Slashdot Mirror
2003 Privacy and Human Rights Survey Released
Privacy Digest writes "Out-Law.com, UK - Global privacy report is the most comprehensive ever . The Electronic Privacy Information Center and Privacy International on Friday released their sixth annual Privacy and Human Rights survey which claims to be the most comprehensive survey on privacy and data protection ever published. The report reviews the state of privacy in over fifty-five countries around the world. Key topics include Total Information Awareness, the public response to the U.S.A.-Patriot Act, traveller profiling, biometric identification, and other new technologies of surveillance. Privacy and Human Rights 2003: An International Survey of Privacy Laws and Developments is available free online or it can be purchased from the EPIC Bookstore."
... the fact that the left-leaning pro-privacy folks at slashdot still need to refer to anonymous posters as "cowards"?
YOU INSENSITIVE CLODS!
I know this puts me in danger of being modded down.
But...
Privacy is not a basic human right. Not like freedom to not be murdered, beaten, or starved. There are a lot of human rights violations going on right now, but certain levels of tracking don't even show up on the human-rights-violations radar.
Sure, denial of privacy can reach extreme levels, to the point where it becomes a concern. But I think this report is a little knitpicky.
Slashdot Syndrome: the sudden, extreme urge to correct someone in order to validate one's self.
I seriously have to wonder how many more years it will be before this report will be merely a commemoration of lost history.
The average American consumer is still oblivious to the erosion of privacy that has occured over the last decade. Only radical action and broad support will stop this continuing trend.
-You may license this sig for only $6.99.
Mention the PATRIOT Act, not a word on the oppresive regimes of the Communist Chinese
RTFA!!!
You can't take the sky from me...
The timing of this is rather ironic as I read this morning that the CAPSII system will be coming online very shortly. I can't wait to see what color I am. What color are you?
It seems there's a chicken and egg senario concerning most government's and the rights given to citizens. Here in the United States the govenment is made up of elected citizens who are supposed to, ideally, work for us and pass the laws WE ask for. However, the relationship between the government and the people tends to get distorted through campaign contributions, the media, large corporations and wealthy individuals, etc... I'm not sure we've reached the level of security we want but I'm not sure it's worth our privacy. To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin: "Those who substitute Liberty for Security deserve neither."
"Terminate?"
"Terminate... with extreme prejudice"
Ah yes, the place all geeks pine for. Well, the government wouldn't do much intrusion simply because it wouldn't be funded. But private citizens would have access to all sorts of spying mechanisms. You would have to use anti-spying mechanisms to defeat it.
-Libertarian secular transhumanist
er.. they have plenty about China and many other countries if you followed the links and read a little: http://www.privacyinternational.org/survey/phr2003 /countries/china.htm
I thought that in the US, it was the citizens that gave the government rights. Not the other way around. I'm so naive, aren't I?
In Soviet Russia you kinda have no rights...
Trust me on that one...my phone was tapped 24/7 in Russia, I still get taped when I call back there. It's the "click"...and at times you can hear them breathing...or music in the background. Sometimes they pick up before the phone connects, sometimes after. I suppose they enjoy the chats I have with my gf...
This whole article is worth shit though. I'd dare not call it a study. They quote laws that are not at all enforced. Russia has NO PRIVACY AT ALL. Yet it's nice and blue and supposedly has laws...BULLSHIT.
They're still hassling my grandparents there asking where I dissapeared to and why I'm not getting raped in the army.
Russia is totaly fucked, considering that the report has failed to show that, the report is WORTHLESS.
In Soviet Russia, the television watches YOU!
Quoted from article:
In Russia (especially in Moscow and St. Petersburg) illegal collection and distribution of data on private persons and organizations is quite commonplace. Quite popular are databases on purchase/sale of cars, car owners, passport data and foreign passport data of Russian citizens, data on real estate (purchase and sale of apartments, their parameters, location and proprietors), databases of taxpayers, information about people wanted for crimes and those who have been previously convicted. CDs with such databases are easily available on the streets and the Internet. The CD can cost from USD10 to USD1,500 depending on the subject, amount and accuracy of the data. In the beginning of 2003 a mobile phone company Mobile Telesystems (MTS) suffered a massive security breach that led to the sale of CDs with MTS's entire database of several million customers. By law, MTS was required to share information about their customers with the police and government agencies. MTS claimed that the database had been stolen and that the company had started its own internal investigation without seeking help from law enforcement agencies. The company refused to provide details as to the results of this investigation. Widespread speculation and comments from an MTS spokesperson indicate that the data was leaked by a low-paid employee from one of these government agencies
New year Resolution: Don't change sig this year
I like the part about CAPS II may deny people boarding based on their composite score.
Scene from Soviet America, next year:
I'm sorry, sir, you are not allowed to travel. No, we cannot tell you why, that would be a violation of security; we can only tell you that you are not allowed to travel. Please return home and avoid transit. We will alert you in the future if you are allowed to travel.
The First Lady has said the best byproduct of ousting the Taliban from Afghanistan was the liberation of Afghan women. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said the same thing when asked what the U.S. achieved in its war in Afghanistan.
If the liberation of Arab women is so important to the current administration, then does that mean we'll be invading Saudi Arabia next?!!!
"Global privacy report is the most comprehensive ever"
Hm.. is it just me or does anyone else find anything just a LITTLE bit ironic about those exact words..?
Think about it..
Hey may have been talking about the editorial comment and not the article.
Onward to the Aether Sphere!
There is still slavery in the world
yeah. it's called Tech Support.
er.. they have plenty about China and many other countries if you followed the links
It's much easier than that:
Report by China on Human-Rights abuses in the United States
"Friday released their sixth annual Privacy and Human Rights survey which claims to be the most comprehensive survey on privacy and data protection ever published. "
This means out of the 20 /. readers who actually take the tiem to read the articles, 15 just said fuck that!
"BEHOLD, CORN!!" - Dr. Weird, ATHF
Just to get a more official view:
Quoted from European Convention on Human Rights (available in several languages)
Can some one please explain to me what is evil about biometric identification? If having a retina or finger print on my ID prevents people from pretending to be me, isn't that a good thing?
UNIX/Linux Consulting
www.theinquirer.net
>THE UK GOVERNMENT has announced plans to keep an electronic file on every child in England in a range of new child protection measures announced by prime minister Tony Bliar.
>The children's files together with their unique e-number will be managed by local authorities in a "local information hub". The file will contain the name, address and date of birth of each child, together with the name of the school attended and whether the child is known to such agencies as the police, social services or educational welfare. Where multiple agencies are involved the file will denote which one profesional will have overall reponsibilty
Yet again... launched to "protect" the children... and yet another place where incorrect information can have devastating consequences for the parents of a child if a mistake is made during data entry...
Teacher notices bruises on child's torso... entry in database... social services could now be investigating for child abuse when it could have been a simple injury from a fall... but the reason might not have been entered later after investigation by the teacher however that entry will be there forever... Same child misses school several days in a row for a perfectly valid reason some months later... yet again social services could put 2 and 2 together later on and make 5...
What's the bet's they'll try and fly this kite by saying "the innocent have nothing to fear"??? If there's anything to go by from previous cases... the innocent have everything to fear when social services get it in their minds that there could be abuse when there isn't...
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
EPIC and Privacy International are based in the US and UK, respectively, because most countries would shut somebody like them down.
Of course you're right, and it's absolutely idiotic. Whoever modded you as flamebait is one of those PC douchebags.
The problem with airport security is that we're giving so much power to some of the stupidest people alive. This isn't an insult, but a fact. Conventional airport security guards are no brighter or better paid than mall security guards.
I hear about an episode where some 65 year old woman who'd had a mastectamy is taken into the back and strip searched for setting off the metal detector. Another one had airport security guards making a woman drink her own breast milk (it was in a bottle, they wanted her to prove it wasnt some kind of flammable liquid). Women are groped by these jackasses all the time, and now they want a machine that would "see through" your clothes.
I have no problem with security measures at airports, but you have to ditch the untrained morons in charge of them first.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
One of the primary "selling" points of the Patriot Act was that it would be used against "foreign" suspects. However, to my knowledge, the Patriot Act has thus far been used primarily against US citizens (big surprise). Is anyone aware if the Patriot Act has in fact been used against a foreigner yet? And, if so, what the ratio of Patiot Act vs. Citizens and foreigners is?
Bot, I hope I don't make The List with this post. I'm sorry John, I didn't mean anything by it.
The best way to protect our privacy is to stop doing things that gives our government or entities like RIAA arguably "justifiable" reasons to strip away our privacy rights.
Doing illegal things lead to all of us paying the penalty by losing our rights. The more responsible we behave, the more rights we'll have. Pretty simple stuff.
if you were naive you would believe it
I seem to remember a shocking act of terrorism in the United States that killed 168 people, committed by someone I doubt would fit into your description of what the "predominance of the terrorists look like" -- his name was Timothy McVeigh.
If you can judge a wise man (or a terrorist) by the color of their skin, then mister, you're a better man than I.
The real reaction to this act from conservatives is more interesting and diverse. Some share the views of Attorney General Ashcroft. Others oppose it just as strongly as the geek community -- many of the articles about the act on the conservative National Review site describe it with terms like the "so-called", "wrongly-termed" or "misnamed" Patriot Act. A director of the Cato Institute raised many interesting questions about the act, to which the Justice Department wrote up a reply.
Also worth looking at is the Justice Department's own Patriot Act Web site. From here you can view the text of the act itself as well as all the arguments for it and rhetoric used to justify it. A valuable resource for any of us trying to formulate counterarguments about why this act needs to go away.
You're leaving out huge chunks of "we the people" here, namely US residents who're not citizens of the US. This includes both people from the Indian nations, and spouses/children of US citizens holding a different (or no) citizenship. Many, if not most, of which are as American as apple pie -- certainly more American than US citizens like Arnold Schwartzenegger.
The US Constitution is very specific in not granting many rights to citizens that it doesn't also grant to the people -- about the only exception is participating in federal elections.
Regards,
--
*Art
And it's not a bad thing to be a liberal. :-) It's probably a good thing that conservatives and liberals are constantly fighting it out, lest we slide too far either way. Balance.
http://www.rootstrikers.org/
To me, perhaps one of the biggest threats to privacy is something quite simple: an elaborate IP database cross-referenced with personal information found on the Internet. This is like getting someone's telephone transcripts. This information is available all over the Internet, but are there any known companies that are compiling IP Databases?
It seems unpolite to attack people that fund or have funded you :) Unfortunatly much of the terrorism that exsist would not just go away, I wish it were that easy, but if we show weakness there are people who will attack us. I don't think it is a bad thing to be a liberal, but the Hate the has crept into politics over the last 12 years is not helping us at all, I don't mind conservatives and liberals fighting it out, I just wish they would be the gloves back on...
Onward to the Aether Sphere!
Apparently you missed the part that said:
"The Federal Communications Commission issued regulations in November 1998 implementing the law.[2889] The regulations include several additional provisions including requiring that all mobile phone companies facilitate location tracking of users. Privacy groups challenged the implementation of the law in federal court and telecommunications companies, who argued that the regulations give the government more power than authorized under the law and the Constitution.[2890] In August 2000, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that law enforcement agencies must meet the highest legal standard before using these new surveillance capabilities."
Nothing to see here...move along...
(Sponsored by cheeseSource for President 2012)
If I read you correctly, then stating your argument in my own words, you're saying that in order to protect freedom, we must wield it responsibly and not do anything that shows we aren't worthy of that freedom.
Such a freedom is not worth squat. It can also be paraphrased "freedom of agreeing with the government", and is present in pretty much every state on this planet.
It is the freedom and right to do WRONG things that signify freedom. Not the right to follow the masses and do what you are expected.
OK, you've read National Geographics ;-)
That doesn't mean this report was written to throw eggs at the USA. Read the article instead of the \. comments. I know, less amusing in many ways, but still.
The USA scores badly on *some* points, better on others. It's still a pretty good country to live in compared to a lot of places in the world.
The real issue is, finding your government is messing with your privacy is like being underground and having your canary dying on you. It's a worrying sign, or it should be.
Instead of thinking "Hey, them's throwing eggs at our beloved nation, that can't be right", you might want to look at other countries and see where that kind of tinkering with basic rights brought them. And remember, it's mostly fellow Americans doing the "throwing", and my guess is they're just as proud of being a US citizen as you obviously are.
Apart from that, I agree, a lot of people have more pressing problems.
I think, therefore I am...I think.
"...If Parliament and the public at large have been slow to react, it is probably because for most people, most of the time, privacy is a pretty abstract concept. Like our health, it's something we tend not to think about until we lose it -- and then discover that our lives have been very unpleasantly, and perhaps irretrievably, altered. But though we tend to take it for granted, privacy -- the right to control access to ourselves and to personal information about us -- is at the very core of our lives. It is a fundamental human right precisely because it is an innate human need, an essential condition of our freedom, our dignity and our sense of well-being.
If someone intrudes on our privacy -- by peering into our home, going through the personal things in our office desk, reading over our shoulder on a bus or airplane, or eavesdropping on our conversation -- we feel uncomfortable, even violated.
Imagine, then, how we will feel if it becomes routine for bureaucrats, police officers and other agents of the state to paw through all the details of our lives: where and when we travel, and with whom; who are the friends and acquaintances with whom we have telephone conversations or e-mail correspondence; what we are interested in reading or researching; where we like to go and what we like to do..."
"... The truth is that we all do have something to hide, not because it's criminal or even shameful, but simply because it's private. We carefully calibrate what we reveal about ourselves to others. ... The right not to be known against our will -- indeed, the right to be anonymous except when we choose to identify ourselves -- is at the very core of human dignity, autonomy and freedom.
"If we allow the state to sweep away the normal walls of privacy that protect the details of our lives, we will consign ourselves psychologically to living in a fishbowl. Even if we suffered no other specific harm as a result, that alone would profoundly change how we feel. Anyone who has lived in a totalitarian society can attest that what often felt most oppressive was precisely the lack of privacy.
But there also will be tangible, specific harm.
"The more information government compiles about us, the more of it will be wrong. That's simply a fact of life...
"... The bottom line is this: If we have to live our lives weighing every action, every communication, every human contact, wondering what agents of the state might find out about it, analyze it, judge it, possibly misconstrue it, and somehow use it to our detriment, we are not truly free.That sort of life is characteristic of totalitarian countries, not a free and open society like Canada.
Again, this essay is well worth reading and sending on to others. Other than to Ashcroft and the TSA- don't send it to them, as they'd use it as an antiblueprint. "Don't track everyone all the time? OK, lets track everyone all the time." "Don't allow unsubstantiated data to influence how we treat people? OK, lets use any data available, true or not..."
True, but do you think once they had his desciption they went out and strip-searched Saudi's? JAV
I didn't realize it was labelled "flamebait" till just now. Well, I adore Slashdot. I read it daily. But there are a lot of folks here that smoke the cigs because it's cool. Meaning, they're liberal because it's cool and they accept popular ideas simply because they are afraid of being labelled "non-intellectual" if they don't. I don't think that's the majority, mind you, but there is a large segment, much like in society. It's doesn't make them correct, rather merely comfortable (and with that appear to be correct). Truth is absolute and the fact that it's absolute is precisely why people go to such great lengths to illustrate that it isn't. Remember your debate skills. It's not usually the one that the audience is behind that's right because it's easier to play on emotions than it is to accept where logic (and with it, "truth")is taking you. JAV
Of course, the constitution only protects your privacy from government intrusion. But a right can be considered to exist without being legally codified. Suppose I steal your private correspondence and read your most personal thoughts. Or plant surveillance gear in your bedroom for my own malicious gratification? Wouldn't you feel that your rights had been violated?
Side note: screw the moderator who labeled this "Flamebait". I don't agree with this opinion, but it is an honestly-held one. Read the FAQ before you moderate again!
Yes, nothing is easy but when I see the U.S. doing things (torture, murder) that they castigate other countries for doing I'm not inspired to just go along simply because it's my country. One should clean one's own house first before criticizing a neighbor.
But all in all, a nice exchange with you. Let's leave flaming to...the flamers.
http://www.rootstrikers.org/
Trust me on that one...my phone was tapped 24/7 in Russia, I still get taped when I call back there. It's the "click"...and at times you can hear them breathing...or music in the background. Sometimes they pick up before the phone connects, sometimes after. I suppose they enjoy the chats I have with my gf...
;-)
The alternative, simpler, explanation would be that the Russian telephone network simply experiences much more interference, such as cross-talk interference, and other anomalies..
Regardless what purveyors of little boxes with red lights on them will tell you, there is NO way to tell whether a phone line is being wiretapped or not. It's all digital these days, and doesn't require billions of funding (like, say, upgrading the Russian telco infrastructure to get rid of crosstalk interference would), but more in the region of a K or two..
And breathing?? Come on! Conversations are taped, transcribed (possibly mostly by using speech recognition software - it's no coincidence that there was "some" CIA involvement with Lernout&Hauspie, the Belgian language technology dotcom) and then analyzed. Nobody has the time to sit around waiting for some yank to call his girlfriend. If she is being tapped, I'm sure they only actually listen to the tapes of her talking to her friendly neighborhood drugdealer, or Chechzen aunt.
They're still hassling my grandparents there asking where I dissapeared to and why I'm not getting raped in the army.
Had they listened in on your phone conversations, they'd know
Now, just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you (in your case, well, probably they are). But wiretapping is a smooth and silent operation, and, obviously (spooks don't like to get found out) has been for ages.
SCO employee? Check out the bounty
This is a prior posting of mine that was received favourably :-)
Subject: Why I joined ACLU
I believe that we British should support the American Civil Liberties Union.
In fact - the people of ALL countries should - the ACLU are fighting for the Rights of everyone on this matter.
Liberty has to be one of the most important things in life. Well up there, behind health and safety of your family, must be the right to go about your daily life without being forced to live it under oppressive surveillance. For it surely is oppression - being spied upon by the authorities in all that you do. Knowing this information could be used against you, for any purpose they see fit. The so-called all-seeing eye of God over you - meant to instil respect of them and fear of authority.
It can be proven they use propaganda to deceive you into believing them. How?
Ask Security Services in the US, UK, Indonesia (Bali) or anywhere for that matter, to deny this:
Internet surveillance, using Echelon, Carnivore or back doors in encryption, will not stop terrorists communicating by other means - most especially face to face or personal courier.
Terrorists will have to do that, or they will be caught!
Perhaps using mobile when absolutely essential, saying - "Meet you in the pub Monday" (meaning, human bomb to target A), or Tuesday (target B) or Sunday (abort).
The Internet has become a tool for government to snoop on their people - 24/7.
The terrorism argument is a dummy - total bull*.
INTERNET SURVEILLANCE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO STOP TERRORISTS - THAT IS SPIN AND PROPAGANDA
This propaganda is for several reasons, including: a) making you feel safer b) to say the government are doing something and c) the more malicious motive of privacy invasion.
Government say about surveillance - "you've nothing to fear - if you are not breaking the law"
This argument is made to pressure people into acquiescence - else appear guilty of hiding something illegal.
It does not address the real reason why they want this information (which they will deny) - they want a surveillance society.
They wish to invade your basic human right to privacy. This is like having somebody watching everything you do - all your personal thoughts, hopes and fears will be open to them.
This is everything - including phone calls and interactive TV. Quote from ZDNET: "Whether you're just accessing a Web site, placing a phone call, watching TV or developing a Web service, sometime in the not to distant future, virtually all such transactions will converge around Internet protocols."
"Why should I worry? I do not care if they know what I do in my own home", you may foolishly say. Or, just as dumbly, "They will not be interested in anything I do".
This information will be held about you until the authorities need it for anything at all. Like, for example, here in UK when government looked for dirt on individuals of Paddington crash survivors group. It was led by badly injured Pam Warren. She had over 20 operations after the 1999 rail crash (which killed 31 and injured many).
This group had fought for better and safer railways - all by legal means. By all accounts a group of fine outstanding people - with good intent.
So what was their crime, to deserve this investigation?
It was just for showing up members of government to be the incompetents they are.
As usual, government tried to put a different spin on the story when they were found out. Even so, their intent was obvious - they wanted to use this information as propaganda - to smear the character of these good people.
Our honourable government would rather defile the character of its citizens - rather than address their reasonable concerns.
The government arrogantly presume this group of citizens would not worry about having their privacy invaded.
They can also check your outgoings match your income and that you are
I'd call Slashdot a right-wing community because it looks like most of them voted for Bush or Gore.
Yeah yeah, don't do anything serious with the results...
still, people get the government they deserve.
The US Army: promoting democracy through unquestioned obedience
Flamebait is perhaps a little harsh - it could simply be that you haven't fully considered the consequences were your suggestions to be implemented. Although I agree you have the right to hold the opinion that the burden of increased security should be lifted from the shoulders of those who enjoy privilege, and instead borne all the heavier by those who already feel unjustly treated - who would then stand accused of guilt by racial association every time they travelled - I would rather appeal to your sense of 'logic', 'common sense' and pragmatism (you seem to hold good, classic right wing views - is it not part of the conservative ideology that they are the pragmatists while the liberals are led astray by their hopeless idealism?)
I ask you then, sir, to read of the 'Carnival Booth' algorithm and its applications to terrorist methods, in particular a rather interesting paper I read recently. I can't provide the URL, but I can summarise: imagine yourself (or, if not yourself, how about that suspicious Arab looking guy you saw in the street today) the planner of a terrorist operation. You (sorry, he) knows that the authorities are not carrying out random searches but are rather targeting those they consider to pose a 'heightened security risk'. Now, over a period of time send your operatives one by one, unarmed and unequipped, through the same security systems you plan to subvert. No doubt, the authorities will have some hauled in - they won't find anything, so those unlucky operatives will be free to come back and go to work in the explosives laboratory instead. However, those of your operatives who were not targeted have just been given a white card by the security systems, allowing you to conclude that next time - when they are armed - the chances of them being searched are small to miniscule.
Congratulations, sir - your distaste for 'PC over security' (by the way - is your greed for racial profiling connected at all to the racial grouping you happen to be classified under?) has just cost a few hundred lives.
When my bags are searched, or my clothes patted down, I feel pride that I am doing my part to help provide security for all.
Sorry - but the part they published on the US is not well crafted and old info. "Recent news reports indicate that John Poindexter will soon resign.[2912]" excuse me - Old john poindexter was out many weeks ago. Recent? Will Soon what? There is cursory mention of national ID's when months ago it was written into law that biometric driver's license info would become a phased in and in some cases mandated, becoming Federal Information. I'm sorry but if i was the proofreader for that document i would have ripped it to shreds and given it some teeth while i was re-writing it.
-=|hook
Yeah, easy for you to say, whiteboy.
Profiling seems like a great idea when you look at it as an abstraction - sacrifice some rights of a very small group of people to improve everyone's safety. Sure, why not? It's a whole different story when you take it on an individual level. I'm an Arab, and an American citizen, and I've lived in the United States since I was two years old. Most people assume that I'm white just looking at me; shit, I don't even speak Arabic. I'm no more a terrorist than your theoretical elderly black woman. And let me tell you, getting searched at every. Single. Goddamn. Airport. starts to look a whole lot like racism from where I'm sitting. I'm not suffering because of anything I've done, or even any choices I've made; it's the way I was born that's the issue. Even the most hardcore politically conservative (i.e. pro-equality of opportunity) outlook can't support that. So if it doesn't fit the political doctrine, what could the motivations be? Notice how they didn't start profiling caucasians at government buildings after the Oklahoma City bombing?
That aside, racial profiling was recently proven not only ineffective at hampering terrorists, but actually counterproductive. It's an interesting paper, and a very simple proof, though I somehow doubt that it will change your mind on the matter.
Finally, asshole, your stance here doesn't brand you as a "radical free-thinker" or "defiantly anti-PC", no matter how you might try to paint it as such. It brands you as a fucking racist, and I hope that someday someone gives you the mighty clue-stick bitchslap that you so desperately deserve.
Well obviously everyone globally has absolutely no concerns over privacy since they took the time to fill out a survey.
Who exactly is Middle-Eastern looking? I guess what you really mean is skin colour=brown?
I doubt that whatever I say will change your mind so I'll let you figure out stuff on your own. You might want to start with racial profiling of blacks and what it does...
I WILL comment on one thing though: your idea of only checking targets (ie. skipping people who don't fit the profile). This doesn't work. The reason is because the criminals will use people are not targetted to say carry an item past the screener and then get it off them.
For example, I am brown and I'm guessing you are white. So I will get checked under your discrminatory system, while you will get off relatively easily. What I will do is offer you, say, $170,000 to carry a bag past the screeners. $170,000 for just that. I'll get it off you right after you get past the security. The vast majority of the people will accept my offer--not because they don't think I am a criminal but because the money will help them with their fucked up lives. YOU may refuse or turn me in. But chances are that the criminal will get away if they are smart. For instance, they may trail you by a bit and make sure that you aren't doing anything. Your time slot for turning on the criminal (me in this case) is small. You will pass a point at which you can't turn on me. For instance, you may become accessory to the crime and get in a lot more trouble if you turn me in after a point (say you get past the detectors but only turn me in after walking for 5 minutes. This could land you in jail, depending on what the corporation who runs the airports wants to do with you). The criminal (me in this case) will only make my move when everything is clear and I'm reasonably sure that you won't turn on me. To make it even worse, I wouldn't really come to you. I would instead get some guy who is having a horrible life (possibly depressed, meaningless life, etc) or some homeless person or whatever.
So basically your system (at least your latter proposal) will not work at all. What I have described is nothing more than what drug dealers and human traffickers use. I just made up some stuff and created an example to suit the context. Drug dealers (and organized criminals in general) cannot be profiled, not because you don't know who they are but because the person trafficking isn't them.
BTW, I'm not a terrorist... all you right wingers are too stupid to know the real terrorists from the fake ones, and the last thing I need is to have the CIA knocking on my door...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places
hmm... I guess you didn't get the point the US govt was trying to make... they were trying to get American women to the level of "liberated" Afghan women. American women are apparently a bit too "liberal" and Afghan women are supposedly the ideal. Bringing social services for American women to the level of Afghan women is a top priority for the govt...
;)
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places
Anyone born on US soil is automatically a US citizen.
Legal aliens (permanent residents) can apply for US citizenship once they have lived in the US for 5 years.
In light of all that, I have no idea what "American as apple pie" you're talking about.
I'll respond to everything here. First of all, how do you know I'm a "right-winger?" Just because I loath political correctness and thing we should target our searches to those who fit the profile? I've said nothing on any other issue, but you suddenly lump me into a class. Whether I am or not is not important. So it would seem that you are guilty of that which you accuse me, stereotyping or profiling. But alas, I'll take it. Profiling is not discrimination. And for the record, I am VERY often searched myself. And like a poster has already said, I take no offense to it at all. I also have no problem with everyone being searched per se'. My point is, if the government wanted to start concentrating on those it felt were a higher risk, and btw ARE a higher risk, then I have no problem with that. I don't think it has any less effect than the police stopping those who fit the description of a perpetrator on the street. And another thing, to Dissonant who called me an asshole, why is it that debate has to be reduced to such levels? I would infer that either you are not very intelligent or are very immature. And to elude to the fact that I am probably what you consider a "right-winger" why is it that liberals usually resort to such base extents? To djeca, I commend your honest debate. Even though we dissagree, you at least strive to make your points clearly and thoughtfully. If we can't discuss openly in such a forum as this, then how can we help change minds and hearts? JAV
Let me reiterate: I do not accept your definition that if it is taken away that it is a priveledge. There is no right that cannot be taken away (something I have shown). It is not from not *understanding* what you wrote, but I consider it false.
Rights are, rather, any power we have not ceded to the government. To reiterate, if we haven't given it to them, it's our *right*. This rectifies the error in my first post. It is also the manner in which our rights are understood in the Constitution, Declaration of Independance, and anything else operating under a significant philisophical influence from Locke. In contrast to your dollar bill analogy, take the opening words of the Constitution, "We the people of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice..." The FF disposed of their own govenment and constructed a new one from scratch. How can they do this, unless of course, the government is a construct? We make the government, and what we don't give it, is still ours.
As an aside, you learned arithmetic because somebody taught it to you. Would you be able to count past "one, two, many" if someone had not taught it to you (math beyond that is not natural and must be taught), and could you daydream about all the more lofty things you no doubt have done without having been taught? We only know what we're taught, and even our daydreams and math are dependent on those, and without that, math wouldn't be here and daydreams wouldn't be able to conceive the things they do.
You're making the assumption that you know what all current terrorists look like -- in fact, I think you're going so far as to say they are all Arab. It is that assumption which I disagree with. In fact, I remember that the media floated the suspicion early on that those who bombed the Oaklahoma Federal Building were "Arab terrorists", and then had to quickly change tunes when that turned out to be baseless speculation.
My point is that overly broad profiling is not a good idea -- at best it's simply stereotyping, at worst it is outright prejudice. One cannot assume that all Arab people are terrorists any more than one can assume that everyone else is not. It's like assuming that all black men are dealing crack, or that all CEOs are cooking the books to misrepresent their profits. Sure, there are members of both groups who do just that -- stereotypes are there for a reason. But we must be careful not to confuse stereotypes with facts.