crypto-cracking powers all it would take would be one terrorist getting caught, and all the rest would look to history and switch to doing things the way that's worked for centuries. Then all the government would be getting out of our encrypted email would be the personal information of those of us who use crypto because we don't want stalkers who know our daily schedule or such. The reverse of "If you've done nothing wrong, you'll have nothing to hide." will be what's true, since the people who are doing wrong things will be hiding it all in plain sight.
Authorities were unable to stop this incident because the terrorists had thought of something that had never been tried before. Previously pilots and other airline employees were instructed to comply with all demands of hijackers, under the assumption that the worst risk was the safety of those on the plane and that cooperation would lead to safety. This was a perfectly reasonable assumption to draw until last Tuesday because that was how all prior hijackings had worked. Now instructions are different. Nobody anticipated that an airplane would be used as a massive bomb. The attack got past us simply because we did not anticipate an attack of this type.
No matter how hard we crack down, there will always be people thinking of news ways to kill us because we can only crack down with the anticipation of certain types of attacks. As long as a way of attacking exists which we have not yet thought of, we will be vulnerable and somebody out there will think of it and use it on us. (this theory is also applied in computer security, as you hear peole say "there's no such thing as secure, only more secure and less secure") All we can really do is make ourselves less of a target, and remove the sickeningly efficient and obvious ways to achieve mass death, like nukes.
"I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
I assume that Jon Katz is allowed to post his views on the main page of Slashdot because he's a journalist, not just another geek. But part of being a journalist is checking your facts. This is something Jon obviously did not do. This makes him just another geek posting a biased uninformed rant that belongs in comments, not on the main page.
We've all heard US lawmakers and law-enforcers on TV the last few days saying the same thing as Jon in almost the same words: "Existing wiretap laws require warrants for each telephone, even though criminals and terrorists might use dozens of phones or a variety of communications systems." This simply isn't the case.
Emergency Wiretap
Roving Wiretap
Read the full version http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2518.html
Jon says:
That's what many of us are arguing, that they are obligated to get warrants. I don't want my local cop shop being able to decide to tap the phones at the local mosque, just because it's a known muslim hang-out.
My right to free speech allows me to post this message without law-enforcement officers arresting me. If lawmakers could make a law that would prevent me from "being torn to bits or crushed in a collapsing inferno" I would be all for it. Unfortunately they can't. There's no question that the rights of the people killed in the disaster were violated. The question is, do we need new laws, or do we need better enforcement of existing laws? Before I give up my right to privacy, free speech, and free mobility I want to be convinced that giving up those rights will actually help guarantee the rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" for everybody else.
I'm not suggesting for a moment that we should let these people go unpunished. I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't hunt down the sources that feed these "feral dogs" and wipe them out. What I'm getting at is, how valuable are our freedoms and our liberties to us? Are they things we will throw away out of fear for our lives or will we hold on to them even if it means some risk.
I do not with to exalt what these people have done but I think ultimately a lot of the outcome of this is going to be tied to moral fortitude. Who's willing to fight the hardest, and what are they fighting for? They are fighting for some twisted interpetation of a religious doctrine. What are we fighting for? National soveriegnty? Personal safety?
Personally I think the only thing that makes us american boils down to the rights and liberties set forth in the constitution. To destroy that, in an effort to weed out terrorists, destroys ourselves. Are we willing to sacrifce, not just for protection of a sovereign nation, but also for protection of the principals which allowed it to thrive?
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
"Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
All the ideas about preventing terrorism are great and useful, but a few shots of the uncommon "common sense" needs to be applied.
Let's say we outlaw encryption, or at least add back doors. How will you prevent terrorists, who do not and will not obey the law anyway from using products which do not have back doors?
Let's say we increase security at airports further, will this prevent further attacks? I doubt it. We already seriously increased security at airports when TWA800 sank off the coast of Long Island. However, it did not prevent these guys from their attack.
How will we prevent truck bombs? Or bombs in tunnels or bridges? Back doors to encrypted communication will not help against this.
How will you prevent attacks when the terrorists uses mail messages posted to yahoo, with codes such as "I had the best roast beef sandwitch for lunch today at Joe's Deli" to mean attack at dawn?
Regardless of what laws we pass, we cannot stop people from communicating secretly as long and we cannot read their minds. Even if it were technically feasable, do we really need to have a thought-crime police department?
And what does either the DMCA or SSSCA have to do with terrorists anyway?
Let's look at it this way: even if we manage to put in all these restrictions, aren't we in that case giving in to what the terrorist's goals are?
After all we lose our freedom due to terror - because we fear. Terror attacks by definition play on our fears.
You asked for an example in which having my email exposed would harm me in some way. I did that. Never mind that the first example is illegal; it doesn't mitigate the damage.
The second example is justified by the actions of various government agencies during the McCarthy years; look at the files on many of our best writers of the time (for example) to see what kind of information was gathered illegally. Didn't stop them. Our government *is* a black box, with only occassional (generally controlled) glimpses within.
Email can be fairly secure. Encryption favors the encryptor; yes, eventually any encryption can be cracked. But the practicality of it is something else entirely. And as the saying goes, you can decrypt some of the messages some of the time, but not all of the messages all of the time.
I'm not gonna flame-- your points of view are valid and well thought out. I just distrust my government, so my conclusions are a bit different.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
What gets to me is the amount of people out there with the knee jerk reactions that practically scream "oh god, there go all my civil rights." How many people out on Slashdot have ever gone to sleep knowing that someone a few hundred meters away was trying to kill them, or woke up in the middle of the night wondering if that was thunder or incoming artillery, then passing the time between booms wondering about their anthrax vaccine, hoping that it will protect them. Don't forget that our people in uniform have VOLUNTARILY given up some of their civil rights to protect the citizens of the United States. Will crypto backdoors and some of the other suggestions stop all the terrorist attacks? Probably not. Anybody willing to spend a few months learning to program the stuff can come up with their own methods. But at what point to we value human lives? Is easing wiretap restrictions worth it? Perhaps and perhaps not, but I agree with Katz, we need to look at all the options and not dismiss any until all the sides have been reviewed and weighed.
le sigh
They know the gov monitors the phone, but they used that, right? They monitor the movements of foreign nations, yet the terrorists chose to live in this country for an extended period of time, didn't they? They know that airports have pretty tight surveilance and security, but they strolled right through several of those, right?
They won't use it? Please.
War is generally considered a conflict between two or more nations. Despite Bush and the TV calling this war, there really hasn't been evidence that the present situation, however awful it might be, is in anyway analogous to war as it's previously existed.
This situation is far more like a general coming apart at the seams of America and the West. It's similar to a crime certainly, it's similar to an epidemic, and it's somewhat similar to war. But the finality of the phrase "this is war" simplifies a complex situation.
Sure, if we attack Afghanistan, then we'll have war with Afghanistan for however long the Afghans hold up - which might not be long. But if we destroyed the Taleban in total, we'd still have this "war on terrorism" and be pointing our guns desperately in one direction then another.
The point is we have to look what's happening now, not fit it into a comfy box and be done with it.
These sweeping statements about "loosing civil rights" don't look what happened. Nerfarious people found a particularly ugly way to "express" themselves. It was horible but the fact is that we know there aren't that many of them - "not that many" means less a thousand.
The "war on terrorism" rhetoric gives you precisely the wrong way to approach thing. We aren't going elimenate terrorism or crime or death. All we can do is stop particularly awful sorts. Hopefully the airliner-into-building hole is plugged. We should be looking into other especially ugly holes and plugging those.
But we're not going to make groups wishing to do shit like this go away - even if we catch all these folks. Remember, the Columbine High kids wanted to do this also. The WTC attack was apparently meticulously planned but commentary indicates that someone much less competent COULD have done this too.
So anyway, the point of "loose liberties" is ill-founded for another - it's a general fix in place of specific security measures.
Like "security through obscurity," it's the kind of measure which gives people an illusion of security and thus prevents the hard work needed to create real security. The previous airline security was very invasive yet still turned out to be inadequate. The main factor was that
Any lazy patriot can tape a flag to their antenna or light a candle. It'll take real backbone to support changes in our failed policies in the Middle East.
- Either limit arms sales to the Middle East or put responsiblity for regional defense in the hands of our allies, and in turn decrease our military posture in the region.
- Eliminate the double standard applied to Israel by cutting it's massive foreign aid (Israel has a modern economy and military by the way) and holding it accountable for it's actions. The Cold War is over and we don't need them for a proxy state anymore. Israel cannot be allowed to act like Western settlers wiping out pesky Indians (then blaming the Indians for fighting back).
It can't be allowed to shirk the nuclear nonproliferation treaty either. The same sanctions we set on Pakistan for having the bomb should be applied to Israel.
Doing this will take a lot of the wind out of the radical's sails and may even force Israel to finally sit with the Palestinians as equals.
- Start rebuilding relations with Iran and encourage the growing moderates elements there. An entire generation has grown up in Iran since the revolution and they are tired of it. Turning our back on the major power in the Persian Gulf region won't make it go away.
- Stop giving massive support blindly to nondemocratic regimes (Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain). We have to buy their oil (not forever hopefully) but we don't have to pretend we like it.
- Let Iraq sell what it needs to support it's people but nothing else. Saddam won't live forever and his peers will get sick of struggling to satisfy his ego. The people don't need to suffer for him though.
- Encourage real economic growth in these regions. Radicals get far less attention when people have their material needs met.
Real Politik looks good and tough on paper but it will burn you in the end. Stalin thought he was being tough and smart by signing the nonagression pact with Hitler. We have to stick to a moral framework and stop selling out for short term benefits.
And on the homefront we could think about putting a fraction of the billions of federal dollars we pour into highways into airport security and alternate transportation, such as rail. Say what you want about Amtrack but it can't be driven into a building and won't fall out of the sky.
We could also look at our behavior as consumers. I find it sad that the same guy with the flag flapping drives a gas guzzling SUV. Maybe if we didn't waste our resources, especially oil, we wouldn't need to be so deeply involved in the Middle East.
The simple fact is that the government has no authority to abridge the Constitution. Only the state legislatures can do that through constitutional amendment.
So it doesn't matter a rat's ass if anyone wants to limit these rights; doing so outside the provisions of a constitutional amendment is *illegal* - no ifs, ands, or buts.
If you want to piss away your freedom, and mine as well, you're welcome to try. But do so through the legal means afforded to you.
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
But changing our views on privacy issues, from the terrorist's perspective, just makes their "job" harder.
You say that as if its a forgone fact- when it is not. I have yet to see any of these measures do more good than harm. Simple vigilance of the measures we now have in place would have been enough. Telling pilots not to surrender their planes at the slightest provocation would have worked.
The goal of terror is to disrupt, and if we fall prey to that then we are indeed serving the tero's purposes.
Anonymity is a from of privacy. By requiring that the posts from this article not be anonymous. (I could'nt find any from Anonymous Coward. I may be wrong here...) So somewhere your IP address and e-mail which will trace back to you will be found. Some other sniffer is probably running right now at Slashdot's or your host reading everything....making a huge list of all the "mostly libertarian" crowd here. Tracing the e-mail address back to your account that is a company owned by one of maybe four huge companies who carefully analyze your internet habits to pop just the right ad up to you. Which apparently for almost everyone is for a mini spy camera.....go figure!! Lets remember 9/11 but let us remember who we are what the generations before us fought and died for.
Katz, an excellent piece that lays out the great number of issues with which we need to struggle with in the wake of 9/11. Thank you for being willing to go beyond the knee-jerk reactions - many of which unfortunately have been expressed in replies to you - and think about how we balance our rights to be secure in our persons and possessions with our right to be safe in our lives.
If people have not read it, I would highly recommend they read The Bill of Rights by Akhil Reed Amar. Reading this work will cause you to rethink your understanding of what the Bill of Rights does and does not say. How it fits together. And how we might protect our rights in other ways than we currently do.
One of the myths of the Internet world is that we have an absolute right to privacy and annonimity. We need to think through what our pursuit of this means. The powerful have - and will have these rights - if we make them the our be all and end all. David Brin in The Transparent Society works through a different model. A model that would make us safer, but still give us privacy and protection from government agents.
Take the time to read these works. To think about them. Can we build a system that gives us secruity and protects us from self-dealing government agents? I think we can, but it will require us to move beyond next jerk reacations.
"Existing wiretap laws require warrants for each telephone, even though criminals and terrorists might use dozens of phones or a variety of communications systems."
This is incorrect. You would do well to read the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, passed, I believe, in 1976 or '77 in reaction to the Church Committee Hearings after Watergate & related shenanigans. The congressional hearings leading to this legislation are informative, also. FISA allows the FBI or other federal law enforcement to obtain a warrant by authority of a secret panel of judges in Washington. The identity of these judges is not known. They had, when I last checked in the early 1990s, granted almost every warrant request. These warrants are open-ended and broad. They are not tied to a single phone but can be used--and were used in the case I examined--to tap every single pay phone along I-95 from Maine to Connecticut. These powers are very broad and need not be broadened.
Once captured under a FISA investigation, the suspect cannot examine the evidence used to obtain the wiretap warrant(s). Challenging the "probable cause" used to obtain a wiretap warrant is a standard defensive tactic, used by drug kingpins and available even to mafia lords charged under RICO. FISA defendents cannot use it. This is settled law as of 1992 and was probably expanded in 1996 with the "Anti-terrorism and effective death penalty act." I have not checked the specifics.
I did examine the context under which the original FISA was passed, however. Back in '77 or so, amidst the outrage engendered by the Church Committee revelations (unaccountable executive power, Nixon's "Black Bag" and "dirty tricks" crews, no-knock SWAT raids by the the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs [these used to be rare], Henry Kissinger in Chile and Cambodia, etc.) the congressional consensus was to pass a law that would "restore the public's trust in the national security institutions." The words were very much like this. The object, even then, was decidedly NOT to reign-in any abuses of executive (or general government) power. The idea, always, always, was to calm down the rabble.
Your essay makes no apparent distinction between real privacy--freedom of movement and association, freedom of speech, freedom from surveillance and harassment--and financial privacy. It is my belief that financial privacy, which is near-absolute for the wealthy and nonexistent for the rest of us, is at the root of the WTC attack and any number of other evils in the world. I have seen very little comment on the notion that a man such as bin Laden can direct a terror network from a desert bunker and run a financial empire worth several hundred million dollars. Think of this: A bin Laden with $300 million can do virtually anything he wants. A bin Laden with $30,000 is a harmless crank.
Until last month the United States was on the verge of signing vastly-improved anti-money laundering treaties negotiated with Europe and a number of "tax havens." Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill kibashed this, on the stated theory that the U.S. should not be in the business of dictating to other nations what their tax rates should be (O'Neill has said that corporate taxes should be abolished).
So long as the so-called "civilized" world maintains an opaque banking system featuring numbered Swiss accounts, brass plate corporations in the Cayman Islands, and so-called "Private Banking Services" at the Bank of New York, men like bin Laden will be able to operate with near impunity.
We should have a debate about privacy. First we have to define what we mean by privacy, and I think we ought to start by admitting that our money-spending habits are already in the public domain, never were and ought not be "private." The next step is demanding the same rules be applied to the very wealthy, whether terrorist or mere tax dodger. Transparency, friends, could be our salvation.
Why is the word freedom being associated with danger? Maybe the issue of freedom vs. security is not the problem here? Maybe there are other nuances in the argument that have nothing to do with freedom vs. security and those in power are taking advantage of the hysteria to distract us from more fundamental questions that would have an effect on their budgets and system of control rather than the lives of the average citizen?
I think most importantly people need to realize that the body is a temporary edifice and that no amount of surveillance and "security" is going to protect it from entropy.
Maybe just maybe if our society was a bit more loving and kind and our government spent less than 90% of it's budget on weapons and soldiers our world would be a kinder, gentler and most importantly safer place? Just imagine if one spent 90% percent of their income on weapons and security for their home. Would that person really feel safe or would they be more fearful?
Peace Pilgrim walked over 25,000 miles for peace
Nobody in his right mind would support a blank check for government authorities.
Yet isn't that what Congress did with its resolution granting Bush the right to retaliate against our attackers? They passed that resolution without knowing who there is to take action against, if we had solid evidence against them, and how we might take action.
Or, what about Ashcroft announcing those new policies about how long the INS could hold someone without accusing them of a crime? Before, the INS could only hold someone for 24 hours. Now they can hold them for 48 hours, UNLESS they decide it's an "emergency" or some such language. Then they can hold people -- who haven't been officially accused of anything -- as long as they want to.
You say nobody in his right mind would give the government a blank check to do whatever they want to. Maybe you're not familiar with our federal government...
-- dR.fuZZo
"Your post is the first I have seen stating this goal..."
The article, What Should be the Response to Violence? explains the U.S. goals in the middle east, and the entire situation.
See the headings:
There was plenty of warning.
There is in the U.S. very little attempt at understanding other cultures.
Basically, Osama bin Laden does not want the U.S. to interfere in the government of Saudi Arabia. Saudi friends who live here in the U.S. have told me that they believe that Saudi Arabia should have a democratic government. The U.S. strongly supports a dictatorship. There is evidence that the reason is corruption of the secret agencies of the U.S. government. When dealing with a dictatorship, it is easy to arrange embezzlement of U.S. government funds. With a democracy, it would be difficult.
Bush's education improvements were
is to protect and defend its citizens. The failure to do that last week occurred primarily, many terrorism experts
say, because our existing intelligence institutions don't have the human resources
Listen up, YoYo. The FBI knew about every single one of these jokers *2* years ago, they were all on the Watch List. They picked up a half dozen in June01 on spying charges. These Saudis were casing an FBI office complex in NY, taking pix of cameras, sentries, security doors, etc. *Highly illegal*, even for citizens. They were let go.
On top of it, Mary Jo White, Clinton appointee, has been blowing off indictments.
And all of these clowns lived openly, under their own names, using credit cards and car rentals openly. The FBI couldn't find them? Mossad gave us a heads up 2 months ago. Give the educated world a break, you stupid moron.
The FBI doesn't need more tools, it needs to be housecleaned of all its Clinton appointees. Ask Dr. Whitehurst about this.
Oh, but Clinton cared about children and he was proabortion, so you'll stay silent.
Shut up.
If we surrender a "little" freedom on issues like cryptography, fourth and second amendment rights, and the all-important right to free speech, there most certainly will be long-term consequences. American history is littered with examples of the abuse of State power to suppress dissenters, a fact which is all too quickly forgotten by the American people. (I would suggest books such as Lies My Teacher Told Me or It Did Happen Here: Recollections of Political Oppression in America for those who are unfamiliar with these events; such reading is not for the faint of heart, I warn you.) Make no mistake: any abridgments of our freedoms which we permit now will be used when the next wave of political repression hits.
I don't know who that wave will target. In the 1920s, it was anarchists and labor unionists who suffered. In the 1940s, they locked up, seized the property of, and generally harrassed persons of Japanese and German descent. In the 1950s, homosexuals and suspected "communists" were targeted. In the 1960s, they went after civil rights and peace activists.
Perhaps you, or someone you love, will be next.
Think twice before squandering your freedom.
-Carter
They like it when people react to them. They have a sense of power over people who are angry or afraid of them. This feeds into their strange sense of justice.
I'm not sure what the answer is, but I believe we have to keep this in mind as we explore the possiblities. That is, are we just fanning the flames by doing so.
I'm not advocating forgive and forget by any means. I'm saying learn where the buttons are, and how to use them!
I'm not sure I'm ready to tell those kids whose parents didn't come home last week that they and others down the road just have to suck it up because people may be unwilling -- even temporarily -- to lose any measure of privacy.
.. not a need...
I'm ready to tell them and everyone else...GET OVER IT...life WILL go on...and the "NEED" to invade privacy is a WANT
people in control just want MORE control...and will use ANY EXCUSE to obtain it...
and I have NEVER seen 'liberties' given back that were TAKEN...
--Huck
"Just Smile and Nod." --Huck
I would like to point out that this weekend the head of the FBI didn't ask for script kiddies to apply to his agency. He asked that people with a proficency in Arabic and Pharsi try to join the FBI. Though people call this a new war, the types of "technology" being used are ancient: terrosits use complex social organization. What is needed are laws that allow tracking along social lines - not along the lines of technology. The open need for people familiar with the Arab world is an example of this. Who better to understand the organization of a largely Arab terrorist organization than people from the same culture? Being able to decrypt all the email in the world won't neccessarily stop terrorism - people have thwarted similar measures by governents since time immemorial. What is primarily needed is a knowledge of the types of social organization these groups employ. This type of information can be more efficiently gleaned through old fashioned human to human contact. Increasing electronic monitoring isn't even half of the problem - using the same monitoring capabilities that our government has now with laws that allow for a more fluid, dynamic, context dependent tracking of people will, in my opinion, solve our intelligence problem. Why give a carte blanche to the FBI and CIA to inspect all of our private transmissions? If they don't have the human capacity, or the specialized cultural knowledge, to sift through it we will all lose our liberty, and gain nothing in increased knowledge of possible terrorists.
The correct security method of course would be to actually correctly patch and secure the system (aka adding guards on planes and better security at airports)
Everyone knows that simply firewalling a system but leaving the back defenses completely unguarded is the lazy, halfassed (and practically wrong) way to handle security. Intelligence is similar. To use it to assist in security is one thing, to rely on it is another.
Step 1 is to actually beef up security in this system, like they are going to do now on airlines. If you want to add another layer of defense by trading privacy for information, well thats an option. But don't act like its the only one. You can say this would have never happened if we would have knew about it beforehand. I say it never would have happened if airlines put security over convenience in the first place. Americans seem to love convenience, despite the awful risks that come with it. That explains the large prevalent number of insecure Windows boxes out there. I for one wouldn't mind giving up some of my conveniences to gain a little security. Privacy I might gawk on, but it shouldn't be necessary to go that far.
Magius_AR
Not wishing to put a downer on this, but as far as I know, no brand of Islam is prosethletysing ? Do they have missionaries out trying to convert peopel etc ? I've never heard of any.
The Islamic fundamentalists typically want the country they live in to run by Islamic law, and for Muslims to live according to Sharia law but that really isn't the same thing as you said.
For example, Iran actually still has a population of Jewish and Christian citizens, who do not have to convert to Islam, although they do have to obey the non-secular laws of the country.
I might be wrong, as IANACRS (I am not a comparative regilions scholar).
Cheers,
Winton
I keep hearing this quote by Benjamin Franklin on talkshows and netposts:
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
I live in Times Square and until September 11, 2001, I worked at 5 World Trade Center. I think about my safety a lot. And I find this quote by Benjamin Franklin to be used appallingly out of context. People are using the words of a great man to support a disgusting lack of security in the world. Completely incompatible thoughts.
If someone puts more cameras up all over Times Square, I have no problem with that. If you can't go to gun shows now and buy 10 machine guns, I have no problem with that. If you are treated as guilty first rather than innocent every time you simply try to board an airplane, like El Al, I have no problem with that.
I think the amount of FUD on the issue of our essential liberties is chokingly high on BOTH sides of the issue here.
For example, those who claim that liberty is an essential concept of our lives and it exists in a vacuum, regardless of government, supports a crock. Essential liberty is something that is hard-fought for and earned, and has been hard-fought for by generations throughout history. We don't even really have it yet in the US on many levels, but the US approaches, of all of the nations of the world, one of the closest to pure liberty, at least in its commitment to the concept. That commitment is shown by the many good citizens of slashdot here in their passionate support for liberty.
Essential liberty, like getting a driver's license, and as owning a gun should be, is something that is EARNED, not something that exists in its own right. Why do we take these rights away from inmates? Because they have proven that when given essential liberty, they use it to harm others. So it is with the terrorists who attacked the World Trade Centers. We must take away their essential liberties.
To Benjamin Franklin I say "They that can give up essential liberty to preserve civilization deserves our gratitude." His quote was said in the context of a few scrappy colonies fighting for their independence. I think Benjamin Franklin would not take kindly to his quote being used in this context, to counter the necessary alterations to society to preserve it from madmen who would destroy it by any means. These terrorists are not fighting for anyone's independence. Let us not use the words of Benjamin Franklin to preserve the amazingly lax standards that allowed terror to pull this stultifying attack off.
Wake up people. This is not an abstract discussion about a few inconveniences to our lives when our car is photographed as we run a red light on our way to 7-11 to pick up some chips. This is about tightening security to preserve civilization itself, and if a few vague concepts and inconveniences are necessary to do that, like getting fingerprinted and stared at like I were a criminal just to fly on an aircraft or rent a car or get a mailbox, then that is fine.
The American soldiers and any soldiers of the coalition that will develop to fight terrorism have given up many liberties by joining the armed forces. Do they deserve derision and condemnation on a vague conceptual level about essential liberty while they are busy preserving our civilization?
Essential liberty is not as important as civilization, it is merely a concept which becomes possible BECAUSE OF civilization, and these terrorist attacks are attacks on civilization. I won't spread my own FUD here and talk about what these terrorists will do next. Use your imagination.
But the US government will now work with unsavory characters to attack them. The executive order setting that farce up has been reversed. And most Americans now support assassination to end the lives of these terrorists. These are awful evil concepts we are willing to embrace. And we have to, to preserve concrete material civilization, not an abstract elusive concept of liberty. What do these opinions about moves against the liberty of others in other parts of the world say about the situation we find ourselves in?
For those who yawn and think the plight of Israelis and Afghanis are far away now know that they share in the plight of these peoples, more than they ever could. Think about the essential liberty of Israelis and Afghanis now, today. Think about how a fight against terror that involves a contraction of our own liberties in small ways will eventually result in a great increase in liberties for these peoples eventually. Terrorism makes clear national boundaries are useless, the entire civilized world must stand against terrorism. And it makes clear we must worry about parts of the world where essential liberties are nearly extinguished, because that threatens us in direct concrete ways, not in ephemeral vague ways.
So please, spread no more FUD about essential liberties that might be taken away from you by the American Government. Think about what the terrorists would take away from you. We will all live now as they do in Israel. And a few liberties will fade a little. And I applaud it as the necessary steps to protect us. Do I like these tightening of rights and restrictions on our lives? No. Am I rational enough to understand how they are necessary? Yes.
And when the terrorist threats fade years from now, woe to those who would extend our restrictions in order to preserve their power. Let me be the first to fight them as the demagogues they clearly would be. But that hypothetical situation is years away from the sudden terrible world we find ourselves waking up in right now. So I say get real people. We are not talking about abstract concepts here, we are talking about real-lfe cause and effect.
I want to preserve the civilized world. Let's worry about the free world later when things calm down.
So one day when the government has total control, and there is no cryptography, you will write something like "gosh I hate the president why can't he die" and the government will see that and arrest you.
When and if such a hypothetical day comes I will be there fighting right alongside you. People are missing the point: terrorism has nothing to do with defending rights. It has everything to do with defending civilization. It is not giving into fear, which would mean the terrorists win, but it has everything to do prudent preparation and defense from terrorism again.
These terrorists think we are decadent and weak and easy targets. Taking down the World Trade Centers and worried because you can't buy as many guns as you want and because your aol chat can be seen by the CIA proves that we are weak. We must be strong in the face of this terror.
People's passion for the world which existed before September 11, 2001 in words about crypto and guns is laudable.
Now let's see some passion for the world which exists now.
Everyone: less defense for individual rights from government. Everyone: more defense for the civilized world from terrorism. Everyone: the world is very different now, the stakes are higher than the old world. Adjust your opinions to the reality we live in today, not the one we lived in last week.
Terrorism wins not when our rights are temporarily constricted, but when they cause so much uncertainty our economy crumbles. Everyone's passion for liberty is wonderful! Let's see more recognition that liberty is not the point here, civilization is!
Benjamin Franklin's words applied to scrappy colonies fighting for freedom from a foreign government. His words are completely out of context from a world where civilization itself is under attack from madmen.
When we defeat these terrorists in a few years, our temporary constricting of rights here will result in a massive increase in rights, an increase from practically nothing, in areas all over the middle east, all over the world.
Listen: fighting terrorism is equivalent to exporting liberty. Our temporary constricting of rights to fight terrorists on our shores is a fraction of a percentage of liberty that will eventually be born by defeating terrorism all over the world.
We will win, and then our liberty, the liberty of peoples around the world, will be even greater than it was before!
Wake up! Adjust your opinions! ADAPT!
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I'd been snookered. I'm rather disappointed in myself for that. So, the question then remains: In what situation is it easier to overcome a small number (3-5) of people? When they and some of the 80 other people are armed with firearms, or when they and some of the 80 other people (or even none of them) are armed with small knives at best? Flight 93 had a judo champion and a 6'5" rugby player participating in the counterattack. I'm thinking they stood a better chance unarmed against knives than they would have stood armed against guns that were drawn and ready.
One of the comments was dead on. This was a psychological problem. We'd been conditioned not to resist terrorists; frankly, because they'd never pulled anything like this before. It took, however, less than a half hour for that conditioning to reverse. We have the resistance on flight 93. We have the co-pilot of another trans-continental flight getting up and standing by the cabin door to fight off anyone who tried to break in. We've learned a hard lesson, but we've learned; and even if we do start letting knives and corkscrews and sissors on planes again, they won't be usable for a hijacking. It's very unfortunate that this wasn't figured out 30 minutes earlier, but we're creatures of habit, after all.
Cryptography is not what the FBI and other law enforcement agencies (LEA's) are against; that is at best disingenuous and at worst grossly misleading. What they are against is the unrestrained use of cryptography to further commissions of crime, especially those of the nature which we saw on September 11.
If you read over the many, many transcripts of testimony given on Capitol Hill in the past several years concerning the issues of strong encryption used in criminal enterprise, you will see that what LEA's are trying to achieve is a form of key escrow. This would lead to an analogous situation with the way wiretaps are lawfully obtained. With key escrow, part of a cryptographic "skeleton key" would be held by judicial agencies, and whose release would only be authorized in the event of judicial approval of a signed affidavit stating the specific need for that key to be activated.
This is no different than how wiretaps are legally obtained, and wiretaps (despite the rantings of a bunch of /.ers) are very few and far between. At any one time in the country, there are usually less than 100 wiretaps total, most involved with drugs and organized crime. (See recent comments by Judge William Sessions, former Director of the FBI, to NPR and others.) LEA's, even if they were so inclined (and judging by the people I know who work for them, they most decidedly aren't) have neither the time nor the inclination to randomly eavesdrop on conversations or look through anyone's e-mail, nor could they if they wanted to. The days of COINTELPRO are over, because it's been firmly demonstrated that any such abuses mean that people will go to jail, not to mention lose their jobs.
The people I know who work for LEA's don't care if people use crypto in general. What they do care about is that crypto, when used by those who would do harm to other people or their property, does not level the playing field -- it destroys it. Key escrow will restore the balance that has been carefully achieved in the realm of wiretap law.
Would we rather give up civil liberties in hopes moving further towards a police state might prevent a recurrence of hijackings or would we rather rely on citizen initiative in crisis and accept that occasionally weapons accidents or crimes will happen (and individuals will pay for them)? Which would one rather trust in the long term -- a police state or armed and communciating citizens? Remember, ultimately a policeperson is just a trained and armed and communciating citizen (although part of a hierarchy instead of a network). [Again -- I'm not pushing this proposal -- I just offer it for discussion of pros and cons since no one else seems to be proposing less "security" as the answer. Personally I'd rather see more high speed rail, more sensible US foreign policy, and more aid for impoverished nations.]
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
Even if suddenly all software like Windows and
Explorer got secret "back-doors" there would
still be enough non-compromised software out
there and there is no way to take it back.
If someone downloads and uses e.g. pgp you can't
force him to upgrade to something else. If
>today you can find safe and secure communication
platforms they will be stil usable tomorrow.
The only people that will be "exposed" are those
that do not care and these do not use encryption
software.
I don't care a lot about this issue, but I don't
see how the law can effectively prevent you from
using real cryptography. It is not a crime,
after all.
P.
I read your link. What the "glurge guy" fails to understand is that these men died fighting for our independence or lost their fortunes/family/freedom supporting independence. Yes, it was not necessarily a direct relation to them signing a piece of paper. But he is merely picking on semantics as most guys of his sort do.
These men stood behind their words and did so in a public manner. How many people can say that in this day and age? The framers of our Constituion were great men, and they were smart enough to realize that they weren't smart enough to get everything right the first time. I give them alot of credit for what they did and pay them the respect they should be afforded.
I ran for the bus
To see, BUS NOT IN SERVICE
Dr. Fazulli
> But what/ifs/might of beens would have been totally avoided since the
> terrorists who planned very carefully would not have taken the course
> of action they did on Tuesday had regular people not been in a
> position of helplessness. They would have chosen somthing entirely
> diferent as their modus operandi.
Yes... they would have made a point of being armed themselves. And the end result would likely not have been very different... those flights that still believed to be the victims of an "ordinary" hijack would have done nothing, those that found out the truth would hopefully have acted as they did -- only expending more firepower.
Sorry, I must agree with a previous poster that it is shameful to exploit this tragedy for peddling gun nuttery.
From the comments above:
Nos: "Security and freedom are inversely related."
Bistronaut: "Security and freedom are not inversely related!"
cybrthng: "It is inversely related."
Whan a discussion is confused, it is often because of discussing the wrong issue. It is possible to have both security and freedom if you understand the situation better:
First bombing of the World Trade Center: When followers of Osama bin Laden bombed the WTC the first time, bin Laden, a Saudi citizen, said it was because he wanted the U.S. government to stop interfering with politics in Saudi Arabia. The U.S. government (not the people, most of whom who have no idea what their government is doing) strongly supports the dictatorship there. There is evidence that the reason is corruption of some people in the secret agencies of the U.S. government. When dealing with a dictatorship, it is easy to arrange embezzlement of U.S. government funds. With a democracy, or some more representative form of government, it would be difficult.
Second bombing of the World Trade Center: bin Laden warned after the first bombing that there would be further trouble if the U.S. did not stop interfering.
The article, What Should be the Response to Violence? explains the entire situation. See the heading, "There was plenty of warning."
ALL violence is 100% reprehensible and crazy. However, it does help to understand the people who think violence is the answer.
Bush's education improvements were
Here is the bottom line:
The Bad Guys don't play by the rules, anyway.
The government has been foaming at the mouth to install things like Carnivore, implement the DMCA, stop people from having PGP, etc. for years.
Guess what? If the feds backdoor encryption sold here in the US, The Bad Guys will get their encryption elsewhere. The only people who would be effected by these limitations on privacy are people like us, not The Bad Guys.
And, as has been pointed out before, but bears repeating: if laws are made in these emotionally charged times, they will never go away, because the politicians won't want to appear "soft on terrorism" the same way they don't want to appear "soft on drugs".
Katz makes good points, and this tragedy has forever changed our world, but let's hope, as another poster said, that cooler heads prevail.
When the Nazis wanted to stop trade unionism in Germany they blew up the Reischstag & blamed it on the Jews Mr. Katz.
Even tyrants respect freedom of speech, it is in their best interests that FOS is preserved. These goat molesters were extoling their plans in every bar from here to tampa to anyone who would listen: probably hoping that someone would arrest them & save their lives. If the God damned cops would have used the Constitutional powers that they have a right to, none of this would have happened.The first thing these killers did was tamper with the black boxes, which is supposed to trigger an immediate military response: as the icon on the controller's screen turns to a blank spot.
At least one member of the conspiracy attempted to call the CIA. He should have spray painted it on a damn wall.
I get the impression that these hijackers were probably blackmailed into doing it, hence the leaks. The kind of black mail that might have caused this atrocity could be anything from high school scores to medical records,any of which would ruin your life even in a goatherd economy. This occurs when a State collects information on a private citizen for the purposes of big business using such data to lower wages. Organized crime, of every sort depends for its power over the civilian on the modern abuses of State data bases. Probably a couple of hijackers unwillingly went along so their families wouldn't loose their green cards. Someone once told me this story that some drug smugglers gained control over a diplomatic pouch because they blackmailed a diplomats kid with regard to some traffic tickets.
The more illegal data you collect on an already enslaved country like America, the more you increase the probability that some cavemen are going to fly a Boing through your window.
Your bribes create the impetus that empowers criminals. Parents that can't correct their children, men loosing drivers licenses because of not buckling a seatbelt or an inaccurate dwi conviction.[The system steals the money for better roads then blames the driver because a pothole sends a car carreening into some kid who doesn't have a 'human' park to play in.
GThere are a thousand minor problems that have been deliberately created to bog down American. Sometimes a jerk comes along that sets off a chain of them and then there's hell to pay
The genius of the American Constitution is that it is set up so that no group can organize a putsch in any direction unless conditions create a universal, unidirectional,force. This forces the government to stay out of the way while we the people create a better World. Now we are post nine one one, a band of animals got luckier than they wanted to be, If the government wants to do something about it, why not dock the militants pay, they're all on the CIA payroll. These men have made themselves a reputation. I wonder what they're planning on doing with it? Get a green card? I don't think so, I wonder who their real target is?
How about securing the pilots doors with kevlar or creating a flight control that would only allow a fighter flying above the captured plane to control.[The computer built into the fighter not the Boing]
If you asked the martyred firefighters if they wanted Dubya to destroy the Constitution in order to avenge them, I believe they would say no to a man
With regard to the excavating being done, Slashdot might run a daily page for suggestions as to possible methods of emergency digging methods. I am amazed that they didn't start asking for workgloves until the third day. The work vibration is going to cause dust to lock the larger objects in place, vacuuming systems might be able to move a couple of tons per hour.
It originated at Z Magazine, but they appear to be having trouble.
Precisely why we need to be given back our second ammendment freedoms. If we as a nation were properly trained in the safe and lawful use of firearms I doubt terrorists would be able to take over planes and use them as human guided bombs.
Matter of fact, an armed civilian population can reduce crime. The problem is determining who can be trained to properly respect the power of a firearm and act in a reponsible manner.
Give us back the 2nd ammendment and make our youth serve in the military. A few years of civil service should be mandatory to instill in today's youth a healthy respect for the freedoms they are afforded.
It's pretty clear to see our country is going to hell in a handbasket because of the general populace wanting the government to babysit and hand hold them through their everyday lives. What we need is self responsibility for our actions and others around us. If you see someone acting out of line kick them in the ass. It used to be that if you did something wrong and the neighbors caught you, they'd smack your ass and then take you to your parents who would smack your ass as well. We need that kind of community involvement with our youth again to instill some kind of moral sense of responsibility in them. We also need to get them to have respect for themsevles before we can ever hope for them to respect others. How many are sitting around getting high and being apathetic to the world?
Pfah...flame me all you want, but the liberal approach is to force a giant big brother babysitter on everyone. I disagree with this type of view and if you do not like it...too bad...this is America we can agree to disagree here.
Of course it won't restore the balance, Stickster. We have been over this so many times on Slashdot, and the argument still stands: Only those who abide by the law will submit a key to the authorities or use software which mandates it. Criminals, terrorists, etc., will not use it. Why would they? There is plenty of other encryption which doesn't use it. One has to assume the government recognizes this. So why do they push for key scrow regardless?
If the government is given broader surveillance powers, they will have significantly more than metadata. The telco may have a record of my phone calls (times, numbers, length), but they do not have each call recorded and archived. With these new surveillance powers, the government could. My ISP may have records of when I log on, what websites I visit, and SMTP/POP logs, but they do not have all the actual content recorded and archived. The government could. Each individual retailer I purchase from may have a record of purchases and payments i made with them, but no one has a complete list of everything I own. If the government were to expand physical search and seizure laws (thats obviously next after they secure the net), they would.
Are you starting to see the difference now?
Liberty in your lifetime
Well, there's that old "General Welfare" clause that leaves a lot of doors open. There's also certain unspecific powers granted to the executive branch in time of war. Look back at how some of these were used and abused in the 40's and 50's.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
"But there is a new reality in the post-World Trade Center world ..."
..." There won't be one then either, just a new shock for those who got caught like you did this time.
..."
No there isn't. Somebody just demonstrated what others had been saying for years. There ain't nothing new other then the fact it dawned on you it could be done. The reality is the same, just like the likelyhood of a bioogical attack is the
same as it was last week, It's not a question of "if" but "when".
"But the terrorist attack has changed the entire context of these discussions, putting the issues far beyond knee-jerk reflexes"
No it hasn't, some folks have been considering this for a long time already, all that's
changed is that it's been brought into horrible reality for those who didn't think that way.
All we have seen up until this point is knee jerk reactions, Finally some folks are starting to come down and rethink some of the things that have been said in the last week. You aren't one of those folks yet. Understandable and completely reasonable, just let cooler heads prevail right now.
"But there is also something reflexively knee-jerk in the automatic 'they-are-taking-our-freedoms-away' response from certain quarters online
Maybe that is because the realize that much of this is completely emotional response durring
a very emotionally charged time and that we don't have a good record for making decisions
at times like this. They also realize that it's a very focused reaction right no and that the
full implications of what is being discussed isn't being considered.
"But it needs -- deserves -- to be rationally and openly considered."
So let the rational do it, if it's an emotional discussion because of the tragidies, the same emotiotons will run as high onthe other side and it simply turns into an expression of emotion about the tragidies by people taking opposing sides on an issue.
"The thousands of dead and millions of others who work in vulnerable office towers,
or travel or study or live near airports (or schools, or ports, or national symbols)
have rights too, and they have been grievously violated. have rights too, and they
have been grievously violated."
Yes, and they have duties too, and those have been horribly failed.
"The government has an obligation to protect them."
There is a limit to what any govenrment can do here, There is an obligation for the individual to be responsible for thier own saftey and the safety of others.
"...while most Americans shrug it off as a new convenience."
Until someone figures out a way to get a hold of that data and start performing terrorists acts with it. Then there will be a New hue and Cry and people will be just as suprised and realizing the same things and saying very similar things to what you are saying now; "... there is a new reality in the
Maybe the next terrorist attack won't be a nuke in London, Tokyo, Cairo, Chicago or a biological weapon in Tel Aviv, Stockholm, Moscow or San Fransisco. it might be getting access to the Fed's store of Backdoor entry systems into crypto and destroying or altering that so that they don't work or work incorrectly.
"The failure to do that last week occurred primarily, many terrorism experts say,
because our existing intelligence institutions don't have the human resources, the technology or the laws to keep up with a sophisticated, well-funded, technologically-savvy network of murderous enemies"
Why not handle the first two before playing with the laws? Fix the Human resource and technology problems, before changing the laws?
"We might want to ponder what rights we owe the living and owed the dead
We also might want to ponder what the dead had, that the died because they had and that stepping back from those is a terrible offense against them. We should work harder and smarter to protect what we had, not back away in fear. Since fear is whata terrorist wants, that would be a victory for them.
Hah, the only problem that snopes had with this particular story is that it talked about sacrifices instead of risks. The list of things that the story pointed out is factual (as far as that goes). Yes, the British didn't really make any particular effort to single out signers of the Declaration of Independence, and one man was even captured and forced to recant, but it is certainly true that these rich white men would have lived entirely different privileged lives had they not started a war with Great Britain. They knew what they were up against, and they willing risked their lives and fortunes.
In other words they put their money where their mouth was. What more can you ask from a patriot?
Their beliefs sit poorly with a generation that takes their freedom for granted, but make no mistake these people willing gambled their comfy lives in a revolutionary war simply because they felt that freedom was more important than their safety. Calling their "sacrifice" an "urban legend" turns my stomach. Sure, thousands of people who didn't sign that document also suffered and died, but that doesn't make the "sacrifices" made by the signers of the Declaration of Independence any less heroic.
Um...
Koran 22:19-22:23
Garments of fire have been prepared for the unbelievers. Scalding water shall be poured upon their heads, melting their skins and that which is in their bellies. They shall be lashed rods of iron. Whenever, in their anguish, they try to escape from Hell, back they shall be dragged, and will be told: 'Taste the torment of the Conflagration!'
I have no sacred cows. I realize I am going to lose some rights, and for a proper cause.
But I worry.
Katz talks about our rights being subject to "checks and balances." Where are the checks and balances for the key-keepers in all of this?
There is no doubt that a systenm of accountability *could* be devised. There is equally little doubt that no such thing will be proposed because it will be perceived as "cumbersome." But shouldn't such power be hampered in certain ways? It's not as if there's no baby in the bathwater.
A lot of things are going by the board these days. It's pretty clear that, for intelligence purposes, we will be partnering with the drug kingpins of that part of the world. And there is going to be a lot of air traffic, unmonitored military traffic and aid traffic, to the same area. Anyone with points of reference to the real world knows that this means a heroin epidemic here in the US. We are ready to repeat history that we did not learn from.
The above may seem off-topic, but it's part of the same scheme. We are turning over our future to the politicians and the military and saying, "take care of us."
Katz's point is well-taken, but like much of his writing it is single-focused to the point of solipsism, dwelling solely on philosophy without the reference to real-world issues that should not get "lost in the sauce."
I survived the Dick Cheney Presidency 7 to 9 AM 7-21-07
Wow, and hear I was sure that Mr. Katz WAS oen of those knee jerk, overly simplistic paranoids about "privacy."
As long as we're giving quotes, there's always the oft- (and probably mis-) quoted Scott McNeally comment.
"You don't have any privacy now, deal with it."
The fact of the matter is our lives are and have been invaded by thsoe keeping records on what we do and what happens to us long before the internet. They're called "credit beaurues" and "underwriting departments."
For all the paranoia I've sene over net-autonomy I've yet to see anyone hurt by its compromise. (The same CANNOT be said abotu the compromise of fiscal and health informatio nanonymity which urts peopel daily.)
To quote the Jay and Bob movie "Thats what the internet is, someplace where you can slander others anonymously." But is this REALLY our best hopes for what this medoium means to us???
What about the famous quote from a certain document that states certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?
Somehow, I think having a building fall on you or being incinerated in a terrorist-induced plane crash is an infringement on one of these rights and demands that government do something to protect the surviving citizens from a similar happenstance.
Now, having said that, does anyone disagree? If you do, then which of the three do you value most?
If there is a problem with our intelligence, it just might be in part because we're blowing dough, manpower, and time on our futile "Drug War" efforts. We can't even keep cocaine and MDMA out of this country, let alone stop meth labs from multiplying. So why not give up and devote agents and funding to REAL problems that we might be able to SOLVE?
Those who perpetrated this crime were all foreign nationals.
The wiretap bill is designed to allow the feds to spy on Americans.
I have no problem with allowing them to freely spy on people in or from other countrys. Our constitution does not protect them. It does, however protect the citizens of the US.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. " Benjamin Franklin
When a Ball Dreams, It Dreams it's a Frisbee.
It amazes me that someone who posts here regularly can believe for a second that you can enforce a law that makes strong crypto illegal. If you make cryptograpy illegal, all that you will do is make the practice of stenography (hiding the information) much more robust.
How will you legally be able to charge someone for having a large AVI file that you *suspect* has an email encrypted in the bottom bit of every 32 bits? Or an mp3 file?
This law is not enforcable. Fact. End of story. You know that. I know that. Either the FBI knows that, or the FBI is incompetent. Either way, dont allow it to happen.
And let's not forget that any universal key will be copied. If all US generated encryption contained the magic "back door" key to be held by authorities, just how long do we think it would be before that key were leaked, cracked, otherwise discovered and published worldwide?
Basically, I am for removing "privacy" as a right provided:
Senators, President, Police, every government official must be video-taped 24 hours a day. We have the technology to do it.
Anyone can record anything, anywhere.
All public cameras must be on the net, and publicly available.
Either you believe in the right to privacy, or you do not. There is no middle ground. You dont want to see yourself fucking your wife on the internet, tough. But since anyone can see anyone on the internet, its not likely that they'll pick you, is it? Unless its you fucking your 8yr old daughter...
People tell me that the president has to do tough negotiation. Whats to negotiate? Privacy only exists so that one group can pay more for better information and then fuck the other group. What if all sides came to the table knowing everything about each other. How about consensus?
Personally, I do not believe in privacy. And before you post about how this, that, or other world economy or system would collapse, try and be imaginative and create an alternative system to replace it that would work much better. Can you do that? Or do you want your rights, and your nikes?
I think one thing this attack has shown us is that there will always be loopholes. We spent years (and billions) considering missile defense shields, Star Warz, and all sorts of other protective measures intended to be effective against a straightforward military attack. All of these were, of course, useless when terrorists decided to expoit the backdoors and windows of our system and attack from the inside. I think it's a good idea to make some changes (in airports, anyway) to prevent further carnage, but it's foolish to think that anything we do will stop people who want to hurt us as bad as the terrorists who hit the WTC did. If there's a will, there's a way around all of this. If they can't communicate via the web, they will find some other way.
In 1815 the British Expeditionary Force marched into Washington and set fire to the public buildings.
,the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and a field in PA.
The US government did not throw out the constitution then.
In May 1915 a german U-boat sank the lusitania at great loss of american life.
The US government did not throw out the constitution then.
On December 7th 1941 the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour.
The US government did not throw out the constitution then.
On Sept 7 2001 12-18 islamic terrorists hijacked and crashed 4 planes into
The US wants to throw out the Constitution because the public wants to be safe.
Oh how the mighty have fallen. Funny, I thought the US stood for freedom once. I guess more than people died on Sept 11th, so did a great nation. Do you suppose those people who died on Sept 11th would have wanted history to note they were the last americans to know freedom?
Who would have thought the US would have had such a glass jaw. I do not think it was always like that.
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! - I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" - Patrick Henry
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
I can't agree with Mr. Katz.
The rule of law in the United States is about the means, not the ends.
The US is founded on an axiomatic assumption that we all have rights. And the purpose of the government is to defend these rights -- or, from
point of view of the 18th century framers, to defend against tyranny.
In other words, the objective of the US government should be liberty and freedom from tyranny... not security.
In his book "The Secret Government", Bill Moyers interviewed a law professor (Edwin Firmage) regarding Iran/Contra. While answering a question regarding sacrificing certain rights to defend the US, Firmage had this to say:
"...any time we accept a reason of state argument to justify means that are totally incongruent with the values of our state, We're on the high road to tyranny and we deserve to be there."
I respect Mr. Katz's postion. However, if we forfeit our rights, I believe we forfeit the founding ideology of the United States. For me, it's just too big of a leap.
We should limit the means by which we achieve our ends. If the so-called "great experiment" is to succeed, the US must achieve its ends within the limits of preserving our rights.
Enjoy! Jon
"But people have the right to go to work without buildings falling on them, too."
No. That is not a right, it is just something we've come to expect from our government.
Interesting ideas but at the end of the day pointless. As people in the UK have known for years having a bunch of nutters in a terrorist organisation being funded by sympathisers abroad (in this case mainly based in the US) doesn't mean that you capitulate and turn into a police state. Intelligence is key, both miltary and political, the art of negotiation and the attempt to remove the problem by political means will be far more successful in the long run. In the short term it hasn't helped having had the political wing of the IRA being allowed to raise funds in the US to support the supporters of terrorism.
Part of the solution, probably the biggest part is working with those people who _peacefully_ oppose these regimes and seek to create a democratic world. The policy of the west (especially the US) during the 70s and 80s was to fund anyone who opposed the Soviets, the the middle east these were Islamic fundamentalists such as the Taliban, not democratic organisations seeking a better system.
Cracking down on privacy, bombing countries are neither real short term or long term solutions. Having 3 billion people living on $2 a day, and 1 billion on $1 a day is. And the continual funding of dictatorial and vicious regimes by the west for their own ends has to stop. When the Iran v Iraq conflict was on the west backed, and supplied arms to, Iraq. When the Soviets invaded Afganistan we armed the Taliban.
There are serious questions to be answered, mainly by the politicians whose actions have led us into the world we find ourselves, it wasn't politicians who died on Sept 11th it was innocent people who died, people who had never supplied arms to Iraq, funded dictatorial regimes and if asked would have said "Hell no" to such suggestions. But thanks to the defense and other big businesses our world is not governed by the poor people classed as "colateral damage" by politicans and soldiers but by greed and monopolistic desire.
Ghandi once said that any act however good, which was achieved by violence had sown the seeds of its own destruction.
It is time to talk, to support those who DEMOCRATICALLY oppose regimes, not to support another bunch of fanatical nutters who just happen to be slightly less worse, at the moment, than the nutters we armed last week.
Politicians are scum, the George Bushes have created this world, but it will never be they who have to pay for their actions.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
I'm not sure I'm ready to tell those kids whose parents didn't come home last week that they and others down the road just have to suck it up because people may be unwilling -- even temporarily -- to lose any measure of privacy
I am. I believe that liberty is more important than the life.
"Give me liberty or give me death." Heard that before?
Kevin
Is this the same Katz whose articles I've been reading off and on for years? Who finally pissed me off so badly I checked his box on /.'s config page? (I've since changed user names and haven't gotten around to re-configuring my preferences, thus I'm occasionally exposed to Katz's work). Today's article and one from yesterday (or the day before) have significantly changed my attitue about Katz: I can't believe I'm writing this, but he's struck the right tone. Yes, we should be concerned about the potential loss of privacy. However, we shouldn't act as though we're living inside an X-Files episode, as though the federal government existed primarily to slowly (or not so slowly) strip away the rights of it's citizens. The record of American history shows that we have many more freedoms today than we've ever had. Furthermore, the historical record, at least from my reading and research, proves that our government will return suspended rights to the people after a war has finished. The Civil war saw the suspension of Habeus Corpus and the introduction of the Income Tax. Both measures were rescinded at wars end. The Japanese were interned during WW2 and, whatever one might think of that act, they were released at war's end. The draft has come and gone numerous times. I'm still waiting for someone here to cite examples in American history of rights suspended during wartime yet not returned during peacetime.
Should we be concerned? Your damn right we should and, I think, it would be un-American not to be a bit concerned about the power of our gvernment. Should we be paranoid? American history itself says no.
Katz has, IMHO, struck the perfect balance in this and in his last article: I'm sure that there are many here that are furious with him, but it's about time someone rattled their cages. I was particularly impressed with Katz's last article, in which he asked how this community, using it's prodigous and unique talents, could best support the war effort. Frankly, most of what I've read in the past 7 days was "Oh my God, they're going to take away our rights!". I'd hoped that someone would post a piece like this one, but I would have never believed it would be Katz.
Katz, thanks for this piece, and yesterday's.
I'm not sure I'm ready to tell those kids whose parents didn't come home last week that they and others down the road just have to suck it up because people may be unwilling -- even temporarily -- to lose any measure of privacy.
I'd say instead that thousands of lives were lost because most americans have been brainwashed out of defending themselves. The hijackers did not need sophisticated technology to plan this -- just face to face meetings, and a few agreed upon code words so the necessary phone or e-mail messages would sound like normal business planning. For example, "The big meeting is set for Sept 11."
But the really weak part of their plan was that they did NOT have a way to smuggle real weapons past airport security. Instead, they depended on being able to bluff the passengers and crew with pen-knives, box cutters, and a cardboard box. And the terrible thing is that on all four airplanes, this was sufficient to get the pilots to the rear of the airplane and their own guys in the driver's seat. There was a time in this country when someone who tried something like that would have been beaten unconscious with carry-on luggage -- if not shot by someone carrying a real weapon. But we've not only taken away the weapons, we've taught people not to defend themselves.
Young man, very few people are actually against lawful use of information gathering devices. Sadly, this is not the reality of these things. If you pick wiretaps as an examples, there has been plenty and plenty of abuse of these by "law enforcement authorities". Yes, needing an authorization from a judge, etc, was designed to prevent this, but it failed. Like the war on drugs. It failed. Wiretap abuse goes on. Check www.eff.org for investigations into wiretap abuse and other personal privacy breaches by law enforcement. The problem is that this great country can't find a few thousand people trustworthy enough to monitor people's private lives and not use for their own, or their friends', petty purposes.
And for that matter, I don't want that job either.
Is an armed citizenry. And the most powerful weapon is information (so no, I'm not going to go off about the second amendment this time ;-).
As we know, the plane in PA crashed short of its goal because a couple of its passengers made cell-phone calls, and realised that they needed to resist. They were able to make those calls because they had cell phones; they had cell phones because it was economically reasonable to do so; and it was economically reasonable to do so specifically because (most people believe that) it's possible to communicate business information securely using the phones. (It's not relevant to my argument whether or not most people are correct; only what they choose to do.) Entrepreneurial information is by its nature very sensitive, and drives much of our economy.
If information cannot be secured, then people will have much less of a demand for it to travel, and cell phones (and all other vulnerable communication devices) could well become uneconomical. In the long run, the government will be increasing the danger of its citezens, while hurting their economic security and destroying their rights.
Restricting crypto is INCREDIBLY short sighted.
-Billy
But, please, if that's what you want then get the hell out. Leave the rest of us to live and die like free men. I lost a couple friends last Tuesday, and watched the towers fall. I'm heartsick about it. But I'll be damned if any namby-pamby mollycoddled jerks like you lot are gonna take my freedom away. Not for a minute, week, month, not ever. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who tries to take my freedom away is the same thing as a terrorist, whether Osama bin Laden or the FBI.
No one seems to have pointed out that back doors in encryption systems cannot be effective against intelligent adversaries. The US and Soviet Union ran agents during WWII and the Cold War using one-time pads (1917 technology). Do you think that this technology has disappeared?
Even if we went to a complete police state, we couldn't restrict pen and ink level technology, and that technology would be more than sufficient to defeat any existing surveillance system.
As far as the wiretap statutes are concerned, it is clear that with the prevalance of the Internet, they were in need of revision. While I do believe that the Internet "pen register" portion of the law is excessively vague and lacks sufficient legal balance and protection, I can see the validity of many of the other changes.
Please be careful when considering your pragmatic policies to use the power of the state to combat murderous madmen, that you don't make it too easy for murderous madmen to use the power of the state. Many of the controversial measures (detention without trial, illegality of private communication, internal passports, and yes, even gun control) are standard machinery for total control. I'll argue that this is a bigger threat than terrorism.
Of course, these measures been used for other things, and have been used temporarily or for decades in various places which haven't fallen into totalitarianism. Maybe all sorts of control can be imposed without millions of people dying. But then, considerable personable freedom has been maintained for decades in many places, too, without them being overrun by terrorists. Maybe an enormous amount of freedom is possible without tens of thousands of people dying.:-|
And now, for those who doubt my numerical insinuations in the previous paragraph, I'll try to estimate the numbers. How big are the relative threats?
In the last century, all-controlling governments have killed at least (extremely conservative estimate) 20 million of their own citizens/subjects/whatever. The exact numbers are controversial, but even the extreme skeptics acknowledge 6 million for Hitler, more than that for both Stalin (terror famine in the Ukraine) and Mao (Great Leap Forward, Cultural Revolution), plus honorable mention (more than a million out of a much smaller population) for Pol Pot.
20 million people out of a world population of about 5 billion is 20/5000 = 2/500 = 0.4% of people killed.
In the same period of time, I don't know where to find summary figures either for the US or for the entire world, but as far as I'm aware terrorists have killed comfortably fewer than 200,000 people in the USA, out of a population of about 300 million. 200K/300M = 2/3000 = 0.06% percent of people killed.
Afterthoughts: Admittedly, state exterminations have slacked off since 1980, but I for one don't consider the threat to have gone away. And for those who consider that it's dishonest to focus on the last hundred years, instead of the last 20 years or so, I'd suggest that in that case we should also consider another question about ruthlessly pragmatic policies: How much does the current situation of extremist governments willing to harbor terrorists owe to other ruthlessly pragmatic policies on the part of the US in the last twenty years? But even if I knew enough details to argue that convincingly off the top of my head, I doubt I could summarize it in a pithy Slashdot post.
Frankly, I don't really have anything going over the internet or the phone that I care to hide, but who is going to do all this watching? It takes time to look over all this material and decide whether it's terrorist related. Who has the time to do this?
Terrorist activities aren't going to be hidden by encryption or civil rights, but by the sheer volume or material. If they have a way to narrow it down to likely suspects, great. If they're actually monitoring my phone and email, they're so far off base that they'll never find a terrorist.
The benefits to be gained depend on who is doing the snooping. If they waste time compiling huge dossiers on innocent people, the way J. Edgar Hoover did, then the mass of useless information will drive the noise to signal ratio up so high that relevant information will be buried. Real terrorists will just keep quiet and slip through, and all this will be for nothing.
When there is a cause as worthy as preserving
US citizens lives from the entrenched fifth
column that is so apparent in our convenience
stores and NOCs here in the (expletive deleted)
dc area; no freedom is too valuable to deny ourselves.
After all we are honorable people and want to do the "right" thing, even if it is way too late and
the real problem is that we were too stupid to ever see that there was a problem with saying
"YES" to individual freedoms without worrying who the "individuals" are.
It is not a popular sentiment in the melting pot
but why don't we hold accountable the policies, agendas and agencies that allows for the unhappy
amalgam of citizen and foreigner united in antipathy that we experience every day since the bombing.
Would I die to protect my right to send PGP encrypted email? Maybe. I wouldn't have a problem with wartime limitations, we have seen that before with wartime censorship in snailmail and I would go along with it. But I'd have a hard time understanding a ban on clearsigning for authentication purposes. (Think domain registering with NSI, etc.)
It would also have to be clear that they were TEMPORARY wartime restrictions, to be lifted when the crisis was past.
Same goes for any other legitimate hardships and sacrifice America requires of me. Ask and I'm there, 100%. Petty (and even profound) internal political squabbles should go on hold while we engage in a war for our very survival with a determined and relentless foe.
But I also have a very healthy distrust of a government who has been wanting to get backdoors into encryption for years and is looking to use this act of barbarism as an excuse to make a permanent change to the liberties of the citizens of our former Republic.
You see, encryption is used in a lot of places. No way in Hell I'm going to agree to key escrow for my SSH keys. I'm the sysadmin, not the NSA and if they want into my systems they can bring me the warrant and I'll help any way I can, but I ain't doing the equivalent of handing then root ahead of time.
Let 'em try to restrict my mere POSSESSION of encryption and I'm a rebel. They will pry the CD-ROM out of my cold dead hand that isn't in the trigger guard of a gun. The 1st Amendment is not a suggestion and 'shall not be infringed' can only be twisted so far before it becomes a joke.
In WWII they banned Ham operators from the airwaves, for obvious reasons. They didn't go door to door collecting transmitters. That was a reasonable balance between individual rights and public safety.
A perfect example of the rot in our educational system is exposed by Katz himself:
"Certain rights -- equality, liberty -- are considered inviolate. But almost all rights are subject to a series of checks and balances, always subject to circumstance, never absolutes granted without reservation, in perpetuity, regardless of external circumstance."
Sorry Putzboy, guess you never got a chance to read the Declaration of Independence in your school. Our Rights are Inalienable and not subject to some politician's decision to 'Grant' or withhold them. Politicians can Infringe them and we can agree to accept it in extreme enough circumstances, but they can't grant Rights we are all born with and carry into the grave.
Democrat delenda est
Certainly someone intelligent enough to use crypto will figure out that he should use a crypto code without backdoors, and possibly some stego and then a backdoored crypto. Consider the "Texto" program (with which you can replace the wordlist
with what you like...MAD magazines from the 1960s and 1970s have many sets of words that make funny sentences). It turns arbitrary (presumably compressed and encrypted) binary into longer text that reads like English (written by someone boring and somewhat repetitive). Use your own wordlist
with it and lotsa luck for any automated surveillance program to tell that it is in fact an encoding of some ciphertext. Crypt it and all the decrypt will get is the rubbish text if there is a backdoor.
What backdoors CAN do is make it possible for everyone's secrets (including finances) to be visible to anyone who cracks the central repository. Remember Aldrich Ames? Make a big enough pile of secrets and they WILL leak out. So the result will be that backdoors will not reveal the terrorists' plans to the feds, but will reveal EVERYONE'S plans to the terrorists. Nice going, folks. Duuuh. This is one thing that must not be sacrificed; we are ill prepared to go back to paper financial systems, and would have to once this went through because there would be no way to make secure computer ones.
Also the notion that we should allow a surveillance society in this way suggests we want to get off cheap again. Forget the expensive HUMINT (human spies). Just watch all the SIGINT (signals) and make sure we keep our eyes on that.
Rather we should pay for the HUMINT, and don't mess with computer security...or all that much with peoples' privacy who have nothing to do with the investigations. It is perfectly OK to suggest that if you hear someone talking about anthrax that maybe you could let some fed know. And watch the borders, and so on... but setting up another KGB, but domestic, for even the best of purposes is dangerous. One quote attributed to LBJ goes "you should judge a law not by what it does if administered well, but by what harm it can do if it is administered badly." THAT is a very wise point, by someone who must have seen a good many badly administered ones in his time. So don't go after cutting peoples' liberties first. If you do that it means you haven't thought carefully enough about the problem. Rather, figure some way to do what you need to that leaves liberties alone.
*Sigh*
Jon, there is no such thing as a new reality. Reality has always been the same. It is this reality we've seen in Europe, rarely but occasionally, in not so distant past, and it's the daily reality of people in countries like India, Israel, Sri Lanka, and a bunch of other less public places.
The only thing that changed is that that strange USian dream of beeing somhow isolated from all that has been scratched substantially. So, hello and welcome to the club, but given the grim circumstances, we're not really glad to see you here now.
What does that mean ? Well, the real challenge for a democracy is not compromising on their principles because of it.
Another thing is really asking yourself about your relation to the rest of the world. Unfortunately the US morals and principles all too often sharply end at your borders. Outsiders are, in any way, "fair game" - in the worst meaning of this term. For many people in third world countries, the United States simply is the oppressor. American companies with very close ties to the White House can get away with mass murder, can deprive thousands of terminally ill people of their needed medicine (ironically the companies suing here are from all western states, but only the US government is openly threatening the affected third-world-countries) - just to name two examples in a list that could be enhanced for pages.
Essentially, the US is openly beeing a Bad World Citizen, World schoolyard Bully, and is openly saying that rules are there for others to obey, not for them. Even when they right, the tone and habit often prevents them from effectively reaching the intended audience.
Instead we see a US that is only and exclusively bothered by its own interests, and puts most moral asisde as soon as its economic or strategical matters are affected. And you even have the chuzpah to claim moral superiority when doing that - this hypocrisy probably inflames people more than the actual policy it concerns. You run around and preach about reducing government corruption - while sufficient large companies can buy just about any law in DC (I don't even start debating presidential elections). You run around preaching about environmental issues - while you are the worst offender in most categories there. You have the incredible audacity to run around and preach about human rights while you put thirteen year olds to prison for life, juveniles onto death row and have more people per capita in your prisons than just about any fucking police state.
If there is a war for the hearts and the minds of the world, you are loosing it. Big time.
So what's the new reality here ? The new reality is that an utterly delusional US of A got slightly tighter grip to the "real" reality out there. Yes, the US will go after Bin Laden and his cronies - finally, I might say, as you have practically grown and financed him for years. And yes, there will be major action against Afghanistan and maybe a few others, and numerous innocent people will loose their life. This is the way the internatinal power play works, and it's probably a necessity. But will you also learn from it ? Will the US change its habits, alter ist ways ?
This is the real "new reality". You got more insights. You can learn. Improve.
Will you ?
f.
I propose a new moderation attribute for articles, "Kneejerk".
It will take a long time to win this war. Now if at the very beginning, citizens are willing to let their rights be impeded upon, as each incident builds, we'll find more and more people asking to take away our freedom.
Clearly there cannot be anything good coming out of this. Seriously. A lot of people have already pointed out that additional security measure will not stop the terrorists from communicating, from attempting assaults. Sure, the measures may make their lives more difficult. But consider the cost to ourselves. We will work ourselves to exhaustion in trying to stop the terrorist. And when fatigue sets in, and the collective mind relaxes our defenses, bam we get hit again.
The stress is just too much, the paranoia too great.
Look at what the war on drug has done. Ripped families apart, thousands jailed, a vast bureaucracy, and so much hate. What these people need is rehabilitation. I know, my dad is an addict.
The same with this war on terrorism. These people have been hurt by the US. Badly. But we never acknowledge our wrong doings. Hey guys! Remember the footage of the happy palestinians a week ago on CNN? Fake! These pictures were from 1991! The governement is only too happy that the criticism has stopped, the people have united and the rallying cry is Blood, blood, blood. Now we should be looking at what went wrong, and what the US has done, and correcting those mistakes. That is to REPENT, instead of REMEMBERING! Remebering will only cause the pain to linger...
And for the guy that said that the Internet should not be private, because there is no physical equivalent to total secure communication. That is precisely why the Internet is such a great place. This is a way for all of us to express our concerns in the safety of our privacy. Now, if all that I write can be spied upon, do you think you will be as likely to critize? And if you where a federal employee, would you talk about the things that go on inside if even during your off hours, you could be watched?
The real fight is control of information. DMCA, SSSA, and now anti-terrorism.
Let's all be slaves paying for our chains.
Taking on space
Does anyone else think it's ironic that when his CIA handlers helped bin Laden fight Soviet occupation he was called a 'freedom fighter'? In those days, we lauded people like bin Laden for their resolve-- some have even given them credit for toppling the Soviet Union itself. However, now that he's decided to turn against his former sponsors, he's a 'terrorist'.
Of course, during those days, the lunatic right-wing fringe known as the Reagan Administration counted a lot of murderers and war criminals among its friends and called them 'freedom fighters.' But the fact remains that in a lot of places in the world where people don't have luxury SUVs and trendy courier bags, the United States is thought of as the greatest terrorist state currently in existence. And no, I'm not talking about the plutocrats and oligarchs in those countries who sell out to IMF blackmail and use U.S. aid and weapons to oppress their own peoples. Nor am I talking about multinational corporations who benefit from U.S. sponsorship of brutal dictators because they provide a 'friendly environment for business', meaning no environmental laws, no labor laws, no public infrastructure etc. I'm talking about those hundreds of millions of people who scrape by on less than $2 per day and who have only seen the America that talks hypocritically about peace and cooperation but goes to war over oil interests.
Two points that I think most Americans don't realize:
1) The FBI and the intelligence agencies cooperate on numerous occasions to stop people who might very well be planning such acts as these. Some of them you hear about; MANY, MANY of them you don't. Even the ones you do hear about rate nothing more than a footnote. What's newsworthy about an attack that didn't happen?
2) These agencies are frequently in pursuit of people known to be up to something, but are specifically hindered, and sometimes thrown completely off the track, by our stringent privacy and civil liberties laws.
Many Slashdotters seem to think that the government wants to be able to troll around the airways and nets aimlessly, listening in here and there in the hopes of overhearing something good. Not so: they simply want to be able to pursue the bad guys.
And, by the way, they ARE bad guys, and they ARE here within our borders. Think about this: what would you have thought about the events of Tuesday if someone had told you about them Monday? Would you have thought them beyond belief? Now, having witnessed the events of Tuesday, what further horrific acts are you able to imagine? Do you doubt that they have the will to perform such acts? Do you want the agencies pursuing such men to run into statutory roadblocks? Not obstacles...roadblocks. As in end of trail.
We have everything to lose. Where will our civil liberties be when a small tactical nuke purchased from a desparate Russion general is set off in Washington D.C.? Oh, you think it couln't happen? Did you think the WTC attack could happen?
Switzerland 'harbors' criminals' money. Who would attack them and risk that?
If this was some hi-tech attack like we see in the movies all the time, I'd be more inclined to listen to those wanting to limit unbounded technology.
Since it had *nothing* to do with anything more advanced than a sharp metal object, I can't imagine the draconian views people are espousing these days.
I conject that most of the people surveyed would not want envelopes outlawed, or snail mails opened at random. This is the same idea.
Since envelopes are still legal, terrorists could use mail. In fact, they could encrypt the letters they send in the mail with PGP. Key escrow isn't going to do much good.
If the bullet is embedded in a terrorist's skull, how does the cabin rupture? Even assuming a window became pierced on a wild shot, how does depressurizing the plane "drop" it? That's what those silly orange masks are for, right?
Screw that, I say we actually enforce the laws we already have and cooperate with other countries.
We have to look no further than the Columbine incident. The first thing the legislators did was talk about passing new laws. All the while, people were asking, "what good will new laws do if the existing ones aren't enforced?"
Congress can pass all the laws it wants, or mandate all the safety, encryption, and surveylance policies it wants, but if human inability, error, negligence, or malfeasance renders them useless for preventing terrorism, what has been accomplished?
In '93, the blind cleric's rabid maniacal followers tried to blow up the WTC with a truck bomb. The attempt failed.
Bin Laden's ideological compatriots tried to blow up LAX on New Year's Eve, 1999. They were thwarted.
NOTHING HAS CHANGED since the 11th except for the cold knowledge that they got through. They hit us, and all the security teams and crypto backdoors and suspension of Posse Comitatus laws and a general agreement not to criticize the President or Ashcroft "at this time" would have stopped them from finding simple, simple ways of turning something normal into a weapon of horror.
NOW all of a sudden, our society is too free, we don't give the police enough power, we aren't safe.
Boys and girls, we were NEVER SAFE. We never have been, we never will be. What we are is unused to the real world as it is experienced by the majority of the world's peoples. We've grown up in Yogi Bear's Perfect Place, a land of suburban blandness and freedom, where the worst thing possible is mayhap a poor family lowering the neighborhood's property values. My point is, most of the people panicking have never had their complacency shattered.
I grew up in a neighborhood where you could watch someone stabbed dying outside of a taco restaurant, or in one case, outside my school on a stretcher. I've been robbed at gunpoint three times. I've been beaten savagely twice by ignorant hicks. I know in my bones that the world is not a safe, pink place to live.
I can live with danger. I also understand risk analysis, which says I've a better chance of getting killed in my car tomorrow than being killed by a religious cult from the Middle East/Central Asia.
What I can't live with is the certain knowledge that my panicked, hysterical, jingoistic, SCARED countrymen are about to give Ashcroft, who believes dancing is a vile tool of Satan, who believes Americans have no right to privacy, and I deeply suspect, believes the Internet is the vilest tool of Satan possible, the power to transform my country into a giant paternalistic prison camp, in the name of security.
The CIA and the FBI have all the tools they need to track terrorists. They WERE tracking the terrorists!! They just didn't expect the men to move simultaneously and attack... tho there is now sme reporting that states that they WERE told, and didn't listen.
Suspension of Habeus Corpus during wartime is perfectly OK. But only during. The trouble with giving up a freedom is that once gone, it never comes back. I'm hearing Ashcroft wants to seize assets without trial, hold people indefinitely without charge, monitor the use of everyone on the net, and oh yes, supports the DMCA and it's successor laws to the max. Encryption is OK if you're a corporation, just not for individuals.
Hawks of national security, just like cops, Secret Service agents, or bodyguards, never feel that their job is done until basically their clients are locked up in nice, safe walls where no one can hurt them.
We can let them shut down the internet as we know it. They will. And let them censor; they will. We can let them issue us smartID cards for our lifelong use. We can let them fucking tattoo us, all for our collective safety and security.
And you know what? In four years, they blow up the Holland Tunnel with high explosives in Chevy van, killing thousands. Or something similar.
There is NEVER security. Only national insecurity. Bin Laden has done what no "communist" could. He has gauged our ignorance of our own traditions. Remember years ago when someone conducted a survey, proposing the Bill of Rights to passers-by on a U.S. street? The majority not only did not recognize the BOR, they disagreed with them and voted them down!!
We are also a people, a country that cannot intelligently analyze risk; he knew that too. People are so afraid to fly that the airlines are dying. And there is not a chance in hell that terrorists are on board now; the trick wouldn't even work again -- the passengers would kill the terrorists before they finished walking down the aisles.
Bin Laden and his fellow cultists have managed what the Anarchists and the sad revolutionary communist party nimrods could never do. He has made us blow our own heads off. We are shutting down not only privacy, but the very debate on the subject itself. I heard a securty wonk on loan from the admin on National Public Radio the other day, stating blandly that we would need face recognition systems, smartCards for a national people-tracking system, cell phones that GPS the ID and location of every American at all times, and PCs mandated to have tracking devices on them. And the interviewer, on a nominally intellectual network, DIDN'T EVEN ARGUE -- HE AGREED. Not a peep. Fear disables all brain functions.
The men on horseback wasted no time. Within 24 hours of the attack, they were proposing and passing laws, working the talk shows, seeding fear and confusion. And it worked. Even Katz buys it.
ID cards, logged traffic on the net, tracer chips in our asses -- none of this would have stopped an attack! It just shuts US down! We lose everything we ever dreamed of for over 225 years because we panicked and wanted daddy to save us!
Daddy can't save us. He wants to, but all he'll do is lock us in the house and refuse to let us play with "dangerous" toys.
And they will keep killing us, all the mighty legions of what? a few hundred? a few thousand? members of a sociopathic, hate-filled, STUPID cult. They will change us into huddled, terrified children because a handful of men, some box cutters, plasic cutlery, and a surprise plan caught us by surprise. But not by much.
They will kill us until we remove their cancerous presence from the planet. But we won't do a thing to them by turning into a gulag.
You can't make this stuff up.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
We are taught in school that the political spectrum is from "left" to "right", and that our government should reside in the middle for a good society. But this is false doctrine meant to mislead us into sleeping, like Rip Van Winkle, through the institution of an oppressive government. The actual spectrum goes from anarchy to totalitarianism. No matter what form of totalitarianism, Fascist right or Communist left, it is oppressive, unliveable and at odds with basic human needs. We need to live in a government as close to anarchy as possible that still guarantees our basic rights. Frederick Bastiat, wrote in "The Law" during the early 1800's that the proper purpose of the law is to protect life, liberty and property, because the law is the collective organization of the individual's right to protect his own life, liberty and property. He further states, "These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties?" During the Bush Sr. years we were asked if we'd give up the right of protection from illegal search and seizure by our government to assist them in the "War on Drugs". I immediately replied, "yes!" But as I deliberated upon the consequences I realized that the ill-conceived war was nothing more than a sham to eliminate the rights that our Founding Fathers had at one time lived without and deemed sacred and precious enough that they guaranteed them to us in perpetuity. Jon would have us to believe that there is a "Right to be free from calamity". This is not so! We live in a temporal world full of chaos, uncertainty and calamity. But we grow from this. We learn what we are made of and how to make our lives better. Who learns the lessons of life faster, the child whose parents shield it from every mis-step and fall or those that learn from minor bumps that balance is required for walking... The "Right of Liberty" is necessary for life. The "Right to be free from calamity" destroys our ability to learn from life. What is life if it's not growth... It's death... eternal death. Give me liberty or give me death, because without it, I have no life!
"Give me liberty, or give me death"
We are all going to die someday. I would rather walk free, with the freedom to be killed, than live constantly worrying about when it will be my turn under the callouse, uncaring microscope of a misdirected government investigation because some idiot clerk hit a "v" instead of a "c". Once the government dogs are on you, contrary to popular belief, you are guilty until proven innocent. That is what worries me every time I hear that the government wants to make life easier on itself by taking away some of our liberties. It's not that I won't be able to send an encrypted email, but that its easier for the government to make a mistake.
Cutting edge is sharp, avoid contact.
The answer to the challenge presented by intolerable acts perpetrated by a shadowy minority cannot be to volunteer our own labor to destroy those things about our society which serve to infuriate the aggressors. If 10,000 Americans must die every year so that all that is special about America can survive so be it. After all, in the immortal words of Thomas Jefferson: ...
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.". Let us remember that those who died at the WTC died as patriots and vow that they will not have died in vain - we cannot allow our traditional liberties and freedoms to be compromised by cowardly terrorist attacks, or, in the end, they will have won
Nothing should cause us to allow our birth given rights just so that we have a bit of 'safety'. most of the safety involved in our systems are illusions of safety anyway. In cars, airbags, side impact doors, special bumpers, etc, all give a false sense of not having an accident. The only thing that truly makes us safe, is our decisions. Do we drive the car? Do we drive safely with no distractions and pay attention to our surroundings?
That is the biggest key to safety- attention to your environment. We have lost that as humans living with millions others that we pay no attention to from day to day. If we are attentive and watch those that make us suspicious of their motives, the world will be safer for all. I guess i'm trying to say that looking out for number one can also be looking out for others.
Do you remember seeing those palestinians boys rejoycing after the WTC crash ? Well I have learned 2 things about this particular footage.
1- The boys were actually asked to rejoyce in front of the camera. It was setup. They were not told about the WTC events.
2- The reason they were not told is that nobody knew at the time. That footage was made in 1991. Yes people, made in 1991 and shown on all major US news on september 11, 2001.
I think this is a disgusting manipulation. (Although not very surprising for those who've read Noam Chomsky's book "Manipulating consent") Damn I'm just so sick of it.
Another example that the American media will stop at nothing to create a reaction:
Do you remember seeing those palestinians boys rejoycing after the WTC crash ? Well I have learned 2 things about this particular footage.
1- The boys were actually asked to rejoyce in front of the camera. It was setup. They were not told about the WTC events.
2- The reason they were not told is that nobody knew at the time. That footage was made in 1991. Yes people, made in 1991 and shown on all major US news on september 11, 2001.
I think this is a disgusting manipulation. (Although not very surprising for those who've read Noam Chomsky's book "Manipulating consent") Damn I'm just so sick of it.
According to a German newssource, one of the terrorists in Hamburg called the CIA and Secret Service to warn of the attack, but the warning was ignored.
I'm trying to find more info on this, but the story seems to have disappeared. Can anyone provide more info? You'd think that federal agencies ignoring a telephoned warning about the impending attack would be front page news.
Given the predictable American response to the tragedy, the implications are sta... uh, maybe I'd better stop now.
To quote Al Jourgensen, "Connect the god-damn dots."
Take the video servalence in airports. It starts out just tracking criminals. The database later gets suplemented with suspected terrorist (suspected because they go to military training in the Middle East without the CIA's permission). These all sound like great ways to limit criminal and terrorist activities.
However, after a while, corporations are going to want to use these system. You can bet that the ones in shopping malls are going to quickly become shopping habbit research tools. Choosing people randomly at first, then gradually moving on to cross referencing indentifiable people with their credit card purchases.
Before long, a system will be set up whereby one's phone rings with personalized advertisements of shops one is approaching. New cases of compulsive spending send thousands to declaring bancruptcy. Citizens can't get away from the constant corporate nagging to buy, buy, buy!
I'm all for ways to make the streets safer. My sister's step-son had just gone through an armed mugging in New York shortly before that Tuesday, so he's doubly terrified of that city now. But I want guarantees that the Corporate Republic you're always complaining about isn't going to take over.
If back doors are installed in crypto, the FBI will have it, but so will the corporation(s) that built it. Does this sit well with you?
Hey, that makes me think, maybe the Government should hire Dmitry instead of prosecute him.
you're right- I didn't know the half of it! Now how many millions are we gonna waste busting and incarcerating small-time US drug dealers/addicts when we ourselves let the juice loose?
This is not a "war." And trading away our civil liberties will not make us much more secure.
The following speech that the President ought to have made has been circulating, and shows the REAL problem:
Here's what our president could have said regarding the Sept. 11, 2001 attack.
My fellow Americans:
I would like to deeply and sincerely apologize to you all, and particularly to those injured and to the loved ones of those lost.
You see, largely away from the public eye, my administration and its predecessors have intervened without cease in the affairs of other peoples. But we have usually not intervened to advance freedom. We have usually not intervened to advance democracy. We have usually not even intervened to protect the interests of the relatively small population of this country.
Instead, we have intervened to advance the business interests of our campaign contributors and networks of friends and advisers, to put down the unrest of the many thousands of foreign people who are left impoverished and disenfranchised by our economic policies, and to ensure the military and political dominance of our country over other nations.
In the last ten years alone America's manipulation of the politics and economies of other people has led us to impose economic policies that reduce access to health care and education in poor countries like Argentina, Turkey, and South Korea.
It has led us to arm the governments of countries like Colombia, Israel, Indonesia, and Turkey that themselves use terror -- but on a much larger scale than seen today -- to suppress the desires of their own people. And it has led us to brutally attack the Iraqi people with both bombs and sanctions in order to cripple their dictator, in the process killing perhaps two hundred innocent Iraqis for every one innocent American who died today.
I apologize on behalf of my own administration, but also on behalf of the Clinton administration, the first Bush administration, the Reagan administration, and previous governments stretching back to the very founding of the country, all of which used military and economic power to conquer other lands, choose their political leaders, or set their economic policies.
I apologize on behalf of both Democrats and Republicans, virtually all of whom have unquestioningly supported these actions. I apologize on behalf of the business leaders whose interest have motivated these actions.
And I apologize on behalf of the news media, which have suppressed discussion of the tremendous negative effects of our foreign policy and which will, in this particular case, refuse to raise the question of why foreigners would be so angry at our country.
Please accept this apology.
Your leaders, without your knowledge or consent, have used the tremendous power of your country to institutionalize inequality and militarism worldwide. While acting in your name, we have pursued the interests of a narrow, tremendously powerful section of the population. And it is for this reason that you suffer today.
I ask the American people to oppose the attacks that this disaster will surely bring against our civil liberties and against our residents of Middle Eastern descent. Together we must resist the urge to intensify a spiral of retribution and violence, and work instead toward a world in which no one feels so powerless or oppressed that he or she must resort to violence.
Thank you.
I have heard many opinions regarding this matter. And your idea of how it "should" go down, is wonderful. However, "should" and "did" are often very different.
Don't think even for a minute that those agencies who gain the most from laxations in our constitutional rights, will want to give them up.
They day will come when the "federales" will come to your door and arrest you for buying $10 worth of marijuana, because it is against "federal law".
I say this, because federal agencies will benefit most from these ILLEGAL proposed changes to "the constitution". Anybody remeber the constitution?
That piece of paper that, by law, the American people are supposed to vote on before changing a single letter.
"Anyone willing to give up freedom for security, deserves neither!"
Thomas Jefferson
It's unfortunate that we view the debate in terms of what rights we have, or what rights the government has taken from us. Katz says that we have the right not to get blown up. If we have that "right," what is the difference between "rights," and "things we really like"?
It seems to me that we make up a set of desirable situations and call them rights, and I don't see why that is a useful framework for discussion. I would rather structure the discussion around moral principles or responsibilities, than around a list of rights.
I realize that there is a rather large precedent (the Bill of Rights) for viewing the conflict between people and government in terms of rights, so I understand why the discussion shapes up that way, but we fall into an adversarial mode when arrays of rights are passed back and forth.
Making today worse so tomorrow seems better
Just because corporations have taken away much of our privacy doesn't mean we should let government take away the rest. If anything we should be trying to take back our privacy from corporations too.
There are two ways to stop terrorists: create a police state (not many terrorist groups in Stalinist USSR), or remove the conditions that motivate people like that (e.g. occupation of certain lands, etc). Of course you can't make everyone happy; there will always be the occasional McVeigh, but you can keep people like that from attracting hundreds of followers.
There is an anecdote about Subj.
;-).
During the course of History, five Jews said the world what is the foundation of everything.
The first one said that everything is in the head. It was Moses.
Second one told that everything is in the heart. It was Jesus.
Third on said that everything is in the wallet (or stomach). It was Marx.
Fourth one said that everything is in sex. It was Freud.
And Einstein said that everything is relative
I cite this anecdote just to point that your opinion is totally Marxist, and the History has proven it wrong.
You might build thousands of schools, but if the teachers are from Islamic Jihad, you're going to get fanatics at the graduation. Taliban is the byproduct of the schools built by Pakistanis in the camps of Afghan refugees.
There is no easy way (short of taking children from their parents and moving them out of the country for brainwashing with "American values") of transforming rugged fighters' children into socialites or law-obedient citizens like you and me.
Also read jordandeamattson's reply - I second every word of it. The only thing I want to add is that Israel SYMBOLIZES West's penetration into Islamic world. This is why they hate it. And removing Israel won't do any good because Islamists will just find another symbol/target.
Tigers respect lions, elephants and hippos. Maggots respect no one. (C) S. Dovlatov
Subj
i was japan when all this mess happened. and now i read on the net all the media about how the government is going to take away freedoms and such. it is like everyone has believed it has already happened and it is no use fighting the hostile take over of our rights. everyone says that we should comply because the times have changed and blah blah, but that is just plain b.s. the only thing that has changed is people commitment to upholding the virtues that made the u.s. such a great country to be targeted by those who can't fathom what freedom and the responsibility that comes with it is all about. i could i would risk my own life to stop terrorism, but i can't surrender my conscious to a alien world of government suppression. if the already constrained rights become more restricted i might just have reconsider where i choose live. even though america might be still be the most afluent place to live even after the destruction of civil liberties, my conscious might cause me to re-evaluate where i want to live and raise my family. the terrorists attacked are freedom and its our freedom we have to defend.
I appreciate your point of view. Given such a horrific tragedy a willingness to make sacrifices to protect yourself in future is perfectly understandable.
e xc50.asp )?
The only problem is, it won't work.
Terrorists are completely capable of using encryption that doesn't even look like encryption. If you can't even detect it, you can't decrypt it. "Hi. How's the cat? Still sick"? (Read the third letter of every second word).
Not to mention a plain old codeword system: "Hi Grandma. How are you? I got an A+ on my test!! How cool is that? Seeya". Any of these words (or even punctuation) could hold second meanings ("grandma"=WTC, "!!"=11AM EST, for example). Only those with the codebook would even realise there was a message in there.
These are ideas generated in a couple of minutes by a person who doesn't know real much about encryption. Do you really think high-tech terrorists won't be much more innovative (http://www.hindustantimes.com/nonfram/190201/det
Backdoors will only stop those using vanilla encryption. Vanilla encryption is, as the metaphor states, the envelope around the mail (albeit it a padlocked envelope). If all mail is being opened and read, terrorists will simply disguise their message.
All that will end up being read is the personal mail of law-abiding citizens who think they have no reason to keep their mail secret. After all, it hardly matters if the CIA knows you think socialism has some merit, or that you think George W Bush is a poor president, or that you disagree with some of the CIA's actions in the past, or that you think invading Afghanistan is an inappropriate response. Right?
Trading freedom for security _might_ be a worthwhile sacrifice. But this is sacrificing freedom for nothing.
Just because an agency can listen to anything does not mean it understands everything. Starting with encryption, steganography, old languages and simply replacing meanings of words, the information being gathered does not have to be of any value at all. The more there is a legal or illegal interest to keep it save and secured, the better it will be protected. In the time before the attack, there have been good reasons against all-embracing surveillance; suddenly they are emotionally washed away with tragic images of losses and tears.
You do not know whether you have been tapped, nor where the information gathered are being distributed to. In case of a misuse or misinterpretation of information, your reputation is not being restored. Ranging from corporate espionage to political campaigns, this has drastic consequences.
In the wake of CNN images, the rational discussion about how effective these measures really are have been quite rare. Although I would like to read a study concerning this matter, I do not know of any available scientific publication.
I am personally angry about the cheap, populistic and abusive ways this terrorist act is being reacted on in US, Germany and many other countries. Abuse in the name of those who now cannot speak up against anymore is more than tasteless.
How would a database tracking each person flying on the territory of the US stop suicidal terrorists?
The FBI already knows the names of most hijackers, what can the FBI do now to them? Freeze their credit?
Even if such a database existed there are many ways one can forge his identity. And even if such database existed it wouldn't have prevented tthe terrorists board the planes. MOST OF THEM WERE NOT INVOLVED IN TERRORIST ACTIVITY BEFORE THIS INCIDENT. IT TOOK THE FBI A FULL WEEK OF DIGGING TO FIND THAT SOME WERE "DIRTY".
And even if such a database was in place and was functional, will you deny to every person ("any potential terrorist" -- those with a tan perhaps -- everybody knows that Middle East is sunny) who doesn't fit the bill the "right to fly"? Or subject them to strip-searches?
And what good will crypto-backdoors on all US software will do? Will it push back into oblivion the RSA algorithms, or simply the old "Rebecca is OK, we're meeting Tuesday, two weeks from now." (meaning that we'll deliver the bomb two month from now on the third..don't take this literally, Echelon) post on a public site.
You want to solve the problem -- stop whining.The FBI has all the brawn they need, more muscle won't fill the place were their brains should be (remember the "We did not imagine this scenario" crap -- well you needn't -- Tom Clancy already did, 5 YEARS AGO). Find those responsible and quit whining.
There is nothing "new" about this situation. Most of the signers of the Declaration of Independence lost family and property during the Revolutionary War. In 1812, our capital was burned to the ground. We have had to tell millions of children that their mommies and daddies would not be coming home because they died on a battlefield while fighting for freedom. Do you really think things have changed in the past 200+ years? Did you really believe that you were not part of the freedom defending process because you did not wear a green uniform and collect a government issued check?
There is no right to live a life devoid of risk! There is no right to live a life devoid of responsibility! Our forefathers determined, and carved out, this country based on the idea that there were things that were more important than simply having life. Slaves have life. Prisoners have life. But neither have freedom, and many of those are will to risk their life to gain freedom! It is true that freedom can only survive in an environment defined and limited by rules, but we already have those rules. NEWSFLASH: it is already illegal to murder people! Even with an airplane, even with making a building fall on people, we have these laws. We do not need new ones, instead we need to go after the people who violated the ones we already have. Not just John Ashcroft, all of us.
The first three planes got to their targets because nobody did anything to stop it. It truly is that simple. Yes, they had valid excuses and valid expectations for thinking everything would be alright. Well, we have all suffered for their mistake. We as a nation have already abdicated our responsibility for defending our families and ourselves and we have given that responsibility to the government, which is completely inadequate to do that job on the individual level. It was designed to be this way. If the framers of the Constitution had something else in mind, the Second Amendment would guarantee a one-to-one police to civilian ratio, rather than guaranteeing the right to bear arms. It is time we participate by taking back the responsibility that we abdicated. The passengers of the fourth plane understood what was actually at stake and they took the appropriate action. They took responsibility. Yes, they lost their lives. But are you going to make their sacrifice in vain? Are you going to invalidate their sacrifice because you do not know how to explain this to a kid? Because you finally figured out that this is for real? Because this has finally hit close to home? You do not take responsibility by giving up more of your freedom to government regulation. You take responsibility by maintaining freedom, and empowering citizens to do their part.
Terrorism has always existed. It existed when the framers of the Constitution wrote the Constitution, and it will exist long after this nation is gone. Did the authors of the Constitution temporarily suspend the Third Amendment when Indians were attacking the colonies? Did they suspend the Fourth Amendment for the British Loyalists during the Revolution?
Laws only restrict law abiding citizens. Have you not learned anything from the cracking that has taken place over the last few years? Cracking is terrorism; it is simply a matter of scale. The terrorism by crackers has not stopped since new laws have been written to forbid them. New security measures have helped, but it does not stop the crackers from testing and exploiting the holes that they do find. Our nation is very much like a Microsoft OS! Freedom, and the ability to get about our business is our primary concern. And when you send out a patch (or a law in this case), the terrorists will simply find a way around it. They will simply move onto the next exploit. And in the same way that you make a computer safe from Internet cracking by removing it from the network, so too, we will only be truly exempt from terrorism if we close off our borders, and monitor the movement of every individual in the country. Anything short of that makes security an illusion. You are setting yourself up for greater disappointment later if you give away your freedom and you still get attacked by a terrorist.
Also, there is nothing temporary about giving up freedom! The income tax was supposed to be temporary. Welfare was supposed to be temporary. When you give more power to power hungry people, it is gone. You do not get it back. There is nothing temporary about it!
There is a price of freedom, and it is a price that have, is and will be payed in blood. That is a sad fact.
Many people has given their life for freedom, willingly or unwillingly. In order to preserve freedom there will always be causulties.
I am willing to give my life to preserve the European Union's fredoms. Are You???
National security does ofcource require some monitoring. Should this be an active form of monitoring of all communications? I beleve not. Intelligence has worked well untill now. Shall the police be given the right to tap peoples communications without warrants? No! We then risk living in a policestate.
It is called "Innocent until proven guilty" not "Guilty untill proven innocent".
In Sweden there are laws about "Postal Secrets", simply meaning that (snail) mail must not be opened by anyone but the reciever. This is a good thing.
Shall encryption be banned? I beleve not. The Internet is to unsecure to be trusted. If encryption without backdoors would be banned. then criminals and terrorists would move to some other form of communication that would be even harder to monitor...
--
Mattias Holm
The CIA has assassinated a number of political leaders, including democratically elected presidents. Those actions would doubtlessly be called "terrorism" if the victims were Americans. Does that mean you need to bomb Washington to rid the world of terrorism?
The IRA has recently been training FARC terrorists in Columbia. The IRA is funded by American organisations like the IFC. Does that mean America is sponsoring terrorism in Columbia too? Wow, it's starting to look like one of those world wide terrorist networks I keep hearing about - and Americans are bankrolling it.
In reality, of course, it's not a global terror network. It's simply a bunch of violent, power-hungry organisations funded by naive individuals who are fooled by stirring words such as "patriotism", "history", "identity" and "freedom". I'm afraid your government is just another one of those organisations, and you are just another one of those fools.
You never stopped to ask the question *why*. *Why* do we have freedom of speech, privacy, and so forth? You mention briefly the willingness to surrender privacy to Walmart but not to the FBI -- you're so close to the reason but you don't quite catch it.
The freedoms we have are checks and balances against the innate power the government holds over us. Walmart cannot come storming into our home with guns drawn. The FBI can.
Ben Franklin said "Those who would trade essential liberty for temporary safety deserve neither." After witnessing the deaths of ~25,000 American soldiers (~0.83% of the population at the time) in the American Revolution, his opinion was not changed. I doubt his opinion would be different after the death of ~5,000 people (~0.0017% of the population today).
If we have a trustworthy government today it is because we do not trust it. Power corrupts, thus the need for checks and balances. Remove those checks and balances and you will see more, deeper, more dangerous corruption.
Please take the time to read up on Reichstag -- this was the incident that led to the rise of Hitler prior to WWII. He used a "terrorist act" (the burning of the German Parliament) to convince the president to "temporarily" suspend civil liberties while they chased down the Evil Communists who had been blamed for the event. He later used that bill to subjugate the German states one by one, using the SS to disrupt the operations of opposing political parties and eventually managed to get a bill signed into law declaring him ruler of Germany.
There are threats far worse than terrorism. Thus far we have done a great job of keeping them at bay, I hope we wont sacrifice our vigilance on one front because of the threat of another.
Also, bear in mind a couple things: 1) The Senate signed a bill that allows temporary monitoring of electronic communications *without* *a* *warrant* -- removing a *vital* check against abuse. 2) Terrorists don't need encryption -- they've got steganography which is far more useful to people in their position. 3) Chemical/Biological weapons are very difficult to obtain, generally very difficult to transport (esp. biological weapons), and are generally very difficult to deploy. Aum Shinrikyo tried chemical weapons and only killed a handful of people (injured some hundreds more) -- not because the weapon wasn't lethal, but because deploying it is *very* *very* difficult.
Now don't get me wrong -- I'm not saying we shouldn't have better security at airports and such, but encryption backdoors wont help, and the FBI seems to be doing just fine with their (*shudder*) FISA warrants. I'm afraid I just don't see how curtailing our freedoms will help.
Whenever, in their anguish, they try to escape from Hell... as you said yourself - that is their punishment in hell not on earth. On earth Islams and Muslams may not harm specificly any Christian or a Jew. it is also frowned upont to harm others as well.
---
ps -aux | grep mind
The full text of the President's speech is here.
Young man...
This is just the first of many assumptions made in your comments. You would do well to avoid them in the future, should you decide to take up informed discussion as a means to achieving knowledge.
Very few people in general, maybe; however, I would be very circumspect about ascribing this worldview to /.ers as a community. Perhaps you haven't read the last thousand or so posts regarding privacy issues as they relate to the legal requirements for law enforcement wiretapping.
I object to the claim that privacy is not inherent in the human condition. Privacy has always been inherent in the human condition ever since the days when, if you wanted privacy, you needed only to hold your discussion behind the barn.
It is entirely fallacy that, since the people subscribe to modern conveniences, the privacy that was once ours by default now should belong to the government (with their increased technology and manpower to devote to monitoring, which was never inherent in their condition) by default.
This is simply an attempt by self-proclaimed "centrists" to increase the role of government to unprecedented levels in our lives in the name of Protection. BTW, do you really believe that monitoring Americans and prohibiting Americans from using strong cryptography would prevent terrorists from using technology to achieve privacy???