Slashdot Mirror
Safe and Free from Patriot II
JJ22 writes "The ALCU has a press release about a full page ad they have running in the New York Times. See the ad here. It gives a list of some of the freedoms which were taken away under the Patriot Act, and lists more which Ashcroft is pushing for under Patriot II. Obviously, you should only be concerned about losing your liberties if you're a terrorist (or similar dissident)."
Obviously, you should only be concerned about losing your liberties if you're a terrorist (or similar dissident).
No, that's most definitely not the case. In the USA PATRIOT Act, the Attorney General and the President of the US are given the power to decide who is or isn't a terrorist. Not a court, not a judge, not the Congress. "Terrorist" is not defined. It's an unconstitutional power grab.
Dissidents are political creatures. Terrorists are criminals, not dissidents. I believe USA PATRIOT Act is an unconstitutional body of laws; therefore I am a dissident. Am I a terrorist? No, but the Attorney General has the power and privilege to decide that I am one.
These laws must be opposed. Because they are broad and unchecked, they can be applied to anybody for any reason, not just Usama or Saddam. It's how the RICO statutes got abused. Call your congresscritter today and tell em you want this law opposed, voted down.
The EFF has some analysis here.
Big Daddy, Johnny, Burp, Aunt Zelda, Scott, Slurp, Big Momma
Did I miss something on the news? Did the 9/11 hijackers spend a lot of time reading?
I guess since they cannot censor books they dislike out of existence, they'll just persecute people who read them. Nice end-run.
If Muhammed Atta drank double-mocha latte's at Starbucks on a daily basis, and I order the same thing, does that make me a terrorist?
Some people have a way with words, and some people, um, thingy.
Here's a little hint. I'd be a lot more likely to take the time to read the link and comment thoughtfully if you gave me some information instead of of subjecting me to your smirky asides about "jackboots" and "dissidents".
Unless your goal is simply to parade your concern for our admiration. Given that the top-rated post right now is from someone who was confused because you weren't heavy-handed enough (!), maybe there's no problem.
Guess what, it's citizens like me who take civil rights seriously but aren't concerned about striking the most ostentatious pose that you need to win over. On this issue, DRM, file sharing, IP law and all the other stuff you're the worst possible advocate for.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
The American Civil Liberties Union
The Free Software Foundation
Yet another scary aspect to this... Imagine that some organization that you've long felt to be a worthy charity suddenly becomes reclassified as a "Terrorist Organization." This may happen two ways, either it really was, and you weren't aware, or it really isn't, but it's politically expedient for it to be reclassified as such. In either case, you can get stripped of your citizenship and put in a dog kennel on Cuba.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Close, but no cigar. As others have pointed out, America is supposed to be a republic. It is unfortunate that this condition didn't last. If you bring up a copy of the constitution in your browser (there are countless copies out there) you'll find the word "guarantee" and "republic" used exactly once each. You'll not find any hint of the word 'democracy' or it's several various forms.
Article IV, Section 4:
Democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep getting together and deciding what is for lunch. The folks who founded this nation were very aware of the dangers and evils of democracy. Look up the phrase "Sparta must be destroyed" sometime for a small example of same. You might also enjoy reading the "federalist papers" and the "letters from a federal farmer" sometime. They talk about this quite a bit.
If I were to pin down the point in time when we ceased being a republic, I'd have to point to the 17th amendment to the constitution, in which the direct election of senators was allowed. Some would go further back and point to the civil war. I can't say that I entirely disagree with that either.
This is an ex-parrot!
I believe that we British should support the American Civil Liberties Union.
In fact - the people of ALL countries should - the ACLU are fighting for the Rights of everyone on this matter.
For those that have not read my previous postings on this matter:
Liberty has to be one of the most important things in life. Well up there, behind health and safety of your family, must be the right to go about your daily life without being forced to live it under oppressive surveillance. For it surely is oppression - being spied upon by the authorities in all that you do. Knowing this information could be used against you, for any purpose they see fit. This is a lot better for government than having a CCTV fitted into every home. The all-seeing eye of God over you - meant to instil respect of them and fear of authority.
It can be proven they use propaganda to deceive you into believing them. How?
Ask Security Services in the US, UK, Indonesia (Bali) or anywhere for that matter, to deny this:
Internet surveillance, using Echelon, Carnivore or back doors in encryption, will not stop terrorists communicating by other means - most especially face to face or personal courier.
Terrorists will have to do that, or they will be caught!
Perhaps using mobile when absolutely essential, saying - "Meet you in the pub Monday" (meaning, human bomb to target A), or Tuesday (target B) or Sunday (abort).
The Internet has become a tool for government to snoop on their people - 24/7.
The terrorism argument is a dummy - total bull*.
INTERNET SURVEILLANCE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO STOP TERRORISTS - THAT IS SPIN AND PROPAGANDA
This propaganda is for several reasons, including: a) making you feel safer b) to say the government are doing something and c) the more malicious motive of privacy invasion.
Government say about surveillance - "you've nothing to fear - if you are not breaking the law"
This argument is made to pressure people into acquiescence - else appear guilty of hiding something illegal.
It does not address the real reason why they want this information (which they will deny) - they want a surveillance society.
They wish to invade your basic human right to privacy. This is like having somebody watching everything you do - all your personal thoughts, hopes and fears will be open to them.
This is everything - including phone calls and interactive TV. Quote from ZDNET: "Whether you're just accessing a Web site, placing a phone call, watching TV or developing a Web service, sometime in the not to distant future, virtually all such transactions will converge around Internet protocols."
"Why should I worry? I do not care if they know what I do in my own home", you may foolishly say. Or, just as dumbly, "They will not be interested in anything I do".
This information will be held about you until the authorities need it for anything at all. Like, for example, here in UK when government looked for dirt on individuals of Paddington crash survivors group. It was led by badly injured Pam Warren. She had over 20 operations after the 1999 rail crash (which killed 31 and injured many).
This group had fought for better and safer railways - all by legal means. By all accounts a group of fine outstanding people - with good intent.
So what was their crime, to deserve this investigation?
It was just for showing up members of government to be the incompetents they are.
As usual, government tried to put a different spin on the story when they were found out. Even so, their intent was obvious - they wanted to use this information as propaganda - to smear the character of these good people.
Our honourable government would rather defile the character of its citizens - rather than address their reasonable concerns.
The government arrogantly presume this group of citizens would not worry about having their privacy invaded.
They can also check your outgoings match your income and that you are paying enough tax. What do you think all this privacy invasion is for? The War on Terrorism? You poor dupe. All your finances for them to scrutinize; heaven help you if you cannot account for every cent.
The authorities try make everything they say sound perfectly reasonable.
e.g. Officials from US Defence Department agency have said they want, quote: "the same level of accountability in cyberspace that we now have in the physical world".
Do they keep record of all the people that you send letters and faxes to (and receive from)? Worse still - record the text? Do they record your phone conversations? Do they keep a record of peoples houses, shops and establishments you visit - or the magazines and books you pick up to browse? Do they keep record of books you take out of library? Do they keep record of purchases you make from the shops?
Indeed - do government currently keep records of everything that you say, touch and do in the physical world to analyse?
No they do not. So then - is that the same level of accountability?
They wish to keep an electronic tag on you, like some kind of animal. Actually it is even worse than this - like some pervert sex offender - a child molester that they have to keep track of.
Would ANY person of intelligence call that accountability?
Do not believe the lies of Government - even more of your money spent on these measures will not protect us from terrorists. Every argument they use is subterfuge - pure spin.
In UK, the RIP Act is unjust - dim-witted ill-informed MPs believed governments 'experts'. Remember - they will get everything about you, your phone calls, emails, TV viewing - everything. It would be like having a spy living in your house.
Americans - the Total Information Awareness plan, USA Patriot act and Homeland Defence - you are generally more technologically aware, are you really that easily misled?
Quote from the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency: "The goal of the Total Information Awareness (TIA) program is to revolutionize the ability of the United States to detect, classify and identify foreign terrorists -- and decipher their plans -- and thereby enable the U.S. to take timely action to successfully preempt and defeat terrorist acts."
The declared GOAL is to, quote: "identify foreign terrorists" - what rubbish. They know you are American citizen, not even a suspect foreigner - yet want to know what you buy, where you travel - everything. They want to profile you, like a criminal. I find it hard to believe that U.S. politicians are that dumb to go along with this violation of the American Peoples Rights. Looks like TIA initials stand for Totally Ignorant Acceptance (for their propaganda).
It should be noted that the UK government will be violating the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - which we have adopted.
Article 12 states: "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks."
You may be interested in the psychology of this type of surveillance. Here is a piece of text found on the Internet:
Foucault focused on Bentham's prison model, or the Penopticon as Bentham called it - which literally means, that which sees all. The Penopticon prison, which was popular in the early nineteenth century, was designed to allow guards to see their prisons, but not allow prisoners to see guards. The building was circular, with prisoner's cells lining the outer diameter, and in the center of the circle was a large, central observational tower. At any given time, guards could be looking down into each prisoner's cells - and thereby monitor potentially unmoral behavior - but carefully-placed blinds prevented prisoners from seeing the guards, thereby leaving them to wonder if they were being monitored at any given moment. It was Bentham's belief that the "gaze" of the Panopticon would force prisoners to behave morally. Like the all-seeing eye of God, they would feel shame at their wicked ways. In effect, the coercive nature of the Panopticon was built into its very structure.
The government will be watching all you do.
You will be good people now - won't you?
Or else!
I cannot stress enough - all your personal thoughts, hopes and fears will be open to them.