Slashdot Mirror


DOJ Already Monitoring Cable Internet Traffic

According to this Wired News article, the Justice Department is already using its new powers under the USA Patriot Act to obtain subscribers' identities and other information from cable operators without judicial oversight under Section 211 of the new legislation. Assistant Attorney General Michael Chertoff also says that the act has allowed police to obtain IP addresses of cable subscribers and has enabled DOJ to obtain court orders for ISP logs outside a court's traditional jurisdiction. The Senate Judiciary Committee has convened hearings to review the impact of the Bush administration's actions on civil liberties, but A.G. Ashcroft is not scheduled to appear until December 6. One wonders what effect the upcoming cable failure will have on government surveilance of the potentially criminal citizenry.

354 comments

  1. fight despair by Cally · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I have to say, there comes a time when your heart sinks and you think: what's the point? Why do I keep on trying to help people see that Free software would help their business? Why do I keep pointing out to idiots that their companies could be hacked by a 10 year old with a handful of Packetstorm scripts? And when oh when will people wake up to what is happening (around the world it seems, not just in the USA) in terms of civil liberties? We see it most strongly in our area of tech, but it's the same for many many other groups of people.

    The important, and difficult, job is to fight the temptation to give up, and keep on fighting for our rights.

    Nurse! More coffee!

    --
    "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
    1. Re:fight despair by NeoTron · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "The important, and difficult, job is to fight the temptation to give up, and keep on fighting for our rights."

      What rights? They're being very rapidly dispersed matey. And it seems that there's nothing anyone can do about it - either a few of us are the only remaining sane people in the world, or we're mad and it's the "authorities" and "they who are in power" that are the sane ones... either way something definately smells of the brown stuff...

    2. Re:fight despair by NeoTron · · Score: 1

      I fail to see how what I wrote could be classed as a Troll, as that was not the intention - I'll put your gag back on my mouth now.

      :(

    3. Re:fight despair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah you have a real rough life. Hold on while I dry my tears. Stupid yuppie.

    4. Re:fight despair by El_Nofx · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I agree, I, like you, always point out those things to people. Correct them when they read a slanted story and pass it on as the truth. Help to show people that their rights are being taken away one, by one, slowly.
      I think of just giving up sometimes. Today I thought that to my self after hearing about that crap in Maryland where Santa can't come to the tree lighting seremony because two families found it offensive. Stuff like that makes you want to just give up on the human race. Think we are not going to make it as a country.
      But then I hear about people like you, and everyone else on /. that do the same things you and I do, correct people, make them aware of what is going on around them. Try to help them and I realise that even though I play a little part and so do you. It still matters. We still help out just a little, and we can never give up to people who want to moniter our internet traffic for no reason other than, " It was deemed neccessary for national security" or "You are suspected of being a suspect in a suspected terrorist conspiracy"
      I swear, that is the kind of crap you hear from AG Ashcroft and his cronies. "We need to moniter all internet traffic on the @home network because it could be used for the planning of terrorist acts. Listen carefully to the reasons they give for these things. Did you know that if you are suspected of a terrorist act you no longer have the attorney client privelage? Your conversations with your lawyer can now be monitered by the prosecution. Thanks to the new terrorism bill.

      The saddest part of all of this is the speed for which people are willing to just give up their freedoms for "Security" , sure, moniter my internet traffic. Most people don't care because they don't think of the internet anymore then the TV where you can click on stuff.
      Sure, get rid of the attorney client privelage for terrorists. Doesn't affect me any. So what if I demonstarate against a government action and am arrested for some reason. Am I now a terrorist? Will I be tried in a military tribunal for the "Security of the State"
      Remember these things
      Ok, this was way to long winded.

      --
      It's not the OS it's the user that sucks. If it's user friendly, you get stupider people. - clinko
    5. Re:fight despair by Oztun · · Score: 2

      There is a reason people voted you as a troll. Yes you are correct but your point is moot. Our rights are being desperesed but only the ones not enough people fight for.

      You are wrong in saying, "it seems that there's nothing anyone can do about it". Many lobbyist and activist have saved many of our rights. It is up to people to contact politicians and make a difference. If everyone gave up 100 years ago we would have cameras in our homes by now. Every waking minute of your life would be controlled by the government.

      It sounds like your telling everyone they might as well given up. Well many of us have not and work long hours defending the few freedoms we still have. If you only look from one-perspective then you live in a one-perspective world.

    6. Re:fight despair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dear asswipe,

      You're supposed to try to cheer Cally up, not agree that it's hopeless.

  2. Wonderful by merauder · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Is anyone else bothered by the fact that we are losing all of our privacy?

    --

    ..and knowing is half the battle.

  3. get some tissues by ZeekWatson · · Score: 2, Funny

    They will find out that there is a lot of porn on cable traffic.

    1. Re:get some tissues by Oztun · · Score: 2

      Yup now we are paying the feds to review porn all day. If only I didn't get busted with pot I'd be trying to become an FBI agent right now.

  4. go ahead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    watch me.

  5. What to do now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm moving under my bed, maybe they cant get through my Acronym filter sheet.

    Anyone care to join me?

  6. Anonymous by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 4, Redundant
    And everyone was worried about ESCHALON!

    Check out the Register article on anonymizing yourself...

    And have your friends use Hushmail.

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
    1. Re:Anonymous by jacoplane · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, it's Echelon, not Eschalon. If you were trying to be funny, i guess I missed it.

    2. Re:Anonymous by siliconinc.net · · Score: 3, Informative

      Whats not mentioned in the register article (but recently had an article on slashdot) is TLS with SMTP - most people have no clue what this is, and how much of a potential headache it can be for carnivore operators to monitor smtp traffic.

      Carnivores purpose is twofold - to sniff your mail obviously, but dont forget it also builds tables of who emails who, and makes it easy for the carnivore operator to track who is associated with who. PGP doesnt help here since it just encrypts the message. However TLS combined with PGP does since it does its mailfrom and rcptto _after_ starttls is issued. Next time you set up a MTA make sure it has TLS support! Shameless plug: TLS for Dummies.

      On a side note, dont forget you can tunnel your web proxy via stunnel, assuming you can talk the proxy operator into installing it for you :)

    3. Re:Anonymous by MrFredBloggs · · Score: 1

      Do not put down to humour what can be attributed to illiteracy.

    4. Re:Anonymous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Carnivores purpose is twofold - to sniff your mail obviously, but dont forget it also builds tables of who emails who, and makes it easy for the carnivore operator to track who is associated with who.
      Hmmm... spamming software as a terrorist tool: only one of the 100,000 recipients has the key for the steganographic message hidden in a spam....
    5. Re:Anonymous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's the most insightful thing I've never read.

    6. Re:Anonymous by siliconinc.net · · Score: 1

      Interesting idea. Its already been done in some manner Im afraid, but it would be quite interesting to see if carnivore could detect steg built from tabs, whitespaces, or formatting in an email... Now all I have to do is steal that black 2U box in the next cabinet over that is labeled "federal property - do not touch". Wait, why does it have an ethernet cable running into MY switch, wtf, why ^@^$!%^!!#

      NO CARRIER

      Connection closed by remote host.

    7. Re:Anonymous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hushmail is still slave to US restrictions, etc...

    8. Re:Anonymous by Asgard · · Score: 1

      Anyone know where to get a server cert from a recognized CA for free?

    9. Re:Anonymous by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1, Offtopic
      Trying... It was a reach.

      Eschatology : es'ka-tol'o-je, n. [Gr. eschatos, Last, and logos, discourse; word.] Theol. The discourse of the last or final things; End time doctrines such as life, judgment, end of things, Christ's return, and the final destination of the soul; Declaration of future prophecy or biblical events; also Prophesy. --es-cha-to-log-i-cal, es'ka-to-loj'i-kal, a. --es-cha-to-log-i-cal-ly, adj.--es-cha-to-o-gist. n.

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
  7. Criminals! by Jebediah21 · · Score: 5, Funny

    The people who don't have Internet connections are surely criminals. They must have something to hide, otherwise they would be gouged with outrageous prices and restrictions in order to be further monitored.

    *waves at DOJ*

    --

    Everytime you look at porn a devil gets their horns.
    1. Re:Criminals! by eleven357 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I would have to agree entirely on this one. Why is the government really monitoring net traffic anyways? Is it to actually persue criminal activity, or is it just another excuse to try and justify our privacy being invaded. Why doesn't the government spend more time and effort catching the REAL criminals? Not that there isn't any criminals on the net, but I think the government needs to get their priorites straight.

      Monitor my usage all you want, the simple fact is you are wasting valuable time that you could've been spending persueing the criminals on the street.

      *waves @ DOJ*

    2. Re:Criminals! by Rai · · Score: 0

      well, i guess my decision about whether to go to cable or not is made.

      US Patriot Act...isn't it great how these lying political assholes use pretty names and buzz words to hide their true agenda. it's even better how the american public just falls in line and snaps to attention like lemmings everytime this happens.

      *gives DOJ the finger*

    3. Re:Criminals! by Tackhead · · Score: 2
      > The people who don't have Internet connections are surely criminals. They must have something to hide, otherwise they would be gouged with outrageous prices and restrictions in order to be further monitored.

      Hey! My grandma resembles that remark! Just 'cuz she uses AOL doesn't mean she isn't being price-gouged and monitored along with the rest of us!

  8. US anti-terror laws by SomethingOrOther · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Quite a few European countries have had problems with terrorosts for years. The UK with the IRA, the Spanish with the Basque (sp?) seperatists etc etc.
    In these countries laws on human rights and free speach prevail. (Albeit precariously sometimes, I admit!)
    The US, confronted with some of its first terrorist attacks imediatly goes into panic, ignoring the spirit of its consitution.
    I can only hope that over the next few months things will calm down, and the US will realise the importance of human and civil rights laws.

    --
    Anyone quoted by a reporter knows how little they understand
    Don't believe what you read is the truth.
    1. Re:US anti-terror laws by jacoplane · · Score: 1

      The UK isn't much better than the US. Even though they have experience with terrorists, they are now also implementing a new counterterrorist law. Interesting that they only now feel this is necessary. Then again, have you walked around london lately? It's pretty much impossible to _not_ be recorded by CCTV, where ever you go.

    2. Re:US anti-terror laws by NeoTron · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Sorry matey - read about the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (chillingly the R.I.P. Bill - RIP civil liberties bill in other words), that we have in the UK. One of the nasty things is they can demand your encryption keys or passwords for any encrypted files you have , and it's practically an instant 2 Year jail sentence if you refuse to provide 'em.

      :(

    3. Re:US anti-terror laws by TheMidget · · Score: 0, Troll
      Quite a few European countries have had problems with terrorosts for years.

      It's a problem of scale. In Europe, you get bombs in supermarkets or subway stations, car bombs near the roadside, some minor politicians shot or stabbed, but nothing really serious. So far, the Tour Montparnasse is still standing, Chirac is still alive, Bridges are still safe to cross, and while the Alp tunnels are now considered unsafe, this is due to accidents, rather than to deliberate acts of terrorism.

      In Europe, most acts of terrorism have a death toll of 1 or 2 per incident, and maybe 10 wounded. In the US, you get 4000 deaths plus a very high-profile landmark destroyed. Not really the same scale.

    4. Re:US anti-terror laws by blane.bramble · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's a problem of scale. In Europe, you get bombs in supermarkets or subway stations, car bombs near the roadside, some minor politicians shot or stabbed, but nothing really serious.

      Glad to see you think an attempt to blow up the Canary Wharf tower was not really serious. I also bet all those who have lost loved ones as a result of terrorism in Europe are happy that their loss is nothing serious.

      In Europe, most acts of terrorism have a death toll of 1 or 2 per incident, and maybe 10 wounded. In the US, you get 4000 deaths plus a very high-profile landmark destroyed. Not really the same scale.

      In Europe we have had 30 years and many many terrorist attacks, including the deaths of public figures. In the US you get one attack. Not really the same scale. Can you see the fault in the logic?

    5. Re:US anti-terror laws by nomadic · · Score: 5, Insightful


      The US, confronted with some of its first terrorist attacks imediatly goes into panic, ignoring the spirit of its consitution.

      No, the White House went into a panic, not the entire country. I'm not usually prone to paranoia, but I've begun thinking the massive crackdown on civil liberties is being done intentionally in order to goad Democrats into responding. At which point the Republican party will start screeching about how the Democrats are soft on terrorism and don't care about the security of your children etc. The Republicans really were hurt by the shift rightward of the nation, with Democrats moving to the center and getting a lot of voters who they'd missed out on the previous few elections.

    6. Re:US anti-terror laws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "It's pretty much impossible to _not_ be recorded by CCTV, where ever you go."

      As a Brit I can say I have absolutely no problem with this whatsoever. I am not entirely law abiding, but then I don't skin up in the middle of the high street so CCTV there doesn't bother me. What does bother me is when people leave bombs lying in busy places and we can't catch them because there were no cameras.

      I am fairly extreme and critical of all governments, especially in the UK, but CCTV in public places is just not a problem unless you're doing something illegal. If you are doing something illegal go somewhere with no camera's (like in your house).

      If its something you cannot do in the high street because there are camera's there then why the fuck would you do it anyway?

    7. Re:US anti-terror laws by arkanes · · Score: 1

      Waaaah! Our terrorism is worse than your terrorism, you pinky-extending continentals!

    8. Re:US anti-terror laws by nowt · · Score: 2

      Mod this one up. It's sadly dead-on.
      :

      --
      A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess? - Joshua (Wargames)
    9. Re:US anti-terror laws by wakebrdr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Of course Hillary--it's another VAST RIGHT-WING CONSPIRACY!!!

      You are being paranoid. Our elected officials, after their (everyone's) initial reaction to 9/11, took this as an opportunity to "do something" even though what they did was wrong. (It makes a nice bullet point on the campaign literature.) Only a few (Bob Barr, et al) had the guts to stand up and say, "this is wrong, govt. has enough power as is." And no one had the guts to say, "You live in a free country, and people will occasionally abuse those freedoms. Deal with it."

      The crackdown on non-citizens I can deal with....

      --
      Slashdot: Liberal News for Nerds. Liberal Stuff that Matters.
    10. Re:US anti-terror laws by Ceinwyn · · Score: 2, Insightful

      but I've begun thinking the massive crackdown on civil liberties is being done intentionally in order to goad Democrats into responding. At which point the Republican party will start screeching about how the Democrats are soft on terrorism and don't care about the security of your children etc.

      Yup it's another vast right wing conspiracy. Just like that time they were accusing that nice Mr. Clinton of lying in a court of law; he would never do such a thing.

      This is not a Democrat/Republican issue the entire government is to blame, Democrats included

    11. Re:US anti-terror laws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well I would have to say that the Whitehouse was the one organization that didn't panic. The actions so far have been pretty well thought out and well timed in my opinion. They are however acting swiftly which is what you want the executive branch to do. The legislative branch you want working a little slower.

      While the balance is shifting a little bit..it will come back to the normal routine. None of the laws have been tested in courts, and some of them will most likely be interperted different once they get tested in real practice.

      Everthing is give and take and it takes balance that is almost never equal in the beginning.

    12. Re:US anti-terror laws by KilljoyAZ · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In the US you get one attack.

      Um, you're so wrong it's incredible.

      Someone brought a bomb into the US Capitol in 1915. Going back to WWII, there were German agents that set a harbor on fire which contained an ammo depot. In 1954, Puerto Rican seperatists opened fire in the House chambers. There was another Capitol bombing in 1971. We had the SLA back in the seventies who robbed banks and planned to place bombs under police cars. There was a rash of skyjackings in the early 70s which lead to the original sky marshal program. There was the Oklahoma City bombing perpetrated by local nutjob Timothy McVeigh. Someone took a machine gun into the Capitol building a couple years ago. Someone tried to fly a light plane into the White House a few years ago but missed and hit the lawn (was that inspiration for the terrorists of 9/11?) Another person opened fire on the White House with an automatic weapon about a couple years ago. We've also had the Unabomber who sent bombs through the mail and the Army of God who like to blow up abortion clinics, and who may be responsible for the Atlanta Olympics bombings.

      If you count overseas bombings, there was the Marine barracks in Lebanon, the Khobar Towers in Africa, the African Embassies and the USS Cole.

      Political assassinations are as old as history. We've had three presidents assassinated (by my count) and a couple others shot at. Not to mention the civil rights leaders killed during the 60's.

      And this is all just off the top of my head. Looks like ignorance isn't just an American phenomenon.

      --
      This .sig is currently on hiatus for retooling.
    13. Re:US anti-terror laws by KilljoyAZ · · Score: 1

      Correction - Khobar Towers are in Saudi Arabia. Remember kids - always hit preview ;)

      --
      This .sig is currently on hiatus for retooling.
    14. Re:US anti-terror laws by KilljoyAZ · · Score: 1

      And on top of all that, I forgot the FIRST WTC bombing...

      --
      This .sig is currently on hiatus for retooling.
    15. Re:US anti-terror laws by blane.bramble · · Score: 1

      Maybe you should read my words again. The whole purpose of my statement was to (sarcastically) show up the idiocy of the statement I was replying to. Hence the "Can you see the fault in the logic?" line. And yes, I am aware of some (I won't claim all) of the previous attacks in the USA.

    16. Re:US anti-terror laws by Sloppy · · Score: 2

      Within a couple of hours of the 9/11 attacks, the true terrorist nature of the attack had become apparant: it wasn't that it killed a lot of people or did billions of dollars of property damage. When I heard that all civilian planes had been grounded, I suspected that the true terrorist strategy was to provoke a predictable response from the US Government, against the US people. The attack was indirect, and the weapon was not boxcutters or bombs or jet fuel; the weapon was our own government's power.

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    17. Re:US anti-terror laws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Deal with it? I'll fucking deal with it. I got my 9mm dealmaker right fucking here. What the hell do you mean? No one had the guts to admit they didn't have the guts to stand up for theit constituancy's rights? That's fucking stupid.


      Of course expecting some lameass who responds with Limbaughesque comments about Hillary (since obviously he, and you, can't make a reasoned argument) to have the sense to get in out of the rain is expecting a wee bit to much methinks.


      We may be paranoid, but you lot are fucking blind.

    18. Re:US anti-terror laws by bnenning · · Score: 2

      You're assuming the Democrats care about civil liberties more than the Republicans, which is not the case. Clinton and Gore supported the CDA, tried to mandate the Clipper Chip, and aggressively defended the encryption export controls. Especially after 9/11, both parties are willing to throw the Constitution out the window because they believe that's what the voters want. Sadly, they're probably right.

      --
      How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
    19. Re:US anti-terror laws by YogSothoth · · Score: 1
      I'm not sure I would agree with your claim that "laws on human rights and free speech prevail" in the countries/situations you mention, a quick search on google turns up ...
      • In Spain, authorities can shut down newspapers and jail editors if they feel the publications defend Basque terrorists. (link)
      • And regarding the UK/IRA ...
        • ... permits a police officer to arrest without a warrant a person whom she or he has reasonable grounds to suspect of being guilty
        • persons charged under the EPA or PTA are tried in Diplock courts by a single judge sitting without a jury
        • a detainee can be held for up to seven days without charge
        (link)

      This isn't to knock the UK or Spain (both wonderful countries) it's mainly to point out that pretty much all countries react the same way to terrorism

      --
      there are two kinds of people in this world - those who divide people into two groups and those who don't
    20. Re:US anti-terror laws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quite a few European countries have had problems with terrorosts for years. The UK with the IRA, the Spanish with the Basque (sp?) seperatists etc etc.
      Hell Canada has one working in the government. Sure they don't blow up bombs but they ruin the security of Canada

    21. Re:US anti-terror laws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't wait to see the look of disapointment when (if) after the US has done away with the evil al Quaeda (sp?) network when the UK says it is time to look at the Ireland terrorism and the US backs off since where do you think the IRA gets most of their funding?

    22. Re:US anti-terror laws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hi, parent poster from work here.

      And my point was that the US has suffered terrorist acts before (granted, not to the number of some European states or Israel) and hadn't considered ripping up the Constitution the way Bush and Ashcroft are doing today. Pre Sept. 11, if Bush tried this crap, the impeachment hearings would start the next day. Even with what little faith I have in Corpgress. Post Sept. 11, some people are willing to accept Bush's naked power grab, especially after the anthrax that followed the bombings.

      Believe me, if there was an attack of such size and scope in any European country, they'd be struggling with the same issue of security vs. liberty that the US is doing currently. This isn't American nature, it's human nature.

    23. Re:US anti-terror laws by Oztun · · Score: 2

      Lets not forget when Israel bombed our ship in the 70's. Oh wait only Muslims are terrorist not Jews so that must not have really happened.

    24. Re:US anti-terror laws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Panic" has nothing to do with it. It's pure opportunism.

    25. Re:US anti-terror laws by jkovach · · Score: 1

      None of the laws have been tested in courts, and some of them will most likely be interperted different once they get tested in real practice. None of the laws have been tested in courts, and some of them will most likely be interperted different once they get tested in real practice.

      Don't count on it... remember, the Supreme Court upheld the detention of Japanese-Americans in concentration camps after Pearl Harbor. Courts tend to defer to the administration during times of war.

    26. Re:US anti-terror laws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yea, the UK has real good free speech laws...

      We all know that the US still has the highest protection for free speech found on this planet.

    27. Re:US anti-terror laws by blane.bramble · · Score: 2

      Believe me, if there was an attack of such size and scope in any European country, they'd be struggling with the same issue of security vs. liberty that the US is doing currently. This isn't American nature, it's human nature.

      Not sure how much reporting on what happens on this side of the pond you get over there, but here in the UK we are struggling with some of the issues - I believe the House of Lords has just thrown out some (all?) of the governments new terrorism bill - probably the imprisonment without trial (or as it used to be called, internment) section.

    28. Re:US anti-terror laws by nomadic · · Score: 2

      It's a pity, too, because the administration can tell the courts whatever they want. In a case challenging the Constitutionality of the Japanese-American interment, the Army just flat-out lied to the Court.

  9. Repressiveness by geschild · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The fears of the informed seem to have come true. What remains is this question: will the informed be able to get the uninformed interested enough to rise up against this new police state? This is either the start of the real Third Reich (before you hit that flame-bait button, read on) coming to you in 25 years from now, or the last straw to make the people regain civil liberties from Corporatism and mis-guided politicians.

    We will need to ring the bell louder, make more people aware. We have the obligation to do so because we know. If you let this go unchallenged, don't come complaining in 25 years time that your children have no rights, no liberties.

    Should this sound absurd to you, read into some European history for the years 1900-1939, to read the reasons for WW I, WW II and what happend in the "interbellum". You may very well not like what you find. For WW I a single event was enough to set it off. For WW II the foundation was laid by a repressive reaction 'supported' by the 'people'. 2001-9-11 may very well be the one event, the repression of civil liberties in reaction to it may very well bring it on for real.

    Again The waves are eating at the lime-stone, slowly but surely. In the end the rock _will_ fall.

    --
    Karma? What's that again?
    1. Re:Repressiveness by nomadic · · Score: 1

      Who are you trying to reach here? You're preaching to the converted, most people here agree with you.

    2. Re:Repressiveness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Go back and reread your history books. WWI was *not* caused by the assassination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand, but by the treaties between countries like France, Russia, and Britain. The European leaders wanted a war, and the assassination (with the Austrian belligerance to the Balkan states afterwards) was an excuse for the Germans and the French to resume fighting. Nobody wanted the trench warfare, but Generals wielding 20th century weapons with Napoleonic tactics made it a reality.

      WW2 could have been adverted completely if the British and French hadn't confused the Nazis with anti-Bolsheviks. A good book that covers the British perspective on WW1 and the beginnings of WW2 are the "Last Lion" series by William Manchester.

    3. Re:Repressiveness by dbitter1 · · Score: 1
      If I recall correctly, one of our founding fathers (Ben?) said that governments must be completely overhauled every 200 years to eliminate damage by corruption...

      Lets do the math here...

      --
      For us carnivores, "Sucking the marrow out of life" isn't a transcendentalist philosophy but a practical instruction.
    4. Re:Repressiveness by Tackhead · · Score: 2
      > If I recall correctly, one of our founding fathers (Ben?) said that governments must be completely overhauled every 200 years to eliminate damage by corruption..

      Most people support the changes since 9/11. Perhaps this is the overhaul - a realization that the Constitution isn't a suicide pact, and a realizing that regardless of the intent of the Founders, it is a living document. The Founders aren't here; it's up to us to make sense of it.

      I'd feel better if our politicians would simply do it honestly - by passing an amendment to repeal the Fourth (in much the same way as they repealed Prohibition), but if the people have agreed that it's preferable to trade a little liberty in order to obtain security by living in a Panopticon (most people have done so already - with "loyalty cards" and privacy-invaders like Doubleclick, the DMA already knows more about most people than the government ever will!), and want this to be done quickly (that is, without an amendment repealing the Fourth), then this is arguably the only way to do it.

    5. Re:Repressiveness by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      Why stop with the 4th amendment? Why not just abolish the whole !@#$ Constitution and declare GW Bush as King, and Ashcroft his Chief Advisor!

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    6. Re:Repressiveness by geschild · · Score: 1

      Even if most people agree, most of those people _still_ don't try to persuade their representatives to take different stance. Mostly because of the "Oh, others will do it. Everyone here is against it, so others will do the work for me."

      You and I, we have to tell our politicians this is the wrong way. Otherwise this will lead to a culture that will ultimately give rise to that new totalitarian state I'm talking about. Mind you, there _were_ enlightened spirits in Nazi-Germany back then, they just couldn't speak out loud enough to be heared in time. Now that we have our information age this should not need happen again, we can reach enough people in a concerted effort. I hope I can convince you and others to not whisk me asside as superfluous, but listen to me and help fight this fight.

      --
      Karma? What's that again?
    7. Re:Repressiveness by Tackhead · · Score: 2
      > Why stop with the 4th amendment? Why not just abolish the whole !@#$ Constitution and declare GW Bush as King, and Ashcroft his Chief Advisor!

      The point is that we have a process for amending the Constitution -- if indeed the Fourth, as originally drafted, is no longer relevant in today's society, let's - as a society - say so, and pass a replacement in the House and Senate by a 2/3 majority, and let 3/4 of the states ratify it.

      Something like this:

      "[Proposed Amendment 28]:

      1. The Fourth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States, is hereby repealed.

      2. Except in times of national emergency, 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 or Executive order, supported by Oath, affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

      3. The President shall have the power to declare a state of national emergency.

      4. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

      Indeed, I would argue that we could do the same for the appropriate sections of amendments V, VI, VII, and VIII. Hell, we might even clarify what we meant by II in the process.

      Can't drum up enough popular support in both houses and the State legislatures? The original amendments stand.

      But if there is support among the public, as expressed through their elected legislators, for trading liberty for security, then such an amendment would demonstrate it. Such a move would be highly preferable to the current situation of undermining Constitutional protections without such a demonstration. We have a process for amending the Constitution; why not use it?

    8. Re:Repressiveness by Saeger · · Score: 1
      Combine your exception:

      Except in times of national emergency...

      With G.Bush's declaration (paraphrased):

      "...this war on terrorism has no endgame..."

      And we're left in a state of perpetual police state surveilence and eroding liberties. It's analagous to the "war on drugs" -- people willingly bend over and allow their cars to be searched for "drugs" and their property to be seized on flimsy drug charges, and their lives to be turned upside down.

      With the "war on terrorism" I wonder how long it will be before people bend over again and allow the storm troopers access to search their homes for plutonium/anthrax/etc in order to "prove their innonence." Hey, they don't even need a search warrant first anymore... almost there.

      --
      Power to the Peaceful
    9. Re:Repressiveness by Tackhead · · Score: 2
      > It's analagous to the "war on drugs" -- people willingly bend over and allow [ ... ]

      You made my point for me. Rightly or wrongly, whether required under law or not, people willingly. allow. it.

      If people are willingly cooperating, then we can keep the Fourth as-is, and send the cops to knock on doors and ask. (In the same sense that an officer can ask, but not demand, to search your vehicle after pulling you over for a busted tail light.) Those who with to cooperate, can. Those who don't, can choose not to.

      Choosing not to cooperate doesn't by itself constitute probable cause, but there's no reason why a quick search of their list of email contacts after they've chosen not to cooperate couldn't be done. (This is again analagous to the traffic stop question -- if the guy pulled over for a busted tail light is pulled over in a neighborhood known to the officer to have high street crime, and the guy pulled over has a string of priors a mile long, or is known to the officer to spend a lot of time hanging out with gang members or hiring prostitutes, or has other links to street crime, the officer more than likely has probable cause.)

      If the search turns up no suspects, no problem. We've found a conscientious objector to the new rules, but there's no reason to return to his or her home. If, however, the search turns up regular correspondence with three suspected and six known criminals with prior convictions, then the evidence should be presented to a judge and a warrant obtained on the grounds that there's now reason to believe that the alleged conscientious objector may be aiding and abetting the enemy.

    10. Re:Repressiveness by nerdlyone · · Score: 1
      Um, one point you missed--most of the recently passed laws limiting civil liberties have a 5 year life span built right in. How exactly does that fit into your "police state" theory?

      I agree that most of the recent changes have potential for gross abuse. But, (and I realize I will get flamed here on /. for this, as well as modded into obscurity) there are mostly good reasons for the changes, at least temporarily. It is a balance of freedom versus security, and the pendulum has understandibly swung toward security recently. So we lost a little freedom for now. How has your life actually changed because of it? I daresay that few people (barring those of middle eastern descent--they are definitely feeling the effects of this) have been affected by the changes in the laws at all. And please don't forget the reason for all this--would you want a suitcase-sized dirty nuke detonated in your home city? It wouldn't be Hiroshima, but no one could live there for 1,000 years just the same. Before we bash the gubbament, maybe we should remember to weigh the loss of rights correctly against the increases in security brought about by these changes.

  10. Opening the envelope... by NeoTron · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The silly, and scary, thing about this, is that the worlds population would kick up seven shades of shit if the authorities said "we're opening ALL your post before you receive it AND after you send it, and shove your rights right up your ass" - which is precisely what is happening with our internet data - they are basically opening the envelope and inspecting every packet.

    The "powers that be" are meant to be working FOR us are they not? Not being paranoid ABOUT us? Oh sorry, I thought the UK (R.I.P. Bill) and the US (Whatever you lot have got) were "democracies". Seems like the definition of democracy has changed to "you can do whatever you like so long as we know what it is and that it's not harmfull to the "government"...

    :(

    1. Re:Opening the envelope... by s390 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, I can see both sides. First-world cultures have progressed from the naive Victorian view that "gentlemen do not read each other's mail" (from before WWI up through the Chamberlin appeasement of Germany's "National Socialism" between the two big wars) through the hard-headed pragmatism of some very perilous Cold War times, up to the present (which has turned out not to be such a kindler and gentler era as we might once have thought and wished). But then again, there is also The Constitution of the United States, which is our blueprint for Liberty which is not to be lightly ignored and cannot be run over roughshod. If anyone tries it... we do have an armed citizenry.

      Oregon has refused to cooperate with the FBI seeking "voluntary" interviews with visa holders from Middle Eastern countries. (I am from Oregon, by the way, and The Oregonian printed my Letter To The Editor when I was 17 supporting our Senator Wayne Morse when he voted against the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution that unleashed (Vice) President Johnson's war machine which eventually killed 50,000 of my contemporaries in my generation's unjust war.) I would hope that the authorities in Oregon grow some balls and insist on being present at such "voluntary" interviews, just to make sure that innocent kids from places east of Gibraltar are not rounded up wholesale for political opinions and not contacts, actions, or evidence. The first duty of every citizen is to maintain a healthy skepticism about the motives of governmental minions, at all levels.

      But where should the line be drawn with regard to government snooping? This is not an easy question to answer but some guidance is to be found in the Constitution and in the Common Law heritage that provides the foundations for all of our Courts. These include "reasonable suspicion" and "probable cause" as well as the citizen Grand Jury.

      To the extent the time-honored standards of our justice system might be abridged by the current administration's "emergency" powers extracted from legislators too afraid of being seen as "soft on terrorism" - they are illegitimate and will not stand. We have a (mostly) independent judiciary. They'll sort it out in due time. If not, then revolution.

      Jefferson was right: the power to govern is based only upon the consent of the governed, and the power elites in the beltway had better not forget this political fact. And it was Lincoln (a Republican) who said that this "...Government Of the People, By the People, and For the People, Shall Not Perish From The Earth." He was right too, surely.

    2. Re:Opening the envelope... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      East of Gibraltar? What do you mean?

    3. Re:Opening the envelope... by s390 · · Score: 2

      Middle East. Should I have said East and South of Gibraltar? (Yes, I know Italy's east of there.)

    4. Re:Opening the envelope... by ichimunki · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry. What part of "packets sent over the net are basically plain text" did you miss? Using the internet without encrypting the data before it leaves your client is like sending a postcard. Sure, the postman is not likely to read many postcards, but everyone knows quite well that he could if he wanted to.

      Unless you are actively encrypting all of your not-for-public-consumption net traffic you just aren't trying very hard to keep people from seeing what you're up to. Even so, the packets themselves, where they came from, where they're headed (you know, header information) is *still* essentially public-- no different than me standing on the sidewalk and watching where people go.

      But I agree. We don't need to pay federal snoops to watch this stuff. It's not making us more secure, and many of things they are doing "for the good of the public" are actually contrary to what I consider to be likely to benefit public security in the long term.

      --
      I do not have a signature
    5. Re:Opening the envelope... by lobsterGun · · Score: 1

      >If not, then revolution.

      You have much more faith in the American people than I.

  11. And this helps me trust the CableCo's more? by rhekman · · Score: 2, Interesting

    In my eyes, the local Cable company is worse than our Baby Bell (especially after that NAT bashing article recently). I can choose my local and long distance phone service, I can't choose my Cable TV company. Plus the Cable TV goes largely unregulated. The phone company has a concept of CPE vs. CO, etc. The cable co. regards everything as their network.

    Now, if I used a cable modem, I have even less of the microscopic amount of privacy I had before? Great!

    Regards

    --
    I like teamwork. It's easier to assign blame that way.
    1. Re:And this helps me trust the CableCo's more? by Karl+Cocknozzle · · Score: 1
      I can't choose my Cable TV company. Plus the Cable TV goes largely unregulated.

      Cable TV is de-regulated, but I'd hardly call it "un-regulated". They still must kowtow to every small town city council in their service area, and still have to get a charter from the city to provide service.

      And you do have choices: You can get sattellite, or you can buy an antenna and not have cable. (Or you could get rid of your TV.)
      --
      Who did what now?
    2. Re:And this helps me trust the CableCo's more? by zeno_2 · · Score: 1

      Well, the good thing about the above..

      I had DSL before I had a cable modem. With DSL, when something wasn't working, I would have 2 companies that would tell me its the other ones fault, my ISP, and the Telephone company. They never talked between themselves, they would just keep on blaming one or the other about why my dsl wasn't working.

      With cable, I have one company to bitch at, as they control the lines and the service.

      Good/Bad? Hard to say, I like my cable modem much better though =)

    3. Re:And this helps me trust the CableCo's more? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Didn't feel like logging in.. so sue me.

      To focus on your point, they do own the network if you have a cable modem. Unless you are willing to shell out over a million dollars for a fiber optic rebuild which my local cable company did for my county alone then quit your whining and deal with it.

      Don't want the cable company on your internal LAN? Install a firewall. LRP, GNATBox, and others are a good start (and free). Otherwise, prepare to be scanned.

      Maybe it's just me; or maybe it's just low blood sugar.

  12. The Third Reich by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This is either the start of the real Third Reich

    I thought they now call it the "New World Order"

  13. Re: Media Coverage by taiwanjohn · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Anyone else bothered by the lack of mainstream media coverage before these laws got passed? Readers of /., K5, poliglut.org, et.al. knew about them when it mattered, and many of us fired off emails and faxes to our congress-critters about it... but there was almost ZERO coverage on CNN and ilk when there was still time to do something about it. Now that the laws are on the books, suddenly we have a slew of talking-heads shows bemoaning the loss of freedom. Was this intentional? ...or am I just being paranoid?

    --jrd

    --
    XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
  14. Tip of the Iceberg by timmy+the+large · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Sadly this is just the beginning. To many people are scared.

    I have actually asked rooms full of people wether they think, even given the extremly long odds that they would ever be involed in a terror incedent, it is a god idea to give these controls to the goverment and let their rights to privacy, speech and fair trial be vacated. Most of them said yes they would give up a portion of the rights. One I explained to some that giving up these freedoms would only create the illusion of security, but in fact would not make them any more secure a few even said that that was ok too.(I almost started screaming at those folks)

    I think it is now starting to get better, but some of it is to late. It is going to be very difficult to take away the powers that have been given to law enforcement.

    I honestly don't know what to do about the situation. I try to talk to friends and family about it and even people in grocery store lines and such. But I have to admit I am worried that there is nothing to be done. And I am sadly glad that many Americans are armed and am now a left wing liberal who supports the NRA. Scary.

    1. Re:Tip of the Iceberg by vulg4r_m0nk · · Score: 1

      And I am sadly glad that many Americans are armed and am now a left wing liberal who supports the NRA. Scary.

      I find myself in the same, terrible boat. After years of arguing for gun control, there's now very definitely a part of me that appreciates all those right wing, AK-47's for 'home defense' wackos.

    2. Re:Tip of the Iceberg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "given the extremly long odds that they would ever be involed in a terror incedent"

      Let me guess you Kalamazoo Michigan.

      Your theroy makes sense unless you worked in the WTC, or a US embassay, or the Pentagon. Even with the recent safe houses filled with loads of evidence of an ongoing gurellia war, and the hundreds of faithful, many within the US, calling for the destruction of America, you still believe there is no reason to be alarmed. You still don't believe that thousands of people are actively plotting to kill Americans? What does it take to get ride of this apathy? Terrorists destroyed the World Trade Center and killed 5K people and the /. reaction is to fallback on Orwellian cliches.

      No matter what you think there needs to be a reaction to the mass murder of 5K people. It probably should involve uncovering information about attacks before they occur. Perhaps the laws put in place to preserve some freedoms for you and me are protecting people who, again are actively attempting to kill people. You have to stop these people. Even if you don't live in NYC or Kenya, etc, you can't allow Americans to be killed. Yes, and its terrible, you may have to give up some of your previous "rights". We all have to make sacrifices. Don't blame anyone for this but the terrorists. You can't expect someone to be killed unexpectedly just so you can feel free enough that if you wanted to commit a crime, you could. The govt will have more power and knowledge about you. And maybe it won't solve terrorist attacks a 100% but I guarentee if will be useful some % of the time. Expect that. Its the right thing to do on the domestic front.

      Also be sure to Write the politicians and tell them to end military and political aid to Israel, until, without negotiation they accept all outstanding UN resoltions, this will cut down tremedously on the pool of young insane people who are willing to hijack and fly planes into buildings. Inform the nations of the middle east that THEY must protect themselves, and transition the whole Iraq embargo to a muslim nation, such as Saudia Arabia or perhaps even Iran. Let the Muslims nations do what they know needs to be done, to protect themselves and watchover Huessen(sic), without scapegoating the responsiblity to the Americans for its inevitable cost on the Iraqis. Then when the terrorists have few causes and reasons to travel 6K miles to kill Americans, maybe then we can ease off some of the fomestic restrictions we had put in place.

    3. Re:Tip of the Iceberg by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 3, Funny
      am now a left wing liberal who supports the NRA.

      Attention Citizen #3871209 (AKA timmy the large; AKA sonora sam; AKA pr0nSurfer34):

      Greetings.

      This message is to notify you that you have been placed on our domestic terrorism watch list for holding leftward leaning views while in the possession (or while considering the possession) of firearms. Be advised that your movement and messages may be monitored at any time and anything you may say or do could be admissible before a military tribunal at the discression of the Commander in Chief.

      Sincerely,

      General^WAttorney General Ashcroft

      --
      That is all.
    4. Re:Tip of the Iceberg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So being an ultra-lefty liberal can now be considered flamingly gay? Right on gaywad brother! *slaps ass*

    5. Re:Tip of the Iceberg by thelexx · · Score: 1

      While humorous, this one left me feeling icy inside. How is this not a very possible future? How many years closer would it get with even _one_ more major terrorist act? Surely it could be argued, based on the logic used in Washington lately, that those are in fact two large categories under which many potential terrorists could be grouped and so should be added as 'top-level' groups to do some light (great word to add for making it sound innocuous eh?) surveillance of. Surely they would not inform you of it though if you were selected...

      a very wierded out LEXX

      --
      "Gold still represents the ultimate form of payment in the world." - Alan Greenspan, 1999
  15. Re: Media Coverage by Ridge2001 · · Score: 2, Redundant
    You aren't the only one to make that observation.

    http://www.counterpunch.org/presspatriot.html

  16. Anybody thout how this can be used to nail spamers by TheMidget · · Score: 1
    Just take the headers of your spam, leave the Received-from line containing the spammers IP and sent date intact, replace the body with "interesting" contents, and inject it via an open proxy + open relay to a random address...

    Should be fun to watch. Just make sure to not get caught yourself in the FBI's net.

  17. Agreed! by SomethingOrOther · · Score: 1
    now also implementing a new counterterrorist law
    According to a Wired article and BBC news article I read [see my sig for my opinion of reporters!] This was partly brought about by preasure from Bush. We all know that where ever the US goes, Europe is sure to follow!

    impossible to _not_ be recorded by CCTV
    Agreed!
    Being part of the most watched nation on earth is very bad

    --
    Anyone quoted by a reporter knows how little they understand
    Don't believe what you read is the truth.
  18. They only want to get the newest pr0n for free... by DocSnyder · · Score: 1

    A: Hey check this, that guy finally found some k3w1 p1c5/m0v135 of [whoever], let's add them to our filebase...

    B: Oh, he's using a members only site, let's ask his magic lantern for the password... this stuff is REALLY weird, thanx Dubya

  19. Human rights act makes RIP illegal by SomethingOrOther · · Score: 1
    Sorry matey - read about the Regulation of Investigatory Powers

    I know!
    Jack Straw was a wanker.
    Fortunately this WILL be overturned by the European courts as it is breach of the human rights act. We are waiting for the first test case.

    --
    Anyone quoted by a reporter knows how little they understand
    Don't believe what you read is the truth.
    1. Re:Human rights act makes RIP illegal by Ian+Pointer · · Score: 1
      Or not, as I imagine our wonderful Government will use the fact that we are "at war" in order to contravane certain sections of the Act (which is apparently allowed). We have always been at war with Oceania.


      Big Brother is watching You.
      Learn to become Invisible.

  20. The US is a safe place by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Bridges are still safe to cross

    I hate to dissapoint you but bridges are quite safe in the US

    1. Re:The US is a safe place by TheMidget · · Score: 1
      I hate to dissapoint you but bridges are quite safe in the US

      Wanna buy one?

    2. Re:The US is a safe place by unitron · · Score: 2

      There are a lot of bridges (and other infrastructure) in the US that are aging and crumbling and by no means safe, and the relevant governments don't have the money to fix them, but that's got nothing to do with whether or not said bridges are vulnerable to terrorism.

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

  21. A dictator's dream by Max+von+H. · · Score: 2

    Between Carnivore, Echelon and now that, I can only think of one thing: should China [replace with your favourite dictatorship] have the money to do it, I'm pretty sure they'd do the same.

    If I were a dictator, or planning on becoming one in the near future, I'd watch the USA really closely for practical applications of modern citizen monitoring methods.

    What's next? The US selling the technology to other governments? I can imagine the brochure already... "Snoop on all your citizens without moving from your chair" or "Freedom Anihilation for Dummies" sound pretty much like it.

    Scary.

    /max

    --
    -- It's always darker before it goes pitch black.
    1. Re:A dictator's dream by paranoic · · Score: 1

      Yes, why do you think all of those nations agreed to let us do what ever we want, wherever we want after 9/11. THEY (other countries) will be doing the SAME (snooping, imprisoning people they don't like, etc.) to THEIR citizens (or residents). After all, since we are doing it, it must be the right thing to do.

    2. Re:A dictator's dream by Max+von+H. · · Score: 1

      I agree with you up to a certain point. However, yo fail to mention that many countries have strict laws regarding privacy, and mostly as a whole are much less prone to panic and kneejerk decisions than USians. When you got a nervous, trigger-happy paranoid idiot in front of you (you know who I'm talking about, right?), you better say 'yes' to all his demands just to calm him down.

      The main problem, IMHO, is how poorly the media relate what's really happening. All we get to see is what shocks people as an excuse to pass any legislation, but without actually explaining in layman's terms what the politicians are doing. It's just like how the DMCA passed: have the whole thing written by lawyers in some twisted legal mumbojumbo, so that almost nobody will understand and thus, pay attention to it. Should the mass media be impartial, you'd get headlines such as 'Senate passes anticonstitutional law voiding individual freedom of speech', but I guess it wouldn't really make the shareholders happy.

      Now, I say it'll be interesting seeing how 'W' will stand after the Afghanistan operations. I just hope Americans will stop being blinded by blatant propaganda and start reacting to what's being done to themselves and in the rest of the world.

      [/RANT]

      /jabba

      --
      -- It's always darker before it goes pitch black.
  22. Slashdot via SSL soon? by imrdkl · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Better buy your accelerator cards, before they become illegal.

  23. Howto go to court with DoJ by bruthasj · · Score: 2, Informative

    If you're worried that they are going to force you to give up logs outside of the normal court procedures that the constitution has set forth ... then just say, "Screw you!" when they come knocking on the door.

    Section 211 doesn't give them the right to gun you down with machine guns and photon torpedos if you don't comply.

    So, you might get arrested, but hey, at least you'll go to court!!!!!!!!!

    1. Re:Howto go to court with DoJ by renehollan · · Score: 2
      In my case, as a non-citizen working legally in the U.S., I can now be held without charge for up to 7 days (would have been indefinitely). A lot of "accidents" can happen in seven days.

      The question becomes, "So, do I resist? And how much?"

      If you think the answer is "Yes. I've done nothing wrong. They are violating my constitutional rights." then what? Are you willing to kill, or try to kill, the police coming to get you? Because if you aren't, and they are willing to use deadly force if necessary, you will be arrested.

      Of course, if you chose to resist, you are acting illegally, a corrupted legal system notwithstanding. Congratulations, you are now a vigilante. Vigilanteism is bad, for it reflects a complete breakdown in objective law and order.

      However, when enough resist, they are no longer vigilantees for they are acting according to an unwritten law of their own. And that is the birth of revolution. I've often thought that the "blood of patriots" necessary to refresh the tree of liberty refers not to revolutionaries, but the vigilantees that preceed them, believeing in the same ideals that spark the eventual revolution.

      When someone resists, fights, kills police, and most likely dies in the process, in defense of a perceived right to develop, use, and share a system for sending legally-purchased movies from a central media server to display stations in his own home (for example), that should give others pause to think: not "Is it worth dying for?", but rather, "Should have they used such force to try and stop him?" The patriot, of course, will always chose death over a loss of liberty. We (in the U.S.A.) aren't quite at that point, of course, but we certainly seem hell-bent on getting there fast, what with the DMCA as law, and hacking as terrorism.

      I am firmy convinced that this latest suspension of civil liberties in the U.S.A will breed anti-government vigilantees that will be harbingers of the next American Revolution, sooner or later, for revolution is the history of all societies.

      --
      You could've hired me.
    2. Re:Howto go to court with DoJ by monkeydo · · Score: 2

      Or just don't keep logs. Your policy should be to only keep log files of any sort only as long as they are absolutely necesarry. This also means you should only log information that you will need. Logs should not be backed up unless necesarry for your own purposes.

      Even if you aren't worried about being caught yourself, your logs can still be subpoenaed against someone else, and it's just eaiser to say, "Sorry, Mr. G man, we only keep logs for 1 week." than have to actually produce them.

      I worked for a semi-public agency, just about everything they had was 'FOIA'. You could call up and ask for their firewall logs and they would have to produce them. Needless to say the firewall logs would be empty.

      --
      Si vis pacem, para bellum
      The only thing more annoying than a Libertarian is an (un|mis)informed Libertarian
    3. Re:Howto go to court with DoJ by renehollan · · Score: 1
      If you wish for peace, prepare for war.


      A fitting and thoughtful sig.

      --
      You could've hired me.
  24. Re:Agreed^2 [ot] by jacoplane · · Score: 1

    We all know that where ever the US goes, Europe is sure to follow!

    That's for sure

  25. Re: Media Coverage by jacoplane · · Score: 1

    And the sad part is that sources of good media coverage like K5 can't even afford to stay up continuously.

  26. Re:smokin' botanicals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hell yeah.

    Bring them slanty bitches over here. I'll kill that tight yellow punanny. I jam it in one inch at a time, till all 12 are buried in that sweet sweet honeypot. Mmm mmm mmm. Finger-fuckin' good.

  27. Patriotism by Cooper's_Dad · · Score: 5, Insightful
    What is the true definition of patriotism: driving around with a flag flying off a pole mounted to the cab of my truck...or...fighting to insure that my personal freedom, privacy, and civil liberties are left intact once the troops come home.

    The sea of red white and blue made me nervous from the start.

    1. Re:Patriotism by 5KVGhost · · Score: 1

      "The sea of red white and blue made me nervous from the start."

      It shouldn't have, because it has nothing to do with this problem.

      In some ways, it's just the opposite. Too many people who find national pride distasteful or jingoistic (and I'm not saying that you're one of them, I have no idea) immediately became critical of the most basic and harmless expressions of support for the United States. Many chose to escalate whatever personal grudge they carry against the current administration in general, in a time when the vast majority of Americans felt that such harsh criticism was unwarranted or inappropriate. Some went so far as to imply that anyone who flew a flag must be some kind of genocidal simpleton.

      These actions and attitudes trivialized and marginalized their opinions, and their warnings, in the eyes of many who may otherwise have listened.

      I'm not saying that such actions were "wrong", just counterproductive. Critics could have chosen to present rational arguments in terms sympathetic to the mood of the audience (which is always a good idea.) The most vocal chose not do so, and, while it may have made them felt better, it didn't help convince anyone that they were right.

    2. Re:Patriotism by Debillitatus · · Score: 1
      What is the true definition of patriotism: driving around with a flag flying off a pole mounted to the cab of my truck...or...fighting to insure that my personal freedom, privacy, and civil liberties are left intact once the troops come home.

      The flag. Definitely if it's really, really big.

      --

      Come on, give it up, that's

    3. Re:Patriotism by hether · · Score: 1

      You're right on. It's painfully evident when I see letters to the editor complaining that neighbors don't fly flags at their homes or that the janitor at the elementary school doesn't take down the flag in a ceremonial manner at night.

      People are choosing to show their patriotism through their consumerism. The person with the most flag paraphanelia wins, and those that fight for our freedoms are labeled as anti-government for their failure to all-out support everything the government does.

      --

      Most people would die sooner than think; in fact, they do.
  28. accountability for a life time of thoughts. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How long will it be before every word you type/say/think is neatly stored away for later retrievial. The most of this technology is possible right now, and we can add video later as storage becomes cheaper. The problem I have is that words can so easily be taken out of context, you will need to be lawer in this new world order... don't convey any thoughts against the powers that be or else they will make you love big brother.

  29. nice, by cockroach2 · · Score: 0

    great democracy you have over there...

    1. Re:nice, by Almace · · Score: 1

      Our country is not a democracy you fukwit. Were a republic and if you cannot make the distinction then don't presume to comment on the matter.

      --
      Remember,democracy never lasts long.It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. John Adams (1814)
    2. Re:nice, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah but...surely the only true democracy would be a country where they had a referendum on every single issue that had to be decided. Can you imagine the chaos? What if all those people that chose Bush got to choose everything that happened in the USA...man I'm scared just thinking about it.

      As an example how long would it have taken for the American Public to mass-vote for the use of nukes after 09-11, one day? two? jesus...

    3. Re:nice, by cockroach2 · · Score: 0

      your country is not a republic either, "you fukwit". in a republic, the president is the man (or woman) who gets the most votes, and not the one with the lowest iq. "if you cannot make the distinction then don't presume to comment on the matter."

    4. Re:nice, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "your country is not a republic either, "you fukwit". in a republic, the president is the man (or woman) who gets the most votes, and not the one with the lowest iq. "if you cannot make the distinction then don't presume to comment on the matter." "

      sounds like one fuckwit cant tell the difference between a democracy [majority rules or the person with the most votes wins] and a representative republic [in which the electoral college votes as our representative]

      Since when does a person with a Harvard MBA have a low IQ? and dont feed me that bullshit about money buying degrees

    5. Re:nice, by cockroach2 · · Score: 0

      yes, you're SO right. degress say it all. in a world where people like albert einstein get kicked from schools and a person like your mister "w" (apparently) gets a degree, you MIGHT consider thinking about that.

    6. Re:nice, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you trying to say that Bush isn't a moron?

    7. Re:nice, by Meatloaf · · Score: 1

      Dumbass. The poli-sci term is "democratic-republic", which means that individuals vote for representatives. Jesus, you're stupid. Is this what our education system is turning out in the World these days?

      --
      Uncle Sam sent me to the Persian Gulf, and all I got was this lousy Syndrome!
    8. Re:nice, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're all wrong, and apparently incapable of writing simple English sentences.

      Our government is a Representative Democracy, which still has no bearing on whether basic rights are violated or not by government agencies. Regardless of the form of government, we have a Bill of Rights and are entitled to due process before those rights are to be curtailed or ignored.

    9. Re:nice, by Oztun · · Score: 2

      The United States is a Republic but the people "vote" in a democratic fashion. But what good are a bunch of labels anyway?

  30. Re:Civil liberties.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you too?

    wow.

  31. Like you didn't know ? by AftanGustur · · Score: 2
    --
    echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
  32. Military tribunals by gargle · · Score: 5, Informative

    The most disturbing suspension of civil liberties is the power the Bush administration has given itself to try suspected terrorists in secret military tribunals - all non-US citizens, even long time residents of the United States, can be tried and sentenced in secret military courts.

    http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/vvny/20011126/lo/3010 8_1.html

    If you're non-US citizen residing in the United States, you should be extremely worried.

    1. Re:Military tribunals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How on earth is this funny? I'd say it's sad.

    2. Re:Military tribunals by linzeal · · Score: 1
      Would europeon countries extradite someone to the US of they could be tried in a military tribunal? This has to against someone's better judgement besides just us.

      Hey, YOU in the UK does that sound real to you?

    3. Re:Military tribunals by linzeal · · Score: 1

      european , OMG i'm frigging drinking cold coffee and nursing a cough, sorry Europe :)

    4. Re:Military tribunals by gargle · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Spain has already stated that it will not extradite suspects to the US unless the US guarantees that suspects will not be tried in military court.

      http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20011127/pl/bush_s pain_2.html

    5. Re:Military tribunals by Ded+Bob · · Score: 2

      It wasn't the Bush administration. It was both sides (Republican and Democrat). How many nays were there in the Senate? I believe there was only one.

    6. Re:Military tribunals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm - excuse me, the military tribunal idea was an executive order - the Senate didn't get to say anything about it.

    7. Re:Military tribunals by Happy+Monkey · · Score: 2

      Would europeon countries extradite someone to the US of they could be tried in a military tribunal?

      Even more: Would the US extradite someone to any country where they would be tried in a military tribunal?

      europeon - funny.

      --
      __
      Do ya feel happy-go-lucky, punk?
    8. Re:Military tribunals by renehollan · · Score: 2
      So, by recent logic, the U.S.A. must declare "war" on Spain for harbouring terrorists. If it refuses, it is aiding Spain in this and must bomb the shit out of itself.

      I can think of a few places to start...

      --
      You could've hired me.
    9. Re:Military tribunals by overunderunderdone · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The most disturbing suspension of civil liberties is the power the Bush administration has given itself to try uspected terrorists in secret military tribunals - all non-US citizens, even long time residents of the United States, can be tried and sentenced in secret military courts

      Despite the opinion often voiced on this board that there is aboslutely *no* relationship between the restrictions of civil liberties and increased security there is in some situations exactly such a relationship and our contitution and laws reflect that reality. To be fair I will note that if such measures are taken to lengths not justified by the degree of threat or are taken to extremes even if there is a high level of threat they become subject to a law of diminishing returns and can even become counterproductive. Unfortunately since our enemy in this war is secretive and shadowy it is very hard even for our government to assess the real level of continuing threat. But the attacks on Septemeber 11th suggest that it would be a grave mistake to underestimate the threat.

      As for the constitutionality and legality of the tribunals there is a fair amount of ambiguity since al Queada is not a state and we are acting under a legally vague "use of force resolution" rather than a legally clarifying declaration of war. Neither of these ambiguities are insurmountable though. The US went to war with the barbary pirates even though they were not independant nations (they really were but legally they were theoretically part of the Ottoman Empire). Al Queada is certainly more than a mere criminal enterprise but a substantial paramilitary organisation with over ten thousand troops in Afghansitan and many thousands of agents in cells around the world. As for our not declaring war - international law states that the laws of war are binding on a belligerent even if the other party to the conflict does not recognise a state of war. Al Queada declared war on us when bin Laden issued his "fatwa." Attacking the WTC is a war crime in every respect. Attacking the Pentagon is not a war crime in and of itself but operating behind enemy lines disguised as civilians and using a civillian airliner as a method of attack are.

      So treating al Queada commanders and their agents who have infiltrated our country as war criminals is legally justifiable - so who has jurisdiction and what prodedures do they have the option to use? The constitution specifically gives the congress the authority to punish "Offences against the Law of Nations" which would include the "law of war." Congress has used that authority to write the "Uniform Code of Military Justice" which puts war crimes under the jurisdiction of optionally either a General Court Martial (Art. 18 of the UCMJ) or of Military Commissions (UCMJ, Art. 21) for "offenders or offenses that by statute or by the law of war may be tried by military commissions..." There is no statute and no specific treaty or convention defining what exactly those offenses are so GWB (and Lincoln and FDR) is relying on the common law "law of war" which is rather vague though the UCMJ itself gives a little additional insight since in the articles defining crimes and punishments it again specifically mentions military commissions (in addition to courts martial) as having jurisdiction for both the crimes of "aiding the enemy" and "spying" (articles 104 and 106) the common law "law of war" is further clarified by precedents during the revolutionary war, civil war and world war II and by the unanimous supreme court decision in Ex Parte Quirine.

      As I said before there are some ambiguities but overall the legal and constitutional validity of these military tribunals seems pretty sound.

    10. Re:Military tribunals by Ded+Bob · · Score: 2

      Oops. I was thinking about the other bills Congress was passing.

    11. Re:Military tribunals by indros13 · · Score: 1
      What is even more disturbing than Furher Ashcroft and Commander Bush's military tribunals is the placid complicity of the American people in the destruction of our freedoms.

      In the Washington Post today, it said that nearly 60% of people support military tribunals for SUSPECTED terrorists (i.e. racially profiled picks by Uncle Sam) and 73% support the legality of wiretaps that violate lawyer-client privilege. If you can't talk to your lawyer, how the hell can you have a fair trial? Oh wait, it don't matter, because you're in military court!

      This is Nucking Futs, just wait until I'm in Congress...

      ***************

      --
      Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
    12. Re:Military tribunals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, the tribunals only apply to members of al Quida. Try again jack.

    13. Re:Military tribunals by DavidTC · · Score: 1
      Yes, because, of course, they'll have a normal trial before before the trial, to find out if you belong to al Quida.

      What a fucking moron.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
  33. Re: Media Coverage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Kuro5hin, uniformity of opinion on politics. Politics for nerds...

    The site fucking sucks.

  34. Barely? by phalse+phace · · Score: 1

    I thought that's what Carnivore, I mean DCS-1000, was for. Didn't it not require a warrant or anything to be issued, therefore, it could be used pretty much at whim?

  35. So, you might get arrested, but hey... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    at least you'll get fucked up the ass by some big brother who wants you to be his bitch!

  36. How about the UK Antiterrorism Legislation? by werdna · · Score: 3, Informative

    Quite a few European countries have had problems with terrorosts for years. The UK with the IRA, the Spanish with the Basque (sp?) seperatists etc etc.
    In these countries laws on human rights and free speach prevail. (Albeit precariously sometimes, I admit!)
    The US, confronted with some of its first terrorist attacks imediatly goes into panic, ignoring the spirit of its consitution.

    Not. Jingoistic bunk.

    UK Antitterrorism legislation has been around for more than a decade, provoked precisely by the IRA issues. It, too, had sunsetted but repetitively renewed investigatory powers and it, too, treats hackers as terrorists.

    It was one of the models from which PATRIOT/USA was cast.

    No doubt, the US fell to the standards of its EU allies in adopting PATRIOT/USA, focusing more on getting trains to run on time to defend a nation than to maintain a nation worth defending. No doubt, it was not the American thing to do.

    But far from being an icon of liberty, the EU legislation was the harbinger of what happened here.

    1. Re:How about the UK Antiterrorism Legislation? by rweir · · Score: 1

      For fucks' sake man, make sure you close your tags before posting.

  37. Sneaky government teaches distrust of government. by Futurepower(tm) · · Score: 3, Interesting


    When the government is sneaky, people learn not to trust the government.

    When the government is sneaky, much more is lost than ever can be gained by being sneaky.

    Trust is absolutely necessary in a democracy. If we cannot trust our government, we do not really have a democracy.

    When a government cannot be trusted, the government becomes a suspect in every major crime.

    Governments are not sneaky because sneakiness benefits the government. Governments are sneaky because there are people who like to be sneaky and be paid for it, and they sometimes gain power.

    The facts seem to be this: For years the U.S. government acted in an un-trustworthy way toward Arabs. For years some Arabs became mentally unbalanced by this and threatened to retaliate inside the United States.

    Now, the U.S. government is using the results of its unwillingness to be trustworthy to justify even more un-trustworthy behavior.

    Here are links to respected news sources that show how U.S. government policy contributed to terrorism: What should be the Response to Violence?

    --
    Bush's education improvements were
  38. Not! UK led the way with silly legislation by werdna · · Score: 2

    Quite a few European countries have had problems with terrorosts for years. The UK with the IRA, the Spanish with the Basque (sp?) seperatists etc etc.
    In these countries laws on human rights and free speach prevail. (Albeit precariously sometimes, I admit!)
    The US, confronted with some of its first terrorist attacks imediatly goes into panic, ignoring the spirit of its consitution.


    Not. Jingoistic bunk.

    UK Antitterrorism legislation has been around for more than a decade, provoked precisely by the IRA issues. It, too, had sunsetted but repetitively renewed investigatory powers and it, too, treats hackers as terrorists.

    It was one of the models from which PATRIOT/USA was cast.

    No doubt, the US fell to the standards of its EU allies in adopting PATRIOT/USA, focusing more on getting trains to run on time to defend a nation than to maintain a nation worth defending. No doubt, it was not the American thing to do.

    But far from being an icon of liberty, the EU legislation was the harbinger of what happened here.

  39. Re:fight despair [obligatory mod on crack post] by Gordonjcp · · Score: 2

    WTF? How is this a troll? The guy is right - all the government wants to do is take more control over people's lives, at the expense of personal freedom.

    Common sense is an increasingly rare thing today. You only need to look at unenforcable laws being passed by unaccountable governments to see that we're all headed for serious problems...

  40. bin Laden's Victory by werdna · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If his goal was to destroy the American way of life, there is no doubt he has succeeded. Alas, our conduct in defending this nation has had the effect of making a nation less worthy of defending.

    It would be more tolerable if these acts truly were focused in a good faith effort to stop terrorism. They are not -- just a naked broadening of executive and investigatory power, cynically and wrongfully executed simply because the "time was right." The selfishness of corporate "citizens" with their hands out for "patriotic" retroactive tax breaks only adds to the cynicism.

    This is just selfishness wrapped up in a flag. It sucks.

    1. Re:bin Laden's Victory by Karma+50 · · Score: 1

      "destroy the American way of life, there is no doubt he has succeeded"

      I think you're exaggerating just a tad. The way of life for most people either hasn't really changed at all or they accept those changes as necessary.

      Destroyed? Nah. Altered? Maybe a smidgeon

      --
      http://www.thehungersite.com
    2. Re:bin Laden's Victory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DONT forget who trained Osama, the good ol USA.

    3. Re:bin Laden's Victory by Animats · · Score: 2
      If his goal was to destroy the American way of life, there is no doubt he has succeeded.

      Not yet, but we're headed in that direction.

      A classic tactic for destabilizing third-world regiemes is to goad the government in power into becoming more oppressive, so that a popular opposition will develop. Then arm the opposition, start a civil war, and work from inside it to take over. This used to work well in Latin America and Africa. That tactic has been used by Arafat against Israel and, with less success, by the IRA in Northern Ireland.

      bin Laden's variant on this is to goad the US into coming down hard on enough Islamic countries to forge a worldwide Islamic alliance against the US. There's a real problem in that the current U.S. administration is dominated by militant Christians, and tends to play into the worst fears of the Islamic world. Bush has made some major mistakes, most notably calling for a "crusade", which the Economist, not noted for overstatement, called "idiotic".

  41. So what? by tomstdenis · · Score: 0

    Are you guys not just getting excited over sheet all nothing?

    So the G can find out who is using cable modem, they can even find your IP?

    Goto my website, I can find your IP too...

    Oh no, watch out, its the boogy man!

    --
    Someday, I'll have a real sig.
  42. Re: Media Coverage by wiredog · · Score: 2
    There was lots of media coverage before the laws were passed. Front page stories in the Washington Post, NY Times, etc. The problem was that this law (USA-PATRIOT) went through in a few days, rather than the 3 or 4 months it usually takes most laws to go through.

    Still time to do something about it though. Write (e-mail, letters may take awhile) your Representative and Senators. Get your friends to write. If enough voters object the law will be modified or repealed.

  43. That's called: propaganda by Otis_INF · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Sorry to rub it in, but here in the Netherlands I can only laugh about the 'news' CNN is showing 24/7 when it comes to the tragedy of 11th of sept/binladen/afganistan etc. It's from 1 single POV: the patriotic USA-first government. When I compare it to our dutch news-agencies people in the USA miss a hell of a lot of information which is IMHO VITAL for making the right judgement about what's right and what's wrong.

    For starters: the secret tribunals where pres. Bush will pick who's on trial and who's not is similar to every 3rd world dictatorship out there, yet I have to see 1 single message from mainstream USA newsstations critizising this IMHO shocking development. Thankfully the EU isn't co-operating with Bush on this: f.e. spain is not handing over al-quaida suspects.

    --
    Never underestimate the relief of true separation of Religion and State.
    1. Re:That's called: propaganda by GiorgioG · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why the previous post is marked "Insightful" - I have no idea.

      For starters: the secret tribunals where pres. Bush will pick who's on trial and who's not is similar to every 3rd world dictatorship out there, yet I have to see 1 single message from mainstream USA newsstations critizising this IMHO shocking development. Thankfully the EU isn't co-operating with Bush on this: f.e. spain is not handing over al-quaida suspects

      We've been hearing about this "tribunal" issue on CNN/Fox/etc all week long. I won't be so naive as to say that the media is not covering this issue from a patriotic point of view - however, when I hear the EU is against the death penalty for these criminals, it makes me want to puke. Maybe Europeans see this as just another terrorist act, but in the US, they've seriously pissed americans off with this. We don't need propaganda from the media to keep up support. I was at the World Trade Center towers on September 9th, marvelling at how tall they were, people taking pictures, having to lay down on the ground to get a good enough angle to fit them in 1 image. In the end, the buildings don't really matter of course, it's the 4,000+ people that died that day. So when the Europeans cry about the death penalty for these bastards, just think about the thousands of children who no longer have parents because of these criminals and the potential for this to happen again. That's the only "propaganda" I need.

    2. Re:That's called: propaganda by sielwolf · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually CNN has had several roundtable discussions on the secret military tribunals featuring several members (usually those from the ACLU).

      Also remember that CNN is the MacDonalds of news: fast, cheap, and everywhere.

      Most people who give a damn usually get their info from better sources (NYTimes, Salon, Frontline, the alternative press, etc) many of which bring up these issues all the time.

      Don't badmouth the whole of American media when all you see of it is through the CNN keyhole.

      --
      What is music when you despise all sound?
    3. Re:That's called: propaganda by tralfamador · · Score: 1

      For starters: the secret tribunals where pres. Bush will pick who's on trial and who's not is similar to every 3rd world dictatorship out there, yet I have to see 1 single message from mainstream USA newsstations critizising this IMHO shocking development.

      then you don't pay attention. i agree generally with what you're saying, but the example you chose was poor, this issue is being criticized greatly.

    4. Re:That's called: propaganda by yomegaman · · Score: 1

      Yeah, execute 'em! That'll show 'em that killing is just not tolerated in the US!

      --
      ...wearing a skin-tight topless leather jumpsuit, with cutaway buttocks and transparent crotch panel.
    5. Re:That's called: propaganda by Xylantiel · · Score: 1

      You missed it too. The reason this was not "just a terrorist act" is because 2 of those planes were targetted at the white house and the capitol building. THAT is an attack on the US state, bordering on an act of war. The trouble is figuring out who is really "responsible" by supporting the action with (or possibly without) knowledge of its intended outcome. This isn't impossible, it's just difficult. If there is a nation which fits the criteria for "resposibility" then it WAS an act of war and you let the military loose to take 'em out. (which we have done, the problem being that like in Vietnam we skipped the whole decaration of war by congress thingy which would have made it clear to everyone EXACTLY why we were undertaking such an arduous and bloody campain and why we picked that particular nation.)

    6. Re:That's called: propaganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL just too damn bad we can kick your ass any time we want...

      btw your welcome for saving your ass from the nazis. damn ingrates

    7. Re:That's called: propaganda by ~-zman-~ · · Score: 1
      I don't need to remind you that the media shapes most of public opinion. I wish I could say that the population was not caught up in this psuedo-patriotic bullshit. Why is it bullshit? No one was that patriotic before sept 11, and I don't think that a tragedy really makes people like their country any more. If they didn't love their country before, why now?

      Moreover, it is my opinion that "the people", discussed so much in our history, have very little input into the decision making process of our gov't. US policies do not reflect the will of the people, and quite obviously, the so called "patriot act" is a blatant restriction on our civil liberties, and no one wished that upon themselves.

    8. Re:That's called: propaganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For starters: the secret tribunals where pres. Bush will pick who's on trial and who's not is similar to every 3rd world dictatorship out there, yet I have to see 1 single message from mainstream USA newsstations critizising this IMHO shocking development.

      Well, then you haven't been following the news here too close, my Dutch friend. I'll be the first to admit that CNN tends to avoid controversial subjects since they got sucked into the AOL nebula--which explains why Fox News is kicking their ass--but there are still media sources that take on the tough issues (mostly print). Point is, there is plenty of debate over Bush's tribunal decree in the US media if you are willing to read and not watch TV spoon feed spin crap to you. Unfortunately, that's asking too much for many of the illiterate, couch-potato American sheeple.

    9. Re:That's called: propaganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      thanks for helping fund the nazis USA... (can we say henry ford?)

    10. Re:That's called: propaganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so when mid-west white army vet's declared war on the US government (timmothy bombing a federal building) why didnt we go bomb texas?

    11. Re:That's called: propaganda by slappy_guru · · Score: 1

      I guess that you must have disagreed with the Nuremburg trials of the NAZI's. First of all, Bin Laden and his ilk, declared war on the US with Sept. 11 and many other outrages. We are going to do whatever it takes to eradicate him and his filthy evil legions from the face of the earth.The next time the Dutch are conquered don't wait around for the 101st airborne to save your sorry peacenik asses.

      --
      "Science is like sex: sometimes something useful comes out, but that is not the reason we are doing it" Richard Feynman
    12. Re:That's called: propaganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How fscking mature!
      :(

  44. Slashdot FUD by circletimessquare · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Calm down everyone.

    A couple of points:

    1. There had to be legislation that dealt with government eavesdropping and the Internet sometime in history regardless of September 11 or not. The ACLU and others will press court cases that arise from abuses from these laws and some of these new powers will be curtailed. It's evolution, it's growing pains. It's law meets new technology and no one gets it perfect the first time around. A lot of people here laugh at the less technophilic portions of our society, the luddites who look at every new innovation with suspicion and distrust. Hey- guess what y'all sound like when it comes to this legislation? Legal luddites, to coin a phrase.

    2. The police need to wire tap phones, they need to bounce lasers off glass windows, they need to spy on portions of society to protect us from the bad guys, ok? Yes Virginia, there are bad guys out there and you need some of this legislation to deal with them. That is a perfectly valid impulse. This is not Freemasons in smokey rooms plotting the destruction of your constitutional freedoms just for the fun of it. This is just good people trying to do some good from a bad situation. Imagine that! Of course there will be abuses- haven't there always been!? Have some simple faith please in the maturity of our society: the abuses will be curtailed. There are many ways it can be done. Maybe a future Rodney King of the Internet incident will happen and someone with the net traffic version of a camcorder will capture it all and cause an uproar. Or- brace yourself, a good judge on a bench somewhere will smack down the spooks who get out of line. Or, get this: has anyone here ever heard of the free press? Inconceivable! We're all going to hell in a handbasket... yeah right, give me a break.

    3. We are in a very emotional time right now. We are all human, we overreact when someone jumps out from behind a tree at us. We are in knee-jerk reaction territory right now as a society: a nation at peace just had the equivalent of 3 ICBMs launched at it successfully, killing thousands of its citizens and destroying a major landmark, compliments of a bunch of religious fundamentalist lunatics. You can forgive a little backlash. It's been less than 3 months since September 11. Take a deep breath, wait a year, have the press run a few exposes on some rights abuses, and watch how the tide of popular opinion runs then. Forgive the tide of popular opinion at this particular point in time for running into the scary nether regions it seems to be running. Let everyone calm down and contemplate reality with a little distance between themselves and September 11, whenever that may be.

    4. This a tempest in a teapot. Think about how much hot air will be wasted over these kinds of net tapping efforts when no one has really stopped to think about what kind of people we are really dealing with. Remember Star Wars of the Reagan era? Remember the missile defense shield of recent history? Billions of dollars spent on orbiting gigawatt lasers, and what the heck did that do? Less than 2 dozen guys board planes with box cutters fer chrissake and a few hours flight training. A lot of good all that tech did, or will do, if these guys ever get their hands on one of those 50 or so nuclear suitcases the Russians seem to have misplaced. And a lot of good all these Echelons and Magic Lanterns will do against the kind of enemy we are dealing with. Do you really wants to fight the Feds on their new net snooping initiatives? Forget about talking about fundamental rights- talk efficacy, talk utility, talk results- the Feds ain't gonna get any hanging around on the net. Tell them to go hang around the box cutter aisle at Home Depot instead if they want to catch terrorists- that is as high tech as the enemy seems to get.

    6. And finally, forgive me for spreading some of my own FUD at this moment about nuclear suitcases and such, but there you go: I think that's where the FUD properly belongs. Think about it. These guys really hate us. They want to kill us. All of us. Why are you worried about your government? So blow hours of your life fretting over what your government is doing photographing you when you run a red light on your way to 7-11 at 3 am to buy some Cheetos... Go ahead, drive yourself crazy about the government knowing who everyone is on your AOL buddy list. Is that the real problem? These fruitcakes want to put ricin in your watersupply and smallpox in your local McDonalds. So go ahead, wail and bemoan that the feds can see your pr0n downloads... the terrorists could care less about the Internet and Microsoft versus Linux and the RIAA and your damn TiVo viewing records... the terrorists are over at the local dam, planting dynamite. Sure, this is FUD, but post-September 11, it is rather convincing FUD!

    This post about cable Internet traffic tapping has very, very little to do with cyberspace, really... as I said before, if you really want to make a good point about trampling on our electronic rights to the Feds, tell them that they are just wasting their time looking for terrorists in cyberspace. Tell them to go hang out at the reservoir.

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:Slashdot FUD by SyntheticTruth · · Score: 1

      2. The police need to wire tap phones, they need to bounce lasers off glass windows, they need to spy on portions of society to protect us from the bad guys, ok?

      Aye. The problem lies in the fact that, at the moment, there seems to be no checks-n-balances that our nation's gov't is famous for. There *has* to be public-noticable oversight of this, and right now, they don't even need a court order.

      How fair is that?

      It's easy to say to say it's a knee-jerk reaction, and in part it is, but I'd rather not live the next few decades with the left over bruises.

    2. Re:Slashdot FUD by archen · · Score: 1

      "It's law meets new technology and no one gets it perfect the first time around."

      like the guillotine? (sp?)

    3. Re:Slashdot FUD by laertes · · Score: 1
      a nation at peace just had the equivalent of 3 ICBMs launched at it successfully

      You might want to check to yield of an ICBM. September 11 left 6,000 dead. An intercontinential ballistic missile attack would leave millions dead.

      --

      Yes, I'm still a junky. Are you still a bitch?
    4. Re:Slashdot FUD by Mark+Bainter · · Score: 1
      The ACLU and others will press court cases that arise from abuses from these laws and some of these new powers will be curtailed.

      Yeah, cause as we all know, the trend of history is towards more freedom and less government.

      Have some simple faith please in the maturity of our society: the abuses will be curtailed.

      Sorry, I don't see any evidence of this. Perhaps the most extreme abuses, but even then I have my doubts. Ruby Ridge anyone? Waco? I still haven't seen any curtailing of that abuse of power. How about making it illegal to own gold? Nope, still there, and likely would still be strictly enforced. Forced automatic withdrawl of taxes? Yup, still there. Drug war? Still no sign of the end.

      Or- brace yourself, a good judge on a bench somewhere will smack down the spooks who get out of line.

      Yeah, so the govt can holler about how such and such judge is an enemy of the people and freedom has suffered a terrible loss etc. Big outcry from the uninformed, the media incite it further and next thing you know this judge is out of a job as a measure of political expediency. The more time passes, the fewer judges with the guts to do what is right vs what is good for their career we have. Look at the number of judges that look the other way when abuses of the law come around re: drug offenders.

      Or, get this: has anyone here ever heard of the free press?

      Yeah, I read about it in history books. What good is a free press that tows the government line? Granted, they /all/ don't. But the major media outlets where the masses get their information do. I'll grant you that's not entirely their fault. It's the people's responsibility to know what is going on, but I do hold the media at least partially responsible.

      a nation at peace just had the equivalent of 3 ICBMs launched at it successfully

      Shyeah right. You obviously have no concept of the destructive power of ICBMs.

      Take a deep breath, wait a year, have the press run a few exposes on some rights abuses, and watch how the tide of popular opinion runs then.

      Heh. Like all the exposes that are run right now have reformed the hidious regulations on those that just want to help others? Or the excessive govt spending on pork projects? Or any of the other excesses of govt really? Nope. Cause people sit and watch it and go "that's ridiculous" and then when voting time comes along they listen to the talking heads of mass media and vote for someone who wears a nice tie.

      Remember Star Wars of the Reagan era? Remember the missile defense shield of recent history? Billions of dollars spent on orbiting gigawatt lasers, and what the heck did that do? Less than 2 dozen guys board planes with box cutters fer chrissake and a few hours flight training

      That's ridiculous. Those programs weren't/aren't intended to stop that sort of threat. They are one of the few legitimate functions of the central govt, and that's defending our country from attacks. A specific sort of attack.

      The only protection against what happened on 9/11 is an armed citizenry. Course, instead, we just made it easier, but that's typical.

      --
      "No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."
      --James Madison
    5. Re:Slashdot FUD by renehollan · · Score: 2
      The problem with this is that "Power Corrupts. Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely" PCAPCA. Etch that into your brain's acronym section: "Puh Kap Kah".

      Proof: history of human civilization.

      More simply, any organization strong enough to defeat your enemies is strong enough to enslave you.

      --
      You could've hired me.
  45. Good for America? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Indeed, the American public has become a victim
    of its own government's paranoia. Welcome back
    Gestapo! It's business all over again.

  46. it may well do, but... by nosferatu1001 · · Score: 1

    if you *tell* anyone that you have had to hand your keys over, you get 5years!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
    *ahem*

  47. This will be short lived. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    As soon as they inadvertantly pick up a few esteemed members of Congress who are regulars of some the sleazier web sites.


    Unless of course, Ashcroft is trying to recreate J. Edgar Hoover's secret blackmail files. I know why Hoover did it, but why would Ashcroft do it. What is he trying to hide?

    1. Re:This will be short lived. by Craig+Davison · · Score: 1

      Hah. You can't blackmail someone by showing they look at "sleazy web sites". This isn't the 1950s. Nobody cares about "pornography" anymore.

    2. Re:This will be short lived. by Catbeller · · Score: 2

      Really? Heard about Peewee in the last couple of days? Someone dropped a quarter on him, alleging kiddie porn, so his hard drives were seized, and now he is being ridiculed anew for his porn collection they are finding -- amazing, since it should have been a secret cataloging by the cops...

      BTW, no kiddie porn. But his career is being wrecked -- again.

      IT IS THE FIFTIES, REDUX.

  48. A wiretap without a court order? by wackysootroom · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Depending on *what* the ISP logs, this may or may not be considered a wiretap. A simple IP address is not big deal. What would they do with that? Any real terrorist will encrypt non-trivial communications.

    Once again, the legislature allows the real criminals to go unpunished and untouched while the average joe gets a large peephole drilled into the wall of his internet connection.

    Thanks, Legistlators!

    1. Re:A wiretap without a court order? by Pituritus+Ani · · Score: 4, Informative

      A simple IP address is not big deal. What would they do with that?

      21:14 192.168.0.1 -> http www.2600.org
      21:14 192.168.0.1 -> nntp news.premium.com
      21:35 192.168.0.1 -> http astalavista.box.sk
      21:40 192.168.0.1 -> http www.princeton.edu
      21:42 192.168.0.1 -> http www.slashdot.org
      21:43 192.168.0.1 -> http www.islamicjihad.com
      21:44 192.168.0.1 -> http goatse.cx
      21:45 192.168.0.1 -> irc irc.dalnet.net
      21:50 192.168.0.1 -> http gnutellahosts.com
      21:53 192.168.0.1 -> http dormroom.school.edu
      .
      .
      .

      Looks like probable cause for a search warrant for software piracy, terrorist activity, and obscene pornography to me. And I can already picture the prosecution detailing what's on each selectively chosen site, outlining your criminal state of mind for a jury. (Unless you're not a U.S. citizen, in which case you may well be before a military tribunal).

      --

      Another proud carrier of the $rtbl flag

    2. Re:A wiretap without a court order? by _avs_007 · · Score: 1

      They would be hardpressed to link a particular person to that IP address though... Just because its in some kids dormroom. Any kid could've been on at the time. What if that IP was NAT'd? etc etc.

    3. Re:A wiretap without a court order? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      All that would be moot once the door was kicked down based on the logs, and then the kid's war3z and pr0n collections were found.

      ~~~

  49. Re:So what? by wackysootroom · · Score: 1

    So What? The article also states that the DOJ can get the logs of an ISP without a court order. That would be the equivalent of them asking the phone company to put a DNR (Dialed Number Recorder) on your line without a judicial hearing!

    With the logs, they can tell where you have been and what you have sent to whom on the internet!

  50. Change your IP address often... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Most cable modem DHCP pools issue IP addresses based on the MAC address of the requesting device.

    How to Set the MAC Address For Dummies:

    [root@box]# ifdown eth0
    [root@box]# ifconfig eth0 hw ether 00:14:D9:AC:D3:12
    [root@box]# ifup eth0

    This should get you a new IP address on most cable modem services. Replace the MAC address (that string with 5 colons) with any similar string in the format

    00:XX:XX:XX:XX:XX

    ..where each X is a value from 0-9 or A-F.

    Write a script and set it as a cronjob. If your IP is changing every 15 minutes they're going to have a hell of a time keeping tabs on you. If thousands of cable users' IPs are changing every 15 minutes they're going to have a hell of a time keeping tabs on anyone.

    1. Re:Change your IP address often... by alen · · Score: 3, Funny

      You will be branded a terrorist just for knowing this information. Everyone knows Americans are supposed to be stupid and not know anything except for sports. Why would anyone need to know how to spoof your ISP and the DoJ who want to watch you?

    2. Re:Change your IP address often... by AcidTil · · Score: 0

      ROFL !!!

      That's a good one !!! But you forgot that Americans know about guns too !!! :)

      I'm laughing but our stupid canadian gov. issued a USA PAtriot act wannabe.... Search and arrest without warrant if they think your a terrorist!!!

      1984 : here we come !

    3. Re:Change your IP address often... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
      That's nice, but don't you think the cable company knows who's subscribing and can resolve what address was assigned to whom when? Sometimes, the best strategy for preserving your privacy is to blend in with the crowd.

      ~~~

    4. Re:Change your IP address often... by SyntheticTruth · · Score: 1

      Um.

      That won't work on some systems... The Cable Modem Ternination System usually (should) only allows MACs on that it recognizes coming from the cable modem. This should be paired up with the MAC from the NIC. If not, then someone could run to Circuit City, buy a cable modem, plug it in and have access. Not good.

      This is done by having a database of MACs that are assigned scopes (for their region) and policies (for the DS/US speeds, etc...) that is checked when a modem first comes online.

      So, go ahead...change your MAC, and see if you still have access. Depends on your provider, however...

    5. Re:Change your IP address often... by Anonymous+CowboyNeal · · Score: 1

      In most (at least in my experience with Cisco uBR CMTSes) cases, the Class Of Service information is associated (through DHCP) with your cable modem's MAC address. You can change the MAC of your ethernet card, but you'll notice that in most cases, cable providers will limit the number of MAC addresses existing on the Ethernet side of the cable modem, unless you're paying $4.99/mo or whatever for an "additional IP" (additional MAC address! ha! that still kills me.)

      In any case, the SNMP monitoring most providers have in place, along with the logs from their DHCP servers -- if I recall correctly, either the CMTS or CPE will modify the DHCP request (most likely it's the CMTS, since it acts as a DHCP relay agent) and tack on the cable modem's address in one of the request option fields -- any provider can track you down pretty easily, as any MAC address on your Ethernet segment is associated with your cable account.

      This is all DOCSIS 1.0, btw.

    6. Re:Change your IP address often... by SyntheticTruth · · Score: 1

      Yeah, you're correct. I thought I said that, but I was in the middle of a phone call when typing.

      We do track by Cable Modem MAC, *not* NIC MAC, but we *do* keep track of NIC MACs to limit the number of computers accessing the 'Net via the Cable Modem. Just as you said, changing the MAC would record as an additional MAC coming from the CM and if above the CPE for that policy, it won't be allowed access.

      And again, right...our CNR machine logs all access...so doing a log search for Cable Modem MAC would show all NIC MACs that have accessed through it...

      ...but my point was, changing your NIC MAC to hide yourself just won't do much good in the long run.

    7. Re:Change your IP address often... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is your MAC address changing so often, comrade?

    8. Re:Change your IP address often... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Both my broadband providers (Bellsouth and Adelphia) have recorded my nic's MAC at installation. They both also claimed that the service would not function unless they registered the address. I did not test that claim in either case.

      In both cases, I just put that NIC in my firewall as the external interface and ran whatever I felt like behind it. I now use a Linksys router (wife can't stand the noise from a computer fan in the bedroom -- women!) and set the MAC on the router to the one they have on file.

    9. Re:Change your IP address often... by Eric@MTU · · Score: 1

      What about my cable provider? For example, if I was to switch the NIC plugged into the cable modem, I have to call the service number and tell them my new MAC address, otherwise DHCP won't hand me an IP.

    10. Re:Change your IP address often... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the Cox @home subnet that I use, for windoze users:

      Computer_name = ip address ie:

      cx-123456-a = 24.14.110.2
      cX-234567-a = 24.14.110.3 etc

      so to get yourself a new ip:

      ping 24.14.110.xxx for any ip on your sub net.

      if you get no response -> no one is using it. so

      nslookup (ip.address with no response)

      Then rename your box.

      With Linux it's even easier:

      ifconfig ethx (ip.address with no response).

      Of course this doesn't change the MAC address.

      This works for me.

    11. Re:Change your IP address often... by Suidae · · Score: 2

      Once my Toshiba cable modem reads the MAC on my NIC, it won't talk to any other MAC's. I have to cycle the power on it to make it work.

    12. Re:Change your IP address often... by ctrl · · Score: 0

      This doesn't help too much. The CMTS (Cable Modem Termination System) keeps track of all the MAC addresses and cable modems behind which theese MACs are located. An operator could theoretically save this database every so many minutes to keep track of all the MAC addresses in the network (and some of them actually do this).

  51. Do you really think anything would change? by linuxrunner · · Score: 2

    I honestly can see both sides of the issue... On one hand, we want to be safe. On the other, we want our privacy protected from corporate america and from "big brother" as some would put it.
    Personally:
    If you have to worry about big brother, you are either paranoid, a conspiracy nut, or how I used to be....
    I stopped caring, about it and now fill my time with useful stuff like hacking linux, programming, etc...
    On the other hand I still DO CARE, because I do not want corporate america spamming me with sh*t because they can now check which sites I'm going to by getting logs. In short if the DOJ does it... Nothing we can do, if Amazon does it.... That will have to stop.

    And think about it... Only in corporate america do we really have a say. We can just stop buying their product or give a backlash to them... The DOJ... Nothing. Really if you think about it. You can call your Rep. but really what does that do. If things don't go their way, they can just find a way around it. And laws are passed in their favor despite what many may think.... It's like a town meeting I once went to: you know the Yeah's and Neigh's, well we voted audibly on a subject and the Neigh's had it voted down considerably but the Power's to Be, said Yes instead..... Why? Well they already bought the object in question. So they had to pass it whether the people wanted it or not... That's the truth on how things are run, both small time and big time.

    --
    www.slightlycrewed.com - Because aren't we all?
  52. Re: Media Coverage by linzeal · · Score: 1

    It gives some of us the excuse to say we need to backpack through europe for the 4 or so odd years the law is in effect.

  53. Paranoia Strikes Me by airship · · Score: 0, Troll

    Am I the only one here who remembers the Sixties? I woke up one morning and the National Guard had shot and killed four students at Kent State University. Crazy thing was, most people in the 'establishment' thought that they deserved it, and that it was a good beginning. We thought we were all going to die just for something we believed in. Fortunately, we kept up our protests, the war ended, Nixon quit. We won that battle, but the war continues. Don't stop fighting for your rights, or you'll lose them.

    There's somethin' happening here,
    What it is ain't exactly clear.
    There's a man with a gun over there,
    Tellin' me I gotta beware.
    I think it's time we stop,
    Hey, what's that sound,
    Everybody look what's going down.
    - For What It's Worth, Stephen Stills, 1966

    --
    Serving your airship needs since 1995.
  54. Say what?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wait, wait. So we should just sit back for a year, let the government make whatever laws it wants to, and then try to fix it all later?? You simple, simple man. You ever heard the expression, "It takes 1 year to make a law, and 100 years to unmake it"? If it was so easy to fix laws, then why do we still have all those supid laws like "don't feed a carrot to a donkey" or some such crap.

    After Sept 11, the government started enacting new, unconstitutional laws within, what, weeks? In the name of national security. These laws won't do jack squat against these terrorists. Most of us knows that. But they will serve a future purpose.

    Sure, let the government do what it wants. And then when we have another terrorist attack, let it add a few more laws to that. And then after that, a few more. It starts small. It always does. That is why you see people scrambling to stop the legislation. 'Cause it's insane what they're doing and how fast they're doing it. And people are scared. Of the government. And rightfully so.

  55. Ashcroft by LordNimon · · Score: 2, Flamebait

    I'm more afraid of Aschcroft than I am of the terrorists. I think he is our generation's Senator McCarthy.

    --
    And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
    To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
    1. Re:Ashcroft by EllisDees · · Score: 1

      Ashcroft disgusts me more than any other single person in this whole situation. He is the one who is taking advantage of America's panic in order to get his blatantly anti-constitution legislation rammed through. Has he ever even picked up a copy of the document he was sworn to uphold?

      --
      -- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
    2. Re:Ashcroft by Deosyne · · Score: 1

      I hope he's getting a beefy stipend from the Al Queda network, because Ashcroft is definitely one of the finest psyops terrorists that I have ever seen at work. To achieve such a high position within the target population itself to base his terrorist activities out of... I bet he just brings a tear to the eyes of Al Queda's former CIA handlers, seeing the culmination of all of their hard work in Afghanistan 20 years ago.

      Oh wait, he was born in the US, so I guess he can't be a terrorist, eh?

    3. Re:Ashcroft by mother_superius · · Score: 1

      No; he's our generation's Ed Meese.

    4. Re:Ashcroft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I think he is our generation's Senator McCarthy."

      How dare you poke fun at our nation's hero. I think you're a Communist. No, you must be a terrorist.

      Just kidding. For real though, the U.S. is on a highway to hell with all these attacks against civil liberty.

  56. Who's learning from whom? by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I thought that it was China who was meant to be improving its human rights record based on examples from the USA, not the other way around. Or am I missing something here?

    --
    Jumpstart the tartan drive.
  57. telephone system versus internet by oneeyedman · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Is is really a bad thing that Web server logs are going to be treated the same as telephone logs? You don't need a court order to obtain logs that show who called whom, but you do need a court order to tap someone's phone and listen to the content of the call. The same now applies to Web connections.

    The really bad legal attacks on freedom in cyberspace have involved attempts to grab powers and impose controls that the technology makes feasible, but that are not supported in the laws regulating conventional media (e.g., the cases and controversy surrounding DMCA, UCITA, DeCSS). Lawrence Lessig makes the argument that legislators need to move slowly and carefully, making new law by extending the old law according to carefuly drawn analogies. The worst thing that can happen is to take the potential for control through computer code and enshrine that in law (as with the DMCA's restrictions on who can read what and where).

    It seems to me that the Justice Department made a successful argument for treating cyberspace the same as older communication media. In the long run, that's a good thing. The law already contains protections against unwarranted surveillance, and to apply that same body of law to cyber-communications is a desirable outcome.

    --
    *** "Freiheit ist immer die Freiheit des Andersdenkenden". -- Rosa Luxemburg ***
  58. Slashdot Ignorance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
    The anti-ashcroft FUD needs to die. The turning of molehills into mountains needs to stop. I used to work for an ISP and the FBi would routinely ask for IP information and identity information. This worked two ways, because if we were cooperative then they were really cooperative in tracking someone who we had a beef against (like the asswad that trin00'ed us).


    The new law essentially lets the FBI get info to get _leads_. Under old law, the FBI could force you to give up info on someone already suspected of a crime. Now I think they can go further and try to find leads also.


    Of course, none of this was in the slashdot blurb.
    Stop the negativity, the sensationalism, and the yellow journalism. This is an _Open_ _Source_ _Development_ _Network_ for christ sake. It's not the _misinformed_ _anti-bush_ _activism_ _scare-mongering_ _network_.
    Take your anti-RIAA/MS/BUSH/ASHCROFT/MPAA FUD and post it on usenet or something.


    Slashdot has become hypocrisy online. Every day it devotes space to content that is based on Fear-Uncertainty-Doubt (FUD (TM)).

    1. Re:Slashdot Ignorance by Catbeller · · Score: 2

      The Slashdot crowd is the very opposite of ignorant.

      begin:

      "The anti-ashcroft FUD needs to die. The turning of molehills into mountains needs to stop. I used to work for an ISP and the FBi would routinely ask for IP information and identity information. This worked two ways, because if we were cooperative then they were really cooperative in tracking someone who we had a beef against (like the asswad that trin00'ed us). "

      The Church of Scientology dumped millions of gibberish posts into Usenet a few years back, to shut up critics, in a blantant DOS attack. Begging the Feds to do something was useless; they said they weren't interested unless some real monetary damage was involved. Want FBI involvement? Be rich and offended, they jump.

      "The new law essentially lets the FBI get info to get _leads_. Under old law, the FBI could force you to give up info on someone already suspected of a crime. Now I think they can go further and try to find leads also. "

      The law goes farther and lets them log anyone they want, anytime they want, without warrant, without oversight, without disclosure, forever.

      Leads my sorry ass, they want to go fishing. They do not have the power to wiretap phones or open mail without warrant, tho they'd dearly like to. But now, the Internet is different. They can do anything they want. Log our keystrokes. Read our mail. Check our hard drives. Break into our houses to take a look around, without warrant.

      "War" on terrorism, like "war" on drugs, or prostitution, or dissent, is interminable. And lest we forget, there is a little HOLE in the PATRIOT act. Bush and or Ashcroft can designate anything they like as terroristic. It's completely up to them. Ashcroft, for instance, not many months ago, described hackers as terrorists. Definitions are key.

      What is happening is this. Like a pilot turning a barge, the extreme right wing is slowly changing the definitions of crimes, a nip at a time. They are establishing precedent to eliminate the Judiciary and the Congress from whatever campaigns they or their successors may attempt in the future. Trials, juries, rules of evidence, habeas corpus, say bye-bye. Trust them to do what's right, as they did, say, when they destroyed Clinton.

      "Of course, none of this was in the slashdot blurb. Stop the negativity,"

      No.

      "the sensationalism, and the yellow journalism."

      This from the group that made GroinGate America's Number One problem for two years, who attempted to overthrow an elected president, and who rejoiced in the installation of an unelected president. Yellow, dirty, filthy innuendo and lies have been the order of the day for the GOP for almost ten years; now everyone is supposed to be nice to the Powers That Be? What directed, purposeful hypocrisy.

      Yellow journalism? Slashdot isn't a journal, firstly. Secondly, I'd welcome any kind of journalism back from the abyss it apparently dived into the past ten years, as the industry became soley profit-motivated and scandal-driven. Practically every cable outlet and news magazine has the GOP's hands up its puppet butt, and in the current atmosphere, it's a thousand times worse. Every damned show and mag I read seems to have writers and commentators that have been stunned with a sledgehammer to their foreheads. NO ONE will really critize Bush/Ashcroft/Rowe, who are respectively:

      A guy who lost the presidency under any sane standard;
      A religious fanatic who actively distrusts courts, and who, apparently, doesn't want any calico cats around him, because they are signs of Satan, and -- BTW, doesn't think anthrax threats against abortion providers as anything worth his attention;
      A dirty trick master who was actively involved in the GOP undercover Jihad against the President for eight years, and even after his nasty little side whon their Jihad, he fabricated and spread the blantant lies about "thefts" and "destruction" by the previous admin.

      "This is an _Open_ _Source_ _Development_ _Network_ for christ sake. It's not the _misinformed_ _anti-bush_ _activism_ _scare-mongering_ _network_. "

      If it is, it's one of the damned few.
      Actually, It's the "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters" site. The fact that the net is now a police state IS PERTINENT. The fact, and it is a fact, that the "terrorist" powers that the executive branch has siezed as we lay mourning will someday be applied to hackers, dissidents, and anyone that Bush or the DOJ damned well feels like applying them to.

      "Take your anti-RIAA/MS/BUSH/ASHCROFT/MPAA FUD and post it on usenet or something."

      No.

      Anti-Clinton vileness was de rigeur for almost ten years, with almost no respect for evidence, proportionality, or justice.

      Bush is stealing trillions from our future, crippling the economy, attacking environment groups as traitors, destroying at least three amendments of the Bill of Rights, detaching the courts and Congress from decision making, and all in all following a radical agenda he denied having whilst he was running for office -- not that any damned reported ever grilled him the way they savaged Gore.

      "Slashdot has become hypocrisy online. Every day it devotes space to content that is based on Fear-Uncertainty-Doubt (FUD (TM)). "

      Slashdot is not a journal, it cannot be hypocritical, say, like the administration is. It is a collection of opinion, and if you don't like it, don't participate.

      Those of us who can still think will still be here.

    2. Re:Slashdot Ignorance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You are a sad sad person. You are an example of why this stuff is so dangerous. You believe it so thoroughly that it is not FUD to you. It is reality. And thus you rationalize it. Somehow you bring up conspiracy theories about a biased press and impeachment and etc into it.


      Delusion can be just as bad as ignorance. Take the blue pill.

    3. Re:Slashdot Ignorance by Sloppy · · Score: 2

      There's nothing hypocritical about spreading FUD, if FUD is what you're feeling.

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    4. Re:Slashdot Ignorance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *laughs*

      go directly back to you free_repuplic , asshole.

  59. DOJ Youth by hAkron · · Score: 1

    ....and keep in mind, the DOJ may not catch all of the enemys of the state, so if you suspect your parents and neighbors of 'Anti-Americanism' it is your civic duty to report them to your local branch of the FBI.

    1. Re:DOJ Youth by KitsuneMidori · · Score: 1

      It's Hitlerrrific! =>.=

      I'm scared. Really, really scared. Time to move to the UK.

      --
      "MY WORLD IS A CROTCH!!!" -Sluggy Freelance, www.sluggy.com
  60. Interesting Listening by dudesuit · · Score: 1

    a lot of information on losing your rights is at http://www.infowars.com, listen to his streaming audio. Alex Jones is pretty interesting to listen to, especially when hiding under the covers, paranoid that Big Brother is lurking inside your closet :)

  61. While they're monitoring all that porn traffic... by mttlg · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...they might as well use the information they gather to set up a dating service. Think about it - the government spies on your every keystroke, but to make up for it they send the sexual partner(s) of your dreams to your door. How many people will still be complaining here after that. "Damn government helping me get laid... Oh well, gotta go, no time to bitch and moan about the complete erosion of civil liberties, I'm gonna get me some." It gives new meaning to the term "public relations..."

  62. FUD of your own.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Arrrgh. First off: I'm Canadian, and have a different perpective on this whole mess. Canada just passed our own version of this nightmare legislation, albeit with a little more dissent from the opposition parties. Hopefully something will be done after the next election. I doubt it. That said, there are a number of problems with your logic and I need to raise a few points:

    A lot of people here laugh at the less technophilic portions of our society, the luddites who look at every new innovation with suspicion and distrust. Hey- guess what y'all sound like when it comes to this legislation? Legal luddites, to coin a phrase.

    The problem is that the people passing these laws either don't understand what they're doing, or they understand FULL WELL what they're doing. Any way you cut it, a citizen's right to privacy has been greatly reduced. Download hard encryption tools while you still can. Not that it matters much, since you can now be arrested, detained, given a "trial" and the keys likely beaten out of you without a soul ever knowing. Freedom of speech and a right to privacy mean that yes, even the bad guys (tm) get those rights as citizens of the country. If you're not a citzen, of course, all bets are off. Letting the government decide who is a bad guy (tm) without oversight is a very dangerous thing from a historical perspective. I wonder if this is where a lack of knowledge about history in the general populace shows itself.

    orgive the tide of popular opinion at this particular point in time for running into the scary nether regions it seems to be running. Let everyone calm down and contemplate reality with a little distance between themselves and September 11, whenever that may be.

    You calm down BEFORE you act, not after. History also shows us that once given extraordinary powers, they will almost never be willingly given up. Action is required, but there has not been enough (or, depending on how you look at it, ANY) debate on the topic. Think about what makes the western world different than China or the prior communist Soviet Union. Freedom of expression. A expectation of privacy. A justice system that is open to public inspection and review. Tribunals? What?

    Billions of dollars spent on orbiting gigawatt lasers, and what the heck did that do? Less than 2 dozen guys board planes with box cutters fer chrissake and a few hours flight training. A lot of good all that tech did, or will do, if these guys ever get their hands on one of those 50 or so nuclear suitcases the Russians seem to have misplaced.

    This one really drives me insane. It should illustrate to you the futility of trading away freedom of expression and privacy, along with due process, for some ILLUSION of safety. Now, all the lunatics would have to do is hijack a plane and the US government will blow it out of the sky for them. Do you think that massive wiretapping, secret-police style arrests, and disinformation will change anything? I have news for you, buddy. Engineering schools are open, and we are VERY LUCKY in North America that these people were not more educated and fanatical than they were. Anyone with rudimentary intelligence could cause widespread disruption of electrical, water, and communications systems and there isn't a DAMN THING anyone could do about it.

    Some other clues, for the clueless - The government cannot completely control people in prison. Do you think granting them power to track "subversives" is going to help?

    What does make sense is EDUCATING the public. Let them know their freedom is not without responsibility. Show them how to take down a hijacker. Have them watch water resvoirs and electrical substations. Have people get involved with their neighbours. Encourage open debate! This is what makes north america great. Weakening the freedoms we have paid a bloody price for does nobody any good. (hint: a hell of a lot more people died in WW2 than did in NYC).

    And finally, forgive me for spreading some of my own FUD at this moment about nuclear suitcases and such, but there you go: I think that's where the FUD properly belongs. Think about it. These guys really hate us. They want to kill us. All of us. Why are you worried about your government?

    Nobody will play the nuclear card. Any nation who deployed a nuclear weapon on US soil would be nuked off the face of the earth. I would be far more worried about biological attacks on the water supply. There is a price that comes with freedom, my friend. It is called responsibility. Nothing a government will do can eliminate terrorism. Granting obscene powers is not the way to go about this. Government already had exessive power before 9/11. Ceeding freedom and responsibility to the government will not help; In a way, we have given up what infuriates the fanatics the most: Our freedom to express and do what we want, how we want, when we want, so long as no one is harmed.

    This post about cable Internet traffic tapping has very, very little to do with cyberspace, really... as I said before, if you really want to make a good point about trampling on our electronic rights to the Feds, tell them that they are just wasting their time looking for terrorists in cyberspace.

    The government is full aware of that. Look at their definition of terrorist, if you were provided with one, that is. Funny how newspeak works like that, eh? Would someone working against the FTAA be a terrorist? Would someone who was seeking to change the political system? What about someone who held fundamentally communist or marxist views? What about the author of this post?

    What's really sad is I don't feel comfortable posting this under my nick. That makes me worry. Alot.

    1. Re:FUD of your own.. by lobsterGun · · Score: 1

      >I would be far more worried about biological attacks on the water supply.

      Don't sweat it. It would take many truckloads of contaminants to endanger the water supply of most metropolitan areas. (According to an expert one of our local talk shows brought in). He did point out though that some area are more vulnerable than others.

    2. Re:FUD of your own.. by cornjones · · Score: 1

      all in all i thought this was a very good post. my problem was with this:

      Nobody will play the nuclear card. Any nation who deployed a nuclear weapon on US soil would be nuked off the face of the earth.

      do you really think that if these scumbags from 9/11 had access to nukes they would not use them? I, hesitantly, agree that nations will not send nukes but terrorists are another story. with the belief in heaven awaiting them, all they have to do is strike a big blow, nukes seem the best way to do that.

    3. Re:FUD of your own.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      This post about cable Internet traffic tapping has very, very little to do with cyberspace, really

      Umm actually cyberspace will help them to catch a lot of terrorists.

      The PATRIOT act (umm now Law) and the Anti-Terrorism Bill (now also Law) both view HACKERS as terrorists.

      So yes - if you deface a web site or perform anything that would label you as a hacker in their (DoJ) eyes you can get placed in front of a mysterious tribunal and sent to Jail for Life - or whatever punishment you deserve. So these logs are very important.

      Posting explot details so that admins can protect their own machines, or any other things admins count on could translate into jail terms for the writers. Or better yet - if your security tool can be used by the hackers ... you have just provided expert asistance aka aided a hacker which is the same as aiding a terrorist.

      We'll figure it out - hopefully we'll be able to recover when we finally do.

  63. Re: Media Coverage by Ardax · · Score: 1

    I don't have the time handy to dig up the link right now, but there was one senator who voted against the bill because he knew it was bad, but he didn't know why -- he never had a chance to read the bill, or even a synopsis of it, before voting on it. It wasn't for lack of trying, either. To read the story, it sounded as if the committee drafting it was stonewalling everyone who wanted to see the bill before the vote.

    Not to mention the unofficial peer and constituent pressure to vore for the bill -- it was the PATRIOT Act, what kind of un-American bastard wouldn't vote for something called the PATRIOT Act?

    There wasn't much chance of it being good before, but now that people are starting to examine it and read it closely, we're realizing that it's much worse than originally thought.

    --
    Pax, Ardax
  64. Also don't use their www proxy. by emil · · Score: 2

    At least everyone in my area is configured to proxy off of http://www.



    This is of course the very first place to look to see who is visiting what.


    Yes, carnivore and its like can probably deal with this subterfuge quite easily...

  65. Impeach Bush by mickeyreznor · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Let's look at what this prick has done in the last 2 months:

    - Sped through the patriot act, which has us on the road to a police state, allowing for secret searches of property and seizure of information, urinating directly on the 4th amendment.

    - Trashed our system of justice by authorizing secret trials, using secret evidence, and even allowing secret executinos. The "evidence"will not be avaiable for the accused to refute, with no opportunity for the accused to appeal. In doing so he has invoked the divine right of kings, not even asking for congress's approval.

    - Carrying out acts of war without declaring war(declaring war against a tactic doesn't count, war is by definition a conflict between 2 nations, not some open ended crusade). Only congress can declare war(or approve a declaration of war), and so far it has not done so. In addition, he has justified all these invasions of civil liberties by claiming that we are indeed at war.

    - Deciding which american citizens will be protected by the constitution, claiming, "you don't deserve protection if you are hiding and committing acts of terror"(Ed note: or are suspected of doing so)

    I dunno about you, but this is a hell of a lot more serious than clinton getting his dick sucked by some slut and then lying about it.

    1. Re:Impeach Bush by darrad · · Score: 1

      How is this any different than any other president in the US history. Lincoln, Washington, and FDR all did the same things.

      The people that this is aimed at are NOT american citizens, they are either here on a visa, or here illegally. If you can site one instance where an american citizens rights are being violated by this act, then I will re-consider my stance.

    2. Re:Impeach Bush by Bonker · · Score: 1

      Don't forget John Ashcroft. He's at least as guilty as George Bush in the 'pissing on the U.S. Constitution' contest.

      --
      The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
    3. Re:Impeach Bush by mickeyreznor · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Violations of rights is Violation of rights is Violation of rights. It doesn't matter if you are a us citizen or not. I believe the constitution said that "ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL". Maybe i misread that.

      Either way, history has shown that laws supposadly aimed at "non-us citizens" have been extended to us citizens eventually. Know about RICO? That law was supposed to apply only to people in the mafia. Later, abortion protesters and stock brokers were prosecuted under that law. Money Laundering laws and Asset seizure? These were only supposed to apply to the "evil" drug lords. Now innocet americas who have not been accused of a crime can have their property stolen by law enforcement.

      And as for Lincoln, Washington, and FDR, they were in REAL WARS, not some fictional crusades like the "War" on Crime, the "War" on Drugs, and the "War" on Terrorism.

    4. Re:Impeach Bush by Happy+Monkey · · Score: 4, Interesting

      How is this any different than any other president in the US history. Lincoln, Washington, and FDR all did the same thing

      Most presidents did not do these things. Washington was for all intents and purposes a king, and it was only his choice that prevented him from from exercising all of the power he could have had. Lincoln was second only to FDR in terms of presidents abusing the constitution. All of these men were good men, and we are lucky they happened to be in power when the situations arose that gave them the excuse to do their extreme power grabs for the executive branch. Their constitutional breaches are now viewed as the lowest points in their presidency.

      As bad as September 11 was, it is not nearly the crisis that the formation of the country, the Civil War, or World War II was. And I don't trust Bush to be half the man any of the above three was. I trust Ashcroft even less.

      The people that this is aimed at are NOT american citizens, they are either here on a visa, or here illegally.

      How is this even relevant? The Constitution makes no distinction between a foreign defendant or a domestic one in a trial. It describes the powers and restrictions of the cort system, regardless of the defendant.

      If you can site one instance where an american citizens rights are being violated by this act, then I will re-consider my stance.

      How about the fact that the DOJ is Already Monitoring Cable Internet Traffic?

      --
      __
      Do ya feel happy-go-lucky, punk?
    5. Re:Impeach Bush by FFFish · · Score: 3

      Score 4: Flamebait? Keee-rist, there are a some dumbshit moderators out there. Mickey states *FACTS*, man, and moreso, facts that ought to SCARE THE HELL OUT OF YOU. Yet it's "flamebait," because you voted Bush.

      The USA is rapidly becoming a third-world police state that's run by crooks who stand to profit immensely by turning its citizenry into sheep and pouring money into its military-industrial complex.

      That isn't a flamebait statement: it's a fucking WAKE UP CALL. You might be able to write off one voice crying out this message as being the voice of a lunatic, but when so many voices are shouting it, there's bound to be a reason to pay attention.

      Shake your head, sheep, and become aware of the problems your country is facing. If you don't gettaclue fast, you're going to find yourself living like the Chinese do: squished under the thumb of a corrupt government.

      --

      --
      Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
    6. Re:Impeach Bush by ArsonPerBuilding · · Score: 1

      No, King Ashcroft wins at the pissing on the constitution contest. Any unelected(not voted in) bureacrat that infringes on state rights that people(voters) have decided(voted) on wins that contest.

      --
      1 tequila 2 tequila 3 tequila floor
    7. Re:Impeach Bush by gmhowell · · Score: 2

      Can't believe no one got this. That quote "All men..." is from the Declaration of Independence, which is not a formal position of the US gov't. (Of course, most USians think it is. I don't think it is, but think it should be.)

      Originally, all laws were supposed to apply to all people in the US equally. But apparantly, 'some animals are more equal than others'.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    8. Re:Impeach Bush by gmhowell · · Score: 2

      Mostly on, but I don't believe that some of the abuses of power are looked down upon by the average USian. Take the Emancipation Proclamation. Absurd and insulting. (Absurd that it freed slaves in areas not under federal control. Insulting in that loyal states, like Maryland, were allowed to retain slaves.) Yet given the serious deficincies of both legal and moral nature, it is touted by the average Joe as one of the greatest things done by Lincoln.

      But I must agree 100%: this bombing was a pissant little thing compared to the Civil War. The Civil War is essentially the Big Thing (tm) that threw out the old Federal system, and ushered in the era of big government, not to mention national unity, etc, etc. WWII is perhaps close in scale to the changes wrought.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    9. Re:Impeach Bush by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, the slashdot moderation system is obviously busted to shit. Chances are this post will stay 0 for the duration of its stay here on slashdot...very good posts get missed every day because of this moderation system and the default of 1...

      So why are people surprised when this system sets some post to an off the wall moderation...it is completely meaningless, and has been since its conception. Public forumns should NOT be moderated, and slashdot is proving this through this expirement. But every time I see at least one obviously fucked up moderation and several "Mods are on crack" (I posted one of these not long ago :P). I think we all need to realise that the mod system on /. is garbage and set our filter to 0 or -1...

      NR

    10. Re:Impeach Bush by pjl5602 · · Score: 1

      Violations of rights is Violation of rights is Violation of rights. It doesn't matter if you are a us citizen or not. I believe the constitution said that "ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL". Maybe i misread that.

      So then why bother with citizenship?&nbsp I mean if everybody gets the rights of the Constitution afforded to them why then do we have citizenship?&nbsp Oh yeah, that's right, to get the rights the Constitution grants to citizens.&nbsp And by the way, you lose quite a bit of credibility when you confuse the Declaration of Independence with the Constitution.&nbsp So yeah, you did misread that.&nbsp Why don't you actually try reading the Constitution.

      As for this not being a real war, I think you're off base.&nbsp Corny as this sounds, I believe the war on terrorism is a war against evil that has long been necessary.&nbsp Does that mean I want to lay down my rights in order to prosecute it?&nbsp Of course not, but I don't believe that's what's happening to the extent that others are hysterical about it on slashdot...

    11. Re:Impeach Bush by gmhowell · · Score: 2

      Far be it for me to defend Ashcroft (I agree that he wins the pissing on the constitution contest. And how can I have any love for a man soundly thrashed in an election against a dead man?) but at least we elected the people who confirmed him. The people who elected George the Lesser were picked by his father and the old fuddy-duddy before him. (And what the hell is with the veneration of Ronald Reagan? I'd love to rant about it, but I might be here all day)

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    12. Re:Impeach Bush by mickeyreznor · · Score: 1

      First, ok, so i misquoted the constitution, so sue me.

      Second, if we're so intent on spreading "freedom and democracy" around the world, don't you think we should treat all foreigner's like we treat our citizens? Why is it acceptable to do something to a foreigner that wouldn't be acceptable to do to a citizen? If we truly believe in the constitution, then we should extend its ideals to everyone, not just ourselves.

    13. Re:Impeach Bush by jesser · · Score: 2

      Carrying out acts of war without declaring war(declaring war against a tactic doesn't count, war is by definition a conflict between 2 nations, not some open ended crusade).

      What was he supposed to do? Don't you remember the onion headline, "U.S. Urges Bin Laden To Form Nation It Can Attack"?

      --
      The shareholder is always right.
    14. Re:Impeach Bush by bnenning · · Score: 2
      I'm not going to defend everything Bush has done, but I do have to point out that most of it has been done with the full support of both parties (and most of the American people). For example, Democrats and Republicans nearly unanimously voted for the so-called Patriot Act despite not having actually read it.


      I dunno about you, but this is a hell of a lot more serious than clinton getting his dick sucked by some slut and then lying about it.


      In addition to his intern adventures, Clinton also abused executive orders and bombed the hell out of other countries without a declaration of war, including deliberately targeting civilians.

      --
      How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
    15. Re:Impeach Bush by Happy+Monkey · · Score: 2

      The Emancipation Proclomation was meaningless at the time it was made, but I wouldn't say it was a constitutional abuse. (A law can be meaningless, absurd, insulting, and constitutional.) I was mainly referring to suspending the writ of habeas corpus. This is not as well known as the Emancipation Proclomation, but among those who have heard of it, the best I've heard is that since Lincoln was such a good guy, maybe it wasn't so bad.

      --
      __
      Do ya feel happy-go-lucky, punk?
    16. Re:Impeach Bush by mickeyreznor · · Score: 1

      In addition to his intern adventures, Clinton also abused executive orders and bombed the hell out of other countries without a declaration of war, including deliberately targeting civilians.

      I am aware of what clinton did, and they were certainly impeachable offenses, but i was mainly referring to what he was impeached for.

    17. Re:Impeach Bush by renehollan · · Score: 2
      There is legal precedent that persons on U.S. soil have all the rights granted in the U.S. Constitution -- illegal immigrants, for example, have the right to due process, and legal representation at a deportation hearing. That's why it's so tough to get in to the U.S.: once you're "in" it's hard to get rid of "undesirables". As an H1-B visa holder, it is very important for me to have all my documents in order when re-entering the U.S. from Canada, for this reason.

      What citizens have, is privilege: among other things, they get to vote and change the laws via their elected representatives.

      --
      You could've hired me.
    18. Re:Impeach Bush by general_re · · Score: 2

      Trashed our system of justice by authorizing secret trials, using secret evidence, and even allowing secret executinos. The "evidence"will not be avaiable for the accused to refute, with no opportunity for the accused to appeal. In doing so he has invoked the divine right of kings, not even asking for congress's approval

      Kind of hard to square your characterization of what's been done with the fact that he's acting with the blessing of the Supreme Court when authorizing military tribunals. Ex Parte Quirin , for your bedtime reading tonight.

      --
      ABSURDITY, n.: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion.
    19. Re:Impeach Bush by pjl5602 · · Score: 1

      First, ok, so i misquoted the constitution, so sue me.

      You didn't misquote it.&nbsp It's a quote from an entirely different document and one that has no basis for granting rights as your (mis)quotation implied.&nbsp So it was a very important mistake that I think lends credence to my impression that you are rather uninformed...

    20. Re:Impeach Bush by El_Che · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I mean if everybody gets the rights of the Constitution afforded to them why then do we have citizenship?

      To vote. To pay taxes. To sit on juries. To hold political office. The Rights granted by the Constitution are granted to Persons, not 'Citizens.' I'll head off any complaints about semantics by making reference to the provisions for eligibility to be a Congressman:

      No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five years, and been seven years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state in which he shall be chosen. [Emphasis mine]

      If personhood = citizenship, then why did the framers make the distinction between the two when determining eligibility? For further edification on your rights, and mine, and those of visitors from distant lands, I suggest the ACLU (Join Today!).

    21. Re:Impeach Bush by aminorex · · Score: 1

      Usama bin Laden was the defense minister of
      Afghanistan on September 11th. If Congress
      believed that he directed the attacks of that
      date, Congress should have passed a resolution
      recognizing a state of war between Afghanistan
      and the U.S., but in fact Congress declined to
      do so. Either Congress is incompetent, or no
      sufficient evidence exists to demonstrate that
      Usama bin Laden directed those attacks.

      --
      -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
    22. Re:Impeach Bush by general_re · · Score: 2

      It's very much a flamebait statement, and had I the points, I would moderate it as such. Mickey's critically short on facts, in virtually every single thing he's posted.

      His objection to tribunals flies in the face of legal precedent - scroll down a bit to my other post and check out Ex Parte Quirin. In it, the Court notes that Congress already gave the Executive the power to create military tribunals, and therefore, no further permission is required from Congress.

      His objection to the lack of a formal declaration of war betrays a startling ignorance of the history of the war-making powers of the executive branch - see this article (scroll down to the sixth paragraph to see what I mean)

      His objection to Bush "deciding which american citizens will be protected by the constitution" betrays a surprising ignorance of the text of Bush's Executive Order, the text of which explicitly limits its application to non-citizens.

      And so forth.

      --
      ABSURDITY, n.: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion.
    23. Re:Impeach Bush by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I dunno about you, but this is a hell of a lot more serious than clinton getting his dick sucked by some slut and then lying about it.

      Ok, waitaminute... to you and me, maybe it is, but everyone else?

      You can bitch about it, or work within the known environment and constraints. Think about that.

      I say let's form a Slashdot pool to hire a prostitute/infiltrator to put our president's little 3-inch "honor and integrity" to the test. He probably won't fall for I-forgot-to-wash-my-dress bit like Clinton did (due to hindsight) but surely something can be worked out.

      If a blowjob is what it takes to put Dubya's dick in the spotlight, then let's get him one.

    24. Re:Impeach Bush by andkaha · · Score: 2

      This is from an interview with Noam Chomsky. It answers the question "What was he supposed to do?".

      Q: Talk about the relationship between ends and means. Let's say you have a noble goal. You want to bring perpetrators of horrendous terrorist crimes to justice. What about the means to reach those ends?

      A: Suppose you want to bring a president of the U.S. to justice. They're guilty of horrendous terrorist acts. There's a way to do it. In fact, there are precedents. Nicaragua in the 1980s was subjected to violent assault by the U.S. Tens of thousands of people died. The country was substantially destroyed, it may never recover. The effects on the country are much more severe even than the tragedies in New York the other day. They didn't respond by setting off bombs in Washington. They went to the World Court, which issued a judgment in their favor condemning the U.S. for what it called "unlawful use of force," which means international terrorism, ordering the U.S. to desist and pay substantial reparations. The U.S. dismissed the court judgment with contempt, responding with an immediate escalation of the attack. So Nicaragua then went to the Security Council, which passed a resolution calling on states to observe international law. The U.S. vetoed it. They went to the General Assembly, where they got a similar resolution that passed near-unanimously, which the U.S. and Israel opposed two years in a row (joined once by El Salvador). That's the way a state should proceed. If Nicaragua had been powerful enough, it could have set up another criminal court. Those are the measures the U.S. could pursue, and nobody's going to block it. That's what they're being asked to do by people throughout the region, including their allies.

      Remember, the governments in the Middle East and North Africa, like the terrorist Algerian government, which is one of the most vicious of all, would be happy to join the U.S. in opposing terrorist networks which are attacking them. They're the prime targets. But they have been asking for some evidence, and they want to do it in a framework of at least minimal commitment to international law. The Egyptian position is complex. They're part of the primary system that organized the bin Laden network. They were the first victims of it when Sadat was assassinated. They've been major victims of it since. They'd like to crush it, but they say, only after some evidence is presented about who's involved and within the framework of the UN Charter, under the aegis of the Security Council. That's a way to proceed.

      --
      It's 11pm, do you know what your deamons are up to?
  66. Re:Not! UK led the way with silly legislation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But most hackers are in a sense terrorist.

    Just some bother more people than others. Yes a 12 year old who sits at his parents computer and launches DoS attack against companies or just Marge reading her AOL mail should be considered a criminal.

    The crime is easy to commit, and hard to deter since audit trails are small to none. So the punishment must be bad enough to scare you away from doing these things.

  67. Maybe I don't understand but.... by darrad · · Score: 1

    Other USA Patriot Act sections mean that police can obtain an Internet Protocol address, which identifies a cable modem subscriber, as readily as they can learn someone's telephone number.

    Chertoff said the government also has used its new powers to obtain court orders for logs from Internet providers that are outside of the court's traditional jurisdiction.


    This doesn't seem that much different from a sys admin pulling an IP from his logs and doing an rDNS on it, and then contacting the ISP. They still have to get a court order to get the logs, and since most Cable ISP's are running DHCP, the IP address does not automatically ID someone.

    The whole article at Wired and here seem to have a definate bias.

  68. Death Penalty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    however, when I hear the EU is against the death penalty for these criminals, it makes me want to puke.

    The fact that the US has a death penalty makes most Europeans want to puke. (You can be executed in the US for a crime you commited when you were under 18 FFS!)
    Under the European Human Rights act, the right to life means that a suspect cannot be extradited to a terratory where they risk execution for thair crimes.

    Maybe Europeans see this as just another terrorist act

    Errrm
    It was another terrorist act! (A bit like bombing the Afghans)

    1. Re:Death Penalty by GiorgioG · · Score: 1

      Wake up to reality - the age of 18 means nothing. It's just some random age our forefathers picked and said "you're an adult when you reach this age". Give me a break. I know 12 year olds with more sense than 35 year olds. If you were brought up right, you know not to do what's wrong - because we all know what's wrong and what's right.

    2. Re:Death Penalty by kz45 · · Score: 0

      The fact that the US has a death penalty makes most Europeans want to puke. (You can be executed in the US for a crime you commited when you were under 18 FFS!)
      Under the European Human Rights act, the right to life means that a suspect cannot be extradited to a terratory where they risk execution for thair crimes.


      I guess when a 16 year old massacres his fellow students with an AK47, we should chalk it up as "just being a silly kid"

      Under the European Human Rights act, the right to life means that a suspect cannot be extradited to a terratory where they risk execution for thair crimes.

      sounds good to me. Serial killers and murderers should be given a light sentence, and set free into our society. Kinda like canada, where a guy that raped over 20 women, and videotaped it all, got only 3 years in prison.

      That's exactly why serial killers hide in European countries(and Canada). NO DEATH PENALTY.

    3. Re:Death Penalty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As opposed to the average 15 months a rapist serves in the US? Or the guy who raped a coed, chopped off her hands, and left her in the desert to die and ended up serving a terrible 6 years in jail? Face it, as long as you're not selling pot and your crimes don't make major news, you've got nothing to worry about in the US either.

  69. Simple trade-offs looming? by jabber01 · · Score: 2

    You like tax-free shopping on the Internet? You will disclose your personal information.
    You want regulations that keep bandwidth affordable? You will accept government monitoring of your private communicaton.
    You want to be/stay in business as an access provider? You will log everything and make those logs available on a whim.

    --

    The REAL jabber has the user id: 13196
    What you do today will cost you a day of your life

    1. Re:Simple trade-offs looming? by Catbeller · · Score: 2
      You like tax-free shopping on the Internet? You will disclose your personal information.


      I don't see why that would be necessary. I don't see a connection.

      You want regulations that keep bandwidth affordable? You will accept government monitoring of your private communicaton.


      How does regulation keep it affordable? Hands-off government doesn't regulate bandwidth. Non sequitur.

      You want to be/stay in business as an access provider? You will log everything and make those logs available on a whim.


      Now, there's a true statement. Blackmail on the most primitive level. Do what we say, or men with guns shut you down, and the DOJ ruins you with legal fees.

      Heil Ashcroft. Watch out for those calico cats; Ashroft believes they are symbols of Satan.
    2. Re:Simple trade-offs looming? by jabber01 · · Score: 2

      I don't see why that would be necessary. I don't see a connection.

      It isn't necessary. There is not connection. There is also no connection between Federal speed limits and Interstate Highway maintenance cost subsidies for States, yet, strangely, the funding was held back for certain States until they adopted the 'suggested' speed limits. Interesting, that.

      How does regulation keep it affordable?

      You're expecting this to be clearly logical. It is, but not in the straightforward sense. There is still much the government can do to make the interaction between cable and telephone providers (and the overlap in services they can provide) simple or difficult. To get what they want, cable cos and telcos will need to give the Fed what it wants. Simple extortion.

      Do what we say, or men with guns shut you down.

      It won't ever be that dramatic and transparent. Denied permits, tax audits, unrealistic appeal deadlines, etc. will kill off non-compliance.

      "No Mr. ISP CEO, you can not string your fiber-optic line across or under a Highway.. What? The data is encrypted? Encryption is a munition, and so you must be a terrorist.."

      --

      The REAL jabber has the user id: 13196
      What you do today will cost you a day of your life

  70. It's time for 2 PC's by Robber+Baron · · Score: 2

    One non-secure surfing/games box, and a standalone (preferably *nix) box for stuff that your government doesn't need to see (financial records etc). And no, I don't have anything bad to hide, it's quite simply none of their business. Store all your encryption keys on your standalone box and get your correspondants to adopt a similar configuration,. If you need nocommunicate securely,compose and encrypt/decrypt on the standalone box only, transferring encrypted text only files between the boxen via floppy. It's actually quite frigntening...what have our governments becomethat we all feel the need to protect ourselves from them?

    --

    You're using her as bait, Master!

  71. Typing too fast by Robber+Baron · · Score: 2

    If you need nocommunicate securely

    If you need to communicate securely

    --

    You're using her as bait, Master!

  72. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    That would be the equivalent of them asking the phone company to put a DNR (Dialed Number Recorder) on your line without a judicial hearing!

    I believe they can already do that, although the use the guise of "monitoring system performances" or some bullshit.

    ~~~

  73. heres hoping... by gnurd · · Score: 1

    ...that the government has a built in "rollback" feature. if not i might have to migrate to a new platform, like Canada.

    --
    "i was saying gnu-rd"
    1. Re:heres hoping... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its called a revolution my friend

  74. Re: Media Coverage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ah yes, the telltale whine of some moron who had his ass handed to him for making an idiotic argument.

  75. Too much information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The funny thing about this stuff is that back when they were talking about how intelligence failed to detect the Sept. 11 attack, they were saying that they were suffering from "too much data" to sift through. And now they have an even larger haystack.

  76. Re: Media Coverage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What the hell is a "congress-critter?"

  77. What do the logs look like? by dohcvtec · · Score: 2, Interesting

    OK, so the feds can ask an ISP for the IP address of a suspect; this would be useful for purposes such as magic lantern, or otherwise trying to crack the suspect's box. The feds can also obtain logs from the ISP; I've never worked at an ISP, so I'm wondering what do ISPs (or especially overloaded cable ISPs) actually log anyway? I can't imagine the information would be overly extensive, since for the most part it's not in the ISP's best interests to keep verbose logs over an extended period of time. Anyone who knows more care to chime in?

    --
    -- Never hit a man with glasses. Hit him with a baseball bat.
  78. Alex Jones is a fucking whack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I live in Austin and have to see this guy on the local cable channel. Trust me, this is not the guy you want to be getting your info from.

    Elvis flying around in black helicoptors eating fried peanut butter and bannana sandwiches, AND HE'S LOOKING AT YOU!

  79. Re:Impeach Bush - Voted for Tricky Willy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let me guess you voted for Clinton, right!

  80. It just amazes me. by OS24Ever · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I'm growing tired of being protected 'for my own good'.

    Looking over at CNN you see that over 100,000 people have voted that the 'new powers' of the government are not too much, while only 30K or so think they are too broad.

    --

    As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.

    1. Re:It just amazes me. by AaronVG · · Score: 1

      That is because those 30k of us just added one more tick mark to our FBI files.

      --
      My opinions are just that.
  81. The sky is falling!!! by kma · · Score: 2, Informative

    I don't understand the level of panic I'm seeing in most of the replies to this article. Have any of you folks actually read the legislation? Most of it consists of running "sed -e s/phone/phone, voice or internet" on existing laws. E.g., the ability to obtain IP address/name pairs from cable companies is analogous to the ability to map phone numbers to names. We're not exactly shredding the Bill of Rights, here.

    There is a real tension between civil liberties and physical safety, no matter what Ben Franklin said; we have enemies who want to slaughter us wholesale, and the freedoms available to them in this country are enabling them to do so. In this context, the USA Patriot Act is a reasonable compromise, despite the newspeak name. The freedoms it sacrifices are non-essential (yes, there is such a thing), and yet it has a fighting chance of being effective. It represents a sweet-spot in the freedom/safety trade-off.

    Even if it were the piece of totalitarian toilet paper some would have us believe, it at least has a sunset clause. I.e., on Dec. 31, 2005, the USA Patriot Act ceases to be the law of the land. Not quite what you'd expect from a fascist power-grab.

    I suspect the most hyperbolic complaints about this piece of legislation come from people who are upset about the general erosion of civil liberties underway. If you fall into this category, your energy is wasted on the USA Patriot Act. Executive orders allowing military tribunals and spying on lawyers are massively more troubling than the FBI being able to find out whose machine is at 65.12.14.153; if you don't understand why, I'm afraid you've been spending too much time on slashdot.

    1. Re:The sky is falling!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would agree 1) Patriot Act quite clearly was not well-read (have you read the segment on Sikh-Americans, in Miscellaneous? After reading that, beating on Arab-Americans appears to be alright), presumably becaming law from its fascinating name (hey, it IS good marketing); 2) Patriot Act does have the sunset clause and we should be thankful that it does expire without further votage, but Adolph (the standard by which we judge all despots) Hitler, got the Weimar president to have the parliment vote him into absolute power (what better way to get moral justification from the people -- even if the parliment was strong-armed when it voted?) 3) Indeed, much of it was just a sed script.

      I am not proud that it is there, and when it comes up for renewal (you can bank on it), i believe shall ask my legislators to not support renewal.

    2. Re:The sky is falling!!! by kindbud · · Score: 2

      There is a real tension between civil liberties and physical safety, no matter what Ben Franklin said;

      I'll agree with that, but your next statement is completely unrelated, and doesn't follow from the first. Your essay reads like Bush's speeches, as if you've been given a shuffled deck of cards with slogans printed on them, and are reading them in random order.

      ... we have enemies who want to slaughter us wholesale, and the freedoms available to them in this country are enabling them to do so.

      No, we have leaders telling us that there are enemies that want to slaughter us. We have leaders who promised proof of this, but later withdrew that promise. All we know is that airplanes crashed into buildings, but the FBI was able to produce a list of the perpetrators including details about how they got into the country within days of the attacks, and they did all this without the powers granted by the Patriot Act.

      Yet we're supposed to believe that this Act is necessary to fight the terrorism conspiracies that the administration promised to prove to us were happening, but later reneged on that promise.

      In this context, the USA Patriot Act is a reasonable compromise, despite the newspeak name.

      Show me a reason to believe it. Just stating it over and over is not sufficient.

      The freedoms it sacrifices are non-essential (yes, there is such a thing),

      Again, show me why I should believe it.

      ...and yet it has a fighting chance of being effective. It represents a sweet-spot in the freedom/safety trade-off.

      Given that the FBI was able to trace the perps of 9/11 without the help of the Patriot Act, why should I believe this? Everyone keeps trying to reassure me that if I am innocent, I have nothing to worry about. Pardon me, but I find that anything but reassuring.

      --
      Edith Keeler Must Die
  82. movie terrorists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well as long as they just catch terrorists downloading movies off the web I see nothing wrong with this...

  83. Question about subsection 411 (for a lawyer?) by wrinkledshirt · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I've been reading the Patriot Act and I cannot find a clear definitions of the word "terrorist" which aren't self-referential -- ie: "someone who commits an act of terrorism", and so forth.

    Am I reading the section correctly? Because if so, it would seem to me that, without a clear definition, it's open to interpretation at various points along the way from suspicion to arrest and detainment to trial to sentencing...

    --

    --------
    Bleah! Heh heh heh... BLEAH BLEAH!!! Ha ha ha ha...

    1. Re:Question about subsection 411 (for a lawyer?) by jeff13 · · Score: 1

      Wow. Give this guy a cookie.

      Duh, this is why this is bad law. It's vague. If you cannot define a crime, you cannot enforce a law against it. But wait! Hey... this is America pal. Just 'cause you got the most votes doesn't mean you get to be president.

      Are you a terrorist? You look like one to me, shut up and get into the car. Watch your head baby killer.

    2. Re:Question about subsection 411 (for a lawyer?) by Stonehand · · Score: 1

      That's what judges do -- interpret the laws. Many, many laws are open to interpretation.

      At some point, heck, you have to, because reality isn't readily reduceable to nice, neat mathematical axioms and definitions. Sooner or later there's a judgement call involved.

      --
      Only the dead have seen the end of war.
    3. Re:Question about subsection 411 (for a lawyer?) by Aexia · · Score: 1

      "Domestic terrorist" is defined as anyone who attempts to terrorize or coerce the public.

      Not much better huh?

      Just think, the next time Democrats run "Mediscare"-type ads, Ashcroft can haul them in for being domestic terrorists. It'll certainly make Bush's re-election campaign much easier!

    4. Re:Question about subsection 411 (for a lawyer?) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, that is how America works. Just because you get the majority of popular votes doesn't mean you are the President. The electoral college system stops the handful of large cities from dominating the rest of the country's policies.

    5. Re:Question about subsection 411 (for a lawyer?) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's one of the things that makes this law so great. It has unlimited power! USA FOREVER! Fly your flag HIGH!

  84. Re: Media Coverage by jgman · · Score: 1

    The Senator you are referring too is Russell Feingold (D)of Wisconsin. He proposed a series of amendments which would have tempered the "worst" aspects of this bill. Only six Senators voted with him on the amendments. When time came for passage of the bill, Sen. Feingold was the only dissenting vote.

    --
    This is not the sig you are looking for...
  85. Speaking of Cable Failures by Raven42rac · · Score: 2, Informative

    Here is an email I received from my local provider (Cox) I received it today 11292001:
    Dear Cox @ Home Customer:

    As you know from our previous emails, Excite @ Home, our vendor in delivering
    your Cox @ Home service, filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy protection at the end
    of September. We have endeavored to keep you informed of the potential impact
    this Bankruptcy could have on your Cox @ Home service and are writing to you
    today to provide the latest information we have available.

    First, we want you to know that we are committed to providing you uninterrupted
    high speed Internet service. Cox Communications has been working diligently in
    negotiations with Excite @ Home and using all legal avenues available to protect
    you, our valued customer. Meanwhile, we have been forging ahead with our
    plans to deliver reliable high speed Internet service to you on our Cox-managed
    network. You will soon be receiving additional information about our new Cox
    High Speed Internet(sm) service, along with information to help you convert to this
    new service.

    The latest developments with Excite @ Home:

    This month, Excite @ Home's creditors petitioned the Bankruptcy court with a
    motion to allow Excite @ Home to terminate service agreements with its cable
    affiliates on November 30th. This includes agreements with Cox, Comcast and
    AT&T. If the Court grants the creditors' request, there conceivably could be a
    temporary disruption in the services that Excite @ Home provides to
    approximately 3.7 million customers served by its North American cable affiliates.
    We are doing everything possible to see that there will not be a disruption in your
    service, but also want you to understand the possibilities and to be prepared:

    *If the Judge's ruling states that Excite @ Home may terminate its service
    agreements with Cox and the other cable affiliates, this does not mean that
    Excite @ Home will automatically turn off the service on November 30th.
    *With the Judge's approval, Excite @ Home would then have the ability to make
    a decision on termination; however, we are negotiating with them to prevent any
    service disruption.
    *If Excite @ Home decides to terminate service despite our efforts to negotiate a
    temporary arrangement, the question remains as to when the service would be
    terminated. We are doing everything we can to ensure that your Cox @ Home
    service continues until we can transition you to our new Cox-managed Internet
    service. In short, we are doing our best to make sure that you will never be
    without high speed Internet service.

    Additional help Cox is providing:

    In addition to exercising legal avenues, negotiating with Excite @ Home, and
    building our own high speed Internet service, Cox is also offering the following to
    help you and to keep you informed during this transitional period:

    * Toll Free Customer Information Line (1-877-832-4751). You can call in for
    the latest updates as we work to quickly resolve any service issues.
    * Website Message Center at www.cox.com/info We will provide online
    updates and a "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQ) section to address your
    concerns.
    * Automatic Account Credits. We will credit your account automatically for
    service and leased equipment so that you are reimbursed for any time you
    are without service.
    * Free, temporary dial-up Internet access. In the unlikely event that you
    should experience a service disruption, we have arranged for temporary
    dial-up access to the Internet via NetZero(r). In order to take advantage of
    this precautionary option, please see the "What Should I be Doing Right
    Now" section that follows.

    Cox has a long history of outstanding service in your community. We pride
    ourselves on providing high quality products and the best customer service.
    Please know that we are committed to our customers and understand the
    extent to which you enjoy the services we provide. We recognize that you
    have a choice in service providers and we will continue to do our best to
    remain your choice now and in the future. In advance, we apologize for any
    inconvenience that the Bankruptcy of our vendor Excite @ Home may cause
    you.

    Stay tuned for more details, and thank you for choosing Cox.

    Sincerely,

    The Cox High-Speed Internet Team
    Cox Communications, Inc.

    _______________________________

    What Should I be Doing Right Now?
    1. Check your Cox @ Home email daily. Opened messages will be saved
    automatically to your hard drive.
    2. Download free dial-up Internet software. In the unlikely event that Excite
    @ Home terminates your service, you would lose connectivity to the Internet and
    access to your Cox @ Home services such as email and webspace. We do not
    recommend that you install the software at this time, just download the software
    and save it so that it may be installed should you have an interruption in service.
    In order to restore access to the Internet and to set up a temporary email
    address, we recommend that you register for dial-up service via NetZero and
    download the necessary software. You will not be able to download the software
    from your home after your Internet service has already been disrupted. While a
    free dial-up connection is not ideal, it will give you temporary access to the
    Internet for surfing, making transactions, etc. However, you will not be able to
    access your Cox @ Home email accounts while the service is shut down. For
    information on how to download this software, please visit www.cox.com/info
    3. Back up your personal web page to your hard drive or to a CD. (This is a
    good precautionary measure to follow at any time.)
    4. In the unlikely event that there is a disruption in service, keep your cable
    modem connected to your PC until service is restored.
    5. Watch for more information from Cox on the transition of your service to
    Cox High Speed Internet. At such time that you can make the transition to our
    new service, Cox will be providing you with all of the information you need to make
    your transition as smooth as possible.

    It seems like they are trying their asses off not to lose any customers, which seems to be a very good sign.

    --
    I hate sigs.
  86. More on the Death Penalty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Give me a break. I know 12 year olds with more sense than 35 year olds.

    Well, considering the US has been known to put to death people who are mentaly retarded (ie those with a mental age of a 12year old) this is hardly supprising!

  87. and another thing by Rai · · Score: 0

    i'm for abandoning the DOJ acronym. it's not the Dept. of Justice, it's the Dept. of Self-Interest. justice doesn't enter into their agenda. from now, it should be DOSI. *gives DOSI the finger*

  88. Re: Media Coverage by Tackhead · · Score: 2
    > it was the PATRIOT Act, what kind of un-American bastard wouldn't vote for something called the PATRIOT Act?

    Which reminds me about the disturbing trend in naming legislation over the past 10 years or so. There's the PATRIOT act, which we're discussing here. It's not just a US phenomenon, though - witness the UK's effective removal all regulations on investigators with the "Regulation of Investigatory Powers" act.

    All I know is that when they come up with the "Saving Our Children's Cuddly Kittens, Sad-Eyed Puppies, and Fluffy Bunnies" act, I'm getting the fsck outa dodge.

  89. Yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Or am I missing something here?

    We're the "leader of the Free world". We're supposed to be setting good examples for every nation. That includes not sinking to lower forms of behavior.

  90. It's Very Simple; If You Voted For Bush... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's all very simple; if you voted for Bush you asked for this war, this return to budget deficits, this destruction of the Constitution, this theocratic government and this headuptheass way of looking at modern life. Screw all you stupid bastards who voted for Bush and support him and the theocracy. America belongs to the ages; we all now live in MERIKA - the most powerful totalitarian state that ever existed. Tune in the network news any night and get all the propoganda you can stomach, especially from FOX, CNN, MSNBC, CBS and ABC. This isn't even about technology - it's about life itself.

    1. Re:It's Very Simple; If You Voted For Bush... by 5KVGhost · · Score: 1

      Don't be an idiot. Do you think that the terrorists would have cancelled their plans to kill thousands of people out of courtesy to the Gore administration? Do you think that Gore would have reacted any differently to the attack, given the realities of the situation, the public mood, and the nearly unanimous support Bush has recieved from Congress?

      I agree that Ashcroft is going too far, or at very least failing to present a good case for some the actions he has taken. That's a problem, and it's something we need to fix. But frothing at the mouth and ranting about American being a totalitarian "theocracy" is just nonsense. The Taliban are the only people involved who come anywhere close to meeting that description.

    2. Re:It's Very Simple; If You Voted For Bush... by cavemanf16 · · Score: 1

      Hey, I voted for him, but I didn't ask for the personal freedom lockdown him and some of the morons on capital hill have brought down on us. War, yeah, you pretty much knew that was going to happen with a Republican, but it's better than the alternative liberal Gore, allowing Osama to anally rape the entire USA for four years straight. At least now I just have to watch out for the government gang-bangin' me, but with Gore it would be part of my daily life. When you vote, you're not voting in your hero, your voting in the best man/woman for the job. There's compromises you make in the interest of the common good.

    3. Re:It's Very Simple; If You Voted For Bush... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you should never comprimise in what you belive in...
      never vote for the lesser of 2 evils or whatever.. vote for what you belive in or dont vote..
      tahts why i only vote on propositions, never for people...

    4. Re:It's Very Simple; If You Voted For Bush... by cavemanf16 · · Score: 2

      I believe in having the best representative in office looking out for our interests. That's a core belief of mine. Thank you for giving more power to the couch potato's of our nation that don't care about the issues, more power by not voting for people. Besides, people always make the difference in how laws are carried out, not the laws themselves. Rules were meant to be broken. It's those who follow the intent of the law, not the letter of the law, that our nation, and the world, need more of. By not voting for people you're only enforcing this notion that anyone in government should have some sort of ultimate power to enforce the laws however they see fit when there is a gray area. Scary.

  91. damn. by SCHecklerX · · Score: 2
    Are there any anonymizing proxies that the police can't force to give out logs? This shit is scary:
    Other USA Patriot Act sections mean that police can obtain an Internet Protocol address, which identifies a cable modem subscriber, as readily as they can learn someone's telephone number.

    Of course it doesn't really matter, since they will still be able to sniff at the ISP. How about anonymizers that use SSL or a VPN? That would be ideal.

    *sigh*

  92. Bush would take citizenship away by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Bush and his father share friends, attitudes, money and methods. Bush's father is on record as saying that aetheists should have their citizenship revoked because, by definition, they can't even be patriots.

    We have fundamental disagreement about the road we're on. I say that the past year has seen the disappearance of America and the emergence of MERIKA, the new theocratic state, after the coup of the election of 2000.

    Nobody here should be trying to calm down.

  93. Marketing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The US gov't must have the same marketing guys as Microsoft. They come up with some good names for tricking the American public into supporting abusive crap. "Patriot Act." What upstanding citizen wouldn't back something with a name like that?

  94. Crawl Back into your hole. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are having basic trouble with grammar and spelling, I see. You are also having trouble with any realities which have more than two dimensions. In your dreams life would be so simple as to be neatly defined in terms like democracy and republic. In such dreams you can piss on people who live complex lives and do not fit into the meaningless definitions which give you so much comfort.

  95. 5 Simple Things to Protect Yourself by John+Goerzen · · Score: 2
    Think it's impossible to defeat Big Brother? Maybe. But at least you can make his life more difficult. Try these tips:
    1. Install a TLS mail server and tell it to speak TLS to everyone.
      TLS is a way of sending e-mail using SSL. When you send an e-mail from your TLS-speaking server to another TLS-speaking server, it will automatically travel encrypted. TLS also has support for certificate verification. Most popular mail servers, including sendmail and postfix, have TLS support. Debian users: apt-get install postfix-tls and follow the README.
    2. Use SSL wherever possible.Simple enough. https for websites. Make websites use SSL even if they don't "have" to.
    3. Use IPSec or other VPN technologies.These can help ensure that spies won't even know what protocol of information is traveling down the wire. They'll only know the two endpoints of the connection, when data is sent, and how much.
    4. Use GnuPG for all e-mails. This protects your e-mail even if you can't use TLS -- and it protects it while it's in your ISP's spool. Spies can probably figure out who the mail is from and who it's going to, but not its contents.
    5. Don't use Windows. The keyloggers used by the FBI apparently target that platform most.
    1. Re:5 Simple Things to Protect Yourself by Rick+the+Red · · Score: 2
      4.Use GnuPG for all e-mails.

      OK, so how do I get everyone I know to use GPG as well? It won't work unless everyone else uses it, too. I'm with you on this, but I need help convincing the rest of the world that unless you encrypt everything then encryption is worthless. This is especially difficult when my brother, sister, father-in-law, and damn near everyone else I know believes with all their heart and soul that the only reason to encrypt anything is if you have something to hide, and by extension the only reason to fear government intrusion into your personal life is if you have something to hide.

      I really believe the only way to have a secure society is if encryption is totally banned, and everything is open and public. Sure, go ahead and put a webcam in my bedroom -- but first, what's the address of the webcam in George W's bedroom, the governor's bedroom, the mayor's bedroom, the sherrif's bedroom, etc. If they have nothing to hide, then I have nothing to hide. I would welcome my bedroom webcam under those conditions.

      I note that nobody's proposing that we all read John Ashcroft's personal mail. I also note that Dubya dropped his personal email after the election, because he knew Presidential email was open to eventual public scrutiny. I further note that he has blocked the relase of his father's Vice-Presidential records. Nice double standard, eh?

      That doesn't bother me nearly as much as the reaction I get when I ask my brother, sister, father-in-law, etc. to please explain why the double standard doesn't bother them. I'm about to disown my family, the cretins.

      --
      If all this should have a reason, we would be the last to know.
    2. Re:5 Simple Things to Protect Yourself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, if your family won't play ball, then that's just too bad. Some people just won't listen to reason. But that's ok. We don't need everyone, just a lot.

      There is a large portion of the population who is neither pro-crypto or anti-crypto. Most people are apathetic or ignorant. If you know any of them, get 'em on board.

  96. Niccol� Machiavelli by goodviking · · Score: 1

    "It should be noted that when he seizes a state the new ruler ought to determine all the injuries that he will need to inflict. He should inflict them once and for all, and not have to renew them every day.

    Whoever acts otherwise, either through timidity or bad advice, is always forced to have the knife ready in his hand.... Violence should be inflicted once and for all; people will then forget what it tastes like and so be less resentful."

  97. Just a smidgeon, Not! by werdna · · Score: 2

    With all due respect, bunk. It affects us all, at least those of us who use computers, and particularly those of us who consult using computers.

    The FBI is now free, without court order or even timely notice, upon "reasonable suspicion," to circumvent and monitor your electronic transmissions, physically enter your home or install by remote hacking a keylogger, and to use or disclose such information freely.

    They can now assert and make stick Computer Fraud and Abuse charges, with enhanced penalties, that would not have held water yesterday; and you are also exposed to substantially greater civil liability under the CFAA.

  98. Re:Not! UK led the way with silly legislation by werdna · · Score: 2

    But most hackers are in a sense terrorist.
    Just some bother more people than others. Yes a 12 year old who sits at his parents computer and launches DoS attack against companies or just Marge reading her AOL mail should be considered a criminal.

    The crime is easy to commit, and hard to deter since audit trails are small to none. So the punishment must be bad enough to scare you away from doing these things.


    Ridiculous, when you compare the costs of such threats. Yes, your daughter is more severely deterred from hacking, but the cost is that virtually every computer consultant today is inherently liable for extraordinary liability under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, by the mere shift of a few words. It seems that whatever marginal "deterrence" is gained by the USA/PATRIOT Act was lost by the years of productivity and commerce due to the unceasing caution and uncertainty caused to those who provide technical services.

    By regulating technology more closely, so too are we choking one of our nation's greatest engines of commerce.

    The error is grave.

  99. Re:Not! UK led the way with silly legislation by werdna · · Score: 2

    One other thing. Do you think that the kinds of terrorists to whom the USA/PATRIOT laws are directed are subject to intellectual arguments of deterrence? Do you seriously argue that ANY law would have deterred a person willing to turn himself into a human bomb?

    No, we are only deterring normal people from doing normal things, as our life is turned upside down from statist overreaching. The terrorists are unaffected by legislative efforts to "deter" their conduct.

  100. Re: Media Coverage by Noxxus · · Score: 1

    The ACLU has a nifty-neato page where you can simply enter your ZIP code and generate an email, fax, or postal letter to you Congress critter for free to express your views on post Sept. 11 civil liberties and the USA Patriot Act and urge Congressional inquiry.

  101. See? what I said the other day (and only got a 1) by Newer+Guy · · Score: 1

    The govt. will do whatever they want. Period. Laws and Constitution/Bill of rights be damned! In the past few years (and yes, Clinton is guilty of starting this) the govt. has become less for the people and more against the people. This 'them vs us' attitude of elected officials towards the very people who voted them into office is troubling. In the past few months I've faxed both my senators and congressman in Washington and told them that their recent votes do not represent my view, the view of one who voted for them and whose interests they're supposed to represent. One of the three sent me a boilerplate response, the other two...nothing. These people are more concerned with feathering their own nests then any of us. It's going to take a major shift in voters' attitudes to change this and it's not likely based on the fact that the majority of voters simply don't vote any more. The ones who do vote usually stumble into the booth and vote for the incumbent. In other words: We have found the enemy and it is us!

  102. Fight the [more than ever] nationalists/fascists. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.cpusa.org

  103. Nuclear materials are easily detected by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Walk around washington DC with a gamma ray source and you'll know what I mean. It is near impossible to shield the fissile material adequately, and there is classified procedures, personel, and equipment to deal with this.

  104. Re:So what? by tomstdenis · · Score: 0

    You seem to forget that the internet is not as closed system as the phones are.

    I mean, as a website owner I can log and display your IP on my pages [actually I do] all I want.

    Your ISP owns the log of what you visit too, not you. So they can give out the log if they want [and lose customers at the same time I imagine].

    I agree that scrutiny should be placed on divulging logs to people but in the log run it isn't a big deal.

    What if I as a website owner submitted [voluntarily] my access_log to the government. Would I be violating your rights then?

    --
    Someday, I'll have a real sig.
  105. lol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and this is a surprise to anyone?

    wake up, they monitor everything and they have since the 1950's. "legal" doesn't enter into it, they are above the law.

  106. Let em come get me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I dare the DoJ or anyone else to use these "laws" against me
    Just becuase it's a "law" doesn not mean it's constitutional.
    That's why we have the Judical system...to smackdown crazed politicians
    And just so you all know...the Feds having a piece of paper with some IP's typed out on it does not mean your in any trouble....just means they know your IP and can type...now if they had video surveilance of you sitting at that PC at the time in question then ya might be screwed.
    Last time the Feds went for me all they had was some lame ass traceroutes and some text files...we had it dismissed on day 1...cost me a bunch for the lawyer...got to see DC though:)
    come on you Feds...come and get me :P~~~
    I taunt you....
    Your mother was a hamster and your father smelled of Elderberries :P~~~

  107. something to think about.... by mickeyreznor · · Score: 1

    i saw this on my friends im profile:

    1. WITCHES!

    2. COMMUNISTS!

    3. TERRORISTS!


    Anyone else see the connection?

  108. "Shall not disclose" to "MAY if to government..." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Previously, federal law said that "a cable operator shall not disclose personally identifiable information concerning any subscriber." Section 211 of the USA Patriot Act changes the law to read: "A cable operator may disclose such information if the disclosure is ... to a government entity."


    okay, so here is the question:


    it says "may" now, which tells me, that the FBI may ask, and it is up to the ISP to decide whether or not it wishes to comply. Before, the ISP was, by law, required to have a court-order in hand before giving out any information. Now, a court-order is required to give out information to a private person or group; and it does not need a court-order to give it to a governmental organisation. It can, however, tell the FBI (or whoever, for kicks, say the FDA), to goto a judge. Of course, the ISP could also tell the government (maybe even a state-level government, tho I can't say) that it'll be friendly neighbor and let them in.


    Am I reading the "May" correctly?

  109. Under jewish law... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is surprising how those laws are similar to israel's genocidal mision... Perhaps hitler should have finished his work, we would not have all those stupid jews controlling the world...

  110. scary, true story of Internet governmentmonitoring by madbrain · · Score: 1

    Conversation I had with my ex-boyfriend a few weeks ago. And no I'm not making this up !
    Him: "What is the secret service ?"

    Me: "Basically they are spies that work for the government . Why do you ask ?"

    Him : "Well, these two guys in black suits came to my parents' house on thursday [note: that was 2 days before the conversation]. They said they were from the secret service and they had a card to prove it. They asked for me by name."

    Me: "What did they want ?"

    Him: "They wanted to talk to me about some comments I made in an AOL chat room back in October. I was bashing Bush and the government. At one point I said in the room "Someone should mail Bush some anthrax". They told me that was a threat and they were investigating.

    Me: "So what did you say ?"

    Him : "I said I was just joking of course, which was the truth. Whatever happened to freedom of speech in this country ?"

    Me : Sigh.

    --
    -- Julien Pierre http://www.madbrain.com/blog
  111. Re:Impeach Bush - Clinton did that too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Heck, Clinton ripped up our rights also!


    WAR? What about Serbia? (No war declared there,
    it was a Peace mission...)


    Civil Rights - heck, what about the right to
    defend yourself and property? (2nd admendment?)
    OR are you forgetting that one?

  112. Re:Impeach Bush - Clinton did that too by mickeyreznor · · Score: 1

    You seem to think that I approve of clinton's "legacy"(notice from the sig that i'm libretarian). I certainly don't. I would have supported his impeachment if it was for what he actually did instead of the whole lewinsky thing. then it would have had more meaning. otherwise, what was the point.

  113. Re:fight despair [obligatory mod on crack post] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's because there are too many perpetual optimists and "Do it for the children!" weeniers out there that think humanity is inherantly good, and that those in power, are also those with all the knowledge. It may be far from the truth of what power is like ("Aboslute power corrupts, absolutely."), but too many people these days overlook that because they believe we're products of evolutionary chance, and inherantly good beings. Hello, the opposite is true on both accounts, and the more power you get, the harder it is to resist the temptation to abuse it.

  114. Well then.. by Ketnar · · Score: 1

    Because my web service disclaims any and all responsibility for user content/traffic/etc., I think I will be making a few 'adjustments' to just what the system logs, or rather, does not log.

    They want IP addresses? okie dokie, I can give them the last 30 minutes of IP addresses, sure. Seeing as how I only check my e-mail once every hour, and my phone line is more often than not, busy. I sure hope they can get ahold of me in 30 minutes for those precious IP addresses, user logins,e-mail traffic logs, etc. etc.etc....Have to keep that /var directory neat and tidy you know. :)


    "We demand logs of this time and this user under the such and such act of blah blah blah! you must comply!"
    "Uh, sure, one problem, they dont exist anymore, sorry. have a nice day! *click*"

    But seriously..c'mon :P

    --
    My new top secret key -> C>N|KB
  115. Has anyone realised yet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    Has anyone realised yet that patriot is a BAD word??

  116. Call me crazy.. by PeeOnYou2 · · Score: 1

    But ever since I learned in US History class in 11th grade, that the government can actually strip you of your constitutional rights for the sake of WAR-TIME, I have feared this country EVER going to war.

    At the time I figured shit, the US go to war? Bah, we haven't been in a war since I was old enough to remember. But it was a scary thought anyway. Imagine, if they could take away your basic freedoms that were guaranteed to you in the CONSTITUTION, just because the country was at war... that blew my mind.

    Then I figured, why would they do such a thing even if we DID go to war? I mean, what good would it do to take away our freedom of speech and whatnot? Nah, they wouldn't do that in these modern times... they have more smarts to go on now, they have more experience under the belt right?

    Then again, what if the whole "AT WAR" concept was used, just so they could solve issues that were way too complex or difficult if not impossible to solve by regular ways and means? What if our government went berzerk and decided they were going to use the pretext of WAR after any provocation to do whatever necessary to do things the way they wanted them to be done... no matter at whose expense.. even the the very people they are supposed to be "representing" and governing.

    Very scary thoughts indeed. Never thought I would actually have to live them.

    The way things are going, I'm planning on getting the fuck out of here whenever the opportunity arrives. I'm not going to stick with a country that just decides that the rules they so strictly enforce on the people, no longer apply to those creating and enforcing them. That's just plain wrong, and idiotic. It cannot work.

    One last point about the whole "we're immune to the constitution" attitude. What if the people decided they had had enough of obeying all these pathetic, shitty laws. What if the people rose up and decided they were just as immune to the rules and regulations as those who enact, enforce, & regulate do. What then?

    That's quite a bit to think about.

    And we as a nation have lots of thinking AND acting to do.

    If you don't hear from me ever again, they showed up at my house and made off with my body.

  117. smoke a joint by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If only I didn't get busted with pot I'd be trying to become an FBI agent right now.

    sorry dude.. that sucks. i've had some close calls myself. they got evidence against me in case they want to arrest me. but only paraphanelia and like 0.05 grams. still sucks, that was the best glass pipe i've ever owned.

    smoke a joint

  118. What to do about this... by mrgoat · · Score: 2
    Does the following blurb sound familiar:

    ...and in other news, at the *INSERT GOVERNMENTAL BODY HERE*, new legislation was passed that changes your rights *INSERT FUBARED RIGHTS HERE*. While there were a few objections voiced by citizens, elected officials praised the legislation a shining example of democracy in action.

    First off, you need to start hitting CSPAN.org and thomas.gov. Those sites offer coverage of the meetings and events that happen BEFORE legislation makes it to the floor, at least on the national level. Some states' cable providers offer televised local and state coverage as well. Then you need to get people to watch those sites. Of course, nobody really watches those sites; given a choice between football, survivor, and cspan coverage, cspan will always be the loser.

    Most news media makes no money on letting people know about legislative hearings and sessions before something hits the floor. Part of this is because the news media doesn't want to be in the business of trying to interpret laws for the public. The other side of it is that many of their stories come from governmental contacts and favors- and if you piss on someone's pet project, then you get less help later on (like when you need a building permit to make alterations to your office).

    Right now, I am working on the problem of hidden legislation and what to do about it. I just moved to the capitol of my state, and I am finding further problems in that local governments do not offer any of their schedules, legislative copy, or postings in any kind of electronic form. In some cases, "last-minute" notices requesting community input are posted next to the printing office, which is in the basement of a building that you have to pass through a metal detector during business hours in order to reach. It is not as bad with the state, but the level of obfuscation on public hearing locations and names of legislation is truly astounding.

    Something else for everyone here to think about- if you are finding it hard to make a living doing tech and science work, maybe you should consider taking a year or two off and going to law school. Really, activism only can go so far, and if it is not backed up with real experience and knowledge it ends up going nowhere fast.

    --

    'Hail Eris, baby, hail Eris...pfffffffttt.' *cough* 'Yeah.'
  119. Catch 22: Glorious Loyalty Oath Crusade by Aguila · · Score: 1

    Maybe we should require everybody to sing the Star Spangled Banner before eating at restaurants and Pledge Allegiance to the Flag before buying groceries. If we had everybody sign "Loyalty Oaths" and refused to deal with anybody who didn't, that would make everybody patriotic and get rid of all terrorists, right!? And anybody who refuses to participate or questions the validity is obviously unAmerican.

    I have not bothered flying a flag, despite the fact that I consider myself patriotic, because it almost seems to me that a third of the people flying them are flying them because it is currently the thing to do, and another third are businesses using patriotism as a sales pitch! (Though I must admit that they are being solidly American in doing that.) There are better ways to show patriotism, like voting and taking an interest in pending legislation and expressing that interest to representatives. (which I have done)

    Also, how will the media react when they learn that the next terrorist to act was a very "patriotic" person, who had flags plastered on his car, flew a flag from his apartment, etc. If there is another terrorist attack anytime soon, any intelligent person knows that this will be the case. Any average intelligence terrorist would fly a flag from his car, because then everybody around would know he was a good, patriotic person, and would ignore the fact that he was asking where he could by 1 ton of fertilizer and attending flight school.

  120. Register with the ACLU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i'm not affiliated with them or anything, so i'm adverstising, but instead of sitting around feeling helpless, register(donate money) to the ACLU. This way, when the government has the right to come check on the length of your penis, you can say you tried. http://www.aclu.org

  121. Register with the ACLU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i'm not affiliated with them or anything, so i'm adverstising, but instead of sitting around feeling helpless, register(donate money) to the ACLU. This way, when the government has the right to come check on the length of your penis, you can say you tried. http://www.aclu.org

  122. I love my job by gtreager · · Score: 1

    You know when you are running a Windows machine and you do the online update? Do you realise what happens? Micro$oft says that there is no information being uploaded to their site about "your" computer. Well, if government agencies now have the power to, for lack of a better term, take information from ISP's about "your" IP address, could Micro$oft be in on this too and associate your IP address with your entire computer's hardware/software configuration, for said government agencies to "take?"

  123. Re:fight despair [obligatory mod on crack post] by Gordonjcp · · Score: 2

    My point exactly! The "Do it for the children" thing seems to be the big controlling force in society. *We* know we're right, but no-one bloody listens to us...

  124. Aarrgh! Random MAC addresses == Network Confusion by drenehtsral · · Score: 2

    MAC addresses are carefully assigned by vendor to assure that there are no two devices on earth that respond to the same MAC address. This eliminates computers with the same MAC address on the same loop of network stomping on eachother and causing errors, dataloss, and other such confusion.
    Even though there is very little chance of actually colliding with somebody else on your loop, it's still an invitation for errors and unriliability.

    --

    ---
    Play Six Pack Man. I
  125. Human laws, human flaws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everything created by man has some flaw in it. The United States government boasts "justice" when all they really try to obtain is revenge. Honestly, I think that we should elminate the deemed "terrorist-state" But we should do this with quickness and and surgical precision. If this man, Bin-Laden, had been a citizen of the US, he would be deemed just another crazy with a militia. Bin-Laden and his cohorts should be eliminated in one way or another, skip the flashy light show and media coverage. He sucker punched us and now we need to retaliate.... but even if you manage to end the terrorism of one bully, there well always be another somewhere else. Not one law in place will secure our "freedom" or sanctity. These laws will only give a glossy coat to what the people now see, and those people who comprise our government know that. They are using this event as an excuse to obtain justification and make the people of the United States feel that it was their choice to make these laws for the "greater good." Decomposition of our privacy may put a small enough crack in our civil rights to allow them to push forward and shatter the rest of them. Most of those representatives of our government have law degrees, were once or wanted to be lawyers, and love to manipulate things in their favors alone. They take things seriously but still treat their work as a giant game. Many of them do not understand how these choices will harm the common man, when they think that their lives are how everyone should live. Look at our past presidents, born with silver spoons in their mouths. Have they ever done any REAL work? It disgusts me to see people who make laws because they think they're never wrong. The only reason that they make so many laws is because the ones made previously were flawed. Logically you would see that every child law will be flawed because its parent has never been perfect. Perhaps they should stop trying to govern people by telling them what NOT to do.

  126. Re:scary, true story of Internet governmentmonitor by LordNimon · · Score: 1
    This happened because your ex-boyfriend broke the law.

    It is a Federal offence to threaten the President, even as a joke. Just saying something like that out loud is a crime. This is not a new law that was enacted after Sep 11, this law has been around for years, maybe even decades.

    It's the same thing with bomb threats at airports. Just saying that you have a bomb, even if it's just a joke, will get you arrested. I've heard stories of families travelling by air, and their stupid 8-year-old kid thinking it would be funny to say there's a bomb in his dad's bag. As you can imagine, all hell then breaks loose, the entire family gets carted away, and they miss their flight.

    Not only that, but the Secret Service are not spies that work for the government. The SS has one job: to protect the President and other important people (Vice President, Presidential candidates, etc). The are required by law to investigate EVERY possible threat to the President.

    Your ex-boyfriend is lucky he didn't get arrested, because the SS could easily have done that. I'm surprised the SS didn't explain that to him.

    --
    And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
    To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
  127. How Just is it? by thenoog · · Score: 1

    Lets all remember that we lost 0.002% of our population to the terrorists. Shall we trade the liberty of the other 99.998% in return?

    --
    - In a knowledge based industry your main asset will always be people -
  128. You gotta fight by Cyno · · Score: 1

    For your right

    To party!

    No, but seriously, when I think about it I can't honestly remember when this country was ever free. When I was a kid I remember my friends having their money or personal property taken away from them for walking across the street. I don't know what freedom is, but if you can't walk across the street without breaking a law I think you've got a long way to go. That's why I don't understand all this propoganda today. Our government filled my head with all this freedom and patriotic crap when I was in school. And now it has the audacity to tell me that fighting terrorism is preserving the freedoms I still lack. The freedoms my government still keeps from me!?!

    When I think of the flag (other than those cheap plastic ones people hang off thier cars) I think about freedom from tyrany and oppression, I think about the 4th of july, about cannons and guns and the men that died fighting for our constitution. The very constitution my government now finds inconvenient in their War on . And it makes me sick to see all those flags flying today. Normally when I look at the flag I feel patriotic. I'm one of the men that's willing to give his life for the freedom I'm still fighting for, without hesitation. I'm also willing to kill for it. But when I see a flag today I don't feel patriotic. I hate you and everything you stand for, for making me look at my flag in this wartime context.

    Its a sad day for this American. I wish a country existed that cared more about its people!=consumers and education/Freedom of Information than money. If there is one and you're looking for sys admins, programmers, network engineers or people willing to work for free for the common good, I'm ready to move.

    -Caleb

    P.S. I wish I could fix this great nation, but I honestly don't think its possible to repair it. How can you explain love (peace and understanding) and technology to a nation of devout ignorants who thrive on sex, violence and destruction?

  129. The Third Reich? by Cyno · · Score: 1

    Oh, well, that's different. If my government wants to cleans humanity then I'm all for that. And here I just thought they wanted to enslave the population of the planet in some globalization of corporate powers and trade. Either way at least I'm in the country with the biggest guns. We have become so efficient at killing people there is no way you can stop us. And if we cleans humanity by killing all the people that disagree with us, then everyone will agree, and thus be happy. :)

    Oh, no, I'm not being sarcastic. I'm an American.

  130. Re:Sneaky government teaches distrust of governmen by mshomphe · · Score: 1

    People have a fundamental separation between themselves and the government. (This is part of a general human trait, to categorize others into various groups and view them as "other") But, the essence of a democracy is that the government is the people. There is no separation between us and the government -- the power is derived from a manadate from the masses, to paraphrase Monty Python.

    --
    She sat at the window watching the evening invade the avenue.
  131. The U.S. government has separated from the people. by Futurepower(tm) · · Score: 2


    I agree completely.

    The U.S. government has separated itself from the people, and has become a largely secret entity in itself. Therefore it is no longer democratic government.

    --
    Bush's education improvements were
  132. Re:The U.S. government has separated from the peop by mshomphe · · Score: 2

    Here here!

    But the advantage of having some semblance of a democracy is that we don't have to have a bloody (literally) war with the government. Take away the power and give it to someone else.

    Then wait for the new government to become corrupt.

    Repeat as necessary.

    --
    She sat at the window watching the evening invade the avenue.
  133. No, YOUR news is wrong! ;) by nerdlyone · · Score: 1
    Maybe it is the Netherlands news that is skewed--I have read many US news accounts that show the volume of criticism for military tribunals. In fact, most news accounts on that subject speak of the intense criticism he is getting.

    I agree that we have been getting a lot of patriotic news recently, but criticism of the "war on terror" is easily found in the US media. NPR recently had an article discussing the fact that there have been double the complaints filed by university professors for being reprimanded, etc. for expressing their view on what Bush is doing. In fact, the article said that it was mostly PRO WAR professors that had most often been punished for expressing their views.

  134. Courts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No courts involved.


    Didn't you hear? Military tribunals. :(


  135. Mod parent up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Insightful! Mod parent up!

  136. Re:scary, true story of Internet governmentmonitor by madbrain · · Score: 1

    Thanks for the clarification on the secret service. They did tell him they could have arrested him, but he protested about free speech and they did not.

    You missed my point though.

    If you make a verbal threat at an airport, you know who is listening - the people who are present and can hear you.

    When my friend made his comment, which was a joke, it was intended for the people in the chat room, not for the secret service, or I don't believe he would have made that joke. I have no reason to believe that there was anything prior to this event that would have specifically attracted the attention of such agency as the secret service on him.

    There are only two ways I can think of that attracted the secret service attention on him :
    1) someone in the chat room reported him to AOL, which then forwarded the information to the secret service . This is certainly a plausible explanation, since it happened after 9/11 . Someone in the room might not have liked the joke.
    2) the secret service or some other agency is monitoring everything that goes on the wire of my cable's friend and/or AOL . We have all heard of carnivore. I'm afraid unfortunately it's not just rumors...

    Unfortunately my pessimistic nature makes me believe the second theory is closer to the truth .

    --
    -- Julien Pierre http://www.madbrain.com/blog