Wired interview with Steinhardt

mlknowle writes "Wired has just posted a great interview with former EFF president and ACLU associate director Barry Steinhardt. In the interview, Steinhardt expresses concern that next year will be an even worse year for civil liberties. He does offer tips on what to do to help, however."

Comments

$$

[irony nazi]

Donate money to the EFF. For your Bday, ask that people donate money in your name.

Re:$$

[m_evanchik]

The fact that the EFF needs monetary donations is evidence against the free (as in beer) software paradigm

Re:$$

[irony nazi]

I wouldn't agree that donating software to the EFF goes against their paradigm. The fact remains that good lobbyist efforts require money. The EFF represents MUCH more than free software! PLEASE understand that.

I also don't understand why my original comment is being moderated up. I honestly only wrote it to get a relatively on-topic first post.

Re:$$

[irony nazi]

Because I feel so strongly about it, I feel the need to follow up...

IMHO civil liberties are MUCH more important than free software.

One might argue that free software leads to more civil liberties and the whole freedom of information thing. But the fact remains that <INSERT VIDEO GAME MANUFACTURER> deserves to make money off of artistic design of both the graphics/storyline as well as the engine of their games. These don't need to be open sourced.

Re:$$

[fobbman]

If the government has a keystroke logger installed into the system that I use to send an electronic donation to the EFF, does that make me more of a suspect?

Re:$$

[Tackhead]

> Donate money to the EFF. For your Bday, ask that people donate money in your name.

"For my birthday, I'd like to make sure all my friends are prosecuted for providing aid and comfort to subversive organizations too. That way, I won't be alone in joycamp!"

Look, if you wanna support a misguided cause, go ahead, but please don't drag your friends down with you.

(Can't we get an organization that lobbies for fair use rights over digital media without trying to deny law enforcement the tools they need to combat terror?)

Re:$$

[Kierthos]

Did I miss something, and the EFF was added to a list of suspected terrorist organizations? I don't think so, and I tend to think that even Herr Ashcroft is not going to go that far. (Yeah, EFF has Freedom in the title, but that doesn't automatically make it a target.)

Kierthos

Re:$$

[certron]

>(Yeah, EFF has Freedom in the title, but that doesn't automatically make it a target.)

It does? I thought EFF was 'Electronic Frontier Foundation' :-) at www.eff.org
Maybe it has Freedom stuck in between the other 2 F's.

certron

Re:$$

[Phork]

umm, no it isnt. the eff doesnt have all to much to do with free software. you proably mean the fsf. actually, you proably dont mean either. and the whole point of the free software is movement is software that is libre(free as in speech), not gratis, though the two go together.

stop trolling.

Re:$$

[John Sullivan]

the fact remains that deserves to make money off of artistic design

This is an impression the media industry often gives. The fact of the matter is that they don't deserve to make money. They don't deserve to be rich. What they are allowed to do is try to make money of the fruits of their labour. The market will decide whether they actually can make money. Any attempt to guarantee them an income is an inequitable as refusing them the ability to try and turn a profit (for example by freely allowing copying of their goods without compensation).

We've been saying what to do..

[dagoalieman]

...unfortunately no one follows up. Really, how many Slashdot articles are posted here, and each time everyone says the same thing- "WRITE, fax, call you members, donate money, get other people involved, etc."?

And how many times do people follow through on this? We certainly have the power of numbers. If people would just practice what they preach, even in small amounts, we'd likely start to see things swing pretty well. The Skylarov rallies and press was good, and similar actions against RIAAssholes, but just one or two per year isn't good enough?

Seriously, how does the NRA do so well? They make sure people know they're still around at least once or twice per month. They flaunt it, without being holier-than-thou about it (most of the time.) And in numbers of greater than 50 at a time. If we can stop being anti-MS, and get to work, God only knows what we can do. The more public you are, the more people will start to see our side and work with us. And of course, the more MS will go after us (kinda like the NRA and anti-gun people..)

I'm not the best at practicing what I preach, but damnit, at least I do something. To those who already do too, great, keep it up. The rest of you who talk had best put some action behind those words, and the people who've stayed silent until now are certainly welcome to help out.

Re:We've been saying what to do..

[Dave Walker]

Damn, blew away moderator points earlier today!!

Mod UP! I've put my money where my mouth is; I donated $100 to EFF last year. I donate $20 a month to the Libertarian party.

Face it... at least in the USA, it ain't bits and bytes that grease the wheels, it's the GREENBACKS...

Re:We've been saying what to do..

[WildBeast]

True, Intel understood the game long before MS and donated money to avoid a lawsuit. Bill Gates refused to contribute and now he's got a lawsuit on his hands. But seems like he's repairing his mistake.

btw, not everyone on Slashdot lives in the US.

Re:We've been saying what to do..

[renehollan]

Well, it's tough to followup in this "click this link for immediate gratification" world, without a "click if you agree" link.

And, if we make it easy to click a link to send a canned email to a representative, well, it's just too easy, now isn't it? Furthermore, there has to be accountability: Does the email actually represent the sentiments of the signer? Is the signer a constituent?

On the one hand, personal letters, that take time to write, have greater impact, because of the effort. On the other hand, a well-written position paper, with thousands of verifiable signatures can be equally powerful, if not more so.

Why not, then, a site which contains position papers, or sample letters to elected representatives on issues of the day, as well as the means to register, and obtain a digital certificate with which to sign such letters?

The site itself could be position-agnostic, merely providing the technology. Position papers could be submitted in a manner similar to slashdot features, with comments, and rework due to feedback, prior to a final version being posted. Or it could be a link farm to similar such papers/letters. One would register once to obtain a digital certificate (yes, that would identify one), and could then sign those papers with which he or she agreed. Papers with a certain number of signatures would then be sent to members of congress, with an emphasis on congress-critters who elicited the most signatures from their constituents. If there were sufficient funding, printed copies could be mailed, though the current status should be available on-line at any time for browsing.

Re:We've been saying what to do..

[dmarx]

"...unfortunately no one follows up. Really, how many Slashdot articles are posted here, and each time everyone says the same thing- "WRITE, fax, call you members, donate money, get other people involved, etc."? And how many times do people follow through on this?" If I consider the issue important, I do.

Re:We've been saying what to do..

[fobbman]

"btw, not everyone on Slashdot lives in the US.

True, but as long as current laws continue the way they are going US laws will govern the rest of the world.

Re:We've been saying what to do..

[boydtel]

Actually, in the last two months one of NRA's ILA FAX alerts has been about how email is largely dismissed in the capitol. That's not to say you shouldn't do it, but I really echo the sentiment here that personal letters -bceause- they take time to write tend to have more impact. Do both, make your email a first draft of your letter. All just IMO.

Re:We've been saying what to do..

[renehollan]

Actually, I was thinking of a letter, with thousands of verifiable signatures.

If the idea caught on, an email, with thousands of verifiable signatures should be just as good.

Re:We've been saying what to do..

[Sarcasmooo!]

The NRA spends plenty on bribes.

Re:We've been saying what to do..

[pa-guy]

barley
And you can't spell either. Welcome to the USA.

Re:We've been saying what to do..

[Insipid Trunculance]

Just a couple of things:

1./.'s readership is absolutely international though US citizens might be the largest group.

2.Politicians listen to ppl a.who vote b.contribute money your example of NRA is a perfect example.

3.Geeks arent exactly considered normal and face it, the issues we are interested in are more or less geek issues,this particualr one not withstanding.

4.MOST IMPORTANTLY ,whenever a human being is in a position to exercise and increase his authority over other human beings ,(s)he will........

The Masses

[Skyshadow]

I dunno; it seems to me like he doesn't really cover the central issue: most of the populace out there don't care about their civil rights beyond the ability to own guns and drive a truck capable of driving through a swamp and seating 17 (where they are regularly the only passanger).

I don't think you can reverse this sort of trend until people start acting like they give a damn -- the various opposition forces have way too much motivation. At best, the ACLU and EFF can only drag their feet while Ashcroft and the MPAA and Disney work to strip us of our rights.

You figure out how to make people give a damn, you let me know. The fact is that people are ignoring even the really outragous stuff, say, secret trials, indefinate detentions, eternal copyrights, limits to free expression, etc. Mindshare, I suppose -- that's what really, really matters.

Re:The Masses

[WildBeast]

No, I don' belive they're ignoring it, I believe that most of the populace want to limit civil rights.

Sad, indeed but true.

Re:The Masses

[deebaine]

It is critically important to differentiate between those who do not "give a damn" and those who do, but disagree with the espoused viewpoint. I, for one, fit into the latter category. This debate--one of huge importance to this country at the moment--unfortunately is marked by incredible intolerance and divisiveness both from the right and the left; witness the suggestions that anyone who doesn't support Ashcroft's views is abetting terrorism, but anyone who does is a fascist pig. In fact, as in most arguments, there is a broad middle ground, and that's where I find myself.

With all do respect to the posted interview, it is long on sound, short on sense. I would like, for example, to see more about the unease beneath the "veneer" of public support. The latest Gallup data suggests that only 10% of the populace thinks that the government has gone too far; 60% think it is about right, and 26% think that the government has not gone far enough. Approval ratings for Bush are historically high, and given my perception of John Ashcroft's views and character (I'm a Missouri refugee), his approval rating of 76% seems absurdly high. My views aside, to suggest that this is a veneer is either to suggest that Gallup's methodology is flawed or people are outright lying to the pollsters. Either suggestion, in my opinion, requires more backing than a vehement assertion.

Steinhardt also makes a clever reference to the "slippery slope" argument in his first response, suggesting that as we are now on a "war footing" (which I regard as blatantly untrue), and "apply[ing] the laws of war domestically, civil liberties will become a thing of the past as this war goes on "without an end." Though convenient, I don't really think this holds water; the only effort to apply the laws of war resulting from September 11th are the military tribunals, and they explicitly do not apply to U.S. citizens (and, lest anyone suggest that non-citizens receive the same Constitutional protections as citizens, that position is at best debatable even when the circumstances in question occur in U.S. territory, which it looks like they will ordinarily not here). And it largely goes unnoted by the left that the original order establishing the military tribunals has been gutted from its original draconian form, and now conforms much more closely to the UCMJ, and will include a right to appeal. It also goes unnoticed that in the first instance in which they could have invoked the military tribunals, the government did not; Zacarias Moussaoui was arraigned in Federal Court in Alexandria, VA.

My own politics are left-of-center, but I consider myself a liberal in the classical sense rather than in the post-Vietnam, anti-government, anti-military, anti-corporate sense. Unfortunately, the pundits whom I once considered to be my voice, or at least a useful voice of reason, have abandoned me, adopting a terribly hypocritical position that I regard as scarcely less dangerous to me and my rights than the equally ridiculous position of the far right. My concern is tempered, somewhat, by the knowledge that similar fights have occurred every time this country has gone to war. We--and our rights--have survived more serious conflicts than this; we will survive this one too.

-db

Re:The Masses

[Danse]

Millions of Americans chose not to accept homosexuality as a healthy lifestyle to be promoting to their children and should have the final say when their dollars, not tax revenues are used to fund an organization, not the courts.

Millions of Americans also find homosexuality to be perfectly fine, regardless of whether it is a natural trait, or a lifestyle choice. That said, I happen to agree with you on the boy scout case. Private organizations discriminate in all sorts of ways. That's their perogative. As long as they aren't getting a nickel of public funding, I couldn't care less.

The ACLU has also been a champion of much more sensible and noble cases. I don't believe that they have a universally negative image. Perhaps among conservatives, but for centrists and (to a lesser degree) leftists, the ACLU is generally a positive force. It helps to keep politicians honest in a way by forcing issues to light that otherwise could be swept under the rug.

Re:The Masses

[Hostile17]

As a college student I was quite upset that part of my "Student Activity Fee" went to groups and organizations that I had absolutely no interest in supporting (Campus Leftists, Amesty International, college democrats, gay, lesbian, and bisexual alliance, et al.)

When I was a college student, I was upset that my "Student Activity Fee" was being given to the Campus Crusaders, Young Republicans, the Gun Club, at least one anti-abortion group and more Bible study groups then I can count, let alone name. As a taxpayer I do not want to pay for Reagan's failed "War on Drugs" nor do I want to pay for Bush's "War on Terrorism", I have little choice. And those choices are narrowing especially in the face of being called Anti-American for daring to use my Constitutional Rights of Dissent and Free Speech.

Re:The Masses

[Anonymous Coward]

and, lest anyone suggest that non-citizens receive the same Constitutional protections as citizens, that position is at best debatable even when the circumstances in question occur in U.S. territory, which it looks like they will ordinarily not here

While I'm not sure that I've thought this through to my satisfaction, my first reaction is to apply the meta-principle to treat others as we would want to be treated. YMMV.

Re:The Masses

[mosch]

Millions of Americans chose not to accept homosexuality as a healthy lifestyle to be promoting to their children and should have the final say when their dollars, not tax revenues are used to fund an organization, not the courts.

I agree... now how do I make sure that you never get any of my money indirectly again, you fucking prick?

Re:The Masses

[charon_on_acheron]

I wish I could mod this up to 10, to make sure everyone would see it. It's not too often this viewpoint gets heard in reallife, much less here on /. . But it is the best way to look at the various situations. And you are right on every point you present. Most people are moderates, not a big surprise. The tribunals are not going to affect my liberties, since I am not a terrorist infiltrator trying to knock down buildings. And you didn't mention the national ID card idea, but i'm sure you don't like that plan (since you are left-of-center) any more than I do. By the way, I am right-of-center, but also classically liberal.

But what really got my attention was this line:
...incredible intolerance and divisiveness both from the right and the left....

I recently stopped listening to the 'talk radio' shows because I couldn't stand the ridiculousness of it. If Rush Limbaugh were to ask me about homosexuals, he would be upset that I think they should have all the same rights as anyone else, including gay marriages. But if the 'gay groups' were to ask me about discrimination, they would be upset that I don't support legislation or public school policiy targeted at sexual orientation harassment or discrimination. My point being that I think the "conservative right" and the "liberal left" are both pushing their agendas down our throats, and painting us evil if we disagree with any of their viewpoints.

There is one other topic that highlights this: racism. The Constitution of the US says that I have the right to my beliefs. That's the way I read the First Amendment and its "establishment of religion" prohibition. If I want to be Jewish, I can be and the government can't stop me. But it means more than that too. If I want to hate Asians, the government can't stop that either. I don't have the right to attack them, but I have the right to hold a sign that says I don't like them. Basically, in today's culture, it would just show how ingnorant a person can be. If the city council passed a resolution not allowing signs with racist messages, I would sue them and win. And the ACLU would count it as a victory for the freedom of expression, even though it would also further the goals of racism.

But many groups lately are forcing towns to not allow the Ku Klux Klan to hold parades. Or if the KKK does have a non-violent parade or rally, protestors show up to talk about the KKK's intolerance. It seems to start with a protest speech, then the crowd is led through anti-KKK chants, some insults are thrown around, and someone throws something at the KKK group. This of course sparks a fight, and the whole fiasco is played on the evening news.

The irony of the situation is that the anti-KKK protestors claim to hate intolerance, in all of its forms. But they can't see that their position is the epitome of intolerance. They don't want a group to express its beliefs because they disagree with those beliefs. They aren't there to have a debate with the KKK, they are there to shut them up, even if it means causing a riot to do so. And for the record, I am not a member of the KKK or any racist group, nor do I know anyone who is, and my family includes people of European, African, and Asian blood.

Re:The Masses

[Versa]

Not on a war footing? what world are you in? The president comes on the tv almost daily exclaiming how we "ARE AT WAR" and we are fighting the "war on terrrorism" and john ashcroft is saying how americans have to give up some liberties in these times of war. And Bush again stating "this may take a few years" We are most definitly on a war footing.
What I and the ACLU and the rest are concerned about is this taking away of civil rights in the name of fighting the war on terrorism and the fact that the war on terrorism will NEVER END. There might always be some quck plotting revenge on america does that mean we should perpetually live in a state of fear and lessened civil rights? NO. John Ascroft seems to think otherwise though therein lies the debate (which should not even be a debate at all)

Take a look at the book 1984 where rights of the people were forever taken away by the wool being pulled over the people's eyes by a fictional war that never ends. Sound anything like what is happening today? It should.

Re:The Masses

[boydtel]

I don't believe that most of the population is stupid. If I did, I would realize that our republic is doomed and that saying so on a public forum was a waste of time venting instead of going out and whooping it up in the final days before armageddon (or whatever the depressed/ing previous poster pictures coming to pass here). Fortunately, -most- people are rational self actualizers. I can count on them to persue their own self interest. And Freedom is the one thing that is in everyones self interest. Cally me Polly Anna, but our grand experiment ain't over yet.

Re:The Masses

[Tackhead]

> My concern is tempered, somewhat, by the knowledge that similar fights have occurred every time this country has gone to war. We--and our rights--have survived more serious conflicts than this; we will survive this one too.

As someone whose politics are somewhat right-of-center, thank you for saying this.

I, too, have issues with some of what's going on, but the hyperbole issuing forth from ACLU, EFF, and the like, is just ridiculous. If I believed them, I'd be wearing tinfoil. Good grief.

As for tribunals, I agree - and the UCMJ gives a defendant a hell of a lot more protection than our enemies gave us on 9/11.

As for "roundups" and detainments, of the 5000 scheduled for interviews, they're all informed that participation is entirely voluntary. And of the 1000 detained, it's clearly disrupted the enemy's network of cells to the point that they've been unable to mount a sustained attack on us. Like it or not, it's worked. Proof that it's worked will be tonight, when nothing gets blown up in countless New Year's Eve celebrations around the Western world. (Yes, I'm posting this before midnight, and yes, I have put my money where my mouth is. :-)

I also think you're onto something with your meta-analysis of EFF's "Aschroft's 76% support is a veneer" notion. To wit, you wrote:

> My views aside, to suggest that this is a veneer is either to suggest that Gallup's methodology is flawed or people are outright lying to the pollsters.

How about (c) all of the above?

After all, if you were scared by the "phantoms of lost liberty" speech (that is, scared by radical civil libertarians taking your Attorney-General out-of-context), wouldn't you lie to the pollsters, too? I mean, suppose you swallow the ACLU bait, and let them you out of your wits. A week later, a complete stranger calls you up, claims to be from Gallup, and asks you questions about your politics. Given that it's a phone call, you're not sure if he's from the Gallup or the FBI. Unless you're a really dumb civil libertarian, how else would you answer?

Finally, since I'm sure it'll be trotted out by someone in this thread, I'll address that Ben Franklin quote.

For better or for worse, the people have chosen security over liberty. Sucks to be you. Deal. (Or do you somehow have such a monopoly over truth that you think your views should predominate, regardless of what the rest of the citizens have so clearly asked for?)

Re:The Masses

[dvdeug]

As a college student I was quite upset that part of my "Student Activity Fee" went to groups and organizations that I had absolutely no interest in supporting (Campus Leftists, Amesty International, college democrats, gay, lesbian, and bisexual alliance, et al.)

A classically liberal college (all of them, basically) doesn't just attempt to cram an vocation into your head - the goal is to develop the full person. Part of the point of the student activity fee, hence, is that the student gets an oppertunity to hear a wide variety of different viewpoints, honestly spoken.

Re:The Masses

[Kierthos]

I never liked the student activity fee myself, but not because of which organizations it went to, but the blatant extortion (first you automatically pay the fee when you register for classes, then you have to jump through a quarter of a million hoops to get it back) and the, to me, obvious embezzling that was going on. Out of the $50/student fee, only a little over a dollar went to undergraduate organizations, and that amount of money available _never_ changed, regardless of how many students were enrolled. (I personally found it odd that the total amount available didn't change by a cent over a period of 10 years...)

If you want your rights, you have to fight for them. The Founding Fathers understood this. We (okay, Americans, as not every /.er is from the States...) need to relearn this. Freedoms are something that you occassionally have to fight for.

Kierthos

Re:The Masses

[Pig Hogger]

And for the record, I am not a member of the KKK or any racist group, nor do I know anyone who is, and my family includes people of European, African, and Asian blood.

And Hitler's grandfather was jewish.

(Nazi laws defining "jewness" were carefully crafted so they would not include Jesus Christ nor der führer).

Re:The Masses

[cat_jesus]

We--and our rights--have survived more serious conflicts than this; we will survive this one too.

But the problem here is that our apparent leaders have not been able to define the parameters of this war in any meaningful sense. How will we know when it is over if they cannot define it? For some reason I doubt they will tell us it's over if it is in their best interest for it to continue.

Perhaps that is the point.

Cat

Re:The Masses

[Hostile17]

If you want your rights, you have to fight for them. The Founding Fathers understood this. We (okay, Americans, as not every /.er is from the States...) need to relearn this. Freedoms are something that you occassionally have to fight for.

I certainly agree with you on this point. I vote, I write letters to my representives, I give money to organizations which support my views. However, I personally am not up for LEADING a revolution, but I will happily follow along if anyone else cares to Lead the way. Any Takers ? I kind of thought not....

Re:The Masses

[charon_on_acheron]

And Hitler was a member of a racist group. I am not. I'm not Catholic either, but I wouldn't protest a public Catholic Mass being held in Central Park. And since my family includes people of the Catholic faith, let me ask, was Hitler's other grandfather Catholic?

You simply don't understand that your response is the exact intolerance I was pointing out, and the post I was responding to mentioned. You are trying to paint me as an evil racist, so that my opinion is rendered moot. You don't want to debate me, you only want to shut me up. You are the ignorant one in this example.

Re:The Masses

[charon_on_acheron]

"the student gets an oppertunity to hear a wide variety of different viewpoints, honestly spoken."

When was the last time you heard an honestly spoken conservative viewpoint on the majority of those liberal college campuses? Just in the past year, several guest speakers were forced to cancel their lectures because of the violent protests of the liberal left who shout about intolerance, and will attack anyone who's views are opposite of theirs. Those people should look into a mirror next time. Intolerance is written in large letters across their foreheads.

Re:The Masses

[Hostile17]

As for tribunals, I agree - and the UCMJ gives a defendant a hell of a lot more protection than our enemies gave us on 9/11.

I don't care what crime person is ACCUSED of or what Nationality they are. If the person is in the United States (citzen or not)they are intitled to protection under the Constitution. If you want to give up your civil rights, thats fine by me, but I don't want to follow you down that hole.

Re:The Masses

[charon_on_acheron]

I'm glad to hear yo agree that private organizations should be able to choose their membership criteria. But lately the ACLU is really shooting itself in the foot.

The state chapter here canceled a lecture over the summer which was to feature Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. The national ACLU had to step in and force the local group to re-instate the lecture. As it turns out, the local chapter is headed by a very leftist woman, and she hated the fact that they were going to give a conservative the chance to speak his mind. So the ACLU is not always the 'champion' of freedom of speech, which was one of its cornerstones.

And coincidentaly, the local liberal protested the cancellation as much as the local conservatives. They wanted to hear his viewpiont. Especially the liberal lawyers, since they may bring a case before him in the future. Much better to know his views, so you can get around them easier.

Re:The Masses

[charon_on_acheron]

You quote a statement, then completely disregard it. How intelligent.

His point was that people give money to the Boy Scouts. Those people know the Boy Scouts don't accept gay scoutmasters. I imagine they don't accept gay scouts either. They also don't accept atheist scouts or scoutmasters. The people who give them money know that. You know it too, so you don't give them money. You have no say in the membership criteria of a private organization that you don't support. That's because it is not your money, you idiotic boob.

Insightful my left foot. How about -1:Ignorant.

Re:The Masses

[biohazard99]

When I was a college student, I was upset that my "Student Activity Fee" was being given to the Campus Crusaders, Young Republicans, the Gun Club, at least one anti-abortion group and more Bible study groups then I can count, let alone name. As a taxpayer I do not want to pay for Reagan's failed "War on Drugs" nor do I want to pay for Bush's "War on Terrorism", I have little choice.
There is a difference between taxes and student activity fees, with taxes I support a freely elected government, by the people, for the people, to provide for national defense and the common welfare of the state, roads, schools, police, and fire protection. Unless I happen to check some specific boxes on my 1040, none of my taxes go to directly into any political activity. With a activity fee, my dollar that I might use to support the ACM, LUG, and/or a conservative political organization get misdirected into someone elses coffers, just the same as your dollar that might support leftists, hippies, commies, and/or little green men gets put in the Campus Crusade for Christ's pockets. Unfortunately, the university system in the US is overrun with liberal thought and policy, an environment where liberal leaning students are able to gain a critical mass of members and faculty sponsorship, whereas conservative organizations are largely stillborn or confined to religous organizations. All I am asking for is a chance to check a list of student orgs I would feel comfortable donating too, selecting as many as I chose to divide my dollar evenly and letting all the students dollars fall where they may. If no choice is made, pour the funds into a general scholarship fund, not one that targets disadvantaged groups. Yes, I am white, male, and christian, a protestant no less, and I would like to see our take home pay to go where we see fit, not some left leaning university administrator, or to some right winger from your point of view.

Re:The Masses

[Chris Tucker]

So, charon_on_acheron sez:

"So the ACLU is not always the 'champion' of freedom of speech, which was one of its cornerstones."

"The national ACLU had to step in and force the local group to re-instate the lecture. "

So which is it? The ACLU is not a champion of free speech or the national ACLU reinstates a lecture sponsored by the local ACLU.

You can't have it both ways, and you certainly can't have it both ways in the same paragraph!

Re:The Masses

[dvdeug]

When was the last time you heard an honestly spoken conservative viewpoint on the majority of those liberal college campuses?

I go to Oklahoma State University. I frequently see the chalkings of the gay/lesbian group defaced, and sometimes those of the Pagan Student Association. I've never seen any of the chalkings for the Christian groups defaced. The last real silencing on campus was when the Regents tried to ban "The Last Temptation of Christ".

I believe that conservative viewpoints get silenced too. I do not believe that it consistently happens in most colleges.

Re:The Masses

[grammar fascist]

Take a look at the book 1984 where rights of the people were forever taken away by the wool being pulled over the people's eyes by a fictional war that never ends. Sound anything like what is happening today? It should.

It would, except it's not exactly a fictional war.

<conspiratorial>Of course, we would never know, would we?...</conspiratorial>

And I don't know about that state-of-fear thing - I'm not exactly jumping at shadows yet, anyway. We've even got leaders of the country telling us to fly on planes. Gee - sounds like they want to frighten us to death, doesn't it?

<conspiratorial>They just want us to keep the planes populated so the next planned attack will be sufficiently devastating...</conspiratorial>

Looks like you've got the standard ACLU misrepresentations memorized. Got an idea for you: maybe things are exactly as they seem?

Re:The Masses

[wannabe]

Just a quick nitpick about your post:

John Ascroft is not mine, not yours, not anyone else's Attorney General. He's the Attorney General of the United States which is an entity unto itself comprised of the body collective of the several states.

On the same lines, George Bush is the President of the United States and commander-in-chief of the United States military which pretty much means that unless you're in uniform or work for the Federal Executive branch, he means precisely dick the the common citizen.

Pet peeve #2:

Liberty is defined in the constitution of this country. To live in the United States and be pro-security over liberty is in direct conflict with the founding document of what this country is about. If you, assuming you're American, say you love this country, it is your duty as a citizen to defend its liberty. Read the Constitution, as not in vogue as it seems to be now, good bad or otherwise, it's what defines our country. The people can choose bovine-sodomism as their political system but it's wrong under this constitution and fundimentally illegal. Majority only rules in voting, there are hard limits which cannot be crossed. Sucks to be you. Deal (It's what this country's about).

Re:The Masses

[Versa]

Yes America is in a state of fear. Before this attack did the president ever have to get on tv and tell americans its safe to fly in airplanes? I don't think so. I think its pretty safe to say most Americans were given a wake up call and shown that Yes, they are mortal.

Terrorism is not war. It is a single act usually destroying the one who did it, at least those that I can remember did either die or get caught very soon. If you want to call terrorism war then we will be at war forever. The whole idea behind terrorism is that it can strike at any time and any place, just a few lunies plotting away supposedly. So we would be living in a state of war all the time. I find it hard to believe that anyone would want to live in a state of war.

This might be a hard concept to grasp, but I think we just haveto live with a certain degree of susceptability. We have to take a couple random bombings every few years. True we shall try to punish those responsible and we must certainly try to prevent this, but not at the cost of our society and way of life. Not to live in a perpetual state of war. Not to have John Ashcroft listenign in on everyone's phone conversations (much like hoover did when he was head of the FBI) or watching which internet sites you go to. No, we should go on with life and enjoy the freedoms that make us America.

I liken it somewhat to the automobile. The automobile causes tens of thousands to lose their life every year, much more then that terrorist attack on sept 11th. Do we ban automobiles? no. they are our way of life and we could not see living wihout them (or most of us can't). We try to minimize the risks (seatbelts, airbags etc) but we still use it. It should be the same way with our freedoms now. Don't throw our freedoms away to try to protect ourselves from a possible terrorist attack. Just take into consideration that terrorist attacks must be something that gets thrown on the everyday risks category, even still the odds of any one american being involved in a terrorist attack and perishing is infintesimally small. Just look at he odds, you probably have a better chance of being hit by a meteor or winning the lotto then having a plane flown into your building. (unless you live in new york :) but even then you have an extremely small chance)

Everyone needs to stop overreacting.

Re:The Masses

[charon_on_acheron]

What part of "not always the 'champion' of freedom of speech" is over your head? Notice the word "ALWAYS". This means that at times it is, and at times it isn't. Cancelling a lecture because you disagree with the speaker's viewpoints is not championing free speech. The fact that the national organization got the lecture reinstated doesn't cancel that out. Actually, it highlights it.

And as I said originally, the lecture was reinstated only after a lot of local liberal lawyers, including some in the state ACLU, voiced their objections to it being cancelled. Since they are what the ACLU is based on, it got the attention of the national leadership. And it's only my speculation, but I am certain many of them called their associates in the national headquarters and let them know personally about it.

Personally I think the ACLU has done many good things, which is why I phrased my response the way I did. I'm not attacking their decisions to support various groups, whether I agree with the group's views or not. I specifically stated they are "shooting themselves in the foot." This lecture fiasco is just one example that probably did not get nationwide coverage. So I thought I would use it to highlight my point. But you have to go and act like I'm trying to bring down the whole group. Time for a reality check.

Re:The Masses

[cduffy]

If my income taxes were really used for national defense, roads, schools, police and fire protection, I'd be a lot happier -- and traffic.wouldn't be quite so bad on my way to work.

However, much (much, much!) more of what comes out of my paycheck goes to social security than to any of these programs. If those who want to ban soft money have their way, I'll additionally be forced to spend my dollars on the campaigning of politicians I don't agree with (and how do you want to bet the rules will be rigged such that new parties can't get government funding -- and if those who wish to ban soft as well as hard money have their way, such minor parties be prohibited by law from taking funding from any other source, thus starving them out).

I agree with you that letting any individual decide where their SAF goes is essential -- but I really don't see federal taxes being any better than student activity fees in terms of their current application.

Re:The Masses

[biohazard99]

For my own purposes, I would like to see the federal funds cut from all parties and a hard limit on political donations, lets say 10000/canidate and 20000/party as a yearly limit, with corporations held to those dollar amounts as well, that should help level the playing field signifigantly

Re:The Masses

[cduffy]

Yup, that would be a Good Thing... though I'm not so sure that the limits would do much good. It's easy enough to have donations done through different entities (look, the top management of FooCorp each donated their $30K limit, as did FooCorp itself and its 5 subsidiaries!).

Despite this issue, I'm firmly convinced that it's better to have the public (and corporations) funding election funds rather than having the government fund re-election funds.

old news

[imrdkl]

Most of the topics he discusses have been covered in depth and ad nauseum here. Write your representatives to express your well-informed dissent, and encrypt everything to express your liberty.

Re:Anything That He Says is Bad...

[WildBeast]

God prones freedom and love. An alien theory for the government currently in place.

Patriotic Article

[alacqua]

Here's a patriotic article about the topic to counter this drivel. It was originally at the onion but it doesn't appear to be archived there.
Note for the sarcastically challenged: read the link.

Re:Anything That He Says is Bad...

[Chris Parrinello]

Except for those times that the ACLU defended the KKK's right to protest and march, the right of abortion protesters to protest, etc.

Don't let the facts get in the way of your rant however. Just keep repeating what you heard on Rush or Dr. Laura. It'll be easier for you.

U.S. vs. international situation

[Zarathustra.fi]

I'm talking with very little knowledge here, but I've got a gut feeling. As the situation for free speech and other civil liberties gets worse in the United States, it seems there's a counter-force occuring in other western countries.

I believe (and indeed hope), that these people in Europe and elsewhere are understanding the situation in States and the things that lead to it. And thus make the necessary initiatives which guarantee that things will not go wrong in their own countries also. Sometimes we learn from good example, sometimes from bad example.

Therefore, I believe the situation globally isn't worsening, but instead holds in a sort of status quo.

Hopefully, after this situation is over, the politicians in the States will feel both the internal and external pressure to bring things back to a more international standard level.

Re:Anything That He Says is Bad...

[H1r0Pr0tag0n1st]

Funny thing is that they also defend the right of ignorant people to spout off about things that they have no clue about...
And BTW if "normal folks" dont watch pr0n then why does it make so much money?

Re:Anything That He Says is Bad...

[MindStalker]

While some members of the ACLU are hopelessly left wing to and extreme. The organization itself has tried its best to maintain its dignity. It has even defended the KKK because it realizes that if it want free speach it has to be all the way, and fair. Please do some research before you post next time. I know the ACLU is spoken of horribly among right wingers, (and there have been times when the ACLU has deserved its reputation) but please, think for yourself, and find out whats really going on.

Reply from Congressman....

[Bonker]

Just after 9-11, when the Patriot Act bill sailed through congress despite glaring problems, I wrote a letter to Larry Combest, my representitive, detailing what I thought the problems were with the act and my general displeasure with the erosion of civil liberties in the name of war.

Now, the return letter was delayed until just a few days ago simply because congressmen couldn't use DC mail facilities because of the Anthrax scare (My letter was sent before the first anthrax case...), but in the form-letter reply, the congressman claims that he and his comrades are doing their best to balance civil liberties with the rigors of war.

This should tell us a few things:

Our congressmen have had the shit scared out of them. That a form letter directly addresses my complaints about the erosion of civil liberties means that I am one of many who has written in complaint. I live in a *very* conservative part of the country and Combest is a very typical representative of the luddite mindset around here. If he is admitting there is a problem, then you can bet that *every* congressman knows there is a problem wether he will admit it or not. They know that the people are upset and are making noise, and are in the process of trying to quiet that noise.

There is already massive distrust in Washington for George Bush and John Aschroft-- at least toward their war-time policies. If people who are concerned about their rights being taken away continue to hound their congressmen about it, the problems do have a good chance of being addressed rather than being ignored.

Remember that a lot of your congressmen are simply scared, afraid to go against the flow because of the reprecussions. If you show them (with massive amounts of mail) that you want positive change rather than negative change, it might strengthen their spirits a little.

The best part of this is that most congresspeople now prefer email to snail mail because there is no chance of contracting anthrax from Outlook. Of course they could always get Nimda, but I'll give my congressman the benifit of the doubt and assume he patches.

Re:Reply from Congressman....

[clark625]

Form letter responses don't mean anything. You can believe that it means a lot of people have been complaining, but the reality is that some intern probably read your letter and then picked the form letter that fit best to your plea. It often is rare for a congressperson to reply individually to a request.

I wrote to my congresswoman about a year ago regarding the DMCA. To my surprise, I didn't receive a form letter (regardless of who actually wrote it), and it did have her signature. My guess, though, is that she wrote it herself by the way things were worded (I had spoken to her in person a couple of times prior).

My guess is that your congressman was just trying to blow you off. What does he care, if as you say he's in a conservative district and very likely the best way to get re-elected is to be a prick to civil liberty nuts? He can't just not respond--that's rude and that will get him in trouble with his constituents. Instead, a form letter at least gives you some feeling that he "cares" about your views.

If you really want to get an honest response from a congressperson, I have a few tips. I'm certain that you followed a few of these, but other readers might enjoyt them as well. First, actually type your letter, and sign it in BLUE ink so that it shows you took the time to write a personal letter. Second, always say that you voted for the individual; and that for the most part you are happy with his/her performance (no one wants to read a hate-letter from some right or left wing zealot). Third, say that you understand that the life of a congressperson is not easy; and that often it is difficult to know everything there is to know about every single issue that Congress will take up. Some people feel that their representatives need to be god-like in their knowledge; but reading mountains of paper and trying to create your own legislation at the same time is darn near impossible. Lastly, bring your concerns up with regard to a SINGLE issue. Explain your reasons in as much detail as possible (without taking up several pages), and never resort to "dirty politics" by threats or other nasties. Congresspersons love to write people off as nuts when 95% of their incomming mail is hate mail from the 5% of their constituents that are loud and obnoxious.

Re:Reply from Congressman....

[Versa]

I wish. Right after the sept 11th I sent a letter to every state rep/senator I could in my state about NOT passing the anti-patriot bill. I received a single reply 2 weeks ago from one of them. A form letter apologizing for not being able to read my letter due to the anthrax scare. At the end of the letter it said, but don't worry, we succefully passed the anti-terrorist patriot act. And we're trying to do more.

Nothing like that to piss me off and show me the futility of even trying to do thing according to the law. The normal way doesn't get stuff done. Maybe if some nut climbs the bell tower with a gun or something they might take notice, but I doubt it.

Re:Reply from Congressman....

[JWhiton]

If I may ask, who was the congresswoman you wrote to?

A few months back I wrote to Senator Maria Cantwell (she's a democrat from Washington State, where I live) as part of an English assignment. I wrote about those silly export laws that restrict companies from exporting computers over a certain MTOP (Measured(?) Theoretical Operations per second) limit. I said they were counterproductive and needed to be repealed. To my surprise, a few months later I got a letter back saying she agreed with my point of view and was sponsoring a bill that would help address the problem.

I don't know if she or an aide actually did the writing, but I was impressed that she'd actually heard of the problem.

Re:Reply from Congressman....

[Chris Tucker]

So, clark625 sez:

"If you really want to get an honest response from a congressperson, I have a few tips. I'm certain that you followed a few of these, but other readers might enjoyt them as well. First, actually type your letter, and sign it in BLUE ink so that it shows you took the time to write a personal letter. Second, always say that you voted for the individual; and that for the most part you are happy with his/her performance (no one wants to read a hate-letter from some right or left wing zealot). Third, say that you understand that the life of a congressperson is not easy; and that often it is difficult to know everything there is to know about every single issue that Congress will take up. Some people feel that their representatives need to be god-like in their knowledge; but reading mountains of paper and trying to create your own legislation at the same time is darn near impossible. Lastly, bring your concerns up with regard to a SINGLE issue. Explain your reasons in as much detail as possible (without taking up several pages), and never resort to "dirty politics" by threats or other nasties. Congresspersons love to write people off as nuts when 95% of their incomming mail is hate mail from the 5% of their constituents that are loud and obnoxious."

Here! Here!

I quite concur.

The office of every Senator and Representative have a formula they use, regarding mail.

This formula is based upon the population of the state (Senators) or the population of the Representative's district.

Simply put, each handwritten (includes typed and printer output) unique (preprinted form letters/postcards are pretty much ignored) letter represents the thoughts/opinions of X thousands of people in the state/district. In some cases, this number is in the tens of thousands.

Writing to your Senators and Representative is easy. One or two pages a month. Share your thoughts and opinions. Explain why DMCA is a bad idea. Explain why you feel that these new laws diminishing civil rights are wrong and dangerous.

Be friendly and sincere. Ask the Senators and Representitive to contact you if they want to know more. Become a resorce for the Hired Help in D.C.

Register to vote and then vote.

If all the Hired Help hears and knows comes from lobbyists, the White House and the Justice Department, then don't be greatly surprised when they seem to do the bidding of the lobbyists, the White House and the Justice Department.

It's called participatory and representative government for a reason.

Re:Anything That He Says is Bad...

[Soko]

Besides being an obvious troll, you sound like a Christian, so I'll take a chance on that assumption, friend.

The ACLU will fight to keep porn in and any concept of God out of any part of our society.

Being of a Christian bent myself, I shake my head in dis-belief every time something like this is said. Whose "God" are you referring to, here? If it's the Christian God, you are presumming that yours (that of a Christian view, puritanical, police state) is the only valid point of view. Forcing Christian morals down throats is a problem, not a solution. I suggest you approach the problem as Our Saviour would - dissuade those "sins" with kind words and deeds befitting the name "Christian".

Sure they will fight for free speech for all, except those who disagree with the liberal ideology in which case they are obviously racist right wing fundamentalist anti-choice homophobes!


No, they dissagree with those who wish to limit our choices to one view - such as yourself. Please don't confuse Liberty with religion - there is only problems and not solutions in doing so. As Voltaire said, "Liberty then is only and can be only the power to do what one will. That is what philosophy teaches us. But if one considers liberty in the theological sense, it is a matter so sublime that profane eyes dare not raise themselves to it."

Soko

Re:Steinhardt, what about justic for the victims?

[Green River]

> Yes, yes, yes, I agree that the government is
> doing all those "bad" things -- but for heavens
> sake, HOW ELSE can the government bring to
> justice those who commit crimes in the worse
> imaginable form?
The problem here is not the fact that they're being detained. It's that they're being detained *without counsel* and *in secret*; also, many of these detainees are being selected for being Arab foreigners, not for any crime they may have committed.
We give our criminals the right to an attorney, as well as a trial. Hell, convicted felons have been set free when that right is violated. We should give these detainees the same rights.

Everyone

[mlknowle]

I can't belive that people will post complaining about the ACLU becase of who it has represented ... guess what - freedom needs to apply to everyone - even people you don't like (otherwise we wouldn't really need it...)

Re:Everyone

[mencik]

There are many causes which the ACLU has represented that I have disagreed with their stance. On the other hand, there are many that I have agreed with. The one thing I have always agreed with is their right to exist. While I may have not always believed that organizations such as the ACLU, EFF, and EPIC were necessary, with the passage of the Patriot Act, I certainly believe that not. Please support them generously.

Re:Everyone

[Guy Innagorillasuit]

Speaking of the USA PATRIOT Act, here's a quote from Rep. Ron Paul (R) on the act:

"It's my understanding the bill wasn't printed before the vote -- at least I couldn't get it. They played all kinds of games, kept the House in session all night, and it was a very complicated bill. Maybe a handful of staffers actually read it, but the bill definitely was not available to members before the vote."

Read this and you should be outraged enough to donate to the organizations that are fighting for your civil liberties and start corresponding with your elected offials.

Re:Steinhardt, what about justic for the victims?

[fobbman]

"BTW: many of those detained are here 'illegally' -- why is it considered injustice to hold them if they broke the law of the land?!!!"

What of those who were here legally who were detained simply because they were of Arab lineage? Have we not learned from the mistakes made when hundreds of thousands of Japanese-Americans were detained in WWII?

Surely we should have detained more angry white men after Oklahoma City.

Re:Anything That He Says is Bad...

[cscx]

What is sad is that Slashdot moderators moderate stuff as 'Troll' if they don't agree with it... not restraining it when someone is legitimately trolling. Which is why I don't really care anymore... this place while heralded as a place of free speech, is really a place of 'free speech... if we agree with it...'

I totally agree with your view. This article isn't 'news for nerds' but 'news for libertarians.' Not all nerds are libertarians.

Re:Absolutely!

[CokeBear]

The ACLU, the NRA and the EFF each has a specific mandate. The ACLU defends the first amendment, while the NRA defends the second amendment. I don't see any hypocracy in ACLU position, since they clearly state their views, and the 2nd amendment has a very able defender in the NRA.

Re:Anything That He Says is Bad...

[Arandir]

The ACLU is all for certain clauses in the First Amendment. For the remaining clauses, they are either ignored or twisted out of recognition. Regarding the Second Amendment, I doubt most members of the ACLU even know it exists.

It's time for those who truly understand what civil liberties are to abandon the organization that abandoned civil liberties.

Re:$$ - not while EFF and ACLU support spam

[gorbachev]

I will NOT donate money to organizations supporting spam and spamming as "free speech". EFF and ACLU are two such organizations.

Re:Anything That He Says is Bad...

[Danse]

What are you talking about? He basically said that porn is bad and Christianity is good, and if you aren't in favor of outlawing porn and mandating Christianity, you are abnormal, and therefore your opinion is irrelevant. How can that not be considered a troll (albeit a hamfisted troll)?

Re:Anything That He Says is Bad...

[Arandir]

Except for those times that the ACLU defended the KKK's right to protest

How insulting can you be! The poster complained of the liberal and anti-christian bent of the ACLU and you respond with the KKK. For your information, the KKK is NOT representative of conservatives or christians.

Re:Anything That He Says is Bad...

[tshak]

Besides being an obvious troll, you sound like a Christian, so I'll take a chance on that assumption, friend.


Actually, he sounds like a religious zealot, which is arguably the antithesis of Christianity.

Situation in Canada...

[Weedstock]

has already worsened. The parliament enacted laws that allow police forces to arrest any person that may be related to terrorist activities without any legal mandate.

Three of my friends have already been arrested. One of them was caught with a bag full of flour and was accused of possessing Anthrax powder. He has been in jail since the beginning of december and I don't know when he will be released.

Both of the others were arrested because they wanted to organize a gathering in front of the Israel Embassie to protest against attacks in Palestine. Unfortunately, it seems that some people misunderstood them and they were accused of "Wanting to organize a riot". They have been in jail for 2 weeks and I don't know when I will hear from them.

So, situation in Canada is now dangerously worsening and I think that we must wake (In USA and Canada) and protest against this step toward dictatorship.

Re:Situation in Canada...

[pa-guy]

While I despise Anne's bill as much as anyone, you are a stupid cunt. Nobody has been arrested, and the bill passed on 24 Dec Details here. If your friends have been arrested it was under existing legislation, weeks before c36 (By your own timeline), and I would suggest you rethink who your friends are.

My two points' worth...

[Tsar]

There is, of course, more than one side to this issue.

On one hand, American cultural mores dictate at least an appearance of privacy and security in one's person and one's papers. In many ways, Americans define themselves by the degree of privacy that they have been able to acquire.

On the other hand, we expect our government to protect us from attack and wrongful injury. We expect it to be proactive in discovering and analyzing any threats to its citizens, and become irate when it is unable to predict such a threat, even when such a prediction would have required violations of privacy.

On the gripping hand, though, analyses that would bear useful results in most times might not do so now. We are in the cusp of a sea change from a peacetime to a wartime footing. We look at war-based policy changes through a peace-shaped perspective.

There are a couple of old definitions that come to mind:

• Conservative: A liberal who has been mugged.
• Liberal: A conservative who has been arrested.

How would we now define a Post-9/11 American? How will our existing knowledge that we can be die anytime, anywhere—coupled with the new awareness that a small but significant fraction of the world's population is willing (and increasingly able) to do make that happen—affect our perception of civil rights issues? I would predict that a shift of equilibrium is occurring, and it'll take another couple of years before the new balance point is reached. It will be interesting then to look back on Your Rights Online posts from this period and see how drastically our own positions have been altered by time and events.

Of course, some believe that the government sees the situation as simply an opportunity to curb civil rights (some even think they orchestrated the whole thing). Personally, I think most people just want as much information as they can get, that can possibly let them achieve their goals more effectively. That goes for everyone from DIRNSA to my network administrator. Heck, even the Slashdot editors can read the IP's of anonymous posters.

My theory is this:

1. Privacy will continue to erode.
2. The more we grouse about privacy, the more secretive the 'eroders' will be.
3. The best we can hope for is a future where monitoring is directly observable, so surveillance will come at some cost to the perpetrator.

This must be a hot topic, as it's the second time today that I've commented on it, and I don't have that much free time today.

Re:My two points' worth...

[Tackhead]

> I would predict that a shift of equilibrium is occurring, and it'll take another couple of years before the new balance point is reached. It will be interesting then to look back on Your Rights Online posts [slashdot.org] from this period and see how drastically our own positions have been altered by time and events.

Agreed.

When a man is out to kill you, there's only one way to protect yourself. Kill him first. There are thousands of fanatics lined up, ready to die, so long as they can see to it that they kill tens of thousands of us in the process. The only thing that's stopped them until now was several thousand miles of water. Now they've learned how to travel.

It's been a rude awakening for most of us, myself included. Over the past few months, I've come to realize that EFF was more interested in protecting spammers (Intel) and terrorists (as per this article) than protecting me.

So I stopped supporting them financially and sent the money to the Free Software Foundation instead. They care just as fervently about fair use and the ability to use the software of your choosing, and more importantly, are doing something about it. They produce code, not lawsuits. And I sleep better at night.

Re:My two points' worth...

[GigsVT]

Well, my positions havn't changed one bit. It just goes to show how ignorant the American people are to what their government is doing, to be shocked at something like 9/11.

Sure, it's a sad loss, but no surprise, at least to me.

Pryce

[clark625]

The congresswoman I wrote to was Deborah Pryce, a Republican from the 15th district of Ohio. It's just to the west of Columbus, Ohio (I live in the suburbs). She's a very nice lady, and really does a remarkable job in my opinion. She's also the highest-ranking Republican woman in the House currently, too. I'm not sure that gives her a huge amount of power... but she does seem to carry more weight than some of the other congresspersons.

Re:Reply from Congressman....a bit OT

[Silver222]

You know what pissed me off about the whole anthrax thing? The house of reps and the senate both went running off and hid like scared little girls, but they made the postal workers go to work. If that isn't a great example of the little guy getting screwed, I don't know what is.

Re:Anything That He Says is Bad...

[squiggleslash]

The KKK is representive of anti-liberals though, indeed representative of extreme anti-liberals. And his example of the anti-abortion protestors would, presumably, cover certain types of Christian.

It's a reasonable set of counter examples. Not all anti-liberals are Republican style conservatives, and not all Christians are Archbishops of Canterbury.

Re:We are _NOT_ at war.

[mencik]

We were not at war with Vietnam, North Korea, Greneda, Iraq or other places either. You'll note that Congress has not declared war since World War II. However, there are other laws that give President Bush the right to persue the course of action he has taken.

Where's the meat?

[wytcld]

As someone who has occassionally carried an ACLU card, my reaction to this sort of fluff is to continue to put off rejoining. Vacuous political correctness has become confused with the defense of true liberty. True liberty means that the KKK can march in Indiana, but also means that the police should pay special attention to white guys wearing sheets after there's been a church burning or lynching. True liberty means professors are welcome to make silly "We must understand why they hate us" speaches, but it also means the feds should pay special attention to Muslim males of extremist persuasion - especially those on overstayed visas - after the WTC.

All the fund raising mailings I've received from the ACLU in the last five years are cliched and without the sort of substance whose bedrock is documented events. If our liberties are at threat - and I'm quite ready to believe they are - this is not the way to present an effective defense. Rather than preach to the converted, civil liberties leaders need to convert those who believe they believe in liberty, but don't see the contradiction in support our current leaders, who mention 'defense of freedom' in every other breath.

That's hard work, but it's real work. By contrast, this jerk, in this interview, is just playing a part from central casting. A fun job if you can get it, but I'm not about to pay him for this sorry performance through donation, time, or even lip service.

Re:$$ - not while EFF and ACLU support spam

[Squareball]

I cannot support people who believe that giving money to political campaigns is free speech, yet giving money to Usama Bin Ladin is terrorism! Vote Libertarian, because the best thing you can do to stop DC from taking away our civil liberties is to stop them from getting into DC all together. Repubs/Dems both want the same thing, they just take a different approach.

Encryption is One Way to Fight Back

[internic]

While I agree that it is vitial that people contact their representatives with their concerns and support organizations like the ACLU and the EFF, another thing you can do to defy mass survailance efforts like Carnivore is to use encryption whenever possible online. I'm sure there are other /.ers out there who know a lot more about the subject (please speak up!), but I wanted to add what information I can for those who might not already know. Here are a few suggestions of ways I know to use encryption:

• Email

• You can encrypt your email communications with others who are also willing to get the right tools. Probably the easies tool is PGP (there's also an international page), or for the free software crowd GPG. PGP makes this pretty easy to use under windows with almost any program with its encrypt clipboard contents feature, but there are also plugins for verious email programs.

• Terminal Sessions/Telent

• Most people probably know about it, but there's ssh, openssh, and if you're using Windows check out Tera Term and its ssh extension.

• Instant Messaging

• My appologies to the *nix crowd, but I don't yet know much about instant messaging on those platforms (soon); however, if you use windows I have seen several instant messaging clients that support encrypted chatting. I suggest Trillian, which is awsome anyway, free, and has encryption features. As far as *nix goes, I'd check out the big ones (e.g. Jabber) and if it isn't in there by default, look for plugins.

This certainly doesn't solve all the problems. The biggest is web browsing. You can use anonymous web browsing tools such as Anonymizer, but that is admittedly kind of a pain. I don't have any good suggestions there. I'd be interested in any other ways others have found to incorperate encryption into their online communications.

That wasn't a troll

[GigsVT]

Man, some moderators just are idiots. Mod the parent back up someone.

Re:We are _NOT_ at war.

[GigsVT]

We are not at war with Eurasia, we are at war with Eastasia.

Re:Anything That He Says is Bad...

[mikec]

That's a strange thing to say. Christ himself, and all his early followers, were certainly religious zealots. In fact, if they were around today they would certainly be considered a cult. They probably were when they were alive. So how is being a religious zealot anti-christian?

Excuse me?

[Danse]

The ACLU will fight to keep porn in and any concept of God out of any part of our society.

His use of porn and God in this context imply that he believes porn is bad (or at least not worthy of defending) and God is good (and therefore deserving of being part of society). He neglects to mention that the ACLU doesn't actually try to keep God out of every part of our society. They just try to keep God out of our government and public institutions, as that is not the proper place for the Christian (or any other) God.

Sure they will fight for free speech for all, except those who disagree with the liberal ideology in which case they are obviously racist right wing fundamentalist anti-choice homophobes!

This happens to just be an outright lie. The ACLU does defend "racist right wing fundamentalist anti-choice homophobes." See their defense of the KKK.

So if he thinks it will be bad next year then I say it will be a banner year for the rest of us normal folks.

By this he is saying that he against what the ACLU stands for, and implies that those who agree with the ACLU are not "normal folks."

Thank you for your time, idiot.

War is against a country

[Aapje]

The US never accepted the Taleban as the official government of Afghanistan. Attacking them is thus not a war. It's more like an operation against criminals in foreign territory, with the approval of the government (the Northern Alliance in this case).

Personally I would rather have that you would get upset about the stranglehold the US is placing on the International Court of Justice. In this way you abandon every man locked up for political reasons, every woman being raped and tortured and every victim of genocide. Why? Because American soldiers may be tried. Americans that commit crimes against humanity could be tried the same as every other criminal. Isn't that bad?

Well, sorry for the rant. But it's pretty undemocratic when one country tries to force it's will on the many countries who do support the ICJ (by taking on laws that allow the US to 'liberate' people that are charged with crimes and disallowing aid to countries who support the ICJ). How upset would you be if one man-one vote would be abandoned and wealthy companies could buy political support (a similar form of using 'force' to achieve your goals). Ehhh, nevermind.

Re:War is against a country

[Aapje]

Does that mean, if Britain likes, they could simply attack the US with the approval of the government (in Canada)? Yeah, that's kinda stretching it, but it's still scary to think of the limitless ways a country would feel justified in attacking another (Soviet Union reclaiming Germany for East Germany, France and England for each other, et cetera).

The UN has rules and regulations. Ultimately there is nothing a country can't decide to do. But if Iraq would decide to attack Israel with a nuclear or chemical missile, the UN may condemn it and condone military intervention by the US (for instance). This keeps Iraq from doing these things.

Ultimately I believe we need the UN as a 'world-government' to protect the rights of countries and individuals worldwide, without regard to military strength. This is difficult to achieve as many countries have different concerns and often act irrationally (Missile Defense System as a good example) and selfishly (Kyoto).

Unfortunately the US is one of the countries that consistently try to weaken international coorporation (by first weakening treaties and then not signing them). In this regard it is in the company of Iraq, N-Korea and a few other undemocratic countries. Many people outside of the US believe that the USA is extremely selfish and abusive of it's powers. That's why one of the reactions to the 11th was a hope that it would open your eyes (apart from the deepfelt sorrow). Unfortunately little has come of this, most Americans are absolutely determined to view all criticism as anti-american and being based on envy. And most Americans view the suffering of others on this world as not their problem. But 'you' can't keep this isolationist attitude if people take their problems to the US. Unfortunately your politicians have chosen a police state to 'solve' the problem of terrorism. It seems a better solution to me to eradicate terrorism by taking away the anger that people feel.

As for not recognizing the Taliban, then who did the Bush Administration deal with to halt/curb heroin production in Afghanistan?

You can always talk with a bunch of criminals who are in power.

Re:Err,

[charon_on_acheron]

"People are born sexually attracted to either men and/or women, and environment has absolutely no effect on this. "

Better watch out, you might be attacked by a million gay men and lesbians for espousing the patronizing stereotype that there is a 'gay gene' and that homosexuality is therefore is a birth defect. And yes, this is a serious area of argument in the study of homosexuality.

Re:Steinhardt, what about justic for the victims?

[charon_on_acheron]

They are being detained to determine if they are foriegn national infiltrators sent to kill people in the US. Of course they are Arab, the planes weren't hijacked by the Japanese terrorist groups. The attacks weren't planned by the Russian mafia. It was the work of Arabs.

And I have said it before. There are probably some of the Arab foreigners who simply disappeared. Not that they escaped and are in hiding. The FBI was tracking many of the hijackers beforehand. I'm sure others were picked up immediately after the attacks, and were questioned intensely. And I mean tortured, not just slapped around. When they finally spilled everything they knew, they were killed and disposed of. The phrases *without counsel* and *in secret* have no meaning in this case. Not that I am a conspiracy theory buff, but who would believe otherwise.

Re:Absolutely!

[CokeBear]

Moderation of which parent? If you're referring to my post, I always post at +2. (And I never drop it to +1 voluntarily, only karma whores do that)

Re:Errr,

[Arandir]

There are no christian conservatives in the KKK. Stop listening to the liberal mainstream press.

Christian: one who holds that Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior, and is a Jew. The New Testament was written by Jews who were practicing Jews while they wrote it. The KKK hates Jews. They hate Jews so much that they created their own church in which they heavily edited the Bible. Their religion is a cult.

Conservative: (in the political sense applied to the US, where the KKK reside) one who believes in limited government. The men of the past who defined what conservatism means were against the KKK. Of all the current crop of conservative talk show hosts, two of which were mentioned earlier in the thread, none are sympathetic in any way to the KKK or the idea of White Supremacy. The KKK's politics are much closer to that of the National Socialist party. At the best they are angry populists. They want a large, intrusive government for everyone not of their race.

You can't find a more hardcore group of christian conservatives than the John Birch Society. The JBS hates the KKK. You need to figure out just what the KKK is before you start throwing that label at people who don't follow your particular political persuasion.

Re:Anything That He Says is Bad...

[Arandir]

It's a reasonable set of counter examples.

The only way it could be reasonable is if communists are liberals in the same way that white supremacists are conservatives.

Re:Anything That He Says is Bad...

[squiggleslash]

No, that would be the case if the ACLU didn't defend communists.

The ACLU is defending people across the political spectrum. The idiot who started this thread suggested that the ACLU only defended liberals. As an example of the extreme opposite of that, it was pointed out that the ACLU has defended the KKK on numerous occasions.

If you're suggesting that Republican conservatives are extreme enough to be used as an extreme counter example, then that's fine. I think Republicans suck too. But don't see them as extreme, and I wouldn't use them as an example of how fair, and unbiased towards liberals, the ACLU is.

Re:Anything That He Says is Bad...

[Arandir]

I think either your brain or your dictionary has turned to mush. Take a look at the definition of "civil liberty":

freedom from arbitrary governmental interference (as with the right of free speech) specifically by denial of governmental power and in the U.S. especially as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights

To deny the citizenry the right to own firearms and to pray in school is to repudiate one fifth of the Bill of Rights, impose increased governmental interfence, and increase governmental power. That the ACLU is against these rights only means that they cannot be civil libertarians.

The right of the fetus is a debatable issue, but for those that believe that the Bill of Rights applies to all human beings regardless of birth status, the conclusion is obvious. I find it ironic however that the ACLU would defend the right of the KKK to march in Skokie, but doesn't want a prolifer within fifty feet of an abortion clinic.

And as for the current proposals for national security, those aren't conservative at all! Bush stopped being a conservative the instant he announced a department of Homeland Security, and congressional Democrats didn't suddenly switch sides when they rammed through the federalisation of airport security.

Just because they don't defend all civil liberties, it doesn't mean that they aren't defending some very important ones.

They may be defending some important civil liberties, but they aren't even close to defending the top ten most important civil liberties. It seems to me that they stopped halfway through the first one.

Re:Avoiding keyboard loggers

[MobyTurbo]

There was an article a few days ago on ./ about using a point and click password system showing pictures.

I'd like to see the FBI come up with something (short of TEMPEST) to 'log' that

It's simple, mouse logging. Many software packages that monitor the keyboards of corporate slaves monitor mouse movements too.

Really ........Most People Miss The Point

[Insipid Trunculance]

IMHO,The most important change in the last months has not been summary detentions based on ethnicity,but the establishment of Secret Military Tribunals to try Foreign nationals without a right to appeal,to examine evidence against them,the right to counsel .

From a moral viewpoint,its nauseating,while the Taliban were a bunch of fundies,to expect any sort of Human behaviour from them is a fantasy, the premier democracy in the world,founded on the principal of individual rights and human dignity has taken this very very retrograde step.I mean if they are going to put a bullet in someone's brains what distinguishes them from the taliban & company????

From a practical point of view,remember what can be misused will be,after all Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Re:Really ........Most People Miss The Point

[internic]

I think this is a good point. I mean, legally, it could be argued that constitutional rights only apply to citizens, but ethically, wouldn't it be against all the found principles of the constitution to treat any human being with such disregard for their basic human rights. I seem to remember some other, old scrap of paper saying something like, "We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable human rights ..." Notice, human rights, not american. Again, this is not a legal arguement, but an ethical one. Aren't we betraying those founding principles by setting up such secret courts.

Re:Anything That He Says is Bad...

[dwschulze]

You call him friend, but then you put words in his mouth and attack him for what he did not say. You're hardly his friend.

...you are presumming that yours (that of a Christian view, puritanical, police state) is the only valid point of view. Forcing Christian morals down throats is a problem, not a solution

He never said or implied any such thing. Since you're a Christian you must know the ninth Commandment "You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor". What you're doing here is not only unfair, but un-Christian as well.

I suggest you approach the problem as Our Saviour would - dissuade those "sins" with kind words and deeds befitting the name "Christian".

Well your words are anything but kind. You're self-righteous while attacking someone for things he didn't say. After all of that for you to hold up Jesus as an example for someone else to follow strikes me as hypocritical.

Doublethink

[infinite8s]

And those choices are narrowing especially in the face of being called Anti-American for daring to use my Constitutional Rights of Dissent and Free Speech

That is exactly the problem. The rights of dissent and political speech are the cornerstone of our Constitution, what our citizens of old regarded as one of the defining characteristics of being American. And now in the face of this new "war", these rights are silenced by the doublethink that exercising them is anti-American. I say (and I know well that I'm preaching to the choir) the reverse is true; suppressing such speech is anti-American. Freely espousing such views is the pinnacle of what it is to be American, so if someone should ever attempt to shame you by stating that your contrary views are anti-American, then i would go so far to state that they are the ones who are truly anti-American, and those who are critical of our government at every step are the true patriots. Sorry for that rant. I'll get off my soapbox now.

Wired interview with Steinhardt.

[Arouet]

Is our Constitution so flawed, and our Bill of Rights so wrongheaded, that we cannot convict the guilty unless we throw out the Constitution and the Bill of Rights?

Re:Errr, no,

[gorbachev]

Yes they do (support spam). Do some research on this issue. ACLU and EFF have consistently sided with spammers for a long time. They see it as a freedom of speech issue, and not as a private property issue. A simple DejaGoogle search will give you everything you need.

On a related note, John Gilmore of EFF, for example, is refusing to close down his infamous open SMTP server at toad.com even though that server has been abused by spammers. In fact there was a huge spam run THIS week run on that server by a spammer.