Slashdot Mirror
Libraries Asked To Destroy Reports, Databases
unix guy writes: "Our good friends and protectors in the U.S. Gov't have decided that what we used to know we can't know any longer. This LA Times story talks about libraries being ordered to destroy existing government reports and data sources in the name of homeland security." Is it really a fair trade to give up readily-available information about "airports, water treatment plants, nuclear reactors and more"?
Security through obscurity... wonderful.
Did the terrorists get the location of the WTC and the Pentagon from the libary?
Or did they just drive around New York and Washington until they saw 3 fucking great big buildings?
All a person REALLY needs in life is McDonalds, Music, Movies, Sports and Religous Dogma.
It is dangerous to give people Education, Information and Freedom. After all, they might be terrorists like the evil Taliban who refuse to give their citizens Education, Information and Freedom.
Hey, did anyone watch the debate a couple of weeks ago on CNN where they discussed giving U.S. federal agents the right to use torture?
Get ready for the future: it is murder - leonard cohen
ipv6 is my vpn
Umm... In my opinion that is the wrong way of looking at it.
Think about it. These documents are, in effect, a way of saying "security weakness". By making the documents closed, we are promoting security through obscurity, which has been proved time and time again not to work.
Perhaps instead we should be concentrating more on how to secure those places which the documents, well..., document. We've already seen from September 11th that terrorists and the like are capable of incredible ingenuity, and we must not forget that they are capable of doing their own research - just because we consider them to be mad, doesn't mean that they are stupid.
Or to put it another way, burning all of the documents that happen to detail airplane security and it's weaknesses will not stop hijackers from taking a plane. ACTING on those documents and improving security will.
What was the example in the article - a cd containing a dam and resevoir survey? So why not consider the ways that the water system can be attacked, and then safe-guard against these kind of attacks?
I argue it never should have been so carelessly deployed in the first place. The hype and the rush to make information available on the web could have been more carefully evaluated, especially by the holders of the plans. Not just plans to dams and waterways, either. Now it's deployment-readiness is being re-evaluated. I doubt it's much more than that.
It is time for our government to introduce the same amount of security that we've been deploying on company webservers and mail systems for years.
I dont believe for a second that this information will now not be inaccessible to someone who is interested for any non-deadly reason.
I believe in Librarians too much for that.
Security through obscurity only works in a "police state" like a company intranet where there are cleck-points (i.e. firewalls) and good records of every request to pass the check-point.
Russia for a long time made use of this method to protect their nuclear facilities: Obscure the facts, have everyone be watched by the KGB, and give the nuclear workers the best of ecerything. This worked in a closed society with closed borders because the nation was secure even if the facilities were not. However, this does nto work for Russia today, and their facilities are extremely insecure.
This is the wrong sort of security through obscurity to have in a free nation. Unless the NSA, CIA, and FBI want to join forces and spy on all Americans for evidence of terrorism (and maybe bring back the UAAC from the 50's) it prevents the dialogs from occuring that bring about better security policies...
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Google was mentioned as a place to get chached information, but no one drew the conclusion that it could be considered a circumvention device under the DMCA.
Scary, really, scary...when you consider that it is not the "powerful" aspects of the DMCA, but the more subtle/incidious/recurring detriments of the act/law.
What I find even more sad is that even though you consider the damage Bin Laden did, it pales to what we are doing to him. We are taking his life, his livelyhood and turning his own people, much less the whole world, against him.
Be careful what you wish for, eh? He wanted to see those towers come down, I believe was the direct quote.
So, limiting access to information in this way, well what happens when the people who need it can't get it? And the damn breaks quite literally and figuratively?
Again, I say, be careful what you wish for.
If it is not on fire, it is a software problem.
The debate here is between the idea there is and that there is not a net benefit in having an open society, where individuals by virtue of citizenship have access to whatever information they want so long as it doesn't post an immediate and vital security threat. Once you start censoring papers and publications because they can fathomably be used to hurt the government, you limit the public's ability of oversight in public health, security, and spending. No longer can public-interest groups review and recommend changes to public works and such. You also reduce accountability of the government to the people and the press: if the plans on public works are state secrets, graft and corruption become much easier and less dangerous. Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, because this style of censorship does not have a clear standard of justification - a 'clear & present danger', say - the issue of a slippery slope comes into play. There is, I suppose, one fundamental questions to be asked: first, is the realistic danger of the censorship greater than the realistic danger of the information being censored?
If I want to find out about US weapons I'll have to get a brochure from the manufacturer, or ask military in another country about how they perform in combat conditions (I'll just need to go to Latin America).
Seriously, any street map or telephone book has military value, but that is no reason to go overboard and ban them. If information is only a tool of the state, the state will soon run out of people that can use information.
While it is true that the terrorists may be able to access particular information if they try hard enough, there is a lot to be said for making sensitive and detailed information harder to get to. For instance:
A) By making each piece of sensitive information harder to get to, you make it exponentially more time consuming to query FROM vast realms of it. e.g., if the terrorists wanted to know the exact engineering specifications used for all the nuclear plants around the country to look for a particularly weak design.
B) By making information harder to come by, we can up the ante by forcing the terrorists as a GROUP, to become more sophisticated/educated. e.g., the size of the effort rules out the few top level people, but the scope/difficult rules out the average ignorant terrorist.
C) By making information harder to come by, we can make the act of looking for that information much riskier. For instance, rather than merely having to go online or to any public library (anonymously), they must go to a few enumerated locations and risk being spotted and/or creating a trail after the fact.
D) By clamping the flow of information, we can force the terrorists to work with far many more unknowns.
Lastly, these various elements play off each other greatly. Just as widespread efficiencies in capitalist markets have allowed for expontentially more efficient production, so to can this widespread "inefficiency" make it vastly harder for the terrorists to get _all_ the intelligence that they need.
The Press uses your same argument in defence of some of their more questionable publications. Besides being a disingenious assertion, it very much under-estimates the value of good intelligence. Intelligence is even more important for the terrorists in many ways, because they need to make their relatively few resources stretch much further. The further they stretch, the more they expose themselves and the fewer manhours they can devote to actual acts of terrorism.
Btw, I would not at all be surprised, for instance, if Saddam Hussain got more worthwhile intelligence from the likes of CNN (e.g., troup movements, morale, technology, etc) in the comfort of his bedroom than he did from his entire intelligence service during the Gulf War. The Press can use their apparent legitimacy to get DIRECT, NEAR REAL TIME, and RISKLESS (for the enemy) access to top level officials; whereas with proper controls in place this kind of intelligence would require a capable intelligence agency with significant resources.
What really scared me about the Sept. 11 attacks was not that I would get killed/injured/harmed by a terrorist attack, it's that people would effectively give the government free reign to do whatever they want. Right now, President Bush's approval rating is an astonishingly high 89% -- this is at least close to the highest it's ever been. Doesn't that scare anyone out there?
The problem is that everybody's still shell shocked over the Sept 11 attacks and everybody wants closure over this and the feeling of security. Sure, airports security has been stepped up, but has it gotten any better? They're collecting far more nail clippers now, but they're still getting knives through. No matter how much security they place at the airport, or any other place for that matter, "bad stuff" will still get through. And even if they made something completely safe, the terrorists will simply go elsewhere.
Let's face it, had the government pulled this shit a year ago, people would have been absolutely pissed. People would have been writing to their congressmen, there may have been protests, but bottom line it would not have happened. Does anybody out there think that government documents like this would have been pulled a year ago? Do you think there would have been an anti-terrorism bill a year ago?
The only good thing is that this will probably come full circle. Maybe it will be in a year, maybe two years, maybe longer, the general public will want this stuff public again. Some accident will occur, people will want to know more about what their local chemical plant is doing, people will want to know where their water is coming from, and after all this terrorist fear has blown over the people will want this stuff back.
Just wait.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I suppose it's okay for 5,000 people to die so some asshole like you can have access to information you don't need.
Yes. Yes, it is.
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
Liberty in your lifetime
This war will never be over. We've finally entered the "constant state of warfare" in Orwell's 1984.
That person would cry foul for reasons you're conveniently ignoring. You remember from history class who Richard Nixon is, right? You know what Watergate is, right? You know what Nixon did to people he didn't like, right? So, if someone in the government holds a grudge against you, and you happen to legally obtain these sensitive documents, what's preventing that someone from painting you as a terrorist, now that they have a monopoly on truth and information? They have the records that you checked out those documents, they have, real or fabricated, records of your activity, and wouldn't have much difficulty convicting you in public trial of espionage or other trumped up charges.
"Security through obscurity" is not bad. It's only bad when it's your only line of defense. As an extreme example, I would be really upset if my credit card information was published online, but I could still cancel the card and have various insurance against abuses. Similarly, we shouldn't hand terrorists information to use against us, but we also shouldn't remain under any delusion that pulling documents is all the security we need.
IMHO, during the debate over destroying/not publishing government data you need to ask several questions before restricting information:
- Would a terrorist really want or need this information?
- Does not publishing this information make the terrorist's job substantially more difficult? In particular, how easily might he do his own research or find the same info in other sources?
- Will beneficial programs (including security) be able to continue with little disruption after this information is removed?
- Will people continue to improve security and minimize weaknesses in the absence of these publications?
Unless the answer to all these question is yes, I'd say there is no justification for removing the documents in question. It is particularly important that physical security be continued even in the absence of detailed public accountability. The department of defense certainly maintains efforts to promote their security without ever publishing lists of weaknesses, but less well-funded and less paranoid agencies may not even notice vulnerabilities in the absence of external review.There will always be government (and for that matter, corporate) secrets, and they have a valid place in a security scheme, but just not the only line of defense. I can believe that there are some things that might be too compromising, but I hope that the US government continues to record what was destroyed and why, and that a copy be stored somewhere to await a more peaceful time.
This might sound very inhumane, but it's something I feel needs to be said.
Compare the number of deaths each year due to car-accidents and due to terrorism. Now look at the actions being taken to stop them from happening. Liberties are being grabbed away right, left and center, all in the name of stopping terrorism.
Don't you think this is exactly what terrorists aimed for? They want americans to feel scared.
And the worst thing is that I don't think it will help much at all. There will be more terrorist attacks in the future: raising security will not stop this: it will serve primarily to terrorise americans further.
EXACTLY.
Once it's destroyed, it's not coming back. Safe storage would be a MUCH more acceptable solution!
I wonder how far this is going to go - you know, it would be POSSIBLE for someone who has access to this information to become sinister and then use it against us. Or even sell the information. Maybe we should monitor those people 24x7?
Because of one terrible terrorist act, WE THE PEOPLE will be the ones paying the price for generations to come it looks like. I would rather live in a society that's not as "safe" but have more freedoms. Our freedom is being limited day by day. Some day we'll just hook up to a Borg regenerator at birth and spend our 70 or 80 years there till we die. Safe! Not fulfilling.
Ignorance Is Strength
It's true that our American way of life is under attack...at least Bush, Ashcroft and the rest of them got that one right.
Burning books isn't being done because there are no alternatives, but because it's cheap.
It's quite simple to make power plants, air traffic, and other vital infrastructure secure. However, industry isn't willing to pay the cost. It's so much easier to run to politicians and say "ban this information" and "ban that information" and "outlaw this or that device".
Doing security right means that we will be paying more for electricity and air travel, and a consequent decrease in what people might count superficially as "standard of living", as you couldn't just dash down to Florida for a couple of hundred dollars. And the diminished profit margins and increased operating costs would be a painful blow to large investors. On the other hand, it would also result in an increase in low-skilled employment and it would preserve our rights to free access to information. To me, it's pretty clear which choice is preferable. It's also pretty clear to me what the rich and powerful prefer.
Information is the lifeblood of a free society governed by the consent of the governed. If information is destroyed (or even made inaccessible to all but the most determined individuals armed with subpoenas), the practical effect is that the governed don't know what we're consenting to. Policies that prevent open disclosure of information are ripe for exploitation as tools to conceal embarrassing information. Public outrage is a powerful motivator in an open society, but how can the public express outrage when the information that would prompt such outrage may be cloistered away by embarrassed bureaucrats who can simply claim the information could be dangerous in the wrong hands?
I have news for everyone: almost any information can be dangerous in certain circumstances. What our illustrious and infallible (ok, only 89% infallible) administration has apparently decided is that information no longer need be imminently dangerous to fall subject to the censors. Unfortunately potentially dangerous covers a lot of vague territory (or perhaps fortunately if that information contains something personally embarrasing to you).
Now if the chemical plant down the street is poisoning your water, you just have to hope that the regulators responsible for letting the water become contaminated don't decide that the chemicals aren't too scary to talk about. If you live downstream from a dam, don't bother asking why/if the security team failed their last test. Just trust that everything will be Ok; you don't need to know about it!
This isn't about not trusting government. I don't distrust government, rather I doubt that everyone in government will always necessarily do the right things. Individually government consists of people with emotions, agendas, visions, and goals that I may not share. I can't trust that without meaningful oversight and clearly defined standards for making information secret, that everyone who governs will always do the right thing. You see, open information means I don't have to trust those in government.
Unfortunately, it is in times of crisis that open government is most important, because it is easiest to precipitate abuse when there is 89% approval and everyone is looking the other way. In fact, it is considered unpatriotic to even suggest that times of crisis are times of opportunity for abuse.
We know that with attention diverted, this would be the perfect time to make politically unpopular decisions: give vast tax breaks to huge companies, strip away environmental regulations, invalidate laws in states that legalize doctor assisted suicide, etc... Why can we rest assured that no lower level bureaucrat might take advantage of the situation to obfuscate potentially embarrasing or dangerous agency screw-ups?
Our military has many legitimate secrets, but as the agency given the greatest freedom to keep its activities secret, it has not done an excellent job of obeying the spirit of the law. Now with civilian agencies also keeping secrets (that I believe everyone agrees are less threatening than military secrets) isn't the potential for abuse proportionally greater?
If there is necessity to obscure information -- and sometimes that's hard to say because we don't know what information is being blocked -- then there should be extremely clear guidelines on exactly what should be controlled. Information that does not pose an imminent security danger should still be made available, but perhaps with some authentication of those requesting it, i.e., require written request and valid ID. Finally, the clearly defined regulations limiting access should automatically expire after five years unless Congress decides that there are ongoing security risks that require an extension of the controls. Of course it goes without saying that the information should not be destroyed.
Doubtless some of you may take the view that we need to surrender some of our typical openness to secure the safety our our nation. To this I would respond that: a) by surrendering openness we're simultaneously surrendering security -- we just don't know how much; b) if something must be surrendered we should consider very carefully what should be surrendered and how we should do so; and c) we must keep in mind that information is a double edged sword and our society is based upon the assumption that openness is our guarantee of freedom. This country would look very different without freedom of information; please consider very carefully where to draw that line.
There are consequences to viewing open information as our enemy. I can only hope that more rational minds soon prevail; rights surrendered in times of crisis are rarely returned.
Of course, all this is an aside to the question of the efficacy of blocking the information...
It would be much easier to avoid the allusions to Orwellian horrors if our own government didn't insist on Orwellian policies labeled with positively Orwellian names.
Of course, Farenheit 451 also hasn't been more relevant anytime in recent memory than now. I hope everyone reads it.
God help this country.
I suppose it's okay for 5,000 people to die so some asshole like you can have access to information you don't need.
Ok, I'll throw my hat into the insensitive ring too.
Of course it is! Do you have any idea how many of us have died to procure that very right? If we were talkin 500 million I'd listen to the arguement, but hell we already gave up most of our freedom because the idea of losing 5,000 million in a day is pretty damn frightening.
I thought we were on the path to eliminating at least the most ill concieved of those like the confiscation of property on a guilty until proven innocent basis. The Supreme Court even had a case saying you couldn't keep people locked up forever in INS jails before the 11th.. Now we've already adopted KGB tactics and people are actually talking about moving on to Nazi police tactics on PBS. I'd expect that from talk radio, but it's the policy makers who're on PBS.
And all this over just 5,000 people?
I think it's mostly just the bruised pride of the empire we're dealing with in these 'you unpatriotic asshole' type posts.
I don't think you really give a damn about those 5,000. I had two dozen friends in that building, none of whom were for this kind of idiotic descent into book burning. And the only Bush voter who got out is still against it. (All but 2 got out.)
As a New Yorker I really loath this power grab by the Nixonian cronies in the White House. Meanwhile the congress tells New York to screew itself when it is looking at a 200 Billion dollar hit, with only 21 coming from Congress (If all the promises are kept, congress wants to reduce it to less than 10 Billion, that PR allocation earlier being just a little to brash.) The vacancy rate is UP! in downtown NYC despite the fact that more than 1 million square feet were taken off the market that day. I have very strong friends who are taking psychoactive drugs for the first time because they just can't handle seeing their friends in a huge unmarked grave every day. I started smoking that day.
But reading the news just gets worse and worse each day, I hold little hope that congress will ever get the sense and the balls to oppose our president and the likes of you.
New York is a city that values democracy, those 5,000 would not want to live in the world Herr Bush asks for. I have my doubts whether Bush really wants to either.
Nor anything essential for you to conduct a full and happy life. Why do you need detailed information about the structure of the Hoover Dam, for crissake?
You might live down stream from the dam and want to know the possiblity/probablity of complete collaspe if some nut wanted to ram a plane into it. I really doubt that nut would want that information at all, or even most of the information being removed.
There is legitmate reasons about wanting data about things near where you live or want to live. Would you like to know that a chemical plant exchanges its water near where the cities intake is? Most of this information was used to calculate risks in areas and to know who is doing what. Taking it away does nothing to really help national security, but does everything to pervent people from being informed about what the government and others are doing to the communities in which they live.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/releases/01facts/99mortali ty.htm
in 1999:
44,536 deaths from Alzheimer's
28,874 persons died from firearm.
19,102 persons died of drug-induced causes.
19,171 persons died in 1999 from alcohol-induced causes.
In 2001:
~5000 ppl died in 2001 due to terrorist.
~5 ppl have a died from a local terrorist group with anthrax.
So where do we focus our energy and money?
On stopping dangerous information from going out to US citizens. BTW, more money is now being spent on "homeland defense" than on Research.
Pretty soon it will be the "fatherland" that must be protected at ALL cost.
The funny thing is, this information is available in libraries in britain, italy, france, canada. Basically in all free countries. Bush and cronies are stripping us of our rights and liberties and many have not learned from our and others past abuses. This information that bush/ashcroft want hidden is easily gleaned from so many other sources that ony we suffer.
It is amazing that these idiots who understand the danger of having our gun rights stripped would so quickly strip us of our information rights and liberties.
Yes. Yes, it is.
Amen. That was one of the points of the Revolutionary War in which, coincidentally enough, approximately the same number of people died (4,435 according to this statistical summary of America's major wars). America's history is one of people giving up their lives to secure what we consider to be our basic freedoms. Sadly the average American seems to have forgotten this fact.
Now, it is true that the people killed in the WTC attack were non-combatants, but this reaction by the U.S. government shames their memory. They were the victims of a craven attack by people who would love nothing better than to see our free society become just as tightly controlled as their own insane regimes.
And our degenerate leadership is obliging them.
--Ford Prefect
Sheesh... what a pity you can't clone phones and steal service anymore. That was no different than saying that it is illegal to duplicate a skeleton key. If you've ever seen such a key, you might notice something on the key that says to the locksmith, effectively "don't duplicate this key or you could get in trouble".
The main problem with this kind of stuff is that the hacker's legitimate rights to experiment are running afoul of the need to translate the physical lock and key into the "virtual" realm. If hackers had a clue, they would have lobbied for something like a "student locksmith license" with a nominal fee and ethical guidelines as to how it could be used.
Instead they elevate their base desires to moral posturing and attempt to wrap themselves in the 1st ammendment. They refuse to recognize the need for people to protect their services; refuse to work with the authorities and insist on working against them. It's no wonder they get no respect.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
This event seems to be the latest in a string of events our government justifies in the name of "national security". Unfortunately, these actions will make us LESS secure in the long run.
Destroying information in public libraries, restricting requests through the Freedom of Information Act, Bush's executive order that allows a sitting president to seal presidential records indefinitely - all of these events result in less information for the public to properly judge the actions of our government. This is inexcusable in a republic.
Without public accountability, our elected leaders will have carte blanche to commit aggregious acts in the name of our country. Any illegal actions that they take, clouded in executive priviledge and secrecy, could very well sow the seeds for future terrorist attacks.
We need to know exactly what our government is doing, particularly while we are at "war". The only way we will win a "war" against terrorism is to stand the moral high ground, and wage it with justified, measured response. If our government begins to wage it with illegal and extreme methods (in our name and without our knowledge) we are assured to locked in a vicious cycle of retribution and revenge that will only hurt ourselves in the long run.
We want some answers and all that we get
Some kind of shit about a terrorist threat
- Ministry
I think our government has become unsound because of two things: the reliance on money and power for becoming a viable candidate to the legislative and executive branches, and the detachment of the judicial branch from the actual letter and intent of the Constitution.
As for the first, it is more or less self-evident. We've had several different political parties come and go over the course of our history--the idea that we are a two-party system and better for it is a relatively new and completely untrue one. In any given geographical area, there were always several parties--groups of people interested in politics who wished to back and promote a candidate who agrees with their ideals. Some of these were directly affiliated with national parties which were the most prominent, such as Democrats or Whigs or later Republicans. While they therefore had an advantage thanks to networking and name recognition and improved fundraising, politics was essentially still local. Local parties had almost equal power to field candidates and get them recognized within a given district. And, an individual with a great reputation and local name recognition could build up his own group of supporters--essentially his own local party--and do damn well.
This is no longer true thanks to the fact that the national party structure is able to raise so much money for paid media advertising, that the national parties have raised the bar for entry of third-party or independant candidates ridiculously high, and that media outlets like television--which is now sadly the only way most people get information--only give coverage to the candidates from the Big Two parties in most cases, being motivated to save their costly airtime, and seldom cover third-party or independant candidates with equal vigor.
The current Big Two parties have secured through legislation their ability to get candidates on the ballot automatically, while anyone else has to work very, very hard to get his name there. In the old days, everyone had to work at the same level. Why give such preferences to an organization simply because it happens to be dominant at a particular time? If the Democrats and the Whigs had done the same thing back when they were the two most prominent parties, well, the Whigs would still be around and the Republicans would never have had a chance to rise to the same level.
Because of this artificial prominence, almost all the money goes to these two parties, since most people believe in the two-party mythos and believe--rightly since the playing field has become so tilted--that very few third-party or independent candidates can win. Such huge warchests and powerful backing and lobbying have been amassed behind the Republicans and Democrats, that few others can compete--television is now the primary medium, and it costs a lot of money to buy a little bit of airtime. Money is therefore primary to getting a candidate elected, whereas originally it was a minor consideration since most campaigning was done in person by stumping and through local newspaper coverage. Now, local newspapers are the things nobody reads that are given away at the grocery store and elsewhere; almost everyone reads their nearest big-city paper instead, which is usually more of a regional or national paper in which local issues aren't the most important, and so local candidates not backed by a major party are given little or no shrift. And nobody really stumps, since they can get more coverage by buying airtime and ads, and doing the occasional speech instead of hurriedly going around the election district trying to explain your beliefs to everyone in person. TV is just so much more effective, and so much more expensive...
The result is entrenched parties which will always be in power thanks to their artificial advantages. Would the Founders believe that two parties with great prominence at a pearticular time should be able to pass legislation to make getting elected harder for everyone else and easier for them? No. To make it worse, as Noam Chomsky points out throughout his writings and videos (though I don't take him seriously on many other things), the Big Two really aren't at all far apart in philosophy. They're both for Big Government and extreme federalism, just to different ends and in different areas. They seem different to the average person, because each party is for or against certain things like abortion--but at the core, they both agree on the same sort of system, the same sort of political philosophy; they only disagree on details, not on major structures. The result is that voters usually get to choose between two sides of the same coin. Where's the party that, for example, wants to reduce federal government to only those things explicitly authorized and reasonably implied by the constitution? Plenty of people want that--yet the artificial obstacles prevent such people from banding together and having any reasonable chance of fielding candidates.
As for the judicial branch, I think it went awry when it started interpreting the Constitution instead of just reading it as literally as possible. Today there is no dispute about whether we should interpret the Constitution or not--there are just "strict constructionists" who try to interpret it narrowly and "loose constructionists" who try to interpret it broadly. Why not just read the damn thing instead? If the Constition says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."--that's pretty self-explanatory. Congress shouldn't pass any laws regarding religions or churches whatsoever; it can pass no laws which restrict speech or writing; it can pass no law to prevent people from peacefully assembling. What's there to interpret? The Court should just decide what laws do and do not violate this; no interpretation is necessary. Interpretations are used for justifications of decisions, but unfortunately under our system they then become precedent and have the force of law themselves. So, don't interpret at all. Explain why a law violates or does not violate, but don't add or remove meanings by making grand pronouncements about what you think the Constitution means. It's written in plain language after all, and for good reason.
An example of what goes wrong when the judiciary interprets instead of simply reading the Constitution word for word is the mess about what the 2nd Amendment "means," hinging around interpretation of the word "militia". "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Why does this need interpretation? Militia had a very simple meaning at the time--any able-bodied man over the age of majority and under a certain age, who was therefore eligible to serve in a military capacity. But that doesn't matter anyway, because just reading the sentence, any English major can tell you that that sentence is equivalent in meaning to this one, which is easier for modern readers to parse since they no longer teach us so well about subordinate clauses and such: "Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Again, unless you are a moron you understand this sentence. It needs no interpretation. It is entirely self-evident. If you believe in gun control, fine--pass a Constitutional amendment to add restrictions; just don't try to read things you want to see into words which are so simple and straightforward. I should add that we can keep convicted felons from owning firearms, though, because felons do not have and never had full rights unless they are restored by legislative action, which is why we can keep them from voting, owning firearms, etc.
This is the cause of much of our legal cruft--people want to interpret the Constitution and the laws to suit their own desires, even when it obviously contradicts them. What they should do is campaign for those changes, not try to twist the Constitution and laws through interpretation to fit those changes. It demeans and diminishes the letter and spirit of those documents, and makes it progressively easier for everyone else to twist and tweak them to fit into their own ideologies and wishes--especially since we have a system of precedent. The Founders wrote the Constitution in very simple language--excruciatingly simple for the day, when flowery embellishments were the norm. It's simple to understand. People need to stop trying to make it conform to their own beliefs. Campaign to change it if you don't agree with it--just don't reduce it to meaninglessness because you want to interpret it to allow your opinions rather than what it clearly says.
Because of this judicial love of interpreting things to avoid the obvious, we've lost the last bastion of our rights. For example, the legislation passed recently to allow law enforcement agencies to read anyone's Net traffic headers without a warrant is blatantly contrary to the Fourth Amendment's admonishment that "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." You have to have a particular reason to look at anything which would otherwise be private, and you have to have a warrant which specifies exactly what you can look at. Pretty simple. But the Court can and will interpret these words however it wants, instead of just reading them literally and if need be asking the simple question WWTJD--What Would Thomas Jefferson Do? After all, he wrote those words. If they seem at all ambiguous--which they don't really--simply honestly thinking about what Jefferson and others directly involved meant by them is the only valid method of clarification. They were amazing people, a generation of thinkers and doers who threw off the bonds of subjugation and created a new and thriving, trend-setting nation. They wrote the Constitution as plainly and unambiguously as they could, to avoid the need for interpreting it.
And the Bill of Rights was an afterthought which many of them thought was unnecessary since such rights were so obvious at the time. It was a time when people and state governments were put ahead of the federal government. It was a time when national government was expected to conduct foreign policy, regulate interstate commerce and interstate disputes, and to otherwise leave us all alone. It was a time when the Ninth and Tenth Amendments still meant something: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." We had the full rights and protections of the Common Law. The federal government was there to assist the people and the states, not to extend its regulations into every facet of our lives.
Now our rights are not so obvious--at least to those full of interpretations and agendas, and to the majority of people who just don't know our proud history and heritage. Anyone who's read the writings of Jefferson and Madison, and Washington's journal, Franklin's papers, etc., knows that they would be appalled at our current system. Again, they were brilliant men, and created a system which still functions better than could be expected even after 200 years of cruft weigh it down and pervert it. There is no single government in the world which has operated for so long without very fundamental changes to its structure. (Before someone mentions England, it changed fundamentally at the beginning of the 20th century, when the House of Lords was finally rendered impotent.)
What I'd like to see is a return to this core. The Constitution should be enforced, not interpreted. The federal government should leave domestic law enforcement (except where it crosses state or national boundaries) and any other function not dealing with what the Constitution explicitly delagates to them, except for a few useful things not enumerated like printing the national currency, to the states. Most of our tax money could be spent at the state level, instead of having a national government dominated by pork barrel politics which loses big chunks of our money while filtering it back down to the states. Why not just have that money go directly to the states through state taxes? Why not have the federal government leave us alone, and just worry about protecting the people and their rights, as the Constitution charges it? Our federal tax dollars should be spent on defense and national infrastructure, not on foreign aid to bolster corporate sales penetration into foreign markets and on tax breaks to whatever interests got the President elected. Big political parties should be given no preferential treatment over small ones--they all need to jump through the same hoops to get on the ballot. Basically, I'd like to see a return to the federal government we had in 1805, with changes, additions, and subtractions only where obviously needed thanks to the changes that have taken place in the intervening years. It would be a small, lean, efficient government. It wouldn't need to hide things from the people. It wouldn't need to promote corporate interests. You wouldn't need to be in the pocket of a big corporate interest just to viably enter it.
But this will never, ever happen without outright revolution. Politicians would never willingly give up their corporate perks. Politicians are not visionary enough to look to the Constitution rather than their petty opinions. Politicians don't want to give up the powers they have which are not enumerated by the Constitution, since most things would become the province of state governments again rather than the national government--for example, abortion would be up to the States to decide individually, since the Constitution does not give the federal government the authority to regulate such things except where they become interstate issues. Unless a state violates a Constitutional right of its people, or an issue involves national defense or foreign policy, the federal government would largely let the state governments and the people who elect them decide what to do.
What I see is a large bureaucratic government that has taken the place of the nimble and responsive government we once had. What I see is a government which seeks to monitor its people, without reason, without probable cause, without warrant. What I see is a government which killed Randy Weaver's family because he advocated gun ownership rights and was therefore branded suspect--and which does similar things all the time albeit with much less publicity. What I see is a government which wants to keep everything about itself secret, even to the point of not letting the public know if toxic nuclear waste is being stored near them. What I see is a government which is owned by corporations, and more directly beholden to them and their money than to the people themselves.
I've gone on and on far too long; everyone gets the point. But right now, I don't see the cruft being removed without a real Jeffersonian revolution. It's time to collect all the information and all the arms while it's still legal to do so, because at some point both may be outlawed just when they're most necessary. I love my country, and I love its history. But I want a real government of the people, by the people, for the people, to take the place once more of our current government of the corporations, by the corporations, and for the corporations. I want accountability where there is none. And I know I'm not alone.
Chasing Amy
(We all chase Amy...)
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws"-Tacitus
This country was founded and GOVERNED by self-made experts. If I want to become an expert on bio-terrorism, computer security, US water distribution systems, nuclear weapons, or post-modern cinema, am I going to be told:
"No, you don't need to and are not allowed, but here's a fine job at McDonalds; we're saving all those uninteresting curiosities for select Harvard graduates with connections since we only trust people who were raised and work in the establishment already."
I think maybe the reason this so agitates me (and many of you) is that I am a self-educated college-dropout security and technology "expert" with a successful consulting career. Many of America's greatest "expert" figures past and present: Franklin, Gates, Jobs, Wozniak, Ellison, Dell, Edison, Turner, F Scott Fitzgerald, were not college graduates.
Is denial of information not most importantly an insult to the merits of self-education and curiosity? Isn't that why it rightfully pisses off this community?
Braddock Gaskill