Slashdot Mirror
Anti-Civil Liberties Legislation Progresses
hillct writes: "The ACLU has a very good comparison chart of anti-terrorism provisions in legislation currently being considered by congress. It covers the Combating Terrorism Act of 2001, the House Bill (PATRIOT Act) and the Senate Bill (USA Act), comparing it all to current law. We've all seen pieces of this information but the ACLU staffers did a great job consolidating it all." CDT also has a very good pdf guide to these about-to-be-passed laws. But the Onion has the best commentary.
We may be holding our own against these anti-privacy options, but what if there is another terrorist attack? I don't think we will be able to keep them from passing something that will severly limit our freedoms.
"Where quality is like a dead stinking rat - you just can't miss it."
The scary part about legislation like this is that once it is adopted, it tends to stay in place. Today's ant-terrorism initiaitve is tommorow's rationale of the cops to packet-sniff your ISP...
"need I say more?"
...umm yes because as it stands your post makes no sense and conveys no information at all.
"The Bush administration's anti-terrorism legislation has stalled because of one senator's concern that it will erode civil liberties. Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., tried to hurry the bill through Tuesday, but Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., refused Daschle's request to let the bill go through without debate or amendment."
I'm glad to see that one of our representatives feels a responsibility to have this discussed before it's passed. The article's available through Yahoo's home page - it would seem that Feingold wants to change several key provisions of the bill.
All it needs is maybe some Sage. I suggest the team from "The Mary Whitehouse Experience". They've not been doing much satirical commentary, lately, despite the fact that they're probably the best there's been. (Even TW3 - That Was The Week That Was - was tame, in many ways, in comparison.)
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 amazing thing about all of this legislation is that people I held in high esteem are all in favor of the proposed legislation. Everyone from my mother, to my professor, to my boss want this legislation passed.
Obligatory quote:
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Identity up for debate
Please email all complaints to root@127.0.0.1 and the issue will be dealt with in due time.
Under the definition proposed by the Administration, even acts of simple civil disobedience could lead organizations such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) to become targets of "terrorist" investigations.
Say, maybe these laws aren't so bad after all...
*ducks and runs* ... errm... *crouches down and runs* (don't want to offend the ducks)
How long before martial law is the norm? What will 'martial law' be like then? I've noticed instead of what don't we have the right to do, we now ask what do we have the right to do in the past century. Even under the strictest rules, if you want to bomb something, you're going to bomb something. Its up to intelligence agencies and police forces to find out who wants to bomb what, and then stop them. Laws are like fences. They sit there and hope to deter would-be criminals. But there isn't anything stopping someone who isn't deterred from breaking that law...We should just make bombs illegal. That would have about as much effect.
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
The suspension of civil rights during a war is OK by me - it's an old tradition and a sensible one. Are we having a war with someone?
The problem I have is that Constitution reserves the right to declare war to Congress. If we need war powers, fine, declare war. It sure looks like one to me.
Otherwise, don't mess with my Bill of Rights.
I don't see, in either document, any discussion of the earlier proposals to re-implement key escrow or otherwise backdoor commercial encryption products. Did this die quietly or what? Anyone know?
#!
First off, I am happy ACLU has released this report and is lobbying against provisions limiting civil liberties. However, very a long time, I have been confused over the absence of the ACLU in fighting court cases and legislation curtailing digital liberties. I have not seen ACLU participate in DMCA cases or against proposed legislation such as SSSCA. As a result, I assume the ACLU has no argument over such laws.
But, given that ACLU has a mission, stating the obvious, to promote liberties, why has the ACLU long been absent on issues related to technology? Is it merely because there is an absence of techie members in the ACLU to advance such causes? Or does ACLU really dislike issues related to technology?
"There ought to be limits to freedom"
This is slightly off topic, however it does apply when you start thinking about what information is currently available.
A lot of information on the web has recently been deleted. While it is true that Google has much of this material cached, more and more information related to war, disease, and terrorism will go away.
While we need to worry about security, we also need to care about security. When folks get information, they can make choices. When choice is available, we have room for freedom.
This is a petition to keep people from taking your freedom. Stand up for your rights, please! Do it before it's too late. It's much more difficult to take back laws once they are in place.
mp3's are only for those with bad memories
It will probably turn out that we're bombing camp grounds or something. Camp grounds, dirt roads, small runways...I don't see much of a need to take away our civil liberties. Life goes on, even without the WTC, and the people involved. Why should we all be less free? Might that have been bin Laden's real goal?
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
THe ACLU is also wasting its time by suing a school that displayed the words 'God Bless America' Nice to see them keeping busy
It could be a sort of Zen rhetorical question. A sort of 'is it really important if I say more, or less, cosmically speaking?'.
Or he could just be a first post Troll who is wondering how much he has to write to get past the lameness filters. The subject is just a red herring.
Or perhaps I'm hungry. Yes that seems more likely. -- hhgttg
LibBT: BitTorrent for C - small - fast - clean (Now Versio
While I don't agree with parts like holding indefinetly without warrants, these new proposals are nothing new. Only thing new is the technology.
It's always been US law that if a judge agrees you're a suspect the police and FBI can pick apart your whole life. They can come into your house and business and seize everything as evidence, tap your phone and etc. Only thing different now is they're only going to need one warrant. It'll save on paperwork and effort.
Laws shmaws...
How do you "combat" terrorism? That's like healing death.
If there isn't a torrent of letters and phone calls while such things still matter, each and every one of us will deserve whatever we get. Get off your as^H^Hslashdot and get on the phone, get a letter written, and get it to the post office. Now. These guys are intent on "protecting" us no matter how much harm they do in the process.
The is a petition to retain your Civil Rights at Defend Your Freedom dot org. I have seen stuff on this sort of thing from everyone including the KKK to the ACLU, Pat Buchanon, and Common Cause. Something strange is going on when people across the spectrum are bitching, not just the wierdos.
Heck, even the Department of Homeland Security sounds like something out of Nazi Germany. This is unfortunate given the allegations that the Bush grandfather made his fortune in trade with that country.
There is a whole lot of political dirty laundry out there that needs to be washed.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
From the CDT summary:
Interception of computer trespasser communications (House 105, Senate 217)-
Allows ISP's, universities, network administrators to authorize surveillance without judicial order
Who left these entities to decide what's right or wrong? IMHO, this is too much power left to entities not expert in the field of law.
What's even worse is that there is no expectation of privacy for "unauthorized use" although that term is not defined. So it's up to the individual interpreter of the proposed law. Even the downloading of an unauthorized mp3 can allow the tapping of all communications by that individual, with no time limit!
The effects could be far-reaching, from unnecessary accusations of terrorism, to less privacy in the workplace.
I like fire ants. They are very spicy!
Although America brags about its cival liberities. But when there is a threat Americans are so ready to give them up. It seems to be that real Americans are the ones who stand up in times of threat and disaster and say to the law makers that what they are doing is wrong. And like many times in the past history will look down on your desisions. Like gathering asian americans in WWII. Blacklisting "Comunists" during the Cold War. What ever happened to the addage Although I dont agree with what you say but I will fight to the death for your right to say it.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
is any sort of justification. For instance, increased wiretap auhtority. Just how would it have prevented the attack of Sept. 11? What sorts of nasty things are terrorists doing that we can't combat with the current system? How would required back doors make us safer?
I'm beginning to see a purely visceral response: terrorism => we are in danger => police need more powers.
On another note, where is the debate? I keep hearing that there will be one, but has anyone seen a member of the administration make a reasoned defense of these bills? Outlined why they are needed? Responded to criticism? Has there even been any criticism in the major media? (links would be appreciated)
When in doubt, have a man come through a door with a gun in his hand.
...post a link to the Onion today? It always gets beaten on on Wednesdays (when they update). Now it's going to take forever for me to get the infographic... *sigh*
Although I think they ran the best series of reaction pieces to 9/11 I've seen, particularly "God Angrily Clarifies 'Don't Kill' Rule" and "Terrorists Surprised to find Selves in Hell".
Of course, with new info pointing to the fact that only ~6 of the 'jackers actually knew it was a suicide mission might lend credence to that last story...
I wish I had a kryptonite cross, because then you could keep Dracula and Superman away.
This is the kind of knee-jerk, reactionary legislation that scares me most. "We need to destroy our freedom in order to save it." If we're going to just trample all over the Constitution of the United States, we might as well just merge the FBI and CIA into a new organization called the KGB and call ourselves the Soviet Union 2.0
You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door. There is a small mailbox here.
Maybe a /. interview is in order.
When in doubt, have a man come through a door with a gun in his hand.
Actually, yes. What the FuCk are you talking about??? Yes, they're the ACLU. So what about it?
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
Feingold?! I never thought I'd see the day...
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Remember that Al Capone was put away for tax evasion, not murder, extortion, or any of a hundred other crime that he was responsible for directly or indirectly. If you make sure that it's very easy to become a criminal, then you can more easily pick them up, keep them off the street, and make sure they don't do anything bad.
I mean who of us doesn't break the occasional law? Maybe it's just speeding or making a copy of a friend's software or downloading an MP3 from Morpheus. They'd be happy to have an endless intermeshing of complex and confusing laws so that they can detain anybody before they become a "real threat".
What if tomorrow they outlawed uncertified, non-backdoored encryption standards. Then all of the terrorists who give two shits about our laws will still break them, but all of a sudden they can be arrested for these more minor infractions. This gives law enforcement a means to detain and prosecute them even if it isn't for the murder of thousands of people.
Sure, they'd also find all of these other people violating that law because we don't care to have the government being able to see everything at a moment's notice. But hey, what's the sacrifice of a couple crypto dissidents going to prison if we can make everybody safe.
*sigh*
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
...racial profiling in this case would have proven an effective technique.
"The definition of "terrorism" is too broad, permitting the special surveillance powers granted in this legislation to be applied far beyond what is commonly thought of by the term. Under the definition proposed by the Administration, even acts of simple civil disobedience could lead organizations such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) to become targets of "terrorist" investigations."
n tr ibutors/kurtz071701.shtml
Well, I might get flamed for this, but...
While I do not support laws that infringe on any of the Amendments to the Constitution...
Some of the things that groups like the ELF (Earth Liberation Front) do...is terrorism.
http://www.nationalreview.com/search-results/co
"Eco-terrorism, sponsored by loosely knit groups like the Animal Liberation Front and Earth Liberation Front, began in earnest in 1998, with the burning down of a mountaintop ski resort in Vail Colorado, the release of 10,000 minks from an Oregon mink farm, and the burning of a slaughterhouse. Eco-terrorism has proliferated since then, although, until recently, fear of provoking further retaliation has prevented targeted businesses from publicizing the problem. Biotechnology projects are the latest targets, with a fire set to the offices of a global biotech project at Michigan State University in Lansing and various experimental crop sites destroyed."
Events like that, terrorizing people that wear fur or leather, it's not right. In a society based on Common Law, like the US, those things that are not illegal are legal, wearing leather or fur, or raising minks for fur, isn't illegal and it's not right for a private citizen to attack that property. Many of the *LF groups are starting down the same path as Hezbollah and Hamas did in the 60s and 70s. If those domestic groups practice the same kind of distributed terror as Aryan Nation or Hezbollah, the Police and FBI should go after them with the same tools as they go after other "hate" groups.
PETA branding people for a choice of calories is no more right than Aryan Nation branding people for a choice of mate or church.
My interest in posting is to pose questions as to the various facets of the currently proposed laws could be improved to so that the various gov't agencies who are charged with keeping the rest of us reasonably safe have a better legal tool set with which to do so, without the significant loss of civil liberties.
So, what are the /. thoughts/analysis on these questions: Is the ACLU analysis spot on? extremist? Not harsh enough?... Are there other views on these various points that we should consider important enough to not protest all of the changes? and finally, my pet question: how can we get the ACLU as up in arms about the DCMA and the SSSCA as they are about these acts?
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
Sometimes you have to wonder if even they believe in some of their "official positions".
Godwin's Law merely states that as a thread's length increases, the probability of using Nazis or the Holocaust as a metric to compare peoples' arguments approaches 1. There's nothing about who wins or who loses.
The only place you have privacy is in a room in your house with no windows. Otherwise assume you are being observed.
If you have a credit card, your entire purchase history is in a database.
If you have a drivers license or ssn which you use to identify yourself, your activities can be traced.
You phone can be trivially tapped.
You are being videotaped in most public buildings whether you know it or not.
Your internet connection is the most trivial of all to tap and trace.
Use TiVo? You viewing habits are in a database.
Where oh where is this privacy you are trying to protect? At least a national ID card would make everyone aware of the fact that they have ZERO privacy.
I was reading this Onion story yesterday, and the problem I see with it, is that it's just too subtle.
Yes, you read that correctly, and I'm not being sarcastic.
I'd bet any major newspaper could run that story word-for-word, and the majority of US sheeple would not only believe it happened, but agree with the "government's" position.
It's just too subtle.
You have to love it when governments squeeze seemingly unrelated items into a bill they are trying to pass. Check out Secion 503 of the Patriot Act (emphasis mine):
SEC. 503. LIMITED AUTHORITY TO PAY OVERTIME.
Would someone please tell me how this helps in the "fight against terrorism"? Never mind that it seems like an awful lot of overtime, just how does it help the anti-terrorism cause to limit overtime pay? Employees of the above departments might be forced to work a lot more overtime given the new restrictions that might be placed on their work and this just serves to screw them if they happen to work quite a lot more. This just seems like a petty section.
ian.
ian
After reading the report on the Onion, I have a couple of questions: How is what Bush & Co are proposing different from the totalitarian regimes they are complaining about, and if we go along with this, what freedoms do we have left to defend?
What they are saying is that we have to give up our right to free speech in order that they can defend our right to free speech.
This is the most twisted, bizarre logic I have ever experienced.
Here is my stand: What makes us America, and makes us different, is a consitution based on individual freedoms and a government accountable to the people. If we give any of that up, we have already lost the war. The attack on the WTC will have been successful. It is only if we maintain our freedoms and our character and our constitution that we have a chance of winning. It is that freedom that makes us different from Osama Bin Laden. Give it up and we are they same as the terrorists.
"Senator Blocks Attempt to Pass Bill"a ck s_terror_laws_2.html
h tm l#form
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20011010/us/att
BTW, you can thank him for doing the right thing at:
http://feingold.senate.gov/services/contactrdf.
pherris
"And a voice was screaming: 'Holy Jesus! What are these goddamn animals?'" - HST
The right to trial by jury would be abolished in all instances where the sentence was likely to be less than two years. This would include most prosecutions under sec. 296 of the Copyrights Designs and Patents Act (the UK's DMCA), as well as serious reputation-destroying charges such as theft, assault and drug offences, where defendants can at the moment insist on jury trials. To prevent "perverse" decisions, Auld also recommends that judges should be allowed to ask juries specific menus of questions about the facts of the case instead of innocent-or-guilty verdicts, reserving the final decision for the judge themself.
In a democratic system, the last ditch defence against a really bad law is that a jury can refuse to convict, in spite of the evidence, if they think that the prosecution is unfair or unreasonable. Cases thrown out by UK juries against the evidence in recent years include vandalism charges against GM crop protesters, official secrets charges against civil service whistleblowers and shoplifting charges against confused elderly people. Juries have also tended to be more critical of police evidence than judges and court officials; and to have had more relaxed views in obscenity and pornography cases.
Specific comment: Independent, Guardian /. yro yesterday; rejected).
General reports: BBC, Times, Telegraph, Guardian, Independent
(submitted to
And remember, as this week's NTK points out, bad UK law is often just version 0.1 for bad law in the US.
We must all do our patriotic duty to protect our country's great ideals," Fleischer continued, "and we have to be careful about what opinions we express if we are to defend our Constitution, a sacred document behind which all Americans must stand united as one."
Pardon me but isn't one of the most fundamentally important parts of the Consitution the right to freedom of speech? Yes, by all means consider what you're saying and to whom but come on! This guy is saying "ignore the constitution's rights if you want to protect the constitution."
I was willing to stay and get anthraxed or fuel bombed. I am not willing to stay here and get dragged off by the new police state. Does anyone know how hard it is to emmigrate to Canada?
USA act (Senate bill)
PATRIOT act (House bill)
I already did, but unfortunatly, my "representatives" (McCain, Kyl, and Jeff Flake from AZ) are all sponsors of these horrible bills.
"History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure."
- Justice Thurgood Marshall, 1989
I wholly disapprove of what you say--and will defend to the death your right to say it.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
...not an absolute.
When the country was founded, there was a HUGE debate over whether "we, the people" could be trusted to govern ourselves. Those who favored democracy felt we did; those who wanted to create a mini-Great Britain didn't. So in the end, we got a balancing act in which we democratically elect representatives, in whom we trust to do the right thing. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't, but that's besides the point. The point is, we have a hybrid system on purpose.
So in the wake of 9/11 we can expect the balance to be reopened for debate. The question is still and always has been this: can you trust an open society of common people to make the right decisions and act like good citizens? Or do you have to have a central government provide a high degree oversight and control?
I'm voting that we've still got what it takes. I hope the changes that get passed are minor ones. To do otherwise would be to give up on the "great experiment" that is the point of having a separate country in the first place.
No one argues that animals shouldn't be treated humanely, but PETA goes way, way beyond to make animals life morally equivalent to human life.
That makes them complete wackos. Not terrorists necessarily, but definitely wackos.
Now, they have the perfect right to be a wacko if they want. But when they try and push their wackoness on me, I get pissed. I have the absolute natural right to eat animals because of my place on the food chain.
But we should have those privacies!!
We want these privicies back. We shouldn't have to be in our own house w/o any windows to ahve privacy. It should all be opt in for these damn databases.
People like this guy are why we lose privacy sometimes,
"Oh they took it already, i shouldn't try to get it back."
Something that hasn't had much attention is the proposal that would create a moratorium on new student visas. Apparently, one of the attackers was in the US on a student visa, so some lawmakers would like to deny entry to foreign students. This would have the side-effect of meaning that foreign students couldn't leave the US until they finish their education, or they wouldn't be readmitted (we have to surrender our visas when we leave and have our status reevaluated every time we enter the US). Personally, I wish I could go home for Christmas and spend the holidays with my family.
/. readership and I hope you know that, for what it's worth, your friends to the north stand behind you all the way.
I fully understand that Americans are frightened and need to protect themselves, but I don't think this particular proposal will have the intended effect. Students are a small minority of foreigners in this country and it's easier to get here other ways. If you just enter on a vacation, for example, you don't need proof of acceptance to a school or financial documents. I do agree that the student visa system needs an overhaul and better security, but not a moratorium. For that matter, in light of the terrible events on Sept. 11, the entire immigration system needs to be scrutinized. Anyway, I offer my personal condolences to the Americans in the
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety"
I hope that someday we will be able to put away our fears and prejudices and just laugh at people. - Jack Handey
Everything the Administration wants to do, it can do right now if a judge approves. Yet the FBI isn't complaining that judges are turning down their requests for search warrants or wiretap orders in terrorism cases. So there's no problem. All this is just Ashcroft on a power trip. He should be replaced.
Last time I checked, the UN Declaration of Human Rights (or whatever it's called) contained 'rights' which seemed more like 'civil rights' than 'human rights'. If that's so, does that mean the UN will list us as a human rights abuser? As another poster mentioned, a war 'declared' against a vague group could prolong the 'war' indefinitely, and with people like you, we'd find ourselves with no rights whatsoever.
If you can argue that they are terrorists, then by all rights just about every Pro-Life group must certainly qualify as a terrorist, what with all their "wanted" ads on the internet, remeber those? (crosshairs drawn on abortion doctors' faces). Of course the Bush administration will NEVER classify them as such, as they have consistently failed to mention those kinds of incidents as part of religious extremism.
For that matter Reclaim the Streets (RTS) is technically a "terrorist" organization -- this org. advocates nothing other than the "reclamation of public space" and organizes spontaneous dance parties in the streets.
We need to pay close attention to who is deciding what is "terrorism".
[pink beam of light]
The lack of judicial oversight, the broadened definition of "terrorism" to include common civil disobedience tactics, and the ability to continue surveillance after it's no longer useful to an investigation all sounds tailor-made for keeping tabs on and incarcerating political dissidents.
Time to waste more postage on my representatives...
OK,
- B
http://www.bradheintz.com/
- updated
Personally, I think that when terrorists attack, that is not the time to quickly abandon freedom, judicial process, and other things that make our civilisation what it is: I think on the contrary that this is the time to hold on to these principles extra carefully.
A shame to see that in all the polls I have seen recently on CNN and in newspapers, whenever the question is about abolishing a civil liberty, roughly 80% is in favour. I sure hope we get back to thinking again soon.
---
BDOS ERR ON A:>
The Constitution is supposed to protect us from the government spying on us in our private lives. The Bill of Rights reiterates this, saying "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized" (Amendment #4). The bills currently going through would violate these ideas
On a side note, I must point out that the Constitution does not protect you from your ISP or other access/content provider spying on you or your activities. If they determine you are being bad and then go to the authorities, you could be investigated further, and probably legally.
Our best hope here is that after these laws pass (and they probably will) that a relatively benign case makes its way to the Supreme Court, and that they will strike the law down as unconstitutional.
In the wild there are no dumb lions tigers or bears. Only humanity subsidizes the continued existence of the stupid.
"Don't give up Liberty in the zeal to defend it."
What do you think? Keep the old one, or replace with the new one?
-S
--- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
PETA doesn't have a cause worth fighting for. :-P
I don't agree with everything he does, but on the basis of that one vote alone he earned a lot of respect from me. He was a relative newcomer and began making waves almost immediately with his campaign finance reform bill (with McCain), and his willingness to protect individual rights even when it's politically dangerous to take such a stand (like with the CDA, and now this).
Hat's off to him. If he runs again, he gets my vote. (I'm in Wisconsin). Tonight I'll look up the snail address to send him some dead trees letting him know this. (It's important to tell your representatives when you agree with them just as much as it's important to tell them when you disagree.)
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
It's a waste of time and will be ignored. If you have an opinion, contact your lawmakers directly. All these damn petitions don't accomplish a thing but to make the signers feel good about themselves.
When contacting your lawmakers:
-- E-mail is only so-so.
-- Telephone is better.
-- Postal mail is still better.
-- A personal visit to their office is best.
most likely people are now on going to be worried about safety via threats such as sucide bombers, anthrax scares. And polls show that most americans are in fact are in favor of such precautions. Now where down the road the legislation gets challenged that is another thing entirely.
I'm not one of your constituents, and I very rarely write to my congresscritters (as they seem to be more responsive to lobbyists demands than public good). I just wanted to thank you for your efforts to block the disasterous ATA (anti-terrorism act) and the Bush Administration's drive to completely shred what is left of our Constitution.
Their rush to defend our freedoms by destroying them chills me. I am more afraid of THEIR efforts than the actions of the most black-hearted terrorist, as it is abundantly clear which will have more disasterous long term effects.
Please continue to defend our civil liberties by preventing kneejerk reactionary responses similar to what we saw in the McCarthy Era and the Cold War.
"Freedom is like a rope made of several strands.
Weaken or remove one strand, and the rope is
weakened... There are bad people in the world,
ever watchful for opportunities to seize dominance
over others. For good people to stand idly by is
to welcome the erosion and eventual collapse of
all our freedoms." David F. Linowes
At the point where all freedoms are up for grabs, so is everything America stands for and is embeded in the Constiution. These crisis brings us incrementally closer to more rights losses, many of which are covert in the eyes of average Americans. If we want to protect are freedom, we must act now and set a precedent: under no circumstances will we give up our rights for utilitarian ends.
F-bacher
James Tiberius Kirk: "Spock, the women on your planet are logical. No other planet in the galaxy can make that claim."
http://www.aclu.org/action/usa107.html
/bin/fortune | slashdotsig.sh
So someone speaks out against PETA gets 4 (insightful), I defend them and get marked as offtopic? We don't need the government to enforce censorship we'll gladly do it ourselve. I've had enough of this, back to work.
$_='while(read+STDIN,$_,2048){$a=29;$b=73;$c=142;
Security is a myth. It doesn't exist in nature.
--Helen Keller
Enough said....
Can you imagine a World Trade Center of these?
Internet, USA: The online community was stunned when it discovered their favorite lampoon magazine, The Onion, was starting to run actual news stories.
"I was reading this article, expecting a laugh, but the laugh never came!" sobbed one long-time Onion reader. "I depend on the Onion to distract me from facts, and what do they do!" After speaking with us she left for her lawyer's office intending to sue.
Other online news entities were similarly stunned. Matt Drudge refused to talk with us; Joe Farah of World Net Daily simply stated, "it's war!" CmdrTaco of Slashdot said that "it'll be nice to have someone who actually REPORTS the news."
Remember, corporations are legally people too, and destruction of corporate property is just as much of a crime as destruction of private property.
So these people should be punished, "eco-terrorists' or not.
Glückwünsche, haben Sie Slashdot ermordet, indem Sie zum korporativen Druck beugten und Subskriptionen einlei
If we didn't live in such an open Democracy, you wouldn't even have the OPTION to complain.
How ironic that you would use this in your tirade against the very people that are working to ensure that this right continues to exist.
You are one ignorant fuck.
Takahashi Rumiko made beats! DON, taku, DON, taku. . .
Seems to me that many people who thought that the internet was going to provide privacy above that which we have in our day to day lives are just plain wrong.
In fact the efforts on the part of slashdot, the electronic freedom foundation and other groups to insure total privacy on the internet are now falling on deaf ears. Priorities have changed and it seems like no one on slashdot has noticed.
I have seen very little mention that terrorists have used the private systems developed to insure privacy on the internet to attack our country and communicate across the world in real time very easily.
Instead of supporting what is quickly becoming a lame duck organization (the ACLU) slashdotters should try and come up with a REALISTIC set of solutions for these problems, or the government and the large ISP's will and you wont like it much
The Sixth Sense.
-DFW
I will not be silenced by a banning!
Doesn't this all seem reminiscent of Gilliam's Brazil ? The government considers a rogue heating & cooling repair an act of terrorism.
-Dave
So never then, that's a very long time. I don't really see why we have to wait until we treat humans with dignity before we stop treating animals like in that video.
You say end of story, as if no other argument can possibly refute yours, and then you end your post with a disparaging comment on sweeping generalizations? Nice.
$_='while(read+STDIN,$_,2048){$a=29;$b=73;$c=142;
Humans ARE animals. Their life, even counting the lower intelligence, is equivalent to human animal life. So humans want to build a station on the moon and mine minerals, and cows want to sleep and eat grass...who am I to kill that animal when I have other (and more healthy) food sources available?
I don't think PETA has done a very good job. Their "in your face" advertising and campaigns, while having some truth behind them, only anger those who have, allways thaught that eating other animals was AOK. You don't get people thinking by screaming at them...you get a gut reaction.
Now if you honestly have thaght about this and have decided for whatevr reason that eating animals is ok, then great! Go for it! I don't have any more right to tell you what to do than I do to decide when an animal lives or dies.
I don't consider myself a "wacko"
Please just honestly think before you label me as some sort of fool.
And Ignore PETA. they don't know what they're doing.
Sorry for the off-topic post...I just wanted to balance the conversation.
Obviously the best restriction on traditional liberties is no restriction. However, given the terrorist threat, the ACLU would be more helpful by saying what restrictions it thinks are acceptable or useful or even necessary rather than dismissing them all as if nothing changed on Sept. 11.
For instance, it says: "Few of the provisions being discussed are needed for the current terrorism investigations, so Congress should take the time to do it right." But it does not say which of the "few" it feels are necessary and that Congress should therefore act on expeditiously.
In addition, all of these acts are subject to judicial review under the Constitution. No Constitutional right can be removed by an act of Congress. If there is a problem, it is that some of the so-called rights we take for granted are not protected by the Constitution.
The ACLU only says a few provisions explicitely violate the U.S. Constitution: (1) Nationwide pen register/trap and trace orders and roving wiretaps, and (2) Criminal evidence uncovered using an intelligence (FISA) wiretap. It doesn't mention a Constitutional test for the others, which should be the first objection raised.
One question is whether the terrorists pose a greater real and immediate threat to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness than the provisions mentioned by the ACLU. If so, the laws that are providing shelter for the terrorists are going to have to be changed.
The bill that Congress passed after 8.4 milliseconds of debate -- I forget its name, the one that basically gave the blank check to Dubya -- apparently is no different with respect to the Constitution from a declaration of war.
At least, that's what the talking heads have been saying.
You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
If all they did was observe passively I wouldn't care. But it doesn't *stop* with mere observation.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
The definition of "terrorist" being used now quite easily includes actions of the CIA (such as involvement in political assasinations), FBI (counter-intelligence operations), and the US Army (training Central American death squad leaders).
I don't hear any plans to go after these terrorists, however.
I totally agree with this. I think that given the threat many of these regulatory changes about wiretaps are not unreasonable. The threat they pose to our civil liberties is that they will outlive the threat they are meant to address.
The rules regulating how, when and where the government can monitor your actions are designed with the primary purpose of preventing abuse by government - the efficiency and efficacy of law enforcment and intelligence agencies is a secondary concern. During a war it is reasonable that the priorities switch since the more serious threat to our rights is the actions of our enemy not government abuse. Many laws already recognise that switch in priorities during times of war. Even the consititution in a clause specifically related to privacy rights recognises this principle (Amendment 3 - the right to not have soldiers quartered in your you - DURING TIMES OF PEACE)
Just for the sake of the accountability that comes with clear definitions and clear constitutional authority the congress should declare war on Al Queada and the Taliban. The difficult part is that there is no particular country to force the surrender of so the declaration of war would need to contain some terms defining when the war ends. Maybe the terms of victory would be the arrest or death of Al Queada's identifiable leaders and evidence of its effective dissolution (to Congresses satisfaction).
Why should that matter? We're sending our people off to fight and die somewhere. To them, it's a war. Why doesn't Congress declare it?
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Most people, in ordinary circumstances, don't regard the ability to have private communications as a crime. In these extraordinary circumstances, a different view has emerged. But the fact that people can communicate privately is not what brought down the World Trade Center. No one has shown this to be the case, and even if planning and execution via the global network could be shown, why would this make privacy itself at fault? Privacy is available through any number of means. Do you wish to ban privacy altogether, because people may be saying bad things about you, and about our country? If that's what you feel, what do you think the USA is about, anyway?
I survived the Dick Cheney Presidency 7 to 9 AM 7-21-07
I know this is going to sound like a troll but it is not meant as such, so please forgive. On the one hand, there is a cynical view that these anti-terrorism bills are a way for the fed to cover its collective behind, since it is plausible it was sleeping at the switch. On the other hand, there is the view that it took a wake-up call before preventative measures were put in place.
The bills in the hopper now are open ended in nature. They cannot guarantee that future acts of terrorism won't. Just look at the so-called War on Drugs. Has that curtailed drug trafficking and/or drug use? Perhaps. This is not an original idea, but where should the line be drawn for dumping money and resources into antiterrorism? Probably a cost-benefit analysis would be needed.
I have heard on the radio that "some people" have expressed respect for the President for not having a knee-jerk reaction by retaliating on the day subsequent to the WTC attacks. Be that as it may, but I am horrified by my impression of Congress on this "anti-privacy" legislation becuase it sure seems like they are having a knee-jerk reaction to something that they act as if they can completely control with Law but don't realize (or perhaps ignore) they cannot in practice. (Similar arguments have been made regarding the music industry.) Well, dammit, I have had enough and will be writing my Representatives and vote accordingly.
To-do List: Receive telemarketing call during a tornado warning. Check.
I do not think he would have had kind words for those who wish to restrict our liberties in exchange for a marginal improvement in "security".
A witty saying is worth nothing - Voltaire
Milwaukee, WI: The editors of The Onion, long considered one of America's best sources of satirical news, surprised the world today by retracting a story entitled "Freedoms Curtailed in Defense of Liberty".
One Onion staffmember spoke on the condition of anonymity. "It was just too realistic. People actually thought this was a real story! I guess that's kind of scary." He continued: "I mean, what do we have to do to, label every page with 'WARNING: Contains Satire, Witty Postmodern Observations and a General Sense of Cynicism'? Why don't people get it?"
"I mean, sheesh, we regularly run stories that anthropomorphise animals and quote God as using the f-bomb. How much more obvious can we be?"
The internet community was unavailable for comment.
I wish I had a kryptonite cross, because then you could keep Dracula and Superman away.
There was some nazi, uhmm excuse me, "Security Consultant", talking to some talking head on some network last night promoting national id cards. Basically, it would have biometric data in the card to identify you.
The real scary thing is that the government can set up scanners anywhere, to scan the card anywhere on your person, allowing the government to basically track your every move.
By the way, the leftist/liberals don't care about civil liberties any more than the extreme right. If your American, do yourself and your country a favor, and vote Libertarian
Can someone please tell me what "way of life" we are protecting if we suspend civil rights and habeas corpus?
Aren't these some of the things that define the American way of life? Maybe someone can help me remember where in the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, or Bill of Rights where it mentions that things like free speech are only guaranteed except in cases inconvenient to the government? If we are a nation of laws, not men, we must strive to uphold the laws set forth in our founding documents, not legislate them out of existence.
Without the ability to publicly debate the country's course of action and to question the decisions of the government, how can we mantain the "American way of life"? Without such public debate, our election process is simply the act of choosing a plutocratic dictatorship and hoping for the best.
No jack boots for me, thank-you very much.
The onion article illustrates a mind that can only be described as "We must destroy our way of life to save it".
One slightly tangential note: can anyone tell me what we can possibly be planning to do once we run out of targets to bomb? The only course of action I can see is to engage in a full scale land war in the middle of winter in Afghanistan. And this will stop terrorists and/or terrorism how? I ask only because the nightly news keeps reminding me that al Qaeda is present in over 60 countries, so we are bombing Afghanistan. Does this make any kind of sense?
The biggest threat I see at the moment to the "American way of life" is reactionary politicians that feel they are justified in attacking us, because at least they are not terrorists.
Given the passage of these bills, the only difference between our politican and a terrorist is that the politicians has the full force and resources of the US government at their disposal. Which are you more afraid of?
zor_prime
"We all do no end of feeling, and we mistake it for thinking." -Mark Twain
You can find your reps mailing address at Contacting the Congress .
http://www.windmeadow.com/
This is funny too. MH is a must read for fans of theonion.
so, which is it? I see mention of both, but am now not sure what exactly it is.
1. There is supposed to be a state of constant war. Orwell states that this constant war is used to keep the people nationallistcally proud of their country, while suffering privations for the "war effort" Remember the theory that the bombs were dropped by Oceana itself (not suggesting in any way that the terroists were not responsible just emphasiszing that in order for docility there needs to be a constant anxiety about war)? The constant state of war also lends people to worry about the nessecities of war and not the niceties of freedom and comfort.
2. Every citizen a criminal. The only way to keep people in check was to criminalize everything, down to thought. The understanding is that if you can be caught at anything, you will watch everything that you do or say. If posting negative comments about the party (Bill Maher) got you tortured or killed, you'd be likely not to speak out. If thinking ill about the party could get you busted by the goon squad, then you would even fear yourself.
3. The most frightening thing about taking away liberties is that it is a slippery slope. Remember that once the Party had a modicum of power, it's only goal was power. Soon after a few generation, there would be no thoughtcrime or punishment, because man would cease to be man in any recognisable sense. In other words, there would be no thought as we know it and so no thought crime. Today it's internet, tv and newspapers, tomorrow it's your desktop, the day after, your home and in a few years, your children have no concept of home. Scary. All too real.
What we need to do is make a conscious decision to effectively protest this crime against America and technology by having a "Tech out" like if this gets passed that we just do our jobs like normal, but when we get home, don't sit in front of the screen. I know that's a lot to ask of people who live and breath by the I/O but there has to be an effective voice to speak out against our liberties getting trampled on in the name of freedom. As too often is the case, we are conscientious objectors with no active participation until there is no protection in place to allow participation. It happened to a very civilized Germany, It happened in Afghanistan, it happened in the former Soviet Union, it most certainly could happen here.
Speak up, speak loud and speak out.
http://cincyboys.blogspot.com/ Everything Cincinnati. Including the word 'Finnih'
In order to justify it's positions, the ACLU uses an argunent that is vary simple to articulate but vary difficult to defend - that being, the Slippery Slope Argument.
Slippery slope arguments are notoriously difficult to make. In order to justify your actions using a slippery slope argument you must defend any and all instances of the situation you propose to protect. While I support the ACLU, you have to realize why their support doesn't have a much broader base than it does. I believe that support for civil liberties runs far deeper that one can see by looking at supporters of the ACLU because they have chosen to use this simplistic principle to articulate justification for their actions. They have created for themselves a political policy cul-de-sac from which they have yet to emrge. They find themselves defending the most morally reprehensible instances and people who find their civil liberties infringed upon. Potential supporters then look upon these actions and can't seperate them from the vary laudable goals of the organization as a whole.
While Slippery Slope arguments are common in civil liberties discussions, it is important that they don't act to drive away potential supporters of the overall set of principles.
--CTH
--Got Lists? | Top 95 Star Wars Line
(the speech)
does anyone know if there's a cartoon of bin ladun BF'ing a goat for download anywhere on the web?
Wrong. It makes them terrorists, in my book. They euthanize (i.e., kill) animals and they equate animals to humans; ergo, they advocate killing humans. Ask them, they don't deny it.
They also steal pets from pet shows then kill them. Those are terrorist acts. Their aim is to terrorize people into no longer owning animals. Ask them, they don't deny it.
If all this should have a reason, we would be the last to know.
U.S. government:
"We must take your freedom away so that you can continue to have freedom."
"Only violence stops violence."
Secrecy and weapons sales corrupt democracy: " What should be the Response to Violence?
Bush's education improvements were
It's called the 2nd Amendment. As long as the armed forces are doing their job to begin with.
Office of Homeland Defense == Internal Security Police == KGB
'Nuf said.
Constitutionally Correct
subject says it all.
You could've hired me.
God help us
The suspension of civil rights during war is ok ? what is happening here for christs sake.
Suspension of civil rights is NEVER acceptable. Full stop. What happened a month ago can happen again today or next week or next year, all the talk of rhetoric and sabre rattling and bombing will never ever change the simple fact that one or 2 determined people who believe in their actions can get around almost any security.
After vietnam one would think that the US would have learned this fact of life.
Terrible things happen in this world and innocent people die - horrific acts of pain and suffering, murder, torture, rape etc.
Allowing the government to take away ANY of your rights because in the heat of anger you think it its a goos idea is not only insane its EXACTLY how Hitler gained power in Germany with minimal real support, how Lenin took Russia etc.
We need to be vigilant today and toomorrow and forever to ensure that the democratic process is never circumvented for any reason - we choose the government and the government should always be answerable to the public - NO EXCEPTIONS
What do we do in years to come if we give up civil rights now and the government decides that in a state of emergency to suspend elections and habeas corpus, to declare martial law or other actions ?
All the planes in the sky and the troops on the ground cannot prevent this sort of action happening again and throwing away civil liberties and democratic processes show those in the world who claim the US is a bully that they have a point.
We should always ensure that the power this nation and its allies wield is applied fairly and honestly with restraint and compassion - there is no need for innocent people of ANY race to suffer in the pursuit of any group of people - and this includes the millions of innocent Afghanis who have suffered through nothing but war for almost 30 years.
Lets not give away our freedoms, not now not ever.
I refuse to argue with Anonymous Cowards - if you want a discussion get an account....
While it hardly matters where such hideous things first evolved, you might consider Stalin's campain against "wreckers" particularly chilling. As part of his attempt to undermine potential opposition (ie any profesional, priest, officer, or person who had ever read anything) he made them all into potential forgien agents. Films were made where the vilian took money from the Germans to destroy factories and harvests. It terrorized the whole society and shook it to the core. In a country with an accute shortage of competent engineers, engineers were put on trial, jailed and even executed for supposed sabotage. They made great scape goats for his faild social policies.
Hitler got most of his tricks from the old man of steel. Orwell, having survived the conflict between the two, imagined governments that were continously at war and lobbed missiles at their own people to keep them upset. Kill Goldstien!
We are not there yet, but SSCA, DMCA, and other oppresive laws aimed at putting desperatly needed IT folks in jail are ominous. The popular culture has not been kind to hackers lately. How do you like being portrayed as a criminal interested only in stealing music, spam, breaking into military computers and stealing credit cards? Perceptions are powerful and bad ones can hurt you.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Have you ever seen any cats "play" with a mouse? It's incredibly cruel and grotesque. They pull off limbs, toss it in the air, run around carrying it, all the while being very careful not to actually kill the poor thing, presumably since that ends the fun. They kill as many mice as they can catch, even if they aren't hungry. If you want to prevent cruelty to animals, you ought to be preaching to cats (big ones too).
It was kind of stupid the way the farm hands were beating the sow with her feet caught in the bars. How the hell will that get her out? Sounds like those guys don't get paid enough. Yelling "bitch" and "motherfucker" at the pigs must be really therapeutic, however. I love the way the narrator in the first video (pig beatings, etc.) keeps saying, "According to experts..." Uh-huh. Anyway, I hope no pig farm that supplies my pork does stuff like that. I don't want my meat all bashed up! Furthermore, skinning and butchering a pig outside in the yard is extremely unsanitary. I don't eat much pork anymore anyway because it's always too fatty.
Anyway, I'm sorry, but you PETA people will never convince me of anything. What you showed was from only one farm. Are you trying to turn all members of the general public into vegetarians? It would be much better to report that farm for its unsanitary practices and lobby your governmnent for animal-treatment legislation. I know where I live, one can get arrested and charged with "cruelty to animals". Doesn't something like that exist where you live?
A while back, during the British foot-and-mouth crisis, the head of PETA said she wanted foot-and-mouth disease to come to North America. Really? Did you know we have a huge population of wild hooved animals, like deer, moose, muskox, etc.? No one's beating and dismembering them! Only the occasional hunter... And it's much more painless than getting killed by predator. Anyway, thanks for showing me that. Yeah, it's terrible. So please tell me you got it stopped. You didn't just film all that stuff for publicity or something, right?
...is terrorism! Biological terrorism! Lucky for PETA, they only ever advocated it, but never actually did it. Good thing, too...it might not be that hard!
In the 1940's the gov't didn't have the kind of technology that we do know. What George Orwell invisioned was a future with advanced technology that we have now for monitoring "inapproptiate behavior."
Also, George Orwell never said that a translation like this would happen over night. In fact, that would be impossible as long as we have people who are very enthusiastic about their rights. It will take genertations to get them out of the gene pool. But the threat of terrorist attacks on the US, on it's own soil (If Russia had tried to invade the US, we would have been in the same situation, but only magnified by 100), has made the transition process a little easier. You won't wake up tomorrow with Big Brother watching your every move. It will come incrementally over time, so you don't even notice the transition.
F-bacher
James Tiberius Kirk: "Spock, the women on your planet are logical. No other planet in the galaxy can make that claim."
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/10/10/ret.bush.media/in dex.html
It may seem like a good point. But what seems scary to me is that the Whitehouse has been trying to control slant and news since this thing has happened. The Bill Maher thing is one example, as is the fact that it was disproven that the Whitehouse and Airforce were targets that day, even though both Cheney and Rice insisted that it was true.
Something is up, and parnoid conspiracy theory aside, its getting pretty scary. Last night on Bill Maher, the republican strategist said that CNN was on the verge of being sued by the Gov for creating the Anthrax scare, cos they have been "right on the line of what the first amendment protects" (paraphrase, it was late). Its all too convienient if you ask me.
The War on Drugs has been responsible for massive amounts of federal asset seizures. I can't remember if it was Bush or Reagan, but one of 'em enacted a law that gave the federal law enforcement agencies the abillity to seize your goods if they even SUSPECTED you were involved in some form of drug trade or possession, and they don't have to disclose the "evidence" that led them to believe you were guilty. This resulted in a lot of innocent people taking it in the bung.
I see a parallel here in recent events. The government has just come up with another way to criminalize otherwise innocent people. We already have a greater percent of the population incarcerated than any nation (but, hey, it's good for the economy!).
The scariest thing, to me, is that if the government spent as much time and money trying to educate us about drugs, rather then spend it on propaganda, we might not have so many lives destroyed. Similarly, if we spent as much time and money on finding a peaceful solution to the terrorist problem, instead of bombing the hell out of people and whittling away at US Citizens' civil liberties, maybe we could get somewhere.
Meanwhile, I'm a bit scared that my political beliefs will get me thrown in a jail. Please, you may not agree that we shouldn't be bombing Afghanastan, and you may not agree with my politics, but every single American is in danger of losing our freedoms. And that's what we are supposed to be fighting for in the first place, isn't it?
Speak out!
Has it ever occured to you that while you are taking it up the ass from the anti-privacy police force that your life may actually be not worth living? That, if given so litte opposition, they may pass other more draconic laws? They where will your "Better oppressed then dead" be? It isn't quite there yet, but where do you think it is going to end up if they keep making iddiotic laws with very little impact and using the failure rate of those to imply that even more even worse laws are needed? Where do you draw the line? When is it not better to live than die? Does that line not exist? Please explain...i'm very interested in how far you would go just to "live".
I just got through reading the Onion's commentary, and what scares me the most about this whole situation is that if I hadn't known the source I would have thought it was a factual news report. I realize these people don't necessarily support exactly what it says -- but the ideas expressed are pretty close to being a true representation of what our elected officials seem to believe.
I do not read or respond to AC's. If you want a discussion, log in. Otherwise, don't waste your time.
I agree. The whole point of a democracy is that in theory we must treat all of our citizens like responsible adults who can make their own decisions and be held accountable for them. We don't need to be legislated right down to our socks. Running America like a kindergarten goes counter to almost every reason this country was founded. We don't need more rules. We need higher expectations and more civic responsibility.
(And no, I don't have any concrete suggestions or wisdom; I'm a grandiose abstracts kind of girl, sorry.)
On a semi-related note, have you seen the excellent essay by Salman Rushdie in the Washington Post?
I don't tell you because I love you, I tell you because I'm bossy.
The debate, though, is happening, albiet not in the mainstream press. (OTOH, the NYTimes has had several stinging editorials and op-eds, all against the measures - that's as mainstream as it gets, I guess.)
On the right: see this article - and on the left, this one is the only one I can find now. Excellent reading both, and you know something is up when the Nation and the New Republic agree! Or try this one, where Sandra Day O'Connor is quoted as saying "We're likely to experience more restrictions on our personal freedom than has ever been the case in our country."
Whoa! This is the swing vote on the Supreme Court... say bye bye freedoms. Some days, I wonder where we're going, and why we're sitting in this handbasket...
"I will take the Ring," he said, "though I do not know the way."
Ten seconds of sustained thought over any one of these issues would cleary expose the gaping holes in the logic of legislation which limits the freedoms of citizens while doing nothing to constrain terrorism. Another ten seconds and you'll start to wonder *why* this proposed legislation exists when it would have done nothing to thwart Sept. 11, nor any future Sept. 11 that may take place.
It's about power, of course. Just another attempt by a bunch of malevolent control freaks to strip their subjects of their hard-won rights and institute something as close to a sitting dictatorship as possible. A little step here, a little step there, beat the terrorism/communism/war-on-drugs drums, play upon the fears of your people until they literally beg you to take their rights away - and for what? For an illusion of safety that can never, ever be fulfilled.
The power-hungry are coming out of the woodwork in America. It's a great time for tin-pot dictators to be alive, since they have the opportunity to capitalize upon the tragedy of Sept. 11. They don't actually *care* about 6,000 dead Americans, only how they can use the bodies - and the video footage - to amass yet more power to make others do things they don't want to do.
And really, it's getting close to their last chance to do so. After failing utterly to commercialize the internet and put a halt to a burgeoning new paradigm which redefines (in a small but growing way) how the world *might* work, if we wish it so, the only way to put the brakes on thought - and that's what we're talking about here, unapproved thinking outside of the box - is to restrict it in whatever fashion is available. If you can't conquer the internet, wrap it in laws and cover it in fear of what the government might do to you if you say the wrong thing, go to the wrong place, post the wrong comments. Make it clear that the internet has been compromised and that you *will* be bent over and fucked up the ass if you protest; kill the whole experiment before it can take off and ream the little dictators with the creation of a place they can't control, can't regulate, can't constrain.
Unregulated thought combined with unregulated communication is the absolute worst nightmare of those who yearn to control others. It's no wonder they sponsor bills aimed at bludgeoning the nascent freedoms provided by the internet to death. And it's no wonder that so many other power groups, especially entrenched commercial entities, are more than happy to line up behind the dictators and give them their full support.
Now is the time for the malicious and power-hungry to make their move. So far, it looks like they've managed to buy most of the American government.
If they win, what's next? Twenty years of martial law? Suspended elections? Will Heinlein have the last laugh after all?
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
Durned server has been /.'ed! - the backend server that actually handles the sign-on.
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
Let's estimate 50,000 people reading Slashdot, and agreeing that SSCA is wrong. That's quite a large number of people, and I bet it's conservative too.
Now, what would happened if all 50,000 people were to simply announce that they will have no intention of respecting SSCA? I.e. they will continue as normal, and if this involves breaking the law, so be it.
Let the FBI arrest all 50,000 people. Go on. I dare it. Some of the most intelligent, free-thinking people in the country, helping power its infrastructure, running the day-to-day operations of its businesses.
Fight the government! It has no intrinsic right over you. There is no divine right of kings, and no divine right of government. Indeed, there are two reasons you might respect it -- because you believe it does good, and because you fear it.
If you find you're doing it for the latter case, maybe you're giving those who fought for your Freedom a slap in the face?
Friday and Saturday at the Wisconsin Academy of Letters and Sciences'
forum on the Bill of Rights
Representative James Sensenbrenner (R. WI) chairs the House Judiciary Committee, and will undoubtedly sit on the Conference Committee, which will wrestle out differences between the versions of the Terrorism Act the House and Senate eventually pass.
Ben Masel: 51,282 votes for US Senate in the Wisconsin Democratic Primary
some one will always find a loophole in everything, and these anti terrorism laws are useless. once this starts, it will never stop, the control will fall further and further from our grasp as our country "tries to keep us safe". there is little we can do to stop this, apparently, as well, and so it becomes even more clear that we never did truly hold this "power".
eventually, our country will become so "protective of its freedoms" that we wont have any freedoms left to protect. it obviously didn't take long for the media and politics to fuck up this "positive" vibe we all thought we were getting. sad to see it,let the hipocrisy begin...
is there any geek who is not an atheist libertarian? i'm thinking any geek poll would come up with more than half atheist libertarians.
The title of the Onion article sums it all up quite well:
This sig under construction. Please check back later.
Rumsfeld:
"Under their system, it is illegal to practice a different religion or support a different political system."
Declaration of human rights (29.2):
"In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society. "
I'm all for democracy. But the argument strikes me as odd.
What the hell are you on about? PETA do NOT advocate the killing, or even harming, of humans. I should know, I'm a member. I'll straighten out your claims a little further...
Regarding your claim that they steal pets and kill them: Bullshit. PETA do not "steal" anything. People such as the ALF (Animal Liberation Front) have been known to break into labs and free dogs who were due to be experimented on, etc. and immediately put them up for re-homing. Killing them would befeat the idea of liberating them.
No, PETA don't want to "terrorise" anyone into not "owning" animals. The idea, if your poor addled brain missed it is to demonstrate that animals, as sentient creatures, are NOT property. Only a hundered years ago, whites thought that blacks were their property. Those days are gone. Fact is, animals are victims of humans for the same reason slave nations were: No-one would speak up for them. Those times are changing fast. And to the guy who figures that having all sentient life on the same level is a wacko ideal, take a big bite of retarded human burger if you're so sure.
So, for your bullshit (libelous) claims, I deny them.
"We kill to cure, with cures that kill" - Skinny Puppy
Well how far up my leg? Does sound too terrible at all now that you mention it.
This is complete nonsense. It is crazy to think the suspending civil rights can help the fight against the terrorism. It would be to get rid of what America should be most proud of. And people must be aware that the fight against terrorism is one that cannot be won. UK and Spain must still fight with IRA and ETA after several decades, and in conditions incredibly easier that the present case. This eagerness from the government about suspending civil rights means most probably the the terrorist attack is just a pretext. People should remind that the Dark Side is just easier, not more powerful!
If I had points, I'd mod you up! :)
;)). People equally forget that alongside every "terror" group, a legitimate, democratic group works towards teh same ideal. All it takes is accusations that the democratic side is working with the terror side to blacken the legitimate group beyond redemption. I am an animal rights campaigner, and break no laws doing the work. However, I expect that soon I will be criminalised, a dossier will be assembled on me, my communications may very well be monitored (I live in the UK, it's an everyday occurence, so I'm not over-reacting). I also expect to be arrested in a few weeks.
This was a major concern of mine once I saw the anti-terrorist hysteria take shape. People sadly have a tendency to poison a lake to kill one bad fish (bad pun for a PETA member
For the record, not a single person has ever been killed by an "eco-terrorist". Now, very many of these selfless and noble people have been injured and even killed in their attempts to raise awareness of the suffering of the innocent.
Keep an eye on your liberties, folks. The day that you speak out against something you disagree with and you get labeled "unpatriotic" or a "terrorist", I'll be right there with an "I told ya so!"
"We kill to cure, with cures that kill" - Skinny Puppy
Would the be the same ACLU that told a school in the US to remove a "God bless America" message because it was "cruel and devisive" ??
I certainly support their efforts in many areas, but by pulling something like that they're just being hypocritical, which will cause many to dismiss other (legitimate) things they say.
-- Steve
It's really easy for me here in central Ohio - my elected officials have yet to do ANYthing I agree with. And when I emailed my Congressman to express my *OPPOSITION* to the 'Anti-Flag-Burning Amendment', he mailed me back saying "Thanks for your views, I also think flag-burning should be outlawed." I don't know if he misunderstood my letter or just didn't read it at all. Either way, it sucks.
U.S. Democracy: born 7/4/1776, died 12/12/2000 R.I.P.
wow - somebody's posted to say that congress never officially declared war in Viet Nam...
does this mean that the USA was never officially at war in Viet Nam? somebody with some legal knowledge or a good history book want to help out here. I'm stunned. Sure appeared to be a war.
Let's hope something like that doesn't happen again in Afghanistan and all the while the politicians just say 'well it's not really a war'...what da hell is it then? I'm seeing US aircraft bombing the capital city of Afghanistan and anti aircraft guns from the Afghan army shooting back, what is that if it's not war?
There are hundreds of thousands of moderate conservatives and Libertarians who would gladly support, patronize, join and promote the ACLU if it supported 2nd Amendment civil liberties along with all our other liberties.
But it doesn't, so we don't. :(
NSA, remember them?
Even bigger than the CIA.
Hollywood, Television, has become the dream machine. We need to take that back; each of us is a Dream Machine
I've never really read up on cryptography, so I don't know how valid my assumptions are or what the standard response is to the question "Is cryptography a sustainable solution in the long term?"
It goes like this: As computing power/speed continuously increases, it seems to me that encryption could become unrealiable for the individual, because individuals would not be able to afford computers at the higher end of the performance spectrum. Thus, eventually governments and corporations will use their vast budgets to invest in systems capable of easily cracking the encryption available to Juan q. Publico -- especially if, as seems likely, the government will succeed in restricting its use similar to the 128-bit export ban a few years ago.
Anyway, as others have already mentioned, encrypting your mail draws attention to it. The evidence indicates that the islamic jihad soldier used regular messages and chats and not any of the "high-tech terrorism" being badmouthed by christian crusade soldiers like John Ashcroft.
Personally, I still think bin Laden is a framed freedom fighter, and our government engineered this thing specifically to grease the wheels for seizing more power.
does anyone know if there's a cartoon of bin ladun BF'ing a goat for download anywhere on the web?
it really depends upon how much quality you want, and what kind of style you're looking for.
you could use a search engine to look on the web but it'll probably be hard to find for a few more weeks, when people will get tired of being respectful and somber, and will once again be desperate to know what madonna's baby had for breakfast or whatever [already this week i can feel it slipping back to normal].
your best bet in the meantime is either to spend 3-9 hours teaching yourself digital editing [it's really not that hard to do basic effects] or to frequent places such as Usenet and Yahoo pron/furry/DigArt groups, where members often only need to be given an idea before they're obsessively pumping out images of various creatures screwing each other in bizarre, often mechanically impossible, configurations.
Hugs and Kisses,
JE
Let me hightlight here the experience of what happened in India.
In response to terrorist attacks, a draconian law called TADA (Terrorist and Disruptive Act) was passed. This law gave sweeping powers to police, in detaining people suspected of terrorist activities, etc.
After a few years of passing this bill, the bill was repealed, as it was widely misused and not a single terrorist was apprehended because of the wide powers given to police.
September 11 was a massive failure of intelligence. Not in gathering information, but in acting on existing information and leads. Thus, the expansion of these powers and loss of civil liberties, seems to me like an exercise in futility.
Just a thought, under the same rationale "pro-life" activists who damange abortion clinics and snipe doctors in their homes would be considered terrorists as well.
As always, there's a line of "reasonableness", for lack of a better word, which shouldn't be crossed.
Yes- this was back when companies viewed customers as the valuable resource worthy of respect that they were. Now, unfortunately, customers as a group have become lazy and spineless as well.
Excellent idea!
Just like so many bad laws are passed "for the children, we're trying to protect children!", why not frame the argument *against* Ashcroft's wish list as being for our children, that they may live to enjoy the same liberties that ol' gramps and grandma used to, instead of clamping down on them further.
slashdot: A failed experiment.
Ingrid Newkirk, President of PETA, said that even if animal tests produced a cure for AIDS, "We'd be against it." (Vogue, Sept. 1989)
She
has also been quoted in the Washington Post as saying: "Six million people died in concentration camps, but six billion broiler chickens will die this year in slaughter houses."
I am not against vegetarianism. I've seriously considered becoming a vegetarian myself. But PETA is run by a bunch of wackos. Go to www.milksucks.com if you want to see their foolishness firsthand.