Slashdot Mirror


Pentagon Soft-Pedals Total Information Awareness

PizzaFace writes "Congress was concerned that the Pentagon's 'Total Information Awareness' program would invade citizens' privacy, so it gave the program the red light until the Pentagon addressed Congress's privacy concerns. DARPA, the Pentagon technology agency that brought us the Internet in more innocent times, showed its Total Marketing Awareness by renaming the TIA program, 'Terrorism Information Awareness.' The gist of its report seems to be that data may be collected from everyone, but it will only be used against evildoers. You can read DARPA's report and a background story from the Washington Post."

419 of 632 comments (clear)

  1. Innocent times? by Burb · · Score: 5, Funny
    DARPA, the Pentagon technology agency that brought us the Internet in more innocent times

    What more innocent times were these, exactly?

    --

    1. Re:Innocent times? by I(rispee_I(reme · · Score: 1

      Sure thing, Miniver Cheevy...

    2. Re:Innocent times? by kahei · · Score: 4, Funny


      Innocent times like the good ol' 50s, when you could be hounded out of the country for showing communist tendencies! Or like the 30s, when you could be framed and executed (or just beaten to death with pick handles) if you were suspected of encouraging labor rights! Or like the 19th century, when you could eliminate any random bunch of Mexicans or Native Americans cause hey, they're in the way! (doesn't work on Canadians, though).

      Good ol' innocent happy days!

      (waves stars and stripes, plays 'yankee doodle' on a kazoo)

      --
      Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
    3. Re:Innocent times? by HBI · · Score: 3, Troll

      Perhaps you would have preferred Gulags where they worked you to death, or you counted trees. (1930s Soviet Union)

      Perhaps you'd enjoy having your head severed by a guillotine in good old liberal France because you were not Jacobin enough. (1793-95)

      Maybe you'd prefer having your kids have little red books and informing on you, often with deadly results. (60's China)

      Perhaps you'd prefer being a Pathan tribesman in what is modern-day Afghanistan during the British-run Afghan Wars. Lots of rapine, slaughter, moreso than the Indian campaigns. (1830s-1850s)

      There are no such things as Native Americans, we all migrated here at one time or another from Eurasia.

      I could go on and on. It's amazing how fast we forget and take things out of historical context...

      --
      HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    4. Re:Innocent times? by kahei · · Score: 5, Funny

      Guilty conscience, huh?

      --
      Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
    5. Re:Innocent times? by HBI · · Score: 1

      The needless anti-American slant was my main target.

      --
      HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    6. Re:Innocent times? by st0rmcold · · Score: 4, Insightful


      Even in the time we live in now, you will still hide behind other people's problems instead of facing your own hard truth. It's the american way isen't it? If someone does it worse, it makes you feel a whole lot better about yourself dosen't it?

      That's why americans don't want to help themselves, that mentality has seaped in so deep it won't come out.

      Someday you will realize that there will always be someone worse off than you, no matter what, wasting your time pointing out other people's problems won't get you anywhere. And continuing down that path will eventually lead you to being worse off than everyone else. Seems like my theory is in the process of being proven with the path of the US. Always saying "It's not that bad, look at them they are far worse" and bam, another liberty gone.

      Great Minds talk about Ideas.
      Average Minds talk about Things.
      Small Minds talk about Other People.

      Seems that everyday the scale keeps weighing down towards the latter.

      --
      Posting useless rant since 2003.
    7. Re:Innocent times? by EllisDees · · Score: 1

      >There are no such things as Native Americans, we all migrated here at one time or another from Eurasia.

      Does "The people who's land we stole" have a better ring to it?

      Other people behaving badly does not give us an excuse to do the same.

      --
      -- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
    8. Re:Innocent times? by Blondie-Wan · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Ah, I see. "Everybody else does it," so that makes it Ok for the US.

      Yes, I'm well aware the US is and historically has often been far better than many other nations in its treatment of people. That still doesn't make it exactly exemplary. Perhaps you think when it comes to mistreating its citizens, anything the US does is Ok as long as it doesn't exceed that done by some other nation, but some of us envision a somewhat higher standard.

      BTW, the hair-splitting over the definition of "native Americans" is a crock. Like it or not, there were non-European peoples here thousands of years before Europeans arrived, and attempts to downplay that fact by saying they weren't "native" (only in the sense that human beings as a biological species didn't evolve here; their cultures and languages did) smack of an intent to reduce or dismiss the legitimacy of their claims. And what else should one call them? If mere accuracy is your goal, you should note "Indians" is profoundly less accurate than "native Americans."

    9. Re:Innocent times? by Paradigma11 · · Score: 2, Funny

      well, wouldnt anti-us be a more correct term. i cant detect any anti-canadian, -mexican, -brazilian............ tendency anywhere:)

    10. Re:Innocent times? by macdaddy357 · · Score: 2

      All that would be peachy compared to being an African-American in the south before the civil war. I hear Indian reservations are a cool place to hang out, too. America, land of the free if you are white, straight, anglo-saxon, and protestant, but not if you are anything else.

      --
      How ya like dat?
    11. Re:Innocent times? by Blondie-Wan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't think the post was anti-American. Americans who care deeply about the country and their freedoms have a strong interest in making such comments and observations. Perhas you think we US citizens should just lie down and take whatever the government or the prevailing social climate dishes out, but speaking as an American who is grateful for the freedoms guaranteed me and who cherishes the country's stated ideals, I'm very interested in seeing those freedoms and ideals preserved, and quick to criticize whenever I see those freedoms and ideals assailed or ignored, as has happened from time to time, whether you care to admit it or not. I strongly suspect the original poster ("Innocent times like the good ol' 50s," etc.) feels the same way.

    12. Re:Innocent times? by Trurl's+Machine · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I could go on and on.

      Please do, but please read a little more about the American history. Maybe indeed thereare no such things as Native Americans, we all migrated here at one time or another from Eurasia. but the fact remains that one group of migrants committed the crime of genocide on the other. Maybe you had no Gulag, but you had concentration camps even before Lenin managed to say "bolshevism! sounds pretty cool for me!" (American first concentration camps were operating during miners strikes in Colorado in 1903-1904). Maybe you had no guilottine, but you used death penalty on people guilty of nothing else than having subversive political views (like the Haymarket Riot prisoners). Is it REALLY that much of a difference that you tend to fry dissidents on an electric chair rather than cut their heads off?

      You are right at one point: It's amazing how fast we forget and take things out of historical context... Otherwise, would the mythos of the "America, land of the free" exist at all?

    13. Re:Innocent times? by HermanAB · · Score: 1

      There is nothing new in the US of A. The Salem witch hunts are mirrorred in the McCarthy witch hunts, which are mirrored in the Terrorist witch hunts... The great American myth of freedom: If USAsians were so free, then why did the slaves in 1860 and the hippies in 1960, want to run away to Canada?

      --
      Oh well, what the hell...
    14. Re:Innocent times? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      If USAsians were so free, then why did the slaves in 1860 and the hippies in 1960, want to run away to Canada?

      Maybe they wanted a pint of Molson Export?

    15. Re:Innocent times? by maddskillz · · Score: 1

      Except from the US

    16. Re:Innocent times? by karlandtanya · · Score: 1
      innocent times like the good ol' 50s


      Yeah, I like that one. I worked in a plant in Mississippi for a few years. Each year, the plant would have a "theme" week to whip up employee morale. One year, the name of the theme was "Fabulous memories of the good times.", and the subject of the theme was 1950's America. They had bobby socks (whatever the hell those were), poodle skirts, restored vintage cars, 6oz Cokes (with peanuts to put in them), Buddy Holly music, etc. Really a great party, in the 1990s. But...


      If you know anything about US demographics, you'll know that for a lot of the people living in rural Mississippi, the 1950's were NOT good times.

      --
      "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
    17. Re:Innocent times? by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

      EXACTLY!

      I couldn't have said it myself...
      Maybe we should start saying that there are no real Europeans (German, French, etc), there are merely people of African descent. :P

      I hate when people call Native Americans "Indians"... It's like walking up to a person from India and calling them French.

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
    18. Re:Innocent times? by bigpat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Like it or not, there were non-European peoples here thousands of years before Europeans arrived, and attempts to downplay that fact by saying they weren't "native" (only in the sense that human beings as a biological species didn't evolve here; their cultures and languages did) smack of an intent to reduce or dismiss the legitimacy of their claims."

      Of course it is an attempt to delegitimize their claims, the term Native is politcal, since most areas of this planet have been populated and repopulated several times over by various different types of peoples mixing their cultures and biology. Are the Eqyptians of today really the Egyptians of history? Are the Russians really the Natives of Russia? Heck the British Isles are a mish mash of a few thousand years of invasion and rape by various Kingdoms and empires. Don't even try to begin to think of Israel in terms of Native and non-Native. So, what of it? Are we willing to return to a philosophy when historical injustice is used to justify injustice today? When one people can claim that they have been wronged in the past, so that they are somehow immune to the moral responsiblity of their actions today.

      Yes, people fear the term Native anything and rightly so. It has been used to take people's land. In America, it hasn't been used to take back Manhattan or the National Mall, but rather it is used to take land of rural peoples, those that are unable to defend themselves. Especially in America, where so many of our ancestors came here to flee those that would use history to steal the future through wars and oppression, can anyone not see that history must be studied dispassionately and learned from. Not be used to justify the whim and avarices of today.

      So, I won't tell another person how they should regard themselves or how they should associate, if you wish to call yourself Native American, so be it. It does not give a person a right to theft, just as I would not seek to justify the sins of the past.

      Just no one call me a "European."

    19. Re:Innocent times? by Vesuvius_2 · · Score: 1

      so because things were worse before, we should be happy that they're still bad but less so? why shouldn't we strive for better?

    20. Re:Innocent times? by Melantha_Bacchae · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, I, for one, would not have preferred to live in one of the places and times that you mentioned. You are correct: what those people did was wrong.

      That does not excuse or whitewash the wrong that Americans do now or in the past. The McCarthy witch-hunts, persecutions, and outright mass murder kahei mentioned are against every principle set forth by the Declaration of Independence and by the US Constitution. Such wrongs are truly un-American. They should be remembered so they are never, ever, repeated.

      This nation was founded on a beautiful ideal of liberty and justice. This ideal is symbolized by our flag, and is the bright beacon Lady Liberty holds aloft. This ideal also needs to be remembered, so we can better live up to it.

      BTW, if any of you are flying the US Flag, go check on it for me. If it is like a lot that I have seen, it is probably tattered and faded. I have seen more poor abused flags since 911 than I have in 40 years of news footage of flag-burning protests. Learn to take proper care of your flags, and grow the sense to bring them in out of the weather and night dew.

      "[America's] glory is not dominion, but liberty. Her march is the march of the mind. She has a spear and a shield: but the motto upon her shield is, Freedom, Independence, Peace. This has been her Declaration: this has been, as far as her necessary intercourse with the rest of mankind would permit, her practice."
      President John Quincy Adams, 1821

    21. Re:Innocent times? by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      African Americans were not counted as 3/5ths of a person; slaves were counted as 3/5ths of a person.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    22. Re:Innocent times? by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      But I thought 'Native' Americans did not believe in property ownership. How can you steal something that isn't owned by another?

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    23. Re:Innocent times? by knobmaker · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Perhaps you would have preferred... a laundry list of atrocities in other countries, oddly selected to reflect mostly left-wing atrocities.

      This has to be the most unimaginative and juvenile way of justifying the Bad Things that have been done in America. "But Mommy, Jimmy did so-and-so!"

      Particularly pointless was this pedantic little remark about Native Americans: "There are no such things as Native Americans, we all migrated here at one time or another from Eurasia." Allrighty then. I guess it's okay that we slaughtered most of them and stole their land, because they didn't actually exist. I guess if the Chinese decide to take North America from us, it'll be okay, because we're not really Americans, just more-or-less recent immigrants. After all, if there was nothing wrong with dispossesing the redskins, who lived here for millenia, there'd be even less wrong with dispossessing the white folks, who've only been here a tiny fraction of that time.

      It's amazing how fast we forget and take things out of historical context...

      No shit.

    24. Re:Innocent times? by knobmaker · · Score: 1
      No, sorry, won't cater to your anti-american viewpoint.

      No, sorry, won't cater to your weird conservative paranoia. The original poster wasn't being anti-American. He was only pointing out that the good ole days weren't always good. I presume he's an American, and therefore used American examples.

      It's folks like you, who shut their eyes to any criticism of America, who may eventually cause the destruction of this great country. Societies either progress or decline, and we're currently declining, in the most profound of American values-- personal liberty. Refusing to admit that problems exist will not solve those problems. Ignoring those problems doesn't make you a patriot, it makes you a traitor.

      America was not made great by men and women who believed America was perfect.

    25. Re:Innocent times? by jfx32 · · Score: 1

      Actually, the Declaration of Independence refers to the Indians as savages. Not that it's right, just that it does.

    26. Re:Innocent times? by javiercero · · Score: 1

      Obviously you have no idea about those "natives" First off, that term is not of their making, in fact they much rather be labeled by their tribal naming, but that would mean that you as a poor white boy would have to learn something about them. And oh, gosh... that would be just too much to ask for.

      So let me get this straight, the white men came... stole some else's land. You either massacred or displaced those "natives", then they have to live in reservations. Which are the worst pieces of land, the ones that had no use for the white man. And then you come bitching how the Indians are stealing precious farming land from the poor white trash inmigrants? Then you label them as Indians, then as native americans, and then you bitch about how they dare to use the term "native"?

      Go on and read on the trail of tears, and let me know about their "thefts." Nowadays Indian reservations have the highest rate of poverty, infant mortality rate, etc. than any where in the US. And they are sitting in some of the worst pieces of land in the US, some of them had to sit near nuclear disposal sites!!! WTF? For you that is primo real state?

      Ignorance is bliss I guess.What is next, how black people took over the ghettoes from the poor white inmigrants? Yeah, they have the best piece of real state those bastards!!!

    27. Re:Innocent times? by realdpk · · Score: 1

      Huh, was this before the military turned off selective availability in GPS?

      Your last comment reminds me of this one Cosby Show reference. The kids were talking about a black man that lived in Africa(IIRC) and the little one commented to the big one about how he was black, and the big one corrected her "No, he's African American" (even though he was not American, he was like a political figure of Africa, again IIRC). It was so rediculous, but I'm sure the producers were quite proud of themselves.

    28. Re:Innocent times? by black88 · · Score: 1

      Who says life was ever FAIR anyway? And besides, the thing holding back humanity fron further evolution is this incessant, ridiculous idea that somehow humans have the "right" to their own, exclusive piece of land based on what bullshit god they bow to or what shade of pigment is in their skin. Rubbish, I say. The Israelis don't have a right to a homeland, Palestinians don't have a right to a homeland, nor does anyone on this planet. I believe that this is the "make or break" idea of humanity at the moment.

    29. Re:Innocent times? by Blondie-Wan · · Score: 1

      Did you respond to the right post? I'm not the one defending the US's treatment of people (I'm pretty critical of it, actually); I think one of the posts by HBI must be the one you want.

    30. Re:Innocent times? by song-of-the-pogo · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you would have preferred Gulags where they worked you to death, or you counted trees. (1930s Soviet Union)

      at least they still had trees (present day oregon ... stumps of mystery)

      and yes, terrible things have happened in other places, but are we merely pointing them out so that we can feel better about the atrocities committed in our own land?

      --
      soupy twist
    31. Re:Innocent times? by l1gunman · · Score: 1
      and we're currently declining, in the most profound of American values-- personal liberty

      Sorry to disagree, but I think the real decline in our society today (U.S. and abroad) is not in liberty, but in personal responsibility. It's too easy anymore, when we screw up, to say... "my parents made me thus and so"... "my lousy childhood made me this or that". Drunk drivers blame the bartender. Criminals blame the police. Or, worse still, that terrorism exists because of the U.S. policies towards some other part of the world. It seems anymore that everybody is responsible for everyone else's behaviour except their own. And so, now, it's easier to squawk about our liberties being "violated" so that we can continue in our petty little foibles, some of which may be immoral, or prurient, or downright illegal. Most people I've met who so vociferously claim to care about the decline of liberty in this, the most free country on earth, are actually concerned only for themselves, not so much for the good of the republic as a whole. There is a right and there is a wrong. If everyone chose correctly we'd never have to worry about our freedom being taken away by those who are actually seeking to protect it.

    32. Re:Innocent times? by PW2 · · Score: 1

      That does not excuse or whitewash the wrong that Americans do now or in the past.

      I didn't catch where he was excusing the attrocities of the American past. Remember, one comment he was responding to was: "(waves stars and stripes, plays 'yankee doodle' on a kazoo)"

      He did point out some more severe attrocities committed in other parts of the world to show that it is everyone's problem. I guess this offended some people who would like to keep their own national problems a secret in the hopes that future childrens' text books will gloss over these issues. (I did use the word: "some")

      The McCarthy thing was bad too; I guess the original poster missed that one; I'm sure there are more. We'll all have to work harder.

    33. Re:Innocent times? by praksys · · Score: 1

      Innocent times like the good ol' 50s...

      I thought that was pretty funny as well. The internet was developed as part of an effort to build a communications network that could survive a nuclear attack by the Soviets. Ah...the good old days, when the nuclear clock stood at a few minutes to midnight, and sensible people lived like there might be no tomorrow.

    34. Re:Innocent times? by bigpat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You are exactly the problem of which I speak. People that wish to hide behind history and not learn from it.

      I've studied history. My relatives are Cherokee. I've been to the reservation. I know that the reservations are sometimes the worst pieces of land in the US and that people often do poorly there.

      No good can come from blaming eachother for the mistakes of someone that we never knew. It is irrational and wrong. Just because people have hurt eachother in the past doesn't mean they should do so today.

    35. Re:Innocent times? by gratefully+dead · · Score: 1

      There is no way to justify the treatment of Native Americans by European settlers and the American government. Native Americans lived a sustainable lifestyle, and did not grossly overconsume the resources that were available.

      They had a right to the land that they lived on because they were there first. They were willing to share their land with European settlers; they did not understand the concept of "owning" a piece of land. But that was not good enough for the Europeans.

    36. Re:Innocent times? by SpaceCadetTrav · · Score: 1

      Agreed, Americans will never get ANYWHERE. They will never become the most powerful nation in the world.

    37. Re:Innocent times? by praksys · · Score: 1

      No, it wasn't. Nuclear attack was an example of a disaster which might happen to a communications network.

      Yes it was. The desire for a communications network that could survive a first strike was the only reason why the DoD started research into distributed communication. Later researchers realized that such networks had all sorts of other desirable features, but when they started out, and when they commisioned ARPANET, nuclear attack was what they were interested in.

      According to The Naval War College Library notes:

      The Internet may seem new, but it actually began in the 1960s. In 1964 Paul Baran at RAND designed a packet-switching network which could survive a nuclear attack. In 1969 the Department of Defense commissioned ARPANET, a decentralized network, built so that messages could be rerouted in the event that part of the country's communications system was destroyed by a nuclear attack.

    38. Re:Innocent times? by tonyl · · Score: 1
      It's all about fear, isn't it?

      New Hamphire license plates carry the motto "Live free or die", but not very many of us would even "Live free or be uneasy".

      There is a real threat of terrorism, but our reaction to it is completely inappropriate. Every week in the United States alone a thousand people or so die as a result of automobile accidents. Every single week. If we reacted to that like we react to terrorism, we'd have 25 mph speed limits, checkpoints at every intersection, and we'd all be wearing helmets!

      I had an installation job this morning in Charlestown, which is part of greater Boston (MA). My wife was worried because Boston was mentioned as a possible target. She wasn't worried about my commute, but the reality is that was and is much more dangerous.

      Many of the people I hear fretting and worrying about terrorism are overweight or smokers or both. It's pretty obvious that the statistical risk of their lives being affected by terrorist activity is vanishingly small. Their risk of a heart attack or lung cancer is much higher, yet they won't change their lifestyle. But rampant invasion of privacy and loss of freedom is fine.

      Live free or vote Republican :-)

      Remember: the Democrats may waste your money, but you can always make more. It's not so easy to make more freedom.

      --
      -- Tony Lawrence
    39. Re:Innocent times? by NeoChichiri · · Score: 1

      Particularly pointless was this pedantic little remark about Native Americans: "There are no such things as Native Americans, we all migrated here at one time or another from Eurasia." Allrighty then. I guess it's okay that we slaughtered most of them and stole their land, because they didn't actually exist.


      This is not just directed to you, but to everyone else who has been arguing against this point...it's only "Native Americans" compared to the Europeans. I'm not saying that what the author said has anything to do with anything, but he is correct. According to the currently accepted theory, the first settlers of the Americas came across the Behring land bridge towards the end of the last ice age following the herds and then spread to populate what is now North and South America. They were called Indians by the Europeans who had mistakenly thought they had landed in India, and then later on the more PC term of Native Americans was created.

      However, this does not have anything to do with the way that they were treated. The term Native American is used because it is the best way to describe the initial settlers of this continent. Of course, why it's "Native Americans" and not referring to them by their tribal origins the way it is done with any other country is beyond me. Actually...it's because it's the United States, if it were any other country, the textbooks would refer to them by their individual tribal names rather than a collective term. At least history books no longer refer to the Trail of Tears or any of the Resettlement actions were for the benefit of the people that were being moved

      --
      NeoChichiri
      http://www.neochichiri.net
    40. Re:Innocent times? by knobmaker · · Score: 1
      There is a right and there is a wrong. If everyone chose correctly we'd never have to worry about our freedom being taken away by those who are actually seeking to protect it.

      Of course, Comrade, you are free... free to "choose correctly." Free to act in accordance with the good of the state. So long as you do nothing of which we disapprove, you are perfectly free. Is that what you mean by "freedom?"

      People who believe their own moral system to be the only acceptable one make very poor advocates for freedom, because they cannot grasp the most basic fact about freedom. In a free society, you must grant freedom to those you despise, not just to those of whom you approve. The freedom to act "correctly" is the freedom you get in the People's Republic of China. That's not my idea of freedom.

    41. Re:Innocent times? by knobmaker · · Score: 1
      This is not just directed to you, but to everyone else who has been arguing against this point...it's only "Native Americans" compared to the Europeans.

      You're missing the point entirely. Yes, of course it's generally accepted that human life did not originate in the New World, but the original poster's remark was a non-sequitur, or at best a semantic quibble. It's as if a prosecutor claimed that the defendant murdered Bob, and the defense attorney responded with "No, his name was actually Robert." Is that really a point worth making?

    42. Re:Innocent times? by l1gunman · · Score: 1

      How extremely petty to latch onto but two words of my post and thus screech your reply whilst calling me what, a communist? Hardly. Read the rest of it and think it over a bit longer.

      By correctly I mean simply... steal or do not. Drive drunk or do not. Be responsible for your own actions or do not. Are those not simple choices between "correct" and not correct? Would we not be better off with one choice vs. the other? That has naught to do with the P.R.C. which also, by the way, is not my idea of freedom. Take your sophomoric debate tactics and get back to study hall, junior.

      Just once I'd like to read in the news of someone asserting his responsibilities instead of his 'rights'.

    43. Re:Innocent times? by zcat_NZ · · Score: 1

      I vaguely recall reading of someone referring to Nelson Mandela as "African-American", but I can't remember the exact context and I can't find it through Google so perhaps it was someone else.

      --
      455fe10422ca29c4933f95052b792ab2
    44. Re:Innocent times? by Alphtoo · · Score: 1

      Amen, Blondie-Wan! Just about the only things we can count upon as being a true bipartisan effort these days is the decimation of the US Constitution, Bill of Rights, and the rights of the US citizens. Both major parties seem equally committed to these goals, and I confess to having become annoyed. I find myself wishing we had another viable alternative to the "parties that be" that would restore our laws to conform with the Constitution, and the vision of our Nation's Founders. Oh, and check out The Federalist website. They don't care whose toes they step on.

    45. Re:Innocent times? by Alphtoo · · Score: 1

      Anyone born in America (Canada, USA, Mexico, Peru, etc.) is native to the land upon which they were born, making them "native Americans". I guess if you capitalize "Native" that makes a difference. I'm still having trouble dealing with folks who use the term "America" as if it only applied to the USA; it doesn't, and I'm a proud citizen of the USA. Oh, and yes, Blondie-Wan, though the US is a great country, we can always use some improvements. I hope you vote.

    46. Re:Innocent times? by praksys · · Score: 1

      Maybe you had better contact the DoD and set them straight. They seem to be pretty sure that they commisioned ARPANET with nuclear attack in mind.

    47. Re:Innocent times? by Shoggoth+of+Maul · · Score: 1

      At the risk of sounding like I'm just another idiot on IRC, LOL.

      I don't expect the 'States to be perfect, and anyone who does just doesn't want to acknowledge the country for one reason or another.

      "more innocent times" obviously refers to dates = 9/10/01, when the mainland (or homeland, as it is more recently known) was inaccessible to hostiles from without (although we were vulnerable from within, a la Oaklahoma City).

      As TIA goes, I think that the American people deserve to know as much as possible about what the program is doing. Supposedly, though, it's a centralization of all intelligence/think-tank. Which may be a good thing (simple) or a bad thing (too complicated and/or bureaucratic). It remains to be seen.

  2. So basically... by k03+kalle · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What they are trying to do is make us believe that this is a feature, and not a bug? Are members of our government actually human? Or is this a ploy to steal all of our freedoms right out from under us. Next thing I know I'll be sitting alone in my room afraid to say anything because they might be listening. My TV will always be on because there will be no way to ever turn it off, and my name will be changed to something lame like Winston.

    1. Re:So basically... by antiMStroll · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Are members of our government actually human?

      Of course they are, they just consider you slightly less than human.

    2. Re:So basically... by puppetluva · · Score: 1

      It'll be worse.

      Your name will be Winston Lights.

    3. Re:So basically... by mlush · · Score: 1
      ...and my name will be changed to something lame like Winston.

      No, a satistical analysis of the TIA databases indicates that people called Winston are trouble makers. All people called Winston will be taken away and inhumed without trial

  3. The State.. by NeoTron · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Remember that it's the State who will define who an "evildoer" is, and what constitutes "evildoing".

    Doesn't matter what it's called, Orwellian surveillance systems will always be a gross breach of a citizen's right to privacy, and will always be open to abuse by those in power.

    1. Re:The State.. by jkrise · · Score: 5, Funny

      "it's the State who will define who an "evildoer""

      No need. The State can define a new term 'Potnetial Terrorist' and we'd all be included - in effect it becomes Total Info Awareness. Sometime back I posted a series of definitions that could be used:

      Potential Terrorist - All of us.
      Kinetic terrorist - Mobile phone users.
      Intellectual terrorists - Reverse-engineers
      Organised potential terrorists - Linux User Groups
      e-terrorists - internet users

      and so on... No need to be bashful before ordering surveillance on all and sundry.

      --
      If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
    2. Re:The State.. by Col.+Klink+(retired) · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Also remember that the State once considered Martin Luther King, Jr. an "evildoer".

      --

      -- Don't Tase me, bro!

    3. Re:The State.. by Suidae · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I really don't see total information awareness as a bad thing, its just a logical use of our increasing technology. What we need is to make sure that places that are private stay that way (ie, make it illegal to snoop inside private residences without a warrant etc), and that we never attempt to convict people on what we think they are likely to do (within reason).

      If they do it right, total information awareness will simply be much more efficent use of the information that is now available, but that we don't have the manpower to collect and analize. Citizens who wish not to expose details of their lives to scrutney will need to plug their information leaks.

      Think of the total information awarness program as a hacker with a sniffer, if you want stuff private, you damn well better not leave it hanging out where anyone who cares to look can see it.

    4. Re:The State.. by u-235-sentinel · · Score: 1

      What's sad is this has been predicted of our great country now for years. This sounds like a good idea however eventually it will be used against private citizens.

      Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it is sound advice.

      I don't want to be a gloom and doom naysayer however you must admit, we're falling into the hole again :/

      --
      Has Comcast disconnected your Internet account? Same here. You can read about it at http://comcastissue.blogspot.com
    5. Re:The State.. by lendude · · Score: 3, Funny
      "...but that we don't have the manpower to collect and analize."
      I think you've pretty much got the gist of TIA right there.
      --
      "Get off the cross - we need the wood" - Tori Amos
    6. Re:The State.. by Suidae · · Score: 1

      Now drop your drawers and bend over

      I'll plug my own leaks, thanks.

    7. Re:The State.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      And don't forget the FBI files on Einstein. Anyone is eligible for such a charming as 'evildoer.'

    8. Re:The State.. by rot26 · · Score: 1

      collect and analize

      You have unintentionally hit the nail on the head.
      I couldn't think of a more perfect term to describe this abomination that "analizing".

      --



      To ensure perfect aim, shoot first and call whatever you hit the target
    9. Re:The State.. by schlach · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The problem is that knowing that your life is under scrutiny at all times will cause you to lead it differently, even if you weren't at all criminal before. Knowing that buying a book about Islam will get you red-flagged at the airport will likely lead you to refrain from doing so. At the point that you have changed the way you live your life because of fears about repercussions from the State, you are no longer free.

      If you think that's worth it, sign up. But there's 200,000 of us here ready to fight to prevent it, because we know that it won't make us safer, just less free.

    10. Re:The State.. by Melantha_Bacchae · · Score: 2, Interesting

      NeoTron wrote:

      > Remember that it's the State who will define who an
      > "evildoer" is, and what constitutes "evildoing".

      Yep, and in the state of California, the California Anti-Terrorism Information Center (CATIC) is now giving terrorism warnings on non-violent peace protests. Dissent now equals terrorism.

      > Orwellian surveillance systems will always be a gross
      > breach of a citizen's right to privacy,

      Say rather "a citizen's right to security", for that is what the right really is. According to the Fourth Ammendment to the US Constitution:

      "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated... "

      Now when the government goes on about you giving up your rights for security, you can laugh at them: "You want me to give up my right to be secure for security?!?". And once the people of the US understand they have a constitutionally guaranteed right of security from searches (they understand free speech pretty well), they will tell the government where to take such idiotic ideas as TIA.

      > will always be open to abuse by those in power.

      Especially by departments of Homeland Security that don't have much to do and want to justify their existence. CATIC for example.

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

    11. Re:The State.. by bmillerward · · Score: 1
      I really don't see total information awareness as a bad thing, its just a logical use of our increasing technology.

      ...as would be a 'Borg collective.

  4. Promises by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    but it will only be used against evildoers

    You don't say. Whom did they intend to use it against if congress hadn't stopped them? Anyone who changes sides because of an argument like that deserves to be deported to a police state where, of course, all laws are for the good of the people, too.

    1. Re:Promises by cyclemenow · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Even if the intentions of all who have access to such an extensive database are indeed pure, its very existence compromises my own personal feeling of security.

    2. Re:Promises by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Anyone who changes sides because of an argument like that deserves to be deported to a police state

      No need. The police state is already coming to you.

    3. Re:Promises by Joe+the+Lesser · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And the evildoers are still the muslums right? So I'm okay and can favor this law? Good.

      --
      "I only speak the truth"
      Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
    4. Re:Promises by macdaddy357 · · Score: 1

      I am a member of what Bushy considers a group of "evil-doers", the Democratic party. Do they have a dossier on me?

      --
      How ya like dat?
    5. Re:Promises by Blondie-Wan · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I can't speak for the poster to whom you're responding, but I was a registered Democrat during both of Clinton's campaigns (I later became an independent), yet I never voted for him; I just didn't trust him. My mistrust was borne out when his administration tried to push the Clipper chip, among other things, which I found very disturbing and which I told others about. So, no, at least for some of us, government isn't necessarily "just so *great*" when our party's in power; there are some of us (on both the left and right) who don't simply blindly accept whatever our leaders do just because they're ostensibly on our side of the political fence. How about you?

    6. Re:Promises by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Likewise. I'm generally a Republican (for economic reasons) but in the recent Calif. governor election, we had a choice between a Democrat who is a proven idiot, and a Republican who is demonstrably slime (and a few 3rd party candidates who didn't seem like bad people but were far too clueless to hold a major office). I couldn't bring myself to vote for any of them.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    7. Re:Promises by Tony-A · · Score: 1

      The Taliban wanted to make it a war of Muslim against the USA.
      Personally, I do NOT want to support the Taliban or their ideas of what is right. Figure that the enemy is the lunatic fringe. Of ANY persuasion.

    8. Re:Promises by snarfer · · Score: 1

      The Clipper Chip was an attempt to get us all using encryption. It was an ENCRYPTION chip that would be in computers and phones! EVERYONE would have been using encryption!

      If you were afraid of the governemnt listening in (even though your message was encrypted by the Clipper chip) you could just use PGP before sending your message.

      The RESULT of the paranoia about the clipper chip is that NO ONE is now using encryption. The Clipper chip was an attemt to get us USING encryption.

    9. Re:Promises by rot26 · · Score: 1

      The RESULT of the paranoia about the clipper chip is that NO ONE is now using encryption.

      Huh?

      You mean it doesn't count as encryption if there's no backdoor for the FBI to use?

      --



      To ensure perfect aim, shoot first and call whatever you hit the target
    10. Re:Promises by mattsucks · · Score: 3, Funny

      Whom did they intend to use it against if congress hadn't stopped them?

      Runaway Texas Democratic legistators

    11. Re:Promises by be-fan · · Score: 1

      Ah! So the first thing to do is take out those hate-spreading mullahs Jerry Falwell and Franklin Graham!

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
    12. Re:Promises by Bluesman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How about me? I'm suspicious of anyone who proposes an increase in the amount or power of government as an answer to a problem. Beyond a certain few minimal services, like defense, the effectiveness of government diminishes.

      I'm loathe to call government "evil," however, especially since I've seen it first hand and would be lying if I didn't say all other adjectives besides "inefficient" are lies. The Slashdot crowd seems to have a problem reconciling the morality of things that they don't agree with. Government, democracy, capitalism, and especially corporations aren't inherintly evil entities.

      Those that think so have traded the simple "everything is great" view of the world for the equally simple "everything is a conspiracy." In reality, our government is a lot more complex than that, and many things start with the best of intentions and are misused by unscruplous individuals later. Those that think that our politicians exist to enslave the population are naive. This indeed may happen, but more through a comedy of errors than any malicious intent. What you should be scared of are the ignorant people with the doomsday prophecies...when they start asking for money, better watch out.

      I'm pretty sure this is one of those cases.

      You know what would be the best way to combat terrorism in this country? Stop watching TV, stop attending protests far away from where you live, stop reading this post, and go introduce yourself to your neighbors. Bring them some wine. Have a chat.

      The only reason terrorism is a threat today is because people don't know who they're living right next door to. Could be a terrorist, could be a serial killer, could be a really nice guy. But I find the fact that there can be sleeper cells of terrorists in this country that nobody knows about because everyone exists in their own little enclosed world cut off to even the people who live on the other side of their walls to be the most disturbing thing about this whole affair.

      --
      If moderation could change anything, it would be illegal.
    13. Re:Promises by ckimyt · · Score: 1
      Even if the intentions of all who have access to such an extensive database are indeed pure, its very existence compromises my own personal feeling of security.
      Well I suggest you stop living in the 21st century. Your personal feeling of security is obviously based too much on your illusion of privacy. The longer you cling to this fantastic notion that people won't know what you're doing the longer you'll be tormented.

      Seriously folks...why is it that "rights" and "freedom" are inextricably bound (in the eyes of 99.9% of /.) to "privacy?"

      If there was a government agency that would watch me and my family 24/7 to ensure that crimes aren't being committed, that would be great! No "evil-doer" would even consider robbing or mugging or raping or killing one of us...100% chance of being caught! I don't commit crimes...

      I think that's the crux of the issue...make sure that stupid stuff isn't made illegal. Make stiff discouraging harsh penalties for violent crimes. And watch everything.

      If we have a decent legal code, then why would anyone be ashamed to expose the way they live their lives? Are we all that ashamed of our inner feelings and desires and, well, whatever that privacy is mandatory in a free and peaceful society?

      I sure hope not, 'cause everybody's gonna keep getting watched more and more, guaranteed.

      --

      Putting the sig back into +1, Insightful since 1995!
    14. Re:Promises by snarfer · · Score: 1

      I do not know of a single person using encryption, including for business correspondence. Are you claiming that masses of people are using encryption?

    15. Re:Promises by rot26 · · Score: 1

      I know quite a few people using encryption, but that doesn't mean any more than the factoid that you DON'T know anyone using it.

      Maybe it's my definition of encryption, because I would certainly include things like SSL, SSH, etc, which are used so commonly as to not even register on the average user's consciousness. (i.e. possibly you don't pay attention to the little lock icon in the corner of your browser, but it's there and if you browse much at all, it flops back and forth between locked and unlocked fairly regularly.)

      --



      To ensure perfect aim, shoot first and call whatever you hit the target
    16. Re:Promises by DeputySpade · · Score: 1

      Where the hell are my mod points when I need them? With your permission, I'll be emailing a link to this post to most everyone I know.

      --


      This space intentionally left blank
    17. Re:Promises by pompomtom · · Score: 1

      It wouldn't hurt!

      --

      Buckets,

      pompomtom

      "There's an exception to every rule. Except for some rules"
    18. Re:Promises by Moofie · · Score: 1

      You have /utterly failed/ to understand the point.

      I've got no problem with being protected from people who commit crimes. I have an ENORMOUS problem with being "protected" from people who might think occasionally, with varying degrees of intent and peripheral action, about committing crimes.

      I also have a huge problem with extending the definition of "crime" to include non-harmful activities.

      Like carrying a freakin' 1" pocket knife onto an airplane.

      Do you not understand that surveillance is power and power WILL (not might, not could, WILL) be abused?

      If you're comfortable with the idea that the government is going to know everything you do from now until the day you die, you aren't a very good student of history.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    19. Re:Promises by Moofie · · Score: 1

      Just as soon as they start killing people, yes.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    20. Re:Promises by be-fan · · Score: 1

      The mullahs that everyone gets so worked up about don't kill people. They teach students to hate the West and Israel. Try researching words you don't know before posting...

      PS> Strictly, the word "mullah" means any Islamic religious leader. However, it has taken a rather negative connotation in the US, where the word "mullah" is associated with certain Islamic teachers that encourage hate of the West, and among progressive Muslims, who associate mullahs with the conservative segments of their religion.

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
    21. Re:Promises by phil-is-math · · Score: 1

      you sir have hit the nail on the head. People are so poor at being "people" they lock themselves up in tiny worlds of delusion and inner circles where those delusions can be perpetuated. Why? there are so many reason, and now, terrorism can be one of them. .. "Why Scream? when you can lose yourself inside the Wide screen?" -Atmosphere

      --
      Word to me.
  5. Rebranding by kinnell · · Score: 4, Insightful

    While they're at it, maybe they should change the logo as well to something less sinister, and appoint someone who is not a convicted criminal to run it.

    --
    If I seem short sighted, it is because I stand on the shoulders of midgets
    1. Re:Rebranding by blibbleblobble · · Score: 1

      "While they're at it, maybe they should change the logo as well to something less sinister, and appoint someone who is not a convicted criminal to run it."

      Is the 'seeing-eye' masonic logo not on the back of a US dollar bill?

      Damned right about Poindexter though. Scandal? What scandal?

    2. Re:Rebranding by kinnell · · Score: 1
      Is the 'seeing-eye' masonic logo not on the back of a US dollar bill?

      Does that make it any less sinister?

      --
      If I seem short sighted, it is because I stand on the shoulders of midgets
    3. Re:Rebranding by kinnell · · Score: 1

      Posting a comment like that without a link to substantiate it doesn't inspire confidence either. Why not try educating people you disagree with, instead of trolling?

      --
      If I seem short sighted, it is because I stand on the shoulders of midgets
    4. Re:Rebranding by elefantstn · · Score: 1, Offtopic
      From an interview with the article's author on CNN:

      HARRIS: Is it your belief right now based upon your investigation that this rescue of Lynch was in any way a staged event and not real?

      KAMPFNER: No. First things first. Credit where it is due. The Americans had a legitimate right in getting Lynch out of the hospital in Nasiriya. They had no way of knowing what her fate was, whether she was being well or badly treated.
      --
      If it ain't broke, you need more software.
    5. Re:Rebranding by elefantstn · · Score: 1

      His sig says "The Jessica Lynch story was faked." When asked if he thought the rescue was faked, the author specifically said "no, it wasn't."

      --
      If it ain't broke, you need more software.
    6. Re:Rebranding by kinnell · · Score: 1

      In what way is this a denial? He just confirms everything in the BBC article. The pentagon is still refusing to present anything which could reasonably be used to refute the allegations. Jessica Lynch is still sufferring from her mysterious memory loss AFAIK. But that's the power of doublethink, I suppose.

      --
      If I seem short sighted, it is because I stand on the shoulders of midgets
    7. Re:Rebranding by elefantstn · · Score: 1

      Not to reply twice, but it's pretty obvious that the BBC "journalist" has a lot of trouble with the facts as well -- despite the fact that the US military refuses to ever comment on Lynch's injuries (as it would be against the Privacy Act to do so), he repeatedly refers to the story that she was shot and stabbed as the "official US account." How can you trust someone so ignorant of the actual situation?

      --
      If it ain't broke, you need more software.
    8. Re:Rebranding by elefantstn · · Score: 1

      The Pentagon is LEGALLY PROHIBITED from commenting on injuries to troops.

      And didn't any of the original story strike as even remotely questionable? Like the fact that the
      BBC reporter didn't question the account of the Iraqi doctor responsible for her care? Would the fact that mistreatment of Lynch while a POW under his care would be enough to convict him of a war crime have ANY bearing on his account? No, of course not. But hey, he's not American, so it's not like he could possibly lie.

      --
      If it ain't broke, you need more software.
    9. Re:Rebranding by pubjames · · Score: 1

      despite the fact that the US military refuses to ever comment on Lynch's injuries (as it would be against the Privacy Act to do so),

      Erm... If it is against the Privacy Act to comment on injuries, why did they say that Lynch had been shot and stabbed in the first place..?

    10. Re:Rebranding by elefantstn · · Score: 1

      They didn't. Some media agencies carried that story.

      --
      If it ain't broke, you need more software.
    11. Re:Rebranding by kinnell · · Score: 1
      The Pentagon is LEGALLY PROHIBITED from commenting on injuries to troops.

      But the pentagon is not legally prohibited from releasing the raw footage of the incident. Why would they not do this?

      Like the fact that the BBC reporter didn't question the account of the Iraqi doctor responsible for her care?

      He did - he gave the pentagon ample opportunity to refute the claims which they refused to do.

      Would the fact that mistreatment of Lynch while a POW under his care would be enough to convict him of a war crime have ANY bearing on his account?

      I don't remeber hearing any allegations of war crimes being committed. Oh, wait - he's muslim, he must be a war criminal.

      If you think that pentagon never lies, you are deluding yourself. It's common knowledge that the media version of Gulf War I was a practically a complete fabrication. Many american journalists openly admitted to being knowingly misled as the true story later unfolded. If you believe they've suddenly decided to stop media management out of the goodness of their hearts, then I feel sorry for you.

      --
      If I seem short sighted, it is because I stand on the shoulders of midgets
    12. Re:Rebranding by kinnell · · Score: 1
      Some media agencies carried that story

      So how did the agency find out. was it...

      1. Leaked by someone in the pentagon?
      2. Jessica Lynch was medically examined by journalists?
      3. The journalists had their own qualified doctor along for the ride?
      --
      If I seem short sighted, it is because I stand on the shoulders of midgets
    13. Re:Rebranding by elefantstn · · Score: 1
      But the pentagon is not legally prohibited from releasing the raw footage of the incident. Why would they not do this?


      The Pentagon likely has plenty of reasons not to release raw footage of its operations -- protecting their knowledge of how these operations are carried out is one of them.

      He did - he gave the pentagon ample opportunity to refute the claims which they refused to do.


      And as I've said before, he asked questions the Pentagon couldn't answer -- if he asks, "Is it true or not that Pvt. Lynch was wounded?", the Pentagon cannot legally respond.

      I don't remeber hearing any allegations of war crimes being committed. Oh, wait - he's muslim, he must be a war criminal.


      Aha ha ha ha! The slashbot "Oh wait!" I never get tired of that.

      But to address your slightly less infantile prior point -- I didn't raise accusations of war crimes. I said that the Iraqi doctor may have had something to hide which would taint his story. Did he actually? We don't know, and the BBC reporter couldn't be bothered to press him and look for inconsistencies in his story to either prove or disprove it, because the story fit his preconceived "scoop." He wanted a "The Lynch Story Was Faked" headline, not the actual truth either way.

      If you think that pentagon never lies, you are deluding yourself. It's common knowledge that the media version of Gulf War I was a practically a complete fabrication. Many american journalists openly admitted to being knowingly misled as the true story later unfolded. If you believe they've suddenly decided to stop media management out of the goodness of their hearts, then I feel sorry for you.


      I didn't say the Pentagon never lies, I said they're not lying in this particular instance. If you're so blinded by your belief that you're one of the lone iconoclasts standing up against media manipulation that you're willing to swallow any anti-Pentagon story, then I'll return the favor of feeling sorry for you.
      --
      If it ain't broke, you need more software.
    14. Re:Rebranding by elefantstn · · Score: 1

      4. A rumor among troops reporters were embedded with?
      5. A rumor among the journalists themselves?

      You leave out an enormous amount of ways stories get started, but as long as your preconceived Pentagon conspiracy angle is in there...

      --
      If it ain't broke, you need more software.
    15. Re:Rebranding by kinnell · · Score: 1
      I said they're not lying in this particular instance

      Actually what you originally said was that I was stupid because my sig pointed to a fabricated story, a claim which you can't offer any evidence to support aside from your own opinions. Fine they're your opinions, but it's my sig. If you don't like it, don't read my posts.

      --
      If I seem short sighted, it is because I stand on the shoulders of midgets
    16. Re:Rebranding by elefantstn · · Score: 1

      Your sig, though, is factually wrong. Even the author of the BBC story is not saying anymore that the rescue was faked.

      --
      If it ain't broke, you need more software.
    17. Re:Rebranding by kinnell · · Score: 1

      Rumours? Surely the reporters would have taken the trouble to question and investigate these rumours. So if a reporter prints a story based on evidence from two named sources you call it bad reporting and don't believe it, but on the other hand you are prepared to take unconfirmed reporting based on rumours from unspecified sources as the truth. Why do you even bother reading the news?

      --
      If I seem short sighted, it is because I stand on the shoulders of midgets
    18. Re:Rebranding by elefantstn · · Score: 1

      When did I say I believed the "Jessica Lynch was shot" rumors? I never said it was true, or provable, or that I believed it. I just said it didn't originate with the Pentagon.

      Sheesh, read my posts.

      --
      If it ain't broke, you need more software.
    19. Re:Rebranding by kinnell · · Score: 1

      That depends on your interpretation of rescue. I my opinion, what they did was no more a "rescue" than collecting a pizza you ordered is a "rescue". So yes, the "rescue" part was faked, and my sig is not factually wrong until proven otherwise.

      --
      If I seem short sighted, it is because I stand on the shoulders of midgets
    20. Re:Rebranding by elefantstn · · Score: 1

      Actually, rumors are factually false until proven otherwise. This isn't a criminal trial here.

      --
      If it ain't broke, you need more software.
    21. Re:Rebranding by kinnell · · Score: 1
      Actually, rumors are factually false until proven otherwise

      If that's your stance, you're hardly in a position to call my sig factually false, are you.

      --
      If I seem short sighted, it is because I stand on the shoulders of midgets
    22. Re:Rebranding by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      Actually, I would call your sig 'factually unsubstantiated'. And I can readily concede that you would refer to the Pentagon's official report in the same manner.

      Having read a little bit on the matter, it seems the truth is somewhere in the middle. Lynch wasn't in as grave danger as the official reports suggest. However, it's about 99.99% certain that the US Army troops weren't firing blanks when raiding the hospital.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
  6. You have to laugh at the US way by Loosewire · · Score: 3, Funny

    Darpa-"Hey were going to collect all your data so we can know everything about you"
    Congress-"Hmm that sounds like it could invade peoples privacy"
    Darpa"Ok - well err hmm its for terrorism"
    Congress-"Well why didnt you say so , do whatever you want"
    i wonder if the riaa will try this to get their anti piracy laws through- they probly already are :-(

    --
    Slashdot - The one stop shop for procrastination
    1. Re:You have to laugh at the US way by Loosewire · · Score: 1

      by "its for terrorism" i meant its for fighting terrorism. I thaught it was kinda implied beacuse the main story said they had changed it to a force against terrorism. The US and UK seem to be rushing all their new laws that disregard our privacy through under anti terrorism banners...

      --
      Slashdot - The one stop shop for procrastination
    2. Re:You have to laugh at the US way by Ed+Drone · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What bothers me, in addition to the purported use this huge database will be put to (even if only done with the best of intentions, and we know what road is paved with those) is the security of the damned data once collected. When IRS folks "just take a look at" celebreties' tax returns, when policemen regularly skim through data unrelated to any active case ("Wonder if my ex-wife's new boyfriend is in here?"), when hackers can get 10,000 SSNs or credit card numbers, so why not a quick download of info on random citizens, then I worry. I worry a lot.

      We all know that no widely-shared data is safeguarded very well, and the wider the user base, the less security (how many does it take to keep a secret? -- one, of course). So the mere collection of this stuff will lead to leakage of the stuff.

      And if it's no more accurate than the records they keep now, well, need I say more?

      Can you spell "recipe for disaster?" I knew you could. Next week, we'll learn how to say, "I hold in my hand the names of 26 known Communists in the State Department."

      Ed Drone (been there, done that, and the T-shirt doesn't fit any more)

    3. Re:You have to laugh at the US way by snarfer · · Score: 1

      Exactly. I'd go a bit further - putting John Poindexter in charge tells us they INTEND TO use it to spy on Democrats. He has already been convicted of this kind of crime.

      It amazes me that the same people who were paranoid about the Clipper chip -- designed to get us all to start encrypting - because there was the possibility that the government could listen in if they broke several laws to get hold of the key -- these same people are ADVOCATING this project which is THE GOVERNMENT COLLECTING ALL THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE ABOUT ALL OF US INCLUDING READING OUR E-MAIL AND LISTENING TO OUR CALLS!!!!! It shows the power of ideology and propaganda to manipulate.

    4. Re:You have to laugh at the US way by PetWolverine · · Score: 1
      Can you spell "recipe for disaster?"

      Thsi is /., f00l! WOh cn spel anthinh heer? wer'e l337, we dont need you're stoopd "speling.
      --
      I found the meaning of life the other day, but I had write-only access.
  7. abuse it happend before by KingRamsis · · Score: 4, Insightful

    but it will only be used against evildoers

    Should the government be trusted ? I don't think so, given this and this I don't think their history is so clean.

  8. Not a bit worried... by Soulfarmer · · Score: 5, Interesting

    You in the US have been and always will be circling the same issues about security and rights of freedom etc. You need to feel hugely secure about yourselves, and still cling to your freedom of speech and freedom to bear arms. Would you feel lot safer with modified laws about all of those? Neither one cannot be compromised. Make an omelette without violating the rights of the egg.

    Well, I find it merely amusing. That's all.

    --
    -Is the meaning of life vanity, or is vanity the meaning of life?
    1. Re:Not a bit worried... by sstamps · · Score: 4, Interesting

      No, you (and the morons in our government) have it all wrong...

      It is EXACTLY because I have freedom of speech and can arm myself, EVEN against my own government, once it proves to have become the totalitarian state that our Founding Fathers feared, that I feel "secure".

      Security comes from knowing that I have certain inalienable human rights, including the absolute right to defend them, even to the detriment of my own government.

      But, ssshhhhh! Don't tell anyone else! That's called "terrorism" today.

      Bastards.

      --
      -SS "Teach the ignorant, care for the dumb, and punish the stupid."
    2. Re:Not a bit worried... by lostboy2 · · Score: 1

      YoYou in the US have been and always will be circling the same issues about security and rights of freedom etc

      Hmmm... doesn't this paradox apply to everyone who wants both security and freedom, not just to the US? How have people in other countries resolved this issue?

      I don't mean this as a flame -- if someone else has figured this out, I really want to know. :)

    3. Re:Not a bit worried... by ScooterBill · · Score: 2, Insightful

      True security is not found in the military. Look at Israel, do they live in a secure state? How do you feel about security in the US and abroad these days now that we've asserted ourselves via our military.

      The best way to be secure is to be on good terms will ALL your neighbors, respect their ideas and their rights to express them, treat people fairly as if you would like the same treatment, and remember that the use of deadly force is a last chance means of survival.

      M

    4. Re:Not a bit worried... by Soulfarmer · · Score: 1

      ScooterBill said it, now I can rest my case.

      If push and shove does not meet, there is no conflict. No need for the push and the shove. You Bush things out of their ways, and things tell you to shove it. And by You, I mean The US like it is seen from here.

      Also, difference of opinion is not a flamebait

      --
      -Is the meaning of life vanity, or is vanity the meaning of life?
    5. Re:Not a bit worried... by kcbrown · · Score: 1
      It is EXACTLY because I have freedom of speech and can arm myself, EVEN against my own government, once it proves to have become the totalitarian state that our Founding Fathers feared, that I feel "secure".
      Your feeling of security is ill-founded. The only reason the 2nd Amendment isn't opposed by everyone in government is that the arms that civilians are allowed to bear are useless against a well-armed, modern military.

      Remember: it took weeks of planning and preparation for Timothy McVeigh to blow up a single building, while the same thing is done routinely by the military. And that's not even a very strong example of the disparity between military power and civilian power.

      So continue to believe in your delusion that the 2nd Amendment makes a difference if you like ... it can't hurt to have such a belief, I suppose, as long as you don't try to act on it later on. But if you (and others) do try to act on it, I guarantee that you will fail -- the peashooters you're allowed to arm yourself with are no match for the weaponry and armor available to the military (and guess who the military works for?).

      --
      Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
    6. Re:Not a bit worried... by lostboy2 · · Score: 1

      Also, difference of opinion is not a flamebait.

      Well, amusingly, I didn't and don't disagree with you. I just think that every country has to deal with the conflict between its desire to be free and its desire to be "secure", not just the US.

      In my opinion, the way the US is dealing with that conflict is not good (right now, the US is taking that security thing way too far). So, my question was to find out how other countries deal with that same conflict.

      For example, does Israel use the same the level of surveillance of its own citizens that the US seems to be approaching? If so, are the Israeli people comfortable with that (as a necessary sacrifice for security, perhaps)? Or, are the Israeli people willing to accept a certain amount of "successful" terrorist acts in favor of maintaining their privacy and civil liberties?

      How about other countries?

      I'm just curious. :)

    7. Re:Not a bit worried... by sstamps · · Score: 1

      That's because it has been watered-down over the last century in DIRECT VIOLATION of its terms. In its original intent, it WAS meant that citizens should own and maintain arms sufficient to be effective in an uprising against the government (including "weapons of mass destruction"; in those times, cannons and such). However, there was also intended to be a balance; one which was tested in the Civil War, and ever since then, the government has made every effort to limit the scope of the 2nd amendment to prevent it from happening again.

      You are also discounting several key factors:

      1) That those in the military will stay loyal to the government in the next civil war; that they will willingly shoot (or order the shooting of) their brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers, sons and daughters, neighbors, etc. Of course, the government already has contingencies in place to deal with that problem; they have worked out plans with the UN to bring in foreign military personnel to enforce martial law and assert control over a warring populace, in violation of the Constitution.
      2) That civilians will have access to far more than simply pistols and rifles. I hate to tell ya, but Iraqis are STILL killing our soldiers right now, with "pea shooters". Plus, the vast majority of materials that can be quickly and easily converted to effective munitions is in the possession of civilians. Even today, you can easily obtain the materials to make just about any kind of explosive munition you want; the info is available, so are the materials. Nothing new here.
      3) That there are FAR more ARMED civilians than military personnel in the armed forces.
      4) That other countries and third parties would be willing to supply more effective weapons to the opposition.

      So, forgive me for not subscribing to your guarantee, as there are more factors involved in this than simply what specific classes of weapons are currently allowed under the current perversion of the Second Amendment.

      Yeah, the military CAN pull out all the stops and whip out the nukes and ueber-bombs, but I think that their use would prove the point of the opposition to the government in an armed conflict by civilians. It would make our government no better than Saddam's regime, and prove to the rest of the world that it needs to go away as well.

      --
      -SS "Teach the ignorant, care for the dumb, and punish the stupid."
  9. wow by dakers27 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I like how they changed nothing about this plan exept for the name, Do they really think we're all that stupid?!

    1. Re:wow by switched4OSX · · Score: 1

      Well, these are the same type of people who told us that there was a lone gun man who killed JFK.

    2. Re:wow by Soulfarmer · · Score: 1

      Can't help myself. If some Europeans feel that way about you "Americans", why wouldn't some of your own people? :D

      --
      -Is the meaning of life vanity, or is vanity the meaning of life?
    3. Re:wow by kahei · · Score: 1, Insightful


      Heh heh, of course they don't think we're that stupid. Why, it'd be stupid to think the good ol' US Public is that stupid!

      Now, let's see, what percentage of Americans believe in Creation Science...?

      Ooooooooooooohh.

      --
      Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
    4. Re:wow by dakers27 · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Of course the answer to my question was "yes" :), and the sad thing that most people here are... I don't know what percentage of people believe in Creation Science, but i'd be willing to wager that it's about the same percentage that go for shit like this. No wonder republicans cater to the more religious people, if someone believes all the bullshit that goes along with christianity, then selling them on other outrageous ideas isn't nearly as hard.

    5. Re:wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      "You know how stupid the average person is? Well, statistically, half of them are even dumber than that" - Lewton, P.I. (Discworld Noir)

      Or a resounding yes, people really are stupid enough to swallow this.

    6. Re:wow by I+am+Emmitt+Smith · · Score: 1

      How does this not get modded down as flaimbait? Everyone who has beliefs different from your's is stupid? Talk about intolerance.

      --
      *The Bill of Rights - void where prohibited by law
    7. Re:wow by Eric_Cartman_South_P · · Score: 1
      Awesome post. You put to works what I was just thinking.

    8. Re:wow by Dyolf+Knip · · Score: 1
      So if I believe the world is flat and Santa Claus lives at the North Pole you are obligated to respect it? Oh please...

      Beliefs about things that are ambiguous or uncertain are one thing. In such cases, they are usually called opinions. Belief without any care for reason or logic and in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary are foolish. The currently held theories about the formation of this planet and the development of life are as much scientific fact as gravity. And as you may or may not know, even though the Theory of Gravity was proven to not hold true under certain circumstances, its applicability for situations where absolute precision is not required remains as good as ever. Let's face it; there's no amount of study we can ever do that will suddenly show that Earth is not round or that Luna is really made of green cheese and has a cream-filled center.

      --
      Dyolf Knip
    9. Re:wow by I+am+Emmitt+Smith · · Score: 1

      This is where we are going to have to agree to disagree. You believe that evolution is true. I believe that an omnipotent being could create anything he wanted, even a world where evolution appears to be true. Therefore, I believe that it is ambiguous and uncertain. For me to assume to know the mind of God, would be absurd. If I could, he wouldn't be God. For the record, I don't really have an opinion on evolution. It's just not important to me. But even if it is true that doesn't mean that if God exists he couldn't have guided it.

      --
      *The Bill of Rights - void where prohibited by law
    10. Re:wow by Dyolf+Knip · · Score: 1
      You believe that evolution is true

      No, I don't _believe_ evolution is true. Do you _believe_ that you can breathe air? Do you _believe_ that when you drop a brick it'll fall down? It is not the sort of thing that needs to be taken on faith alone.

      I believe that an omnipotent being could create anything he wanted, even a world where evolution appears to be true

      That particular line of reasoning makes you capable of convincing yourself of anything. Solipsism, aliens running the government, two-headed elvis clones, and the belief that Atlantis will rise again are all within the delusional fantasy realm of religion. You want to believe in something that can't be proven? Fine, be my guest. I happen to like cats more than dogs and good luck trying to convince me otherwise. But the minute you actually let it interfere with things that can be be discussed rationally is when I cease to take you seriously.

      On rereading this, I do apologize if I come off as extremely rude. I _believe_ that the worst thing a person can do with their brain is to not use it. To blindly believe in something because it sounds good, without ever acknowledging the possibility that self-gratification is the real reason for doing so seems to me to be the intellectual equivalent of self-mutilation. Can you honestly respect a religion in which the Head Honcho gives you intelligence just so he can punish you for have the audacity to use it?

      --
      Dyolf Knip
  10. We're all "evildoers" by Capt'n+Hector · · Score: 5, Insightful
    and of course the problems arise when the government gets to decide who the "evildoers" are and who are regular Joes. Once the hackers start getting jailed, we will suddenly find ourselves in a situation where protestors and dissident voices are "evildoers." Amazon.com collecting my personal information for better selling me goods is one thing, the government collecting that same information towards my eventual arrest is another.

    oh yeah, that whole arresting thing is going out the window too. It's become unfashionable to arrest people, now you just throw them in a cell forever in connection with another case, one which you are not required to mention.

    The phrase, "May you live in interesting times" never sounded so scary...

    --
    Quid festinatio swallonis est aetherfuga inonusti?
    Africus aut Europaeus?
    1. Re:We're all "evildoers" by sdjunky · · Score: 1

      "Amazon.com collecting my personal information for better selling me goods is one thing, the government collecting that same information towards my eventual arrest is another."

      Ah... but that's the beauty of this project. They want to use the information that Amazon, Walmart, Sam Goodies, Your Doctor, The Vet etc. all have on you and include that with what they have such as Fiscal records etc.

      Remember that the IRS audited the subscribers of a car magazine thinking that those people probably understated their income. Of course, it came out that most of the subscribers were teenagers but it doesn't change the fact that the lesson is that Government + Private Corp databases don't mix well

  11. name change by tankdilla · · Score: 4, Funny

    Changing that T to Terrorism was brilliant. I'd forgotten for a minute that they were about to totally invade privacy. Cuz we gotta fight terrorism right, and anyone who opposes is probably a terrorist and all. They could do better though, and change it to Patriot Information Awareness, or Patriot Act II. That has a nice ring doesn't it.

    --

    -Look lively. LOOK LIVELY!!! --Mr. Shmallow

    1. Re:name change by archeopterix · · Score: 4, Funny
      They could do better though, and change it to Patriot Information Awareness, or Patriot Act II. That has a nice ring doesn't it.
      I suggest Patriotic Antiterrorist Warm and Fuzzy Information Program For Protecting the Children.
    2. Re:name change by Fesh · · Score: 1

      PAWFIPFPC? Hrm... Only problem is that it doesn't resolve to a cute acronym. You know standard ops these days is to come up with the acronym first, then try to figure out what each letter stands for...

      --
      --Fesh
      Kill -9 'em all, let root@localhost sort 'em out.
    3. Re:name change by azaroth42 · · Score: 1

      > They could do better though, and change it to Patriot Information Awareness,

      You need to keep the T in there, right before the A.
      Patriot Information Total Awareness ... PitA. Cos it's going to be a PITA for us all.

      --Azaroth

    4. Re:name change by _xeno_ · · Score: 1
      How about PEACE: Protecting Every American with a Computer Eye?

      Mmm... backroynms...

      (Actually, the military is also just as happy to take an acroynm and figure out a pronunciation by inserting implied values.)

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
    5. Re:name change by Thing+1 · · Score: 1
      How about:

      Youth Helping Betray Terrorism.

      Yes, YHBT. By the government. Whee!

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    6. Re:name change by Jonny+Ringo · · Score: 1

      True, and the new anti-rape bill will increase rape by 50%.

    7. Re:name change by intermodal · · Score: 1

      Nope...both the term "Terrorist" and "Patriot" now both scare the living shit out of me. ever since "hacking" became a crime, I live in fear that someone might choose my computer to break into and use as a hop point for their attacks, so I spend much of my time learning computer security. However, in order to learn computer security, I have to be able to scan my own network for insecurities, requring me to download tools that probably place me on potential terrorist lists, and pray to God that none of the tools I download start hitting computers outside my network when I try to scan my file server for insecurity so I can't be arrested for attempted terrorism when the government interprests my accidental portscan as attempted terrorism.

      Frankly, I support anyone who fights against anti-terrorism laws on the strict grounds that terrorism has never in the past fifty years caused more deaths than automobile accidents. The actions that are entailed by terrorism are illegal enough on their own without special treatment by law. Adding computer security to the list is an unbalanced abomination, and should be feared most not by people like myself who know enough to be scared, but by Joe Sixpack who never runs windows update. Sadly, he has no idea.

      --
      In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
  12. In other words... by kcbrown · · Score: 5, Insightful
    DARPA isn't doing a damned thing to address Congress' concerns.

    Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if, behind the scenes, DARPA says something like "well, members of Congress will, of course, be exempt!", at which point Congress will immediately approve it.

    I really wish, in this race to the bottom, some country would get there first in time to allow other countries to finally figure out that shit like this is really a very bad thing. But it looks to me like all of the countries are more or less operating in lockstep with each other, so they'll all hit bottom at about the same time.

    Still think I'm full of shit when I say that the world is going to turn itself into a police state and that the end result will be a stable form of government capable of lasting thousands of years?

    --
    Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
    1. Re:In other words... by Afrosheen · · Score: 1

      "And, name another country besides the US who has more foreign threats than domestic threats?"

      Let's see now...

      Israel?
      Iran?
      Egypt?
      Palestine?
      Iraq? (debatable)
      South Korea?

      I'm sure the list goes on and on, but those are a few more recognizable examples. Basically, nearly every developed country has stepped on someone's toes in the past, and the Middle East folks have a knack for holding a grudge...for centuries. The region has always been so wacky and unstable that the British AND the French deserted their unruly colonies there a long time ago.

      If you're gonna criticize the US, criticize foreign policy specifically, because it's at the root of all this terrorism nonsense.

      God willing, we won't have another president like Dubya that goes around whacking every beehive he sees for fun and profit. Just remember, the beekeeper never gets stung, but anyone standing nearby will.

    2. Re:In other words... by Soulfarmer · · Score: 1

      If you're gonna criticize the US, criticize foreign policy specifically, because it's at the root of all this terrorism nonsense.

      That is so true. Because US foreign policy has been what it has been, there is now the Homeland Security. From what I know. And problems with BigBrother mentality and so on.

      ...goes around whacking every beehive he sees for fun and profit.

      Iraqi oil kind of profit? No fun I know, but profit? Russia among other countries first wanted evidence of WMD, the US didn't show any. Now, since it is much more profitable (By this I mean the UN sanctions of course) for the US, they don't feel like evidence is no longer needed... since there appears to be none.

      --
      -Is the meaning of life vanity, or is vanity the meaning of life?
    3. Re:In other words... by Fesh · · Score: 1

      Maybe, maybe not. I'm willing to concede that Iraq may have had WMD before the "liberation". So where is it all?

      Put yourself in Hussein's shoes. You see Bush waffling in public on whether or not he's gonna invade, but U.S. Forces are streaming into the region on a daily basis. Hussein was (is?) evil, not stupid...

      Where's the WMD? Al Quaeda's got it all. My bet is that Hussein said, "Well, fuck. I'm not going to get to use any of this stuff. Here, go nuts. Give 'em hell." Which wouldn't have happened if Bush hadn't been so all-fired eager to keep the shit out of the hands of terrorists.

      Bet you dimes to donuts. We're orange-alert now, let's see if some of it shows up.

      --
      --Fesh
      Kill -9 'em all, let root@localhost sort 'em out.
    4. Re:In other words... by Jerf · · Score: 1

      Other countries have gotten to the bottom and we still refuse to learn from them.

      The USSR. China (at least, I don't think it's doing well.) Iraq. North Korea. In fact you're hard pressed to come up with a state at "the bottom" that didn't get there because of excessive authority given to the government.

      That's why TIA is so important to fight... because the people pushing for it are too stupid and too shortsighted to realize that it's bad, even for them. (On a number of levels... even just practically they'll never be able to handle that much information, because they're already overloaded. The solution to their problems don't lie in more information!) Morons incapable of taking a simple look around them and seeing how well similar systems have turned out. Unfortunately, if we don't stop them, they'll take us down with them.

    5. Re:In other words... by ReelOddeeo · · Score: 1

      DARPA isn't doing a damned thing to address Congress' concerns.

      They did do something to address Congress' concerns. But we all know that some people will never be happy no matter what they do.

      It is now called Terrorism Information Awareness.

      They had to change both the splash screen and the about box.

      --

      Those who would give up liberty in exchange for security and DRM should switch to Microsoft Palladium!
    6. Re:In other words... by antiMStroll · · Score: 1
      Who else is playing the role of world police?

      Cause.

      And, name another country besides the US who has more foreign threats than domestic threats?

      Effect. I'd say Iraq and Afghanistan were under greater foreign threat than the US.

    7. Re:In other words... by Thing+1 · · Score: 1
      Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if, behind the scenes, DARPA says something like "well, members of Congress will, of course, be exempt!", at which point Congress will immediately approve it.

      Actually, they should spin it the other way: all government employees will be the first ones to be monitored 24/7.

      This would go a long way toward reducing corruption, and ensuring that citizens treated by these government officials are treated fairly (on or off the job).

      Of course, this is the first step toward replacing government employees with machines, and (in my best Kent Brockman) I for one welcome our robot masters.

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    8. Re:In other words... by praedor · · Score: 1

      The term "Police State" has nothing to do with being "the world's policeman". The former is a real government style, like democracy, theocracy, fascism, etc. It is what all Western countries (and many 2nd and 3rd world countries already are) are becoming. In Great Britain, you have security cameras popping up all over bejesus so the Brit guv'mnt/police can watch everyone. In the US we are quickly following suite, only we are seeking to do one better with TIA (of course, we too have cameras popping up all over bejesus now too).


      No doubt Germany and France are following along too, all in the name of anti-terrorism blah, blah. The world IS becoming a police state. Once all the major countries have taken the amorphous final steps, they will all but blend together into a superstate made up of member police states. All for your own good, you understand.

      --
      In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
    9. Re:In other words... by kcbrown · · Score: 1
      Other countries have gotten to the bottom and we still refuse to learn from them.

      No, those don't count. None of them started off as a secular democracy. The race to the bottom is now between countries that are supposed to be "free".

      People need to be shown, in no uncertain terms, that being a secular democracy is no protection from police statehood. Enough people here on Slashdot and on Kuro5hin believe in that fallacy, so you can imagine how much of the general population is similarly deluded.

      --
      Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
    10. Re:In other words... by geekee · · Score: 1

      "If you're gonna criticize the US, criticize foreign policy specifically, because it's at the root of all this terrorism nonsense."

      Great, blame the US because a bunch of irrational bigots blame the US along with all other non-muslims for their problems. You might as well blame Jews for the holocaust while your at it. Hell, the US even helped bin Laden liberate Afghanistan from the USSR, and look how he repays the US.

      --
      Vote for Pedro
    11. Re:In other words... by Afrosheen · · Score: 1

      Well, the US does have a heavy hand in Middle East affairs. We encourage UN sanctions, push for governmental reform, and basically do everything in our power (and some things above) to make everyone there play nice with us. Don't forget about the cease fire between Israel and Egypt because we pay them foreign aid every year. We've done more in 50 years to upset the nuts in the ME than Europe has done in 250. Even the French and British gave up territories there because they were more trouble than they were worth.

      The world does have one thing to look forward to though. In 50 to 100 years, when the fossil fuel economy finally burps it's last Co2 emission, the Middle East will be irrelevant. Judging by the lethargy in the oil industry though, my timeline might be somewhat optomistic. Like I've always believed, however, if they act and invest in research now, they can maintain their stranglehold on fuel production and gently push a cleaner power source (hydrogen, Wired from 2 months ago detailed ideas).

  13. MS shows the way... by jkrise · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Sometime back, MS dropped the name Palladium and called it Next Generation Secure Computing Base, or some such silly name. The trick is to give a bad name to a bad project and then all of a sudden change the name to something else - problem solved.

    It happened with Trustworthy Computing Platform Alliance as well - TCPA is now TCG.

    Since TIA has been extensively criticized, especially at Slashdot, why not give it a very bad name indeed - Terrorist Information Awareness, and get away with it! Bright idea. The magic word terrorist seems to open all locks.

    When I get my hands on LongHorn, I'm gonna try username terrorist and password Billyboy. Should be interesting to see what happens.

    --
    If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
    1. Re:MS shows the way... by ThaReetLad · · Score: 1

      I just wonder how long it will be before wierdo groups start trying to gain respectibilty by jumping on the anti-terrorism bandwagon. You can almost imagine Satanists Against Terrorism, or Kiddie Rapists Against Terrorism etc

      One of the aims of terrorists tends to be to make governments over react and behave like totalitarian regimes. Coming up with ever more extreme, xenophobic and invasive responses only furthers the goals of terrorists by creating a larger pool of potential recruits

      --
      You can't win Darth. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
  14. 1984 twenty years late by RMH101 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Of course they think it'll work! A few month's subliminal justification on Fox and the like, and the majority of the public won't care. And even if they do, it won't matter: it'll happen anyway, there'll be a bit of a fuss which will die down eventually, and then it'll be too late.

    This is 1984 coming 20 years later than planned. What a horrible, horrible government.

  15. Ministry of Silly Walks by cmason32 · · Score: 5, Funny

    An editorial in today's NY Times notes that one of the ways the TIA will track people is by their walk. Observantly, Dowd parallels this to Monty Python's Ministry of Silly Walks. Apparently, this method of detection can be overridden by wearing a long coat.

    I feel safer already.

    1. Re:Ministry of Silly Walks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      In a related note, Segway sales are up 5000%.

  16. Acronym by nounderscores · · Score: 1

    Can't change it to PIA. The acronym is supposed to remind you of the one for "Thanks In Advance"

    Of course if they changed the program name to "Massive Information Act" the resulting acronym might be more apt.

  17. Some better news... by Paddyish · · Score: 3, Interesting
    This Slashdot story just appeared at the top of the U.S news listings on Google News.

    It appears more than a few people are concerned about total information awareness (that's what it is, and that's what I will continue to call it) and losing their basic rights. With bullsh!t like this, the US is no longer the land of the free. Police state, here we come. *starts writing futile letters to greedy representatives*

    Oh well. I wasn't using my Civil Liberties anyway.

    1. Re:Some better news... by Ioldanach · · Score: 1
      This Slashdot story just appeared at the top of the U.S news listings on Google News.

      It appears more than a few people are concerned about total information awareness

      Judging from the number of related stories (almost 200, and at least half are directly related to TIA) I'd say a lot of people are concerned. I think its time to write a congresscritter.

    2. Re:Some better news... by geekee · · Score: 1

      Where in the constitution does it say a person has a right to be anaonymous in public or that a govt agency has no right to observe and record data about a what a person is doing in public. Seriously, I'd really like to know.

      --
      Vote for Pedro
    3. Re:Some better news... by PetWolverine · · Score: 1

      How bout that 4th amendment, folks? It sure went up in flames quick. Let's torch the 1st next. We'll get to the 2nd after the country has mostly depopulated itself with small arms, or when they organize and start to turn on the government. Better do the 5th pretty soon, too. Numbers 6 and 9 are no worries, they're taken care of.

      What should come after the 1st? Any suggestions?

      --
      I found the meaning of life the other day, but I had write-only access.
  18. Oversight? by The+Tyro · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Personally, the following bugs me a little bit:

    *snip*
    oversight board composed of senior representatives from DoD and the Intelligence Community, and chaired by the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology and Logistics).
    */snip*

    How about some civilians or "average joe" types to be appointed to that oversight board? The composition of this "oversight" board seems to be all intel and DoD guys... a bit too much agency inbreeding there. How about a joe citizen to give some civilian "little guy" perspective?

    --
    Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
    1. Re:Oversight? by sielwolf · · Score: 1

      I think the problem is in clearance. This is very easily a project that might require someone to have a top secret access. Who has this? Certain politicians, many intel guys, many defense guys, and some contractors. Now contractors make no sense as being on an oversight committee because we only want "informed" opinions.

      But the only informed opinions with clearance would be those intel and defense guys. Kind of a recursive catch-22. This has been the problem with a good deal of top secret projects. For example: Area-51 is suspected not of being home to UFOs... but being used as an illegal dumping ground for caustic and hazardous materials. But since it's top top secret, the EPA isn't going to go waltzing in there for no good reason.

      --
      What is music when you despise all sound?
  19. Orwell must have had a time machine by Cackmobile · · Score: 1

    BUt he must have misread it. I think it was probably 2004 but we are definately on the slippery slope down. Changing the T to Terrorist was a stroke of genius (from there point of view), now the public will lap it up and the few thousand of us on /. will know what it really is. The majority won't hear about this till they are arrest and informed of their rights ie none.

    --
    -- Karma Karma Karma Karma, Karma Chameleon - Boy George
  20. shades of Iraq by Afrosheen · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You know, shortly after the main conflict in Iraq recently resided, there were lots of news reports stating just how much information Saddam Hussein's regime kept on the populace. One of the soldiers was quoted as saying, "Jesus, they've got files on everybody! The whole freakin' country is in here!"

    Do we really want to be like Saddam Hussein's Iraq, or Nazi Germany, or Stalinist Russia for that matter? Subtracting privacy almost never adds security. Even if you watched everyone, all day, everyday, there'd be shit that slips through the cracks. Just look at how often Palestinians suicide bomb Israelis...and Israel brags it has the most stringent security in the world.

    1. Re:shades of Iraq by comet_11 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yeah, what kind of country would store masses of weapons and threaten foreign nations with violence while imposing a police-state style military control on its own citizens?

      Lucky we're nothing like those bastard Iraqis.

      --
      By reading this comment, you immediately waive any and all rights regarding it.
    2. Re:shades of Iraq by non · · Score: 1

      a better example would be the stasi, east germany's secret service. they had files one nearly everyone in the country. talk about fine-grained, in a documentary i saw they discussed the case of a man who was informing on his family; brand of toilet paper was one of the items in the file!

      --
      ...vividly encapsulates that post-Watergate/pre-punk/coked-up moment when you could trust no one, least of all yourself.
    3. Re:shades of Iraq by ReelOddeeo · · Score: 1

      Yeah, what kind of country would .... threaten foreign nations with violence...

      We do not threaten with violence. That is what sets us apart.

      We are peaceful.

      We merely suggest that there will be "serious consequences" if you snub your nose at our president's will.

      --

      Those who would give up liberty in exchange for security and DRM should switch to Microsoft Palladium!
    4. Re:shades of Iraq by Drakonian · · Score: 1

      +5, Scary. Well, I don't think Iraq actually threatened anyone with violence did they?

      --
      Random is the New Order.
    5. Re:shades of Iraq by glesga_kiss · · Score: 1
      they discussed the case of a man who was informing on his family; brand of toilet paper was one of the items in the [stansi] file!

      TIA has got that covered already. They aim to tap into as many databases as possible, which would include store loyalty cards.

    6. Re:shades of Iraq by Afrosheen · · Score: 1

      Tell that to the thousands of Iraqis in the mass graves.

    7. Re:shades of Iraq by PetWolverine · · Score: 1

      Yeah, we don't threaten with violence. Except, maybe, for Iraq. And Afghanistan. And Kosovo. And Somalia. And, going ever further back, Vietnam and Korea. Those are just the ones that come to my mind immediately.

      Tell me again the last war we fought that we came out of feeling fully vindicated and unified as a nation. World War II? Wasn't that quite a while ago? And didn't we still manage to embarass ourselves, moving Japanese Americans to concentration camps during the war?

      Not to be an isolationist, but we seem to screw up just about all our foreign forays in short order.

      --
      I found the meaning of life the other day, but I had write-only access.
    8. Re:shades of Iraq by ReelOddeeo · · Score: 1

      Yeah, we don't threaten with violence. Except, maybe, for Iraq. And Afghanistan. And Kosovo. And Somalia.

      My point which is lost on the sarcasm impaired is that "serious consequences" is a euphemism for violence. We DO threaten with violence. But we couch it in euphemisms such as "face serious consequences".

      we seem to screw up just about all our foreign forays in short order.

      I disagree. But if you removed the words "just about" then I would agree. :-)

      --

      Those who would give up liberty in exchange for security and DRM should switch to Microsoft Palladium!
  21. Response to this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The best repsonse to this is to demand the database be 100% realtime public-access (r, not rw) over the internet.

    It's asymmetric information avialability that is the problem - a system where all the data is only available to a control-freak elite is terrible, but if everyone has access to the information, the playing field is kept level.

    No, it's not nice the database exists. No, it's not going to go away. Better that it be open to all then in the hands of a secret few.

    Freedom should always trump Privacy.

    1. Re:Response to this by Sakse · · Score: 1

      If you think big brother is bad, just wait until you see what little brother will do with the same information.

      Suddenly that little woman on the third floor will grin knowingly when she meets you in the stairs. Your potential employer will of course have access to the same information and might not like people with your shopping habits.

      "Freedom should always trump Privacy".. I don't get your point. Those two aspects are related. If someone was watching your every move, would you still have freedom? I think not.

      When you give up privacy, you give it up for good. It is not going to be returned. After all, the information can be used for *anything* and has a huge potential value.

      I'll just add some words from my grandmother: "The road to hell is built with good intentions". Enjoy the ride, I just hope we manage to stop it before rock bottom.

      --
      Fast, Soon, Correct. Pick 2.
    2. Re:Response to this by rifter · · Score: 1

      This is a very common argument, but the fallacy of this argument is that in any power structure the powerful will seek ever more power, so any system which begins with equal access will gradually tend to become less accessable to those without overt power unless it is properly shepherded. Of course on a broader level this is what has happened with the US Government as predicted by its founders.

      More to the point, to whom is this information useful anyway? I only see nefarious purpose as the driving force for gaining this info. For instance the government will use it to keep track of people it does not like and cause trouble for them. The same would happen with a publicly available database, in that people would look up information on their various enemies or stalking subjects and use it to their advantage and the disadvantage of their targets. One of the posters pointed out several cases where a similar database available to police officers was used to hunt down women to stalk and harrass, to satisfy vendettas, to break up marriages of ex-spouses, etc etc. Can you honestly say a database open to every skript kiddie, terrorist, and slashdotter in the world will never be misused this way?

      Information may want to be free, but some information wants to be trusted. I think that kind of information (my bank account numbers, passwords, web history, etc for starters) should be need-to-know information, only in the hands of people who are supposed to use it.

      The most hilarious thing about your post is that you posted as an AC. So you want me to know your credit card number, which I will *never* misuse... but you don't want me to know your slashdot ID? whatever!

    3. Re:Response to this by Dyolf+Knip · · Score: 1
      The point is that these databases, lack of privacy, and the ability to monitor every aspect of someone's life are coming. They will be here whether we like it or not.

      The question is not whether or not to allow it, since disallowing it can't be enforced. If the government can't effectively enforce 'no drugs' on us, can we actually enforce 'no databases' on them?

      The real question is "Who has access?". As the parent said, do we give it only to a control freak elite and hope they won't abuse it? Bear in mind that we won't even be able to find out if they do. Or do we instead give it to _everyone_, knowing that it will be abused by some, but those abuses will be visible to everyone and also allowing the potential for putting them to good use as well?

      I suggest you read "The Transparent Society" by David Brin. He makes an excellent argument that freedom and privacy are not only not completely dependent on one another, but that privacy is really not all it's cracked up to be.

      --
      Dyolf Knip
  22. Sometimes im glad by boogy+nightmare · · Score: 4, Insightful

    dont get me wrong, im far from the ancient european critising the USA.

    But there are times when living in the UK is sooo much more attractive than living in the US, at least we have a strong Data protection Act that gives us access to any information gathered by us.

    And shamefully (being a privacy crusader myself) have even been put off travelling to the USA now as my information is already passed to airport security (my name, visa card number, what meal i had on the plane (true) etcetc) before the place has even had time to taxi down the runway.

    I know that this will be flamed or trolled out becuase of the patriots within the slashdot crowd or i will have many responses based on the, but we are America and better, but bear in mind this is not supposed to reflect on the nation as a whole (paranoid although it is) or the poeple just a simple statement based on the privacy of the people.

    A

    --
    Kingdom of Loathing (www.kingdomofloathing.com) Addicted is me
    1. Re:Sometimes im glad by panurge · · Score: 1
      Actually, the main function of the UK Data Protection Act is to keep the European Commission happy about UK civil liberties while in reality allowing large companies and the Government to keep whatever information they like about you. There are few restrictions on their collection of data. All they have to do is to sign up to say they are collecting data, and whether they are likely to give it to other people. The Commissioner is then made to operate in a resource-starved little enclave with no real power at all. Meanwhile, in the interests of the said "Data protection" companies are being persuaded to have ever more secretive internal processes - so your chance of knowing what is actually going on gets less.

      I'm not just writing this to bash the UK. Recently I heard from someone who had asked for their records from Intrum Justicia (a fancy name for a debt collection and credit rating agency based in several EU states.) The information stored on their record and used as the basis for a credit rating was utterly misleading - it had collected information about everyone known to have lived at their last three addresses, one of which was a student lodging. When asked, the Data Protection Agency eventually replied that yes, they had constant complaints about this company but unless you had vast legal resources there was nothing that could be done. Unless legal systems are changed to provide pro bono representation to anyone who has a prima facie case that companies are collecting bad data about them, this will continue.

      While on fanciful things that will not happen, it would be nice if companies whose function is to collect data about people had to refer to this on all their printed materials, advertising etc. so that people became aware of just how many of these organisations there are.

      --
      Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
    2. Re:Sometimes im glad by boogy+nightmare · · Score: 1

      The point of the data protection agency (a well funded and working agency) is that for a company etc for hold data on you they have to register the types and reason that are to be registered, this information is open, for example

      http://www.dpr.gov.uk/cgi-bin/dpr98-fetch.pl?sou rc e=DPR&docid=148942

      this is the entry for the company that i work for (The Royal Mail Group) as a computer developer.

      For the maximum sum of 10 quid you can apply to your employer (government, phone company etc) and they have to (by law) supply you with the information that they hold on you, the only reason this is not case is if the information is 'classified, national security etc' which of course your employer cant do

      for more information on the UK's data protection atc, which is actually one of the strongest in Europe, so they are trying to weaken ours at the moment go to

      http://www.dataprotection.gov.uk/dpr/dpdoc.nsf

      A

      --
      Kingdom of Loathing (www.kingdomofloathing.com) Addicted is me
    3. Re:Sometimes im glad by ThaReetLad · · Score: 1

      Also the security services and government are effectively immune from requests because they simply claim that all information they hold on you is secret and cannot be released for National Security reasons.

      --
      You can't win Darth. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
    4. Re:Sometimes im glad by panurge · · Score: 1
      Others think so too
      You might like to tell the DPA they are well funded. That wasn't what I got told.

      You might also like to consider that there is a huge difference between registering the types and reason for data, and the actual data being stored. Also, you do not have access to a database listing every company that holds information about you (and, if you did, its existence would be worrying). It is up to you to identify possible data holders and contact them.

      I am not knocking Richard Thomas, but both he and his predecessor have a thankless task.

      --
      Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
    5. Re:Sometimes im glad by Dyolf+Knip · · Score: 1
      Ah yes, the UK. Where you can be sent to prison if you forget your password or tell anyone that the cops asked you for it.

      Don't get me wrong, I'm far from the young American critising Europe. But I feel that there is simply no government on Earth that is totally immune to the creeping authoritarian mindset. Even those that are doing well in this regard are constantly under pressured by demagogues within and less free nations without. It's so very tempting to just pack your bags and head for greener pastures, but I don't think that solution can last. In the long run, the most effective way to live in a free country is to make it the one you're already in.

      --
      Dyolf Knip
  23. Only used against 'terrorists' by fishbert42 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Right....
    I don't suppose anyone's heard of the events this week surrounding Texas Democrats and the Department of Homeland Security, eh?

    Long story short: all 51 Democrats from the Texas State Legislature ran to Oklahoma for 4 days to prevent the State from addressing some redistricting issue (there wouldn't be a quorum of legislators, and thus nothing could be voted on). Anyway, pretty much all the Republican legislators shit a brick, and somehow it seems the Department of Homeland Security got dragged into the search for the missing Democrats (yes, the same federal agency supposed purpose is to protect the entire U.S.A. from terrorists). Oh, and if that isn't enough, it seems that all Texas Department of Public Safety documents regarding the Department of Homeland Security's involvement in this fiasco were ordered destroyed.

    So, forgive me if I take a wee bit of convincing on this whole "TIA will only be used on foreigners" thing...


    P.S.: Seriously, folks, it scares the shit out of me that the big news organizations aren't picking this story up and running with it.

    1. Re:Only used against 'terrorists' by Paddyish · · Score: 4, Insightful
      'You're a terrorist' in the US is starting to carry the same weight as 'You're a Jew' in Nazi Germany. Persecution of the innocent. Nice. Good to my hard-earned tax dollars going towards something completely legit. Completely. *shits a brick*

      Welcome to the nightmare...

    2. Re:Only used against 'terrorists' by fishbert42 · · Score: 4, Informative

      'You're a terrorist' in the US is starting to carry the same weight as 'You're a Jew' in Nazi Germany.

      Or, my personal favorite:
      "You're a Communist," in the McCarthy era.

    3. Re:Only used against 'terrorists' by Fesh · · Score: 1

      Just to back this one up, I can second the DHS angle from reporting on Public Radio Monday morning. If anyone's got any doubts about this crap, this is the example to use to press the point.

      --
      --Fesh
      Kill -9 'em all, let root@localhost sort 'em out.
    4. Re:Only used against 'terrorists' by fishbert42 · · Score: 1

      OH CRAP, they're after me -- they stole my "whose" right from under my nose!

      It should read: "... the same federal agency whose supposed purpose is to ..."

    5. Re:Only used against 'terrorists' by fishbert42 · · Score: 5, Funny

      "A witch! A witch! We've found a witch!"
      "We have found a witch. May we burn her?"
      "Burn her! Buuuuuurn her!"
      "How do you know she is a witch?"
      "She looks like one!"

    6. Re:Only used against 'terrorists' by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      nah, it's easy to find out.

      just toss her in the fire, if she doesn't burn then she most certainly is a witch.

      i heard they train terrorists to be able to resist electric chair!

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    7. Re:Only used against 'terrorists' by McWilde · · Score: 1

      this whole "TIA will only be used on foreigners" thing...
      Nice to see how 'terrorists' equates to 'foreigners'. Timothy McVeigh was an American, but I guess he was no terrorist.

      --
      Maybe
    8. Re:Only used against 'terrorists' by Bluesman · · Score: 1

      Or, "you're a racist" today.

      --
      If moderation could change anything, it would be illegal.
    9. Re:Only used against 'terrorists' by elefantstn · · Score: 1

      For fuck's sake, no it's not. You know, ignorant zealots like you make it very difficult for the grown-ups who want to responsibly and effectively counter anti-privacy initiatives by making us all look like blabbering tinfoiled-topped idiots.

      --
      If it ain't broke, you need more software.
    10. Re:Only used against 'terrorists' by Reziac · · Score: 1

      I heard this story on the news. Personally I think all 51 defaulting legislators should be recalled for deleliction of duty.

      Their actions were so clearly in their own interests rather than in the interests of their constituents, that I wonder if they may have actually broken some laws. In which case, the means by which they were tracked down may not be so questionable after all. Also, they ARE holding public office; they are not just private citizens. So it's not quite a parallel with Joe Citizen who takes a trip to Canada and suddenly becomes a suspect. More akin to Joe Bankrobber who fled to Mexico to avoid facing the music.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    11. Re:Only used against 'terrorists' by be-fan · · Score: 1

      Although, one of the properties of situations like this is that it is impossible for the citizenry to see it coming. You don't realize that something like this is happening until the process is too far along to stop.

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
    12. Re:Only used against 'terrorists' by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      Umm, I think you're missing the point. The republicans hijacked a government department in order to further their own political agenda. Yes, what the demos did was questionable, but the fact that the republicans felt they could abuse the DHS to surveil other political representatives is disgusting and frightening. Moreover, it shows what can happen when you have that kind of power in the hands of government officials who, clearly, are easily corrupted. And yes, I'd feel the exact same way if the parties were reversed... this is an example of a gross abuse of power, plain and simple, no matter who did it.

    13. Re:Only used against 'terrorists' by Paddyish · · Score: 1

      *tsk tsk* Name calling is so immature.

    14. Re:Only used against 'terrorists' by fishbert42 · · Score: 1

      whose -- the possesive form of "who" or "which"
      "who's" is the same thing as "who is," which makes no sense in the sentence.
      "... the same federal agency who is supposed purpose is to ..."
      See? Doesn't really work.

    15. Re:Only used against 'terrorists' by fishbert42 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, good point. I should've been more careful with my word selection.

    16. Re:Only used against 'terrorists' by praedor · · Score: 1

      The Dems did the right and correct thing. The Repubs were trying to hijack the redistricting thing OUT OF PROPER CONTEXT AND TIMING strictly to "gain more seats" in the state house and, essentially, force Texas into being a one-party state. This, in a word, means dictatorship. In any case, what the Dems did is exactly what has been practiced by Dems AND Repulsives...err...Replublicans a number of times through Texas history (and in other states too).


      Left no other option in the face of authoritarian rulers, the Dems did the right and logical thing. The Repulsives...Republicans...illegally attempted to bring OHS into the mix much the way they will use it against protesters and reporters and any other political or social opponent once TIA comes to be.


      We just got an OHS office to "protect" us and one of the first things the creators of this monstrosity do is attempt to use if for personal politcal gain. TIA will be no different...nay, it will make it worse.

      --
      In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
    17. Re:Only used against 'terrorists' by antonrojo · · Score: 1

      A quick google search shows that generally this story isn't visible in the media, although the Washington Post did pick up on it:

      http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20030515-0 53 907-2063r.htm

    18. Re:Only used against 'terrorists' by geekee · · Score: 1

      According to Texas law, walking out on a vote to avoid having a quorum is illegal. The democrats broke the law, and law enforcement was used to find them. God forbid that we allow law enforcement agencies to cooperate. Of course, this is off-topic, so how it got modded up...

      --
      Vote for Pedro
    19. Re:Only used against 'terrorists' by PetWolverine · · Score: 1

      What also floats on public opinion?
      Freedom!
      Churches!
      Very small rocks!
      Logic! Reason!

      ...
      Terrorist propaganda!
      <gasp>Who are you that are so wise in the ways of public relations?</gasp>

      I am W, King of the Americans!

      --
      I found the meaning of life the other day, but I had write-only access.
    20. Re:Only used against 'terrorists' by ThaReetLad · · Score: 1

      yup sorry. I was wrong

      --
      You can't win Darth. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
  24. Right... by lightspawn · · Score: 2, Funny

    like civil forfeiture will only be used against those evil drug dealers. Sure, sounds like a great idea. Where do I sign up?

  25. Operation Enduring Police State by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Something is horribly wrong in this Nation; not in the usual
    "corruption and racism" way, but far far worse in the "fascism and rogue
    police state" way.

    I now know how the Jews of Germany felt as they saw the vise-grip of
    Nazism clamp down. Insiduously and calculatingly, the Nazi party coopted
    and overran the legitimate elements of Germany's government. Nazism
    failed only by the grace of God and because Hitler overreached, and
    through sheer sacrifice by free people.

    Tomorrow the world may not get off so easy.

    Bush did not win the election. He remains the commander in chief
    because his family and party connections illegally scuttled Gore's
    contestation of the ballot-count. That illegal manoeuvering was effectively
    cloaked in false legitimacy and hidden from public view, and amounts to a
    successful coup de'tat against the legitimate government and sovereign
    power of the United States of America.

    These are dark times for the land of the free, the home of the brave.
    As grave as that one issue is, I am not writing this letter in
    condemnation of it alone nor is it the only Hitler-order threat to Freedom and
    Democracy.

    September Eleventh, 2001 has left a trail of unanswered questions and
    betrayed trusts. The act of terrorism which took thousands of American
    and foreign Human lives has been followed by events which to say the
    least threaten the continued functioning and existence of our Democracy,
    and point to a threat, possibly internal, which must be investigated.

    These investigations have been called for and they have been impeded and thwarted
    by the very entities which have fallen under suspicion.

    These facts in themselves warrant a total investigation with all
    urgency and priority as this Nation can muster. My belief in the just nature
    and effective coordination of my Country, the United States, would
    allay my suspicions and I would stand observant as established processes
    assessed the facts and derived the truth, except this:

    Bush has quietly gutted the very laws which make this nation Free and
    Just, and openly pushed bills like the Patriot act I & II which put any
    dissent into deep freeze or worse.

    All these problems are beyond unnacceptable and it is in the character
    and interest of the United States to meet them openly and with vigor.
    The reality that our supposedly "liberal" media quietly ignore these
    facts when they should be shouting them from every rooftop, lends ultimate
    urgency to our problem: Our Nation, the torchbearer of humanity, is
    under assault AND WE THE PEOPLE ARE LOSING.

    The assault must be halted and routed if we are to prevent this
    government and its' sacred values of Freedom, Liberty, and Justice for all are
    not to perish from this earth. The defilers have craftily and
    skillfully put up strong barriers to their prosecution but as a Nation WE CAN
    defeat those barriers IF DARE. The mechanisms of our government are
    being dismantled but the Nation is still fundamentally free; a well
    performed campaign to bring the truth into the mind of every man and woman
    must not fail, can not fail. The only failure is in not trying! And it is
    our duty to those who died in the Revolutionary War, the Civil War,
    every foreign war and to the victims of September Eleventh 2001 to Stand
    UP for the Truth!

    We have nothing to fear but fear itself. We have nothing to lose that
    we will not lose if we do not Speak Out. We must marshal every resoure
    at our disposal and launch the counteroffensive now; we have already
    waited too long. The threat to our way of life, indeed to our lives
    themselves, grows with each day. The threat fouled one election without
    control of the White House -- in 2004, the adversary will not even need to
    rig a single ballot. A second victory will cement their control. The
    fall of the nation has begun and it wil

    1. Re:Operation Enduring Police State by Glock27 · · Score: 1
      Bush did not win the election. He remains the commander in chief because his family and party connections illegally scuttled Gore's contestation of the ballot-count.

      I was with you up to this point - here you are just wrong.

      I don't suppose you saw that after a complete recount...Bush would have won anyhow. You're also conveniently ignoring the various, very dubious, legal maneuvers that algore was gyrating through.

      That illegal manoeuvering was effectively cloaked in false legitimacy and hidden from public view, and amounts to a successful coup de'tat against the legitimate government and sovereign power of the United States of America.

      How was it "cloaked"? Are you really clinging to a "hanging chad" argument? Look at it this way - if Gore had managed to win his home state he would have won the election outright. Obviously he was a very weak candidate.

      I hate to break it to you, but the Democrats are even more into "big government" than the Republicans. TIA or something very like it would have been pushed by the Dems as well. Hell, they would probably have passed legislation requiring microchip implantation in every American, for easier tracking, er I mean increased safety.

      The key thing with all of this will be for the people to scream loudly at every abuse, or even, perhaps, to act to protect their freedoms. What a concept.

      --
      Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
      Score: -1 100% Flamebait
    2. Re:Operation Enduring Police State by /dev/trash · · Score: 1

      So Bush wanted to be President no matter what. SO he decides to pick ONE state to corrupt so he can win, And to boot he picks the state where his brother is gov. Yeah. I think you need to a) adjust your tinfoil hat b) get your Democrat buddies together so they can pick a strong candidate in 2004.

    3. Re:Operation Enduring Police State by SlashdotFreedom · · Score: 1

      You are entitled to your (wrong) opinion. Unless you care to refute part of the argument?

      And, what hope could the democrats possibly have against a cheater who successfully stole the election without having control of the white house, who now also has the white house?

      Obviously there's nothing to stop bush from cheating again.

      On top of the fact that he is likely to steal '04, he stole '00 and should be impeached. I suggest you adjust your blinders and get with the facts: you are being lied to, and Bush is illegitimate.

      Do you think that dismissing the worst election fraud in the nation's history without any consideration makes it OK that Bush broke the law and disenfranchised voters? Is it also OK that he is appointing convicted criminals to high ranking positions, including ambassadorships? Is it OK that he is using his power to tear up the constition and pursue a cryptic agenda that is not in the national interest, only that of his buddies and his ultra-conservative cheerleaders while threatening all dissenters with the label "terrorist sympathiser"?

      We beat the soviets. Too bad the Nazis have overthrown our government by coopting the conservative party.

      --
      God Bless America.
    4. Re:Operation Enduring Police State by /dev/trash · · Score: 1

      I was going to go into detail, but 1. How can my opinion be wrong? 2. Mentioning Nazis ends teh thread.

  26. We come bearing gifts... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I say we give the Pentagon to China, since they seem to have some pretty compatible thoughts on freedom.

  27. Please explain by Simon+Lyngshede · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Could someone please tell me what Americans are so afraid of? Why do you put up with the government invading your privacy? The US have gone to war to liberate other nations from government which have done similar thing (Not on the same level of cause and with less advanced tecnologies). Why are you letting them do this to you?

    I don't get it, the US is suppose to be the land of the free, isn't it ?

    1. Re:Please explain by cyclemenow · · Score: 1

      The prevailing reason, in my opinion, is a lack of understanding of what is really going on. While you and I may see past the confusing descriptions and word play, most don't take the time to look at those confusing descriptions let alone see past the surface.

      When faced with the consequences of the schemes that repeatedly show up in the news, most people ("Americans") included, tend to disagree with them. Unfortunately, clear and insightful descriptions are not common.

      The US is a land of rarely asserted freedom.

      While that may seem sad, and may cast Americans as a lazy, ignorant bunch, the system has evolved into one where an individual does not have the power (time, money, influence) to lobby the governing bodies to change the laws (or not change them as the case may be). Independent organizations do have that ability, and are doing so to protect the freedoms that are not easily asserted on a micro scale.

    2. Re:Please explain by Fesh · · Score: 1

      Tell ya what. You tell me what the result of asserting my rights at this point would be. I'll give you some hints to get started.

      1) Freedom from surveillance pretty much means freedom from communicating with just about anyone else.

      2) Things are bought and sold where there are concentrations of people.

      3) Power comes from the barrel of a gun.

      4) Individual targets are easier to take on than large groups.

      My take on it is that most Americans are too cowardly or too "above that" to remind the government that 3) is the fourth check and balance (or is that seventh?), and until a critical mass decides otherwise, anyone who isn't is just a lone nut. The math doesn't work for me as an individual.

      --
      --Fesh
      Kill -9 'em all, let root@localhost sort 'em out.
    3. Re:Please explain by Joe+the+Lesser · · Score: 1

      Why are you letting them do this to you?

      Last I checked, they didn't ask my permission... If I get pissed, I always gotta wait a few years before I can lay my .00001% of a smackdown on my elected representative, whom I likely didn't vote for anyway.

      --
      "I only speak the truth"
      Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
    4. Re:Please explain by PhilHibbs · · Score: 1

      Simple. The more comfortable your life is, the more you haev to lose. Poor, oppressed people will sacrifice their lives for their beliefs, because they feel that they have nothing to lose. Also, technologically advanced nations seem to be less religious, and if you believe that this life is all you get, you're not going to want to give it up. For this reason, I don't understand why Communist states suppress(ed) religion; sometimes the masses need their opiate. Obviously there are exceptions such as OBL and those two British chaps that atacked in Israel recently, but the trend is there. 'Advanced' nations will always be on the back foot in the fight against terrorism and oppression.

    5. Re:Please explain by hellfire · · Score: 1

      The United States has for many decades been fostering a culture of "fear and consumption." Its beautifully illustrated in Bowling for Columbine. I recommend this to everyone outside the US to understand a little bit about the US, and I wish it was required middle school viewing, and maybe, just maybe, we'd turn things around.

      Americans are so scared on so many different levels its ridiculous. We are scared of being killed by terrorists. Scared our children might turn out to be deviants or perverts. Scared of losing our money. Yet we are also scared of zits, bad looks, being overweight, losing our hair, and not having more toys than the next door neighbor.

      Its extremely sad.

      --

      "All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"

    6. Re:Please explain by twitter · · Score: 1
      Could someone please tell me what Americans are so afraid of? Why do you put up with the government invading your privacy?

      You will find out soon enough, when we liberate your country.

      I don't get it, the US is suppose to be the land of the free, isn't it ?

      Yes, it's just that some people have been working to redefine free. For some strange reason, the Supreme Court has gone along with them.

      --

      Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

    7. Re:Please explain by be-fan · · Score: 1

      Because Americans just aren't used to this. Countries all around the world still have a memory of war raging on their very shores. People in Britain still remember bombs falling over London. The people of Ireland still have to deal with terrorism on a dialy basis, as do the people of Israel. Dozens of other countries clearly remember huge civil wars taking place in their country. In contrast, American's just aren't used to being attacked on their own land. The last time bombs fell on American territory was Pearl Harbor, and that was on an island thousands of miles away. So they take a single event, 9-11, and obsess over it. They don't even think about the fact that murder, gang violence, and even American terrorists like Timothy McVeigh, pose a far more real and dangerous threat than any terrorist actions. As a result of this obsession, they allow the government to do whatever it wants to to "protect" them. It doesn't help that there is a natural tradition of protectionist government in the US, with all the consumer protection laws and such, which means that people are willing to completely trust their government without a second thought.

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
    8. Re:Please explain by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      Yes, it's just that some people have been working to redefine free. For some strange reason, the Supreme Court has gone along with them.

      Oh come on, that's an easy one! When you're highest court is appointed by the goddamn President, its not all that surprising that it tends to uphold the government agenda.

    9. Re:Please explain by praedor · · Score: 1

      And so the wheel turns. Now WE (the USA) needs someone else to come in and liberate us from our own home-grown dictator. We could have used the help immediately after the Supreme Court annointed Bush as Dictator after the last illegitimate election.


      Please don't wait until millions have been executed or jailed here for non-crimes before you come.

      --
      In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
  28. Spain - an example of the dangers of this stuff... by pubjames · · Score: 4, Informative


    Many of you will probably be aware that in Spain there is a terrorist group called "ETA", that wants the Basque country (a bit in the North-West of Spain) to be independant. They are terrorists, no question, and they should be stopped. However, the current president of Spain (Aznar) hates that any of the regions of Spain wants independence, and is tending to brand anyone who wants independence as supporting terrorism. Political parties are being banned if they have members which are on a list of (several hundred) individuals which the state has decided are supporting terrorism. This means that practically any political party that is pro-independance for the Basque country is now banned. I believe this is obviously a real blow for democracy in Spain, and highlights the fact that a few terrorists can reduce the freedoms of a huge number of people if the government reacts in the wrong way.

    Just my thoughts.

  29. Re:Spain - an example of the dangers of this stuff by pubjames · · Score: 1

    a bit in the North-West of Spain

    Sorry that should have read North-East.

  30. excerpt- clarification by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Today I watched Michael Ruppert defending his theory regarding massive government collusion in the 9-11 terrorist attacks. The other panelists, predictably, were not convinced, and the arguments they used to refute Mr. Ruppert were the same ones we have heard repeatedly every time this particular "conspiracy theory" starts to see daylight. Why were military jets not scrambled to intercept the hijacked planes? Human error. Why did American intelligence ignore the warnings from foreign sources regarding the impending attacks? Outdated and bureaucratic organizations that don't talk to each other. How did a rag-tag bunch of known troublemakers manage to board the doomed flights in the first place? Lax airport security.

    A point-by-point refutation of Mr. Ruppert's argument holds up well on the surface. Why? Because it is just that - a point-by-point refutation. Any one of these arguments, taken by itself, makes sense, particularly to a people who are still dumbstruck and grieving, a people who have been educated, both through the school system and through daily interaction with their friends and neighbors, to believe that the Americans are the Good Guys, decent and benevolent, right-thinking and honest.

    And most Americans are just that. So facing people who are not that way sets up a clamor of cognitive dissonance that can be heard from from sea to shining sea. Into that cacophony of disbelief step the clean-up crews, the experts and pundits who emanate from government-sponsored think tanks, and participate in panel-style discussions such as the one with Mr. Ruppert. These "experts" are quick with the anecdotal counterpoints - and they seem pretty believable until - and unless - one takes the time to step back and take a longer view.

    In an excellent piece entitled, "Uncle Sam's Lucky Finds," published by the Guardian Unlimited on Tuesday, March 18, 2002, Anne Karpf deftly navigates the scattered, pundit-tossed bread crumbs, and offers an extremely compelling view of American intelligence propaganda at its finest.

    For while it is credible to assume that the various alphabet soup agencies that constitute our national security system might have missed India, France, and Russia chirping something about terrorist attacks as early as last spring, it is not credible to argue that these same agencies - who prior to September 11 could not find their arse with both hands - had, within weeks of the attacks, successfully identified all the hijackers. Following a trail of fortuitously placed flight manuals, Korans, "terrorist handbooks," (and please think about that one for a moment), and most amazingly of all, an unscathed fragment of Mohammed Atta's passport, the feds moved swiftly to construct a case implicating royal Saudi bad boy, Osama bin Laden.

    It is possible, I suppose, that one of the hijackers would become careless and leave a flight manual lying around, or that the hand of some unseen deity would pluck Mr. Atta's smoldering passport out of the ruins of the WTC, (and then lay it gently at the feet of an FBI super-sleuth), but taken together, the improbability of such serendipity rapidly begins to become an impossibility.

    Due to the enormity of the operation - and perhaps also due to the Pentagon's budgetary needs - shortly after the event, the terrorism experts began speculating about how September 11th could have been planned, financed, and perhaps even rehearsed, without arousing suspicion. They posited that underground cells of terrorists had lain hidden in sleepy suburban bedroom communities for perhaps as long as a decade, flying under the radar and waiting for their appointed hour to strike.

    Again, taken by itself, this is a plausible explanation. But lay these stories next to the ones that tell us of devout Muslim suicide bombers preparing for a holy war by making a trip to Hooters, drinking heavily, and then leaving their apartments strewn with terrorist paraphernalia. That's when the official version begins to leak like a used condom. Are we to b

    1. Re:excerpt- clarification by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 1

      >Why were military jets not scrambled

      Correction on this point. They were. Too late for an intercept, but they were airborne.

      Airborne without weapons or with only training rounds, by the way. Some of the pilots were making contingency plans to ram the jetliners, killing themselves and everybody on board.

      Make of this what you will, I'm not pushing an agenda here.

    2. Re:excerpt- clarification by spitzak · · Score: 1

      I never heard of the piece of Atta's passport. Is that for real? I would agree that it is virtually impossible, but perhaps you are confusing it with material they left behind, or recovered from the crash in Pennsylvania.

    3. Re:excerpt- clarification by evbergen · · Score: 1

      The problem you seem to ignore is the fundamental one of induction: you can never be sure that two coinciding events have anything to do with each other.

      The patterns, or the big picture you speak of, can not be deducted from the events themselves. You can only see them if, as you say, you step back and observe the whole. Are the patterns you'll see indeed the ones that actually caused the events? Possibly, but it's just as likely that they are not.

      The human mind always tries to find patterns in the event soup, and by observing the whole, you'll give your mind a chance to do this. Is the resulting model in your mind "true"? It's impossible to know; the only thing you can say is that it may be useful to base further actions upon.

      However, the problem with incidents such as September 11 is that it's never possible to refine the hypotheses about the patterns connecting their events, because the incidents do not repeat, and in history, it's impossible to experiment; you cannot change certain variables and keep others the same.

      Everyone with a more or less fitting pattern may be "right". That's why you always see a clash between the sceptical and the paranoid that can never be resolved, because the random (says the sceptical) or ordered (says the paranoid) events occurred only once; the hypotheses about the causes behind them cannot be tested.

      In short, I'm saying that you cannot deduct anything from what you see when you "step back". The only thing you can create is untestable hypotheses, that you may use personally, and that may have esthetic value for others if they fit well, but are otherwise useless.

      --
      All generalizations are false, including this one. (Mark Twain)
    4. Re:excerpt- clarification by evbergen · · Score: 1

      However, stating that "nothing can be known in an absolute sense" does not mean that we should not attempt to discover the truth.

      True, that's why I have no objection to the scientific method, where one attempts to build a model of cause and effect relationships by creating such hypotheses and testing them. Even when the models generated by this or any other method are not "true", they are at least useful.

      However, history is a special branch of science, because you cannot test any hypotheses, like "if the US wouldn't have been so pro-Israel, 9/11 wouldn't have happened", or "if Versailles wouln't have been so humiliating, Hitler wouldn't have happened", and similar.

      Therefore, what I'm saying is that because it's not only impossible to find the "truth" about what's behind 9/11 from statements about how likely it is that a certain sequence of events happened, but that it's also impossible to build a scientific theory, because that requires testing hypotheses.

      So it's not just solipsism. I'm saying that the scientific method cannot be applied to any conspiracy theory or history in general, and that this makes a productive discussion between skeptic and paranoid extremely difficult.

      Of course, I no way am I saynig that that's an excuse to do nothing. But it does mean that the choice which step to take next is always a political one.

      Should the US protect itself from the world in response to part of it holding a grudge against the US, or try to increase everybody's participation in the world? It's a political question, and nothing else. Eventually, and that's the point, hypotheses about 9/11 hardly matter. Theories could have mattered, even if they are no truths, but untestable hypotheses are completely useless for the purpose of making political choices.

      --
      All generalizations are false, including this one. (Mark Twain)
  31. the more comforting the name... by CaptainFrito · · Score: 3, Insightful

    the more insidious Government's intentions. Whenever someting has "Security", "Peace" or "Freedom" in it you can reliably predict they are about the opposite, from an ordinary citizen's point of view.

  32. Evildoers and foreigners by kingk0ng · · Score: 1, Interesting
    My emphasis

    "DARPA affirms that TIA's research and testing activities are only using data and information that is either (a) foreign intelligence and counter intelligence information legally obtained and usable by the Federal Government under existing law..."

    I feel particularly reassured as a non-US citizen. Am I right I thinking there are no legal restrictions at all in the US on what intelligence they can gather on me?

    I think it's about time the citizens of the extended United States of America got the vote. Currently those of us who live in places like the UK and Iraq are effectively ruled by the US but have absolutely no say in the government ...

  33. Never a better use of the term "Orwellian" by jpnews · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This thing is inredible in scope! It will be limited only by the amount of data available. Of course, that's infinite. What exists to stop this program from gaining access to all records of all conduct by all people? I can easily imagine a time when all communication is monitored and probably recorded. All transactions of any type will be logged and entered into the database. All public movements will be captured by electronic eyes, analyzed and stored forever. The location of each car, phone, and every piece of currency will be tracked by satellites. Birds will have cameras implanted and flies will carry tiny microphones. There seems to be no way to stop these things from being developed. Bankers and businessmen will build bunkers below ground, eventually forming a race of subterranean rulers with absolute control of the surface dwellers. I'm sorry, it's too difficult to read about the TIA and not drift into psychotic sci-fi paranoia. /endfile

  34. Spain - we are in a bad bad way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Hope for you it doesn't get this harsh. Terrorism is the perfect excuse for them: even though the last years were the lest violent in a terrorist point of view in Spain, our (spanish) government's politics on terrorism are way more frightening. They wrote a law in order to illegalize political parties which condones or does not condemn terrorism, now a second nationalist political party (AuB) is illegalized because 40% of their members were members of the previously illegalized EH. Now this sunday we have to vote, and the two most strong political parties are joining to get most of the basque country cities as a big part of the voters are 'illegal' and they'll have no votes.

    Also, two newspapers have been closed: Egin about three or four years ago (still without any judicial sentence, just by suspicions) and Egunkaria some months ago. No judicial sentence, either.

    Sadly, we know a lot about what the terrorism excuse can bring... now, when the second political party (socialdemocrats) says the spanish restaurant blown up in Morocco is a consequence of attacking Iraq, the government denies any relation and accuses them of justifying terrorism...

  35. Weeeeee! by gcantallopsr · · Score: 1

    T.I.A. = Técnicos de Investigación Aeroterráquea: The Funniest Secret Agents on Earth, since 1958!

    Don't miss the T.I.A. club X'-D

    --
    Try Ubuntu GNU/Linux, it's great!!!
  36. Ohhh, then it's okay by Ignorant+Aardvark · · Score: 3, Funny

    If the info is only going to be used against evildoers, then I have no problem with it.

  37. Convicted Criminal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Well, so is Kevin Mitnick but most Slashdot readers hold him in close proximity to God.

    1. Re:Convicted Criminal? by TMB · · Score: 2, Insightful

      True, but but they wouldn't really trust him to run TIA either... :-)

      [TMB]

    2. Re:Convicted Criminal? by MrEd · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Plus John Poindexter outright lied to congress and showed no hesitation.


      So now he's the head of an agency that has to report back to congress for its funding? ... gee...

      --

      Wah!

  38. The State will always try to get one over by ites · · Score: 4, Insightful
    A quick pedal through history shows that the state will always try to accumulate power over its citizens. One of the strengths of the US constitution is the way it divides power between the different branches of the state. The goals then were to handicap any individual or group from seeking absolute power.

    One has to assume that any politician is always seeking as much power as possible. It is not even a criticism - political systems specifically select those individuals who want power and are good at accumulating and trading it.

    It's always cute to see how people are surprised when their "democratically elected leaders" turn out to have just the same tendencies as self-elected tyrants and dictators.

    I believe the current tendency towards a centralization of power in the US is a self-defeating gambit, pushed by Ashcroft, but against the deeply ingrained beliefs of the political wing that put him into power, which has always distrusted big government. The attempts to turn "terrorism" into citizen control is a bit sad, really, since the minority views of the right-wing consituents in the US depend for their very existence on a open-minded and liberal democracy. Today, a register of information on everyone. Tomorrow, a national policy on morals. The next day: revolt from the conservative right-wing and fragmentation of the Republican party.

    The point of democracy is not to elect the best leaders - this is a laugh - but to allow every policy, no matter how "vital to the State's interests" to be debated. Eventually such instruments will become the subject of discussion (allow 5 years for the Sept.11 trauma to wear off), and someone, somewhere, will be elected on the basis of protection of privacy. At which point we will see a swing back to smaller government and dissolution of the more blatant links between business and power.

    --
    Sig for sale or rent. One previous user. Inquire within.
    1. Re:The State will always try to get one over by PhilHibbs · · Score: 1

      Excuse my ignorance of the finer points of U.S. politics, but I always thought the reason that Republicans oppose big government was that it generally means big taxes and big restrictions on business. "Freedom to work" indeed. Freedom to bend over and take it, more like.

    2. Re:The State will always try to get one over by veddermatic · · Score: 1

      Unfortunatley now there isn't much separation or balance... as if you don't blindly vote for GW's cabinet's policies, you are branded "unpatriotic" and "soft on terror", which as every good Dem knows, is a bad thing to be labled when you want to get re-elected.

      THe "War on terror" has removed a great deal of the checks and balances... coupled with a very conservative Supreme Court and you've got the most lop-sided non-checked goverment in the US in some time... if not ever.

      --
      Department of Homeland Security: Removing the rights real patriots fought and died for since 2001
    3. Re:The State will always try to get one over by BFaucet · · Score: 1

      I'm not so much surprised to see my politicians trying to take power... but I am surprised that such a large group is pulling in one direction.

      I don't want to see my country toppled.

      --
      -Derick
    4. Re:The State will always try to get one over by ites · · Score: 1
      The US is much more robust than you might believe. The current swing is an opportunistic gambit that has worked so far only because the American people have been solidified by the Sept.11 attacks. This cannot last. The US is too diverse, holds too many contradictory interests, and is simply too mature a society to actually swallow a coup d'etat. Not because the clique that currently holds power would be afraid to try (I believe they are trying and will continue to) but because they are not the only group with ambition, and as soon as other groups see the opportunity, they will counter attack, and we will be back to the "normal" state of politics - total and utter confusion.

      Which is of course why the Bush clique puts so much emphasis on the terrorist threat - not to win votes, not to boost public opinion, not to justify harsh measures, but simply and purely to make it impossible for competing power cliques to make their move.

      Patience, however. It will take some time. People always seek a strong leader in times of crisis, but it is a weak and exhausted country that allows such leaders to stay once the crisis is past. The US is not exactly a weak or exhausted country.

      --
      Sig for sale or rent. One previous user. Inquire within.
    5. Re:The State will always try to get one over by Cyno · · Score: 1

      Actually I hope they reelect Bush or don't put up a fight when he makes some deals to take another 4 years of office.

      Its quite sad, in fact its an atrocity to think how we have changed everyone's lives in America because 3000 of us died from a terrorist attack that would have never been successful if we cared more about the safety of our customers than the money it would cost us to put a lock on a door. But 3000 of us die every week on our highways. Do we morn for years for all those innocent deaths? Do we even hear about them on the News anymore? No, because terrorism is far more important right now. Terrorism keeps us pacified while our government is in action implementing God knows what.

      I think we deserve whatever we get.

    6. Re:The State will always try to get one over by Darby · · Score: 1

      The current swing is an opportunistic gambit that has worked so far only because the American people have been solidified by the Sept.11 attacks.

      This is correct except for the "only" bit.
      The fact that your average American is an ignorant coward is another contributing factor.
      Ignorant because they really are unaware of what is going on all around them. They spew such filth as "We're the most free country around", "We have a free press" and similar when they have no idea if it is true or not. The fact that it is blatantly false just proves the point, but it doesn't matter if it is true or not. The fact that people say it with no way of knowing if it is true or not proves them to be ignorant fools.

      Cowards because they refuse to face what is happenning because it is too scary to contemplate that this could happen here. Anyone who doesn't want Bush dead or at least in prison is an ignorant fool, a coward or a traitor.
      The simple fact that his every justification for the Iraqi invasion was demonstrated *absolutely* to be a blatant lie is proof of this.
      Let alone all his other criminal, freedom hating actions.

      This cannot last.

      I'd like to think that this is true, but with near complete control over evey bit of news you see and hear it is nowhere near as certain as you seem to think.

      The US is too diverse, holds too many contradictory interests, and is simply too mature a society to actually swallow a coup d'etat. Not because the clique that currently holds power would be afraid to try (I believe they are trying and will continue to) but because they are not the only group with ambition, and as soon as other groups see the opportunity, they will counter attack, and we will be back to the "normal" state of politics - total and utter confusion.

      You are forgetting every law the traitor Bush has pushed through. Anybody against the scumbags in power now will have their every move watched. They will be branded terrorists. etc. etc. etc. Why the hell do you think the TIA Homeland security and the rest of that crap was railroaded through?!?
      There is no way for these to help with their supposed justfications. They were put there for the sole reason of controlling and eventually exterminating dissenting opinion.

  39. Why not? by Ececheira · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Of course I'm going to get modded to hell for this, but here goes anyway: Why shouldn't the military have the information needed to protect us against our enemies? In this era, power isn't restricted to iron, but also information. The Gov't has always held a military advantage over the populace. I understand the concerns regarding the database, but how many people really believe that the government is out to get them? Face it, you're just not that important and your life just isn't that interesting. Even with existing technology, if the goverment wanted to spy on you, you're SOL. Remember, an entity's funding determines how well they can track you and get to you. You may be safe against most companies, but the Gov't already has you beaten. Now Mohammad Atta's life they would be extremely interesting. While no one's making any promises, what if such a system had been able to prevent 9-11? What about the next time? Do you really think that the 9-11 attacks will be the last by terrorists on US soil? How many more people will be killed when a biological or dirty bomb goes off? When doing a cost-benefit analysis, there's really no question. In this day and age, where terrorists are our primary threat, we need to be able to locate them quickly. Uncle Sam really isn't going to be looking closely at Joe Smith--he's too boring. There ya go, flame away.

    1. Re:Why not? by g0hare · · Score: 1

      No flame, but I guess you live such a pure and perfect life that you don't mind that if the information leaks out. Getting a divorce? The information will leak out somehow. Looking for a job? Someone will get your history.

      Isaac Asimov once wrote a story about a guy who invented a time machine, only you could just look back - everyone's mistakes, every time, their whole life. There forever, for anyone to see. Forever. This is what's wrong. THe system, being used by people, will be subverted, and there will be more and morereasons for looking at you and revealing your whole life. Like, I like to get drunk and post trolls on message boards every once in a while. This could easily be used out of context (as electronic posts are notioriously bad for being taken out of context. ALso the concept of sarcasm don't fly real good with email etc.

      --
      Vote Quimby!
    2. Re:Why not? by Steve+B · · Score: 1

      how many people really believe that the government is out to get them? That depends: How many people are seriously inconveniencing or annoying the people in power?

      --
      /. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
    3. Re:Why not? by jpnews · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why not? Really? Are you serious?

      Let's look at it like this. "Terror" is not a crime. "Terrorism" is not even a well defined act. When a person commits a "terrorist act," it could be a shooting, or a bombing, or a hijacking, etc. It's only someone's assessment of the motivation to commit the crime that labels that crime as "terrorism." So how is the database going to be limited to terrorists, or even potential terrorists, when all you need to have is a gun or some explosive material? That's a pretty wide group of people in the U.S.

      And don't forget that drugs support terrorism. And don't forget that people with large amounts of cash are considered drug dealers. So if you carry large amounts of cash, you are supporting terrorism. So you're in the database simply because you cashed your paycheck and you don't like banks.

      Terrorism can be redefined at any time. If you have private software on your machine which could have illegal uses, perhaps you're a terrorist. If you give to the wrong charity, maybe you're supporting terrorism. If you travel to a country "on the list," you're tagged as statistically more likely to commit a terrorist act. If your telephone records show calls to Colombia, you might be a terrorist. If you purchase a copy of the Koran, you are a potential terrorist. If you vote for the "wrong" party or person, you're a terrorist suspect.

      THAT'S WHY NOT.

    4. Re:Why not? by Ececheira · · Score: 1

      The issue isn't whether it'll be leaked out but whether it'll be admissible in court. Those are two totally seperate things.

      And the book you're refering to is The Light of Other Days, by Aurther C. Clarke. I think that it would actually be quite nice to have a device that any one could use to see anything in the past. It would totally change society. Of course people who grew up prior to its invention would have the hardest time adapting, but those who grew up with it would be radically different. It'd be like Foucault's Panopticon. People would subconciously alter their behavior because they think they are being watched.

    5. Re:Why not? by xyzzy · · Score: 1

      Wow, I'm sorry, but shootings, bombings, or hijackings are pretty cut and dry -- they are clearly crimes, and clearly terrorist acts. There is zero moral wiggle-room there.

    6. Re:Why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Then why make "Terrorism" another crime? They already have you on bombing, shooting, etc...

    7. Re:Why not? by Marcus+Erroneous · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As soon as you rock the boat to any effect, your life becomes interesting. As long as you remain "sheeple" and go along with what they say, you are not interesting. In the military, we called that being in name tag defilade, such a low profile that all that was visible of you is your name tag (below notice). But, when you start to disagree with those that know better, or argue that the Bill of Rights should not be arbritrarily suspended for the emergency du jour, they want to know who you are and start collecting against you. They need to know how to handle you and hence, need to collect information against you. After all, if you had nothing to hide, you wouldn't be raising such a stink. You must be one of them or you'd understand that REAL AMERICANS understand the need to make sacrifices.
      Tip O'Neal said that all politics are local. So, all it would take to become a threat is to piss off the local town council by opposing any of their pet projects. They call the sheriff or local constabulary who look into you and/or let law enforcement highers know that you exhibit anti-American tendencies and you pop up on the screen for further investigation. In the UK they've already discovered that the people manning the local cameras spend their time following attractive women or "the wrong sort" as they walk the streets. In the U.S., many employees of the IRS were fired after it was finally made public that they were looking at the tax files of celebrities because they were curious about them. None of the cameras in the London financial district have caught any of the terrorists they were placed there to catch. None of the celebrities had any tax problems that would have necessitated the look at their records. In each case, the people with power to snoop abused their power for personal reasons. Let alone Watergate. In an administration where the President's press secretary feels that it's un-American to disagree with the President, what will it take to become interesting enough to be collected against?
      Having said all that, we do need to do something to protect ourselves. The issue is to protect ourselves without compromising who we are in the process. Traditionally, insurgents have always had the advantage in this respect. They don't have to balance anything nor respect any rights. By getting the government to repress it's own people, the government will cause support for the insurgents to grow as resentment of it grows. It is an incredibly difficult position for a government to be in and easy for the government to get the responses wrong. I'm sure that the U.S. can protect itself and respect the rights of its citizenry. But we have to stand up for our rights while we do so.
      If we have no privacy, we have no freedom.

      --
      You must be the change you wish to see in the world - Ghandi
    8. Re:Why not? by Tackhead · · Score: 1
      > While no one's making any promises, what if such a system had been able to prevent 9-11? What about the next time?

      If it had prevented 9/11, we wouldn't have known about it, and as for the next attack(s), increased surveillance may have already prevented it(them) and we don't know about it.

      > Do you really think that the 9-11 attacks will be the last by terrorists on US soil? How many more people will be killed when a biological or dirty bomb goes off? When doing a cost-benefit analysis, there's really no question.

      On that basis, let it go off. Why waste 1% of GDP to save 100,000 peasants? There's 300,000,000 of us and we breed like rabbits, fer chrissakes.

      But on the basis that actually matters - you're absolutely right. A repeat of 9/11 would result in a catastrophic loss of credibility for whatever party was in power, and would almost guarantee the loss of the next election. There are other scenarios that could result in loss of power for both parties (simultaneously), which are consequently viewed as even more catastrophic from their point of view.

      Therefore, you can rest assured that on a cost-benefit basis, our elected officials are indeed doing everything in their power to prevent further attacks. Just because their motivation (remaining in power) differs from mine (I don't wanna get killed in it, nor do I wanna see the economic aftershocks take down an already shaky economic recovery) doesn't mean they're not motivated, which is the important thing.

    9. Re:Why not? by be-fan · · Score: 1

      Um, shootings are clearly terrorist acts? What about a shooting between inner city gang members? What does that have to do with terrorism? Or a jealous husband bombing her ex-wife's car? Or some disturbed 17-year old hijacking a bus for a joy-ride. None of these are even remotely terrorist acts.

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
    10. Re:Why not? by be-fan · · Score: 1

      I understand the concerns regarding the database, but how many people really believe that the government is out to get them?
      >>>>>>>>>>
      I do. I've got a "terrorist" last name, which has caused some of my family members to have their pay-checks delayed to make time for background checks. Last time I crossed the US-Canadian border, I got flack from the jerk-ass "security" guard there. I'm a staunch liberal, as evidenced by any political stuff I write on the Internet. I strongly oppose GWB. Do you really believe that if the government had access to all sorts of information about me, I wouldn't get scrutinized more than the average "Joe Smith?"

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
    11. Re:Why not? by jhines0042 · · Score: 1

      The Gov't has always held a military advantage over the populace

      I don't believe that this has always been the case.

      If I recall correctly, the "War Department" was formed for WWI, disolved, reformed again for WWII, and then changed into the Department of Defense.

      Don't forget folks that as US citizens, we choose who our leaders are. And if we _all_ wanted to get rid of the military (something that _I_ don't think would be smart to do) then we just need to vote that way.

      --
      42 - So long and thanks for all the fish.
    12. Re:Why not? by Darby · · Score: 1

      Why shouldn't the military have the information needed to protect us against our enemies?

      Here is the fatal flaw in your reasoning.

      They *did* have the information.
      They refused to use it.
      They are much better off now than they were beforehand.
      We are much worse off.

      Please keep your treacherous lies and disinformation to yourself you fucking traitor.

    13. Re:Why not? by helo · · Score: 1

      i see you avoided the flames. good job :)

      you have a mostly good point, but unfortunately terrorists aren't our number one threat. here is a list of possible real threats:

      1) cancer
      2) obesity
      3) loss of democracy, effective dictatorship

      terrorists definately want to kill us, and i am surprised they haven't yet, but look at the hard facts (and NOT/NEVER what comes out of the bush administration).

      There has been one major terrorist attack on US soil. The statistical threat to any person living in the US is smaller than just about any common cause of death.

      the threat of loss of life, liberty, or justice is much higher from our own government or other pitfalls of life than from terrorists.

      Forever wars suck. Now is the time to (re)read 1984. Oddly enough, the proles in the US have always shown high support for elected officials whenever those officials start a perpetual war. It's really more of a marketting coup by politicians than anything else.

    14. Re:Why not? by dmszero · · Score: 1
      right, and theyll be able to use TIA to find bin laden cos he shops at safeway right?

      TIA is more likely to generate more noise than signal, and if they cant find these guys now, what makes you think theyll be able to find them when theres 1000 times more noise in the information they gather?

      directed intelligence is good, blanket intelligence is like trying to land a ball bearing in someones sandwich from 30,000 feet. its pointless, impractical, and someone unrealated is going to get hurt...

      dms0

      --
      -= world leaders choose world leaders not us, not a democracy, not a revolution! =-
    15. Re:Why not? by Darby · · Score: 1

      unless you are actually trying to provoke a physical response so you can kick the shit out of someone, calling people fucking traitors only turns them off to your rap, dig?

      I'm sure that you're right, but sometimes I get so frustrated with the scumbags claiming to love this country while maintaining a militant death grip on their ignorance that I lose it a bit.

      I shouldn't have to be telling people this crap. It's their most important responsibility bar none to know this stuff.

      It's the difference between a citizen and a subject.

  40. Two evils, one anti-terrorist stone by whovian · · Score: 1

    The US has been having its woes from terrorism and the economic downturn.

    Why aren't the government trying to expel all foreign nationals, freeing up jobs for the indiginous populace?

    (Just a thought for consistency sake; I don't necessarily agree.)

    --
    To-do List: Receive telemarketing call during a tornado warning. Check.
    1. Re:Two evils, one anti-terrorist stone by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

      "Why aren't the government trying to expel all foreign nationals, freeing up jobs for the indiginous populace?"

      Because the corporations that benefit from cheap foreign labor are the ones who put our current government in place...

    2. Re:Two evils, one anti-terrorist stone by whovian · · Score: 1

      That sure would be government biting the hand that feeds it. I can't see that happening with the pro=business view of the leader of the current Administration.

      --
      To-do List: Receive telemarketing call during a tornado warning. Check.
  41. There is no right to privacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    One of the problems is that the government can do this because there is no Constitutional right to privacy.

    It is long past time for an amendment to grant one.

    1. Re:There is no right to privacy by metachimp · · Score: 1
      Just because there's no explicit mention of a right to privacy, a right to personal privacy is nonetheless guaranteed to us through the bill of rights. The framers felt it was so forehead-slappingly obvious that we all have a right to personal privacy, that the constitution recognizes the only time the government is permitted to violate that privacy is established in the 4th Amendment.


      The constitution doesn't *give* us anything. The theory is that humans are *born* with these rights. The constitution limits the government's powers, not our rights.

      --
      The system has failed you, don't fail yourself. --Billy Bragg
  42. Government abuse of a database? Never. by Bendy+Chief · · Score: 4, Informative
    For all you doubters out there, here's flagrant abuse, in addition to all the other links people have already submitted, of government databases. And these ones aren't anywhere near as juicy as TIA!

    State Monitors War Protesters

    1. Re:Government abuse of a database? Never. by bricriu · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Best/scariest quote from that:

      "You can make an easy kind of a link that, if you have a protest group protesting a war where the cause that's being fought against is international terrorism, you might have terrorism at that (protest)," said Van Winkle, of the state Justice Department. "You can almost argue that a protest against that is a terrorist act."

      Wow. And here I thought that we went into Iraq to Search For WMDs (tm)... I mean, Free The Iraqis (tm), .... I mean, um... what's our rationale today? Dammit, with Ari gone, I can't keep up with the daily White House spin!

      --

      AHHHHHHH! I'm burning with goodness again!
      - Reakk, Sluggy Freelance

  43. Reply: Oversight? ConCur ... & also, maybe, .. by OldHawk777 · · Score: 1

    ConCur (as in Criminal Dog) as maybe some involved ...?

    Here is my funny for thought.

    All the data collected by TIA, based on English and Foreign Languages.

    Define multipurpose words and phrases ... yep, include the colloquialisms.

    Define Cultural/Regional usages of words and phrases. Will it notice a terrorist speaking, flawless English (or French) in west Texas (or Alberta Canada, or ...), about Apples (NYC or ...), or Goofy people over at the brother-in-law's (Mickey's, ...) house, or the spirited debate (between friends at Berkley) on Egyptian Mythology and the sun god "Ra" .... I guess software has gotten to this level. Now, other related stuff about friends, family, and stuff is transmitted by FAX (you know bits describing black pixel separation information) that can be OCRed (easy) when recognized ... whoops it is just a picture there are no recognized text characters ... it is a picture of (maybe) Arabic characters.

    This TIA stuff is an amazing advance in technology. We should embrace the Omniscient Technology as god-like. ... Hum, Do y'all really think it is going to work beyond Western European like Cultures and languages? Yep, the implied is ...?

    OldHawk777

    Reality is a self-induced hallucination.

    --
    Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
  44. when will they learn... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ...that having even 99.999% accurate profiles gives 0% protection against 100% determination?

    Really, do they not understand they need to root out the *reasons* people oppose the US politics, not just the *symptoms*?

    "Terrorists" are not pissed off at the US out of envy of your economic wealth and civilian liberties, and even less so out of religious considerations -- they're pissed off because your wealth and freedom are maintained, in your name, at their expense... In this sense, the only Good Thing is Bush seems to stupid to cover it up, it's now out there or all to see. Or is it?

    Curious, anxious, frightened, to see where all this will lead to..

  45. WANT TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT? by Neuroelectronic · · Score: 1

    Goto Http://WWW.MoveOn.org why? like you really need to ask This isn't even "terrorist information awareness" No serious "ODHOC" or terroist are charging chemicals for bombs on there credit cards! It Is Total Market Awareness obviosly! Marketers already use public information databases to help target there intended audence. The pentagon probably already does this on a small scale. With a huge database with PRIVILAGED INFORMATION worth money it WILL be HACKED! that or just put on a disk and SOLD.

  46. Where is the need? by code01err · · Score: 1

    There are few states in the world where the 'BIG BROTHER syndrom' is more apparent than in the US. With the FBI, CIA, PENTAGON and the NSA. And mentioning the NSA, one thing especially comes to mind; ECHELON, which captures and analyzes virtually every phone call, fax, email and telex message sent anywhere in the world(according to their own sources). Where, then, is the need for TIA?

    --
    ---- I dedicate this post to Steveo, Billy and Linny
  47. WANT TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT? by Neuroelectronic · · Score: 1

    Goto Http://WWW.MoveOn.org and sign the petition!

    why? like you really need to ask

    This isn't even "terrorist information awareness" No serious "ODHOC" or terroist are charging chemicals for bombs on there credit cards! It Is Total Market Awareness obviosly!

    Marketers already use public information databases to help target there intended audence. The pentagon probably already does this on a small scale. With a huge database with PRIVILAGED INFORMATION worth money it WILL be HACKED! or just put on a disk and SOLD to REAL TERRORISTS.

  48. The pentagon system exists... by sam_handelman · · Score: 4, Interesting

    to subsidize research - historically including automation, jet engines and of course information technology - that may be useful to the private sector.

    Yes, everything I say is Chomskyist.

    So - what do we have here? We have the pentagon developing an incredibly sophisticated, expensive technology. No private sector entity could ever muster the resources - I mean expertise, not just the finances - to make a comprehensive project like this work. Not even Microsoft (they'd screw it up anyway.) ONLY the defensive department can do it.

    I should qualify that - Total Information Awareness could be implemented as open source, if we had motivation to do so. However, that wouldn't serve the purposes of the administration's corporate backers, who's goals do not include clarity and transparency.

    Technology much like this already exists in the hands of corporations ("unaccountable private tyrannies," the man can sure turn a phrase) but it is not sophisticated enough for their needs in predicting our behavior - almost everything you do has a commercial component, and would be of interest to someone business, so saying that this is restricted to commercial activities is facetious.

    If your primary objection is to the government getting it's hands on the data in the first place, keep in mind that a host of completely unaccountable private organizations - international corporations - already have it. In order for the government to develop such a technology, they need the information in question - so they need new legal powers to get it. The same is not true of corporations, who can and do simply trade the information with eachother.

    Once the technology is developed, however, it absolutely will become available as a tool for use by the private sector, who already have the information needed to make it work.

    --
    The good and new comes from no quarter where it is looked for, and is always something different from what is expected.
    1. Re:The pentagon system exists... by dragon13 · · Score: 1

      I should qualify that - Total Information Awareness could be implemented as open source, if we had motivation to do so. However, that wouldn't serve the purposes of the administration's corporate backers, who's goals do not include clarity and transparency.

      It's interesting to ponder the implications of an open-source total info project. Would the transparency and clarity of it ensure it's effect on freedom to be positive?...or is the idea absolutely negative? Of course one could use the database to discriminate, in hiring for example, based on some data contained therein (such as political or religious organization membership). But concievablely the data would also reveal anyone using it in negative ways. For example data on applicants to company x, interviewed by manager y could reveal that the manager never hires non-christians despite their qualifications. Furthermore, while data on the outside might be incorrect or incomplete data on access to the data could (relatively) easily be complete, leading to much more accurate results from "meta-analysis" than from just basic analysis...i.e. while the system might be only 60% accurate at determining terrorists in a given situation, it might be 80% accurate in recognizing abuses of the results of analysis of potential terrorist data in that given situation. What do you all think? dragon13
  49. Re:Bush DID win in Florida by ThaReetLad · · Score: 1

    There is more to vote rigging than just playing with the ballots that were cast, there is also the issue of the thousands of people who were illegally and arbitrarily denied their right to vote on the grounds that their name was similar to someone who was not allowed to vote. Anyway, the point is moot. What is important is that Bush leaves office as soon as possible, before he creates a facist police state that no one can dismantle.

    --
    You can't win Darth. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
  50. Not travelling to US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    This, along with threatening, imprisoning and sueing foreign programmers based on the DMCA, is just the kind of shit why I've decided not to visit the US anymore in the near future unless I absolutely must. No more Game Developer's Conferences, E3's or other trade shows. And certainly no holiday trips.

    Totalitarian Information Awareness, unbelieveable.

  51. It's Not 1984! It's 2004! by Seldon_21 · · Score: 1

    We are connected, we are accessable, we are living in a time of a choice. Data collection goes on everyday in everyway. From the push to move money to check cards, to the signing of returned merchandise. It is clear that we are being lead towards a point of over-control to a clear and absolute control.

    Just as the internet has giving us the ablity to communicate, and share. It has also drawn us into our minds. This has cut us off from each other while giving others the chance to more directly control us.

  52. Evolution by paiute · · Score: 1

    >The gist of its report seems to be that data may be >collected from everyone, but it will only be used >against evildoers.

    Whose ancestor was "Kill them all and let God sort them out".

    --
    If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
  53. fat and happy and the trains are running by ChristTrekker · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Exactly. Americans are too comfortable. As long as "the trains run on time" we'll probably sit here fat and happy while our freedoms go the way of the dodo. We'd have to be much more oppressed, or have deeper religious convictions about right and wrong, before anything will happen. Unfortunately.

    1. Re:fat and happy and the trains are running by PhilHibbs · · Score: 1
      or have deeper religious convictions about right and wrong
      They don't have to be religious. I firmly believe that people can be deeply moral and courageous while knowing that existence is fleeting. To a large extent I agree with Richard Dawkins' POV.
  54. We can trust them ? by kjshark · · Score: 1

    I'm so glad their civil liberties oversight group consists of people from "DoD and the Intelligence Community". In the past, these guys have always cared about safeguarding our privacy and civil liberties.... NOT

    --
    The difference between truth and fiction is that fiction has to be plausible.
  55. Re:Why the terrorists are pissed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The reason they are pissed off is because we are free..

    Uh, no they're really not. They're pissed off because they see the U.S as secular and immoral when measured against their version of morality. Plenty of groups in the U.S do this with each other, too. Would you argue that an Anti-Abortionist is pissed off at a Pro-Abortionist because the Por-Abotionist is Free?

    ..because we stand in the way of their goal of extermination/subjugation of Jews in the Middle East.

    I guess you mean Isreal. This is a country that was formed by taking land from Arab states to build a Jewish state. A state that started a war on its first day (Really. I guess being given a whole country wasn't good enough, they had to have more.) A state that practices segregation and subjection of its non-Jewish population. A state that has its own non-disclosed nuclear weapons program.

    Yeah, Isreal is the poor victim in all of this!

    Isreal needs to stand on its own two feet and play nice with its neighbours. Most Arab states that directly border Isreal wouldn't care too much about these days, if it would just stop throwing its U.S-backed weight around like a spoilt child.

  56. What worries me most... by Jarnis · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Right now, TIA and other similar orwellian laws and systems are pushed, but they are not going thru unopposed. Should any of the more extreme ones pass, they would immediately be challenged by civil liberties groups and would probably not survive an encounter with the supreme court. There is still some common sense left in the system.

    However... there has been recent rumors that the Bin Laden 'boys' are planning yet another terror attack - on US soil (those car bombs in africa etc are not big enough of a deal).

    Should there be a serious terror attack now on US soil, and you could bet your farm that all the people opposing these orwellian measures would be quickly silenced (regardless of the fact that most of these measures have little to do in catching actual terrorists).

    As it stands right now, US system is on the brink. It only needs a small push (another few hundred dead in a 'big name' US mainland target clearly linkable to muslim terrorist groups) and we have scary situation in the US. Just like right after 9-11, US passed laws that would never go thru today in the name of 'fighting terror'. They could pass all kinds of loony stuff in the wake of another terror hit.

  57. LifeLog by spot35 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Darpa are also soliciting proposals for a comprehensive, searchable database of individual human lives encompassing every communication, encounter, transaction and even 'feeling' generated by a lifetime of social interaction. This article on the register describes it.

  58. Psychology of surveillance by Garry+Anderson · · Score: 4, Informative

    I have posted on the subject of surveillance many times before. Here is an extract regarding the psychological aspect. This particular part was wrote by another and did a better job of explaining than I could:

    "Foucault focused on Bentham's prison model, or the Penopticon as Bentham called it - which literally means, that which sees all. The Penopticon prison, which was popular in the early nineteenth century, was designed to allow guards to see their prisons, but not allow prisoners to see guards. The building was circular, with prisoner's cells lining the outer diameter, and in the center of the circle was a large, central observational tower. At any given time, guards could be looking down into each prisoner's cells - and thereby monitor potentially unmoral behavior - but carefully-placed blinds prevented prisoners from seeing the guards, thereby leaving them to wonder if they were being monitored at any given moment. It was Bentham's belief that the "gaze" of the Panopticon would force prisoners to behave morally. Like the all-seeing eye of God, they would feel shame at their wicked ways. In effect, the coercive nature of the Panopticon was built into its very structure."

    Full text is here and also on my personal website.

  59. Re:We're almost all Native Americans by Trurl's+Machine · · Score: 2, Informative

    You are a member of a peaceful meeting. Someone (not you, not your friend, not a member of organization you endorse, not anyone you even know) throws a bomb. You are arrested and sentenced to death for "conspiracy with unknown person". Would you call this justice? And that is the essence of the Haymarket trial. Nobody knows who threw the bomb, and no liaisons were proven for the hanged persons. They just stood there, that was their only guilt.

  60. Sigh of relief by grunteled · · Score: 1

    Well, I for one feel better now. Terrorist Infomation Awareness is much better that Total Information Awareness. Since they promise to only use it on bad people then there is no reason to not trust them! This just puts my heart at ease.

  61. Tired of illiteracy by CiceroLove · · Score: 1, Informative

    This begins my fight. It's not "Soft-Pedals", it's "soft peddles" as in sells. For the love of Christ, people! This is your native language!

    1. Re:Tired of illiteracy by mudshark · · Score: 1
      Bzzzt. You fail this quiz.

      It really is "soft-pedals," and the context it is derived from is musical. On a piano, the leftmost pedal shifts the entire action over so that the hammers which would ordinarily strike all three strings of each unison only strike one. This yields a quieter sound, but also a more subdued tone due to the lack of tiny phase and pitch differences among the unison group.

      In piano notation, the marking for use of the soft pedal is una corda, Italian for "one string" and the marking for return to normal state is tre corda (the translation of which is left as an exercise for the reader).

      Thus ends your fight -- with a loss. Move along now.

      --
      In other news, astrophysicists have announced that they now know what all that dark matter is: it's stupidity.
  62. Re:So basically...You Don't Understand Research... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
    Does anyone understand the purpose of DARPA?


    DARPA dreams up futuristic technologies it thinks might be useful and gives money to North American universities to look into those idea. Any Orwellian references here are so far off the mark its laughable. This technology is nowhere close to existing, but reseach into the fundemental technical problems it poses is actually quite interesting and will undoubted find commerical application before the military can use it.


    Anyone who thinks DARPA is in the business of deploying military technologies has it all wrong. DARPA is in the business of rseaching interesting problems that may have military applications.


    An example should help to clarify my thoughts. A system capable of "connecting the dots" the way DARPA descibes would be applicable to an immense range of problems. Consider an operating system that could fiqure out why it is crashing and fix the problem. Or how about program that could analyze your purchasing and find you ways to save significant amounts of hard earned cash?


    The implications of DARPA research go way beyond the Pentagon. Prejudging this type of reseach is simply foolish.

  63. Another nail in freedom's coffin by Steve+Christ · · Score: 1
    Just when you think the Government here in the UK is Asshole Central, someone on the other side of the pond snatches the title back.

    Isn't spin wonderful?

    I suggest that everyone who votes Bush next time round be pilloried.

    Cheers

    S.

    1. Re:Another nail in freedom's coffin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
      A landslide? Bush needs a miracle or the entire nation to stop thinking!

      The USA made it's greatest mistake in allegedly 'electing' (allegedly because it was stolen in Florida with the help of -gasp!- his brother! and allegedly rigged prior to that elsewhere) a halfwit who makes Dan Quayle look like an intellectual.

      Then it let him use 9/11 as an excuse for any sort of travesty he wanted to carry out on the world - Camp X-Ray and it's illegal detention of war prisoners (call 'em what you want, that's what they ARE) including children, and then the whole Iraqi thing.

      If it was for freedom and the safety of the Western World, why hasn't he piled into North Korea with their PROVEN nuclear capability? (Note: no Weapons of Mass Destruction yet found in Iraq? Well hidden? Or never there?) Could it be because Korea has no OIL?

      George W. Bush is a moron and the sooner he gets out of the White House the better. At the moment he's alienating the US to the rest of the world and screwing your economy to boot. £300 billion deficit?

      Good grief. If he wins again you're doomed. Hello Depression, tonight we're gonna party like it's 1929!!

      S.

  64. In hidden ways, the U.S. government is violent. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 2, Interesting
    It's painful to me, but I have had to accept that the U.S. government is corrupt in some ways. United States government agencies, such as the NSA, CIA, and FBI, have become global police that operate mostly in secret, without control or oversight by the people, and mostly without any kind of effective external control. United States citizens are allowed to know about these agencies only what the U.S. government wants them to know. (NSA is National Security Agency. CIA is Central Intelligence Agency. FBI is Federal Bureau of Investigation. These are official U.S. government web sites.)

    Hidden elements of the U.S. government have become the most violent force the world has ever known, with a long history of acting in a violent manner and supporting violent dictatorships: The U.S. government has bombed 24 countries in the 58 years since the Second World War. The list below includes only countries bombed, not countries in which the U.S. government was responsible for other violence. The list includes only violence since the Second World War, not the extensive violence before the war. Most U.S. citizens are surprised and skeptical when they see the list, so a few links have been provided to supporting information. For more information, try the Google search engine or see the links below.
    1. Afghanistan, 1998, 2001, 2002, 2003
    2. Bosnia, 1994, 1995
    3. Cambodia, 1969-70
    4. China, 1945-46
    5. Congo (now Zaire), 1964
    6. Cuba, 1959-1961 ("Bay of Pigs" invasion)
    7. El Salvador, 1980s
    8. Grenada, 1983
    9. Guatemala, 1954, 1960, 1967-69
    10. Indonesia, 1958
    11. Iran, 1987
    12. Iraq, 1991-2000, 2003 (The U.S. government used radioactive bombs in the first war against Iraq. See United States War Crimes Against Iraq for what appears to be an accurate history.)
    13. Korea and China, 1950-53 (Korean War)
    14. Kuwait, 1991
    15. Laos, 1964-73
    16. Lebanon, 1983, 1984 (both Lebanese and Syrian targets)
    17. Libya, 1986
    18. Nicaragua, 1980s
    19. Panama, 1989. The U.S. government called it "Operation Just Cause". The link is to a U.S. military web site.
    20. Peru, 1965
    21. Somalia, 1993
    22. Sudan 1998. There are doubts that the pharmaceutical plant that was bombed was making weapons.
    23. Vietnam, 1961-73 (An estimated 2,000,000 Vietnamese were killed.)
    24. Yugoslavia, 1999

    There are many sources for this information. For example, see this PBS web page: PBS: A Chronology of U.S. Military Interventions (PBS is the Public Broadcasting System in the U.S.) Also see From Wounded Knee to Afghanistan: A Century of U.S. Military Interventions [zmag.org] and The government of the United States is a consistent opponent of international law. [

  65. I am also using this strategy. by hoggoth · · Score: 2, Funny

    > renaming the TIA program, 'Terrorism Information Awareness.'

    I will also be using this strategy.
    I will be robbing banks under the "Terrorist Defunding Program."
    I will be growing and selling drugs under the "Terrorist Mellowing Program."
    I will no longer be paying any tax under the "Emergency Funds Caching Against Terrorist Activity Program".

    --
    - For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
  66. Sigh. by osxphile · · Score: 1

    Whatever their intentions, these are the seeds of a police state.

    How can people be so stupid?

    The potential for abuse of such a system is enormous. I would think that anyone with the ability to build it would be smart enough not to.

  67. Re:Bush DID win. by ThaReetLad · · Score: 1

    facist == Stalinist?????????

    dumbass.

    facist == right wing authoritarian. Survival of the fitest etc. Hilter, Mussolini etc

    Stalinist == left wing authoritarian. The state will assign everyone a job, a house, a doctor, a car if you need one, a school, enough food to survive but not enough to thrive. Stalin, Mao Tse Dung, etc

    OK both type viciously put down opposition and have a state controlled single party system. Of course you americans have two virtually identical parties so you're nearly there.

    I think you're wrong about state run health (and education), they work well and are efficient, but then I'm european and we care about our fellow man.

    --
    You can't win Darth. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
  68. The same old cooked list by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    "such as the NSA, CIA, and FBI, have become global police that operate mostly in secret, without control or oversight by the people."

    This is misleading. These executive departments have the same sort of oversight, or lack of it, as the FDA and Ag Department. They are controlled by elected representatives.

    As for the list of countries, many of these are true. The US bombing of invader forces in Bosnia to liberate this place is well documented. The rest of them involved for the most part attacking the invaders of those countries. I see your list did not mention "during WW 2", where I suppose it was terrible that the US bombed those nice Nazis.

    However, what is disturbing is that you pepper your list with links to fringe web sites and extremists magazines, and the made-up "US War Crimes Against Iraq", seemingly composed by Bagdad Bob. Do you have any credible sources?

    1. Re:The same old cooked list by Blondie-Wan · · Score: 1
      I see your list did not mention "during WW 2", where I suppose it was terrible that the US bombed those nice Nazis.

      That's because the list is made up entirely of countries bombed since WWII. Look at the dates. Also, reread the original post, and look for the words "...in the 58 years since the Second World War" (which the original poster thoughtfully put in bold text, though somehow you still overlooked it).

    2. Re:The same old cooked list by Kintanon · · Score: 1

      A word about oversight:

      A small organization has 10 members, 1 is the president of the org, 1 is the vice president, 1 is the treasurer and 1 is the secretary.
      Which of these people has the most power in the org?
      Many people would say the President. The person that runs the meetings and has all of the trappings of power. Others would say the Treasurer, the person that controls the money. But they would both be wrong. The person with the REAL power is the Secretary. Why? Because the Secretary keeps the minutes of the meetings and records the decisions of the group. If the Secretary records whatever he thinks is the best decision instead of what the group says, and then reports that to the membership they can control the organization. And if done correctly the other members of the administration will never know they've lost all of their percieved power. The Secretary controls the flow of information, so the Secretary has all of the power.
      Now, who controls the flow of information from the FBI to their supposed government oversight?
      Think about it for a while... You can't oversee something that you don't know about.

      Kintanon

      --
      Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
  69. Suspected Terrorist by nycsubway · · Score: 5, Informative

    You could also add to that list 'suspected terrorist'.

    When the Patriot Act was enacted after Sept 11, 2001, it included a provision to allow US companies to discontinue services with a suspected terrorist. At my company, a large anonymous insurance company, we are being asked (in lieu of $10,000,000 fines) to compare every claimant, vendor, and any name we come across to a database of suspected terrorists provided by the Treasury Department.

    If the name matches, we are to withhold payment of the claim until we mail a form to the Treasury Dept, and they investigate the suspected terrorist.

    So, if a person is injured on the job, is out of work, and wants to collect workers compensation from his employer's insurance company, he wont be able to if he has the same name as someone on the Treasury Dept's list. So, he wont be able to work because he's injured, and he wont be able to collect any insurance. Where's he going to get money to live on while the Treasury dept investigates?

    Needless to say, I was appauled that we had to program these features into our claim system.

    1. Re:Suspected Terrorist by intermodal · · Score: 2, Insightful

      there's a certain point when violating one's morals becomes a justified reason for refusal...i would like to think that that time has come in your system's case.

      --
      In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
    2. Re:Suspected Terrorist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I was going to write about how it was your moral duty to make sure this never quite works right, like it accidentally includes the names of every top person at Treasury or something.

      Then I just broke down and started to cry, so never mind.

    3. Re:Suspected Terrorist by DeputySpade · · Score: 1

      Needless to say, I was appauled that we had to program these features into our claim system.

      Yet I'm sure you went ahead and did it anyway. You go, girl. Bitch on /., roll over in the real world. Rock on!

      --


      This space intentionally left blank
    4. Re:Suspected Terrorist by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 1
      Funny you should mention this....i don't know how relevant this is, being a college student who's father still pays his taxes, but my tax return came back fairly late this year. Is it possible I've been marked as a "suspected terrorist"? I could see why I might....I read /., I agree with many of the anti-Orwellian government views, o.....and I "pirate" music, can't forget that one. So how does someone go about finding out if they are on such a list? Is there no way to find out until their investigation gets to the point where you are um......disappeared?

      --
      Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
  70. And blacks, and guys and white people and ...... by oliverthered · · Score: 1

    The apache helicopter.

    An American was machine, named after a group of people that had genocide commited against them.

    I hope I'm going to die young and without any kids (poor bastards), I wish my mum had.

    --
    thank God the internet isn't a human right.
  71. Welcome, Big Brother! by sstamps · · Score: 3, Funny

    You're only 20 years late, but that's only double-plus ungood.

    Feh.

    --
    -SS "Teach the ignorant, care for the dumb, and punish the stupid."
  72. I am more concerned about corporations by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

    getting/having this than the government.

    And they already do, with FAR less oversight than TIA.

    Far less security, far fewer rules as to what they can/will do with all that 'marketing' information. Far less structure to weed out bad/incorrect records.

    We can (hopefully) vote out foolish leaders. The heads of corporations are there as long as they want, doing whatever they want.

  73. Just links from Googling by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1

    Much better sources are available, for example, books. The ones I supplied came from a quick googling.

    The activities of the FDA and Agriculture Department are openly discussed. Twenty years ago, most people in the U.S. did not know the CIA was training terrorists to fight against the Soviets in Afghanistan, for example. That training is now used against United States citizens. The CIA calls this "blowback".

  74. Re:Dems soft on terror by veddermatic · · Score: 1

    Nobody is ever "forced" to join a union. The Homland Security dept said "no unions ever" which I think is a pretty shitty thing to do. People have the RIGHT to unionize.

    Allowing Americans the right to organize for a better standard of living is putting National Security low how? You have just proven my point very nicely, thank you.... Agree blindly with GW's cronies or you must be against security!!

    --
    Department of Homeland Security: Removing the rights real patriots fought and died for since 2001
  75. and would it matter? by zogger · · Score: 1

    --the issue of the vote recount in florida can be looked at another way. To me, it makes little difference. If you do even a short analysis of all the "front runners" in major elections, you'll find that basically, you are given the opportunity to "vote" for various corporations, think tanks and groups. They share this for the most part. A vote for either one of the basic "two" candidates still results in the combination of (just a broad generalization here) the CFR, Rand corporation, etc, several along those lines, and some multinational corporations and large banks (again international and cross over spillage with the humans involved) and some various "think tanks" and study groups "winning" the election. It doesn't matter, either candidate winning gives the same exact power blocs the election.

    What you see with these candidates (and whomever "wins" of course) are media spokespeople,actors and script readers, they are puppets who's strings are pulled at much higher levels. They are told what to do. These elections now give the illusion of voting, they give an illusion of choice, they give an illusion of major differences, they give an illusion of representative government. And they do an admirable job in keeping people divided, and not looking one inch further than "party" differences, they keep the focus at that level and no higher for most people, and it is "politically most correct" for the string pullers to have it remain that way, so they push it. That's why you see so little major difference in the controlled media, follow the ownership chain of command high enough, only a few people in the good old boys club are there. Sure, they throw "liberal" and "conservative" columnists out there, again, to maintain the focus just *so far* politically, but to SQUASH it beyond that point beyond which they don't want you looking.

    It is not totally completely 100% there, but it is so close I feel confident stating the above as "true facts", because any remaining differences are trivial, no different from a high level mafia conference and some of the local capos squabbling over this or that issue. It's still "the mafia".

    This is as much a levels of awarness thing as anything else. People have a tendency to stop looking at their exact comfortable/uncomfortable level. Once it makes them uncomfortable, where what they are seeing is getting to the area of causing actual psychological pain for them, this "paradigm shifting" event threshold, they stop looking, retreat one step or level, then fixate exactly at that level, and anything above that becomes "deniable" it "doesn't exist" because "everyone knows that".

    This is somewhat easily proven. In the US we have these two major "parties". For decades now, generations really, there are examples of high level lying, corruption, malfeasance in office. It is in both these "parties" that most people associate with, this forced schism of "left and right". The more focused and vocal cheerleaders of both parties quite obviously ignore, deny, refute, all the top level scandals and examples of corruption, they deny the lies. Go to the two largest political forums on the internet, democratic Underground and Freerepublic. You can see this happen, both places. both places find plenty of faults with 'the other side", but once faults start showing up with their own side, the "uncomfortable level of awareness" political pain threshold is met, frequently even the mere posting of data gets nuked into oblivion, let alone any conclusionary analysis of it. In the last two administrations, the slang terms for these people are "clintonistas" and now "bushbots". They readily point out obvious failures, crimes, examples of corruption, etc with the OTHER side, but are in amost total denial on "their side". Both sides are correct in their analysis of the other side. Data is just data, conclusions based on data available to anyone to look at tend to become more or less obvious. The ramifications should then be even more obvious- the differnces in this "party" system are tr

    1. Re:and would it matter? by rickwood · · Score: 1

      Oh for a mod point. Zogger, man, I knew I had you marked as a friend for a reason. Ike straight up told Mr. and Mrs. America that forces beyond their control were trying to subvert and sabotage the ideas this country was founded on. Yet... as you say, hardly anyone can even quote the most telling line, "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex."

      Anyway, man, Right on and Power to the People.

  76. "We're behind schedule" by pjcreath · · Score: 1

    I can't believe nobody's yet mentioned this classic 1984 reference from 8-10 years ago.

  77. I hereby invoke Theatetus's law by Theatetus · · Score: 1

    Theatetus's law states that once two people have disagreed on the Israel/Palestine situation, no amount of argument by one will ever convince the other, so it's time to stop. Thank you

    --
    All's true that is mistrusted
  78. Not disputed by those who know the history by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1

    The question is not whether the links are good. The question is whether the information is true. Most people in the U.S. are not aware of the U.S. government's support for violent dictatorships, for example. But that support is not disputed by those who have studied the history. There are even U.S. government web sites that document support for violence dictatorships, for example.

  79. TIA Isn't Evil In Itself . . . by Xthlc · · Score: 1

    (disclaimer: I work for a company that made a proposal for TIA and lost)

    I'm glad to see TIA making a comeback, because in my opinion it would be a shame to see it killed. Why? Because it's a program with some damn good ideas, hampered by technically savvy but politically-challenged leadership (Poindexter). He had NO CLUE that the logo would scare people, or that the wording of its mission statement would terrify a populace already weary from assaults on their civil liberties. And his difficulty grasping why some folks have privacy concerns about TIA may very well cripple the program.

    TIA aims to create for databases what ARPANet did for computers -- develop common platforms and protocols for establishing relationships between disparate sources of information. It aims to enable queries and searches that make Google look like a random URL generator -- you'll be able to find bus schedules that'll take you to the bookstore where your favorite author is giving a reading, B&Bs in Amsterdam that have nonsmoking rooms with TVs that will be showing your favorite football team's game at 3pm next Tuesday, companies incorporated in Singapore whose CEOs went to U.Missouri with Kenneth Lay . . . all in a few clicks or keystrokes.

    Yes, it's something that could be abused by the US government. However, that doesn't mean we should give in to blind Luddism and reject such a promising technology outright. Rather, TIA should address security and privacy concerns from the get-go (I'm particularly fond of Latanya Sweeney's research in this regard), as a layer of recommendations and best-practices atop the fundamental architecture that TIA aims to produce.

  80. Re:Rebuttal, 'son': Operation Enduring Police Stat by Glock27 · · Score: 1
    And there's a mass of unrefuted evidence that points to dirty deeds on behalf of the Bush side.

    A "mass of unrefuted evidence" that the Democrats in general, and Gore in particular, have simply ignored?!?

    I think not.

    --
    Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
    Score: -1 100% Flamebait
  81. In Soviet Russia... by Kjella · · Score: 1

    ...that's exactly what they told you. "This will only be used against enemies of the People"

    No, this is not another "In Soviet Russia" joke.

    Kjella

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  82. Re:We're almost all Native Americans by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

    Speak for yourself. I was born here, as were most people I know. We never migrated, except from one part of the US to another. Most of the rest migrated from other parts of the "New World" if they are not native.

    The term Native American refers to the people that came onto these lands before there were any humans here. Of course, the original poster is pushing symantecs and trying to compare current humans to our nomadic ancesters, which is a very bad argument. Of course, we'd expect people to try to legitimize the "culturalization" of the Native Americans by simply stating that we're all the same people.

    --
    -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
  83. Here are the Hitler/Bush parallels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    (this is a cut and paste)
    THE FIFTY STEPS TO WORLD WAR & FASCISM
    ( an adaptation of Author Thom Hartman"s "When Democracy Failed,

    1. THE GOVERNMENT RECEIVED WARNINGS OF AN IMMINENT ATTACK.
    2. THE WARNINGS WERE IGNORED.
    3. THE NATION'S LEADER WAS ILLEGITIMATE, ELECTED BY A MINORITY.
    4. HE WAS A SIMPLETON WHO SAW THINGS IN BLACK AND WHITE ONLY.
    5. HIS LANGUAGE WAS COARSE AND OFFENSIVE.
    6. AS A YOUNG MAN, HE JOINED A SECRET SOCIETY WHOSE RITUALS
    INCLUDED SKULL AND BONES.
    7. HE KNEW THE TERRORIST WHO WAS GOING TO STRIKE.
    8. HE STOOD ON THE RUBBLE OF THE BUILDING ATTACKED.
    9. HE DECLARED ALL-OUT WAR AGAINST EVIL.
    10. A DETENTION CENTER FOR TERRORISTS WAS SOON BUILT.
    11. LEGISLATION WAS ENACTED BANNING FREE SPEECH, PRIVACY AND HABEAS CORPUS.
    12. SUSPECTED TERRORISTS COULD BE IMPRISONED WITHOUT ACCESS TO LAWYERS.
    13. A PATRIOTIC "DECREE" WAS PASSED WITH A 4 YEAR SUNSET PROVISION.
    14. LEGISLATORS DID NOT HAVE TIME TO READ IT.
    15. SUSPICIOUS PERSONS WERE ARRESTED WITHOUT ACCESS TO LAWYERS OR THE COURTS.
    16. THOSE OBJECTING WERE IGNORED BY A MAINSTREAM PRESS.
    17. PROTESTING CITIZENS WERE FENCED OFF IN ZONES.
    18. THE COUNTRY WAS REFERRED TO AS THE "HOMELAND".
    19. IT WAS OUR HOMELAND VS. ALL OTHERS.
    20. THE LEADER DECLARED THAT AN INTERNATIONAL BODY WHICH DID NOT ACT FIRST IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE NATION WAS IRRELEVANT.
    21. HE WITHDREW FROM THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS.
    22. HE CLAIMED HIS MOTIVATIONS WERE ROOTED IN CHRISTIANITY.
    23. HE FELT THAT THE VARIOUS AGENCIES WERE NOT COORDINATED TO DEAL WITH THE TERRORIST THREAT.
    24. HE PROPOSED A SINGLE AGENCY TO PROTECT THE HOMELAND.
    25. HE APPOINTED ONE OF HIS TRUSTED ASSOCIATES TO LEAD THIS NEW AGENCY.
    26. THE RADIO AND PRESS WERE AT HIS DISPOSAL.
    27. PEOPLE WERE ENCOURAGED TO PHONE IN TIPS ABOUT SUSPICIOUS NEIGHBORS.
    28. OPPOSITION LEADERS AND CELEBRITIES WHO SPOKE OUT WERE
    DENOUNCED.
    29. THE LEADER CONSOLIDATED HIS POWER AND BROUGHT CORPORATE
    LEADERS INTO HIGH GOVERNMENT POSITIONS.
    30. A FLOOD OF GOVERNMENT MONEY POURED INTO CORPORATE COFFERS.
    31. THE LEADER ENCOURAGED LARGE CORPORATIONS TO ACQUIRE MEDIA OUTLETS AND OTHER INDUSTRIAL CONCERNS ACROSS THE NATION,
    PARTICULARLY THOSE OWNED BY SUSPICIOUS PEOPLE OF MIDDLE EASTERN
    ANCESTRY.
    32. HE BUILT POWERFUL ALLIANCES WITH INDUSTRY.
    33. DISSENT AROSE WITHIN AND OUTSIDE THE GOVT. LEADERS OF OTHER NATIONS SPOKE OUT AGAINST HIS BELLICOSE RHETORIC.
    34. THE LEADER NEEDED A DIVERSION TO DIRECT PEOPLE AWAY FROM CORPORATE CRONYISM.
    35. HE BEGAN A CAMPAIGN TO MANIPULATE THE MEDIA TO HYPE A LIMITED WAR.
    36. A NATION WHICH HARBORED SUSPICIOUS PEOPLE AND HAD A TENUOUS RELATIONSHIP WITH THE TERRORIST WHO HAD SET AFIRE THE NATIONS MOST IMORTANT BUILDING, HAD THE RESOURCES HE NEEDED.
    37. THE LEADER PUBLICLY DELIVERED AN ULTIMATUM.
    38. HE CLAIMED THE RIGHT TO PRE-EMPTIVE STRIKE IN SELF-DEFENSE.
    39. AFTER MILITARY ACTION BEGAN, THE BRITISH PM DECLARED THAT IT WOULD BRING PEACE IN OUR TIME.
    40. THE LEADER DECLARED THAT THOSE HE CONQUERED LOVED HIM.
    41. THE PRESS BEGAN TO EQUATE HIS POLICIES WITH PATRIOTISM AND THE NATION ITSELF.
    42. THE MEDIA SAID NATIONAL UNITY WAS ESSENTIAL.
    43. THOSE QUESTIONING THE LEADER WERE CALLED TRAITORS.
    44. DISSENT WAS STIFLED AS INTELLECTUALS AND LIBERALS WERE
    THRASHED.
    45. VOICES OF OPPOSITION WERE RAISED AFTER THE LIMITED WAR.
    46. THE DAILY PROPAGANDA DID NOT TOTALLY SUPPRESS DISSENT.
    47. A FULL WAR WAS NECESSARY TO DIVERT ATTENTION FROM GROWING OPPOSITION.
    48. ONE YEAR LATER, WORLD WAR II BEGAN.
    49. THE BLITZKRIEG OR LIGHTNING WAR "SHOCKED AND AWED" EUROPE.
    50. "FASCISM SHOULD MORE PROPERLY BE CALLED CORPORATISM, SINCE

    IT IS THE MERGER OF STATE AND CORPORATE POWER." - BENITO MUSSOLINE

    FASCISM-
    "A SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT THAT EXERCISES DICTATORSHIP BY THE EXTREME RIGHT TYPICALLY THROUGH THE MERGING OF STATE AND
    CORPORATE POWER, TOGETHER WITH BELLIGERENT NATIONALISM"

    Sound familiar?

    1. Re: Here are the Hitler/Bush parallels by redstoner · · Score: 1

      A lot of good comparisons. The only difference between Bush and Hitler is that Hitler was smarter than Bush. Hitler controlled his government, while Bush is just a puppet.

  84. Here are the Hitler/Bush parallels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative


    THE FIFTY STEPS TO WORLD WAR & FASCISM
    ( an adaptation of Author Thom Hartman"s "When Democracy Failed,

    1. THE GOVERNMENT RECEIVED WARNINGS OF AN IMMINENT ATTACK.
    2. THE WARNINGS WERE IGNORED.
    3. THE NATION'S LEADER WAS ILLEGITIMATE, ELECTED BY A MINORITY.
    4. HE WAS A SIMPLETON WHO SAW THINGS IN BLACK AND WHITE ONLY.
    5. HIS LANGUAGE WAS COARSE AND OFFENSIVE.
    6. AS A YOUNG MAN, HE JOINED A SECRET SOCIETY WHOSE RITUALS
    INCLUDED SKULL AND BONES.
    7. HE KNEW THE TERRORIST WHO WAS GOING TO STRIKE.
    8. HE STOOD ON THE RUBBLE OF THE BUILDING ATTACKED.
    9. HE DECLARED ALL-OUT WAR AGAINST EVIL.
    10. A DETENTION CENTER FOR TERRORISTS WAS SOON BUILT.
    11. LEGISLATION WAS ENACTED BANNING FREE SPEECH, PRIVACY AND HABEAS CORPUS.
    12. SUSPECTED TERRORISTS COULD BE IMPRISONED WITHOUT ACCESS TO LAWYERS.
    13. A PATRIOTIC "DECREE" WAS PASSED WITH A 4 YEAR SUNSET PROVISION.
    14. LEGISLATORS DID NOT HAVE TIME TO READ IT.
    15. SUSPICIOUS PERSONS WERE ARRESTED WITHOUT ACCESS TO LAWYERS OR THE COURTS.
    16. THOSE OBJECTING WERE IGNORED BY A MAINSTREAM PRESS.
    17. PROTESTING CITIZENS WERE FENCED OFF IN ZONES.
    18. THE COUNTRY WAS REFERRED TO AS THE "HOMELAND".
    19. IT WAS OUR HOMELAND VS. ALL OTHERS.
    20. THE LEADER DECLARED THAT AN INTERNATIONAL BODY WHICH DID NOT ACT FIRST IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE NATION WAS IRRELEVANT.
    21. HE WITHDREW FROM THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS.
    22. HE CLAIMED HIS MOTIVATIONS WERE ROOTED IN CHRISTIANITY.
    23. HE FELT THAT THE VARIOUS AGENCIES WERE NOT COORDINATED TO DEAL WITH THE TERRORIST THREAT.
    24. HE PROPOSED A SINGLE AGENCY TO PROTECT THE HOMELAND.
    25. HE APPOINTED ONE OF HIS TRUSTED ASSOCIATES TO LEAD THIS NEW AGENCY.
    26. THE RADIO AND PRESS WERE AT HIS DISPOSAL.
    27. PEOPLE WERE ENCOURAGED TO PHONE IN TIPS ABOUT SUSPICIOUS NEIGHBORS.
    28. OPPOSITION LEADERS AND CELEBRITIES WHO SPOKE OUT WERE
    DENOUNCED.
    29. THE LEADER CONSOLIDATED HIS POWER AND BROUGHT CORPORATE
    LEADERS INTO HIGH GOVERNMENT POSITIONS.
    30. A FLOOD OF GOVERNMENT MONEY POURED INTO CORPORATE COFFERS.
    31. THE LEADER ENCOURAGED LARGE CORPORATIONS TO ACQUIRE MEDIA OUTLETS AND OTHER INDUSTRIAL CONCERNS ACROSS THE NATION,
    PARTICULARLY THOSE OWNED BY SUSPICIOUS PEOPLE OF MIDDLE EASTERN
    ANCESTRY.
    32. HE BUILT POWERFUL ALLIANCES WITH INDUSTRY.
    33. DISSENT AROSE WITHIN AND OUTSIDE THE GOVT. LEADERS OF OTHER NATIONS SPOKE OUT AGAINST HIS BELLICOSE RHETORIC.
    34. THE LEADER NEEDED A DIVERSION TO DIRECT PEOPLE AWAY FROM CORPORATE CRONYISM.
    35. HE BEGAN A CAMPAIGN TO MANIPULATE THE MEDIA TO HYPE A LIMITED WAR.
    36. A NATION WHICH HARBORED SUSPICIOUS PEOPLE AND HAD A TENUOUS RELATIONSHIP WITH THE TERRORIST WHO HAD SET AFIRE THE NATIONS MOST IMORTANT BUILDING, HAD THE RESOURCES HE NEEDED.
    37. THE LEADER PUBLICLY DELIVERED AN ULTIMATUM.
    38. HE CLAIMED THE RIGHT TO PRE-EMPTIVE STRIKE IN SELF-DEFENSE.
    39. AFTER MILITARY ACTION BEGAN, THE BRITISH PM DECLARED THAT IT WOULD BRING PEACE IN OUR TIME.
    40. THE LEADER DECLARED THAT THOSE HE CONQUERED LOVED HIM.
    41. THE PRESS BEGAN TO EQUATE HIS POLICIES WITH PATRIOTISM AND THE NATION ITSELF.
    42. THE MEDIA SAID NATIONAL UNITY WAS ESSENTIAL.
    43. THOSE QUESTIONING THE LEADER WERE CALLED TRAITORS.
    44. DISSENT WAS STIFLED AS INTELLECTUALS AND LIBERALS WERE
    THRASHED.
    45. VOICES OF OPPOSITION WERE RAISED AFTER THE LIMITED WAR.
    46. THE DAILY PROPAGANDA DID NOT TOTALLY SUPPRESS DISSENT.
    47. A FULL WAR WAS NECESSARY TO DIVERT ATTENTION FROM GROWING OPPOSITION.
    48. ONE YEAR LATER, WORLD WAR II BEGAN.
    49. THE BLITZKRIEG OR LIGHTNING WAR "SHOCKED AND AWED" EUROPE.
    50. "FASCISM SHOULD MORE PROPERLY BE CALLED CORPORATISM, SINCE

    IT IS THE MERGER OF STATE AND CORPORATE POWER." - BENITO MUSSOLINE

    FASCISM-
    "A SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT THAT EXERCISES DICTATORSHIP BY THE EXTREME RIGHT TYPICALLY THROUGH THE MERGING OF STATE AND
    CORPORATE POWER, TOGETHER WITH BELLIGERENT NATIONALISM"

    Sound familiar?

  85. And they are SWORN to uphold and defend... by Baldrson · · Score: 1
    The Constitution says "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

    Why? So members of the NRA can be macho and hunt deer?

    That's not what the Founders thought. A typical quote:

    Noah Webster: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe." (1787, Pamphlets on the Constitution of the US)

    Constitutional proceedures, i.e. amendment of the Bill of Rights, have not been followed in creating the imbalance of power that now exists between the people and the standing army.

    It is therefore the duty of every man and woman in the United States Armed forces to ensure that "the people" have access to every bit as much armament as does the standing army which now turns its vigilant gaze upon the people.

    1. Re:And they are SWORN to uphold and defend... by Cid+Highwind · · Score: 1

      It is therefore the duty of every man and woman in the United States Armed forces to ensure that "the people" have access to every bit as much armament as does the standing army which now turns its vigilant gaze upon the people.

      Sounds good! Count me in for $20. How much more do we need to buy a Reagan-class carrier again?

      --
      0 1 - just my two bits
    2. Re:And they are SWORN to uphold and defend... by spitzak · · Score: 1

      Dammit the bank turned down my loan, so I was unable to buy that M1 tank I needed to defend my liberties. What should I do now?

  86. Has some merit by Derkec · · Score: 1

    We know that this will be used beyond it's original purpose of tracking terrorism. Once you get a database that does such 'cool' things, it's going to be used in increasingly creative ways. The advantage of the soft peddling is that when that happens it will be more clearly an offense. The question, "How does that involve Terrorism?" is easy. Stretching Total Information Awareness to help in other 'noble' causes, would be harder to question. That said, I find the whole ordeal somewhat comical. Sad, but comical.

  87. Is the U.S. government "extreme left-wing fringe"? by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1
    AC, you have been watching this thread of comments very closely. You are replying immediately. Since you are posting anonymously, you must be re-loading the Slashdot story and examining just this one part of it to see if there has been a reply.

    Are universities and the U.S. government itself "extreme left-wing fringe"? See the links below:

    "Anyone interested in the activities of secret U.S. agencies may have been interested in a segment of the CBS show "60 Minutes" about the secret involvement of former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger in the killing of General Rene Schneider of Chile. The show aired on Sunday, September 9, 2001. General Schneider was a strong supporter of democracy. Here are links to information about U.S. interference with democracy in Chile:

    "National Security Archive Chile Documentation Project

    'PBS News Hour: "... evidence of a policy to undermine democracy in Chile and to support dictatorship there"

    "Hinchey Report, CIA Activities in Chile This is a U.S. government document."

  88. Don't worry... by Eric+Damron · · Score: 1

    Not to worry. Our email, posts and other on-line transmissions will be monitored for key phrases like "kill the President" but this information won't be abused. I mean the government agencies that will use this information don't hire complete idiots now do they.

    I mean if I mention blowing up a building, they will look at my message in context before... Oops, a knock at the door... I'll be right back...

    END OF TRANSMISSION.................................

    --
    The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
  89. They're Listenening.... by seigel · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...Did you hear that click?

  90. Re:Why a member of such a bad group? by snarfer · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "You are a member of the Democratic Party because you are either mean-spirited, or ignorant about the issues."

    Your insulting message demonstrates what the Republicans are about, and shows exactly why we should all be nervous about the Republicans having this kind of tool to spy on us. Even if you are a Republican, you might not be a "good enough" Republican for them - like the ones they currently say are "moderates" and are trying to rive out of the party.

    Anyone who remembers Nixon KNOWS that this tool is for political use. This is what Republicans have always done - from McCarthy to Nixon to Reagan's Iran/Contra. In fact one of the guys convicted of political crimes for Iran/Contra is IN CHARGE of this spying operation!

  91. Re:We're almost all Native Americans by silhouette · · Score: 2, Interesting

    For lots more information about Haymarket, here is an excellent resource from the chicago historical society. A friend of mine wrote the website:

    The Dramas of Haymarket

    If you want to skip all the historical background and go straight to the bombing, read from Act II.

    --
    Experts agree: everything is fine.
  92. Re:The Lynch cover-up....what is the point? by kinnell · · Score: 1
    I wonder what the goal of creating such a "Fake" story would be?

    Everybody loves a hero. It rallies support for the war, and captures eyeballs. If everyone is glued to their screens watching the Jessica Lynch drama unfold, they forget about the nasty stuff like stray bombs and dysentry. Watch the film "Wag the Dog" in which the protagonists pull off a disturbingly similar stunt.

    --
    If I seem short sighted, it is because I stand on the shoulders of midgets
  93. Re:So basically...You Don't Understand Research... by rot26 · · Score: 1

    Ari Fleisher? Is that you?

    --



    To ensure perfect aim, shoot first and call whatever you hit the target
  94. Isn't it the same with every new anti-terror law? by Rai · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "Well, of course, we could use it against anyone we like, but we promise to only use it against bad people....[mumbles something about definition of 'bad' people.]"

  95. That's right, we should be tolerant of all ideas by Von+Rex · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I believe that 2+2=5. And I don't want to hear any intolerant crap from you that I'm wrong, you bigot.

  96. Re:Why the terrorists are pissed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    You forgot to mention that Palestine wasn't Arab land, it was Turkish land. The vast majority of land in Palestine was owned by wealthy Turkish landowners, from the good ol' Ottoman days. And, of course, Turks are not Arabs. Also, you should remember that Jordan could also be considered East Palestine, since they're all the same ethnic group.

    It's also important to note that Israel never signed the NPT, while her neighbors did.

  97. Whew thats a relief by Edmund+Blackadder · · Score: 1

    "It will only be used against evildoers." Whew ... what a relief ... now my worries are gone.

  98. More to the point: Washington Post article by dachshund · · Score: 2, Informative
    Today's Washington Post has an article on the various ways the Justice Department has applied terrorism laws to non-terrorism-related cases.
    The Justice Department has used many of the anti-terrorism powers granted in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to pursue defendants for crimes unrelated to terrorism, including drug violations, credit card fraud and bank theft, according to a government accounting released yesterday.
    1. Re:More to the point: Washington Post article by rifter · · Score: 1

      Today's Washington Post has an article on the various ways the Justice Department has applied terrorism laws to non-terrorism-related cases.

      And in order to read the article, you must provide your sex, date of birth, and physical location... :)

    2. Re:More to the point: Washington Post article by dachshund · · Score: 1
      And in order to read the article, you must provide your sex, date of birth, and physical location...

      Oh come on, they practically give you instructions on what to fill in. "What year were you born (example, 1965)", "What is your zipcode (example: 20171)".

      I wouldn't be surprised if that site wasn't receiving an inordinate number of 38-year-old readers from the 20171 zip code.

    3. Re:More to the point: Washington Post article by rifter · · Score: 1

      I suppose you are right about that. Still I found it awfully ironic to be given a questionaire before reading an article about the misuse of personal information...

  99. Gore won under all full recount scenarios by Von+Rex · · Score: 1

    There was only one complete recount done, the NORC recount conducted by a consortium of newspapers. They found that in all scenarios where you count all the votes, Gore would have won. The only way Bush wins is if you don't count the votes. The media being what it is, the usually changed their headlines to not fit their own stories. Here's the full scoop:

    -PREVAILING STANDARD: County election officials told Florida journalists how they would define votes
    if required to do a recount and in this scenario the majority standard was imposed statewide. In
    punch-card counties, ballots with at least one corner of a chad detached counted as votes. In optical
    scan counties, where voters are required to fill in blanks on a paper ballot - like on a standardized
    test - ballots with any affirmative marks counted. That means a vote counted even if the oval was not
    completely filled in or a candidate's name was circled or underlined; so did ballots on which a voter
    correctly filled in the oval and also wrote the same candidate's name in the space for write-ins.

    Result: Gore ahead by 60 votes.

    -TWO-CORNER STANDARD: At least two corners of a chad must be detached to count as a vote, a position
    that had been argued, at times, by Bush supporters. Same as prevailing standard for optical scan
    ballots.

    Result: Gore ahead by 105 votes.

    -MOST INCLUSIVE: Ballots with dimpled chads count as votes, an argument often made by Gore supporters.
    Same as prevailing standard for optical scan ballots.

    Result: Gore ahead by 107 votes.

    -LEAST INCLUSIVE: Only cleanly punched chads count as valid votes. For optical scan, only fully filled
    ovals and those ballots on which a voter filled in the oval and wrote in the candidate's name, too.

    Result: Gore ahead by 115 votes.

    -COUNTY-by-COUNTY: Drawn from the county election officials. It accepts results from Broward and
    Volusia counties because those counties completed hand counts that were included in state-certified
    election totals. For those counties that said they would not count overvotes, relies on prevailing
    standard.

    Result: Gore ahead by 171 votes.

    -PALM BEACH STANDARD: Based on a standard Palm Beach election officials briefly used, this counts
    dimpled chads as valid votes if a pattern of dimpled chads exists elsewhere on the same ballot. Same as
    prevailing standard for optical scan ballots.

    Result: Gore ahead by 42 votes.

    P.S. Please note that these results do not include the illegal absentee ballots from Republican counties (they only threw out the late military ballots from Democratic counties), the thousands falsely disencranchised (most of whom were black) when the GOP hired a private company to "scrub" the voter's lists or anything at all from the infamous butterfly ballot, "Jews-for-Buchanan" incident.

    P.S.S. The judge assigned to overview the recount if the Supreme Court hadn't stopped the recount has already gone on record saying he would have ordered a full recount, not a partial recount. The original poster had it right. What happened in 2000 was a coup, and it should outrage all Americans regardless of where they fit on the political spectrum.

  100. Micheal Moore's new film... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Bowling for Americans.

    Filmed from outside the USA of course

    1. Re:Micheal Moore's new film... by metachimp · · Score: 1

      But the real title of his next film is: "Fahrenheit 911: The Temperature at which Truth burns"...

      --
      The system has failed you, don't fail yourself. --Billy Bragg
  101. Re:Why the terrorists are pissed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Thanks for the correction about Palestine previously being Turkish land. I may as well say s/Arab/Muslim right now, although my argument still stands.

    While Israel never signed the NPT the U.K, U.S and France did, and therefore have a resonsibility not to help Israel to development nuclear weapons.

  102. Moving on... by zifferent · · Score: 1

    This is why, first chance I get I'm moving to Canada! I only need 20 more points! The ironic thing is that Canadian's have more freedoms, but live in socialistic society (UnAmerican), and don't have guaranteed freedoms written into their constitution.

    --
    cat sig > /dev/null
  103. Don't you trust the government? by be-fan · · Score: 1

    I'm getting very irritated with people saying "you're paranoid, why do you think the government is out to get you?" Just take a look at the f*cking Constitution! A lot of the very basic premises, like the system of checks and balances, if founded on the idea that you cannot necessarily trust government officials. Moreover, you shouldn't *have* to trust them in order to guarentee your freedom. The system is designed to work even if a large section of the government becomes corrupt. All these protections that our founding fathers worked so hard on, have they suddenly become irrelevent? Has human nature really changed so much in 200 years that it's unthinkable that the US government will become corrupt? Nobody thinks it can happen to them, until it does...

    --
    A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
  104. The Racist States of America by Cyno · · Score: 1

    Its a good things we're killing all these terrorists to protect our way of life. It would be a shame if our way of life was taken over by terorrists. They'd most certainly enslave us.

    I love how we can so easily label people as being a threat to society today. Did you know that mobile terrorist labs could be driving through a countryside right now on semi trucks? Yeah, its true, the government said terorrists use these mobile labs to make their weapons of mass destruction. And they could be anywhere. Anyone could be a terrorist. Are you a terrorist?

    The only weapons of mass destruction I know of are the weapons we sold those terrorists in the Talibon and Iraq a few years ago. I sure hope we made off like bandits to pay for all the human life.

  105. Digging their own hole by pkunzipper · · Score: 1

    They can collect all the information on me they want, but they cannot predict my behavior, as irratic and non-counsumerish as I can be (this may not be the case for some). Eventually citizens in all parts of life will see effects of this and get pissed that some idiot company that sponsored the government is trying to con you into a product using personal things about you. That's going too far.

    We love spending cash and being lavished and catered to, but not at the expense of our secrets. God knows I would not have anyone see where my cash (and I mean I operate on a cash-only basis, unless I'm buying milk and cereal) was spent on my last excursion to Vegas, or Vanuatu Islands (I wish!).

    In my opinion, this is just another DB toget hacked, and when it does,te governmentwill be paying dearly for settingboobie-traps for 200 million pissed off Americans with screwed up credit reports and financial statements.

  106. Re:Bush DID win in Florida, but not by votes by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

    Bush won all the counts of votes, even the one Gore demanded.

    But not the one the Florida Supreme Court demanded. Who cares what Gore wanted? He's just a candidate. He should no more get to decide how the votes are counted than Bush. The Florida Court is the one that has to interpret the law. Under Florida law, what matters is the will of the voter, not what a machine thinks is the will of the voter. Thus the complete recount was ordered, then stopped by the U.S. Supreme Court. Under that stopped count, Gore won. By stopping that count, the U.S. Court gave Bush the election. So he won by court order, not by winning the votes.

    The only way to get Gore to win is to count ballots without Gore votes and imagine that Gore votes are on them (the so called "undercount")

    Not ballots without Gore votes. Ballots that were not counted (by a machine) as having a Gore vote. There's a substantial difference. When the voter circles "Gore", or writes down "Gore", or puts a big check mark next to "Gore", it's pretty freeping obvious what the voter wanted, even if the machine didn't think so. But you seem to believe that if the machine didn't find a Gore vote, the voter did not want to vote for Gore. Is that just something you choose to believe because it fits with your other beliefs, or are you aware of some amazing advances in AI that were applied to these voting machines such that they could determine human intent better than humans?

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
  107. Define "interesting enough" by dachshund · · Score: 1
    how many people really believe that the government is out to get them? Face it, you're just not that important and your life just isn't that interesting

    That's the wonderful thing about modern database technology. Your life doesn't have to be that interesting for the government to keep detailed watch on you; you get such an economy of scale maintaining a nationwide database that the cost of monitoring an individual electronically approaches zero.

    You're absolutely right that the government isn't going to display much interest in 99% of the people it sureveils. But since it's watching everyone, it'll know the instant any individual does start being interesting, and it'll know their whole background.

    Join a political party that's considered non-mainstream? You can be shunted to the front of a list automatically, and the government will know everything about you, down to your taste in pornography. If you believe that the gov't won't use its power against alternative political groups, think again; they've already prevented certain members of the Green party from flying on national airlines. And, of course, the FBI had no qualms about harrassing Martin Luther King, why should it be any different now? TIA just makes these abuses easier and more dangerous.

    If you don't see the power of these systems, that's not a comment on their nature. It's merely a reflection of your lack of understanding. I assure you that the Pentagon realizes how powerful they can be.

  108. Re:Forced to join unions by veddermatic · · Score: 1

    Show me one instance where a worker was forced to unionized. Lat time I checked, employers hired and fired people, not unions.

    --
    Department of Homeland Security: Removing the rights real patriots fought and died for since 2001
  109. It's called "Failure of the Press" by paranoic · · Score: 1

    It used to be called freedom of the press. The politicians have finally learned how to control what gets reported.

  110. Panopticon by Stone+Pony · · Score: 1
    I thought about the Panopticon when I saw this story, but I see that someone beat me to posting about it.

    More interesting Panopticon stuff here and here

  111. Already done to non-US citizens! by dogfart · · Score: 2, Interesting
    This is already being done to non-US citizens. See this article and this one too in the UK Guardian. The US has been purchasing files from ChoicePoint with personal infomration non-US citizens, with their governments being very unhappy.

    Quoting one article:

    US government purchasing documents show that the company, ChoicePoint, received at least $11m (£6.86m) from the department of justice last year to supply data - mainly on Latin Americans - that included names and addresses, occupations, dates of birth, passport numbers and "physical description". Even tax records and blood groups are reportedly included.

    Nicaraguan police have raided two offices suspected of providing the information. The revelations threaten to shatter public trust in electoral institutions, especially in Mexico, where the government has begun an investigation.

    The controversy is not the first to engulf ChoicePoint. The company's subsidiary, Database Technologies, was responsible for bungling an overhaul of Florida's voter registration records, with the result that thousands of people, disproportionately black, were disenfranchised in the 2000 election. Had they been able to vote, they might have swung the state, and thus the presidency, for Al Gore, who lost in Florida by a few hundred votes.

    Oddly, this has received absolutely no coverage in the US press.
    --

    "dope will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no dope"

  112. US already buys non-US citizens' personal data by dogfart · · Score: 2, Informative
    See this article and this one in the UK Guardian.

    Quoting one:

    US government purchasing documents show that the company, ChoicePoint, received at least $11m (£6.86m) from the department of justice last year to supply data - mainly on Latin Americans - that included names and addresses, occupations, dates of birth, passport numbers and "physical description". Even tax records and blood groups are reportedly included.

    Nicaraguan police have raided two offices suspected of providing the information. The revelations threaten to shatter public trust in electoral institutions, especially in Mexico, where the government has begun an investigation.

    The controversy is not the first to engulf ChoicePoint. The company's subsidiary, Database Technologies, was responsible for bungling an overhaul of Florida's voter registration records, with the result that thousands of people, disproportionately black, were disenfranchised in the 2000 election. Had they been able to vote, they might have swung the state, and thus the presidency, for Al Gore, who lost in Florida by a few hundred votes.

    Oddly, this has received absolutely no coverage in the US media.
    --

    "dope will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no dope"

  113. Great...know what that means? by Mac+Degger · · Score: 1

    Surf for pron and you're a minor in your state? Busted!

    --
    -- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
  114. Re:Why foreign labor? by hether · · Score: 1

    Ah, but who were the ones who gave the candidates enough money to campaign effectively in order to win over the populace in those states? That certainly has to be the corporations, as individuals don't contribute enough out of their own pockets to support a multi-million dollar run for office. The biggest individual supporters are almost always the heads of major corporations.

    You can't deny that corporations have a role in our governence. For one, they have a HUGE amount of lobbyists working every day alongside our legislators in order to sway things in a direction that benefits them.

    --

    Most people would die sooner than think; in fact, they do.
  115. Re:Rebuttal, 'son': Operation Enduring Police Stat by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

    A "mass of unrefuted evidence" that the Democrats in general, and Gore in particular, have simply ignored?!?

    I think not.


    Well, think again.

    Obviously Gore wasn't going to be given the White House no matter what happened. The Court decided it was more important to not damage Pres. Elect Bush's presidency than to determine if he actually won. The media grabbed that and ran, telling us that we were relieved that it was finally decided. Gore was already being called a sore loser for even speaking after the winner had been decided.

    What exactly could he hope to gain by pressing the issue? He and his party would be lambasted as being sore losers, trying to undermine Bush's presidency with false claims, damaging the stability of the nation, or whatever else. The Dems would be seen as the party that wouldn't forget the election and get down to the business of running the country. Gore got more votes, but the race -was- incredibly close. There are plenty of fence-sitters who could be driven to the GOP by such unsportsman-like behavior. Turning away future votes to argue about past ones isn't a winning political strategy.

    That was pre-9/11. Post-9/11, it is even more unlikely (fantastically improbable) that the Dems will bring this issue forward by themselves.

    Besides, it's not like the Dems want to shake up the system too much either.

    So the Dems not campaigning to get the issue back in the spotlight should not be construed to mean that the evidence isn't there.

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
  116. Re:So basically...You Don't Understand Research... by uncoveror · · Score: 1

    They can change the name from Total Information Awareness to Terrorist Information Awareness, and they can change the logo, but it is still "The Beast." It won't be long before they are tatooing us with our national ID numbers.

    --
    The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
  117. Re:Spain - an example of the dangers of this stuff by ElMiguel · · Score: 1

    The Basque Country situation is quite complicated and no comment in Slashdot would be enough to describe it accurately. Also, people who know and care the most about this situation are also the most likely to have an agenda, and finding a truly impartial source is almost impossible. The best you can do is reading sources that are biased in as many directions as possible, and taking your own shot at interpreting them.

    Still, I'd say the parent is being deliberately misleading when it suggests that Aznar is trying to hinder political separatism by promoving the illegalization of AuB. In fact, "practically any political party that is pro-independance for the Basque country is now banned" is an outright lie. The truth is that the parties in the Basque government (PNV, EA and IU) are quite pro-independence -- especially EA. These parties are going to benefit immensely by the illegalization of AuB since they'll get a significant share of AuB's votes (against the wishes of AuB's direction, by the way). These parties are also leaning more towards separatism in order to increase their appeal to AuB's voters. If anything, Basque Country separatism is bound to be augmented by AuB's illegalization.

    There are also good reasons to illegalize AuB. By participating in the Basque institutions, AuB had access to a lot of infrastructure that has been very useful for ETA in the past. The loss of this infrastructure is going to be hard blow for ETA, and I'm all for that.

  118. Re:Gore being given the White House by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

    He'd have been given it if had actually won the election, which he did not.

    Though he did get the most votes. Weird, I thought that getting the most votes meant winning. Guess I didn't count on the Supreme Court Factor.

    And obviously I'm talking about bringing forth the evidence of the fraud and disenfranchisement in the election, after Bush had been declared winner. No way was Bush going to be removed from office and Gore put in his place.

    No. The Court just decided that a national election would not be destroyed by the loser "rolling the dice" over and over again on a close margin until he finally won one (at which point he'd take victory and deny additional recounts

    Actually, you're wrong. The Supreme Court ruling stated exactly what I said it did -- that further recounts would damage Bush's legitimacy, and thus should be stopped.

    And it's funny you should call a full state-wide hand recount (what the Florida court ordered and was stopped by the U.S. court) "rolling the dice". I guess that's to differentiate it from the much less chancy fixing of ballot machines and preventing several orders of magnitude more Dems from voting than Bush's margin of "victory".

    Yes. He was indeed a sore loser for speaking after he had lost.

    Yeah, and Carl Lewis was a sore loser for taking the gold from Ben Johnson. He lost fair and square, if you don't count the cheating!

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
  119. Re:We're almost all Native Americans by black88 · · Score: 1

    We are all the same people, and YOU, Arkane, are a racist! Screw the past, fuck what color your skin is. Bloody stupid left wing racist

  120. Actually... by roberto0 · · Score: 1
    One of the most identifiable features of a person is their gait or "walk".

    I forget the order of importnace here, but significant characteristics that help you identify someone are:
    • Gait
    • Voice
    • Head/Facial features
    • Tattoos/Scars

    There are others, but I can't remember them just now.
    I heard once that the best way to avoid being found is to buy the book How to Find Missing Persons and don't do anyhting that they talk about in that book!
    --
    Those who can, do. Those who can't, simulate.
  121. Re:The Lynch cover-up....what is the point? by KenSeymour · · Score: 1

    I remember the emotions I felt when first hearing of this rescue story -- I was moved.
    It partly resulted in my feeling better about my (US) country having used military force in Iraq.
    I have crossed back and forth both for and against the war.

    So when I hear that what was not widely reported, that they tried to deliver her to the Americans in an ambulance and American soldiers fired upon the ambulance
    would have affected me differently at the time.

    The link in the signature reminded me of how actively our government manages the news to sway public opinion.
    I was manipulated by this process.

    I find it very hard to believe that the soliders used blanks.
    But I am very much aware of how our government rushes news that would show them in a favorable light -- many times making statements that are
    later proven to be factually incorrect.
    However, they are reticent to comment on anything that would cast them in an unfavorable light.
    Anything unfavorable will forever remain "unsubstantiated" because our government won't comment on it.

    I believe the BBC reporter also overstated his case. But without hearing his report, I would not be aware of how I had been manipulated.

    So the goal of creating the "Fake" or rather exagerated story would be to sway public opinion
    in the US.
    This government wants to avoid the fate of President Johnson and the first President Bush.

    --
    "We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." -- Albert Einstein
  122. Re:Spain - an example of the dangers of this stuff by pubjames · · Score: 1

    Still, I'd say the parent is being deliberately misleading when it suggests that Aznar is trying to hinder political separatism by promoving the illegalization of AuB.

    No, I'm not being deliberately misleading. I think there is a real cause for concern when a very significant number of politicians are "black listed" from politics without due process.

    In fact, "practically any political party that is pro-independance for the Basque country is now banned" is an outright lie.

    Not a lie, but having read a bit more about it I accept that the statement is factually incorrect. But I wasn't trying to mislead.

    There are also good reasons to illegalize AuB.

    I think illegalizing political parties is very dangerous. In a democracy with freedom of speech, there should be parties that represent the whole political spectrum, even extremes that you don't necessarily agree with. The acts that terrorists perform are illegal and they should be punished accordingly. But terrorism should not be used as an excuse to stifle political discourse, and there is little doubt in my mind that Aznar is doing exactly that. I think even you (who I guess supports Aznar) would find the example of Aznar's party trying to send a political lecturer to jail for having a web site critisicing the war in Iraq incomprehensible in a modern democracy.

  123. Re:More Bush liars by Glock27 · · Score: 1
    Even though it's been printed in black and white in all the major newspapers, and unconstested, they still lie on a daily basis.

    Please provide an attribution.

    Further, I seem to remember Gore conceding the point and the election. I wonder why?

    --
    Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
    Score: -1 100% Flamebait
  124. Are YOU doing something about it? by The+American+Revolut · · Score: 1

    We can sit in our cheap imitation leather chairs in our overly halogenicly lit cubes, or for those lucky bastards who have an office, an ergonimc leather 300 moving part captains chair in a dark dimly lit cave where non geeks fear to tread, drinking "Bawls" caffenieted drink and bad mouthing the government and the Penatgon from a /. forum, but unless YOU do something then you might as well be standing outside the Senate with a picket sign saying "Take my civil liberties, PLEASE!"

    Have you written your politicians????

    Yeah I know they all belong at the bottom of the ocean in the bus next to the lawyers, but they are (supposed to be) our voice in the governmental/big business arena.

    Have your visited the EFF at least, to take some action?

    I know your tired of Ben Franklin's take on this, but its worth repeating (especially if it gets you out of this forum to take some action):

    "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

    BTW..."They" means you if you haven't done squat but sit in these forums and bitch. Especially if your the one who bitches about the screw-ups of the administration and never took the time to vote! Hey...you COULD have recompiled the kernel the next day!

    Have a better idea to prevent our eroding civil liberties? GREAT! Get out there and do it!


    For all of those with excuses I offer this:

    [excusee] But I...

    [DR. EVIL] ZIP IT!

    [excusee] But...

    [DR. EVIL] Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, EX-ZIP-IT A!

    [excusee] You dont...

    [DR. EVIL] When a problem comes along....you must ZIP IT, ZIP IT GOOD!

    [excusee] I dont...

    [DR. EVIL] ZING PHU HI BING DU WA ZING PU DO
    (subtitle: ZIP IT).

    --
    -An American Revolutionary
  125. Obligatory Talleyrand quote by runchbox · · Score: 1

    "An important art of politicians is to find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the public."
    -- Charles Maurice de Talleyrand

    --
    If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal -- Jello Biafra
  126. Unbelievable by moonboy · · Score: 1, Insightful



    Well god damn. Seems like we have a lot of experts here. Experts on things like civil liberties, civil policy, privacy rights, terrorism, policing a society, etc. I think all of you complainers should just quit your jobs and seek public office. Like assholes you all seem to have opinions about what SHOULDN'T be done but few solutions concerning what should be done. How typical. I suppose we should just go back to the way things were before September 11th. Weak airport security. No databases containing information about our credit, spending habits, etc. (if you believe these are new, you're an idiot.) I'd like to see some of your suggestions for protecting the 291,028,179 citizens of the United States. No, really , enlighten me.

    After reading many of the posts on this page, I wrote something similar to the above, but then thought "Aww forget it, just wasting my breath." (Some of you will no doubt agree.) So I deleted what I had written. But after reading some more of the comments posted here, I just couldn't help myself. I had to get this off my chest.

    How many of you voted in the last election? How many of you plan on going into politics to try to make a difference? How many of you just sit behind your computers on your asses all day long and don't do shit but complain on Slashdot? Certainly, I'm sitting on mine right now, but you don't see me complaining about shit I have NO idea whatsoever about.

    So, once again, I challenge you. Instead of saying shit like, "The government is fucked." "Politicians are idiots." and comparing the government of the greatest nation on the planet to the fucking Nazis for fucks' sake. Just pose a few solutions to terrorism. I would ABSOLUTELY LOVE to hear the shit you idiots would come up with. Hell, I need a good laugh!!

    Oh, but it's probably far easier to mod me down than to actually think constructively instead of so damn critically.

    --

    Co-founder and designer at Music Nearby: http://musicnearby.com
    1. Re:Unbelievable by Cid+Highwind · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm sorry if this upsets some people, but I have to say it.

      There are things worth sacrificing human lives for. Liberty is one of them. I know that goes against every value we Americans have developed over the last 50 years, but it's true.

      Given the choice between living in a country where I have a chance of being shot, bombed, gassed, anthraxed or otherwise killed by terrorists, or a country where some government agency records my every word and deed and carries people it considers "dangerous" off in the middle of the night to secret trials and secret prisons, I'll take the terrorism. Accepting a little personal risk is the least I can do to respect the memories of people who died to establish a nation of relative freedom.

      TIA may put a damper on terrorism, it may not, but either way I think the cure is worse than the disease.

      --
      0 1 - just my two bits
    2. Re:Unbelievable by moonboy · · Score: 1



      "Given the choice between living in a country where I have a chance of being shot, bombed, gassed, anthraxed or otherwise killed by terrorists, or a country where some government agency records my every word and deed and carries people it considers "dangerous" off in the middle of the night to secret trials and secret prisons, I'll take the terrorism. Accepting a little personal risk is the least I can do to respect the memories of people who died to establish a nation of relative freedom."

      Oh, I would take that as well. BUT, I propose that if people were constantly being "...shot, bombed, gassed, anthraxed or otherwise killed by terrorists" here in America, then I would certainly take a chance on "some government agency records my every word and deed and carries people it considers "dangerous" off in the middle of the night to secret trials and secret prisons..."

      Granted both are possible, but one seems just as likely to happen as the other. It seems you automatically assume the worst of the government. Granted, they don't have the greatest track record for honesty, but I'd certainly take tighter restrictions than live in constant fear of terrorist attack like the Israelis as well as other societies where terroristics acts are commonplace. Or worse, have terroristic acts become so common place that we as a society begin to accept it as a part of our daily lives. That really scares me.

      --

      Co-founder and designer at Music Nearby: http://musicnearby.com
    3. Re:Unbelievable by petrus4 · · Score: 1

      >So, once again, I challenge you. Instead of >saying shit like, "The government is >fucked." "Politicians are idiots." and comparing >the government of the greatest nation on the >planet to the fucking Nazis for fucks' sake

      In terms of solutions to terrorism...One thing I can promise you is that repressive measures on the part of a centralised government most certainly is NOT the solution. Quite the opposite, actually. If you've read anything about geurilla warfare, you'll know that a geurilla army/terrorist organisation is structurally the opposite of a government. Things are done at an individual level, rather than at a group level...and so because of that, it needs to be responded to on an individual level.

      I definitely agree with the idea that individual people should report anything they find suspicious (large quantities of incendiary material/nitrate bearing fertiliser being purchased from supermarkets, garden shops etc as an admittedly rather dumb, but definitely possible example) to the authorities...but I do not believe in a mechanised information gathering system. It will draw in vast amounts of innocuous information as well as terrorism-related material, and there is also (and I shouldn't need to even point this out) astronomical potential for abuse.

      Advocating that we resort to fascism as an answer to these kinds of problems is not an objective response. It is also not the response of someone who values being a free individual, able to make their own decisions about how they live their life. I can honestly say that I understand why someone could be afraid of having freedom...there is nothing more terrifying. I have never seen the concept of freedom more aptly illustrated than in the scene in The Matrix where Neo first wakes up in his pod, and looks over the side to see the billions of other pods, above and below him.

      Freedom means more than anything else, being subjected to the naked truth about the nature of reality. Not hiding from that, not running from it. Looking it in the face, and resolving that you alone will be the author of your own destiny, even despite the amount of resistance you will encounter to that. I realise that only the very smallest minority of human beings have had or will have the courage to truly do this, and I lament that you quite obviously do not, as I grieve for every other such individual I encounter. If it is any consolation, the hell that you are going to ultimately end up inhabiting, assuming you do not change your mindset (whether it be spiritual, psychological, or physical) as a result will be very well populated. You most definitely will not be alone.

  127. The government knows your walk by AtariAmarok · · Score: 1

    "Your gait betrays your identity
    Watch your step! The Pentagon is developing a radar-based device that can identify people by the way they walk"


    That does it for me. No more walking. I'm buying a Segway.

    "I can't dance, I can't talk.
    the only thing about me is the way I walk"
    - 'Genesis'

    --
    Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
  128. Re:Spain - an example of the dangers of this stuff by ElMiguel · · Score: 1

    No, I'm not being deliberately misleading. I think there is a real cause for concern when a very significant number of politicians are "black listed" from politics without due process.

    I too think there's a real cause for concern. I'm concerned. But this measure wasn't taken lightly. It has been obvious to everybody for more than twenty years that AuB (and its predecessors) were an ETA front. I don't think there's so much as a 1% of the Basque population that denies this. The convenience of illegalizing this party has been discussed many times through the years, and yet it wasn't done until very recently.

    You see, judiciary action against individual members of AuB wasn't working. Investigation, trials and appeals would take many years, giving more than enough time for ETA to reorganize and replace the missing members.

    Not a lie, but having read a bit more about it I accept that the statement is factually incorrect.

    It's not just factually incorrect, it's the opposite of truth. Separatists not only have political representation in the Basque Country, they are in the power and probably will continue there.

    I think illegalizing political parties is very dangerous. In a democracy with freedom of speech, there should be parties that represent the whole political spectrum, even extremes that you don't necessarily agree with.

    As I explained, they weren't illegalized because they weren't agreed with. The rest of separatist parties (i.e. EA in the Basque Country or ERC in Catalonia) haven't been illegalized and won't be.

    But terrorism should not be used as an excuse to stifle political discourse, and there is little doubt in my mind that Aznar is doing exactly that.

    Aznar does use fear of terrorism politically, and I think that's foolish and shortsighted of him. On the other hand, many of his opponents are accusing him and his party of being heirs to the Franco dictatorship, which is also foolish and shortsighted. I'm afraid Spanish politicians aren't much better than everywhere else.

    I think even you (who I guess supports Aznar)

    I don't support Aznar not have I ever liked him as a politician (or voted for him). But that doesn't mean I have to oppose every decision he makes if I think there are enough reasons for my support.

    would find the example of Aznar's party trying to send a political lecturer to jail for having a web site critisicing the war in Iraq incomprehensible in a modern democracy.

    I'm not sure I know what you're talking about. I've read Aznar's party has sued the authors of a web site (who are college students, not a political lecturer) for calling them murderers. Maybe you're talking about something else, or maybe you're misinformed again.

  129. Sorry, Gore did get the most votes in Florida by SlashdotFreedom · · Score: 1

    Gore got the most votes in florida and there is a scandal covering it up. See exhibit A.

    >> The only vote total that matters is electoral votes, and Gore came up short since he did not win enough states to get the right amount. It has always been that way. If you want to change it, fine, but ignorance of this basic Constitutional process is no excuse. Other totals do not matter, never have. Total raw #, total counties won, total states won, total big cities won, it is all the same: only one count matters, and these are not it.
    Gore didn't win on electoral votes because his daddy rigged the florida election and also rigged the court case concerning said election. If the rule of law had been respected, Gore would be president right now. Unfortunately, Daddy Bush did not feel the need to respect the law. There's no need to change it, and there's no ignorance involved. Your logic depends on the assertion that Bush won Florida's electoral votes, which he did not. Sorry, but he didn't. The totals of counties and big/little states don't come into this at all. Try to stay on topic. :)

    You can't bring forth any evidence since there is none. If there had been any evidence at all of this, the Gore campaign would have (rightly) made issue. But there wasn't. 2 things wrong with that: The Gore campaign stopped with the because, as was *already stated*, he would have only made his party look bad. When you're fighting a corrupt court, you stop while you're ahead, because you can't win. As far as there not being any evidence, If there's no evidence then I guess Bush jr precluded any investigation into the election issue "just for fun", since he didn't do anything wrong, is that so? Or maybe he just wanted to throw his weight around? Face it, Bush is illegitimate and he is only in the white house because his daddy used to run the CIA.

    That particular recount is worse than rolling the dice: it is an invalid total because it includes imaginary votes divined from "voter intent" instead of actual ballot usage.
    yeah, especially for Bush, because he *didn't*get*more*votes*than*Gore*.

    That would be a valid comparison, except that Bush got more actual votes in Florida.
    Which would be a valid rebuttal, except that it is not true. :)

    You'll eventually have to face up to the facts that 1) Gore won the florida election fair and square, and also won the recount as designated by the judge assigned the case, but was denied the electoral votes ILLEGALLY by a premature and predetermined, rigged judgement handed down by a judge whose impartiallity is nonexistant and who is caught in a conflict of interest. 2) the election fraud was Compounded by the prevention of an investigation, the completion of which is the only way to legitimately clear the issue, and the active thwarting of which requires even more scrutiny on the issue.

    Bush cheated, he's not legitimately the president. If this happened in Argentina the newspapers would be calling it a coup. The fact that the mainstream media here in the US dropped the topic without exploring it, and that the investigation was prevented, leads any competent person to wonder, "why"? I ask you, Why did bush stomp the investigation if there is no wrongdoing on his part ? Did he do it just for giggles? Maybe all that coke he does was messing with his head? or maybe, just maybe, theres something dirty going on.. and to think, we were all so sure that our politicians are above fighting dirty.... tisk tisk tisk.

    --
    God Bless America.
  130. Re:Spain - an example of the dangers of this stuff by pubjames · · Score: 1

    I'm not sure I know what you're talking about. I've read Aznar's party has sued the authors of a web site (who are college students, not a political lecturer) for calling them murderers. Maybe you're talking about something else, or maybe you're misinformed again.

    Hopefully not misinformed! They actually tried to sue the college lecturer who registered the domain name. In his defence, he said that it was the students that did it, not him. Anyway, I find it amazing that a political party sues citizens in this manner in Spain. In the UK such an action would be viewed as outrageous.

  131. Re:Unless you count them, of course. by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

    The only vote total that matters is electoral votes, and Gore came up short since he did not win enough states to get the right amount. It has always been that way. If you want to change it, fine, but ignorance of this basic Constitutional process is no excuse.

    How about ignorance of cause and effect, like that the college is selected by the popular vote. Man, what a nothing argument.

    That particular recount is worse than rolling the dice: it is an invalid total because it includes imaginary votes divined from "voter intent" instead of actual ballot usage.

    Right. Because if the voter wrote down "Gore", circled "Gore", or half-filled the "Gore" oval and no others, then there's no way to determine what they possibly could have wanted! Only a machine or someone who is being deliberately stupid would think that the mostly-but-not-all-filled oval next to Gore on an otherwise blank sheet of paper wasn't a Gore vote.

    Talk about imaginary. You're imagining that because a voting machine didn't count it as Gore, it couldn't have been a Gore vote, all so that you can say counting those votes is "imagining". Yeah, I guess three independent panelists studying the ballots all "imagined" the word "Gore" written on it.

    That would be a valid comparison, except that Bush got more actual votes in Florida.

    No, he got more counted votes. The re-count data clearly shows that more people intended to vote for Gore. But good thing the Supreme Court stopped the drug tes- I mean re-count.

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
  132. Re:Smile for those cameras, Mr. Brit. by Loosewire · · Score: 1

    oh dont tell me about it - im in birmingham and there are new camera lamp posts (a posts with thich bulbus bases to hold all the electronics) and a camera on the top - some of them even have mini windscreen wipers on them :-(
    And guess what - when the tech comes along their trying to link the cameras to face recognition technology - im moving from this country asap i just dont know where to go :-(

    --
    Slashdot - The one stop shop for procrastination
  133. An argument for censorship? by AtariAmarok · · Score: 1

    "....take away those things that prevent them from thinking (television, newspapers"

    If there ever was anything good to riot over, then this sort of censorship is one of them. I am one of those who believes strongly in the First Amendment, and that there is never anything to be gained this kind of censoring. If you don't like books and newspapers, don't buy them. If you don't like TV, turn it off.

    I think you will be the one whose thinking atrophies.

    --
    Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
  134. Re:Left-wing media by rifter · · Score: 1

    Not true. First, most of the big national TV news outlets are left wing (CBS, CNN, ABC, NBC).

    Second, if you look beyond TV, there are thousands of media operations out there with no conglomerate control.

    Right, because General Electric, Disney, and AOL/Time Warner are so liberal.

    Currently, there are two parties in US government, and neither is corporate controlled.

    Yes, and they trade agendas depending on who is in power. When the Dems were in power, they supported the exact same type of plan as TIA, and all the same police measures the Republicans are now supporting. Now that the Republicans are in power, they support a police state, and the Democrats are giving the ineffectual opposition. Both parties are extremely beholden to corporate interests, without whose support (bribes) they could not keep up in the media arms race.

  135. Re:He was elected by praedor · · Score: 1

    No. MOST Americans voted against Bush. The electoral college is wrong-headed and no longer relevant or valid. It should go away.


    As for the old fashioned way...the way that has Republicans in states like Texas, Colorado, and a host of other Republican-dominated states either trying or succeeding in redistricting any and all opponents out of existence? Or how about their attempts in many of these same states to prevent the Democrats from having primaries? That system? It is too late, the dictatorship arrived when the Supreme Court rendered itself illegitimate and partisan in the last "election".

    --
    In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
  136. Game? what game? by SlashdotFreedom · · Score: 1

    What game would that be?

    Would it be the "Gore won florida's electoral votes and therefore bush is not the legitimate president" game?

    Maybe you prefer the "I like the guy who stole the election better than the guy who actually earned it, so who cares what the law says" game... I personally detest it.

    Actually, it's not a game. Our nation's highest elected office was illegally denied to it's legitimate officer and there's a trail of collusion and conflicts of interest a mile long that has been swept under the rug by the pretender, and his daddy.

    God bless democracy indeed! If we are keen to uphold democracy, and worthy enough of it to demonstrate some of that "eternal vigilance" I've heard so much about, we might just keep our democracy.

    The other alternative, the one Bush jr is hoping we will choose, is to roll over to reach those fritos and pretend that there's nothing eyebrow raising at all about massive collusion and shady dealing over the future of our nation. Sorry, not acceptable.

    --
    God Bless America.
  137. Re:We have a free press by Darby · · Score: 1


    Wow, if you're the same AC you must be a plant.
    You're certainly a traitor and/or a fool.

    The US does have the most free press of any around.

    Prove it.
    You can't because it is a lie.

    Compared to just about every other place, there is much less government interference in the media,

    Who gives a shit?!?
    What does this have to do with anything?
    The 6 organizations which own almost all of the media outlets control what we see. This is not free and it has nothing to do with official government interference. The fact that the people running these organizations buy the government officials and dictate their policies demonstrates the calculated ignorance of your statement. Your disinformation won't work here traitor.

    and things are much less centralized (compare this to the United Kingdom, where the dominant electronic media voice is government-controlled).

    Compare the content.
    The BBC has far more complete and accurate coverage of world and National events than all major US news organizations put together.
    The BBC receives its funding from the people (via the government), but it is run separately.
    Is it perfect? No.
    Is it far better than what we have here.
    Obviously to anybody who's been there.

    Please go away and kill yourself and quit trying to excuse the fascist traitors who are fucking up my country you fucking traitor.

  138. Previous name better by pkunzipper · · Score: 1

    I like the old Total Information Awareness better. It was less deceptive, and more directly hints to the capabilities and operating spheres of this concept.

  139. Re:Spain - an example of the dangers of this stuff by ElMiguel · · Score: 1

    No, I think you're well informed this time :-). Anyway, I don't understand how Aznar's party suing the students could be seen as outrageous. In Spain, publicly calling someone a murderer is libel, and not something you can do lightly. Is this different in the UK? Could a British newspaper call Tony Blair a murderer without fear of being sued?

  140. Re:Counting real votes by SlashdotFreedom · · Score: 1

    You don't need to pretend anything to see that Gore won. Period. It was Bush who benefitted from made up ballots and odd "intent" waverings, not to mention *thousands* of illegally stricken ballots belonging to black voters with names similar to long-dead criminals.

    Whatever you've been smoking, stop. Drugs are bad, mkay? Gore won. Bush is illegitimate. There needs to be an investigation into what happened, and that investigation has been thwarted by the Bush white house.

    Why do I feel like a broken record?

    The facts bear out Gore's victory under all conceivable standards for the florida electoral votes. Reality check: politicians never play fair. That's why there's supposed to be excessive scrutiny on the electoral process. Having a dad who ran the CIA and was also President less than a decade ago has allowed Bush to cheat the system and steal the presidency. The whole affair reeks of illegitimacy. And if he didn't steal it, why is he thwarting the investigation?

    *earth* to bush apologists: you have been hoodwinked. This will not stand. Good Americans are always ready to defend their nation, and the truth will not be hidden forever, no matter whose daddy wants it to.

    comprende?

    --
    God Bless America.
  141. Re:Counting real votes by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

    You come up with example of example of ballots which are actually free of Gore votes, even if you want them to be....scenarios in which an enraged Republican writing "Gore sucks!" gets counted as a Gore vote.

    Wow, you sure have an active imagination. Remember, this isn't being done by a machine, and human beings are perfectly capable of distinguishing "Gore sucks" from "I want to vote for Al Gore for President, please". You invent a secnario where "Gore Sucks" is counted, but it's purely an invention. What scenario are you talking about, one where we use poorly programmed OCR to scan the ballots? Okay, keep imagining that. Regardless, the data is there, the contents of each ballot noted, and based on those ballots that the panelists agreed had clear voter intent, Gore won.

    Let the machines do their actual jobs

    Right. Let's trust blind stupid computers to figure out that "I want to vote for Gore" is a vote for gore and "Gore sucks" isn't. Please. These are the same computers that can't handle a half-filled oval, and you want them to be held as authoritative.

    instead of some party hack with a magnifying glass guessing that that G in the margin means Gore and not George.

    Heh. You're trying to refute the conclusions of a study that you know absolutely nothing about. What "party hack" are you talking about? You're just arbitrarily creating the scenario that the re-count was done by a "Democrats for Gore Winning the Election or Death" club who'll count anything as a Gore vote, and then saying that study would be invalid. Well, sure, except it doesn't exist.

    Sorry, man. You can keep imagining things that would mean you're right, but reality steadfastly refuses to align itself with what you want to be true.

    It's funny. The study, done by NORC was sponsored by a large number of media sources. These sources mostly published "Bush Would Have Won" stories, which in the first line said Bush would have won under a specific recount scenario. They liked to focus on Gore's method, since that adds a nice twist, despite being irrelevent. Usually by the end of the article, they get around to admitting that by using the Florida Court's method of recounting Gore would have won. The irony here is that organizations that clearly wanted to come to a "Bush Wins" conclusion funded a study to prove that and ended up proving the opposite.

    Maybe you just didn't read that far. Not your fault, since it is a common enough technique to put the headline that says what you want to say at the top on the front page, and the real story at the very end of the article in section C12.

    Besides, if the re-count shows "intent", it is invalid. It should show actual voting.

    100% wrong. The Florida Constitution states that the intent of the voter is what matters. You can talk all you want about how only the first time should matter and broken machines that cannot tolerate the slightest bit of deviation should be the authoritative judge of what an "actual vote" is, but you're wrong. The highest law of the state of Florida says so.

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
  142. Re:IN FASCIST USA... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Dude, seriously, I've thought of petitioning the UN or some of our European allies to do exactly that. Trouble is, they're just as bought-and-paid-for as the rascals that got appointed to be in charge here in the US.

    You think Fiji needs any IT help?

    Oh and to the moderator who wasted a point modding down the parent as overrated... Dude, turn off Fox news and go outside for a while. Better yet, try to meet the seven out of ten who think Emperor Bush is doing a good job. Seriously, ask around. Ask everyone you meet and do your own poll. You'll be surprised, I guarantee it.

  143. Game over, Gore won. Deal :) by SlashdotFreedom · · Score: 1

    Ah yes, the wild conspiracy theories
    reduced to name calling eh? If I'm wrong, why do I have facts galore, while you have only sentiment and cannot rebut me without attacking me personally? Son?

    These wild-eyed denials that amount to "my guy lost, so the winner is not the real president" unfortunately echo the kooks on the other fringe who denied Clinton was legitimate for other equally silly reasons (Chinese campaign money and making Perot "spoil" the election).
    Of course the difference between my argument and theirs being that Bush broke the law and squelched the investigation, while Perot's participation was legal. As for chinese campaign money, lets see your sources, cowboy. Was there an investigation? was there a need for one or was that itself just republican "sour grapes"? And EVEN IF Clinton DID recieve money, Illegaly from the chinese, does that mean we should wholesale throw away our entire legal and electoral process? Hey, I get pissed off sometimes, are you suggesting I just go vigilante whenever I feel like it? Sorry bub, that's not how it works in law abiding countries, and especially not democracies. Or are you suggesting that we sink to the level of the terrorists? Sorry, it (again) does not work that way. Now, write an incoherent conservative manifesto about how democrats are scum, and don't deserve the freedoms good christian republicans died for, and threaten me. It will surely prove your point.

    Your need to boil the whole argument down to "Aww, those democrats are just sore losers" smacks of... being a sore loser! imagine that.

    --
    God Bless America.
  144. trusting tia with our privacy and security is like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Trusting a renamed TIA to protect our privacy is like trusting a repeat child molester to babysit your 6 year old daughter after he changes his name
    to Alice the Babysitter.

  145. Gore won son. by SlashdotFreedom · · Score: 1

    I almost missed a paragraph :)

    which always include a guy who was only involved as a lukewarm-appeal campaigner (Bush the elder).
    So you say. If you're right, I ask again, why does bush squelch the investigation? Has the cocaine destroyed his ability to reason or is he just guilty as sin?

    The real history, what happened, remains: the guy who won the election is in the White House now.
    Geez, you can't face reality can you? Gore won the election. Bush and co cheated the judicial process and the red flags are STILL uninvestigated because bush squelched the investigation. Bush is in the white house but he is not legitimate.

    How many times do you have to lose this argument? What do you have to gain by making discredited over and over and over? Do you think I'm just going to go, "Oh, who cares if the man in the oval office broke the law to get there and covered it up"? Do you think it's "ok" for people to usurp the mechanisms that have held this country together and made it great just so they can have their way, legal or not?

    Dude, you're wrong. You don't have a leg to stand on. Next you'll be saying that Bush needs to be in the whitehouse whether he was elected or not because America has "lost its way". Get over it.

    Gore won. Bush is illegitimate. What is your major malfunction?

    --
    God Bless America.
  146. Re:Poindexter was not convicted by snarfer · · Score: 1

    "His conviction was thrown out as invalid; a mistake."

    Man, what kind of Republican ideological mind-warping has gotten to YOU?

    Poindexter's conviction was overturned on the grounds that his CONFESSION ON NATIONAL TV while "immunized" might have predjudiced the jurors.

  147. Re:The myth of media concentration by Darby · · Score: 1

    These 6 actually control a tiny fraction of the voices/outlets out there

    Bullshit.

    Most TV most Radio and most Print are owned by very few conglomerates.

    The FCC is working on removing the few remaining restrictions. Given this, they are certainly not free to print anything critical about the traitors running this country. This would prevent any outlet who did print the truth from benefitting from the new proposal for the rape of freedom.

    Give me an example of how the United States press is not free.

    It was proven that the election in Florida was rigged. 10s of thousands of voters were disenfranchised. This far outweighs 9/11 in importance. It is the worst treason possible in a democratic society. Where was our "free" press?

    Bush knew about the terrorist attacks before they happened. Where is the coverage?

    Bush did everything in his power to stop an investigation into 9/11. When he was forced into it he tried to appoint Kissinger which is the clearest possible way of screaming out "I'm guilty and trying to cover it up".
    Coverage was minimal.

    So while the press is "free" to maximize profits at the expense of the truth and at the expense of their sacred duty to crawl up the asses of our government and corporations which is the sole reason they are permitted this "freedom", their actions certainly have nothing in common with the common understanding of what the press is there for.

  148. Yes, I do. by alizard · · Score: 1
    The good news is that the kind of freedom of thought required to allow the kind of creativity that leads to new technology is exactly what this kind of police state inteferes with. Remember the old Soviet Union?

    Population growth alone tells us that we are going to need new technology even to preserve our current lifestyles, let alone improve them.

    Basically, as I see it, it isn't a matter of thousands of years, societies that misallocate their resources to provide the level of surveillance and social control implied in PATRIOT Act and TIA will probably go down the tubes in a generation.

    Remember how the Soviet Union got bankrupted? Misallocation of resources trying to keep up with US military technology.

    The societies that buy into Bush-style social control will go bankrupt trying to pay for the perfect Orwellian police state. The winners in this future will be the countries that declined to participate.

  149. Re:Spain - an example of the dangers of this stuff by rifter · · Score: 1

    Yes but it did happen in the US, to the guy who registered gwbush.com. Bush also tried to get laws passed that would require anyone who registered a political website, created a political advertisement, or otherwise expressed a political viewpoint must be registered with an approved political party which sanctions everything they say.

    The severe financial and bureaucratic overhead which would have resulted were highlights in the ensuing press backlash, as were the apologists for Bush who pointed out that very often people working for a given political party make severely misleading advertisements and hide as "people/concerned citizens for the election of so-and-so" so their candidate can disclaim liability, but the simple fact this would once again force people back into conforming with the "approved" system and the "approved" candidates was somewhat glossed over (most media outlets do not seem to like to entertain the idea of more than two candidates, total, in any election. They don't even report on Libertarian candidates in races where there is no Democrat, for instance.)

  150. You know, even those in power have dirty secrets.. by nickgrieve · · Score: 1

    You know, even those in power have dirty secrets...

    What a curious conundrum, to protect your privacy those in power need to have something to hide, and as long as they do TIA Big brother etc will be a bogy man to them too... elect the corrupt to protect your rights!!

  151. Re:Forced to join unions by rifter · · Score: 1

    There are any number of companies which automatically enroll all employees in a union. Safeway and Costco are two I can think of, which are pretty low-level jobs. The unions there seem not to do anything but collect dues, which impacts an already very small paycheck.

    I have to laugh at the poster who parroted the "Right to Work" line, though. "Right to Work" laws tend to mean 1) you can't have a union and 2) all work is "at will" and you can be fired with any cause (or without cause).

    Of course the reality is the conditions of work largely depend on the employer. I tend to solve this problem by gaining the skills necessary to have some choice in the employers I can get, and try not to pick bad ones. During the recent economic travails, I had a taste once again of the life of the average labourer who does not have this luxury. Thankfully I am lucky again.

    I think unions should be allowed, but they should truly represent the worker. I also think they are not necessary if management is truly clueful (understanding that looking out for their employees is looking out for the company). Unfortunately this is not a perfect world and people get exploited, both by unions and by management.

  152. you are... by zogger · · Score: 1

    ... most welcome. One of the better points is that all the evidence is there, for those who choose to look and can apply any sort of reasonable scientific principle to it. Nothing of note that is important and happening now is really hidden, "they" have it proclaimed all over in their papers and discussions, even the most easily avaialable to research point out the step by step perversions of our real law, and how they seek to morph society, into the new technofeudalism. It's all there. If there was a little as 2-3% the enthusiasm shown for these topics as-say-the enthusiasm shown for entertainments, sports, movies, games, etc, we'd have a completely different and more free and more honest society. It wouldn't even need much effort at all, it just needs to reach a critical mass of people to accomplish it. As it stands now, a relatively miniscule number of people are carrying the ball. Why more people don't get hip and involved is a puzzler to me, because these global society technofeudalists plan on sparing no one. *Perhaps* anyone "you" might be the one in every 100,000 or so who is part of "them", and that's a pretty small number for everyone to think they will be part of it. The rest of the people will be servants of these "elite" or...dead. You would think some of these issues would garner a scosh more interest.

    Like I said in my original post, even Ike didn't go all the way, he probably knew a lot more, but as far as he went was amazing.

    Sidenote, pretty funny. I taught myself to read pretty much. The first word I remember is "Ike" from his picture next to a big headline in the paper&correlated to the TV, we were the first in our area/neighborhood to have one. that's how I learned, matching words that I heard from the TV to the newspaper, always been a news junky from that. I am amused whenever I remember that, why I don't know, it's just funny to me.

  153. Re:Why foreign labor? by metachimp · · Score: 1
    lobbyists working every day alongside our legislators in order to sway things in a direction that benefits them.


    It's not like that anymore. Now the lobbyists write the legislation, in exchange for buying pizza for congressional staffers.

    --
    The system has failed you, don't fail yourself. --Billy Bragg
  154. Re:Bush DID win in Florida, but not by votes by geekee · · Score: 1

    The florida court didn't interpret the law. If they did, Bush would have won long before the hand recount fiasco. Instead the florida court started making up new law on the fly. They completely ignored the rules on the books.

    --
    Vote for Pedro
  155. Re:The electoral college by metachimp · · Score: 1
    California is the place where the Democrats would like GWB off the 2004 ballot on a technicality.


    Well, then the Republicans shouldn't have timed the convention to coincide with September 11 memorials, after the deadline in California to have your candidate sorted out. Waaaah. They can either have their candidate on the ballot, or exploit 9/11 for political gain. I see they have made their choice.

    --
    The system has failed you, don't fail yourself. --Billy Bragg
  156. Re:No links between business and power by metachimp · · Score: 1
    Oh, it believes in much more than that. This latest budget is over 2,000 pages, and only four of them are devoted to tax cuts.


    The majority of it is devoted to starving government programs that they don't agree with out of existence. They can't publicly say "we're going to gut program x", because they know that most programs they hate enjoy widespread public support. Programs like Head Start, which affects lots of people in very positive ways, and virtually anything that Clinton got started. Not because they don't work, but because Clinton supported them.


    There's a lot of hype about tax cuts, but the idea that this budget will foster growth or create jobs is is just nuts. That's not what it's designed for and they know it. If you believe it, you're a sucker. See you at the unemployment office. Stay away from the Bush Administration Kool-Aid.

    --
    The system has failed you, don't fail yourself. --Billy Bragg
  157. One word: Watergate by bagsc · · Score: 1

    Tapping a phone in the DNC is only enough to take down the president. Tapping every phone in the country is enough to take down Democracy.

    --
    http://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
  158. Quick survey by Platinum+Dragon · · Score: 1

    Raise your hand if you thought DARPA wouldn't try to pull this stunt.

    Keep your hand up if you think the people who wrote the original PATRIOT Act and its draft successor are only concerned with your safety and security, and would never try to get around constitutional limits using a hot-button issue.

    Keep your hand up if you believe in the Tooth Fairy.

    --

    Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
  159. Re:No conglomerate control by Darby · · Score: 1

    Aside from the fact that this is not true at all, this fictional story was hashed all over in the media during the months right after the election.

    It was *proven* true.
    It hasn't been more than briefly mentioned if that.
    Sure, the ballot irregularities were discussed, but not the fact that thousands of voters were disenfranchised. The company who did it *admitted* it. Not the malice behind it, but the fact of the action.
    You are a disinformation spreading, lying troll.

    The alarmists use Clear Channel as an example of a company that controls radio and will control more under these restriction removals.

    The word is not "alarmists" it is patriots.
    Get it right, traitor.

    In truth, Clear Channel controls around 10% of radio stations.

    Irrelvant. what is the listener percentage?

    These restrictions should be removed, as they cleary abridge "freedom of the press".

    In fact the restrictions are the only thing which might allow all viewpoints to be heard.
    They do not abridge shit. It could only be clear to someone, like yourself, who despises free thought.

    Your ignorance and enmity towards freedom is utterly disgusting.

  160. Re:Spain - an example of the dangers of this stuff by pubjames · · Score: 1

    Anyway, I don't understand how Aznar's party suing the students could be seen as outrageous. In Spain, publicly calling someone a murderer is libel, and not something you can do lightly. Is this different in the UK? Could a British newspaper call Tony Blair a murderer without fear of being sued?

    There are libel laws in the UK, but it is the context of this case that make it outrageous. This was a political party suing citizens for making a political statement. In the UK, that kind of action would be unthinkable. Political speech is well protected by law, and it is unlikely any court in the UK would side with a politician in this type of case. As an example, a famous British journalist interviewing Henry Kissenger a while ago told him that he thought he was a war criminal. I guess that journalist would now be in jail if he was in Spain!

  161. Re:More Bush liars by SlashdotFreedom · · Score: 1

    Please provide an attribution.
    Read the parent post. Attributions are there.
    If you're too lazy, see www.bushneverwonflorida.com

    Further, I seem to remember Gore conceding the point and the election. I wonder why?
    As I said before, when you're fighting a corrupt court, you can't win. He stopped while he was relatively "ahead".. as in, so he couldn't be labeled a sore loser.

    Glock27, you seem to have ignored the entire conversation up to the point where you made your post. I'm trying to say this without insulting you. Please open your eyes. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

    --
    God Bless America.
  162. Re:The electoral college by praedor · · Score: 1

    It IS way past time for the electoral college to be eliminated. A clique of elites should no longer be allowed to reverse the will of the People at large. The People were NOT mistaken and not confused, they wanted Gore, not Bush. All the electoral college does is allow illegitimate presidents to claim a "mandate" (Like Reagan did when all he garnered in reality was 54% of the popular vote - nearly half of the country voted against him...NOT a mandate) where none exists. It allows a small cabala of people to decide the overall political course of the country for the next 4 years with little or no regard to the populace's desire/will. The People are to be trusted and permitted to select the one individual who is supposed to represent everyone.


    As for gerrymandering, it should flat-out be abolished and redistricting completely removed from politician's hands. The courts or a 3rd independent part should handle redistricting based solely on demographics and population, not politics. Cities do NOT belong bunched into a district of rural residents. Totally different populations with different goals and desires. It is wrong and even immoral to disenfranchise people by tweaking their districts for the benefit of ANY political party. Period.


    As for Democrats doing the same thing, it all comes to revenge. They do to the Republicans what the Republicans did to them, and on and on. Illegitimate. Thus, redistricting should never have politicos involved in it.


    As far as Gore and Florida, he goofed only in demanding recounts in certain districts. He should have demanded a full recount, statewide. A lot of Republican hacks should go to jail for purposefully disenfranchising black voters as well. The DID work to screw up voting for the minorities.

    --
    In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
  163. Re:Spain - an example of the dangers of this stuff by ElMiguel · · Score: 1

    This was a political party suing citizens for making a political statement.

    Well, I can't speak for Spanish society, but I wouldn't consider calling someone a murderer as political speech.

    As an example, a famous British journalist interviewing Henry Kissenger a while ago told him that he thought he was a war criminal. I guess that journalist would now be in jail if he was in Spain!

    I don't think libel is punished with jail time in Spain. If these students are convicted, they will likely get away with a small fine.

    Disclaimer: IANA Spanish L.

  164. Join Vision 2020 by Sky+Lemon · · Score: 1

    The TIA program apart from being appalling in and of itself intrigues me in conjunction with the U.S. Military's "Join Vision 2020" doctrine (parts 1 & 2). Especially interesting are the sections headed "Full Spectrum Dominance" and "Information Superiority".

  165. Re:We're almost all Native Americans by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

    LOL, dude, my wife is a native american...

    That's hilarious! ahaha!

    PS: My wife says hi, and she's full blooded navajo tribe. She thinks it's funny your calling me racist because... SHE'S NATIVE.. and doesn't like being called an indian because she's a navajo.

    Oh yes, I am a left winger... but that holds no bearing on racist stances, considering that by nature is a republican only stance.

    --
    -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
  166. Re:We're almost all Native Americans by tribalwolf · · Score: 1

    I would be the wife of Arkane. I find it funny that you label my husband a racist. I'm a full blooded Native American. Both my parents are full blooded Navajo. My first language was Navajo. I was raised by my Grandmother who spoke only my language and practiced the ways of my people. i still speak my language. You don't know my husband, he is not a racist. Screw the past eh? well, that would be good and all but the past is still with us ("He who does not learn from his mistake is destined to repeat it"). Ignorance is still universal. Perhaps you never had the opportunity to be judge solely on the color of your skin or have people talk slower to you because they think you're stupid. I am more educated than the people who treat me like this but they assume because my skin is brown, i must be stupid. I am a Lab Tech. I work in the medical field. If you're trying to sound more intelligent and culturally aware of all humans might i suggest that one can make a point without resorting to profanity. We are not all the same people. My heritage is not universal. Sure, we all bleed the same (well, some of us squirt more than others) but that doesn't mean we're all the same. As long as humans are self-serving, greedy, etc..we will never be the same nor will we have peace. Instead of fighting each other or putting each other down perhaps we can try and make a difference. Before you point a finger and label someone, take a look at yourself. Are you making a difference?

  167. Re:We're almost all Native Americans by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

    I'd have to agree with your entire post there, guy. You've hit the nail right on the head, in a lot of ways.

    As far as the republican == racist cliche a fed upon, I was just raising hairs :) It's amazing how people are stuck in this whole "democrat vs. republican" mindset. I'm neither honestly, though I sway left-wing as an independent.

    History is written by the conqueror in almost every case... sad, but true.

    --
    -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
  168. Re:We're almost all Native Americans by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

    I just re-read that post... the part about getting a scholarship is not true. In order to get that, you'd have to be of tribal blood, which is 25% or more. Every tribe is different, but Navajo I believe is 25%. But that still doesn't guarentee you a scholarship, it just means your eligable to apply for it. :) There isn't a whole lot of money floating around for those scholarships, so the pickings are thin.

    --
    -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!