Slashdot Mirror
Anti-Terrorism Law Passed
Saratoga C++ writes: "Today (Oct 25) was the day that the US Senate voted on if to pass H.R. 3162, the anti-terrorism law. I have the roll call for today from the Senate. The only person with a "Nay" vote was Russ Feingold (D-WI). Thanks Russ. The final turn out was Yes: 98, No: 1, No Vote: 1."
Leahy will continue to recive my support for his attempts to correct some of the grave problems in this bill before it made it this far.
Strom? Off drooling somewhere no doubt....
its the end of the world!
I like Russ. He's the only genuinely & clearly
principled member of the Senate I know of. Thanks
Russ!
Although the contents of the bill are debatable, the Nay vote either takes a lot of courage, or a lack of brains. That funny sound is the voice of disapproval circulating the senate.
gus
.. if only.
I got lost in all the parlimentary process. The Senate voted for it with no expiration date; the house passed it, but with a presidential and subsequent congressional renewal clause in case of "unforseen abuses" (or forseen abuses, for that matter).
I believe this final version passed with a (four-year?) expiration date, but I'm not sure I got that right.
Does anybody have a definitive answer on this? (And no, "I heard X and Y" does not count. I'm talking about a link to and quote from a factually reputable news source.) If there is a time limit, what are the parameters?
I know your just trying to stir up people. But disagrements are what democracy is all about. If everyone in leadership agrees we basically end up with a tynany. But I guess thats what you want :)
How comes the anti-terrorism bill punishes law abiding citizens and not the terrorists? Enquiring minds what to know!
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
To be patriotic is to be for MAN(look it up), I am a patriotic person and thats WHY I am against BUSH!
It seems like Russ Feingold is the only one that is really for america as it is meant to be, as it was founded.
"Not my manner of thinking but the manner of thinking of others has been the source of my unhappiness." - M
They were designed to move as slow as molasses; that way redical policy shifts don't happen to quickly. If Congress could act quickly they could do a lot of good, but they also could do a lot of bad.
Yeah, and there aren't any people who are against the terrorist attacks and against violations of civil liberties; those two things sound mutually exlusive to me (roll eyes).
Hopefully you are being sarcastic.
F-bacher
James Tiberius Kirk: "Spock, the women on your planet are logical. No other planet in the galaxy can make that claim."
Fucking John Ashcroft and the rest of his gestapo cronies must have boners like concrete at the thought of their new powers.
All of sudden New Brunswick is way too close to the US. I want to emigrate to the moon or something.
We need a law that requires every elected public official be hooked up to a polygraph when they take their Oath of Office. The results must be available to the public as soon as possible. Think about the fun opponents could have armed with the results when it's time to run campaign ads on television!
...
This would let us make sure we're getting what we're voting for. Corporations and big donors already know they're getting what they're paying for, so why should the ordinary voting citizen be deprived of the same validation? Think of the polygraph going crazy when they all say
I swear to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
Not that I'm a fan of the bill or anything, but if this is the only legislation that goes through as a result of 911, then civil liberties got lucky. It could have been a lot worse.
Bush to american citizens :
"All your freedoms are belong to us!
(For great justice!)"
...this is getting out of hand
A link to an article with some commentary (Wired?) would be a big help, please.
Heard in the Senate the following day:
"Wow, that bill SURE must be popular! Look at how many hits the web version of the detailed summary got LAST NIGHT ALONE!"
Anyone who argues "Oh, I don't care if they invade my privacy, I'm not doing anything illegal." should watch the movie Enemy of the State. At first Will Smith has that exact same attitude, until the middle of the movie where he spins it around to "That's... None of your damn business! Leave me alone!"
Men believe what they want. - Caesar
Landrieu, Mary (D - LA) was gone.... Anyone know why? Seems like a kinda big bill, not that it had a chance of not getting passed.
Terrorist 1 : Hey, I'm bored. Let's commits acts of terrorism today
Terrorist 2 : But, that's illegal now!
Terrorist 1 : Oh darn. Oh well, let's go fishing instead.
"Backups are for wimps. Real men upload their data to an FTP site and have everyone else mirror it." -- Linus Torvalds
Unfortunately, I only have a link to the FoxNews site, so excuse the decided lean to the right: FBI to Broaden Web Wiretapping.
This has been mentioned before, possibly even on slashdot, but it is probably worth repeating. Various comments from people who know suggest that the FBI will probably break the internet in trying to funnel it all through their Carnivore++ setup. If this really comes to pass.
Reading further down in the article, it would seem that the FBI is really just going to lean on AOL, earthlink, yahoo, hotmail/MS, etc to make sure it has unbridled access to email, but who knows for now. In the end, I'm sure it will all work out for the, um, best.
To all of you who think that this bill "trashes civil rights", as Michael "Slashbot" Simms believes.
Exactly how is your freedom and/or liberty curtailed by this bill? Exactly what are you unable to do now that you were able to do before?
Clearly, if civil rights have been "trashed", there must be endless examples. And by the way, "potential" abuses don't count. I want REAL examples.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
It's impossible to read that shit that is linked.... Commentary would be very appreciated.
I live in WI and my first chance to vote when I turned 18 I voted Feingold. But in all honesty, who's fault is it this got passed? Who allowed their civil liberties to be taken away. Those 425 and 100 people represent us, US citizens. Obviously we didn't do our part, informing them that they're not doing what we want. The Constitution was formed to preserve our rights and that our politicians should be subject to us. Yet we act like we're at their mercy. I guess no one remembers which way it's supposed to work.
I tried submitting this story myself, but guess they didn't like my version, or he got it in first.
Anyway, here's some commentary that I included with version I wrote:
American Civil Liberties Union
Center for Democracy and Technology
Yahoo! News
There's a lot of them. heck.
-
Extends electronic surveillance periods to 120 days from 90 days and for searches to 90 days from 45 days.
- Creates two new crimes prohibiting certain persons from possessing a listed biological agent or toxin and prohibiting all persons from possessing a biological agent, toxin or delivery system of a type or in a quantity that is not reasonably justified by a peaceful purpose
- Limits delay of search warrants when this authority would result in flight or property seizure
- Requires a court application to obtain student records
- Grants authority to the president to restrict exports of agricultural products, medicine or medical devices to the Taliban or the territory of Afghanistan controlled by the Taliban
- Increases to seven days the length of time an alien may be held before being charged with criminal or immigration violations
- Defines terrorist activities but makes exceptions for people who have innocent contacts to non-certified terrorist organizations
- Enhances the secretary of state's existing power to certify groups as terrorist organizations
- Enhances data-sharing between the FBI and the State Department/INS and between the State Department and foreign governments
- Clarifies CIA director's role to set overall strategy for collection of information through court?ordered FISA surveillance, but no operational authority
- Increases CIA authority to investigate "international terrorist activities"
- Encourages CIA to recruit informants to fight terrorism
- Requires attorney general to develop guidelines for disclosing to the CIA foreign intelligence information obtained in criminal investigations
- Requires the attorney general and CIA to provide training to federal, state and local government officials to identify foreign intelligence information
- Sunsets electronic surveillance laws after two years with the authority for the president to renew in two more years
- Limits the use of Foreign Intelligence Service Act court orders to investigations of international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities
- Requires investigations of U.S. persons be based on more than just First Amendment activities.
- Allows roving wiretap authority on electronic equipment, including cell phones
- Allows pen registers/trap and trace on particular phone numbers but restricts content collection
- Increases the number of FISA judges from seven to 11
- Expedites the hiring of translators for the FBI
- Allows seizure of voice mail messages
- Does not allow the use of information collected on Americans by foreign governments when that information was collected in violation of the U.S. Constitution
- Authorizes nationwide service of subpoenas for electronic subscriber information
- Expands list of items subject to subpoena to include the means and source of payment for electronic subscriber information
- Authorizes electronic communications service to disclose contents of and subscriber information in case of emergencies involving the immediate danger of death or serious physical injury
- Allows sharing of grand jury and wiretap information for official law enforcement duties
- Allows sharing grand jury and wiretap information that involves foreign intelligence and counterintelligence
- Does not allow disclosure of tax return information by Treasury to federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies in responding to terrorist incidents
- Triples the number of Border Patrol, Customs Service and INS inspectors at the northern border
- Authorizes $100 million to improve INS and Customs technology and additional equipment for monitoring the northern border
- Requires an integrated automated fingerprint identification system for points of entry and overseas consular posts
- Authorizes a counter-terrorism fund to reimburse the Department of Justice for any costs related to investigating and prosecuting terrorism
- Expedites disability and death payments to firefighters, law enforcement officers or emergency personnel involved in the prevention, investigation, rescue or recovery efforts related to any future terrorist attack
- Increases benefits program payments to public safety officers
- Coordinates secure information sharing among federal, state and local law enforcement agencies to investigate and prosecute terrorist conspiracies and activities
- Expands fraud and abuse laws to cover computers outside the U.S. used to affect interstate commerce or communications inside the U.S.
- Replenishes the Justice Department's antiterrorism emergency reserve with up to $50 million; authorizes private gift-giving to the fund; allows service providers to use reserve fund to expedite assistance to victims of domestic terrorism
- Creates a new criminal statute to punish for terrorist attacks and other acts of violence against mass transportation systems
- Creates a list of offenses that will carry an eight-year statute of limitations for prosecution except where they resulted in, or created a risk of, death or serious bodily injury
- Defines maximum penalties for terror-related activities where appropriate, including life imprisonment or supervision
- Adds conspiracy provisions to some criminal statutes and provides that the penalties for such conspiracies may not include death
- Adds certain terrorism-related crimes to RICO and money laundering rules
I hope that everyone feels safer now"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
FBI agent : Hi there guys! Mind if I tag along? You never know what I might hear....
Or, rather...
"Hi I'll be your fishing inspector for today, WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT!"
...this is getting out of hand
You can kiss your freedoms goodbye... but be careful, because THEY might see you.
"Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
So what is the ALCU and the EFFs next move? Are they going to fight this unconstitutionality in court?
Looks like it's got a 4 year limit at least...
m p/~c107bhnj7n:e89010:
This looks like the right text...
Or, for the link wary... http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c107:1:./te
Just needs '!!NR!!' and I'd mistake it for an ebay auction...
"A matter of internal security, the age old cry of the oppressor" - Jean Luc Picard
This bill passed by the American Government seems to extend even beyond the borders of the US and into other countries. If the internet, being an international entity, is to be monitored, should it not be monitored by an international entity as opposed to a single, albeit powerful country? Much internet traffic routes itself through the US out of and into other countries. The abuses made possible by such monitoring is frighteningly obvious. The FBI could easily be gathering information on citizens of other countries who they do not feel any sort of duty to remain professional about. Each country has the right to protect its own citizens, and suddenly the American government decides that it is an international entity and can do whatever it wants. Shouldn't the W3 Consortium or some other omnipotent Internet organization step in and at least monitor such mass information gathering? Of course that will never happen, since all of these organizations are owned by American Business anyways *shudder*. All that power in the hands of a few select people sends chills down my spine.
"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." --George Orwell
I can imagine what the more pragmatic law-enforcement agents are thinking right now: "gee, this probably won't do a damn thing to stop terrorism, but think how many marijuana dealers we'll pick up now. yippee."
Script Kiddy Cracks Hotmail: Charged as Terrorist.
SCO (noun.)- A Slimy Corporate Ogre. Often seeks free money.
Even though I live in Indiana now, I used to live in Wisconsin. When Russ Feingold first ran for the Senater, I was taking a civics class as a freshman in high school, and Feingold was my chosen person. He is by far and away the most ethical person I have ever seen in Congress. He was elected without running a single negative ad. (which is unusual in itself) It doesn't surprise me one bit that he was the lone dissenter.
:)
I thought I heard at one time that Gore was thinking of taking Feingold as his Vice Pres. I don't think it would have been a bad idea, and would have easily gotten my vote (I voted McCain for Pres because he's the only candidate I cared about).
Here's to Russ Feingold
And if he hates this country so much, I would like "michael" to find one that better suits him.
Ah, yes, "love it or leave it."
Perhaps you're unfamiliar with our democracy, Tristan. In our country, we don't abandon it in times of trouble (ie, when bills like this are passed), but instead point out the problems publically and attempt to get them remedied.
-Waldo Jaquith
most of the freedom-smashing sections are specifically against aliens and non-residents.
And that's the worst part. We are a country that consists almost entirely of aliens -- very few of us have lived here for more than a few generations. I know few people that can't immediately tell me which great-grandfather came here, and from what country. One of the things that makes America great (and is the basis of our country, historically-speaking) is the opportunity that we present to people coming here to seek a better life.
So now we think it's OK to hold an alien for seven days before charging them with a crime. This will be the worst on migrant latino workers, the people that make this country run on a day to day basis, the most trod-upon class of Americans. (Yes, I called them Americans.) Sure, this has been passed in the name of fighting terrorism, but I guarantee that the INS is going to seize this opportunity to harass migrants, knowing that they can now threaten to throw them in prison for seven days before deciding that they're not going to charge them, given that they are here legally after all.
People saying that this law doesn't affect them are probably right. Because Slashdot users (I'd best cash on this) consist primarily of white males between the ages of 16 and 40 that were born and raised in the United States in middle-class families. So they don't give a damn about Mexicans, or poor laborers, or, gods help them, people of Indian or Pakastani descent. They're just looking at this bill and saying "hey, it doens't affect me."
I'll spare you the tired speech of "first they came for my guns, but I didn't have any, then they came for my..." etc. Our freedoms are being chipped away at. This bill is just the start, mark my words.
-Waldo Jaquith
When I signed up for college, my marketing details were broadcast to most of the free world on behalf of my beloved alma mater. I would rather the gub'ment poke through them while looking for bad guys than receive yet another offer for a class ring or some such garbage.
Consider these two statements by Ashcroft (I'm not going to dig up citations, but I'm sure we all remember these):
* We'll have to limit our civil liberties for awhile to fight terrorism.
* The war on terrorism may never end.
You do the math.
-Waldo Jaquith
Why is it that this bill makes me think of Johnson's Gulf of Tonkin Resolution?
Why is it that Afhghanistan reminds me of Vietnam?
Am I rightfully very, very scared?
-Leo
Those boys from Texas sure know how to handle cattle.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Suppose a terrorist is convicted under the new laws. When(If) the law is later declared unconstitional, the Terrorist walks, and because of double jeapordy, he can't be tried again for the same crime. Of course, IANAL.
No, I don't trust in god. He'll have to pay up front, like everybody else.
It's sleepy and I'm late...
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
your logic is flawed and your are trying to skew the issue by claiming that US Customs are racist. This bill doesn't make it legal for the government to abuse foreigners that live in the US peacefully. It gives them the right to take down _illegal_ immigrants, which are most likely here to sell drugs or to bomb buildings. We are not preventing immigration. We are preventing criminals from getting away due to technicalities in the law.
The Stone Age did not end for lack of stones, and when the oil age ends it will not be for lack of oil. --Bjorn Lomberg
"WASHINGTON -- Attorney General John Ashcroft pledged Thursday to use new powers granted by Congress to pursue terrorist suspects relentlessly, intercept their phone calls, read their unopened e-mail and phone messages and throw them in jail for the smallest of crimes. "If you overstay your visas even by one day, we will arrest you; if you violate a local law, we will hope that you will, and work to make sure that you are put in jail and be kept in custody as long as possible," he said in a speech to the nation's mayors."
The concern is is who can now be considered a suspect with these new laws which they "pledged to use." Agree or disagree I think most agree it's broad. Alot of the people this will affect are probably just as american as you.
Advice to fellow americans (who may have come here from Mid-East): Don't speed.
--------
Linux is only free if your time is of no value.
In my original post, I was unclear: I think Michael should find a country that better suits him because he seems to havp1ow our liberties might be preserved, and has little patience for those who disagree with him. I suspect that America is not the place for him.
:)
Ah, I understand. Without passing judgement on Michael, I can certainly understand your perspective: some people definitely have no idea of how to actually go about effecting change in a democratic society, only how to go about complaining loudly to nobody in particular about non-specific problems, omitting solutions or even true descriptions of problems, and never to the people that should be talked to. Some of these people would be better off in a society in which their mutterings could either make a difference, or where they'd be executed for them, and would thusly cease them.
-Waldo Jaquith
YOU and all that think in such simplistic, narrow-minded ways are nothing more than brownshirts. Don't know what a brownshirt is? Look it up. And while you are looking it up (use Google), consider this: a well-known commie pinko, Benjamin Franklin, once remarked that anyone that would give up some of their civil liberties in the defense of freedom deserved neither liberties nor freedom. Yes, I am paraphrasing Franklin, but that was the gist of his remark. And your sort disgusts me. Read this, from http://www.thenation.com/thebeat/ : In the darkest 1950s Cold War hysteria, when U.S. Sen. Joe McCarthy, R-Wi., was demanding that Congress toss aside the Constitution in order to hunt down the agents of his "red menace," a move was made by the Republican attorney general of the United States to expand the the use of information gathered through wiretapping in cases of espionage and sabotage. The proposal required Senate approval, which seemed assured as the shadow of McCarthyism hung heavy over the Capitol. One senator, Wayne Morse, a Republican senator from the state of Oregon, stood alone in opposition to increased use of wiretaps on the phone lines of those suspected of subversion. Wiretapping phones was, Morse said, "a police state tactic." When the attorney general pressed his case before the Senate, Morse countered that, "I am shocked that an attorney general of the United States should believe Gestapo methods are needed in detecting Gestapo elements." At every turn, and at considerable political cost, the Oregon senator fought the wiretapping plan. And his relentless defense of the right to privacy paid off. As Morse's biographer, Mason Drukman, recalls, "the bill ultimately died in the Judiciary Committee, one of the few measures of its kind to fail during the McCarthy era." Morse's battle against the wiretapping scheme was recalled this week when, in an equally hysterical moment, the Senate was again asked to massively increase the ability of a Republican attorney general to wiretap phones -- and, now, Internet communications. Again, one senator stood up to the rush to rip of the Constitution. U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold's courageous moves to challenge the most irresponsible and unnecessary components of Attorney General John Ashcroft's "anti-terrorism" agenda won him few friends in the Senate. The Wisconsin Democrat broke not just with Republicans but with the overwhelming majority of fellow Senate Democrats -- who were willing to sacrifice fundamental rights on the altar of Ashcroft's ambition. Ashcroft and his Senate allies have been promoting a grab bag of police-state proposals that will do little to reduce the threat of terrorism, while doing much to increase the threat to civil liberties. In addition to seeking permission to conduct "roving wiretaps," the Ashcroft proposal was written to permit greatly expanded computer surveillance, and to permit government agents to secretly search private homes. Feingold, who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee's constitution subcommittee, was as blunt as Morse when he stood alone to slow the Senate's rush to judgement. Feingold was not trying to tie the hands of the attorney general in the fight against terrorism. But he was trying to assure that the fight did not become a war on civil liberties. read more at: http://www.thenation.com/thebeat/
Our enemy appears to have nucluar capabilitys and obviously isen't afraid to use them: http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,2001350025-2
Let's hope we can kill them all, before they kill us. These are not people who just have a differing viewpoint than us, or a different way of life. These are human debris that use the fruits of our civilisation to destroy us.
Our well measured response, at home and abroad, will save our lives, as well as save the lives of the vast majority of decent people in Afganistan: if we were sucuessfully attacked with weapons of mass destruction, we would suffer horribly, but many more good people would die in the fires of our retaliation.
A bit of violence and self sacrifice, now, will save lives.
Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.
Clearly, if civil rights have been "trashed", there must be endless examples. And by the way, "potential" abuses don't count. I want REAL examples.
3 68_1.html
A few seconds of searching yahoo's news archives:
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/wesh/20011003/lo/919
This isn't the only citizen who has been held for days without being charged; some aren't even allowed to contact their lawyer.
It's not enough that this new bill not curtail our freedom (although it does); it has to have some benefit for it to be a good thing. How does this law help?
Why does the Justice department need more power? Is there any reason to believe this law will help the DoJ fight terrorism?
Noam Chomsky pointed out in a very interesting lecture at MIT a few days ago, the codename "Enduring Freedom" is a bit funny if you look at it the right way. See, the word 'enduring' has two meanings in the english language...
Wah!
Is your comment a plea for a little less bi-partisanship? If so, hear hear! When I hear the word "bipartisanship", I reach for my wallet.
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
I wonder whether most people would agree with me or not. Unlike some people that say "this action should be considered terrorism", for me terrorism has nothing to do with the actions and everything to do with the intent.
To me, if Mr. X puts a bomb in a plane to kill his wife, that's first degree murder (though not terrorism). However if Mr. Y does the same thing for a political cause, it is terrorism, although the action is exactly the same. The same way, for me a serial killer is not a terrorist, though I think none is "better" of "worse" than the other,
Does that make any sense. Surely at some point it could be hard to determine the intent in a trial, but for me it's important to make the distinction. Otherwise you just end up with all crimes being labeled as "terrorism act" and the word doesn't mean anything anymore.
Opus: the Swiss army knife of audio codec
The end of the world. Bin Laden won, thank you US senate for defending America.
/dev
I see they have worn you down. Don't you realize that _every single friggin piece_ of junk mail is a battle for your eternal soul? Don't let em beat you down! Just take it over to the recycle can and throw it away, and say something to the effect of "I fart in your general direction!"
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
So the problem was that terrorism was NOT illegal.. now I get it.
--
Stay tuned for some shock and awe coming right up after this messages!
i'll second that.. and not afraid to do so :P
My father who survived Eiwa Jima and who died this May of pancreatic cancer is turning in his grave because the freedoms he fought so hard to defend in WWII have now been toppled by a cowardly politic.
www.enthea.org
First of all if it weren't for us "hacker shits" you wouldn't have the net as you know it now, Second off, do you even know what a DoS is? And whats up with the hung and shot. But please don't put us in the same group as Bin Ladin, Nato, and the countless other killers around the world.
Carpe meam simiam!
If I was American, I'd be showing up in front of congress with a gun.
Speak softly and carry a big stick. : )
To be truly patriotic is to be willing to fight for what others have died for in the face of ANY enemy. To give up these(or *any*) freedoms up is to disrespect the sacrifice of many brave men who have fought for it in the past.
The people who try to have freedoms removed are traitors to their nation, and should really be treated as such. Don't like freedom? You don't have to have any, here, we'll take some away for you! (*locks on their doors click closed*)
But then, I'm pretty tired...
It's been a long time.
We're Doomed.
Does that mean that I can be arrested and then not be presented with a warrant, or that my house could be searched and I could not be presented with a warrant?
Sure! Why not? After all, this is the same U.S. gov't that's bombing Afghanistan civilians before presenting them with any proof that either the Taliban or Bin Laden were behind Sept 11th.
--------
Bleah! Heh heh heh... BLEAH BLEAH!!! Ha ha ha ha...
Terrorist law for sale.
start your bids at 10USD.
--- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
Which is all very well, except that the internet is not just an American medium - it belongs to the world. What recourse does someone not in the US have if the FBI did have such plans? It's all right for US citizens - they can attempt to vote in a Government that could curb the FBI (*as if*), but outside the US, we don't have that option.
I'm not getting into an anti-US govt rant here - I just think it's another example of how governments everywhere (particularly Australia, where I'm from) try to apply territorial solutions to something that transcends territory.
MAKE IT STOP!
For what I feel is a cogent argument as to why everyone, even your mother, should use encryption, please read:
-- Could you use my software consulting serv
Not to be rude
Though I am getting toughts that the entire Taliban stuff is a wrap as excuse to get "unlimited" privileges. It atleast SOUNDS this way .
If you can already be searched without warrant, FBI going to wiretap the net (how are they going to do this without getting the Internet down to it's knees?), everybody now can be considered terrorist.
Is this a way to look at your own people, to protect and serve? or is it that the people need to serve and protect?
--- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
Wasn't it previously actually illegal to be
- terrorist,
- having Anthrax or any biological agent,
- having plans to terrorize,
- hacker ?
Or is it now "more" illegal
--- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
It means the police can get a warrant, search your house when you're not there, leave everything like they found it, and not tell you that they've searched your house. They could repeat as necessary - eventually maybe they will find something. Or perhaps they'll leave something and then "find" it the next time...
What the hell are we fighting for!?
:-)
Freedom is a pretty word that politicians throw around when they want to stir up the populace. When it comes down to it, the only reason to fight is to preserve the safety and liberty of the citizens of your nation from foreign aggressors. Remember though, this isn't a Constitutional Ammendment. If it infringes on any of your rights you are more than free to challenge it in a court of law. Laws have been passed and overturned hundreds of times in the past on the grounds of being un-Constitutional.
Now, on another note, after glancing at the bill, what is everyone so up-in-arms about? I don't see anything that blatantly stands out as horrendously evil. Can someone please enlighten me as to what the average Slashdot geek is worried about? Do you think the FBI going to wiretap your porn transfers or are you just harboring a terrorist in your house? I do see one thing that will affect me though... I guess I have to stop smuggling large amounts of cash out of the country. Damn Casino Windsor doesn't deserve my money anyway!
> It depends on the idea that everyone is equally qualified to make any type of decision. [...] was invented, that assumption was mostly true
I'm not saying that I neccessarily disagree with this, but I'd like some backup evidence. You could very well be right; I haven't studied the history of democracy closely (or at all, beyond the oh-so-general crap you get in HS history). It also depends on what historical context you're talking about. If you're talking about the "birth of democracy" in Greece, this might have been true. If you're talking about what the U.S. Constitution Framers were thinking (which was partly a reaction to the British legislative system), it's a different ballgame.
And you think Europeans didn't? Come on, what kind of argument is that?
The main historical difference is that until the mid-20th century, the US was an agricultural frontier society: if you didn't like goverment, you could move or change your identity (as long as you were white and male). Europe at the time already was densely populated and had a well-functioning administration in place.
It's only over the last few decades that the US has gotten the technology to track, supervise, and control its population. But now that it's here, the US political system has not caught up with it, and neither have the political sensitivities of the US population.
And even in its earlier periods, the US managed to almost completely exterminate American Indians, deny democracy to the majority of its citizens, and enslave blacks. The US does not have a stellar record of democracy, individual freedoms, or justice. And unlike those European countries, the US still has the same political and legal systems in place that allowed those abuses.
If abuses start, the public will speak out, and this bill will be quickly curbed.
If people risk their jobs, credit records, government surveillance, and being thrown in jail for being "suspected terrorists", "the public" will quickly become quiet.
Neither laws nor constitution can overpower the will of the populace.
We Canadians have our own Anti-Terrorism Act that's currently going through the process to become the law of the land. So you might not gain much by coming here.
If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
I'm just wondering...
If and after we subdue the Taliban, wax Osama and clean out the major terrorist networks out there, do you think the US could eventually kill this new legislation because we wouldn't much need it anymore?
(btw - I don't believe that there are unlimited numbers of potential Osama Bin Ladens out there. If there were, they'd be at his side right now.)
Men believe what they want. - Caesar
> Good!! Anybody that wants to DOS a server or spread a virus should be shot and hung.
If you shot and hang somebody, I'll DoS your server, Justice.
I heard the next bill has something to do with restricting vote's from potentional terrorists.
We also live under an elected parliamentary dictatorship. Which is worse...having a pseudo- democracy or letting the Supreme Court steal an election on behalf of the Real Powers(TM)?
---
I didn't want to leave this space blank.
...the constitution only applies when times are good or when pockets are deep and heavy. Sorry to break it to ya.. :-/
$HOME is where the
-- silver_p
This over-broad terrorism definition would sweep in people who engage in acts of political protest if those acts were dangerous to human life.
So you call acts which are "dangerous to human life" "civil dissent"?
Letter-writing campaigns, internet and print publications, and popular gatherings and petitions are civil dissent. Rioting and looting are not. If you feel cramped by this, cry me a river.
law enforcement agents have the authority to charge anyone who provides assistance to that person, even if the assistance is an act as minor as providing lodging.
This sounds a bit more dangerous; it extends guilt by association, and has the potential to draw in many innocents. I can see both sides of this one.
December 31, 2005. Start around 6 or 7. BYOB.
Bob Dole invented the internet, it didn't have anything to do with "hacker shits" apparently, sorry to rain on your parade.
M0571y H@rml355.
Does that mean then, that I can finally smoke a spliff, when visiting America ?
I mean, there's hardly anything more peaceful, then Marijuana and it sure as hell is a biological agent...
ich bin der musikant
mit taschenrechner in der hand
kraftwerk
...a similair bill passed half a month ago.
This law (norwegian link) was created and put into use within one day when it was suspected one of Bin Ladens economic supporters was in this country. Really scary.
... needs to be renamed "No Rights Online"
ker-plunk
With all that they threw in, looks like they still forgot to make it illegal to fly an airplane into a skyscraper!
And on the less bright side, the
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
We've reached a plateau with this legislation, really. It's so bad that if it were worse, it would only still be at the same level of bad. Or something like that...
... If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude than the animating contest of freedom--go from us in peace. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you."--Sam Adams
This legislation makes it legal for the FBI to read every line of every header on every packet that ever goes out on the Internet, without a warrant. That means that the FBI can legally quite easily maintain lists of who visits what websites, who sends whom e-mail, etc. This is analogous to how the FBI used to send people to follow dissidents and people with political beliefs they didn't like, and wait for them to do something they could exploit publicly to embarrass someone, or privately to blackmail someone (like they did to Martin Luther King, Jr., with his affair). Do you ever do anything at all online that you wouldn't want everyone in the world to know about? Then don't speak out too loudly against whatever ever-more-draconian things the FBI wants, or you may get on their radar. Ever do anything that's technically illegal, or can otherwise get you into trouble, even though whether it should is debatable? Like, gamble, protest (just ask the WTO protesters how often they get arrested for exercising this *right*, even peacefully), visit European or Asian pr0n sites where some of the models are 16 because it's perfectly legal in that given country, be gay and in the military, tear the tag off the mattress at the store, write literature or have performances that get deemed a violation of your community's standards, etc.? Just don't say anything about it or e-mail anything about it or visit any sites related to it, on the Internet.
Oh, and if you ever gamble online, you're helping terrorists to launder money, BTW, and don't be surprised if it gets you into a lot of trouble. Granted, no one has ever maintained that any major online offshore gambling houses are actually being used by terrorists to launder anything; this was just moralizing rightwingers using terrorism as an excuse to foist their morality on everyone else. And that is despicable.
And don't ever visit online boards filled with political dissidents and prograssives, like the Independent Media Center which is somethimes the only source of good information on and from protests--unless you want to get on a McCarthyesque list or get detained for questioning by the FBI. After all, they served the IMC with a search warrant this year after the WTO/IMF protest in Canada, which would have forced them to turn over all server logs so that the FBI could find out who was posting updates from the protest so that they could interrogate those people about some documents or somesuch which were taken from a police car (IIRC), and a gag order to prevent them from revealing it to site visitors. They warrant was quashed, being unconstitutional and all. But now, THEY DON"T NEED A WARRANT. They have license to gather all that data for themselves by directly bugging the Internet backbone. And if something they want slips through, or is encrypted and has its path scrambled by something like a Mixmaster remailer, then this legislation makes it very easy for them to get a warrant and search logs or install password sniffers while you're away without even telling you they were ever there.
Slashdot has already carried a story about the FBI's proposal to concentrate all Internet traffic at a few key points to that it can do just that sort of broad monitoring of every Internet user everywhere. Funny thing is, it's an idea which came to the FBI 2 years ago. Interesting how something the FBI has been secretly lusting after for years is now the answer to the present situation, eh? They're just opportunists who have been wanting this power, and the current situation gives them an excuse for circumventing the Constitution with only a single senator voting against their power grab.
And once the FBI has its closed boxes installed throughout the Internet backbone, is there any way to really prevent them from looking at more than just the header data that they can now get, legally, without a warrant? Recent studies indicate that there are thousands of illegal telephone wiretaps performed by law enforcement agencies each year in the U.S. With the power to instantly see what anyone is doing on the Net, probably with no one ever being the wiser, that is an even greater temptation to abuse. They will implement such capabilities into their closed and secret boxes under the auspices of needing the capabilities for when they get search warrants to read the data itself, not just its headers; and then no one is there looking over their shoulders to make sure they don't take peeks whenever they want, without warrants, or with a warrant that's just a rubber stamp from a judge in their pocket who makes it a secret warrant under this new law, that no one ever need know about?
And what is the FBI if not an agency which has proven its capacity to abuse power, along with its sister agencies like the ATF? The entire Reno administration in the DOJ was one long abuse of the people, from using pyrotechnic devices at Waco and lying about it for 8 years until it was proven by their own photographs and documents which had been conveniently misplaced, to the murder of two innocent people at Ruby Ridge (the man they came to arrest won a million+ dollar lawsuit against them), to deporting a minor child on very dubious grounds while his custody proceedings were still moving forward in a state Court, just to prove a political point, to lying to the U.S. Army to get military training for agents under a law that says agents can get military training only when preparing for an international drug bust, when those agents were serving a warrant for 1 count of selling a shotgun with a too-short barrel, to inventing allegations of child abuse in several cases which were later disproved, for the purposes of making a defendant who would have been vindicated look bad. And the Ashcroft DOJ is looking at least as bad.
Don't forget that Hoover may be dead, but his training and indoctrination methods are still very much alive at the FBI, where new agents are still taught according to principles he established. Terrorism isn't the greatest threat to freedom in this country; the DOJ is.
Ponder this Vietnam-era quote:
"The mushrooming of surveillance has been explained by the sense of panic
and crisis felt throughout the government during this period of extremely
vocal dissent, large demonstrations, political and campus violence, and
what at the time seemed the inauguration of a period of wide- spread
anarchy. While officials... suggested that these crises justified the
surveillance, they failed to recognize that the rights guaranteed by the
constitution are constant and unbending to the temper of the times..."
--Senate Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights, 1973
And how about these old stand-bys:
"Implicit in the term 'national defense' is the notion of defending those
values and ideals which set this Nation apart... It would indeed be
ironic if, in the name of national defense, we would sanction the
subversion of one of those liberties... which makes the defense of the
Nation worthwhile."--Chief Justice Earl Warren, U.S. Supreme Court, US v Robel
"An elective despotism was not the government we fought for." -- Thomas Jefferson
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the
argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."--William Pitt to the House of Commons, November 18, 1783
"Man did not enter into society to become worse than he was before, nor
to have fewer rights than he had before, but to have those rights better
secured."--Thomas Paine, 1791
"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty
when the government's purposes are beneficient . . . the greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding."--Justice Louis Brandeis, U.S. Supreme Court
"Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say, What should be the reward of such sacrifices?
"When people fear the government, there is tyranny. When government fears the people, there is liberty."-- Thomas Paine
"You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get
yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is
to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding
fathers used in the great struggle for independence."--Charles Austin Beard, 1874 - 1948
These are my "stock quotes" that I drag out on discussion boards and on USENET whenever I see a well-intioned post which goes against these words of wisdom from men greater than you or me, men who established or defended and defined the rights which we now enjoy as proud Americans. But I am not proud of my country at this. We have set a precedent which is terrible, and tommorrow when the President signs the bill into law we will have lost rights which it may take generations to recover--if we ever do. Sure, it's meant to be temporary--but it can be passed again, permanently, after we've gotten used to having no more 4th Amendment rights the moment we turn on a computer. Remember that the income tax which we now all pay so copiously was passed as a temporary measure to fund the Spanish-American War. Remember that Social Security, which we all still have to pay with no opt-out option, was a temporary measure to help soften the Depression.
Temporary things have a habit of becoming permanent in this country. Just ask the people who had to foment a Revolution to get out from under the burden of so many "temporary" taxes the English imposed upon their Colonies.
This is the sort of invasion of liberties which, historically, has slowly caused armed revolutions. Three hundred years from now, they may be studying this and similar events in high schools much as we study the small erosions of freedom which by themselves were considered nothing, but which together are considered the genesis of the American Revolution. Strong words? No, strong legislation. At best, history will judge the next years under this law as being not unlike a new McCarthyism.
Chasing Amy
(We all chase Amy...)
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws"-Tacitus
Timothy's statement: "Thanks Russ." provokes me.
It is unprofessional, and it does not belong in a news column. I think it should be stated in a post together with all the other personal views.
I'm sorry but why does the US feal it has to deter terrorist acts in Litchenstine.
It's that we are the police men of the world attitude that got them into this mess in the first place.
You would have thaught that the US could have learnt from its own history. Perticualy the war of Independence, during which a bunch of US terrorists attacked the ruling UK garrisons.
Oh dam! I forgot they won, so they must have been patriotic freedom fighters and not terriosts after all.
As a side note. Why is the allience supporting the Northen Alience in Afganastan. Wasn't these the people we origanaly supported the Taliban against.
Wouldn't it be nice if schools got all the money they wanted and the army had to hold jumble sales for guns
American slashdotter's should support his stand in defence of freedom, send him a email/letter, thanking him for is efforts.
You could also suggesting some of the better ideas/arguments from around here. Let him know that his stand is appeciated.
[...] Birth control, Ho Chi Minh, Richard Nixon, back again Moonshot, Woodstock, Watergate, punk rock Begin, Reagan, Palestine, terror on the airline Ayatollolah's in Iran, Russians in Afghanistan [...]
(complete lyrics)
you know... over the years... i have heard many (what i now believe to be) myths about the way our government and nation are run. here are two that i now strongly do not believe in.
~ saying "i'm gonna kill the president" over the phone triggers something at the teleco that will have the fbi, cia, et cetera, watching you. if this were true... why haven't i heard of this ever happening. or perhaps an assassin caught before their planned attack...
~ the pentagon and white house are protected by anti-aircraft guns/missiles. looks like the pentagon didn't have them... and someone crashed into the white house with a little prop plane several years ago. nuff said.
maybe i am being way too optimistic about this, but i think this bill passed, in whole or large part, due to the desire to take a "pro-active" stand against terrorism. this bill won't matter to anyone: the jones', mr. terrorist, mr. dope smuggler... nobody.
if this post sparks enough interest, i'll come up with more examples.
This is a relatively sad day for Americans who love the freedom that they usually take for granted. Lets hope (yeah, right) that Dubya doesn't sign it. Not that it would do much good, with 98-1 with 1 abstain passing it.
I think Unsolicited commercial email should be
;-)
regarded "corporate terrorism against consumers"
Can we send in the troops now Mr Bush ?
But from the law, this seem to say that they can only check (ie. compare with the FBI db of finger prints), not collect it and use it to build a more complete db.
Do you confirm my thoughts? This is already bad as it is, if they can even use this to build a fingerprint list of everybody, then this is just over the top.
Black holes occur when God divides by zero.
As discussed elsewhere, the incorporation of many violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act in the list of predicates for acts of federal terrorism now exposes many technologists to potential life sentences.
But there are some even more invidious changes -- the rewrite of the civil remedies provisions to eliminate the requirement of $5,000 actual damages for CFAA violations in many cases. In recent cases, the $5,000 limit has been the only thing between a mere allegation of exceeding authority and a cause of action.
Here's the typical scenario. Technology consultant does work for customer. Some difficulties arise between them, and they decide to go their separate ways. Technologist presents his final bills, customer stiffs him.
In the old days, the time-and-materials technologist had a slam-dunk collection action. "Your honor, I gave him a bill for time and materials, and he didn't pay."
Under the new regime, the deadbeat customer need only allege that a technologist's use of a customer computer exceeded authority, and there you are: a built-in criminal counterclaim for civil remedies. Because of the rewrite, one that is guaranteed to survive motions to dismiss and for summary judgment. One guaranteed to result in a settlement.
Yeah, terrorism absolutely required a change to the civil remedies of the CFAA. NOT!
Nor did it require the microsoft-friendly civil remedies exemption for negligent delivery of software resulting in hacking.
Terrorism had nothing to do with this bill. Nothing. It was the excuse, not the reason, for passing a bill that, were the provisions measured in the light of a different day, would never have stood a chance. This bill will not reduce terrorism, only liberty.
Indeed, upon passage of this bill, the terrorists finally won. Congratulations, America! Our representatives have finally done what bin Laden could not do: they have made us less free.
Ohhhhhhhhhh now i get it: All speech is free, but some speech is more free than others.... I'm a bit slow :(
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
I guess it was far more important to discuss MSN, MP3s, ATI and the like rather than THE LOSS OF CIVIL LIBERTIES AND UNIVERSAL MONITORING OF NETWORK TRAFFIC. Good Job Slashdot! Toys are much more important than life, right?
-a.e.mossberg
Most people come here to read opinions. If you want impartial reporting of facts, there are hundreds of "real" news websites to visit.
Germany and Japan. Which is not to say you don't have a point.
So you are saying that a repeat of slavery, war on Native Americans, etc. are possible in the modern political climate in the United States?
If you are, then you are either tremendously misinformed, or are simply contorting your limited knowledge of history to make a point. (If that was not what you were trying to say, then I have no I idea what you're blabbering on about.)
so basically, your saying ur a troll right? =) I mean you are starting to stir up a debate, and of course it'll end up heated.. doh! guess that makes me a troll too, cause I'm putting my few pushes in the right direction :P
honestly tho, there are some good debates that turn bad.. You can't really call the one who started a well rounded debate, a troll, just because later you get people who say "I'm right and if you don't think so, then f* off".. :)
just my $0.02
Afghanistan is in the middle of a famine. It's bombing has severely impeded the efforts of aid agencies to get food in to the country. It is estimated that as a result 3-4 million people will starve this winter.
This is because two of the wealthiest, most powerful nations on earth are attacking one of the poorest, because they choose not to extradite someone from within their borders without proof. It should be noted that the west so far has not managed to come up with any definite proof that is was Osama that did it. But hell, go ahead anyway - kill a load of Afghans. They're only muslims after all.
It should be noted that the US doesn't exactly have a good record of extrafiting terrorsts itself, Haiti, for eaxmple has been trying to get the US to extradite a known terrorist for some time, and they have a great deal of proof of his guilt. By the way, he played a large part in the killing of 4-5000 people. That figure sound familiar?
Sorry, on this war, I'm with Chomsky.
~slak
Actually isn't confomity a big part of Communism? Maybe you should move to Cuba, idiot.
It seems like Russ Feingold is the only one that is really for america as it is meant to be, as it was founded.
How likely is that? The Congress just spent months investigating Clinton on the grounds that just his statements, not his acts, threatened the Constitution. How likely is it that all those defenders of freedom have now abandoned their principles for no other reason than to deprive law-abiding Americans of their rights?
How likely is that some members of Congress that normally disagree on everything suddenly conspire to deprive law-abiding Americans of their rights?
How likely is that members of Congress who have been outspoken on defending the Bill of Rights in the past would suddenly drop that pose as if they never really believed in those rights at all?
How likely is that at this point in American history, Congress would be composed entirely of would-be despots and traitors with the sole exception of Russ Feingold?
Feingold makes some good points but I doubt he would claim to have a monopoly on patriotism or to be the only member of Congress to love freedom or to understand the threat of terrorism better than anyone else.
When you vote for a politician, you get anti-constitutional politics.
There is only one party that wants to get rid of all the unconstitutional anti-privacy anti-consumer anti-freedom laws, all of them: The Libertarian Party.
Why are we so surprised it passed? This post is NOT flamebait, its a wake-up call to those of you who think lobbying a democrat or republican is going to make a difference -- its not. The ONLY Libertarian in Congress, Rep. Ron Paul has an exemplery voting record. Looking up his campaign donations on OpenSecrets.org shows that big business doesn't bother lobbying him because he will not vote YES on any bill that is against the Constitution. They call him Dr. No in Congress.
We need more guys like him. Even if you think the LP goes too far in reducing Government, the only salvation to the 50%+ we all pay in taxes of all sorts, to the privacy we've lost, to the endless harassment of so-called "Big Business" is to vote libertarian, and only libertarian. Your vote is not wasted: our party received over 1.7 million congressional votes in 2000. No third party in history has ever received even 1 million (not even the Greens).
Don't point the finger at Congress -- you and all of your little friends have allowed these attrocities to continue. Whether you vote Democrat or Republican, you're not voting for the lesser of two evils, you're saying "YES" to each and every unconstitutional bill they turn into law.
No, they were terrorists long before they pulled out the boxcutters. Planning murder is an action in itself. If you don't believe me, announce your intention to kill the President and see what happens.
Expanding a vast wasteland since 1996.
The United States of America
March 4, 1789 -- the US Constitution takes effect
October 26, 2001 -- the US Consitution is overthrown and a security state is instituted
"go back to bed america, your government is in control." -bill hicks
As a sysadmin who runs a Web search engine, I'm worried about the fact that the broad definition of "addressing, routing, and signaling" information in the new law would include not only my web logs, but also the search terms in the query string attached to each entry in those logs. It's time to PKZIP them all up with password protection.
What happens if the FBI comes knocking for my logs, with a court order signed by a judge who was required to sign without any showing of probable cause (yes, that's in the law), and they want all my logs on the speculation that certain search terms may be of interest to a particular criminal investigation?
And what would happen if they confiscated my computer, and then came back and asked for the PKZIP password to unzip the logs, and I said, "Gosh, I seem to have forgotten it?"
Of course, this new law also allows them to put Carnivore on my upstream provider, and I wouldn't even know about it. So I guess maybe it's silly to zip up my logs after all.
This law is for your protection, for God's sake! The alternative is terrorist proliferation and constant fear.
Sigged!
However, I'm helping out now. Here's where you can snail-mail a donation. (How 'bout one of Russ' Wisconsin constituents tell them they ought to set up a PayPal account.)
Miko O'Sullivan
Your argument is silly, because it can be applied to every other criminal act.
The law defines the elements of a crime, and it refines those elements over time through diligent self-review. If the law didn't do this, our civilization would be nothing more than a bunch of yahoos throwing their arms up and saying "I dunno. Forget about it."
Does this mean that the people currently infected with anthrax will be arrested for having possession of it with no legitimite purpose?
Winter 2010: With Glowing Hearts
THAT was funny. I wish I had mod points!
Whatever happened to JonKatz?
getting passed in Congress, makes me feel that if Sept. 11 sparked a 'war', then the terrorists are truly winning.
Their actions that day will have done more than they realize to turn their perceptions of the U.S., into a possible reality.
A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess? - Joshua (Wargames)
This is kiddies' stuff compared to what has gone on in the past. The fact is, the US has always had a contraction of civil liberties during wartime, but they were always restored. There was John Adams' Alien and Sedition Acts, Lincoln's suspension of habeus corpus, Ulysses Grant's expulsion of Jews, FDR's locking up of Japanese Americans etc: all much worse than what we have now. But as history shows, freedom and civil rights were always restored.
We supported the Mujahadin (?sp?) against the Soviet invasion, mostly by selling them stinger shoulder-fire missiles and sending the CIA to train them. Eventually, the soviets pulled out, and (rejecting the 'policemen of the world argument) we left immediately. Well, the place fell apart into warlordism. Whoops! Maybe we should have stayed to help straighten that shit out?
Ohyeah, we aren't supposed to be doing that sort of thing.
Anyway, Pakistan started to get nervous at the rumblings on its border, and since they have a lot of citizens of the same ethnicity as the Taliban faction, they picked the Taliban and helped them gain power. The 'northern alliance' is mainly of a different ethnicity and opposes the Taliban.
You don't get labelled 'terrorist' if you only attack the opposing military... Nobody was plotting to blow up Buckingham Palace or Trafalgar Square during the war for Independence. I think it's time you 'learnt' some history of your own... and you might want to check out this.
Whatever happened to JonKatz?
Indeed if your average pimpy-faced computer nerd is 16, he doesn't get to vote very often. In fact he doesn't get to vote at all. Or I'm mistaken about the minimun American voting age.
What kind of idiots do we Americans have representing us?
Terrorist certification? What's that? Is it harder than an RHCE?
Disclaimer: MINAA (Mummy! I'm Not An Animal!)
No one ever takes power with the intention of giving it back up.
There will be an attempt to extend this in 2005.
The ACLU might as well start writing the speeches and picking its lobbyists now.
-Kasreyn
Kasreyn: Cheerfully playing the part of Devil's Advocate to hairtrigger
Russ Feingold is really something else. He's a Rhode Scholar, so he's obviously pretty smart. However, he is arguably the least powerful senator and probably won't last another term. Along with McCain, he charged ahead with the Campaign Finance Reform bill. That is why he is the least powerful man because every large corporation doesn't want their voice in congress to disappear. Than and most senators realize that whats keeping them in office is the large sums of money they receive.
> Does not allow the use of information collected on Americans by foreign governments when that information was collected in
> violation of the U.S. Constitution
Does this reduce the power of the Echelon system? It certainly seems like a large part of the use of such a system would be removed with this bill.
Visit the
As a Wisconsinite, I can say that I am proud to have this man as our Senator. While Russ and I may not agree on ever issue, I have found him to be a decent and honorable man.
All you folks out there who thinks his single "no" vote was unpatriotic, need to check in. When the FBI kicks down your door because you --==might==-- be a terrorist, you are not going to be so rightous.
I am a strong supporter of our country. I didn't vote for Mr. Bush, but I am behind him. I don't agree with him politically on a great many issues, but I support him during these trying times. I can support our government and critisize it at the same time.
Kudos to Senator Feingold for standing up for whats right, and looking beyond the current military action at the effect this kind of legislation will have down the road.
Here is something that Benjamin Franklin said that I like to quote:
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."--Benjamin Franklin, 1759
lmao.. Great episode....
So was it said why the one voted agaisnt it?
I personally would like to know.
http://wsulug.org
I wouldn't go that far (And I am American), but there is a reason that the constition allows "the right of states to bear arms"... in other words a milita...
Of course now it's called the National Guard, the very name of which is against the State bearing arms theory. The moment some one starts a real militia, the get looked at as radicals and extremists, when they're really just holding up their end of democracy and the constitution.
http://wsulug.org
Links please. I'll believe that when I see it.
Whatever happened to JonKatz?
This betrayal of the American people by Congress is certainly a horrible thing. Worse, even, because the sheep that is the general populace thinks that any good will come of this, that the government will "protect" us now, as though they hadn't in the past.
But it could be even worse.
Think about this. The only ethical thing to do now is to fight to get this overturned. But what will happen if, in fact, the courts find this to be unconstitutional (which it very plainly is)?
I'll tell you what will happen. The traitors who proposed and passed this bill will start bemoan how the Constitution is "unworkable," about how it "keeps the government from protecting its people." They'll whip up public support from the ignorant masses, and whether it's via amendments or just via some kind of resolution, we will lose everything the Constitution guarantees. Not to mention oppression of those who would oppose them.
They now have the Fourth Amendment shot down. Nine to go. And they may well have us painted into a corner.
Congrats, Osama you bastard. You won, it seems. Our government is turning into yours, slowly but very surely.
It's a little ironic that Bush strips away people's rights in order to protect them.
Yeah, hurray for mob rule.
I thought that we weren't a pure democracy so that the majority wouldn't be able to stomp on the minority. Oh well.
------- I'm not really a geek. I'm a geek groupie.
Okay, I'll bite. Where does one get an x.509 certificate, and how much do they cost? I'm sure you can make your own self-signed certificate, but is it reasonable to trust such a certificate when presented?
From the debate (see the end of the cryptome version) "Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, I do not know how I am going to vote on this bill yet because I have a notion that a bill of this weight, I ought to read it." I'd kinda like to think they've actually read what they're voting on too.
The bill has been signed. Let the fun begin...
/.ing a server used for buisness purposes now become a terrorist act? Down for two hours, make $3k an hour...
Hey, does
This is what I wrote to him:
Senator Feingold,
I just wanted to let you know that I appreciate your vote against the anti-terrorism (USA) Act. I strongly feel that this law contains several provisions that encroach on our citizens civil liberties. I also feel that this law goes against the spirit of our Constitution.
Thank you for standing by the Constitution. I am not a citizen of Wisconsin, but I appreciate your vote nonetheless. I only wish my Tennessee senators were as insightful and brave as yourself.
Sincerely...
"War makes me sad." - Me
All this applies quite clearly to US attempts to assassinate Castro, US kidnapping of Ol' Pineapple Face (Bush Sr.'s best buddy), the NATO bombing of Kosovo, Clinton's attempts to kidnap Somali guerillas, etc. etc. etc.
That thought has occurred to me as well, and I think there's a good case to be made for the position that many of these acts were indeed terrorist acts.
Note that the previous message only gives part of the definition of terrorism; not its entirety. Another requirement is that the act be a violation of the criminal laws of the United States. The assassination and kidnapping attempts you cite perhaps don't qualify, but only because of the Nixon defense: "If the President orders it, that makes it legal." So, if they do it us, it's terrorism; if we do it to them, it's not. This can't be all that surprising to you.
As for Kosovo, etc., the section cited in the earlier comment deals separately with situations of war or "armed conflict."
Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and the Green Mountain boys predate the statute, of course.
Anybody else notice that now the media is finally telling people what the legislation is all about?
There's the bill that's just been passed in congress - oh, by the way, you know can have your house searched without your knowledge, monitor your banking activity, and the government can read all your emails.
Heaven forbid we would have told people before so they could have acted on it and contacted their legislators. Of course I contacted them three different times and don't think it made a damn bit of difference.
Most people would die sooner than think; in fact, they do.
I hate to break it to you guys, but neither civil liberties, nor the Internet, are in any way dependent on America or the FBI. If your government starts doing sucky things, like abusing its ability to spy on peope, then the rest of the world will, sooner or later, simply turn you away. You can have all the invasions of privacy you want, as your economy crumbles, your trade with foreign nations dwindles, your international relations disintegrate and you are left isolated on a little piece of rock somewhere a few thousand miles from The Rest Of The World.
Check the recent European report on Echelon, and the comments it makes about abusing spying facilities to facilitate commercial espionage and gain advantages for American companies. Do you really think the governments of the EU will stand by and let your people take gratuitous advantage of ours? Granted our guys make silly decisions at times, too -- the recent "opt-out" decision on spam was expected, but still a bad idea -- but compared to the sorts of draconian measures the US government is pushing for now? "Land of the Free?" Don't make me laugh.
I think the American government forgets itself. You have a big military, and your government has a big mouth, but neither of these makes you the leaders of the free world. On the global stage, there are plenty of other countries capable of filling your shoes if you chose to behave irresponsibly. And right about now, I'd call having one of the most corrupt legal and political systems in the world pretty irresponsible.
If your government choses to turn a blind eye to that, or to make it worse, then in time it will have to accept the consequences of its actions. Whether she likes to believe it or not, America needs support from the rest of the world. You need it economically. You need it militarily. You need it in many other, less significant ways, too.
And yet, in the week when the new data protection legislation comes into force in the UK, making it illegal to send personal data outside of Europe without certain basic guarantees on privacy and security being in place, the US has passed legislation that pretty much rules out any American company from complying with those requirements. How ironic.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Seriously... think about what you're getting at, then go hunt down a few episodes of The Prisoner, and use that as a hint. Decide for yourself how pleasant an idyllic (surveillance) society could be. Yes, it's fiction. Yes, it makes a *very* good point.
[|]
Aside from having to fear being tracked/targeted for not voting for the FBI's favorite party, or getting caught doing something embarassing, there are additional problems with concentrating all that power into a few geeks at the FBI: CORRUPTION.
If one person is allowed to clandestinely read your business strategies and ideas, then potential everyone you most want to keep them secret from has a way to read them clandestinely as well.
Technology has advanced faster and further than law enforcement agencies have been able to keep up. And as a consequence, the Fourth Amendment that was written over two hundred years ago without a whiff of the differences between open societies and the terrorist cells that exploit them in the twenty-first century has to be challenged. The Constitution is a wonderful, principled set of guidelines for running a republic, but I postulate that the founding fathers by no means intended for it to become our ten commandments. We have to evolve folks. Evolution requires action.
I welcome your scrutiny of our legislative body, because it is well founded. But somebody has to do something to empower our law enforcement agencies to act. After reading the text of the Patriot Act of 2001 [thomas.house.gov], I feel the Senate and related law enforcement agencies are moving in the right direction. Here's the gist for those that won't read the text: we're stepping up surveillance. We're doing this by hiring translators, improving the sharing of information among agencies, and empowering the executive branch (i.e. President) to freeze assets suspected to support terrorists.
Will terrorists stop trying because of this law? No. Will we be better prepared to intercept and respond to such threats? Yes. Hopefully those of you who spend most of your time in the Slashdot vacuum will understand this.
We have had
1) Unreasonable laws that make every citizen a criminal
for quite some time. How many people in the US aren't violating some law? Probably none. there are so many laws, and so many are poorly and vaguely worded, and so many laws against "victimless" crimes, that just about everyone in America is a criminal. Fortunately, the police had no means to prove that we were breaking these BS laws. Until now:
2) Police can now search your house whenever they feel like it, without a warrant, and without even letting you know that your house was searched. So now police can search with wreckless abandon to find the people committing these victimless crimes in the privacy of their own home. Plus violate the privacy of the few people who AREN'T breaking any of the insane laws.
Another thing to worry about: What happens when a God-fearing second-amendment loving gun owner is in his home when the Secret Police try to come in to perform a search without a warrant? The Secret Police officer gets shot, his partner shoots the god-fearing US citizen, we now have two dead people and NO CRIME COMMITTED. What the fuck is up with this?
also from the text of the bill at
t em p/~c107bV3sgy:e242304:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c107:1:./
"This clause shall not apply to any material support the alien afforded to an organization or individual that has committed terrorist activity, if the Secretary of State, after consultation with the Attorney General, or the Attorney General, after consultation with the Secretary of State, concludes in his sole unreviewable discretion, that this clause should not apply."
as the saying goes: "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."
Sorry to tell you but, in Canada we already live in a Police State, CSIS has had those powers for years and years. Includeing wire taps, WITH NO Warrent, and holding a citizen or forgien national with no cause.
Om, nomnomnom...
`(1) IN GENERAL- Judicial review of any action or decision relating to this section (including judicial review of the merits of a determination made under subsection (a)(3) or (a)(6)) is available exclusively in habeas corpus proceedings consistent with this subsection. Except as provided in the preceding sentence, no court shall have jurisdiction to review, by habeas corpus petition or otherwise, any such action or decision.
Do these senators even READ the bills? Because I'm starting to assume their thinking proccess is something like 'TERRORISM BAD - ANTI-TERRORISM GOOD' Bills like this will bring the end to all freedom. I can't believe something like this could even be CONSIDERED!
-Scott
When all freedom is outlawed only the outlaws have freedom
In the years to come we'll see many dire consequences of this action. It is sad that only one US Senator stood up to oppose it. The act of September 11 has now caused permanent damage to America.
The cameras and biosensors and IDs and searches will catch few terrorists, but along with the chill of being watched they will exacerbate the climate of suspicion and fear. It pushes divisions between Americans even deeper.
This Act is an American tragedy.
"You must try to forget all you have learned. You must begin to dream." -- Sherwood Anderson
Actually, I believe your innocent contact wouldn't be a terrorist under this law - *you* still would.
-RB
"One man can change the world with a bullet in the right place."
- Mick Travis, "If..."
> With all that they threw in, looks like they still forgot to make it illegal to fly an airplane into a skyscraper!
:)
Please note that while not explicitly stating flying into skyscrapers, their flights broke some FAR's that every pilot knows (from 14 Code of Federal Regulations):
91.13 Careless or reckless operation.
(a) Aircraft operations for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.
(b) Aircraft operations other than for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft, other than for the purpose of air navigation, on any part of the surface of an airport used by aircraft for air commerce (including areas used by those aircraft for receiving or discharging persons or cargo), in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.
91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.
Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:
(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.
(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.
(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.
(d) Irrelevant
The years of life lost by Japanese Americans to the WWII prision camps.
Not to mention all the buinesses they owned that were lost or ruined.
When I hear the word "bipartisanship", I reach for my wallet.
When I hear the word "bipartisanship", I'm reminded of the fact that two-party systems are little better than one-party systems. In any decent democracy, you'd have "nonpartisanship".
[IANAL] I'm about 90% positive that you have very little to worry about on the delay of Warrants. Unless they are interpreting this in a completely different way than ever before here is how it will work:
1) Police suspect you of something illegal
2) Police request a warrant
3) Warrant is granted but it is NOT shown to the public, for fear that evidence may be destroyed or suspect my flee
4) Warrant becomes public record after the fact
This is currently done a lot of the time in important cases where they suspect that the person in question will be watching to see if a warrant is issued (think Mafia or terrorists, etc.). Really I don't see that this is a big deal. And it's really nothing new.
Mordred
>People that have something to say about this bill are either terrorists or have something to hide.
An AC saying that terrorists have something to hide. Now that's a hoot!
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
sorry, wrong topic.
time for more coffee.
A: None. The Universe spins the bulb, and the Zen master merely stays out of the way.
http://www.senate.gov/~feingold/services/contactrd f.html
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
What ever happened to "a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty", hmm? Because that's basically what this comes down to: the Federal Government is disreguarding that whole premise and is putting us all under suspicion. Not just suspicion of "terrorism", either; we are being made suspects of ANY crime currently (so far) on the books. Apparently, too many of our current leaders either a) slept through American History and Civics class or b) are practically the poster-children for the saying "Absolute power corrupts absolutely". Also, has no one read "1984" and/or "Fahrenheit 451"? If so, has no one learned from it? (No offense to those of you who have and are trying your darndest to educate/warn everyone else; I'm just frustrated by those who haven't or, even worse, did but it went in one ear and straight out the other). BTW, how long HAS that premise been eroded in the U.S.?
Now the FBI has the legal tools it needs to protect American Citizens in the same manner as the old KBG was able to protect the people of the old USSR
* Carthago Delenda Est *
" illegitimate president "
Hmmm... he had the most electoral votes. Doesn't seem to be illegitimate to me.
--
"What do you want me to do? Whack a guy? Off a guy? Whack off a guy? Cause I'm married."
Oh my god, you are so oversimplifying things. The internet was a great project by many people like DARPA and universities. And yes, the Internet has grown because of 'hacker shits'. The popularity and interoperability of the internet is due almost soley to corporations and hackers.
And another thing, don't rain on other people's parades, it isn't nice.
You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
When the RIP act was being discussed in the UK, lots of Americans here said "it could never happen in the US". Funny how the parts of the RIP act that covered surveilance still haven't got through in the UK yet here they are in the US...
I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
What are you talking about? McCarthy unconvered lots of communists. He just uncovered a lot of other people too. What, you think there were absolutely no communists in the entire country and that's why people were so willing to let McCarthy get out of control?
Of course, anyone has permission to redistribute anything I write, for any purpose whatsoever.
;-)
Consider all my comments to be GPL'd.
Chasing Amy
(We all chase Amy...)
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws"-Tacitus
Thank God for the PACs that ensure the voice of the American people is heard in D.C.! You know what else is made of PEOPLE?! Soylent Green!! Yep! Charlton Heston said so himself. And you can have his Soylent Green when you pry it from his cold dead liverspotted hands!
If want to hang people for spreading viruses, start with Outlook users and lazy IIS admins. When you're done with that, you can go back to freeping the polls at CNN.
--
Freeper Logic
Ya know what, though? Our government has no (that's ZERO) obligation to treat foreign nationals the same as it treats citizens. We have extended those same curtesies to non-citizen students and workers, but there is no reason to continue that. I find that action not unreasonable at all, considering that at least two of the hijackers were here on expried STUDENT VISAS, and in the past 5 years, 16,000 "students" were let into this country from official state sponsors of terrorism. This lapse is hideous, because the most common demographic for an terrorist is: Arabic Male, mid-20's to mid-30's. It's easy to see how the government would be getting nervous at letting that exact same demographic into our country from nations that have devoted themselves to our destruction (Iran, Syria, Palestine and Iraq come to mind).
When nuance becomes the only objective we lose the ability to function
Perhaps the problem is that the size of the U.S. makes it all but impossible for citizens to have any effect whatsoever on their Federal government. But not to fear! I see how we can test this hypothesis:
I propose that Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Northern California secede from the Union and establish their own nation. Over the course of the next twenty years we'll track the progress of both countries and see how closely each abides by the principles embodied in the Constitution, along with surveys determining whether or not citizens think they can actually influence their federal government in an effective and regular fashion.
As a resident of one of the affected states I can honestly say I'm all for the experiment. I seriously doubt the rest of the states would miss us anyway. And perhaps with a smaller country teeming with people who honestly believe in the 2nd Amendment we'd be more likely to shoot politicians who get out of hand, encouraging them to be more circumspect in their enthusiasm to amass power and limit rights.
(sigh) I only wish.
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
I'm curious about this. Does anyone have a link to any info about this? That Google link doesn't turn up anything, nor does Google's suggestion of Preventive Arrest. But maybe they're blocking us Yanks from getting the real story.
------- I'm not really a geek. I'm a geek groupie.
I hope your not as dumb as you sound. I hate to start a flame war but jesus chirst. If you want to know something about "hackers" and the net i sugest you read some of the jargon file [ http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/jargon/html/The-Jargon- Lexicon-framed.html ]
Carpe meam simiam!
At least with our rights intact we can die on our feet rather than live on our knees.
That said, this legislation probably will not stand the Constitutional tests that should follow, especially since the courts are (according to the alarmists) populated by a bunch of strict Constitutionalists as opposed to activists (who bend the Constitution to make law).
1) One million Iraqi civilians have not been "killed" in the course of the sanctions.
I am quoting Madeleine Albright who when questioned about the above said, "it is a price worth paying". The fact is that these Iraqi people are starving because they don't have food and that is a direct result of the sanctions placed upon them. The figure I quoted of the number of civilians that have been killed, oh wait lets say that have died if it sounds less harsh to you, is widely accepted as being accurate although it was somewhat less when Madeleine made her barbaric statement.
2) Any (far lesser) out-of-the-ordinary (for Iraq) deaths in the course of the sanctions are "a result of" the actions of their own miserable and vile government, which the citizens as a body allow to remain in place.
What? Just because most people in the West live in democracy it doesn't mean it is like that everywhere in the world. These people never choose their governement. They certainly don't want their government. They are dictated. How are they meant to, without arms, overthrow a heavily armed and protected government? May be if you have the answer to that you can tell the Iraqi people and give them a chance to finish this mess.
3) The Iraqi government is well known to have targeted groups of their own citizens. You need look no further for the culprit. People in glass houses...
Precisely! That is why sanctions are barbaric, unjustified and insane. Everyone knows that the Iraqi government aren't going to suffer at all because of the sanctions. Saddam still lives in this mulitude of elaborate palaces. It is the Iraqi people who suffer. The government are just going to hoard the countries money for themselve more than they did before. Knowing this, who do the sanctions target? The innocent!
perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5, (41*2), sqrt(7056), (unpack(c,H)-2), oct(115), 10);'
btw that last comment was to BLAG-blast
Carpe meam simiam!