Slashdot Mirror
'Operation Cyber Sweep' Nets 125 Arrests
unassimilatible writes "Attorney General John Ashcroft said Thursday that law-enforcement agents had arrested 125 suspects in a crackdown on Internet crimes ranging from hacking and software piracy to credit card fraud and selling stolen goods over the Internet, according to Wired. The investigation, begun Oct. 1 and dubbed Operation Cyber Sweep, involved police from Ghana to Southern California and uncovered 125,000 victims who had lost more than $100 million. Seventy indictments to date have led to arrests or convictions of 125 people, with more expected as the probe continues. The cases range from a Virginia woman who sent fake e-mails to America Online customers asking them to update their credit card numbers to a disgruntled Philadelphia Phillies fan who hacked into computers nationwide and launched spam e-mails criticizing the baseball team. 'The information superhighway should be a conduit for communication, information and commerce, not an expressway for crime,' Ashcroft said."
I know he's one of the worst people in high places, but I think this is a good thing. He's not invading peoples privacy or instituting some terrible law, he's actually helping people.
-Kilka
If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all. -Chomsky
I'm glad the editors didn't classify this story as "Your Rights Online" and turn it into another anti-Ashcroft-fest. To stay on topic, identity thieves and the like are the right people to go after. Maybe the salaries for the RIAA's lawyers should go to fighting crime like that.
I had but a simple dream, to destroy all humans.
Uhhhh.... this is an example of assuming causality. Because there have been very few terrorist attacks in the United States since Sept 11, 2001 the Bush administration must be doing a good job combating terrorism.
This assumes a few things.
1 - Legions of bloodthirsty terrorists wish nothing more than to see the United States reduced to a smoking abrasion in the earth's crust.
2 - These people have decided that the best time to act on these urges would be right now, while the Bush Administration is hunting for them.
3 - These terrorists are being found, tried, and convicted in secret military courts while the president's approval ratings sink ever lower as the US population grows more and more convinced that the world isn't nearly as dangerous as Mr Ashcroft would have us think.
It also has, implicit in it, at least one conclusion that those that advance it probably won't like.
1 - Three acts of terrorism have occurred in the United States since Pres. Bush took power. (9-11, Anthrax, Sniper). Thus Bush averages 1 attack per year (3 years in office, 3 attacks). Clinton, in comparison averages 1 every 4 years (World Trade Center Bombing and Oklahoma City). By the parent post's logic Clinton did a better job of protecting against terrorism.
But let's not get into that particular quagmire. The real question is this. At what cost? Terrorism isn't the leading cause of death in this country. More people die from pretty much everything than die in terrorist attacks. Want to protect the US Citizenry? Sink that $87 Billion for Iraq into Cancer research.
Ok... lets go with Cancer though. Apparently this country is unwilling to use the stem cells from a fetus that was aborted to try to cure cancer. I can accept a religious problem with that.
So here's the (hypothetical) trade. A cure for cancer, today. The price: The government gets to tap your phone, confiscate property without due process, track your internet usage, spy on you without judicial oversight, conduct secret searches of your home, and check up on your library readings. Oh, they also get to use your car to spy on you and can detain you indefinitely in a military base with no hope of appeal or civilian trial. Is it worth it? Remember, we're talking about curing cancer here... one of the biggest killers of US citizens of any age.
Gut feeling, if you're not willing to give up the rights of a bunch of dead tissue that someone didn't want to carry to birth to cure this disease you're probably not willing to give us a bunch of your own personal rights to do the same. So why is it that what Ashcroft is doing is so great? Why is it that for the POSSIBILITY of preventing terrorism we're willing to let this man and his minions trample upon our civil liberties?
I don't have an easy answer for this question. I can tell you that people with the attitude expressed in the parent post are part of the problem, not the solution. Ben Franklin was right, "those who would trade freedom for security deserve neither."
Cripple terrorism? Plunk pool chlorine tablets into a two liter of coke and twist on the cap and you've got a chemical munition. Nothing Ashcroft does can prevent a desperate individual willing to die for his cause. We're throwing our freedoms away for the tattered remnants of a dream.
Killfile(TGK)
No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.