Slashdot Mirror
Surveillance in Washington DC And At Bookstores
dioscaido writes: "From reuters: 'Washington police are building what will be the nation's biggest network of surveillance cameras to monitor shopping areas, streets, monuments and other public places in the U.S. capital, a move that worries civil liberties groups, The Wall Street Journal said on Wednesday.'" Aragorn_2002 writes "I found this new article on Salon.com about how feds are subpoenaing book-purchasing records. Just imaging if they start to use DMCA and the new Anti-terrorist bill to subpoena someone buying books on breaking encryption." If you've ever ordered from Amazon, this might concern you. Update: 02/13 21:30 GMT by M : The full WSJ article is available on MSNBC.
Isn't this a violation of privacy rights?
I don't know what the standards/practices are in the US concerning this, but in Canada, privacy is one of our fundamental rights (not that it is necessarily respected)
The rabid hordes of soccer moms won't stop until everything that MIGHT hurt their kids or be used by the kids to hurt themselves is banned.
The owls are not what they seem
Well, I guess that's why they released info about a potential terrorist attack - it was to get the ignorant public to think this was a good idea.
[ot] Am I the only one who's read so many dumb and irrelevant Slashdot references to the DMCA that now even appropriate uses seem redundant?
We've had a number of high profile cases where surveillance cameras have been instrumental in solving crimes, and I really don't have a problem with that - in fact, I'm pretty pleased with the results.
Don't buy a copy of _Catcher in the Rye_!
IIRC, that's the book from Conspiracy Theory. Apparently, a couple of famous assassins (Lee Harvey, and someone else?) read that book before their assassinations.
Anyway, the same thing happened in the movie (FBI checking out who buys certain books). Freaky.
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
I work in a university library, which is where I learned that, in fact, it is illegal for law enforcement to come in and ask questions like, "Who has "the anarchist's cookbook cheked out?" or "Can you tell me what books Mr. Smith has checked out right now?" Those kinds of questions were asked during the McCarthy-era, when FBI, etc. were looking for Communists under every rock, eventually, the courts held up the librarian's right to answer "I'm sorry, I can't tell you that," to those law enforcement officials. I imagine that bookstore will start answering the same way, using that same precedent to back them up.
my pet machine
However, in times of war and for purposes of national security (which are subject to the whim of the president, atty general (hatchet man), or sec'y of defense (axe wielder) various or all rights may be suspended. It's up to citizens to challenge this in court and have it thrown out, but they get away with the dirty deed between the proclamation and suspension thereof.
Freedom indeed has it's price.
Other exciting unconstitutional behaviour, this morning I read that W. has decided to eliminate Saddam. Very nice, particularly since this is in violation of the constitution and harkens back to the bloody 50's and 60's when U.S. administrations toppled governments which didn't suit them without so much as declaring war. I have no love for Hussein, but this wrankles me, particularly because it's public information.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Hum. Guess it might not be all that illeal in the future, eh?
When they took the 4th Amendment away
I was quiet because I didn't deal in drugs...
When they took the 6th Amendment away
I was quiet because I had never been arrested...
When they took the 2nd Amendment away
I was quiet because I didn't own a gun...
Now they have taken the 1st Amendment away
and all I can do is be quiet...
I'm only paranoid because everyone is against me...
Go to Cryptome.org and search for Jim Bell. You'll find out what happens when a citizen tries to surveil law enforcement. The citizen winds up in jail.
What is happening now is simply the culmination of the long ongoing process to surveil society totally.
Since its inevitable, you might as well look at the good side - retinal scanners may cut lines at airports from four hours to one hour. Would you rather stand in line four times as long to protect the sanctity of your retinal image?
How can someone expect PRIVACY when they are walking down a PUBLIC street? By definition, privacy doesn't exist. How can you expect to have privacy when you are out there for all the world to see? Am I allowed to walk around naked in my house? Yes, because I am in the PRIVACY of my own home. Am I allowed to walk around naked on the streets of Baltimore? No, because I am out in PUBLIC. I am all for privacy rights. I don't believe the government should tap my phone. I don't believe they should track my purchases. I don't believe they should outlaw software that allows me to encrypt my e-mail. However, if I am out in public and there are cameras watching me it's no more of an invasion of my privacy than someone sitting on a bench watching me.
The travesty here is not that we HAVE security cameras everywhere. It's that we live in a society where we NEED security cameras everywhere.
Doesn't this kind of remind anyone of the movie Seven? In the movie Seven Brad Pitt and Morgan Freeman eventually track down the murderer by using FBI data from the library system.
Freeman tells Pitt that it is a secret and it is a "gray" area, but for years the Feds have been monitoring reading habits. If people take out certain flagged books, for example a book about nuclear weapons, their library records are fed to the FBI computer. Since you need to have some form of ID and residence to get a library card, they have access to your name and address too. Nice and convenient.
While this movie is a work of fiction, I would not be suprised if it were true. Over the last 20 years the Federal government has spent billions on wiring up the libraries and replacing the card catalogs with computers that can be used to both search for books and Internet research. It would be pretty conveneint for the FBI to say, "Hey, we are already putting computers into the libraries. Why don't we add a little something to them to give them value to us."
Kind of makes you think, doesn't it?
--Jon
The British have cameras everywhere. And the reason is because of their long-running terrorism experiences with the IRA. I think a lot of British society likes the security. And I think there was a lot of handwringing going on in the UK when the cameras went up. But I don't think the majority in Britain wants to take them down now. Interesting, isn't it? Can any parallels be drawn between the British experience then and our American experience now? All of this screaming foul at these gradual eating away of our rights seems to be somewhat of a knee-jerk reaction to me.
;-P
The post is Slashdot FUD. FUD from Slashdot.
I think we live in a continuum. We could have a society where we were completely anonymous, total privacy in every aspect of modern life. But terrorists could get away with the most unbelievable bullshit without being detected. Or we could live in a ridiculously intrusive society where we could not so much as take a dump in a public restroom without being retinal scanned. But then, terrorists would be hard pressed to pull off a really destructive attack.
If you are saying privacy restrictions do nothing to fight terror I think you are being a little peremptory. Of course you could have a lot of your rights curtailed and terrorists could still get away with something terrible, but there are no guarantees in life, so you have proved nothing by saying that. But you are being quite ridiculous if you say curtailing our rights somewhat does nothing to fight terror. Of course it does.
Look, be pragmatic folks. We lose some of our rights, but gain some security. Pre-September 11th I would see no reason to even consider that. But there's no use denying reality. There are people out there who are not really interested in our best interests and use our rights against us. Our allegiance to privacy is admirable, but I would also say in todays world, somewhat naive.
Ok, ok! Scream about how curtailing some of our rights means the terrorists win! I HEAR YOU. Guess what? They did win something on September 11th. Drop the emotional passion a notch, please? The voraciousness of your passion is admirable. But take a deep breath, be a little less emotional, and a little more pragmatic. The prevailing winds of today, 2002, post-Sept. 11th, with evil people bent on our destruction still running around, means simply we should be a little more intrusive into our rights in order to protect ourselves. Relax, there is nothing wrong with that, it is being prudent, it is being pragmatic, that is all, end of story.
For those of you who think CIA spooks have some secret agenda and privacy rights-curtailing has nothing to do with our security but is instead a conspiracy to rob us of our rights... or that they are bumbling fools and they mean well but they can't really protect us, just waste a lot of our money and remove some of our rights, then fine. I can not argue with you. Go watch the X-Files or talk about the Freemasons and JFK and scream bloody murder about historical parallels with Stalin, McCarthy, I don't care, take your pick. Whatever...
Is it possible the government is made of up of a bunch of common folk who are just looking out for our common good and doing simple steps to increase our security from madmen? No! Whodathunkit! IS IT EVEN POSSIBLE! It just can't be! That scenario seems like no Hollywood movie I've ever seen!
And one more thing: Won't someone please think of the children!
pfffttt...
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
Since the constitution was written by terrorists, why are you so surprised that it's getting eroded as part of the war on terror ?
For those who want to argue that they weren't terrorists: get a grip - they would certainly fall under Ashcroft's definition if they tried similar things today, and would have been branded terrorists by the (British) government at the time had the word been in vogue then.
The constitution was written by people who understood that over time power gradually shifts away from the shareholders (people) into the hands of the management (politicians). They understood that monarchy and tyranny didn't arise overnight. Do you think people just one day decided to be ruled over by kings. You start off with a leader, chosen on merit who leads with consent of his people and you end up with heriditary tyrants. It's funny how far along this road you can get without anybody noticing. Do you really think that King Bush II got there on merit ? He inherited the position from his father with the help of his brother, Prince Jed. The fact that he lost Florida is interpreted with Orwellian brilliance as "results vindicate bush".
The writers of the consitituion understood this, and did their best to minimize the tendancy, but they knew that eventually another revolution would be necessary. What they didn't forsee was that technology would evolve that would make future revolutions virtually impossible. The technology for keeping a population under surveillance was unimaginable at the time.
The other thing they couldn't forsee was the level of propoganda and willful ignorance that is achievable with a TV nation.
It would cause too much friction to revoke the consititution. Instead they will just reinterpret the phrases until the document means something else entirely.
http://rareformnewmedia.com/
Anyone want to fund the ACLU setting up cameras all over DC to be able to examine questionable police activity? It's the David Brin solution; if you can't outlaw cameras, give them to everyone.
a few things to consider:
This case was in the local Denver paper awhile back and from the reporting and headline, I said "Go Tattered Cover!". However, as I've read about it, I'm not sure. The authorities are seeking evidence to support a crime (manfacturing speed). This is to support a case, NOT PROVE that this person made or sold speed. Of course, the fact that materials were in his house would seem to be enough evidence, IMHO, but that's another story.
They are also not asking for records of who else purchased these books. And they should not be. If they suspect that a specific person has engaged in illegal activity, I would support them getting specific information about this person. Like purchase records that deal with manufacturing speed.
Another interesting thing in many of the comments is that we should use cash, not allow our activities to be tracked, etc. However a few weeks ago there was a story about profiling where many people suppported the profiling of different people on the same plane with more consonants than vowels in their name.
Now I understand profiling. It helps law enforcement find criminals and be proactive and prevent crimes. HOWEVER, it is being used by human beings and is open to tremendous abuse. I am of middle eastern descent. I was born in this country and was in high school when the Iranian's took US hostages. Despite my US name, the color of my skin in my native Virginia subjected me to plenty of bigotry and predjudice. Not that I'm Iranian, but the good ol' boys in VA didn't care. You can imagine the joy and good lucks I've seen in airports over the last few months.
The same things happen to blacks. In fact, many of those same things happened to my father-in-law who grew up in Texas, was educated at Morehouse, and saw more than his fair share of "profiling".
So should we profile? I'm in favor of limited profiling. With controls and oversight. And accountability. We need law enforcement, but we need law enforcement that keeps our rights in place. I hate laws that give too much protection to criminals, but there is a purpose to many of these laws. US society tends to favor allowing some criminals to go free to ensure very few innocent people are caught. Something not protected by many governments around the world.
Personally, IMHO, we need to both be careful about what information we allow companies or the government to access or disclose. But we ALSO NEED to be less judgemental about this information. Is someone a criminal because he buys a book about drugs? No. Is someone a terrorist because they buy a book about encryption? No. In the US, we say people are innocent until proven guilty, but all too often we jump to conclusions about someone, often because of some journalist's story. Just because it is in the newspaper doesn't mean it's true. In fact, newspapers are businesses and need to get readers. Sensational stories sell and too often people believe they are true. A little skepticism is helpful to all of us.
I'm getting slightly offtopic, but while protecting the First Amendment, we should not blanketly protect all criminals either. Assist the US lawmakers, but force them to be accountable and controlled. Just MHO, and I welcome a debate.
I would rather die from lack of security than live without freedom. Seriously, if you spend your entire life ruled over by someone else, what kind of life is that? Is it really worth living?
Now, I realise that the issue here is simply surveilance, and while we've lost a lot of our freedom, we still have some left. But this is just one step towards making it worse. While I doubt I will ever see America become a police state within my lifetime, I worry that my children or my children's children will live to see it. The last thing I want to do is bring children into a world not worth living in. So I remain vigilant and do what I can to keep the freedom you and people like you would freely give away.
That's why the whole argument about giving up freedom if it means more security simply doesn't stand. A state of absolute security provides for a life not worth living. I've only got 60 or 70 years more left on this planet. I don't want to spend that time having to answer to some higher power everytime I go to the store to by a questionable book.
First, you pass too many laws for the average person to even understand them all much less remember them. Then, you create a system that allows you to observe every citizen most of the time. This quickly turns into a scenario where you literaly don't know if you are breaking any laws, and virtually allows the police to stop and detain anyone on the street going about their business. Neighbors start disappearing, and rumors abound of a "secret police" that comes to their homes in the middle of the night, and takes them away. And now that we have secret tribunals, anyone suspected of terrorism can pretty much be whiped off the earth without anyone the wiser. Next, you'll be pent up in your home with the door locked wondering if you'll be the next.
Sounds farfetched, but I don't really see us a long way off. We've got so many laws now that lawyers now have to specialize. And God help you if a cop questions you in the street and you don't at least stop to answer him.
The car you drive is on record.
The house you live in is on record.
The gun you own is on record.
The groceries you buy are on record.
The books you own are on record.
The route you take is on record.
The payments you make are on record.
The newspaper you read is on record.
The websites you visit are on record.
It is impossible to live anonymously. There's a reason the people in power made it that way: control.
No sig for you.
If only this were true:
Never have we had a time when the government wouldn't volunrarily limit its own power when that's what the people desire.
Let's just see, the first case that pops to my head is medical marijuana. Now I don't even really care much for this issue, but it is a fact that the voters in California agreed to let it be used in this manner, and yet the Federal Govenment has come down on some people who decided to do so. You really can't have any more blatent example of the government going against the will of the people than this. I am sure if you spent even more than a minute, you could think of an incredible number of laws that were somehow passed that would not have stood a chance given a popular vote.
And of course, that's the problem with never really being able to have another revolution. So don't kid yourself, were are well on the way toward tyranny and it's really just a matter of time.