Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Surveillance in Washington DC And At Bookstores

Posted by timothy on from the we-have-no-choice-but-to-accept dept.

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.

39 of 445 comments (clear)

  1. Human Rights by Egonis · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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)

  2. Say Goodbye to the 4th Amendment by Average_Joe_Sixpack · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Say Goodbye to the 4th Amendment by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem is that, while the US population extolls "freedom" as an abstract virtue, in reality there is little concern for actual freedoms, when warranting those freedoms proves inconvenient, uncomfortable, or unpleasant. And, increasingly, the freedoms of others have become less important to many Americans - people who don't read could care less about freedom of the press, the War on Drugs doesn't strike your typical beer- or wine-guzzling alcoholic as a problem, racial profiling doesn't bother people who aren't in the profile, and so forth. And in each case, a "reasonable" argument can be made for the contraction of freedom.

    2. Re:Say Goodbye to the 4th Amendment by SirSlud · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Right on. The best evidence is how culture perceives these types of infringements in entertertainment and media.

      In basing the economy and culture on self-interest, there is little social importance placed on 'paying your interests forward' - that is, respecting that even if a decision doesn't affect you or your family right now ("Id never need an abortion", or "I'd never be an alcoholic", or "I'm not gay, so what do I care") doesn't mean it won't in the future.

      The market (that by which we depend on to exist) has little interest in social rights until they affect a majority that hurts a bottom line. Large books stores are obstinately worried about their customers privacy, but only in so far as it will affect their profit margin. If each decision of this type alienates or resticts the liberty of 2% of their consumer base (especially if they are in the 'light users' category, which can be up to 70% of your customer base, but only 10% of your profits), they are unlikely to defend said restrictions vohemently. What the market fails to take into account is that once you've sufficiently chipped away at various liberties, ovet time, the cost of the social damage is far larger than the sum of the parts. This is when everyone wakes up and realizes that the attitude references in your post do do make up a larger social structure that we've depended on to justify the more destructive aspects of our political and economic system. Everyone is (or will be) in the same boat, so the 'It doest affect me' attitude really does the society, including the immediately unaffected, a disservice.

      A wise observation on your part, in my opinion.

      --
      "Old man yells at systemd"
  3. Humm. by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  4. Living in Britain by Tribbles · · Score: 5, Interesting
    As I live in Britain, I'm not worried at all by all the cameras that we have here. It doesn't bother me that I can be seen going from A to B to C - the only thing I'd like to know is why someone would want to know where I've been ;-)


    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.

    1. Re:Living in Britain by Muad'Dave · · Score: 5, Informative
      I guess You've not read this article in the current Issue of Scientific American. I block-quote the following for your perusal (emphasis mine):

      In the camera-filled U.K., the London borough of Newham claimed its pilot scheme produced a 21 percent drop in crimes "against the person" and unprecedented decreases in criminal property damage, vehicle-related crime, and burglary. In August 2001 the U.K. approved a further £79 million (about $114 million) for 250 new CCTV systems. Simon Davies, a fellow at the London School of Economics and the founder and director of Privacy International, estimates that the country has at least 1.5 million CCTV cameras now in place.

      Jason Ditton, professor of law at the University of Sheffield in England and director of the Scottish Center for Criminology in Glasgow, is one of the few academic sources of CCTV information. His research, funded by the government's Scottish Office, shows that the cameras are not cost-effective and that they reduce neither crime nor the fear of crime. His 1999 study of CCTV in Glasgow's city center revealed that although crime fell in the areas covered by the cameras, the drop was insignificant once general crime trends were taken into account. Even worse results were in Sydney, Australia, where a $1-million system accounted for an average of one arrest every 160 daysa quarter of the Glasgow rate, which Ditton thought was poor.

      Moreover, it is not clear how much of a role the displacement effectthe shifting of crime from one area to anotherplays. A Sydney city council's report indicates that the cameras probably displaced some crime to areas outside the lens's view. And therein lies a fundamental design conflict. For the cameras to be an effective deterrent, everyone has to know they're there; however, to be effective in spotting criminals they need to be covert.

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    2. Re:Living in Britain by elmegil · · Score: 5, Insightful
      If you're not doing anything wrong, why get all strung up on the so called invasion of your privacy?

      Because what I consider wrong, and what the law considers wrong are sometimes at odds, the law frequently changes, so what isn't wrong today might be wrong tomorrow, and because what I consider wrong and what the public at large considers wrong are more frequently at odds.

      If I want to buy books about growing pot or what the LSD experience is like or how to pilot a 777, it's nobody's goddamn business. If I use that information to do something illegal, then and only then does it become anyone else's business. I don't need to be harassed because I am interested in out-of-the mainstream activities, and that interest is no one's business unless it leads to lawbreaking behavior.

      --
      7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
  5. Freedom's Loss by ScumBiker · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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 ---
    1. Re:Freedom's Loss by fish+waffle · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You should have no expectation of privacy in a public place.

      Well, so much for stalking laws. Should the government be allowed to stalk anyone, just because it's technically feasible?

      I maintain that you actually do have an expectation of privacy in a public place. It's obviously not the same sort of privacy as in your bedroom, but it doesn't mean you must expect to be intently stared at and those stares archived at all times either. Hell, people should not have to expect to have a secret text dossier listing their every move either; isn't that one of the criticisms mentioned over and over about totalitarian regimes?

      Public/private is not a simple division any more than any other arbitrary pair of 'opposing' terms.

    2. Re:Freedom's Loss by RC514 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There is a difference between being in a public space, being watched and having your every move recorded.

      First, if you are in a public space, usually nobody pays attention to you except for those who are interacting with you. That's fine.

      Second, being watched: This is already an unusual situation, in which many people feel uncomfortable. Think stars: They regularly complain about lack of privacy. Being watched usually has greater impact on the behaviour of people because they notice that they are watched, which is not the case with CCTV cameras. One of the activities of anti-surveillance groups is therefore to create the same level of awareness by showing people that they are watched (pointing to the camera, creating camera-maps, etc).

      Third, recordings: If you think about it, you not only have to relate your actions to the current situation but you also need to think about how your actions may look like from a distance, space and timewise. This can seriously inhibit natural behaviour and is the reason why, for example, many people liked usenet until archives of it were created.

      Some people feel that even perfectly normal behaviour can have a negative impact on them when seen in a different, maybe willfully distorting, context.

      --

  6. Hello by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny
    Since you are reading from this subversive news site, please turn yourself in to the nearest police station.

    J. Ashcroft
    United States Attorney General and Executioner at Large

  7. Jack B. Nimble is better than Uncle Fester by mangu · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

    1. Re:Jack B. Nimble is better than Uncle Fester by renehollan · · Score: 5, Informative
      You miss the point.

      The titles of those two books are now associated, with you, the reader. That could be construed as reasonable suspicion to arrest you for drug dealing and confiscate all your property under the asset forfeiture laws.

      No, you don't get your property back if you're innocent.

      --
      You could've hired me.
  8. Catcher in the Rye! by FortKnox · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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!
  9. I don't think this will fly by no+reason+to+be+here · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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
  10. rights are being upheld in this case by mrroot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  11. Re:1984.. by mrroot · · Score: 3, Funny

    Of course if you buy the book, you will instantly set off a red flag in the FBI's new book purchase surveilance system.

    --
    I Heart Sorting Networks
  12. Remember the movie Seven? by rnelsonee · · Score: 3, Interesting
    In the movie Seven, remember when Morgan Freeman is telling Brad Pitt about how the government secretly keeps tabs on who rents certain titles from the library? Brad Pitt asks if that's even legal, and Freeman replies that of course it's not and then hushes up Pitt?

    Hum. Guess it might not be all that illeal in the future, eh?

    1. Re:Remember the movie Seven? by KelsoLundeen · · Score: 3, Offtopic

      What no one mentions much about 'Catcher in the Rye' is that it's actually a pretty strange little book.

      It usually gets lumped together with serial killers and presidential assassins. That might be because not only is a good little book, but it's also a fairly short book. When you're busy destroying lives and gunning down politicians, I guess you don't have much time to sit down in your favorite reading chair and dive into Proust. So you look for short books. 'Catcher in the Rye' usually fits the bill.

      Of course, these killers might also like other short books like 'Animal Farm' and '1984'. (And why do serial killers only like books on the boring old junior high reading list?)

      Anyway, a couple weeks ago, I sat down in my favorite reading chair and -- for the first time in about 20 years -- re-read 'Catcher in the Rye.'

      It's a disturbing book, no doubt. But it's disturbing because it's quite good and Salinger -- in this and his short stories -- is really an incredible stylist. But I wondered -- still sitting my favorite reading chair -- *why* everybody makes such a big deal about the book. Holden is messed up -- and paranoid or schizophrenic or maybe A.D.D. -- but why is this little book such a touchstone for the sickos in American society? I mean, is it because they -- in the best high-school book report sense of the term -- "identify with the main character?"

      "Hey, I like it because Holden is me! I'm Holden! That's me!"

      Anyway, I was thrown by how much I couldn't put my finger on the book. I'm someone who *does* sit down and read Proust and Melville and Faulkner and Pynchon and DeLillo and Cormac McCarthy (best American writer writing today, BTW) so I didn't expect to like 'Catcher'. But there's something really pretty unsettling in the way Salinger tells his story.

      I *still* don't know why it is so identified with American wonkiness. Or wonkiness in the American psyche. Maybe we'll raid the latest den of religious extremists and, in order to get a better fix on the American psyche, we'll discover that they, too, have gravitated to Salinger's book and his short stories (which, IMHO, are even stranger than the book.)

      But how come none of the wackos ever read Samuel Beckett? If there's anything that seems to model contemporary American isolationism it's Beckett. Sluggishness, lethargy, malaise. Isn't this what's wrong with American culture? We're mired in our own glorious narcissism? LOL.

      Anyway, yes mods, yes, yes, yes -- this is off-topic. So, yes, call this off-topic and have a field-day modding me down. This post is an easy-target.

  13. Re:Bradbury not so far off? by GMontag · · Score: 3, Funny

    Soon, the government will have a record of all the books we've bought, and when the time comes, their firemen will come and torch our houses for owning them.

    And this is wrong why? ;-)

    Warmest regards,
    Guy Montag

    --
    Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
  14. Good for the goose -- Good for the gander!!!! by 4/3PI*R^3 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Good for the goose -- Good for the gander!!!! by tempest303 · · Score: 3

      While I'm extremely anxious about the idea of ubiquitous surveillance, this is the one instance under which I'd at least *allow* for such a thing. If we all must be watched, we all must be allowed to do the watching as well.

      --
      The Free desktop that Just Works
    2. Re:Good for the goose -- Good for the gander!!!! by TFloore · · Score: 3, Insightful
      If law enforcment can surveil the citizens, the citizens should be able to surveil law enforcment.

      You're missing the point with your statement.

      What you want here is not *just* global easy access to the surviellance feeds (realtime only? or archived also?) but ALSO you want to have government also under the camera's view.

      So long as law enforcement gets to choose where the cameras go, it still isn't equal access.

      What you want here is cameras that also cover every meeting place government representatives or employees meet. No more behind-closed-doors meetings. No more closed sessions of Congress. (For that matter, no more voice votes in Congress, if a Congressman doesn't support something enough to have his name attached to it, there is a problem with the vote.)

      This could actually be a good thing for open government processes. Hey, Cheney's energy task force meetings might have been available for viewing.

      If citizens are survielled in public, government needs to be under surviellance also. "If you have nothing to hide, you shouldn't object to this" huh? That works both ways.

      And yes, this would have all sorts of horrible consequences. "Classified for national security" would probably be much more common as an excuse to avoid the public eye. And suddenly "privacy rights" would be a wonderful thing too.

      --
      This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is... Oops. Frank, I've got your sig again! Where's mine?
  15. Goodbye American Rights... by UTPinky · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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...
    1. Re:Goodbye American Rights... by Lumpy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sorry but you just violated the Home security amendment that forbids concealment of your identity. Please stand against the wall with your hands inside the circles until law encforcement arrives to retrieve you and place you in a re-training facility.

      You bitch about other's speech, yet you use that same part of the constitution....

      Even though morons like you use the Anon coward right and abuse it, I support it fully and will fight to keep it there.

      remember WE are fighting for your right to be an asshole... isnt that great?

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    2. Re:Goodbye American Rights... by Tackhead · · Score: 5, Insightful
      > Will you nutsos get over yourselves on the drug thing? I'm tired of people acting like the supreme goal in life is to make drugs legal.

      I've never done drugs other than alcohol and caffeine.

      I think drug use should be decriminalized. Marijuana is the largest cash crop in North America. I think Philip Morris (Oops, "Altria!") could make a fscking fortune growing and selling pot, and I think the IRS and state governments could make just as big a fscking fortune taxing the sale thereof.

      I also think that both the federal and state governments could save a fscking fortune by not having to house potheads and crackheads in jail. Bust the ones who drive while impaired and who get aggressive. DWI's still a crime, so's assault.

      Note that I'm talking about saving taxpayer dollars by lightening the load on prisons, not downsizing law enforcement.

      I'd feel safer walking the streets at night if I knew that (a) I was unlikely to be mugged for $10 in my pocket, because drugs were affordable (due to increased supply), and (b) it was more likely there'd be a cop on the street to kick the guy's ass anyways (due to cops having more free time).

      More importantly, I'd also feel a hell of a lot safer getting on a plane if I knew that (c) the law enforcement effort currently targeted against drug use were channeled into securing our borders and our transportation networks against terrorists.

      Legalize drugs and you generate billions in tax revenues, save billions on prison expenses, eliminate the motivation for most gang violence, and simultaneously free up the resources of a million cops to secure their communities against other criminals such as sexual predators and terrorists. Everybody wins, even the cops.

      The War on Drugs is obsolete; it's a WOMBAT: a Waste Of Money, Brains, And Time. Our tax dollars can be better spent elsewhere.

    3. Re:Goodbye American Rights... by mangu · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'd feel safer walking the streets at night if I knew that (a) I was unlikely to be mugged for $10 in my pocket, because drugs were affordable

      How much more affordable can they get? $10 is less than a tank of gas, less than a movie ticket + popcorn & soda, about the price of lunch at a restaurant, etc. Make drugs ten times cheaper and some people will still go broke over them, because they can't think of anything else, just as they go broke over alcohol.

      But I'm in favor of legalizing drugs too. Drug money finances organized crime and police corruption, just like illegal gambling and prostitution do. I'm in favor of legalizing anything that causes no harm to *innocent* people. If people want to destroy themselves, let them, as long as they cause no harm to unwilling third parties.

  16. Time to mess with the federal government by defile · · Score: 3, Funny

    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:

    • The Anarchist's Cookbook (also try the Anarchist Handbook series)
    • The Art of Survival
    • U.S. Army Survival Manual
    • Boeing 747: Design and Development
    • Explosives, Propellants, and Pyrotechnics
    • The Chemistry of Explosives
    • Explosives
    • An Illustrated Guide to Rifles and Automatic Weapons
    • The Los Alamos Primer: The First Lectures on How to Build an Atomic Bomb
    • Bioterrorism of Anthrax Bacillus Anthracis: Index of New Information and Guide-Book for Consumers, Reference, and Research.
    • Scourge: The Once and Future Threat of Smallpox

    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!

  17. You never had any privacy, deal with it by Ars-Fartsica · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Want a society without surveillance? Try going back to 1975. Any time after that, and you get into the era of purchasing databases, phone lists, credit card tracking, and rudimentary video surveillance.

    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?

  18. It's article 12 by jeti · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  19. Privacy on Public streets? by nakhla · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  20. Seven? by niola · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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

  21. Paranoia and Pragmatism by circletimessquare · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    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! ;-P

    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
  22. george orwell plaza under surveillance by remou · · Score: 5, Funny

    ohh, the irony...:-)

    what the heck where they thinking???

    photo of orwell plaza surveillance

  23. and the rest of it by joss · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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/
  24. Or perhaps... by zhensel · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  25. Whatever by Auckerman · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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
  26. Careful Throwing the Term "Stupid" Around by virg_mattes · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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