Slashdot Mirror
Do Privacy Fears Allow Terrorism?
carbon3C writes "Privacy advocates are luddites, says Heather MacDonald, a lawyer at the Manhattan Institute. She says we should shut up and let the government do what it wants. Our government only wants to protect us, and would never misuse technology. How do we send a clear message that non-luddites (conservative and liberal) are concerned about privacy precisely because we do know so much about technology?" Leaving your front door wide open is a great idea, until someone you don't know walks through it.
How easy it is to get the government to comply with FOIA requests. In fact, they are so eager to do so -- all fifty states have passed laws making FOIA requests a part of their own charters. What? They havent't? Yes, um, and I wonder who funds the Manahattan Institute....
So no, we're not luddites, we'd just like to be able to live our lives without having to worry about people ripping us off....
cause we know there is only one of them... ;)
Privacy is only as good as you allow it to be :)
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
So kill them.
Do what those guys did to Poindexter - collect all available information about this woman, and post it on a web site.
Teach her to call us Luddites!
I dont buy that! Thats just what the government tells you so they can spy on you even more. A terrorist caught at the cost of the invasion of privacy of a 1000 citizens should not be acceptable. There should be better ways to stop terrorism. Mebbe the govt. should wake up try to wipe out the root causes of terrorism. Mebbe if Mr. Bush stopped bullying the world that would help! They should stop hiding behind the terrorist
excuse for invading the privacy of citizens.
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety. Nor, are they likely to end up with either."
-- Benjamin Franklin
http://www.archive.org/details/ThePowerOfNightmares
Freedom, in my opinion, is one of the fundamental values in human life. Does everybody really want to be shed and protected from everything by the government? Safety, but no privacy is like living in the zoo: you are spoon fed, safe from dangers, but cannot go beyond your cage.
Sad, but it seems that this is most people want. The question is, what we can do about it?
After all movies, books and news I've read and seen I guess it's an understatement to say that I don't really trust the government at all time. If the people in charge wouldn't ever misuse information for their own good, then it'd be ok with no privacy.
However, I've heard that some people actually do cheat to get advantages of their own.
Hofstadter's Law: It always takes longer than you expect, even if you take into account Hofstadter's Law
The (US) government wants to protect its citizens? By reading all mail etc? So citizens shouldn't be allowed private communication channels, but carrying fire arms is legal? Either I or the US government is missing something here... ;)
Woefdram, l'apprenti sorcier
Look at all the terrorism going on in the United States! Oh, wait.
Yeah, I would like to give up my privacy. Sure would have kept those 2 airplanes from colliding with those 2 towers. Wait. It wouldn't have? No, shit.
You want to protect us from terrorism? Stop having the U.S. military go into other sovereign nations and kill their cultures.
Plus, if the ID theives don't have privacy either, we could find out who they are.
Galium Arsenide is the material of the future, and always will be.
In a nice happy world of sunny days and bunnies hopping across the ground the goverment would serve the people, not impose rediculous laws on them and lock people up for no apparent reason.
If you do not use drm and Windows you let the terrorists win! Please think about our children.
http://saveie6.com/
Wops I did it again... I missed the old "backspace" button and hit "return" instead... The comment wasn't finished, and now I can't change it... sorry
Hofstadter's Law: It always takes longer than you expect, even if you take into account Hofstadter's Law
Our government ... would never misuse technology
Try telling that to the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - after Japan had already tried to surrender...
- Welcome the coming of the New World Odour
...and English lessons.
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
The terrorists wouldn't be there in the first place if the policies of the western world were sane. We created terrorism our self through racism, religious oppression and the support of dictatorship in developing countries during the cold war.
...scientists have created a inertial stabilising system combined with an antigravity generator, harnessing the power of an array of rapidly rotating coffins.
Moderation Total: -1 Troll, +3 Goat
It may not be hard for some housewife (or a lot of other people) who does not see much happening in the world (only what the media and goverment tells them) to say we should do as they say. But how do we jusfify them as right, we cant just listen to them because then they can do anything. If we did that we would get a bunch of BPFL (Barsted Politions From Hell).
Or is America forming into a nazi republic?
I can't speak for terrorists, but if the country that I hated turned into an Orwellian society, I'd be pretty damn pleased with myself. All those proles running around, being killed by the government for thinking differently... I realize that lack of privacy does not make a 1984 scenario, but it is the first step.
Actually I meet a lot of interesting people that way. They're called customers.
The problem isn't open data, it's that we believe the data can be abused and have terrible real-world consequences.
Here are real examples from the Top 10 Police Database Abuses
Cheers, Joel
A big concern for me is the current state of our rights in America. Look at the guy that they arrested in Chigago for planning to build a dirty bomb after going to the middle east. No open judicial review, lack of lawyers, no due process, etc. I not so worried about getting convicted for a crime I didnt commit, but what if you are arrested and held in prison like this guy, or what about the Chinese-American that they arrested at Los Alamos national Laboratory and kept him in solitary for 6(?) months. Until we have solid rights, I dont think that we can really trust the government with this kind of thing.
You want privacy, eh? Therefore, you have something to hide. That makes you a terrorist. So, you are to blame for taxes, polution, wars and stuff. The government told us so, so it must be true! Ummm... where's my bathroom door?
Bite my shiny metal... oops... Nevermind!
This is the last line of verse int he national anthem of the USA.
I don't think this is true anymore and we should propose a new national anthem for the USA. Maybe avarage people will then see what the new laws are doing to the country. Make a new flag as well, change it to reflect the real state of the nation rather then blindly believing the government is adhering to the ideas behind the anthem and flag, as it clearly does not.
Sanity is a majority vote.
She's a witch! Burn her!
We're tapping phone lines
I know that that ain't allowed
--Talking Heads
"Life During Wartime"
Happy Fun Ball is for external use only.
Or once again:
"If you're not with us, you're against us"
Privacy is both dead and impossible in the modern world of surveillance and massive data storage and processing.
Roll on the transparent society, where we can watch the government back!
My Journal
So, not only can we trust the government with our data, but we shouldn't protest against them either, because it costs too much.
No privacy, no crticism of the war, no critcism of the government.....just wait a few more years and it has turned into what happens in basically all opressive and dictatorship reguemes. Nothing allowed if it in any way it is against the stat and its security. Makes countries like China, for example, seems like a great place to live in.
cough*Hiroshima*cough
My sister opened a computer store in Hawaii. She sells C shells by the seashore.
You know what people have none of these days? Perspective. TV, the mass media, and the public's sheer laziness has made perspective a thing of the past. It is in this world without perspective that stupid ideas like "just bend over, you're government is only doing it because it loves you" can spread and flourish. Let's address one point right off the bat:
9/11, in the grand scale of things, should have already been forgotten. More than a year ago, 3005 people died as a direct result of 9/11. Today, 40,000 children the world over died as a direct result of starvation. Tomorrow, another 40,000 children will die of hunger. Another 40,000 the next day, and another 40,000 the day after that. Now, I understand the cultural and emotional significance of the event outweighs the mere logical aspect of it. But mobilizing a nation of 300 million people on a course of action based solely on an emotional reaction is just foolish. Destructive and foolish.
Now, I understand that past events can drive people to fear. This is why I have a hard time understanding why people trust the US government. The US government is not nice. No governments are. We live in a world where the President's duty to serve and protect his constituents and their interests often means that he has to screw over a whole lot of people. Just look up the history of US foreign policy. You don't have to make a judgement call here about whether these actions are justifiable. You just have to accept the idea that the US often does what it thinks it has to do to protect it's own interests.
Now here is the kicker. If the US government is going to act to protect it's own intersts, than individuals must act to protect their own. Far from being "luddites" (dictionary.com -- those resistant to technological change) pro-privacy people are simply doing what they must: look out for themselves.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Well, there was only one. We had him shot back in February, the whiny bastard.
I say if Ms. MacDonald believes concerns about privacy are outdated and only the concern of Luddites, then I say she ought to lead by example. I hearby make a public calling to Ms. MacDonald to immediately do all of the following to prove to us that privacy shouldn't be an issue:
* Make available all her credit card numbers, PINs, bank account numbers, and all personal financial information, including bank statements and both personal and professional tax information.
* Make available to the public all financial statements, receipts and information concerning purchases she has made.
* Make available for public viewing all personal correspondences via all mediums (i.e., email, written, phone, etc.)
* Make available all passwords to her Internet accounts and online services.
* Make available all professional exchanges between herself and her clients as well as those of others in her field and those with whom she does other business.
* Make available for public viewing all personal journals and/or diaries as well as any personal records pertaining to herself or her family members (i.e., birth certificates, medical records, etc.)
* Install 24-hour Web cams in her home, business or place or work and in any other places she spends significant time; of course, we expect that since privacy is not a conern, all personal moments in the bedroom and bathrooms will be freely abailable in an uncensored form.
* Leave the locks on the doors of her home, car, business and elsewhere (including safes and other contained personal belongings) unlocked and available to the general public.
I'm sure there are other items and areas I have forgotten, but since Ms. MacDonald seems to willing to give up privacy in favor of protection from a world full of terrorists, I bet she will happily accommodate any further requests in the future.
So, Ms. MacDonald... lead the way. Lead by example. Show us poor, befuddled, unwashed Luddites the way out of our backward thinking about privacy and basic human rights, We'll be right behind you too because it's painfully obvious to us that an attorney with links to a conservative think-tank who feels the need to swipe aside the our basic rights could have nothing but the best of intentions for us.
--Rick "If it isn't broken, take it apart and find out why."
And that is what frightens/concerns me.
it is the case. absolute privacy wouldn't just facilitate terrorism, it facilitates all kinds of crime. If police weren't allowed to come in and search the premises of suspects of crime, everyone would just hide evidence within their home and it'd be very hard to convict anyone of anything.
Terrorism is no different. The greater the degree of privacy within a country, the easier it is for terrorists to blend in to the background noise.
But then again, nobody wants a surveillance state.
There is a balance that must be struck between the two. I don't think there would be many people who would claim absolute privacy is a good thing, or no privacy at all. There must be a trade-off between what's best for the society and what's best for the individual.
-- james
For the government has never abused it's power... such as the FBI performing surveliance on Dr Martin Luther King? Or J Edgar Hoover being a man that even presidents feared?
All because they were able to compile information on people with impunity. Many of the privacy laws we have today are a direct result of abuses in the past. Marginalizing those concerns as "luddite" is an insult to America and to true patriots.
Bloody hell, not often you hear someone quoting the "Party" from 1984 as if its a good thing.
Lets compare what the Party needed to control its people with what this person wants
1) A war against something, with a changing enemy as required. The "War on Terror" appears perfect for this
2) An ability to always track people (the TV screens in 1984), so zero privacy and the goverment able to track it.
3) The ability to "reinvent" history - Donald Rumsfield as defender of liberty... not the person who sold chemicals to Sadam. UK and USA as "Liberators" rather than the twice colonial power and the most ardent supporters of Sadam in the 80s.
4) Making people spy on each other and report to Big Brother - Already being urged in the US
5) Big Brother to be an unaccountable figurehead. When was the last time you saw someone ask a tough question to George ?
Ladies and Gentleman I call the Brotherhood to order. These are sad days for democracy, George Orwell has defined already the republican ideal of America.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
Pol Pot, Stalin, Ceausescu, Galtieri, Noriega, Marcos, Hitler, Mao ... the list goes on.
When the government decides to start purging it's own people you are going to really wish that they hadn't been spying on you.
http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/lang/eng.htm
Article 12
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.
Ultimately one must mention the Third Reich.
Ever wondered how 10 million people were identified and transported with such efficiency in a time before computers?
They didn't just turn up at the synagogues and cart people away. They used the census data. Who were the largest collators of census data in Europe in the 1930s?
I B M
As the SS arrived in the newly conquered countries of Europe IBM was there to meet them with the census data ready to sort. They took the documents from churches & town halls and fed it into the Hollerith machines. Some unfortunates got the knock and the train ride and even they didn't know they were of Jewish decent.
read the book
Not just to see what capital will do but to see where dismissing privacy as a liberal whim could take you.
You never know who will be in power next time round or in ten years time.
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
...is that if 1984 were made mandatory reading in all schools, the young readers these days might see the world in which Winston lives as normal.
So basically she wants people to shut up and be grateful for being stripped of their rights and liberties. Yes, that's amazing. Take away the people's rights in order to protect them from people who wants to do the same!
A conservative think tank?
>And, she urged, stop all the panic-stricken screaming, because it's endangering human lives. Al-Qaida and other terrorist groups wield technology as a weapon with no worries about privacy rights, MacDonald said. But fear and distrust of anti-terrorism and surveillance technology hampers the U.S. government's ability to shore up defenses and stop attacks before they happen.
Al-Qaida doesn't care about privacy rights? Well, then that's one thing Heather and Al-Daida has in common, then, I guess.
>McDonald said the "hysterical cries" from those who see dark plots behind every government antiterrorist plan just proves that privacy advocates have a "luddite mentality."
On the contrary. I'm all for technology. In fact, I am considering using strong encryption when I email. To protect my privacy, of course. Something that neither Al-Qaida nor Heather is prepared to do...
There are two kinds of "privacy advocates".
One kind demands the right to prevent information being collected about them, or in milder advocates to restrict collection of information. These people are fighting the same essentially doomed fight as the RIAA etc. The information is available, it has always been available, and the tools now exist to collect and distribute it. It is not going to be practical in the long run to prevent the tools being used. (That is not to say that the tide cannot be slowed in the short term, only eventually).
The other level of privacy is the right to withhold information. Defense of ths privacy is exhibited in objections to compulsory ID cards, compulsory escrowing of encryption keys, and many other areas where the government demands information from individuals.
There is some grey area between the two, where government gets access, with varying or unclear levels of coercion, to information held by third parties about individuals.
The intermediate cases notwithstanding, these are two essentially unrelated struggles. The first one has a hint of Luddism, but the second is an onging battle between authoritarians and small-l libertarians which has been going on for centuries and is not fundamentally altered by any new technologies.
She's a professional right wing mouthpiece, often serving up a steaming pile on Fox News. The list of stuff she's done in the name of der fatherla- er- America reads like a veritable shopping list.
Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
... are the key problem here. Her assertions are predicated on conditions that simply do not exist: can the government guarantee that it won't abuse its powers? Can the government guarantee that it won't misuse technology? The answer, in both cases, is a resounding no. Sorry, but if you can't prove the hypothesis, you can't prove that the conclusions, regardless of how much hand waving you do. The most disgusting part of this is that MacDonald is advocating is the bastard child of MacCarthyism, technology, and the Alien and Sedition Act which has been dressed up in an attempt to fool people. A+ for rhetoric M(r?)s MacDonald, F for logic: you have used fallacious arguments to prove nothing.
before we do lets consider this bit of history for a moment: "Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar." -- Julius Caesar I'll pass on the security excuses and keep my freedom thank you! Had the INS done their jobs in the first place there wouldn't be a need for this type of security.
Even though there is a real threat of terrorism this is clearly terrorism FUD. Dismantling civil rights does not help to fight terrorism.
He saw some dirty arabs and fired. Too bad it was just some friendly kurds, BBC reporters and his fellow cowboys.
"That's some new terrorist trick," said Ramzi Rahman, a Manhattan cab driver. "The bad guys act like patriots to get into this country, right?"
And here I thought that these were supposed to be quotes from people who weren't well-informed about the Patriot Act?
I struggle with the pro-drug perception (I should say anti-drug-regulation views) of the Libertarian Party. But it's hard to argue with a platform that wants MORE freedom - and no other party is promising this. Unfortunately, I still feel obligated to cast my votes for the most freedom-oriented Republicans (or Democrats), until the Libertarian Party has a chance of winning, but how can you knock the party that advocates more FREEDOM?
I liked their Quiz to see where your beliefs lie.
Unfortunately, this post will probably be added to my FBI file. :(
Every time I use my Visa information about where/when/how I spend my money are collected and stored somewhere... I can do nothing about it and I can hardly stop using credit cards unless I retire on a forgotten island.
It seems possible to create anonymous electronic money system, but actually nobody is pushing in this direction.
I don't think there're security issues slowing or avoiding the development of anonymous electronic cash, but rather credit card corporations that don't want to stop to collect approx 2-4% of each credit card transaction.
Of course sales taxes are higher than 4% and governement intrudes privacy more than Visa or Mastercard, but at least governement tries to give me security .
Ok, first of all: our world will never be comlete secure! That's a fact we just always try to forget but 9/11 reminded us about.
We can try our best to make it a better place and we should do our best to do so.
But this doesn't mean, that the state do/is allowed to do anything they want to do. There is a good reason to have privacy, to have a right for privacy and have this privacy protected, damit!
How naive do politicans, think tank members and who else think that we are, when they try to tell that "Our government only wants to protect us, and would never misuse technology". Every system on earth, might it be the society, the curch, the government or something else is human, so what do you expect?
This is just one point why privacy rights have to be left untouched.
War is Peace
Ignorance is Strength
Happy Fun Ball is for external use only.
Leaving your front door wide open is a great idea, until someone you don't know walks through it.
Better to have a stranger come through your front door than violate your back door!
The truth about Scientology, Xenu, and you: Operation Clambake
You will always have some terrorism. Maybe not much, but some.
Believing that you can somehow eradicate it by removing personal freedoms really is the height of stupidity.
And besides, I thought all of you valiant Americans were keen to "give your lives for freedom". Perhaps this is the price of freedom.
Slightly OT, but still worth mention: Let's say that this TIA thing gets instituted, big deal. What are the terrorists going to do? The obvious thing is a two path approach: analyse whatever data they can get their hands on and act as unobtrusively as possible and generate as much static and noise as possible to confuse the system.
The notion that all human lives are equal, and I should care as much for a remote starving child as for my own countryman or even as for my own family, has become widely parroted, largely due to Christianity. However, it is insane.
I am not saying that my people are "better" or objectively more important than foreigners, only that they are more important to me.
It is desirable that people have some respect for all human beings, and ascribe some value to their lives and happiness -- such principles can gain wide acceptance, and make everyone's lives better. But I would not expect any sane American to shrug their shoulders at the WTC and say "worse things happen at sea".
If the US government is going to act to protect it's own intersts, than individuals must act to protect their own.
That's fair enough, of course. I think the question is what sorts of privacy can be practically and usefully defended (see my other comment
If you're interested in what giving the government broader spying powers on its citizens can do for you, check out the Leipzig Stasi Museum, the headquarters of the Stasi police in the GDR. People's careers could be broken because they wrote essays or letters critical of the socialist system.
The Right Reverend K. Reid Wightman,
I ask myself ... why is her opinion so important?
Our government only wants to protect us
No they don't.
They want to control us and they want power.
If you ask me, in government circles George Orwell's 1984 is a story about a utopian dream.
Do you mind, your karma has just run over my dogma.
In one attempt to undermine the weapons inspection process, it was revealed that Harvey McGeorge of UNMOVIC had "a leadership role in sadomasochistic sex clubs."
Like, so what. Some people do that. It's his private life, it has nothing at all whatsoever to do with his ability to do his job as a weapons inspector. And yet, the only possible reason for publishing that information was to diminish him in the eyes of the public, to try to reduce the credibility of the inspection process as a whole.
Does anybody think their own or anybody else's private lives won't be vulnerable to such abuses?
(More details on this can be found here.)
Skiing? Check out The Independant Skiers Portal
So, shutup and listen to Microsoft tell you how good its innovative technology will be for you, and stop being such a Luddite.
To the argument that governments will not abuse powers given to fight terrorism, I give the following. On April 22nd, there was an anti-war protest at RAF Fairford in the UK. The organisers arranged a coach to transport speakers from london. The police used their recently acquired post sept-11th powers (acquired despite protest from the civil-liberties lobby) to stop the coach and search it. Having succesfully found marker pens (magic markers) in the coach, they were able to turn the coach around, take everyone back to London and arrest them all for 'going equipped to breach the peace'. The markers could clearly have been used vandalise as well as to make the banners that were on the coach. One anti-war protest succesfully neutered.
VLC Remote for iPhone and Android
USA government seems to be addicted to war instead of drugs, the question is which causes more deaths? When you live in a (semi) free country (like The Netherlands) and you will see the horror caused by USA.
suggested movies to see: Apocalypse Now
Mandatory propaganda reference
Americans, wake up and realise that "terrorists" are nothing more than a device of your leaders.
Wonder what motivates these "terrorists" to attack your country. An irrational fear/hatred of freedom and capitalism? Strange, I live in Europe and have nothing whatsoever to fear from "freedom hating terrorists". I feel much more "free" than I would in the US. I have a public healthcare system. Social welfare benefits if and when I need them. My kids don't get shot at in school.
I come from an island state in the EU with a very well known and long lived terrorist organisation...when will ye come and destroy my country? probably never...I've never heard the issue mentioned by the US administration since Bush took over..maybe it's because we don't have any oil...or maybe because US citizens have provided much of the funding for the group in the past...anyway how convenient, a terrorist is only a terrorist if...what??
Since all those poor, unfortunate people died in the twin towers, your government has been free to do *whatever* it pleases. *Very* convenient for them, all in all. Think of the profit. And all it cost is the lives of a few thousand innocents (so far).
Anyway my point is supposed to be, treat the cause, not the symptoms, figure out who the *real* terrorists are before your country goes down the train and drags the entire world with it in its wake.
There are a _lot_ of ways to protect your privacy although you use the lastest technology. Think about encryption, e.g. PGP, think about anonymizing proxies/mail forwarders, think about choosing anonymous names.
The real problem is that people simply don't bother about privacy, the mass states "I have nothing to hide". Most people just don't know how deanonymized we are by the use of unsecured internet technology - and once again, most people just don't care. Moreover the government and especially the industry lure us into this "trust", moreover they don't implement privacy into their technologies as they profit from knowing all about us.
So, don't blame technology: If you know how, you can stay perfectly anonymous also with today's technology, maybe better than 20 years ago.
Linux is only free if your time has no value. Windows is only free if you threaten to use Linux.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
If the goal of the terrorists was to strike out against our liberties, to strike out against our freedoms, and our democratic way of life, they have won.
If the goal of the terrorists was to wage war on our way of life, to destroy the very fabric of our political and social structure, they have won.
If we want to fight the terrorists, if we want to win the "war on terrorism", we must cling closely to the umbrellas of freedom, privacy, due process, and democracy.
For, if we don't, terrorism has won.
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
I'm not *so* concerned about MY government watching me. What bothers me (and bothers me a LOT) is who else can get in and find out things about me that I'd rather they didn't know.
* Big business (I don't think Microsoft should be able to find out what software I run on my PC for example).
* Other people (Identity theft is a HUGE problem).
* Other governments (I don't think we'd want Iraqi government officials finding out too much about our citizens).
* Small businesses (I don't want to be Spammed, Cold-called or Junk Faxed anymore - and I CERTAINLY don't want those people to be able to find out a lot about me and thus target me more precisely).
Now, if the price of being private from all those people is to also be more private than is convenient for my government - then I'm sorry that has to be the case. Dunno about you but I'm much more worried (in a cold, hard statistical sense) about having my life wrecked by identity theft than by a terrorist.
www.sjbaker.org
Lawyers are some of the dumbest people on the planet. They may know a bit about law (mostly they just learned how to research well) but mostly they are rich-kids that daddy sent through school so they could also be rich.
I have yet to meet a lawyer that became a lawyer to protect the people in court.
They became lawyers because it's one of the only legal ways of extortion.
This woman needs to be publically labelled as a complete moron and we need to continue on labelling these idiots loudly.
Hehe... join the brotherhood... like Goldstein's brotherhood? Just look what happened to Winston....
-------
"In times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
-- George Orwell
Luddite n 1: any opponent of technological progress
We aren't opposed to technological progress. I am opposed to the US Government using this new technology to enforce unconstitutional laws. Laws that our religiously influenced leaders consider immoral. Heather MacDonald needs to go back to her 'conservative think tank' and respect the privacy she has while it lasts.
tagged by the feds,
-metric
Luddites were a group of social reformers who only smashed machinery that replaced a worker, where the worker was not conpesated! They are wrongly show as people who were anti-technology.
There was an unknown error in the submission.
When people are out of arguments, they start shouting like "shut up"...
"Those who think they have nothing to hide are anaologous to a young child who sees all adults as kind authority figures. There are predators out there. If you're not informed, you're a victim
waiting to happen."
"Our government only wants to protect us" - very childish if you ask me...
tells the terrorists that they are winning. If any government re-orders its society to the point where no citizen (or subject) feels they can express their opinions without every e-mail or phone call they made in the last 7 years being hauled out and used against them you may as well surrender now.
Like most 60s kids I was raised to believe that the Soviet Union and particularly E. Germany were evil because the state monitored the phone calls of and spied on anyone who dared to say anything out of line with the government view. Now I find I'm part of an active demonstration of how it can be done better with technology. I 'spose you don't tend to get dragged off without being charged and tortured/interrogated without a lawyer but...... Oh yeah, they can do that now as well.
Sorry to all those who died in WW2, Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan etc. it was all for nothing. Shame that innit?
Hmmmmmm..... Deep fried and look like Squirrel.
what the meaning of the word "TRUST" is?
Our privacy is what helps maintain our individuality, our freedom. Let the government initiate a "let us pry in2 your life, and we will make sure your life is secure" program. BUT, but - let each citizen DECIDE for him/herself wether he/she wants to sign up for it, or not. Let the government NOT make decisions on our behalf.
|/________
|\A|ALYS|
If you are willing to give up your freedom for security eventually you will have neither.
Here she is, it's pretty clear from her articles she's more than just a running dog lackey of the neo-conservative conspiracy. Think, her tuition fees alone have granted her wisdom and insight beyond our means. Joking of course ;)
I was worried about the European cyber crime convention in 2001 but there was nothing one could do about it. I was worried about echelon, the TIA, the department of homeland security, etc. But all I could really do was watching the freedom being taken away from the people.
My conclusion is, that our society will inevitably turn into the Orwellian nightmare. More or less this view of mine is shared by David Brin. In his book "The Transparent Society" he tries to answer the question if technology will force us to choose between privacy and freedom.
From an interview with amazon.com:
Amazon.com: Could you explain what you mean by a "transparent society"?
Brin: Our world, our cities, even the countryside is about to be filled with cameras. There is not a single thing any of us can do to prevent it. Every year, the size of video pickups gets smaller by 30 to 40 percent. The U.S. Army is developing little flying drones that are already smaller than your hand, and in laboratories they're working on fingertip-size flying cameras. We will live in a society in which the average person is under view, at least out-of-doors. The only choice we have is who will control the cameras. If we ban them, if we outlaw them, if we try to protect our privacy through secrecy, all we'll manage to do is restrict their use to a secret elite. Perhaps an elite of government or of the rich, or corporations, or criminals, or a technological elite. We won't get rid of them. On the other hand, if we decide to make a virtue out of this inconvenience--if we all use the cameras--then no one will ever be able to conspire against us again. Knowledge is the only way that we can maintain our freedom. And if that means letting your enemies have some knowledge too, well, then so be it. I am not a fanatic on this issue. We will need some corners of modern life that can be secret. Battered wives will need to be able to go to secret locations for their shelters. Whistle blowers telling of disastrous schemes by governments or corporations will need to be anonymous. We all need a reserve of privacy in our homes allowing us to choose when and where to be intimate. All of these will be better protected in a society that is 95 percent open. For instance, in a restaurant you can have a private conversation because you can catch eavesdroppers and peeping Toms. The openness of a restaurant is better for defense than it is for offense. If instead a restaurant tried to shelter every booth with paper screens, who would this benefit? It would not increase privacy; it would enable peeping Toms. In fact, an open society is not only going to be more free, it's more likely to protect that special reserve of privacy that we all need.
What do you, dear /. reader, think about it?
Is the "Open Society" at the price of loosing most of our privacy our only way to escape the Orwellian nightmare?"
Read the interview with Brin here.
... followed by Some Thoughts on Privacy, Security and Surveillance in the Information Age
A Parable about Openness...
The David Brin Site
Go away, grammar nazis! My native language is not English.
The problem with allowing the Government monitor our information that we pass isn't the fear the government will missuse the data but more of its employees. The government is an organization and I beleave it tries to do the right thing. But the employees are a mixed bad of people some good and some bad. So I can see one guy who is monitoring my data who is sick of his job and gets my credit card numbers and then uses them to to become rich and make me poor at the same time. And more people monitoring my information the higher the probably a rogue person will get my info.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
"Our government only wants to protect us".
Heh, is anyone else reminded of the song "The Terrible Secret of Space" by The Laziest Men on Mars?
liberals
I'm confident we've got nothing to fear from signing away our privacy and having a little Big Brother monitoring, after all they just have our best interest in mind. Power doesnt corrupt, right.....right?
Anataka suki desu. Itsumo. Itsumademo.
The sad part is there are lots people who believe that too.
For those who are not really familiar.. A summary
In 1984, Winston Smith lives in London which is part of the country Oceania. The world is divided into three countries that include the entire globe: Oceania, Eurasia, and Eastasia. Oceania, and both of the others, is a totalitarian society led by Big Brother, which censors everyone's behavior, even their thoughts. Winston is disgusted with his oppressed life and secretly longs to join the fabled Brotherhood, a supposed group of underground rebels intent on overthrowing the government. Winston meets Julia and they secretly fall in love and have an affair, something which is considered a crime. One day, while walking home, Winston encounters O'Brien, an inner party member, who gives Winston his address. Winston had exchanged glances with O'Brien before and had dreams about him giving him the impression that O'Brien was a member of the Brotherhood. Since Julia hated the party as much as Winston did, they went to O'Brien's house together where they were introduced into the Brotherhood. O'Brien is actually a faithful member of the Inner-Party and this is actually a trap for Winston, a trap that O'Brien has been cleverly setting for seven years. Winston and Julia are sent to the Ministry of Love which is a sort of rehabilitation center for criminals accused of thoughtcrime. There, Winston was separated from Julia, and tortured until his beliefs coincided with those of the Party. Winston denounces everything he believed him, even his love for Julia, and was released back into the public where he wastes his days at the Chestnut Tree drinking gin.My Aurora : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o91ZsGwJYyg
FB : https://www.facebook.com/TanveersPhotography
I thought luddite meant this:
"Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)"
Luddite Lud"dite, n.
One of a number of riotous persons in England, who for six
years (1811-17) tried to prevent the use of labor-saving
machinery by breaking it, burning factories, etc.; -- so
called from Ned Lud, a half-witted man who some years
previously had broken stocking frames. --J. & H. Smith. H.
Martineau.
I would think that privacy advocates were the complete opposite of this, as they use technology (cutting edge at that) to protect their privacy.
It is the 'luddites' that are trying to break down that privacy as they are afriad of the 'repercussions' of a new technology, and of people baing able to do something that is a natural right.
What next, will they require all houses to be made of glass?
Who watches the watchmen? State authority is the natural enemy of citizenship. That is why in many countries civil liberties are defined as restrictions to govermental excercise. I don't trust technology policy by govermental bodies.
Hasn't anyone read Code & Other laws of Cyberspace...this problem is outlined there and a solution is also provided. I mean think about it. The internet isn't a public library it's not like the only use for it is sharing pre-recorder media. It's a telecommunication medium now...there has to be some way to identify users...to prove that I am who I say I am. Otherwise the government has no choice but to act the way it is and write laws that limit internet functionality in their country. If you wanna keep that NAT firewall you're going to have to annouce to the world that this digital fingerprint is you and that you are looking at freaky circus pr0n at www.Iamafreakandneedtherapy.com ;-)
Oh wait, that's passe' now. Move along.
Go Eastasia! Beat Eurasia!
Mod Karma -1: I sed bad wurds. If I cep my mouf shut, I wud be at riyses.
Iraq is a good example how well this works. The understanding citizens of Iraq have gladgly given up their privacy allowing the Iraqi government to successfully fight terrorism over the last decades. The terrorist uprising in Basra (supported by foreign terrorist groups such as the CIA) 10 years ago could not have been countered so effectively if it wasn't for the information that private Iraqi citizens so kindly provided to their government. I fail to understand why the US hasn't adopted this successfull strategy much earlier.
Frankly, I don't think that even the US military should be allowed to carry fire arms as they seem intent on shooting their own and their British allies :(
The artical had a quote from Canada's Privacy Commissioner, who was also at the conference, and unlike the crazy right-wing raving, he had some pretty good stuff to say. You can read his whole speach here: http://www.privcom.gc.ca/speech/2003/02_05_a_03040 2_e.asp
My favorite part is where he says that exchanging freedoms and privacy for supposed security in the face of September 11 "can only reward and encourage terrorism, not diminish it. They can only devastate our lives, not safeguard them." To true.
First of all, yes, I care about privacy, I am one of the hysterical types Ms. MacDonald is referring to.
Second, I do agree with the basic point: people concerned about privacy are concerned because they *know* what could be done if technology is misused (as oppossed to they dream up weird scenarios).
That said, it is a "american" trait to put "bars" and "locks" on doors. Do you remember Moore's Bowling for Columbine? The scene where he walks into some canadians' houses? The bit where he simply can't believe they don't lock their doors? That's imprinted in today's "american" mentality. Control freaks that can't even beging to imagine _trusting_ their neighbourgs. Sure, you have your pretty loans which you share with your neighbourg, but the sharing and trusting stops at your doorstep. I'm not saying you people are two-faced (in fact most "americans" I know are very straigh forward when it comes to saying things the way they should be said), just that you just haven't learnt to trust the people arround you.
Don't beleive me? Think of the current war with Irak: the USA goverment never came out and trusted the world with the information they said they had. They just said "trust _us_, we have the evidence, but we can't share it with you, _we_ can't trust _you_ with that".
Perhaps this is similar to your definition of trust. Do you trust strangers? You shouldn't and here's why. Trust is a state earned by those who demonstrate a consistency of action and intent that is in the best interest of what you consider good. That may be you at the top of the chain (with most people it is) or it may be the organization you are in or just other people in general around you. If you refer to someone as a "good person" with the justification of "he/she is nice to me" when it is plainly obvious that said person is an ass to everyone else... that says a lot about your ethos and trust. This mentality plays out in views of government as well, sadly.
Would you trust a child with a grenade? Then why trust the government with your private life and liberties? The child is not evil, just incompetent. I work with many government employees and I can tell you that it is not the ethical and hard working ones that are decision makers. Perhaps by being burned out or just because their "any casualty is acceptable in my climb up the ladder" mentality set them as a kindred spirit to those that hire and promote... who knows? The result is an environment that promotes sloth and blind bureacracy over real quality of results. This is how you get screwed.
"You can trust them, they are from the government." Based on what criteria do they filter out the self serving? What makes me say, "Yes, this is an organization that requires and encourages ethical and professional behavior"? Just because their paycheck comes directly from the department of Treasury does not make them trustworthy. No thanks, I will reserve my trust to those I have seen demonstate that they have earned it.
I seek not only to follow in the footsteps of the men of old, I seek the things they sought.
... it appears someone forgot to add the tags around the statement "Our government only wants to protect us, and would never misuse technology."
She is right however, our government would never misuse technology, they would use it exactly as it is intended, just like the Patriot act. Right? right? oh... paypal... nm.
Shadus
Hah. The government, in first place, wants to protect its 'economical interests', and will gladly misuse technology against any individuals. Governments don't care about individuals at all, as far as it doesn't form a risk to their votes... and even then, if the lobbying pay is good enough...
America claims to be a country of freedom, but it's the first thing that gets throw out when something goes wrong, just so some could get a little safety. You can't stop terrorists. Everybody could be one, using several of infinite ways to get to you. Just take care that you aren't hated so damn much, and yes, there is definately room for improvement... terrorists don't randomly pick a target to loose their lives to.
The people will be the ones that pay for loosing their privacy, loosing to government and its lobbying friends, not some terrorists that can easily re-organize and start using things like PGP. Tell me how knowing what YOU do will help conquer terrorism. I can't believe how somebody actually believes giving up all their privacy and some of their rights will actually improve the world, while the government is fighting a war on the other side of the globe just because of said 'freedom'!
Sounds like "freedom is a nice thing to have, as long as it doesn't even become a potential threat to any of my shiny toys".
Time to ask yourself what really matters to you.
I trust the goverment to monitor who I vote for, and how often, so they know how many ballot papers to print. I mean it would be helpful in transition from one government to another, surely? It would also allow them to make more efficient use of their limited resources.
You transgress those privacy borders once, and then it becomes easier and more acceptable to erode other barriers which define your dignity.
I have nothing to fear, as I have nothing to hide? Who defines what I should be afraid of?
there is NO connection between the right to privacy, & the fuddites' holely war against life/real estate scam.
the reason yOUR "privacIE" needs to be 'modified" is to discourage US from browsing/shopping/discovering anything outside of the Godless evil kingdumb of payper liesense stock markup FUDgePackers(tm) aka the refudlicking gourd.
the creator is participating. there are rumours that it's peaced off. lookout bullow.
Just let the government do what they want? What sort of stupid woman is she?
Try living in a country that DOESNT have rights for a few months.. Then make that totally insane comment.
If she truely belives the individual should not have freedom then she can get the hell out of my country.
Freedom is what this country is founded on. As soon as you give that up, we have destroyed what we are and lost the battle.
People like this just piss me off to no end.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I don't think our government is going to be protecting us for long, since we are now terrorists.
Saddam Hussein is Immanuel Goldstein - the big bad scary man on who all society's woes and ills can be heaped.
Currently, he is. A few months ago, it was Osama Bin Ladin. A few years ago, it was Muammar el Gaddafi. Before him, it was Saddam once before. And before him, it was... you get the idea.
This is what worries me most about US politics: The Hollywoodization of its foreign policy. In recent years, the US government and media always picked one "supervillain" and kept him as a target for the public to put all blame on this one single person. It's "us", the good guys, against "him", the bad guy.
And just like in an action movie, people were and still are fed to believe that removing this person will magically resolve to a happy ending of all current problems.
And somehow the US media always forget that it's not like the movies, that with the removal of the megalomanical villain it is not that all his henchmen are suddenly gone, powerless or instantly converted to the good side.
Killing Bin Ladin will not kill Al Quaida, and killing Saddam Hussein will not magically convert the Iraqis to democratic citizens.
If, oh, if the US government would only stop to look for Hollywood action movie scripts when it sketches its foreign policy, and the US media would only stop to use Hollywood dramatization techniques for its news reporting.
P.S.: Yeah, I'm not a US citizen. Yes, I do watch CNN. No, I don't hate America. Yeah, I think you have a bad government at present. In fact, I'm afraid of your government like I have never been before. No, that doesn't make me "anti-American".
------------------
You may like my a cappella music
My identity wasn't used for illegal purposes, but I had a rather strange tax status for several months last year after someone at a tax office mistyped by NI number (similar to a US SSN).
After noticing that my pay cheque for January was smaller than usual for no apparent reason, and tracking this down to a change in my tax code, we did some more investigation and concluded that I had moved house to the far side of the country and started a new, full-time job there... and all without noticing! I must be smarter than I thought. :-)
The greatest part, though, was when I rang up the tax office to sort things out. Sensibly enough, they first wanted to confirm my identity, so they asked me for my name, current address and employer. I provided these details, and got back, "I'm sorry, those details don't match what's on my computer. I need to hear what it says here before I can help you. Are you sure those details are current?"
I recited every previous address and employer I'd ever had since working and paying tax, and none of them showed up. It took saying the right thing at the right time* to get them to listen to me at all, and then three further months of hassle to sort things out, luckily just in time for the end of the financial year. Still, even though everything is (I hope) OK now, I was out of pocket by hundreds of pounds for several months. To many people, that would have been crippling. And all it took was someone mistyping a digit on a computer in a government office.
But it's OK. I've got nothing to hide, so I should trust the government to collect lots of data on me, and take it as read that no problems will result, right?
*If you ever have the same problem in the UK, where you surprisingly start a non-existent second job and change to a new address at the same time, one of your jobs will get a tax code change to BR (basic rate only, no allowances). Tell your tax office this while explaining what's happened, and they may at least start to believe that their records of your address may be incorrect as well. You will probably still have to write to them and formally state that you are who you say you are, unless you're lucky enough that they can spot the problem fairly quickly and your "official" situation is obviously implausible, but at least you'll be able to get things sorted out.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
"Naturally, the common people don't want war, but after all, it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag people along whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country."
- Hermann Goering, Hitler's Reich-Marshall at the Nuremburg Trials after WWII
"The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them." - Philip K. Dick (found on www.brokensaints.com)
She's a fu**ing lawyer!
There is no need for Al Quaeda to do any more serious bombings or to kill a single person, because there are now people in the US who are doing its work. But instead of killing people, they do a worse thing: they are destroying the very foundations of the civilization.
What these people do not realize, is that although life should be held as important, people can be replaced, and are. But a philosophy of life, a civilization, that cannot be rebuilt as fast. I may seem callous, but think of how people will look back on this in 25 years.
What's worse, is that these measures that reduce personal privacy and liberties probably won't help stop further terrorism attempts. Not that they need to do any more, with such people working for them.
Ashcroft should be arrested for attempting to destroy the foundations of the US. That's a worst act of terrorism in my mind than anything Bin Laden has done so far.
If he explores all forms and substances Straight homeward to their symbol-essences; He shall not die.
What oppressive government has NOT told their citizens to "shut up because we know what's best."? Heather MacDonald is essentially saying that merely asking WHAT the government is doing and HOW they're doing it is traitorous!
It's people like Heather that helps you to understand how Hitler was VOTED into office!
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
Our government only wants to protect us, and would never misuse technology.
Bwaaaaahahahaha! Even if you're one of those who believes Bush would never allow any misuse, who's to say following administrations wouldn't misuse information? You know, like using census information to round up Japanese for concentration camps.
... from a government it supports.
No democrat has anything to fear from supporting or showing the proper deferrence to the system that keeps the republicrat power sharing consortium in unchallengeable power.
If on the other hand, your political persuasions point out the rancid decrepitude and corruption inherent in the US political system that controls popular support through deceptive machiavelian/Goering fearmongering and brainwashing techniques, then you may feel that further empowering facsism will expand government's usurping of the public interest onto itself and its overlords. You might also be personally targeted as a threat to the regime.
When republicans tell you just be happy and trust us, its like SH telling Iraqi's to join the Baath party. Just come to us, you'll be safe here. There are no genetic differences among american politicians that guarantee a kinder gentler fascism than history has thought us to expect from previous all-powerful dictatorships.
Yes. WE are the Borg. In our collective mind we will hear the thoughts of all other people. We will be assimilated by Asscroft and his merry man. I'm sure, Bill Gates has something to do with it as well.
As long as I get to hook up with Seven of Nine!
I am in awe...
Thank you so much for posting this on slashdot, I hope more people see the absolutely horrid injustice that has occured.
I sent a letter to my senator IMMEDIATLY, obviously he won't read it, and it will be discarded, but if enough people kick up a fuss, maybe what has occured will be noticed.
I honestly hope (I try not to pray about anything), that mike and his family end up alright.
Today I see mccarthyism hasn't died, it still lives on in the people who have the power...
they have just changed their enemy.
- A truely embarrassed and frightened american citizen
Heather macdonald - hate list number 3142 - :-)
Slashdot - The one stop shop for procrastination
I don't think the folks that fear privacy invasion are luddites quite the opposite. I think most all fully aware of the capability of today's technology and how it can be misused.
Enemy of the state - ok 3 words :-)
Slashdot - The one stop shop for procrastination
Lets focus on what some REAL threats are, lets pick one of my favourites. Drunk driving fatality statistics. In 2000 over 16 000 people died in alcohol related traffic accidents, that's 5 9/11's, every year, or one every month and a half.
v s_ alcohol_related_fatalities.html
http://www.freewaywatch.org/traffic_fatalities_
The posters point was that the US government is acting in its own best interest, not necessarily yours, or the other people of the world. And that we should question, and make sure we are protecting our own interests.
That being said, it is important the government take steps to calm a scared public, buildings exploding in the middle of a major city is terrifying.
This lady's a coward.
To not feel fear concerning terrorism would be stupid. I mean, they really are out there, and they really can hurt us. That is a fact. But to allow ourselves to be paralyzed by that fear -that is, to be afraid- has no point or meaning, because quite frankly, they cannot be stopped 100% of the time, and it is pointless to even try, because the only way to even approach 100% is by using means which make our lives not worth defending anyway.
People seem to forget that the various government agencies get some ten to twenty terror threats a day. They don't have the resources to treat every one of them as a real threat, but fortunately, most of them are not. So they have to sort the proverbial wheat from the chaff first, and then deal with the genuine threats. This is a monumental task indeed. And yet, from 1997 - 2002 (as close as we can currently get to a five-year period surrounding 9/11). only one attack got through. That's well over a 99.99% success rate. And this was with several security procedures which were in place before 9/11 not even being followed. Even the government can't ask for better than that and honestly expect any improvement.
We are, in fact, no more secure than we were before 9/11. That's because it's basically impossible to get more secure. And that's a sobering thought, that for all the efforts at trying to "prevent" terrorism, it cannot be done perfectly, not without compromising everything that makes life in the US worth living. But that's something that's simply going to have to be dealt with. Too many people, it seems, have been raised to believe that the world is like some Disney movie where "common decency" is universal, everyone is capable of being reasoned with given enough time, and governments never abuse the power they are given. That would be great if it were -or could be- true, but there's this thing called reality that gets in the way. Maybe when more people realize this, the populace as a whole will start getting a little braver.
The biggest problem that I have with the push of allowing the government to violate so many traditionally private areas is that it restricts the freedom and rights of most people.
Sure, someone can look that if you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to hide, but the problem is that sometimes we hide things because we don't want people to see them, and not because they are something "wrong." Take for example personal emails. I email my girlfriend something personal, and suppose I say something in it like "You're the bomb." Regardless of what else I say, there is a push that the hunt to find terrorists alone would be enough to search my message for meanings, and search any other messages.
Terrorists did not just suddenly appear in America, no matter what they want us to believe. Restricting what people can say in private for fear of observation and prosicution is worse than violating someone's rights to Freedom of Speech in public (where the constitution truly applies). At that point, their is no private sayings, their is no right to think what you want.
There is a fine line between security and privacy, and is somewhere around that line. The paranoia looking for terrorists has the potential to turn into another Red Scare. Sure, for every person you find pushing terrorist activities, you probably harass and punish 30 who didn't. Beyond that, we've already seen the push for this movement against people who have nothing to do with fighting terror. How long before the privacy crackdown starts busting people just for music because Peer-to-Peer networks can facilitate terrorism?
Guns are NOT just a fancy rock. Their are in the bill of rights to allow the citizens that right to over turn an oppressive government.
Look at some of the bill of rights...
Freedom to express ones thoughts and beliefs.
Freedom to gather and associate with like minded.
Rights to own arms. (Note not just guns.)
Just those three rights are very powerful.
In one view, they protect terrorists. In another view, it allows citizens of the country to rise up against a tyrannical government.
The problem is they are both the same views. It depends, if you are one the outside looking in, or the inside looking out.
Our founding fathers was worried that a new tyrant would come to power the citizens would need the power to over turn him.
As these rights get eroded, it shows that tyrant is coming to power. It is now the time to exercise your rights to keep your rights.
2)
You have heard, "give 'em an inch and they take a mile." Or "it's not the intent of the law but the letter of the law." It has been PROVEN throughout history that when you give any government more power they will abuse it. And anybody who studies history knows that it repeats itself like a sine wave. The government promised the peasants in the 30's that your social security number would and could never be used as a means of personal identification. Guess what? Under the "Patriot Act" an Intel engineer of Middle Eastern descent is being held indefinitely without charges. Why? He has committed no crime, so he cannot be charged. The FBI has admitted that there is no crime. He has done nothing but have olive skin and an unfortunate (for him) birth location and last name. The same can and will (eventually) happen to you. If we continue to sit back passively and let what little is left of our constitution be taken away, when we wake up we will have gotten what we deserve. Benjamin Franklin stated that "those who would give up freedom for security deserve neither." I contend that they will receive neither!!
Maybe it's because it's 8 am and I haven't slept, or maybe it's just that when someone says something this ignorant it enrages me. I mean, it's intolerable that this statement even needs to be shot down. Read a book you stupid bitch.
Even the most complacent, oblivious, and trusting of Americans in this day and age, should be resigned to the fact that a conspiracy of good intentions can often lead to abuse of government power.
Just because we've indirectly benefited from the profits of large corporations and our lifestyle has improved does not in any way justify the means by which that benefit was bestowed. That sort of warped logic has created the rage towards the US and the west in general; we benefit while they pay. It was only a matter of time before someone got sick of paying. Right now corporations and the government are pushing against the average citizen, grabbing more and more headway because the average citizen is content. Until that changes or something emotionally-uprising appears you're not going to see many of them pushing back. Right not corporations, the government and the media are playing off a very emotional event (9/11) and a very fuzzy and ill defined threat (global terrorism). They are using the events to erode the privacy of the individual. They are not pushing because the average citizen is content; they are pushing because the average citizen is scared and distracted, and because the average citizen is scared and distracted they can. It is a fact that the average citizen has only the remotest clue as to what is going on in the world. Something like 50% of Americans now believes that Iraq has something to do with 9/11. While in fact it has never been proven that Iraq has anything to do with Al-Queda at all. It can be argued that the war on Iraq is an attempt to distract the public from the lack of progress in the war on terrorism, all the while keeping the public conveniently misinformed. During the anger, fear and distraction caused by 9/11, and now during the subsequent distraction from the war on terrorism caused by the Iraqi war, the government needs to be seen to be countering the threat of terrorism. The best way to be seen to be accomplishing goals (in this case alleviating threats) when there is little news is to make 'progress', in an area that is not understood by the majority of the audience. I'm pretty sure that most Americans and Britons would be loath to allow the government sweeping powers to open a letter in transit without a warrant of any kind. However laws allowing police sweeping rights to demand encryption keys with accompanying automatic gag order, without any form of appeal or prior review have been passed in the UK and would likely pass without much fuss from the public in America. I find it remarkable that the internet community and technophiles are being labeled as luddites for opposing these laws and restrictions of freedom. Now, think about it little. The canal did benefit America - both the rich and the poor. It opened up trade avenues previously closed. I must say I find that argument extremely narrow minded and shortsighted. Panama as Iraq is a country, and has rights as such afforded to it. For no reason should any country have the right to dictate events in another country, unless they are asked for assistance. This is one of the fundamental pillars of the United Nations, without international consensus through the Security Council you can NOT do things like that, certainly not just because you are the sole superpower. As a side bar to this, I'd like to note that the oft quoted Article 51, does not give a nation the right to pre-emptive strike, or the right to meddle with the government of another country. Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security The key element of the article is the part where it says 'if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations' as well as t
the annual number of deaths due to traffic fatalities, murder, and suicide each exceed 3005.
cancer rates are expected to increase by 50% in 2020.
and let's not forge the biggest killer of all -heart disease
statistically, the biggest risk to your life is a result of ordinary, day to day american standard of living.
america's post 9/11 reaction is nothing but shellshock - post traumatic stress. i.e., not a rational reaction.
mobilizing a nation of 300 million people based on irrational fears is destructive and foolish.
you've been bamboozled by the neo-conservatives.
george bush took advantage of your shellshock to create the neo-conservative new world order.
support the troops. demand the truth.
Privacy invasion does not help much against terrorism. If a close-knit group of people decides to blow up something, do not communicate their intention to outsiders, steer clear of well-known radicals, break no normal laws, and act reasonably intelligent, there is no way to stop them. The nastiest dictatorships were unable to prevent attacks on their leaders - Hitler survived two bombings through sheer dumb luck.
The police can act against radicals who act in public. It can infiltrate groups that accept outsiders. It can act against groups that have a vulnerable infrastructure ("Follow the money!"), but we must be aware that there is no real protection against the above-mentioned types. No anmount of police work would have uncovered the 9-11 terrorists.
Secret services can governments can put the thumbscrews on the men behind the bombers, the guys who send others to their death but do not want to join Allah themselves.
I want to see Ms. MacDonald's bank statements.
Why not? What is she hiding?
I want to see her credit report.
Why not? What is she hiding?
I want to put a camera in her bedroom.
Why not? What is she hiding?
I want her under constant surveillance.
Why not? What is she hiding?
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
It was in my high school. We read it last year in Sr. English. Everyone I asked about it that read the book said something to the effect of "1984 is just a story. That would never happen in real life. Our government can be trusted. George Orwell is just a paranoid [insert-socially-unacceptable-group (eg communist, etc)]."
When talking to these people, I drew parallels between the book at the current state of events in the US. They denied that there was any correllation between them. They would then say the same thing as above. When asked about their privacy, the used the good ol' facist line: "It doesn't matter if they can look into your private life, if you've got nothing to hide."
It seems to me that most of American is much too apathetic and ignorant. They refuse to see how our right to privacy is being eroded. When it appears that they will be safe... they cast aside their rights and flock to facism. I actually had a teacher say "I'd be willing to have strip-searches of every airline passenger." He seriously thought that would eliminate hijackings. While I've little doubt that it would eliminate lots of hijackings (some would still occur), I don't want to have to let some government employee stick his hand up my ass just so I can fly home to see my family for Christmas.
neurostarYou know sometimes things suprise me on Slashdot. The group as a whole will complain that their rights are being taken away because of searches at airports, the Total Awareness stuff, and having to flash your ID at everystep sometimes, yet the SAME thing that could protect you from this kind of stuff your against? I am talking about firearms. Right now, if your in a militia, you are considered a vigilante. Back when the country started when all anyone had were guns including the government, it was considered a honor to serve in a militia. The only advantage that the government had was artillery (canons), and one could make one of those if they wanted to. The constitution itself says we should established a well armed militia. Yet because the government fears national security, we don't get a F-16 or other weaponry to use for our own protection from our government or outside influences. By my calculations, if we are to have a "well armed militia" we are woefully underarmed. I ain't aying we should be concerned about just this, the privacy issue is a HUGE one. Alot of folks don't realize I can go down to the courthouse with a NAME and get your address and any other info thanks to FOIA. And if I can't go there and you work for a public institution such as a state run college, or the BWC, I can ask them for a list of employees and they have to gie it to me thanks to FOIA. FOIA really needs to be reworked to protect our privacy but it probbaly won't because it will put a kink in the "anti" terrorism plan. I like the President and I think what's been done in Afghanistan and what is being done in Iraq is the right thing to do, but I disagree with some of the things that make no sense or things that are percieved as better for our own good. One example I can think of off hand is removing laptops from their cases. Wait, you have a Xray machine and other equipment for detecting bombs and you need me to take it out of the case??? What do you think we are going to slip and say no I got a bomb in that laptop in place of the battery?? Stupid.
Gorkman
Rights to own arms. (Note not just guns.)
THe right to *KEEP* (own) and *BEAR* (carry around) arms.
Constitutionally speaking, you have the right to own any arms of your choice, and you have the right to carry them around with you. In other words, laws banning the carrying of firearms are unconstitional.
My journal has hot
Let's try that formatted :)
Just because we've indirectly benefited from the profits of large corporations and our lifestyle has improved does not in any way justify the means by which that benefit was bestowed. That sort of warped logic has created the rage towards the US and the west in general; we benefit while they pay. It was only a matter of time before someone got sick of paying.
Right now corporations and the government are pushing against the average citizen, grabbing more and more headway because the average citizen is content. Until that changes or something emotionally-uprising appears you're not going to see many of them pushing back.
Right not corporations, the government and the media are playing off a very emotional event (9/11) and a very fuzzy and ill defined threat (global terrorism). They are using the events to erode the privacy of the individual. They are not pushing because the average citizen is content; they are pushing because the average citizen is scared and distracted, and because the average citizen is scared and distracted they can. It is a fact that the average citizen has only the remotest clue as to what is going on in the world. Something like 50% of Americans now believes that Iraq has something to do with 9/11. While in fact it has never been proven that Iraq has anything to do with Al-Queda at all. It can be argued that the war on Iraq is an attempt to distract the public from the lack of progress in the war on terrorism, all the while keeping the public conveniently misinformed. During the anger, fear and distraction caused by 9/11, and now during the subsequent distraction from the war on terrorism caused by the Iraqi war, the government needs to be seen to be countering the threat of terrorism. The best way to be seen to be accomplishing goals (in this case alleviating threats) when there is little news is to make 'progress', in an area that is not understood by the majority of the audience. I'm pretty sure that most Americans and Britons would be loath to allow the government sweeping powers to open a letter in transit without a warrant of any kind. However laws allowing police sweeping rights to demand encryption keys with accompanying automatic gag order, without any form of appeal or prior review have been passed in the UK and would likely pass without much fuss from the public in America. I find it remarkable that the internet community and technophiles are being labeled as luddites for opposing these laws and restrictions of freedom.
Now, think about it little. The canal did benefit America - both the rich and the poor. It opened up trade avenues previously closed.
I must say I find that argument extremely narrow minded and shortsighted. Panama as Iraq is a country, and has rights as such afforded to it. For no reason should any country have the right to dictate events in another country, unless they are asked for assistance. This is one of the fundamental pillars of the United Nations, without international consensus through the Security Council you can NOT do things like that, certainly not just because you are the sole superpower. As a side bar to this, I'd like to note that the oft quoted Article 51, does not give a nation the right to pre-emptive strike, or the right to meddle with the government of another country.
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security
The key element of the article is
That is an assumption on your part.
My father is very much a man of principle. He once taught me that the only rights you truly have are those for which you are prepared to die. It's a great sound bite, but with more than a little truth in it: anything else can be taken away from you, and if it can be taken away, is it really a right at all? Someone with that attitude might disagree with you.
I'm not sure I could make the hard choice, say if someone were holding guns to my family's heads, but maybe that's immaturity or lack of responsibility on my part. Put it another way, but with a more commonly accepted answer: do you believe in negotiating with terrorists? Does a little short term benefit justify the long term harm? If this is not black and white and there is a balance to be struck, then where do you draw the line?
That, my friend, is the key point that makes so many people from any side of the privacy argument critical here. You are giving up a hell of a lot for something that you don't even know will work (in fact, something that history strongly suggests will not work).
The answer to your first sentence lies in your second. The US has been throwing its weight around for a very long time, as the history books will tell you if you choose to read them. Gratuitous provocative comment for discussion: Has the US has committed more terrorist acts and war crimes in the past hundred years than any other nation on earth? (Before you flame, do read the history books for yourself.)
Your current president had established an international reputation as a belligerent man with little care for the rest of the world long before 911. This is why people will give their lives to hurt you, and this is why the international community are reluctant to stand with you on issues like Iraq. So yes, there are several things you could do to significantly reduce your risk of a terrorist attack, but most of them don't involve guns or spies.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
The manhattan institute is a front organization, one of many, and think tank for the globalists, those new world order advocates who want a global two class society, masters and serfs. I term them as being technofuedalists. You can use google to find out more about them, here is one url with some background as to the founding of the place, who's involved with them, and some of their other beliefs. There are many more, this one has some decent background though. More or less they engage in sophisticated psyops to promote their agendas of global governance and dominance.
Manhattan Institute think tank background, it's not pretty
As to "government not using technology" in an illegal manner, gimme a break, they do it constantly, daily, here's an interesting breaking story today:
Government being forced to come clean on TWA 800 attack, it was NOT an accident
If anyone cares to check out the elaborate misues of federal police agencies, judges, investigators, intelligence agencies with witness intimidation, false arrest, coercion, then using completely falsified "science" to "prove" on television what they said happened to the people on flight TWA 800 . Initially government with all sorts of junk voodoo science "proved" that twa 800 had a center fuel tank explosion then they at first claimed that it automagically lost it's forward part of the fuselage then climbed 3000 feet, and etc, lie, etc. Elaborate staged dog and pony show. Well, the court cases now are going forward, government is basically pleading nolo to massive fraud and deceit and covering up a delibarate attack on the plane. The full details aren't in yet, but they almost got away with it, even to the point of throwing journalists in jail over it.
Lying scumbags. Same as they are elaborately lying over the 9-11 attacks.
There's a CONSTANT assault on freedoms and the truth out there, it's being done by these globalists and their minion government drones and places like these "think tanks". Wheels within wheels. It's not a conspiracy "theory" once it's proven to exist, after that, it's a matter of finding out how extensive it is, and working to counteract what they do, even as simple a thing as like me dropping this post here. These globalists are some dangerous and foul people. Heinous really. A good rule of thumb is to assume the exact opposite of what this person at the manhattan institute says. Governments-the US or anyone's - will use ALL technology they can get their hands on to collect files and data on everything they can, to frame people, to cover up crimes they have committed, to commit any other crimes they feel like, to manipulate people and events, etc, right up to globally in scale. And another good rule of thumb is to just acknowledge that "laws" only apply to the serfs, the master race globalists have little of any laws that apply to them, that's how they think and operate. They are neoroyalty, technofuedalists. They have been, are, and will contintue to, accumulate as much data on "you" as they can get, to be used for their purposes of command and control. And yes, you should be very afraid of what they will do with that data.
These people piss me off more than any other type. We know what's best for you. Allow me if you will to go on a pro US pro capitalist pro libraterian rant for a minute with my apologies to my European and international friends...
;-)
The entire concept of a free nation and leaving old Europe was a place where man was free from oppressive controls of the Government. Man was free to worship, speak, act how he willed as long as he didn't encroach upon the rights of another. Any government by its very definition is an experiment in collectivism. We give up the right to murder because we ourselves don't want to be murdered. We give up the right to steal because we want to protect our private property. Goverment is by its very nature a limiting of the freewill of man in an attempt to provide a collectivist environment in which a larger number of people can flourish where as in a Darwinian or anarchist state only the strongest would survive and even they would be limited in there success by how much "prey" was available. That is with out government and rules for a national/international markets it's tough to make Bill Gates type of money. Government here was limited intentionally and by its very defining doctorines (i.e. the Constitution) because it has proven over the last 6000 years that it can't limit itself.
This lady is an idiot and there are millions just like her that think the people are there to support the government structure and that the government is there to support the people. That's idocy...both can't be true. The government is there to limit the freedoms of man to ensure that he doesn't encroach upon his neighbor, and to ensure that foreign powers to encroach upon him. The people support the government and not the other way around and although it is misued and has been twisted it is not Government's place to protect us from ourselves or to check up and make sure we're acting correctly. It's job is to protect us from foreign invasion and to insure that we don't trample the rights of other citizens via mob rule, etc. This kind of attack on the basic principles of U.S. Representative Democracy is what will eventually (or already has?) sour the milk and honey that so many people wanted to come be a part of over the last 200 years.
All that said government isn't even good at doing it's real job (i.e. protecting civil rights, defending our borders, ensuring a stable set of laws for transactions between citizens, providing domestic traquility) why would we want it to try and broaden its scope, like it's always trying to do?
Okay rant off, and again my apologies to the international readership that hates to hear pro-American rants like this one.
``Those that would sacrifice their freedom for safety will find they inherit neither.''
The 2nd Amendment guarantees us security. The government needn't do anything else. When they do seek additional measures in the name of security, question their motives. These are usually the groundwork for more sinister plans.
If you think the U.S. government is not susceptible to committing atrocities, you've had your eyes closed. Ask any American Indian if they trust the government. Or any Japanese-American who spent years of his life in an internment camp. Or an African-American who unwittingly found himself enrolled in a state-sponsored syphillis program. How about the people whose lives were ruined because they were denounced as COMMUNISTS?
We're no different today. We simply changed some keywords. COMMUNISTS now means either DEMOCRATS or TERRORISTS. Instead of the USSR it's the Middle East. Instead of the SS driving jews into ghettos, it's the IDF driving Palestinians into ghettos. Beat Vietnam protestors -> Beat Iraqi war protestors. S&L? Now Enron, WorldCom, etc. Joseph McCarthy? John Ashcroft! The same scandals, the same atrocities, the same lies, the same tyrants, just new names and a new days.
Less than 1% of 1% of the CIA's documents have been declassified, and just those few alone have shown thousands of cases of US sponsored terrorism, assassinations, support of military dicatorships, sending weapons and supplies to genocidal maniacs, destabilization campaigns, drug smuggling, ad naseum. And these people are still in our government today.
Trusting in the sanity of the United States Government is not an option. Their actions must be closely monitored and recorded. There are to be no secrets, their access limited and their power tightly curtailed. We have a responsibility to do this not only for ourselves, but for the entire world.
The reason we believe in Freedom and Privacy is because we think there's hope in changing our government for the better, peacefully. Once we lose sight of this, the only option left is to exercise the 2nd Amendment.
People like Ms. McDonald just don't understand that technology doesn't magically happen. It requires people to do their jobs correctly.
Ms. McDonald says you can trust the government, but the issue isn't just trust. Even if you accept the idea that the government will not deliberately misuse this information, you have to recognize that PEOPLE MAKE MISTAKES!
It doesn't matter to the poor S.O.B. whose SSN was incorrectly associated with a child molester with a similar name that it was an honest mistake; he still has his life screwed up.
Considering the truly _massive_ numbers of plain old painful screw-ups made each year by public utilities, driver's license bureaus, tax offices, public assistance offices, child welfare offices, school systems, credit bureaus, etc. etc., it is an act of truly _monumental stupidity_ to believe that if the government builds the largest collection of information ever, they will miraculously stop making the same kind of ordinary human mistakes that have defined all public databases since the beginning of written records.
Even without the legitimate concerns about deliberate misuse, this alone is enough to make any _reasonably_ sane and intelligent human being demand more accountability from the government on this issue.
i guess they don't teach critical thinking in law school anymore. i guess they don't teach history in law school anymore either. how do idiots like this actually get degrees??
The argument is already lost against someone who thinks "the government only has our best interests at heart". That person is too "embedded" to see the forest for the trees.
Where is the poster victim for data misuse? The closest thing that comes to my mind is the child molester on TV who did his time and can't find a place to settle down in the U.S., much less hold a job, because the mandatory notification follows him from town to town and state to state. Unfortunately, not that sympathetic a model.
I think the problem is the total and absolute death of ideology. You can tell people that, IN PRINCIPLE, government shouldn't be allowed to take away constitutional RIGHTS because what might seem to pragmatically solve a specific problem now COULD result in REALLY bad consequences later. That's why you hold some principles "sacred" above specific actions. But will that argument be effective or will the person just continue to assert that governments are good and rational and always do the right thing? There is no slippery slope. Frogs can't gum the constitution to death.
If that is what a person thinks, who has the time to sit them down and teach them remedial world history? Even that isn't a sure thing. I believe a lot of people, even "well educated", think the U.S. is the crown of creation and has transcended history. Therefore, it has nothing to teach us.
She has obviously never heard of J Edgar Hoover and what he did for the MANY years he ran the FBI. That tells you something about law schools when someone like this can get a degree.
And this applies to the IRA how ?
Or ETA ?
And to mod up a comment that repeats small minded stereo types verbatim, and talks of freedoms in a country that detains people without trial or representation by calling them "non-combatants" against all democratic countries protests is not the place to be throwing stones from.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
the same way 'not living in a police state' allows terrorism.
9/11, in the grand scale of things, should have already been forgotten.
In the grand scale of things 9/11 doesn't even matter. Exactly out of the reasons you mention yourself. There are more people dying a senseless death any deay all over the world, and nobody cares.
The thing the american public (thanks in part of the spin masters at the government) never understood was that this was just a matter of time that something like that had to happen. Exactly because of the US foreign policy.
What amazes me to no end though is how many people are actually talking the party line. I mean really: "They are jealous of our freedom"?
Reality is that (for some reason) a vast amount of the US population has managed to see itself constantly as victims. At home, abroad. Heck, I can't shake the impression that most people see themselves with the back to the wall and that everyone is out to get them.
Policy that is made out of fear is the worst kind of policy that can be made. I hope / wish that they would stop for a moment and think. I had really hoped that 9/11 would have acted as a wake up call to the masses but instead it just drove them further away.
It is a popular way of thinking in the US right now (apparantly) that the world is all against the US, when the opposit is quite true. Most people / governments don't have a problem with the US in itself but rather with the way it tries to act out of fear with disregard to anybody else. Nobody likes a bully, much less a frightened one who kicks everything that comes even close to him.
If you want to e-mail me, use my PGP Key.
Contrary to what you say, "bullying the world" (although a vast oversimplification of the mistakes we've made) actually is the biggest problem (that we have control over.) The second one is the religous difference and the history of that schism. The combination of the two is quite volatile. Everytime we say something in a foreign policy debate, they hear that statement, plus the following: "Or we'll come and kill you all, like we've tried to before."
Remember the Crusades? Where Christians went to "cleanse" the holy land of "infidels." Remember that "cleanse" in this context means "to kill everybody." This is a powerful historical lesson for muslims... Even though the crusades were a long time ago, cultural memory of genocide does not fade quickly.
Besides this, the Arabs have political differences with us:
- We give their governments orders through threat of force of arms (The list here is so long I'm not even going to bother.)
- We support dictators who brutally oppress their population (see also Saddam Hussein, Noriega, Pinochet, and the Taliban.)
- We're giving guns, helicopters, airplanes, and other weapons to Israel, who is using them oppress a cultural minority (the Palestinians.)
In other words, our broken foreign policy has made us enemies, everywhere. Look at the Phillipines... A friendly nation with a government we installed at one point that got really corrupt... (Anybody remember how many pairs of shoes that broad owned? Was it something like 50,000 pair?)
Flash forward fifty years, and there's an Al Qaeda splinter group living in the South of the Phillipines and attacking Americans and Phillipinos to gain leverage to get their own country. Why do they want it? They're being oppressed by a government we support. Therefore, we're also on their list.
Multiply times 100 and you quickly arrive at where we are now. If we continue down this destructive path, picture a future where Manhattan is like Tel Aviv... Everybody is afraid, there's cops and soldiers all over the place, and still there's an attack every few days/weeks/hours.
Who did what now?
"Their are in the bill of rights to allow the citizens that right to over turn an oppressive government."
And at the time, this actually made some sense. The government had no standing army, relying instead on a citizen militia in times of war.
Nowadays the US has the largest army in the world, with all the high tech stuff that we keep on hearing about in the news. The idea that a few citizens, with some side arms and shot guns are going to over throw a tyrannical government is absurd.
The freedom of information act, and free speech, is far more important than the right to bear arms. If the US government wanted to enforce a tyranny, you would not stop its military with your arms. You would stop it by convincing the soldiers not to attack you. This is a much more powerful weapon than a shotgun, and has the advantage that its much harder to shoot people by accident.
Phil
Democracy = from the ancient greek word 'demokratia', which consists of two words: 'demos', which means the republic, the people and 'kratos' which means 'government'.
Democracy is the state where the people govern themselves. It can be either immediate, as in ancient Athens, where all citizens were forced to participate in the government in a round-robin fashion, otherwise they were idiots (idiot=another ancient greek word which means 'the person who is stupid enough not to take part in public affairs); or representative, with elections.
So can't we have democracy along with safety ? of course we can. People who say differently are those that want to take our freedom away. Safety can be achieved by more education, by less opression, by more equal opportunities, by MORE democracy. If more people were to participate in the spread of knowledge and wealth, we would have less criminality, less terrorism, less religional foundamentalists, more scientists, more thinking.
Imagine all the money spent in the Iraq war (the invasion, I mean). 750 bn $!!! if only we gave away the 1/1000 of it to the Iraqis, they would overthrow Saddam themselves!!!
One could also complain about "Luddites" who are trying to hold back progress toward a new era of expanded opportunities for safety and privacy. The identity of those opposed to "progress" depends on which direction you think of as forward.
Look how things have turned out; Conservatives want the government to handle our lives and the Liberals want the Government out or lives.
Strange days, indeed.
Chris
So Buddha walks into a pizza parlor and says: "Hey, make me one with everything."
>>Guns are NOT just a fancy rock. Their are in the >>bill of rights to allow the citizens that right >>to over turn an oppressive government.
From a technical stand point they are and they are useless to overthrow ANYTHING with out information flow. I only have two hands and can only carry about 200 rounds + all the other
stuff you'd need. Information buys you a support base for resupply, etc etc.
I do not disagree with your assesment otherwise.
I probably should have sterilized this from troll bait, it wasn't intended as a troll.
I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
You are right to a point.
The issue is "why will a solder listen to you?"
It is not until they are ordered to kill their nieghbors and friends will it kick in what you have been saying.
It is at that time will others see and hear about the issues (even twisted by media). Think of Kent State or Waco. Both brought to the spot light issues of power in america.
I don't necessarily agree with the woman or
the idea of TIA but I feel that both the Slashdot
summary, and the Wired Article mis-represented
what she was saying. The actual quote was:
"If you don't trust government to protect
us from terrorists, good luck doing it
yourself," MacDonald said.
Here is the story from news.com which I feel
was more accurate (fair?).
===
The Total Information Awareness (TIA) project, being developed by the U.S. Defense Department, is an example of using the latest technology to guard against future terrorist attacks, representatives of two conservative groups said during a debate at the Computers, Freedom and Privacy Conference. If fully implemented, TIA would link databases from sources such as credit card companies, medical insurers and motor vehicle agencies in hopes of identifying terrorist activities.
Heather MacDonald, a lawyer and fellow at the Manhattan Institute, dismissed criticism of TIA as "hysterical vociferous cries" from privacy advocates who oppose making government more efficient at snaring wrongdoers and protecting innocent Americans. "If you don't trust government to protect us from terrorists, good luck doing it yourself," MacDonald said.
"We have to use every legal mechanism in our power to make sure we don't have a 9-11 type of attack," MacDonald said. She accused her opponents of taking "a Luddite approach that says al-Qaida can get its hands on the best possible technology to attack us, but we're stuck with (an) outdated mechanism."
Over the last few months, TIA has become a lightning rod for criticism, with Republican and Democratic legislators speaking out against it on privacy and security grounds. On Feb. 20, as part of a large spending bill for the federal government, Congress approved additional scrutiny of research and development on the TIA project.
Those restrictions do not halt TIA research. They would permit dozens of grants from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) to be fully funded if DARPA sends Congress a "schedule for proposed research and development" that includes a privacy evaluation, or if President George W. Bush certifies that TIA is necessary for national security.
During Wednesday's debate, opponents of TIA characterized the system as unacceptable, unworkable, and liable to be abused by people with access to it. It's a "sharp departure from the long-standing principle that you have the right to be left alone," said Katie Corrigan, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union.
Corrigan said it was difficult to debate TIA because it remained an "amorphous and to date very secret concept" that the Bush administration has not discussed in any detail.
MacDonald, from the Manhattan Institute, said critics were guilty of "knee-jerk opposition" and spreading "patent falsehoods" about how the system would work if implemented.
Michael Scardaville, a homeland security analyst at the Heritage Foundation, said: "Can it be abused? Yes. Is that what DARPA is trying to do? Absolutely not...It is not the Orwellian monster described by many critics."
For the layman it's about guns and this was off the cuff. You are correct, I would state it more viciously though.
I don't speak of or worship a piece of paper, do some research on Indiana's state constitution as presented to Thomas Jefferson. How the state GOT statehood then exterminated (effectively) the citizens that made it a state. Then how they shredded the original constitution for a special interest one.
Paper is inflamable even if you don't burn it.
I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
if she's done nothing wrong she has nothing to hide
MacDonald's argument for permitting the government to conduct broad fishing expeditions is similar to school administrators' arguments for "zero tolerance" policies. In both cases, the people in charge don't want to exert the effort and take the heat associated with identifying and acting against the real threats. By treating everyone like a criminal, they avoid a lot of bother, and too bad if the target of the fight is treated just like the perpetrator or an octagenerian Medal of Honor recipient is treated just like a recent arrival from a Jihadistan terrorist training camp.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
Just because you enjoy being screwed by John Ashcroft doesn't mean all of us do. Thank you.
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
>And at the time, this actually made some sense.
>The government had no standing army, relying
>instead on a citizen militia in times of war.
Actually the milita is subject to civilian control just like the military only at the state level. If local governors were so fearful of them all they had to do was activate them and use the self-procaimed milita's words as proof they'd volunteered. Then put them to work cleaning ditches or 'guarding the northern boarders' or some such. no problem. See your state laws for details. Of course if they disagreed there are some serious penelties, very serious in some cases.
Actually the right to bear arms applies to every person who happens to be breathing.
Information has always been the critical factor, why do you think the US government registers the press and it's reporters?
>>and has the advantage that its much harder to >>shoot people by accident.
Arms are not there to sway political opinion and I'd be pleased to see someone fertilizing food for poor people who would do so. Information collection and disemination are the key to that.
Arms are there mostly as a last resort, as such it's easy to dismiss them and let the need for them be obscured.
I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
I strongly advise all of you to follow the links to Heather MacDonald's Manhattan Institute articles and read at least a few of them. This woman seems to be making a living out of using a single, (all be it horrific), incident to give sweeping, unnecessary, unjustified and down right scary rights to any agency that claims it needs them.
Where exactly is this massive terrorist assault that she claims is imminent? As far as I can see it, the USA is still one of the least susceptible countries on the planet when it comes to terrorism.
I am from the UK and the USA's openness and tolerance has always been one of the main appeals - don't throw all of it away through fear!
The trouble with this lady's argument is that as soon as anyone says "you can trust me", you can be damn sure they do not have your best interests at heart. It's the kind of platitude that ranks along with "God is on our side" or "if you've got nothing to hide..." or, for that matter, "my mother, drunk or sober".
Take the national 'Do not call' registry as an example. The idea was proposed I believe in the 70s but privacy advocates shot it down because they worried that having all of these numbered collected by the government would be insecure and would end up linking names and phone numbers for people who wanted their privacy protected. Fast forward 30 years now and guess what. Do not call registries are the hottest thing since sliced bread. Why? Because the privacy advocates were wrong. They would rather hope that they could prevent telemarketers from sharing lists of names and numbers than from trusting legislation.
If you really believe that not letting the govermnment see your data is the ultimate goal, I urge you to get your address removed from the database used for 9-1-1 police and fire (not world trade center). They know exactly where you are when you call--isn't that incredibly dangerous if someone managed to make a copy of the database and stick it on a phone switch somewhere? Who cares that it saves lives. Would you be willing to take your parents and grandparents out of that system to protect them from identity theft or some nutzo using the system to stalk them?
You can't blindly try to keep all data from the government. You need to play an active role in protecting against abuses while using the data for truly useful purposes.
(Repost from another board, discussing the National Security Advisor's terrorism threat forcast of "high" for the week with early morning fog of fear burning off by the evening into a patchy haze of mistrust)
So... we have a generalized threat warning that someone, somewhere may do something to hurt somebody? And this is supposed to inpact my life how?
Seriously, living in Boston I'm far more likely to be shot by a Hong Kong gang, disappeared by the Moffia, mugged by the homeless, run over by the crazy drivers, accidently blown up by a kid from MIT, get clubbed by falling ice, poisoned by the atrocious water supply, or get carbon monoxide poisioning from these 1890's era heaters in this aesbostos-laden apartment than I am to get killed by an Iranian for being an American. The total Us population in 2000 was two hundred eighty one million, four hundred twenty one thousand, nine hundred six people. If a terrorist attack an order of magnitude worse than the original estimates for the world-trade center massacre were to occur, there is still only two hundredths of a percent chance that I would be effected. One thousand deaths happen every single day due to smoking in the US. In my age group the death rate by congestive heart failure is 90.3 in 100,000. Motor vehicle accidents cause 29.3 deaths per 100,000. Suicides will cause 4,300 deaths this year (extrapolated) in the 18 to 24 year old age group alone, which is significantly higher than the amount of 18 to 24 year olds killed in terrorist attacks in 2001. Hypertensive heart disorder killed twenty-five thousand, three hundred twenty-seven people last year. two hundred fifty thousand people die every year from accidental medical mistreatment. Lung cancer killed one hundred fifty-four thousand people last year in the US. Blood poisioning caused thirty-thousand, six hundred seventy deaths last year. Eighty-nine die every year in the US by lightning strikes.
Even if one could acquire antibodies for Smallpox, Ricin, Botulism, VX, Sarin, Cyanide, Anthrax, and Radiological Emergencies, the series of injections is far more likely to kill you than the chances of a terrorist attack utilizing one of the above. Get some perspective, and get some sun. Actually, better avoid the sun: skin cancer killed 9,600 Americans last year.
The ______ Agenda
"What happens when the fear comes from the protector?"
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
do privacy fears allow terrorism?
no terrorism fears erode privacy
Ms MacDonald is a lawyer with a parochial (okay, biased) view of history, and limited knowledge of technology, but (as all of US) has an opinion. It is not a legal opinion. It is a "?historical?" and maybe "?cultural?" opinion.
... type technologies will be used by Governments to spy on Citizens. A survey by the ACLU would support this view ..., as I am sure a government directed paid for survey would prove this "?MacDonald Theory?". This paragraph is my way of saying "Luddites" was a very poor choice of words, or a shabby attempt to misdirect a misinformed audience into a false sense of security.
... TIA. The record of accomplishments over the past decade shows a plethora of uninformed decision-making on technology. Now a lawyer wants to call US Luddites. It definitely appears that the politicians and lawyers are the Luddites of this century and technology.
I believe, many of the technology elite (Poindexter and others are not) of the US and EU are very concerned about how TIA and other Snif, spook, ghost,
Purveyors of the law (politicians), and dejure representatives (lawyers) who write, interpret, and apply law on technology topics can be thanked for "Opt-Out" spam laws, PGP Jeopardy for Phil,
OldHawk777
Reality is a self-induced hallucination.
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
Saudi Arabia is the real seat of problems, not just for the west but for the arab world as well. Wahhabism is NOT a healthy or sane form of Islam, and should be rooted out by muslims everywhere.
You'll note we are doing nothing to stop Saudi Arabia, even though most of the personnel and financing for insanity in the middle east and elsewhere comes from them.
Down with the Kingdom!
EOM
That's about the level of some of our illustrious leaders' arguments.
Our awesome Privacy maven here at CMU, Prof. Latanya Sweeney, used a new publically available housing record database to find photos and estimates of the houses members of Pittsburgh's zoning commission (which created the database) lived in. You'd be amazed what these guys were buying on small civil servant salaries. Where does all that money come from?
Well what did they do about it? You guessed it. Passed new regulation that members of the zoning board can't be included in the database.
if you want to live in peace,
just don't have any enemies.
[/sarcasm]
guns kill people like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.
I'm sorry, but if you reason like that, then you can't reason at all.
Harry Buttle?
I don't need large brains to have a good time.
A government can have police without being a police state.
Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
So, ironically, terrorists are bogeymen as well, a kinda collective neurosis of guilt and fear. It's been worst in the United States, I feel, since World War II was ended through weapons of mass destruction.
----------
Together, we will drive the rats from the tundra.
Well, duh. They promote liberty, not licentiousness. Your liberties end where they begin to encroach on someone else's, and government's proper duty is to enforce that you don't try to do that. But beyond that, government has no right to interfere in your affairs.
In short, there is no "right to kill" because we all have the right to live. No, you are not free to "do anything" and most of us understand that already without needing it explained.
Constitutionally Correct
The best history book that I've found is:
Does anyone have any others they could list?
help fill in hidden movie endings @ End of the Credits
FOllow this woman around with a camcorder for a week. DOnt go in her house(although, by her stance, why shouldnt a cop be able to film her in the shower), but post the videos of every burp, trip to the bathroom (with sound) and nosepick, along with her daily schedule, her routes to and from work, comments about her body etc. Go through her trash, and list everything.
I think shes assuming that by privacy, everyone ELSE BUT HER can be investigated.
All Troll + "offtopic" mods are meta moderated as "Unfair", because you abused the system.
Okay, last time I checked the terrorists were attacking us because of their religion, not because of any of your reasons. If you're going to give a better solution, at least know what the problem is.
You are completly wrong. A terrorist organisation needs a large mass of discontent people to survive.
Terrorists are like fish swimming in the sea of people. They feel they are champions of a just cause, and they need the passive support from large numbers of the "sea".
Without this base support there is nowhere to hide, no new recruits to fill up their ranks and no ego gratification from being a martyr for the cause.
Removing this popular support (by making the people less discontent) would cut of the air supply of international terrorism, and make the current generation of for example Al Quaida the last one.
Sure, they might still strike again, in the next few years, but it would be a last desperate act and they would quickly fade away into oblivion.
Unfortunatly the current course of action is achieving the exact opposite thing. Going into Iraq, guns blazing, and orphaning a lot of impressionable kids and occupying their country is the one thing you don't want to do.
They'll grow up in misery, with a huge score to settle with western society. Be sure they will listen carefully to the next Osama that comes along.
Basically, the invasion is turning the entire middle east into a more favorable environment for terrorists.
To sum up. By not flailing wildly and instead tighten the security just a bit and simultaniously work relentlessly on removing the root causes for terrorism we could overcome the threat in less than a generation.
By acting the way we do now, we'll practically guarantee the threat is here to stay.
Of course, doing something about the actual problem doesn't make as good tv or raise the Presidents popularity as much as a good ol' counterproductive war.
But well all pay in the end... this is just delaying the next payment a bit, but the interest will be huge.
Fermi's paradox wonders why there's no obvious sign of intelligent life in the galaxy. One possible explanation is that intelligent life is inherently suicidal. Instead of Vernor Vinge's Singularity, we may stand at the cusp of Something Bad where Columbine Crazies have access to world destroying gimracks.
First, only the largest nation states held the power to kill us all. Before the Columbine Boys get this power, there's a time where Religious Fanatics With Billions can do so.
Personally, I see the asymmetrical conflict between the US and various Islamist (not Islamic) organizations and individuals through the lens of my own affliction with Cancer. The docs cut me open and removed the tumor, but not before it had metastasized to other parts of my body. I think the unpleasantness in Afghanistan and Iraq are the equivalent of tumor removal.
Loss of personal liberties makes me nauseous. Just like the chemotherapy I'm now enduring makes me nauseous. Chemotherapy is an ugly business of hunting down and killing rogue cancer cells. In so doing, you puke, have diarrhea, and your hair falls out. Collateral damage sucks, but it beats the alternative.
Now, some bright day, the docs will say the Cancer is gone and I'll discontinue chemotherapy and I'll feel great again. In the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, after that cup of wrath was finished, habeas corpus was restored. It wasn't restored automatically, that work should be done when the terrorism threat is no longer credible.
The Soviets proved that the Rights of Man are not the property of the State. The government that denies those rights undermines itself. I'm not talking about bogus rights invented by legislation or litigation to distract us, but those rights which were endowed by our creator.
The most fascinating part of the argument made by those lunatic right wing fascists is how they ignore people who are invisible to technology. That would be people who have never signed a public document or received a credit card or started a bank account or paid taxes. More than 1,000 of them walk across our southern borders every day.
We identified the 9/11 terrorists because they were here legally, had credit cards and bank accounts, and were visible to the system. And the system failed miserably in spite of being warned that some of them might not be good guys.
What about the 1,000 per day who walk in and are invisible. Are they all good guys? Is anybody even stopping them to ask? No.
And we search American citizens returning from vacations abroad for fear they might be smuggling in an undeclared swiss watch or a few ounces of drugs. Yet hundreds of tons of illegal drugs arrive here every year. Is anybody checking to make sure that there isn't a suitcase nuke or a bale of anthrax hidden in with the drugs? No.
Hardening the borders is uninteresting to the right wing because it's boring and expensive because it requires lots of people to do. Tapping into every citizen's records is way easier, way cheaper, and lots more fun.
There are a bunch of posts farther down that nobody is going to see about this, so I'll go ahead and post here anyway.
The Manhattan Institute (hereafter the MI) made a name for itself with some books in the late 80's which changed the face of political debate on welfare reform and community policing. They used this fame to continue to get a lot of publishing attention -- endorsing law and order (and police violence) in their City Journal rag; skewing the meaning of statistics on race and intelligence in the infamous Bell Curve; pandering to naive religious simpletons by stating that the counterculture caused all our problems (in Myron Magnet's The Dream and the Nightmare).
But their problems start from the very beginning. The MI has always pushed the neoconservative agenda, and their entire agenda has tried to make room for negative stereotypes of people in poverty, plus loads of police profiling, violence, and brutality. A quick googling will show various allegations of connections to the CIA, from conspiracy theories to proven facts. Some of this you'd better believe, given that a Boston Globe article mirrored on their own website mentions how their founder went on to be Reagan's chief CIA spook (warning: this article crashes my mozilla for some reason; use lynx). I don't want to invoke godwin's law here, but with eerie similarities like these it's hard not to. And apart from the article linked from this /. story there's enough fearmongering there to make ready.gov look honest and tame.
Incidentally, our favorite simpleton George "Dubya" Bush is a big fan of their work (notice how "faith-based initiatives" are prominent on their front page) since he swallowed up Magnet's pandering, but that's another story. Remember, when economic conservatism is around, social intolerance is never far away.
Leaving your front door wide open is a great idea, until someone you don't know walks through it.
This is the crippling FUD we need to avoid. At least say something like "...until someone uses that open door to hurt you." Because it's not the same thing! Can a stranger enter your home and not cause any problems? Of course! Can a stranger enter your home and turn into a wonderful possibility? Yes! Can someone you you unbolt the door for and invite in end up hurting you? Yes!
Free speech. Open software. Open doors. Open minds.
Just like the military, I want to protect myself with secrecy.
I want my bank accounts kept secret, for example, so thieves can't get at them.
The only time I want the bank releasing information about them is when a judge signs a search warrent.
davecb@spamcop.net
Yes, if we could trust the government, that might work. But when our politicians lie, cheat, steal, murder, and do these things without even the slightest qualm over ethics, who protects us? We do, with the power of our courts and laws. Listen to Pink Floyd's The Wall sometime. You might learn something. By the way, telling everyone that they should 'shut up and deal with it' is arrogant as hell.
I dunno as I remember ever *hearing* about this Manhattan Inst. before, so I found their Web site. 25 years...and what are their biases/interests/agendas? I looked down the list on the left...and they're pushing "faith-based initiatives", and school vouchers, and... In other words, the entire noecon agenda...and the agenda of the administration.
This lawyer couldn't *possibly* be biased, oh, no....no more than the article, today, on ZDNet about data mining "critics called hysterical", with two pro-mining folks...and *none* from anyone against it.
Guys, this is all from the Ministry of TRVTH, and written by Winston's patriotic co-workers.
mark "ignoarnce is bliss"
sometimes it feels good to live in "old" europe
if the sites slashdot links to get slashdoted, how come slashdot itself never gets slashdoted??
Nowadays the US has the largest army in the world, with all the high tech stuff that we keep on hearing about in the news. The idea that a few citizens, with some side arms and shot guns are going to over throw a tyrannical government is absurd.
I wouldn't call the many instances of guerrilla warfare throughout history absurd. Two most notable are the Afgans (yes, those terrorist guys the US armed and trained) against the Russians and the North Vietnamese against the US. There are others.
You don't need to completely annihilate a larger force, although your gut wants to. Simply terrorize, demoralize, hit-and-run, take out supply lines.
Also, remember, initial guerrilla losses would be big, but any captured equipment could then be used against a larger force. All those neat, millions of dollars of fancy toys.
Also, on the one side you have potentially 50+ million people fighting for their very core freedoms against abusive govenment. On the other you have the US army being told to kill its own citizens, possible people they know. Of course, brainwashing and conditioning that these people are "terrorists" would make it easier, but still.
And your "sidearms" and "shotguns" discount the millions of deer rifle (possible snipers) and semi-auto versions of the military rifles. Not to mention anything...homemade.
You can't knock them - you join them. (Or if you happen to believe that rights derive from God and not from man, join the CP like I did.) Until you start voting for them, then of course they will never win. My question to you is will you stand up for what you believe in, even when the going is rough, or will you cave in to pressure?
The problem is that the voting system is rigged in favor of the two major parties. A simple plurality vote, with only one vote to express preference between candidates, will always lead to people sacrificing their principles in order to vote for the "lesser of two evils". That's why we need Condorcet voting, to restore liberty of conscience. (Ask yourself this: If you have to sacrifice your conscience in order to feel like you're having an impact on an election, is it truly a free country?) There's absolutely no reason that we cannot have a diverse range of viewpoints in a race together, instead of being stuck with two parties that squeeze to the center so tight that they're essentially the same with different rhetoric. The laws these guys make is going to govern our lives, you know - darn right I want some real debate and some real choice between candidates.
I've posted about this many times in the past, with more explanation than I have time for now. If you search Slashdot for my nick and "condorcet" or "voting" you should be able to find it. Condorcet's method trashes every other voting method I've heard of, including Instant Runoff Voting (also called Single Transferable Vote), Approval, Borda Count, and definitely Plurality.
Another problem is ballot access laws. Again, the major parties shape this to favor the status quo. Why is it so hard for challengers to get in the race? Obviously, the major parties don't want competition. If collecting a half million signatures is "good enough" for a minor party, why don't we require the same thing of a major party?
Constitutionally Correct
I'm all for big brother getting the bad guy, but I really resent big brother having absolute, unchecked, power. The events of 9-11-01 necessitate preventative measures in law enforcement....but not without checks and balances.
We need a public advocacy group that oversees law enforcement. The ACLU is not enough. The group must oversee law enforcement and prevent abuses of their newly expanded powers.
-ted
The government can't be imbued with the traits and character of a human being, good or bad. The government is not a living entity, with a personality and internal moral code. It is an organization with a procedures and laws. It has no mind, heart, or soul to speak of. To say it is benign or malignant is simply not accurate. At its best, the government's moral capacity is the average of the moral integrity of the people who run it. Even this does not reflect its nature, as most will look at the moral character of the highest profile members of the government, and quickly conclude the that moral average has been degraded. The larger the number of people, the harder it is for one to drag the average down (not withstanding the ability of those members with significant amounts of responsibility to do harm).
To say that "the government only wants what is best for its people" casts the government with qualities of a human being, which is simply not true. The government will follow its rules and laws at its best. Trying to describe the goverment in a way that suggests human traits is misleading.
Its probably more accurate to think of the government like a computer (although not completely). Don't tell it to do anything, and it won't accomplish anything. Tell it to do something, and it does exactly that. The computer analogy isn't very good, but its closer than the human analogy.
"We are all geniuses when we dream"
- E.M. Cioran
Those of my friends and family who are staunch supporters of Bush and all things Republican seem to have flipflopped on a major issue of late.
Just a couple of years ago they were against all things federal. They didn't trust the politicians or any government agency. Now though, the gov't can't to anything wrong, they get extremely testy if you disagree. It's not even a good argument or conversation, they just spew rhetoric as if they simply like to reinforce their own ideas by hearing them repeated over and over.
It just bugs me, how can you be so mistrustful one second and then become a mindless drone the next?
-- taking over the world, we are.
Boxcutters and a well thought out plan that cannot be repeated. There's your threat of terrorism. Airplanes. There are your weapons of mass destruction.
George bush would have me believe that there is a direct and short line between boxcutters and suitcase sized nuclear weapons?
I don't believe it. It is a lie.
Look at Israel - the next logical type of terrorism would be suicide bombers on the new york subway, not a low flying drone spraying anthrax over the super bowl, or a nuclear weapon hidden in a coke machine, or some unnamed, unidentified, "weapon of mass destruction" from iraq.
i grew up during the cold war with the threat of nuclear devastation hanging over my head from the soviet union's 40,000 nuclear weapons. that was a far more real threat to american peace and security than some rat bastard like osamabinladen.
we surivived, we didn't "pre-emptively" invade russia, or cuba. we didn't tear up the constitution. well, not too much. it taped up nicely, you can hardly tell.
but you people make me fear for my country.
this has nothing to do with terrorism, terrorism is an excuse which excuses everything. just look at the behaviour of ariel sharon.
sending brave men and women to die to protect you from your irrational fears is a shame on you.
support our troops, demand the truth.
But there is no "dellusional" de-mod. "Read the books yourself, you won't find a more benevolent world power anywhere in history. " benevolence is when you give up without benefice. US gave money after WW2 to Europe only because it beneficied them on many ground (we having money allwoed us rebuild , thus economy rising, thus buying from US; plus politically thuis allowed for us avoiding turning toward the east).
"Compare America's "economic imperialism" to the military imperialism practiced by western Europe in the 19th century. " Yes I can do that. US supported a lot of dictature in the 20th century , and sometimes rebelle when the dictature wasN#t to their liking. And in some case they projected killing governement head. Plus one can argue that in the case of vietnam , grenada, panama this was bordering invasion into local politics. As for the rest ogf the comparison, please compare country at the SAME DATE. Do not compare 20th century US with 19th century europe for logic's sake.
Most people do not see a benevolent US but a "real politik" US which do things only if it profits its intern and extern politics (economic or pure politic).
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
It seems that people (with generous help from the media) tend to exaggerate probabilities of cataclysmic events, while underestimating the mundane risks. I guess it is called imagination.
This may seem a bit off topic but bare with me.
Problem 1: Re-definition
Society constantly tried to redefine events, words, languages, cultures, and just about every aspect of life. America is most at fault here. Look in the dictionary under listless and it will mention melancholy. Look at melancholy and it will say sad. Look at sad and it will say depressed. Look at depressed and it will say listless. This circular logic works for programming because we need computers to perform repititious actions often based off of the results it gives to itself. But how the hell can I order a fucking hamburger when the Advocates for Social Screening (ASS) are always telling me that pork (ham) does not acutally exist in the hamburger and should therefore be called beefburger as not to insult either species of animal?
Problem 2: Accountability
When you do something, let everyone who is important know you did it. That means friends, family, bosses, authorities. If you did something wrong, admit it and pay the price. If you did something right celebrate your success. It's simple. Don't blame others for your fuck up and don't let others shine in you light without you. Your manager didn't do a single technical thing in her life and therefore should NOT get credit because she "influenced" you.
Problem 3: Discipline
Keep yourself in check. You know the rules, you know the laws, and you know the consequences. Sin tells us it's okay if no one knows (see problem number 2). Don't believe in Sin? So what. America somehow thinks we can legislate morality by biblical terms. Get used to it.
Problem 4: Why have laws if there is no God?
It's simple. While the laws were created by the influence of the bible man still wrote the laws. God does not factor into the equation of law making, law enforcement, or punishment of law breakers. If he did I doubt that death row would exist. I know abortion wouldn't. So if God didn't exist why have laws? Because it makes sense. If there was no evil would we know good? Sure we would. Evil is NOT necessarily the opposite of good. Cat is not the opposite of dog. Black is not the opposite of white. The only absolute opposites are this or that terms. True OR False, Yes OR No. Even right OR wrong. We know what is right: get along with each other. We know what is wrong: do take things you didn't earn (see problem 2), don't lie (see problem 1 and 2).
Now how does this relate? It's easy:
On September 11th, 2001, an extremely horrofying event occurred. And as always we rallied together in love and peace in hopes of obtaining answers, punishments, and relief from grief. And as always our nation became divided on the terms. Some wanted war, some wanted tighter restrictions on immigrants and illegal citizens, sitll others wanted a different type of resolution. In the end the US enacted three evils; patriot act, total information awareness, homeland security. Evils? Sure they are. These three entities all turn INWARD into OUR country and examine OUR lives. The politicians would not have jobs if WE the PEOPLE didn't hire them. They work for us. We pay their salaries. But they want to watch us and know what we're doing just to make sure we aren't terrorists. Saudi Arabian muslims terrorists committed the crimes by the order of Osama Bin Laden. None of the people are citizens of the US. They came here to learn to fly a plane. Interesting? The FBI and CIA BOTH had briefs before the president during the week of the attacks.
Problem 1: Redefining WHO shoudl be watched.
Problem 2: Shifting blame from the people involved to others and then creating an entity to watch over EVERYONE just to make sure.
Problem 3: Discipline those involed NOT ME. More over show some personal restraint in using terrorism as a means to big borther us.
Problem 4: Whether we like it or not, God is used in ways never meant by Him. And yet again, we see the all seeing eye perched above us peering at our lives.
I agree
... there is nothing that has not already been thought
You said you leaned Green. That's enough proof of socialistic ideas for me. Green philosophy looks like a watermelon to me.
There can never be too much freedom. If you believe (as I do) that government only has the power we, the people, give to it, then there is no such thing as "government freedom". There is only personal freedom. If government authority is squelching personal freedom, it's time for the people to rise up and take some of that authority back.
Restricting the power of government equating to restriction of freedom? That's the most asinine thing I've heard in some time.
No one's advocating ditching government altogether. That would only work if men were angels, and we're definitely not. We need government to secure and protect our rights. But power corrupts, and men weilding governmental authority can also abuse rights very easily.
Also, I did not voluntarily create the government the way it is now. I would freely create the government as it was in 1787, as it had built-in checks to prevent what's happened to it since. Unfortunately, the 16th and 17th Amendments (lawful ratification in question, but that makes no difference to the people in power) pretty much put an end to the dream of 1776.
Constitutionally Correct
I think surveillance is much the same. Sure, the govt or businesses *could* track every damn thing I do, but do they *really* care? Unless I start doing "suspicious" stuff, I'd say the answer is no. I'm sure there's a file on me somewhere, just like there is for pretty much everyone else in the US, but I'm also willing to bet that it has never been read, or if it has, the information is forgotten.
Honestly, unless a person is going out of their way to make themselves "suspicious," the chance that anyone is actually paying attention to any of the stuff is very slim. There are just too many people doing too much stuff for the focus to be on anything other than the real suspicious characters.
Lastly, think about the way the Sept 11th investigations went. There were memos from people before the attacks saying "Hey, here's something suspicious..." and the memos were ignored. Even after the fact, the people who ignored those memos were claiming that they were right to do so - it seemed so far fetched, they didn't have the time and resources to investigate *every* possible risk, etc.
Are people *really* so self-centered that they think *anyone* cares what they're up to enough to sort through the data? Just because it *could* be done doesn't mean it is being done.
The meaning of words have always been used by the powerful to try to make their opponents look bad...vandals, barbarians, these words today are nouns to describe anti-social behavior, but originally they were used to describe actual European countries or tribes, with the old literal meanings actually being "foreigners" or "wandering [tribe]". In the same manner, the Luddites are said to be crazy anti-technology peasants from England in the early 19th century. But they weren't. They were workers in Dickensian England, a place where children were chained to workbenches for 14 hours a day, and beaten when they fell asleep. You can read the old English parliament records where their is a debate between conservatives and liberals over whether children are able to work 14+ hours a day (conservative) or are only capable of 12 hour days (liberals). The Luddites were in this period, at a time where after centuries, enclosure of the commons had finally been successful for it's advocates, forcing people into wage-labor, yet once that came about suddenly machines sprung up which did away with the crafts guilds and began driving down wages and driving people out of work. Of course it would behoove the people profitting from this system then to not say "these people are upset because we have, after centuries of effort, enclosed the commons, forcing them to be wage laborers in the city, and now we have begun to drive down their wages as we lay them off left and right, and since the commons are now enclosed they have no farms to go back to". They say instead "they do not like new technology, they are backwards". It says a lot about our society that we remember the Luddites not as people who suffered under an encroaching empire and gentry, but as dump, backwards, ignorant peasants supposedly scared of what was termed progress. Especially when people are being told that anyone who is nervous about the "code red" totalitarian-type government some people seem to want to build, which they say is necessary to fight terrorists, a label which already seems to be continually applied to more and more people in an ever-expanding manner, to the point where it will eventually mean anybody who doesn't think the world should be run by the
the massacre continues
This article, and Heather MacDonald is so idiotic I'm nearly speechless in responding. As someone who is a strong advocate of accelerating technology, stem-cell research, cloning, genetic engineering, nanotechnology, and space colonization, and also PRIVACY protections, I challenge anyone to back-up calling me a luddite. If I oppose the use of nuclear weapons does this also make me a luddite?
This has nothing to do with technology and luddism, this has to do with how this technology is used.
I have only this to say about invasions of privacy. If the government wants to eliminate all privacy, then I demand that it be BOTH WAYS. But when you have a government that is getting increasingly secretive while our lives become less so, then you have a gaping hole for abuse. As David Brin so eloquently shows, only societies that are transparent in every area have a chance of remaining democratic and free. What Heather is suggesting is pure Orwellian Tyranny - nothing more.
Planet P Blog
www.enthea.org
5) Big Brother to be an unaccountable figurehead. When was the last time you saw someone ask a tough question to George ?
We have these things called elections... perhaps you have heard of them. Thats why the country is known as a Republic.
I mean, its a good troll. But the President of the United States is hardly a dictator or a figurehead of any kind.
I don't read or respond to AC posts
If you don't wish to be free, then don't pretend to be. Just get out of the way or do what I tell you, so that I may live my life freely.
Live free or die. Yes, I mean that.
Heather,
Those rights you are so eager to throw away like trash were bought with the lives of Americans for the past two centuries. What you think is garbage to be thrown away is considered precious to many Americans. Americans who have fought and died to get those rights and to keep them. Americans that left their children orphans, who left their wives widows, who left their parents to bury their children. And they did it all so that their children and their children's children could grow up with liberty. Men and women have abandoned their homes, given up their lives, fought and risked everything, to breathe free, to have the American dream and to pass those rights onto their children.
Americans died to gain those liberties before IBM was founded. We aren't luddites, we are Americans. And every true American knows that liberty can be taken away, it can be stolen, and it can be conned away by two bit politicians without a care in the world for the liberty of the American people. So you might call us Luddites, but we are Americans, who love our country enough to fight for those rights that you want to throw away.
You use fear to try scaring American's into giving up something precious, the American way of life, their liberty, freedom, privacy. You are the type of terrorist Americans should fear most. Foreign countries may try to take our lives, but you are trying to take away our freedom. And Freedom is much more difficult to hold onto.
Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.
-- President Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826).
And that prayer is more necessary than ever since there is a death cult marching the land who thinks it wise to kill themselves and as many others as they can. They want a world where if you are not muslim, your word is not equal to theirs in court. They demand a world where people have to pay differential taxes greater than muslims and minority religions and atheists are just killed out of hand.
Yes, let's pray for peace but not cry out peace, peace, when there is no peace.
Let's also not fool ourselves into thinking that keeping databases is going to do more than paper over the problem of the death cult.
Agreed that was 30 years ago, and since then it has changed.
But at least while I was there, everyone did read it ( and "to kill a mockingbird" , another 'incorrect book' these days ) and discussed it afterwards as a group.
Made an impact on my life..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
For instance, disclosure or abuse of personal information about a citizen would result in life inprisonmment for the official, and 20 years for his/her supervisor, another 10 for *that* person's supervisor). In addition, the identity and purpose of any government official who has access to a citizen's record would be required to be disclosed on demand - after all, they're not Luddites, are they?
As if that message implies that whatever happened was just "good natured identity theft" or that there was no stress involved in the THOUGHT of losing his job. Use your fricken brain. I've had my ID stoled twice, the old fashioned way; my wallet (which was then used to obtain my pin for my credit card and subsequently used to make copious cash advance withdrawls) and then my actual post mail from my mail box; my SIN number and a cheque for tuition $3000.00!!! In neither situation did the Authorities or the powers that be help me out or even attempt to do so, so no I don't assume they'll "Do the right thing for citizens" It is not fun no matter what meathod these jerks use to fraudulently assume your identity.
I went to battle MC Escher but drew a blank
To quote a certain Austrian bulky cyborg republican:
"Fuck you asshole"
hehe
Heather MacDonald and TIA
Heather MacDonald was quoted and represented strangely by Wired News:
http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,58332,0 0.html
How can any conservative group support TIA? How can anyone who believes in small unobtrusive government support an effor that will make the post office look small? What person in their right mind wants government clerks pouring over the details of corporate management and personal lives? These are the views of a statist.
One thing September 11th proved conclusively was the inability of the Federal Government to use the information it already had. Most of the terrorists were wanted for immigration and other violations, yet they used their own names. TIA will not help. It will not force government agencies to share what they know with each other, if such a thing is technically possible.
The fourth amendment is technology independent. It raises the bar of government intrusion to sworn testimony in an open court that proves reasonable concern of actual criminal activity and a warrent is only granted for a specific time and place. TIA violates that and until computers can take the place of judges Luddites like me will oppose it.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
It isn't that Americans have an innate deference to authority. (Well, some of us might, but the numbers aren't huge.) It's that most Americans seem to be extremely loyal to one political party or another to the point where if the party recommended jumping off bridges for national security/to help the poor, they'd do it.
Case in point is Bill Clinton's administration. Those like Heather McDonald would whine all day and night about how much the government wasn't a good, fathering figure and even needed to be deposed. "Gov'mint" this, "gov'mint" that -- you couldn't get away from it. Now the same people would give their first-born to the same institution for a marginal increase in safety.
The Clinton-supporters were no different. They're all out protesting the war and forwarding email petitions now, but you couldn't find this many when he decided to bomb Sudan or Iraq. If a Democrat gets in office after the next election and continues the war, the people who voted for him will turn into Hawks and the Republicans will find some way of being opposed to the war.
It's honestly like people just like demagogues that agree with them -- no matter what their positions on issues. Americans follow character and they will follow it wherever it goes. I don't have to tell you all how scary that is based on historical precedent, but watch out.
The Manhattan Institute's list of eminent publications and authors is a Who's Who of the Right. Linda Chavez, Thomas Sowell, etc. should be very proud of her. America uber alles!
I'm glad someone said it!
because our govenment knows everything about us.
We have no terrorism or crime in russia because
we are not free and our government still tells
us how to do everything.
What's amazing is the fucking drivel from
people who are upset that they sold themselves out
years ago and still can't deal with it.
I have freed myself. I urge everyone to join me.
It's sad to me that people like this can be so well educatied and still not know about programs like COINTELPRO.
In order to protect all of us the FBI did what it could to discredit Civil Rights groups, Unions, Teachers...
I find it hard to swallow this hogwash since we have such great examples of our "protecors" turning on us, hiding their activities, and launching messianic crusades in the wrong directions.
But perhaps I'm just a luddite...
Irvu.
"Heather MacDonald, a lawyer at the Manhattan Institute. She says we should shut up and let the government do what it wants. Our government only wants to protect us, and would never misuse technology."
I've been reading the Federalist papers for some time now. Many of our cherished rights steam from the writings found there. We are warned about Government intrusion and what our God given rights are. Basically telling us to "shut up" and allow the Government to take apart what makes us America is plain stupid. After they are done then what will distinguish us from any other country controlling it's citizens (Iraq for example).
It is important that we protect ourselves from being controlled. I'm not talking Anarchy. I'm talking about a small group of people abusing the general citizens. That's what the founding fathers were trying to build. A Government for the people.
Are we willing to give up all that has made America great? I don't see people falling over themselves immigrating to Mexico, Russia or China. They are coming to America.
We may not be perfect but we're better off with our rights intact. I for one am against this foolish experiment. It will only damage us and our children's future.
Has Comcast disconnected your Internet account? Same here. You can read about it at http://comcastissue.blogspot.com
It almost sounds like western governments are trying to do what they are trying so hard to stop in places like Iraq. (Bad sentence structure, I know.)
;)
They want the government basically to have access to everything in our lives, and claim it's to keep the country safe.
Why is it when other countries do it, it's them being a tyrant and dictator, and when we (The West) do it, it's really for reasons of national security and to prevent terrorism. I would think mass invasion of everyones privacy would be considered to be an act of terrorism towards the public.... and manufactured by our own government.
Why is it only terrorism if it's another government/organization doing it to us, and when it's our own country, it's a matter of safety? Does anyone have a good answer to that question?
Seems a bit like the pot calling the kettle black to me.
I guess those thoughts are just the price I pay for being a technically literate luddite.
...That she's speaking on behalf of a "Conservative Think Tank". Obviously, as all think tanks, she's espousing a view meant to sway public/gov't. opinion, but isn't it the conservatives who want government _out_ of peoples' private lives?
I find it amusing [in a sad sort of way] that the people I know who consider themselves conservative do so because they don't want "Big Government" in their lives, taxing them and the like. Until it comes to things like asserting a 'proper' [moral] code upon citizens or protecting their business interests [reproductive rights for women, same-sex partners, content TV/movies/the Internet, PATRIOT Act, interstate commerce, etc.], of course. Then they _want_ Big Brother there doing their dirty work.
Ahh, the irony...
Who put this thing together? Me, that's who.
When we realize that privacy is a good thing
that provides individual protection of what makes
us who we are, we will also realize that those
spy cameras that X10.com keeps selling and
proliferating our browsers with pop-ups for are
very wicked things indeed.
Oh, yeah, we did mention the war somewhere in there, didn't we?...
Sad to say, Bush and a whole lot of well-intentioned Americans just don't see how what they're trying to accomplish might not be what actually happens. This "privacy vs. safety" tradeoff ain't necessarily so, good example. The effect might not even be neutral; you could give up a share of your privacy only to make yourself even more vulnerable as a result. Maybe before someone tries to talk us into the sacrifice, they should demonstrate that it'll have the desired effect. You think?
You'd be amazed how many US citizens just do not understand that the current coalition of the reluctant looks the way it does because most of the world was asking just this sort of question about the war. Nope -- suddenly Germany, France, Russia, and the entire Islamic world was just obstructionist... 'cause, you know, they're all jealous of us... or something. Seriously, that's definitely what lots of people think about France. How petulant is that?
If you want to see what US History textbooks do say, there's a decent little book called "Lies My Teacher Told Me" by Jonathan Loewen. History gets neutered for US schoolkids: all ponderous narrative, hardly any primary sources. They can describe the Lincoln-Douglas debates without mentioning slavery, 'cause they seldom use any of the actual words from the debates.
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
since the govt. will do what it wants. it is far too late to start worrying about "what if they get too much power". they already have it.
Both serve the same function as the perpetual wars in 1984 - they exist to justify strict control at home, massive defense budgets, and "the struggle for freedom" abroad (i.e., military intervention in defense of US economic interests). The War on Terror is extremely convenient - terrorists are all over the world; there are no defined criteria that could be used to declare the war finished; and it resonates very well with post-911 sentiment. Bush is a terrifying figure. He's got half the nation waving the flag while the economy goes down the tubes, and freedoms are routinely chipped away by sweeping legislation.
"Our government only wants to protect us, and would never misuse technology"
This is a complete and utter load of horse shit.
I've been victimized by corrupt officials on the metropolitan and state level who abused technology, so there's no way in hell I'm going to blindly trust federal ones!
She looks fairly young judging by her photograph. I wonder if she's ever read about COINTELPRO, as just one example of government snooping gone too far.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
In a ranking system like Condorcet, however, your first choice vote does not endanger your selection between other, lesser, choices. You can safely vote [Buchanan|Nader], without thinking you'll tip the election to [Gore|Bush]. You can even vote for yourself! That's the beauty of it.
The whole idea of deciding who "has a reasonable chance" beforehand, and then only selecting from among them, is the very problem inherent in the system. With only a single choice, you can only really choose between two people. And an election between two people isn't much of a choice at all! In an honest election you should be able to say "Who cares what the herd thinks! This is how I'm going to vote," and know that your vote was not wasted.
Does this make me a hopeless idealist? Maybe, but the ideal is worthwhile.
Constitutionally Correct
I agree that there was once a time when children were taught to respect their elders from an early age, however I have to say that I don't see that happening much at all these days. Today, children are taught that everyone is their friend and they have a right to say anything they want and do what they want provided it's not against the law. There is a huge problem with children not respecting anybody in the US.
Surveillance is not freedom.
... to be posting this, but in reading through the discussion something struck me. What this woman is advocating is a complete reversal of roles of the people and the government.
It seems pretty clear to me that in order to have a truly free country the citizens of said country should be shielded from abuses from the government of that country while the government itself should be completely transparent to the people who have given their consent to be governed.
This person wants to turn that relationship on its head--what she wants is the Panopticon! Thanks, but no...
-- Shamus
Bleah!
Go somewhere else, elect yourself a nice benevolent Big Brother, set up an economy where everyone produces according to their ability and consumes according to their need, and leave the Land Of The Free out of it.
A quick look over some other articles of hers pull out choice quotes such as:
Apparently she's a contributing editor at the
Manhattan Institute's City Journal. And the M.I. is a 501(C)(3) non-profit organization, so maybe a donor list is available.
Some more choice info on the M.I.:
Nice.
Tuus crepidae innexilis sunt.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin, 1759 Witold www.witold.org
witold.org
Do you think privacy information will not be mis used? Just think Javert from Victor Hugo's Les Miserables.
This happens all the time in various forms. From over zealous IRS agents, to Police officers, to Health Care workers, you name it.
Help fight continental drift.
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety. Nor, are they likely to end up with either."
-- Benjamin Franklin
"The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first."
-- Thomas Jefferson
If you don't agree, you are not American.
I served 11 years in the US Army and I know EXACTLY what I was fighting for, The Constitution of the United States of America.
It looks to me like Heather Mac Donald doesn't feel like supporting the constitution.
China has a wonderful policy on privacy that she might like better than America's, and she is welcome to go there.
There, the state is safe but the its citizens are not. The state is safe at the expense of the citizens. Since a government derives it's just power from the consent of the governed, the chinese government is not considered to be a just government.
The chinese government is very close to being the type of government that Heather Mac Donald proposes our government become more like.
Heather Mac Donald is a quack.
If voting were effective, it would be illegal by now.
Since all those poor, unfortunate people died in the twin towers, your government has been free to do *whatever* it pleases. *Very* convenient for them, all in all. Think of the profit. And all it cost is the lives of a few thousand innocents (so far).
What that attack (which I witnessed) showed vividly is that the oceans no longer keep America safe from attack by relatively small forces representing foreign religious, tribal or governmental agencies. We're in an age of truly terrifying weapons, which are no longer the monopoly of a few great powers holding each other in mutual restraint. We stopped the Soviets because they weren't fully insane (and because, apparently, Stalin's inner circle poisoned him just before he was able to launch a planned attack on the US's West Coast). But if an Islamic terrorist group sets off a nuke in a US city, or a truly massive chemical poisoning, and it is only loosely linked to any particular government or country, against whom can the US retaliate? What worked against the Soviets is no longer a workable option. The only workable option is to go directly after any small group or nation of questionable sanity which tries to acquire nukes or other massively deadly means. It's that or a sure chance of losing some major cities. Which of our cities do you propose we can do without?
Do you really think every madman has a right to bear nuclear arms? Do you think it gives him a more legitimate right if he's the murderous tyrant of a nation? If he's the murderous leader of a religious sect?
Nonetheless this is no reason to have our government spy against it's own people. The enemies are elsewhere. And if we can promote more real freedom in societies elsewhere, the enemies will eventually be fewer. Where there are dangerous tyrannies, we may need to use force. But we must remain clear on the coherent, consistent goal of expanding the sphere of freedom.
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
I think the motivation for the creation of these acts is linked to improvements in database farming techniques.
When I say "Database farming" I mean the process of extracing "higher" information by first building and flushing out a HUGE M-FING database with tons and tons of information about all aspects of the subject that do not necessarily have anything to do with what you're investigating. Then searching on the database for links between the information.
I see this is biochemistry and medicine - researchers setup huge Census statistics or huge DNA databases and then search for links between poverty and shoe size, or DNA marker xxxx and incidence of breast cancer. I see this in economics, in computer science - and heck, what is Google but a way of grepping information out of the internet?
I think the government is beginning to follow this trend - develop huge databases of information about the population at large and then use those databases to find arbitrary links between citizens and "terrorist activities."
If we knew the shoe bomber had checked out these books from the library, had a membership with the NRA, and voted for the third-party candidate... Why shouldn't we search our massive database and look for other people in the population at large that did these activities? Then, we'll have a list of "potential terrorists" which we can, under these acts, start to wiretap, search their usenet posts, follow them and find more information to suspect them of "terrorist activities."
They're constantly refining their searches to get better information, and they want to start with the most broad base imaginable. Information about all of us.
"One touch of Darwin makes the whole world kin." George Bernard Shaw
'Rights' are nothing but a human construct. The rest of the life on this planet has no clue as to what 'rights' are. If you don't believe me, just check out one of those 'day in the life of a predator species' nature programs on TV.
:-(
There are no 'rights'. In reality only two forces exist: The drive to survive, and the coercive tactics -- force, intimidation and persuasion -- to ensure survival.
If you can apply sufficient force to others to ensure your survival on your own terms, the issue of whether you have privacy or not is irrelevant. Lack of privacy only matters because it might make your life more difficult.
Pretty depressing, isn't it... And to think I used to be such a libertarian
Many privacy activists are anything but Luddites. Many see cryptography, PKI systems, strong-hash algorithms, and potentially well-designed systems as vehicles not just for ensuring privacy, but restricting improper data flows, and limiting intrusion into digital records. These are not what I would consider the precepts of Luddites. Cypherpunks, for example, want to use technology to ensure free speech, and certainly can't be placed unter the "luddite" label.
It seems to me that most privacy activists do not fear (perhaps have strong reprehensions about might be a metter phrase)technology, but it's either uncontrolled, or, intrusive use by gov't.
Also, privacy covers many things. If -my- doctor feels a treatment is medically necessary, I don't think that my insurance co. should need much more information. I certainly don't think that doctor-information should be shared. Is legislation that would severely restrict the sharing of any patient-data, or asserting that medical systems have certain integrated security features , for example, threatening to national security?
I think that most people have a reasonable expectation of privacy for most records: phones, credit card bills, etc... Most of these are generally boring and routine. On the other hand, if you try to buy a large amount of material from a place such as really_nasty_biotoxins.com with a fictitious credit card being used to pay for an anonymous cell phone to make the order, I'd have a reasonable expectation that this transaction should be placed under some scrutiny.
Sam Nitzberg
http://www.iamsam.com
Ok first off for a lawyer you must be an idiot. let the government do what they want with are privacy, hell no. the government has abused everything that we have let them do all the way for the police in the 60's, to barging in to are lives when we are doing nothing wrong at all. Here in tire article saying we should just let the government do what ever it wants, is just dumb in ever aspect. If we even give them a hand then as we all know they will take a entire arm, you might as well just tell them to tell us how to live, and how to use are technology.
And that's exactly the problem with good intentions mixed with naivety. You could make the same case for the wars in Afghanistan or Iraq. Ignoring the political motivations and discussions of terror, at least you could make some moral case for war if the likely outcome was a people free from a dictatorship they didn't want.
Obviously, that hasn't happened in Afghanistan, and unfortunately I find it hard to believe it will happen in Iraq either, with western governments coughing up hundreds of billions to fund a war, and hundreds of millions to clear up the mess afterwards. This is the great myth, which unfortunately seems to have taken in vast amounts of the population who don't choose to think critically about what they read in the media.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
"You don't need to own guns! No one will ever break into your house, try to rob you on the street, kidnap you, or do some other terrible thing to you or your family. And, oh, the government would never seek to harm you, that only happens in places like Iraq. As we all know, there aren't any corrupt indivuduals in our government, even at the local level."
Beware.
It's sort of like making a scale of the color of fruit and saying the more red it is the sweeter it is. Every tasted a raw cranberry? Makes as much sense.
What you have here is a classic argument of security vs. freedom. This is nothing new. We've been seeing Franklins famous quote all over /. This is not a truely a left or right issue. My guess is that the republicans (e.g.s America's version of the rightwing) will try and clai security as their issue. I'm still waiting to see of the democrates will claim privacy as their issue. We could very well see a bi-part center grab the privacy issue. Naa, I was dreaming. We have no center ramaining in this country. Fear is an amazing driver and Bush's people have played it to the hilt. I'm afraid that we may not have many rights left before things swing back
I used to say "if you;ve done nothing wrong, you've nothing to hide".
I hear that often, but my question in response is simply, "If I've done nothing wrong, why do you have to watch me?"
Remember folks, in this country, you are innocent until they can prove you guilty. It's not up to you to prove that you live a squaky clean life, it's up to them to prove that you don't. By saying that you have nothing to fear from losing your privacy becuase you're not guilty is presuming guilt on people before the evidence is collected. It's saying, "I don't have a reason to suspect you... yet. But I'll find something eventually, I just know it, so I'll keep looking."
If there is no evidence to point me out as a possible suspect, then why do I need to be watched?
Dear Sir or Madam,
Welcome to the potential terrorist watch list. We thank you for you reply and look forward to seeing you in the future. The Federal Bureau of Investigation keeps these records for 7 years or until imprisonment, whichever comes first.
WARNING: Discussion of this reply to your unamerican luddite liberal ranting with your raghead friends in Bagdad will result in severe civil and criminal penalties. This statement and all preceding statements are covered by the National Secrets Act, Amendment 100034 c.2003.
Thank you for your time,
GW
Animals by Pink Floyd is a much more appropiate choice than The Wall.
qz
1) Great pyramids of Egypt (paid for by the blood of thousands of conscripts)
2) The Holocaust
3) Detention of the Japanese during WWII
4) McCarthyism
5) Detention of arabs today
6) Watergate
7) Radiation testing on US troops
8) Waco
9) The Internal Revenue Service
10) Project MK-Ultra
Anyone else care to contribute?
Saddam Hussein is Big Brother. George W. Bush is Immanual Goldstein.
How many of these damn letters do I have to get before they learn to read their own lists?
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Hey, buddy, you said it not me.
I wonder how the American people are going to feel about all this when the truth about what our government is doing in our name in other countries comes out. We still haven't really internalized all the Nicaragua & Chile stuff from the 80's. It's not that the truth isn't out there; it's that most Americans aren't willing to look it in the eye and keep it from happening again.
Why is this important? Giving up our right to privacy could result in the government using that information to intimidate or coerce groups or individuals - essentially we're (supposedly) helping to prevent terrorism to prevent this, but the government could easily abuse that information and do the same thing.
Furthermore, this means the creation of huge databases filled with all sorts of information on us. Now, unless the government has figured out a way to prevent hacking [snicker], it's quite possible someone could hack into their computers and steal that information to use for their purposes (which could be, ironically, terrorism). Basically, I don't want to have my information anywhere it doesn't have to be, for that reason.
The U.S. supported Indonesia's invasion of East Timor from 1975 to 1999, resulting in the death of some 250,000 (of 750,000) people and a massive refugee crisis. No, the U.S. didn't target the literate -- it targeted the poor, brown people of the world. It sponsored terror throughout Central and South America (though many more were literate in some of those cases). This makes it all okay, right? So long as you are not the target, no worries!
As for Cambodia, you chose an interesting case. During the U.S. invasion of South Vietnam, the U.S. bombed both Laos and Cambodia without telling congress. Cambodia became so decimated that Pol Pot was able to sieze power and implement the nastiness you mentioned. While he was in power, he was "evil." However, when South Vietnam invaded Cambodia to remove Pol Pot, he fled to Thailand. Suddenly he became a "good" guy again, and the U.S. supported his bid to retake power.
Maybe you haven't heard (been out of town?), there was this little scuffle back in 1942-45 called World War II. The U.S. put Japanese Americans (a "class of people") into concentration camps for "national security." Sure, they weren't exterminated with glee, but three years in detention for doing nothing is a tad extreme.
Every time I read or hear someone give the same argument -- "But the U.S. has never done anything that horrible!" -- I marvel at how effective the propaganda system truly is. I think it's amazing that someone could still see the U.S. as so innocent.
After supporting dictators, initiating military coups, practicing state terror, outright invasion of other countries to maintain its sphere of influence, etc., people still stand up and say, "Yeah, but the U.S. isn't no Hitler!" That Pol Pot was no Hitler either doesn't mean he wasn't a really bad guy.
Freedom to fear. Freedom from thought. Freedom to kill.
I guess the War on Terror really is about freedom!
Seriously. Governments are run by people - mostly men. Government positions tend to attract a certain personality type that thrives on the ability to wield control over others. There is *INHERENTLY* the potential for abuse, because the abuse represents the maximum degree of control one has at any given time. If it's not kept in check, it WILL be abused.
There are many examples of the kinds of abuse that can take place - COINTELPRO is but one, and in fact, I believe it was this kind of abuse that give birth to laws that forbid the sharing of information between government agencies.
This aside, all one has to do is to look at how the US political system is run...favorable legislation is sold to the highest bidder, and politicians are there for the long haul- or as long as they please the corp^H^H^H^H people who sign their paychecks. In other words, it's an entirely self-serving dynamic. This is not the mark of a government interested in the security and benefit of its citizens- it's more likely interested in the assurance of its own expansion, influence, and longevity.
you're missing the point.
George Orwell could have included elections in "1984." It wouldn't have mattered; the Party Members were rabid supporters of Big Brother, and he would have won by a land-slide.
I'm not claiming that we live in Orwell's world (after all, by any account the 2000 election was divided down the middle, not a land slide for anyone). But sometimes when I read some webpages (e.g. the little green footballs blog), I wonder how far we are from having our own "Hate Weeks"...
arvind rulez
My original intent with my previous comment was to point out the fact that, despite the otherwise insightful comments, the parent was putting vehicular manslaughter in the same "little things" category as jaywalking. Call me crazy, but I think that's a bit of a misclassification.
I always describe this as being like a neuron in the brain, or an ant in an anthill. Neither is aware of the larger picture, but enough brought together create fantastic structures, and in one, a thinking, sentient organism. The bad part (which is what I am risking here, if any of this is true) comes when one thinks about "what if one of your neurons (or other cells) became 'aware' in some manner that it was part of a larger whole, and how to manipulate or subvert that larger whole?" - this would be a great danger to that larger entity. If such a thing happenned to a human, then that individual would probably do everything possible to rid itself of the rogue cell, up to and including suicide, if that is what it took. So, would an "artificial" socially "constructed" emergent entity do the same? Perhaps - if it recognized that the "parts" were wandering, so to speak.
Emergent behavior depends on a few basic things, mainly communications between the "nodes" (the unit parts) that make up the group, as well as feedback loops to these units. These two things exist in most emergent systems. I think there is another, though, that must exist for an emergent entity to be sentient (and what sentience means to an emergent entity is unknown to us humans - such a large emergent intelligence would most likely be nearly incomprehensible to us at our level - we don't currently know what to look for, or how to "psychoanalyze" an emergent entity to determine mental state or acuteness) - and that is size.
I think for an emergent system to become intelligent and sentient, the size must be somewhere over 1000 units, perhaps more. Such sizes would include governments, corporatations, and cities. Whether or not any of these groups are emergent beings is up for debate, but I think in some way they are. We, as humans would not anthropomorphize them if they didn't seem to exhibit traits we find in ourselves (because we are emergent entities as well). We describe governments and corporations in many human terms - however, the most disturbing is that in many cases we describe these groups in terms, that if applied to a human, would seem to indicate the onset or an full-blown case of mental degradation or disease (most likely MPD or schitzophrenia at best - psychotic as well, sociopathic behavior, too). However, we don't seem to question this when it comes to large groups of people.
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
Hitler was never elected, he was brought in by a consensus of people with the authority to put him in power that thought he could be controlled.
Soon after his rise to office, a major terrorist event occured in the primary city of Germany in which a landmark was torched and people were killed.
Following this, a new series of laws were enacted that allowed his government much more power and far fewer checks than previously permitted. This allowed for domestic security forces and monitoring of citizens records at will of the government, among other things.
Media services were organized to allow the government to control what its populace was exposed to. Dissenters were either publically ridiculed, or jailed (anyone else worried about the proposed law in Oregon that potentially puts anti-war protestors in the same categories as terrorists?)
This should all sound familiar. Expansion of government powers inevitably leads to erosion of personal liberties until one or the other becomes almost negated. Early in our country we did not even have the power to tax our own citizens and the only government most people saw was the post office. Our government is moving in the direction of power consolidation, especially when our civil liberties are being "protected" by fascists like Ashcroft. If not for the Democrats having control of the Senate around 9/11, the proposals allowing for severely intrusive laws by Republicans would certainly have passed and we would be looking at a potential police state. Even with those checks in place our civil liberties took severe blows over the last 18 months to the point that random people can now be detained without charge on charges of "terrorism".
I just got back from an international vacation on Sunday. I agree that airport security needed tightening up (and more work needs to get done; they never even checked the glovebox for my permit-toting friend during his random stop at the airport. He occasionally carries a pistol there but the security didn't even ask). Federal buildings need to be protected, without a doubt the concrete barriers and othe rmeasures mentioned elsewhere are necessary. But let's be honest: the terrorists who launched the attacks took years to plan and execute their strikes. It is not easy for them to get over here, it is even more difficult to support them while they're here, and most people who arrive in the US tend to want to stay once they get here. I wonder if the 19 that ended up planning the attack was not originally 100+ given the opinions of other Arabs I have known and how their opinions changed during our college years. Almost all are now applying for either green cards or work visas.
Nineteen people, or a hundred people, or even a thousand people are not justification for ruining the privacy of 275.000.000 others. Get with the program: there are those who would use the increased power to further their own ends. If Ms. McDonald wants to allow people to view every aspect of her life, then perhaps we should build her a house in downtown Washington with entirely translucent walls or put closed-circuit cameras throughout her hom with the promise that only the government is monitoring them. Let various people see her from every angle 24/7/365 and find out how long she supports government intrusion. Depriving people of their privacy is usually the first step on that slippery slope from free republics to police states, like what happened in Germany in 1933. If we don't act to protect our privacy, then the only measurable terror we shall have will be that from people fearful of speaking out against their government for feare of reprisals. Then the terrorists have truly won.
As long as there is a Second Amendment, there will always be a First Amendment.
-T
if you go to their website, you'll notice that most of her op-ed pieces are published in the New York Post, which is the sleaziest yellow journalism rag in New York, and not coincidentally, owned by Rupert Murdoch, also owner of Fox 'newz' (you can't really call it 'news' or 'journalism' as much as reactionary fodder to tittilate the masses... /. to putting the spotlight on these cockroaches...
Heather MacDonald is one of the new 'conservatives' (they are to conservatives what Fox is to news). her publicity-grabbing, fear mongering, name-calling tactics are similarly employed by her fellow 'conservatives' Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter, amongst other low-lifes,,,
in this case, 'conservative' can be defined as 'doing whatever it takes to make the big bosses happy and keep the money flowing...
kudos to
Strangely enough, most of the Europeans who came to America did so ~before~ they developed that social safety net you speak of. Try facts, you'll like them! Don't get me wrong, I love our economic system, even though I'm not a billionaire (yet;), but it could be improved. See also under "Medical System". I'm getting sick and tired of the high and mighty attitude of a lot of my fellow Americans towards other parts of the world, esp. with regards to Europeans (Liberty Fries NEone?). You are making us look bad to the rest of the world, and frankly, it's Un-American! America is great because we follow American ideals, and telling someone else that they are doomed to mediocrity because they live in the Communist State of Ireland doesn't sound very American to me. How about being the kind of American we can be proud of, instead of insulting the neighbors, k?
A friend of mine wrote this:
...
"'words beneath the boot'
now once again strike up the band
let us parade in mindless disillusion
to cheer on a cash cowboy hierarchy
never speak your mind to the confusion
being barely kept alive with a fossil fix
unable to ween ourselves from a petrol teat
ever in constant fear of being an individual
safer to curl up to the nation's heartbeat
words beneath the boot reign down
spreading laws we took no part in creating
ideas born in the rich and controlling factions
a protective noose around us slowly radiating
the powers that be know best, don't they?
the all-watchful eyes of surveillance grow in number
every street, every shop they seek evil and the unrighteous
guarded against ourselves, lambs in the great slumber
a day will come when freedom of thought is illegal
no longer having to make decisions on our own
to be labelled a 'traitor' is to have an opinion
a dawn of true enlightenment for which to atone
our forefathers slowly fading now
their words a 'Constitution' of the past
leaders now led by a lobbyist concerns
how long will this 'capital' philosophy last?"
Seemed fitting here
Aych tea tea pea colon slash slash slash dot dot org slash
Al-Qaida and other terrorist groups wield technology as a weapon with no worries about privacy rights, MacDonald said. But fear and distrust of anti-terrorism and surveillance technology hampers the U.S. government's ability to shore up defenses and stop attacks before they happen.
Well, then, why don't we take away all the guns. After all, criminals wield guns as a weapon with no worries about people's rights. But fear and distrust hampers the U.S. government's ability to round up all the guns and stop crime befoe it happens.It's so much fun to take a conservative argument, make one substitution, and watch them squirm. Though 90% of the conversatives around here would think this woman is an idiot, too.
In reality, all y'all are partially right and partially wrong. Germany, Russia, Britian, USA, and the other great empires of history scrambled to secure resources. He who has the most toys wins, regardless of flag or allegiance. Rome won out in Italy and eventually the Mediterranean because it could commit more manpower to any conflict than its rivals. Its intercontinental (possibly global, they are now known to have reached China by 166 AD and recent excavations indicate a presence in the Yucutan and Americas even before Augustus) economy consumed vast amounts of resources and no one could stop it until they became disorganized. Germany in 1875 was just larger than Kentucky, Tennessee, and West Virgina (and about as many resources) combined with a population of 50 million+. It needed land to expand into and resources for trade. Britian industrialized first and needed resources for its global economy even as the eighteeth century dawned to compensate for lack of resources at home. Venice had only sand and sea, selling salt and glass gave them enough in trade to make a massive commerical empire. Japan is like Britian only more extreme: they have almost no resources at home and have to conquer or trade to get what they need.
And so on. The same formula can be applied to every world power in history: they will do whatever it takes to secure resources even if it means resorting to dastardly acts like supporting nutcases (we propped up hussein and afghani groups in the 80s after all) or even outright annexation (poland, texas, baltic states, india...).
As long as there is a Second Amendment, there will always be a First Amendment.
It's actually in middle school at which students start to second-guess their parents. It continues to grow in high school in which you question the motives of your school. Then in college you question the government. It's only as you realize that you are a member of a larger organization that you question it's motives -- and rightly so.
In fact, it is this questioning nature that brings so many students to begin to study science, to explain and prove. In the most ironic sense, it is this same desire that drives the punk rockers to be anti-everything. Unbeknownst to these groups, and everything in between, they all have similar goals. Makes me smile...
This is my digital signature. 10011011001
Looking at the discussion and some of the posted quotes, I get the impression she's a highly paid public troll-whore. If a slashdot reader posted anything like this, he would be modded down to -100 (too dumb to exist). Her comments are imprudent, violent, and intentionally provocative. An official institution would find it inconvenient, to say the least, to have their name associated with this sort of inflammatory demagoguery.
Everyone is angry at what she said - which is probably exactly what she wanted to achieve. She's just shooting into the trees to see what nuts fall out. Kudos to the people who contributed to the discussion calmly, btw. That's the only way you can fight someone like this. I'm not saying we can ignore her - she's voicing the inner thoughts of the people who are passing such laws as the Patriot Act. But remember what she is - she is just a troll. If anything, her comments have the intellectual validity of the "hot grits", "goatsex", and "naked and petrified" posts.
"probable cause" "warrant" "judge's signature"
Who'd have thought there were so many luddites on slashdot?
With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plead; but to tyrants I will give no quarter. -- William Lloyd
Yeah, it was also a bit of a joke.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
I do see your point, just don't 100% agree.
Controlling a society in the fashion described in 1984 can function well enough to keep the people from revolting against a figurehead, but duping them enough to completely corrupt the electoral process is hard.
I would say that the institution of public schools has been the only effective tool in training people to desire a leader of some sort. Compulsory schooling was in fact created for this very purpose. The powers that be did succeed on that front somewhat, but I think we still have something of an electoral process.
Anyway, I know what you mean... I just wanted to point out as bad as Bush is, he will be gone in two years.
I don't read or respond to AC posts
I hardly think the $396,100,000,000.00 spent on military (52% of the total budget [upenn.edu]) is really as necessary(spelling corrected) as the government would like you to believe.
Read your own source better! It clearly states the military budget is 52% of the discretionary spending not the total budget as you have implied. Do you know the difference between a discretionary and a non-discretionary line item? If you are going to convince anyone of the validity of your arguments you should understand the terminology.
BTW most of the Defense budget is non-discretionary spending. In other words the CONGRESS says, "You will spend the money this way or not at all." Comparing the total military budget to the budget of other selected Departments is at best misleading and at worse deceitful.
Misquoting your source as haphazardly as you have leads one to conclude you are either ill informed or purposefully trying to mislead people. How many military members are there compared to the number of employees in the federal department of education? How many total employees are there in the aggregated departments of education for the federal and state and local level and what is the total budget for those aggregated departments? That is a better measure of the level of funding for education compared to the national defense.
[rant mode on]
About your sources: Quit comparing apples and oranges it invalidates your argument
Education is managed and principally funded at a local level. National defense is managed and funded at the federal level. Comparing the national budget for defense to the national budget for education is vacuous. The budget analysis in the source you quote is very much like comparing the number of legs on an ant to the number of leaves on an apple tree and gleefully concluding that insects infinitely more worthy of leaves.
[rant mode off]
The computer is your friend!
Didn't Thomas Jefferson say something like 'People who would trade freedom for security deserved neither'?
The argument about privacy is specifically about freedom. I want the freedom to only let people I trust know about me. Jefferson was very much against authoritarian government, and had even come from one that JAILED jurors when they would not return the "correct" verdict.
Is is not absurd to so claim. In fact, your claiming that it is absurd, is absurd.
the vines that creep to thus shadow the mushrooms provide the necessary service, it's true, but like kudzu they have a tendency to overdo it, requiring ever increasing trellis infusions and succor from the majestic sequoias who have no need for such intermediaries, prefering instead to thrive directly between the heavens and the earth, bringing soil and sunlight together in million-leaved permuations of thousand-ringed wisdom. in this way, the mushroom is also served, w/o need for the vines.
It was Ben Franklin who said it (he said most of the good stuff didn't he) and I believe it went something (although not exactly) like this:
"He who would trade a little freedom for a little security deserves neither."
Airport security needs to be designed by people who aren't festering retards. That's, quite simply, the main problem.
They confiscate shoelaces at times, yet god forbid they stop selling commemorative glass plates which can be broken to form a very nasty knife. And what terrorist would bother with a thin cotton garotte when six weeks in a martial arts course can make you fairly effective (against untrained people anyways).
I had twenty examples of this when I flew last. People were being quizzed for bringing large nail clippers, yet nobody bothered to even look through the 300mm lenses this photographer brought on, despite them being metal and thus blocking xrays (and potentially being used to carry any ammount of nasty stuff). They turn on laptops and palmtops, but they don't know what to look for. You could carry an early 90s vintage laptop with the guts from a current slim notebook in it, you'd have space for a ton of stuff. Not to mention that they don't check the battery compartments, even the spare one.
But they freaked about my cellphone. Wow, I could poke someone's eyes out with the little springy arial. But they didn't do anything to ensure I hadn't stuffed the guts of a smaller phone in, to make room for something, they were happy with quizzing me on why I needed to carry it, despite not being able to use it on the flight. (I guess they've never had three hour layovers.)
The security measures they take are nearly useless, but that doesn't stop them from making them really irritating. And what is it with the US arming under-paid security checkers. I don't want someone who's barely a step up from McDonalds packing a gun. At least police officers get training. (Well, this is a general US issue, supermarket guards have guns at some stores... Hello!?)
Questionability of amendments noted. Will look into. ;)
-uso.
Freedom Is Not Free
Dreams, dreams, don't doubt dreams, dreaming children's dreaming dreams. Sailor Moon SS
or healthcare or welfare.
You said a lot of things but this stood out. So I disagree. The job of the government is to raise an army and protect the citizens. You just don't agree with their methods of doing this.
The government keeps growing bigger all the time and claiming that they should be providing healthcare and the like make the buffoons who are growing it bolder every year. There is not an either or choice between the military and these other things. The US army may by too large and have too much funding, but if money is taken from there it should be given back to the taxpayers so we can buy our own healthcare and give to charities or whatever we want.
Also, this top 5 countries in the world rating is quite amusing. The real way to find out where the best place to live is to find the place with the highest immigration.
Iraq held elections, too. Saddam Hussein won.
cpeterso
I think you've identified the LP's big problem. Most people think Libertarians are all pot-smoking', gun-totin' survivalists who belong to baby-killin' militia groups.
This is a PR problem. The LP has a good message, but nobody is willing to listen. I think the LP should rename itself the "Freedom Party". The LP has a good message with clear principles: Freedom is good. Hell, I bet most Americans couldn't even spell "Libertarian." They don't what Liberty means or what a Libertarian believes in, but they understand Freedom.
I believe in the Libertarian Party and have donated my hard-earned cash to them on occasion. I have also donated money to the Green Party. The Green Party and the LP are not oppposites, as frequently portrayed in LP literature. They both believe in freedom (just some of the details are different).
Maybe the Green Party and LP can colloborate on the freedom issues they do agree on. Together they can push harder on those important issues and show that a very diverse group of people can work together on the important issues.
cpeterso
And just how would anything be different in an election, Mr. Smart Guy? Bush doens't have to let anyone into a press conference that he doesn't like. Even easier since he's the prez.
How would I go about asking Bush just how long he's planning on holding "material witnesses" without charges or a lawyer? Or why in gods name we are spending billions of dollars invading some country that hasn't attacked us, but hasn't done anything to increase security at a nuclear plant 30 miles away from NYC?
"Sad to say, Bush and a whole lot of well-intentioned Americans just don't see how what they're trying to accomplish might not be what actually happens."
Drunk in charge of an army?
Start here, and there are other sites as well. This is the guy who did the research on the 16th and 17th, and sells his findings in a pair of books. There are also people who claim that there was a different amendment originally passed as number 13, but it's been covered up. I don't know much about that, and it sounds too much like paranoia even for me. :)
Constitutionally Correct
Especially when there's no privacy, as Heather wants. (How do you think Saddam Hussein gets his 100% share of the vote?) The secret police can see who you vote for, and those who don't vote for Big Brother can be targeted.
They actually do this in the UK, with a unique identifier on every ballot paper so that it can be traced back to a particular voter. Supposedly, this is only used to prevent fraud, but it's a pretty open secret that MI5 uses it to tag supporters of "extremist" parties. My guess is this only means parties that get a very small share of the vote, because of the practical problems involved in tracking everyone who votes for an opposition party, but digital technology means these problems are diminishing all the time. Be very afraid.
Well, Mr. Dumbfuck the issue isn't whether "would anything be different in an election".
If you do not like the way your government is being run, vote. The president is not a dictator, and congress still holds the power. The president will not be president in six years, probably in two. Pull your head out of your ass, stop listening to your liberal teachers and the media and realize that reactionary behavior such as yours immature and not at all helpful to your cause.
I don't read or respond to AC posts
That was me... It was a misclassification. In fact, it was downright absurd.
Think I meant it as a joke? Yes, obviously. I was trying to inject a little surprising absurdity and humor into the post, and I think everyone else got it - all but the guy who modded parent a troll.
-T
Also we could consider changing some of our policies that make terrorists want to target us in the first place...
Policies should be changed, but not in the way you imply. We should not appease those peoples from which terrorist are drawn.
We should use the Chicago way, as it was stated in the movie "The Untouchables", they pull a knife, you pull a gun, they put one of yours in the hospital, you put one of theirs in the morgue.
It is a mistake trying to make the arab world love us. It won't happen.
Our reprisal for 9/11 should have been so out of proportion to the event itself, that next time something similar happens, there won't be cheering in the streets, but masses of people filled with dread at the thought of what will happen in return.
Hell, last time I went on a plane with a cellphone, they didn't even check my cellphone to make sure that is what it was. They also did not check my altoids tin which went through no xray, etc and is large enough to carry a small pistol. The cellphone could easily have been just a hollow plastic case filled with plastique or something. It could easily have still retained an lcd and keypad which simply blooped and bleeped for the security (though they did not even bother to do that.
Granted this is all pre-9/11. I understand after Richard Reid some airports started making people take off their shoes... funny ;).
No!
Luddites wear wooden hats to keep out the mind-control rays.
You see, the real secret is that the aliens have created tin foil that emits its own mind control rays!
ALIENS! TINFOIL! CONSPIRACY! RAYS!
"We have to go forth and crush every world view that doesn't believe in tolerance and free speech." - David Brin
Irrelevant to the origional point, which was:
5) Big Brother to be an unaccountable figurehead. When was the last time you saw someone ask a tough question to George ?
There's no way to force Georgie into answering uncomfortable questions wether or not its an election year. So STFU and go back to gobbling some nice, fat cock.
This girl b smokin crack, dogg
Freedom no longer means liberty. It means security. Once you realize this, you will understand how these new policies are justified. So whenever you hear anyone discussing freedom, you should realize that he is instead talking about security.
An example:
"Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do." --Rudolph Giuliani
I know, it doesn't make much sense, does it? But if we alter it slightly...
"Security is about authority. Security is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do."
Presto! Now do you understand?
Leaving your front door wide open is a great idea, until someone you don't know walks through it.
And if it weren't for "privacy" luddites, you'd know who that person was the instant that they walk through you door.
Beware the incomplete implementation.
We are the MOST POWERFUL country in the world
Did you MORONS think it hapened honoring privacy
NO! Our great organizations like CIA, FBI and other have been snooping around.
FOOLS! It is for your own protection. USA ROCKS!
If it is good for MIcrosoft, it IS good for America.
If you cant understand it you are a fuckin liberal SCUM or you are a french SURRENDER MONKeY
USA! USA! USA!
And ONLY USA
HAIL BUSH
It is the responsibility of a free democratic government to not create entire regions of the world and peoples that want to kill us. Our government has completely failed by its complicity in creating and supporting oppressive regimes in the middle east. Now it's trying to cover its ass by removing our freedoms, and I won't stand for it.
The argument that "we must search you because you might be carrying a bomb" is true for any person, anywhere, any time. It was also true at the time the consitution was written, yet the forefathers had the wisdom to write the fourth ammendment.
The terrorists have already won. We have a fight ahead of us. The fight to turn the United States from a police state back into the Home of the Free. But it is a good fight, one we must take up. We must fight both for our own freedom, and for the freedom of those we have oppressed for so long in the name of secure access to oil.
-- Bob
1^2=1; (-1)^2=1; 1^2=(-1)^2; 1=-1; 1=0.
I'm a believer on the name of our Lord and savior Jesus Christ and let me share this with you. I cannot stand anyone, ecspecially a bunch of arrogant harlots and harlot thinktanks, telling me what's best for me. So before you think you know what "christians" want, I'm here to set the record straight, Politicians and their cronies can sux my big blankity blank!
Love your country but don't trust your government.
[o]_O
Read Bullock's biography if you really want to know about A. Hitler.
Basically, he wasn't for anyting, other than his own personal power; he was for anything or anybody who could serve his purposes. He was a socialist for the masses when he was an outsider; as soon as he got close to power he sucked up to the great capitalists, who really were more his cup of tea, since the only thing he really admired in a man was power.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Every person who posted an angry reply to this story but who doesn't call up their congressman to voice opposition to Patriot II and similar legislation is as culpable for our oppressive government as Ashcroft is.
[o]_O
Where does the line that seperates terrorism and activeism lie?
ever see a Capatilist give up government freebies?
Diplomacy is the art of saying "Nice doggie" until you can find a rock. Will Rogers
you have described ALL forms of government unfortunely it seems to be a disease thatthe human race is prone to
Diplomacy is the art of saying "Nice doggie" until you can find a rock. Will Rogers
Dams are cool. People take pictures of them all the time. Just because the admirers were Arab doesn't mean they plan to destroy the dam.
I know someone who just bought a new camera. He wanted to test it out, so I suggested a bunch of places to take pictures. He was afraid to take pictures at those places for fear of being labeled a terrorist. This is what our society has come to. We are more afraid of our own government than we are of our enemies.
Absolutely...I've pointed out the inherent weakness of the argument to which *I* responded. My point was that the U.S. Government is nothing special, as it is subject to the same corrosive dynamics as any other political system. As such, it is incumbent upon, not the government, but the citizens, to ensure that these dynamics are kept in check.
What the fuck is she going on about? how much was she paid?
good lord, what a fucking idiot, she should move to iraq and get anal raped.
And frankly, I'm tired of people telling me that I need to give up my privacy so they can (theoretically) feel safer. In Soviet Russia, they didn't feel safe even without that pesky privacy...
Black and grey are both shades of white.
Alright, let's go through what you're claiming here:
Simply untrue. No one has been arrested with no charges, no trial, or access to a lawyer. However, those who commit acts of war illegally against this nation are subject to trial under military jurisdiction. You may not like this, you may think this should change, but you can't claim that this is something new -- this practice has existed since the earliest days of this republic (as I mentioned above, presidents Madison and Jefferson both used it, for example -- but perhaps you will tell us that the author of the Constitution didn't know what it said), and has been repeatedly upheld by the Supreme Court.
And here you go off the deep end again. No one has been `disappeared'. Not one person. Much less `thousands'. If you want to claim that someone has, you will have to provide examples. Otherwise, you're just spouting hot air.
Simply untrue. Show us a single instance where this has happened.
Again, simply untrue. This is the third time you've repeated this claim in one post, but repetition is not proof.
``My roommate knows this guy, and like his girlfriend has this cousin, and like her friend heard that...''
That's your `evidence'?
Maher Hawash (``the Intel guy'' you say, and then expect us to believe that you're familiar with the case) is being held as a material witness in an ongoing case, to testify before a grand jury. Beyond the obvious point that if he was `disappeared', you wouldn't know where he was (duh!), this is a perfectly legal procedure, and is certainly not something new (the Material Witness Statute is twenty years old).
Within a short time, Mr. Hawash will be called to testify to a grand jury, presumably about the $10,000 which he is alleged to have given to the `Global Relief Foundation', a front organization with ties to al Qaeda, which even the UN calls a front for terrorism.
As with any material witness, Mr. Hawash has full access to the courts to appeal his detention, and must be released as soon as his testimony is needed or if his testimony has not been needed within a certain time. He may also, of course, be charged with a crime before that time. In either case, to claim that a.) this is a new procedure, b.) that Mr. Maher has `disappeared', or c.) that he has no access to appeal his case is simply lying.
Again, nonsense. Not one person has `vanished' off the face of the earth. Some people who were here illegally have been deported when they showed up as asked to (not `tricked' as you allege). But perhaps you have a problem with this?
Believe it or not, every random claim you make is not automati
Government has power that people give to it because it is made up of people. It is made up of people who have individual freedom to make up such a government. Individuals, acting together, form governments and their restrictions, by their personal will.
You are making the mistake of conceptualising "the government" as an entity. It is not.
As for green = socialism, All I see are 10 key values. How one approaches those values is up to the individual. Funny, that.
You're right about amendments ... and people who agree on such things need to work together to fix such mistakes. Even if they disagree on other issues. Which is why I always urge people to vote for whatever 3rd parties they feel fit them best, but to stay away from the major two. I may be green, but I don't care that you're not.
"The government" can take on a life of its own, if oversight from the people it supposedly works on behalf of is removed by the people within the government. "Government" can become a vehicle for those insiders' own schemes. History demonstrates this time and time again.
Constitutionally Correct
but you sure got BEST POST
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, it
expects what never was and never will
be . . . The People cannot be safe without
information. When the press is free, and
every man is able to read, all is safe."
Thomas Jefferson
I'd Trust Thomas Jefferson over any unknown
political "think tank" - auntie.
I think Germans trusted too much in
the Goebbels think thank in WW2.
Who do you trust?
Btw. this is what people are not allowed to know.
Real computer scientists despise the idea of actual hardware. Hardware has
limitations, software doesn't. It's a real shame that Turing machines are
so poor at I/O.
- this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...