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.
"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.
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.
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
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.
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
"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...
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.
"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.
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
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.
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.
"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
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.
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.
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'
(the speech)
See:
http://web.amnesty.org/web/ar2001.nsf/webamrcount
Note: This report covers events from January 1 to December 31 of 2000. By all accounts, the 2001 report will not be much different.
Reality has a liberal bias
If you reread what the part just before what you highlighted (the part that says "striking the following each place it occurs"), you will see that they are REMOVING the restriction on overtime pay, exactly the opposite of what you are complaining about.
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.
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!