Slashdot Mirror
European Digital Rights Launched
felix.rauch writes "A new organization in Europe has been founded by 10 privacy and civil rights organizations from 7 different countries in the European Union. Members of EDRi will work together informing decision makers and the public about the upcoming threats to our privacy and civil rights. Good to hear that something good happens in these tough times for privacy and civil rights..."
Good to hear that something good happens in these tough times for privacy and civil rights...
Kum ba ya, my Gnu... Kum ba ya...
I have been pwned because my
This new organization is composed of (among others):
Chaos Computer Club, the internationally famous cracking society, one of the leaders in The ideals of Ethical Hacking.
Privacy International, An international group that researches and acts on Human Rights issues regarding privacy.
Quintessenz, a group that espouses the open source software model, and privacy rights.
VIBE!AT another Privacy/Linux group.
Is it just me, or does it seem like privacy is a fringe cause in Europe? Not a single large organization like America's EFF actually does anything in Europe! Correect me if I'm wrong here, but isn't this too little, too late?
I'm a concientious
Heading out to eden,
Yeah brother.
Heading out to eden,
Yeah brother.
No more trouble
In my body or my mind.
Goin' to live like a king
On whatever I find.
Eat all the fruit
And throw away the rind.
Yeah brother, yeah.
Steppin' out to eden,
Yeah brother.
Steppin' out to eden,
Yeah brother.
No more trouble
In my body or my mind.
Goin' to live like a king
On whatever I find.
Eat all the fruit
And throw away the rind.
Yeah brother.
I have been pwned because my
Well, here is one thing you can do, folks:
t
get involve in the current issue of data collecting by officials and parliaments
Otherwise it should become difficult to get new members when the official idea regarding the data is "all your data belong to us"
so, Felix - how about putting your signa in here?
www.stop1984.com/index2.php?text=letter.tx
By ALAN DERSHOWITZ
Who is Noam Chomsky, and why is he seeking to make universities divest from corporations that have ties to Israel? I have known Noam Chomsky for over 30 years. I have written about his zealous anti-Zionism and about his flirtations with neo-Nazi revisionism and Holocaust denial. I was not surprised, therefore, to learn that he is the inspiration behind the immoral campaign for divestiture.
I first debated Chomsky in 1973, several weeks after the Yom Kippur War. Chomsky's proposal at that time was consistent with the PLO party line. He wanted to abolish the state of Israel and to substitute a "secular, binational state" based on the model of binational "brotherhood" that then prevailed in Lebanon, where Christians and Muslims "lived side by side," sharing power in peace and harmony. This was just before Lebanon imploded in fratricidal disaster.
This is what I said about Chomsky's hare-brained scheme in our 1973 debate: "Putting aside the motivations behind such a proposal when it is made by the Palestinian organizations, why do not considerations of self-determination and community control favor two separate states: one Jewish and one Arab? Isn't it better for people of common background to control their own life, culture and destiny (if they so choose), than to bring together in an artificial way people who have shown no ability to live united in peace? I confess to not understanding the logic of the proposal, even assuming its good will."
My counterproposal was that "Israel should declare, in principle, its willingness to give up the captured territories in return for a firm assurance of lasting peace. By doing so, it would make clear what I think the vast majority of Israelis believe: It has no interest in retaining the territories for any reason other than protection."
Chomsky rejected my proposal, characterizing it as a return to the "colonialist status quo." Only the dismantling of the colonialist Jewish state would satisfy the PLO, and only the creation of a secular, binational Palestine in "all of Palestine" would satisfy Chomsky.
My next encounter with Chomsky revolved around his introduction to a book by an anti-Semite named Robert Faurisson who denied that the Holocaust took place, that Hitler's gas chambers existed, that the diary of Anne Frank was authentic, or that there were death camps in Nazi-occupied Europe. He claimed that the "massive lie" about genocide was a deliberate concoction initiated by "American Zionists," and that the Jews were responsible for World War II. Chomsky described these and other conclusions as "findings," and said they were based on "extensive historical research." He also wrote: "I see no anti-Semitic implication in the denial of the existence of gas chambers or even in the denial of the Holocaust." He said he saw "no hint of anti-Semitic implications in Faurisson's work..." including his claim that the Jews were responsible for the war. He wrote an introduction to one of Faurisson's books that was used to market its anti-Semitic lies.
In a subsequent debate at the Harvard Medical School, Chomsky denied having advocated a Lebanon-style binational state for Israel, only to back down upon being confronted with the evidence. He also tried to dispute the fact that he had authorized an essay written in defense of Robert Faurisson to be used as the forward to Faurisson's book, but again had to back down. He took the position that before Faurisson had written the book, he - Chomsky - had had no interest in "revisionist" literature.
When confronted by Robert Nozick, a distinguished philosophy professor who recalled discussing revisionist literature with him well before the Faurisson book, Chomsky first berated Nozick for disclosing a private conversation, and then shoved him contemptuously.
THIS, THEN, is the man who is leading the campaign for divestiture against Israel. He is joined in this ignoble effort by some who would take the money now invested in the Mideast's only democracy and have it sent to Iraq, Libya, Syria, Cuba, the Palestinian Authority and others who support and finance terrorism. These are not people with a long history of neutral support for human rights. They are a motley assortment of knee-jerk anti-Zionists, rabid anti-Americans, radical Leftists, people with little knowledge of the history of the Arab-Israeli dispute, and some of Chomsky's former students.
There is no intellectually or morally defensible case for singling out Israel for divestiture, and I challenge Chomsky to debate me on the morality of this selective attack against an American ally that is defending itself - and the world - against terrorism that targets civilians.
Universities invest in many countries that systematically violate human rights. None of these countries are defending themselves against those who would destroy them and target their civilians. Yet this petition focused only on the Jewish State, to the exclusion of all others, including those which, by any reasonable standard, are among the worst violators of human rights.
This is bigotry pure and simple, and those who signed the petition should be ashamed of themselves.
The goatse guy for president. Win one for the gaper!
It will be rather scarry if Europe adopts a stance like that. At least the American government can't do whatever they please whenever they like.
In Europe people tend to be a bit more critical towards the govenment's actions, let's see if it's realy important.
Lay
Weakly typed languages will bring us armageddon