Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

ACLU Action Alert on Privacy vs. Security

Posted by timothy on from the cut-and-paste dept.

Masem writes: "Following shortly after the EFF's call to action, the ACLU has now issued an Action Alert regarding much of the recent buzz in Congress after the terrorist actions last week. As with most ACLU Alerts, there's a form which you can use which will allow you to fax, email, or snailmail your Rep. and 2 Senators, either with a default message, or with a message that you can customize. Getting in touch with your elected representatives couldn't be any easier."

4 comments

  1. What's better: Flowery or Tech? by heliocentric · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I look at the things the ACLU has written, and although I do not disagree with a single thing they say, it seems a little light on facts. I feel I am in the "know" about computer security issues and how they impact my rights, however this stuff just seems to be written on a very low level. This has made me wonder, usually when I talk to someone about why the actions of the US government are creepy right now I get into details - I explain the whole clipper chip fiasco, and I get them to ponder the real reason the feds case was dropped (google cache) so quickly against Phil Zimmerman. Anyway, this means almost always gets others to be more in the "know." But is this approach not appropriate in dealing with my representatives? I realize that for many in congress the little people's letters are just read by someone else and tallied and maybe a few are handed over with the stats... But should I send a cookie-cutter boxing-gloves-on letter, or a diatribe explaining not just things are bad - but WHY?

    --
    Wheeeee
    1. Re:What's better: Flowery or Tech? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I did something in between in my letter to Bob Barr about the proposed SSSCA. I gave five arguments against it (it would restrict projects by students and hobbyists, it would allow unelected persons to author laws, etc). But each argument was more philosophical and high-level than technical. A letter to a Congressman is not a court brief.

      We believe that crypto laws won't work. So how about this: "Requiring cryptography backdoors will not prevent terrorists from having secure communications because cryptography products are and will continue to be available for free from overseas Internet sites. Even if such products were not available, anyone who cared to could obtain enough information to write their own from the US Patent & Trademark Office's public archives. I see no reason to believe that would-be terrorists would willingly use the insecure products instead."

      We believe that crypto laws will be abused. So instead of talking about McCarthy-ism and J Edgar Hoover, how about this: "I believe that the privacy implications of this legislation are basically equivalent to outlawing envelopes in US mail."

      And so on. I think it is possible to make convincing arguments without discussing legal precedent, technical "minutiae" and such, or at least mentioning them in brief only.

  2. Why the hell by subsolar2 · · Score: 1
    is this not on the front page!! Considering the bashing pro-civil rights group is taking it would be nice to have more people see it.

    On the other hand maybe it's better it's not on the front page seeing all the flames that would be faxed by the majority of hot-headed loosers.

    I guess you can't win with slashdot!

    subsolar