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)."
Mirror of the AD in PDF is here (patriot2_ad.pdf).
You might want to check the definition of "sarcasm". :-)
Daniel
Carpe Diem
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...
This isn't a just post 9/11 thing either. Even before then, the Bush administration was the among most secretive in living memory. This is just a continuation of their effort to free themselves from any kind of public oversight.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
The United States is a Democratic Republic. This means we elect people to speak for us in hopes that they have the same belief as us. However it seems to me that as these people are now in office, they don't listen to us, but rather do what they think is best for us. From democracy to democratic republic. Next we will change to a republic. Then to dictatorship. Keep in mind this is an extreme, but with all these new acts that are being passed, it seems that is what the politicians want.
FOML: Rise to Power
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.
Here is a list of books you better never buy, or check out of a library. After all, you aren't a terrorist, are you?
How ya like dat?
Well, here's some quick tips for the americans who want to go to canada to "escape this tomfoolery". If you are a Canadian and know more, feel free to add/modify this list:
if you want to take
Mathematics or Computer Science:
University of Waterloo
Biology:
University of Alberta
McGill University
Astronomy, Astrophysics:
University of Calgary
Engineering:
University of Toronto
Music:
York University
University of BC
Fine Arts:
University of BC
Law, Political Science, Etc:
Carleton University
McGill University
University de Quebec
French:
Laval University
~ kjrose
Okay, everybody, okay!! :-) Too much coffee I guess.
Irony kinda went out the window after 9/11, and sarcasm too. Ashcroft has actually threatened members of Congress and the press with prosecution under USA PATRIOT if they spoke against it. If that's not fascism, I don't know what is.
Big Daddy, Johnny, Burp, Aunt Zelda, Scott, Slurp, Big Momma
I would comment on this but I live in the U.S. so I better not.
There is little disagreement Clinton became a slimey toad when he evaded the law over the Lweinsky/Jones affairs. He got impeached for his efforts, and one should hope that would satisfy his opponents, who originally were sniffing around the Whitewater deal.
The substance of Whitewater accusations and conspiracy, however, is virtually void next to what people have been accusing Bush & company of. And not without merit, as the ramifications of Bush's work are (or will be) manifold.
Big Daddy, Johnny, Burp, Aunt Zelda, Scott, Slurp, Big Momma
The bigger question is, how do you appeal?
Suppose they remove your US citizenship. How do you get a lawyer to represent you? Can you even be represented in a US court? Do they purge your social security number/tax ID? If so, what happens to your bank accounts and property?
Suppose somehow you convince them that it was a mistake -- how do you get your citizenship *back*? What if took months to accomplish and records were purged by various institutions. Do you get your old social security number back, do you get a new one? How would one recover for that?
This is probably the most scary thing here. If they can arbitrarily declare someone a non-citizen and shutdown that person's access to bank accounts (frozen for investigation), work (no longer a US citizen eligible for work), property (siezed for investigation), transportation (no drivers' license -- not a US citizen), and legal representation (good luck finding some without work, money, a car, or a house), what can one do to protest that after the fact? Even if you managed to successfully get your citizenship back, by then, your government confiscated property might have been sold to someone else (nice potential scam for someone there.)
I call a State Governor giving shady land deals to people who let his wife cheat at the cattle futures market the beginings of some serious wrong-doing. I could care less who Clinton was/is banging on the side, but I do care about him lying about it under oath while being investigated for more serious offenses.
09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0
Except the allegations about the land deals were never proven. Do you feel the same way about the plum deals GWB was given? Somehow I don't think so.
Big Daddy, Johnny, Burp, Aunt Zelda, Scott, Slurp, Big Momma
*blink*
Wow, you mean non-US-citizens in the US can't be represented in US courts of law? That is, US courts have no jurisdiction over them? Non-US-citizens in the US have no SSNs nor tax IDs, and are therefore not subject to US taxation?
Wow, that sounds like more fun than diplomatic immunity! What country treats non-citizens this way, and where can I sign up? :-)
Seriously - take a look at the law before you spout. Noncitizens can be represented in court by lawyers, just as citizens can be. Noncitizens have SSNs and pay taxes, just like citizens do. Noncitizens can open bank accounts and hold property, just like citizens do.
As to how you get citizenship back, well, that would have been up to INS, which has since been reorganized under HomeSec. So no, if you renounce your citizenship (or have it renounced for you), the bad news is that you won't be able to get it back for at least 8-10 years...
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.