Slashdot Mirror
Senate Trashes Civil Liberties; House to Vote Today
The U.S. Senate passed its version of the "anti-terrorism" legislation last night. The Washington Post, CNN, and Wired all have stories. There are terrorists under every rock, and we must destroy our freedom in order to save it. Remember: gamblers are terrorists too. The House is apparently going to drop their version of the legislation and vote on a copy of the Senate bill.
After reading the original story here about 3 weeks ago, I sent letters and emails to my representitives and congressmen. I even called an office. This is the first time I've ever done anything like this - I feel very strongy about this issue.
I received no auto-replies, no real replies, no acknowledgements, nothing.
Guess who's not getting my vote at the next election?
I swear, I'm gunna run for some public office and end this crap.
A friend of mine had sent out a mass email about the ATA telling all of his friends to "Sign this, we have to protect our kids!", yet it did not mention the actual text of the Act at all. Our government is using fear to pass laws, simple as that. The question really comes down to: Do you want to feel safe, or do you want to be free? Personally, I stand by Patrick Henry "Give me liberty, or give me death."
The sad thing about it, most Americans don't care enough to read up on the acts they are signing petitions to support.
visit my free wallpaper collection, wp.erasei.com
All right, related to the earlier story on our reps not paying attention to us, how *DO* we shine the light of reason into our government?
Perhaps it's time for more than letters, calls, and emails to our reps. Maybe it's time for a bunch of us to get together and get out in our communities and spread the word.
The reps may not be listening to a horde of geeks, but chances are good they'll start hearing us loud and clear if a more balanced mix of their constituents pipes up.
Now we have another problem (or rather a few). How *do* we get people (average Joe/Jane) to listen, and even discuss these issues? Everyone still seems on edge after the 9/11 attacks, but I'd like to believe that energy could be channeled in a positive direction.
Anyone got a site up specificially to discuss this stuff? I'll email all my friends the link.
So, maybe I am giving too much credit to the checks and balances system, but won't these new laws still have to be upheld by a court?
Only Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin) did not vote for this... and he tried last ditch efforts to include privacy.
Even my own, Sen Tom Daschale (D-South Dakota) voted for this, and I too wrote him a letter.
Sigh, I wonder what 'unintended' consequences this will bring about... how it will be abused...
And, I wonder how it will HELP... this is an anti-terrorism bill. I'd like to see some follow up someday that shows specifically how these new laws HELPED fight terrorism.
I hate the comparision, but this 'war on terrorism' is starting to feel a lot like the 'war on drugs'... and open-ended, make it up as you go sort of deal with no clear goals and lots of shady undercurrents.
And no one defined moment where we can say, there we've won, it's over...
Hatch is quoted "current law perversely gives the terrorist privacy rights.... We should not tie the hands of our law enforcement and help hackers and cyber-terrorists to get away"
First off, obviously Hatch doesn't know the differences between a hacker and a cracker.
Then the comment about giving the terrorist privacy rights... unfortunately terrorists are a subset of people... and this legislation is going to hammer PEOPLE's privacy rights - at least in the US.
Sorry to see this happening, and I sure am glad to be a Canadian right now.
But then I remembered I live in the UK.
Unfortunately, what goes on "over there" soon enough comes round "over here".
What can a foreigner do to stop the "Leaders of the Free World" leading it up the garden path?
Yours Sincerely, Michael.
Not that I disagree with the sentiment of your chosen title, but "Senate Trashes Civil Liberties;" is merely inflammatory rhetoric. I'd prefer that Slashdot editors list their specific grievances with the legislation and ask us what we think about those complaints.
to put on my asbestos suit.....
... ok ready..
First of all, this does not fall under the ben franklin remark about sacrificing liberty for safety etc etc...
terrorism is a semi-expensive business... it takes money to train people to fly a 757 into a tall building, pay off people, etc etc.
Osama and co. obviously is using one of the oldest tricks in the book to launder money.. gambling.. how many people complained when we shut down the mob run casinos in vegas? not many. why? because it helped shut down that element.
Osama and friends are more like pissed of rich boys than they are 'good muslims'. Chances are we wont find him, so the next best thing is to make it very crappy for him to live...
it's also been shown that they have used the net to transmit messages, and now maybe even TV.. if putting harsh restrictions on cryptography can hinder him as well, what all is lost? It's because of paranoia and people continually fighting the governments efforts that these people pulled off what they did. We complained about military spending, intelligence, etc... and now look what happened..
we say we want the govt to protect us, so when will we let them do their jobs?
I lost my concept of community when my community lost all concept of me.
but nobody even seems to care about the fact that Anthrax has been confirmed in New York City.
/. is like arguing for expanding civil liberities at the NSA. One ferverant zealot forum vs the other with no real middle ground.
Yes this is going to seem like a flame, but here goes my karma anyway...
You see, we need a balance between security and freedom. Obviously the previous balance wasn't good enough because Downtown Manhattan and the Pentagon were given a serious blow. Civil liberties are not ENDOWED rights, they need to be restricted to keep people safe, in times such as these. It is not A BORN right to be allowed to drive in downtown manhattan. Privacy is not a BORN right... it's a civil liberty.
Ok, we'll get them back after all this is over. Most of these provisions (the one the Senate passed in particular) has a SUNSET clause. Nobody seems to mention that. These are temporary restrictions to aid in the keeping the people safe.
But then again, arguing for restricting civil liberties on
How important will PGP be to you when your entire home is destroyed by bombs/planes or wiped out by plague?
Come on! It's called the "USA Act"* -- you'd have to be some kind of pinko commie terrorist bastard to vote against it, wouldn't you?!
* Yes really -- it's the "Uniting and Strengthening America Act."
"Despite my misgivings, I have acquiesced in some of the administration's proposals because it is important to preserve national unity in this time of crisis and to move the legislative process forward," said Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont.
Translation: I'm scared shitless to vote against any bill with "anti-terrorism" in the title. You really have to admire the lone dissenter, Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wisconsin, for having the sack to vote against it. Too bad he'll be lucky if the voters of Wisconsin don't hold an emergency election to kick him out, nevermind re-election. You know your in trouble when CNN is singling you out in the second paragraph.
I know Liberty Island has been closed due to the proximity of the 9-11 terrorism and a potential target itself. However I see this as a metaphor for the tightening of freedoms in USA.
How can I find out which of our esteem elected "representatives" added these riders? I sure would like to know if someone I voted for added something that I didn't like. Maybe then I wouldn't vote for that person next time! What about those who spoke out against it? I'd like to vote for them again if I can!
Im serious, dont be knee jerk about this, how about some details!
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
The link on the House dropping it's version mentions that the House is considering an amended version of the Senate's Act, to include expirations on measures.
Now, that's all well and good, but understand that these shell banks (often located in the carribean, when they're located anywhere) are also used by unscrupulous tax dodgers to make large portions of their income invisible to the IRS. So, this measure could also increase tax revenues substantially, since... well... it's not exactly the poorest of the poor who use these tax dodges :)
Not that it really justifies the bill as a whole. This just might be another interesting (and good!) side effect of it.
My family lives in New York City. My sister was telling me that she had to submit to a full body search when she went to a concert at Madison Square Garden earlier this week, and I expressed a concern for her civil liberties. She told me that she didn't, of course, enjoy submitting to a full body search, but that she would gladly give up some of her freedoms in these "terrifying times" if it would even potentially be a deterrent to terrorists. The thing that she (and many other Americans) do not realize is that the laws that are being enacted to enable the authorities to infringe on her freedoms in these terrifying times are a slippery slope-- as stated in the Washington Post article, there is no "sunset," or expiration, date on these laws. I sent her a funny article from the Onion this week, and she was offended: this is not something to joke about, she said. "I'm scared right now. I see soldiers on the street corners and it makes me feel awful, but if that causes one potential terrorist to think twice about attacking me or mine, I'm glad to have them there." I don't know how to respond-- I'm glad, as well, if they're a deterrent, but it's really a question of how imminent the danger is, and whether we can ever really know how imminent danger of terrorist strikes is. If we don't know (and how could we?) I'd rather have the civil liberties. Failing that, I'd rather know that, when the fear dies down, we'll be able to restore all that we've lost.
I think that the real issue is not that these bills are passing, but that they're passing without expiration dates; that they're potentially part of a much longer-term loss of our civil liberties. That is a slippery slope that we cannot afford to start down.
Do something about world hunger. Click here
Albeit sneaky to put a gambling item into an anti-terrorism bill, /.ers should look into exactly who wrote this bill and who's voted for it and against it. Keep in mind that with the way congress works, had this bill been voted out in committee, it could take quite some time for a new bill (with the good parts of this one) to get back into committee and pushed throught the house and senate. Many of your representatives may vote to push a bill through a committee looking to get it out there for it's good parts, thinking that the good outweighs the bad.
Do you think that just because this nation is in the midst of a war and crisis, that the lobbyists are any less active than they would normally be? Absolutely not. Remember most of the law voted into existence in this country is written part or in whole by lobbyists who are trying to obtain some political or corporate advantage by getting the law passed.
Okay, EVERYONE knows those crazed people who hijacked those planes used the internet, so as a response restrictions on Online liberties are necissary.
Though not many people know, they also used telephones! Doesn't this scare you, that a phone can be used for terrorist activities?! We should let the FBI wiretap everyone on a whim, so that we can be protected! But wait, they also used CARS! Can you believe that?! I guess that means renting cars should be outlawed and one should have to get govt approval to buy a car of their own! All these things and MORE need to be limited for our own protection.
Fucking stupid if you ask me.
Burn Hollywood Burn
This war won't be won, ever. It could theoretically last forever because it has nicely been described as a fight vs vague shadowy people who could be hiding in any country including our own.
Any such sunset clauses could last forever. Granted I haven't read it yet, but the summaries I've heard haven't put me at ease.
Ita erat quando hic adveni.
since the moderators generally vote down things they don't agree with. However against half the provisions of this bill I am, I do agree with one thing: wiretapping an individual not a line. Before you hit that downgrade button, listen up. If I have email, a phone, a cell phone, wireless network access and all, I can easily just alternate or use one, none or all. In the old day, wiretapping your phone was sufficient. Now, its not. However, the protection is not gone... they still need a warrant, there is still a line of defense.
I do think voting down the amendments was a bad thing. Please read the bill or at least the summations before commenting. Overall this is a bad bill, but that provision should be passsed (with the amendments attached)!
People in Afghanistan have no freedom. Does that mean they are perfectly secure?
What the Senate has passed reduces our freedom significantly without increasing our security one iota. Read the Act as passed in the Senate and explain to me how it would have prevented the 9/11 hijackings.
--
E_NOSIG
Let's be real here, there have been people with little or no education for a long time, people who knew nothing about the political process, or what the king was actually doing, or what the dictator was planning, but everyone has always rallied around the concept of freedom. Jesus, what did people fight for for the last 6 millenia? And our countrymen would now lay down and give up so that they could be "a little safer".
President Bush, how exactly will a missle defense shield, email tracking, and shutting down online casinos do anything when the terrorists used box cutters, sent messages through the mail, and had money wired to them Western Union?
I think the great American democratic experiment is almost at an end... wait... a little longer... its done. So, what's up next? Oligarchy? Sounds good to me I suppose. Where do I send my RIAA tithes?
"What we elect to call imagination is mere combination of things not heretofore combined." - Frank Norris
http://www.house.gov/writerep/ is the address to go to if you want to send a quick email. Letters are best but the vote is today.
As a quote from the movie 'red october' where when the generals from russia dflect to america, one of them says in bewilderment ".. i can travel without any papers?" -- capturing part of the essence of the freedom that is america.
With all the measures being taken in the name of security, we are starting to erode the frabic of freedom that america stands for. exactly what the terrorists wanted to do. their goal wasn't to put a hole in a tower. it was to put a hole in our freedom. and looks like our congress is helping them get there.
DMCA
SSSCA
USA Act
Now I think you Americans have also given up the right to call your country 'Land of the free'.
Someone will probably mod this as funny but really it's sad.
No, the closure was due to a mysterious fluid leaking from eyes and flowing down the cheeks. Engineers are uable to find the cause of leakage.
"Nobody's life, liberty or happiness are safe while Congress is in session" (Mark Twain I think but could be someone else)
I guess the one thing that really worries me about all this is not that the government wants to go after terrorists. I'm even willing to give them the benifit of the doubt about their intentions with the bill. The question I have is how do you define "terrorist"?
I know this sounds silly at first glance but it isn't. Everyone sort of assumes we know what we mean by a "terrorist" and Congress passed laws in order to help deal with them. But these laws will be with us even if we win this "war". And we as citizens will have to live with the consequences of them for years afterwards.
I think taking a significant amount of time to make sure the proposed rule changes don't cause more harm to the citizens than grief to the terrorists is not a particularly silly thing to ask for. Given the speed which with this bill was passed, I'm not convinced it will to more good than harm. I'd like to think it would but I've seen far too much to not be cynical about the prospects.
Have people read this article?
, 00 .html
http://www.wired.com/news/conflict/0,2100,47518
Democrats were similarly split, with ranking member Rep. John LaFalce (D-New York) saying that college students must be shielded from gambling's lure.
"The chief users of Internet gambling are not terrorists, they are our youths," said LaFalce. "Lots of different kids are given credit cards -- not one -- multiple cards. It's easy to gamble from dormitory rooms, or with wireless connections from campus quads, or with Palm Pilots any place."
Welcome to Puritan America. Our women don't wear veils, but let's protect our college students from sin.
US Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor says she foresees unprecedented restrictions on democratic rights in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks. She declared flatly, "We're likely to experience more restrictions on our personal freedom than has ever been the case in our country." Read the article here, or find it on yahoo etc - it was widely reported.
Do you see a check or balance anywhere in sight? I see a big blank check being handed to Congress by one of the justices on the Supreme Court, but besides that...
"I will take the Ring," he said, "though I do not know the way."
but nobody even seems to care about the fact that Anthrax has been confirmed in New York City
So how will these laws prevent someone from putting some Anthrax spores in an envelope and mailing them to you? This is how the NBC reporter supposedly got the disease in case you didn't know.
Ok, we'll get them back after all this is over. Most of these provisions (the one the Senate passed in particular) has a SUNSET clause. Nobody seems to mention that. These are temporary restrictions to aid in the keeping the people safe.
This is incorrect. Read the Reuters article about the bill passing or any other major news story about the USA act. The Senate voted for No SUNSET on their version of the bill. That's right, congress believes ecret searches of the homes of suspects and treating people like the US is soviet Russia should become the new American way of life.
The House is pressing for sunset provisions to this law but the Senate is trying to convince them otherwise and according to the current slashdot article (you read the links right?), it looks like the House may have been convinced to throw out their objections except for a token disagreement about the wiretap sections expiring in 2004 but even that has provisions that allow it to be overruled if the government feels that it violates "national security".
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20011012/us/attac
The House is saying that it won't pass this thing without some changes -- It specifically mentions the wiretapping clauses, and brings in the idea of money laundering as well (adding something that's potentially useful, whoda thunk?)
If you read your quote, you'll notice that civil liberties were not mentioned aka civil liberties are not endowed. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of hapiness are the only endowed ones. They were envisioned to protect the people from the government, but now a lot of people fear that a greater threat comes from terrorists than from the gov't. The reasoning is not all that bad: if we can't protected against terrorists, is there any point in protected citizens from the big bad gov't?
I just hope we can find a better way than trouncing civil libertiesl
F-bacher
James Tiberius Kirk: "Spock, the women on your planet are logical. No other planet in the galaxy can make that claim."
Well, I can tell you from personal experience that they already search international mail anyway.
Gambling, tho? Gotta love that shit. "No, Mr. Feingold, we don't have time to discuss your concerns, but we open the floor to debate on internet gambling."
While it's sad to see our elected officials behaving like this, at least they're doing it while the nation is actually paying attention for once. The schmucks that we put into office really, REALLY don't represent us. Except Feingold.
I like that man more every day.
Greenpeace has set up an easy-to-use form that you can use to contact your Sentators and Representatives. Of course, it is appearantly too late to worry about your Senators. Perhaps a letter reprimanding them for their vote is in order.
God save us from a totalitarian State.
Democrats were similarly split, with ranking member Rep. John LaFalce (D-New York) saying that college students must be shielded from gambling's lure.
"The chief users of Internet gambling are not terrorists, they are our youths," said LaFalce. "Lots of different kids are given credit cards -- not one -- multiple cards. It's easy to gamble from dormitory rooms, or with wireless connections from campus quads, or with Palm Pilots any place."
Great, so now it's not just "for the children," but also "for the immature adults." Shouldn't college students be shielded from alcohol's lure too? What about drugs, porn, and the horror of late nights coding madly while eating snack foods and watching Star Trek? We must protect our college students, they represent our future! They can't be exposed to anything bad that might force them to make choices or even learn something! Next it will be young adults ("They start the families that will rebuild our nation!"), middle-aged people ("They fuel our rebounding economy!"), senior citizens ("Their wisdom and experience help guide a new generation!"), dead people, and everyone in between who will need protection from their own stupidity. When will people be forced to take responsibility for their actions? When will lawmakers stop using stupid people as excuses for new laws? When will all of these laws result in a population that is incapable of dealing with hardship because "big brother" kept them safe and warm all their lives?
Bush II's "war on terror" just pulled the plug. All with the implicit endorsement of the entire Senate, save for that brave soul Russ Feingold.
In 10 years, will we even remember what it was like to be "secure in our possessions and papers"?
We defeated the Soviet Union....now we are on a path to become them.
"I have as much authority as the pope, I just
don't have as many people who believe it" - George Carlin
Sorry, needed to get that out, and my co-workers are tired of hearing my complaints all day.
Developers: We can use your help.
The only thing to fear is what the FBI, CIA, etc., get away with while waiting for the courts to toss this out, in whole or part. Next year will be an interesting election year, be sure to write these things down, go to campaign rallies and then call the representatives on the carpet for it! In the meantime, you can still make yourself heard by stomping into your local Senators branch-home-offices and telling them where they went wrong. Writing into newspapers isn't half bad, either, be sure to be articulate, tho.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Much of the Supreme Court is composed of conservatives that will try to see if this legislation fits in with the tradition of American law. I'm hoping that they'll find that such drastic measures go way too far without some sort of acknoledgement that this is a temporary change in policy due to extenuating circumstances.
What bothers me most about this is that the government actions seem to be in a wartime mentality, without a declaration of war, or even a declaration of a state of emergency. If an event that preciptates the overhaul of our law enforcement system isn't a national emergency, I don't know what is.
Even under the current system law enforcement has had been cracking down hard on a rather dizzying number of people. For now we haven't heard about a lot of abuses, but they almost certainly will occur. I'm afraid that this is turning into another Red Scare, where anyone who associates with "known terrorists" is thrown in jail.
Freedom, Unity and Democracy...FUD...oops, Already taken.
(damn, I had a point and lost it....OOOOoo, those CD's are soooo shiney!)
Oh, yeah, it came back:
Get congress to add a "not-quite-porkbarrel" added to these:
Here is what we do:
Take all the laid off techs from *ell, Cow-way, and Q and train them as air marshals...only after pointing out to them that Sept 11 was the Kick while they were down.
(slight propaganda, slight truth)
You know darn well most of the ppl from Dakota and Texas will be armed already (blatant stereotype, work with me) and pissed about being out of work and filled with patriotism and keep training up for computer systems with them.
Can you imagine getting an email saying "I can pick you off at 1,000 yards or hack your systems in less than a 1,000 seconds...which do you want, Mr(s) Bin Lauden?"
Instead of the Dirty dozen just add a x 1000(0).
Just remember the words of Mark Twain: "Imagine you are an *idiot*, now, imagine you are a member of congress...but I repeat myself."
Moose.
Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)
"Avast! Prepare for the rodgering!" THWACK! "Arrr.. me nards.."
Slashdot could reverse the topic icon, if it wanted to...
sulli
RTFJ.
We all must stand up for the right of stupid people to be taxed.
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
It basically sections things off into those that have passed, those on the floor, and those hanging around without any action. It also has the text of each bill, who sponsored, and any amendments made to it.
Unfortunately, it's not real-time, so the latest version of the Senate bill isn't up there (I couldn't find it), but for those who really want to get to the meat of what's going on, it's all here.
We can expect precisely the same behavior over here in the States. Power needs to control. The government will never willingly return power to the populace -- such an act is simply not in its nature. It is only returned by massive, sustained acts of civil disobedience, for instance, in the legal viewpoint, the 60's were a reaction to the laws passed during the World Wars. It took an entire generation to restore some liberties lost during the previous decades of crisis. With this bill, we have just plotted a course for our children to follow.
Other posters rebutted you, but I should reiterate: civil liberties are in fact endowed, natural rights -- read the Declaration of Independence. Moreover, freedom and security are not polar opposities. It is largely because of our freedoms that America has developed into a vibrant, productive society capable of providing for everyone and thus removing the desperate incentives that drive terrorism. There are many places in the world far less free, with far less safety.
Oh, and I'm not worried about anthrax -- the infection rate is too low to be effective in the face of our fully mobilized medical resources. But there are other, simpler bateriums that can be spread in other fashions. My advice to you -- drink filtered water.
one drop of water doesn't make an ocean
and
one judge doesn't make up the Supreme Court
-- www.globaltics.net
Political discussion for a new world
I personally am very concerned with this new legislation. However, as soon as they begin to enforce this horrid disgrace of a law, it will bring a lawsuit, and it will go to the Supreme Court, and the law will be repealed. I do still believe the constitution will be upheld. Hopefully, the SSSCA will die before it gets to the point of requiring lawsuits to kill it, as we have seen, in purely technical fields apparently, the constitution does not apply, but, I do not believe this law will pass judicial review.
As others have pointed out, the majority of the statements in this post have one of the classic "political speech" structures:
The boogyman is bad, therefore we must ( spend more on pork | stamp out the muppets | vote for me in '03 | ...or whatever ).
The paragraphs few that do contain statements (e.g. the sunset clause, endowed rights) are incorrect. This sort of blather is not informative, interesting, or insightful.
-- MarkusQ
One of Feingold's amendments would still allow police to perform "roving wiretaps" and listen in on any telephone that a subject of an investigation might use, but cops could only eavesdrop when the suspect is the person using the phone. The amendment was rejected, 90-7.
Meaning that any public phone that a "terrorist" ever uses can have a tap put on it and _all_ calls made from that phone can be monitored. Is that a big loophole to get around the illegal search clauses?
Not like anyone uses them anymore anyway, but this seems like a good example of the sort of thing that could've at least been debated.
-beme
1971
After the Sept. 11 incident at the WTC, I felt some emotions towards those events. Slight emotions of anger, frustration and perhaps fear. It seemed so distant.
Now after hearing about this latest law passed by the U.S. Senate, I feel even more fearful for myself and my friends. I work in the computer industry and because of that engage in various computing activities. It's in the U.S. government's and people's history to engage in the most far-fetched criminal charges against individuals (see Sklyarov and Prof. Felten). Now I'm afraid that what is an innocent gesture might be misconstrued as a felony, and the chances of this happening has increased with all this wire-tapping. Unfortunately, it costs money just to prove one's innocence! This one small move by the gov't. has achieved what all the distant stories of terrorism has failed to do, so far: scare me in my everyday living.
Pray, friends, that you won't be the next victim the gov't. sets its eyes on. It's not as far-fetched as it used to seem (see Brian West)
Seriously, if you havent noticed this before, time to wake up. no offense. read the tabloid dirt on /. and get the bigger picture on k5
Bodø community site
b) This is exactly the kinds of things that Ben Franklin was mentioning. These laws are purley cosmetic. They "assure" the american people they are "safe", while in reality they do nothing of use. Essential Liberties are being taken away(search and seizure without due process?)
Repeat after me: NO AMOUNT OF SECURITY CAN GIVE ME THE SAFETY I DESIRE. The sooner we come to terms with that, the better off we will all be. We can't have a perfect solution. We have laws in place to deal with these things. But, unfortunatley, here in america, we must have a perfect solution, regardless of the cost.
Got Freedom?
Thinking?
Right now, the USA Act says that system administrators should be able to monitor anyone they deem a "computer trespasser." ...the USA Act still allows police to conduct Internet eavesdropping without a court order in some circumstances. [amemdments would have] Preseved the privacy of sensitive records -- such as medical or educational data -- by requiring police to convince a judge that viewing them is necessary. Without that amendment, the USA Act expands police's ability to access any type of stored or "tangible" information.
It's almost too much to belive. Agents of my government may now view all records related to me without warrent. Those records will now contain anything any "system admin" decides to collect about me. If enough computer records can be collected to convince a judge that my house should be searched, I might not ever be informed.
How long before the "system admin" is required to collect information? Might my competitors and enemies create false records for me? I'm sure the FBI will now be equiped with M$'s most secure tools. How can anyone be secure in their house and possesions knowing that their government may have bugged it? Do I have to sit behind a bookshelf to write this?
The potential for abuse is unlimited. Such observation can easily be used to harrass. By posting the comment, "Israel is unjust for driving the Palestinians out of their land and keeping them as slaves in concentration camps that lack plumbing, sewerage, power, medical facilities, and schools. It is beyond my comprehension that a people who suffered such things at the hands of others two generations ago could behave this way.", do I become a suspected terroist? Does the FBI then dig into my wife's medical records?
The terrorists have won. We are swiftly becoming the enemy we defeated in the cold war. Rights of free speech, publication and privacy are being stripped away faster and more permenatly than I had ever thought possible. You don't think encryption and the web as a collection of peers will survive digital rights managment do you? Say good bye to the free press of the digital era. With such massive ability to harrass, you don't think people will dare speak their minds about controverial subjects, do you? Say good bye to rational public debate. Our government will soon make the UK's privacy invading cameras and other Orwellian nightmares look like child's play. YOU WILL CONFORM AND CALL IT FREE WILL.
This legislation is perminant. God help the supreme court see it for what it is.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
I forget who said it, but it's true. If you're that worried about your privacy use strong encryption. And by the way, if you are worried about your privacy...what are you doing on the internet? ;^)
jason
It's being debated on the floor now:
http://clerkweb.house.gov/floor/current.htm
Monday is a horrible way to spend 1/7 of your life.
Authorization of "roving wiretaps," so that law enforcement officials can get court order to wiretap any phone a suspected terrorist would use. Current law requires a court order for each phone number, which most say is outdated with the advent of cellular and disposable phones.
Allows the federal government to detain non-U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism for up to seven days without specific charges. The administration originally wanted to hold them indefinitely.
Allows law enforcement officials greater subpoena power for e-mail records of terrorist suspects.
Relaxes restrictions on information sharing between U.S. law enforcement and intelligence
officers about suspected terrorists.
Makes it illegal to knowingly harbor a terrorist.
Triples the number of Border Patrol, Customs Service Inspectors and Immigration and Naturalization Service inspectors at the northern border of the United States, and provides $100 million to improve technology and equipment on the U.S. border with Canada.
Expands current measures against money laundering by requiring additional record keeping and reports for certain transactions and requiring identification of account holders.
Eliminates the statute of limitations for prosecuting the most egregious terrorist acts, but maintains the statute of limitation on most crimes at five to eight years.
/. fear so much?
I don't feel any safer, but I don't feel any less free either! Exactly what is it about more border guards do all the
For this article, shouldn't the accompanying US flag icon be flipped upside down, with the star field at the bottom? You know what I mean, the international distress symbol.
..."May I see your papers, sir?"
For all those who believe democracy precludes tyranny, wake up and smell the police state. Government and liberty are mutually exclusive. Any doubters, open a history book.
THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE
WHEN in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.
WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness--That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security. Such has been the patient Sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the Necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The History of the present King of Great-Britain is a History of repeated Injuries and Usurpations, all having in direct Object the Establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid World.
-------
of course, posting this could get me branded as a terrorist...
-"unauthorized" computer access a terrorist act
with the word unauthorized as broad as it is, this means sending personal email from work where that is "unauthorized" is now a terrorist act, and based on that the FBI can now survail anything and everything you do, without a warrant.
(thats one, there are others but that stands out to me as the scariest one)
*warning, rambling rant attached*
Many people I work with seem happy enough to give up some freedoms to ensure that somehow they will be safe.
I always seem to get stange looks when I say 'fsck em! I don't want or need anyone's protection.' The powers that the government has right now are sufficient to get the job done. It's been one month since the WTC attack, and they have nabbed what around 600 people. They were able to do this without the aid of an anti terrorism act. Hell, would this new law enable the government to give us something other than 'we suspect that we might be attacked somewhere, sometime?' I doubt it.
This is window dressing when you put it next to what I personally suspect is coming our way from Congress and the President.
I don't know about anyone else, but I will fight for my liberties. I won't fight for the 'right' to burn lots of oil, make a profit, or for some corporation to be able to open their valu-mart without fear of it being attacked in some godforsaken corner of the globe. The dream and promise of America was never profit. It was freedom.
Hell, in the new america, you can start a war without having to declare it.
*end rant*
Why would the senate oppose the sunset clause?
If the act is still valid after it has expired, one can simply renew it. There is no logical explanation as to why this clause should not be included. Yet they stopped it.
So my simple deduction is this -- they do not want to relinquish these powers once the threat is gone.
The way i see it, the natural state of any government is to oppress its people, and that is why the constitution was written in the first place. The government will always want more influence and control, and is swift to move in times like these, when citizens are dazed and enraged and crying for vengeance.
"Take away the right to say 'fuck' and you take away the right to say 'fuck the government.'"
There is already legislation on the books that already allows for huge FBI powers... remember the 1996 anti-terrorism bill passed after WTC bombing number one? Why do the laws need to be expanded more? What really needs to be done is for the current manifestation of the FBI and the CIA to allow for better information sharing and collaboration. We don't need to increase monitoring of demonstrators and activists... they are doing what they are supposed to do when they have something to say. Terrorists don't
The FBI and the CIA could have collaborated to investigate some of the perpetrators before the WTC attacks... They dropped the ball. New digital monitoring of innocent people and reclassifying protesters and website crackers as terrorists will not stop murderous attacks like the one we've seen.
The police of the U.S. would be able, it seems, to access any record about an individual whatsoever, without warrant. Am I right here?
I heard "someone" on National Public Radio this morning interviewed. They were speaking about "network analysis", and the conversation was quietly interesting. NA covers credit card purchases, credit profiling,that sort of thing.
He said that law enforcement on the Federal level wants access to our marketing data.
You heard me right.
He said that businesses had more information about us than the government did -- implying, to me, some surprise that the government doesn't have as good a set of data on its citizens as biz does, and that that obviously, in the light of the new day, this should be rectified.
The Feds want to apply network analysis, the same kind of tech used to track your credit history, to be applied to everyone's data, so that they can work up a pattern of questionable behavior and jump on someone before they actually do a deed.
You heard me. Pre-emptive law enforcement.
Good enough for terrorists, for now. But remember, the current admin wants to expand the definitions of "terrorism" to someone who gets unauthorized access to a network or computer system. And I gor-un-tee that they will add more definitions of a "terrorist" as the decades wear on in their weary way.
We've lost a big one. One dissenting vote.
Americans are too stupid, and ignorant, to understand the freedoms that they are giving up, the implications of what they are doing for future generations and the current world, and to undertake rational risk analysis of the current, tiny, threat of the bin Laden nutcases.
Americans scare me.
you can go here:
http://feingold.senate.gov/ in order to email the senator directly from his page and give him props for what he's done. He was so majorly outvoted, im sure he'd love to hear it.
________________________________________________
No no no.
Your friendly neighborhood FBI/CIA/NSA/whoever agent is a very busy person, and can't read *all* email that comes his/her way.
Instead, your email was scanned by your friendly neighborhood FBI/CIA/NSA/whoever agent's 18-year old INTERN.
"Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
Successful in what way? It didn't provide for freedom for the people; it didn't keep them prosperous. There were good reasons behind the American, Russian and French revolutions.
One main reason for monarchy during the middle ages, is because it's an efficent system for low-technology, large area govenments. We now have the ability to educate the populace, and to give that populace easy means to communicate with representives, meaning that monarchy is now a less efficent system than a representive democracy.
Economic theories have nothing to do with this type of power grab/power surrendering.
Your header should read:
Welcome to the United Fascist States of America.
It's the correct adjective. Today we have embraced fascism as a way of life. It will take years, but this seed planted today will grow into a twisted, sickly tree.
Thing is, the people who live in fascist states are usually very happy. Crime is low (depends on what "crime" is tho), streets are safe, and you don't have to think very hard about the big stuff.
Remember, Americans should watch what they say. Or there could be.. consequences.
You can only bring up the issue in court unless you actually have legal cause - i.e., something is actively being done to you that you're taking grievance with. You can't just sue on the grounds that you don't like the new law.
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
Prospects for a Post-Taliban Afghanistan:
The above article appeared yesterday at www.janes.com
"It now appears certain that any effort to
regenerate Afghanistan is predicated upon
the removal of the Taliban, and the terrorist
attacks upon New York and Washington
have given the US a perfect opportunity to
legitimise its plan to do just that (which
existed well before 11 September). "
The link for this discussion is :
www.janes.com
You draw your own conclusions in conjunction with the Caspian Sea Region oil link at the U.S. Department of Energy:
Caspian Sea Region
The online gambling provision is paternalistic and would be a pain for the banks, but isn't it illegal in the US already? At worst, this portion of the bill is redundant, and it seems it's being dumped in favor of the Senate version of the bill.
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
We are not at War, War has not been declared.
/. giving a flying fuck? Hell, the various news sources are reporting it, yet none of them are discussing it - I would be up in arms, so to speak, if I had to report this on camera and in the paper or on the net.
This "war" is as much a "war" as the "war" on (some) drugs is a "war".
Congress has yet to declare War. I do not consider the United States at War until Congress declares war. The President does not, and has never, had this power - only Congress has this power. As of yet they have not exercised it. Yet they are rapidly declaring that the Constitution needs to be shredded (which you understand is happening). Such radical changes to the Constitution means something is falling apart - something is happening - and it must be real, capital "W" - WAR!
Why hasn't Congress declared War? Could it be that such acts as the USA Act would require a sunshine clause should War be declared - that is, that such acts would have to be rolled back once the War was over? Could it be that this so-called "war" can't be really won, and thus it can't be legitimately called a War? Thus, a sunshine clause would not help, since there would be no end? Or that if it can't be won, then a declaration of War would be a declaration of a perpetual War? Could it be that if we declare War, then the USA would be bound by various conventions (Geneva, etc) regarding War and POWs, etc?
WTF is going on - this is crazy - why isn't anyone outside of
I fear the day is dark, and getting darker by the minute. True, the sun still shines, but it means nothing if these shackles are being secured to my body...
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
Where does this Democracy rumor keep coming from? The US is not a democracy. Did you get a vote on the USA bill? No? In a democracy, you would. What we have is a republic, where you get to vote only on a guy that you HOPE will represent your interests and your only recourse if he doensn't is to NOT vote for him next time. When the damage is already done.
It seems we have the technology to become a democracy; the question now becomes whether lawmaking (well ratifying) is best left to those whose career is to study law, or if the average joe can vote intelligently. After reading adequacy.org and seeing how many people can't recognise satire when they see it, I have my doubts.
I have a feeling the current session of Congress is going to go down in history as McCarthyism Part II. That is, if it's still legal to say anything against the government. After all, if I speak out against the powers that be, aren't I encouraging terrorists, and myself a terrorist? Seems like more than enough reason to tap my phone and search my house without my knowledge....
m00.
The average Joe and Jane Person just want to feel safe and terrorist-free. They want to go back to their munchies and their pop-culture and their nightly-boring-grey-news. They don't worry much about rights or losing the freedom to talk about what they want these days...they are sheeps who just wanna float along, munching on their government-ok'd grass and thinking about how a certain celebrity is cool or troubled or had a boob job. They don't care now.
Which means, in short, that the rep's don't care about the thinkers, people who care about rights. even in a state of war. They care about their majority of votes...sheep.
Who is this Anonymous Coward character, how does he post so much, and why is he always such a whore?
Federal law enforcement, given shape and purpose by Ashcroft, an old Nixon/Reagan/Bush man, is grabbing everything they can off of the shelves, throwing it into a sack, and running for the exit before the spell wears off and the storeowners notice that they've been robbed.
I mention the Nixon/Reagan/Bush connection, not as a flame, but as a real indicator. Nixon, Reagan, and other very right-wing leaders hated the "liberal" press, believed that freedom was too free, and that law enforcement was hamstrung by civil liberties.
Let us not forget that Hoover, the chief of Fed law enforcement for almost a half-century, ran a despotic organization that nailed people he didn't like, blackmailed presidents and congressmen and citizens with information he obtained from spying, and was himself a security risk par excellence because of his secret homosexuality and cross-dressing.
Nixon used the CIA to spy on and destroy his "enemies", which he saw as threats to his admin and by extension the country. The "enemies" were the press, members of congress, and a hell of a lot of citizens.
The FBI and the CIA were limited BECAUSE of the actions of the leaders that championed more power granted to law enforcement. Too many of you are too young to remember why those laws were passed. The law was abused by quasi-dictators who wanted power, naked and brutal, over their enemies. And such power is never enough for those types of personalities.
Today, the beginnings of such power is being given back to the very people it was taken from 30 years ago. Literally. They didn't deserve it then, they don't deserve it now. no one does -- but they especially do not.
Additionally -- not a single thing would have been changed on September 11th had this series of powers been granted prior to the attack. Nothing.
The agencies responsible have all the power now needed to track and capture terrorists. They were doing so prior to the attack. The Feds just weren't mind readers, and the men struck simutaneously, and there was no chance to stop them.
Finally, it amazes me that people who hate government in our lives have no problem with the current admin making a naked power grab under the cover of "fighting terrorism".
They aren't going to wind up controlling terrorism. They are eventually going to wind up terrorizing us.
I read the post here and a number of the comments, all of which pointed out the dangers of tyranny. I should also disclose that the woman speaking about using network analysis to break terrorist networks on NPR today was on my dissertation committee.
While I see the point about tyranny, we are under attack by an enemy who has infiltrated our borders. Several have cited the declaration of indepdendence. There is another document, the Constitution, that allows the executive branch to suspend liberties in time of national emergency (used by Lincoln as a justification for suspending the writ of Haebeus Corpus). Just today, more anthrax cases were discovered. These may be unrelated to the attacks of 9/11, but they still constitute terrorism.
The House is insisting on sunset provisions for these extraordinary powers. It seems these are extraordinary times that require extraordinary measures. With sunset provisions, we can be assured that the extraordinary measures will not overly outlive their intended purpose.
Jews, Blacks, now its "noncitizens"... does sound more PC than "rag-head" I suppose.
Only one -- ONE -- senator voted against. Maybe it's not as bad as you think?
When you have such agreement in any comittee, including Congress, it means one of two things.
Now that the government has a clearly defined enemy, we as a nation and a government are vulnerable to groupthink. This is when everybody agrees on something because they are afraid not to. In the Cold War, the term "Communist" was used to invoke groupthink and gave us McCarthyism and the Bay of Pigs. In the 90s, it has been "for the children". Today, it's "terrorism".
I've tried to examine the bill (S.1510, and it looks like line noise. I have to go to the press reactions, simply because IANAL. How many senators actually read this stuff?
--The basis of all love is respect
Don't forget that one of the major tools that the government of 1984 used to control its population was constant war. I'm not accusing the US government of staging the WTC attack, however they do seem to be taking advantage of it in a similar manner.
I was at a talk by Naomi Klein a few weeks ago and she mentioned that she had heard a US Military official mention that they are expecting 20 years of war. Even if that is totally uncredible it still makes you think, "what if?"
1984 may have only been 17 years off.
I can't spell or type, but that doesn't mean I'm unusually stupid.
I'm an American, and ASHAMED of it right now. He's right, and you KNOW it.
A real democracy, without the republican part, could be done now, because of technology.
:)
Sure, it *could* be done now, but it would take so much of everyone's time that the country would come to a standstill. But then you say that only the people who cared enough would vote--they coudn't have actual jobs. Maybe we'd give them compensation so they wouldn't need jobs and could spend all day reading proposed bills. But how to figure out who to actually pay--maybe we could elect them?
Oh, wait...
Where are we going and why am I in this handbasket?
Arthur C. Clarke suggests this in "Imperial Earth". 500 years from now, the President of the USA is chosen randomly from everyone who doesn't have a criminal record.
Win dain a lotica, en vai tu ri silota
A democracy would be no better than what we have, and has the potential to be far worse.
If the Sept. 11 attacks had happened to a direct democracy, the majority would probably have voted to go bomb every village in Afghanistan or Palestine they can find, require mandatory searches of Arabs and/or Muslims upon entering a public place, ban flight simulators with accurate depictions of cities, regulate the sale of box cutters, etc.
Win dain a lotica, en vai tu ri silota
You can check the discussion/vote progress here:
http://clerkweb.house.gov/floor/current.htm
Looks like its splitting along party lines, at least as far as I could decipher?
We can mark the day they do it as the end of the 4th amendment and therefore the Constitution itself.
Welcome to the Fascist States of America.
So go be master of your reality somewhere else.
Michael is not going to read your email. CmdrTaco is not going to detain you for seven days without a phone call. Hemos, much as he would like to, is not going to freeze your bank account.
Power given to any government agency is automatically bad. The question is, will the good that will be done as a consequence outweigh the bad?
--
E_NOSIG
Are these the right preventive measurements we should be taking?
There are three vague aspects of criminal law. They split them up into the classic criminal, the socio-behavioral criminal and the conflict criminal.
Now the theory behind the classic criminal is that he/she/they think out the crime before they commit it. Think about it in advance, look at the reprecussions, weigh the benefits and the detriments and make the decision.
To combat these criminals, a process known as target hardening and situational prevention. Make it harder to commit the crime, catch 'em in the act, make examples and make punishments harsh enough to scare them off.
But then you get to the other criminals. Socio-behavioral and conflict criminals.
Socio-behavioral criminals are affected by factors just as social pressure, social interaction, social dysfunction, behavior dysfunction and social moral development.
The general concept of preventing socio-behavioral criminals from emerging is to find the flaws in their society and environment and work on them.
A similar concept behind the conflict criminology.
A conflict criminal is suppose to be one who commits "crime" (crime by our definition may be rebellion by theirs) because of situations of oppression, injustice or inequality.
A conflict criminologist would also most likely disagree with the anti-terrorism package proposal set forth as one would believe that this would just increase the injustice, inequality and oppression, at least in the eyes of the "criminal". For them, the real prevention methods would be to set forth to equalize the people and lift any oppression.
Now of course, lets apply this to our own time. Osama bin Laden personally declares Palestine as a reasoning for America being devoid of safety.
My personal opinion is that this won't work, because Osama bin Laden is more a conflict criminal, or a socio-behavioral criminal, then anything. So are most of these terrorists. Whether we agree with it or not, the guns and tanks and other support we give to Israel is being used to occupy Palestine and expand Israeli land. Palestenian people are being killed by our bullets. Palestenian kids are standing in front of our tanks and throwing rocks (as a kid of 16 years old, I find it a bit crazy and a bit admirable for a kid of my age to throw rocks at a tank coming torwards them. It requires either alot of balls or so much anger as an injustice that you simply don't care).
So even if these changes to American privacy go through, how much good can they do before they're just being used against American people? Not only will the terrorists find other ways, but when someone is willing to give their lives to do something, it's very hard to stop them.
Perhaps we should look torwards our foreign policy before we jump the gun and "declare war". The relatives and friends of the innocent "callataral" people who may get harmed by our bombings are potential terrorists, and so are the relatives and friends of the terorrists we imprison. Punishment is necessary, I agree, but so is prevention.
Look how we are still encumbered with that. The ramifications of quick judgements last for years. I feel that all measures to 'combat terroroism' should have limitations. That way we can have longer discussion to hammer out details that do not have the ramifications of the quick 'get it done now' quick fix.
make Linux, not Microsoft. sin(beast) = -0.809016994374947424102293417182819
shut your pie holes and go enlist in the US military. Soon to be manditory for citizenship anyway. You will learn to use a weapon, which could come in handy after we have defeated the Islamic masses and want to become a democracy again.
The ends this test of the emergency trolling system. Had this been an actual troll, it would have contained references to Nazism, profanity, and or the word "WH00T!"
---
equating gamblers as terrorists. And aren't some money laundering laws unconstitutional?
and a bunch of other things that Feingold is against such as:
"Computer Tresspaser" is too broadly defined for comfort.
"Secret Searches"?
Viewing private records without a warrant?
There is more to this bill than the press releases are letting on.
Got Freedom?
Thinking?
-Thomas Jefferson, from the Declaration of Independence
Don't overestimate the importance of this legislation. It's a foolish piece of law, and yes, it invades on some of our personal freedoms, but is it so important? I think when all of this flag waving, go-America sentiment dies down, laws like this may be struck down or repealed..
Vote these jokers out while we still can vote.
"You spoony bard!" -Tellah
P.A.T.R.I.O.T.=Provides Abusive Tyrants Really Intrusive Observational Tools
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Aren't these the same "guys" who removed a provision about slavery from the Constitution as not to alienate the southern colonies.
Our forefathers were no better than us, folks. They were just as hypocritical.
True - but as others have pointed out, these dates have the ability to be renewed. Other posters have pointed out that Britain has had "temporary" anti-terrorism laws on the books for over 20 years, simply because the "sunshine clause" keeps getting moved further back.
What is the point of "sunshine clauses" if the sun never rises?
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
Interesting point, mostly because it's been debated for over 100 years. If you re-read the entire constitution, especially the Bill of Rights, it almost always refers to "people", not "citizens". Remember also that the country was founded by those seeking a new land in which to be free. Their frame of mind was encompassing all of those entering the country. In the beginning, foreigners could just walk into the country and be considered "people" protected by the constitution. That seemed to change over time as vast numbers of immigrants entered the country, and it's considered to be in the best interests of the country to separate citizens from others. But reading the constitution and other papers by the country's founders shows that no one within our borders was intended to be excluded from constitutional protection.
Looking at it from another perspective, we usually say that we are the shining example of freedom and democracy on this planet. Proving that should include extending those freedoms to all who want it (at least within our borders). Otherwise, we are just being hypocrites; freedom's great for us, but the rest of you are on your own.
My brother says "Mo fo butter layin me to da bone, jackin me up, tightly."
Developers: We can use your help.
If we were not in the middle east for ONE purpose ONLY, oil as we all know it, and IF our government had not systematically SCREWED everyone they've ever dealt with in the Middle East maybe things would be different. It strikes me as WE are the force which is UNITING the muslim world just as the terrorist attack became the uniting factor for western culture. If the US and other western interests dealt with the Middle eastern countries on a more up front basis things would be better. I can hardly see the so-called Muslim world standing united without an immediate enemy to rally around. Now DON'T get me wrong, international terrorism is EVIL, and I condemn those responsible, but REALITY says people do not just become SUICIDE bombers for NO REASON.
If our country spent just a portion of the 30 BILLION we are gonna cough up in aid to our various allies and supporters for this mission, on say serious alternative fuel sources, we could leave the Middle East to solve its own problems. I doubt that the hardline interpretaion of the Taliban is going to spread like wildfire acrossed the muslim world unless the pressure of WAR with the WEST drives it.
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
It means you don't have to go out and get a wire-tapping liscence (whatever) for every-simgle G.D. phone that the terrorist may use (ie: home, biz, cell, friend, etc.). This means the one warrant allows you to tap all of them, inclusively.
Right, but what does that mean, exactly? It means whatever the investigators choose it to mean.
"So, we know these suspected terrorists live somewhere in Florida, so let's just tap every line in the state."
"But, sir, that's impractical, how can we tap millions of lines?"
"Are you a technological moron? This is the 21st century. Thanks to the federally mandated law enforcement access provisions, the public has paid the telephone companies to build us a set of nice central access points. We can easily get them to record every conversation in the state."
"But, but, sir, who's going to listen to all of those conversations? There will be hundreds of millions per day?"
"Thanks to the USA Act, we can route all of the conversations to my good friends at the NSA. They have computers and software that will scan all of them for keywords. We only have to listen to those that match."
"Wow, sir, that's amazing! What keywords will we search for?"
"Hmm... We'll have to work on that. Certainly we need some words like 'bomb' and 'Islam', and we should include the names of prominent terrorists. Why don't you work up a proposed list for my review? Make sure to include the phrase 'Betty Cowdin'."
"Yes sir, I'll get right on it. One question, though, sir, why do you want us to put your wife's name on the list?"
"Because I'm pretty sure some bastard is screwing her and I'd like to find out who it is..."
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
from Oct 1, 2001
Okay, slashdotters, the challenge is this: corporate America needs to be offerred a new ideological alliance which won't involve placating fundamentalist monotheists. As Andrew Sullivan noted in last weekend's New York Times Magazine, "it is a war of fundamentalism against faiths of all kinds that are at peace with freedom and modernity."
So how do we do that? How do we build a political alliance that preserves freedom for economic activity (and emphasizes freedom in economic activity, rather than allowing corporations to band together to remove freedoms from individuals), while also preserving freedom from people who are too silly to see that their favorite interpretation of their favorite old text is not a direct order from the sort of God who would have us see free will as the crack through which evil enters an otherwise perfectly ordered creation (which is in fact the theology of our fundamentalists)?
How do we extend open source to make freedom even more of an economic imperative? Just as America has found some strange allies in its struggle, so must we find ways to radically realign our domestic political alliances to regain the freedoms our current unrepresentatives are surrendering in our name.
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
Well, perhaps not Libertarian as practiced, but the basic concept is sound.
Which is, in summary: "Consenting adults should be allowed to do anything they please, so long as it doesn't cause harm to non-consenting other's person or property."
It is the only rational modus operandi for a population that desires freedom and responsibility.
(Of course, that's not to say the public wants to be free or responsible. Indeed, I suspect they want to be ruled by a benevolent dictator, and handed everything on a golden platter...)
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
"We have nothing to fear but fear itself." Think about it for a second.
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
About a week later, I got a very sincere-sounding form letter response. I can only assume my ticket got marked RESOLVED_WONTFIX
Boston.com is reporting that the House passed the Senate Legislation with a 5 year sunset clause on some controversial topics. It passed 337-79, sounds like it's headed back to the Senate now...
ID tattoo's are sooo passe! its all about the subdermal chips!
"I would say that 99 per cent of what my father has written about his own life is false." - L. Ron Hubbard Jr.
Considering that the so-called Liberals are about to pass the Canadian version of DMCA, I'd say the ATA and SSSCA equivalents will make their way to Canada in due time.
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
Sen. Russ Feingold has never disappointed me in the six years I've followed is career. He seems to me to be the politician with more integrity than any other I know about. His vote against the "USA" act reinforces my high opinion of him.
Here's his statements about the liberty implications of the bills that are in consideration right now: feingold.senate.gov
You see, any substantially challenging philosophy will inevitably lead to hypocrisy. If you never go against any tennant of your philosophy, it must not be asking much of you.
The tennant of the founding fathers' philosophy that all men are created equal and have unalienable rights is a rather difficult one. They had trouble holding it when it came to slaves, and we are having trouble holding it when it comes to our entire nation in the wake of terrorism.
The founding fathers' were hardly saints, but their philosophy was correct, and despite everything else the Bill of Rights was their work.
What have any of us done to preserve that work, to justify abandoning it now? What have these senators done? They aren't hypocritical. They don't believe the philosophy but go against it. They are liars. They claim to believe the philosophy but don't. That's the difference.
The enemies of Democracy are
I suppose the only ``problem'' with the Cold War was that it ended... the Soviets seemed invincible enough in the fifties, but they eventually crumbled, and the military-industrial complex risked obsolescence.
Well, no more of that shit, we're at war with terrorism! Even better than being at war with drugs---even that couldn't screw us into getting national ID cards, but we can now be in a perpatual state of war, enough so that everyone's favorite cash cow can be fed monthly, to keep our country safe from a poorly-defined, literally never-ending threat.
These are new and interesting times we live in, my friends...
-grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
This is EXACTLY what Franklin was talking about, IMO.
it's also been shown that they have used the net to transmit messages, and now maybe even TV.. if putting harsh restrictions on cryptography can hinder him as well, what all is lost?
The ability of banks to protect their customers from fraud, for example...
Look, encryption is used in SO many important ways today which form the basis of how we protect our financial infrastructure, among others. Penalizing encryption only makes it EASIER for a financial attack to work, and may not do much to prevent terrorism. For example, you also stated:
terrorism is a semi-expensive business... it takes money to train people to fly a 757 into a tall building, pay off people, etc etc.
So if we undermine the security of our financial infrastructure, then are we not making terrorism easier? Is this not what harshly penalizing encryption and/or published means of defeating it would actually accomplish? Why not just establish a government grant to these terrorist organizations? It would probably be more effective.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Wow. You know, I've often thought about the irony of the number of people who die in car crashes, but I never put it together that way...
Where, exactly, is our War on Drunk Drivers? Why aren't we spending billions on intelligence to find out when people are leaving bars smashed? Why don't we have armed "Bar Marshals"?
How many people died from dietary problems? Where is our War on Bacon?
I get more depressed every day.
The enemies of Democracy are
In all the chest-beating about how to defeat "terrorism," there are some interesting things being said by folks who used to be part of the establishment. This article by Robert M. Bowman ( Lt. Col., USAF retired) titled "What Can We Do About Terrorism?" came across my email this afternoon. He makes the following interesting point:
"People in Canada enjoy better democracy, more freedom, and greater human rights than we do. So do the people of Norway and Sweden. Have you heard of Canadian embassies being bombed? Or Norwegian embassies? Or Swedish embassies. No."
Too bad the spineless cowards in Congress couldn't get testimony from guys like this before they rushed headlong into a decision to take away our constitutional rights.
I think these laws do represent a direct and absolute threat to our way of life while it is terrorist attacks that do not.
No, really. My daily life is about the freedoms I have, the ways I can express myself, my privacy when I enter my home. My daily life is not about safety -- I know whenever I drive, I could be killed. I could be robbed, I could be murdered. I could be in a (non-terrorist caused) plane crash. I could catch a hantavirus. I could get cancer from food additives.
It is not the terrorist attack, but our response to it, that threatens the American Way.
The enemies of Democracy are
no idea what you are talking about..
The Consortium of media organizations that has delayed announcing the results of the Florida presidential election ballot study contends that it had absolutely no idea who was going to win that recount. The Consortium further contends that the ballots have not yet been tabulated, making it impossible for anyone to know the outcome. It also states that the results of the ballot study would have been released to the American people if not for the terrorist attack on September 11.
The Consortium is engaging in sophistry. It is deliberately seeking to deceive the public with incomplete and misleading information. This dishonesty is entirely consistent with the mainstream media's pattern of lying that recurred throughout the presidential campaign.
Part two in this series deals with the Consortium's lack of candor as it has sought to advance its own financial interests by concealing Al Gore's clear victory in Florida and refusing to acknowledge that he was the rightful winner in the 2000 presidential election.
It is important to emphasize that we do not allege the conglomerates that control the American mainstream media have engaged in a conspiracy, only that they have damaged American democracy by conducting themselves with unpatriotic self interest and all consuming greed.
On January 9, 2001, eight media organizations announced their intention to form the Consortium that would examine and classify the votes in the Florida presidential election. The eight news organizations were The New York Times, The Washington Post, Dow Jones and Company (The Wall Street Journal), the Associated Press, The Tribune Company (The Los Angeles Times and The Chicago Tribune, among others), The Palm Beach Post, The St. Petersburg Times, and CNN (which later dropped out).
The Consortium sought to gain credibility for the integrity of its recount by hiring the not-for-profit National Opinion Research Center to perform the actual ballot handling tasks and to compile the relevant information. NORC was assigned to provide the raw data to each of the members of the Consortium. It would then be up to the individual media outlets to decide how they would interpret and report the data to the American people.
All of this was to be completed by April, 2001.
At the time that the Consortium announced its plans to categorize the votes, some national public opinion polls showed that over a third of Americans considered George W. Bush to be an illegitimate president. Several prominent syndicated columnists had written that Gore was fortunate to "lose", because the poisonous atmosphere in the aftermath of the controversial election guaranteed that the new president was destined to one term of bitterness and gridlock.
The perception of the mainstream political and media analysts was that there were only three possible outcomes of the ballot study:
Bush could win in a photo finish, as he had in each previous recount.
It could turn out to be a dead heat.
Gore could win in a photo finish.
Two thirds of Americans surveyed said that they were ready to move on. They believed that it was basically an even election; they might never be completely sure who actually won, but someone had to be president, and Bush won the recounts and the Supreme Court verdict. For most Americans, regardless of who literally won an election that was too close to call, it was time to get on with life.
Against this backdrop, any of the three results of the ballot study that were considered possible would not be harmful to Bush. If the ballot study showed he won, then that would confirm he was the legitimate president. If it were a tie, then he would be no worse off than before the study was released. If Gore won a squeaker, then the most diehard of the Democrats might challenge the legitimacy of a Bush administration, but the GOP had prepared for that possibility by assigning party activists to every Florida county for the specific purpose of screaming fraud. Another very close vote accompanied by frenzied controversy would make the Consortium ballot study just a tiresome repeat of the soap opera that most of election-weary America had already seen and turned off.
If the establishment deep thinkers were right, then the only possible results from the Consortium study could help legitimize Bush, but could not harm his legitimacy among those Americans who had "gotten over it".
There was, however, a potential complication that had been discounted by the corporations that were financing this venture:
What would happen if the Consortium recount revealed that Gore had won decisively?
The NORC's examination of the ballots began in February. MakeThemAccountable has spoken with several participants who were in the NORC coding rooms where the ballots of the Florida presidential election were reviewed. These people did not know each other and were in different counties within Florida. Each of them independently stated that, based on their personal observation, Al Gore was winning at least two thirds of those disputed ballots that NORC coders were recording. These were ballots that had not been included in previous recounts.
The Consortium has stated that it cannot possibly have known the outcome of the ballot coding because NORC did not generate a final tabulation. The Consortium even contends that, because the ballots were not delivered to the media organizations until mid-September, and because those organizations have been completely preoccupied with covering the war against terrorism, the result of the recount is still a complete mystery to them.
The Consortium is lying about this, as well as other things.
Our sources within the recount made a commitment of confidentiality to NORC, pledging that they would not go public with what they saw during the process. This pact was faithfully honored until after September 11, when some participants became alarmed that the Consortium was going to violate its commitment to inform the American public about the truth of the actual results.
The ballot examination process, or coding process, had teams consisting of an NORC employee supervising three coders. It was the job of the coders to identify the characteristics of any expression of voter intent on the ballots. Their observations were entered into a computer database so that the media organizations comprising the Consortium could later evaluate the data to determine the winner. The ballots showed only numbers and not the names of candidates, so NORC assumed that those who were evaluating the ballots did not know which candidate was getting which votes. . The supervisors were responsible for comparing the pattern of vote tabulation by each coder, to further insure that bias would not enter the process.
In an interview with MakeThemAccountable, NORC Public Information Officer Julie Antelman confirmed that, if someone knew which number applied to which candidate, then they could tell if there was a trend.
To those who were carefully observing the coding, and who had enough knowledge of Florida county ballot configurations and precinct voting patterns to figure out which number represented Bush and which represented Gore, it was clear exactly how the vote categorization was going. Specifically, they saw the inclusion of many disputed ballots that had been successfully excluded from previous recounts because of pressure tactics by the Bush campaign. In the objective, professional setting of the NORC coding process, the winner of the overwhelming number of previously disputed ballots was Al Gore.
From the first day of the NORC process, there was a visible presence of pro-Bush demonstrators outside the coding rooms. What has not been widely reported is that there was also a constant Bush presence inside the coding rooms. The NORC had a policy that allowed for a representative of either party to observe the process. In counties like Hernando, observers could pay in order to actually sit at the coding tables. The observer was not allowed to comment, intrude, or interact with the coders, or in any way seek to influence the ballot study.
There is no evidence that the partisan observers corrupted the process of coding ballots, but their presence certainly destroys the myth of an "unknowable" result. Inside the rooms of the NORC coding process, politically experienced G.O.P. operatives carefully watched for trends.
They saw bad news for Bush. For example, in Republican Lake County, election officials had disqualified six hundred ballots because voters put a pencil mark in the circle by a candidate's name and also wrote the same candidate's name on another part of the ballot. According to the G.O.P., this made it impossible to discern the voters' intent.
The coders perceived that someone who checked a candidate's name and also wrote in the same candidate's name probably meant to vote for that candidate.
The Republicans screamed that no one could possibly know for certain which candidate the voter meant to choose in these instances "unless they were psychic". They decried the NORC's "pathetic attempts at mind reading".
The G.O.P.'s high decibel cries of persecution had successfully intimidated officials at the previous Florida recounts, but the rules of the NORC coding session prohibited observers from emoting inside the rooms. The indignant Republicans had to go outside to vent. The net result was a gain of one hundred thirty votes for Gore using previously uncounted ballots in just one Republican county.
George W. Bush had a widespread presence of people actively looking after his interests. There were Republican protesters outside the coding rooms and Republican observers inside the coding rooms in every county.
The Gore organization had already disbanded.
As during the election and the recounts, the Republicans were fighting as hard as they could -- no holds barred -- while the Democrats defaulted.
Even so, during the Consortium ballot study the coders just found too many Gore votes for the G.O.P. to be able to "win" again by invoking invisible crimes and decrying nonexistent conspiracies.
It is simply false for the Consortium to claim people were unaware that the results were developing in a way that would be highly embarrassing, at best, for George W. Bush. The Republican observers saw the strong pro-Gore trend and responded with typical aplomb. A G.O.P. activist accused one NORC coder of being drunk on the job, a lie that was later disproven. Even so, Republican operatives reportedly pressured another coder to confirm the phony allegation. The Republicans yelled about the quality of the coders, screamed about the treachery of the process, and threw temper tantrums about the unfairness of it all. Of course, they offered no proof of their slanderous charges. Though the G.O.P. observers were publicly panicking as the trend continued strongly against them, the Consortium observers in the very same rooms claim to be completely unaware of who was winning.
The members of the Consortium have a sufficient interest in this matter that they collectively have paid millions of dollars to subsidize the ballot study. The media organizations that comprise the Consortium employ hundreds of experienced journalists who possess expertise in gathering information. A number of their most able journalists were eyewitnesses to what was happening in the coding rooms. And yet, the Consortium pleads total ignorance of who was gaining votes during the NORC coding process.
Dan Keating was the Washington Post on-site editor for the ballot study. In an interview with MakeThemAccountable, he said, "We intentionally blinded ourselves to the information."
Some coders knew enough about Florida county ballot configuration to be able to tell which numerical code represented Bush and which identified Gore. The same was true of supervisors, private citizens who viewed the study, and the increasingly hysterical Republican observers. Non-Consortium journalists were not exactly clueless, either:
The media are finding more ballots meant for Gore. In election-speak: Even though final statewide results aren't in, early returns favor Gore.
Of course, I was not complacent before, either. It was our complacency that destroyed the World Trade Center and we are not looking for a quick fix, a gimmick that will allow us to go back to our complacent little lives. And those of us who do not believe that people are inherently good and who do not believe that the world is a safe place will go back to warning you sheep about the dangers of the world and you will continue to ignore us, safe in your cages of fear and wondering what went wrong every time someone else strikes a blow against you.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin
You know, I was just thinking about this...
Can I, as a system administrator, consider a persistent spammer (and companies that allow them to operate without hinderance) to be 'trespassing' on my computer? The wired article has a mention of:
Right now, the USA Act says that system administrators should be able to monitor anyone they deem a "computer trespasser."
Does this mean I'm allowed to "monitor" the "tom lee designs" bastard who's been spamming me senseless with junk email I can't even read (Big5 encoded) and hinet.net who have gleefully allowed him to continue despite many repeated forwardings of the spam to abuse@hinet.net and, in desperation, support@hinet.net?
Does "monitoring" include port scanning, perhaps?....
Just a thought...
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
A particular quote comes to mind:
"There is no way a country can satisfy the craving for absolute security - but it can bankrupt itself, morally and economically, in attempting to reach that illusory goal through arms alone. The military establishment, not productive in itself, necessarily must feed on the energy and brain-power of the country, and if it takes too much, our total strength declines" -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Even though this quote was more directed towards the military than law, the principles remain the same.
Neroon
I was watching C-Span this morning in my room in Grand Junction, how did the house vote end up turning out? I was pretty fucking disgusted by the way the judiciary commitee was handling the bill. I mean you're not going to sign your name to something you didn't fucking read and changing the bill after the Senate passed it was just sneaky I think all the reps who voted for the bill are just foolish. It's sad that people in the heat of emotion can't seem to make rational descisions about their iminent fate. It isn't hard to see that the bill in its current form is pretty sweeping yet with no clear proof that it will lead to the accomplishment of anything. It seems to me its pretty retarded to make so sweeping and broad reaching of a bill. I'd rather see airline/airport security separate from domestic intelligence because the two are not necessarily interlinked. Something needs to be done about our current vulnerabilities to attack but taking away essencial freedoms is not the answer.Some are suggesting only those with something to hide (namely a C-Span caller from Tennesee) are opposed to a bill which would let government agencies set the fourth amendment aside. I think you'd havea different tone if it was your telephone they were bugging. Peoplewere complaining earlier about people profiting in the wake of the WTC/Pentagon attacks, the government is going the same thing corporations are. Congresspeople are using this to expand their careers and temporarily please their constituants. Does anyone read their fucking history? We've seen what happens when the government gives itself the ability to ignore the Constitution by which it is itself governed. To paraphrase both Ben Franklin and Tom Jefferson, those who would give up a little liberty for a little safety deserve neither and will soon lose both.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
And who's definition of terrorist do we use?
Well, from now on, we're going to use the statutory definition, which includes those of us who violate Section 1030, as amended -- that is, those of us for whom another person alleges used a computer without authorization, or who exceeded authorized access.
Worse than the civil liberties hits, USAA is more dangerous for we programmers and technical people than you may ever have imagined.
The original definitions of hacker had nothing to do with computers. As applied to computer folks, RMS, Goldblatt and the rest of the MIT crew defined the archetype, per Steve Levy's book, "Hackers."
It wasn't until quite a bit later that the "other definition" joined in the fun, by all accounts I have seen. Certainly, I don't recall any authority for the proposition that unwarranted entry was an "original definition."
I think if you look at history, you'll find that that isn't the underlying cause. Rather, many countries end up with evil, undemocratic governments because the population has lost power; often they have given up power freely in the hope of achieving order and security in their country. Sometimes that gamble works, but it is the irresponsible, power-hungry dictators that have a tendency to stay around. As Ben Franklin said: "Those who trade freedom for security soon have neither."
The US isn't all that far along that path, but it has definitely moved in that direction. This kind of legislation opens up the real possibility of serious abuse by government. People won't worry about it because they always assume that it's someone else that's in trouble because of it: "well, maybe increased profiling and surveillance of Arabs is OK", "I don't have anything to hide", and that sort of thing. The fact that Giuliani was playing around with the thought of doing an end-run around term limits is also a concern. And this kind of legislation has a "ratchet effect"--it will almost never get rolled back because, after all, what politician wants to be seen as "pro terrorist" or wants to be blamed when the FBI stands up and say "well, the politicians who voted to scrap these powers are responsible for the deaths of innocent civilians".
Read your history, and come to terms with the fact that the US political system isn't magically immune from evolving in undemocratic directions. And evaluate risks carefully. Then, make a reasoned decision as to whether giving up civil liberties is really justified by what is still a very small personal risk from terrorist attacks.
Moderators, please recognize that what Archfeld said, in the parent post, is true.
Archfeld says, "in the middle east for ONE purpose ONLY, oil as we all know it..."
"REALITY says people do not just become SUICIDE bombers for NO REASON."
and
"IF our government had not systematically SCREWED everyone they've ever dealt with in the Middle East maybe things would be different."
This is a quote from the official testimony to the U.S. House of Representatives of Unocal Vice President John J. Maresca, on February 12, 1998. He said, in part, "CentGas cannot begin construction until an internationally recognized Afghanistan government is in place."
For a link to this document on the House of Representatives government web site, and a document about the pipeline route, search on the word Unocal in: What should be the Response to Violence?
Bush's education improvements were
terrorism (tr-rzm)
n.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group(Congress) against people (Americans) or property with the intention of intimidating (Prison) or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological(USA Act) or political (PATRIOT Act) reasons.
Who are the terrorists now?
-
Cynicism is an unpleasant way of saying the truth. - Lillian Hellman (1907 - 1984)
So does this mean the makers of Deus Ex (Eidos) will be first up against the wall for inciting terrorism?
Fear: When you see B8 00 4C CD 21 and know what it means
I am ashamed at what corporations and politicians have done to America.. however, none of this would be possible if the American people cared more about the directions they are being led in. I would say I'm much more ashamed at the level of apathy in the US, than I am ashamed at the people who we have chosen to run the country.
As for making drastic changes in our government, I think we could do a lot worse. It's not perfect here, but there are a lot of problems that we don't have to worry about. These are problems like not having clean water or medical care, or a 30+ million person AIDS epidemic.
At the same time, we need to work on the problems we do have. Our human rights record is pretty piss-poor, the drug war needs to end now, and it's true that we have a civil liberties problem. The solution, though, isn't just to throw everything out and start from scratch. Democracy can work - it's just up to the people to make it work. Last November, voter turnout was around 50%. That's terrible! No wonder government and law enforcement know they can get away with a lot.. they know that many of us just don't care.
The only difference between 1984 and 2001 is that the guy on the screen during the Two Minutes of Hate is named Osama instead of Emmanuel, and at the end he turns into a wolf instead of a sheep.
If you think 1984 was prescient, go back and read Brave New World and Brave New World Revisited by Aldous Huxley. We seem to be managing to bring both dystopias into being at the same time. Scary.
DNA is a Turing machine. You, however, being dynamic and emergent, are not.
What more can be said... you anti-Clintonites are utter psychopaths.
Give it up already.
In my eyes a democracy means that our ideals and idea's should be represented in the government. I believe that the best way to achieve this, is to choose people/parties that have standpoints that are similar to yours. A 'pure' democracy where every law is voted on by the population will not represent the people's standpoints. Why?
I have no time to be an expert on every issue. I can't take all the evidence into account and make a good decision. I have to earn my living and have fun, the few hours left a day are not enough to be an expert on every issue. So instead of making a rational decision, I will just vote on sentiment. So we do need experts in the government to make law and journalists to check the governments work and lay out the facts to me in short. Every election I have a chance to decide if the guy/party I voted on is doing good enough.
Unfortunately (for you, as I'm dutch) the US has an extremely weak representative democracy. The focus on districts gears the national government towards local issues, instead of the national issues that they should govern on. The district-system has also effectively created the weak two-party system that has made your politics into a fight. The Democrats are in power, let's vote for our bills. The Republicans are in power, let's undo the things the Democrats did and do what we want.
I believe that the national votes should be counted for the whole country and not per district. This would mean that smaller parties (like Ralph Nader's party) would be able to get into congress. This will greatly increase the diversity of congress and will necessitate coalitions. Thus the political parties will be forced to work together. It will also mean that some minority groups will be able to get a seat in congress and will be able to air their views and question the decisions made by the coalition. Currently a party that has support of 49% of the population, can still be totally unrepresented in congress (if they are barely beaten in every district).
Of course there will always be conflicts between local and national concerns (like drilling off the coast of Florida). I will explain how the dutch system deals with this issue. The local government (chosen in seperate elections) chooses the people to represent them in the Upper House. The Upper House can turn down every Act of Parliament (but they may not amend). We choose the parliament's members directly, 15% of the dutch votes to a political party translates in about 15% of the seats in the Lower House.
Thus the politicians we have chosen (indirectly in our case) to represent our local views put a check on the actions of the 'national' politicians. This is IMHO much better than politicians that are chosen for both their local and national opinion (as they are chosen per district). Is it not true that many national issues have little relation with local issues? Examples include the missile defense system, international politics, etc.
Choosing politicians per district ties them very strongly to the opinions of a fairly uniform group of people. This leads to weak politicians who are afraid to do anything that will go against the sentiments of the local population. On the other hand, if he is chosen by a much more diverse group of people, spread out over the country, he will have the best chance of being re-elected by hanging to ideals. He might lose a few votes by going against the wishes of the people from a state or district, but this will be compensated by the people from the rest of the country who reward him for being steadfast (or will abandon him if he isn't).
A (random) example is an enviromentalist who chooses to forgo his principles when a polluting factory treatens to leave his state (and thus brings harm to the local economy). Such a scenario is much less likely with nationally chosen politicians.
The Drowned and the Saved - Primo Levi
Female Prison Rape in NY
The problem is with knowing what the people want. They don't all want the same thing, and if you listen only to the majority, then you have the same result as a democracy.
Mob rule, spearheaded by a populist dictator.
More likely instead of the majority you end up listening to the loudest minority anyway...
... and we'd have a system so that as many people as possible could have a representative that they had voted for (proportional representation, possible not only with todays technology but with simple paper. It works because you forego the fact that 51% of people in an arbitrary gerrymandered district have the right to a local representative, and pool the similar voters across wider areas. In a state with 9 reps, in the current system, 49% of the people can end up fundamentally disagreeing with "their" rep; under PR, no more than 10% wouldn't have a rep they'd helped to choose.)...
...
... and we'd keep the power to switch our vote whenever we felt like it if the representative started doing important things we really didn't like (easy with today's technology)...
... and we'd keep our power to cast our own miniscule individual vote on the issues that we really cared about enough to have an opinion seperate from our representative (also possible)
... and we'd make sure that the representatives were getting paid by the voters, that they didn't become dependent (either personally or politically) on sources of money that don't represent the interests of their constituents...
Oh, wait, doesn't look so very much like the current system anymore, does it? But it IS possible. You could even do a lot of this without changing the constitution.
Preferential Voting: easy as 1-2-3
These days they're called "activists". And, contrary to what you may assume, they do win victories and make real changes. If you study social history (that is, the history of what freedoms average people have throughout history, including the freedoms that come from having something in your wallet) without the blinders of "progress" or its opposite, you'll see that freedoms go up and down, and that they tend to go up only when large groups of people spend real energy getting together and holding the leaders accountable. A vote is only the first baby step in that direction - you need to develop your own media so that people can keep track of EXACTLY when their representatives stab them in the back; and your own networks, united by some actual common interests and non-politicizing activities to promote those interests, but able to be mobilized into protest when necessary. This is no easier or harder today than it was for the labor movement or the civil rights movement or (hmmm... a right-wing example to balance things out...) the Cristeros in Mexico in the 30s (that's probably BS, I hardly know anything about them...).
Preferential Voting: easy as 1-2-3
But the US in the form of the CIA have been stirring up shit for years. Our oil industry is hand in hand with BP. The bottom line is western financial interests have put themselves ABOVE the the interests of the people who live in the region. I am proud to be an American, but ashamed of MANY of the things the government does in our name.
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
Ah.. but if there hasn't been a case of law, they're not proven guilty. Not proven guilty == innocent.
shooting political opponents for being suspected terrorists is the same as shooting innocents, ie. murder.
//rdj
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
Correct you are. Thanks.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.