Slashdot Mirror
FBI Can Inspect Bank Records w/o Court Orders
AlexZander writes: "Thankfully, the so-called 'Patriot Act II' was discovered last year and the public outcry that ensued was enough to get the bill tossed out the window. One of the goals of that act, however, has made it into law under the radar of the community at large. However, on December 13th, President Bush signed Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (the relevant section is 374) into law, which among other things, grants the FBI the power to obtain financial information without a court order from a judge. It also expands the definition of 'financial information' to include car dealerships, jewelry stores, insurance companies, and other stretches of the definition of 'financial institution'. Wired News has the story here."
"The best parts about this is that the law prevents the business that gives up the information to the FBI from telling their customer about the request. Oh, that and the new law only requires a "national security letter" from a field agent stating that the information reqested is part of an investigation relevant to national security.
Yikes!"
Is there any clause in the act that states only when investigating for possible terrorist association or something to that effect?
"Only in their dreams can men truly be free 'twas always thus, and always thus will be."
--Tom Schulman
There was a post about this on whatreallyhappened.com.. and it linked to a large article about it here.
You'd be amazed how much of this info is available commercially. Now the FBI is on even footing with the average private investigator.
I pre-ordered my 21" telescreen yesterday, I bought myself a newspeak dictionary and enrolled my daughter in the Junior Anti-Sex League.
"insurance companies, and other stretches of the definition of 'financial institution'" hmmm, insurance company. Non-financial corporation.
karma karma karma karma karma chameleon, you come and go, you come and go.
But, really, bank records? Its not like its the usual dirty laundry like how much porn you have on your computer... unless your doing something illegal, what reason would you have to hide it? (I honestly am inquiring... I'm sure /.ers can help me out here...)
The story hit earlier, when the FBI started asking for the records of everyone who went to vegas (plane records and hotel records) from Christmas to New Years...
The details are all over the net, but you can start by reading this, this, or this.
--
Use Vobbo for Video Blogs
They may be able to read my bank records, but they cant read my mind thanks to my tinfoil hat.
So, will a five year long string of $50 withdrawals from Bank of America ATM's all over the country attract their attention?
It bugs me that they've eroded the 4th ammendment even this much. There should be an expectation of privacy between you and your bank, just as there is between you and your doctor/lawyer/priest/gun dealer.
I'm all in favor of fighting terrorism, but I don't think John Aschroft & Co. having access to mine and my neighbors bank records will help any.
It's good to use your head, but not as a battering ram.
The provision granting increased power was little more than a single line of legislation. But Dempsey said it was written in such a cryptic manner that no one noticed its significance until it was too late.
Isn't democracy grand? I wonder how many more infringements upon freedom and privacy intelligence agencies can sneak past our apathetic, uninformed legislators.
IAALS.
it amazes me to no end how stupid my fellow americans have become. our rights are eroded on a daily basis by this administration yet the poles show that bush would be re-elected were elections help today. I dont get it. Instead of changing our handling of international policies, the leaders of our country feel that we should attack the problem at the surface. What I mean to say is that if I were going to fix a problem, I would change the fundamental issue instead of eroding rights to maintain the status quo. I am at a loss... baffled is a better word.
Looks like the "liberal media" conviently neglected to warn us about this. Gee, I wonder why.
====
Crudely Drawn Games
The best parts about this is that the law prevents the business that gives up the information to the FBI from telling their customer about the request.
I wonder if banks, ISPs, etc who truly support privacy could institute a positive privacy policy. That is, every day they could send you an email certifying that nobody has accessed your records, Carnivore is not installed on your server, or whatever. Then one day when you don't get that email...
.....that means that the gov't can now see that i get paid slave wages for work that my university would normally have to pay decent wages.....and that i blow what little money is there on my girlfriend and toys?? oh well...
xao
http://TheHillforum.hopto.org
I'm moving to Canada. As soon as the temperature reaches (40-32)*5/9 degree C there and the snow is gone.
IANAL, but it sounds like a clearly unconstitutional law.
The best parts about this is that the law prevents the business that gives up the information to the FBI from telling their customer about the request.
Of course, librarians already have this imposed on them thanks the Patriot Act I bill. Our local library actually has some kind of disclaimer sign which basically states that, thanks to the Patriot Act, any book you check out from here can be reported to the feds without your knowledge.
Funny thing is that I was at the bank yesterday and was talking with one of the higher-ups at his desk when my eye caught a very small sign saying "We comply with the Patriot Act" or something to that effect with a picture of an American flag waving happily in the background. That was even creeper than the library signs.
Anybody interested in founding a savings and loan? How about one with a person offshore holding the money? I'm really sick of my account being flagged for 'suspicious activity' (I do LOTS of $100 cash transfers and wire transfers). Can I do my banking somewhere where Uncle Sam can't get in the way?
"Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
Wow, I'm glad I live out of the USA.
Obviously the pursuit of the USA freedom value means lack of privacy.
I hear you can't even go to the toilet on certain air flights any more. Crazy! Not my idea of freedom.
Did the FBI fail to stop 9/11 because: 1) They didn't have this law? 2) They were still fighting the cold war and largely unprepared to fight Islamic extremists? I vote #2. But instead, we give these guys #1.
Ahhh, the words of the tyrant.
pardon my legal ignorance. but from the movie 'Legally Blonde 2', one has to through so much trouble to get into 'that place' in Washington, then come up with a Bill which needs to be heard and discussed by a panel of judges, etc etc.
so who is really to blame to get this Bill in front of the PoUS to sign?
... and who, exactly decides what is illegal???
CPD."don't do anything illegal and you don't have anything to worry about."
Well I hope you don't have any blinds on your windows - even in the bathroom/bedroom.
I mean you shouldn't need them unless you're a terrorist, right?
Please provide me with details.
Post the last 48 hours of transactions here with your real name.
Or.. STFU!
So I'm ignorant and am not exactly sure what the FBI can determine from my financial records, but I'm still annoyed over this. This seemingly recent trend of similar bills should be cause for alarm. I know we're a republic, but it's still a democratic republic, dammit. I consider one of my personal best interests the right to privacy. I'm not a politician, so why am I subject to the same scrutiny?
Damon,
http://actionPlant.com
Your response is so typical of a mindless drone that you don't realize that breaking the law is pretty much unable to avoid these days, with so many Orwellian laws on the books.
You probably innocently broke 5 laws on the way to work today and don't even know it.
So how do you propose not doing anything illegal?
how many other people buy weed with their credit card?
Ladies and gentlemen, we got him!
Of course, this also works pretty well at not tipping people off that you're abusing this new power.
My own personal take on this is that the potential for abuse is there, but when real (documented) abuses occur - or occur often enough - public outcry will force the repeal of a lot of this stuff. (Note that public outcry on /. is not enough.)
I feel so much more secure now then I did before Dec. 13, 2003. I, for one, welcome our new financial overlords.
The temptation to just have a peek at: your ex's/neighbour's/brother's_business_rival's/... records will be more than some people can resist.
Quite appart that there should be a right to privacy.
Depends who defines "illegal"
-j
The problem is that you may not be doing anything illegal, however your pattern of deposits and withdrawls may make you look suspicious. Before you know it you could end up being held/charged for something totally innocent.
Can you say police state?
"Every security scheme that is based on secrets eventually fails." - Steve Jobs
You're a fucking moron.
Where does that leave me?
Welcome to the land of the free.
Please put your civil rights into the bin on your left and leave your fingerprints at the office up ahead. DNA sampling is still in preparation, and we'll come to the firstborn son thing eventually.
Now come on in, we ain't got all day and I've gotta strip search that hot lady behind you, she sure looks like a terrorist.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
FBI. What is that all about? Is it good or is it whack?
Most every car dealer either arranges financing for their customers, and many are actual lenders. You know those "Buy Here, Pay Here" lots you pass on the way to work every morning? Those are cash cows, that border on usury. They sell a $1000 car for $3000, financed through them at 14-18%, and if you miss a payment, they drag it away with a tow truck and sell it to someone else.
Car dealers pull tons of credit reports, too. Some dealers won't let you test drive a car without pulling your credit. These guys are savvy financial operators, from the lowliest used-car dealer to the biggest multi-dealership operations.
Blogging Weight Loss, Distance Education, and more at verlin.com
Remember who voted for this bill and who signed it next time you vote.
Proletariat of the world, unite to vote
In Soviet Russia, I ruled you
Y'know, so they can maintain their secular lifestyles of lavish excess. Their jihad-oriented faith demands bling-bling.
This way, they can crush the infidel Western capitalists in style.
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
forgive me, but i can't see how this would be stuff anyone could find out using the internet and credit reports. are we talking about individual purchases, aside from just credit history? anyone have any good insights?
1/06/2004 PURCHASE GRAPHICS NXS 01/03 $25.00 $745.17
01/05/2004 PURCHASE SUTTON PLACE GOURM 01/02 $18.35 $770.17
01/05/2004 PURCHASE VICEROY INDIAN COU 01/02 $20.62 $788.52
01/05/2004 PURCHASE CLYDES OF RESTON 01/03 $51.37 $809.14
01/02/2004 PURCHASE 7 ELEVEN 25151 01/01 $2.38 $860.51
We've been at war with urasia, someone's trying to trick us! Damn them!
9/11 occurred not because we didn't have enough information. We had enough. The various government agencies just didn't bother to share that info with each other. And yet instead of fixing communication problems and our usage of currently available data all we get is a bunch of laws giving the government more data that they won't make proper use of.
Honestly, some days I just want to march up to my elected leaders and throttle their necks. They just don't get it.
1. Carp about it on a geek forum
2. Ignore it - after all no one really cares how much money you spend on chewing gum from chewinggum.com
3. Find out how your congressperson voted on this issue, and call their office, then write a letter to them about it. When you get the standard form letter back from them, go see them to discuss this issue. If that doesn't get you what you want, use your geek skills to build a community forum site and use that to attract folks who can develop a coordinated campaign to contact congresspeople all over the US to get this law changed.
Democracy can work. If this is really a big deal to you, then invest your time figuring out how it can and should be undone rather than whine about it here.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
He went to PayDemocracy and set up a campaign to collect donations.
if ($it != $onething) {$it = $another;}
I'll probably get moderated down and ruin my good karma but what the hell:
Like it or not. It's time to choose a side. You may think Democrats are tree-huggers, welfare moms or whatever but there is no way Al Gore would have done the things Bush/Cheney/Ashcroft/et al have done in the name of "security." Pre-emptive war! WTF! Back in my history class they called that an invasion. This is a grab by people who have all the money they'll ever need and now want power to go along with it. How many more example do you need: Diebold, Patriot II, Enemy Combatants, Trireme Partners? Wake up!
Republicans want it all and they don't play fair. Look at re-districting in Texas. They carved up Austin, dammit! That's the most liberal city in the SW and now it's owned by five Republicans! Democrats are certainly not saints but much of their money comes from non-profit and far more well-intentioned organizations like the Sierra Club, ACLU, Planned Parenthood, etc. Remember when we used to debate the ethics of a situation like using sweatshop labor in China. Now the debate is on profit/loss and how by exploiting these people we will encourage their economic growth. That is a bunch of horseshit and we all know it. Unions fought tooth and nail to get 40-hour work weeks, weekends, and minimum wage and that was in a free democracy. What chances do you think the workers in a communist dictatorship have? None.
End of rant,
X
Even before this, I was surprised to find out I couldn't have a savings account and do more than six transactions a month on it, because the federal government said so. I had to close it because I had weekly payroll direct deposit going to it, and I was also transferring some funds out of it to a checking account to pay bills from. This added up to more than six transactions per month, so the bank was obligated to send me a warning and then close the account if I didn't change my behavior. So it comes as no surprise to me that this is happening; the feds have had their nose in my banking for quite some time now.
We all start screaming...
;)
"Where is my... minority... report..." "DO I EVEN HAVE ONE??!"
Big Brother is watching.
The September 11 attack has been even more destructive than Bin Laden imagined: It harmed the civil rights of the country that once proclaimed to be the bastion of the democracy.
It's not just bank records! One of the other neat tricks in this bill is that the definition of "financial institution" has been rewritten to something like "any institution that handles large amounts of money." So this could in theory apply to any institution or business with which you do business with-- supermarkets, videostores, paypal, etc. With no judicial oversight or warrants.
Predictable, but gets the point through nevertheless
Direct link to the clip, for those of you having trouble viewing it inline in your browser.
Make sure to check out the others too!
The part which I find the most scary about this hasn't been mentioned yet: The US Postal Service counts as a "financial institution" for the purpose of this act.
As a result, an FBI agent can walk into the USPS, without a warrant, and demand a detailed listing of all the mail you receive.
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2003/roll649.xml
At least someone's got a plan to start getting our freedoms back.
bush has raised $170 million for his primary - where he's unopposed. and then under federal election law he can raise that money again in september when he's nominated (that's why the gop convention is so late this year - plus the convention will be free coverage).
your only chance is dean but it seems like the dems are determined to eat their own. saw another dnc talking head abusing dean on fox news today.
but it's likely bush will win, and the gop will extend its control of the house and senate. i expect a fillibuster-proof majority in the senate and maybe the house. america can look forward to economic panics ala argentina, further erosion of civil rights, more religious extremists on the bench, more war, more terrorist attacks, less jobs, more gov't and a flight of foreign capital.
i'm sure i'll get marked as a troll, but if bush wins in '04, i suggest people bookmark this comment and see how prophetic it is in 2008.
US Citizen living abroad? Register to vote!
I'm so sick of hearing "if you are innocent... why do you care?" It's called the 4th amendment - our founding fathers didn't want the government to be able to search us without judicial review - without proving they had SOME case - and without our knowledge.
I'm innocent but I still don't want my rights violated. I don't want to be randomly searched, spied on, etc. I don't want the FBI or anyone looking at my medical records, bank records, etc. And I believe that for any person in the U.S., if the government or FBI didn't like you, they could put together "proof" that could get you locked up for life - not that they need any proof anymore.
If my home was searched, they'd find maps, atlases, sharpies, box cutters, CD-RWs, and a long list of other "terrorist equipment". I have books talking about how to protect your privacy, so I must have *something* to hide. I have books of a highly libertarian slant - I must be plotting to overthrow the government! I have a poster of the empire state building on my wall. The poster is there because I think it's a beautiful building, but the FBI could use it as "proof" that I planned to blow it up.
My financial records show I frequently buy computer equipment - I must by a computer terrorist! I make a cash deduction of $100 about once a week - I must be buying drugs! I wrote a check to a person with a foreign sounding name - he must be a member of my terrorist unit!!
Government abuses have run rampant the last couple of years - anyone who's opinions differer from the government can have their right to travel violated.
There has been NO terrorist activity in the U.S. since 9/11. 9/11 was a horrible tragedy but it sickens me that republicans have turned it into an excuse to create a police state. Let's face it - the terrorists won. The U.S. has lost or is in the process of losing all the freedoms they hated us for.
This is SO educational! -- Kintaro Oe
a free country? Please tell me 'cause America's not it, and I for one don't intend to wait until the government comes to take even more freedom away!! Where can a person go to just be left alone?
Seriously, if you don't want the government to know what you're doing, use cash. They'll know you withdrew some money but that's about it. It's not a cure all, but it's better than having them know everything about where your money goes.
Shop smart, Shop S-Mart.
... they're just like you and me, anything that gives me increased rights probably gets them one step closer to blowing up some countrymen of mine.
If the Government ever gets to the point where they needlessly invade my privacy then I'll pick up my hat and my coat and move to "The New Free Country". And so the cycle continues.
The slippery slope argument has already been proven by the FBI's use of the Patriot Act in investiations that have nothing to do with terrorism. Some lawmakers have begun to speak out about the Las Vegas incident, complaining that they were assured that the powers they granted to the administration under the Patriot Act were to fight terrorists, not "garden variety criminals."
But this laws says that all bank transactions of a business are public property. It would take only a few corrupt FBI agents to destroy a company by exposing it's banking records. No foreign company will want to bank in the US because it will afraid that the FBI will funnel sensitive information to US corporations. It has been done before.
And, as if the tinfoil wearing folk do not already have enough encouragement, this is the best reason of all to keep your money in you mattress.
In summary, if the money and business begin leaving the US in even greater numbers, I cannot blame them in the least. I thought some of the actions of US corporations over the past were quite selfish, but now I am not so sure. I cannot imagine a responsible firm using US banks anymore than is absolutely neccesary
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Most federal judges will grant the FBI warrants over the phone within minutes. This just clarifies what the FBI can go after on finacial investigations. If the FBI wants to investigate someone they will, warrants or not. Dont kid yourself, not everything every police agency does is above board. But the majority of FBI agents are hard working, family people who worry about personal rights also.
The only thing that pisses me off, is they include this as a rider to another bill so it gets passed. A few things I'd like to change are.
1. No riders.
2. No fancey names like Patriot Act. (Protect the Children Act, etc..)
3. Daily updates on bills that are voted on, educate the people.
4. Stats on which way your congress critter is voting on issues.
5. Balanced Budget Act.
I work a 60 hour week, and with my personal life, I barely have time to see what my elected officals are doing. I'd also like to change the way we vote. Instant Runoff voting.(IRV) This would make it easier for 3rd/4th parties to run and take office. And you dont have to worry about wasting a vote.
It bugs me that they've eroded the 4th ammendment even this much.
When they blast passages through the mountains with dynamite to build roads, you don't say they "eroded" it.
Slippery slope? The slope is a smoking crater. The rubble is being loaded into a dump truck and hauled away, and they weren't planning on noticing.
Everyone got mad when the Mayor of Chicago bulldozed an airport in the night, despite public outcry. Now the President and Congress are doing the same thing with the Bill of Rights. And yeah, I'm pissed.
The enemies of Democracy are
Jews who were hauled off to death camps in WWII trusted their government.
Remember that the goverment is made out of people, and they have their own interests at heart, not yours...
You're not a troll, you're just overly trusting to the point of stupidity. Now G.W. can know *for sure* who to call for donations...
Is that this law was passed almost a month ago, and it's only coming to light now...
It makes you wonder what other similar laws have also been passed (or are about to come up to vote) that we won't find out about until after the fact...
I had a friend in college whose father had physically, emotionally, and probably sexually abused her all throughout her childhood. To avoid him, she had her phone number unlisted. Well, he happened to work for a phone company, so he was always tracking her down and futher harrassing her.
The moral: even if you trust the government to generally do right, giving unlimited power to individuals will eventually be abused.
I like lots of people. That doesn't mean I go carting them around the galaxy with me. --Dr. Who
It's one of those things where I clearly recognize the privacy invasion, but at the same time it doesn't really affect me personally as I don't have anything to hide.
I can see it helping them catch bad guys. I guess I don't mind the Bush administration's FBI having access, it's the next Democrat administration that bothers me. That's true for almost all patriot act stuff.
If I knew we were going to have conservatives in office for the rest of my lifetime I probably wouldn't mind it one bit.
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
$15 for the Fifteen
When the House voted on the measure, fifteen House Republicans broke from their party to vote against the bill, specifically because of their concerns about the stealthily inserted PATRIOT language. I'm a Democrat, but I thought that kind of principled stand was what we needed more of, not less -- and I thought it was a shame that the most likely outcome for these guys would be a world of hurt, since the House GOP leadership (especially Majority Leader Tom "The Hammer" DeLay) is famous for demanding loyalty above all else.
That's what "$15 for the Fifteen" is all about. It's a chance for people who want to express their opposition to this PATRIOT expansion to do so in the way politicians pay the most attention to -- in cash :-)
The idea is that you put fifteen dollars into the campaign fund -- one dollar for each of those Republicans who voted the right way -- and when the campaign ends, the total funds raised will be split equally between all fifteen of them, and each one will get a letter with his share explaining that this money comes from citizens who want to thank him for doing the Right Thing on this bill. It's not general support, it's support on this issue -- which means your $15 doesn't disappear into some non-profit's general fund.
(I should mention that it wouldn't be possible to run a campaign like this without PayDemocracy, a great service that I used to put it together. I have no affiliation with them, and I'm not getting a penny of your contribution.)
If you want to do something concrete to send a message to the politicians that there are people out there who are watching them on this issue, and that will support them if they do the right thing, come join me -- it doesn't take many $15 contributions before we have a serious chunk of change, and that will really get their attention. It's less than the cost of a CD, and it's a first step towards making sure that things like this don't happen again. Not too bad for $15, don't you think?
Read my blog.
"I have a certain trust and faith in our government to use these powers within reason..."
You're not from here, are you?
What?
Depends who defines "illegal" [democracynow.org]
;-p
Howard Dean defines illegal as "the Soviet Union supplying much of the equipment that Iran, I believe, most likely is using to set itself along the path of developing nuclear weapons"
All in good fun
Casual Games/Downloads
*cough*
Name?
Address?
This is still anonymous.
My computer crime teacher, who worked for the feds and is in the know, told us all about FinCEN. Apparently, any financial transaction of $10,000 or over is reported to the feds and kept on record. FinCEN has the most powerful unclassified information gathering computers there are. With just the name of a person they can find out just about anything they need to by just looking at financial ties and transactions. All this new law means is that FinCEN will be working directly with the FBI and such instead of waiting for the courts to approve each and every thing. It's not best thing that can happen, but at least its not as bad as it could be. One day everything will be all fixed. One day.
The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
You smoke cheap cigarettes, you have been added to the database of possible pedopheliacs, however you should not have to worry about being labeled a terrorist until you contribute to the ACLU. However, we already knew this information.
Thanks,
Gary Nuglass, USPA
As long as you are not the minority that the US government decides to oppress this time. Or, have schools stopped teaching that the US government put people of Japaneese ancestry in concentration camps during WWII, for our protection. Or perhaps you slept through the lecture on McCarthyism? Those Communists are bad, after all, we should work to keep people from expressing that view.
No, the US government has never, in recent history, done anything to warrant me being worried about them misusing information about me.
Necessity is the mother of invention.
Laziness is the father.
They have eliminated that requirement, so that they no longer need to answer to anyone.
There's nothing wrong with a little faith, but if your faith is that unshakable in the face of reality, then I have difficultly respecting you.
Dear members of the /. community.
You are hereby ordered to surrender all your financial information, plus that of whoever else you may have lying around. We need this for an investigation relevant to national security. Oh, and we never asked you for this.
Signed,
Mr. Field Agent
This is still anonymous.
:)
so says the AC
My info isnt hard to figure out
Nobody loses here, but american citzens. The job of terrorist and others, those who actually pose a threat to national security, is to brainstorm up plans to get around and defeat our countermeasures. All this means for terrorists is that they've been tipped off, and now need to find a new way to launder money. Let's wake up, the CIA already had the power it needed, plus the benefits of suprise and secrecy, they just haven't been doing their job.
Me
said is was done by voice vote, so short of finding your appropriate congressperson and asking him/her face to face, there's no way to know, since, as you said, any letter would just net you a form response.
Eventually, this law will be used for political benefit. That's what caused the problem in the beginning. In the 1940's, the U.S. Congress passed a law forming a secret police agency, that has now become the CIA, NSA, and others. Basically, the original law was passed to protect the overseas financial interests of U.S. and British companies by allowing dirty tricks and secret violence and other secret efforts. Since then, the U.S. government has had the enormous corrupting influence of money and power combined with secret purposes.
History surrounding the U.S. war with Iraq: Four short stories, an article I wrote, shows a little about how that original law has been used to cause violence throughout the world. Remember, if you work for the CIA, violence gets you pay raises and job security; there is conflict of interest in any secret organization.
As you could have seen on the Charlie Rose show last night, and on other nights, the biggest complaint of the Arabs and Arab terrorists has been the U.S. government's support for Jewish violence against Arabs. This support is not known to most Americans, but it has adversely affected their quality of life. When you see on TV Israeli helicopters shooting at Arab Palestinians, remember that U.S. taxpayers paid for the helicopters so that U.S. weapons manufacturers could make more profit.
I have never heard of a dealer that puts up the money for payment of a car. That is why they really do want to get you approved. If you default on the loan, they have nothing to do with it, that's between you and the bank/lender. If the dealer thinks you can get past the lender's radar, they will sell you the vehicle.
In fact for the numerous amount of times I've shopped for cars with friends and family ( I'm a big guy so I often got dragged along for intimidation factor ), and for myself I've never come across a dealer that does. And that's one of the first things I asked when we're discussing price. "Who exactly are we going to owe this money?"
Even the huge Ford dealer I bought my truck from, one of the largest chains in central Florida, got it's credit from the "Ford Credit" Ford subsidiary.
Based on upvotes, Ageism is the only "-ism" Slashdotters care about and think isn't SJW
A couple of months ago I witnessed someone posting fairly sensitive information about U.S. citizens in an IRC channel. This included address, social security number (with x's in place of some numbers), and he claims he can get other information also. The problem is, I know nothing about who this guy is or who he works for. Where should I go to report it?
What about financial transactions cross-border with US banks? What about somebody who moves to another country but maintains a US bank account?
Seems to me that financial transactions don't always just involve the individual to whom the account belongs... this could easily lead to a bigger conflict.
i may be many things, but a cigarette smoker is not one of them...that was for candy and coffee when i didnt have any cash :)
You must be living in some sort of movie, because in the book the telescreens took up a whole wall. Or more than one if you wanted to be totally immersed (and what patriotic consumer wouldn't if they could afford it?)
Incidently, the amber alert sounds really familiar... using the media to get everyone to look for a specific fugitive.
I've never heard of someone getting stripped searched without a high degree of suspiscion...
gangien, meet Sue Smethurst.
Visit me on the web at Permanent4.com.
For some reason I saw the subject and immediately I thought of Saddam with a red suit and hat. Then I realized it wasn't modded as funny.
...protest against The "Patriot Act I+II". It's only the approach of installing an Gestapo-like police-state. http://www.gazette.de/Merk.html
For the last two years, all kinds of "liberal" media have been warning you about the attack against our rights and the constitution by Bush, Ashcroft, and the rest the crew. You ignored it. You watched Fox News, and CNN, and The Bachelor, and listened to Bill Reilly and Rush.
Try reading some back issues of The Nation or Mother Jones. Or browse Alter Net. Or even the New York Times, for gosh sakes.
Not that any of the above should be read alone, either. Read the Wall Street Journal, and/or The Economist, or whatever other "conservative" paper/magazine you prefer.
But you can't blame it on any of them. The story is out there. You just didn't bother to pay attention.
The story has been around for a while and I first read it here. on Dec 29, 03.
I like the way in which the Right can create all the huff, puff, & smoke, but then ridicule it when the same is done to them. And people complaining about this "loss of civil liberties" are going to called by the right as being hysterical and they will get away with it. But why ? Why this inequality ?
So, there you go. A President whose actions might have killed thousands (15-20 thousand at least) cannot be compared to Hitler. But the Right can compare impostion of the Estate Tax on the richest 2 % to Hitler and his activities.
Look, at me here while I am talking. Is this fair?
To see a world in a grain of sand, and then to step back and see the beach where the sand lies
Don't patricipate in discussions unless you know what the fuck you're talking about.
Democrats and Republicans BOTH do the WRONG stuff for the Right reasons. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and this is just one one of many cases where the the wrong thing was done under the reasoning of protecting the population from themselves.
America, has become, the "Land of the sheep, home of the terrified". People are scared that they may lose all the comfort provided by the Welfare loving Democrats or the Military Spending of the Republicans.
ENOUGH is ENOUGH. It isn't the Government's responsibility to do anything but to Provide COMMON defense and PROMOTE the general welfare. THAT IS IT.
The fact that all these laws have been passed is PROOF that the terrorists have achieved their goal, to TERRORIZE. People are SCARED, and the MEDIA feeds the fear.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
I am going to go out and buy thousands of ponds of fertalizer and bomb making parts and keep it at my house. I will let you know if the FBI catches on and goes after me. Wouldn't that be cool to catch them in the act of being unruly tyrants.
- Kill Yourself, spare us all! -
It would also help if the two parties weren't so chummy.
Oh, to have gridlock again.
All I've really seen them used for is to get stupid laws like this passed or to authorize pork-barrel projects for that congressman's district. They know they wouldn't be able to get these laws passed otherwise, so they attach them to a bill that's guaranteed to pass (like a finanical bill, which is what this one was attached to).
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
If that information is not mine, who's is it?
The cocksucking jew bastard "STEPHEN SOLARZ" was the same motherfucker who led the charge for us going into Iraq in Gulf War 1 and if you can find a copy of the speech he made at congress..it will scare the hell out of you. We really have a ZOG! (source)
ZOG as in Zionist something something... shit people say things I write are conspiratorial, but man those liberty forums they have the right frame of mind... Run /.'ers
MoFscker
I usually get my paycheck cashed at a local lottery station that cashes checks on the side for a small (1%) fee. I've been working for a corparation that pays really well, and I routinely have a paycheck over a grand in size. That changed last week when the lottery station told all of it's customers that "due to new regulations that would incur greater cost to the lottery station, they will no longer cash checks over $1000." I'm now forced to deposit the check in a bank. I hate banks. I know, there are built-in safeguards for my money there, but I cannot help but remember the S&L scandal of a few years back. Lots of people dealt with those guys too, same way, and there were some who lost money by having positive account balances that were not protected by law (FDIC)(I think) Seems our government thinks we all are suspicious. Looks like it's time to rattle the cages of the politicians again, and come up with a way to track terrorist money that does not tick of the average american citizen. I'm scared of the new governments zeal. The distiction between the US and the old USSR is getting smaller and smaller, and we all know how their brand of socialism turned out. Almost total bankruptcy. I've been wrong before, but I'm seeing things now that I do not want to see. And I'm scared.
You know, if I were an agent of a foreign government or organized crime, I would love these no-warrant+gag rule laws being passed. Now all I have to do is impersonate a government official, go into some business demanding the information that I want, and they have to hand it over without a warrant, and they can't even tell anyone they did so!
*Whoosh!* That went over my head. The only things I understood in that were "Bond" and "convertible", and I'm rather sure they mean something to insurance geeks other than what they mean to Joe Sixpack.
Well at least if you voted for Bush. The DANGER signs where all over the place, not only in the US but all over the world.
House The Senate appears to have done a voice vote - cowards.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers , and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Italics are mine.
"Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
Freedom isn't free; its price is the well-being of others.
This seems like a good system for anonymous banking.
On a side point here, but has anyone else noticed how recently Bush & co has been using the excuse of 'terrorists' and 'security' in the same way that IngSoc used Emmanuel Goldstein and the Rebellion to maintain order and keep everyone nicely focused and under control? There hasnt been one single terrorist bomb etc in the west for over a year now, and they have had plenty of chances to do something, now they're just using the excuse of 'security' to get whatever they want. (Air Marshalls anyone?)
95% of all computer errors occur between chair and keyboard (TM)
When you are genuinely dealing with terrorists, you want to watch them for a while without tipping them off so that you can grab all of them.
If you're genuinely dealing with terrorists, then you should have information that indicates that you are genuinely dealing with terrorists, otherwise how do you know you are genuinely dealing with terrorists? In that case, you should be able to get a God-damned WARRANT.
That's what pisses me off so much. They can already get all the power to search, seize, investigate, whatever they want, all without telling the suspect -- if they have reason to suspect the person is actually a criminal. Therefore, the only possible reason they could want to get the same powers, only without needing a warrant is to use those powers on people who they have no reasonable evidence indicating that they are criminals.
That's you and me.
That's the whole reason a judge is supposed to be involved -- to decide if the police are actually following a lead, and thus the search is reasonable, or if they are just fishing around in the lives of citizens looking for dirt.
And police abuses of other laws and powers are documented. What makes you think this law will be different? What makes you think the public will cry loud enough to get the law revoked? We already cried loud enough to stop the passage of PATRIOT II -- but they didn't care, did they?
The enemies of Democracy are
In belgium we're not afraid of our national security institute. For example, they are allowed to tap mobile telephone connections, but they have no money to pay for the installation :)
- Never underestimate the power of human stupidity.
With all those personalized credit cards they have now. If you're a pet owner you can get a Yorkshire Terrier picture on your credit card; scuba divers have their DAN credit cards, etc. I think Citibank should come out with the "Terrorist VISA" card, perhaps with a picture of Saddam or Osama on it, maybe a burning US flag or something. Of course, all the terrorists will apply for the new Citibank Terrorist VISA and then we'll know exactly who they are!
There are many kevin conaways.
Do you have cold feet?
Give us the address- you have nothing to hide right?
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
I don't recall seeing any mention whatsoever granting specific powers of any kind to the FBI in excess of what is stated in the constitution. Of course no one really cares about such details when guys with guns and facemasks to hide their identity are dragging you out of your house in the middle of the night for extrajudicial executions. We are not too far from it now.
Nearly everyone is missing the fact that December 13, the day that Bush signed this bill, was a Saturday AND the day that the capture of Sadaam Hussein was announced. Does anyone smell a rat here, besides the one in the hole that the US (or the Kurds) discovered? What a great way to keep the news of the signing a bill that further pecks away at the Bill of Rights than to do it on a weekend and when another really big news item is released. The media appears to be complicit in publicizing only what the administration wants the public to know.
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!" -- Dr. Strangelove
Mr Bush is not the elected president of the US. I remember, Gore was elected by 51% of the voters.
They are actually more like guidelines than actual rules.
Ah we pirates must live and die by the code.
The Ro Factor - Jeep/Linux Weblog
I'm currently re-reading the ultimate conspiracy (and so much else) novel of all times: The Illuminatus! Trilogy.
:)
The following quotes fit all too well:
"...When communism replaces fascism as the number one enemy, your small-town conservative will be ready for global adventures on a scale that would make the heads of poor Mr. Roosevelt's liberals spin. Trust me. We have every detail pinpointed. Let me show you where the new government will be located."
Drake stared at the plan and shook his head. "Some people will recognize what a pentagon means," he said dubiously.
"They will be dismissed as superstitious cranks. Believe me, this building will be constructeed within a few years. It will become the policeman of the world. Nobody will dare question its actions or judgements without being denounced as a traitor. Within thirty years, Mr. Drake, within thirty years, anyone who attempts to restore power to the Congress will be cursed and vilified, not by liberals but by conservatives."
(...)
"To crush the opposition, we will need a Justice Department equivalent in many ways to Hitler's Gestapo. If your scheme works - if the Mafia can be drawn into a syndicate (...) we will have a nationwide outlaw cartel. The public itself will then call for the kind of Justice Department that we need. By the mid-1960s, wiretapping of all sorts must be so common that the concept of privacy will be archaic."
I'm waiting for George W.B. to start building the pyramid-with-the-eye on the top of the White house any day now
I shall go and tell the indestructible man that someone plans to murder him.
All sorts of banking/financial/employment/lifestyle information routinely goes to the government without any judicial ruling with private agencies required to provide that information to the government.
The IRS tracks financial transactions of all sorts. Both the Social Security Administration and state unemployment agencies know where we're working and how much we're earning. If you're a woman and go to a physician/clinic/hospital and are told you're pregnant, that fact and your name, address and age are reported to the state (at least where I live). These are not things the government might choose do if it has some reason to justify the bother. They are things the government does in every case and all the time. And virtually all that intrusion has far less justification than terrorism.
Show a bit of skepticism. Ask yourself if the groups that are making a big fuss over the Patriot Act have been making a similar fuss over all these other intrusions into our privacy? For example, do they attack Planned Parenthood for revealing all pregnancies discovered in their clinics to the government? It was someone on Planned Parenthood staff who (quite proudly) told me about the reporting requirement. I think you'll find the answer is no.
This fuss has less to do with protecting privacy than with partisan politics. Many of these individuals and groups have a political agenda that'll get a boost if you become fearful about what Bush/Ashcroft might do.
It's also good to put something like this in perspective. Sensible people make a point of fearing what is actually happening rather than what might happen.
A couple of years ago I read about the Attica prison riot in New York. It noted that the number of prisoners killed putting down the riot was the largest number of U.S. citizens killed by an action of our government since the Indian wars of the 19th century. I was immediately struck by a chilling fact. More civilians died (burned to death) at the hands of the FBI at Waco than during the Attica riot.
If you want to be afraid of something, be afraid of what the Clinton administration did at Waco. 100+ people died, many of the children and under very dubious circumstances. The use of the military there was a clear violation of federal law. And no terrorism was involved, just a vague claim about firearm violations that proved wrong. And which is worse, dying or having your bank statement read?
Next time you hear a group telling to you to fear the Patriot Act, ask yourself, "Did I hear this group calling for the prosecution of those involved in Waco? Were they warning me of what Clinton/Reno might soon be doing to me?
If the answer is no, ignore them.
The law Bush signed had significant portions of Patriot act II in it, and was pretty much patriot act II without the name.
On the contrary. If you want to save this country, you should make vote mandatory, so that dumb asses who never care to vote will have to chose a party. This most certainly will be an extreme left, extreme-right or alternative party so that they could tell the Republicans and the Democrats that they don't care about how they both have been doing politics so far.
So, a third (or fourth) party shows up with mucho mucho votes. Now, that would finally break the stupid particracy in this country where people have to choose between light blue (Democrats) and dark blue (Republicans). Honnestly, the White House full of Democrats or full of Republicans, what kind of choice is that? Democracy should be a mix. The Democrats (or the Republicans) should be forced to reach an alliance with smaller parties to obtain 51% of the votes. Then we can get some democratic debate with some watchdogs now inside the White House (the greens watching what the light/dark blue suits do, and the blue suits watching the greens).
Come on. The President, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, the Attorney General and the Vice-President are all from the same party. What kind of fucked up democratic system is that? Are we really talking about the US or some African dictatorship ?
A friend of mine says it has been standard practice for the last year or two to send financial details of their clients (they're a business loan office of a major bank) to the federal government (not IRS, but DHS), regardless of income or investment level. They're told that they cannot disclose to the client the specific pieces of information given to the government (not sure if this is corporate policy or a governmental mandate).
This act passage is just to retroactively legitimize such information transfers.
There are a huge number of yeast infections in this county. Probably because we're downriver from the bread factory.
Rigged voting.
Do you want tyrant #1 or tyrant #2?
Tyrant #2 has a ranch, Tyrant #1 has a bigger mouth.
/., google news, and other sources should all have ample documentation of how well that clause works to restrict the use of these powers to terrorism investigations.
Seriously, they write themselves a note that says "Yup, this is for terrorism" and that's it. They don't have to show the note to a judge, they don't have to be held accountable for the veracity of the note, with all evidence inadmissable should the claims of the note prove false. They just have to write it.
You know, when I turned 18 my senior year of high school, I could write my own sick notes to get out of school, and I wasn't held accountable by anyone. You may find this amazing, but sometimes I wrote myself a note even when I wasn't really sick.
The enemies of Democracy are
I am not a USA citizen. As an outsider these laws look as laws of a dark regime. The terror panic enabled the security freaks (if not the mass controllers) pass unbelievable laws. I don't think that even Israel and India both under a much more intensive Muslim terror then the usa, have these kind of laws. From the outside it looks the USA is coming close to a totalitarian state where the individual is worth crap (not to mention tourists biometrics).
The best parts about this is that the law prevents the business that gives up the information to the FBI from telling their customer about the request.
Why do they always put these provisions in new laws.. is that to keep it from getting tested in court? If they already have gotten the information, there is no reason why the person shouldn't be informed that their information was given away.
It would seem like the eff or aclu or someone would file suit against the gov't about these invasions of privacy.
As long as the supposed terrorist threat is enough that people will allow this stuff to happen, the terrorists are winning.
Don't vote for any representitive who voted for this law. If enough people do, they'll get the picture. The new guy may not be any better, but at least he'll be worried about re-election. The to parties are so similar it doesn't really matter weather a republican or democrat gets electd, so vote against incumbants that sign this shit.
Problem is, this was voted on verbally, with no record of who voted on it. So that idea's gone out the window. Better to just vote all incumbents out.
I just did.
Easy lookup at http://www.senate.gov.
Remind them that election time is just around the corner and you'll be considering his/her reaction to this issue when you hit the voting booth.
It's things like these that make me glad to be Canadian. I bet you one day Canada will become what the founding fathers of America had visioned what the USA should be.
The idea is that you put fifteen dollars into the campaign fund -- one dollar for each of those Republicans who voted the right way -- and when the campaign ends, the total funds raised will be split equally between all fifteen of them, and each one will get a letter with his share explaining that this money comes from citizens who want to thank him for doing the Right Thing on this bill.
Do that and you help the Republicans maintain control of the House, which means that the Democrats, who almost unanimously voted against this bill, will still be out of power. They won't head up committees. They won't control what bills go to the floor. And the Republicans will continue to build their Orwellian police state.
Sorry, but rather than rewarding 15 members of the Republican party who did the right thing once, I'd rather reward the Democrats who have consistently fought against such anti-American bills.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0761 52553X/002-7701811-7128005?v=glance
Ok, granted I only skimed the bill, but could someone please show me where in the Bill authority is granted to seize the records without a warrant and where the definition of a financial institution is expanded?
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
So why isn't Jardinains open source if you read slashdot? I desperately want to change that song it plays. What is it anyway? Sweet Georgia Brown? Scott Joplin? Aaaaaargh. My kids keep bouncing "Elvises" to that damn song.
It seems like everything to do with the war on terror is focused on 'follow the money'. Why? I mean, I understand that Bush, Cheney and everyone they've ever personally known have been cash fetishists. Therefore they assume everyone that they oppose is after their cash. Is that what it's about?
Sep. 11 budget?
19 airline tickets, bought ahead online.
Motel room, rental cars.
(maybe) an efficiency apartment in Florida to sit around a table and plot evil for two months.
Boxcutters.
Total cost? $8000? I could slap that on my MasterCard.
Terrorism is not at all $$ expensive. That's sort of the point. So what do they think they'll find by all this new power?
Common criminals, mostly drug runners, whose assets they can seize.
"Right to privacy" is just the affirmative way of saying "Right to not be unreasonably searched".
As to what is reasonable -- well, the second half of the Ammendment specifies that pretty clearly, I think. You present an affidavit before a judge, and he decides if the search is reasonable. That the FBI wants to avoid having their searches suseptible to being deemed "unreasonable" tells me all I need to know about their motives.
Also, make sure not to forget the 9th which makes it clear that the lack of the enumeration of a right has nothing to do with its existence. Your 10th Ammendment argument basically assumes this, so good job.
The enemies of Democracy are
Buy firearms and lots of ammunition. As long as the population is armed, the government can't have complete control. If you want freedom, be prepared to fight for it because soon you may have to.
This is good for preventing crime/terrorism but bad for maintaining democracy because democracy is all about the population rather than the leadership having the power (government of the people, by the people, etc.).
Personally I worry more about having my life adversely affected by some politician with too much power than by "terrorists" (eg. watershed gets polluted by politican's brother's company) but fighting terrorism is much more glamourous.
Your post has me thinking, and mentally crafting a letter to whoever is the one to run against the guy I want out.
"I will vote for you, and contribute to your campaign. If you betray my trust, I will vote for your opponent in the next election, and contribute twice as much to his campaign as I did to yours."
Maybe. I feel icky about money in politics, but it is there, and it's more important to me to not get screwed than to attain some ideal society where money and politics never intertwine.
But you're absolutely right -- until we start punishing the elected officials for screwing us, then nothing will ever change. Alas, I fear they have learned that they can get away with it too deeply, and moreover I fear they may be right.
The enemies of Democracy are
It seems as though this administration is made purely of strict constructionists of the constitution. Bush's administration has completely ignored what all the other presidents have noted as natural laws, like the freedom of privacy. Our many privacies are now being stripped along WITH the freedom of speech. They're saying that they can investigate you and the librarian (or whomever) cannot inform you of your invasion of privacy.
I remember reading articles before 9/11 how the FBI wanted Library records but couldn't get them easily. This is something they've been wanting to do for some time. They'll use it to find terrorists, and it'll be a good thing. But they'll also use it to invade the civil liberties of many law-abiding citizens.
The end never justifies the means. It is an invasion of our liberties and a tragedy to the memory of all who have died to perserve those rights to allow the government to do this to us.
To quote someone noteable on this issue:
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.
If you were to browse http://www.tsaunion.com you might find a story about a Federal Security Director who was fired for refusing to break the law. (He was ordered to perform acts that were discriminatory against women and minorities... he got his orders on AUDIO TAPE and was fired for refusing to carry out orders.) As he is even now trying to attain justice but efforts by investigators are being blocked in the name of "National Security."
So you see, "National Security" is a very broad definition when you can include illegal behavior of government employees and organizations.
The title of this article says "banks" -- but in actuality the Patriot Act II refers to any business whose product could conceivably be used for money laundering. This means all financial institutions, gold dealers, pawn shops, hell, you could theoretically launder money through Wal Mart so they could look up your transactions there. Credit card records are included.
Haha!
.!..
I told you so.
Neener neener STFU
It was never in the constitution to begin with. It was a precedent set by George Washington. In 1951 the 22nd amendment was ratified setting a two term limit.
Thanks for the history lesson. This is relevent how?
The parent poster was simply stating to the grantparent that congress doesn't have the power to change term limits, who cares if there was a tradition which lead to the constitution being changed? It has been changed, and thats it.
Also, Article 21 repeals article 18(prohibition) so obviously the constitution can be changed.
Amendments can be repealed but that is not something CONGRESS can do. That is the entire reason for this discussion.
I don't read or respond to AC posts
people stuff money into mattresses, so I guess stores that sell them count as 'financial' too.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
In all honesty there is no concern that I have in the definition that they changed. But, it was very well hidden (obfuscated even), and that seems to have been intentional.
The motive is obvious. There are many in the government who will use this power to craft the political landscape to their own purpose.
We need to know how we can undo this thing that has been done. Anyone got any ideas?
A fitting cartoon for the New Year's, looking at where we're eventually headed.
The reason politicians are lying deceitful scum is because it WORKS. It gets them elected. Start changing that.
The real reason is more insidious. A candidate that tells the truth has NO PRAYER of even getting 5% of the vote.
We have met the enemy and it is us.
So, if it is the bank's property, then why doesn't LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT have the same access to it that the FBI now does?
Why do the local cops have to get warrants to access my (a local citizen) information from a local bank?
But the FBI does not have to?
Unconstitutional is the word of the day here. You can't search my home without a legal writ requiring the authorization of recognized judicial authority. You can't force me to answer questions about ANYTHING without recognized legal council present to advise me. You can't take my possessions, use my personal associations or even follow my butt around without SOMEONE giving the Feds WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION SIGNED OFF BY LEGALLY RECOGNIZED JUDICIAL AUTHORITY WHO IS COGNIZANT OF THE CONTENTS, REASONS AND METHODS OF THE WRIT!
So what in the Special-Hot-Place-Reserved-for-Naughty-People makes it legal to pass a law stating the Feds can gain access to my personal financial records WITHOUT said writ?
Uh uh! Physical, personal, informational, financial, it's all the same thing...if it's MINE, they can't have it without said writ AND informing me BEFORE they start digging. It's illegal, immoral and designed to give the Feds an incredibly abusable tool (and it WILL get abused!) to beat me over the head with any time an agent feels like it. Not gonna happen. Anyone tries it, I'll sue the U.S. Federal Government for all the greenbacks they borrowed from some other country that they've squirreled away.
I don't keep living in this country just so some impotent government schuck can entertain himself with power fantasies come true.
"Courage is being afraid to do the Right Thing, and doing it anyway."
It was a voice vote in the Senate, but a recorded vote took place earlier in the House of Represenatives.
preparing the grounds to "deal with" opposition on phony accusations, perhaps? Fortifying their base of power by suppressing opposing thought, perhaps? - Just my 0.02$...
This comment does not exist.
When you get the bank account, what if you enter into the agreement that /all/ records of your actions remain your property?
You grant the bank permission to keep, access, modify, etc the records all they want. But, it's still your information. I would like to think this would place it all directly under the juristiction of the 4th Amendment's protections of your personal "papers".
I don't see the ease of getting a bank in on this, but if you're a)big customer, or b)friends with local bankowner then you may stand a chance.
Better yet, go back through all the recently-pass BS laws and compare them against the constitution. Any representative who voted for an unconstitutional law gets hung for treason!
Ron Paul voted FOR this!
He is usually a reliable & consistent defender of our freedoms.
When he starts voting for shit like this, it's all over.
You know, there's a nice friendly country to the north that is quite tech savvy and has a large population density problem. It doesn't (yet) have a DMCA equivalent. It could really use more tech savvy people who are interested in defining (or re-enforcing) a free country in North America.
Canada is just like the US (of five years ago) except that it has health care and gun control. And everyone who cares has a cable modem.
Democrats unanimously voted FOR this.
194 Democrats voted FOR
ZERO Democrats voted against
I keep hearing how privacy is not a right granted in the Constitution. When so many people feel so strongly about it, why not just skip passing pathetic privacy protection bills and make an amendment to the Bill of Rights that grants us the right to privacy just like we are granted the right to free speech, the right to an attorney, etc.?
-- paper
Apparently, section 374 of The bill is the relevant section.
They accomplish this treachery by patching bits and pieces of the "Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978" without making any explicit references whatsoever to what the patching will do. It doesn't halp that some bills have sections that patch a patch for a patch, so that it's nearly impossible to figure out what the final result will actually say, much less what it means.
Forget line item veto, what we really need is an all or nothing law, so that a bill may repeal or replace in full an existing law but may never simply modify. Any replacement may NOT include any other text by reference, only by explicit copy.
That might actually fix some small part of the non-sense.
Democrates voted FOR this 194 - 0.
less tax revenue that way. see? our government definitely needs less spare change... it's pretty safe to assume that the FBI's blowing their budget to shit right now, in an effort to collect as much inane mall shopping data as is possible before the law gets thrown out and that whole pesky 'privacy' thing rears it's horridly maimed head.
and to think; i was hoping to keep my shopping trips to WAL*MART a secret from all of my friends, ad infinitum. but, thanks to the FBI, soon everyone will know about that kooky rollback pricing.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Under guise of keeping us safe from terrorists, FBI & friends get an undisclosed
inside picture of developing corporate mergers and acquisitions, etc. It's hard
to believe, in view of recent scandals, that this information would not be abused.
They are ALL crooked..
Regardless of who you elect, the outcome is the same. Only the excuses behind it change.
Stealth bill amendments should be illegal anyway..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Get over it. The NSA and CIA and few other agencies have been doing this a lot longer then the FBI I'm speaking from counterintelligence. perspective of the US Army. I can get all banking data I want from local PI's around here. I can get all your banking data myself using my CI background.
Take the text of your email, print it out, affix a stamp, and use the USPS. Congresscritters pay a lot more attention to real [snail] mail. I've heard ballpark estimates of an order of magnitude.
$0.34 and 2 additional minutes of time is a small price to pay for actually getting bumped up in the priority stack.
The gov has always been able to look at bank records without a court order. This is just another law like the 1864 gun laws we have. If you don't want the gov to look at your bank records then set up a truly private bank or leave the country and go find Beagle II while you are at it-the Brits never will-you can bank on that.
Who knows? I was voted up by voice, which doesn't record who voted which way. Good luck finding out who to vote against next election year. That's representation for ya! --M
"I will vote for you, and contribute to your campaign. If you betray my trust, I will vote for your opponent in the next election, and contribute twice as much to his campaign as I did to yours."
It's a good idea, but how much will you give me for keeping your trust? Or is this "all stick, no carrot"? I just don't know that honesty is really a growth industry.
Carthago delenda est!
The thing that scares me the most about this is the current administation's readiness to be flexible about the definition of terrorism. Have a protest on the street? Hmm, that's blocking street traffic, affecting stores. Economic terrorism. (This was a law they were trying to get passed in Oregon). Any organization in your protest take in any money from outside the US? You just became an international terrorist organization, in the eyes of the Bush administration. Very scary, especially since the other Bush administration (Jeb down in Florida) came down hard on peaceful demonstrators in Florida. Guilt by association... the protests had avery small subset people who were anarchists, and had some violent leanings. I don'tapprove of violence, and neither did many of the other protesters, who were in many cases elderly. But everyone was cuffed, and the police superintendent basically said "tough, if one's violent, they're all violent, and they should all be treated hard". Hmm, guilt by association, I wonder if we should bomb Rumsfeld since he was Saddam's friend in the 80's, or bomb Bush Sr., because he helped train Ossama.
I'm usually pretty passive as far as politics go. I vote, but that's about it. But I'm scared of the times we live in. It's time for action. This administration has led us down a scary course, but most americans are too passive. It's our responsibility to show them that their vote matters, that this administartion does thigns that affect their daily life. make people want to vote. start talking about politicians, and more importantly what we can do about them, instead of throwing up our hands and say "well, thats' in washington"
So you are saying if Special Agent Identythief uses this law to gain access to all your credit card, bank account, and SS numbers. Then uses them to empty all your money from you account, max out your cards, and takes out a bunch of loans in your name. You are saying he didn't do anything illegal???
The United States's checks and balances were made because no matter how intensive a screening process, there will always be some police and public officals who abuse their power.
is not that we have allowed our government to act like stormtroopers from a 3'rd world country. Instead it is that congress voted against pat. act. II, but supported it when it was buried and they would not be blamed directly.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Don't. In a free country you would be able to give as much of your money as you want to somebody whose ideas you agree with. I like what you say. Use this money to say it louder.
Just how does one bring a test case against it?
:/
:/ Somehow, it's almost like the inverse of Mulburry vs. Madison (the case that gave us judicial review, e.g. that said that judges can declare laws unconstitutional).
If you sue without any proof that you were investigated, they can say that it's not relevant to you (courts only have jurisdiction over "cases and controversies" -- e.g. they can't just review laws out of the blue)... but, by law, you cannot get any such proof, because all these institutions have to keep these searches secret. Thus, congress bypasses all the judicial review that's supposed to be in place... those checks & balances which are supposed to limit its power... In other words, it's something of a catch-22 in terms of how to oppose the eroding of one's 4th ammendment rights.
Sadly, there is exactly one way I can think of to test it. Someone who is ordered to do one of these secret reviews has to take them to court, which would make you guilty of publicizing the fact that they wanted to do such a covert search. Translation: want judicial oversight? Get sent to Guantanimo Bay... Fun
I really don't like the way this law is constructed, even though I hate ter rorists, terr orism and everything they stand for
Posted anon in the (futile?) hope of not being labeled a terr orist due to specious logic. Extra spaces are to avoid word searches.
As I said in a post earlier today, this power accumulation and surveilance reminds me of Senator Palpatine.
A population fearing an enemy (be it terrorists, clones, or whatever) is the best way to gain more powers.
-
Roses are #FF0000, Violets are #0000FF, find / -name '*base*' |xargs chown -R us && mv zig greatjustice
Second, calling car dealerships et al's capacity as financial institutions into doubt is disingenuous. These places issue loans -- some of them quite large. If a terrorist goes to Car Dealership A, obtains a loan, sells that car to Car Dealership B and puts the money toward Nefarious Purposes, maybe we should know about that. Even moreso if one guy has done it 20 times in 6 months.
Personally I feel that there should be mandatory notification when these records are surrendered, and requests should have to go before a judge. But the author of this story is painting everything in black and white.
Something that boggles my mind is that suddenly politicians are just now noticing these issues when there has already been an issue with laws being slipped in under the publics' noses in the past.
The optimist in me would like to think that this law will be repealed pretty quickly once Congress realizes that it can be used against them in an investigation of campaign finances.
The pessimist in me thinks that Congress will simply amend it to make themselves exempt, given that several legislators opposed it in debate, but voted for it anyway.
Chip H.
Now live with it.
Seriously, you have to take the bad with the good - so he sent our troops out and pounded on the world, and we won (well, sort of). Isn't that what you wanted? Of course, he's lied about just about everything about the war in Iraq, but, hey, no big deal because we won.
He's seriously overreaching whatever mandate he feels the people have given him, in my opinion. Congress, you voted them in, too, doesn't seem too concerned as long as they get their pay raises and can say that they're fighting the "War on Terror" and that all of this is in the interest of "National Security".
Sorry. No thank you.
To celebrate the occasion of my 1000th post, I will post no more forever on Slashdot. Goodbye.
In case anyone actually reads your comment, I'd like to point out that:
Republican YEA:209 NAY: 15 NO VOTE:4
Democratic YEA: 55 NAY:147 NO VOTE:3
Independent NAY:1 (wtg bernie)
You're a fucking liar. (Link supplied in this comment.)
According to this comment, the original Senate voice vote (in June) was supported unanimously among both parties. Maybe that's what you were talking about?
Or maybe you're a Republican jackass. Or maybe you're a Democrat jackass just trying to make Republicans look bad. Or maybe you're just a troll. Well. IHBT. IHL. IWHAND.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
Buy firearms and lots of ammunition. As long as the population is armed, the government can't have complete control. If you want freedom, be prepared to fight for it because soon you may have to.
Hey! When was the last time you noticed how fuckin strong the US Military is? Yeha.. So, what neighborhood of gun toting idiots is gonna fight against that?
Exactly.
Now take yer "Charlton Heston reads the Bible" DVD set, yer box of kleenex and go back to playing with yerself.. mmmmmm KAY?
Set up something with a list of the candidates in office and running for office and their offenses, at least from a /.er's point of view. Very handy to consult come voting time. "Ok, this bastard, this bastard, and this bastard voted for the DMCA..."
-insert a witty something-
How do you imagine Padilla would be able to sue someone when he is locked up with no contact to the outside world of any kind?
Between the police-state Republicans and the welfare-state Democrats, I really don't see how I'm supposed to be able to vote for anyone who isn't out to screw me in some way.
It sickens me how the law encroachment community is using the threat of terrorism to obtain the powers that they have been trying to obtain for as long as I can remember. Every time you turn around the justice department asks congress for these kinds of powers, only now congress is giving it to them. All in the name of safety. Well I'll tell you what, I'm far more afraid of government agents than I'll ever be of the ignorant inbred religious zealots that pollute the middle east. Whatever problems we might have with terrorism can be solved by bombing the shit out of the people who are doing it, not by giving the feds more power to spy oun our own people. The purpose of law enforcement is to provide security to honest people and ensure that genuine criminals are not allowed to victimize our communities. This purpose is derived from the will of the people. Whenever the police seek power above and beyond the minimum required to fulfill this purpose it is a clear sign that not only is abuse of that power possible, it is inevitable because these are the kinds of people who will make war on the American people in the name of enforcing the law.
All I can say is to fight for the first and second amendments and be careful who you vote for.
Lee
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
I think you ment "The end can always be made to justify the means"
The problem is that it is very hard to quantify
the benefits an individual obtains from privacy. It is therefore, quite easy to justify removing those rights.
this has been reported before, not really any new news.
Wait until the election is over. We still have time.
I respectfully disagree with your assertion that having one of (house|senate|pres) be a different party would prevent "out of sunshine" legislation - plenty of laws have been snuck through when there were different parties in control.
I assert that the only way to prevent this sort of stuff is to require that ALL laws must stand for at least 1 year public scruteny (e.g. be available online, and at public libraries), and then the only allowable vote is YES or NO - any changes restart the clock.
Consider this "open source" law - everybody gets to see what will be voted upon (not some sanitized version that has yet to be buggered in committee) - any funny business will be dragged kicking and screaming into the light of day, to burst into flames and die (sorry, but Angel is running in the other room).
The ONLY laws that I would allow to bypass this would be "emergency" laws, which would be under the following restrictions:
1) May only run for 18 months, with no possiblity of renewal.
2) May NOT create any permanent offices, penalties, etc.
3) Must be 1000 words or less.
Should the courts find a given "emergency" law to be substantially similar to any other law, it is IMMEDIATELY struck down.
In short, when trying to solve a problem (laws being passed in the dead of night with nobody around), DIRECTLY address the problem.
Of course, to make something like this stick, it would have to be a Constitutional Amendment. Thus, the real probability of this occuring in this day and age is slightly less than the probability of my inventing a time machine and getting this written into the original Constitution.
www.eFax.com are spammers
I have a good book for you called 1984. It will tell you how a police state can allow a single party to rule and squash those that disagree.
Open Source Sushi
(no, I did not misspell that ;)
The only acceptable response is, "I'm sorry. I'll never again make the mistake of imagining the Republicans and Democrats to be the same."
What part of "A well regulated militia" do you not understand?
As for SALT...guess I will have to count the ABM treaty the US willfully broke recently, even though the Constitution says any prez who breaks a treaty is engaging in seditious behavior.
This website clearly shows that the American military probably killed (cause the government doesn't count) 40000 Iraq troops while losing only 482 American troops. That is a one hundred to one ratio. And our troops weren't killing some guys with hunting guns or low end assault rifles like what would happen in a modern American revolution. These Iraq soldiers were highly trained paid professionals. If they would have fought in the manor that Americans would have to in order to fight the government, it easily would have been a 200 to one ratio. With that ratio 500000 soldiers could kill 100000000 people. But that assumes that the government would fight a modern civil war with ground troops. Instead they would probably send tomahawks and bombs from the sky (stuff that you can't defend yourself from with anything at the gun store).
When our forefathers fought their war of independence, they had nearly the same equipment (technologically speaking) as the British they were fighting. Now the populace is so far behind. The military would win. That's why we must act now from keeping things from becoming another civil war.
Open Source Sushi
The second sentence contains a however. However, the third sentence also contains a however, as if it was meant to counter the second sentence. However, the third sentence reinforces the second sentence.
\ / | Republicrats suck.
They love it when you xfer money. And often offer checking as well.
If this idea were the norm, the media would have a field day using their influence. Public opinion would be a much greater factor as the CNN viewership tuned in to minute by minute coverage of the non-stop critical analysis of every newly proposed measure. Heck, even if there wasn't anything interesting to cover, I'm sure they'd find some way of making it 'sound' interesting for a TV spot.
The real government has had this power for years.
Corporations can find out a helluva lot more about people than the federal government ever will. As private entities, they're not so legally encumbered by this bothersome Constitution thingie.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
Tell me, Mr. Anderson,
What good are firearms and ammunition if we blow up your home with a stealth bomber?
At best, owning firearms will send you more quickly to jail.
Is it any coincidence that Saddam was "captured" on the 14th of December?
Me thinks he was rolled out as a diversionary tactic just like good ol' Osama will be proclaimed dead from kidney failure or "captured" shortly before the '04 election to improve Bush's ratings.
As long as they also fill in my IRS forms I think it's great! :P
Repeat after me: We are all individuals
I'm going to bounce all over the wall on this one. The above is the thing that gets my goat though. Not because it was said but because it's the truth.
.5 million against 80 million is actually possible. However, that's assuming one thing:
.5 million US troops actually know how to handle small arms weapons in close quarters, urban environments, and rural settings. They do not. I guarantee you this. Very few troops actually know how to fondle an M16 or M4 rifle. I know, I have buddies in the Army that had me teach them how to field-strip the AR-15 variety of weapons and fire them so they'd have a leg up on the other recruits.
FACT: The 2nd Ammendment of the United States Constitution exists for the SOLE reason that the general population needs to have the arms to overthrow the government if need be. If you don't beleive that's why it was written, go read up on your history. It's the truth.
However, is it reasonable? In principle yes, but the US Citizen has been so hampered by firearms laws since 1934 and on that it's just not possible for us to arm ourselves properly. We have a few points of strength though.
True, the US Military is 500,000 strong. I would expect a 40% AWOL though if troops were ever force to fight against our own citizens. That's hopeful thinking though.
There are en estimated 80,000,000 firearms owners in the United States however. A highly trained, well equiped force of
All of the
None of the 3 (out of 4) have actually been trained, beyond moderate skills, on how to handle small arms. Two are tankers, one is an Air Force bomb loader, and the 4th actually is a special-op in training guy that DOES know how to handle a rifle. I know 2 more military fellows (one Air Force, one Navy) that wouldn't know how to work an AR style rifle if their life depended on it.
Our military, by and large, excepting the Marines, are not riflemen. They are manning tanks, computers, air craft carries, and aircraft.
You launch tank, artilerary, and bombers against the population and you have just lost the compassion of the American people. The civilian hunters and patriots are very capable of a guerilla attack against the politicians that vote such things into being. The day that happens I predict 435 dead members of congress, 100 senators, 1 vice president and 1 president. They'll never launch large arms against our people for this reason.
Well, at least not now. We have some semblance of firearms ownership left in this country.
It's fun to wax nostalgically about how "back in the day" arms were simple and the common people had the proper arms to form a rebellion. You'd think that this is no longer true because arms have advanced so quickly that we cannot keep up with the government. Oh, how I wish that were true.
FACT: The very arms that the original patriots armed themselves with ARE NO LONGER AVAILABLE TO THE COMMON MAN! That's right, folks, we can't even own a black powder cannon anymore. The original partiots had them. We don't. How's that for a kick in the ass?
As a further kick in the ass, some asshat in New Jersey actually proposed a bill that would have made 50 caliber muzzle loaders illegal. Nope, nobody wants to disarm the hunters.... keep looking the other way.
Lets's look at this. The average American soldier does not have the skills necessary for urban fighti
Americans are no longer living in a Democratic Republic. They're now living in a oligarchy controlled by super-right wing neoconservatives and big oil, and fueled by scaring the living daylights out of the populace. The constitution has all but been thrown out.
:) ?
In yesterday's SCO discussion I speculated that, to my mind anyhow, it's more likely that Darl and friends are being funded and directed by Cheney and friends rather than Microsoft.
Have you noticed some of the phrasing of SCO's letters? "the GPL is unconstitutional" (they use the constitution when it fits their needs), "have you shipped to Syria, Iran, North Korea" (read: any axis-of-evil countries)?
Within the next couple of months expect them to start making noises about Linux and OSS being a security threat. I certainly have noticed an undercurrent, a sub-text if you will, of this administration to gain more effective control of the Internet and OSS. What was up with the clandestine use of RFID tags at the Internet Summit?
Ask yourself, who is pulling Darl McBride's strings? Is it Bill? Is it Scott? Or is it, just maybe, Cheney? Kellogg, Brown & Root have been up to far more nefarious activities than this. It's a cakewalk for them.
I'll tell you a little secret. Oil is, and always has been the _top_ national security concern of the United States of America.
This little spaceship Earth of ours is rapidly heading for a major crisis. The United States consumes 20 billion barrels of oil a year. The world consumes 76 billion barrels (2001 numbers).
In 2001 only 8 billion barrels of new oil was discovered, and that was spread out over 300 relatively small and economicaly challenging fields.
Did you catch that? We burned 80 billion barrels of oil this year but discovered less than 10 billion. This has been going on for many years now. A few years ago the rule of thumb was we burned 4 barrels for every barrel discovered. Now it's 8:1. And China and India or only just getting started.
It's January 7th, and you're putting 4 logs a day on the fire, you look out the window and you see only 120 pieces of wood left in your wood pile. Oh well! We'll figure something out before March!
At any rate, the point is, Bush and all is oil patch buddies are painfully aware of this little dilemma and they know just what to do about it. Secure the oil, and batten down the hatches on the populace.
Go to the CIA World Factbook and look up the country you live in, say Norway for example, scroll down to the "Economy" section and check out the "oil produced" and "oil consumed" figures. Interesting, eh? Norway is one of the few exceptions, a country that actually produces more oil than it consumes. In fact, Norway is the _only_ country that produces more than 10 times the amount of oil than it consumes. Anyway, that's not the point. Now click on the little graph icon next to "oil produced". Examine the top 20 oil producing countries. Ask yourself, which of these countries does the US control through one of these means: trade agreement, corruption, bullying, family ties
Which ones does the US not yet fully control? Now you know who's next on the hit list.
Do you think things are bad now? You ain't seen nothin' yet. How are you going to live when a barrel of oil costs $60? When a gallon of gas costs 4 bucks? 5 bucks? How about propane to heat your house at $3/gal? $4/gal? When the price of food doubles because of the fuel costs to run the farm equipment and our energy intensive food processing (i.e. how does Campbells purify the water in your soup?)
And, as an aside, what the hell is up with #2 auto diesel costing more than premium gasoline in Silicon Valley?
As you can see, IMNSHO, it's all about oil and "security". Except it's a very twisted and mad concept of security. SCO is just another lever in the sub-game of clamping down on the Internet, just as is the RIAA, DMCA, etc.
That's a great site. Keep it up. Thanks.
"The 4th ammendment isn't being violated here because the information in question isn't "yours"
Information has value (sometimes it is time and context sensitive) - special value because it is an asset I can dictate power over. Between my bank and myself, I decide if I want to put my money there and I decide that I will trust the bank as a third party. If I don't have a right to keep information to myself and those whom I trust (trusting the government is like trusting a mob), then what right do I have? I can't hide anything that doesn't have a physical form. Essentially, I can ultimately hide nothing in the modern world. Most important things are tracked in non-physical records which I share with third parties for convenience.
Of course information originating from myself dealing only with myself is mine - its just not in a physical form. I have a right to share information to another party (say my lawyer) without sharing it with my government. If I do not, then I really only have one relationship - with my government. And it is not by choice - there are no open competitors to government (not in this market, not yet anyways). Who has all the power now? Not me, I'm just on the low end of the contract, my $INSTITUTION is in the middle, and the government is on top. The government has essentially decided, by recent leglislation, that they have a right to access my information just by their position. Well, I have right to keep my business private just by my permission.
Giving the government the legal right to information (without process, oversight, and barriers) is giving the government legal rights period. These rights happen to be mine. And I want them back.
That's why I wear this all the frickin' time. Writin' to my rep too.
Can anyone recommend a good, legal, offshore Internet-based bank? Not for the purpose of hiding anything from the IRS, but just to maintain privacy of normal transactions. After all, it's not illegal to bank in Switzerland, as long as there's no criminal intent involved.
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
Time has come to stop bitching, and get off our arses and actually DO something. Protests are fine, but they usually end up causing more trouble than its worth (unless we gather millions and millions of people (the sight of which will probably "remind" those washington fat cats who got them there in the first place)). Petitions are also good, but that takes time, time and effort. If anyone else has any suggestions (or snail mail addresses of anyone in opposition post them here so that we can show them our support). Dont get me wrong though, we do need protection from ****** like Laden and so forth, but i doubt that tis is the way to do it, since it infringes on the ideas our predecessors have fought so hard for and the rights on the rights of the other 278 millon non terrorists (us :) ). Besides all that money should be spent on our schooling and ifrastructure, which is starting to crumble from years of budget-cuts and neglect.
the patriot act 2 actually passed. it did NOT pass on it own. but was attached as a rider on a budget bill last month. bush signed it also, no use of line item veto??? so much for protecting americans. oh wait I want the goverment to listen to all my phone calls, and read all my (unencrypted) email's. allah, bomb, nerve gas. It could of been stripped down a little, but i do not think that happened. I saw this on cnn so who knows how true it is....
The legacy of paraniod schizaphrenia is going to last forever. As a Republican I am outraged by the invasion of civil liberties and invasion of privacy. Congress does not realize that the Patriot Act, this new bill and others have unbalanced the different branches to where the Presidency and the executive branch reign supreme. The courts do not have the power any more because the civil rights which grant the challenges have been stripped from the defendants. The Congress has no power because of 9/11 sediments.
Orwell was off by twenty years when he wrote 1984.
I honeslty am angered by the fact that the FBI has an ever expanding powers and authority. Now the FBI can get access to anyones financial records and even insurance records. Why should the FBI be given powers to examine records. If the FBI has reason to suspect anybody of wrong doing they should be forced to conduct the investigation under the auspicies of a Court. My prediction is that one of these banks will challenge based on protecting the privacy of consumers.
But I speculate that the Bush Administartion knows that the courts will shoot this one down pretty quick. The Constitution has been interpetted to include protections on Privacy and explicitely protects us from Searches and Siezures with out reason. Over 200 years of case law has stated that in order to conduct a search you need a warent. Over the last few years the Bush Administration has sought to redefine what constitutes unreasonable and get the whole notion of a warrent abolished. But I suspect that the Bush Administration will use the new Big Brother law to get a hold of suspect information that they normally could not get because they have no cause for searching.
I am a republican, but I can tell you this, I will not vote for Bush. I am appaulled at this conduct, and the loose, militaristic interpetation of the Constitution. We need to return to a powerful Congress which has the ability to tell the President where to go and how to get there.
The views expressed are mine own and do not express the views of my employer.
So, what do the government apparatchiks do about the growing civil discord growing out of this unbelievably oppressive environment?
Getting paranoid about revolts and moving beyond mere malign neglect to direct and intentional violation of the law of the land.
Seastead this.
"Russia welcomes all Our American friends to enjoy the civic freedoms and the privacy granted to all our citizens."
I wonder if that scenario isn't too far ahead. Ofcourse it might not be actually Russia that starts to expand its populace this way, but some other country who's government isn't quite so intrusive in their dealings with everyday citizens.
How about troops vs. 19 hijackers quietly sneaking a few boxcutters on 4 planes, then smashing the planes into the WTC and Pentagon? Sounds like a job for the police, stopping the boxcutters.
--
make install -not war
You got the poster's message loud and clear. Pat yourself on the back.
Donate background CPU time to fight cancer.
When the Texas Republicans were jerrymandering the state last year, admittedly (in a leaked memo) carving up state districts to cut out sitting and running Democrat representatives, and to create otherwise senseless districts for specific hand-picked Republican candidates, the Democrat minority tried to foil their steamrolling votes by denying a quorum, by leaving the state. The Republicans flushed them out by calling in Homeland Security, which found them in Oklahoma, and then harassed them into returning.
Not only was this a blatant raping of the "National Security" requirements of the investigation, but if the Homeland Security activities weren't a complete scam, it might have had better things to do with its (gargantuan, but) finite resources. This one act showed Homeland Security to be a corrupt lapdog of the Republican Party, that those Republicans will sink to any level to steal votes and power, and that Homeland Security has nothing better to do. Feel safer now?
--
make install -not war
The rightwingers who claim the cover of "strict constructionists" are just liars. They claim that they know what was on the minds of the writers and signers of the Constitution, more clearly than that demonstrated by what was written. That line of rhetoric allows them to justify anything they want. They probably believe it, too - they mostly all believe they've also got a direct line to god that surpasses in clarity that available to mere infidels, like Democrats and the poor.
"See, what god *meant* to say was.."
--
make install -not war
it only recieved 9 votes against it in the House, so by yer logic we should vote them ALL out.. which is fine by me.
"What do you do with the mad that you feel when you feel so mad you could bite?" - Mister Rogers
Anybody who uses the words Liberal and Republican, Left and Right and actually gets upset about it are playing right into the hands of the controlers. It's literally that game of 'Throw a rock at one guardsman so that they start bickering amongst themselves while the thieves raid the camp.'
If the government started to incarcerate US citizens arbitrarily, or arrest activists, etc. Then I'd be worried.
Hm. Per capita, there are more incarcerated U.S. citizens today than there have been at any other time in American history. That's the thing about frog-water. We aren't supposed to notice it getting hotter.
In any case, it's probably time for you to start looking around for a better news source. Arbitary abuse of police powers and arrest does happen, and it is doing so with increasing regularity.
All the while the real danger is missed. I'd be more worried about someone getting my bank info from some comapny and selling it all over the place, than the government checking up on me. I got nothing to hide.
Ouch. Sorry, friend. That is THE classic, text book example of the very argument which nobody who values their civil liberties should ever, ever make. Essays by the pound have been written refuting that exact piece of thinking.
I have a friend from a nation where police powers went crazy, who describes it this way: "First they root out the black parts. Then the grey parts. Then the off-white. Because the problem is, the more control you exert over things, the smallest specks suddenly become glaring spots which must be destroyed. In the end, everybody is suspect at all times. You Americans have such a young, naive nation. You don't seem to realize what you are doing, how quickly you are sliding, and how difficult it is to stop. In the end, the only people who are 'free' are those at the top of the power pyramid, and they are slaves as well because they must fear each other."
You are being duped through fear into trusting the wrong people, into giving up that which is yours. Be careful.
-FL
More like Dubya -> Dad -> Papa bin Laden -> Osama. How about Dubya -> Grampa Prescott -> Fritz Thyssen -> Hitler? Dubya -> Rumsfeld -> Saddam? Pretty cozy, huh? Kevin Bacon would kill for an agent like Dubya's. Reality is nastier than even your "army of one" fantasy.
--
make install -not war
I think the fact that the population is so low might be the saving grace. . , for a while anyway. (Less raw 'material' which will need 'processing'.)
My advice is, do whatever you can to get out of debt as fast as possible so that there won't be an easy excuse to destroy you when the economy collapses. Also keep a store of food hidden, stock up on warm clothing, and keep alert. Oh, and stay the heck away from big cities. Those places are death traps by design. Hong Kong and Toronto got a preview of that with the SARS scare, I think.
The big die-off is coming. You have a little time left to prepare. Knowledge is Life, Ignorance is Death. Good luck.
-FL
They even have a nice, umbrella term with which you will be labeled.
'Terrorist.'
The media which so blithly showed Bush serving plastic turkey to hand-picked troops on Thanksgiving, would not give rebels a fair shake. And once a military lock-down has been invoked, it's super easy to manufacture a thousand and one false reasons to keep such a lock-down in place forever.
No. Things are really far gone at this point, but surprisingly enough, a semi-promising way to fight the government has recently been provided.
With enough focus and awareness, financial and legal support, this could actually go somewhere.
Interestingly, it's almost impossible to find anything about this on the web. Personally, I don't have my hopes up. I've been warning people for the last two years to get the heck out of the U.S. Those gates are going to come crashing down after the next election. Possibly sooner.
-FL
Then there's this scary sounding product:
-
WatchDOG Photo ID Verification
That last, though, is just a dumb program that shows the general format of photo ID cards. It's just a computerized version of those books club security goons have. It sounds like they are offering access to some nationwide database of ID photos. But they're not. Yet.The USA PATRIOT Act mandates that you verify government-issued photo identity for each person you do business with. With our easy-to-use software called WatchDOG Photo ID, financial institutions can now view the most current versions of government-issued photo ID's such as driver's licenses from all U.S. states, U.S. Territories, and I.N.S. travel documents, such as green cards.. In addition to being able to view an exact likeness of each document, a detailed written description is also provided that gives other features of the document that your staff should look for in verifying the document's validity. The software also verifies that the accountholder's driver's license number, for participating states, is a valid number.
As with all ATTUS software, WatchDOG Photo ID is simple to install and can work from any desktop computer.
DMT
Vault
1MDC
Sorry, but you talk out of your arse. I live in The Netherlands, Europe and what I don't understand is why can't people simply live together on the same dirth they call 'home land' ? You talk about whites losing their homeland, what a BS. I still live in the country I grew up in, and the city I live in is in 10 years for 55% non-white, who cares. I'm frisian but live in The Hague, which means I'm from outside the city as well, I just happen to have a white skin, well, SO WHAT. Does it matter what the color of my skin is to be able to say "This is MY land" ? NO! A person born here with Maroc parents is still born here, like me. Perhaps my great great grand parents are germans, or scandinavians, who knows... (so I'm not entitled to this 'land' either).
THe world is for everyone, no-one 'owns' land.
Never underestimate the relief of true separation of Religion and State.
No, you're not. You just postulate that races are inherently inequal, and then cheerlead for the whites a bit. You never actually come out and specifically say that whites are superior to everyone else, despite your incessant hinting at it. So you're really like some kind of modern-day Martin Luther King Jr., I guess.
The foreign population of France has no reason to be there, they have their own countries. They should pursue their own destiny there. Why is that so much to ask?
Because it's not just your fucking country. The foreign population of France is still the population of France. No matter what color their skin is, or where they are from.
Right now, there is a sufficient number of young frenchman who see their 1000 year history disappearing before their eyes.
Fuck you. Where is the history of my people, asshole? It disappeared centuries ago, crushed beneath the iron heel of the white man. Aww, a bunch of Frenchies are gonna lose their precious history to a bunch of inferior coloreds? Too fucking bad.
If the vision you have is one of enslaving the white race
No, sorry, we're a little more humane than that. Besides, you white boys can't pick cotton for shit.
It should give you pause when a solid fifth of a country aggrees with me.
And it should give you pause when a solid (SOLID, damnit! There are no liquid fractions!) four-fifths of the country disagrees with you.
These frenchman are tired of their sisters being raped
Oh, and you white folks are just completely above that, aren't you?
the high taxes to pay for foreigners
Try paying them when you can't make more than minimum wage.
and the lack of low end jobs that shift to the minority races.
Oh, and we're so grateful for those low-end jobs. Thank you, massa! You want fries with that?
It is amazing what several million young men can do, given the impetus. I think you will be surprised what happens.
It is amazing, but no, my friend, I think that it is you who will be surprised.
Maybe it is destined for the people of Europe to be displaced, but I can assure you it won't happen without a fight.
You're god damn right it won't.
Maybe, just maybe, you have been trolled.
Don't respond to Anonymous Assholes on Slashdot. "Don't argue with a fool; people might not be able to tell the difference."
Have a nice day.
Dubya is a friend of the bin laden family and associate of many of osamas former associates so that's just 2 degrees several times.
So, can we NOW call the US a police state, finally, or are you Americans still living in the illusion that you live in a free country?
With Bush in charge, the 'Free' in 'Land of the Free' means more freedom to spy on people and less for the people themselves.
I'm do not hate the USA, but the politics need to change, and fast.
I might be European, but this affects my friends in the States! All US readers: Vote all but Conservative in 2004 please.
More on conservatism: here
42 + 1 = 42
and people who put their allegiance in a Corporation rather than their State do not deserve Citizenship.
If you're NOT a New Yorker FIRST (ok, I'll grant being an American is ok, but just for this discussion...), but a Republican or Democrat or Green or whatever, GET YOUR DAMMED DIRTY HANDS OFF MY COUNTRY.
The Parties ARE The Problem.
Technology -- No Place For Wimps! Grateful Dead and Jerry Garcia Chatroom -- http://www.wemissjerry.org
Wow. What next? Thanks Bush for all your wisdom. Well, people were stupid enough to put him in power, now this is what you have to deal with. Nobody has any rights anymore, and all in the name of this invisible 'war on terrorism' which is causing the American people more than they could ever dream, in tax dollars and civil rights.
Like someone said in a post somewhere else impeech Bush before it's too late!!!
(p/d/t)
will they be able to inspect Dubya and Jeb's financial information without a c/o? Now that would be interesting and ironic.
...move all your financial dealings off shore. there are plenty of countries out there with banks that will give you an anonymous bank account, a card you can use in any teller machine, credit cards, and 0% tax. tell me again why you're concerned over something that amounts to little more than a prod to remind you to get off your ass and take care of these arrangements?
Perhaps the answer to the problem of teenagers dropping bricks from motorway and railway bridges is to sue Tetris.
"I've come into contact with Chicago gang members and I'd like to see a lot more of them imprisoned"
Without a trial? On what charge?
It's easy! You just put them on trial for terrorism! Job done
Also, you could also charge of terrorism that neighbour's annoying dog, terrorism is a good excuse for anything!
The problem with legislation like this is that it makes the government a ripe target for mob rule.
Without the enforcement of due process of law, unethical people will be highly attracted to government positions where they can exploit these powers for financial gain.
The criminal risk within is much greater than the terrorist risk from without.
in the UK does this, very nicely indeed. check it out.
This administration is treating the US constitution pretty much like they treated the UN recently. As a mere tool. They use it when it suits them, and ignore it otherwise.
The analogy is striking. Back in February, allied countries opposing war in Iraq were traitors; now citizens opposing these laws are un-American. If the trend follows, we'll next hear : "our prime mandate is to the American people, not some centuries-old paper", "the Constitution has shown itself to be irrelevant" or "our opponents represent Old America". What about renaming the Bill of Rights "Bill of Freedom"?
If this was not so frightening, I would be amused.
It would be nice to be sure of anything the way some people are of everything.
Also, don't just think of them looking at one record at a time. With blanket authority to request info, they could get whole databases at a time, exactly what they'd need to run a TIA type system. If that's the case, anyone who just loves felafels could be in trouble.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
in their next post wrote:
your subject line is: US is not prime funder of UN
Obviously you misunderstood the definition of the word "were".
Within the body of the post you write:
Again you forgot the definition of the word "were".
I checked the sources:
Republican YEA: 209 NAY: 15 NO VOTE:4
Democratic YEA: 55 NAY:147 NO VOTE:3
Independent NAY: 1
Numerically, that means that 71.7% of Democrats voted against that horrible bill while only 6.5% of Republicans voted against it.
Nice try, liar.
Sure, but these soldiers would have to kill their pissed of friends and family. the first "civilian" death by "federal" fire would be a downward spiral for the federal army moral and a boost in anger and rebellion for civilians. i speculate, anyway.
Thanks for the history lesson. This is relevent how?
It seemed to me that the poster was under the impression that this was in the original constitution, and had always been that way. Sorry for trying to be helpful.
Amendments can be repealed but that is not something CONGRESS can do. That is the entire reason for this discussion.
Article V of the U.S. Constitution provides two ways to propose amendments to
the document and two ways to ratify them. Amendments may be proposed either by the
Congress, by two-thirds votes of the House and the Senate (of those present and voting,
provided a quorum is present), or by a convention called by Congress in response to
applications from the legislatures of two-thirds (34) or more of the states.
Amendments must be ratified by three-quarters (38) or more of the states. The
Congress can choose to refer proposed amendments either to state legislatures, or to
special conventions called in the states to consider ratification. Only the 21st
Amendment (repeal of Prohibition) has been ratified by conventions held in the states.
Source: http://www.house.gov/judiciary/97-922.pdf
Congress proposes the amendment. States ratify. Obviously Congress cannot both propose and ratify the amendment, but the statement "Amendments can be repealed but that is not something CONGRESS can do" is not true. Without Congress an amendment can never be passed or repealed by passing a new amendment.
Maybe you should educate the morons of tomorrow so they'll stop believing the leaders of tomorrow. - Dogbert
So it is ok for this administration to not do anything about preventing future terrorism attacks? You would prefer not giving up a little rights to ensure you (or say your wife or children) are not one of the unfortunate individuals that are taken by way of terrorism? Give it a rest. Based on your assumptions that the President put this into place to protect yet bash him because it will be abused. Let's say this..... We should ban all companies from producing firearms simply because those will be abused by someone. You cannot hold the President accountable for the actions of another individual abusing the power he has given them. The person that abuses the power is held liable. For me, please take additional measures to ensure my wife and children are not taken prematurely. I would hate to be one of those unfortunate individuals that were left without a spouse because of those bastards on 9/11. Yes, look into my accounts, I don't care. If it will aid in preventing future attacks, I give them my support.
alias dir='rm -rf
You're trying to make gun owners sound like cowboys, or some sort of sleeping well-trained army. Come off it. If the shit hits the fan, they're going to be screwed just like the rest of the country. The "average firearm-owning American" lives in the midwest, drinks too much, and dislikes non-white people.
I can't understand why Americans think having a gun makes you more than you are - you're just average joe with a dangerous weapon you shouldn't have. It doesn't make you a patriot. It doesn't make you a hero. It just makes you dangerous to those you love, and more likely to kill a family member than an intruder/US soldier/whatever.
Also, what makes you think you having a gun will make you a good soldier? You're living in a dream world. Your AR15 isn't going to stand up to an F15, that's for sure.
I hope for your sake, you never have to use your "one man army" :-P
I'm sorry, a right to privacy is not a natural law. Although, the Constitution does have an amendement from unreasonable searches and seizures, which should be applied to strike this law as unConstitutional.
Congress is not prohibited from passing unConstitutional laws; nor are we prohibited from accusing any law as unConstitutional.
What those who want activist courts fear is rule by the people.
Let me ask you a question, where do you draw the line? What IS protected by the fourth admendment?
Debunking the "59 Deceits"
And this wasn't reported by the news because the very day that 'President' Bush signed this into law, Bush's Iraq administrator L. Paul Bremer announced the capture of Saddam Hussein. It seems awfully convenient. Especially in light of a certain date tree.
...
Wouldn't be surprised if Madeleine Albright turned out to be spot-on
he has to be released at some point. once that happens, he can sue. if he's in there for life, his relatives can either sue for his release or compensation after his death.
Blaze a trail to the New World
"You cannot hold the President accountable for the actions of another individual abusing the power he has given them."
I'm not given to swearing on slashdot, but BULLSHIT. The president is the Chief of the Executive Branch of our government. He's responsible for what happens there. If someone abuses powers that he's granted them, then he's responsible for terminating that person, and seeing to it that all possible criminal prosecution is carried out.
" So it is ok for this administration to not do anything about preventing future terrorism attacks?"
No, but I think it'd be a great start for the current administration to make future attacks less likely, rather than more likely as they've done.
If the president wants to prevent future terrorist attacks, then he might try figuring out why people are attacking us, rather than simply throwing rocks at whatever moves. IMHO, the actions taken by the current administration have set the US back at least 100 years in our status and respectability in the international community, and have given a reason to hate us to millions of people who have been shown to be quite willing to give their lives up to inflict damage on those they hate. And you see this as making us more safe? Here's a clue-- if the people of the whole world of Islam hate us, a few of them are gonna inflict terrorist harm, no matter how hard we turn the screws on ourselves. Maybe, just maybe, if we tried to work with them, they might not want to blow us up in quite the same way they do now.
1984 was supposed to be a warning, not an instruction manual.
He's not allowed to see a lawyer. If he is ever released it will very likely be on condition he doesn't sue.
Would you argue an uber-Scalia Strict Constructionist view that indviduals do need to own large tactical weapons (howitzers, jet fighters, etc) as a hedge against oppressive federalism?
I'm actually not that big a fan of the Second Amendment, to tell the truth. It's the first in a long line of poorly-written legislative statements from the Feds. If the Founders had taken the time to think it all the way through, it wouldn't mention "militias" at all, or possibly even "arms", but a more general (and less negotiable) right to self-defense. Something along the lines of "The right of the People to secure their own defense shall not be infringed." That would have given future courts a way to distinguish between arms wieldable by individuals in defensive combat (yes, including bazookas) and megalomaniacs who challenge the government's monopoly on hot nuclear death.
There are probably a couple of reasons why the amendment wasn't written that way. First, in light of what the early US colonists had just gone through, anyone suggesting that you don't have the right to defend yourself would have been looked at real funny, and then, probably, shot. It would have seemed like a paen to the 18th-century ancestor of Captain Obvious. Second, the phrase "well-regulated militia" was commonly understood to consist of every able-bodied man who could pick up a rock and throw it. In employing that phrase, the authors were merely emphasizing the importance of not turning into a nation of helpless wusses dependent on a state-sanctioned army for their defense. Nothing more, nothing less. Unfortunately, the phrase does leave a lot of wiggle-room for creative deconstruction.
All you have to do, though, is ask what other amendments in the Bill of Rights are written to grant rights to the government rather than the People, and then ask why the Second would be any different. I don't see a good answer to that one on the ACLU page, do you?
Dahlmann tightly grips the knife, which he may have no idea how to use, and steps out into the plain.
Yes, however..... what was meant by my post if that the President has put something in effect that he hopes will be used as an asset. If someone takes it too far and abuses it, how is that the fault of our President? That is where my comment about the firearms came into play. They put the weapons on the street for mere profit. They are not held responsible for any acts of violence one takes with their product. No matter how hard you try, you will never be able to get everyone to like us. It is just a fact of life. There will never be world peace no matter how hard one tries at it. You are saying we should change our entire foreign policy to satisfy the Islamic people? Does that not seem to be ridiculous? Should we also refrain from assisting other countries like Iraq that were supressed by the former regime? Those that were so unfortunate to have lived through that can now see how life is in a free land. Is that not worth it.... or are you too selfish not to come to the aid of others that are unable to stand up for themselves? Because we assist other countries, we are to blame. We are the evil country. Screw them. I disagree that our actions have set us back 100 years. Take a look at other countries that are unable to maintain civil life without our aid. The amount of money we pour into other nations to assist them. Who is the main supporter of the UN? Uhm, you got that right.... The US. Without us they are nothing. They do nothing but throw out sanctions and rest on it. More broken promises. The UN functions in a similar manner as my child. If I tell him no, don't do that, failure to listen to me will result in X punishment yet he does it anyhow. If I don't respond with that punishment, it just showed him how serious I am. Failure to follow through is unacceptable.
alias dir='rm -rf
No, that was the definition of the single word "militia". The "well-regulated" part is still up for grabs.
what other amendments in the Bill of Rights are written to grant rights to the government rather than the PeopleThe Tenth grants rights to States (and the People).
The Second is different from the others because it's written differently. It's the only one that spells out a specific reason for its own existence, very much like the unfortunate clause from Article I Section 8 about intellectual property. Sadly, both topics have given us some rather bad consequences 200 years later.
In any case, I'm also unhappy with some of the ACLU's positions, but I do appreciate that they're definitely on the side of privacy in this case, and will likely file suit to block this law.YHBT
"Who is the main supporter of the UN? Uhm, you got that right.... The US. Without us they are nothing. They do nothing but throw out sanctions and rest on it. More broken promises. The UN functions in a similar manner as my child. If I tell him no, don't do that, failure to listen to me will result in X punishment yet he does it anyhow. If I don't respond with that punishment, it just showed him how serious I am. Failure to follow through is unacceptable.
"
No, the US is not the main supporter of the UN. The US does not even pay its required membership fees. In addition the US has no rights in the UN to tell other countries what they should do. It does have the right to stop the UN doing things (Veto rights) but then so do other countries, including france.
America is not the parent of the world. In fact more often then not it behaves like a child grown to big for its parents to control it.
Tom Tomorrow joke for the unintiated.
Linkage
I have a communications degree, and one of the first things we learned when studying communications case law that was drilled into our heads time and time again was that there is no "right to privacy" or "freedom of privacy" anywhere in the constitution or in any law. While this was mainly in the context of defining freedom of the press and public vs. private citizens, it is worth mentioning here.
You have to wonder how differently we'd react to these anti-terror anti-privacy measures if there _were_ an explicit right to privacy ammendment to the Constitution? What kind of effects would the existence of such an ammendment have on any of these emerging privacy issues?
Please define what "a little rights" are to you. I personally value my right to privacy and I don't consider that a small right.
The way I see things, the terrorists are already winning by forcing so many changes into our governmeant and our way of life. They wanted to blow up a few buildings to scare us, and they did that. But now we have our own government to do the scaring for us. And all in the name of "homeland security".
~Merlyn
To be even more Kafkaesque, they've seen to it that these appeals can't be further appealed to the Supreme Court, as no one but the Justice Department itself is actually a party to the appealed case and no one else has legal standing to appeal.
Salon did a piece on this secret court system a while back; it's truly a scary concept.
Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
Wow, there's just so much innocence in that post I'm not sure where to start.
"how is that the fault of our President?"
Well, he's the boss. He took an oath to uphold the constitution. And, like any CEO, he's responsible for the legal and ethical conduct of his employees. If he were to promptly deal with abuses through termination and legal sanctions against those officers of the government who abuse their power, it wouldn't be his fault. Instead, he and his appointed attorney general call anyone who voices objections to their methods "unpatriotic" and an enemy of the state. That's why I say it's his fault.
No, you certainly can't get everyone to like you. But I do think it's possible to conduct oneself in such a way that others aren't committing suicide to cause you harm. Seems to work pretty well for most of the rest of the world-- not too many terrorists bombing Australia or New Zealand, now are there?
"or are you too selfish not to come to the aid of others that are unable to stand up for themselves?"
No, I'm totally in favor of helping those who can't stand for themselves. But, if that help is in the form of an armed invasion, I'd like to see the majority of the free governments of the world working together to do so (kinda like in 1991...). Not trumping up charges of the existance of weapons of mass destruction, of which no traces whatsoever have been found, to justify moving in singlehandedly and wiping out a government.
If we're going to help those who can't help themselves, then why the hell aren't we in Sierra Leone, the Ivory Coast, Cameroon, Angola, Uganda, or Myanmar working to overthrow totallitarian regiemes and local warlords that have killed as many if not more of their own people than Saddam ever did? I think you're being a bit naive to think that our actions in Iraq are about helping others, they're about securing a strategic resource, and in my opinion, a personal vendetta in return for Saddam's plans to kill the president's father.
Contrary to what seems to be your opinion, the rest of the world aren't our "children". We're not responsible for punishing them, or setting the rules. That patronizing attitude is one of the prime motivators that cause a lot of other people to hate us (that, and the fact that our foreign aid is pretty much directly linked to what we can extract from the country in terms of exploitable resources). Until the US stops acting like Clint Eastwood in a spaghetti western, and starts acting like a responsible world government interested in working through diplomacy first, and armed force second, our risk of repeating something like 9-11 or worse is going to continue to rise.
--
1984 was supposed to be a warning, not an instruction manual.
You know, I thought so too, until he responded to my response-- I think this is a live one. Naive, but not a troll. Cheerio
You don't need a right to privacy here.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
That's the text to the fourth amendment. It doesn't take too much of a leap to consider bank records to be part of one's "papers and effects", such as they'd exist in 1791. There's already a process in place for the executive branch to search those, they just have to get a member of the judicial branch to approve it-- part of our checks and balances. Eliminating those is a very, very bad idea indeed.
--
1984 was supposed to be a warning, not an instruction manual.
Unfortunately, they are not strict constructionists when it comes to the U.S. Constitution. If they were they would be seeking ways to ensure the rights granted under the Bill of Rights, as opposed to finding means of circumventing them. The Bush Administration is set on a course to take this country, once the bastion of liberty and rule of law, to a place where only the rule of men exists and you have only the "rights" which those in power grant to you; "rights" which may be terminated whenever it suits the convenience of those in power.
This trend started with the "War on Drugs" when no-knock searches, etc. were made legal. Now we've reached the point at which some official only needs to assert, not prove, that "national security" is involved in order to get a secret search warrant. I wonder if, legally, these are even warrants as the 4th Amendment states that "warrants shall issue only upon probable cause" and must be signed by a judge.
One of the problems here is that the courts in America have traditionally granted the government greater leeway, in terms of civil liberties violations, in times of war than in times of peace. So long as the administration is allowed to continue to say that we are in a "state of war", despite the fact that Congress never declared such to exist, the courts are reluctant to interfere with the prosecution of that war. What's needed is for the public to force the Congress to make an up or down vote on whether or not the so-called "War Against Terrorism" is really a war. I think they'd have a tough time doing that as there is no nation of "Terrorism" against which to make such a declaration.
People need to realize that we've got enough laws on the books to allow for catching and prosecuting any terrorist we catch. What is needed is the will to require that law enforcement do the grunt work needed to catch terrorists. After all, does anyone think that it was legal to plot the 9/11 attacks? The reason the attackers weren't caught has nothing to do with any lack of legal enforcement methods or intelligence gathering mechanisms. It has to do with a lack of will on the part of those in power to make use of the assets they already have to do the job required. There is simply no need for American citizens to be stripped of their liberties in order to fight terrorism.
Certainly, the government needs to make sure that intelligence is better shared between the various agencies empowered to gather, analyse, and disseminate that information. However, that, again, comes back to a matter of will on the part of those in power to make the system work. Government officials need to be made to recognize that their job is to serve the nation, not expand and protect their own private fiefdoms within the Federal and state governments. Civil servants need to be just that, servants not masters.
Just my $.02,
Ron
Impeach Barack Obama for violating the Constitutional requirement to be a "natural born" citizen to hold the office of P
Very much agreed. But the loophole of course is the word "reasonable." Of course the feds can say what they're doing is "reasonable" because it is in the name of national security. Place to be searched = potential terrorist's house. Things to be seized = tools that can be used to perform terrorism.
That's what I mean about an EXPLICIT right to privacy. Which opens up a HUGE can of worms as far as what "privacy" means. The 4th Amendment pokes and prods at some kind of unclear definition of privacy, but leaves that "reasonable" loophole in there. This is a gray area where privacy is going head to head with "national security," and the scales are definitely tipping in favor of national security right now.
On a parallel note to my original post, there is a gray area when it comes to public figures and what you can report about them, too. For example, although medical records about public figures were once considered a no-no to report, you can now access all kinds of gossip about celebrities' boob jobs and cancer and drug addiction.
Privacy is not a right granted by the Constitution.
Sorry to ask, but does anybody know where to find the voting record for this bill? While I am sure that my rep. voted for it, I would like to know which ones from Colorado did so. Useful for the elections.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Speaking as a government employee, I have to say that the only time politics is _ever_ mentioned is when I bring it up. I have never seen a more apolitical bunch. Why? Because we get paid no matter who is in the White House. And days off. Your conspiracy theory is uninformed by experience, it seems.
There is much pre-judicial hate in you.
pi_rules layed no mention to intentionaly cause harm to anyone.
In the past, people have secured their liberty with force due to tyrants. If you have any liberty to surrender, I suggest you put a nice colorful sign on your front door stating such. In your circumstances, I suppose the following signage would apply...
[THERE ARE NO GUNS IN THIS BUILDING]
|I|
[I CHOOSE RAPE OVER FIRE-SQUAD, DAMN THOSE GUNS]
|I|
[I WELCOME OUR MICROSOFT TCPA OVERLORDS]
|I|
[INK CARTRIDGES ARE NOT OUR PROPERTY TO REFILL]
|I|
[THE PEOPLE BELONG TO THE STATE]
|I|
[FUCK BAMBIE, A MOUNTAINLION IN EVERY BACKYARD]
Secured Party, Without Prejudice, UCC 1-207: Creditor
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized
Three quick words for you.
Boston Tea Party.
Terrorism at its finest, apparently. Hunger strikes qualify as well-- attempted suicide is illegal in many jurisdictions.
So, if you're suspected of being even coincidentally involved with someone planning a hunger strike in protest, your financial records are fair game. Rules benefiting law enforcement bend to fit unexpected circumstances rather well... Feel safe now?
"We have to go forth and crush every world view that doesn't believe in tolerance and free speech." - David Brin
If someone wanted to kill the population of a country, they will. No amount of "Look! I'm a soldier at the weekends!" accountants and building laborers running around with AR15s and Coors can stop an army. An army has infrastructure. Guys with guns just have other guys with guns. When their ammo runs out, there is no logistical support. They'd have to send their wives to the nearest sporting goods stores. "COVERING FIRE!" :-P
Having a gun doesn't instantly make you invulnerable. It doesn't guarantee anything. Apart from the risk to your friends and family (that's statistically guaranteed).
Look what happened in India with Gandhi. He pissed the Brits off 100% without firing a shot. He had brains. He realised that to pick up a gun is taking a step back. It's one up from picking up a rock. To have a real, concisive victory it's IDEAS that have to win. The greatest victory, both morally and physically, is to step away from violence.
We're not monkeys any more. Surely you can see that guns don't solve anything. Ideology does.
"Of all the misdeeds the British Empire is responsible for history will look upon the removal of arms as the blackest" ...Or something along those lines. I'm not much for memorizing prose verbatim.
- Ghandi
You're right, there's aboslutely no way that the general population can stand up to an Army. That's why Russia controls Afghanistan (ok, we helped them with that one). That's why Vietnam was one by the US too. They weren't as well equipped as us, but boy, we won that one! That's why the USA is a British colony (ok, France helped out)...
Sorry, but sometimes it does help to have an armed population. Resitance operations are just that though: reistance. You don't have to actually win, just hold out long enough that the other guy gives up and you're still alive.
Hello dave420,
:-)
:-P
I hope I am misunderstood.
If someone wanted to kill the population of a country, they will. No amount of "Look! I'm a soldier at the weekends!" accountants and building laborers running around with AR15s and Coors can stop an army. An army has infrastructure. Guys with guns just have other guys with guns. When their ammo runs out, there is no logistical support. They'd have to send their wives to the nearest sporting goods stores. "COVERING FIRE!"
Whatever inspiration was thrown into your head, please reprove it. I've attended gun sufty ceremonies in liu of becoming a hunter. I have differences with many. It is apparent that you witnessed some lousy men and women that say they are hunters and somehow implied in their definition of "hunter" as being "assholes" and "irresponsible" and "cocky". Now, what about the hunters in this world: the people that are the opposite of what you described and are intent on being responsive and good? In my perspective, pi_rules disclosed how a hunter has the necessary skill to be a capable slayer of men. Quite dastardly, I agree, for our fellows to gaze upon the sin of hunting our own kind; no less a form of cannibalism. I have family at Nebraska and a while ago I received a family-like letter of some fun things they had done that year and among the things that happened was the U.S. Army was staging an exercise to "Secure" the entire town. It was an exercise, but what do you expect well-historically-learned people to think when they know it took a lot of blood and guts 200 hundred years ago to get the states and the lives of people away from Britain? In my studies, there never was any freedom. The revolutionaries had freeman capacity for no more than 10 years; and then the Jay Treaty appeared, then the Banker's War, then the federal ussurpation, then a civil war (south walked out of congress) which resulted of everything emancipated into the corporate United States, then the bankruptcy of the United States declared by its president Franklin D. Roosevelt. There has been a war every 20 years and for every generation of Americans: all victory-less wars, patriotic as it may build up to be; on paper it benefits a corporation.
Look what happened in India with Gandhi. He pissed the Brits off 100% without firing a shot. He had brains. He realised that to pick up a gun is taking a step back. It's one up from picking up a rock. To have a real, concisive victory it's IDEAS that have to win. The greatest victory, both morally and physically, is to step away from violence.
C'mon bro, we both know the obvious:
It is unlawful to force any to comply with a law they did not give oath unto. It is unlawful to be governed by any who do not have your mandate. Gandhi helped to expose evil and the world turned its back on him and the people he was with. To my knowledge, all those people did the best with what they had available: many died. The British empire is owned by someone else and it is still in America to this day. There is still slavery in Africa, slavery in America, slavery in the United States (corporation), slavery in China, slavery in Afghanistan, etc.
To my understanding, we never were monkies. Studying monkies, they sexualy rape eachother. You sound more like you just don't like guns because its the only thing left that prevents me from FORCING my ideology on you and vi./versa.
But I know you're a good person, just your property rights are not what I think of as being lawful in how other people could say what someone can or can't own and use when they haven't damaged anyone else or their property. I don't like sexual perephanelia and stores committed to selling such exclusivly, but I don't force others to use my laws; it's just the morality or lack thereof that I find bothersome. I just try to be good and help others, no matter how much they differ.
It was nice talking with you bro'.
Secured Party, Without Prejudice, UCC 1-207: Creditor
Trust me, go to a couple of banks and credit unions, there are several that will easily give you an account with NO Socialist security number.
Again, I refer to this:
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.