Slashdot Mirror
ACLU Reacts to Privacy Concerns
nettle writes "Back in September I began a series of commentaries about one person's experience signing up as a new member of the ACLU. I'd used their website to sign up, and was shocked to find my mailbox full of junk parcels, flyers, and personalized merchandise from dozens of nonprofit organizations like People for the American Way, Sierra Club, Americans for This, Americans for That, yadda yadda. I complained to the ACLU, having suspected that they had given out my contact info. So I wrote about the situation on my Nettle.com blog here and here and began a public correspondence with Anthony Romero, Exec Dir of ACLU, and Nadine Stossen, President of ACLU. Nadine promised they'd take action. I told her if they fixed the signup page on ACLU's website so that people could opt-out of ACLU's personal-info-sharing, I'd renew my membership. Well, Nadine kept her end of the bargain. Here's a screen capture of their new signup page. And my check to the ACLU goes out in today's mail! Blogs DO make a difference."
don't piss off the hippies, they might get violent.
They also fight against the Second Amendment and for things like abortion. They are not actually fighting for the rights protected by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights; they are redefining them as they see fit.
"All I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power." - Ashleigh Brilliant
Anybody who believes that members of mainstream religions are "persecuted" in the US is seriously out of touch with reality and has no idea of what religious persecution actually is.
"It is our blasphemy which has made us great, and will sustain us, and which the gods secretly admire in us." - Zelazny
I've mentioned this story in the past, but it bears repeating here - even with good intentions, sometimes opt-out doesn't make much difference...
I worked for several years at a well-known nationwide nonprofit charity, maintaining a donor database with an address list in the low 6 figures in length. For a variety of reasons, we had a lot of ongoing technical problems, especially when it came to address sharing with other nonprofits - long stories aside, there came a day when I was digging into the workings of an update query which effectively implemented the "Don't share my address" checkbox on the donation form. Turns out, for at least the past 3 years (starting prior to my tenure), it had been set up backwards. When I fixed it, some 16,000 records got updated... (and who knows, maybe the correction eventually propagated around the nonprofit community's mismash of list-exchange systems??)
My point is, once your information gets out, consider it out for good. Everything from fuzzy wording of a privacy agreement to out-and-out unethical behavior (either as company policy, or due to a disgruntled employee or hacker attack) could cause your data to go where you don't want it to - or, it might just be a technical glitch somewhere deep in an under-tested program handled by an under-trained user.
Perfectly Normal Industries
It shouldn't be opt-out in the first place, the checkbox on the membership page should be unchecked by default. If I want marketing guff, I'll ask for it thanks.
They don't persecute mainstream relegions. They just do their best to stop the government from passing laws that further entangle church and state -- is this what you mean by persecute? Otherwise, you and I must have a different definition of persecution...because most of these laws ("Under God" in pledge, Ten Commandments in public buildings, etc) impinge on my right to have nothing to do with your mainstream religion. Did you forget about the Bill of Rights here, or are you simply unamerican?
As far as minimizing the majority -- sometimes protecting everybody's rights isn't the popular thing to do, but civil liberties in America aren't just for the popular. They're for everyone. (ie -- the populace may not like these terrorist suspects in Guantanamo bay, but it doesn't mean that they don't deserve standards of basic human rights [regardless of the conditions we pulled them from]).
Civil Liberties are a high priority for me. It sounds like your priorities are a theocracy where the weak, unpopular individuals get pushed around. From what I can infer based on your post, people like you are the problem.
What does this have to do with freedom of speech? People don't have the right to be pests at an ACLU function.
I haven't seen the movie you've mentioned, but I wouldn't be surprised to find out that it's different than you have stated. In other words, because it suits you, it's likely that you are a liar. Could be wrong, but not likely.
This is America, damnit. Speak Spanish!
ALL governments protect the majority, and especially the powerful. That's no big feat. Even the USSR did that.
The mark of a good government is how well they protect and respect the rights of everyone.
The religious right is always tromping on the rights of minority religions, and nonbelievers. They can't do that legally, and they persist in trying. The ACLU rightly stops them whenever they can.
This is America, damnit. Speak Spanish!
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed
to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to
the people.
OK, I got more information, so I'm responding again. You're definitely wrong about the facts, and that should tell everyone reading about your dedication to the truth.
1) Courtney Love was not receiving an award, she was PRESENTING an award and making a speech about freedom of the press at the event.
2) The filmmaker RUSHED ONTO THE STAGE after her speech and started asking why she was talking about freedom of the press. Sure, it might have been an ironic choice, but WTF was the filmmaker doing rushing the stage? The moron was ejected, as he should have been.
You have been CAUGHT lying, which is typical for the right wing.
This is America, damnit. Speak Spanish!
ACLU persecutes mainstream religion?!
At worst, they argue for separation of church and state, which is part of the Constitution's featureset, if you weren't aware. You want to run a religion, mainstream or not, well it's up to you to seek funding and favor from the people, not the government.
Funding of religion education from my tax dollars? Over my dead body.
"Minimize the majority to accomodate the minority."
Uh, propaganda anybody? Until recently, the minority was pretty much under the bootheel of the majority, and it still ain't grand being non-white / non-christian in the U.S.
If ACLU and other defenders of liberty relax on this, how quickly do you think the race back to the bottom will begin? It's already underway, as the thinly-veiled efforts of Bush and friends show us.
You've been listening too much to the tranked-up Mister Limbaugh. Do some reading. Get out into the world. Visit the favelas of Brasil, or take a job as a busboy or dishwasher, and find out just how difficult life is for the half that wasn't born "the majority."
Big Daddy, Johnny, Burp, Aunt Zelda, Scott, Slurp, Big Momma
ACLU POLICY
"The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms." --Policy #47
Sounds like they don't mind regulation of firearms at all. And wouldn't be too upset if the Second Amendment was construed to mean no firearms for any individuals.
You didn't do anything but state the negative of my original statement. That is the same argument as "IS NOT".
It's exactly the sort of simple-minded intellectual bukkake that I'd expect from a right winger.
This is America, damnit. Speak Spanish!
I get mail from groups like the Sierra Club, Planned Parenthood, the Democratic and Republican Party, etc.
Looks like most nonprofit groups that rely on donations share addresses.
Hollow words will burn and hollow men will burn.
Where exactly does it state anything in the Constitution about the "separation of church and state?" Last time I checked, it was not there and was part of a non-related letter that Jefferson wrote that is not understood. In fact, it is misquoted constantly.
"All I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power." - Ashleigh Brilliant
Except that is not what the Supreme Court has found on 47 separate occasions. On those occasions the Second Amendment is individual right. This has been extensively documented by Prof. Eugene Volokh, of the UCLA Law School.
"All I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power." - Ashleigh Brilliant
No, I pointed out the work they have done against it, even if they try to subtle about fighting against those rights. And your remarks and twisted logic are exactly the kind of drug-crazed, sophist ramblings I expect from the far left.
See? Everyone can do the personal attacks.
"All I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power." - Ashleigh Brilliant
Blogs DO make a difference.
Bad press has always prompted organizations to right their wrongs, especially guys like the ACLU whose entire reasons for existence are moral in nature. I think you would expect them to change their ways if you point out their hypocrisy in a public forum, regardless of whether it's in a blog, a newspaper, or a billboard. This is by no means a "win" for blogs, it's just common sense.
Just tired of people thinking "blogs" are something revolutionary. Nobody really cares.
rooooar
> the checkbox on the membership page should be unchecked by default.
That was supposed to be the case in our database as well. Again - good intentions, backed by inadequately trained people...
Perfectly Normal Industries
Hmm, that's a toughie... lessee... where wuz that battered scrap of paper? Oh, here it is! It's in, would you believe, The Bill of Rights... and it's the first "right," AKA the First Amendment, otherwise known as the Religion Clauses:
http://memory.loc.gov/const/bor.html
Google for: congress law respecting religion -and you'll get many articles explaining the context and limits the First Amendment have placed upon our government. The Religion Clauses do, in fact, establish a clear boundary between the religions practiced by citizens and residents of the U.S., and the government.
The courts have ruled over the years that the government cannot limit the practice of religion (so long as no laws are broken), and it cannot pass laws that favor a religion or its institutions.
It's better that way. Would you want to end up living in a country ruled by fundamentalists? Oh, wait, our Pres...
Big Daddy, Johnny, Burp, Aunt Zelda, Scott, Slurp, Big Momma
The closest it gets to it is Article VI, Section III "but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.". Other than that, there is only the broadly worded first amendment...and it's worded "Congress shall make no law respecting an esthablishment of religion, or prohibiting the free excercise thereof...". This means that there cannot be any federal law regarding the establishment of religion (meaning congress can't declare an official religion or otherwise mandate partaking in any other "official" religous activities).
There is, however, information in the original (rejected) submissions which may suggest the spirit of the (now broad) first amendment. Check this out for some intesting reading/analysis on the subject.
Personal attacks? See the heroes of the far right: the drug abuser Rush Limbaugh, and the incoherently rabid Ann Coulter.
You're obviously flustered because I pointed out the typical lies of the far right - in a thread entitled "Hypocrites" no less.
This is America, damnit. Speak Spanish!
This is an interesting argument. And At the root of pretty much every one of the ACLU SUCKS CAUSE THEY PERSECUTE SOANDSO or the ACLU is the champion of the first ammendment is a very simple issue. The ethical foundation of the nation.
When you say seperation OF church and state, you are not saying seperation FROM church. Just because you may not agree with the religious foundation that this country WAS based upon. When there isn't much else in your life BUT politics, war, and religion YOU CAN'T say that there wasn't a biblical influence AT ALL. A reference to the bible need not be made for there to be a biblical influence.
For instance the (PC term) social Taboo of incest is not something we just created out of thin air. In fact it is illegal, the christian bibles all have some reference to this as being wrong, sinful etc. Just because something isn't specifically referenced DOESN'T mean it wasn't on the mind of Jefferson/Franklin or perhaps in the back of their mind.
Not that anything our founding fathers did HAS to be hung on to for eternity, but I think the real question is do we want to hold on to THIS specific spirit of the law. Which for MANY years has allowed things like the 10 commandments to sit outside courthouses, or hang from the wall in a principal's office. If a great majority believes this spirit is still valid, then why are we dictating that it MUST be removed?
As long as there is no preaching involved should there not be a historical reference to a religious document that DID have political import, if only on the subconcious level of the founding fathers or should we lie by omission?
The 9th and 10th Amendments are long gone dead. The states have prostrated themselves to the Lincolnian SuperState.
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
I am glad to see an ACLU article can spring a thread based entirely upon personal political beliefs between two individuals. The moderation system sort of breaks down at this point... Since after a certain point someone will have to mention the national socialist party.
Besides, this is about spam, from the ACLU! I'm tired of spam in general, and the less electronic waste I get the better. So funny to see spam marginalized by petty bickering. This must be why we never get any Anti-Spam laws passed, cause you two are arguing on the floor of the senate.
Exactly..... Congress can not make any law establishing religion or religious requirements, but neither can it (constitutionally) make a law forbidding it either. Basically it keeps the federal government from mucking around in our religious life and it keeps sects out of the government too. But it doesn't keep God, in general, out of politics. Which is why we have prayer before sessions of the Supreme Court and Congress and Moses holding the Ten Commandments on the walls of the Supreme Court.
"All I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power." - Ashleigh Brilliant
I think you pointed out what a hypocrite you are. You seem a little (a lot, actually) short of facts to shore up your opinions.
"All I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power." - Ashleigh Brilliant
What is the saying..... fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.
Fundamentalism is not the majority religion in the USA. Christianity is (currently) the majority religion in the USA. Fundamentalist Christianity is actually a minority within Christianity. They're just really high profile, and purport to represent more than they actually do. Kinda like Fundamental Islamists within Islam.
Ah yes, that page. "Google doesn't put my NameBase results on top! So Google is evil! Wah!"
There's some point where you have to realize that people aren't going to your site because it sucks.
And when it comes to blogs, it seems that now if you even mention Google on LiveJournal you get some random person you don't know evangelizing their favorite Google alternative, claiming that Google gave them pop-up ads, banners, herpes, or whatever.
Win dain a lotica, en vai tu ri silota
This just goes to prove how the ACLU is opposed to Constitutional rights that do not fit in with its ideology.
Imagine if someone went through the sophistry of "Free speech is not a right of the individual, but is the right of a well-organized media collective".
Well, yeah, I might not recall a movie I watched months ago correctly. I'm a broke college student busy studying for 18 hours worth of finals. I have better things to do than do hours of research to write a /. post.
1) Courtney Love was not receiving an award, she was PRESENTING an award and making a speech about freedom of the press at the event.
Oh, wow, that makes it SO much better! Whew, glad she was just presenting the award and emphasizing freedom of the press, despite the fact that she has repeatedly harassed and threatened reporters.
2) The filmmaker RUSHED ONTO THE STAGE after her speech and started asking why she was talking about freedom of the press. Sure, it might have been an ironic choice, but WTF was the filmmaker doing rushing the stage? The moron was ejected, as he should have been.
It may not have been the most sensible of moves on his part, and I tend to agree that the guy who did the flick was an idiot, but I think an organization as idealistic as the ACLU should have had the balls to answer the well-founded charges and not just shut him up.
As a matter of fact, I still think they should explain to their donors why the hell Courtney Love of all people was there.
It's just like if Bill Gates presented an award at a FSF function, someone stood up to complain, and Richard Stallman threw the guy out.
You have been CAUGHT lying, which is typical for the right wing.
No, I have been caught with dispersing information which I believed to be correct, but was not. That would not make me a liar, just poorly organized. On the other hand, oddly enough, you accusing me of being a liar is a rather libelous claim.
And I don't know where you get off accusing me of being right wing. I agree with the ideals of the ACLU, just not how they carry them out. Let's face it, there are liars on each side of the bird.
And anyone who thinks that extremes like "left wing" and "right wing" will ever actually accomplish something useful is a fool.
Just my $.03.
vi ~/.emacs
...is when you donate 10 bucks to an organization and then they proceed to blow that ten bucks on sending you keychains, notepads, organizers and calendars every few weeks for the indefinate future. I wish there was a check box like "take this $10 and be grateful and please limit your correspondence with me to ONE time per year of your choosing".
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
The so-called "Interstate Commerce" clause played a pretty big part in that too. Seems any time anyone crosses a state line within 500-miles of someone doing something Congress wants to control, they invoke that clause and Presto! the 9th and 10th amendments are once again neutered.
Would Jefferson, Madison, et al even recognize the government they created if they could see it now? About the only thing in the Bill of Rights you don't see violated routinely is the bit about quartering soldiers.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
Notice that it's a couple of idiot right wingers who initiated the criticism. Whenever these morons see the letters ACLU, their eyes turn all red, sweat breaks out on the forehead, and their chubby little fingers start typing crap.
I'm just pointing out that they are way off base with regard to the facts.
This is America, damnit. Speak Spanish!
Excuses. How about a nice cup of shut the fuck up, you dirty liar.
This is America, damnit. Speak Spanish!
That's not as bad as the lies you started with. Dirty liar.
This is America, damnit. Speak Spanish!
What, like the KKK, for example? Or how about the numerous other free speech cases they've taken on, regardless of the positions of the people doing the speaking?
I suggest you read up a bit before making uninformed statements.
I like my women like my coffee... pale and bitter.
In the October 1994 issue of Reason , ACLU president Nadine Strossen said:
On their Q&A web page about public funding for abortion, they say:
This is all well and nice. And if you believe in abortion and publicly funded health care, it's a logical argument. But when it comes to school vouchers, their reasoning to oppose them makes a complete 180:
One can be opposed to the religious teachings of some private schools, and still be "pro-choice" in letting parents decide where the tax money allocated to educate their child will be spent. There might even be some good reasons to be opposed to school vouchers (such as standards and accountability). But the anti-voucher position is definitely not the "pro-choice" position.
FYI: Although it does not do so now, the ACLU at one time endorse a ban on handgun ownership (Gary Kleck. "Absolutist Politics in a Moderate Package: Prohibitionist Intentions of the Gun Control Movement")
I never expected to get any positive feed back on that comment on /., but I think I have been doing my reading and I certainly think that the sentiments of Americans are not represented by their government and that the ACLU has historically allied with courts who percieve themselves as legislatures to force the will of a few bitter folks on the whole of society.
I certinaly will agree that the US is a fantastically successful experiment and I dearly love it here. I was not refering to a poor racial minority, though, in my comment. I am troubled that the ACLU and many other SIGs raise up ideological and philisophical minorities over the majority. I probably should have mentioned that since I'm not arguing a context where that is assumed.
Hope this clears things up.
I also wish you knew a little more about me before you made your emotive last few comments. ;-)
Sam
if you count atheism as a religion, there is some evidence of religious bias in US government. I wouldn't go so far as to call it persecution, but there's definately a problem with the separation of church and state in the US if the president calls a certain religion 'unamerican'.
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
Interesting, the article had nothing to do with spam. I myself just recently joined the ACLU this past year and was amazed at the amount of non-profits asking for money. The article is refering to snail mail not e-mail.
Shameless self promotion : The Misadvetures of the in
I wouldn't automatically assume that the ACLU would have supported the general.
The general was wrong, and as a general should have known better that to make inflammatory religious statements while still serving as an officer in the US Army and on camera. Also, the government has no religious opinion...which is the basic reason he shouldn't have said it. While an officer in the US armed forces, you are never "outside of work"...that doesn't happen until you resign your commission or retire.
"Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
Oh your face is all red. I love that.
This is America, damnit. Speak Spanish!
Your comments in response to the "Mixed Feelings" post lead me to infer that you are also part of the problem.
Having "Under God" in the pledge does not force you to have "something" to do with my mainstream religion. Forcing you to recite the Pledge and including those words in it would impinge on your rights to Freedom of Religion. Also, the Bill of Rights guarantees you the Freedom of Religion, it does not guaratee that you can live without contact with another religion, as your comment "my right to have nothing to do with your mainstream religion" would imply. A Jehovas Witness has the right to knock on my door to try to "spread the word of God" and I have the right to slam my door in their face. A priest has the right to stand on public ground reciting passages from the Bible and I have the right to continue walking past him, ignoring his every word. That is what the Freedom of Religion and the Freedom of Speech mean to me.
Also, there is no law requiring the Ten Commandments in public buildings and their is no law requiring that people recite the Pledge of Allegiance. But there have been Lawsuits to have these items removed from public property (The Ten Commandments in a courthouse) or from the Pledge (In regards to students being forced to recite the Pledge in school).
As far as your comments regarding Guantanamo Bay and basic human rights, what do you call "basic human rights?" I call them the right to have a shelter over your head (One that protects the individual from any weather) when in custody, the right to be fed three meals a day (Appropriate for their religion and providing appropriate nurishement), the right to educate yourself through access to a library, and the right to exercise both your mind and body (Not including providing weights and other gym equipment, because you can exercise without access to this equipment) and the freedom to practice their religion. These are the only rights that I feel are required to be met for any criminal. I believe that they have a limited Freedom of Speech, meaning that the warden / guards can require "Lights Out" at a certain time, that a "quiet period" can be set, etc. And, I believe that criminals and prisoners of war should have access to a lawyer when requested. Non-Military combatants have very few rights as spelled out in the Geneva Convention, maybe you should investigate this for yourself instead of listening to anyone else on the issue, including me or my post.
So, what do you call "Basic Human Rights" that criminals and prisoners of war and non-military combatants should have? Access to basic cable? The ability to talk to reporters? Seriously, I want to know.
It seams to me that your priorities are to replace the current majority mindset with your own mindset, not the protection of individual civil liberties.
"Don't worry about people stealing an idea. If it's original, you will have to ram it down their throats." --Howard Aike
*LOL* You do have a problem with honesty, don't you? You started this crap.
"All I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power." - Ashleigh Brilliant
We have never been a democracy as true democracies simply can't work. We are a republic.
And while you feel Moses is right next to the others you mentioned, Moses is about ten times bigger than the others there. And the artist specifically stated it is because they feel God influenced them as well, but they did not have the direct line that Moses did.
But hey, you can believe what you believe. In fact, our being a Christian nation is what allows that to take place. And that fact has been mentioned in several Supreme Court cases.
"All I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power." - Ashleigh Brilliant
Look at the first post in the thread. It wasn't mine.
Another disgusting lie from the perverted zombie hive-mind of the far-right.
This is America, damnit. Speak Spanish!
It's not my fault I'm a white, middle-class, straight, male!