Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Wired interview with Steinhardt

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the stuff-to-read dept.

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."

47 of 200 comments (clear)

  1. $$ by irony+nazi · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    --

    Bringing irony to the Slash-masses
    1. Re:$$ by fobbman · · Score: 4, Funny

      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?

  2. We've been saying what to do.. by dagoalieman · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...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.

    --
    We don't need no Net Explorer We don't need no Thought control
    1. Re:We've been saying what to do.. by WildBeast · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:We've been saying what to do.. by renehollan · · Score: 5, Interesting
      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.

      --
      You could've hired me.
    3. Re:We've been saying what to do.. by fobbman · · Score: 2

      "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.

    4. Re:We've been saying what to do.. by boydtel · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

    5. Re:We've been saying what to do.. by renehollan · · Score: 2
      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.

      --
      You could've hired me.
    6. Re:We've been saying what to do.. by Sarcasmooo! · · Score: 2

      The NRA spends plenty on bribes.

  3. The Masses by Skyshadow · · Score: 5, Interesting
    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.

    --
    Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
    1. Re:The Masses by deebaine · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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

    2. Re:The Masses by Danse · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    3. Re:The Masses by Hostile17 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power - Benito Mussoli
    4. Re:The Masses by mosch · · Score: 3, Insightful
      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?
    5. Re:The Masses by charon_on_acheron · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

    6. Re:The Masses by Versa · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    7. Re:The Masses by Tackhead · · Score: 2
      > 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?)

    8. Re:The Masses by dvdeug · · Score: 2

      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.

    9. Re:The Masses by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 2
      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).

    10. Re:The Masses by cat_jesus · · Score: 2, Insightful
      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
    11. Re:The Masses by Hostile17 · · Score: 2

      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....

      --
      Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power - Benito Mussoli
    12. Re:The Masses by Hostile17 · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power - Benito Mussoli
    13. Re:The Masses by dvdeug · · Score: 2

      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.

    14. Re:The Masses by grammar+fascist · · Score: 2

      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?

      --
      I got my Linux laptop at System76.
    15. Re:The Masses by wannabe · · Score: 2

      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).

      --
      "Draw them in with the prospect of gain, take them by confusion." Sun Tzu
    16. Re:The Masses by cduffy · · Score: 2

      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.

    17. Re:The Masses by cduffy · · Score: 2

      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.

  4. Patriotic Article by alacqua · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

    --

    Move on. There's nothing to see here.
  5. Re:Anything That He Says is Bad... by Chris+Parrinello · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  6. Re:Anything That He Says is Bad... by MindStalker · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  7. Reply from Congressman.... by Bonker · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    --
    The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
    1. Re:Reply from Congressman.... by clark625 · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

      --
      Long, cute, or funny Sigs are just another form of over compensation, used by geeks, nerdz, etc.
    2. Re:Reply from Congressman.... by Versa · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

  8. Re:Anything That He Says is Bad... by Soko · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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

    --
    "Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." - Anonymous
  9. Re:Steinhardt, what about justic for the victims? by fobbman · · Score: 2

    "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.

  10. Re:Absolutely! by CokeBear · · Score: 2

    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.

    --
    Reality has a liberal bias
  11. Re:Anything That He Says is Bad... by Arandir · · Score: 2, Flamebait

    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.

    --
    A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
  12. Re:Anything That He Says is Bad... by Arandir · · Score: 2

    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.

    --
    A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
  13. Re:Anything That He Says is Bad... by tshak · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --

    There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
  14. Situation in Canada... by Weedstock · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  15. My two points' worth... by Tsar · · Score: 3, Interesting
    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.
    1. Re:My two points' worth... by Tackhead · · Score: 2
      > 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.

  16. Pryce by clark625 · · Score: 2

    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.

    --
    Long, cute, or funny Sigs are just another form of over compensation, used by geeks, nerdz, etc.
  17. Where's the meat? by wytcld · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    --
    "with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
  18. Re:Absolutely! by CokeBear · · Score: 2

    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)

    --
    Reality has a liberal bias
  19. Re:Errr, by Arandir · · Score: 2

    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.

    --
    A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
  20. Re:Anything That He Says is Bad... by Arandir · · Score: 2
    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.
    --
    A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned