Slashdot Mirror


Pentagon Seeks A Loophole In The Privacy Act

CygnusXII writes "As reported over @ wired.com. It seems that Homeland Security isn't the only govermental body wanting to keep a database on the good old U.S. population. 'The bill would allow Pentagon intelligence agents to work undercover and question American citizens and legal residents without having to reveal that they are government agents. That exemption currently applies only to law enforcement officials working on criminal cases and to the CIA, which is prohibited from operating in the United States.' Kinda adds a whole new meaning to 'We want you!', or should it be 'We want all your secrets'?"

75 of 304 comments (clear)

  1. A soldier isn't a police officer... by LostCluster · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That exemption currently applies only to law enforcement officials working on criminal cases...

    Which is to say that the DoD is trying to get into the subject area that is presently the property of the FBI along with state and local police forces. It's not that this kind of work can't be done by the US Government, but that the wrong division is asking to do it.

    The DoD runs our armed forces... they are not designed for law enforcement and when they are asked to do so they usually do a poor job of it. This provision in the law should be stricken and replaced with more funding to the FBI and other police forces so that the people who should be gathering info on US soil can continue to do so correctly.

    1. Re:A soldier isn't a police officer... by demachina · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Its only fair since the DOJ is apparently turning in to a global law enforcement agency, and will apparently be tasked to prosecute DOD and CIA contractors for torture in order to deflect attention from the people in the White House and Pentagon who probably ordered the torture in the first place.

      An interesting case is the CIA contractor who apparently beat an Afghan detainee to death and was charged with assault this week. He is apparently being prosecuted under the Patriot Act, by the DOJ, in a really disturbing interpretation and extension of this already overly broad laws reach. The article being used was supposed to be for foreign terrorists who attack U.S. government facilities overseas but they are apparently reinterpreting it to cover a U.S. citizen, and government employee, attacking a foreigner at a government facility overseas.

      The DOJ apparently had to stretch it this way or CIA and DOD contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan could quite literally get away with murder. The problem:

      - Civilian contractors can be court martialled but only if congress officially declared war which it hasn't in Afghanistan or Iraq
      - There is no way the U.S. will turn its citizens, especially a CIA or DOD employee, over to Afghanistan or Iraq which are the only entities with jurisdiction
      -The U.S. has managed to exempt its citizens from prosecution by the international courts who prosecute war crimes wherever they occur. The U.S. blackmailed the U.N. in to this exemption by threatening to withdraw troops and support from peacekeeping operations in the Balkans in particular. China supported this, and helped pass it, but as of yesterday no longer will because of the obvious war crimes the U.S. is committing.
      - The DOJ doesn't normally have jurisdiction outside the U.S. though it is rapidly taking upon itself the right to prosecute anyone for crimes anywhere, and become the worlds first truly global police force. The Bush administration is trying or has already given the DOJ the right to prosecute U.S. citizens who commit sex crimes anywhere in the world which is another huge extension of the DOJ's power. You can no longer count on escaping the long arm of the Bush administration by moving out of the U.S.

      In an interesting twist it is quite possible the Bush administration was intentionally using civilian contractors to perform interrogations and torture, they've hired a lot of them, because they knew they couldn't be charged thanks to this long series of convenient exclusions.

      It may only be because the Bush administration is under heat to make it look like they didn't approve torture in the first place, that they've been forced to go to these new extremes. So they turn to the Patriot Act to find a way to prosecute these contractors who were probably doing what the Bush administration wanted them to do in the first place when they tortured detainees.

      If this use of the Patriot Act it upheld the DOJ gains broad new international law enforcement powers. If its not upheld CIA and DOD contractors guilty of torture and murder are given a get out of jail free card, at least until the UN cancels the U.S. excemption from international war crimes prosecution.

      --
      @de_machina
    2. Re:A soldier isn't a police officer... by welloy · · Score: 5, Insightful
      You are exactly correct. The military should not and cannot be expected to be a domestic police force.

      This essay , which was awarded the top prize for the Strategy Essay Competition at the National Defense University presented by Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Colin Powell in 1992, explains why.

      Briefly, the US military has a very important job, namely protection of the US from external threats, which the military should not be distracted from by acting as the police.

    3. Re:A soldier isn't a police officer... by ahdeoz · · Score: 2, Interesting
      The Department of the Treasury runs the Secret Service.

      Which sub-branch of the executive body a particular government organization is under is really only an artifact of what sounded like a good fit at the time it was created.

      I'd guess the problem here is that someone feels that the FBI is too full of bureaucracy and politics to do an effective job.

      Raise your hand if you don't think the biggest problem with our government is the massive inert body of career bureaucrats. But you'd better be prepared with an answer in case you're called on.

      And to all you free thinkers out there, that's not the problem, and if it were, there's already a solution

    4. Re:A soldier isn't a police officer... by G-Man · · Score: 4, Insightful
      "...that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic..." (emphasis mine)

      That was part of the oath I swore when I joined the military. I don't know where people get the idea that the only activity the military can conduct within our borders is training. What is the point of having a military if not to defend our own soil?

      I agree that the military make lousy police officers -- no one in the military I know is keen on the idea. Where I disagree is the idea that searching for Al Qaeda operatives is strictly a law enforcement activity. By conventions of war they are spies or saboteurs, and we'd be well within our rights to summarily execute them, just as we did with German agents during WWII. (Well, we actually sent them to military tribunals, which is more than is required. Simply put, if you find a spy, you can shoot them.)

      Now, if you were opposed to Eisenhower sending in the 101st Airborne to enforce desegregation, and to Janet Reno using Bradleys to help burn down the Branch Davidians, I'll at least give you credit for consistency. I would be plenty happy to leave it to the FBI if I had faith that they would faithfully follow up on intel given to them by the CIA, but there is a big disconnect there, which the previous administration was more than happy to exacerbate (i.e., the Gorelick memo).

    5. Re:A soldier isn't a police officer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      By conventions of war they are spies or saboteurs, and we'd be well within our rights to summarily execute them, just as we did with German agents during WWII.

      Um, I thought the conventions of war only applied after a declaration of war? To the best of my knowledge the USA is currently not in a state of war with any foreign government, although it is conducting several military operations overseas. That's why the prisoners in Guantanamo aren't covered by the Geneva Convention, remember? It cuts both ways.

    6. Re:A soldier isn't a police officer... by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Informative
      I'm against Janet Reno, period, and especially against sending in bradleys to help with burning down the branch davidians. That was a massacre of U.S. citizens who didn't deserve it, plain and simple. If they REALLY had to close down the compound they should have dropped a bunch of rangers in there under cover of darkness. However, as far as I can tell, there was no good reason for doing it in the first place.

      I agree that it's fine to be shooting spies. Put a fucking bullet right in them. It's even better to be shooting terrorists. However, the military should not be running around harassing civilians. Protecting people trying to bring about desegregation and spying on U.S. citizens are very different things. Besides, there's already an organization designed to spy on U.S. citizens, it's called the FBI, and the solution is to form closer ties with them, not to send military spies out to interrogate the populace.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re:A soldier isn't a police officer... by antiMStroll · · Score: 2, Informative
      " I don't know where people get the idea that the only activity the military can conduct within our borders is training.

      From your country's laws.

      http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20020731_c arter.html

    8. Re:A soldier isn't a police officer... by demachina · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What exactly are you talking about?

      This is a civilian contractor we are talking about here. If you read my post you would see that civilian contractors apparently can't be court martialed except during times of war and the Congress has unfortunately not declared war in Afghanistan or Iraq so they can't be court martialed. This offense happened in Afghanistan so U.S. domestic laws against torture, which also enforce the Geneva rules, don't apply.

      There should be a new rule, the U.S. should stop waging wars unless the Congress has the guts to actually declare war. It would fix a whole lot of evils. For example instead of passing a weak kneed authorization for the wars in Iraq or Vietnam Congress should have to actually declare war. When faced with this gravest of constitutional duties they might have come to their senses, do their jobs, investigate, contemplate, and decide if there is a reason to go to war. Iraq and Vietnam might not have happened as a result and the U.S. might be a lot better off.

      The Gulf of Tonkin incident used to push the U.S. in to Vietnam was largely a U.S. fabrication. South Vietnamese patrol boats attacked North Vietnam, they fought back, there was a U.S. destroyer in the area that was apparently never fired on but Johnson claimed that it had been and used it to sucker Congress in to endorsing the disasterous escalation in Vietnam without declaring war.

      And of course in Iraq the Bush administration fabricated the case for WMD's and ties between Iraq, Al Aqaeda and 9/11, launched a war that has alienated most of the world, resulted in war crimes and was once again not a declared war.

      --
      @de_machina
    9. Re:A soldier isn't a police officer... by wwest4 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Unfortunately, gp is right. Bill Clinton signed legislation proposed by Bob Dole to effectively kill Posse Comitatus. This was done in the wake of the Oklahoma City bombing of the Murrah Federal Building.

      At the behest of the US Attorney General, the army can be used against those deemed domestic enemies.

    10. Re:A soldier isn't a police officer... by ChrisMaple · · Score: 2, Interesting
      There is no formal definition of what constitutes a declaration of war for the US. There should be, but there isn't. The president was authorized by congress to act militarily against Iraq and Afganistan, and that's going to have to be good enough. It's not likely to change, because the way it is gives cowardly legislators a way to say "I didn't vote for that war!" and it gives other people the ability to make the cheap shot "war wasn't declared!"

      We're at war, and saying otherwise doesn't make it so.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    11. Re:A soldier isn't a police officer... by Kenrod · · Score: 2

      You were correct until the two line screed about Bush at the end. Everyone in the world thought Saddam had WMD's and Bush never made a connection between Iraq and 9/11, only between Iraq and Al Qaeda (which is factual, btw). Any objective observer knows Saddam probably gave money and material to Al Qaeda, if for any reason than to keep them off his back domestically. I doubt if Saddam wanted a bunch of terrorists working against him in Iraq anymore than the Saudis do now. Wise Up! And Bush didn't alienate the world, the rest of the world is still begging at Uncle Sam's teat, same as always.

      --
      Good heavens Miss Sakamoto - you're beautiful!
  2. AYB by arcanumas · · Score: 4, Funny

    Uhm..
    -They set us up the database!
    -All your secrets are belong to us

    --
    Slashdot Sig. version 0.1alpha. Use at your own risk.
  3. Shouldn't that be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Kinda adds a whole new meaning to 'We want you!', or should it be 'We want all your secrets'?

    Pentagon: How are you gentlemen!!!
    Pentagon: All your secret are belong to us.

  4. I haven't by The+Grey+Clone · · Score: 5, Funny

    Secrets? I haven't had any secrets for 3 years now.

  5. Re:"Online"?? by KingOfBLASH · · Score: 4, Funny
    How is this about "My Rights Online"?

    Because /. hasn't gotten around to renaming the category to "Rights you used to think you had". *ducks*

  6. wow... by tuxette · · Score: 3, Insightful

    First the start taking over foreign policy, now law enforcement...?? What's next for the DoD? (Patriotic) education? Will American kiddies have to start going to camp wearing red, white, and blue scarves?

    --
    People say I'm crazy, I got diamonds on the soles of my shoes...
  7. Has anything changed for him? by Rick+Zeman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Pentagon officials say the exemption would not affect civil liberties and is needed so that its agents can obtain information from sources who may be afraid of government agents, such as a green-card-holding professor of nanotechnology who formerly lived under a repressive government.

    We're getting there....

    1. Re:Has anything changed for him? by Rick+Zeman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      At the risk of looking silly replying to myself, this statement's even sillier than I thought at first: If you think about, who questions people? Cops and reporters. The man on the street doesn't walk up and start pumping you for information.
      Last I knew, it was illegal for US law enforcement to pretend to be reporters. Is that next to fall? If they aren't going to be cops, what's left for them, if this example wasn't a total smoke screen?

    2. Re:Has anything changed for him? by whovian · · Score: 4, Informative
      Is that next to fall?

      Seems so. This part of the text sounds as if they can exempt a lot of actions on the part of an agent designated as working undercover. (See other parts of the text for how said agents would be allowed to doctor their income tax returns to hide their status as well):

      ``(g) Exemption From Certain Requirements.--The Director may exempt
      a designated employee from mandatory compliance with any Federal
      regulation, rule, standardized administrative policy, process, or
      procedure that the Director determines--
      ``(1) would be inconsistent with the nonofficial cover of
      that employee; and
      ``(2) could expose that employee to detection as a Federal
      employee.


      --
      To-do List: Receive telemarketing call during a tornado warning. Check.
    3. Re:Has anything changed for him? by Alsee · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Holy fucking shit! Pardon the french.

      A blanket exemption from any Federal regulation, rule, standardized administrative policy, process, or procedure, pretty much at will.

      Federal laws? What federal laws? We're the GOVERNMENT! We're EXEMPT from any laws that are inconvient.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  8. God Bless America by QEDog · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Thank God, I feel safer already.

    --
    "There is no teacher but the enemy."-Mazer Rackham
  9. Just say no? by Gothmolly · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "...to question American citizens and legal residents without having to reveal that they are government agents"

    So some asshole comes up to you and starts questioning you about Al-Qaeda, but doesn't say he's FBI. Either its blindingly obvious that he is, or you tell him to fuck off.
    I can see it now:
    "As you can see, Mr. Anderson, we've had our eye on your for some time now. Ignore the shades, and the earpieces, and the official-looking, unnaturally clean sedan we're driving, we're NOT government agents. We need your help to find a certain "individual". You want to waste your day talking to us, since of course we cannot compel you to, since we're not government agents, don't you, Mr. Anderson? Since we're not government agents, you're more likely to tell us what you know, since we're just regular guys who happen to have cornered you, dragged you into our car, and want to chit-chat about Al-Qaeda. m-kay?"

    --
    I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
    1. Re:Just say no? by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So some asshole comes up to you and starts questioning you about Al-Qaeda, but doesn't say he's FBI. Either its blindingly obvious that he is, or you tell him to fuck off.

      The FBI already runs domestic undercover operations. The Department of Defense isn't supposed to. Theoretically, when the FBI arrests someone, the arrestee enjoys certain legal rights. But similar persons in the custody of the military (e.g Jose Padilla) are imprisoned at the pleasure of Mr Bush.

  10. Soldiers get police powers by Howzer · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Surely I'm not being overly tinfoil-hattish to observe that soldiers getting regular police powers seems like a really bad idea.

    But if that doesn't scare you, what about the prospect of a United States getting what is effectively yet another intelligence agency in the middle of a war between the existing two?

    I dismissed this article, about the author of this book as a little overstretched last week - but the more I look around the more real it seems.

    Ok, so now I'm being hattish...

    1. Re:Soldiers get police powers by bogie · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Nope your not overly tinfoil-hatish. What they want to do is wrong in every single way. This goes against everything America was founded on and is supposed to stand for. Of course its hardly surprising considering our current Head of State uses the U.S. Constitution as toilet paper.

      Reunite Church and State? Check.
      Hold citizens with trial or bail? Check.
      Nation building without proper cause? Check.
      Tax breaks that only benefit the rich? Check.
      Dismantle the EPA and let Corporations write Enviro Laws? Check.
      Create a Police State where you can spy on cizitens with impunity? Pending/already going on.

      This nation has gone to Hell and the changes they are making and have already made are going to haunt us for the next 50 years. Fuckers.

      --
      If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
  11. Whatever... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful
    question American citizens and legal residents without having to reveal that they are government agents.

    I'm sorry, but if someone wants to ask me questions, and they A) aren't wearing a police uniform or B) identify themselves as law enforcement/criminal investigators, I'm not saying jack.

    1. Re:Whatever... by The+Only+Druid · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Actually, you'd be surprised how much you'll say.

      I'm surprised its not mentioned yet (that I've seen) on Slashdot, but don't forget that a huge portion of hacking has always been social engineering, which of course includes asking the right questions in the right way.

      I was an anthropology student for a while, and one of the most interesting classes was one called 'Doing Feildwork' which basically taught the techniques, problems and pitfalls of doing an ehtnography (think slightly more academic and analytical documentary). One of our main topics involved when and why you should or shouldn't mention that you're an academic, simply because there are many questions that people will answer if you're polite/friendly that they wont answer if they know you're an academic.

      Someone else here already posted the story of an American spy in Paris who was tricked by a friendly, attractive girl. Think about the last time an attractive member of the opposite sex talked to you [this may be hard for some slashdotters, I'm sure]: don't you typically keep talking with them as long as they want, unless they become too annoying?

      --
      "Stumble before you crawl"
  12. All Your Secrets Are Belong to Us by dealsites · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Well, We have this, traffic light cameras, security cameras everywhere, probably tracking via cell phone and GPS, personal and rental cars with built in GPS, grocery store coupon cards, etc... Where will it end? I guess it probably won't ever stop. Data mining is becoming the hot feature of buisnesses and goverments. Is it still worth the fight for privacy? If you abide by the laws, then there shouldn't be any problems.

    I'm sure there are people out there that detest all the personal surveillance, but if a crime is committed and caught on tape, I think it should be used to prosicute the criminal. I personally don't want to be tracked everywhere I go, but if I was mugged in an alley, I would hope a camera would catch the criminal. It would bring some justice to me and *help* to justify the big brother tactics.

    --
    Please submit any spare Gmail invitations that you might have

    1. Re:All Your Secrets Are Belong to Us by base3 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem is that all this surveillance won't be used to benefit the ordinary citizen. Do you really think that if your car is broken into near a surveillance cam that (unless you're rich and can afford a drawn out legal process) you'll ever get your hands on the evidence?

      --
      One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
    2. Re:All Your Secrets Are Belong to Us by DeepHurtn! · · Score: 2
      "If you abide by the laws, then there shouldn't be any problems."

      That's right, because as we all know, the government and the military *always* act perfectly scrupulously when you give them huge amounts of power that they can excercise without any meaningful oversight. *No* genuinely democratic government should need to run the apparatus of a secret police state, complete with secret government agents, the complete absence of judicial oversight, and a total lack of transparency to the public. *Those are all features of police states, not democratic ones.*

  13. Re:"Online"?? by mi · · Score: 2, Insightful
    You are reading this online

    Flawed logic -- then all Slashdot categories must be suffixed with "online", hence none needs it, for it would be redundant.

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  14. This is the part I like best. by khasim · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Pentagon officials say the exemption would not affect civil liberties and is needed so that its agents can obtain information from sources who may be afraid of government agents, such as a green-card-holding professor of nanotechnology who formerly lived under a repressive government."

    And this is supposed to make him feel better how? By HIDING the fact that he's talking to a government agent?

    You're right. The DoD is not designed for law enforcement. And there is no reason for the DoD to have undercover agents checking on US citizens (and legal residents).

    Do you really want Military Intelligence officers spying upon US citizens on US soil?

    From the article:
    "In February, Army intelligence agents improperly sought information about attendees at a University of Texas law school conference about Muslim women. Conference organizers refused to provide a videotape of the event to the officers and publicized the request, leading to an apology by the Army."

    The only way to keep the government honest is to keep it open.

    1. Re:This is the part I like best. by kfg · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why should a professor holding a green card, having come here specifically because our government is at least less repressive than the one he/she left, fear a government agent who properly identifies him/herself and asks reasonable questions in the professor's area of expertise?

      If our government is, indeed, not repressive, they have no right to expect answers to such questions and he has a right not give answers.

      Do you understand what a right is?

      He may give or withhold information to whomever he choses and for whatever reason he choses. Even if actually charged with a crime (pre "PATRIOT", of course) he still retains the right to just shut the hell up and not utter a word.

      This is exactly why this law is being sought, to infringe upon that right and lend credence to the idea that he has not traveled very far from government repression.

      The secret police may be looking for him.

      KFG

    2. Re:This is the part I like best. by I(rispee_I(reme · · Score: 2, Interesting

      All discussions of privacy seem to evolve into one person saying "I value my privacy more than I value a nanny government.", and another person responding, "If you've done nothing wrong, then you've no need for privacy."

      Here, then, is a list of instances where no illegal activity is occurring, but most people would prefer privacy:

      1) Bathroom breaks
      2) When the van's a rockin'
      3) Nose picking
      4) Writing in a journal
      5) Meditation
      6) Migraine headaches
      7) Donating sperm
      8) Getting a "Nosy Feds Suck" tattoo

      As you can see, just because something is not illegal does not mean it should be public knowledge (although voyeur pr0n freaks may disagree.)

  15. U.S. Laws are starting to scare me by AngryWookiee · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Am I the only one that thinks that the current laws that are trying to be passed are as scary as hell and are taking away the rights of U.S. citizens?
    Does the U.S. Department of Defence really need to spy on it's own people? The U.S.A. is really starting to scare the hell out of me with more and more of these silly laws trying to be passed. Thank goodness I'm a Canadain.

  16. Re:The Big Brother is watching you by Homology · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Hello, Doesn't it ring the bell to you? I wonder whether they understand the meaning of the word privacy.

    Well, they probably understand the concept of privacy very well. It's just that they want to want to cover their asses legally. As an example of this, look at the current US administration (and Pentagon) handling of the concept of torture :

    For members of the military, the report suggested that officials could escape torture convictions by arguing that they were following superior orders, since such orders "may be inferred to be lawful" and are "disobeyed at the peril of the subordinate." Examining the "superior orders" defense at the Nuremberg trials of Nazi war criminals, the Vietnam War prosecution of U.S. Army Lt. William Calley for the My Lai massacre and the current U.N. war-crimes tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, the report concluded it could be asserted by "U.S. armed forces personnel engaged in exceptional interrogations except where the conduct goes so far as to be patently unlawful."

    When one starts examining the defence of convicted war criminals in order to avoid prosecution, I think someone should be paying attention.

  17. Organisations that did the same thing. by Fuzzums · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Namely keeping records of their civilians.
    Stasi (former Eastern Germany) / Gestapo (former 3rd Reich)

    Of course all in the name of security.

    --
    Privacy is terrorism.
  18. Kind of like the Stazi... by dot_borg · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...or the KGB, eh?

  19. Military or FBI? by Solidsnot · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I don't think this is all invasive as people are making this to be. We're not turning the 1st Marine Division into cops here. We're talking about intelligence officers being tasked with gathering information in the US. I think in the fight on terrorism, the more the merrier in gathing intel about possible terrorists. Now, I agree to the fact that this is really the FBI's job and that they shold be doing it, but what I think is funny is that people are complaining that the US military is about to be doing this but that they are perfectly fine with the FBI doing it. I don't really see much of a difference.

    1. Re:Military or FBI? by swiftstream · · Score: 3, Funny

      The problem with your "the more the merrier" claim is that you have cooperation problems, turf wars, etc...

      We already have turf wars between the FBI and the CIA. Do we really want to add in a third party? Is that also a case of "the more the merrier"?

      --
      Be a PATRIOT--because the only thing we have to fear is the lack thereof.
    2. Re:Military or FBI? by madeye+the+younger · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The problem is that the military doesn't even play by the loosened rules that the appropriate civilian agencies now have. The fact anyone found out about Abu Ghraib was a chance mistake, and eliminating the involvement of other government branches makes it far less likely such un-American conduct will be brought to light and corrected.

      This wild expansion of scope is redundant and dangerous, enough checks and balances have fallen by the wayside already. There is nothing 'Pentagon intelligence operatives' can do that can't be done by the agencies already in place - except keep the evidence of what they're doing entirely under military control.

  20. the sad truth... by tuxette · · Score: 4, Insightful
    For starters, the US is an apathetic country as a whole when it comes to affecting politics (what was it, under 50% who even bother voting?). Next, as much as I hate to say it, most Americans are daft. All that dumbing down of school curriculum and junk food supersizing and reality TV (a way for people to start accepting loss of privacy?) rots their brains. So when Bush & Co. say that the military playing police is a good thing in order to catch terrorists, people will believe and accept it.

    What needs to be done is very active campaigning regarding privacy and civil rights, and why it is so important to preserve these rights and never ever give them up, especially now that there is this "war against terrorism." And it has to be done in a way that the above-mentioned people can understand.

    --
    People say I'm crazy, I got diamonds on the soles of my shoes...
  21. More realistically by karzan · · Score: 5, Interesting

    How about one day you're hanging out at a bar, and you meet a girl who seems really friendly, you get along, and you start to go out. You happen to be a writer, and one day your typewriter breaks, and guess what? she happens to have a typewriter she can give you! Then you find out a year from now that the typewriter is bugged and records everything you write ...

    This is what happened to Philip Agee, CIA defector, in Paris. A long and elaborate ruse involving gaining his trust and a series of 'accidental' occurrences seemingly unrelated. But that was done outside of the US, where warrants aren't necessary and it's basically just espionage.

    Do you really want this kind of thing to be able to happen domestically? No constitution, no bill of rights, no need for warrants, no need for transparency--just all out domestic espionage operations.

    1. Re:More realistically by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Hey, I'll put up with the spying, as long as they give me a girl.

  22. checks and balances by madeye+the+younger · · Score: 2, Insightful

    These 'Pentagon intelligence agents' aren't going to be checked or balanced by all those troublesome laws and regulations that civilian law enforcement has to abide. With no civilian agency required to do the initial investigating, it will nicely streamline the process of whisking away people to be held indefinately at undisclosed locations. Those pesky records kept by the CIA, NSA, or FBI agents will no longer be a concern, and accountability will be limited to following orders.

    It is already clear that the completely closed military courts are neither just nor appropriate for the purposes they are being bent to. Eliminating the role of agencies already dedicated to those tasks can have only one intent, to expedite these un-American practices and do so without the knowledge or approval of the American public.

  23. Our government is a ruling class of the rich. by Jackie_Chan_Fan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The rich who rule over and dictate our lives fear that you are a terrorist and will possibly cause harm to beverly hills.

    You are now a suspect because you are poor and have no voice (no money)

    Vote the Republicans out of office based on their ACTIONS.

    Does this look like LESS GOVERNMENT?

    I cant beleive the amount of brainwashed republicans out there who go fuck crazy over their $300 tax return. "its your money" Yeah well "It's your country" and look at what these folks are doing to it!!!

    These are not republicans.

    Vote Bush Out!

    And the dems are just as currupt, but i think they're learning a little.

    Frankly in an ideal world we would have a 3rd party president win this election. Someone like Nader. Someone who is completely seperate from the two party system that is bought and paid for buy the enrons, the fords, the mcis, the halleburtons, krafts, aols, etc...

    I'd vote for a fucking steel worker from PA if he was running. Oh yeah we dont really manufacture much of that anymore here in america.

  24. I am an honest woman... by tuxette · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ...and I have plenty to hide.

    --
    People say I'm crazy, I got diamonds on the soles of my shoes...
  25. state of the US... by sinner0423 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It really is quite sad.

    The government can raid my house, throw me in prison, and ruin my life - all in the name of national security. It's an extremely disturbing thought.

    Big government / brother is not science fiction anymore, it is a reality. It's disturbing, to say the least. RFID imbedded in to everything you buy, is just the next step. This database doesn't suprise me in the least. They've kept records for years, it's what they do.

    I live in illinois, it's a police state. I've already been fined several hundreds of dollars for jaywalking, and owning a NOT USED, CLEAN, TOBACCO pipe. You are guilty until proven innocent, around here.

    I'm 24, an american, and I want to leave. This is a nightmare. A law may come in to fruition, that if I leave and a draft is reinstated, I will be sent back here and possibly thrown in jail, or be forced to serve for a country I don't believe in. We aren't all greedy capitalist pigs, you know. Some of us are actually decent human beings.

    I hate to be such a pessimist, but if you live in the states, your life is going to be more difficult, and if anything - MORE dangerous than it is now. Throw a wrapper out of the window of your car? You could be signaling terrorists that are on the side of the road planting IED's. Think i'm joking? Just wait. It's a pretty far fetched example, but with this administration, would you expect anything else?

  26. You naysayers JUST DON'T GET IT by Rat's_ass_donor · · Score: 3, Funny

    How can anyone fail to understand the massive threat we are under? We don't have time to consider the consequences - this is a time for ACTION! We are at WAR!

    "But wasn't there only one attack, and wasn't that three years ago?" you say?

    "Are you a freaking communist?!" I say!

    Pansy countries like England, who faced IRA terrorist attacks from the IRA for decades, never managed to secretly detain suspects for years. Wimps. They never even bothered to monitor the books and magazines their citizens were reading!

    As usual, America is showing how to do things right!

  27. Real men don't need (or want) any Rights. by khasim · · Score: 3, Funny

    "If you abide by the laws, then there shouldn't be any problems."

    That is correct, citizen.
    Only those who oppose the government seek "privacy" and they only want "privacy" so they can plot to overthrow the government.

    The government is your friend.
    The government takes care of you.
    Good citizens trust the government.

    The government would never support a bad law.
    (slavey)
    The government respects all of its citizens.
    (women's sufferage)
    Only terrorists oppose the government.
    Only terrorists seek "privacy".
    Only terrorists oppose the Law.

    "If you abide by the laws, then there shouldn't be any problems."

    The government welcomes the support of good, concerned citizens such as yourself.

  28. Osama wants the White House! by khasim · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "We need to stop looking at terrorism as a crime issue and realize it is a National Security/War issue."

    That's right! Everyone! Please REMEMBER to NOT VOTE FOR OSAMA IN NOVEMBER. Terrorist forces are only MONTHS away from overthowing the US government and forcing ALL US CITIZENS to attend Islamic schools!

    "He is fighting a war, not shoplifting."

    The same as various mafia families fight "wars".

    The same as various drug gangs fight "wars".

    More US citizens die from drug-related crime than from terrorists.

    Terrorism can be reduced by simply applying the same techniques that law enforcement does. Track the money. That's how all of those other terrorist cells have been found in Europe.

  29. identifiability of enemy soldiers by karzan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There is a reason why under the Geneva conventions, it is illegal for a soldier to operate dressed as a civilian. Because the laws and customs of war are based on the assumption that war is carried out by combatants who make themselves obvious in one way or another as combatants. In guerrilla war, people become obvious combatants when they attack, or when they are searched in a known war zone and found likely to be combatants based on having lots of grenades or whatever.

    A 'terrorist' on the other hand, is defined as 'anyone who the State Department says is a terrorist'. If we were to use your logic and treat terrorists as 'enemy soldiers', then that would mean the ability of the authorities to shoot on sight anyone classified by the Department of State as a terrorist. But how do you identify a terrorist--unless he is packing weapons or you find out about his plans?

    The fact is this is *not* a war. The USA is *not* a combat zone, any more than London was a combat zone when IRA attacks were frequent. Terrorism is political crime, but it is crime nonetheless--not carried out by a sovereign state subject to treaty law, not carried out by centralised organisations with clearly defined hierarchies, and most importantly it is damn near impossible to identify a terrorist 'combatant' until it is obvious that they are going to actually carry out an act of terrorism.

    And the State Department has already decided that loads of people are terrorists who do not fit this criterion--for example anarchists, like a 14-year-old kid I knew who was arrested and interrogated by the FBI because he had an anti-war leaflet in his bag at the airport, and added to the 'terrorism list' before they let him off.

    Who is an enemy soldier is a very clear question. Who is a 'terrorist' however is an extremely subjective judgement. And by your logic my 14-year-old friend should have been shot on sight, or at least taken to a POW camp for indefinite detention and military trial.

    The world is not different to what it was before 2001, terrorism has existed for hundreds of years, the difference is that it's being used as an excuse for the biggest crackdown on opposition in the west and in fact in the larger world since the 1930s.

  30. Re:and Terrorism isn't common crime.... its War by The+Only+Druid · · Score: 3, Interesting

    First, I applaud you having the guts to say something that is going to almost certainly get you modded down: slashdot isn't a haven for posts that suggest that privacy isn't the primal need in the world. Its just a need, to some degree or another.

    However, the problem you're discussing is massively more complex than you're realizing: true, terrorists think they're fighting a war. However, they are most certainly not. A war is a conflict between nations - political entities that not only make themselves available for communication, but who hold physical territory. Terrorists such as Al-Queda hold no land which is their nation, but rather are hosted by friendly nations such as Saudi Arabia (our partner in peace, of course). As such, terrorists are able to engage in 'military' attacks which cannot be reciprocated (find me a tower full of civilian al-queda, please...). In a war, all attacks are potentially reciprocal (within the limitations of comparative wealth, size, obviously). This reciprocity serves as a form of restraint on the actions of nations, limiting their willingness to commit atrocities*.

    Because terrorists by definition need not fear reciprocation, nor [in the case of Islamic extremists] do they fear suicidal missions, they cannot be dealt with by traditional or by-and-large existing military methods. Rather, they must be approached in the same manner as which domestic terrorists [a la the Unabomber] are: a combination of military and police intelligence and effort.

    While I don't agree with the need for this ability for the CIA (since the FBI and local law enforcement have can fulfill this function so long as they're properly trained/breifed), I do agree with their reasoning for the nature of the 'war'.

    *: Yes, obviously Russia, Italy, Germany and the rest of the Axis committed atrocities [purges of all types], as some would argue we did [Japanese internment, Dresden, Nagasaki]. However, those nations who knew they were atrocities kept them hidden, while those 'atrocities' which are debateable are obviously excempt.

    --
    "Stumble before you crawl"
  31. Re:An honest man... by aussersterne · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You don't get it.

    9/11 = the lives of 3,000 (in America, anyway)

    an inalienable right = the lives of all 250,000,000

    Don't be a fool and vote to sacrifice all of our lives in order to "save" one or two.

    --
    STOP . AMERICA . NOW
  32. Re:An honest man... by John+Courtland · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Not again.... Look, that's just fucking retarded. Should everyone open their lives to gevernment scrutiny? How about the motherfucker who doesn't have a SS number and isn't trackable? How do you propse to spy on him if he "doesn't exist?" Come on. Any system like this is flawed and only harms the law-abiding. Criminals are not stupid. Terrorists are not stupid. They will find a way to do their business regardless of the magnitudes of purported anti-terrorist systems we employ. How about solving the real problem? The United States should stop fucking around in other countries back yards for a change. Stop pissing off people, and maybe they won't come back and blow your shit up.

    --
    Slashdot is proof that Sturgeon's Law applies to mankind.
  33. Dont answer any questions by nurb432 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Unless you are ordered to by a judge under agreement of protection, you dont have to say boo to anyone...

    So.. i suggest that if ANYONE asks you questions, you politly decline. If they turn out to be feds, then they will have to take you to court to get anything out of you.

    Cant trust anyone.. BB is watching..

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  34. What about Victoria!? by Ghoser777 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Man, Victoria's going to be pissed.

    Oh well, I guess her secret has been out of a while now anyway:

    Victoria's Secret Revealed (big pic)

    Matt Fahrenbacher

    --
    James Tiberius Kirk: "Spock, the women on your planet are logical. No other planet in the galaxy can make that claim."
  35. Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 by tiny69 · · Score: 3, Interesting
    I just did a quick search of the bill and didn't see anything mentioning the overturning of the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, or any references to it at all.

    The Posse Comitatus Act is what currently prevents the military from being used for law enforcement purposes.

    --
    Go not unto/. for advice, for you will be told both yea and nay (but have nothing to do with the question)
  36. How close can you legally get to the nazis? by t_allardyce · · Score: 2, Informative

    Plenty of human-rights abusing reigemes have had secret police for years, it keeps the population in check, because you never know who you're talking to! Start a conversation with that guy sitting in the park? better be careful what you say about your glorious leader or you might find yourself locked up and the key literally thrown away! Don't forget who started bribing locals to grass-up the whereabouts of all the jews - the nazis thats who, and guess which regieme also had an army of secret police ready to get freaky on anyone who said the wrong thing, heres a clue - we invaded them last year and now were using their former prision of injustice to make cheap BDSM porn. Hey maybe the pentagon could go the full way like Israel and send their secret police abroad to kidnap people!

    --
    This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
    1. Re:How close can you legally get to the nazis? by Halfbaked+Plan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, when the US Government shuts down Slashdot and all you are prevented from ranting and raving, maybe a little bit of what you're ranting about will make sense.

      However, the US Government isn't shutting down Slashdot, and you rant on and on.

      I can't wait for the egg to dry on a lot of people's face. Problem is, you'll all be off ranting about something new then.

      --
      resigned
  37. Shades of Tyranies Past ... by quarkscat · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Really just a natural extension to
    Poindexter's TIA (Total Information
    Awareness) project (which lives!)
    I could have sworn that the only
    military arm that has ANY LEGAL
    DOMESTIC charter is the Nat. Guard.

    Once DoD gets involved in domestic law
    enforcement investigations, the next
    step is assigning "political officers"
    to each brigade, just like the Nazis
    and Stalinists, as well as "Cuban-style"
    neighborhood watch/informers ...

    Oh, wait, we already have that bit with
    the establishment of the HSA, via phone,
    letter, or website. (Amaze your friends,
    and strike fear into your neighbors:
    file a suspicious report against them
    and watch the fun ensue as various Fed
    agencies trip all over themselves trying
    to "score" the next "big terrorist plot".)

    Don't think that the Patriot Act & HSA
    are not being used to counter domestic
    political opposition: that has already
    happened when FAA, FBI, & HSA got involved
    in the search for the "missing" Texas
    Democratic legislators, as well as the
    computer server "breakins" at the US
    Senate.

    These bastards that have taken over the
    government all swore an oath to protect
    the US Constitution and Bill or Rights.
    Their actions already qualify them (IMO)
    for impeachment and trial (and prison).
    How hard is it going to be to get these
    "national socialists" voted out of office?
    (Especially considering their $6 billion USD
    initiative for "upgrading to eVoting" ?

  38. Always Ask for ID by ElForesto · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If someone stops me for questioning under the color of law, I immediately ask for ID, even if it's a police officer in uniform in his squad car. I've gotten a lot of hostile responses to that, even though I'm well within my rights. In these days of ID theft, I'm sure as hell not going to hand over my ID to any shmoe that says he's law enforcement.

    A friend of mine has an even more interesting time: he has no ID. He doesn't even have an SSN. When it comes down to federal goons breaking down doors, he'll be the toughest one to find.

    --
    There is a difference between "insightful" and "inciteful" other than spelling.
    1. Re:Always Ask for ID by catalina · · Score: 2

      ....he'll be the toughest one to find.

      You do mean after he's taken away?

  39. they can but..... by zogger · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ... the do so at their peril. Just following orders is no excuse to engage in supporting despotism. The possee comitatus act allows for the military to be used in extreme circumstances inside the united states, so it becomes a matter of interpretation on a case by case basis. You are required to follow orders, but not illegal orders. The commander in chief does not have a blank check in these matters, although current thinking and actions by the military tend to indicate they don't understand this very well,(don't *want to understand it* is more my opinion), and your two examples ARE examples of it being abused, yet the orders got followed. Pity. Bad precedents after bad precedents. Following illegal orders puts you outside your oath, because if the person issuing you the order is doing so illegally, you must not follow it, and any citizen being persecuted by this illegal order has the moral and legal remedy of resisting whatever is being forced upon him. that's in the laws as well as all the other stuff.

    Anecdotal but a few years ago my nephew, a career army nco, quit. He refused to re up despite being offered a huge amount of cash to do so. He is not very political,never was as far back as I can remember, but he told me he simply refused to go along with what he knew was coming, martial law,dictatorial military rule, and especially he didn't agree with what they were trying to brainwash him into, which is that the second amendment is only a government granted privelege, not a born with right, and that only regular military, the guard, and selected civilian police have any "right" to keep and bear. He also said it was rare to hear the term "civilian" without it being part of "fingcivilian" to help get that mindset established, part of a demonisation processs, similar to what police are undergoing today. The stories he related to me indicated that that is an on-purpose aspect, an indoctrination they are carrying out for the future. My personal opinion is that it is an accurrate assessment of his,because I haave heard correlating anecdotals based on talking to a number of other individuals I know who were serving. He was instructing at west point at the time, and I tell you, I was shocked. Here's a young man who liked baseball, girls, 4 wheel drives and hunting, and it was his interest in guns and hunting and being exposed to some gunrights information, etc, before he joined that clued him into what was going down. He did NOT want to quit, he had purposely gone in directly out of high school,just like his father way back, my BIL, but he stuck to his principles and did, he wanted nothing to do with todays new "follow any orders no matter what" army.

    I think the trends are ominous, and I am not exaggerating when I will state I feel the USA in 2004 has more parallels with mid 30's germany than most people want to admit to right now.

  40. Sure by BiggerIsBetter · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why not? I mean, it's not we've got anything to hide, right? They'll only get the bad people, right? Right?

    --
    Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
  41. Apathy by Inexile2002 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It seems that for some strange reason I've been using the word "Orwellian" allot in the last three and a half years. I'm not going to venture a guess as to why...

    Seriously though, it's funny how utterly apathetic people are these days. People bandy about the term "freedom" but as long as they have the "freedom" to buy things people don't seem to care about the rest of it. A minority talk about what rights are slipping away, but still cast the valiant few who take to the streets as hippies and whackos. It's sick really.

    What is it going to take for it to be too much? Seriously, stop and think about what exactly the government would have to do for you to be willing to do more than talk. Then think about how effective your protest will be if it gets bad enough for you to protest at all. Will you wait for a total suspension of civil liberties? Mass arrests? Until there are turrets on the street corners and "papers" required to move across state lines? Seriously. I want to say that people need to do something now, but the truth is that people needed to do something a year and a half ago. I'm not talking about revolution or anything... just make the dissenting voices impossible to ignore by adding your own.

    The current administration isn't ready (yet) to start ignoring elections and the army wouldn't follow orders from people who lost elections. So go out and freaking VOTE! And then make it clear to the people you get put in that they're there to fix things. Politicians want job security because it takes more than a couple of terms in office to really secure the personal fortune. Make them fix things or throw the buggers out.

  42. Amazing by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Slashdot accepts this report (which is not terribly significant) but ignores submissions which establish that the Total Information Awareness Program - which is far more insidious than a few CID guys running around in civilian clothes - is alive and well and running right now as a Pentagon black budget item. /.'ers...clueless.

    "Stuff that matters" - yeah, right.

    --
    Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
  43. Eisenhower's 'Military-Industrial Complex' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Most slashdotter's probably don't recall 5-star general and U.S. President Dwight David Eisenhower's farewell speech. In it, he cautions as such:
    "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

    We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

    His words are just as insightful today as they were then.
  44. Incorrect; CIA is permitted to operate in US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    In 1981, then President Reagan signed Executive Order 12333, which reverses a number of the controls that were put in place in 1973.

    Here is a link to the text of the executive order:

    http://www.tscm.com/EO12333.html

    - AC

  45. They have been for years by benj_e · · Score: 2, Funny

    When I was in CI, agents went to bars all the time hoping to pick up info. Not really undercover, and they often would have their IDs, but they didn't advertise their presence.

    Funny story - two agents were in a bar in a rough area, playing pool, looking for info. When one of them leaned over the table to make a shot, his badge fell out. They got the heck outa Dodge.

    --
    The Tao that can be spoken is not the one eternal Tao
  46. Opens new avenues for crime by Invalid+Character · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Wouldn't such a bill that allows government agents to not reveal their government employment also help crooks? Now they too could question potential victims and obtain very sensitve data and go under the disguise of a government agent saying "I'm sorry I can't reveal that. Its clanssified". And how would we be able to verify their identity? We can't even complain in some situations. If this bill is passed to law it would really help social engineering, and screw the rest of us. What are the repercussions for Canada? Will we have to comply through our various pacts and treaties?

    --

    --

    Registered .sig quotient : 1337

  47. data by zogger · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm a skeptic and deal in data. I don't know how old you are, but I'm old enough to have seen the government lie, I mean come up with whoppers, then years later it gets found out. Want a big one? Remember a little excursion called viet nam? We allegedly got attacked in the tonkin gulf by north vietnamese gunboats, so we had to go to war because they were gonna invade iowa any week later? that war not called a war but really was a war? I watched military goon after political lackey swear up and down that happened, eventually leading us into a more than a decade-long war, fifty thousand US dead, 2 to 3 million vietnamese dead. A war based on a total lie, just now this year offically admitted to, we have the released audio of mcnamara and johnson talking about it, yet all sorts of people-like me-kept saying it was a lie, and waited through drivel that statists like you spewed out for years and years. You aren't the first to defend a lie or liars, especially with not even a juvenile (and shopuld be embarrassing to you) debate 101 tactic. I don't know if it's on purpose, or you are uneducated, lack any sort of historical perspective, or if you get paid to do it, or what, but eventually, this generations governmental lies will become more well known than they are now, and the liars will be universally recognized as such. Already, hundreds of millions around the planet can see they are liars, funny you seemed to have missed any of the news lately. And frankly, with a tool like the internet, there is no excuse to remain uninformed any longer except crass laziness. Are you still maintaining that iraq = al queda and they bought uranium from niger? Is that a fact, or is it a lie? Which is it, binary answer now. So if I say it's a lie, and it's proven, that makes it ..what? To me, that makes it just a statement of data. It is not a theory now, it's data, even the government who first claimed it admits it's a lie. that makes them *liars* because they got told it was a lie before they uttered it in public, at the state of the union message, and in front of the Un security council.

    I am a skeptic, and going from past governments track record, it is prudent to be skeptical of their statements, and to look for a wide range of sources and information before coming to a conclusion. Do you do that? Do you think I want my government to be lying, that this gives me some sort of pleasure? Do you think I like seeing people mislead, lied to, and murdered and thieved from, whether americans or others?

    I have several personal friends suffering from the lingering effects of agent orange poisoning, based on the lies the war and political profiteers spewed way back then. The government - military, scientists, politicians, all declared *at the time* that it was perfectly safe, that it wasn'
    t chemical warfare (how spraying chemicals isn't chemical is beyond me, but it's what they claimed). Turns out, they were lying, thousands died a pretty horrible death, suffering from it, hundreds of thousands in viet nam suffered from it, and they knew they were lying at the time, they just waited for a couple of decades and change to admit to it, that and after thousands of people showed them the facts and kept embarrassing them in public. Is this "conspiracy theory" or data? I say it's data, proven, but I heard a lot of drivel that it wasn't true-from the liars, bbecause that is their nature, commit crimes and lie about them. It's a simple concept. It's one of the things criminals do, they lie.

    In short, your extremely amateur trolling means nothing, except people can read the entire exchange and realise that nothing has changed in the mindset of criminals or criminal supporters-they lie by choice, with phony sincerity, or with malicious sarcasm, which means they are clinically sociopathic, and they always deny involvement, or excuse it, which shows they are psychopathic.

    Have a good one, next time send someone competent, perhaps with a higher GS rating. You won't make the data go away, it's still there, an

  48. Keep Tabs On Them by MyNameIsMok · · Score: 3, Interesting

    hi,
    Why can't we just start keeping tabs on the as many official in the DoD that we can? Keep our own open databases and what-not? Have it open and published on the internet. If it's legal to obtain certain records, then we should obtain them and post them.
    A similar event occured in California. The CA DMV did not restrict who was allowed access to its driver license database and did not restrict what could be done with the information. Well, some individuals obtained records on the entire state legislature and published it to the net. They changed the laws after that.
    sTc

    --
    Most things worth doing are worth doing twice. -- me I think or was that my boss' methodology?
  49. Would you Rather Live in Russia? by serutan · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That's something people used to say when I was growing up in the 1960s, when somebody complained about the way our American system worked. In Russia you couldn't do things like travel without a permit, and the Secret Police could whisk you off if you said or did anything the government considered a threat. They could question you and detain you for as long as they wanted. That couldn't happen Over Here, because this is the Land of the Free.

    Our government seems to have developed the same level of paranoia, and is seeking and getting the same level of power to swoop down on anybody at any time. I'm very afraid that people in other countries will one day discourage their kids from whining about their system by asking them that if they would rather live in America.