Slashdot Mirror
CNN Talks WIth ACLU Tech Maven Barry Steinhardt
muon1183 writes " CNN interviews Barry Steinhardt, the ACLU's cyberchief and former staff laywer for the EFF. Steinhardt speaks on his concerns about current and upcoming legislation and its impacts on your civil liberties. It's good that this is finally making the mainstream media."
I wouldn't go and say this is a good thing just yet. They could easily change "It is a violation of all that is good and just" into "It is all good."
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. It's just that yours is stupid.
As long as people are not willing to sacrifice fundamental liberties for a temporary sense of safety...
Here's more info about ACLU's campaign to challenge new security laws, called Keep America Safe and Free
It's interesting to note their views that in order to keep America safe, you do not necessarily have to take away freedom.
More info about the controversial PATRIOT ACT.
Best of luck to him!
Once the opponents come 'into the mainstream' then as night follows day the pro-legislation campaigners will start shouting their side of the corner. No doubt they will shout louder and as the mainstream always works, the person who shouts loudest usually wins over the public at large.
Perhaps when some of the politicians calling for enhanced surveillance get caught on terahertz candid camera getting spanked by underaged hookers we will finally see some saner legislation protecting privacy.
I'm not trolling.
I'm interested as to why someone who has "nothing to hide" should be worried about mass surveillance by their government?
It certainly doesn't bother me.
What the arguments?
Why should I be worried?
I'm quite willing to change my mind!
*insert Benjamin Franklin quote here*
I'm not as down on the likelihood of winning as Steinhardt is. Cryptography remains essentially unsolvable in bulk.
Unfortunatley, the borderless nature of much technology means there's a scary point to be made that while the next ten years of surveilance technology is unlikely to be all that useful against sophisticated terrorist, it'll be perfectly effective against broke domestic dissidents.
Here's a longer interview with Barry from Wired
They also have some nice information on 'Carnivore' and 'Magic Lantern', spy technologies that the FBI is using on Americans.
Scary stuff.
When do you envision us winning this war on terror? I'm not just talking about Iraq, but all terrorism, as G-Dub originally outlined? Do you really think we're going to make it all disappear? Sure, just after we win that war on drugs we declared fifteen years ago. It certainly doesn't help that, since 9/11, we've upped our pace of walking over smaller countries sovreign rights, fueling more hatred towards the US.
There will be no end to the war on terror; we will always be fighting it, because it has always existed. With that in mind, just when do we get to excerise our full civil liberties again?
Welcome to the real world. Lawmakers, authorities etc are people, not ideal machines. Suppose there was somebody in FBI who hated you and your family, just imagine what all could he do if he had information about your whole life....Or a more grimmer scenario... Somebody in the police wants to harm you.... some govt employee who has acess to this database desparately needs money... so if you are rich enough he could compile a list of the rich and money in their banks and sell them to mafia so that they can demand extortion
Well these are the "real" issues, then come the moral issue of what right does the govt have to know of who I am. We dont want a police state you seeMy Aurora : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o91ZsGwJYyg
FB : https://www.facebook.com/TanveersPhotography
Yes, damn those young "american" "ppl" with their pathetic intellect and those "air plane" thingies.
--
"It's been -372 seconds since you last posted a comment."
He Hosts under a UK IP Block! The Whitehouse is hosted Here!
Looks like Georgie Boy is looking for an exit plan
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
Mainstream media, huh?
I've been flipping back and forth between this cnn and fox chic in Aman Jordan for my main stream media.
The arguments seem to boil down to "trust" and "possible misuse".
Fair enough, but I really think people are getting a little paranoid here.
Every employee that forms part of "The Government" is a person just like you or me; they go home at night to their families; and have a private life - just like anybody else.
It is in their interest to protect their private life just as much (if not more so!) as you or me.
Even the (President | Prime Minister) if they were to leave office would be as subject to any government surveillance as anybody else.
If the NSA employee could discover something about you in the future and use it against you; well that's a bummer; but there is just as much chance of something being found and used against that NSA employee.
I think I trust my Government. They're elected after all; the big caveat being that the majority of what is the "Government" is the civil service; which of course does not change with elections. I'm sure "Yes Prime Minister" has been seen outside the UK.
Even Civil Servants fall in love, and have cats and dogs as pets.
We've also had the secret police in western countries for years; and probably still have departments that are "even more secret than the secret ones that we know about"; but so what.
I think people need to chill out a bit.
...yeah and then they become MIA's or POW's and when their number is going too high CNN will quietly stop counting the casualities (like it happened right now)...
1) Read 1984, and find out what happens to people with nothing to hide
2) Read about Stalin and what happened to people with nothing to hide
3) Read about Nixon and what he wanted to do to people with nothing to hide.
Nothing to hide is NOT the same as agreeing with the goverment.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
I don't know, at this point CNN coverage is just a live feed from Al-Jazeera and a couple of moronic talking heads babbling about things they don't understand. I wouldn't call it entertaining myself, just boring and uninspired coverage.
Also I'm not sure what you mean about the education level being so low. I don't think "kids" are as stupid as you say they are.
I'm 21, but I have four younger brothers, as young as 12 years old. They all understand this is nothing like Counter-Strike 2, and they don't have a "pathetic intellect". They even know how to properly spell the word "people".
It's weird to me that he could say nothing interesting at all in his 3 sentence post, and still get modded up to a 4...
I think if more news are like this, with pictures, people might start to half-assedly guess what a war is really like - death and misery.
Anyway - I have been kind of thinking (and hoping) that maybe the war will go off so badly until the US will put a "non-aggressive" clause in the constitution like Germany or Japan. I mean, what do you have to lose from it? just because you have the biggest gun doesn't mean you should wave it around and use it. - and you can still use your troops duing UN approved stuff - I think the only military excursions that US undertook since the UN has been UN approved actions.
(subject change, to something slightly on topic) My heart sinks when I see articles like this on CNN because I know they don't really care about stuff like this. Remember that CNN is in the same league as RIAA and MPAA - they are called content providers, who is willing to do everything they can so that they can be sure you are paying more than your fair share.
Maybe I am just being pessimistic, though - somebody please prove me wrong.
My life in the land of the rising sun.
If you like your privacy, maybe you shouldn't post such information to a public message board. Just kidding.
Notice that the news feeds ONLY start noticing at the VERY last possible moment, or sadly long after the fact (DMCA, Michican's anti-NAT law, etc). Too little, too late.
It is good to see these concerns elevated to the general public but I always keep this little thought in mind when I read about technology (especially internet related) the mainstream media.
I get the impression that the mainstream media is scared of the internet. I wonder if part of it due to changes in how we get our information. In the old days, we turned the TV to 1 of 3 or 4 channels and that was about it. Today, we can use search engines and countless news sites instead. So, the mainstream media feels threatened by the internet as it reduces their influence as well as their revenues.
I got the impression by how some journalist report their discoveries in a local channels expose on the internet. I remember one article where this journalist was inquiring about cookies websites leave behind and the information others can potentially garner from them. Her reaction was of shock! Her response was that a hapless computer user was totally helpless (no mention of turning off cookies for example) unless the government steps in and starts regulating cookies. As a result of this news article, I got the impression that the journalist was more afraid of the internet than anything else.
National Association of Marlon Brando Look Alikes?
Ursula Andress, Catherine Deneuve, and Charo, twice...
The USA, we have a Constitutional Democracy, is better know as a Capitalist Republic.
The civil servants are regular folks. The Elected Officials are the Ruling Bosses, who have been known (at times) to try controlling the future by sometimes questionable actions. However, as long as they are the Ruling Bosses there will be no questions [HEIL ______ (fill in the blank)].
OldHawk777
Reality is a self-induced hallucination.
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
From the article:
If Steinhardt were to upgrade to a device with global-positioning capabilities, investigators might even track his whereabouts.
Mr. Steinhart is being tracked right now; he doesn't have to upgrade anything.
While your mobile phone is active it will connect with the nearest base station. As you move, it will change base stations. By tracking the base stations you use, you can get a quite nice plot of how you move around. This can be done using todays tech and you don't have to use the phone; just leave it on.
Today the resolution is somewhat lacking, but there are technologies that help. The mobile tech of tomorrow will use smaller cells, providing a finer tracking resolution.
)9TSS
Yes, I mean you. And not just you computer geeks. Your mom should be using encryption too.
Another page of interest is Is This the America I Love?
Thank you for your attention.
Request your free CD of my piano music.
Ok. Imagine the situation:
Microsoft buys some (more) politicians and gets a law passed saying that emulated gaming is illegal. This means that people who write emulators are criminals, and those associated with them ought to be 'watched'.
You get an FBI phone tap.
Why? In your slashdot 'fans' list is one 'rtaylor', who has links to WineX on his website.
You see, you've done nothing wrong, and yet 'they're watching you'! This is sounds like a pretty extreme example, but this sort of thing is entirely possible once as soon as a less trustworthy government (or civil servant) gets any power. Stopping privacy violations now might save a whole lot of grief in the future. Of course, it might never happen. Personally I'd like to hedge my bets.
http://twitter.com/onion2k
The arguments seem to boil down to "trust" and "possible misuse".
Fair enough, but I really think people are getting a little paranoid here.
But in a free society, shouldn't people have the right to be paranoid? The right to free speech includes anonymous speech, and the right NOT to speak out.
Life is not so "black and white" or "right and wrong" with respect to privacy. Say I'm a licensed, professional engineering. My company is committing illegal actions violating environmental standards, and endangering the welfare of the local population. If my free speech were truly protected, then blowing the whistle would be consequence free. But anyone knows that companies have something to hide, and that employees who violate that "corporate wall of silence" find it harder to get a job with another employer. Thus, anonymous speech could be used, if I wanted to protect my career. What if the company I worked for had influence politically -- and with our current law and mind frame....i could be considered a terrorist.
Every employee that forms part of "The Government" is a person just like you or me; they go home at night to their families; and have a private life - just like anybody else.
That argument alone isn't enough for me. Kennith Lay was a person "just like me" -- he went home every night to his home and family. But the big difference is Kennith Lay got rich off putting 42,000 american familes out of work. Misuse isn't a "hypothetical situation" its a standard operating procedure. Wouldn't you misuse it? What if the "security benifits" outweighed the "costs". Besides, no one's going to find out about it. And after they realized we prevented Sept. 11th 2: The Sequel, they wouldn't question our methods. The ends will justify the means for the public.
It is in their interest to protect their private life just as much (if not more so!) as you or me.
Or divert the watchful eye's attention on to someone else's. Remember, in 1984 all the party members could turn off their telescreens.
Even the (President | Prime Minister) if they were to leave office would be as subject to any government surveillance as anybody else.
If everyone were equal under the law, George W. Bush would have to take the bus and would never have come to power. His "youthful indiscretions" were D.U.Is at age 29. Police Officers found him driving on the shoulder of the road! Now he gets to send other families' kids off to die, having never fought in a war himself (He dodged the draft by joining the national guard back during Nam.)
If the NSA employee could discover something about you in the future and use it against you; well that's a bummer; but there is just as much chance of something being found and used against that NSA employee.
Again, more motivation to find dirt on other people. Get results, and they won't be looking for fault on the inside. There are plenty of patsy's in the american public.
I think I trust my Government. They're elected after all;
Not in my country, buddy. Stupid Florida.
the big caveat being that the majority of what is the "Government" is the civil service; which of course does not change with elections. I'm sure "Yes Prime Minister" has been seen outside the UK.
Even Civil Servants fall in love, and have cats and dogs as pets.
Plenty of people who've done horrible, horrible things were animal lovers or some such drek. Hitler was a strict vegetarian. G.W. Bush Jr reads scripture every day in the morning, even when he was executing retarded people as the Governor of Texas.
We've also had the secret police in western countries for years; and probably still have departments that are "even more secret than the secret ones that we know about"; but so what.
So why should I just sit there and let a soulless organization be funded with my money to work against me and deny me the very freedoms I'm supposedly paying them to "protect"? Are YOU being served?
I think people need to chill out a bit.
I think you need to graduate High School, go to college, maybe stop watching "Yes Prime Minister" and look at how dreadfully dangerous your government IS. Not "will be" or "can be", but IS.
As long as the ACLU refuses to recognize the 2nd Amendment I'll continue to not recognize the ALCU as actually looking out for our civil liberties.
They don't support NAMBLA's activities or endorse the content of their message, just their right to actually hold and advocate an unpopular view in public. An actual link to their statement on NAMBLA is here. I'm a straight married male with a young son. The prospect of someone's actually doing something bad to him someday horrifies me. I am disgusted by NAMBLA. But they have a fundamental right to their view and message, however unpopular or disgusting.
The ACLU defends groups and activities on all sides of the political spectrum. They have defended the American Nazi Party, NAMBLA, peace protestors, evangelical churches, and Ollie North. They stand for a principle, not a slice of the political spectrum, and they are consistent in that.
And in these times, we need the ACLU more than ever. It looks like nobody else is really interested in standing up for the Constitution - including the government.
-- Josh Turiel
"2. Do not eat iPod Shuffle."
Not that I agree with NAMBLA (I don't) but you're misconstruing the facts of the matter. They defended NAMBLA's right to exist as a free entity, and to exercise their free speech rights concerning this topic, even as unpopular as it may be. The ACLU was not condoning child molestation , or the group themselves. They were fighting to protect free speech. It was the principle, removed from the facts of the matter. Read the following statement and see if it makes sense as juxtoposed with the aforementioned: "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." -- Voltaire
They defended NAMBLA's right to exist as a free entity, and to exercise their free speech rights concerning this topic, even as unpopular as it may be.
WRONG! How exactly do free speech rights translate into material describing specifically how to entice underage boys into your apartment? How does that include their right to tell visitors to their site exactly what music to listen to, what gay porn to watch, and what kind of stuff to have in your house to get underage boys to have sex with you? That's not free speech...it's criminal. By defending material like this you ARE endorsing it.
Social Engineering Expert: Because there is no patch for stupidity.
Poindexter is lucky not to be in jail, let alone directing Total Information Awareness. I seem to recall cover-ups for Iran Contra. Do we want this criminal dictating our freedoms to us?
e s/ 18/archive/
http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episod
If you are on the "right," ask yourself "Would you trust Hillary Clinton with these powers?"
If you are on the "left," ask yourself "Would you trust John Ashcroft with these powers?"
Maybe PPL thougth that it is more important to mod up the CNN flames than goin over rhetorics and grammars like you and other CNN employee's did here to keep the mods down ;-)
.. Now CNN got (rightfully) flamed...
AOL get's flamed constantly here... AOL owns CNN
Granted, I haven't been to the NAMBLA site until just now (in order to see if they were offering what you described) and I saw nothing there to back up your claim. I (and obviously you) don't agree with the site, but the reason the ACLU fought for them was because an individual killed a child and they were blamed. NAMBLA was sued because this individual had apparently visited their site before the killing. The ACLU wasn't agreeing with NAMBLA's point of view, or the fact that it's a pedophile group, but rather that they weren't responsible for the tragic death of a child, at the hands of an individual. It was a witch hunt, basically, due to the actions of one sick individual.
The closest analogy would be if you killed someone, and somehow the authorities knew you visited slashdot.org and tried to get a list of everyone who visited slashdot.org and prosecute them. Which I would assume even yourself would find ludicrous. Whether you agree with NAMBLA or not, they weren't responsible for the death and that was the crux of the situation. All other details are largely moot, as far as I'm concerned. The ACLU could have just as easily been fighting for a gun manufacturer's right to manufacture weapons without the fear of being prosecuted for an individual's actions.
Here's the full details I found while looking all this up (as I was unaware the ACLU defended NAMBLA before reading this thread):
People forget that if the government got all the data they wanted, it would be way to massive to really analyze. The best they could do would be to, given a particular name, dig up information about that person. Most data about what people do would never ever ever be seen. Indeed even now there are backlogs in stuff like wire tap transcriptions. If every piece of data is being watched, humans can't possibly watch it all.
I'm not saying that this is a good thing. Certainly the governments ability to look intimate details up from my life scares me. I'm just saying that we need to worry less about people using general data to find criminals, and more about digging up info about us after some suspicion.
Still automated data miners, checking against a profile, will eventually be something to worry about. I'd watch for profiles for terrorists, then kiddie porn, then, once that is established, move on to other crimes.
Gryftir
Logic tells us about a logical fallacy known as a false dichotomy, an either or that fails to take into account other options. "Your either with us, or against us."
http://www.santacruzbynight.com/index.shtml Santa Cruz By Night Vampire Larp
What the hell planet are you from? You sound like a "feminized red diaper doper baby" to quote Mike Savage. To even suggest that those who enlist do it because they are tricked into thinking it is something like CounterStrike is pure ignorance. These brave kids know what they signed up for. They do it out of love for a great nation and a desire to do something with thier lives.
You may not agree with the war and thats fine. You may have issues with CNN, which seems odd cause you sound like a liberal and CNN is about as liberal news as you can get (though they are getting better now that Donahue and Chung are gone). But I have no idea what you can have against the troops.
Personally, I think too much war coverage is on the news. I do agree they promote it for ratings, but it is also to counter the propaganda that is being spewed out of other nations who do not support the United States actions.
Now I'll get off this soap box and get back to reading the rest of this discussion. I know this is flamebait, but I couldn't sit and let someone take a cheap shot at our military. Those kids deserve a lot more respect and credit than you give.
Its all just smoke and mirrors.
Why is privacy a basic, fundamental right? Read the sections on privacy in this short but powerful essay [privcom.gc.ca]:
" A popular response is: "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.
"By that reasoning, of course, we shouldn't mind if the police were free to come into our homes at any time just to look around, if all our telephone conversations were monitored, if all our mail were read, if all the protections developed over centuries were swept away. It's only a difference of degree from the intrusions already being implemented or considered.
"The truth is that we all do have something to hide, not because it's criminal or even shameful, but simply because it's private. We carefully calibrate what we reveal about ourselves to others. Most of us are only willing to have a few things known about us by a stranger, more by an acquaintance, and the most by a very close friend or a romantic partner. The right not to be known against our will -- indeed, the right to be anonymous except when we choose to identify ourselves -- is at the very core of human dignity, autonomy and freedom.
"If we allow the state to sweep away the normal walls of privacy that protect the details of our lives, we will consign ourselves psychologically to living in a fishbowl. Even if we suffered no other specific harm as a result, that alone would profoundly change how we feel. Anyone who has lived in a totalitarian society can attest that what often felt most oppressive was precisely the lack of privacy...
"...The bottom line is this: If we have to live our lives weighing every action, every communication, every human contact, wondering what agents of the state might find out about it, analyze it, judge it, possibly misconstrue it, and somehow use it to our detriment, we are not truly free. That sort of life is characteristic of totalitarian countries, not a free and open society...
CNN is liberal as a news organization can get. Yeah. OK. Wrong.
CNN is actually very conservative in their reporting. Perhaps not as conservative as the Lehrer News Hour, but conservative none-the-less. CNN does little but repeat whatever Ari Fleitcher (et al) is spewing at the moment. Unfortunately, there is no money in providing thought provoking commentary on important issues that do not have the mass appeal that things like war do. So CNN (and Fox and CBS and NBC...) resort to sound bites, flashy images, and superficial commentary. That's what sells, so that's what they provide.
If you want examples of liberal journalism, look at the UK's The Independant and The Register. Look at NPR. At Pacifica Radio. These are true examples of liberal journalism. If those are not credible enough, then there is the New York Times, the Washington Post. Not as aggressively liberal as the previous set, but far less conservative than the cable news providers.
BTW - kudos on your stance on our military. While I may not agree with everything our government does with it, I whole-heartedly support our brothers who have given a piece of their lives to protect the rest of us. Even if I disagree with their decision to join, I respect that decision and I wish them all the best in their chosen path, and that they return safely. All of them. I cannot find fault with their desire to protect our country and it's people.
(Score: -1, Stupid)
If you've got nothing to hide in this day and age, then.......man, get off the computer and get a life. This is not a troll, either. Are you REALLY that boring?
It looks like nobody else is really interested in standing up for the Constitution - including the government.
Unfortunately, the ACLU's not interested, either.
I wouldnt call helping the Klan a "liberal cause" or helping Jahova's witntnesses battle a town who had ruled that they needed a state licence to go door to door. read up, mo. http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa030501 a.htm
http://www.aclumontana.org/rights/cantwell.html
There's more, just look.
I have some karma to burn, so let me jump in... The parent (-1 Insightful) is as funny as is tragic.
This is the sign of the times, where dissent is crushed so easily, may be not with the power of force that we accuse Saddam of using, but it is getting close to that.
Yesterday I saw on TV where the TV station was calling for the firing of a Columbia Univ's anthroplogy professor for hoping for more mogadishu type attacks (in private conversation). It may be very tasteless, but for the TV station calling for firing him (they showed his photo on TV too) is very disturbing.
May be we hate the enemy so much that we are becoming him!
S
going stop running over those pesky protesters.
oh wait. nevermind.
I happen to be a "person like you or me" that work for the government. The problem is that I have an opinion as to what is right and what is wrong. So do my co-workers. I wouldn't trust them with my private information. Hell, I attended a lunch and people learned I was a vegetarian... this seemed to weird out many of them and I'm pretty sure some classify me as a "goddamned hippie!" If word got out that I was an atheist I honestly don't know if they could ignore that. People in the government will do what they feel is just. A LOT of people believe "just" is enforcing their beliefs upon others. So... how big is your penis... really... c'mon.. you can trust me... I'm from the government.
-Derick
So? The point is that there is reams of data on many citizens of the US right now, waiting for an excuse to be dug up and used against them. Should you become a high ranking member of a registered minority party (like, say, the Green Party), all the data pertaining to you might suddenly become very useful in limiting your activities and effectiveness. And what about the future, where transcribing tapes and typing in thousands of pages of handwritten notes may be as simple as feeding the tape/folder through a machine? When analyzing terabytes of information is as simple as running a join on two small tables in SQL? What are you gonna do then? Demand all your data be expunged?
First a fundamental rule:
It doesn't absolutely matter, just how it relates to you.
with 9/11 alot of people died, and media coverage was huge.It also drew attention for being unusual, so people feel the danger.
With car accidents, most people have few if any people close to them tha died in one.And it happens, it's normal no extra attention, it doesn't seem very probable.
Now both of these threats are fought.
People take on seatbelt laws, safer cars, action against drunk/unlicensed/speeding drivers.
Yes we could all out forbid cars or we could relax the rules.Some people would prefewr less strict speeding rules, other would prefer stricter speeding rules.
But all in all our fight against car accidents is stable.We are already doing most we can without sacrificing too much.
Now the other problem is arab terrorism.
we are trying to fight it, how effective war in Iraq will turn out remains to be seen.
There are extremes we could take.
We could bomb an arab city of 1,000,000 to the ground for every 1000 Americans killed.It would be effective, they'd be to afraid themselves, although like outlawing cars this is too extreme for most.
We could sit on our asses and accept the attacks, but we are not that passive.
In between would be taking control of the arab world, or try to make friends with them by bowing down.Between that lies taking control of some arab territories(iraq afghanistan), making friends with others(kuwait, turkey, saudi-arabia) and keeping an eye on others (syria, jordan).
What you find to be the best solution is personal.
But it seems the American people are averiging at the last one.
my little brother could send an email about the new System of a Down video. It could be short and sweet, something like this:
"Dood, you gotta see Boom. I just downloaded it. It fuckin kills. It's the bomb."
that would trigger a flag in a system somewhere, he would suddenly become suspect. they could then check his library records, find out that the had checked out "the anarchist's cookbook" (in order to get drug-making recipes). He is now a possible terrorist. The power they have to 'dissappear' him w/o reason, warning, or rights is worse than every in our lifetimes.
And how do your prove that you are not a terrorist if you you insist on telling the truth that you don't like our current elected leaders and their power-grabbing?
The truth doesn't care what I think.
I'd love to see a case of that.
As a Liberty loving Christian, I would love to have a organisation standing up for my liberties, but sadly I have only seen the ACLU move against Chritianity.
It's like they are Anti Christian.There is even a Christian organisation, the ACLJ, made just to protect Judeo-Christian rights against the ACLU.
The ACLU is all against school prayer and for the removing of "under God" in the constitution.
And that is not Liberty.
Religous freedom, and the seperation of Church and State are meant to let everyone practise their own religion,not that atheism should be default.
A sample case:
A christian couple ran a pop and mom copycenter.
Now a witch came in and copied some witch stuff.
They had already accepted payment when they saw what it was, so they finished the transaction and then kindly asked the woman to not come in their store in the future.
There were two other copycenters in the same street, bothe less than 1 KM both ways.
Yet the ACLU sued.
Now this witch wasn't dependent on this particular center, they had no monopoly or so.
As I see it, if I am truly free I shouldn't be obligated to provide a service to someone if that truly offends me and the has a serious alternative.
What this couple did was no less discriminatory then a lawyer refusing a particular case out of principal, or a doctor refusing to abort a baby or euthanise an elder.Or for that matter me refusing to right DRM software.
It is not freedom to force someone to make an agreement to provide a product/service for a purpose he is opposed to, especially if there are readily alternatives.
My perception as a Christian is that the ACLU is actively fighting against my freedoms.
Every employee that forms part of "The Government" is a person just like you or me
Have you meet many government employees? My wife's family is filled with them. They're mostly part of a good ol' boys network (primarily it's the law enforcement organizations like this) and you do NOT get in the door unless you know someone or think/act just like the rest of them. People who have ever done anything with their life that shows the least bit of individuality or fun do NOT get these jobs. People that have made minor mistakes with their life (i.e. been HUMAN) do NOT get these jobs. Have bad credit? Sorry, you can't be trusted. Smoked pot more than 1 or 2 times? We don't want you. Have a couple friends who have DUIs? You might get one too, we don't need you. It's really like that in these law enforcement organizations. They want thoughtless drones who obey.
It's not much better in regulatory agencies like the EPA. The guy carting the mail around every day might be on the up and up, but a great deal of the higher officials are paid-off puppets for polluting companies or people that want to cause the competition some headaches.
You're right, people DO need to chill out a bit...it's not like we're being persecuted and hunted down in the streets, but if you think these "people like you and me" give a shit about you or YOUR family, civil liberties, freedom, or happiness, you're kidding yourself.
This message brought to you by the Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People.
... since he wasn't ever on CNN. I think he was on that bastion of liberalism - the Fox network.
Sean
Lets say you are gay and enjoy sex with men.
Nothing wrong with that.
Lets say you then write a letter to the editor of your local newspaper critical of some aspect of the government.
And then mysteriously pictures of your "liasons" show up in your bosses's inbox at work.
That would NEVER happenm, right?
Lets say in 10 years, a Muslim fundamental revolution takes over the US government and says effectively "Gay sex is an abomination before Allah, you will be stoned". What then?
Life is funny and then it bites you in the ass. And that will probably be illegal under some new wacky law.
Sean... you are half right... he wasn't on FOX. However he was dropped from MSNBC, not CNN as I had previously said. Thanks for catching my error.
Its all just smoke and mirrors.
While I think that the ACLU is interpreting the second ammendment poorly, this is actually the best arguement I have heard in regard to gun control.
I think the difference between their interpretation and the intended one is in the wording "the people". If the second ammendment was intended to allow only the government to have guns it should read "The People".
Possible misuse isn't limited to the government. If at any time anyone has a reason to discredit you or something like that (even, especially, if they're the one who did something wrong) everything you've ever done can be taken out of context, twisted, etc. Just ask former Supreme Court nominee Bork about that... I know someone who got calls of the nature "do you know anything bad about him you will divulge to us" which were apparently done en masse...
Regarding Ammendment II:
The best suggestion I've read is that they don't waste resources on that one (time, money, etc.) because there's already another high profile, well funded group that does just that -- the NRA.
Why should the ACLU waste time and money on that Ammendment when the NRA already fights for it?
Support a few technologists in Washington.
The ACLU is interpreting the 2nd ammendment as a reason to curtail the right of individual citizens to own firearms. The NRA's stance is entirely opposite, and so the expenditure of resources on either side to further their adgenda is to be expected.
Your question assumes that the burden of proof is on the individual so that they may make a convincing enough arguement to be free from surveillance.
However, the burden of proof is ALWAYS on those who seek to limit the freedom and rights of others. So, in this example, the government is seeking to obtain information about individuals that those individuals may not wish to be public. It is up to the government to demonstrate why this is necessary. It can't be just a little convincinig either, it needs to be without a doubt, 100% convincing that this information is necessary. It is a trivial excercise to determine why. For example, imagine a society where anyone could find out anything about you, and could watch you any time they wanted to, even during your most intimate moments. I think that it's obvious that most people do not want this, even by their government.
Maybe surveillance doesn't bother you. What should bother you is the intrustion on large amounts of people who do not want this. In a democratic society people should have a choice over whether or not they are spied on. I'm sure if it were put up for vote, it would be voted down in an instant. What should worry you is what this says about our democracy. It's not just the invasion of privacy that should bother you, it's the overt violation of rights and the trampling of the wishes of the people. What do you think the government is going to do with this information? Do you think they are going to do what the people want?
The other thing to note is that this surveillance is one sided. I would say that if anything, there is much stronger evidience that the people need to be able to spy on their government but do we see this happening? Why not? Perhaps if the government gave use equal ability of spy on them, by re-instating the suspended Freedom of Information Act, then I might take them, a little more seriously.
There are more interpretations of the second amendment than yours. I think the page you linked gives a pretty clear explanation of the ACLUs interpretation. I'd be particularly interested in your resopnse to what I think is the strongest argument. So tell me:
Do you argue for the unrestricted right to own nuclear weapons, or do you accept that the government should be able to regulate arms?
"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech"
Note the lack of any exceptions based on the content of the speech. Which is the point. And which is why the ACLU defends this right even when the content is clearly repugnant. If even NAMBLA can say (not do) whatever it wants, I don't need to fear for my right to say "Bush sucks".
Note the lack of any exceptions based on the content of the speech.
Well, there are decades and decades and decades of Supreme Court jurisprudence interpreting this provision of the Constitution, as well. Does a public employee have the same free speech rights as a private citizen? Does a public school student? [PDF] Are advertisements "speech" entitled to the same protection as political rhetoric? There are lots of issues which the Supreme Court has addressed with respect to the First Amendment which are as much the law of the land as the Constitution itself.
Speech by public school students, public employees, comercial speech. Not that I am arguing they should be exceptions, but note that in none of your examples is the exception justified based on the content of the speech. Now do a google search on "Confederate flag ACLU" and see what side they're on in your pulic school student example.
The distinction between justifiable content based reglations versus those content neutral regulations has spawned much constitutional case law. Interestingly, the ACLU has indeed brought some lawsuits on behalf of public schoolchildren suspended for wearing Confederate flag garb. (In some cases, the school regulations were content neutral and banned shirts with all logos and/or symbols, while in other cases, the regulations were content based, banning the flag specifically but not other like symbols.) Whatever the case, the ACLU has been enthusiastic, and indeed, reluctant, to bring suits on behalf of children suspended or disciplined for religious speech. That strays from the central topic . . . .
"The ACLU is interpreting the 2nd ammendment as a reason to curtail the right of individual citizens to own firearms"
False. The ACLU interprets the second amentment as not preventing government regulation of arms.
"The NRA's stance is entirely opposite"
Until they come out in favor of privately owned nukes their stance is not exactly opposite of the ACLUs, nor is their interpretation of the second amendment internally consistent.
"the expenditure of resources on either side to further their adgenda is to be expected."
The expenditure of an organizations resources to further its agenda is indeed to be expected. It might even be seen as the clearest expression of what that agenda is. You may be anoyed that the ACLU has not expended enough resources opposing gun control, but as far as I can determine, they have expended exactly zero resources in support of gun control. They believe (and I think their argument is fairly cogent) that ownership of arms for purposes that are not military or law-enforcement related is not constitutionally garaunteed. Which does not mean it should be forbidden, but does mean that it's not their mission.
well.. but your brave kids are pretty surprised by the Iraqi resistance against the liberators... ooops.. U.S. news probably doesn't cover that.. sorry..
Oi. Directly from the ACLU websire
ACLU POLICY
"The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms." --Policy #47
What this says is "Go ahead and pass gun control laws. We don't think you are protected, and will not stand up for you."
Now, directly from the constitution:
Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the
right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Arms referrs to firearms in this case. Not nukes. I understand the segway, but a reasonable person could easily conclude that when the document was written there were no nukes, bazookas, or submachine guns. You can see the text "the people" as referring to individual people. Here is where I say the ACLU goes wrong. If the wording were "The People", then I would agree that the second ammendment would not protect the rights of citizens to bear firearms. It is not worded that way. Perhaps it seems technical, but I believe it is consistent with the format of other government documents.
In any case, I was merely making the point that the ACLU and the NRA do not share the same views as was posted by someone else. I have no real problem with the ACLU here. I don't agree, but they have a right to their interpretation. You are right in correcting my wording.
"What this says is 'Go ahead and pass gun control laws. We don't think you are protected, and will not stand up for you.'"
What this says is "Go ahead and pass gun control laws. Or don't. We don't think it's our business." The ACLUs charter is not to jump in anytime you think your rights are being infringed; only when they think you have sound legal footing for thinking so. While most people have a particular opinion on gun control, organizations need not, and should not if such a position is not part of their purpose.
Anyway, it was the latter part of your post that I really found interesting. "Arms" refers to "firearms"? I disagree. I think the founders meant to include all weapons. (The worst available at the time would be what, a good-sized cannon?) At the time even if some crazy got ahold of the worst weapon available he could have been easily dealt with by, well, a well regulated militia. I don't think the founders forsaw the posibility of this changing. Certainly possesion of that nice big cannon would have been essential for anyone trying to maintain the security of a free state.
THe ACLU goes wrong in not distinguishing "the people" from "The People"? I don't think so. Yes, the amendment refers to ordinary citizens. That's who makes up the militia. But if your going to complain they miss a nuance of punctuation, I'm going to have to call you on "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" which you seem to interpret as meaning absolutely nothing. It's half the words in the amendment. They didn't put it in there cause they liked the way it sounded.