Slashdot Mirror


Bookseller Purges Records to Avoid PATRIOT Act

Skyshadow writes "Vermont Bookseller Bear Pond Books has announced that they will purge their sales records at the request of customers . This would effectively sidestep typically insideous a provision of the PATRIOT Act which allows government agencies to secretly seize sales records. The store's co-owner, Michael Katzenberg, put it this way: 'When the CIA comes and asks what you've read because they're suspicious of you, we can't tell them because we don't have it... That's just a basic right, to be able to read what you want without fear that somebody is looking over your shoulder to see what you're reading.' Now if only certain other booksellers would show that same conscience, we might have something here."

469 comments

  1. Law Enforcement by jlrowe · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Why don't we just enforce the law in the USA. And the premier first set is the US Consitution and the amendments.

    Vote some decent congressmen in and maybe we can win the country back!

    1. Re:Law Enforcement by DarwinDan · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm with ya! How about first getting people to actually VOTE in our elections, huh? Then we can focus on getting the decent politicians back where they belong -- in power.

      --
      $DEITY bless $NATION
    2. Re:Law Enforcement by elmegil · · Score: 4, Informative

      The problem is most of us have given up on finding any decent politicians. Quite honestly I can't think of any where I'm from.

      --
      7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
    3. Re:Law Enforcement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      We don't need more voters, we need voters who actually understand the freaking issues. Increasing the number of uninformed fuckwits involved in politics won't get us anywhere.

    4. Re:Law Enforcement by DarkVein · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Anyone who wants my vote doesn't deserve it.
      We should:
      • Pick people at random
      • Elect people who aren't running for office
      --

      I'm as mimsy as the next borogove but your mome raths are completely outgrabe.

    5. Re:Law Enforcement by nomadic · · Score: 1

      Then you vote the least objectionable candidate in. No, it's not sunshine and daisies, but it's better than just removing yourself from the democratic process.

    6. Re:Law Enforcement by sconeu · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Arthur C. Clarke, \i{Imperial Earth}. Anyone who wants an office was, by definition, unqualified for it. Officeholders had to be dragged kicking and screaming into office.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    7. Re:Law Enforcement by smasherbob · · Score: 1

      Anybody that can keep my Catcher in the Rye fetish safe gets my vote.

    8. Re:Law Enforcement by slarti · · Score: 2, Interesting

      How about we elect our officials the way they are currently elected, we purchase them like any other product. Make them dance and sing for us and we'll buy the ones we want. The election was turned into the Super Bowl/World Cup you know people would vote. Add a Lottery to boot and your guaranteed to pay for the next one, everyone buys their vote. Just a dream I had once...

    9. Re:Law Enforcement by Poeir · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The late Douglas Adams put it rather well: "Those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made president should on no account be allowed to do the job." And he's right. Just look at Bush.

      --
      Sigs are like bumper stickers.
    10. Re:Law Enforcement by 31+Flavas · · Score: 2, Interesting
      We should: Pick people at random, elect people who aren't running for office.

      Well then you run the problem having to have an "advisor(s)" for the randomly chosen person. It's been in movies a million times the advisor is always corrupt. Or take the stock market and "Financial advisors" or "Investment advisors". Their advice is always going to be what either 1) Makes them the most money. or 2) What the Company/Boss wants them to say.

      So unfortunatly, we can't just elect any random dolt of the street. Politicians have to be career politicans.

      As far as the president... I'm all for free choice and voting, except for the stipulation that anyone who want to be president has to have been an officer in the one of the armed forces.

    11. Re:Law Enforcement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      anyone who want to be president has to have been an officer in the one of the armed forces.

      What the fuck? What a way to advance goals that are important to you (like military spending, apparently).

      My stipulation is that every president must have aborted (at least) one baby.

    12. Re:Law Enforcement by ausgnome · · Score: 1

      It doesn't matter who you vote for you still end up with a politician

      --

      I had a pet once
    13. Re:Law Enforcement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He must be a military abortion doctor, trained in field abortions.

      When the grays finally attack, I don't want no alien freak hybrid babies assuming command! Our great leader will deftly slaughter our alien captors, while sucking out the vile embryonic source of the apocolypse from our daughters' wombs.

    14. Re:Law Enforcement by shadowbearer · · Score: 1


      "...maybe something else sucks around here....like...the public..."

      -- George Carlin

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    15. Re:Law Enforcement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      anyone who want to be president has to have been an officer in the one of the armed forces.

      That's so pompus you sould be shot.

      If anything, I say anybody who wants to be president should have been a real person. Done REAL work. Swung a hammer. Laid Bricks. Built a Car. Stocked a Warehouse. Drove a Truck. Real good honest working man stuff. They should have had to make ends meet on realistic wages. And know what it's like to have a job that might not be there tomorrow. And most importantly, know what it's like to not be handed things.

      The military may be a necessary evil, but it's still an evil. In no way does having been in the armed forces constitute any special status or give anyone any given rights. If anything you gave up your rights. Doubly so for "Officers", which anybody who knows anything about the Military know are just a bullshit political game to begin with.

      I know more about the Military than the average civilian, and perhaps more than most people in the Military. From what I personally know, an ex-officer is the LAST person I would want as a US President.

      Keep the big business owners and war-mongers out of the office.

    16. Re:Law Enforcement by namespan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm with ya! How about first getting people to actually VOTE in our elections, huh? Then we can focus on getting the decent politicians back where they belong -- in power.

      Only if they vote in a studied, deliberate manner, rather than simply taking in traditional campaign rhetoric. If you vote just to vote, you're adding noise to the signal of people who did study carefully. And if you choose a candidate on some litmus-test issue -- like abortion or gun rights, as many do now -- then you get... well, a system much like we do now, where it's all partisan perception and no real policy and statecraft.

      We don't need more voters, we need better voters. That's what Thomas Sowell thinks, and I think I'd have to agree.

      --
      Libertarianism is rich wolves and poor sheep playing gambler's ruin for dinner.
    17. Re:Law Enforcement by 31+Flavas · · Score: 0, Troll
      anyone who want to be president has to have been an officer in the one of the armed forces

      That's so pompus you sould be shot.

      Typical slashdot....

      I certainly don't want some draft dodging mophead as president.

    18. Re:Law Enforcement by mrseth · · Score: 2, Funny

      "I certainly don't want some draft dodging mophead as president."

      Yes, I agree. Let's all hope that Dubya keeps his hair short.

    19. Re:Law Enforcement by 31+Flavas · · Score: 1
      Let's all hope that Dubya keeps his hair short.

      I'd also mandate the president be smart.

    20. Re:Law Enforcement by benzapp · · Score: 1

      This was of course, how Athens conducted their democratic government at its peak. Just like jurors were selected at random, so to were leaders.

      It is also something we will probably never have here, until we have a true, outright revolution.

      --
      I don't read or respond to AC posts
    21. Re:Law Enforcement by quintessencesluglord · · Score: 1

      Why on earth would anyone want Joe Sixpack to negotiate a peace accord with North Korea? Or a longshoreman to oversee Middle East peace talks? A politician that lives under the rules s/he makes would be nice. There was that novel idea of loss of citizenship for any politican caught taking bribes. Maybe arresting them for treason, but I digress. Maybe career criminals for the presidency. Should, Bush meet an unfortunate end, Cheney would fit the bill perfectly. And didn't the last elections prove it really doesn't matter who you vote for? "People tend to get the government they deserve."- TJ

    22. Re:Law Enforcement by jgerman · · Score: 0, Troll
      who want[sic] to be president
      has to have been an officer in the one of the armed forces.


      Yeah, I veto that right off the bat. I certainly don't want some dummy monkey military meathead in charge of the country.



      Well then you run the problem having to have an "advisor(s)" for the randomly chosen person. It's been in movies a million times the advisor is always corrupt


      And of course using movies as a basis for predicting the events of real life is a valid method of argument.


      Jesus Christ, no wonder this country is in a sad state.

      --
      I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
    23. Re:Law Enforcement by rppp01 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And, damn it, pick people other than Old, Rich, White Lifetime politicians.

      I have been thinking of Cincinattus of late, how he was called upon by the people of Rome to leave his farm, become the dictator and lead the Romans to war against the Truscans (I think). He does so, leads his people, defeats his enemies, and then returns to his farm after the war has ended.

      I want a leader like that! Well, multiple leaders. I agree here, select people who at least have some education. President Cletus may get us into a war with Alabama simply because his sister's name has been desicrated on a water tower.

      At the same time, get the hell rid of those people who are lifetime people in government. Those that serve who ever is in power, and help with the status quo.

      --
      They stuck me in an institution, said it was the only solution, to...protect me from the enemy, myself
    24. Re:Law Enforcement by jasenj1 · · Score: 1

      The U.S. could go the route of Australia where you get fined if you don't vote.

      - Jasen.

    25. Re:Law Enforcement by killmenow · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Politicians have to be career politicans.
      No, they most definitely do not. They most certainly should not. Without a doubt, they most emphatically cannot.

      The career politician is precisely the problem. Pop quiz: What's the solution?
      A) Random selection of officials
      B) Dictatorship
      C) Term Limits
      D) Who cares? Pass me a beer...
      E) CowboyNeal

      If you answered C you answered correctly. (Well, maybe D is okay.)

      If a politician can hold no single office for more than two terms and cannot campaign for any public office while holding one, there is less opportunity for corruption. Period.

      ...Nah, I'm just joshing: the answer is CowboyNeal!
    26. Re:Law Enforcement by killmenow · · Score: 1

      I'm not so sure. If every eligible voter voted at random, how does the campaign look? Campaigns are run to appeal to likely voters. If everybody votes, and a lot of them are just picking names randomly, it messes with the system.

      Granted, if everybody voted and knew a thing or two also, it would be ten times better. But the first step is to get everybody to vote, even if it's just: vote against incumbents. That's a simple rule, but if a large enough mass just voted against whoever was already in office, it would send a real message: stop fucking with us or you're gone next election. I don't care how nice your ads are.

    27. Re:Law Enforcement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Still not right, look at how many times you used the word 'leader'. You don't elect a leader, the US is a republic, you elect the top level public servant for a limited period of time. Electing a leader is the real root of the problem.

    28. Re:Law Enforcement by skotte · · Score: 1

      I'd also mandate the president be smart.

      reminds me of the boy scout code:

      trustworthy,loyal,helpful,fFriendly,courteous,ki nd ,obedient,cheerful,thrift,brave,clean&reverent !

      ok, so, it's just a laundry list of thing Lord Baden Powell thought every good boy should aspire to be.

      he DID NOT, however, include SMART. he wanted to, but decided that much should be a given. of course you should be smart. isnt that obvious?

      (evidently not)

    29. Re:Law Enforcement by skotte · · Score: 1

      vote against incumbents. That's a simple rule, but if a large enough mass just voted against whoever was already in office, it would send a real message

      tempting. sounds nice. but really, all you wind up saying is "we can be easily divided and conquered. piss us off enough and our votes will go a million different ways."

      evidence: nader votes did indeed split up the democratic voice.

    30. Re:Law Enforcement by Bridge+Builder · · Score: 1

      Term limits would help to do just that. But, at least in my state, every time that the subject comes up it gets shot down.

      Hell, we even had a referendum vote on term limits which passed with a decent majority. Two terms then you are out was the idea. The new legislature has extended the limits now to four terms.

      IMNSHO, term limits is the best way to go but they need to be instituted in a constitutional admendment.

    31. Re:Law Enforcement by hazem · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Term limits are not the answer. We recently swtiched to term limits in Oregon. The problem now is that nothing gets done because nobody really has an f*cking clue how to get anything done (procedurally and culturally). They go in as idealogues and don't understand how to compromise and negotiate.

      Even worse, you end up with all the lobbyists having more "seniority" than the representatives. The lobbyists, simply by having greater institutional knowledge, end up being very powerful.

      How effective would a corporation be if you fired everyone in it every two years?

      The answer is to have an *educated* voting citizenry. Too many people simply vote party-line or without considering the issues thoughtfully.

    32. Re:Law Enforcement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Socrates said this thousands of years before Douglas Adams first put his lips to his mother's teet.

    33. Re:Law Enforcement by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 1


      If you can find any decent politicians where you're from, perhaps you might consider running for office yourself?

    34. Re:Law Enforcement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I have been thinking of Cincinattus of late, how he [...] returns to his farm after the war has ended."

      George Washington had Cincinattus very much in mind when he retired to Mount Vernon after his presidency. He wished to be remembered as living up to the highest of the Roman republican virtues.

    35. Re:Law Enforcement by Jonny+Ringo · · Score: 1

      Actually randomly elected lotto like drawing is absolutely genius. Do you realize how much more our society would value our education system? The obvious reason being that if someone gets picked randomly in an election we will ALL want that person to be educated.

    36. Re:Law Enforcement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but boy scouts aren't necessarily leaders, they're scouts/guides/go-to people in emergencies, but hardly trained to delegate life-or-death orders in combat or assuming command of bickering politics in peacetime.

      i want my leaders to have tactical intelligence, diplomatic prowess, and above all, SOME GODDAMNED LINGUISTIC ABILITY.

      i can't speak to bush's intelligence; i've never talked to the guy, and it's hard to say how much leash his handlers let out. but he's done a pathetic job swaying the oppositions' opinion of him if he calls things "nucular" and his arguments are essentially a collage of earlier sound bites, repeated ad nauseum.

      people like ari fleisher are great boy scouts: subservient, protective, loyal, etc. -- but he'd make an awful president.

      "intelligence" is an amorphous thing, composed entirely of various distinct mental faculties. bush may be a good politician, but he's an awful orator, and his world view surprisingly simpleminded.

    37. Re:Law Enforcement by magister707 · · Score: 0

      decent politicians

      syntax error.

    38. Re:Law Enforcement by chimpo13 · · Score: 1

      Uh... that's what we already do.

      Only it's the rich purchasing them like a product. I'm too busy playing ps2, watching teevee, or drinking in a bar to vote.

      The Lottery is a good idea. Charge people $50 for not voting and use it as Lotto money.

    39. Re:Law Enforcement by rark · · Score: 1

      Heh. As opposed to ivy league graduates who get us into war with people who denigrated their father's on water towers.

    40. Re:Law Enforcement by rark · · Score: 1

      "it's been in movies" is not exactly the most..trusted information source I've ever heard.

      That said, the point does stand. OTOH, if you could ensure diversity in the corruption of the advisors (i.e. advisor one would want war because it's good for his defense contrator employer, advisor two would want no war at all because his employer thinks that war would drive their profit margin down, yadda yadda) you might actually get a balanced system.

      I'm also not entirely sure how corrupt advisors would be any worse, in practical terms, than corrupt career politicians.

      I'm not sure how "politicians have to be career politicians" logically follows "we can't elect any random dolt off the street"

      Certainly, there's plenty of people in local politics who are *not* career politicians, but got elected to local positions and do very well in them (of course, there are also others who suck, but that's the issue we're working on here, right?). What if something similar were possible at a national level?

      Also, why should the president have to have been an *officer* in one of the armed forces?

      This actually strikes me as dangerous. For a number of reasons.

      First, because it introduces an automatic class bias. Granted, the current conditions already do this, but I don't think that's an excuse for doing it more. Current conditions also impose gender and race bias, but I don't think most people will argue that adding more would be a good idea.

      Second because serving in the armed forces (or even growing up as a military brat) teaches and enforces certain patterns of belief and behavior that aren't appropriate in the civilan world. Ultimately, the vast majority of the folks the president has responsibility for are civilans.

      Third, because it gives the military a given position of power. The president is the commander in chief, always, but by mandating service for the president, the military will *always* have control in that office.

      History has proven time and time again, you don't really want the military in control of your own country.

      The only advantage I see for having the president be an officer is that he'll have the military experience (i.e. learned strategy, have some clue as to capabilities, etc) which could come in handy in terms of deploying military in a war. But the strategy is already handled by the admirals and generals (as it should be, I think). The president's job, in this respect, is in deciding whether or not to deploy the military in a given situation (which is something that does not require military experience, and which military experience may cause one to do too much -- when you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail) and as a figurehead.

      That doesn't require military experience.

    41. Re:Law Enforcement by elmegil · · Score: 1

      I'm not a decent politician either. Got no political sense whatsoever, so the odds of getting elected are nil. Why waste my money that way?

      --
      7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
    42. Re:Law Enforcement by spun · · Score: 1

      Homer: America, take a good look at your beloved candidates. They're nothing but hideous space reptiles. [unmasks them]
      [audience gasps in terror]
      Kodos: It's true, we are aliens. But what are you going to do about it? It's a two-party system; you have to vote for one of us.
      [murmurs]
      Man1: He's right, this is a two-party system.
      Man2: Well, I believe I'll vote for a third-party candidate.
      Kang: Go ahead, throw your vote away.
      [Kang and Kodos laugh out loud]
      [Ross Perot smashes his "Perot 96" hat]

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    43. Re:Law Enforcement by yourmom16 · · Score: 0

      Plato proposed the idea that we should be ruled by the smartest people. There are a few problems with this however. Firstly how do you decide who's smart? A test would be the obvious solution but tests can be rigged to give someone a disadvantage; for instance they may not know something considered to be general knowledge that is not applicable where they live. If the test contains questions about the subject of their job it may have opinions snuck into the answers to disadvantage those who disagree. Secondly smart people may just do whats best for smart people but that harms dumb people rather than benefitting everyone

      --
      "We have got to make Stan understand the importance of voting, because he'll definitely vote for our guy." - South Park
    44. Re:Law Enforcement by yourmom16 · · Score: 0

      If the population wants educated people in office how did Bush get elected?

      --
      "We have got to make Stan understand the importance of voting, because he'll definitely vote for our guy." - South Park
    45. Re:Law Enforcement by Jonny+Ringo · · Score: 1

      very good question. The fact is the population doesn't seem to care otherwise they would have voted. Second Bush had recieved more soft money then any other president for his election.

      You can say the same thing about Britney Spears, if she sucks why do people buy here music? I'll tell you why becuase their is a ton of money thrown behind her to convince you that she is worth buying.

    46. Re:Law Enforcement by ChristTrekker · · Score: 1

      I'd agree with that. I think part of the apathy stems from the sad voting method we use. When the method encourages the false "two-party system" concept, there's no incentive to look at alternatives because "they can't win anyway". And since the two big parties are so similar, they don't bother to get out to vote at all.

      Sometimes I wish just half of those non-voters would show up to vote third party, any third party (which might even make a 4-way race pretty exciting, given the last voter turnouts I saw), just to throw a monkey wrench in the system. That's what it will take to make people realize we need to eliminate plurality voting in favor of Condorcet's method.

  2. Farenheit 451 anyone? by DarwinDan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Does this remind anyone of Farenheit 451? You know, where they burn the books so people won't revolt against the government? This is a similar restriction placed upon our libraries and bookstores that silences any mention of a subpoena for a list of books a certain individual has purchased or borrowed.

    I still don't understand how Mr. Ashcroft and his DoJ thugs got PATRIOT through Congress. Oh wait, I forgot! Our US Congress was so freaked out by September 11 and thought that somehow if they took away Americans' right to privacy and freedom from harassment that this world would somehow be a better place!

    --
    $DEITY bless $NATION
    1. Re:Farenheit 451 anyone? by Tenebrious1 · · Score: 1

      Is it just me, or does anyone else think it's pretty stupid to check out "How to make a bomb in your basement" from the library or to order it online with your credit card? Isn't that the first think you learn in Anarchy 101, to read or photocopy the books at the library, or buy such books with cash at the local army suplus store?

      Oh, and it's USA PATRIOT Act, USA PATRIOT being an acronym...

      --
      -- If god wanted me to have a sig, he'd have given me a sense of humor.
    2. Re:Farenheit 451 anyone? by Mark+(ph'x) · · Score: 1

      Im Australian... its not my problem when the US takes away your basic rights under the guise of 'protecting freedom'

      HOWEVER.. it is my problem when your arrogant government and big business industries (read RIAA/MPAA) try to force your legislation on my country. if the US wants to try and get its copyright and DMCA law mirrored over here in aus, then at least let me vote in your elections ffs!

      Im sick of 'America - Land of the Free'... its a misnomer... its BS. I turned down a well paid job in the US a month back... because as an IT admin, it would be frankly dangerous to work over there.

      Im sure the US will try to stop dealing with countries without a DMCA equivalent. Eventually the US will be economically affected by these restrictions, and its citizens will start to ask questions. Unfortunately... as of course 'American Values' are good enough for all... we are likely to see 'peaceful non-agression military' solution to their problems.

      --
      those who control the past, control the future. those who control the present, control the past.
    3. Re:Farenheit 451 anyone? by Thu+Anon+Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      please don't equate American government with American people. remember, Gore got the popular vote, not Bush. most of us think Bush is a fucking moron. every time I go thru airport security I give them hell. last time I said they were profiling me and being discriminatory, they said "no way", I said "so how did you pick me out?", "oh based on your attitude", "Ah-Hah! so you are profiling based on attitude!" .... that shut them up

      --



      I'm good with numbers - .45, 7.62, 9.....
    4. Re:Farenheit 451 anyone? by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "Does this remind anyone of Farenheit 451?"

      The sad thing is, Bradbury is such a God-awful author, any sane person would burn that book rather than subject themselves to reading it. Hell, Marx's Communist Manifesto was both a better political rant and a better science fiction novel than any two of Bradbury's books put together.

    5. Re:Farenheit 451 anyone? by BFaucet · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I'm sorry about our government... It's the 1950's all over again and it sucks ass. Everyone is freaked out about all the terrorists that must be living next door, or down the street. Everyone watches CNN and FOX news for their information, and the 6 news agencies in the US are all for these horrible things as it will mean bigger sales in the near future. The government is being run by corporations at the moment, but I think another uprising of protest (ala early 70's) will put the government back in somewhat close to what could kind of be called balance.

      The american people are starting to get pissed off and the movements against these insanities are growing as more people are being educated.

      --
      -Derick
    6. Re:Farenheit 451 anyone? by kfg · · Score: 1

      It's not just you.

      But what about Mien Kampf, or anything by Engels or Marx? How about the Koran, or Civil Disobedience?

      Or Farenheit 451.

      Should we also have to be so careful about reading these?

      How's your memory?

      KFG

    7. Re:Farenheit 451 anyone? by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Our US Congress was so freaked out by September 11 and thought that somehow if they took away Americans' right to privacy and freedom from harassment that this world would somehow be a better place!
      The truely sad part of this, is that it was a mixed congress. Imagine how bad it would have been had there been the current congress. Unfortunatly, I suspect that it will get much worse, before it gets better. Well past being just shades of Hoover's FBI and McCarthyism.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    8. Re:Farenheit 451 anyone? by Mark+(ph'x) · · Score: 1

      apologies...

      i definitely realise there is little connection between your government and the people.

      i did not mean to insinuate this.

      anyone that thinks bush is a retard is a friend of mine :P

      --
      those who control the past, control the future. those who control the present, control the past.
    9. Re:Farenheit 451 anyone? by The_dev0 · · Score: 1

      I'm an aussie too, and I agree wholeheartedly. This is one of the reasons I keep reading slashdot because it seems that every time a civilian has his rights squashed in the USA, somebody tries to do the same thing here, but scarily with a LOT less coverage. At least I can see here what's planned for us in the next 12 months. It's sickening to have RIAA/MPAA policies forced on us here when they have absolutely no jurisdiction over anything but their own products. It's getting so hard to blame the industries involved and not have it spill over into a distaste for American people and culture generally. It's also sad to see fellow aussies talking about how americans suck because they want to bomb Iraq. The average American citizen is not responsible for half-assed decisions made by their president in the same way iraqi people aren't responsible for Saddam's whacked-out behaviour. Me, I love American people, I just wished their government actually listen to them but then again, the same thing could be said for most industrialised nations these days. Big Business is boss.

      --
      Never fight naked, unless you're in prison...
    10. Re:Farenheit 451 anyone? by Tenebrious1 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, hear what you're saying. It's not much worse than banning the books outright... actually it does seem worse, like entrapment. Anyway, I bought all those books in a college town used book store with cash, best way to buy a book.

      I think I'll start checking out pro-goverment books at the library... look good on my permanent record. Any recommendations?

      --
      -- If god wanted me to have a sig, he'd have given me a sense of humor.
    11. Re:Farenheit 451 anyone? by computer_redneck · · Score: 1

      Thinking of banned books. I remember a few years ago looking for stuff online about Vampire The Masquerade and one of the websites had a COMPLETE downloadable copy of the Anarchists Cookbook.

      Wonder if it is still out there.


      Why would a redneck want to access the internet? Because that is where the guns can be bought.

      --
      "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - BF
    12. Re:Farenheit 451 anyone? by kfg · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Ah, therein lies part of the problem. "Pro-government" is a fashion, and changes with the tide, phase of the moon and every election.

      Nothing is safe comrade. Nothing.

      I think Jame Fennimore Cooper is fairly safe under any concievable future, but Twain is right out. ( If you can stomach Cooper, see Twain. Oh the irony).

      KFG

    13. Re:Farenheit 451 anyone? by orthogonal · · Score: 1

      i definitely realise there is little connection between your government and the people.


      And that's the problem, in a nutshell.

    14. Re:Farenheit 451 anyone? by crmsndude · · Score: 2, Informative
      What the F---!!!

      The ALA isn't silencing the mention of subpoenas. Librarians have been ordered to by the DoJ to NOT acknowledged them to account holders upon penalty of criminal charges (i.e., obstruction) in spite of the ALA's utter contempt for the PATRIOT ACT .

      The ALA has been trying to get programs similar to what this bookstore is doing enacted across all American Libraries. There are bigger problems enacting this in libraries, however because the government can pull all manner of strings to stop any preventative action on behlaf of individuals' rights. However, they are also a bit busy trying to uphold the First Amendment against this same government alongside the EFF in the government's idiotic notion that public access to information online must be filtered to "protect children."

    15. Re:Farenheit 451 anyone? by Worldwatcher2u · · Score: 1

      You leftest twit. Bet you havent read the Act. Suggest you do. Fast to say bad things about your government, but bet you never have defended it. I kinda wish you were in the one of the towers... And I'm not afraid of you..

      --
      Freedom is not FREE
    16. Re:Farenheit 451 anyone? by commodoresloat · · Score: 1

      I think things might be better with a Congress that was not making hasty decisions in the wake both of 9-11 and of an anthrax attack aimed directly at Congressmembers. Many people theorized that the anthrax attacker specifically wanted to push Congress to vote for this act without reading it.

    17. Re:Farenheit 451 anyone? by commodoresloat · · Score: 1

      Have you read the act? I have. I have also read a number of analyses of the Act. Very few things to protect anyone; plenty of things to take important Constitutional liberties away. You issue death threats on slashdot to "leftests" based on opposition to the Patriot Act? The act is a disgrace to the word "patriot" and anyone who supports it should take the plastic flag decal off their fucking SUV.

    18. Re:Farenheit 451 anyone? by Melantha_Bacchae · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Mark (ph'x) wrote:

      > Im Australian...

      I'm a US citizen.

      > its not my problem when the US takes
      > away your basic rights under the guise of 'protecting
      > freedom'

      It becomes your problem should Bush and his posse decide that one of your fellow Australians is a terrorist. But then your prime minister Howard thought Australia should have the same privilege to go after terrorists in another country after the Bali bombing (my sympathies, by the way).

      > HOWEVER.. it is my problem when your arrogant
      > government and big business industries (read RIAA/
      > MPAA) try to force your legislation on my country. if the
      > US wants to try and get its copyright and DMCA law
      > mirrored over here in aus, then at least let me vote in
      > your elections ffs

      Voting in our elections would do you no good, you wouldn't have any more control over the passing of bad laws like the DMCA than we do. The only people here who seem to have the power to get the laws they want are the president and those big business industries. Dare to protest, and you get what they got in New York City: put into pens, trampled by police horses, hit with night sticks and sprayed with pepper spray.

      If you don't want the DMCA style laws in your country, your best bet would be to tell Hollywood and the big five record labels where to take their business. Band together with your like-minded (at least on IP issues) neighbors, and make your own music and movie industries with local talent, and your own laws about them. The big studios and labels no longer have a monopoly on movie and music making technology. Take advantage of new technologies and go where you want to go with them.

      Who knows, you might just wind up with popular singers that can sing on key. Boy, is that ever a revolutionary concept! ;)

      > Im sick of 'America - Land of the Free'... its a misnomer...
      > its BS.

      It is supposed to be "land of the free". If it were still "home of the brave" it would be "land of the free" because we would fire the idiots trying to make it not free. After all, their official job description includes "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" (US Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 8) which is the document that lays out our freedoms.

      Unfortunately, it is mostly "land of the chicken" at the moment. Well, "chicken" and "chicken-hawk".

      > I turned down a well paid job in the US a month back...
      > because as an IT admin, it would be frankly dangerous to
      > work over there.

      I've worked in the industry in the US for fifteen years. Chief danger I have encountered: layoffs. Followed by traffic accidents. I have been a victim of both.

      > Im sure the US will try to stop dealing with countries
      > without a DMCA equivalent.

      Well our government might, considering how childish they are being over France and Germany disagreeing over Iraq. But there is also a good chance we might be able to get the DMCA repealed (in part or whole) in Congress, and the companies behind it aren't all that healthy these days.

      > Eventually the US will be economically affected by these
      > restrictions, and its citizens will start to ask questions.

      Hello, we already have had the DMCA in effect in this country since 1996. We have noticed it, did the question phase, and are in the "fighting tooth and nail to get rid of it" phase. It is a bad, bad law, we want it off the books, and we don't want to share it with you.

      > Unfortunately... as of course 'American Values' are good
      > enough for all... we are likely to see 'peaceful non-
      > agression military' solution to their problems.

      Not as long as your Mr. Howard keeps trying to be mini-Bush. One would hope Bush wouldn't attack one of the "willing".

      Let's hope come 2004 that the US gets a president willing to return to America's traditional values of liberty and justice, and after Mr. Howard retires, Australia gets a good prime minister that lets Australia be Australia and not a carbon copy of the US. It sounds to me like that would make us both happy.

      "The path of peace is yours to discover for eternity."
      Japanese version of "Mothra" (1961)

    19. Re:Farenheit 451 anyone? by ausgnome · · Score: 1

      We have the same problem in Australia, if you look at the new security laws they want to pass , they are the same ones the govt tried to pass in the 50's . just change the old words from communists to terrorists. Same side of politics too. Like the 50's I hope these ones are kicked out too

      --

      I had a pet once
    20. Re:Farenheit 451 anyone? by Reziac · · Score: 1

      And the parallel continues... remember the backyard "bomb shelters" of the 1950s, just in case we got nuked? Duct tape and visquene, indeed!!

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    21. Re:Farenheit 451 anyone? by Blue+Stone · · Score: 1

      " Oh wait, I forgot! Our US Congress was so freaked out by September 11 and thought that somehow if they took away Americans' right to privacy and freedom from harassment that this world would somehow be a better place!"

      It's called panic.
      It's also called over-reaction; unthinking-over-reaction.

      It's the result of an unsophistocated mind (the present bunch of politicians) with an adolescent emotional state, being exposed to an alarming event: wild thrashing about; bombastic, over-reaction; "Attack! Attack! Attack!" mentality.

      It's not the behaviour of a mature mind; a thoughtful soul, or a being with a well-developed emotional state.

      They say, it's when the shit hits the fan, that you find out what you're made of, and America has found out (well, those who are paying attention, anyway) that their politicians are a bunch of foolish, ignorant, loud-mouthed-empty-headded, adolescents, with a case of egomania/megalomania, that has suddenly arisen from it's (somewhat more) dormant "natural" state, and that basically they don't really know what the fuck to do.... so they're doing anything their undeveloped, tiny little minds can think of.

      In other words, without really thinking things through.

      --
      Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
    22. Re:Farenheit 451 anyone? by peter · · Score: 1, Troll

      Didn't some US leaders claim terrorists were just jealous of the US? Solution: make the US a shit place to live, just like the crappy third world countries terrorists are from. Once the US is as bad as them, the War on Terror will be won. Yay! I wish all you Americans luck in the next election...

      --
      #define X(x,y) x##y
      Peter Cordes ; e-mail: X(peter@cordes , .ca)
    23. Re:Farenheit 451 anyone? by Ann+Coulter · · Score: 1

      Maybe it's here?

    24. Re:Farenheit 451 anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just watch the recipes and get a chemist to check them out if you don't have the knowledge yoruself, there are a couple of errors that could make for problems.

    25. Re:Farenheit 451 anyone? by adam872 · · Score: 1

      As an Aussie living in the States right now (and with a Tech job) it is a little scary. The lawmakers in Washington have just gone crazy with the "Homeland Security" bollocks. I wasn't around when the McCarthy trials were happening, but I'll bet it was similar to the climate here right now. The U.S. is, at the moment, the home of the "illusion of freedom" IMHO. The Patriot Act, DMCA etc etc should be worrying for all U.S. citizens.

      I can't wait for the current shennanigans in the Persian Gulf to be sorted out so the American people will start focusing on the real problems the country has domestically. Dubya's days will be numbered then methinks....

    26. Re:Farenheit 451 anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course, most people knew the popular vote was not important. I don't think it can be confidently said who would win if the election and campaigns had been run as a popular vote.

    27. Re:Farenheit 451 anyone? by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Do you really believe that? The laws were written ahead of time, and were merely submitted at the the "appropriate time". Neither house of congress has given any signs of being at all serious about constitutional guarantees, only about their own personal perogatives. I think that they knew ahead of time what they were voting for, and that this "DAGEROUS THREAT!" masque is just an act. And not a particularly convincing one. If you really believe that congress is prostate with fear over something that happened over a year ago ... I have a bridge to sell you.

      Mind you, this isn't to say that there aren't present dangers, but they are internal rather than external, and the primary one is the govt. and it's agencies themselves. (Who got their hands on the US Army anthrax? Someone INSIDE the country and cleared for Secret or above. Somehow they've been unable to narrow it down, even though all of those people are supposedly carefully checked.)

      If you want, you could suppose that it's some small cabal. The public evidence is consistent with that. But I find myself remembering that Bush the first was head of the CIA before he was President. And we are told that nobody ever resigns from the CIA.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    28. Re:Farenheit 451 anyone? by Markus+Landgren · · Score: 1

      Bush got that idea from watching The Young Ones. Specifically the episode when the city counsel decides to demolish the guys' house, and Vyvyan decides to demolish the house from within before the counsel can get to it.

    29. Re:Farenheit 451 anyone? by Blue+Stone · · Score: 1

      My argument implies, at the least, good intentions, doesn't it.

      I plead temporary insanity m'lud.

      I don't know what I was thinking saying that. Maybe my optimism was in the ascendency. I mean here in the UK, the government has shown it's hand, and it's one ugly, controlling, Big Brother hand.
      The Post Office gets to see what websites I visit??? Huh?

      Yeah, I withdraw my my earlier post.

      Thankyou.

      --
      Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
    30. Re:Farenheit 451 anyone? by MattJ · · Score: 1

      "Does this remind anyone of Farenheit 451? You know, where they burn the books so people won't revolt against the government? "

      As I recall, the government didn't burn books because they were revolutionary. They burned books that people found offensive. They started with obvious things like neo-nazi and racist tracts, then concluded that almost anything could offend someone, so essentially all books became illegal. "Farenheit 451" was a novel about so-called "political correctness" (though the term was not used back then).

    31. Re:Farenheit 451 anyone? by rark · · Score: 1

      (from the original poster's link)

      Libraries or librarians served with a search warrant issued under FISA rules may not disclose, under of penalty of law, the existence of the warrant or the fact that records were produced as a result of the warrant. A patron cannot be told that his or her records were given to the FBI or that he or she is the subject of an FBI investigation.

      ***

      it's not the ALA silencing librarians, it's the patriot act.

    32. Re:Farenheit 451 anyone? by Thu+Anon+Coward · · Score: 1

      sadly enough, the popular vote is NEVER important. the electoral college decides who gets to become president. they are not bound by the election results and can vote any way they want. historically speaking, however, there are less than a handful of times this has actually happened.

      --



      I'm good with numbers - .45, 7.62, 9.....
    33. Re:Farenheit 451 anyone? by uu!))!am · · Score: 1

      If you think the Patriot Act was bad, wait until you see the Patriot Act II !

      PATRIOT ACT II PUTS EVEN CITIZENSHIP IN JEOPARDY
      By CHARLES LEVENDOSKY
      c. 2003 Casper (Wyo.) Star-Tribune
      (EDITOR'S NOTE: Charles Levendosky, editorial page editor of the Casper (Wyo.) Star-Tribune, has a national reputation for Bill of Rights commentary. His email address is levendos@trib.com.)

      Since Jan. 9, the Bush administration has been sitting on draft legislation it intends to shove through Congress when that elected body is in a state of panic-for instance, when we are at war with Iraq or suspect a massive terrorist attack is imminent.

      That's precisely the view taken by House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers, D-Mich, in a letter he wrote to the Department of Justice. The proposed Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003 (DSEA) is not merely radical, it grants the U.S. Attorney General nearly unchecked powers in a wide arena of law enforcement. DSEA greatly expands the powers the USA PATRIOT Act granted the Department of Justice and federal law enforcement agencies.

      Speaker of the House J. Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., and Vice President Dick Cheney, as president of the Senate, each received a copy of DSEA on Jan. 10, according to a control sheet issued by the Department of Justice's Legislative Affairs Office. No other member of Congress received a copy.

      For months, Justice Department officials were telling Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., ranking Democratic member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, that the department was not drafting another anti-terrorism bill. Now, here it is full blown, Patriot Act II.

      The DSEA isn't a working paper. It's a complete proposal for legislation. One cannot escape the ramifications. The thoroughness of DSEA is meant to discourage congressional changes, deletions or amendments. In total, it contains another wish list for federal law enforcement authority, while minimizing any checks on that authority.

      Elements of a leaked copy of the confidential document were made public on PBS's television program "NOW with Bill Moyers" on Feb. 7. The 120-page document contains 33 pages of analysis; the other 87 pages contains the proposed legislation.

      The first 11 sections of DSEA would broaden the authority of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and the authority of the secret FISA court the act created.

      For the rest of the article, which details a number of provisions of Patriot Act II, see:
      http://www.ohio.com/mld/beaconjournal/news/e ditori al/5230068.htm

      --
      Will
  3. This deserves more than a comment by blair1q · · Score: 4, Insightful


    Where's a HERO tag when you need one?

    1. Re:This deserves more than a comment by bdesham · · Score: 5, Funny
      Where's a HERO tag when you need one?
      Why, that's a farking good idea!
      --
      Alcohol and Calculus don't mix. Don't drink and derive.
    2. Re:This deserves more than a comment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hate to say it, but fark has had them for a while...

    3. Re:This deserves more than a comment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hero tag? This is Slashdot for cripes sake. You're thinking of that other site fark.com that still has somewhat interesting message boards and lets you post kickass photoshopped images. Slashdot is the site where everyone bitches about how the government is taking away all their rights because they can't copy DVDs for free and how Microsoft is evil. Also, the last time images were allowed inline on Slashdot the pages were filled with a big huge asshole of the Goatse.cx guy.

    4. Re:This deserves more than a comment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fark is for four year olds. Slashdot, on the other hand, caters perfectly to my six year old intellect.

      "Kick ass photoshopped images"? Seriously now. Fark posters are as bad about rehashing the same joke over and over and over again as slashdot posters, if not worse.

      Fark's message boards are about as interesting as a busload of retarded kids. Sure, it's funny to watch for a little while, but eventually you just start feeling sorry for them.

    5. Re:This deserves more than a comment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The guy needs to die in an accident or at least be trapped in a mine before he can get that title.

  4. Godd for them... by Goronmon · · Score: 1

    Really, what does the government gain by knowing what books each person has recently bought? I mean, if someone has purchased dozens of books about terrorism and bomb-making, I'm sure there would be more obvious and meaningful evidence of wat they plan to do than just what books they have.

    I mean, some college kid does a paper on terrorism and in the process buys a few books on the subject, then all of a sudden this kid is getting a call about those books. I don't want to feel as though I might "get in trouble" if I buy or borrow a book on a questionable subject.

    1. Re:Godd for them... by cbuskirk · · Score: 0, Troll

      I'm sorry but it is my right as a TRUE American to know if you are some kind of terrorist, communist, anarcist or if you practice some freaky religion like well you know any non protastant religion. I mean my damn the only reason you would buy a book on Arabic or the history of Labor is if you are going to subvert the government so the BLUE HELMETS (***PUKE***) at the United Nations can come and take my guns

  5. Are you surprised by this? by Black+Rabbit · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Aren't you Americans glad you live in such a free country? Aren't you glad your beloved constitution actually MEANS something?

    Welcome to the NEW New World Order. ...and don't worry...OUR fun loving Canadian government will follow right along in due course.

    1. Re:Are you surprised by this? by fitten · · Score: 1

      If religion can be defined as "the believe that at least one diety exists", and as http://www.m-w.com tells me, atheism is "the disbelief that a diety exists", which can be stated as "the belief that no diety exists" then atheism is a religion.

      Unless, of course you are telling me that the "belief" part has no bearing on the definition. ;) You have to believe something, one way or the other, and to most folks, religion is the "belief" part of that.

    2. Re:Are you surprised by this? by Black+Rabbit · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I believe in myself and in the forces of nature and science, not an imaginary superfriend who farts the universe and everything in it out of his ass one cloudy morning. If there are things we can't explain, it's because we haven't yet acquired the knowledge with which to do so...see A. C. Clarke...and I don't need to invent fantastic tales to explain it in the meantime. I do not follow a book of rules, visit a temple, dress a certain way, follow a certain diet, or depend on a central agency to tell me how to think and act.

      And I'm not going to debate religion...or atheism...with a theist.

    3. Re:Are you surprised by this? by syrinx · · Score: 1

      It's a relgion. Accept it. And I'm not a "theist", though anyone who says "I'm not going to debate with the opposing side" really needs to think about that statement for awhile. (If your brain starts to hurt, feel free to stop, go watch some TV for awhile, then come back to the thinking, since it's apparently hard for you.)

      If you were agnostic, I could see that not being a religion. But if you're an actual atheist, you *believe* that there is no God/gods. Belief in supernatural force or lack thereof is religion.

      --
      Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
    4. Re:Are you surprised by this? by Stonent1 · · Score: 1

      Velkom to Canada Comrade!

    5. Re:Are you surprised by this? by DEBEDb · · Score: 2, Funny
      I believe ...


      That's enough, my son. I absolve you.

      --

      Considered harmful.
    6. Re:Are you surprised by this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If atheism is a religion then where is their church/temple? What is their holy book? What practices do they observe? The fact is that atheism is not a religion any more than capitalism or anarchism are religions. Your view of religion is really screwed up and I suggest that you check a dictionary.

      RELIGION: (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural.

    7. Re:Are you surprised by this? by fitten · · Score: 1

      Interesting that you are quick to label me as a theist when I've given no evidence as to my beliefs.

      In any case... as the other poster said, "belief" and "believe" are the operative words here.

      Even for "agnostic", the definition is in terms of the (dis-)belief in the supernatural.

      (both from http://www.m-w.com)

      Main Entry: atheism
      Pronunciation: 'A-thE-"i-z&m
      Function: noun
      Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
      Date: 1546
      1 archaic : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS
      2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

      Main Entry: 1agnostic
      Pronunciation: ag-'näs-tik, &g-
      Function: noun
      Etymology: Greek agnOstos unknown, unknowable, from a- + gnOstos known, from gignOskein to know -- more at KNOW
      Date: 1869
      : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
      - agnosticism /-t&-"si-z&m/ noun

      One common thing I've found though is that those who profess religion the loudest (theism or atheism - but most often atheism), is that those people are usually severely uptight and bitter. ;)

    8. Re:Are you surprised by this? by cujo_1111 · · Score: 1

      You don't need to go to church, read a certain book or perform strange rituals to be part of a religion. A religion is a belief set. If you believe there is no God or other deity, then you are an atheist. Alternatively, you could believe in a God, not read the bible and think communion is a bunch of bull and still be religious.

      A book or building does not make a religion... A belief in something that you guide your life by is a religion.

      --
      If I point out that you are incorrect, making me a foe does not make you any more correct.
    9. Re:Are you surprised by this? by amRadioHed · · Score: 1
      If religion can be defined as "the believe that at least one diety exists"....
      It can't. Many religions (Theravada and Zen Buddhism, Religious Taoism, Confucianism, and Jainism to name a few off hand) have no beliefs in any diety.

      Regardless, I do agree that strong atheism is a religion. Weak atheism and agnosticism, on the other hand, are not.
      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    10. Re:Are you surprised by this? by Blue+Stone · · Score: 1

      I have to say I disagree.

      I think Atheism is just a belief, rather than a religion (a religion being at least the belief in a higher spiritual state.)
      What does an Athiest believe in apart from that "God does not exist."
      There's got to be more to a religion other than "I don't believe in cups," or other such simple thoughts.
      Now, Humanism could perhaps be called a religion, since it has at least, ethical considerations and the like.
      Atheism it seems to me, however, is just a one trick pony, and that doth not a religion make, in my mind, anyway.

      --
      Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
    11. Re:Are you surprised by this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ummm, no. Religion is belief in a set of dogma. Athiests have no dogma.

    12. Re:Are you surprised by this? by EllisDees · · Score: 1

      >atheism is "the disbelief that a diety exists", which can be stated as "the belief that no diety exists" then atheism is a religion.

      Incorrect. Disbelief in any deity does not imply belief that no deity exists. Atheism is simply lack of religious beliefs.

      --
      -- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
    13. Re:Are you surprised by this? by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      True enough, and you're right, technically. However, I knew several strong atheists in my college days. Their beliefs were as stubborn and irrational as any religious zealout I had ever known. It is the only supposedly non-religious belief that I have ever come across where the people believe in it with such a (for lack of a better word) religious conviction despite having no evidence to support there claims (based both on my experience with them, and my own belief as an agnostic).

      Religion and strong atheism look too much like two sides of the same coin to me. The only reason atheism doesn't have all the ritual and ethical considerations that come along with real religion is because it's a special case. A belief in no god doesn't lend itself to such things, whereas a belief in a god does.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    14. Re:Are you surprised by this? by squiggleslash · · Score: 1
      Atheism is no more a religion than theism is. Atheism is better described as an attribute of a religion, but a religion requires rather more than a policy on the existance of a God, or (more accurately) a policy on the origins of "everything", to be a complete religion. Secular Humanism would be an example of an atheist religion, a religion which uses basic human values and morals, and reasoned scientific consensus, to answer the issues that matter.

      It's not that atheism isn't a religious position, clearly it is. It's just not enough, by itself, to qualify, any more than an answer "I believe in a God" as a response to a question asking your religion qualifies.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    15. Re:Are you surprised by this? by Black+Rabbit · · Score: 1

      Fsking theists! Everybody's just fodder to be converted to you half-wits! You just can't accept that there are people out there that neither want nor need a belief in the supernatural to get them through their daily lives. Your attitude is alway slong the lines of "he's religious, but won't admit it." It's 'tards like you that have done a great deal to turn me off anything to do with religion!

  6. Good way to go. by Pharmboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The Patriot Act is a violation of what my father fought for in Korea and Vietnam, and what I stood for while in the military.

    I am upset that people are associating the Patriot Act with conservatism. Violation of my rights isn't conservative, its facism. Fellow conservatives need to speak up. We DO need some stronger laws and enforcement tools, and I do believe this is a passing problem, but only if we speak up.

    Some may compare our current situation to that during the Civil War (oxymoron if there ever was one) when Lincoln suspended Habius Corpus, but I don't feel the two events can be compared in this way. The threat is real, more real than that era, but not as localized.

    Until then, destroying sales records is a legal way to not comply with this over reaching Act. Hopefully, others will follow their lead.

    --
    Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    1. Re:Good way to go. by jenns · · Score: 1
      I was under the impression that on the left-to-right scale we went from communism to liberalism to centrism to conservatism to fascism. Was I taught incorrectly? If that scale is the case, then fascism is very radical conservatism, yes?

      But I do agree wholeheartedly that destroying sales records to protect my privacy is the way to go.

      --
      Whatever women do they must do twice as well as men to be thought half as good. Luckily this is not difficult. -Whitton
    2. Re:Good way to go. by elmegil · · Score: 1, Interesting
      I am upset that people are associating the Patriot Act with conservatism.

      I would recommend that you inform those who you politically support that conservatives don't support this any more than liberals. And quite honestly, watching congress go like a bunch of sheep to pass this atrocity, it's clear that it's not just a left/right issue. Nonetheless, the self-proclaimed conservatives have draped themselves in the flag and put this abomination forth to begin with (let's hear it for Johnny Ashcroft, who is getting his revenge for being beaten out of his senate seat by a dead man).

      --
      7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
    3. Re:Good way to go. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Conservatives, fascists, Liberals, even Libertarians - you all suck, the lot of you. FUCK OFF. You all wield your own type of tyranny.

    4. Re:Good way to go. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. Fascism has nothing to do with right or left. Stalin was a communist fascist. Pinochet was a conservative fascist. Hitler was more or less a centralist fascist.

    5. Re:Good way to go. by jenns · · Score: 1
      Good point. Now that I look at it:

      From WordNet (r) 1.7 [wn]

      conservatism
      n : a political orientation advocating the preservation of the best in society and opposing radical changes [syn: {conservativism}]

      fascism
      n : a political theory advocating an authoritarian hierarchical government (as opposed to democracy or liberalism)

      My mistake. Obviously, a fairly common one.

      --
      Whatever women do they must do twice as well as men to be thought half as good. Luckily this is not difficult. -Whitton
    6. Re:Good way to go. by Parafilmus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What is this "left-right scale" you speak of?

      Is it something real, or is it just a way to file away ideas without actually thinking about them?

    7. Re:Good way to go. by deadsaijinx* · · Score: 1

      let me pull out my handy dany politcal flow chart...

      Communism~Socialism~Democrats--Republicans~Super Co nservatism~Fascism

      well, thats why, facism is most closely related to conservatism, at least IMHO

      --
      YOU SUCK BALLS!
    8. Re:Good way to go. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spatial metaphors have no meaning in reality and can't begin to describe the enormous range of social/economic/political thought. They are, however, quite useful in creating illusory factions.

    9. Re:Good way to go. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ashcroft was beaten out of his senate seat by political game players. They kept the polls open for several hours beyond when they were supposed to be closed, and the amount of fraud in that particular election was legion.

    10. Re:Good way to go. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fascism is a form of socialism you jackoff.

    11. Re:Good way to go. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He lost to a dead guy. Let it go.

    12. Re:Good way to go. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Besides the comment on Chevron, what the AC says is more or less correct. Just b/c you mods don't like what he's saying doesn't make him a troll.

    13. Re:Good way to go. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Oh, yeah, way to go. That'll convince people.

      Ashcroft lost a race leading possibly due to a tragic accident of his competitors. It's called sympathy votes. No one, zero, zilch, can say what the true outcome of the race would have been if that accident had not occurred. Hell, Ashcroft as leading in the polls before that accident, but whose to say what would have occurred on election day.

      So blindly flogging around in stating Ashcroft lost his Senate seat to a dead man as somehow pointing to his incompetence is so shockingly stupid, insensitive, and just plain irrelevant, it just undermines what little else you may have to say, valid or not.

      Attack Ashcroft for what he's done. Attack Ashcroft's policies. His bills. His procedures. Laws he's past. His record.

      Don't attack him because of another man's misfortunate. People complain of power grabs. What exactly do you think your gross grab at anything to put down a man does? It undermines you. How much of an idiot are you?

      btw, I'm a conservative. I was for Ashcroft at the time of his appointment. Since then, I've looked at the "job" he's done, and find him insulting to the word and to our nation. I am solidly against him. So much so that if Bush runs in 2004 with him in his government still, George ain't getting my vote.

      Ashcroft isn't diong this for revenge. He's doing it because he's in a position of power and misguided. It has nothing to do with a loss in an election, his opponent's death, or remorse or retribution for that loss. Get a freakin neuron.

    14. Re:Good way to go. by elmegil · · Score: 1

      Like the fraud in florida? shoes & feet.

      --
      7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
    15. Re:Good way to go. by elmegil · · Score: 1

      Wow, that struck a nerve. Flippant comments really aren't meant to be rational discourse after all.

      --
      7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
    16. Re:Good way to go. by elmegil · · Score: 1

      As far as it goes, I think the motivation of my comment is that I think it reasonably unlikely that Bush would have pulled Ashcroft out of the Senate had Ashcroft won the seat; the senate was pretty closely divided as I recall, and I am doubtful that another conservative (wasn't Kit Bond already in the Senate then?) would have come along that could have beaten Mel. Nonetheless, it was meant to be flippant, sorry to offend you so seriously.

      --
      7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
    17. Re:Good way to go. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow. Too bad the commie assfuckers who moderate /. modded you down, instead of doing a point by point refudation of whatever it was in your post that pissed them off.

    18. Re:Good way to go. by nursedave · · Score: 1

      You might go ahead and treat that handy dandy flowchart in the manner it deserves, but if you have toilet paper, then don't bother, it'll chaf. Fascism and conservatism are polar opposites. "Fascist" is just the ad homineum attack that simpleton liberals use when they are losing an argument with a conservative. ;) Whenever I hear a bleeding-heart call this or that conservative politician or commentator a fascist, I ask them first to spell it, then give a definition, because you shouldn't call someone something that you not only can not back up, but can not even properly define.

      --

      The Democratic Party: We've been pussies since 1968!

    19. Re:Good way to go. by nursedave · · Score: 1
      At least Bill -SOMETIMES- told the truth!
      Only when he got the courtesy call that the semen stains were DNA matched to him, or some equivelent "can't squirm out of the shit this time" type of situation.
      GWB lies every time he opens his mouth!
      And I am sure you have tons of examples, like you can find on any conservative commentator's website showing the constant lying that Bill and Al have done for the past ten years. Where are your examples, AC? Nichts? Nada? Mafi?
      So, now we have a president, who hasn't served in the military, with all his oil cronies, Dick and Condo-Leezuh, and that ilk, getting ready to start WWIII just so they can protect Chevron's profits.
      How does this protect Chevron's profits? You know what would help the oil industry? Telling the environmentalists to piss off and start drilling Alaska, and restart the wells in west Texas. Then tell these raping middle eastern assholes to piss off. And where, exactly, are Dr. Rice's oil loyalties? I'm not sure why you grouped her in here, but I'm sure you have, no doubt, as many examples as you have of GWB's filthy lies.
      --

      The Democratic Party: We've been pussies since 1968!

    20. Re:Good way to go. by rommelrommel · · Score: 1

      Also, communism (the practiced variety anyways) and fascism have more in common than that "scale" might suggest.

    21. Re:Good way to go. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No,

      fascism is a far left ideology just like communism. The left-right scale pertains to individual rights. It's just that communists found it helpful to smear their libertarian and conservative enemies together with the fascists to make them look bad.

      darn.farrell

    22. Re:Good way to go. by knobmaker · · Score: 1
      "Fascist" is just the ad homineum attack that simpleton liberals use when they are losing an argument with a conservative. ;)

      You may be right, but I think I can tell you where the confusion arises. So many of our fascists these days prefer to call themselves conservatives; it's no wonder people make that mistake. But true conservatives have no one but themselves to blame. They seem to be afraid to point to someone who styles himself a "conservative" and identify him as what he actually is.

      None of us should be surprised by this lack of bravery among conservatives, especially among the young ones. Few young conservatives have seen any military service, and many have the faces of men who as boys were afraid to play tetherball.

    23. Re:Good way to go. by hoofie · · Score: 1

      Rice was an executive with Chevron for 10 years. Its a matter of public record.

      They even named a Oil Tanker after her.

    24. Re:Good way to go. by Pharmboy · · Score: 0

      I was under the impression that on the left-to-right scale we went from communism to liberalism to centrism to conservatism to fascism.

      You have been taught incorrectly, but don't worry, you are in good company. The media has spread this kind of thinking because its easy to put into a sound byte. True conservatism, (not Rupublican) is based upon the theory that Govt. should only do for others what they can not do for themselves. This would include paving roads, setting up basic rules for commerce, and providing the defense.

      True conservatism believes that the Govt. has no right to interfere where there is not a overriding interest by the public. This means they can't tell you how to raise your kids (short of beating them senseless), pot would be legal too.

      IE: they can punish you for driving drunk because it affects others, but not for smoking pot in your living room. You still have to pay your taxes (flat) but they can't make you put your kids in public schools. Most zoning laws are against conservatism, limiting your rights to use your land as you see fit (as long as it doesnt affect others). Environmental laws are fine, if reasonable, because they affect others. Libratarians are more conservative than Republicans, for instance.

      The next step (if there was one) from conservatism would not be FASCISM, it would be ANARCHY. The original American flag, inscribed with "Don't Tread On Me" is a very conservative concept. As you go farther right, the Govt. SHOULD get weaker. Less taxes, less control, less restrictions. As you go left, you get more taxes, more regulations, more social programs. Some prefer the safety net of the left, some don't.

      Conservatism says that you should not be forced to financially support things you dont emotionally support. Your taxes are not used for general welfare. Helping the homeless and drug addicts is left to the private sector, industry and charity. I know this freaks out some of my European friends, but the simple fact is: The best organizations in the US for helping others ARE private charities, Salvation Army, Goodwill, St. Jude's Childrens Hospital, etc. Whether I want to help others should be my choice, and the amount should be my choice, NOT mandentory.

      Forcing me to pay for housing and food for someone who is capable but has made bad life choices is fascism to me. Those who can't help themselves? I gladly give to non profit charities, but I don't trust a desk jockey in DC to handle the money properly.

      I believe that the lower the taxes, the less control the govt. can have because they don't have the resources to oppress. The less that we allow the govt. to control (welfare, schools, etc) then the more power we have as a people.

      The REAL reason be have the 2nd amendment was added was NOT to protect us from the King of England. It was to insure our own Govt. could not act in dominating way. The founders of the US has a well documented mistrust of anyone who seeked power. If you read the Federalist and other papers written by the Founding Fathers, you will find they were quite conservative.

      Remember: Income taxes were ILLEGAL in the United States until the early 1900s. It took a new Constitutional Amendment to allow them. They literally had to change what the Founding Fathers intended, to give the federal govt. more power and control.

      Conservatives believe in total individual freedom as along as it doens't hurt others. In this respect there are similarities to some of the social concepts of liberalism and conservatism. The difference is how its obtained. Liberals believe the Govt. gives you these rights and must protect them. Conservatives believe these rights are inherent to every human and any govt. action can only serve to limit them.

      Centrists, on the other hand believe in nothing. Despite the media's attempts to make centrists look so great, so reasonable, they are the most dangerous. They stand for nothing, simply populists. They change their opinions according to how the wind blows. These are the ones who vote a certain way only to get votes, not to do what they think is RIGHT.

      If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything (ty Aaron Tippin). I can happily debate a Liberal, who believes what he does. You can't debate a Centrist, because he does't believe in anything.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    25. Re:Good way to go. by Pharmboy · · Score: 1

      sorry, incorrect. Please see reply above.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    26. Re:Good way to go. by benzapp · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The Patriot Act is a violation of what my father fought for in Korea and Vietnam, and what I stood for while in the military.

      Bullshit. The military is nothing more than a gigantic make work program, to keep nitwits from causing trouble. We have wars to make people content with bad economic times and to make people accept a temporary command economy. I won't even get into the supposed economic benefits of redirecting wealth to irrelevant industries to produce war related shit we don't need. Every single war of the 20th century was simply a tool of social control, nothing more.

      You and your father were nothing more than willing participants in a gigantic scheme akin to prison, except the illusion of freedom is maintained.

      Violation of my rights isn't conservative, its facism

      I have got news for you, standing armies, forced schooling, government directed industry, those are all the tools of every fascist regime.

      It all goes back to Germany. After Napolean's defeat of the Prussian army in 1807, a huge transformation took place. You see, Germany's primary source of revenue back then was renting their huge mercenary army. Remember the British sending the Hessian soldiers to America? To see the world's foremost professional army defeated by Napolean's peasant army was unbelievable.

      When Germany regained their independence, their entire society was transformed into a military machine. Prior to this, forced schooling didn't exist anywhere in the world outside of caste schools in India and to a lesser extent in China. Children were ripped from the families, and drilled in the mindless art of discipline all in order to make them better soldiers. Eventually, the entire society conformed to a hierarchical military system.

      Perhaps you aren't aware of the huge influx of German immigrants from 1830-1880. There wasn't a place for the independent farmer of tradesman in that military machine, so they left and came to the US. Thats why, they just wanted to be left alone. This is also why the trades died far more quickly in Germany than the US. While in the US, fathers taught their sons their art, in Germany that pretty muched ceased by 1880. Thus, shit modern architecture can be quite ancient there.

      Anyway, the legacy of this is our own military society. Every company is structured like a military. The classic bussinessmen's suit is a copy of late 19th century military style. Classroom schools are the same size as typical military units. Discipline is the goal, rather than education. There is a reason schools make people stupid and passive. Soldiers are not particularlly good at taking orders when they have the ability to question them.

      Anyway, look into. You have been duped into believing you are free, but you have been spending your entire life doing what you were trained to do: Take orders, and do so willingly.

      Heil Hitler!

      --
      I don't read or respond to AC posts
    27. Re:Good way to go. by Windcatcher · · Score: 1

      Fascism can be used by ANY political persuasion, not merely conservatism. If you go to these lengths to stamp out the voices of political dissent, whether you are on the right or on the left, guess what, you just graduated to fascism. Go to the office at the end of the hall and collect your armband.

      My policy from here on will be to pay for books with good ol' American greenbacks. Cash. U.S. Legal tender.

      By the way, I come from a conservative background. I've already resolved that my votes from here on out will be going to the Libertarians whenever possible. I've always been a loyal Republican until now, but they've forgotten what being Conservative really means. Conservative != pandering to evangelical Christians. It means striving for limited government.

    28. Re:Good way to go. by Pharmboy · · Score: 1

      I would recommend that you inform those who you politically support that conservatives don't support this any more than liberals. And quite honestly, watching congress go like a bunch of sheep to pass this atrocity, it's clear that it's not just a left/right issue.

      Absolutely agree.

      Nonetheless, the self-proclaimed conservatives have draped themselves in the flag and put this abomination forth to begin with

      Agree again. Lets be sure we dont confuse those who SAY they are conservative, and those who really are. The Patriot Act was a knee-jerk overreaction to a real problem.

      let's hear it for Johnny Ashcroft, who is getting his revenge for being beaten out of his senate seat by a dead man

      I wouldn't agree with this on one point only. I do think John Ashcroft is doing what he thinks is best, and has the best of intentions, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions. He has the right goals, to rid us of terrorism, but we both agree that he has the WRONG approach. You can't protect freedom by limiting it. I don't believe he taking any revenge, I just think he is ill suited for the job he has.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    29. Re:Good way to go. by Pharmboy · · Score: 1

      By the way, I come from a conservative background. I've already resolved that my votes from here on out will be going to the Libertarians whenever possible. I've always been a loyal Republican until now, but they've forgotten what being Conservative really means. Conservative != pandering to evangelical Christians. It means striving for limited government.

      Amen. I don't think we need to discriminate against religions either. Although I am not a Christian, I realize most christians are pretty good people, just like most non-christians are. But pandering to any group is not converatism.

      TRUE Conservatism is neutral to everyone, rich, poor, black, white, muslim, jews, old or young.

      As to my vote, I have never been loyal to any party. I vote for Dems and Repubs. I have tended to vote for more republicans ONLY because that is where most of the conservatives are.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    30. Re:Good way to go. by drooling-dog · · Score: 1


      I, for one, miss the Good Old Days when getting his cock sucked was the biggest offense a President of the United States could commit, worth paralyzing the government for several years.

      Enter the Repubs (and Dems who are afraid to stand
      up to them), and now we have the Patriot Act, secret courts with secret evidence, Total Information Awareness, detentions without trial or charge, endless war on behalf of the petroleum industry, and a "Bush Doctrine" that basically says he'll attack anyone he wants "pre-emptively" whenever he wants.

      Where is Kevin Starr when we really need him?

    31. Re:Good way to go. by drooling-dog · · Score: 1
      I am upset that people are associating the Patriot Act with conservatism. Violation of my rights isn't conservative, its facism.

      Welcome to the dismay that the communists must have felt when they saw their lofty ideals put into actual practice by autocratic regimes. The problem is that modern conservatism is a contradictory jumble of ideas, a mix thrown together to bind a diverse constituency. How else do you get, say, religious fundamentalists to sign on to the economic priorities of the corporate elite? And so you get this strange juxtaposition of lip-service for "individual rights" with attitudes of cultural intolerance, xenophobia, and enforced conformity. Intolerance is the antithesis of individual rights, unless by the latter you mean the "right" to exercise intolerance itself, or perhaps the right of corporations to use air and water resources as free public sewers without government interference.

      Maybe that's why conservatives out of power talk about freedom, peace, and a smaller role for government (in addition to Bill Clinton's sexual escapades), but once in power they deliver political and cultural repression, endless war, the police state, privilege for the wealthy, and massive deficits to shift the costs of all of this onto the backs of our children and grandchildren.

    32. Re:Good way to go. by Pharmboy · · Score: 1

      Maybe that's why conservatives out of power talk about freedom, peace, and a smaller role for government (in addition to Bill Clinton's sexual escapades),

      I am not quibbling with your point (and pretty much agree with general point), but this more accurately describes REPUBLICANS as an organization, not Conservatism as a political philosophy.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    33. Re:Good way to go. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Buddy, you really should ease off on that crack pipe just a little bit.

    34. Re:Good way to go. by ChristTrekker · · Score: 1

      If it weren't for the military, you would be speaking German right now. Thank God for the British and American forces in WWII. Martial law is no way to run society, but arguing that the military has no place in society at all is ignorant of reality.

      But compulsory public education and government over-regulation of industry are tools of fascists and socialists...

    35. Re:Good way to go. by benzapp · · Score: 1

      Actually, I just drink old bottles of Coca-Cola and Vin Mariani from before the Harrison Narcotic act of 1914 was passed by those fascist scumbags.

      Vin Mariani especially, has aged quite well over the last century.

      --
      I don't read or respond to AC posts
    36. Re:Good way to go. by nursedave · · Score: 1

      Public record or not, that picture just looks too photoshopped to believe... The Chevron logo doesn't follow the lines of the ship where it is, her name doesn't follow the lines, there are no shadows on either... I think its fake.
      Next?

      --

      The Democratic Party: We've been pussies since 1968!

  7. Books cause Dangerous Thoughts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Give them to your your local fireman or police officer for safe disposal.

    - Ministry of Homeland Security

    http://homepage.mac.com/leperous/PhotoAlbum1.htm l

  8. How about this? by antiprime · · Score: 3, Interesting

    They shouldn't be keeping records about who buys what books in the first place. I know what I buy, and I have the ability to look for new reading material in catalogs, libraries or via social contacts. Why is a bookseller keeping track of my book purchases any better than a government keeping track?

    1. Re:How about this? by AdamTheBastard · · Score: 1

      Purhaps they are keeping a record becuase it helps them with their receipts, stock take and what not. It also helps them know what kind of books ppl might be interested giving them a better idea of what books they should order from publishers.

      If I were buying enough books from my local book store and they were able to tell me about new books they have or are getting that I might be interested in then I think that would be very benificial.

  9. It's of little comfort by standards · · Score: 2, Interesting

    But still, why should I trust this bookseller? Sure, they claim that they won't manage any lists of customer purchases... but how do I, as a customer, know that they don't have some lists somewhere?

    And even if they don't have lists, they might have knowledge in their heads or on scraps of paper or whatever. All this is fair game when it comes to the law... perhaps just not as accessible as an explicit list.

    I remember when my sister was asked about her former (fired) boss by her new boss. "Don't worry", he said, "we'll seal all this so that you can talk freely".

    Nothing was written down. But when the new boss took the stand, he discussed the details of what my sister had said.

    So much for records; so much for corporate promises.

    1. Re:It's of little comfort by privacyt · · Score: 1

      Bear Pond Books is a small bookseller in Vermont. They don't even have a toll-free number, for pete's sake. They're hardly a big corporation as you imply. I certainly trust Bear Pond Books a lot more than the John Ashcroft's Justice Department.

    2. Re:It's of little comfort by scrod · · Score: 1
      But still, why should I trust this bookseller? Sure, they claim that they won't manage any lists of customer purchases... but how do I, as a customer, know that they don't have some lists somewhere?


      It's certainly preferable to purchasing books from a company that makes no claims whatsoever about the records they keep, don't you think?
    3. Re:It's of little comfort by NineNine · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, either you can buy books from small retailers, who at the very least say that they don't keep records, or you can stop buying books altogether, aside from government approved books. If you want to let paranoia stop you from buying books, that's your decision. But I'll continue, and I'll buy locally.

    4. Re:It's of little comfort by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      If true, this would have fallen under the hearsay rule. See http://expertpages.com/federal/a8.htm for the rules.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
  10. Except for one minor problem... by benevold · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The CIA does not, and is not allowed, to opperate within the borders of the united states. It may be the FBI or NSA that comes looking but CIA is strictly for international matters.

    And I highly doubt they would be interested in what books a person reads, but that's just me.

    1. Re:Except for one minor problem... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Sir, please do not let facts get in the way of good, old-fashioned scare-mongering.

    2. Re:Except for one minor problem... by Wingnut64 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That was 'fixed' by the USPA.. Key quote:
      "Section 901 of the USA PATRIOT Act would empower the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency ("DCI"), to establish the priorities for the collection and dissemination of intelligence information gathered in the U.S."

      And I highly doubt they would be interested in what books a person reads, but that's just me.
      Uh, they want to know if people entering the US asked for meals without pork...

      This could be a subtle atempt to outlaw certain books. People would be scared away from 'subversive' material if they knew that the Gov't was watching their every move.

      --
      echo 'Header append X-HD-DVD "0x09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0"' >> /etc/apache2/httpd.conf
    3. Re:Except for one minor problem... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The NSA is under the same rules/policies/laws/etc for domestic operations as the CIA is, as are other Defense Dept IC agencies. FBI is an IC agency, but they're Justice Dept, hence subject to different policy.

    4. Re:Except for one minor problem... by syrinx · · Score: 2, Informative

      The DCI is in charge of *all* the US intel branches, as well as the CIA. So just because the DCI establishes priorities for "domestic intelligence", doesn't mean that the CIA would carry it out.

      (Well, that's how it used to work. For all I know, ol' Tom Ridge is in charge of everything now.)

      --
      Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
    5. Re:Except for one minor problem... by Sabalon · · Score: 1

      Sneakers was a good movie :)

    6. Re:Except for one minor problem... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go read some history about the senate hearings into un-American activities in the 1950's (er, assuming that reading said material hasn't been banned yet). The sort of things taken as hard evidence of being a communist would be funny if they weren't being repeated today, with "terrorist" substituted for "communist".

      If you "highly doubt they would be interested in what books a person reads", then you aren't sufficiently paranoid yet. But don't worry, you will be soon. This isn't a game.

      Of course, it's quite simple to get around. If you want a "subversive" book, go to the bookstore in person, and pay in cash. No electronic or paper trail leads back to you.

    7. Re:Except for one minor problem... by Malcontent · · Score: 1

      If the CIA decided to spy on the us citizens would anybody know? Could anybody punish them? Who would make them stop? Would they be stupid enough to get caught? Could they frame anybody they want to shift the blame? Could you take them to court and win?

      --

      War is necrophilia.

    8. Re:Except for one minor problem... by 10am-bedtime · · Score: 1
      except the x10 camera and 5msec of embedded uproc time during which your likeness is captured and correlated.

      c'mon, you were building up steam w/ the "not paranoid enough" -- why stop now? paying cash does not result in the absense of the correlation, just another method required to obtain it.

    9. Re:Except for one minor problem... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay. Is this honestly such a big deal? The FBI going through information that the pimply teenager behind the counter has access to? You could think of the LIVES this could save, but instead you choose to whine about the minute amount of civil liberty you lose.

      Get. Over. It.

    10. Re:Except for one minor problem... by ottffssent · · Score: 1

      > Uh, they want to know if people entering the US asked for meals without pork...

      What happens if you're already here and you ask for government without pork?

    11. Re:Except for one minor problem... by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 1

      The CIA does not, and is not allowed, to opperate within the borders of the united states.

      Murdering people is against the law in every civilized nation but does that stop the CIA from carrying out the occasional assassination?

    12. Re:Except for one minor problem... by drooling-dog · · Score: 1
      And I highly doubt they would be interested in what books a person reads, but that's just me.

      Well, Ken Starr was interested in what books Monica Lewinski was reading. Didn't he subpeona Border's for the complete list?

    13. Re:Except for one minor problem... by baudbarf · · Score: 1

      "Section 901 of the USA PATRIOT Act would empower the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency ("DCI"), to establish the priorities for the collection and dissemination of intelligence information gathered in the U.S."

      He stands corrected.

      --
      You can run but you can't hide, except, apparently, along the Afghan-Pakistani border.
  11. Could the feds by Gyan · · Score: 2, Interesting

    charge the bookstore for subverting a law ?

    I mean, they're out in the public saying they're knowingly taking steps to hinder a possible request from the Feds for information.

  12. This could be stupid... by Stoutlimb · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Purging sales records is one way to get a government agency off your back. Unless it's the IRS.

    I wonder if the management has thought through all the implications of their new policy.

    1. Re:This could be stupid... by Snoopy77 · · Score: 1

      I wonder if you thought through your comment. They are only purging customer buying records, not the fact that they actually sold a book. The IRS wouldn't care if you sold a book to Jack or to Jane, just that you sold a book.

      --
      "She's a West Texas girl, just like me" - G.W Bush Iraqis
    2. Re:This could be stupid... by privacyt · · Score: 1

      If the government tries to go after Bear Pond Books for "obstruction of justice" or something, rest assured that lawyer groups like the ACLU will use their full power to defend Bear Pond. So I wouldn't worry about it.

  13. an added clause here, a lost right, there by dandelion_wine · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It wouldn't take much to add a provision (were it passed) to make retention of such records mandatory. Rather like walking in to see a psychologist here (Canada) and asking him/her not to keep records, knowing that they could be subject to subpoena -- they'll tell you they must by law keep records, with certain minimum information.

    On another sobering note, in 1983 the Supreme Court of Canada allowed evidence of a newspaper clipping found in an accused's home as sufficiently probative to admit, despite the potential prejudice of propensity evidence -- aka: "See? He's the kind of person who would do this." He had been charged with heroin smuggling from Hong Kong. The article was titled: "The heroin trade moves to Pakistan." This flew in the face of all caselaw on that point, but has been followed since. The lesson being: what you read can be held against you! The case is R. v. Morris [1983] 2 S.C.R. 190, if anyone is interested.

  14. Publicity Stunt by $$$$$exyGal · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Bear Pond Books in Montpelier will purge purchase records for customers if they ask, and it has already dumped the names of books bought by its readers' club.

    This is overall a great thing, but still an elaborate publicity stunt ;-). I'm pretty surprised that this made /. news, but then again.

    --sex

    --
    Very popular slashdot journal for adul
    1. Re:Publicity Stunt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      $$$$$exyGal talking about publicity stunts, huh? Pot, this is kettle, kettle, this is pot...

    2. Re:Publicity Stunt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck yeah, talk about putting the "whore" in "karma whore".

    3. Re:Publicity Stunt by urbazewski · · Score: 1
      Someone who recruits friends on slashdot by offering "naked pics" is accusing a bookstore of "an elaborate publicity stunt"? hunh?

      --
      foldplay your photos won't know what hit them.
    4. Re:Publicity Stunt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "an elaborate publicity stunt..." ???

      I'm sure all 15,000 residents of the Montpelier area are more than aware of the only book retailer in town (not counting the 2 used book stores...). That this could even be considered a publicity stunt is a reflection of the sad state of affairs in our country. It belittles that old American tradition of speaking one's mind. In Vermont, we still believe that people can and do make a difference. I am glad some people still have the courage to embrace their beliefs and express the outrage they feel over the undeniable erosion of civil rights that has taken place in the "fight against terrorism" since 9/11.

    5. Re:Publicity Stunt by piranha(jpl) · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty surprised that this made /. news, but then again.

      <joke obviousness="100%">
      Will you be surprised when it makes Slashdot twice?
      </joke>

    6. Re:Publicity Stunt by tunah · · Score: 1

      But does it matter? For every person who says "wow, what a great bookshop, I'll buy something" there'll be one who says "hey, what is this law and what is it doing in my country?"

      --
      Free Java games for your phone: Tontie, Sokoban
  15. Amazon Lists by n0tqu1tesane · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I was, as a result of this post, going to create a list on Amazon cataloging a number of books that might make the government look at me a little closer. Little did I know, someone had already done just that :\ Here.[amazon.com]

    1. Re:Amazon Lists by Wee · · Score: 1
      That Amazon list was one of the funniest things I've read in a long time. Thanks for the link...

      -B

      --

      Ash and Hickory, straight-grained and true, make excellent bludgeons, dandy for the cudgeling of vegetarians.

    2. Re:Amazon Lists by Flamerule · · Score: 1
      Nice list... He's missing the most famous one of all, though...

      The Catcher in the Rye.

    3. Re:Amazon Lists by Xenographic · · Score: 1

      Anyone who buys "Hooked on Yodeling" [listed in that guide] has it coming to them, though ;]

    4. Re:Amazon Lists by 31+Flavas · · Score: 1
      Anyone who buys "Hooked on Yodeling" [listed in that guide] has it coming to them, though ;]

      Heh, yea, it's halarious it is on the list :)

  16. Interesting by gmajor · · Score: 1

    Interesting, but I would like to go there dressed up as a Yasser Arafat look alike and ask for books about "Jihad", the World Trade Center, and the Okhlahoma City bombings. Then I'd like to see if they really would not cooperate with the CIA.

    Also, wouldn't a bookworm terrorist just purchase books in cash and give a false name and zip code? Kind of defeats the whole tracking thing.

    1. Re:Interesting by mwillems · · Score: 1

      Er, Yasser Arafat is not into Jihad, he is into Intifada. Nor is he into WTC bombings, that would be Bin Laden, and he sure did not blow up Oklahoma City. If the CIA came asking about this, I'd ask them what they had been smoking.

      --

      ---
      BDOS ERR ON A:>
    2. Re:Interesting by gmajor · · Score: 1

      I used Yasser Arafat as an example because I thought his attire, combined with the above actions, would be one that would influence the average person's thoughts about one being a "terrorist".

      Perhaps using "Osama Bin laden look alike" would have been more apt.

    3. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The real question is:

      Why do they need your name and zip code for buying ANYTHING let alone a book.

      Honestly, I don't think it's anyones business, and when asked for these items I politely refuse to give them.

      In the case of RadioShat, and other stores that claim they can't perform a transaction without that information, I thank them for my time and take my business elsewhere.

    4. Re:Interesting by cranos · · Score: 1

      Or possibly white american male aged 25-45? racial profiling when it comes to these things is bullshit.

      The funny thing about terrorists is that they don't walk around with a sign over their heads saying "I am a terrorist" instead they blend into society, not drawing any attention to themselves until they actually act.

    5. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think we all know, they've been smoking the Al Qaeda out of the caves!

    6. Re:Interesting by damiam · · Score: 1

      I don't know about that. McVeigh may have "blended in" by some standards, but you can hardly say the Sept. 11 bunch did.

      --
      It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
    7. Re:Interesting by BFaucet · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Also, wouldn't a bookworm terrorist just purchase books in cash and give a false name and zip code? Kind of defeats the whole tracking thing.

      That is why the USA PATRIOT act is so stupid... it does very little (if anything at all) to increase security and everything to limit the rights of everyday citizens.

      Governments who attempt to have complete control over it's citizens never work out. They fall. I believe America will fall unless Bush 'n pals are taken out of office and we congress gets it's act together.

      Real US patriots would never put the USA PATRIOT act into place.

      --
      -Derick
    8. Re:Interesting by cranos · · Score: 1

      They blended enough to not get noticed until after they destroyed the WTC.

    9. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, wouldn't a bookworm terrorist just purchase books in cash and give a false name and zip code? Kind of defeats the whole tracking thing

      The purpose is not to track down terrorists. The guvment has already decided how they are going to fight terrorism. Attack other countries that may be harboring terrorists.

      The purpose is not to track terrorists but to keep the US populace under control. To make people scared to purchase literature that might be outside of the authorized zone of thought.

      Buying crap by Tom Clancy and Anne Rice is fine, buying books by Noam Chomsky is enough to make you look suspicious.

    10. Re:Interesting by zcat_NZ · · Score: 1

      How about Stupid White Men?

      --
      455fe10422ca29c4933f95052b792ab2
  17. Remember that AD? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Anybody remembers that AD that shows how america would have been if everybody was not free? The one that takes place in a library... Where a guy is gonna get arrested...

    Remember that???

    1. Re:Remember that AD? by SN74S181 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's what libraries in Iraq are like.

      Thousands and thousands of people marched last weekend to uphold the right of the authorities in Iraq to stay in power.

    2. Re:Remember that AD? by LighthouseJ · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yeah, it's very interesting. The guy goes to look for a book, he can't find it so he walks up to a librarian and says "I can't seem to find this book" and the librarian says "I'm sorry, we don't have that book anymore." and she steps back as if she knows what's going to happen. The guy looks puzzled, thinking something along the lines of "that doesn't make sense". The camera then moves back and a narrator vocalizes the message and at the same time you can see the guy standing in the background and two or three government-looking guys in black suits come up and surround him and escort him away.

      It's a pretty powerful ad to me.

    3. Re:Remember that AD? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those who say the first amendment wasn't written with the idea of protecting disturbing things like nazi propaganda and scat pornography in mind are dead wrong - talk of motherhood and apple pie doesn't need protection, nobody wants to censor those ideas anyway, its only the freaky, fringe stuff that needs the protection of the first amendment.

      It is only when we are ready to stand up in support of an idea or action that goes completely against our personal preferences in the name of a higher principle that we believe in, only then can we be said to actually support that principle.

      So either you believe in the sovereignty of nations or you don't. And if you don't, because you think the people of Iraq would be better off without Sadam, then you better be ready to accept it when some other country gets bigger and stronger than the USA and decides that maybe we need a regime change ourselves and that are going to do it for us, and kill a couple of hundred thousand of us in the process.

    4. Re:Remember that AD? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They don't have any libraries left in Iraq -- we blew them all up with cruise-missiles.

    5. Re:Remember that AD? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      God, I wish I had mod points. You just gave me the heartiest belly laugh I've had in days.

    6. Re:Remember that AD? by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      Thousands and thousands of people marched last weekend to uphold the right of the authorities in Iraq to stay in power.

      No, we marched to protest a war of aggression. Nobody actually likes Saddam.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    7. Re:Remember that AD? by curious.corn · · Score: 1

      Thousands? Don't downplay the numbers ;-) it was Millions.
      BTW, how come you're suddenly interested in the civil liberties of some bloke living in a remote country? Generally speaking as long as the raw materials and fuel keep feeding the western world any regime is ok, isn't it? Before pouring over the 9/11 rethoric please mind that over here in Europe we live nextdoor to them and given the large immigrant communities we host I'm not speaking figuratively off a global map. Pissing them off isn't very hygienic for our communities and the worst thing we can do is put the colonial hat and go 'teaching democracy' like the Brits did in the 19th century (ever read Heart of Darkness?).
      Those Millions care for the iraqui's liberties just as much as you do friend; just, they don't like the 'God is with Us' attitude of your president.

      --
      Mi domando chi à il mandante di tutte le cazzate che faccio - Altan
    8. Re:Remember that AD? by privacyt · · Score: 2, Interesting

      NPR had a story on it. The person who made the public servic ad in November 2001 was unaware that the PATRIOT Act gave the government the power to do the very thing that the advertisement portrayed. The ad was quietly pulled from the air, and with most of the population still waving flags from their cars, people barely noticed.

    9. Re:Remember that AD? by EllisDees · · Score: 1

      >Thousands and thousands of people marched last weekend to uphold the right of the authorities in Iraq to stay in power.

      I think they were marching to keep our yahoo president from violating international law by attacking a soverign country who hasn't attacked first.

      --
      -- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
    10. Re:Remember that AD? by kindbud · · Score: 1

      That's what libraries in Iraq are like.

      And how do you know that? Who have you been collaborating with that you'd have access to an Iraqi library?

      Thousands and thousands of people marched last weekend to uphold the right of the authorities in Iraq to stay in power.

      Suck my dick.

      --
      Edith Keeler Must Die
    11. Re:Remember that AD? by illumin8 · · Score: 1

      Any chance you have a link to that story on NPR? I would love to hear that part of the show.

      Thanks!

      --
      "When the president does it, that means it's not illegal." - Richard M. Nixon
    12. Re:Remember that AD? by SN74S181 · · Score: 1

      Please stop holding your little closed argeument with your parody opponent.

      The moves being made by the US are about as far from Colonialism as can be. The colonialists are the French and their ilk. The French are playing little colonial games in the Ivory Coast right now.

    13. Re:Remember that AD? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Suck my dick

      And get involved in your little circle jerk with Saddam?

      No thanks.

    14. Re:Remember that AD? by curious.corn · · Score: 1

      Please stop holding your little closed argeument with your parody opponent.
      I don't understand can you please reformulate?
      The moves being made by the US are about as far from Colonialism as can be.
      That's subjective. In my view waging war against Iraq is just a first step in the middle east region redesign (and today your president's declarations somehow confirmed it). I'm not defending Saddam but criticizing the method.
      The colonialists are the French and their ilk. The French are playing little colonial games in the Ivory Coast right now.
      I agree France is an ex-colonial country like almost all european ones (which qualifiies them as ilk I suppose). I'm not very informed in the current Ivory Coast crisis but I'm shure you can summarize the coverage FOX gave to it; our media is all into the parliamentary catfight and the obligatory insults, fighting to please this or that side (sounds familiar eh?).

      --
      Mi domando chi à il mandante di tutte le cazzate che faccio - Altan
    15. Re:Remember that AD? by SN74S181 · · Score: 1

      I don't understand can you please reformulate?

      Zealots of both the extreme left and right are fond of parodying their opponents. It seems that it's easier for them to debate with an imaginary stereotype than a realistic opponent. You're even playing with code-words now, i.e. your 'Fox' reference.

    16. Re:Remember that AD? by curious.corn · · Score: 1

      FOX? You mean Fox News (I was trying to be sarcastic, Fox News flies in the face of journalistic objectiveness).
      You're right about the behavioural description you gave, it's quite correct; although I don't think it applies to my reply to your flippant comment. In two lines you upheld a typical demeaning attitude towards protesters branding them as a bunch of clueless morons. My reply was directed towards you intention to downplay their numbers and intelligence. I'm shure you're smart enought to understand that. Your writing suggests you're a well educated and smart fellow so you can't honestly say we defend Saddam or that we were just a couple of thousands. On the other hand, I agree that your initial comment irritated me on a well beaten spot and blew me into a rant but I'm also quite convinced you just set a flamebait.

      --
      Mi domando chi à il mandante di tutte le cazzate che faccio - Altan
  18. It is nice to see... by WindBourne · · Score: 3, Interesting

    that some are opposing such horrible violations of our rights. I only hope that they do not pay a terrible price for fighting against this.
    The truely sad part of this, is that this is not the worse. This admin has been not only stealing so many of our rights, but also taking away our ability to know what is going on. Public scrutiny of all processes (check and balances) is just as important to prevent abuses.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  19. Ask yourselves by bstadil · · Score: 1
    This is overall a great thing, but still an elaborate publicity stunt ;-).

    Well, ask yourselves why the "stunt" seems to work. It must have hit a nerve somehow.

    Now if only the local watering hole would take a hint.

    --
    Help fight continental drift.
  20. How about videostores? by JonWan · · Score: 1

    Dosen't the Bork law says videostores can't give out this kind of info without a warrent? My older customers like being able to ask if they have rented a movie before. I usually delete this info at the end of the year just to save space on the hard drive. The problem with the program I use it's all or nothing.

    We all know that terrorist rent movies to learn how to blow up things. ;-)

    1. Re:How about videostores? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Dosen't the Bork law says..."

      What, you actually understand the Swedish Chef?

    2. Re:How about videostores? by JonWan · · Score: 1

      I kinda expected that...;-)

  21. Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your father wasn't fighting for anything worthwhile. He was "just obeying orders."

    1. Re:Huh? by ciphertext · · Score: 1

      That is certainly a matter of opinion don't you think?

      --
      To know is to have knowledge....to understand is to be enlightened.
  22. A principled stand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whether or not you agree (as I do) with this particular bookseller, you have to admire the guts it takes to say, essentially, "I will be charged with obstruction of justice before I will help the government spy on its own citizens." While the Justice Dept would never misuse its powers (If you don't believe me, just ask them), it's good to see Americans realizing that it is their job to police the police.

    1. Re:A principled stand by symbolic · · Score: 1


      Now that's what I call patriotism.

  23. C'mon, it works . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    . . . didn't anyone see Se7en?

  24. It's less a matter of bad policy than technology by apeleg · · Score: 1

    The very fact that the government, or amazon, or whover, can scan your book purchasing history quickly and easily implies that they will ... it would require heroic restraint on the part of any government not to make use of the (nosy, instrusive) tools that the information age provides in order to "protect" the public.

    And there aint no heroes in Washington.

    Moral to this story: Expect everything purchase that you make to become part of the public record.

  25. That would be nice but... by ewhenn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think the problem is finding decent congressman. Remember, these people come from the population. The politicians don't suck, the population sucks if this is the best we have to offer. An ignorant population is easy to control. I bet the people who ran out and bought duct tape and plastic think the PATRIOT act is a great idea. Considering what it is the name, "PATRIOT act", makes me want to vomit.

    I have com to the the conclusion that in general us Americans give up lots of our rights (think freedom) without a fight for the illusion of protection. We are no better protected than we were before this abomination to our freedom, American politics at its finest.

    Think about that while you eat your red, white, and blue cake.

    1. Re:That would be nice but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      You are so right about an ignorant population being easily controlled.

      A perfect example were the morons at the anti-war protests. They were acting solely on emotion, instead of fact and logic.

      When you read what the professors from our so-called "places of higher learning" espouse about their "world view", it really makes one concerned about how our youth is being brainwashed instead of taught to think for themselves.

      The remainder of our "no intellect population", who get their news from CNN, ABC, etc. and take it at face value, are also lost causes. They are unable or unwilling to take the time and brain power to actually determine for themselves whether or not what they are being fed is relevant, logical or useful.

      We are in a sad state. Maybe I'll join Alec Baldwin when he finally gets the testicles to keep his promises and leave the country. But, he would probably move to France.

    2. Re:That would be nice but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      one small problem, dipshit

      alec baldwin never said he'd leave -.-;

    3. Re:That would be nice but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      The principle reason is inconsideration. Not selfishness, because that's innate despite what some might think, but just straight up inconsideration.

      People don't care if someone else's rights are taken away much, as long as the "rules" that were followed won't likely impact them then or in the near future.

      Too few folks stepped up when people were being rounded up with no good reason. Too little folks complained when it was so damn obvious that the government could have filtered through those they held faster if it had been an open process; if you were being detained and your name withheld, no one could really say "yes, he/she did it" or "that's impossible, he was in a business meeting with me at the time."

      It's a sad state of affairs. The reality is that despite all the government hogwash, 9/11 did exactly what the terrorists wanted it to do; we gave away what makes us the US. The irony is that the very reaction we had is so damn un-American but hardly anyone really wants to point this out or, probably more accurately, even realizes it.

      So now, there is a power grab. Problem is, I have no clue anymore who to vote for; maybe I'll go Green party.

      (btw, I'm a fairly consistent conservative Republican voter--I think the Pres is a fine person and I think as a leader he's not as horrible as people make it seem, but some of his ideas are just plain too little or "wtf?"; and then there's Ashcroft. I almost considered voting Democrat in the last elections, until I looked at the voting record and realized the candidates were yes men, and there was an utter lack of depth on the sprinkle of 3rd party candidates.)

      I hope Nader runs. Nader is a nut, but at least he's been shown to have 2 neurons that fire independently and in sync with the other occasionally (plus the frequent misfire, but what the hell).

    4. Re:That would be nice but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "I bet the people who ran out and bought duct tape and plastic think the PATRIOT act is a great idea."
      No way; I just ran out and bought it because I'd expended my supply. I feel that I should always have duct tape and plastic onhand, just in case I get bored. Granted, this doesn't really have all that much to do with protecting me from terrorists, per se (or the accursed PATRIOT Act, for that matter). It's really more along the lines of home entertainment. The duct tape is for fun; the plastic simply keeps the skin from coming off with the tape when the fun stops.

      What?

    5. Re:That would be nice but... by fishbowl · · Score: 2, Insightful

      >Remember, these people come from the population.

      Congressmen come from State and local politicians.
      These are elected based on apathy, and the jobs are not considered to be worth much except as starting points for national politics.

      If we would simply be involved in local government, by actually voting, and by developing personal relationships with the politicians and party staff, we would end up with national politicians who actually represent the will of the people.

      Another view, which terrifies me, is that we ARE doing this, and the national politicians DO represent the will of the people. We are greedy, insular hawks who know or care nothing of world politics or domestic diversity.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    6. Re:That would be nice but... by Malcontent · · Score: 1

      An anoynous coward sprouting the standard rebulican hate machine rhetoric gets modded up to interesting.

      Only on slashdot.

      --

      War is necrophilia.

    7. Re:That would be nice but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I have com to the the conclusion that in general us Americans give up lots of our rights (think freedom) without a fight for the illusion of protection. We are no better protected than we were before this abomination to our freedom, American politics at its finest.

      Hmm, let's see. People "educated" in government schools are willing to let the government control their life... Yep!

    8. Re:That would be nice but... by Foamy · · Score: 1

      Must be a Faux News Anchor who doesn't want to be fingered.

      Oooh. Maybe it's Matt Drudge. Or Rush himself!

    9. Re:That would be nice but... by darnok · · Score: 2, Interesting

      > The politicians don't suck, the population sucks
      > if this is the best we have to offer.

      I'm inclined to think it's a different issue altogether.

      Here in Australia, there's ongoing outrage at the fact that "run of the mill" federal politicans make something around twice the average salary. Given the responsibility that these guys take on, compared with "average salary" guy, I think they're woefully underpaid.

      Think about it: a lot of us working in IT wouldn't even consider taking these jobs on, since we couldn't afford the pay *cut* we'd get in trying to help lead our countries. Doesn't that seem ridiculous? - we can make much more money doing relatively obscure IT work for large corporations that we could if we were running our countries!

      Factor in the time commitment of a political career, and the only people left to take on the role are the independently wealthy and those who would otherwise be on relatively low incomes. For those with young kids, it's just about impossible, and that's been borne out by a significant number of Australian politicians "dropping out" to look after their families.

      Of course, there will always be those who take on the job because they feel they "should contribute in some way", but they may tend to be the people who have some sort of axe to grind with the present system.

      Look at a hypothetical alternative: Suppose we raised the income of politicians by a factor of (say) 10, and as a tradeoff limited the number of terms they could serve (maybe 10-15 years max). Suddenly, you'd get people who weren't interested in the role prepared to take it on. Now I'm not saying these people would do a better job (in fact, individually they might do worse), but by making the job more (financially) attractive you'd expect to a number of better quality people applying. By limiting the number of years someone can hold down a political career, you'd kill off the "career politician" mentality - those people who seem to focus simply on getting re-elected time after time, rather than contribute in any concrete way.

      I think these two steps would have the effect of weeding out a lot of the dud politicians, while keeping most of the good ones. Maybe then such stupidities as the Patriot Act, Copyright Extension Act and DMCA in the US, and unenforceable Internet censorship laws and "Muslim=bad" political hype in Australia, wouldn't keep popping up.

    10. Re:That would be nice but... by PotatoHead · · Score: 1

      You are dead on in this. I was raised to not live in fear, yet this is exactly what the "Home of the Brave" is asking me to do.

      Makes me sick too.

      Any of us here could make a plan to cause any amount of trouble with the things we have access to every day. That is what terrorism is.

      Personally, I value my (remaining) freedoms and am not willing to "get ready" to lose any more.

      American politics at its finest indeed.

    11. Re:That would be nice but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another view, which terrifies me, is that we ARE doing this, and the national politicians DO represent the will of the people. We are greedy, insular hawks who know or care nothing of world politics or domestic diversity.

      Only 40% of us, the rest don't vote.

    12. Re:That would be nice but... by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Have you investigated the costs of running for a national office? We don't have people who represent the population running for office, we have people who represent those who can afford to pay for advertising running for office. And there are basically two of them that you must choose between. (This is a structural feature of the election process. Even if more that two candidates are presented, you can be nearly certain that one of the top two will be elected. So the minor parties are "minor irritants, occasionally useful" (as when the republicans paid for Nader ads).

      There is no fair system, but there are few election systems that are less biased in favor of deep pockets. Instant runnoff would be far superior in almost all cases, and equally good in most of the remainder. (That's not my favorite system, it's the one that has the most vocal support. My favorite is a multi-round rejection runoff. Rank all the candidates. Delete the least popular candidate from all lists. Repeat until only one candidate remains. Guaranteed mediocrity, which is far superior to what we've been getting. [My alternate is lottery. All citizens must participate. You'll occasionally get a doozy, but that should be cured by having not only the presidency, but also the Senate and House elected that way. No telling who will get which office, so have the time is spent building coalitions, and the parties disappear.])

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    13. Re:That would be nice but... by the_machine · · Score: 1
      Think about that while you eat your red, white, and blue cake.


      Thanks, but no. That blue stuff always stains my teeth.

    14. Re:That would be nice but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We are greedy, insular hawks who know or care nothing of world politics or domestic diversity.

      I mean this in the least flamey way possible...but this is how a lot of the world sees the US and Americans in general.

      There was a protest happening a couple of summers ago in the (Canadian) city I live in and the protesters had caused some traffic congestion due to the large number of people in the streets. There were cops holding back traffic and trying to clear the streets so nobody got hurt and I saw a guy getting in one of the cops' face, yelling, and when the cop told him to get back in his car, he became enraged, yelling "how dare you?!! I am an AMERICAN CITIZEN!!"

      I don't think every American is that way. I work with Americans every day and I'm proud to call them my friends. Most of them are not like this guy.

      But George W. Bush is doing nothing but harming your image in the international community and fueling the hatered that is felt toward America by a lot of people.

      I love my American friends, but if anybody needs regime change, it's the USA.

    15. Re:That would be nice but... by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      >I love my American friends, but if anybody needs
      >regime change, it's the USA.

      Well, there's one scheduled. If the conservative party stays in power on the same sort of technicalities as last time, expect a peoples' revolution to ensue.

      >I work with Americans every day

      I am afraid that the ones I will associate with are far outnumbered by the ones I would not. I am also afraid to say they represent a hostile, xenophobic society that sees nothing wrong with killing of innocent people for their own benefit, although they do not have the stomach to do the killing directly.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
  26. what about public libraries??? by nuwayser · · Score: 2, Interesting

    aren't they required to keep logs of the books their customers take out? they can't just delete that information, can they??

    --
    "The cup... the drop... it's a YES!"
    1. Re:what about public libraries??? by blisspix · · Score: 1

      they can and they do. Those that actually care, anyway. Unfortunately there's a lot of librarians in my profession who are quite happy to comply with the FBI.

    2. Re:what about public libraries??? by Goronmon · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but its a different animal when you are dealing with public libraries, I mean, you can't just anonymously borrow a library book, they have to know who you are and where they can reach you, else people would be borrowing books permanently.

      For bookstores, however, its not really necessary for them to keep your information. What would they use it for besides some sort of mailing list?

    3. Re:what about public libraries??? by DChristensen · · Score: 1

      I can't speak for all libraries, but for our (admittedly small) public library, there is no record kept of the books checked out by a patron once they have been returned. The records are purely in place for inventory control.

      --

      --
      Mac OS X--Unix without the assholes^Whassles.

    4. Re:what about public libraries??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bring the book back and your name is permanently erased from any connection to that record. Further, for Internet use, all URL history is erased on a restart of the browser. On a reboot, the machines are returned to a known state, clean of all cookies, pages, etc. If the cops come to seize a computer, as soon as it is turned off for transport, everything is gone. Nothing wrong with a little passive resistence. Libraries do more than most anybody else to protect patron's privacy.

  27. YAY! by BFaucet · · Score: 1

    I'm going to have to buy a book from them.

    Thank you, Bear Pond Books! I could kiss you... if I didn't live in Florida.

    --
    -Derick
  28. Very Respectable by adamvjackson · · Score: 1

    That is a very respectable move. In these ages of increased security, there is a trade off - That being, rights for security. With current news of TCPA, etc. it's nice to see someone take a stand.

    1. Re:Very Respectable by BFaucet · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What's really bad is that it's not a tradeoff. These right restrictions and constitutional violations will not give us extra security.

      --
      -Derick
  29. Restaurant in India replaces waiters w/ Computers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  30. Nothing New by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder how many businesses are doing this. I know that my bookstore has been, without customers having to ask, since right after the PATRIOT act was passed. Who else knows about companies that purge records to protect customers?

  31. Not conservative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Conservative is a general term and doesn't really mean anything. It is better to be more specific.

    Neo-conservatives are for this.
    Paleo-conservatives are against this.
    Libertarians are against this.

    You can find the differences by doing a web search.

  32. Peggy Bresee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Peggy Bresee was in Bear Pond Books recently to buy "War is a Force That Gives Us Meaning" and "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" as birthday gifts for a son who lives in Utah. She had the store purge the purchase records.
    "It really does make me feel so much better," she said. "They're protecting those of us who are readers. It matters."

    LOL. I'm glad she feels better because now millions of people know exactly what she bought, where she bought it, who she bought it for, and where he lives.

    In fact, I have a mind to give her a call right now at her home in Plainview, VT (thank you, Yahoo) at (802) 454-XXXX and personally thank her for her attention to privacy!

    Your brain. Don't leave home without it!

  33. Right to privacy by aliens · · Score: 1

    Actually, as far as I know, you have no right to privacy. It's just something we've come to think we deserve.

    Could someone fill me in on the laws that have been passed that give us these rights? I'm not trolling I would really like to know.

    --
    -- taking over the world, we are.
    1. Re:Right to privacy by jonman_d · · Score: 4, Informative

      Amendment IX

      The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

      Amendment X

      The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

      ==

      Just because you're not specifically guaranteed the right to privacy anywhere, doesn't mean you don't have it. The only way you _wouldn't_ have it would be if the constitution specifically said, "the federal government shall have the right to invade the private lives of citizens."

    2. Re:Right to privacy by broken_bones · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Two quick thoughts (in no particular order):

      First, I've always personally associated a right to be secure in my person, papers, home and effects (Ammendment 4) to be a reference to privacy of some sort. Maybe I'm just weird.

      Second, when thinking about privacy issues we would, I think, do well to distinguish privacy and anonymity.

      --

      Never disturb your enemy while he is busy making a mistake.
    3. Re:Right to privacy by whatparadox · · Score: 1

      Obligitatory IANAL, but as I understand it from my online law class, privacy is an extension the forth amendment.

    4. Re:Right to privacy by Dirtside · · Score: 3, Funny
      privacy is an extension the forth amendment.
      Is that the amendment that prohibits the use of COBOL in governmental applications? ;)
      --
      "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
    5. Re:Right to privacy by doomdog · · Score: 1

      Look at the 4th 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..."

      You really need to get a copy of the constitution (many copies, actually), and pass them around to everyone you meet. I have a bunch of the Pocket Constition books from the Cato Institute:

      (http://www.cato.org/cgi-bin/Web_store/web_store.c gi?page=dicon.html&cart_id=)

      I particularly like giving them out to the over-zealous security screeners at the airpoint...

    6. Re:Right to privacy by whatparadox · · Score: 1

      No, its the one that allows me to spell freely. Or was that the first? :)

    7. Re:Right to privacy by Dirtside · · Score: 1

      That'd be the First Amendment, the same one that allows me to mock you for misspelling things. Mock! Mock, I say! :)

      --
      "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
    8. Re:Right to privacy by Loki_1929 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Amendment XI should have been, "Any leader caught violating any of the first 10 amendments shall be set afire as to cause unimaginably painful death."

      Perhaps then we wouldn't continuously get ourselves into cycles of Constitution shredding/rebuilding. What's missing from the US Constitution is, quite frankly, consequences. There's no provision for punishing a bad, or abusive sitting government. What's worse, in today's surveillance society, a good old fashion revolution is downright impossible. Since when is it treasonous to save your country from your government?

      --
      -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
    9. Re:Right to privacy by commodoresloat · · Score: 1

      According to Supreme Court decisions extending back to Olmstead v. U.S. and affirmed in such cases as Griswold v Connecticut , the right to privacy emanates from the penumbras of the first, fourth, fifth, and ninth amendments to the Constitution. It is not specifically mentioned but it has been called by the Court (in Brandeis' dissent in 1928, which is now Court precedent as it has been heavily cited) "the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized man." Privacy is protected by the US Constitution, even though you won't find the word in the Bill of Rights.

    10. Re:Right to privacy by EddieSam · · Score: 1

      Since when is it treasonous to save your country from your government?

      Since your government asserted the authority to define the meaning of the word "treason" to be anyone who would remove them from power, by peaceful means or any means other than voting.

    11. Re:Right to privacy by Melantha_Bacchae · · Score: 2, Informative

      IANAL, but as far as I can tell, the Fourth Amendment seems to imply it:

      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.

      I don't think it is too big of a stretch to apply "papers" to modern electronic records of purchases, medical records, email, etc. If my reasoning is correct, then the Fourth Amendment would not only forbid the CIA from searching our purchase records without a warrant, etc., but it would also forbid something like the Total Information Awareness database.

      I think the Fourth Amendment is kind of a sibling to the Fifth Amendment. Whereas the Fifth protects us from having to testify against ourselves, the Fourth protects us from having our bodies, homes, things, and records (including electronic?) testify against us, at least without some kind of due process.

      The people who wrote the Constitution had suffered under British rule. They had soldiers forced upon them, living in their homes, going through their things. If the soldiers saw anything suspicious, they would just report it, and that person could be sent to England for trial. (Think about the TIPS program, replace the soldiers with the cable guy, and you have the exact same situation.) These people knew what privacy violation felt like, they had had no privacy, not even in their own homes.

      That this right to privacy, to "be secure in our persons, houses, papers and effects", was one of the first to be violated by the Attorney General is reprehensible. That it was violated (and continues to be violated) in the name of "security" is ridiculous. But then, we are living in the times where CNN ("the most trusted name in news" -- what a laugh) has declared that Congress does not believe in the First Amendment. Heck, I'm surprised they let the company execs of Enron, et al, take the Fifth!

      "The path of peace is yours to discover for eternity."
      Japanese version of "Mothra" (1961)

    12. Re:Right to privacy by peter · · Score: 1

      I thought it WAS treasonous to try to convince people not to re-elect the govt. Whatever, I'm still not moving to the states until Nader's president and all the dirty laundry is aired out and bullshit stopped.

      --
      #define X(x,y) x##y
      Peter Cordes ; e-mail: X(peter@cordes , .ca)
    13. Re:Right to privacy by ChristTrekker · · Score: 1
      What's missing from the US Constitution is, quite frankly, consequences.

      I think the consequences are implied from the 2nd Amendment and the DoI. "Screw with the rights of the people, and it could happen again. We, the people, reserve the just authority to do so." The 2nd Amendment is the bulwark of liberty. It's not there to protect your "right" to hunt or plink tin cans.

    14. Re:Right to privacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about changing the law so that assassination isn't a crime, but an occupational hazard for politicians?

    15. Re:Right to privacy by albanac · · Score: 1
      Since when is it treasonous to save your country from your government?

      It has never been treasonous to successfully overthrow a government. It has always been treasonous to attempt to do so. The trick is not to lose.

      ~cHris
    16. Re:Right to privacy by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Nader lost all of my respect with his "after the election comment" of how he was glad that Bush had won, because now things would get so bad that people would have to do something.

      Well, yes, he was right. But that doesn't make this outcome a good thing. And it's not clear what people can do, or just how bad things will eventually get. Or whether we will ever successfully recover a government as free as we had before. (Yes, I know it was already corrupt. That's not the point.)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    17. Re:Right to privacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A rebellion is always legal in the first person such as "our rebellion." Only in the third person "their rebellion" does it become illegal

    18. Re:Right to privacy by ChristTrekker · · Score: 1
      I think the Fourth Amendment is kind of a sibling to the Fifth Amendment. Whereas the Fifth protects us from having to testify against ourselves, the Fourth protects us from having our bodies, homes, things, and records (including electronic?) testify against us, at least without some kind of due process.

      Interesting to think how the IRS "persuades" us to give up all our financial information then, in order to pay a "voluntary" tax, isn't it? "'Volunteer' your info, or go to jail." The tax protesters have a point. Otherwise why would the government back out of facing them directly?

    19. Re:Right to privacy by peter · · Score: 1

      Yikes, I don't remember taking note of that. I wonder if he was serious, or just feeling bitter and exaggerating. It's not going to get bad enough to start much of a revolution.

      People have to do something, but we both know they're not going to. They're too busy watching TV. We don't need perpetual war to keep people complacent, we just need a Hollywood that occupies most people's every idle thought. Orwell didn't see that coming. :(

      --
      #define X(x,y) x##y
      Peter Cordes ; e-mail: X(peter@cordes , .ca)
  34. Too Funny! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Peggy Bresee was in Bear Pond Books recently to buy "War is a Force That Gives Us Meaning" and "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" as birthday gifts for a son who lives in Utah. She had the store purge the purchase records.
    "It really does make me feel so much better," she said. "They're protecting those of us who are readers. It matters."


    Um....What good does it do to purge purchase info if the customers are just going to hand over the details of what they bought to the news media?? :) Seriously though, bravo to the shopkeeps. What about the company that they are affiliated with for their website?? I wouldn't be surprised to find that THEY are tracking purchase info.

    1. Re:Too Funny! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      dude, I beat you by 8 minutes.

  35. But if Google retains all data, it's cool, right? by Everyman · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ISPs and search engines are affected by the Patriot Act also. The authorities can claim that search terms are part of the URL, because they get logged with the URL in normal httpd logging. Therefore they fall under the definition of "routing and addressing" information that is subject to "tap and trace device" scrutiny. Judges are required to approve orders for such scrutiny without a showing of probable cause.

    Google saves your cookie ID, your IP number, your search terms, the date and time stamp, and your browser configuration with every search request you make to Google, and Google retains all this data indefinitely, and Google will not comment on their dealings with the authorities.

    But this is cool because Google has cute colored letters in their logo, right?

  36. BAH! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Like the government isn't already using Echelon to track every single person in this country. They already know who you are, what you're doing, who you're doing it WITH, what you buy, where you drive, who you talk to, where you work and with what brand pencil you use to fill out your 1040. There has been no freedom in the USA since before WWII, or anywhere else for that matter. The US just hides it better than most, so the ignorant unwashed masses won't rebel and overthrow their little kingdom.

  37. Support your local retailer by NineNine · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yet another reason to support your local retailer, instead of some monstrous mega-billion dollar international conglomerate that pays people minimum wages and operates nothing more consumer friendly than giant warehouses wherever rent is cheap. There's no "community" when you buy from these giants. Stroll down to your local bookstore (or any small retail establishment). You'll be surprised at pricing, selection, and customer service.

    1. Re:Support your local retailer by j1mmy · · Score: 1

      I've tried this. The prices aren't competitive. The selection was dismal. And there was no customer service to speak of.

    2. Re:Support your local retailer by NineNine · · Score: 1

      Have you been to a local bookstore recently, or are you just talking out of your ass. I run a small store myself (soon to be several), and my customers are always surprised that my prices are the same if not better than what you pay for the same item at "super stores". I guess it's just because I don't have millionaire CEO's to pay...

    3. Re:Support your local retailer by Sabalon · · Score: 1

      Sadly, other than one used book store in town that has about as many books in the store as I do at home, I can't think of a local bookstore to go to.

      That depresses me.

    4. Re:Support your local retailer by Colossus · · Score: 0

      Your the one talking out of his ass...

      I have been to EVERY local bookstore. EVERY ONE (that was listed or I have heard of by word of mouth) I have traveled HUNDREDS of miles to go book hunting for fun. NEVER have I found a selection that beats Borders and I have never ever ever purchased anything at a better price. NEVER.

      For instance I shopped only at one store for all my Sci-Fi and Role Playing books and material. For years. I would drive back home hundreds of miles on the weekends after a new shipment was in. Eventually a Gamekeeper opened up in the mall. They carry EVERYTHING * 1000 that I need. Now they don't have a ton of the more limited and underground publishers titles, but guess what? Neither does the other shop, why? Simple they can't afford to keep stock of items no one will buy.

      Do you stock 300 copies of the Principia Discordia? Or 300 copies of To Kill a Mockingbird because school kids will always have to buy it, over and over year in and year out? If so I can get a copy for $6. How much does your distributor charge? Look it up... now how much are you going to charge me? How much profit do you need to make on sale of a book like Principia Discordia compared to To Kill A Mockingbird?

      Let me know.

  38. I don't buy crap so I don't worry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't buy books about communism, porn, satanism or the like. I therefore do not have a problem with this law. However, if they suddenly start tracking my thefts and making them public or giving them to law enforcement agencies then we will have a serious problem on our hand.

  39. One supoena they don't need! by maxwells_deamon · · Score: 1

    Peggy Bresee was in Bear Pond Books recently to buy "War is a Force That Gives Us Meaning" and "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" as birthday gifts for a son who lives in Utah. She had
    the store purge the purchase records.


    Hope they spelled her name correctly!

    PS: my first post while running Solaris 9 on a Sparc

  40. Buy local by FattMattP · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How about buying from your local bookseller and paying cash?

    --
    Prevent email address forgery. Publish SPF records for y
    1. Re:Buy local by Erris · · Score: 1
      How about buying from your local bookseller and paying cash?

      Winston says that he works for Big Brother too. That bastard who gave him "The Book" set him up! If that "local" bookshop is not in another town, you are not paranoid enough.

      --
      DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
    2. Re:Buy local by Monkey-Man2000 · · Score: 1

      Because they frequently don't carry the things that might be suspicious. I'm not talking about Barnes and Noble.

      --
      This post was generated by a Cadre of Uber Monkeys for Monkey-Man2000 (603495).
    3. Re:Buy local by commodoresloat · · Score: 1

      How about, that requires me to get off the chair in front of my computer and put down the bong? Hell, that even requires leaving the house.

    4. Re:Buy local by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because they don't carry the donkey pron I like, smarty pants.

  41. Absolutely incorrect... by dameron · · Score: 2, Informative
    The CIA does not, and is not allowed, to opperate within the borders of the united states. It may be the FBI or NSA that comes looking but CIA is strictly for international matters.

    Wow, someone who actually believes this. You should be tranquilized, tagged, and returned to the wild so scientists can study your habits because you are a rare and fascinating aberration.

    Here's a brief summary of what the Church Committee came up with in 1975: link. A few select quotes from the article sited:
    • the CIA infiltrated religious, media, and academic organizations.
    • the CIA engaged in drug experiments (the MK/ULTRA Project) against unsuspecting subjects (two of whom died from side effects).
    • intelligence agencies carried out burglaries in the homes and offices of suspected "subversives".
    • a CIA program to open mail to or from selected American citizens generated 1.5 million names stored in the Agency's computer bank.

    Here's a fine page with many links to goverment documents such as the Church Committee's and the Rockefeller reports on CIA abuses within the U.S.: link

    Now of course all these things are in the past, and the Church report defanged the CIA right? Right? Surely the CIA would never do that again... But it really doesn't matter, as the USA PATRIOT Act gives the CIA pretty much a free hand at intelligence gathering in the US anyway.

    -dameron

    1. Re:Absolutely incorrect... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's a brief summary of what the Church Committee came up with in 1975

      Wow, someone who thinks times dont change. I think youre the that needs to be tranquilized, tagged, and returned to the wild so scientists can study your habits because you are a rare and fascinating aberration.

      You describe something that happened before 1975.

      The CIA's restrictions on domestic intelligence came AFTER that year. Specifically, Exec Order 12333, which was issued in 1981.

  42. Ah, but just remember WHY they took. . . by kfg · · Score: 1

    your rights.

    It was to preserve your way of life. You wouldn't mind giving up your constitutional rights to preserve your freedom, now would you.

    Otherwise the terrorists win you see.

    SIEG HI.... cough. Er, excuse me. Reflex.

    KFG

  43. Two Words: Karma $$$$$lut by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Two Words: Karma $$$$$lut

  44. "Mr. Gore,... by Nathdot · · Score: 1

    ...someone finally bought your book!" :)

  45. Tinfoil Hat Syndrome by jeramybsmith · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Let me be frank with you people, John Ashcroft could care less what you read. There is no clerk in the government right now fishing book sales records looking for the enemy within. Now, you can bet your ass that when they arrested the buffalo 6 they tried to find out what books they checked out from their local library or bought from a local book store. Why? The answer is of course, DUH. If they bought a bunch of books on chemistry that had information that could be used to make bombs, then they had better start busting their asses to figure ot if any had been made and where they went. Meanwhile, you and I have not had our civil liberties infringed one single bit. This is pure scaremongering on the parts of some groups and ignorant fear on the part of others. Ponder this, you have expose a terror cell and don't capture one of them. You find out at the local book store they were buying books on flying small aircraft. Ah ha! You have a lead! The level of paranoia some people have about patriot really perturbs me. Most of the patriot act was an excuse to update federal surveillance and evidence gathering to account for the computer age and also to close various loopholes that kept them from doing some no-brainer stuff. As a customer though, I feel good that a bookstore will toss my records. That is between them and me. However, I feel government should be able to access the records that are there if there is an imperative national security interest. Most of you would agree with that statement, and lo and behold that is what patriot does.

    --
    Never overestimate the end user. -jeramy b. smith
    1. Re:Tinfoil Hat Syndrome by Flamerule · · Score: 4, Interesting
      John Ashcroft could care less what you read
      Oh, he doesn't care. That must be why he inserted this provision into the PATRIOT act, giving him the ability to get bookstore records without authorization from a judge. Because he doesn't care.
      Now, you can bet your ass that when they arrested the buffalo 6 they tried to find out what books they checked out from their local library or bought from a local book store. Why? The answer is of course, DUH.
      I like how your tortured, laughable explanation for this law -- which I'll demolish immediately below -- is so obvious it merits a "DUH".
      If they bought a bunch of books on chemistry that had information that could be used to make bombs, then they had better start busting their asses to figure ot if any had been made and where they went.
      Really? So, the police/FBI, having gathered enough evidence to arrest those 6 men, interrogate them, search their apartments, work, etc., will then go to their neighborhood bookstore to find out what they've been buying? Bullshit. How about they look at the fucking books in their fucking houses. The only reason to have unhindered access to bookstore records is to use them to form opinions on the suspect, or clarify to the ones they already have.
      Meanwhile, you and I have not had our civil liberties infringed one single bit.
      Good god, what do you think "infringe" means? "Look up my bookstore records, FBI guy! It's all fine by me!" "Put a tail on me 24/7! Take plenty of pictures!" "Feel free to bug my house, feds! Be sure to get a camera in the bedroom!" "I'm jeramybsmith, and I don't want any civil liberties!"
      Ponder this, you have expose a terror cell and don't capture one of them. You find out at the local book store they were buying books on flying small aircraft. Ah ha! You have a lead!
      As I said above, this is FINE! Because if you've fucking arrested them, then you got a warrant, and you can go to the bookstore with that. Not that you'd need to, since you collected all their fucking books when you tossed their place.
      However, I feel government should be able to access the records that are there if there is an imperative national security interest.
      If national security is at stake, then I imagine they won't have much trouble getting a warrant from a judge.

      Lastly: get a clue and toss in some fucking line breaks.

    2. Re:Tinfoil Hat Syndrome by frdmfghtr · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That may be the case now...but the future situation may change.

      Let's assume for the moment that you are right, and Ashcroft and Co. don't care what I am reading (and it is a good assumption I believe). That is not to say that in the FUTURE they wouldn't start scanning bookstore and library records, scanning for key words and tricky phrases. The order of events is now turned--they scan the records, THEN start pursuing individuals that have suspicious reading habits. I read up on the theory and evolution of the nuclear bomb because I find it scientifically interesting. I also happen to be working towards a pilot's license. Does this make me a terrorist? No, but it might raise a flag due to the key words "nuclear", "bomb", and "pilot." Now I have the Feds investigating me for no reason at all, other than my own intellectual curiousity. I am now viewed as "suspicious" for no reason.

      I try to use PGP whenever I use e-mail. Do I have something to hide? No. Is my correspondence anybody else's business? No. You use an envelope when you mail a letter. If you have nothing to hide, why use it? Why not send a postcard? Simple answer: privacy. Just because you have nothing to hide doesn't mean you don't want your privacy.

      It's far easier now to prevent such a precident from forming than fighting it after it has been set. An ounce of prevention and all that...is it a bit of paranoia? Maybe--I hardly think it is as intrusive or Orwellian as some make it out to be. BUT, you can't let it get that way. I'd rather be a bit paranoid and defend my civil liberties while I still have them than be complacent and have to try winning them back later on. You have to admit that our government isn't the most trustworthy or careful organization on the planet (Carnivore, lost laptops, Watergate, etc. etc.)

      Would you rather defend your civil liberties or have to fight for their return?

      --
      Government's idea of a balanced budget: take money from the right pocket to balance...oh who am I kidding?
    3. Re:Tinfoil Hat Syndrome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly how paranoid are you? Do you honestly think that any govt aganecy cares what you read?! If that is the case i seriously suggest you re-evaluate your lifestyle. These laws are like the poster says, to aid in finding more about arrested individuals. Perhaps they bought 5 of the same book, thus disseminating it to others, possibly using it for terrorist purposes. A sample question might be "we see you bought 5 copies of bombmaking for dummies, yet we only found 1 in your apt. Where are the others?" Geez, give your paranoia a rest. Why not fight against laws that might actually affect you or others?

    4. Re:Tinfoil Hat Syndrome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      right, like questioning and debating the patriot act is somehow wrong. checks and balances bub. checks and balances. the government has to PROVE that what they are doing does not violate my rights, not make empty promises.

    5. Re:Tinfoil Hat Syndrome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (Heh. jeramybsmith now posing as an Anonymous Coward in his own thread...?)

      > Why not fight against laws that might actually affect you or others?

      This comment, in the context of the PATRIOT act, is perhaps the saddest statement I can imagine on just how clueless my fellow American voters can be.

      PATRIOT is EXACTLY the kind of law citizens should be fighting.

      Do high school history courses teach NOTHING these days?

      Random Quote of the Day:

      "If you can't beat a dead man in a fair election, and your boss can only win in an unfair one, you can't tell me what to do."

      (For those of you who may forget, Ashcroft lost an election to a dead opponent....)

    6. Re:Tinfoil Hat Syndrome by SurgeonGeneral · · Score: 1

      "If national security is at stake, then I imagine they won't have much trouble getting a warrant from a judge. "

      ok that was the perfect way to end that. very nice.

      --
      -- "Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains." Jean Jacques Rousseau
    7. Re:Tinfoil Hat Syndrome by jeramybsmith · · Score: 1

      "Good god, what do you think "infringe" means? "Look up my bookstore records, FBI guy! It's all fine by me!" "Put a tail on me 24/7! Take plenty of pictures!" "Feel free to bug my house, feds! Be sure to get a camera in the bedroom!" "I'm jeramybsmith, and I don't want any civil liberties!" " Here is your tinfoil hat. Thanks for demonstrating my point. What part of the patriot act lets them search bookstore records warrantless outside of a terror threat again?

      --
      Never overestimate the end user. -jeramy b. smith
    8. Re:Tinfoil Hat Syndrome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      cock

    9. Re:Tinfoil Hat Syndrome by 10Ghz · · Score: 1
      What part of the patriot act lets them search bookstore records warrantless outside of a terror threat again?/blockquote>

      How do you define a "terror threat"?
      --
      Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
    10. Re:Tinfoil Hat Syndrome by ArizonaBay · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Here is your tinfoil hat. Thanks for demonstrating my point. What part of the patriot act lets them search bookstore records warrantless outside of a terror threat again?

      What exactly is your point? You seem to be acknowledging the fact that the Patriot Act allows the FBI to search bookstore records without a warrant to find out what people are reading.. Your only defense of this clear infringement upon of our civil liberties is "they're only going to use it in cases related to 'terror threats'".

      So what? Anyone can become SUSPECTED (please notice this oh-so-important adjective) of being a 'terror threat' and therefore everyone should be concerned about it.

      You still hold this notion that people concerned about this have 'tinfoil hat syndrome'. In your first post, you said it was because that this specific provision of the Patriot Act did not infringe upon our civil liberties 'one single bit'. In your second post, however, you seem to concede that you were wrong about this, but yet you still throw around this "tin foil hat" nonsense?

      Wearing a 'tin foil hat' is a reference to someone who is extremely paranoid about threadbare conspiracies and imaginary threats. That is clearly not the case in this instance. The threat, as you have now acknowledged, is real and they're doing it right in front of our faces. If you feel that giving up these civil liberties is worth fighting ambigious 'terror threats', that's fine; make a reasonable argument for it. Please, however, don't throw around erroneous insults intended to stonewall debate.

      -Arizona Bay
      ..Then they came for me,
      and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me...

    11. Re:Tinfoil Hat Syndrome by privacyt · · Score: 1
      It would be very easy for the FBI to obtain court orders to find out what books the Buffalo Six purchased.

      The problem with the PATRIOT Act is that it allows the government without a court order to find out what books you're reading.

      I have lots of books I don't want the government to know about. For instance, I bought a book a couple years ago called Hide Your Assets and Disappear. So based on that, if I ever get arrested I'd get screwed at my bail hearing, since that book makes me a "flight risk." :roll eyes:

    12. Re:Tinfoil Hat Syndrome by drooling-dog · · Score: 1

      How do you define a "terror threat"?

      However Ashcroft wants to define it, I think is the point...

    13. Re:Tinfoil Hat Syndrome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      It's truly amazing and frightening that an apparently educated person can be this stunningly naive.
      I fear for the future of our country more than ever before if many people share this sentiment.

  46. You know what to do, Patriot. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    patRIOT

  47. Ebay's Policy by nyc_paladin · · Score: 2, Informative

    Kind of interesting to here about this when I heard on the Screen Savers that eBay is more than willing to hand over any user's information to the goverment without a supeona or court order. Here is a link to the original artical where the senior council for eBay had a close door meeting with cyber crimes divisions of goverment agencies.

    --
    All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. --Edmund Burke
  48. Moderators, please stop feeding this karma $$$$lut by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    n/t

  49. Not just the CIA by Quanza · · Score: 1

    How do they plan to deal with the IRS and other tax mongers? innocent until proven guilty doesn't necessarily mean ignorance is on your side... hopefully they're just anonymizing the sales, and not purging all records completely...

    --
    -Q
  50. What happened to cash, or zero-knowledge systems? by dmeranda · · Score: 1

    When you use cash you don't have to give out your identity, and short of using witnesses or video surveilence tapes you're pretty anonymous and untrackable. Be careful with gift certificates/cards though as they potentially can be tracked.

    For the online world you'd pretty much need to develop some sort of zero-knowledge system; one that involves real-world entities, not just zero-knowledge cryptographic techniques. Something like an indentity-free payment system (there have been many of these experiements), combined with a zero-knowledge separation of the inventory system from the shipping system.

    Of course that only covers you after the fact. If the government is able to set up things before your purchase (like wiretaps and other spy-stuff), then you will get caught.

  51. You Scratch their Back by jeramybsmith · · Score: 1

    I worked at web hosting facility once and it was victimized by several DDOS attacks. I can tell you, the FBI people will work with you if you file a report. However, if you don't give them a big hassle when they want to check something, they are much nicer to work with when you are the one needing the help. So, it doesn't surprise me that Ebay bends over backwards to help these guys since they probably have had major breakin attempts and probably have had some ddos attacks also.

    --
    Never overestimate the end user. -jeramy b. smith
  52. This just in... by Stonent1 · · Score: 1

    Michael Katzenberg has been arrested on suspicions of ties to Al Qaeda and the Islamic Jihad. That and Saddam Hussein's alien abduction and anal probe next.... On FOX news! We speculate... YOU decide!

  53. Just Use Cash by icewalker · · Score: 1

    You can't be tracked if you use Cash to buy a book. Doing it online? Think twice about doint that. Get outdoors, support your mom and pop bookstore and buy from them instead. Besides, it's better for the economy than feeding some megolith corp with multimillion dollar CEO's.

    And for goodness sake, don't use those easy debit cards. Don't use those grocery store discount cards either! Cash baby!

    Then when you become more literate from readin controversial books, write your congressperson and tell him what you think of his/her voting yes to a law that erodes your freedoms and turns the US into a Cold War Era Soviet Union. I'm still waiting to be stopped by some cop, asked for my papers and basically interogated for why I'm out walking around!

    --
    The truth is usually just an excuse for lack of imagination.
    1. Re:Just Use Cash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      right, dont buy online. so the only local place to buy 256MB pc2700 ddr costs $120 and online its $45 shipped and better quality to boot. wtf am I made of cash ? get a grip. your pretty little "cash only" world sounds so simple and endearing but in the real world youd have to be STINKIN FUCKING RICH to pay cash for everything. just think about it for more than .2ns and you'll see wtf I am talking about. and dont fuking tell me I dont need ram. snooty asshole.

  54. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  55. Re:JunkBuster is your friend... by justMichael · · Score: 1

    Guess it's a good thing I use JunkBuster and wear my tin foil hat while surfing the web...

    Have a day..

  56. where are the editors? by rsilverman · · Score: 0, Redundant

    ... sidestep typically insideous a provision...

    Um, how about: ... sidestep a typically insidious provision...

    OK, this is absurd. Judging by the general arrogance level, poeple who post to Slashdot obviously think of themselves as pretty smart. It's not very convincing, when the editing, spelling, grammar, etc. in the posts is so consistently bad! And do the Slashdot folks really think their publication can be taken seriously, when it's apparently edited by a bunch of not-very-well-educated 6th-graders? Wake up.

  57. Privacy wins by Manfre · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I am an adminsitrator at a public library and was told to remove all records and log files that contained information about our patrons. The library's board of trustees chose this even though it could cost them government money.

    1. Re:Privacy wins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fed will have probable cause only for overdue books!
      get 'um back on time!

  58. Our Rights by mpark6288 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Someone up further on the list spoke eloquently about how John Ashcroft and Gov't clerks don't give a rat's patute (say it phonetically) about what we're reading. Unfortunatly, this isn't true necessarily. I live in Denver, which was mentioned in either the article or the post, and frequent the Tattered Cover. This is the store that had it's rights to preserve records w/o the gov't having a warrant challenged. Fortunatly, they won. However, as with many things, the government found a loophole, the Patriot act. The case here with the Tattered Cover was a person who bought a book that was something to the effect of 'Making Meth in your Basement.' They tried to take records without a warrant once, and it's a slippery slope, in my opinion. Now here's a scary example. Your a highschool or college student, or even a graduated person, who wants to read about chemistry. Either to cram for an exam, or just because. You go down to the bookstore, and buy three textbooks. Suddenly, John Ashcroft is at your door, calling you a terrorist, and taking you to jail. Because you wanted to remember the chemical formula for methane? (CH4) That's a little much to me.

    --
    "For I am the Alpha and the Omega, the begining and the end, the first and the last. Wow, this is crazy stuff!"
    1. Re:Our Rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think you need a chemistry book to know how to produce methane.

    2. Re:Our Rights by kgarcia · · Score: 1

      Meth

      Methamphetamines

      not Methane

      sheesh

  59. Library Purging by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I'm on the board of a library in the United States. We, in an effort to prevent PATRIOT (which, by the way, stands for "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism" - how pathetic is that?) demands of record provision, are now destroying all records that a book was checked out after it is returned. In addition, we are only maintaining backups for the past 72 hours. Not a good backup policy, but it's all that's viable in the face of the PATRIOT Act.

  60. Sure but... by poweroff · · Score: 1

    Do they plan to torch to their data drive?

  61. Recieved this little bit of info in an e-mail.... by Luxviaest · · Score: 0

    "On Friday, February 7, the PBS program NOW with Bill Moyers broke an important story about a document recently leaked to the Center for Public Integrity by an insider at the Justice Department. That document, titled the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003, turns out to be a draft of a new bill, much like the Patriot Act, that would grant the executive branch sweeping and unprecedented powers to spy on Americans with little or no judicial oversight. It would also enable polluting and otherwise irresponsible corporations to hide incriminating documents behind the veil of "national security0/00 simply by handing them over to the Homeland Security Department. Such a bill should obviously not pass without a thorough and informed debate. Please investigate this story immediately and bring it to the attention of the American people so that such a debate can begin before we find ourselves in a war with Iraq or in the midst of some other national crisis. The document can be found on the Web at http://www.publicintegrity.org/." I believe it is time our government be held accountable for what it is doing during this war on terror. Although action is certainly needed to curtail those who would seek to disrupt the lives of Americans for the sheer sake of it, it is also our responsibility to be aware of what exactly our government is doing in our name. Within that same vein, we must also be diligent in the face of a possible future in which Orwell himself would be damn near frightened by. (Rant Ended) LVX

  62. 1984!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The patriot act is really only one step away from "thoughtcrime" with the ability of search and seizure without warrant and the replacement of trials with military tribunals...

    I'm glad that bookstore is fighting against it.

    1. Re:1984!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OMIGOSH!!! You read that book too?!?!???

      It is indeed a small world!!!!!!! :))))))))))

  63. Politics as Usual by KalvinB · · Score: 1

    Politics as Usual

    The above is a collection of various political writings including such works as

    Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler
    Manifesto of the Communist Party
    The Unabomber's Manifesto

    If you know of any more political documents that are preferably controversial and are freely available, post their title. I'd like to add them to my site.

    I'm also looking for original video/audio clips of Bin Laden without any editing or commentary over laid. If he's written any documents, I'd like to get a hold of those too. Some recent material from Saddam would be nice as well.

    Ben

  64. have you guys ever wondered ? by ramzak2k · · Score: 2

    how much of an information about you can be gleaned from Slashdot comments ?

    All you goatse terrorists , you better stop.

    --

    Siggy Say, Siggy Do
    1. Re:have you guys ever wondered ? by DuBois · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but the FBI and CIA and HSA(KGB) probably never even think to read /.

      --
      The IPCC has purposely engineered a massive scientific fraud.
  65. Look at the good side. by MongooseCN · · Score: 1

    Order a copy of "The Right Man: The Surprise Presidency of George W. Bush" and other pro-Bush books and you'll automatically be put on the True-American-Citizen list. Just one copy of this book should easily outweigh those dozen copies of The Catcher in the Rye you bought.

    1. Re:Look at the good side. by bmf033069 · · Score: 1

      Maybe all such data could be captured in the Total Information Awareness database, resulting in a "Patriot Quotient".

      The president by executive decree weighs in at a perfect 1.0. Everyone else falls in line afterwards. All purchases online or through credit card increase or decrease your quotient based on an evaluation of a congressional subcommittee.

  66. GAAAAA! use the fourth! by Erris · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Just because you're not specifically guaranteed the right to privacy anywhere, doesn't mean you don't have it.

    Why not quote the 4th amendment? It's very clear about what circumstances are required for the government to invade your personal life:

    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, 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.

    Indeed, the bookstore records should be considered "papers" and protected, so this whole business of "knocking down stovepipes" between government and private databases is FUCKING UNAMERICAN!

    The language of the constitution is so clear and the intentions are so obvious, that it is equally obvious that it has been broken. You have the right to assemble, to say, pray, and publish what you will. You have the right to bear arms. You will not be put upon by the military. The government can't harrass you without real evidence you are a criminal. The court system will not be used to abuse you. You will have a jury if you are sued. Bail will not be used instead of a conviction. You will not be abused in jail. All of these things have been violated recently with perhaps the exception of the 3rd. I'm not aware of any involuntary quartering of troops, unless eminent domain aquisitions for military bases are considered.

    --
    DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
    1. Re:GAAAAA! use the fourth! by jonman_d · · Score: 1

      Aye, the fourth covers the privacy issue very well - his question, though, was phrased enough towards "the constitution doesn't give us the right, so we don't have it" that it forced me to give the knee-jerk responce of "exactly the opposite, says the constitution."

    2. Re:GAAAAA! use the fourth! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eminent domain is covered at the end of the fifth amendment. From the same link:

      "...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

    3. Re:GAAAAA! use the fourth! by niall2 · · Score: 1

      The fourth amendment has so many bootprints on it its not even funny. And they have both Liberal and Conservatives tread.

      Assemble, pray, and say what you want are all good boy scout oaths but try going to a Texas highschool football game and say a benediction before the game. You cant. Separation of Church and State trumps 4th there in our time.

      Look at Article I section 8

      To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

      which is followed by

      To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

      People love the bill of rights as it is simple to see and make do what you want it to. Its fitting it into the structure that was setout in the rest of the constitution that is hard. And to do that...we have Article III.

      Give the courts time. In the end, things return to the middle.

      --
      Today is a gift. Save the receipt.
  67. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  68. Don't blame the people, blame the two parties by ShatteredDream · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Both parties together represent the ideal combination of ideologies needed to create a system ripe for mass-control of the populace. The Democrats don't really represent the better parts of the left, they represent the worst and same for the Republicans on the Right. IMO our system would be a lot more (Classical) Liberal if it were a 3 way control by the Libertarian, Green and Reform parties.

    The people have on paper usually two choices. Two choices isn't a choice, it's a coin flip and a mockery of representative republican values. Both parties have tried for years to convince the public that having 10-190 people officially registered on the ballot is irresponsible because it creates chaos somehow. Having two people on the ballot is akin to having only one choice in most races. Hell in my last congressional election, we had literally only one choice for the House.

    The average slashdotter is too sheltered or politically and socially immature to see most of those points. Who here thinks a lot of the Right loves the PATRIOT Act? FreeRepublic is a very right wing website and when the PATRIOT part deux was discussed, no less than 85% of the posts were calling for Bush and Ashcroft's heads on pikes out on 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue if they seriously pushed it.

    1. Re:Don't blame the people, blame the two parties by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Hell in my last congressional election, we had literally only one choice for the House.

      Sounds like the perfect opportunity to elect a non-demopublican candidate!

    2. Re:Don't blame the people, blame the two parties by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 2, Insightful

      FreeRepublic is a very right wing website and when the PATRIOT part deux was discussed, no less than 85% of the posts were calling for Bush and Ashcroft's heads on pikes out on 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue if they seriously pushed it.

      And thus was hope restored to my world.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    3. Re:Don't blame the people, blame the two parties by neclimdul · · Score: 1

      Now who's stupid, Patriot act part 2 is already here in the Homeland Security Action. Who needed rights anyways. Furthermore I'm insulted by you generalization about slashdoters. I for one would like to point out that it's not a coin flip because the 2 parties are the same. Shoot the middle is the way to play the political game. The reason the libertarian, green and reform party dont win is because the are "extreme" in that they ask for the ultimate sin in politics. Change. People are content even when things are some what bad not to venture into changing the system. Next time you feel like voicing your opinion try not to step out to far because there are people out there that actually do understand whats going on.

    4. Re:Don't blame the people, blame the two parties by johnjay · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Having easier registration rules is only one part of the solution, and won't really fix much in the current system. Because the most states have a "winner take all" system, any candidate that doesn't have enormous numbers of backers to begin with isn't going to win anyways. The rest of the solution to this is to have representational voting and runoff elections.

      If you are voting in Massachusetts or Texas, and you vote against the state-wide party bias, your vote is thrown away. The winner takes all the electoral seats in the state and you wasted your time voting. (The electoral college, by the way, should go, too, but it's small fry compared to the other problems). This is the main reason the two parties are still in power.

      The problem with proportional voting, is that the winner may not have a mandate (not that that has stopped Bush, but in theory it should be a problem). So, if no candidate gets a majority, you have a run-off among the top contenders.

      Think of how this would have worked in the last election. The people who were on the fence about Nader vs. Gore would have voted for Nader. Nader would have won somewhere between 5-15% of the vote, enough to be an obvious contender instead of being covered up with statistics (he got no electoral votes, he couldn't have had an important position). Then, Bush and Gore would have had a run-off, with a Dem/Rep winning. So far, it's business as usual. In 2004, Nader's party would have much more clout since they got somewhere between 1/9th to 1/3rd of the votes that the major parties got. They would be able to get more air-time and respect instead of having to start over from basically zero. A multiparty system would appear within 4 election cycles.

      Now that I think about it, getting rid of the electoral college would have the same effect as insisting on proportional represntation of electoral college seats. If 15m people live in a state, and 13m votes go to the Republican candidate, the other 2m would protest if their votes were also counted as votes for the Republican. However, since there is this "electoral college" gimick, people don't seem to notice/care that they aren't represented.

    5. Re:Don't blame the people, blame the two parties by bucklesl · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I agree. It is interesting to note that only third parties generate ANY change in the political arena. Socialists, Communists, Populists, etc. all had more influence on society than Republicans and Democrats -- working conditions (40hr week), freedom of speech (IWW), unionization, etc. I'm sure that some would argue differently, of course.

      Another problem is that third parties have a hard time getting on state ballots. Here in North Carolina it is almost impossible for candidates to get on the ballot. For example, there was a Write-In candidate for Senator last election, but he wasn't able to get his name on the ballot. They had a blank for you to write his name on. How hard would it have been to put his name as a choice, rather than printing "Write In _________"? I wrote his name on my hand before voting so I wouldn't misspell it...

      --
      help fill in hidden movie endings @ End of the Credits
    6. Re:Don't blame the people, blame the two parties by killmenow · · Score: 1

      How's about we just blame Florida?

    7. Re:Don't blame the people, blame the two parties by ChristTrekker · · Score: 1
      Two choices isn't a choice, it's a coin flip and a mockery of representative republican values. Both parties have tried for years to convince the public that having 10-190 people officially registered on the ballot is irresponsible because it creates chaos somehow. Having two people on the ballot is akin to having only one choice in most races.

      I couldn't agree more. And as a member of an American third party, one of the issues I promote is voting reform. (Not campaign finance reform, which just restricts your ability to participate financially in the political process.) We need Condorcet voting or some other method that allows to express a preference between more than only two candidates.

      Look at it this way. The ideal political system runs on a foundation of honesty and truth. If the voting system compels you to sacrifice your conscience and vote for the "lesser of two evils" then your choice in the ballot box is a lie. Our system is rotten at its core. If we lie when we put officials into office, how can we expect the system to work truthfully and honestly? If you vote for a third party, any third party, I applaud you for standing true to your beliefs. To the rest of you: stop compromising what you believe in. Do the right thing, investigate all the parties and candidates in the race, and vote for the one you agree with the most even if "popular wisdom" says "he can't win". Even better, get off your butt and get involved in a party. Stop complaining and get involved.

      Remember, having two parties on the ballot is only one more than they had in Soviet Russia. As ShatteredDream said, that's not a choice at all.

    8. Re:Don't blame the people, blame the two parties by ChristTrekker · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Because the most states have a "winner take all" system, any candidate that doesn't have enormous numbers of backers to begin with isn't going to win anyways.

      "Winner takes all" only applies in presidential elections. There are a number of other problems which apply in all elections. The plurality voting system is chief among them.

      So, if no candidate gets a majority, you have a run-off among the top contenders.

      Bad idea. Learn about the problem with Instant Runoff Voting. The same problem applies in any runoff, instant or not. Sometimes the best "compromise" candidate may get eliminated first, and you're stuck voting between two bad choices - exactly what we have now. Yes, plurality voting is bad, but IRV isn't really any better (even though it seems to be). The system you want is Condorcet voting. Same ranking method, but you consider all preferences simultaneously rather than sequentially.

      Now that I think about it, getting rid of the electoral college would have the same effect as insisting on proportional represntation of electoral college seats.

      Not really. True proportional representation by popular vote forgets that the states, as political entities, should be represented in the federal government too. (That's what federal government means, the federation of individual states.) In Congress we have one house that represents the states (at least we did until that lousy 17th Amendment) and one that represents the people. The EC is an attempt to unify the interests of the states and the people when voting for a singular office (president). That's why the number of EC votes a state has is the total number of Senators and Representatives from that state.

      I do agree that "winner takes all" is a broken system. The legislators that put it in place were very short-sighted - in giving more power to "their state's party" in presidential elections, they didn't think that the balance of power in their state might swing another way in the future and end up hurting "their party". NE and ME allocate their EC votes (less two) proportionally by congressional district to the plurality winner of that district. That's a good attempt at compromise. I think it would be better if we used Condorcet, better still if the last two EC votes were decided in the state legislature (if they are supposed to represent the state's interest) and we scrapped the 17th Am. while we're at it. Remember, these issues are decided by your state legislators, not DC. This gives you much greater ability to make a change to the system. It's closer to you, and hence more responsive.

      I've also heard people say that we don't have enough representatives in Congress. With only 435, each has far too many constituents to respond to. The Constitution originally called for a 1:30k ratio. Maybe several thousand would be a tad excessive, but with modern technology I don't see why the number couldn't be increased without hampering the ability to debate. This means you'd have more chance of your view being represented in Congress, and combined with the idea of allocating EC votes by CD, a better chance of picking the president too.

    9. Re:Don't blame the people, blame the two parties by zeugma-amp · · Score: 1

      I think you miss the entire point of the electoral college. It was designed to make sure that anyone anyone elected president would have the support of the majority of the majority of states. Otherwise you would end up with the 5 or so most populous states (or large urban areas) weilding far too much power in elections. Take a look at the county-by-county election results of the last presidential race. You'll see that with the exception of the major urban areas, most of the rest of the country went for Bush.

      If the electoral college were to be done away with, I seriously doubt you'd ever see a democrat running for president campaign anywhere but the top 10 cities in the nation. This would probably make things easier on them, but I don't think such a situation would do the republic much good in the long run.

      One reform of the electoral college system that I'd support would be to have more states divide their electors according to vote percentages. The practice of awarding all EC votes to the candidate who gets 50%+1 vote doesn't seem terribly reasonable to me. Then again, the practice might be one of the last remaining vestigages of federalism left in our system.

      The practice of awarding the EC votes in this manner is set by the states. If you want to change it, you should go to your state legislature.

      --
      This is an ex-parrot!
    10. Re:Don't blame the people, blame the two parties by johnjay · · Score: 1

      That website presents a pretty comprehensive argument, and it does raise the specter of complications my friends and I haven't discussed in our barroom arguments. I'll have to ruminate on this for a bit outside of working hours. Thanks for the links.

      On a lesser note: after rereading the 17th amendment, I don't quite understand what your objection to it is.

    11. Re:Don't blame the people, blame the two parties by johnjay · · Score: 1

      I knew there was a reason the EC was a good thing. By the time I finished blowing off steam I had forgotten that thread. Thanks for correcting me.

    12. Re:Don't blame the people, blame the two parties by Jonny+Ringo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      People are content even when things are some what bad not to venture into changing the system.

      This says it all right here. Why should I give a fuck if I can drive my SUV, possibly buy a house, not be hungry etc...

      I don't see any suffering in this world so it probably can't be that bad.

      Never mind the fact that we have killed more inocent civilains in Afganastan than those that died in the towers. Are their lifes some how less important?

      Funny how suposedly libertarians and Greens are "extreme" when yet the average joe has no fucking clue what are CIA does or what it has done. Their is no accountability for the elite members of our country. When oaklahoma city gets blown up what do we do? Reward the FBI with more money of course, but yet that isn't enough to stop 911. So of course lets give them more money, but you know what? That amount won't be enough either.

      The war on terrism is going to be like the war on drugs. Since the war on drugs, we have more drugs in this country. See a pattern? Get ready for a police state.

      watch: http://www.guerrillanews.com/crack/

      Fyi: I vote for both the Green party and the libertarian party. How strange that I'm on both sides of the fence huh?

    13. Re:Don't blame the people, blame the two parties by ChristTrekker · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Another problem is that third parties have a hard time getting on state ballots.

      Yup. Many states' ballot access laws blatantly favor incumbents. "If you were on the ballot last time, pay a $15 fee. If you weren't, go collect a million signatures that meet the qualifications of the secretary of state." This keeps third parties out, and with them any chance of really reforming government. Make everyone follow the same rules. If it's fair for you, it's fair for me.

      Between ballot access restrictions and plurality voting, the "two-party system" concept becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. You'll find coalitions of parties as diverse as the Constitution, Green, and Libertarians working together to change these laws - that's got to tell you something. All they want is a fair chance.

    14. Re:Don't blame the people, blame the two parties by ChristTrekker · · Score: 1
      The practice of awarding all EC votes to the candidate who gets 50%+1 vote doesn't seem terribly reasonable to me.

      It doesn't even have to be 50%+1, it just has to be more votes than anyone else has. That's the problem of the plurality system. Jesse Ventura was elected governor in MN by only 38% backing him, which meant 62% opposed him. We'll never know if any of that 62% thought he was OK but just preferred someone else (meaning he was the best compromise), or if the 62% thought he was the worst candidate on the ballot (meaning exactly what a 38-62 vote implies). This is why we need voting reform, to get a preferential system like Condorcet.

      Good points, otherwise. Democracy == mob rule, not good. The EC mitigates that effect somewhat, giving balance among the states that make up the republic.

    15. Re:Don't blame the people, blame the two parties by WNight · · Score: 1

      As ChristTrekker pointed out, IRV has the same issues as Plurality Voting, you end up voting strategically. Approval Voting is another method. Not as good as Condorcet, but easier to explain in a bar.

      The problem with presidential elections is that once you fairly count all the votes, you still can only have one president. If this guy gets ten more votes than the other, you've got to elect him. It can still come down to very close races. Approval/Condorcet voting just make the process more accurate.

      If we had proportional representation the EC wouldn't be so bad for congress/senate elections. We'd use the numbers of voters for each party to determine which party gets seats, and we'd use the relative popularity in each district to determine which representative from that party gets in. The only problem with the EC is that districts are drawn with a political agenda and they aren't required to vote the same as the people.

      Districts can be drawn to magnify or marginalize a minority opinion. If you've got a polarized situation where you can be quite sure how someone will vote (perhaps racially in racist areas) you can draw a district to include 40% black, 60% whites, so that the black votes are lost. Alternatively, you draw the district to have 60% blacks and their votes control the district. Sometimes you combine the two. Let's say the area is 50/50 black/white, but you want to make sure the black voices aren't heard. You lump many black voices into a few 100% black districts, then you draw 45% black/55% white districts for the rest. You've sacrificed a few districts to control the majority.

      The districts were intended to magnify minority votes. A 5% black population would be lost in the crowd if their state voted together. If you divide it into areas though and one of those areas included many blacks, they've got a good chance at getting a representative.

      Now these lines tend to be drawn around economic and population density lines. Poor-to-middle city dwellers vote strongly Dem, Rich and urban residents vote strongly GOP. If you lump a rich area in with a larger poor area, you've drowned out the vote for the Republicans. If you divide the city into pie slices, each encompasing a larger urban area, you drown out the Democrats.

      With some oversight, making sure that these districts weren't created with a motive, the system helps produce fair results. The Electoral college does have a valid purpose...

    16. Re:Don't blame the people, blame the two parties by ChristTrekker · · Score: 1
      Fyi: I vote for both the Green party and the libertarian party. How strange that I'm on both sides of the fence huh?

      If all the people who are just plain ticked off with the current system simply voted third party, any third party, there would probably be enough votes there to seriously challenge the D's and R's. I'm guessing there are a lot of Americans who are generally unsatisfied with the political world.

  69. Sheep by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why do people get all worked up over trivial issues like this?. Who here actually thinks that the CIA or anyone else cares what books you are reading?. Apart from the companies that make money selling books to you, nobody cares!!!. Why people get all worked up over some hypothetical threat to their freedom is beyond me. It's all too easy to go down the well worn path of popular opinion and agree that your freedom and privacy should come first, and national security second. But I mean really, what do you stand to lose here?. How paranoid do you have to be to actually think that someone cares what books you read?. If the law helps catch terrorists, without impacting on my personal freedom, then I am all for it. People need to put their ego aside and take themselves out from under the microscope of the CIA before they make a judgement on the trade-off between their freedom and national security. Whose freedom are you trying to protect? yours or the suspected terrorist?. Even if you are wrongly investigated, it's just a list of what books you have bought, we aren't talking anal probes here. Get over it.

  70. Nice, but purge the Patriot Act, too by Zhe+Mappel · · Score: 4, Interesting
    This cancer on the Constitution is the real problem. And the harm has yet to spread. Wait until the prosecutions start, or private data is leaked to discredit opponents, or blacklisting begins; all this happened half a century ago and can happen again.

    Which politician is man or woman enough to lead the fight to undo these un-American powers? We know that in the Senate only Feingold resisted, although colleagues have become braver since. And yet the nation remains enthralled to right wing fantasies, driven hysterical by an irresponsible administration and its cynical Democratic allies who use fear to control the public as ranchers use cattle prods.

    The hour demands a Lincoln; all we have is a Bush! Is there no one in office with love great enough for our freedom to save it?

    1. Re:Nice, but purge the Patriot Act, too by slothman32 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      We don't want a Lincoln. What he did during the Civil War (American obviously) was shut down anti-war newspapers. Let's hope Bush doesn't get that idea.

      --
      Why don't you guys have friends or journals?
    2. Re:Nice, but purge the Patriot Act, too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry, we may yet have the writ of habeus corpus suspended (as Lincoln did) ...

    3. Re:Nice, but purge the Patriot Act, too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are correct, sir. Lincoln was a terrible man, who took away the powers of the state. Ever since the civil war, the Federal government has been grabbing more and more power. Lincoln was a hypocritical tyrant.

      Lincoln also threw a supreme court justice in jail for merely disagreeing with him. He also declared martial law in Maryland before they could talk about whether they wanted to secede from the untion or not. He also made a pact with Missouri that let Missourt sit the war out, then double-crossed them invaded with Federal troops and ousted the state government and installed a North-friendly regime. Luckily the rightfully elected leaders got away, and they were rightly pissed about the whole situation. They were neutral before, but then hated the North after that.

      The Civil War was not about slavery. Slavery was a red herring to get the common people to like Lincoln. Most people can't possibly understand that a war has many different causes. The war was about the rights of the states. The states lost. If 80% of the population of let's say, Michigan, wanted to secede and form their own nation, do you think they could? Not a chance. Not anymore.

    4. Re:Nice, but purge the Patriot Act, too by DuBois · · Score: 1

      Mod Parent Up. See The Real Lincoln for more info.

      --
      The IPCC has purposely engineered a massive scientific fraud.
    5. Re:Nice, but purge the Patriot Act, too by niall2 · · Score: 1

      Does no one know history.

      Lincoln dismissed the writ of habeus corpus during the Cival War. That makes the patriot act look like a walk in the park.

      These are times of war folks...remember that. We got the writ back. We'll get rid of the parts of the Patriot Act that have no place in a peace time society (its not a tax...now taxes are different as we have a tax on phones that dates back to the Spanish American war).

      For extra credit go look at the protesters in London with "Peace in our times" signs and tell me whats ironic here.

      --
      Today is a gift. Save the receipt.
  71. We don't keep email or backups of email by Denver_80203 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    longer than 3 months. It it's demanded for legal reasons, we don't have it. The deal is that for this to be legally solid, you must maintain the same policy for all users without exception. This means no .pst or .ost (offline outlook folders -oh god now you know I use MS). What's nice is: this forces people to maintain their email, and thus their jobs a little better. Of course, it's not the most popular policy my IT dept offers.

    1. Re:We don't keep email or backups of email by pmz · · Score: 1

      We don't keep email or backups of email longer than 3 months.

      How unfortunate. Sometimes e-mail from 3 years ago is the only documentation available in some projects. Day-to-day tasks generate so much information, that stored e-mail is often the only way to manage it. Transferring it all to other media or formats would be overwhelming.

  72. Nice, but old concept... by SmurfButcher+Bob · · Score: 4, Informative

    Companies have had this concept for years. Typical document retention policy is "useful life" - for contracts, it'd be life of contract + 6.5 years. For crap records, it's as long is it's relevent, then whack it immediately.

    And the reason is simple - all this junk needs to be stored, which costs money, and managed - which costs more money. Then, if someone wants it (and you have it), you have to find it - that's a ton of money... then the lawyers etc. get to review it, and that's a fortune, over a freakin post-it note that would never be used in your favor, meaning at best it won't be used against you in a suit... more often than not, it'll simply provide the cause needed for them to request more documents.

    Yick.

    --

    help me i've cloned myself and can't remember which one I am

  73. Close... by intermodal · · Score: 2, Interesting

    the fact is that everyone good enough for the job either is smart enough to know that they don't want the job, or while more qualified, could easily be smeared to death by the Democrats, Republicans, or anyone else really. People think that US leaders should be exemplary, but get angry if you tell them that Jefferson had slaves and that Washington had a 'hemp garden'. Perhaps if they weren't elected by hypocrites it would be easier to get quality candidates rather than a lesser of two evils.

    --
    In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
  74. chapters.indigo.com by insane8 · · Score: 1

    why not buy your terrorist guidebooks from up north in Canada where patriot act is not in effect?

  75. welly welly well by mitsuhama · · Score: 1

    If the government is watching us, who is watching the governement? Not the people as most are brainwashed with fear.

  76. Not just booksellers by wfrp01 · · Score: 1

    We should hope that other organizations besides booksellers consider this example. Libraries and ISP's suffer the same intrusive privacy invasions established by the Busybody act. Wouldn't it be nice for Verizon, for example, if they could tell the RIAA to f*** off 'cuz there just ain't no damn records to give them? Finger that, Hilary. Libarians have been compelled to submit to our newly established right-wing autocracy as well. They've got to give up the goods and shut up about it, or they can be branded criminals. Pretty sorry state of affairs if you ask me.

    Server logs in the bit bucket!
    Yippidy dippidy dee!
    I have prurient interests!
    But you won't catch me!

    --

    --Lawrence Lessig for Congress!
  77. YOU LOVE IT!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I know you do.

  78. How soon before failing to keep by Archfeld · · Score: 1

    these kinds of records is 'Illegal' under the Patriot Act or some other facisct BS act ?

    --
    errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
  79. Coming soon on Amazon.com by Mantorp · · Score: 5, Funny

    People whom we help get arrested also bought...

  80. Can they do that? by mpost4 · · Score: 1

    I would think they can not purge all of the records, they have to show what the sold for tax reasons, and what was returned (both by the consumer & to the warehouses) They have to keep some recordes.

  81. My world view by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    You have managed to be utterly arrogant and insulting while
    you deride the places of higher learning and everyone who does
    not think "for himself" .


    Sir, what are your higher qualifications? Do you care to post your
    resume so we can judge?


    And please explain: how can the general population,
    and people like me, could think for themselves on issues that we have no formal
    education or first-hand experience. After all, a person who was not
    trained in computer science cannot possibly be expected to think
    for himself on issues of design, on issues of implementation issues, or
    for that matter, almost anything whatsoever related to computers.


    I am a little sceptical on your post. In my many years on this
    earth I have found that people who so sure of themselfs are usually the
    one who do not know what they are talking about; and the ones who know
    more tend to be more cautious with their opinions.

  82. Are you trying to tell me... by Robber+Baron · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    ...that if I walk into a bookstore in the US and pay cash for a book, they're gonna want to know my personal info? Well I got a news flash for them, IT"S NONE OF THEIR FUCKING BUSINESS!! That is how I conduct business...with cash. You start asking questions, expect answers that are either incomplete (I won't tell you) or false (Homer Simpson zip: 90210) and if they're too stupid about it I might just walk out and never return.

    --

    You're using her as bait, Master!

    1. Re:Are you trying to tell me... by alecto · · Score: 1

      Works nicely for now. But what about in ten years, when the very act of paying cash is grounds for suspicion. Sound far-fetched? Try paying for a new car with a briefcase full of $100s. That wasn't always a "reportable" transaction.

  83. you aint seen nothin yet... by s0rbix · · Score: 2, Informative

    Just wait until Patriot Act THE SEQUEL

  84. The "political spectrum" by Parafilmus · · Score: 1

    Do you really believe the depth and breadth of political thought can be reduced to a one-dimensional scale? How did such a ridiculous notion become widespread?

    Is politics a solved game, like tic-tac-toe?

    Is our present government REALLY the center of an imaginary line, bordered on each side by fanatical killers?

    IMHO, that belief is a cancer on our democracy. It prompts intelligent people to abandon political discourse for team-loyalty.

  85. Tattered Cover by Head · · Score: 1

    I bet my local bookstore, the Tattered Cover in Denver, wished they had done this. They had to fight such a case in court. Thankfully they won.

    http://w3.trib.com/FACT/1st.lev.TatteredCoverRea d. html

  86. funny... by salmo · · Score: 1

    I thought it was their neighbor, New Hampshire, that had "Live Free or Die" on their license plates (which I guess is kind of ironic in a way).

    But, good for them. It's nice to see individuals making an intelligent stand for individual freedom.

    1. Re:funny... by SmurfButcher+Bob · · Score: 1

      I always thought it was funny... since when does not knowing who the terrorists are give the govt the right to treat each of us as one...

      Airport - "Can you turn this laptop on for me, please." "Why?" "To prove that it's a laptop." "Uh, I can remove the guts and battery, replace them with whatever I want, and then fake the POST with a BASIC Stamp. Anyone could. That, and demonstrating this product in that fashion may be a violation of the Microsoft EULA." "[pause] Can you turn this laptop on for me, please."

      --

      help me i've cloned myself and can't remember which one I am

  87. No, no, it's like Stargate SG1! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    '...so Ra outlawed reading and writing.' Woot! bleh, ack:)

  88. That's a cheap shot at Amazon by 31+Flavas · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Now if only certain other booksellers would show that same conscience, we might have something here.
    What keeps me coming back to Amazon.com (and countless more people) is their record keeping.

    Every order is organized by year newest to oldest. Every order is clickable to bring up the exact specifics of what was ordered: the number of shipments, the tracking numbers, what was order, it's price, and totals (shipping, tax, subtotal, grand total).

    Attack the source problem *cough* Patriot Act *cough* not Amazon.com, BarnesandNoble.com, or whoever you want to smear because of some hivemind mentality.

    If you don't want even record of the sale you need not shop at all, online or offline.

    There is always going to be some paper trail; no matter if its a reciept, a CC statment, or the cashier remembering you.

    1. Re:That's a cheap shot at Amazon by privacyt · · Score: 1
      One would imagine that Amazon could set up a system in which they scramble/encrypt the records so that there's no way for someone searching Amazon's logs to match usernames with names & addresses. Anonymizer.com does that very thing.

      But you're right that the real problem is the PATRIOT Act which allows govt without a court order to find out what books you buy.

    2. Re:That's a cheap shot at Amazon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      There is always going to be some paper trail; no matter if its a reciept, a CC statment, or the cashier remembering you.

      I remember when cashiers were made out of meat and bone. Those were the days. Now you just get these flimsy paper cashiers, leaving their trails all over the place. Damn them. Damn them all to Hell!

  89. Aint gonna happen... by Embedded+Geek · · Score: 3, Insightful
    ...if only certain other booksellers would show that same conscience...

    <redundant rant>

    A business in this era of consolidation purging it's records, thus disabling itself from selling you more crap in the future via Spam or (at a minimum) junk mail? The only way that would work is if they were only in the business of selling books. That isn't going to happen as long as they can afford a consultant who can whisper fairy tales about that mythic beast "synergy" in the CEO's ear.

    Face it. Most businesses these days are not what they claim to be on their signs - booksellers, grocers, bakers. They're many businesses lumped together under one roof that are just as comfortable selling you your morning coffe or a cemetary plot. Thanks to consolidation, only multiheaded hydras survive. And sometimes, the customers suffer instead of benefiting.

    </redundant rant>
    --

    "Prepare for the worst - hope for the best."

  90. Re: [OT] This deserves more than a comment by ArizonaBay · · Score: 1

    Fark's message boards are about as interesting as a busload of retarded kids. Sure, it's funny to watch for a little while, but eventually you just start feeling sorry for them.

    Agreed, and the poor quality of the messages is magnified by the lack of moderation. There's really little incentive to make a quality post (non-Photoshop thread, at least) on Fark as it receives the same billing as everything else. Thus posting something logical, coherent and informative on Fark is just about as satisfying as burying a delicious home-baked calzone in a pile of cow dung.

  91. moderators, please... by i+chose+quality · · Score: 1

    no. no flamebait. no, really, no.

    please correct this.

    --
    the computer is online
    i am not at it
    what a waste of ressources
  92. Jews by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stop voting Jews and you'll get somewhere.

  93. USA is a nazy country !!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since your government signed the "Patriot Act" you have become the 4th Reich !!!

  94. Protecting Peggy's privacy. by I+am+Jack's+username · · Score: 4, Insightful
    "Peggy Bresee was in Bear Pond Books recently to buy " War is a Force That Gives Us Meaning" and "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" as birthday gifts for a son who lives in Utah. She had the store purge the purchase records." - Vt. bookseller purges files to avoid potential `Patriot Act' searches
    Searching google now not only reveals what books Peggy has bought her son, but also her home address, telephone number, job description, and a recent anti-war petition she signed.
    1. Re:Protecting Peggy's privacy. by privacyt · · Score: 4, Funny

      Most government agents may not be smart enough to do a basic google search. Sort of like how antiwar activists in the early 1970s would get knocks on the door by FBI agents to confirm where they live, when all the Famous But Incompetent folks would have had to do was look in the phonebook.

    2. Re:Protecting Peggy's privacy. by lildogie · · Score: 1

      > antiwar activists in the early 1970s would get knocks on the door by FBI agents to confirm where they live

      Methinks this was more of an intimidation tactic than a data-gathering excercise.

  95. Bigger Hard Drives by upt1me · · Score: 1

    All this logging of useless data, we are going to need some bigger hard drives on the market.

  96. How about.... by whig · · Score: 1

    Don't vote.

    http://www.fuckthevote.org/

    --
    Peace and love, y'all
  97. Radio Shack by upt1me · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Is this going to cause Radio Shack to start asking our name, address & phone number again when we purchase a few led lights.

  98. Blame the eligible voters. by I+am+Jack's+username · · Score: 3, Interesting
    You blame the parties, I'll keep blaming the people who keep voting for the republicrats, and the vast majority who don't vote at all - not even to go and spoil their votes by writing "none of the above" on their ballots.

    "It comes from a very ancient democracy, you see..."
    "You mean, it comes from a world of lizards?"
    "No", said Ford, who by this time was a little more rational and coherent than he had been, having finally had the coffee forced down him, "nothing so simple. Nothing anything like so straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people."
    "Odd", said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy."
    "I did", said Ford. "It is."
    "So", said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't the people get rid of the lizards?"
    "It honestly doesn't occur to them", said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."
    "You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"
    "Oh yes", said Ford with a shrug, "of course".
    "But", said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"
    "Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in. Got any gin?"
    "What?"
    "I said", said Ford, with an increasing air of urgency creeping into his voice, "have you got any gin?"
    "I'll look. Tell me about the lizards."
    Ford shrugged again.
    "Some people say that the lizards are the best thing that ever happened to them." he said. "They're completely wrong of course, completely and utterly wrong, but someone's got to say it." - Douglas Adams, So long, and thanks for all the fish, chapter 36.

    "It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it." - Eugene V. Debs

    1. Re:Blame the eligible voters. by vandan · · Score: 1
      You blame the parties, I'll keep blaming the people who keep voting for the republicrats, and the vast majority who don't vote at all - not even to go and spoil their votes by writing "none of the above" on their ballots.

      I wouldn't blame the people so much. I think the current form of government we have is not so democratic. It's rigged. Running for election costs far too much. To have a hope in hell of getting decent exposure you have to have big finacial support. So the only people that get to the top are corrupt.
      A wise man once told me:
      Anyone capable of getting themselves elected the president of the USA should never under any circumstances be allowed to do the job

      We need to remove politicians' financial dependance on big business. That's the first step. Then we remove our dependance on the politicians. The people should have more direct control over big decisions. No country should be able to go to war without having a referendum. That is democracy ... when you ask the people what they want. Can you imagine the US government asking it's own people if they support the upcoming war of plunder? Or the Patriot Act(s)?
  99. Nonsense, and you know it. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    People marched to implore for innocent lives in Iraq.

    Your Bush and Mr Hussein will play games with the lives of uncontable number of people like you or me, the most tragic if you think that Mr Hussein has been fully contained and could have been continued to be so for the forseable future.

    Any bad thoughts of Mr Hussein about sharing any expertise he may have or any arms he may still posses could have been contrarested with proper intelligence work and a few dollars to bribe the rigt people, but of course we know how competent US agencies are when it comes to detecting possible threats.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  100. Er.... this constitution thing... by Blue+Stone · · Score: 1

    ...that you're always going on about.

    I've mentioned this before on /., but a fellow scientist friend of Einstein, wanted to get American citizenship, like his friend.
    He asked Einstein what preparation he should make, and Einstein said that he should probably read the constitution.
    He did this for days on end, apparently, papers scattered across his floor, as he looked at and studied the document.
    When Einstein came to pick him up and make the journey with him to (wherever it is you go to swear the oath etc.) this scientist said to Einstein, did you know that there's nothing in the constitution to stop America becoming a dictatorship?
    Einstein said that, no, he didn't know that.
    His friend asked Einstein, do you think I should mention this to the fellow who'll be swearing me in as a US citizen? To which Einstein replied, that no, he should probably not say anything.

    So, I haven't read your prized constitution, but, before you go and rely upon it for your well-being, you might all want to have another wee glance at it again. :o/

    --
    Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
    1. Re:Er.... this constitution thing... by Pharmboy · · Score: 2

      So, I haven't read your prized constitution, but, before you go and rely upon it for your well-being, you might all want to have another wee glance at it again. :o/


      Then go read it before you express an opinion on it.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    2. Re:Er.... this constitution thing... by Blue+Stone · · Score: 1

      Touchy!

      --
      Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
    3. Re:Er.... this constitution thing... by Pharmboy · · Score: 1

      no, not trying to be touchy, its just how can I take your opinion of the US Constitution seriously when you havn't read it?

      It has been the inspiration for many other nations. The US is the longest standing democratic republic. Perhaps there are some pearls of wisdom in that "piece of paper". It should be important to more than Americans, it should be worthwhile reading to anyone that loves freedom, simply because it was the first of it's kind.

      I have a deep respect for the Constitution not because of just what it says, but what it stands for. We American's aren't perfect. We make mistakes. But we have shed alot of blood to help others discover the same freedoms outlined in that document. For us to be willing to die for it, it must contain some powerful stuff.

      Here is a copy of the constitution Please bookmark it and read it sometime. It has links to the Bill of Rights, plus other Amendments.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    4. Re:Er.... this constitution thing... by Blue+Stone · · Score: 1

      Er... what opinion? I didn't express one, other than that due to what I heard from a pretty reputable source, it might be worth looking into whether there is such a flaw in the US constitution.

      You can dismiss my post without question or another thought, if you like. Print it out an use it as toilet paper.
      I simply pass on what I heard.

      As for reading the US constitution, I think I'll pass, and you can duly decide to consequently dismiss any utterances I make on the subject in the future as a result. Feel free. :)

      Since, if it's true, it's going to have a much more immediate effect on your life than mine, maybe it's you who should take another look.

      The Constitution of the USA

      I'll wait for the news on the BBC or /., or wherever, if someone does find out if it's true. Besides I'm far too busy trying to work out what Mulholland Drive is all about, to even think of starting on the US Constitution. ;)

      --
      Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
  101. Bravo. by redtail1 · · Score: 1

    Good for Bear Pond. It has always been one of my favorite reasons to take a drive to Montpelier. I'll be sure to visit them more often when I up there from now on.

  102. Get Her! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oooooh! I do so love a masterful right winger...

  103. So in order to capture a few terrorists... by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    ... it is OK to be speide in every single one of our habits.

    Wait that once all the information is gathered it is used for the wrong purposes, by the wrong people or both.

    So many of you in the US have an innability to be skeptical that is frankly scary.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  104. Hey! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!

  105. A thought on voter education... by froth · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I've got an idea. The public is generally considered very bad at governing itself right? (In terms of making logical descions) Masses of people tend to act on whims, emotions, and whatever the "group" feels at the moment. Mob mentality on a grand scale if you will. I suppose that this is because people don't tend to think logically in these kinds of situation, whether because they don't want to think for themselves out of laziness, lack of time, or lack of resources to educate themselves. I don't know. What if a public service was started that during elections, say maybe.. the whole week before the election, every TV station has a voter education segment that reviews each canditate and issue in a non-partisian fashion. And I don't mean just a half hour election primer sitcom deal. I'm talking every channel, several hours worth of information. Does anyone think this might help?

    --
    "I murder kittens, robot. Whats it to 'ya?" - Badguy
    1. Re:A thought on voter education... by pmz · · Score: 1

      Does anyone think this might help?

      With their precious sit-coms taken away, the people would probably just go to bed early. I don't mean to be pessimistic, but it seems most people just vote with their party, anyway, regardless of who they are actually voting for.

      There is a more fundamental problem, here, with having two dominating political parties who are becoming more alike every day. When there is only one, the Elephants-with-an-ass'-ass-for-a-head-party, then the Replublic will have ceased to exist.

    2. Re:A thought on voter education... by Sodium+Attack · · Score: 1

      Define "non-partisan."

      No, I'm not trying to be snide. Consider current debates over mass media. Conservatives talk about the "liberal bias" of the major news outlets (with the possible exception of WSJ and Fox News), while liberals complain that these same outlets are bastions of big-corporate conservatism. Who determines whether the segment is "non-partisan"? Even if you answer that question, who handles all the complaints from conservatives and liberals that the program is biased against their view? Who handles the complaints from the libertarians and greens that their viewpoints are not being represented?

      --

      Never take moderation advice from sigs, including this one.

  106. oh man if the founding fathers were alive today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither. -Thomas Jefferson

    1. Re:oh man if the founding fathers were alive today by DuBois · · Score: 1

      Nope. Benjamin Franklin said that. See actual quote below.

      --
      The IPCC has purposely engineered a massive scientific fraud.
    2. Re:oh man if the founding fathers were alive today by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I trust you don't have a lock on your door? If so, you're sacrificing a little bit of liberty for a little bit of security, and therefore deserve neither.

      I trust you're legally allowed to kill anybody who annoys you? No? Because then they'd be able to do the same to you? Ooops...liberty for security.

      Just because a dead white man says something, and you (mis)quote (and mis-attribute, but that's beside the point) it, out of context, no less, does NOT make it the wisdom of the ages.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
  107. Let me get this straight by TamMan2000 · · Score: 1

    You don't think anyone with a disability should be aloud to be president?

    I have never wanted to be in the military, but even if I did, I can't.
    My arches are low, so I require special running shoes, I can still do a marathon, but the military will not take me because I require special equipment.
    I also have psoriasis (a genetic skin condition that causes dry, flaking, cracking sores), all but the most mild of cases will keep you from being eligible (I am not sure if mine is bad enough for them to not want me)

    So in your book I should never be aloud to run for president, that is fubar.

    I would have no problem with a requirement for all people running of elected office (or even all voters for that mater, thanks Heinlein...) having worked in some kind of civil service job, this would include military, but also firefighters, police, forestry workers, and many others...

    --
    "I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
    1. Re:Let me get this straight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You shouldn't be *allowed* to run for president because you don't know the difference between allowed (permitted) and aloud (verbally, out loud).

  108. so where is this non-retention option anyway? by fish+waffle · · Score: 1

    Anyone see anything on bear pond's site that confirms the sfgate article's claims? Their security/privacy policy does talk about keeping your info private & opt-in etc, but i was unable to find anything explicitly mentioning the option to have them destroy all records of your transaction, or any discussion of document retention policy.

    (I wonder if they have a video camera in their store, and if so would they edit it to remove your image too?)

  109. two words.... by mbennis · · Score: 0

    Poor America

  110. But remember... by txdadu · · Score: 1

    This comes from a Vermont store, the only state to successful secede from the union. Granted we weren't a state at the time and Massachusetts and New York were fighting over us, but we did declare ourselves independent.

    In general if more states had the tradition of selfgovernment that vermont schools teach we would be in a better situation in general. I'm amazed at how many people in New York and New Jersey aren't taught the basic principles of government and I can understand why they are so jaded because of that.

    State and Local History is just as important as World and National History.

  111. slashdot affiliate ID by haa...jesus+christ · · Score: 2, Funny

    ' Now if only certain other booksellers would show that same conscience, we might have something here."

    dude, you forgot to put slashdot's affiliate ID in the BN link.

  112. bs bs bs by jasonsfa98 · · Score: 1

    Last time I checked the terrorist were from Afganistan?

    This is just like the gun rights battle that is going on. They make the laws so the honest people can't get guns. But the criminals can get them anytime from the same place they have always got them ... BLACK MARKET! Or they flat out steal them! No murderer is going to Wal-mart to buy his weapon.

  113. I bet I am in trouble... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So do you think it will raise a red flag when I bought that book "Jihad and you: Control the Muslim Destiny via Violence Against Americans"?

    I knew I shouldn't have bought that... ::slaps forehead::

  114. It's not so much the people, but the process by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The political process and the party system are corrupting forces. At the municipal levels, you'll probably notice that the elected officials are fairly idealistic, and willing to listen to, and actually represent their constituents (as they were elected to do). The thing is, it's often a thankless job, and as you move up the ladder, the process takes more of a hold over personal or even constituent views.

    By the time you get up to State level, you have to deal with party politics, and the the elected officials are often reluctant to go against the party line. Those that do, will find themselves with less support and funding in their next election bid. So, they just toe the party line, and reap the money. Why go against the grain? They'll still listen to most constituents that comes in with an appointment.

    By the time you get to the federal level, you've got a bunch of beat down yes-men, who wouldn't even dare to cross their fellow party members. Remember that statement by Bush Jr about the war on terror? "If you're not with us, you're against us" That may as well be their mantra. You want to go against the party? You can resign, or we can make you irrelevant (ie. vote down any resolution you table or package it along with something guaranteed to go down in flames like "The pedophile rights bill").

    Forget about these people fighting for our rights. It may be their job, but the system trains them to be a bunch of gutless yes-men, afraid to go against the grain for fear that their backing will go away. You can elect him out, but the next one has been trained the same way.

  115. Communism wasn't this bad. by Conor+Turton · · Score: 1

    With all the recently released bills, laws and statutes. The USA citizen is quite possible more watched and restricted, especially in the area of free speech, than th Russians were during the Cold War. Hell, even China isn't as bad as the USA.

    --
    Conor "You're not married,you haven't got a girlfriend and you've never seen Star Trek? Good Lord!" - Patrick Stewart
  116. Great... by igottheloot · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...Just great, I bought 2600 with my check card a few times. Guess that will come back to haunt me.

  117. Wow they know I like Linux and Unix! by MoronBob · · Score: 1

    The government now knows through amazon.com that I am a big fan and user of linux and unix and that I have sinus problems and lean slightly to the right. I hope they don't find out that I like music too! Don't buy your guns from a gun shop and don't buy communist books from a book store.

    --
    Telecommuting! What about socialization?
  118. think for a moment... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    compare the size of the FBI and its partners in crime against that of the public at large... why are you afraid of what is at best a minority of the population. If you define your lives by acquiesence to thugs, worrying about what you buy and what you read, you should have already come to the conclusion that you live in a prison of your own choosing. Tell me, can your act of buying or reading a book, watching a movie, or listening to a speaker cause the overthrow of the powers in charge? Hell no. Can you will to power the rule of the majority over the minority? Hell no. So why are so many people worried about what someone thinks about what they are reading or looking at online? It's called Fear. And it's irrational. And it's eliminated by three things: knowledge, critical thought and disregarding those sources which spread and encourage such ignorance and fear. Laugh at those who warn you against doing something as innocuous as picking up a book and considering its subject or pov. I'm telling ya, if individuals start taking the responsibility to recognize such absurdities as "fear of the govt", then we as communities will be more inclined to deal with any problems and abuses that the MINORITY are imposing and proposing. After all, wasn't the US govt supposed to be "by the people" and "for the people"? Just who's in charge here? And if it's not what you think it should be, why are you allowing it to continue? Avoiding buying books will not solve one thing. Think... then start acting!-

  119. No, we need Thomas Jefferson. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And bring back Ayn Rand, Thomas Paine, and Ludwig von Mises. Down with the state!

  120. Would this be considered evasion? by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Since its intent is to avoid the act, would this be considered a crime as well?

    I agree with them 100%, i just think they may open themselves up for potential legal trouble.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  121. The left our Robert Anton Wilson by HiThere · · Score: 1

    How could they have left out RAW!

    Whenever something like this starts happening, I consider rereading Illuminatus!, or possibly Everything is Under Control.

    Not that that helps in any practical way...

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    1. Re:The left our Robert Anton Wilson by JimmytheGeek · · Score: 1

      I've been rereading the series. Probably received a suggestion to do so via subliminal html tags here on /.

  122. Re:But if Google retains all data, it's cool, righ by kindbud · · Score: 1

    OSTFUWY?

    --
    Edith Keeler Must Die
  123. And Clinton! by FatSean · · Score: 1

    And all the others. You half-wit.

    --
    Blar.
  124. It's been a while. by moofharmacrod · · Score: 1

    It has been "treason" to attempt to remove the government from power through any means other than voting, since before 1800. When George Washington put down a particular rebellion with military force, I think it was the Whiskey rebellion, though I am probably wrong, which tried to resist an "unjust law." It has been interpreted as implying that the only valid way to change a law was through voting. More recently nonviolent protest has become relatively effective at convincing politicians to change the laws. But the way it worked, was that it caused the politician's constituents to threaten not to vote for him/her if the politician did not make a sufficient effort to resolve the cause of the protest. So even now the only valid way to change government is voting or threatening to vote against the incumbents.

  125. Switching by chiph · · Score: 1

    Well, they carry L. Neil Smith's books (or at least have a listing for him), so looks like I might be switching booksellers.

    I had a look around their site - anyone know what their out-of-state shipping policy is?

    Chip H.

  126. That's what we do in public libraries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bring the book back and your name is permanently detached from the book. No reading history is kept. Also, on the public computers we use a combination of Public Web Browser, which erases history when invoked, plus a cool device called Centurion Guard. Reboot and the machine returns to a known (empty) state with no user information whatsoever. No cookies. No "local files." Nothing at all that would identify a user. So, when the cops come calling and want to "confiscate" a computer, once that computer gets turned off, it's all over. We don't feel the need to inform the authorities in advance of these little details. A little poassive resistance can go a long way. Anonymous post just to protect the issue.

  127. Shredding and rebuilding is where it's at by ianscot · · Score: 1

    Perhaps then we wouldn't continuously get ourselves into cycles of Constitution shredding/rebuilding.

    You may recall that the US constitution actually includes a mechanism for its own revision... It's called an "amendment," if you remember civics class.

    The people who wrote this thing knew it was a balancing act, and expected the thing to be revised and changed over time. Most of them would probably be shocked by how their "original intent" has become so pivotal for judicial "conservatives" like Bork; the one intent they all agreed on was that the document should change for the better.

    The "consequences" you're talking about would be the first thing any abusive government would take advantage of. That's exactly the sort of thing that'd let Ashcroft shout "treason!" and send tanks against college campuses.

    --
    "Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
    1. Re:Shredding and rebuilding is where it's at by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "...the one intent they all agreed on was that the document should change for the better."

      This is a true statement; however, the way to change it is as given by ammending the constitution. When judges and politico's talk about a "living constitution" they are talking about changing what the constitution means without ammending it but rather by judicial fiat. This is wrong. The meaning of the constitution is fixed as to what was meant when it was written, thus "original intent." Change the constitution, fine, but do it by amending it not by appointing 5 justices to the supreme court who think that the constitution gives everyone a right to have a BMW.

  128. How retail accounting makes record purging hard by gravelpot · · Score: 1

    I spent the last few years working in a bookstore, and I would argue that your purchase is never really "anonymous" unless you pay with cash and avoid using any kind of "frequent reader" card.

    At my store, we had to retain all receipts for some set period (I can't remember exactly -- at least 12 months) for accounting reasons. Now, we did not have an integrated credit card system on our Point of Sale system, so the itemized sales receipt and the credit card slip were separate pieces of paper, but there were identifying marks written on the credit card receipts that allowed them to be tracked back to the itemized register receipt (which listed the titles purchased).

    So, no matter what was going on in the computer, as long as the paper copies of both receipts were still extant, you could track the purchases of specific books back to a credit card number. If a store has an integrated Credit Card/POS, then the credit card number and the book titles are on the same piece of paper, so it's even easier.

    As others have said here, pay cash and you've got no problems (short of surveillance cameras that show you purchasing the books ;-) ).

    My wife and I pay for almost everything we buy at retail or in restaurants with a credit card to rack up frequent flyer miles, and I ocassionally get paranoid about this (my paranoia seems to vary in direct proportion to the amount of time spent reading slashdot). But at least I'm aware of the fact that I am trading the privacy of my purchases for something else of value to me (airline miles), the convenience of not having to carry much cash or make change, and the float that I get from not paying for my purchases until the next month.

    What I would really like is something like the "Visa Cash" card. I get the impression that there is nothing like this available in the U.S. yet?

  129. Re: slightly OT by DuBois · · Score: 1
    Why is the Vatican equipped with lightning rods?
    Funny (true) story. Several years ago, Pope John Paul visited Denver for a big Youth Rally. The main downtown Denver Cathedral took its lightning rods down so it would look better for the Pope. They forgot to put them back up. My wife works in downtown Denver, and, a couple of years after the Pope's visit was working in a tall building that overlooks the Cathedral. She was taking a break looking out the window one day and was very surprised to see a lightning bolt hit one of the Cathedral's spires and break off a good chunk of it, which fell to the sidewalk below. Fortunately, nobody was walking by at the time, but they spent a good chunk of change repairing the spire and putting the lightning rods back on.
    --
    The IPCC has purposely engineered a massive scientific fraud.
  130. 17th Amendment by ChristTrekker · · Score: 1

    The problem with the 17th is that it radically altered the balance of power in government.

    Remember that we have a federal government, formed by joint action of individual states. They set up, in the Constitution, systems of "checks and balances" to keep government from encroaching on the rights of its citizens. You were likely taught as a child about the division of power between the Leg/Exec/Jud branches.

    But this is not the only power triangle. The Founders were not wary only of a part of government with too much power (king), but that the power of government as a whole was too far removed from the people. Reading the DoI and Constitution, it is clear the idea was that "we, the people" were sovereign, and the plan was that government should only be as big as necessary to perform it's necessary and proper functions. These functions are clearly delineated, mostly in Art 1 Sec 8. Government's natural tendency is to accumulate power to itself. What better check on the power of one government than to balance it against another government? Hence the idea of a federal system. The other power triangle is that of the People, States, and Federal.

    We mostly see this in the design of Congress, divided as it is into two houses. The HoR represents the people, the popular will of the nation. Spending bills must originate in the HoR because ultimately it is the people that pay the taxes. The Senate represents the states in their capacity as sovereign political bodies. The president ratifies treaties with consent of 2/3 of the Senate because it is political bodies that are bound by treaties.

    Representatives were to be selected by the popular vote of the district they represented. Senators were to be selected by the legislatures of their respective states, typically from among their own members. Today we are so ingrained with the idea of direct democracy that this seems foreign. "What do you mean I don't choose my senator?" But think about it a moment longer:

    Your state deals with local matters that affect you day to day, but at the US Congress' level you have to be concerned with the nation as a whole and world affairs. Does the average individual have enough time to become educated on all the issues around the country and the world in order to make a good selection for senator? No! The indirect democratic process lets you send wise people from your own community (that you probably know well) to your state capitol, and let them, hopefully the "best and brightest" of your state, the people you've delegated the responsibility of pondering political matters "full-time" on your behalf, select who represents the state in DC.

    (To a lesser extent, you also see this balance in the Electoral College. The number of electors isn't random, it's the sum of Senators and Representatives for a reason - it's an attempt at unifying the popular will and the states' will into choosing someone for a singular office (president). The president is not only the leader of people, he's the leader of the united states - plural - too.)

    The 17th Amendment threw this all out the window. To "fix" a few procedural problems (Senate vacancies going unfilled because of partisan squabbling in the states) it was changed to allow direct election of senators. This effectively stripped the states (as political entities) from having any voice in DC. No longer are senators obligated to look at "the big picture" and do what is best for the state (which is why senators were given 6-year terms), they become more concerned with getting re-elected and pleasing advocacy groups to win votes. Senators used to be the "cool heads" because of this, not easily heated up by the passions of the people. Senators took the long-term view. Representatives were only given 2-year terms so that they could not do too much damage following the whims of the people. The Founders knew the dangers of democracy ("mob rule") and that's why we have a republic. But after the 17th, Senators because Representatives with a term long enough to push through popular, but dangerous, agendas. No longer was power kept close to the people in their respective states, but it began to accumulate in Washington. The safeguard of one government against another is gone. Now you routinely see state governors whining to "big brother" for federal aid for this or that, and more local issues being controlled by far-away bureaucrats - the very thing the Founders loathed.

    Another side effect of this amendment is the detachment of senators even from the people who put them in office! Each Represenative has about, what, half a million constituents? Do you really think that he is able to meet with all of them, know all of them, to represent their interests well? How much worse for Senators who may represent up to 50 times that many, or more! Your senator doesn't know you, or care about you. Your ignorance (of national matters, of world matters, of him personally) puts him in office - that's what he likes. Senators today are not truly accountable, as they were when they only had to answer to a small group (the state legislature) that could chastise them. Six years from now we'll have forgotten any offenses, and re-elect the guy. Add the fact that senate campaigns are some of the most expensive in the country, because you have to cover the whole state, rather a smaller group. If you want "campaign finance reform", repeal the 17th amendment! Overnight you'll see far less political money thrown around.

    An aside: read the Federalist Papers. (You can get Mary Webster's translation into "modern" English. Also handy because it indexes which letters discuss which topics.) Nothing in the Constitution was done on a whim or by chance. Everything was carefully reasoned out. Proposals for amendments should always be meticulously scrutinized. The 17th was not, unfortunately. William Jennings Bryan (IIRC) helped make it happen, but he spent the rest of his life trying to get it repealed. It also helps if you think of "The United States" as not one entity, but many, as the Founders did.

    1. Re:17th Amendment by johnjay · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the clarification. Popular election of the Senate does throw the whole scheme out of whack. (I have, of course, been acustomed to thinking of popular elections as a good thing). The main problem I have with it is that I don't know how to insure the Senators against corruption by lobbyists. I admit that, because of the number of constituents per senator, there is very little safeguard against it with the present system. Also, the benefit of taking power away from Washington would probably outweight the danger of corruption.

      Not to mention that it would make voters more concerned with what their local politicians are doing, which is definitely a good thing.

      I should read The Federalist Papers again; it's been so long that I've forgotten them. That's where the user name comes from, by the way. It doesn't mean anything other than I though John Jay was an interesting footnote in history at the time I became a slashdot user (I didn't want to take Hamilton or Madison in case someone who knew what they were talking about wanted those names).

      Sorry I can't offer any insights besides agreeing with you. You obviously know more about this than I have forgotten.

    2. Re:17th Amendment by ChristTrekker · · Score: 1

      There's no way to be entirely proof against corruption. The best you can do is educate the people to make good choices, and implement a system that encourages them to vote and vote well. If someone's corrupt, they wouldn't last long, hopefully. Unfortunately, our gov't run schools produce mediocre students who are told that gov't is the solution to all problems, and the electoral process is so goofed up that most people stay home because they "can't make a difference anyway".

      You're right, taking power away from Washington makes it less attractive to lobbyists. Reduce the scope of federal gov't to what the Constitution actually says, and most of that problem goes away. That's my goal as a CP member.

    3. Re:17th Amendment by take+the+other · · Score: 1

      ummm...no.

      the creation of the senate and house was a compromise between the more populous northern states and the less populous southern states. fearful they would lose a voice in the news congress. So the idea behind the two legislative houses was maintaining balance of power between north and south, or big and small states.

      Try reading something besides your 1950s high school history or government textbook before going off on a pseudo-intellectual rant...

    4. Re:17th Amendment by yourmom16 · · Score: 0

      I think the arguments he makees referring to thhe senate are the arguments the small states made and the ones referring to the house were the ones the large states made. The founders made all those arguments it was just diffent founders made different argguments. I can see how his statements are misleading though

      --
      "We have got to make Stan understand the importance of voting, because he'll definitely vote for our guy." - South Park
    5. Re:17th Amendment by ChristTrekker · · Score: 1

      That's what I was saying. Large (populous) states wanted representation based on population. They wanted to represent the people. That's what we have in the HoR. Small states wanted equal representation. They wanted to represent the states. That's what we have in the Senate. These different representation methods are two ways of looking at the same thing - states are collections of many individuals, and they are unique political entities.

      Try thinking about what others write for a few seconds after reading it before you try slamming them.

  131. Exactly. by ratamacue · · Score: 3, Insightful

    To put it another way, the individuals most likely to strive for political power are those with a desire to control others and reduce personal liberty. Those who just want to live their lives in peace, according to their own will, are those least likely to strive for political power. And there we have the reason why, as time progresses, the US government becomes more expensive, more corrupt, and more oppressive.

  132. Don't you know that you can count me out by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 0

    When the CIA comes and asks what you've read because they're suspicious of you, we can't tell them because we don't have it...

    They'll then ask why we don't have it. We'll tell them because you asked them to be purged. They'll then issue a warrant for your arrest^Windefinate detainment and ask for a list of all other customers whose records are unavailable.

  133. clue by ChristTrekker · · Score: 1

    Liberty is being secure in our effects. There's no "liberty violation" in locking our doors to keep out thieves. This is different than gov't locking us in our homes "for our own good".

    Liberty is being secure in our persons. You can't kill someone else because they have the right to live! Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins.

    Not violating others' rights, and others' not violating your rights - that's what liberty is. Don't equate liberty with license.

    Don't knock "dead white men" simply because you don't understand what they said. Even if misattributed (it was Franklin, not Jefferson) the original saying is true, when understood in its intended sense.

    1. Re:clue by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      Then, my good man, perhaps it is time to practice what you preach, and remove your President, who, I might add, didn't win the election, in a resounding tribute to the revolutionary spirit which founded your country in the first place.

      Liberty is being secure in our persons. You can't kill someone else because they have the right to live! Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins.

      Bullshit. You have no 'right to live,' other than what your society has granted. My right to swing my fist ends where I decide it ends; in this case, it ends where I personally don't like inflicting unnecessary harm on an innocent, (or at least, innocent as far as I'm concerned) and a deep desire not to attend the penal facility my society has declared awaits me for beating up random people.

      To restate: you have no 'inalienable rights,' you have whatever rights you a)choose to have, and b) can take, and prevent others from removing from you. Groups and societies are formed to help defend these 'rights' that they wish to have.

      Not violating others' rights, and others' not violating your rights - that's what liberty is. Don't equate liberty with license.
      Again, what rights? By definition, then, you have no liberty as soon as you come up against somebody who is quite willing to violate your rights; you're a slave to their ability.

      Is your 'right to life' more imperitive than Osama's right to exercise his religious requirement to kill you? If you say anything other than 'Yes, because his concept of rights, and my concept of rights are different, and cannot be reconciled, and I want to survive,' then you're going to lose.

      So, you have a man who deeply and truly believes that his God has told him to kill you all, and he is willing to send people, and quite possibly himself, to their deaths to do it. So, you have three choices. One, ignore him. Two, modify your society to prevent him from being able to harm you. Three, directly stop him.

      One is no good; you'll be meat on the skewer. Two's no good; you honestly believe that you shouldn't have to change for anything. Three won't happen; you've decreed that the price of a single high-caliber sniper bullet is just too high. And, for some reason, believe that he can be 'reasoned with,' in many instances.

      Kind of leaves you in a bit of a quandry, eh?

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    2. Re:clue by ChristTrekker · · Score: 1

      Ah, your position becomes clear now. Let me state this simply.

      1. There is a God.
      2. You are not Him.

      Once you grasp that, we'll have a common basis from which to debate. Until then I won't waste my time. Have a good day, sir.

    3. Re:clue by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      My friend, I have never claimed to be a god, let alone the Christian one, nor would I care to be.

      But that's the crux, isn't it? Osama, in this case, honestly believes that Allah, his God, has commanded him to blow up Americans. What matter, then, this 'right to life' that you speak of?

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
  134. We can change the system by ctimes2 · · Score: 1

    By passing an election law that provides a "none of the above" box. If the "None of the above" wins, the current holder of that office steps down and the current staff holds the fort down (so to speak) until a suitable candidate can be found. No laws can be passed, presented or pushed because there's no one to push it on. We stagnate until someone is found. It'd be rough the first couple of times it happened, sure, but you can bet we'd have some pretty good people in no time.

    Anyone know how the populace can pass a law without the concessions of the houses? (I know it can be done, I just don't know how... isn't that always the case.)

    If not, hey, I'll be dictator for a few years. :)

    --
    My cube. My friend. My solace. My prison.
  135. Re:and why were those guys any different? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A bunch of wealthy white men who owned land that was stolen, coerced or cheated from the people that had already lived there for thousands of years... yep, those guys were certainly looking out for the interests of the common person. please...

  136. Yes there is! Everyone's favorite WI senator... by ssstraub · · Score: 1

    Russ Feingold! Feingold for President!

  137. You cannot fight the system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about first getting people to actually VOTE in our elections, huh?

    Won't work.

    The system is based on the premise that people are sheep (a.k.a "consumers") who are either too apathetic to have an opinion (do not vote) or whose opinions are easily manipulated (can be told "not to waste their vote"). While individual people may fall outside that definition, it does not matter as long as the masses conform.

    The US is a republic - the representatives are elected by a majority vote. That means that in order to elicit a change you need to either influence that majority (individual votes do not count!) or start a revolution.

    Unfortunately for you,
    (a) The people who have the power to "form public opinion" are the people who benefit the most from the current situation.
    (b) While your founding fathers allowed for the possible need for (another) revolution, the current proliferation of "agencies" and the broad powers granted to them precludes such an option.

    The regime will outlaw and criminalize whatever threatens it. Anything that has the potential of turning the sheep back into people: dissemination of knowledge, excercise of personal freedoms, encouraging independent thought, hacking (in the original meaning of the word), etc.

    So, assuming that forcibly overthrowing the regime is not feasible, what can you do to change things? Not much.

    You may try "shaping public opinion", educating people and influencing them but be aware that if you achieve some degree of success, the regime will consider you a threat. You will be labeled an enemy (the word in vouge is, I believe, "terrorist") and will be dealt with as swiftly and ruthlessly as they do in "totalitarian" states. Your preceived "freedom" and "liberties" are only allowed as long as you do not threaten the status quo.

    Your alternative? Be a sheep.
    Just remember, there are two things that sheep are good for.

    Baaaaa....

  138. idiot bookstore owner to openly say this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    it only helps for past sales. this move only only enforced the gov's need to watch this bookstore. enter one warrant to watch all future sales accompanied with one gag order on the store to insure no one(customer) knows the records are being watched anyway.

    in fact it probably happened already, you wouldn't know about it.

  139. Bookseller Purges... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pay in cash, refuse to give any personal information (such as your phone number or zip code), and you won't have a problem.

    1. Re:Bookseller Purges... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just tell 'em your name is Rob Malda, you live in Holland, Michigan, and promise them you are only buying those books because if "they" don't stop staring at the back of your head you are going to KILL THEM ALL.

  140. We yourself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Never mind the fact that we have killed more inocent civilains in Afganastan than those that died in the towers. Are their lifes some how less important?

    Leave me out of your "we". *I* haven't killed any innocent Afghanis, nor have I wished for it, nor would I allow it were I able to stop it. YOU may have, but don't pretend to speak for me.

    1. Re:We yourself by Jonny+Ringo · · Score: 1

      Of course you didn't. You haven't done anything. Your just an Anonymous Coward in more ways than one.