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)
Prohibition and the "War on Drugs" have pretty much killed the 4th Amendment for those in their cars and just walking on the street. The "War on Terror" will kill the 4th Amendment protection while you are in your home.
I heard that somewhere in Europe they were putting in cameras all over the place. I Think it was England, in high crime areas. One guy ended up getting busted cause he LOOKED like one of the criminals on camera.
I'm told I look like a lot of poeple. I guess I am just your average 'joe'. This is kinda scary.
Only 'flamers' flame!
Okay, maybe that won't actually happen, but it does make one feel just a bit paranoid knowing that our choice of books might be monitored... perhaps that will disuade some from buying books. What do the book publishers have to say about this, which may reduce their sales?
I read the Salon piece, and I thought about it all.
Well since Amazon and Borders and everyone else is prbly selling records of what you buy to marketers, and if you buy with a credit card or debit card theres a record that can be sold or gotten by a court, is this news?
I'm trying to be paranoid here, but for craps sake, all these records are already tossed out in the public domain. Now the Feds are getting involved, that will last until it makes it to the Supreme Court, and in a more conservative court, this will get slapped down just like the IR survilance of dwellings did last year.
I just can't get upset about it. But then I don't buy my High Times or 2600 or booze related books and mags with plastic. The whole thing about not leaving a record for the Man is to use cash.
Military History, computer books, Car that's all plastic-able, "sensitive" things are for cash.
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.
Having closed-circuit cameras all over hell is possibly the greatest threat to our (American citizens) freedom I can imagine. At least as bad as tracking what books you check out. Oh wait, they're doing that. (shakes head) How come we're letting the police have so much power over our lives? I don't care about the arguments that say we need these things in order to protect ourselves against terrorists. A few cameras around public monuments, fine, these are crediblly threatened. It sounds like they want to setup a system similar to the ones in Britain. Have you seen how ubiquitious cameras are over there? You can barely fart without it being noticed. Yet people think they're being protected. I say it's tantamount to a dictatorship. 1984, if you will. I certainly hope the midwest never gets this crazy.
--- Think of it as evolution in action ---
You know, between the War on Terrorism and the decades-old War on Drugs, I am deeply concerned about the direction we are going in respect to our civil liberties. There have always been those who fervently believe that increased power for law enforcement officials are necessary to achieve their goals, whether it is abolishing marijuana or killing bin Laden. In the process, though, they tend to propose things that interfere with the freedoms of the general population.
I don't think the curtailing of freedoms is done on purpose, it is just a side-effect. But that hardly makes it any less egregious. I strenuously hope that bin Laden is dead, dead, DEAD and that we can begin to move forward again.
I am beginning to believe that the DEA and the ONDCP should simply be abolished. Leave the war on drugs up to the states; the federal government has NEVER been successful in fighting the drug war, and the means needed to make it successful are unacceptable to those who cherish liberty.
- Rev.J. Ashcroft
United States Attorney General and Executioner at Large
One of the biggest things the framers of the constitution left out was a check of how far the police can go to enforce the law. Judges don't seem to sufficiently Check the Police power at times. I doubt they intended anyone to monitored 24-7 when they used the phrase "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".
According to amazon.com readers, at least. "The Construction and Operation of Clandestine Drug Laboratories" by Jack B. Nimble got 4 1/2 stars, while "Advanced Techniques of Clandestine Psychedelic & Amphetamine Manufacture" by Uncle Fester got 3 stars.
Now that you have read this post, the highly sensitive combination of those two book names has gone into your computer. This fact has been duly recorded by Carnivore.
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
Unfortunately, privacy is not a right that is explicitly enshrined in the Constitution. It is, however, the basis (on the grounds that it's an implicit right) of Roe v Wade. Which is why I support the "pro-choice" crowd.
Best Slashdot Co
I found this new article on Salon.com about how feds are subpoenaing book-purchasing records.
Actually, the article says the records have not been turned over after more than 2 years because lawyers got involved. According to the article, "Through the years, the protections accorded materials covered by the First Amendment, such as books and newspapers, have evolved to protect the institutions that provide those materials as well."
I think this article is more about how the rights are being successfully upheld rather than taken away.
I Heart Sorting Networks
Alright, I'm not fond of security cameras all over the friggin' place. It's pretty annoying at the post office now when at any given moment you're being monitored on no less than three cameras. It sorta feels like you can't go anywhere without being monitored.
Then again, we all learn to cope. Sure, I've been recorded all over town and guess how many times the police have come to my door? Never. How many times have they investigated me? Never. We all know that the NSA and CIA collect all kinds of information--but the real problem is in interpretation. I may be on a lot of magnetic tape; but my guess is that few (if any) people have actually reviewed that or done anything about it.
People go to DC to see the museums, monuments, etc. They may also go to case out a future terrorist act. That's all fine and legal. When you go into buildings in DC, they already make you go through metal detectors and some even ask for your ID. Yes, that information can be tracked just like everything else. But so long as you're not doing anything that provokes attention, you're fine.
I actually would like to know that if someone places a bomb near the Washington Monument we could review the tapes of past and potentially catch any of the main suspect's helpers. I wouldn't mind a police officer monitoring what's going on in the Navy Square (or whatever it's called) and so when I get mugged and thrown in the fountain there's a police car on it's way to pick up my attacker and help me out. In London, this sort of thing has just become a way of life. People there actually prefer having the cameras.
Long, cute, or funny Sigs are just another form of over compensation, used by geeks, nerdz, etc.
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?
Right now they're subpoenaing purchase records regarding a specific customer, how long before they demand a list of customers who have bought a certain book or books from a certain author?
And does anyone really think they're not already doing that?
Paranoia yes, but I'll just keep paying cash thank you
Wax-Museum Fire Results In Hundreds Of New Danny DeVito Statues
I live in Washington. The cameras are here to protect us. You must love and obey the cameras.
So, under FOIA the content of the tapes of all these cameras is public property right? That' will be very useful to future in-the-beltway memoirs-writers.
Travis
Well, I'm boned.
I confess to also having read Kafka's The Trial , and as I have no particular desire to go through that, I'm submitting the following "Ask Slashdot" question:
"I read literature. Should I shoot myself or hang myself before they come for me?"
(Yeah, I know I could just order a copy of Final Exit , but I probably wouldn't be able to afford the resulting increase in my health insurance premiums ;-)
The surveillance is bad enough; but, with the current political climate it will probably be hard to stop the implementation. What needs to be pushed for is open access to the surveillance.
Surveillance of itself is not good or evil. But when only the government has access to the surveillance video then a small group of people get to decided on what to keep and what to discard and peoples' motives should always be suspect.
If law enforcement wants surveillance on every street corner then fine let it be. However, the citizens need to DEMAND free access to the surveilance cameras and not just after the costly legal process of a subpoena (i.e. display the images over the web). This technology already exists, the infastructure can be installed right along with the cameras. Then every citizen can see unadulterated the actual events taking place in a location and draw their own conclusions and not have to rely on the molested interpretation of the involved parties.
If law enforcment can surveil the citizens, the citizens should be able to surveil law enforcment.
don't care. They see this as a good thing. I believe it goes along the lines of this:
"Hey, I am doing nothing wrong, and if it helps catch people that are, so much the better."
Well, the problem starts when innocent people are accused of doing something by mistake.
Remember, right now there are (apparently) a lot of people out there that are still scared by Sept 11. So, anything like this will be seen as a good thing. Maybe (and this is a HUGE MAYBE) the government is doing this without the intent to gain power over the average citizen. I seriously doubt it, but it could happen. Either way, the people here that are freaking out over this need to understand one thing: You are a minute majority. Even if everyone on slashdot agreed, how many does that make? 750,000? Peanuts to the government.
The only way to stop this type of legislature is to tell people about it, not bitch on slashdot.
btw, I am totally against this type of behavior, I am disgusted that the government would use this time to gain a lot of ground in their invasion of our privacy.
Sent from your iPad.
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...
Still got Amazon.com gift certificates you haven't taken advantage of yet? Why, here's an opportunity to protest this invasion of your privacy and even acquire some interesting midnight reading to boot. Choose from among these exciting titles:
Remember to support your local bookstores.
Disclaimer: US government lackeys tend to be humorless, so I'll make it clear now that I've not read any of these books. I love America more than sliced bread itself. Yeah! Nuke their ass! Take their gas! GOD BLESS AMERICA! Wooo!
I'm not too worried about it. I think it's stupid to worry about what books people buy - especially the oft-mentioned "loophole" that people will use cash for secure purchases, but I'm not worried in the least about cameras.
How many cameras are there going to be? How many people monitoring them? I expect the answers are "lots" and "zero", respectively. The tapes will be looked at after a crime is committed - either to identify a criminal or to use as evidence. I might worry about mis-identification for people who look like other people, but how is that different/worse than the mis-identifications that go on all the time by eyewitnesses?
Last post!
Buy books in person with cash so there is no record of what you purchased.
I imagine the large booksellers are most upset about this because
- It will make their customers aware of just how much information the stores collect (and sell)
- Why should direct marketing companies buy customer info from the booksellers when the government gets it for free?
- It will cost Amazon more than anyone else if people stop providing personal info when making book purchases
The best part is that this isn't going to stop a determined criminal who is probably already taking precautions against this, such as paying with cash or using stolen credit card info.In other news, the Virginia Attorney General has subpoenaed a list of all public school students who borrowed Harry Potter novels from libraries. "We will catch these heathens; In God We Trust!"
..there were some Brits that commented on survalence(sp) cameras in public places in the UK. They said that for the most part, they were useless in that they never really picked up any relevant video.
The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination
- Douglas Adams
I would accept the installation of cameras to monitor public spaces if - and only if - the public has full access to that network.
1> These are your tax dollars that are going to pay for it. You have a right to the information these cameras provide.
2> If the assertion is true that these cameras are in public, and only public spaces; then there is no expectation of privacy - and all should be able to access the data.
These cameras are going in whether we want them or not. The real danger here is that the access to their data may be restricted to an "elite" few. Sure, exposure of this network to everyone might be "bad" in that it would allow someone who has a vendetta to track down someone. But I would balance that danger against restricted access to "authorities" any day of the week.
- Woodie
the problem with subpoenaing book orders is ... how do you know I didn't get that book on terrorist methods so I could know my enemy? how do you know I didn't get a book on breaking into phone companies so I could protect my billing servers? an American should never have to defend their reading habits.
remember the secret service agent that wasn't allowed on the plane cuz he was middle eastern? the part about that story that really got me: The flight attendant rifled through his bag after he was escorted off the aircraft. in it, she found a book on middle eastern history... and he had to defend the nature of the book publicly. that is wrong.
Imagine if you weren't allowed to use roads because a bus company complained about your driving 3 times. --skunkpussy
Perhaps the most wide-ranging request for customer information of this kind came in the summer of 2000, when Ohio authorities subpoenaed Amazon.com. They requested records of all the people in a large part of Ohio who had purchased the "Cyborgasm I" and "Cyborgasm II" audio CDs, trying to identify a stalking suspect who had sent the CDs to his victims.
Holy shit! I bought Cyborgasm #1 from Amazon.com a few years ago. I'm not from Ohio, but that is downright creepy.
Check those records kids..let's see, judging by the handful of random books and CDs I've bought from Amazon, I'm a pot-smoking accountant who listens to new age music, writes cryptography software with "vi", and has a fascination with women's health...
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?
... is that it gives prejudice in prosecution that much more power. A selective reading of the evil things that any person has done in their lives can make them seem like a villan, and it is these selective readings that are created in court to support an assesment of a person's character. Those who go against the powers that be can be monitored till they make a mistake (as all humans do) and dragged through the muck for it. Clinton got access to his opponent's FBI files. Bush Senior was head of the CIA, for crying out loud. 'Intelligence' is getting to be somthing that american corporations and politians conduct against one another.
___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
I wasn't sure if privacy is really mentioned in the
human rights. To safe others the work of looking it
up:
Article 12.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
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
Personally, I'm more interested in how many minor violations that can be handled with this. One of the main problems with quality of life in the DC area is the traffic. With a few cameras in strategic places, the police can respond better to traffic issues, such as accidents, traffic lights out, gridlocking [I hate K street], people parking in the 'no parking 4:30pm-6:30pm' zones (17th NW), or people double parking on both sides of the street, creating a slolom on F St NW, between 17th & 19th.
Oh...and there's a rather large number of buildings which don't require going through metal detectors. The feds may have 'em, but I know the private buildings don't. I haven't been to the Smithsonian or any of the museums, so I don't know they've reacted so far.
If the cameras are used right, I'm all for 'em, and I come into DC every weekday, and some weekends. For those who aren't in the area, and are bitching about the cameras, don't come to DC. The traffic's bad enough without you here.
Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
Most people then lived in rural areas with little or no contact with government of any kind on a regular basis. Self-reliance wasn't a virtue, it was a way of life. Isolation was the norm, not the exception.
If Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson lived in a world where technologies presented instant and grave dangers to random individuals, you can be assured their writings would reflect that.
On DC surveillance:
"You are building in a surveillance infrastructure, and how it's used now is not likely how it's going to be used two years from now or five years from now."
A very telling statement. A lot of people here in the US trust that their government and all of its agencies will always do 'the right thing' in the end, and that no one in our government is out there to turn the world into a 1984esque police state. Although I don't think that the government will transition to this dystopia in one clear cut step, it will reach a police state if it continues making tiny steps towards this ultimate goal.
Building a surveillance infrastructure is one of those steps -- not necessarily a huge deal in and of itself, but it sets the stage for misuse. Maybe the people using it ARE only using it to get the bad guys, but what happens when they think YOU are the bad guy. I, for one, don't trust every government employee to not be corrupt, nor do I think that this is necessarily a tool that we want any agency to have.
On Book record subpoenaing
"It's a business record, a single business record," he said. "We're not exploring the reading habits of the suspect. We're not asking [them] to tell us everyone they sold the book to. The warrant only seeks to know if the suspect bought books about manufacturing of methamphetamine at meth labs."
Where does it stop after that? Giving away ANY information impinges on my First Amendment rights. I don't want to base my book purchases on what other people think I should or should not read. People shouldn't have to worry about what books they read or what movies they watch because they fear what would happen if it came to public light. Here again, certain agencies within the government are trying to create an infrastructure which allows them to discover information to which they should not have access. I realize that this could expedite certain legal cases (a few were listed in the article), but the potential for misuse in the future is not a risk that I think the American people should be willing to take.
I drink to prepare for a fight; tonight I'm very prepared. -Soda Popinksi
This may have already been mentioned, and is a bit off topic but:
... It really very funny stuff.
Does anyone remember the Simpsons where you see the feds monitoring book buying habits?
Ok mod me off topic now I feel better.
man
No manual entry for
It'll wane; I just hope it wanes enough before the next election.
My prediction; Bush will probably hold onto popularity long enough for a second term. Unless he vetoes campaign finance reform, in which case I think McCain will very publicly not endorse him, costing him the few percentage points he needs to win.
Now I have to remember to check this old post in 3 year.
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
ohh, the irony...:-)
what the heck where they thinking???
photo of orwell plaza surveillance
Amendment IV of the U.S. Constitution:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
See .sig ...
Novel theory: Modern Man evolved from psychopath
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
Second, no monitoring or tracking using live data, this should be used to get proof or see what hapened afterwards, not used to track citizens
Provided these two conditions are respected, I have no problems with cameras everywhere. :-(
But guess what, there is no way these two conditions will be respected
Black holes occur when God divides by zero.
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/
Correction: So far nobody has decided that any of the things that you do are wrong. Lucky you. Do you really want to assume that's always going to be true?
I suppose if they keep credit card receipts there might be records of WHO bought, but its unlikely to track exactly WHAT they bought. And since I pay with cash, there is no identifing information provided when I buy. Who cares about book purchasing anyways? True, the movie Seven showed a possible use of such records, although even there (and its all fiction mind you) they clearly stated there was absolutely no legal grounds for using that information against someone.
How much do you want to bet that after 9-11, there was a significant increases in purchases of "The Koran"?? I know Barnes&Nobel had that book prominantly displayed. And why not? I'm quite sure that most of the purchases weren't by potential terrorists but by citizens looking to understand their motives. But those people could be unfairly targeted for pure curiosity in a perfectly legal book.
-Restil
Play with my webcams and lights here
That's the beauty of the system being proposed. If you burn the books, people might get upset.
Plus, by banning or burning the book, you get people interested in the book who might not otherwise have read it. (Remember DeCSS?)
Instead, just track the purchase of the books, and keep tabs on the suspicious ones. Gives you better intelligence data, and the rest of the population is none the wiser.
Think of a police informant doing a drug buy with marked money - the presence of the marked money in the suspect's wallet indicates guilt at the time of arrest, and the suspect never knows which of his "customers" turned him in.
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.
And congress is very happy that you think that way. As long as everything they do gets blamed on that figurehead known as "the president", they can get away with anything they want...
Note also that if I'm reading that article correctly, this specific case has little to do with the Federal government, but is instead a local Washington D.C. measure.
I realize that "Hating George W. Bush" is the "cool" thing to do right now, but keep your eye on the people actually responsible for setting up bad policies while you're at it, please. Keep in mind that GWB's job is to enforce laws written by Congress. In short - GWB is (to put it in blunt modern terms) "Congress' Bitch". GWB is NOT (contrary to popular opinion) responsible for even implementing (let alone enacting) local or state policies that suck...
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
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.
The confidentiality of library records (like what books you've checked out) is one of the most staunchly defended rights in the recent history of librarianship (anther being freedom to access library materials, such as the Satanic-inducing Harry Potter or Internet sans censorware).
It goes back to the MaCarthy era inquisitions of practices such as FBI requests of who had "dangerous" materials checked out. Thankfully we now have 48 states with laws prohibiting the disclosure of library records.
In most cases, nobody - not your parents, police, or spouse - can access your circulation record without a specific court order. Remember that Florida librarian who phoned the police to say she recognized the hijacking terrorists as library users? Well she broke the law in doing so.
This statement by the American Library Association addresses their continued vigilance in protecting privacy in light of current events.
Actually, it's about both. It mentions that the first (widely known) attempt to obtain customer records occurred as recently as 1998, when Ken Starr attempted to subpeona a bookstore in DC. A court agreed with the bookstore on 1st amendment grounds, but didn't quash the subpeona... Opening a gateway for a number of requests over the past few years-- requests that might not previously have been made.
Does that count as attempting to "take away" a right? I'd need to know a lot more about the case history to be precise, but on the surface, it seems that there's a definite movement to challenge something that's at very least an assumed right/protection.
Also notice that in a number of the cases mentioned, the courts did not actually find in favor of the bookstore. In a number of these cases, either the case was dropped, or the purchaser voluntarily cooperated. The Tattered Cover lawsuit is still on appeal to the Colorado Supreme Court, with the most recent decision still in favor of enforcing the subpeona. If you're forced to appeal to the State Supreme Court in order to have your rights upheld, then you clearly haven't had your rights successfully upheld by the rest of the legal system.
It is the databases behind those cameras...
Someday, if not today - behind every camera will be software and a database that can pick out faces, and store those faces in a database. Should one of those faces belong to a criminal, that individual could be flagged, and tracked, from camera to camera - wherever he or she goes.
You may say to yourself "Well, hey, that sounds like a good thing" - and you would be DEAD WRONG. Why?
Imagine that individual had did a crime - something heinous, something petty - but they did their time, paid their debt to society, and are truely sorry for it. Maybe they even make amends, in whatever way is possible, to the victims of their crime. However, in federal databases, they are marked as a former criminal - no mention in the databases of their current activities or amends - no flags to show how they feel. Only that they once did a crime, and thus should be tracked, and watched - and made paranoid. Why not simply have a cop follow them around instead? They paid their debt, but they should never be trusted again? What is the purpose of prison and sentencing then? If it isn't reform, why let someone out who shoplifted? Hell, why keep them alive at all?
Or, imagine this scenario:
There is a database containing all of these faces of criminals - the matching software is looking through the cameras, looking at past faces, and current faces, trying to find a match - and one is spotted - your face! But you haven't done anything! But now your face is in the system, and the system is tracking you. Why did the match occur? Well, maybe the software was simplified using an eigenface system or something, and your face closely matches the reference key for a particular eigenface, and that key also matches that for a known criminal face - maybe something happened in your past long ago when you were a kid, and they took your picture, then let you go to your parents - but a record exists, and it was added to the database as a possible hit - there are tons of scenarios to draw upon - but when the cops come up, drag you out of the crowd for matching a face that the computer says is you, wastes a hell of a lot of time (hey, you might even be put in a holding cell for a day or two while things are straightened out) - there is the possibility.
Then, of course, there is the fact that the cameras do nothing to stop crime, they merely record the crime as is progresses, and do nothing to deter the crime after the fact (ie, I bet you'll feel real secure in a camera recording you being stabbed to death by a psycho serial killer wearing a ski mask)...
Think this is babble? Read Database Nation, and open your eyes...
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
"Catcher in the Rye" is about a young man who doesn't fit into society, and who realizes that his strong moral sense is disjointed with the values of society-at-large. This is why Holden Caulfield wants to rub out all the "fuck you" grafitti in the world, why he fantasizes about being the catcher on a rye-covered cliff who saves everyone from falling to their deaths (continuing with their mass madness), and why his former english teacher says that Holden will "die valiantly for some highly unworthy cause." "Taxi Driver" is very, very similar (and drove Hinkley to shoot Ronald Reagan); through Travis Bickle's (De Niro's) eyes we see an amoral world, with politicians and pimps right at the center of it (even though, like Caulfield, Bickle is himself totally confused and lost.)
Why do mass killers connect with these literary element and not those of, say, "Emma"? Look at all those kids who did school shootings; think back to some time in high school when you felt like going postal; imagine what life is like for the solitary, ignored folks who tend to assassinate and spree-kill. Their lives are out of whack with society at large, which they (usually correctly) see to be flawed. They don't have any idea what to do to change the world, but they have a strong sense that it needs to be changed. Their malcontent and isolation drive them to action, but their social immaturity means that action will be ham-fisted. Hence, high-profile killing.
"Whatever happened to fair use?"
-- Duff-Man
I think buying a $10 book in cash isn't doesn't so much warrant notice, as does, say buying a $1000 ticket in cash. Most people do not care that sort of money on their person, so it is worth investigating.
WTF?!
Why should you think that? What right is it of you or the government to suspect me of wrongdoing simply because I want to PAY FOR SOMETHING IN WHATEVER MANNER I CHOOSE?
Has cash become illegal to use? Am I not allowed to barter for my goods or services, should I so wish? Why do these actions mark me as a criminal?
The simple fact of the matter is I may want to use cash for MY PRIVACY! If I want to go to the bank, withdraw $1000 dollars cash, then use that cash to pay for a plane ticket - I damn well better be able to! It should not matter who I am, who I know, who I speak to or congregate with, or where I am from, what language I speak, what religion I practice, what political leanings I hold, or what color my skin is, or which way I sexually swing - that IS NOT THE GOVERNMENT'S, NOR ANYONE ELSES BUSINESS IN MY PERSONAL DEALINGS.
In America, I AM INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY BY A JURY OF MY PEERS. Not before. Our society has seem to forgotten this basic tenet. Should I use that ticket to get on a mode of transportation and do something nefarious and heinous, then once it is apparent my actions and motives, I should be arrested and tried, then sentenced - AS IS PROVIDED BY OUR CONSTITUTION AND LAW.
But if I only want to take a train to enjoy the scenery passing by, and maybe start a new life somewhere else - WHY SHOULD ANYONE GIVE A FLYING F---? Because of what I may do?
Bug off.
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
You can not like Amazon for other reasons, but this was just a cheap shot.
"Enough of this wretched, whining monkey life." -- Marcus Aurelius, _Meditations_, Book 9, 37
Cameras monitering public places is mentioned nowhere in the Constitution.
Which Constitution would that be, the one written over two hundred years ago? I'm not sure the authors could envision a society with public cameras.
"If he thinks he can hide and run from the United States and our allies, he's sorely mistaken." Bush on bin Laden
Porn, Movies, TV shows, Blueprints for buildings... and now we'll get digitized books on gnutella to clug the bandwidth even more... Brilliant, "if we can't kill them pirates, let's drown them"
--- Metamoderating abusive downgraders since my 300th post.
What privacy should a person have in public? Its not like they are tapping your phone, spying on you in your house, or invading your privacy.
In my honest opinion, in public you should have NO privacy. Cameras should be everywhere once you walk outside, your every movement watched, i mean to stop terrorism, crime, etc this is what is needed.
Do police invade on your privacy when they watch you to protect laws? They have been doing this for years and years from police cars, technology is better, why not let police use cameras to catch criminals and terrorists?
In your house, sure you have privacy, outside screw privacy, I'll choose safety and security over privacy when it comes to being outside in a public place.
I dont care about what privacy advocates say, hey i'm a privacy advocate too, but i know when things are taken out of context, taken too far.
Kinda like saying people should have the freedom to kill, thats taking freedom a bit too far in my opinion, but i dont make the laws.
Freedom is important, Privacy is important, and yes you should have complete freedom and privacy in your house, but outside, you should have complete security.
Theres no one to protect you if theres no law enforcement, and police cant be everywhere. Do you want your privacy and your freedom to die privately in the next 911, or do you want to be able to walk outside anywhere and know you are completely safe, know if someone tries to rob you they will bee caught, women will be able to walk outside alone at night again without worrying about being raped and children will be able to play alone in the streets without parents having to watch them.
Think of it this way, if you were a child, would you want privacy or security? A child is protected by their parents. Who protects the parents? Protecting yourself wont work much longer, technology is so great that one person can kill thousands, maybe even millions soon.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
The original intent is obvious. It referring to _private_ property, and while you can debate the idea of whether the people who constructed the Constitution would have found this palatable, it's a mute point. It's like arguing if all of the greatest Red Sox of all time could beat all of the greatest Yankees.
A: None. The Universe spins the bulb, and the Zen master merely stays out of the way.
There should be no privacy in PUBLIC.
Public = not private.
Outside = PUBLIC.
What do you need privacy for? to launch the next terrorist attack? Kinda like people who complain about cameras in banks, why complain ? They are there to keep some wiseguy from robbing you when you take your money out of your ATM machine, if you want to rob people then you'd care about the Cameras being there.
Privacy should not rank higher than security because if you are dead, your privacy wont matter anymore.
Ask people who died at 911 if they are glad they kept their privacy when the plane flew into their building.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
You arent losing freedom from this kinda security. I agree some other laws they are trying to pass take freedom, but thats deliberate.
Security via surviellance is one of the few ways to have security without losing any freedom and stupid freedom fighters are against that even.
What do you want? You NEED security, this isnt debateable, after 911 its a fact, security is NEEDED. How do you want to get it? Surviellance, National ID card, or should we turn into Nazi Germany and start losing our freedom entirely.
Something must bee done, I say we use Surviellance, if that doesnt work we may have to increase efforts.
Whats more important, survival or your privacy, would you want to die right now, or ide 50-60 years from now?
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
This will be so useful, since all terrorists here with false ID have credit cards in their real names, right? Or credit cards at all? Or perhaps magic cash that can be traced back to the original owner AND the books that were bought? :)
For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
Unless I'm in a small town (see the essay below), I can expect to go about in public all day without telling anyone who I am, where I'm going, or what I'm doing. I can avoid people or places where I'm known. Others only get a snapshot of my life, with no personally identifiable information and only some quickly fading memories of my appearance and actions.
With these cameras I'm now wearing the equivalent of a machine readable nametag- with a little work they'll know who I am and everything I've been doing ("little work" averaged over the next 15 years: right now it's hard to immediately link face scans to names, in 5-10 years it'll be trivial. Darn You, Moore's Law! (And with cheap storage what will keep them from retroactively datamining what they've been storing for years? It may already be too late, and 'P-Day' has already arrived- a day where most camera info is stored, not deleted, so that when the technology catches up they'll be able to follow you around from that day onward. Concept heard from Brad Templeon) That is a significant change in the amount of privacy I have in public.
Brad has a great essay "A Watched Populace Never Boils" on why this type of surveillance is dangerous:
"People often ask why a loss of privacy -- as would come from increased surveillance, TV cameras on all the street corners and a national ID card -- is a restriction on freedom.
"Some wonder it because they have fallen for the old fallacy that if you are innocent, you have nothing to hide. Some wonder it because there is already a lot of monitoring in society, particularly in our credit card transactions, and the walls have not come tumbling down.
"Some welcome it, feeling that the extra surveillance will cut down on crime, and provide some increased level of safety or imagined safety.
"But the truth is that invasions of privacy invade our freedoms quite directly. This is true even if the surveillance isn't abused by the watchers, even though history shows that it always is.
"When we feel watched, we feel less free. We censor ourselves and our actions. Sometimes in little ways, sometimes in big ones.
"We all know this. We all know the exhilarating freedom we felt when we first left home, out from under the watchful eye of our parents. Alone, unwatched, we could finally be ourselves, or even be new selves. Some people experience this even when they move to a new town. Some feel themselves reducing to their old, censored self during Thanksgiving dinner.
"Yet the mainstream will never fear monitoring that much, just as it is more comfortable with censorship. What civil rights protect is not the majority, but the fringe. The fringe is usually feared by the majority, and most subject to its oppression.
essay continues...
Buy local, pay cash.
Oh my, they might think you're violating the DMCA. At least then you get a trial and some meager apology if it's a mistake. Falsely accused terrorists, on the other hand, get four months of jail without trial before being released without a word from the government (or killed without apology as in Afghanistan in the last couple weeks). Not to mention that people have been already been denied flight simply because of the book they brought along to read (A college student going home brought along a book about populist farmer 'terrorist-esque' tactics in sabotaging corporate farms that had a picture of some sort of explosive device on the cover - after returning with a different book, a Harry Potter book in fact, he was denied flying once again). There is definitely a precident here in judging one's intended malice against the country based solely on the literature they read (indeed, people questioned by the secret service regarding anti-american activity are always asked whether they have pro-taliban, anti-US literature, etc). Giving the government access to our libraries will make this mental-profiling even easier.
I heard it was Sirhan Sirhan, RFK's assassin. That was a pretty weird case, and not as wrapped up in idiocy as JFK's.
--hongpong.com
"Hardly used" will not fetch you a better price for your brain.
Since the constitution was written by terrorists, why are you so surprised that it's getting eroded as part of the war on terror?
Nice quote there. However, I must take issue with...
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"
Riiiiight. The fact that Al Gore ran one of the most lackluster presidential campaigns since Walter Mondale, squandered a 15-point lead and stood around with his thumb up his ass while the Bush supporters flooded the streets in Florida had nothing at all do to with it.
The Florida results were, by any sane statistical viewpoint, a tie. The victor was not going to be determined by the act of counting the votes, but by deciding which standard would be applied to that count. The Bush team out-hustled the Gore team, and their view prevailed. Call them ruthless, unethical opportunists if you will, but spare us the nonsense about GWB being "appointed" by his father: if Gore had run an even half-decent campaign, the margin would never have been close enough for any of this to matter.
News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters? Like hell.
And, Lincoln imposed a definitely unconstitutional income tax... There were also highly dubious (to say the least) government actions in the Revolutionary War, war of 1812, WWI, and WWII. (No way was the internment of American citizens of Japanese descent constitutional. It was also _stupid_.)
A war for national survival may well require many violations of the normal liberties. However, A WAR HAS TO BE DECLARED BY CONGRESS. Since the shrub declined to follow that procedure, it's not a war!
Someone needs to remind the DC police that all 19 of the Hijackers were taped walking into the airport (and some into a Wall Mart), Mc Veigh was videoed slowing down to light the fuse, and who knows how many robberies in the US are taped. Sure video can help AFTER the 3000 people are dead, not before. I'm willing to bet good ol fashioned forensics and already existing video (every store, ATM, and Joe on the street has a camera now) will do the same exact thing, without being anywhere near as creepy.
It's little more than an expensive feel good toy.
Burn Hollywood Burn
In response to your argument that privacy outside the home is meaningless, let me ask you a few questions that your "highly intelligent" discussion fails to touch upon.
Here's my first question. What happens when the police officer who's using the surveillance equipment doesn't have your best interests in mind? What happens if the person using the gear uses it for something less than the greater good of the public?
Your argument fails to consider corruption, which by my measure is a bit stupid.
Here's another question. What happens when the person using the system isn't authorized to use it? I know a fellow who works in a public office (I won't say which one to protect the guilty) who regularly looks up criminal records and DMV information on people he knows, even though it's illegal, because he can, not because he should. When the signals from these cameras is sent to police cars, what exactly guarantees that it can't be intercepted or otherwise compromised?
Your argument fails to consider invasion, which by my measure is a bit more stupid.
Here's a third question. How many terrorists would have been caught on September 11 if the systems that were already in place and in use were actually used correctly? The answer is turning out to be many of them. There are video pictures of two of the the terrorists walking through the metal detectors in the Maine airport en route to hijacking a plane with metal box cutters. How would more cameras have made any difference in how the terrorists that acted on 9/11 did their deeds?
Your argument fails to consider utilization, which by my measure is a lot more stupid.
Here's my last question. Since these systems are subject to corruption and error, and are underutilized in their present state, how exactly is adding to the system going to give me complete security? What is more likely is that it will make it easier for corruption and invasion to work against me, and under- and misutilization will prevent any effective increase in my security.
Your argument fails to consider escalation, which by my measure is truly stupid.
Virg
You are certainly correct about our founders being terrorists. It's all about your perspective. Bin Laden is a "liberator" to those who follow him. Our founders liberated us from British oppression. Sounds rather familiar, and you're competely correct in that.
I take issue with the idea of the Bush family being a type of monarchy. The Kennedy's have a much longer history, and at their height had much more power than the Bush family. I suppose since they are all Democrates, it's an okay thing. I won't attempt to pretend that George HW Bush didn't have anything to do with his son getting elected. Personally--it meant a lot to me as a voter because I actually liked GHWB (one of the few, probably). Besides, Gore never appealed to me as a voter--and I think that was a lot of other people's opinion as well. Gore could have easily won--but he didn't because he did a bad job on the campaign trail.
But I digress. I would say that the founders did have in mind a state that could monitor its citizens at all times. Why else would the 4th Ammendment exist? Why build in so many checks and balances to power? It is the executive branch that historically wields the most power to be exerted over the citezenry. It was always believed that a President could simply assign his "secret police" to monitor an individual and potentially cause harm or havok. But, Congress can make it so that those secret police can't get funding. The Supreme Court can throw out any cases in which evidence was obtained illegally and thus set an innocent (or guilty) man free.
The idea of revolution was built into the Constitution. At any point, we (the citizens) can ammend the basic laws. Sure, it has to go through Congress--but if 75% of the population supports the measure you can be certain that it will pass Congress. The problem is that most citizens don't have a real problem with what's going on right now. Most citizens don't want to worry about such matters right now.
Now, once the main threat of terror passes (and it will), things will return to a more "normal" state. And if the government won't shed it's new found powers, the citizens will revolt by way of their votes. It's the way it's always been.
And before someone replies to me saying that maybe Bush will hold onto this power and it will result in a tyrannical rule... go hang yourself. Our country has been through times much worse than this in the past, and we've always come out stronger in the end. Never have we had a time when the government wouldn't volunrarily limit its own power when that's what the people desire.
Long, cute, or funny Sigs are just another form of over compensation, used by geeks, nerdz, etc.
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.
Sounds like the perfect time to start a bookselling business that guarantees the privacy of the purchaser! Keep no records of who buys what...(that's always bothered me about B&N and the others)...then you have nothing to turn over when your records are subpoenaed.
I was also curious why used book sellers would even keep track of who purchased what...
Just pay cash. That's totally untraceable.
I totally agree with your sentiment. I was going to point out the infrared/cannabis thing but someone beat me to it. OTOH that was a small win for freedom and it is probably moot now because they can do anything they want now by using words like 'terrorism' and 'national security'.
Don't you realize this is about the Monica Lewinski - Clinton affair and checking gifts exchanged between them right?
It's not about checking what she read at all, it's about establishing an exchange of gifts to reinforce a charge of perjury or even uncover her possible deception, this was about checking out her story. It could have been a ham sandwitch allegedly purchased, it had nothing to do with the content of what she was reading.
I think your definition of liberator is a little lax.
To set free, as from oppression, confinement, or foreign control.
I have to agree with the earlier poster - "Bin Laden is a 'liberator' to those who follow him".
Bin Laden and his followers believe they are liberating Saudi Arabia, Palestinians, and all of the mid-east from oppression and foreign control.
One of the cardnal rules of combat is "know thy enemy". An enemy you do not understand will always supprise you. To simply label the enemy "evil" is fail to understand the enemy. They believe they are right. They believe they are liberators.
Step 1) Understand them.
Step 2) Defeat them.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
You make it illegal to spy on people from within their home.
but it should be legal for the intelligence agencies to watch people, its their job.
Now if you are in your house, yes you are losing privacy
What privacy do you have outside? anyone can watch you, take pictures of you, police have been doing it for years and you cant do shit about it.
Theres no loss of freedom because its a freedom you never had to begin with.
Something has to be done, freedom is good, but if you want extreme freedom what you have is anarchy, freedom must be a controlled freedom, there has to be order, laws and so on.
The world isnt filled with people intelligent enough to handle complete freedom, and it wont bee intelligent enough to handle it when our kids grow up, face it, if we dont increase our security, our kids wont grow up at all.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
In Germany they came first for the Communists and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me--and by that time no one was left to speak up.
--Martin Niemöller
"What is the sound of one belly slapping?"
Public = Public.
Its that simple. You have no privacy in public.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac