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.
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.
Ever since Washington and Jefferson, this is how Congress has worked. And patriotic Americans understand that trying to dismantle the political process doesn't show proper solidarity and unity of purpose. Please don't post this kind of story in the future.
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.
MSNBC has a good article up about this"
A last-minute addition to a proposal for a Department of Homeland Security bill would punish malicious computer hackers with life in prison.
Don't even try to put all of the blame for this on Republicans. Democrats and Republicans are equal opportunity pigs when it comes to piggyback legislation.
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.
Wow... The same site that screams FUD when it comes to an OS will allow this kinda post every day. IT's sad.
Keep in mind that the newly elected congress hasn't started yet. Yes, this is still a democratic majority that is letting this happen.
--nw
http://www.theMediaBunker.com
You do realize that he's right though? I mean its pretty much proven that both parties are whores, but the Republican party is especially fond of corporate handhands as the expense of consumers.
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
I'm not blaming the Republicans for the phenomenon, but I will blame them for the large amount of corporate giveaway we'll see in a Republican controlled house, senate and presidency.
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!
Right, but now we've got one party in power. So whomever that is will be the greivous offender for the next two years. Much more so than when the power is divided.
I'm a conservative. But I find unchecked Republican power much more frightening than unchecked Democratic power. The Democrats are just inept...
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
Yes. Adding ridiculous provisions to a bill is another way to stop it from passage. Add enough crap and when it comes up for final passage, it will be voted down because instead of a $200 million dollar bill its turned into a $2 Billion dollar bill.
The legislative system has many places like this where it is possible to destroy a bill. Remove it, and you give the majority more power in Congress.
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.
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.
The immediate problem with the line-item veto is that it is unconstitutional. Sometimes the Supremes get it right (6-3). :)
So of course it could be enacted as a constitutional amendment. This would be a grave error IMHO, as law-making authority belongs with the lawmakers, in Congress, not the White House, which has the veto as final sanity check on Congress (and over which the Framers pointedly permitted a 2/3 vote of Congress to override). A line-item veto would wreak havoc: the President would be able to "pass" a statute other than Congress intended (there's no reason the President would be limited to so-called pork -- why not dissect the statute's principal topic?). Why would anyone have this great faith in a single person to do the right thing -- Presidents engage in pork barrel politics, too, and surely we can all think of at least one President on the last thirty years we wouldn't have trusted with this.
If you have a problem with the lawmaking process, don't increase the power of a lone executive with whatever agenda; focus on the 535-member Congress, as the Framers intended. They did not want a monarch, or even an imitation one.
In fairness the debate on this is long and complex. I won't pretend to present or be able to present a full balanced picture. But grant that the issue is much more complex than a magic bullet for pork-barrel abuses, and look into it more than sound bites permit.
there's an override provision.
Best Slashdot Co
(Emphasis mine)
Apparently prior to 9/11 ISPs were prohibited from giving away that information without a warrant. Now they are allowed to, but apparently not compelled to. This is an important distinction. Would an ISP violate customer faith and give out this information in situations that really don't warrant it? I doubt it. I doubt they'd give away anything without a warrant, allowed or not, simply because it costs money to store that all that crap and then look it up.
That's why many people were pushing for the line-item veto power for the President awhile back (1996) and it was passed by the Republican controlled Congress. President Clinton used it several times to trim out pork items from bills and saved billions of dollars. I believe it was ruled unconstitutional in 1998 though. Personally I think it was one of the greatest laws ever passed and should become a Constitutional Ammendment. The amount of utter shit that rides along on popular bills is amazingly sad.
While the Homeland Security Bill is most certainly assured to pass now that the Republicans will control all of the 108th Congress (don't forget, its still the 107th, and the Dems still control the Senate) that doesn't mean all of the items being tacked on by the Senate will actually make it into law.
The House of Representatives already passed HR5005, the Homeland Security Bill, and did so with such tight rules that there was no chance for riders to be added. As such, when the conferees from the two houses to sit down and rectify the differences in the bill, the House will not have the pork that the Senate has... and I would go so far as to say that much of the pork will be stricken.
The computer hacking bill, on the other hand, has already passed the House. I was actually in the gallery at the time and watched the bill pass without a single objection. Even the floor leader managing the opposing side was in support of the bill. I don't know where "our" lobbyist was on this issue, but it was already decided long ago.
During the last few weeks of Congress there is a "great sucking sound". In other words, all of the bills that have been stuck in committee are suddenly tacked on to popular bills. Its been going on for years, and it is actually one of the few things that diminishes the power of the committee system, which in itself has some highly undemocratic practices. But that doesn't mean those items make it pass the conference committee.
Oh, and one last thing, about the line-item veto. Its not that the President's want it and didn't get it... Congress granted the power but the Courts ruled in unconstitutional because the President is not supposed to be vested with such power. If he did have that power, what would stop him from taking off items that would help members of the opposing party while keeping on items that help his own party? No, the power of the purse needs to stay in the hands of Congress. But we as voters need to stop rewarding Congressmen just because they send $50,000,000 toward our district.
Only 120 characters... who can summarize their entire world understanding in 120 characters?!
Anyone else reminded of the Simpsons ep with the meteroite? (This is from memory, so don't flame me because it's not word-for-word.)
Senator introduces bill to save Springfield, everybody is happy.
Random Senator: "I'd like to add an amendment to that bill to allow funding for the perverted arts!"
Head Senator: "All in favour of the amendment"
Everybody else: "Yay"
Head Senator: "Motion Passed. All in favour of the Save Springfield/Perverted arts Bill"
Everybody else: "Nay"
- cut to Kent Brockman
Kent Brockman: "I've said it before, and I'll say it again, democracy simply doesn't work."
SLASHDOTIA - The community known as Slashdot has announced today it's decision to secede from the United States of America. President and Commander(Taco)-In-Chief Rob Malda made the announcement shortly after new announcements came of ridiculous "rider" bills being tacked onto popular legislation.
Mr. Malda was quoted as saying, "with a Republican controled [sic] house and senate, we are loosing [sic] our RIGHTS as Americans! Well, those of us from Slashdot that live in America, that is. Therefore we are announcing the immediate secesion [sic] of Slashdot from the United States of America. We are drafting our Declaration of Independance [sic] as I speak. Thousands of my fellow Slashdotians are currently modding proposed wording for the decleration [sic] up and down, right now." He added, "Of course, I will be in charge of the final proofreading."
Fellow Slashdotian staffer Roblimo was quoted as saying, "Yes, we are hoping for a declaration that is +5 Insightful, but I fear we could end up with +5 Funny. It really depends on who happens to be participating in the conversation for the 1 hour it will take us to draft the document."
When asked how Slashdot -- devoid of a military -- figures to fair any better than the South did during the Civil War, Mr. Malda simply responded, "Two words: Slashdot Affect. [sic]"
Back to you, Dan.
"And like that
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."
Lets see in the US gov't we have the following agencies to "protect" the citizens
CIA
NSA
FBI
ATF
DEA
And probably a few others. All of these agencies are empires in their own right and the interface between them is largely opaque and there is lots of redundancies and external friction.
Why do we need another empire!
BTW, Canada has one the RCMP.
That is the reason why adding amendments to bills is unrestricted
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
Will this get rid of those X-10 pop-up ads? If so then I'm all for it!!! ;)
(and I don't need to hear about how Mozilla can block those, I already know)
47% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
I wonder... is email header information analogous to the address, return address, and postmark of a snail-mail letter? Is the post office currently allowed to track these w/o a warrant?
How much time would the gov waste if we all sent blank emails to Kabul?
How about a flat tax break? Everyone pays %2 less. Or, better yet, everyone pays $1000 less. If you're already paying nothing... you get nothing. Liberals would have shut up, I guarantee you.
Ask an economist... the capital is there already. We're just worried that the consumer doesn't have the money to buy. Right now we need trickle *up* economics. Capital gains/high end income tax breaks aren't going to make people invest when those investments can't make money anyway.
The socialized welfare garbage is stupid... it's just also inneffective. The best example was the Democrats arguing over unionization of the homeland security agency. Who cares?
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
WADR,
The thread is about un-checked power. I find it more than ironic that the same Conservative idealoges, like Safire, who a few days ago were gloating over the so-called Democrat debacle and basking in the sunshine of pending tax cuts, now see that the Right Wing of the Republican Party and his Conservative/Libertarian instincts, are not the same thing.
If the Federal Government gets these new functions to collect information, it will be just the first step in a series of new powers that could lead to a social, political and cultural disaster in this country. Every year in the US tens of thousands of people die driving cars. It is tragic, and it has never had a direct effect on our personal freedoms and rights. Over a year ago 3,000 people parish, just a tragicly as the car deaths, from an act of terroism that has effected many other places in the world, but came here for the first time with a bang, and almost overnight our personal freedoms and rights under the Constitution are under seige. Is the Right Wing of the Republican party that opportunistic, or is this a co-ordinated attempt to re-order society to fit a venal and dangereous ideal of how humans should live their lives? It is time for men and women of good will to start asking these questions and demand answers. If we don't, forums such as this one could become a thing of a past we will be damned for not protecting.
There ARE ALWAYS checks. The citizenry can recall elected officials. If we made a mistake by electing Republicans, then in two years we can correct it. However, I believe, the Republican philosophy is better suited for the world we live in.
Our economy will certainly (hopefully) get a jumpstart if nothing else
--Joey
I had submitted this message to my fraternity Egroup. It seems appropriate here.
k C: www.clsp.jhu.edu/ws2000/presen\a ry/jim_mayfield/homewood_ir_tutor ial.ppt+darpa+tides&hl=en&ie=U\
d c.upenn.edu/Projects/EARS/
a vios/1184 -1.html
n _langua ge.shtml
l . ht ml
.edu (learning institutions, .mil (US Military, they are funding
TIDES
http://216.239.53.100/search?q=cache:1jQijQR-t9
tations/prelimin
TF-8
EARS
http://www.darpa.mil/iao/EARS.htm
http://www.l
SPINE
http://www.speechtechmag.com/issues/7_5/
QANDA, KL-WEB, and more info on TIDES
http://www.mitre.org/technology/mtp01/huma
Copy and paste what is needed.
Hmmm...
Now what could I do if I had a system to automatically transcribe
human-to-human speech over the phone??
Maybe I'd put it in a big fat fucking database, and use some of the
other contextual data-mining techniques to give me some useful
information.
Read for yourselves, and make up your own minds.
I purposedly didn't put forth some kind of fucked-up conspiracy
theory, but the sources do not lie.
The US government IS going to put all electronic info in a database -
that is NOT contested by anyone. It is a law that will soon be passed,
as mentioned in the earlier "Homeland Defense" email.
DARPA is spending a lot of money on text-to-speech.
With those two facts in mind (they are FACTS, not speculation), read
some of the web pages above. The language is fucking spooky.
Automatic transcription of phone calls, context-sensitive search of
text (from the transcripts, or the e-mails, or the web pages you look
at, etc...), and other bullshit.
ROAR
http://www.hltcentral.org/page-975.0.shtm
http://www.darpa.mil/ito/Solicitations/RFI_0103
This one is fucking scary, that is all I have to say.
Notice that most of my sources are either
the ones who develop the tech) or
the projects).
These are not tinfoil-hat wearing conspiracy theorists.
Again, read for yourself and decide.
I've overclocked my brain!!!
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.
NEW HOMELAND SECURITY BILL DROPS INVESTIGATION INTO 9-11.
I guess we don't need to know what happened, just what we were told what happened by the president.
Hammer of Truth
Is there any legitimate reason for the US's current process to ammend a bill.
Of course there are - legislators need some ability to edit the legislation that is submitted to them from the committees. BUT, there are also many illegitimate uses of the ammendment process as well. Since the threshold is lower to pass an ammendment than a stand-alone bill you can abuse it in ways that have nothing to do with editting a bill to make it better. If you want something that wouldn't pass on it's own you can tack it on to a completely unrelated bill that will pass (usually something absolutely essential like the spending authority - no one is going to shut down the entire US government just to kill your little pet issue). If you don't like an otherwise popular bill you can tack on unpopular ammendments to ensure it's defeat.
This is why Presidents like the idea of a line-tem veto they can strip out all the special interest clutter without killing the entire bill. Of course that adds a lot of Legislative power to the Executive branch in a way that can also be abused. It would be better if ammendments had to at least show some degree of relatedness to the bill in question. But who would decide which ammendments were legitimate or not? You know that power would be abused. And the ammendment we are talking about here would obviously pass such a test - as wrongheaded as it is it is certainly pertinant to a homeland security bill.
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...
The big problem is the increasing scrutiny that we will all fall under. And the fact that we are moving towards a war under the vaguest of terms. Hate to do it, but I'm gonna have to drop a quote:
"The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power... Power is not a means; it is an end...not power over things, but over men...In our world there will be no emotions except fear, rage, triumph, and self-abasement...There will be no loyalty, except loyalty toward the Party. There will be no love, except the love of Big Brother... Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face, forever. " - George Orwell
http://action.eff.org/action/index.asp?step=2&item =1723
> When did the word Liberal become an epithet
.
Newt Gingrich started the game back in 1994 when Bush Sr. lost the 1992 election. They put together a plan to make the world "Liberal" worse than "Communist" and basically wage the same war on the Democratic party that they waged on Communists before that. For more enlightenment, read David Brock's Blinded by the Right
It doesn't go both ways though. I have never met a Democrat or Liberal that responds to the other side with the same visceral reaction as a conservative when you say, "Liberal"
Conservatives have learned since 1992 that if you say something enough times people will take it as conventional wisdom. For example, despite the fact that the media in general has been giving G.W. Bush a free ride since Sept 11, 2001, they still claim there's a "Liberal bias" to the media.
Insert simplistic political, ideological, or personal proselytization here.
Umm which party was it that has had senators step down and presidents questioned over illegal campaign contributions? Yes that would be the Democrats I believe.
... sure.
/soapbox
I don't think it matters what side of the aisle you are on there are illegal corporate goings ons within the parties.
I'm tired of that same huge wide brush that gets painted over and over again, Republicans are for the rich, the corporations and right wing that want to remove abortion! (nevermind the conservative justices on the supreme court have upheld it) and the Dems are for the little guy, the average joe and the environment, think of the children! vote for the Dems! Funny how top ranking Dems *cough*Al Gore*cough* and interestingly enough the Entertainment industry use that brush the most. Hmmm they don't have an agenda at all do they? Just out for the little guy
Then when the citizens of this country (however dumb you may think they are) voted the Republicans into power, all the Dems got their panties in a tizy and Al Gore came on TV and cried how unfair it was. (Not that I'm saying the Republican's wouldn't have done the same).
The problem with politics in this country is that somewhere along the way the politians started putting Party before Country and People. Washington wonders why there is such division in the country. I say its because all the people who vote have a vested interest in one party or the other and no one else cares. If they want to see the apathy go away then both parties need to put the people back in power. Senators and Representatives need to stop listening to the special interest groups and educate themselves on the issues
Finally the Party system should go away. I don't believe the original framers wanted political parties. They wanted individuals chosen by the people. We need to get rid of this Dem/Republican crap once and for all.
The Anti-Blog
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.
Don't get me wrong, I had a lot of bones to pick with Bob Barr, particularly when it came to the religious freedom of our Armed Forces. But I'm sad to see him go, because now we need privacy advocates more than ever before.
Finding God in a Dog
The bill also tacks on loosely worded research funding for Texas A&M. It also lets the White House decide who gets hired and fired, bypassing employment standards regulations (who's gonna be suprised when it's 99% white?). The government can now slap wiretaps whereever they think appropriate, and ISPs can divulge information without fear of reprisal. The nice people who make the smallpox vaccine are now protected from litigation, as are the nice people who make metal detectors, and the nice security guards who man them. So when the big bad man carries his briefcase of smallpox through JFK International, you won't be able to sue anyone for reading Archie Digest when he was supposed to be watching the screen, and when it turns out your smallpox vaccine was in fact a dose of really, really dilluted cherry Kool-Aid, well, sucks to be you.
In other news that undoubtedly went unreported, your faithful representatives have bitten the bullet, and given themselves another pay raise. Now your Reps, Senators, VP, and about 1000 other people (literally) make over $154,000 a year, not including kickbacks, expense budgets, under-the-table exchanges, contributions to their re-election fund...
God Bless America.
(I'm legally required to say that, now that Bush signed a bill re-emphasizing the importance of "God" in the pledge of alleigence, as well as "In god we trust" as your national motto. So much for separation of church and state, eh?)
(And before your left-wingers start running your mouth off, I'll point out that the Democrats didn't oppose any of these bills, admitting that the soon-to-be Republican majority would make the effort useless. So much for standing up for what you believe in.)
If I knew the wedgies I gave you back in 6th grade would have resulted in this . . . I might have taken a moments pause.
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?
Does anybody feel perfectly represented by their nation's government?
If you were listening to All Things Considered last Friday night, you'd know the answer is "no". The Voice of the People survey, conducted by Gallup, interviewed 36,000 people from 47 different countries. Two-thirds disagree that their country is "governed by the will of the people". In only four countries did a majority of respondents agree. They are the Dominican Republic, Israel, Luxembourg, and Malaysia.
Hey kids, there's only 5 days left 'til Yak Shaving Day!
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?
Hackers will face harsher penalties if they knowingly cause, or attempt to cause, death or serious bodily injury using the computer as an "instrumentality" for committing their crime. Although there is room for debate about how this provision will be implemented, it seems reasonably limited to distinguish garden-variety hackers from hacker-terrorists.
Society has always been sickened by those who posess tools, knowledge and position but chose to harm others. Without the text of the abomination before me I can't really judge it, but it looks like a provision to punish people who try to harm others with a computer. It's strange that the federal government would wish to add this federal crime on top of the normal state laws against murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, etc. regardless of tool used. Not too strange when you consider that government always seeks more power.
Consider the source for the accuracy of the statement, "... [the] bill would punish malicious computer hackers with life in prison." M$ would like to lock up people that interfere with their ability to extort money from the public. This is why they continue to use inflamatory terms like "pirate" to describe file copy without permission, and put negative conotations on terms like "hack". They only wish they could put "hackers" in jail and are doing everything possible to convince the public that it is morally correct to do so. It's foolish to even think in those terms, but trust M$ to help themselves by putting the words into your mind in that form. Some "news" is better left unread. The MSNBC article is obviously not a good one.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
OK,
We all knew that this was going to happen. Most of us, anyway, saw it several years ago. DMCA, Stamp Tax. SSSCA, Tea Tax. Homeland Security Act, Boston Massacre. Did any of you pass American History? America did not rebel because Britain suddenly unilaterally invaded the shores with thousands of troups; It rebelled because the British Parliament steadily eroded what the colonists perceived as their basic rights. Insert citizens for 'colonists' and congress for 'parliament' and you'll see we find ourselves in exactly the same predicament now.
On the one hand, you have a legal/democratic system that supposedly protects and represents your rights as a citizen. On the other hand, you have the reality of experience which says that congresspeople in D.C. don't really give a damn what you think. Frankly, your name isn't on that fat check they got for their reelection. Therefore, you don't count.
So, the question once and again is, what are you going to do about it, sitting in your dimly lit basement out in suburb USA? Let's look at the list of possible responses:
1. Do nothing. Result: This stuff still happens and pisses you off
2. Bitch on Slashdot. Result: This stuff still happens and pisses you off.
3. Write a letter to your Congressman. Result: This stuff still happens and pisses you off.
4. Vote. Result: This stuff still happens and pisses you off.
5. All of the above and join the EFF. Result: This stuff still happens and pisses you off.
6. Stand up and protest, take to the streets. Result: people in power pay lip-service to your cause. Mostly, this stuff still happens and pisses you off
7. Go on strike, refuse to return to work until stuff changes. Result: People in power pay lip-service to your cause, try to co-opt the outrage of your movement for their own gain. Pretty much this stuff still happens and pisses you off.
8. Form a political party and vote for candidates who support the way stuff outta be. Result: Opposition parties roll over and fawn over your agenda while working behind the scenes to undermine it.
9. Armed insurrection. Result: A whole lotta innocent people die. Old regime is sent to the wall to be shot. New regime ?
The way I see it, slashdotters and champions of liberty ought to be on level 5 looking to jump to levels 6&7. Bring Wall Street and every corporate LAN to a standstill with a sick-out and you'll start to see some action. Advancing to higher levels would be great, but anything less will get you a big fat nothing.
Now, as my high school history teacher liked to say: "chew and digest."
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
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.
also: http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/11.15E.thomas.con
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2002
Journalist Helen Thomas condemns Bush administration
By Sarah H. Wright
MIT News Office
Veteran journalist Helen Thomas brought the grit and whir of a White House press conference to Bartos Theater on Monday evening, speaking with passion about the media's role in a democracy whose leaders seem eager for war.
Actually, the 82-year-old former United Press International reporter didn't just speak: she surged into her topic, giving everyone present an immediate sense of the grumpy wit and fierce precision that gave her reporting on American presidents Kennedy through Bush II such a competitive and lasting edge.
"I censored myself for 50 years when I was a reporter," said Thomas, who is now a columnist for Hearst News Service. "Now I wake up and ask myself, 'Who do I hate today?'" Her short list of answers seems not to vary from war, President Bush, timid office-holders, a muffled press and cowed citizens, pretty much in that order.
Angered by what she views as the Bush administration's "bullying drumbeat," Thomas referred early and often to her own hatred of war, quoting from poets and politicians to bear down on President Bush and his colleagues.
Winston Churchill, Alfred Lord Tennyson, Louis Brandeis, George Santayana, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson and Martin Luther King Jr. all made appearances in Thomas' sweeping portrayal of what she sees as the administration's betrayal of both the character and will of the American people and the principles of democracy.
"I have never covered a president who actually wanted to go to war. Bush's policy of pre-emptive war is immoral - such a policy would legitimize Pearl Harbor. It's as if they learned none of the lessons from Vietnam," she said to enthusiastic applause.
Thomas ignored the clapping just as she once ignored the camera flashes and shouting matches of the Washington press corps.
"Where is the outrage?" she demanded. "Where is Congress? They're supine! Bush has held only six press conferences, the only forum in our society where a president can be questioned. I'm on the phone to [press secretary] Ari Fleischer every day, asking will he ever hold another one? The international world is wondering what happened to America's great heart and soul."
Like any star, Thomas, who resigned from UPI in 2000, appreciated her audience's thirst to get the insider's view of our national leaders, and she gave generously, in snapshots, though the Reagan and both Bush regimes were cast in darker hues.
"Great presidents have great goals for mankind. During my years of covering the White House, Kennedy was the most inspired; Johnson rammed through voting rights and public housing; Nixon will be remembered for his trip to China and for his resignation; Ford for helping us recover from Nixon; and Carter for making human rights the centerpiece of foreign policy," Thomas said in an even, respectful tone. She just sighed over Clinton, who "tarnished the Oval Office."
Thomas' mood became visibly more somber at the mention of Ronald Reagan's military buildup and at the name Bush. Again and again, Thomas warned the MIT audience, "It's bombs away for Iraq and on our civil liberties if Bush and his cronies get their way. Dissent is patriotic!"
After her talk, Thomas participated in a panel discussion with MacVicar Faculty Fellows David Thorburn, professor of literature, and Charles Stewart III, professor of political science. Philip S. Khoury, dean of the School of Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences, introduced the speakers.
"Helen Thomas offered a very powerful indictment of the current behavior of the Bush presidency in her comments on the incoherence and inconsistency of Bush's policies and the danger to civil liberties of Bush's rhetoric," said Thorburn.
He compared the lack of public awareness of an antiwar movement in 1965 and 1966 with the wide public debate about Iraq going on today. "An aroused citizenry can instruct the government," he said.
Stewart also focused on the current public debate about Iraq, declaring that it may be a "hopeful sign. The polls say Americans don't want to talk about Iraq - they want to talk about the economy, about education. But the press has continued to point out the important thing. Everyone knows there's been a dance between the President and Congress over Iraq."
Thomas didn't let the press off the hook, though. "Everybody learned the lessons of Vietnam, including the Pentagon. In Vietnam, correspondents could go anywhere - just hop on a helicopter and report on the war. Now we don't have that access. It's total secrecy. The media overlords should be complaining about this. I do not absolve the press. We've rolled over and played dead, too," she said.
Asked to advise young journalists, Thomas pounced. "Remind the politicians you interview that you pay them, that they are public servants. Remember every question is legitimate. And don't give up. There's always a leak. There's always someone who's trying to save the country," she said.
The talk was sponsored by the MIT Communications Forum.
Sarcasm aside, you are on the right track. That is, the punishment should fit the crime. Therefore, the question is, How broad is the impact?
I think all of us, deep down inside, have a gut feeling that 'punishment should fit the crime'. The problem is that it gets difficult sometimes to measure the impact of a crime.
Let's consider a drastic example: a sexual predator rapes and kills a 5 year old girl. Forensic evidence indicates that she died a very slow and painful death. This is obviously horrific but what is the "impact"? A girl is dead and her parents and a handful of others who knew and loved her will suffer severe emotional distress. Now consider someone involved in white collar non-violent crime, like the Enron debacle. Scores of people have lost their life savings. Scores! Now here's the question: which of these crimes has a more severe impact on society? I certainly wouldn't want to be the one crunching the numbers on that one.
And who is going to compute the impact? It's hardly a straightfoward calculation. So that leaves it open to broad interpretation. In other words, you can probably come up with any number you want. A hacker could be accused of providing sensitive information to terrorists. As for proof, the government would simply state they didn't know who the hacker gave the data too.
Another thing to consider is premeditation. A white collar crime is ALWAYS premeditated. A violent crime may not be. The legal system is set up to punish premeditated crimes much more harshly than 'heat of the moment' ones.
Trying to make the punishment fit the crime sounds great in theory but there are some significant problems with trying to implement it in practice.
And, for the record, I think life in prison for hackers is a bit steep, myself.
GMD
watch this
Liberals Encourage Selflessness, Conservatives Encourage Selfishness
No, the difference is that conservatives believe one has the freedom to either be selfless or selfish. Liberals believe that you should be FORCED to be selfless -- by their definition of selfless -- or else.
Personally, I generally believe more freedom is better than less freedom. No one stops you and those like you from being selfless, by whatever definition of selfless you want to use.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.