Do You Know Where Your Privacy Is?

blankmange writes "CNET is reporting coverage of the Computers Freedom and Privacy Conference, being held in San Francisco this week. 'The conference, normally a forum for digerati to pose a series of frightening "what if" scenarios, has morphed into an event where participants' worst surveillance nightmares may be poised to come true following the terrorist attacks.' Sounds like we may want to listen for any definitive solutions that come from this conference."

Comments

patriot act

[cdf12345]

The people question at the FBI raid of the chicago 2600 meeting were threatened with the death penality under the patriot act...

another law do to mass hysteria and paranoia

Re:patriot act

[Tasty Beef Jerky]

What absolutely blows my mind is that all of you sit here and scream and cry because the Government is infringing on people's unspecified right to privacy, yet you actively demand that they infringe upon people's specified right to carry firearms.

Nowhere in the Constitution of the United States of America or the various ammendments does it state that Privacy is a guaranteed right. However, the Second Ammendment to the United States Constitution as specified in the Bill Of Rights states that the right to bear arms will not be infringed upon.

If you were truely concerned about "rights," you would be just as insulted by "gun control" legislation that denies honest citizens their rights under Ammendment II. Instead, you guys are up in arms simply because you're afraid that the Government is going to stop your MP3 downloads and cut off your access to piracy sites.

Hypocrisy - You all profess to be above all others and support people's rights... unless you don't like those rights. To hell with the fact that they're guaranteed...

After all, some rights are more equal than others.

Re:patriot act

[ConsumedByTV]

Got a link to that?

That is fucking bullshit.

It's a strange day that most people don't even see the meaning in "show me your papers or else."

What a sad state of afairs.

I just preregistered bombthe.us, I wonder how long it will be before the fbi threatens me.

Re:patriot act

[Anonymous Coward]

I want the right to build a weapon of mass destruction in case the government tries to oppose me. What's that, you say, I'm not allowed? Saddam's not allowed, even though he's never bombed America? (whereas America certainly has bombed Saddam)

If the right to self defence is absolute, it's not up to you to tell me how much self defence is adequate. So, unless you allow everyone to own an H bomb, you are inconsistent. Tell me how you stand on this.

Re:patriot act

[Anonymous Coward]

Your entire post is completely off-topic, not to mention incorrect.

Nowhere in the Constitution of the United States of America or the various ammendments does it state that Privacy is a guaranteed right.

Um, it's called the the fourth amendment, doofus. Stop trolling.

Re:patriot act

[Anonymous Coward]

Where do you get the idea that Slashdotters are all for gun control? I don't recall a Slashdot poll on the subject.

Personally, I despise guns, but I can understand both sides of the argument. Can you?

Not at 64k feet

[sporty]

Heh, with a wifi card and a connection to the net, not at 64k feet anymore. I could trade CC numbers while I fly across the US :)

National ID cards

[cdf12345]

From the ACLU
A national ID would not prevent terrorism. An identity card is only as good as the information that establishes identity in the first place. Terrorists and criminals will continue to be able to obtain -- by legal and illegal means -- the documents needed to get a government ID, such as birth certificates and social security numbers. A national ID would create a false sense of security because it would enable individuals with an ID -- who may in fact be terrorists -- to avoid heightened security measures.

A national ID would depend on a massive bureaucracy that would limit our basic freedoms. A national ID system would depend on both the issuance of an ID card and the integration of huge amounts of personal information included in state and federal government databases. One employee mistake, an underlying database error or common fraud could take away an individual's ability to move freely from place to place or even make them unemployable until the government fixed their "file."

A national ID could require all Americans to carry an internal passport at all times, compromising our privacy, limiting our freedom, and exposing us to unfair discrimination based on national origin or religion. A national ID would foster new forms of discrimination and harassment. The ID could be used to stop, question, or challenge anyone perceived as looking or sounding "foreign" or individuals of certain religious affiliations.

By the way you can send a free fax to your congressmen opposing the national ID at the aclu's website at:
http://www.aclu.org/action/id107.html

I say we do everything possible to run their faxes outta toner.

Re:National ID cards

[billnapier]

I say we do everything possible to run their faxes outta toner.

A physical ./ effect! Feel the power!

Re:National ID cards

[dotslash]

Add to that:

Identity cards may prove identity. What we need to know about is behaviour. Identity tells you nothing about behaviour.

If you take the idiotically simplistic notion that people are either "good" or "evil-doers", then you make behaviour some timeless abstract "inate" feature of identity. Based on that premise then, identity is useful because it allows you to separate evil-doers from do-gooders.

In the real world however, behaviour (good or evil) depends on environment, past history and future circumstances and opportunity. It also changes. A do-gooder today can become an evil-doer tomorrow (say, if an innocent relative of theirs is killed by a "smart bomb"). It is even possible (gasp) for an evil-doer to become a do-gooder (blatantly optimistic tree-hugging belief in "rehabilitation"?).

Case in point: Richard "Explosive Sneakers" Reid, had a past history (the only element an identity can point to) that was totally clean. His identity was never doubted, his past history contained no violence or terrorism. They knew who he was, they just didn't know what he was about to do. Unless you assume that behaviour such as belonging to a mosque or being a muslim, makes you a potential "evil-doer" (we generally refer to that kind of association as "prejudice", or sometimes "racism"), then identity is useless.

In the larger context therefore, establishing identity, at a time when mind-reading and behaviour-guessing is impossible, is simply a different way of enabling "prejudice". Prejudice, meaning literally, pre-judging someone on past behaviour.

Obviously, in some very limited cases, identity provides knowledge about highly relevant past criminal activity. For those cases, identity would be useful, although it can be "fooled" as described by the ACLU. Unfortunatelly though, this whole argument is trying to push identity using the narrow case, in order to pursue or enable the broader prejudicial, racist, discriminatory policy which is characteristic of the anti-Arab backlash after the attacks. Hating "them" is just as narrow minded as "them" hating "us".

Re:National ID cards

[Anonymous Coward]

""). It is even possible (gasp) for an evil-doer to become a do-gooder (blatantly optimistic tree-hugging belief in "rehabilitation"?). "

True, but societies view of "Once a criminal always a criminal" insures second hand status. After all this is the only legal form of discrimination, even 20 years after the fact of the supidity on an 18 year old.

Now that the government wants to be omnipotent, I fear this sort of thing is going to get much worse and much more common.

Re:National ID cards

[djneko]

Too bad we're the ones that are paying for all their new toner and paper.

Re:National ID cards

[cdf12345]

yeah, but out of all the things our reps do, theat we pay for, this would certainly be worth it if it got their attention.

I'm willing to give up my privacy

[DDonahue99]

If it comes at the cost of preventing terrorist attacks...

Re:I'm willing to give up my privacy

[madenosine]

Yes, but does it really help much to prevent terrorist attacks?

Fact is bills like this have always been going around, but now, as a result of the attacks, some of these bills are getting past. The actual propositions were not a result of the attacks.

Re:I'm willing to give up my privacy

[Spamuel]

"Those who give up essential liberties for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

Re:I'm willing to give up my privacy

[dainkenkind]

Will you be willing to give up your car if it means preventing automobile accidents? Or the ability to recieve mail if it means it will prevent the possible spread of Anthrax through the postal system? Everyone agrees that the terror attacks were a truly terrible thing to have happen, but this isn't treating the root cause of terrorism, it is only giving the government another way to intrude into the general population's right to privacy, and people who really want to find a way around it will.

Re:I'm willing to give up my privacy

[russx2]

While this may sound a fair trade on the surface, the consequences of what you suggest scare the hell out of me.

With each week passing the powers that be seem to be pushing for small, yet significant, reductions in privacy in the name of preventing future terrorist attacks.

While obviously the Sept. 11 attacks were horrific, and I truly feel for the families who were involved, the long term consequences of a continued, gradual loss of our basic rights is something far, far worse.

It seems to me Bush, Blair and co. are jumping on the bandwagon and using Sept 11 as leverage to push through new laws and changes to already exisiting privacy acts.

Fair enough, it may mean a reduction in another (as grand a scale) attack succeeding - but at what cost?

Re:I'm willing to give up my privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that the govt thinks we all want that, without listening to the people. While this post is pretty much flamebait, thinking like this hurts us all. Land of the free? If we have no privacy, how much freedom can we have? If I lived in a nice healthy dictatorship or monarchy, maybe it'll be alright. But there are reasons police need warrents and there are laws governing search and seizure. If someone is really suspcious then authorities should check up on them, especially if it puts others at risk. However, take away everyone's freedom to get that one individual? I don't think so.

Re:I'm willing to give up my privacy

[blibbleblobble]

Yeah. It'll prevent terrorist attacks.

While your naïvete is touching, it worries me that you could think it to be true.

Look at a half-century of wiretaps. They were supposed to prevent terrorism too. They were never used against terrorists. In fact, they were only used against serious criminals around 2% of the time.

Wiretaps were used in the phoney "war on drugs", they were used to spy on opposition politicians, they were used to spy on civil rights campaigners.

Yes, these new powers will weasel their way in by convincing an ignorant public that (a) they stand a chance of working, (b) that they were even designed to stop terrorism, (c) that they won't be abused, and (d) that they'll be used to target terrorists.

Right. I've invented a new form of clue-stick, and it consists of a slashdot-connected webcam in the bedroom of everyone who thinks ubiquitous surveillance is a good idea. "It's the price of preventing terrorist attacks" you can tell the wife.

Re:I'm willing to give up my privacy

[goldspider]

Is the right of hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants to be here now considered an "essential liberty"? People have used that phrase to justify alot, and frankly, I'm not buying it this time either.

The problem is that we have identified our vulnerabilities (a huge one of which is illegal immigrants) but refuse to confront them out of fear of the PC crowd. Toss out everyone who is here illegally, and we wouldn't have need of this crackpot National ID card.

I know I'll probably be modded down for this, even though fundamentally I wholeheartedly disagree with a National ID card, but it has to be said by someone.

Re:I'm willing to give up my privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

I have doubts to the veracity of this. Frankly, it smacks of troll. But then, there's no pro-Microsoft pro-Intel pro-whatever the the latest 'it's evil!' fad is today stuff. ;)

At any rate, I strongly disagree with the notion that a national ID will stop terrorist attacks. The attackers already had false state and other IDs of various natures.

What I think a nation ID could do.. is make life a whole lot easier and more convenient for people. A national driver's license.. That would be nice, no more out of state bars/officers/people taking your checks gawking at your state DL, attempting to decipher whether or not it's real.

A passport. No more fumbling around for yet another document while travelling.

An easy way to prove identity when attempting to get hired. It beats carrying around unneccesary extranneous documents.

At any rate, would we be giving up our privacy with a national ID? I think not. We must, of course, realize the fact that it can't be mandatory. Right now, there are people over the age of (insert your state's legal driving age) who don't have driver's licenses. People without social security cards (and/or numbers).

If it wasn't mandatory, I'd go for it. It'd be quite convenient. And, frankly, I wouldn't be giving up any more privacy than I already am. Do you shop online? If you use a credit card, they're seeing where you shop. You can bet your arse that they look at that for direct advertising as well. Use a discount card at Wegman's/Food Lion/What have you? You can bet they're seeing what's most popular and adjusting sales accordingly.

Fill out information for an account with a public forum on the internet? Surf with cookies enabled?

The fact is, the current hype about privacy is FUD. Nothing but. We already give up so much of our supposed privacy, that it isn't funny.

..And I'd trust the government more with information about me than I would a corporation.

Re:I'm willing to give up my privacy

[BilldaCat]

Is there a rule on slashdot now that when anyone slings out this quote, they get a +5?

Re:I'm willing to give up my privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

Fine with me. You can give up your privacy...and your rights. I think I'll keep mine. That includes any national ID card which will be "left at home" when I'm in public.

Re:I'm willing to give up my privacy

[Deagol]

I had to respond, since this hit us here locally during the Games last month.

Ashcroft decided to clean house at some major airports, including SLC, before the Winter Games. Quite a few illegal immigrants were detained, arrested, and (of course) fired for having false info about their citizenship.

Fine, you say. They broke the law. They should be punished.

In theory, that's fine. However, I believe this was Ashcroft grand-standing, rather than for anyone's safety. It was selective. Did they clean out any illegal immigrants from the many downtown hotels? Hell no -- the hotel industry in SLC would shut down if they did that. (I'm sure this is the case in many cities.) Even the airport allegedly turned a blind eye (some allege they even helped with the paperwork) when the illegals were filling out the forms, so they could get cheap labor.

So Ashcroft ruined many lives here in SLC (those of the airport workers and the families they supported), because it looked good to the press. They didn't go after all the illegal immigrants because it would hurt big business during an especially profitable time.

If all laws were enforced 100% and without bias, then I'm all for 'em. However, as long as pricks like Ashcroft run the show, our laws should be left alone and not made even more broad in the name of "security".

I'm happily willing to live life knowing that I might be the victim of a random terrorist attack if it means that I can retain what's left of my remaining privacy and freedom. If I had to choose between a life of 100% certainty of safety in which I had to give up my right to own/carry a gun and have my purchases/travel/etc/opinions tracked or a life with a n% certainty of safety (where n &lt 100 -- even below 50%) but with my freedoms, I'd take the latter in a heartbeat.

Re:I'm willing to give up my privacy

[ADRA]

Toss out all the illegal aliens and who will do the crap that nobody else wants to? Besides the 0.0001% of illegally enterant people in this country who are here for espionage and terrorism, what is their harm? They are filling out the lowest classes of society, doing whatever they can to make a living.

Plus you say throw out all those who are here illegally, well duh! How do you do that? You make an infoulable way to tell the legitimacy of the carrier's identity.

I am not disagreeing with your conclusions, just the logic you used to get their.

Re:I'm willing to give up my privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with you 100%; ideally all laws would be enforced 100% of the time, but I wouldn't blame the the fact that that's not how it is on Ashcroft solely.

Laws have never been enforced 100%; I wouldn't even venture that they're enforced 10% of the time. Of course the morons we elect year after year suggest the solution to that is MORE LAWS, which, of course, won't be enforced.

Re:I'm willing to give up my privacy

[jgerman]

Second that. I have my doubts that a national id card would help, and would definitley fall into my personal definition of invasion of privacy. I certainly don't want the incompetents that currently fuck up the system to have access to stronger weapons. Hell look at the people who work for the government, do you want them in charge of YOUR identity.

Oh yeah boycott the boycott of the boycott of the Great Slashdot Blackout.

Re:I'm willing to give up my privacy

[jgerman]

I'm not disagreeing with your ideas just your ability to spell them. ;)

Re:I'm willing to give up my privacy

[Mr_Matt]

Is the right of hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants to be here now considered an "essential liberty"?

Funny, there was a time when there was no illegal immigration - everybody was welcome. Personally, I find that the right to travel wherever my feet take me is indeed an essential liberty, and I'm sure the Framers thought likewise. But it would seem that those who prefer a false sense of security to God-given freedoms followed the patriots to America and set up shop.

People have used that phrase to justify alot, and frankly, I'm not buying it this time either.

Justify what? The granting of freedoms? Actually, the only time that phrase gets mentioned is when people attempt to take away liberties we already have. What are you talking about, exactly?

Toss out everyone who is here illegally, and we wouldn't have need of this crackpot National ID card.

Riiight...it's those damn furriners who are causing all the trouble. Except, of course, for Timothy McVeigh, Ted Kaczynski, the KKK, etc. PC has nothing to do with it, pal - the problem is we live in a free society, and that scares people who can't deal with the responsibilities of freedom. Illegal immigrants aren't the problem - criminals exploiting the vulnerabilities inherent in a free society are the problem. And you solve the problem by going after the criminals, not by locking down the free society, be it through immigration or national ID cards. Your 'solution' is not only too simple-minded, but further imposes restrictions of freedom in an increasingly oppressive society.

Re:I'm willing to give up my privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

Well ideally we would be able to enforce immigration laws 100% of the time, bue we all know that isn't realistic.

My point, which I admittedly should have further explained, is that almost absolutely NOTHING is being done to enforce them, and at this point there's really no excuse for that.

Re:I'm willing to give up my privacy

[jgerman]

I wish I could understand where the Us vs. Them mentality comes into play. I mean your average citizen wants to maintain their privacy, for the most part, they want to trade mp3's ect. Fill in any law that get's tons of people up in arms. The people who run the government are ordinary people too, how can they not understand that the evil they sometimes spread is wrong. You're not even talking about mob mentality here, your talking about some laws that make no sense and are just plain wrong. And they seem to think it's a good idea. I'm going to have to assume it's monetarily motivated, no other explanation makes sense (or no other explanation that's not to horrible in my mind to vocalize).

The second question, although I think I know the answer is how do these laws continue to get passed. It's almost as if we (in the US) don't really have the power to influence our government. Things get passed and there's nothing we can do. You can blame apathy, but does that really work? The voice of the irritated minority gets louder when most people are apathetic. Mob mentality? What?

Re:I'm willing to give up my privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't give me that crap about your freedom to go wherever you want and compare it to colonial America. Just about every (if not every) country today has a legal process that immigrants and visitors must follow in order to be granted entry.

I have no problem with people who follow this process and obtain citizenship/visas legally. But those who choose not to follow the established laws become a liability (to taxpayers who often support them) and have no business being here. When they don't obey the law, they become criminals, and should be treated as such.

And as far as I'm concerned, we have a couple hundred thousand criminals here who have no business being here. If you don't like our laws and find them oppressive, I suggest you either find a way to change them or leave.

Re:I'm willing to give up my privacy

[DrEldarion]

Because we all know that whenever someone famous says something it's automatically true! I'm so sick of seeing that damn quote. If you want to be safe, you don't deserve to be safe!

I'm sure that there are also plenty of quotes out there from famous people that say the opposite of that, but nobody ever quotes THOSE...

Fuck off, I'm willing to let the grocery store keep track of what I buy in exchange for cheaper groceries. I'm willing to let the government store my information (not that they don't already have it all anyawys) if it means even a minute increase in safety.

-- Dr. Eldarion --

Re:I'm willing to give up my privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

Who the fuck came down from the heavens and gave you the right to dictate who can and cannot live on the same piece of land as you?

It's attitudes like that which make me campaign all the more for freedom of movement in the world.

Re:I'm willing to give up my privacy

[DEBEDb]

That's nice of you; but what you really
mean is "I am willing to force everyone
else to give up their privacy too",
isn't it?

Re:I'm willing to give up my privacy

[wednesdaywar]

It saddens me that we've gotten to the point where it's okay to have a lower class and the pomposity to think that no American should have to stoop to such work, but it's perfectly acceptable for the "dirty foreigners" to do it.

America needs to start setting an example by cleaning up and solving its own problems, instead of the grandstanding and righteousness.

Re:I'm willing to give up my privacy

[DahGhostfacedFiddlah]

"Those who give up essential liberties for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

On behalf of all those who have been reading Slashdot for more than 2 hours - shut the fsck up. It's been said time after time after time, and it's *still* used incorrectly.

As the poster said, I'd be perfectly willing to give up some privacy if it would increase security. The amount of privacy I'd be willing to give up wouldn't even border on an "essential" liberty, but I'd be willing to give up some. The safety I'd have to receive would have to be a permanent reduction in terrorists attacks that could hurt me. The proof that the reduction in attacks was linked to the giving up of said privacy would have to be backed by well-conducted research. Therefore I am neither giving up an essential liberty, nor accepting temporary safety.

Hell, according to Mr Franklin, I could give up an essential liberty like freedom of speech if it were to give me some *permanent* safety, or I could give up hundreds of "non-essential" liberties for a permanent increase in safety from accidentally falling out of a window. While the adage works well in many situations, please don't use your post-bot to toss it into any YRO discussion.

</rant>

Re:I'm willing to give up my privacy

[goldspider]

I suggest you direct your question to Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution - "Congressional Authority to Establish Uniform Rules of Naturalization"

Re:I'm willing to give up my privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

Two things, friend.

Firstly, naturalisation is not the same as residency. I have no problem with a government giving rules for citizenship (after all, citizenship is about rights involving the state, such as the right to vote), but this is completely unrelated to the right to live in a particular place. It is none of the state's business where I reside, as long as I'm not interfering with anyone.

Secondly, the spirit of the US was to allow free immigration (bring me your etc etc.). That applies whether they take a rich native's jobs or not. To support immigration control is entirely unpatriotic. Only more recently have various racist or nationalist policies restricted the flow.

And, of course, you're not going to stop drinking with prohibition, and you're not going to stop "illegal" immigration with immigration controls. All it means is that people who really want to get in will get in anyway, and are even harder to track, because they have to completely hide from the eyes of the state. Which, of course, makes it easier for them to commit crime.

(in the same way it's easier to sell bad E than bad aspirin)

Re:I'm willing to give up my privacy

[cassandy]

In Canada we've been starting to get, in the newspapers, dozens of cases where Canadians have been living in the States, legally or illegally, and have been detained by the FBI for six months, been tortured and beaten, without access to a lawyer or being told why they were detained.

In the Toronto Star today there was a large story in the A section about a Canadian citizen living illegally in the States being held for months by the FBI, with out being told why, in solitary confinement 23.5 hours a day, with out being allowed to talk to a lawyer, a doctor, the embassy or any family members. He was beaten by the FBI in questioning sessions. He was mislead in to signing a wavier that rejected help from the Canadian Embassy, being told that they would deport him as soon as he signed it. That was a lie. He was sent to Canada on an airplane in the past few days, with only his prison issue clothes. All of his money and ID was kept by the FBI. He is now broke and has no place to live.

This sounds more like Nazi Germany or Maoist China than the US.

Re:I'm willing to give up my privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

(Posting AC, as we're getting a little offtopic)

Ahh yes, the old "disagreeing with is unpatriotic" argument. I'm getting tired of that one too.

But for the sake of healthy debate, I'll try not to sound belligerant.

First of all, it is EVERYONE'S business where people reside when so many people here aren't paying taxes. Call it shallow, but you (assuming you're an American citizen) and I are paying for hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants to be here. You want the benefits of living in America? Then please assume the responsibilities that accompany those benefits. I wouldn't imagine the Founding Fathers believed the "spirit of the US" included the subsidizing of a bunch of freeloaders (who, like it or not, are exactly that if they aren't paying their share of taxes.)

If the INS did it's job, it wouldn't let the kind of people into the US who blow up buildings and kill thousands of people. True, that doesn't prevent American terrorists from doing their evil, but it doesn't solve world hunger or bring peace to Earth either. Does that mean we shouldn't try to fix one of our vulnerabilities? I think not.

Re:I'm willing to give up my privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

uh, exactly how many of the 9/11 terrorists were here illegaly?

of those who were here legally, how many had their student visas delivered as approved 6 months AFTER the attacks?

of those who were here legally, how many were approved entry by the CIA (old friends from USSR occupation era Afghanistan) against the better judgement of the INS?

how would keeping illegal immigrants out of the country have prevented 9/11 considering the terrorists who were here legally???

Re:I'm willing to give up my privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

By the original "spirit of the US", tax was pretty much inappropriate -- income tax only came about because it was never repealed after war, and you'd hardly call a nation founded by several smugglers as one which would support duties.

But assuming you disagree with the notion that tax itself is wrong, and that you consider tax avoidance to be immoral, I'll put another viewpoint...

The reason illegal immigrants don't pay tax is because to do so they'd have to identify themselves, and then they'd be deported. I'm sure they're not rubbing their hands together laughing at not having to pay tax -- instead, they have poor job prospects (which must mean they've come from something even worse) and face the constant threat of deportation. If I were an immigrant, I'd sure rather pay my way.

Remember, from many countries, immigrating to America is Not easy. An honours degree in a subject with shortage of qualified US citizens is the usual requirement. So there are a whole bunch of honest hard-working people who simply don't fit the Government profile.

Of course, none of the alleged hijackers on 9/11 were illegal immigrants, so the current laws enforced correctly wouldn't have helped. And can you identify "the kind of person" who blows up buildings? Are they all Arabs? I look mildly Arab because of Arab blood many generations ago, and I've travelled to Arab countries on business (including UAE, where one of the alleged 9/11 hijackers was born) -- would I be marked as high risk?

Re:I'm willing to give up my privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

You make your argument under the assumption that immigrants have 2 choices... to live here illegally, or be deported. You conveniently left out Naturalization. Every immigrant has this option, and if they cannot meet the requirements, they simply shouldn't be here.

In the case of the terrorists, I admit my statement was a little inaccurate. I believe they were all either here on visas, or visas pending approval. However, if the INS did it's job and properly screened them before letting them into the country, 9/11 could have been avoided. Remember that recent fiasco involving the approval of the visas of two of the hijackers post-9/11? That very incident proves the INS has alot of holes to plug. If the procedures in place had been observed, the backgrounds of these people would have been discovered, they would have been denied entry, and none of this would have happened.

Re:I'm willing to give up my privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

You wouldn't need an ID if the goverment didn't impose anti-alcohol laws and taxes. So you arguments are largely specious.

Re:I'm willing to give up my privacy

[groman]

Fuck off, I am willing to shoot anybody who infringes on my freedom.

Re:I'm willing to give up my privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

who the hell modded this oft-quoted cliche to +5? +2 maybe, but no way +5

Re:I'm willing to give up my privacy

[Mr_Matt]

I'm guessing this is the guy I replied to, since his inability to reason cogently is well-balanced by the fact that he posts AC when he wants to talk some shit. Chicken. :)

And as far as I'm concerned, we have a couple hundred thousand criminals here who have no business being here. If you don't like our laws and find them oppressive, I suggest you either find a way to change them or leave.

Remember, they're only criminals because we make 'em out that way now. A hundred years ago, they weren't 'criminals' - they were 'New Americans'. And I wonder if all the shit that goes down isn't a result of our inability (or rather, your inability) to cope with new people, and the ideas they bring with them. Just a thought.

And as for finding a way to change laws - well, they'd have to become legalized citizens to vote and do that. But have you looked at how tough it is to get naturalized nowadays? It's not just memorize the Pledge of Allegiance and sign a few forms - it's a difficult, nasty, brutish process that favors wealthy people with the means to process all the paperwork and support themselves in the meantime. "Illegal" immigrants are those who can't support their family for a year-and-a-half (which is about what it takes) while waiting for the clodhoppers at INS to pull their thumbs out and do their job. And because they prefer working for shit wages (usually less than minimum wage, because hey, they're illegal - who will they complain to?) to whatever hellhole country they just left, they do it, and become 'criminals' in the mind of half-witted retards such as yourself.

Think about that - these people think that America is so great that they're willing to come over, earn half of nothing and get treated like less-than-human slime from some uppity asshole. Not because they're dumb, but because in spite of all the shit these immigrants have to put up with, it's still better than wherever they came from. That should make you proud that the U.S. is doing something right - torturing Canadians notwithstanding.

On the positive side, I got enough +1 mods to put me at the karma cap for dusting your sorry arguments off, so thanks! And next time, you'll get more respect (and less flamage) if you'll find your balls and post under your real name, ok?

Re:I'm willing to give up my privacy

[Mr_Matt]

This sounds more like Nazi Germany or Maoist China than the US.

I would agree, and I'll have to go look up the article. For God's sake, I hope it's a mistake, but the way the DOJ is run now, I'm afraid it might not be. Whatever the case, that guy's civil rights were violated, and there's no excuse for that. This is where the "we'll do anything to stop the terrorists" argument comes all-the-way apart.

God I hope you're lying. :)

Re:I'm willing to give up my privacy

[rgbrenner]

I think I found the article here. The article is kinda short, but heres a quick quote...

The plaintiffs cite several examples of poor treatment, including the case of Asif-ur-Rehman Saffi, a native of Pakistan, who was arrested at La Guardia Airport in New York on Sept. 30 after his tourist visa expired.

Although an immigration judge ordered him to be deported, the lawsuit alleges he was jailed until March and locked in an isolation unit. Guards allegedly subjected him to strip searches and "severe beatings to the point of unconsciousness," the suit said.

Re:I'm willing to give up my privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

No no no no no. You completely misunderstand, the choice is not "naturalisation or deportation". They are never the alternatives in any circumstance. To become naturalised (as an adult) you have to be a legal permanent resident for a certain number of years and in good moral standing.

What would be accurate to say is "residency permit or deportation". In which case, as I said, the requirements are rather silly, being based mostly on:

• EITHER family;
• OR degrees and skill shortages, and in practice revolving around, "are there many businesses which need employees that can be found abroad who are prepared to take lower wages?";
• OR if you were born on one of a huge list of countries, a completely random "diversity lottery", where you put your name in and are maybe chosen. Your chances depend mostly on how many people from your country have already immigrated, or are trying to immigrate.

So, on the luck of the draw one man is legal and another man is illegal. If that's good legal practice then we might as well toss a coin in court to decide guilt.

And the whole background check thing is a red herring. A determined terrorist organisation would simply send someone with no traceable history. If you're arguing that the INS is an incompetent mess, I agree, but that's more because its existing philosophies are ineffective.

"What do you suggest as an alternative?" I hear you ask. At a minimum, get rid of the racist, nationalist diversity lottery (mostly racist against whites), which is probably most responsible for the bad taste in existing citizens' mouths.

Immigration based on productivity makes sense in practical terms. Enter with a standard visa, work in America at will (you'll be working for regular employees, paying regular taxes, or even setting up your own business), and if you have proved that you can work for a certain amount of time and support yourself, and keep away from crime, the state labels you as a resident, perhaps doing a few extra checks if it wants.

It should please the capitalists, and even the socialists providing certain provisions are granted for political asylum. And even then, there's no reason why asylum seekers cannot work -- instead of the frequent practices worldwide of locking them in secure hostels where they are not only treated as criminals but also unproductive through no fault of their own.

Re:I'm willing to give up my privacy

[arkanes]

Well, there's mandatory and then theres "mandatory". Kinda like social security numbers. Legally, you aren't obligated to give that to anyone but the IRS, and then only for tax purposes. But just TRY and go through life without giving it out to anyone else - it's possible, but it's a serious pain in the ass.

Also - when we (well, I) talk about privacy from the government, it's not that I don't want the data existing - I simply don't want anyone (except me) to have trivial access to it, and I want to be able to see it and know who knows what about me. Currently, your own personal information is protected as IP by the companies who "own" it - essentially, YOU don't get privacy, but they do. Thats wrong, and the UK laws on this make alot more sense.

Re:I'm willing to give up my privacy

[arbofnot]

I agree. Illegal aliens work jobs nobody else would want, at a wage nobody else legally could be paid. Yet they perceive themselves to be better off in the USA working for less than minimum wage. This is a case against minimum wage, and a case for making it easier for honest people to work in the USA legally.

The other big problem with the sweep of illegal aliens that was mentioned: They were mainly Mexicans. Last I heard the USA was not really worried about international terrorist organizations based in Mexico.

Re:I'm willing to give up my privacy

[StillaCoward]

HEY, I work for the government!

Oh wait. That proves your point....

I would think..

[Chicane-UK]

..that one of the new 'what if' topics to come up will be the US Government mulling over whether to use Microsofts Passport as a national ID system (for the USA at least) as detailed in the earlier thread.

That is quite alarming.. Microsoft are not renowned for having 'the best interest of the consumer at heart' - how long till you start getting bombarded with junk mail and trial CD's for MSN, or the latest version of Windows because of your National ID? Scary..

Re:I would think..

[RazzleFrog]

CDs are a funny example since one of the alternatives is the Liberty Alliance which was founded by AOL (among others). I remember getting many more cds from them.

Re:I would think..

[Chicane-UK]

A fair point well taken.. I have yet to recieve an MSN CD, but I have had many many AOL CD's.

The funniest thing is that, even though I have a cable modem, relatives keep handing these AOL CD's that they get, asking me "if they are any use..."

"Sure! I need a new coaster for my coffee mug!" :)

Re:I would think..

[goldspider]

You totally missed the point of that article.

"The Seattle Times is reporting that Mark Forman, associate director of information technology at the White House (or 'America's CIO', as he bills himself) has said the feds are considering the use of Microsoft's Passport technology to ID every citizen and every business seeking access to government services online."

Besides those doing taxes online, this pertains to a remarkably few individuals.

This has absolutely NOTHING to do with some fabled Microsoft National ID Card. You really should read things more carefully before launching paranoid rants based on a limited understanding of the topic at hand.

Re:I would think..

[madenosine]

AOL, Microsoft, or Oracle. Pick your poison.

(it is noteworthy that Microsoft is the only one with something concrete)

Re:I would think..

[Mockura]

"Microsoft are not renowned for having 'the best interest of the consumer at heart'"

Or the best security, either.

Oh, right, they took a class and fixed that...

Re:I would think..

[ADRA]

YEAH, well maybe I AM paranoid *jitter* *jitter*, so there mister boisterous "teller of the truth" guy, and crawl back to your "stable" lifestyle, and leave us to pertake in more useless uninformed banter, thank you very much.

Re:I would think..

[singularity]

Indeed, the government would never think to move things like vehicle registration online. Or voter registration. Or database access for things like zoning. These things might be done at the state level, but do you think that states will decide to do something vastly different than the Federal government?

Just because the only current use of government services online is people taking advantage of the IRS offering online tax submition does, in no way, mean that this will continue to be the only thing the government offers online.

Dept. correction

[datastew]

Should be the "keep-some-to-pass-down" dept.

WHAT PRIVACY???

[Ars-Fartsica]

How naive are we collectively? We haven't had privacy in a real sense since the 70s. You can be tracked by your driver's license. Your SSN, legally or not, is used at many banking sites as ID. Your credit history is widely available. Your viewing habits may be tracked if you have a PVR. Your employer can potentially listen to your phone calls. Your internet traffic is trivially observed....

And this was before 9/11! What privacy do you have to save? These people are just engaging in mental masturbation, there is no privacy, the point is moot.

Re:WHAT PRIVACY???

[madenosine]

You could always be tracked before, but now, it is easier for the govt. to track you and your habits, thus allowing them to track more people

Re:WHAT PRIVACY???

[Anonymous Coward]

What privacy do you have to save?

How about my ability to post as AC? Privacy does exist, I'd prefer to keep it that way. If you don't want people to know your credit history, don't user credit cards, if you don't want people to know your viewing habits, don't use TIVO, if you don't want people to know you SSN, don't give it out.

Re:WHAT PRIVACY???

[Ars-Fartsica]

If you don't want people to know your credit history, don't user credit cards, if you don't want people to know your viewing habits, don't use TIVO, if you don't want people to know you SSN, don't give it out.

So what is your point - I need to move into a cave and hunt for my dinner to get my privacy back? I'm talking about living in the real world, which is pretty much next to intolerable if you don't have a credit card or use your SSN as ID where people would like you to.

I'll stick to my original point - in real society you already have no privacy.

Re:WHAT PRIVACY???

[Safety Cap]

Look at it this way: you lock your house every time you leave for the day, yet any good thief could break in without breaking a sweat and pick the place clean. If it is futile, why do you still lock your house every day?

Now think about applying this scenario to your "rights" and your "privacy." Why not protect them? Why, for the same reason you lock your house!

Re:WHAT PRIVACY???

[GaryM]

I lock my house to keep out the opportunists and amateur thieves. An ID card would not stop the terrorists, as locking my house does not stop professional thieves, but these sort of measures are being justified by reference to preventing terrorism - which is as ridiculous as justifying locking your house to keep out professional thieves who can easily bypass your security.
But the point here is this - locking your house does not restrict your own freedoms, and does not invite discrimination based on your identity or profiling.

Re:WHAT PRIVACY???

[Anonymous Coward]

if there was already no privacy and there is nothing more to lose, then what more powers is the patriot bill trying to obtain. what would the national id achieve, since we already have no privacy?

Re:WHAT PRIVACY???

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, we have lost much of our privacy. That does not mean that we will never get any privacy back.

Many people value privacy, and the freedom of expression that it fosters, as opposed to the chilling effect that is caused by privacy invasion.

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
? Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790), Letter to Josiah Quincy, Sept. 11, 1773.

Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.
? President Thomas Jefferson.
1743-1826

Re:WHAT PRIVACY???

[Ars-Fartsica]

No, to follow your analogy, my house is already community property. People come and go as they wish, take whatever they like, and often don't even tell me they've been there.

Re:WHAT PRIVACY???

[Safety Cap]

An ID card would not stop the terrorists

Heck no, it wouldn't!

My point was that one needs to protect one's own privacy, even though Robert S. Mueller and his boys at the FBI could roll over you darn quick, it is the punks and opportunists that we need to keep at bay...and there are so many of 'em.

Re:WHAT PRIVACY???

[davinc]

How naive are we collectively? We haven't had privacy in a real sense since the 70s. ...What privacy do you have to save? These people are just engaging in mental masturbation, there is no privacy, the point is moot.

This guy got a 5 with that? So much for eternal vigilance, lets all just roll over and accept our destiny to have no privacy. Please. Man hasn't had "real" privacy since he has had neighbors with eyes, that doesn't mean we all should have just given up trying 10,000 years ago.

There IS privacy, and it always needs protection.

Monitoring won't help...

[dainkenkind]

I just fail to see how any monitoring of people's personal transmissions, web site viewing habits, etc. can help law enforcement against terrorists. Since 9/11 it isn't only the governmental agencies who are being more cautious about goings on around them, but also the terrorists. I would assume that terror rings, knowing the FBI, CIA, and other national security agencies are monitoring for possible terrorist activities on the internet will be more careful in the future to use public internet terminals, web email accounts, and encryption. This is just another ill fated attempt at law enforcement trying to get more power while they can, using public fears to convince the general population that it is needed.

Re:Monitoring won't help...

[Stonehand]

Not all terrorists are criminal masterminds, nor are the necessarily quick to adapt. Did the Mafia stop using phones even after wiretapping became a known tool of the US? No; in fact, it's still used to nail organized crime. Did the WTC bombers (the truck bombers, that is) behave intelligently? Not particularly; they managed to go back to claim the deposit on the rental truck used, which contributed heavily to the ease of catching them...

I wouldn't bet on them ALL being adaptable enough to switch communications systems that rapidly, or being shrewd enough to even try.

Re:Monitoring won't help...

[dainkenkind]

No, they are not all criminal masterminds, but you can bet that after the first mobster got nabbed with a wiretap that the directive came down the line that you had better not say anything stupid on the phone. Do you really think they call in to their thugs and say "I want you to whack Johnny Twinkletoes this weekend." Maybe a long time ago, but not now that it is a known technique. I would be willing to bet that if you are serious about planning a terrorist attack the likes of the bombing at the WTC or the 9/11 plane hijackings, that you are going to be seriously watching your ass nowadays. Before, it was just something that the american public thought was unconcievable (an attack on our homeland, that is), and they knew that noone was really actively looking at them. Post 9/11, what terrorist's paranoia level didn't jump through the roof?

Re:Monitoring won't help...

[LtSmith]

I don't think this is an attempt to grab power by law enforcement -- All of these new mesaureres are designed to give the appearnce of getting something (anything) done with little regard for the consequences.

Remeber Kids - Political Problems, Political Solut

[vkg]

Political problems, political solutions: we need to take political action to combat this stuff.

Privacy needs to be made a right, and we need to push back against being stripped of our rights at political levels: no amount of encryption in the world can stop you going to jail for using it.

Support GeekPAC - the beginnings of our voice in Washington.

I know where my privacy is....

[Ooblek]

Its right here between my legs.

Actually, I probably don't want to let anyone know that while I'm in San Fransisco. They might ask to see it.

But, what kind of read is it?

[Anonymous Coward]

What they think about @ /.
....should we call this....
- good read
- must read
- interesting read
- fun read
- amusing little read

Mmmmm Pork

[stoolpigeon]

"The homeland security budget is pork for the IT industry," said Andrew Schulman, chief researcher of the Privacy Foundation.

Thank God.

Throw some of that pork my way. I'm tired of the current job market.

.

What's a 'privacy'?

[Renraku]

When software can install itself without asking, and you're automatically bound by a EULA that gives it the RIGHT to do what its made to do, be it downloading your CCNs or checking your pr0n archives, we have little privacy. Sure, none of this is going to get back to anyone I know, but the information being out there is a nightmare. Imagine if you went to a pr0n site and started getting snail-spam from that site. Or you go to another site, and it automatically starts printing ads. Where does it end?

I know where my privacy is...

[MonkeyBot]

...there's a website that monitors it 24 hours a day with a webcam.

Do I Know? Yes!

[4of12]

My privacy is right here, close at hand, safely put away in

~/.mozilla/default/3i7x8mr8.slt/cookies.txt

Preaching to the choir ...

[ProfMoriarty]

I for one like my freedoms ... I would like more of them and less government interference/intrusion.

That being said, the problem with even the naming of the "Patriot Act" is that I consider myself a patriot to the United States, however I do NOT like the implications of this legislation. However, to speak out against it, the sheeple (those who don't know/care about the issues being raised) are feed the line that if you don't agree with this act, then you must be a terrorist.

Ok ... so if I'm forced to go along with it, at what point do we have to say NO MORE? By the time that we get some prominent voices logically explaining the situation to the masses, it will be too late. In Micro$oft we're forced to trust. We opted you in for your own good.

One problem is that if I attempt to start encrypting my email (to preserve my freedoms), two things would happen. One, I would have a really tough time convincing my Non-Technical friends to do the same, so we could carry on conversations. And two, I would be branded a terrorist, since I'm not following the herd.

This isn't the only thing to do, however it's a fairly easy concept to get across.

IF, and that is a big if, there was a large enough group together (in philosophy), we maybe able to stop this runaway train before it's too late.

Another problem with this whole area of legislation, is ... Who monitors the monitors? (to quote Enemy of the State).

Obviously, carnivore and it's brethern IS being used for survallance, but who is making sure that it's being used for good? Likewise, who would make sure that our MS Passports aren't hacked into? The CIA/NSA/FBI should be able to be trusted, but are they trustworthy? Microsoft ... well we all know where Microsoft stands in this matter.

I know that this is preaching to the choir ... just some points that I believe ...

Re:Preaching to the choir ...

[Stonehand]

On who monitors the monitors, it's the same issue as who polices the police, to a certain degree. The analogy would hold better for the FBI wiretapping since police abuses tend to be more noticeable, but...

You need a strong, independent (in the sense that the rest of the government does not pressure them) judiciary willing and capable of imposing severe penalties for corruption and abuse of power. Any government power can be abused, just about -- everything from a spiteful postman stealing your time-critical mail to an IRS insider facilitating the bogus "slavery reparations deduction" on people's tax returns to police shooting unarmed suspects and planting guns.

It's impossible to prevent governmental abuses unless it has NO power, in which case it might as well not exist. Even if you do in-depth psychological profiles and intrusively monitor their (the gov't workers) every action, somebody will try to abuse it.

When it comes to intelligence gathering, you'd likely need to have a strong internal auditing section dedicated to rooting out abuses or corruption, plus protection for whistleblowers. In addition, you'd need judges who pay attention to anything that's entered in as evidence, at least as to whether or not it was legally gathered...

Re:Preaching to the choir ...

[Verteiron]

Speaking of encrypted e-mail, I noticed something odd a while back. When I sent a PGP encrypted e-mail, it frequently took up to an hour for it to get where it was going. Regular messages moved at regular speed. GPG-encrypted messages moved at regular speed. I even tested this by sending three messages from one of my accounts to another, all at the same time. I had the plaintext and GPG one within seconds; the PGP one arrived 45 minutes later. Maybe Mediacom's got a carnivore on it or something, or maybe it's just some kind of weird fluke (it stopped happening about a month ago). This kind of stuff makes me wonder, though, whether someone in a suit is going to knock on my door and start asking me pointed questions about my political stances, just because I enjoy using PGP...

Isn't the whole point of the USA the fact that I shouldn't HAVE to worry about stuff like that?

Re:Preaching to the choir ...

[ProfMoriarty]

On who monitors the monitors, it's the same issue as who polices the police, to a certain degree. The analogy would hold better for the FBI wiretapping since police abuses tend to be more noticeable, but...

Ah ... you appear to be proving my point ... to a degree ...

In the case of police, it is very public. Even the local news ususally has information about it. Whatever else can be obtained by the Freedom of Information Act.

Now, we get into the hidden and very closed side of "homeland security". If there is an abuse of power with carnivore or another of its ilk, then who notices? If there is an internal "investigation", who notices? What if it encouraged to find traitors to the US (by any means possible)? What is not said may be loud and clear.

The biggest problem is that they are not publicly accessible, since it's for our good. And due to the "Patriot Act", if you question us and our motives, you must be a terrorist. The sheeple will roll over and accept this.

Now obviously, I'm questioning the policies that we currently have. I am still 100% behind the US, and I still think that it's a great place to live.

Re:Preaching to the choir ...

[Stonehand]

Of course it'd be used to seek out traitors -- or, more precisely, anybody whose loyalties would be "interesting" to the government. And yes, it'd be abused, perhaps for political reasons. I doubt that Nixon was the only president with an "enemies list", or the will to use it.

Much like how the intelligence establishment has abused its powers before and to this day, of course. For instance, the whole "sell arms to Iran for cash to redirect to the Contras" bit was quite illegal...

But for obvious reasons, opening up the whole list of intelligence activities to, say, public scrutiny, is not the brightest thing to do. A wiretap is most likely pointless if you alert the victim that when and where you're going to start tapping; even tipping a subject off that he IS a subject can bollix up an investigation. Hence, either such methods are not used at all, or they are used in secret.

If they are forgone, then logically existing wiretapping powers should be discarded as well, since they have the same issues. However, if you don't trust an intelligence establishment at all, you might as well completely emasculate it; no SIGINT capabilities of any kind, leaving largely HUMINT, parsing of public newsfeeds, and aerial recon. HUMINT may not work that well when dealing with homogeneous, fanatical organizations, in contrast to more mercenary types...

Re:You have no privacy

[stoolpigeon]

That is whacked!

I thought it was a joke and kept reading.

People are wiping their asses with spatulas!

Not a pretty picture.

.

I know where my privacy is!

[toupsie]

Its in the proverbial toilet along with my other civil rights like gun ownership, (2nd), freedom of assembly (1st), freedom from Government searches [i.e., searches at airports by federal employees] (4th) and Federally imposed mandates on the state I live in (10th).

Re:I know where my privacy is!

[hyperstation]

*personal* gun ownership is NOT a civil right, reread that amendment, you gun nut.

Re:I know where my privacy is!

[ADRA]

"Federally imposed mandates on the state I live in (10th)"

What, do you want rich states to leave annex themselves out of the country if they choose to? No. I don't think many would want states to have unlimited power.

Stupid example:
If the US made Microsoft breakup, Washington state would potentially loose tons of workers and their economy could go to hell awfully quick. To block the breakup, Washington breaks the union and becomes a seperate nation. Then Washington implements the I-LOVE-MICROSOFT law making it illegal to dis microsoft and especially bill gate. Prison terms for repeat offenders.. I am serving a life sentence.

Re:I know where my privacy is!

[mc6809e]

"What, do you want rich states to leave annex themselves out of the country if they choose to? No. I don't think many would want states to have unlimited power. "

I see. They're just here to be tools of the Federal Government. While you're at it, why not just ship whats left of the Berlin wall over here. We need to stop the rich from taking themselves and their money out-of-the-country. They might get away!

Re:I know where my privacy is!

[toupsie]

What, do you want rich states to leave annex themselves out of the country if they choose to? No. I don't think many would want states to have unlimited power.

If they wish and their population agrees to it through their state legislature. There is nothing illegal about that. Freedom means being able to break away from a governmental system that violates a population's desire. As for unlimited power, each state has its own Constitution that limits their power over the citizens. The Federal Constitution was not adopted to protect the Government from the People but the People from the Government.

I personally would like to see California leave the Union. :P

Re:I know where my privacy is!

[chocolatetrumpet]

> There is nothing illegal about that.

so much for the ol' civil war...

Re:I know where my privacy is!

[toupsie]

The term "Civil War" is a falsehood, it was the war of Northern Aggression!!! Yee-haw!

Weird...

[Anonymous Coward]

mine is

c:\windows\cookies\

What kind of 5uP3rL33t computer are you using ?

"difinitive solutions"

[happyclam]

Unfortunately, I doubt any "difinitive solutions" will come from this conference. I have never known any solutions to come from any conference of this type. Ideas perhaps, new discussions started, new alliances and enmities forged. But not solutions.

Privacy has always been and will always be shaped by three opposing forces: freedom, convenience, and safety. It's the job of the citizenry to ensure that these forces remain in relative balance and that none is given undue weight.

Too much emphasis on freedom, perhaps you are inconvenienced and perhaps your safety is compromised (wild west). Too much emphasis on convenience, and perhaps your safety and freedom are compromised to provide that convenience. Too much emphasis on safety, and certainly your freedom and comfort will be sacrificed somewhat to keep you absolutely safe.

So, are monitoring technologies in the hands of law enforcement going to abolish our freedoms and privacy? Not if we temper their use, as we have done with everything from personal search to wiretapping.

I'm not particularly worried, but I am certainly glad that there are people who are, for they are the ones maintaining that delicate balance that keeps those forces in opposition.

Re:WHAT PRIVACY??? I think I'll enjoy a FALAFEL WR

[Dwaynewayne]

I need a good chili recipe. One for really hot chili with beans!

Way back in the day...

[quantaman]

Remember way back some two years ago when Sun CEO Scott McNealy said "You have no privacy, get over it." To think, how far we've all come since then.

Hmmm

[NiftyNews]

/me checks pockets....

Well, I had it a minute ago...maybe I dropped it on the bus?

Yes I Know...

[Anonymous Coward]

it's in the trash with the rest of the stuff!

Our Founding Fathers were Gun Nuts!

[toupsie]

You are reading the preamble/introduction of the 2nd Amendment and declaring it law.

(Preamble)A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, (Law) the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

The part of "law" in the 2nd Amendment is "The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed". If this was not true, the 2nd would have been worded to "A well regulated milities is necessary to the security of a free state thus citizens have the right to keep and bear arms if they are a part of that militia". Our founders did not state the 2nd in that manner. The militia section was the reasoning why *all* citizens have the right to bear arms.

Also, the United States of America was funded by pot growing, gun nuts. If they didn't have the guns, they would have never been able to get the English off their collective backs.

Re:Our Founding Fathers were Gun Nuts!

[hyperstation]

i see the phrase "the people" to be collective, as in "the people of america", not individualy. of course i may be wrong. i'm not for repealing the 2nd amendment in any way; to do so would make us all wonder when they'll start doing away with the other ones (like the first).

however, just as the 1st is limited, i think the 2nd should be as well.

my 2c, and sorry for calling you a gun nut.

Re:Our Founding Fathers were Gun Nuts!

[toupsie]

The first eight amendments were meant to preserve specifically named individual rights. (The Ninth Amendment was meant to insure that no one would argue that those first eight were the only individual rights protected from infringment.) The people are mentioned throughout the Bill of Rights. Were the Founding Fathers so careless in constructing a legal document that they would use the word "people" when they meant the "state?" It is unlikely.

With your mentality about "the people", then only "the state" would have freedom of the press, the right against being search and the right against self incrimination. Your definition of "the people" is straight out of Marxism and not a Representative Republic. A Representative Republic deals with the population as individuals and Marxism deals with people as a group.

Also, what part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

Re:Our Founding Fathers were Gun Nuts!

[Eric Smith]

i see the phrase "the people" to be collective, as in "the people of america", not individualy.

Sure. And no doubt you also believe that "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures..." (Fourth Amendment) doesn't apply to individuals either, nor the right to peaceably assemble, nor the other rights reserved to the people?

If you were right, that would certainly be very convenient for the government. Want to search someone's house? Fine, he's an individual, not "the people", so no warrant is needed.

Fortunately, the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the phrase "the people" as written in the various Amendments DOES refer to individuals.

Re:Our Founding Fathers were Gun Nuts!

[hyperstation]

my point is, that you (and everyone else) should and do not have an absolute right to own a gun.

Re:Remeber Kids - Political Problems, Political So

[Anonymous Coward]

Stegnography!! (sp) Encrypt but make it impossible to tell you are :)

dumb typo

[toupsie]

I meant founded not funded but then again, I am sure they sold some of that pot to fund the Revolution.

Serious question to Slashdotters

[mc6809e]

On the issue of privacy:

Would it be possible to trade privacy for guaranteed freedoms? Such a thing might require a constitutional amendment, but hypothetically, suppose in exchange for your privacy you were given certain guarantees.

What limits would you place on the use of the information?

Of course, for many, privacy maybe a way to limit embarassment over certain things. Suppose EVERTHING were out-in-the-open. Would certain socially embarassing things become more acceptable? Would this give everyone a truer picture of human behavior?

Re:Serious question to Slashdotters

[happyclam]

Suppose EVERTHING were out-in-the-open. Would certain socially embarassing things become more acceptable?

An interesting thought. I've often thought that if everything were public, there would simply be so much noise that signal would be indistinguishable from the noise, even if you knew what you were looking for and where to look for it.

Re:Serious question to Slashdotters

[DEBEDb]

Wow, a rather insightful post.

Re:First post

[Archangel Michael]

First off, I thought you First Amemendment people would like to know the history (not that it matters to Leftists)of WHY there is a second ammendment. It was place after the first as a defense of the first.

You take away the second, who is going to be able to defend against the "political correctness" of the Nazi's and Communists and all other forms of totalitarian governments. Maybe you like the current "political correctness" movement, but in time that will disappear, and be replace by a political correctness like Nazi Germany or Communist China. Then again, maybe that is the type of government you would enjoy.

THE ONLY reason this country is one, (a country) is because of the second ammendment. You see, when they can take away your right to defend yourself, you will not be able to defend yourself against ANY brute whether it be state sponsored or just the mugger grabbing your purse.

It is ignorant people like yourself that endanger everyone in this country. If you hate Guns so bad, why don't you move to a country that doesn't have any, like China, or England?

I am sure though that fact really don't matter in an idealogical debate, they rarely do, but in every case were guns were outright banned, totalitarians were right there to take over. Not that it matters to you, you don't want to be confused with facts, you have already made up your mind.

Re:Things To Do Today

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually there is a game under similar title...Krush Kill'n'Destroy AKA KKnD =P

New Slashdot Poll...

[Anonymous Coward]

The Big Scary Guy is...

• Orson Wells&nbsp========>24%
• Richard Stallman&nbsp=========>27%
• Marlon Brando&nbsp====>13%
• CowboyNeal&nbsp===============>36%

Re:First post

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice troll, after all, the government really does allow you to effectively fight against it, as your firepower is really allowed to compete with theirs.

I'd hate to see an "armed citizenry" fight against the US government. It would be bloodshed, and instant death, for the (possibly enlightened and morally correct) fighers. Except they will be called "terrorists", and that, my friend, is how you will be made to remember them.

Didn't your mother ever tell you...

[crawdaddy]

NEVER let anyone touch your privacy parts!

Re:So you are willing to give up your privacy

[fr2ty]

I think what was so perfidious about the 9-11 incidents was that the attackers seemed to have achieved what could have been one of their goals: Disturbing a civil society to that extent that it questions its fundamentals and arrange its changing ideals around fear.

If somebody has attacked the basis of your community, and now it must be changed for defense - It's sad, but this is some strange kind of victory.

I am sorry for the trauma Americans are living with. It makes them do strange, cruel and even some stupid things from my point of view. Giving up privacy is such a thing.

Re:First post

[Archangel Michael]

Much Like our own Revolutionary War. But I am an extremist, believing that people have the right to bear all arms, not just ones sanctioned by the totalitarians in government.

Own a tank? Sure
Own an Uzi? Sure
Own an F16? Sure
Atom Bomb ? Sure

Besides if people aren't willing to die (and kill)for freedom, then they have already won!

People complain all the time about their rights being taken away, one at a time. Sure they are, but what are you willing to do to stop them? Nothing? Vote for corrupt politicians (they ALL have been bought)? Or just sit at home playing RPGs, wacking off to Pr0n, and watching Friends?

I am an advocate of Revolution against everyone standing in the way of True Liberty and Freedom, which by the way is only to be had by resposible people. What I find interesting is that nobody is willing to be responsible anymore, which makes a higher authority responsible for everything.

Which is the core problem as being described by people like you. You just don't like the consequences (ie take responsibility) for the actions you have taken.

Re:First post

[DEBEDb]

You see, when they can take away your right to defend yourself, you will not be able to defend yourself against ANY brute whether it be state sponsored

How many members of NRA will be able to withstand a well-trained special ops team with helicopters and tanks and all the wonders of the cutting edge technology? Please...

Is privacy a right?

[Arandir]

Okay, the heretical question of the day: Is privacy a right?

I don't think it is. Every other legitimate right that I am aware of hinges upon the ownership of property, including the ownership of the self. Do I own the information that pertains to me? Do I own Spamcentral's database entry that lists my email address? Do I own Megamart's correlations into my shopping habits? I don't think so.

Privacy is one of those things, like reputation, that one has to protect through other mechanisms than legal rights. Rule one: if you don't want people to know your email address, don't send email. Rule two: if you don't want Safeway to know your shopping habits, don't use your Safeway card. Rule three: if you don't want the government to know your travel destinations, don't take an airplane. It's damn inconvenient, but the fact remains that once you place your personal information into the public's domain, it becomes public domain.

Privacy is what you make of it.

The government should have no right to search your luggage at airports, because that luggage is your property. But the only thing stopping them from tracking your movements is propriety and decency, two traits which have been lacking in every government since Hammurabi's.

p.s. I find it somewhat ironic that the same community that argues that information should be free is the same community that screams the loudest when their personal information gets traded on the open market.

Re:Is privacy a right?

[PsiPsiStar]

First of all- do you know that the individuals who say 'information should be free' on slashdot are the same ones who want to protect their own information?

Second- there's a difference between putting information into the public domain and being forced to put it in to the public domain. It's the same difference between GPLing software and having the justice department force microsoft to open source its products.

Third- There is a legal precident for some privacy. Take anti-stalking laws. Take the fact that you own your home and can let people in, but aren't required to let anyone in who knocks. People can trade my e-mail all they want till they're blue in the face. I just want laws about who can use it, the same way there are laws about who I let into my house. If it's illegal to knock down a server with a DoS attack, there can be spam laws. Likewise, the supreme court recognized ( was it in Roe v. Wade? I don't remember) that a right to privacy was implied in the constitution because privacy was nessecary in order for the other components to be upheld.

If a person's personal information is used to harrass them with things like spam, then that should be illegal in the same way that I can't choose to harrass someone I don't like by calling them repeatedly.

Re:Is privacy a right?

[gnovos]

Okay, the heretical question of the day: Is privacy a right?

I don't think it is.

I'll give you that on ONE condition... that is it bilateral. If the government can know everything about me, then I want to be able to know everything about the government. Not just all the "secret" information about UFO's or whatever. I mean ALL the information, like, for eaxmple, which guy in line is going to be searched next, and why. I want to know what police do on thier days off, I want to hear the conversations Powell is having with Isreal, and I want to be able to read the credit card habits of the congressmen online. If they want me to give up my privacy, they had better be willing to give me all of thiers in return.

Re:Is privacy a right?

[gnovos]

information should be free

No, information WANTS to be free. "Wants" not "should". The difference is very big. Water "wants" to go down hill. This is physics at work, it is unchangeable. Whether or not it "should" is a matter of opinion.

Re:Is privacy a right?

[Arandir]

You are assuming that privacy is a right in and of itself. My opinion is that it is not a separate right, but a side effect of other existing rights. When you kid sister sneaks into your room and reads your diary, she is violating your right of personal property. When Yahoo sells your address to the highest bidder, they are violating your right of contract by reneging on their promises.

The government should have no power to invade your property to aquire your secrets. Nor should they engage in any sort of fraud. If a government form says they will keep your information secret, then they had better do so.

As for government secrets, I don't believe they should have any. Simply because you as a citizen are a member of government.

Re:Is privacy a right?

[davinc]

Privacy is one of those things, like reputation, that one has to protect through other mechanisms than legal rights.

That's an interesting view, but you can extend that in any direction and debate the need for law out of existance. Laws don't stop bad things from happening, but they do allow for legal recourse. I shouldn't have to avoid bars because I "may" run into someone who would like to kick my ass. I know I have protection of law that says if someone decides to hit me with a barstool, I can sue him. We could eliminate all such laws, but huge amounts of energy would be wasted. For example I might need to hire a body gaurd to protect myself, and everyone would need to register handguns. As it is now, someone can film you in the restroom with a hidden camera. If you find out it has been done, you have no recourse. You would prefer leave that hole in the law?

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...

That is a legal protection of privacy, and it has served us well.

The government should have no right to search your luggage at airports, because that luggage is your property. But the only thing stopping them from tracking your movements is propriety and decency

I don't know exacty what your point is here, since you seem to be arguing with yourself. Governments don't have rights. There is no Bill-of-Government-Rights. I would say that the government can and will do anything it wants, with the exception of what is listed in the Bill of Rights and other laws. And that alone isnt even enough, if people don't fight to protect any of those listed rights in court, they too go ignored. Propriety and decency have never been what keeps government in check. The aggressive defense of rights by citizens in a seperate court system has. This is why laws are important, you can't just AVOID contact with the government as you seemed to suggest.

p.s. I find it somewhat ironic that the same community that argues that information should be free is the same community that screams the loudest when their personal information gets traded on the open market.

1. Info wants to be free is the statement(as stated many times on this site)
2. Info isn't freeing itself when it comes from spying
3. Are we talking about govt or corporations now? You seem to be mixing the two together. I can chose a different store to shop at, I can't chose a different government to pay taxes too.

Re:First post

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is the core problem as being described by people like you. You just don't like the consequences (ie take responsibility) for the actions you have taken.

Buddy, for someone who condones violent revolution, you sure are prejudiced. I never stated my opinion, I merely asked the question of whether you would approve such ownership. I'm trying to raise questions for discussion.

Out of interest, do you put the cause of True Liberty and Freedom above your own life? That is to say, currently there is a huge imbalance of power in favour of governments, and the Prime Movers of a revolution would certainly be taking some risks. How far would you be prepared to go? Or are you going to wait until it's less risky? If so, when would this be?

Economic freedom?

[mc6809e]

At the moment, I'm glad many don't have these sorts of arms. If they did, you'd be on your way to living in a Socialist "paradise" right now.

Of course, the first thing they would do is take away all the arms. Who would want to rise up against a socialist "utopia?"

Re:First post

[Gordonjcp]

But I am an extremist, believing that people have the right to bear all arms, not just ones sanctioned by the totalitarians in government.



So, why not move to the UK then? You can get a licence for damn near anything. You just need to deal with assloads of paperwork before you can get a simple shotgun, never mind the hoops you have to jump through to get automatic weapons. But, if you persevere, and you're not a criminal, or a loony, and *really* like filling in forms, you can get a gun licence for pretty much whatever you like.

Re:I'm willing to give up my privacy?

[fr2ty]

A passport. No more fumbling around for yet another document while travelling.

I think you will have to spell that with a capital "P" soon.

I want the right to bare arms!

[Anonymous Coward]

But my country forces me to wear these long sleeved shirts! I AM BEING OPPRESSED!

Re: right to carry firearms

[King_TJ]

Umm, when you refer to "You All", please don't include me!

I'm always been an advocate of preserving the Constitutional rights of U.S. citizens to keep and bear firearms!

What's sad is that the framers of the Constitution didn't have the ability to envision today's society with gigantic computer databases capable of data-mining. Nor did they forsee parabolic microphones that can eavesdrop on conversations from hundreds of feet away, infra-red cameras that let you see past walls and curtains, and many other things. If they lived in this world, I think you'd see a pronounced right to privacy in there too.

Anyway, the right for individual citizens to own and carry firearms was a key piece of the "freedom" puzzle back then, and still is today. The bottom line is, without this right, citizens will always be forced to bow down to government that still has ready access to these instruments controlling immediate "life or death".

The gun control advocates are looking at the "big picture" with tunnel vision. They see killing (and accidental death) as a bad thing which clearly gets lessened if you take away citizens access to firearms. I don't really have an argument with that. It's just a question of values. Do we strive for freedom and liberty, or do we strive for control and safety? It's pretty easy to design a safe world, at the expense of almost all individual rights. But sorry pal, that's not the world I want to live in!

Re: Tracking behavior is a dangerous game....

[King_TJ]

The reason most of these plans settle for tracking identities and not individual behaviors is because humans are largely unpredictable.

Government already attempts to database individual behavior, largely with disasterous consequences!

Case in point:
My wife and I just had our first kid (a baby girl). Before we even got out of the hospital, we got a visit from the "Dept. of Social Services". The lady acted friendly enough, but both of us were rather confused as to why she was visiting us. She started asking a number of questions, starting out with where I worked, and proceeded to psycho-analyze my wife, followed by signing us up (despite our protests) to have a nurse come check on our daughter every week for the first year or two.

Only when we got a chance to look at a copy of the notes she jotted down (she accidently left them in our room) did we realize what was going on. When my wife was 15 years old, she tried to commit suicide. After that, one psychologist she went to was convinced she was mentally unstable and made notes to that effect in her medical records. (Other psychologists refuted that claim, and said she was simply a normal but upset teenager.) Apparently, the state automatically gets social services involved when they see someone "marked" in this way is having a baby.

Considering she's almost 30 years old now (as am I), this is insanity. I, too, had a difficult time growing up and often thought about suicide. So what? Am I unfit to be a parent now because of it? I dare say I'm better equipped to handle it if my child grows up having similar thoughts and problems!

Re:National ID cards: Silly

[Anonymous Coward]

These days, Id'ing is the stupidest way to fight terrorism. The terrorists of sep 11th were all "clean" before they did what they did. Heck, two of them received visas 6 months after sep 11th. Remember this is the age of the "suicide bomber" (its becoming a fashion, in fact, to do things that way. A decade ago people would have wondered about who would ever want to do something like that) where once is enough for them to prove their point. They aint doin something, then running away, then coming back to do it again for them to be afraid of being "tagged" as "bad guys".

Id'ing is STOOOOPID. You are dealing with a different kind of enemy, think differently.

Privacy v Security

[mge]

First principles....

1."I find it interesting that law enforcement isn't really at the table, Once you bring (the technology) to us, it's too late." Ron Davis, a captain in the Oakland, Calif., Police Department. One could read this as suggesting that increased government surveillance is a philosophical choice, sometimes made easier by having a vested interest (i.e. Ellisons's interested only if you run it on oracle).

2. Increased surveillance of the populace seems to be accompanied by decreased surveillance and supervision of those in power ... President Bush has done his best to minimize any further revelations about the history of his team's relations with his biggest backer by depositing his Texas gubernatorial papers not in the Texas State Library and Archives, where they'd be subject to the state's tough Public Information Act, but at his father's presidential library, where they may not be. - from march 03 NY Times.

3. How will this increased surveillance actually prevent terrorism ? The Sept 11 guys were legal imigrants / visitors to the US. What would have shown up about them ? How many foreign nationals come to the US to learn to fly ? How many foreign nationals who study together live together ?

4. On an entirely personal issue, could a conservative bush / cheney / rumsfeld government stand a person like Mark Bingham ?

the militia *IS* the people

[Anonymous Coward]

To hyperstation, who said "reread [the second] amendment", I say this: Reread the second amendment and the other amendments of the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution, along with some history of the times (ie. writings of Thomas Jefferson, Washington, the other founding fathers), in the context of each other. The tenth amendment clearly shows the distinction between "states" and "the people". Reread it.

You and others claim that the militia refers to the state, as the national guard of each state is sometimes called a "militia" in modern day speech.

Now, toupsie rebuts the militia argument quite well when he correctly observes that the law does not attach the condition "if they are in the militia [by the state national guard definition]" to the right of firearm ownership.

But he leaves out another quite good point against you (and others who favor "gun control"). The definition of the word "militia" is important. The definition which would apply to the second amendment would be the definition which was commonly used and understood in the day in which it was written. When the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were drafted, a part-time, paid military force was called a "select militia". As opposed to just a "militia", which was used to refer to all citizens capable of bearing arms. This is the same sense of the word militia which was used in The Federalist Papers and other debates of the time. This can be confirmed, if you wish, by consulting a dictionary published during that period.

One example of statutory law which recognizes individual arms ownership was passed in 1866 (much closer in time and to 1791 than today, BTW). The Freedman's Bureau Act, which acknowledged the "full ... benefit of all laws and proceedings concerning personal liberty, personal security, and [property], including the constitutional rights to bear arms.

So therefore, we can conclude two things:
1) "the people", as used in the Second Amendment, meant each individual person, not the state as a "collective".
2) "militia", as used in the Second Amendment, means the whole body of the people able to be armed with personal firearms. Not the state National Guards or any other government military force.

the militia *IS* the people

[plunix]

(forgive me for posting this twice - the first time I accidentally posted it as AC when I mistyped my password) To hyperstation, who said "reread [the second] amendment", I say this: Reread the second amendment and the other amendments of the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution, along with some history of the times (ie. writings of Thomas Jefferson, Washington, the other founding fathers), in the context of each other. The tenth amendment clearly shows the distinction between "states" and "the people". Reread it. You and others claim that the militia refers to the state, as the national guard of each state is sometimes called a "militia" in modern day speech. Now, toupsie rebuts the militia argument quite well when he correctly observes that the law does not attach the condition "if they are in the militia [by the state national guard definition]" to the right of firearm ownership. But he leaves out another quite good point against you (and others who favor "gun control"). The definition of the word "militia" is important. The definition which would apply to the second amendment would be the definition which was commonly used and understood in the day in which it was written. When the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were drafted, a part-time, paid military force was called a "select militia". As opposed to just a "militia", which was used to refer to all citizens capable of bearing arms. This is the same sense of the word militia which was used in The Federalist Papers and other debates of the time. This can be confirmed, if you wish, by consulting a dictionary published during that period. One example of statutory law which recognizes individual arms ownership was passed in 1866 (much closer in time and to 1791 than today, BTW). The Freedman's Bureau Act, which acknowledged the "full ... benefit of all laws and proceedings concerning personal liberty, personal security, and [property], including the constitutional rights to bear arms. So therefore, we can conclude two things: 1) "the people", as used in the Second Amendment, meant each individual person, not the state as a "collective". 2) "militia", as used in the Second Amendment, means the whole body of the people able to be armed with personal firearms. Not the state National Guards or any other government military force.

Only ONE credit card?

[Tony-A]

Several people have more than one credit card.
Some pay cash sometimes, credit card other times.
There is enough variability to make invasive data mining difficult at best.
A lot of myprivacy comes from my neighbors' unpredictability.

Re:Only ONE credit card?

[Ars-Fartsica]

Oh yeah, you really faked'em out with the old "multiple credit card" trick. They'll never figure that one out.

Re:Only ONE credit card?

[beertopia]

Several people have more than one credit card

[...]

A lot of my privacy comes from my neighbors' unpredictability.

Well, if he's using his neighbors' credit cards, it would mess up the data-mining, wouldn't it?

Absolutely

[Anonymous Coward]

Was the problem on Sept. 10 was we had too much privacy? Of course not. We had lost too much of our privacy before Sept. 11, and the "safeguards" didn't even slow the terrorists down one iota.

Related News

[Captain Large Face]

A major step forward in online privacy, P3P, was recently made a recommendation by the W3C.

• W3C
• P3P at W3C

Re:patriot act WE MUST ALL BE SHEEP.

[Anonymous Coward]

We had Bush Jr. foisted on us in a rigged election. Large portions of our Bill of Rights do not exist anymore due to the USAPatriot Act. National I.D. cards were part of the control systen in South Africa, Russia-- I dare say all police states. The folks in power are busy turning the government into a security state to control the unimportant poor and middle class. Two decades ago these same folks in power were busy cutting back the government "bureaucracy" responding to the poor and middle classes.
In Bush's endless "War on Terror" we have reprise performances by criminals from the Reagan/Bush eras and even some of their children. I came across this quote, ostensibly by Professor Fred Halliday of the London School of Economics who wrote it at the end of the 1980s:
"The most striking feature of the Reagan Doctrine was the way in which Washington itself came to be a promoter and organizer of terrorist actions. The mujaheddin in Afghanistan, UNITA in Angola and the Nicaraguan Contras were all responsible for abominable actions in their pursuit of "freedom" - massacring civilians, torturing and raping captives, destroying schools, hospitals and economic installations, killing and mutilating prisoners... Reagan was responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of people through terrorism."
Under President Bush Sr., came sanctions against Iraqi civilians, to which UN agencies attribute an estimated 1.5 million deaths, at least half of them young children. Every action, utterance and wink of the Bush regime should be greeted with suspicion. Nazi leaders also easily characterized some of what they did as response to partisan terrorism.

Re:First post

[Archangel Michael]

There are too many cowards in America to risk my life for them.

I condone violent revolution because our country was founded by it. If you don't condone violent revolution, then move to a country that wasn't, otherwise you yourself are condoning it, whether or not you realize it.

Re:First post

[pravda]

Sure, I can point you to a historical example of where a small
number of motivated people without training and with inferior
weapons held off a superior force: Warsaw and Lithuanian
ghetto uprisings. Check out the book, The Avengers, by Rich Cohen.

Or if you want an even better education, read the book
Unintended Consequences by John Ross and Timothy Mullin.