Slashdot Mirror
HomeSec In the News
The U.S. Homeland Security bill is steamrolling through Congress, on target to be passed within a couple of days. Since its passage is guaranteed, in whatever form it finally ends up, lawmakers are attempting to tack on their own pet projects to the bill so they can ride its coattails. A CNet article mentions that a version of the Cyberspace Security Enhancement Act has been appended to the HomeSec bill. William Safire blasts the addition in the New York Times. The Times has another story on the bill that notes some of the corporate pork that is also being added to the bill.
Is there any legitimate reason for the US's current process to ammend a bill. The way that anything can be added, related or not, seems like a poor way to go about things, can anyone think of a positive reason for this power?
The president needs a line-item veto. Bush Sr. wanted it. Didn't get it. Clinton wanted it. Didn't get it. Until the president has the ability to veto the individual components of a piece of legislation, we'll always have this type of pork.
All of the corporations are salivating at the prospects of the all-Republican, all-the-time federal government. Every corporate giveaway they want, they'll get, not the least of which I predict will be more goodies for Valenti & Co.
I'd expect most of them to be tacked onto Defense or Security bills, since by this time all but the late Paul Wellstone are terrified politically of asking anything but "When do we vote yes on it?"
I'm sorry for saying this. It's not constructive and rather anti-US, I suppose.
But from all the things that look stupid about US politics from this side of the ocean, this phenomenon of tacking on loads of totally unrelated stuff to some bill must be the worst.
Has any politician who did this ever defended this process in public? Is there one politician left who takes this whole democracy thing seriously?
I believe posters are recognized by their sig. So I made one.
I love that they are going to give life for cracking, wether you are white, grey, or black hat. Yet, this very same group of people are not willing to do a thing to stop CEOS/CFOS such as Ken Lay or Anshutz/Nachio who literally steal and plunder off with 100's of billions of dollars.
BTW, We have all but shut down the company (Anderson) that was monitoring, but the company that did the actual theft.
We live in interesting time.
Bush Jr. (or any other president) would only use the veto to kill of the other side's pork and goodies, not his own. I'd also expect it to be widely abused by whoever's in power to promote their own political agenda, rather than for the good of the people to eliminate non-germane pork.
Corporate freebies tacked onto bills in the current environment will be allowed to stay, since they paid the current President and party for them.
It seems George Orwell was off by about twenty years....
Before everyone starts panicking over all our "lost privacy and rights", just remember what most working people have to do every year in April. The data collected by the IRS and the power the IRS has over everyone is enormous! Remember, both Nixon and Clinton severely abused the IRS' power by auditing all their enemies. The government takes all the money it wants to before you get any of it. They then redistribute to whomever they want to buy votes from (be it Corporations or Unions - take your pick).
This is nothing new and it's nothing that only "evil right-wing" conservatives do either. So, before everyone blasts this bill, think about the IRS and the power they already have (and have had for decades).
Just my $0.01 (after taxes).
Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not after you!
The House and the Senate are each Republican, with a hefty margin. The President is Republican.
The only consolation I have is that there are some kinds of laws that they simply can't pass without having them over-turned, because of the Consitution.
I have never had such an appreciation for our nation's founders, or the term "tyranny of the majority", until now.
God Bless America. And hold on to your britches: it's gonna' be a helluva' two years.
When did the word Liberal become an epithet along the lines of "motherfucker" or "idiot" or "cocksucker"?
Furthermore, why are there so many young people that are so conservative these days? It's scary. Conservatism in young people manifests itself as militarism and social Darwinism, and if that's what our country is going to become, no wonder the rest of the world wants us dead.
Time to start looking into Canadian job opportunities.
Reminds me of the law for luddites at the turn of the century .. it was called the "life for a loom" law. Basically, destroy a loom, and you die.
Typically, when people use technology in ways unforseen or unwanted by lawmakers (I'm not arguing that cracking systems is moral, but there are cases where it isn't immoral.), the punishment isn't really meant to suit the magnitude of the crime. Its mean to scare the shit out of would-be hackers.
"Old man yells at systemd"
It's a liberal cause to be concerned about needless amendments to legislation? I thought conservatives were in favor of restricted government power?
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
Well, it's very important to have the punishment fit the crime. After all, killing people deserves like 5 years in prison, whereas r00ting a box deserves what, life?
Clearly, the punishment fits the crime.
</Sarcasm>Beware he who would deny you access to information,
for in his heart he dreams himself your master.
the Line Item Veto would be narrowly defined to vetoing budget items, and probably wouldn't apply here.
Also, there's some debate that the Line Item Veto is yet another way that we are increasing presidential power. Some point out that the office of the president has gradually been accruing more and more power, and that it is upseting the balance of power in the government.
Personally, I support the Line Item Veto, but I can also see where it's detractors are coming from.
But then after complaining about Liberal being equated with a host of slurs, you insinuate a few of your own about the Conservative label.
Conservatism
Please, if you're going to gripe about labels, at least don't engage in the behaviour yourself.
"We're sorry, but the website you're trying to reach has been disconnected."
I'm no great Safire fan -- he is occasionally credibility impaired (he makes things up), his defense of Israel verges on blindness, he continually tries to rehabilitate his former employer Nixon, and so on. But on occasion he leaps out with the ferocity contained in the NYT column to defend civil liberties -- in the libertarian get-the-hell-out-of-my-backyard-you-government-spi es tradition -- and gets it right, in the morally correct sense. Because he has credibility with the right, his words here carry much greater political influence that a stack of Mother Jones and The Nation reaching to the Moon. And I am grateful for his courage; he could just as easily sit it out, or mouth the sonorous rah-rah rant of the police state crowd.
Ensure to us citizens a country of security -- but without devastating our own. I have seriously begun to contemplate using cash more than traceable credit, and I'm not particularly paranoid, and yes I "don't have anything to hide." I just don't like buying a bag of Fritos wondering whether it will eventually raise my health insurance premiums because I don't eat right. Don't laugh, it could happen, in a thousand ways less fritoless (er, frivolous) than my example.
Thanks.
Did anyone read Saffire's column? Unbelievable.
Here's the letter I just sent out to my representatives:
I am writing to ask you to make every effort to prevent the so-called "Total Information Awareness" system that John Poindexter and the Defense Dept's Information Awareness Office want to create. This system would systematically snoop on most every public and private action that you take. My understanding is that a provision of the Homeland Security Act contains this odious measure. As William Saffire says in the New York Times (or is quoting him a DMCA violation?):
"Every purchase you make with a credit card, every magazine subscription you buy and medical prescription you fill, every Web site you visit and e-mail you send or receive, every academic grade you receive, every bank deposit you make, every trip you book and every event you attend -- all these transactions and communications will go into what the Defense Department describes as "a virtual, centralized grand database."
To this computerized dossier on your private life from commercial sources, add every piece of information that government has about you -- passport application, driver's license and bridge toll records, judicial and divorce records, complaints from nosy neighbors to the F.B.I., your lifetime paper trail plus the latest hidden camera surveillance -- and you have the supersnoop's dream: a "Total Information Awareness" about every U.S. citizen"
This sort of surveillance should be absolutely repellent in an open and free society, and I am discusted that it is being considered at all. Personal privacy and government openness should be the hallmark of the United States. It seems that the Republican government wants to turn that on its head. This is an invitation to abuse - if we visit the ACLU web site are we going to be on some Defense Dept list? What about this letter? This measure would be an incredible chilling of free and open debate.
This measure must be defeated.
Thank you
Tom Haviland
It's called compromise. ["]I'm on the edge on this bill, but...if you give this to my state/pet issue you have my vote[."]
That's not called compromise, that's called bribery.
The way it should work: "I'm on the edge on your bill, but... if you agree to vote on my (different) bill, you have my vote on yours."
Unrelated bills and laws should not be tied together for any reason. If you can't get enough votes for your bill, then maybe there's something wrong with the bill, and then it should be discussed so a better solution can be found - and the better solution should not involve an unrelated issue.
There really oughtta be a constitutional amendment to outlaw or discourage bills that address more than one issue... Or something...
How about a "loopback" line-item veto?
Scenario: The President vetoes a couple of items, and thus "'passes' a statute other than Congress intended," as you aptly pointed out. The line-item-vetoed bill automatically goes back to Congress just like a vetoed bill, with one possible action added: Congress can vote on the bill as vetoed. If passed, it immediately becomes law without a return trip to the White House.
IMHO, that would keep the President's legislative power in check, while giving him an official feedback channel in the process. The possibilities for additional checks and balances that this system would provide seem to be worth examining.
Don't tell me, this is an old idea, right? Okay, go ahead and tell me.
Maybe if we all flood our Senators with the way we all feel about this bill instead of just ranting on Slashdot, they might actually notice. To get your Congressmen's email addresses (and links to their home pages for snail mail addresses) try this page . Maybe you didn't vote (not like most of us had much in the way of a choice), but it's not too late to tell these people how Americans feel about the laws they want to govern us with.
And is it just me, or are Congressmen's web pages very frightening places? I may have nightmares for days...
So what are you going to do? Bleed on me?
As a concerned 11th-generation American, I'm completely aghast at this latest bit of totalitarian legislation. Evidently, the CSEA (and the USA PATRIOT Act, for that matter) won't require *any* government agency to have "probable cause" to read/acquire anyone's personal information anymore. The Executive Branch will not even have to report to the Judiciary or Legislature on its frequent-as-you-like cyber-dragnets. Just in case you Americans out there on /. weren't aware of it, the United States Constitution is supposed to protect you from this sort of unfettered tyrannical power. Here's the text of the Fourth Ammendment:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
("and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause" - well, I guess if we don't bother with the warrants anymore, it's not really violating the Constitution, now is it?)
Granted, the Founding Fathers didn't include "emails" in the text. However, any reasonable interpretation of the intent of this Ammendment must include emails and other personal communications (as these protections had been extended to telephone conversations).
Our government now has unlimited powers. My tax collector and the Dept. of Education may get to snoop into my private life at will. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: we no longer have a Rule of LAW in this nation. We now have a Rule of POLITICS. The politicos, the senators and congressmen who may pass this anti-American rubbish into law, should they do so, will be in direct violation of their oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.
We are now ruled by the lawless (viz Adm. Poindexter, convicted felon). And by the time We The People give a damn, Soviet Russia will look libertine in comparrison!
I just hope I don't get arrested for saying that one day.
"Sic transeunt omnia."
I mean, they're sure to screw it up.
t_t_b
I'm on PJ's "enemies" list! Are you?
Conservatives lose out, so why are they all for propping up unethical corporations? What about all the defense contractors that got fat under Reagan?
This may be a tough concept for you to grasp, but could it be that defense contractors made money because we were buying more product from them?
So, what is your point? That companies who offer products that the government need make money?
There's a difference in a line in the sand and the bottom falling out. If Enron hadn't killed themselves by faking everything about their business and spreading their revenue out among all the paper subsidiaries, they'd still be going. There was no great crackdown on them by righteous crusading Republicans, they went bankrupt. If they would have went bankrupt in 1999, you'd be saying Clinton drew the line in the sand. Oh wait, no you wouldn't.. everything that happens is the result of Reagan or one of the Bushes, Clinton didn't do anything - that's Republican doctrine, my bad.
Actually, if I recall from the 60 Minutes episode I saw, Enron should have gone bankrupt in 96 or 97, but they lobbied the Clinton administration and received a pass on their accounting audit, several years in a row.
So, until they took the White House in 2000, how does Enron involve the Republicans? Congress doesn't have their thumb up the ass of every corporation in America, there's plenty of government agencies under the President's control for that.
Do you think that it's even possible to get to Level 7 anymore? To create a movement with more than a handful of participants, you need some serious communication. With the power that is in the hands of the federal government now, it's a trivial exercise to stop this kind of activity before it gets a chance to orgainize (with subtle threats and/or payoffs).
Your example of bringing Wall Street to a standstill by a walk-out of all IT workers sounds like Level 7 to me. How would you propose to organize such an event? You certainly couldn't do it quietly. You would be undermined in your efforts by the businesses you are trying to affect (their employees threatened with firing if they participate), and you yourself would likely be charged as a terrorist! All the rest would quietly fall back in line.
The civil rights battles of the '60s worked because the issue (black inequality) was one that all but the most bigotted person could see the truth in, and because there was such a large population of people who felt oppressed. It certainly didn't hurt that they were represented by a brave and charasmatic leader in Martin Luther King.
What's different today? Well, far fewer people (as a percentange of the population) are concerned enough with privacy and freedom to make enough noise to the apathetic majority. We don't have someone (yet) willing to stick his neck out on a grand scale (and likely die) for these issues. And (as I said above) the ability of the government to quietly diffuse dissention has improved by an order of magnitude since the '60s.
Unfortunately, it seems to me that there are no intermediate steps any longer. The percentage of the population that falls into the "pissed off" catagory will grow until we hit Level 9 spontaneously, and that will be exceptionally ugly. It will also take years (with no previous levels to gather organization, the revolt will be chaotic and largely ineffective for a long time) for the current regime to fall, and the "new regime" will take that much longer to establish itself. Don't expect a united country when you're done with this, either: after such a period of chaos, there's no way anybody could pull the whole of the country back together, at least not right away.
Maybe China will invade first, and the US will be spared self-destruction.
Look at the tomato! Isn't it sad? He can't dance! Poor tomato!