Slashdot Mirror
Wiretapping the Web Easier Than Ever
theodp writes "All the trends are toward easier to tap, says an EFF attorney in MSNBC's recap of last week's 5-0 FCC vote to require broadband and VoIP providers to provide Uncle Sam with wiretapping backdoors and a recent Court decision that stored e-mail is not protected under a strict reading of wiretap laws. Civil-liberties concerns aside, MSNBC notes the FCC is also exploring its Internet regulatory options, including placing tariffs on online newspapers and requiring e-tailers to process 911 calls."
How did I know the submitter was an AOL user before even doing a mouse over of their name...
I recommend everyone look into it, install it, and use it. All emails go
plain text without encryption, so it's the least you can do to enhance your privacy.
As for VoIP, I don't know.
http://www.gnupg.org/
I'll see you all in Canada.
if you use verizons voicemail service, they store the calls, does that mean verizon can listen if they want to?
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
MSNBC notes the FCC is also exploring its Internet regulatory options, including placing tariffs on online newspapers and requiring e-tailers to process 911 calls."
This will move online newspapers & the like away from FCC regulatory effect.
In other words, more offshoring forced by regulation. Wonderful.
That was just too obligitory to resist... sorry for the horrible joke.
...for those of you worried about your email getting read:
Don't use IMAP or webmail services. Have your POP client poll servers frequently, and delete messages after they've been retrieved..
Most small to medium-sized ISPs don't archive email messages, due to the costs involved. (Particularly because of SPAM.)
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
What modern encrypted VoIP options are there? I know pgpfone, but that's old, and I know PGP for email. Is there a OSS group working on this? "...[T]he FCC is also exploring its Internet regulatory options, including placing tariffs on online newspapers and requiring e-tailers to process 911 calls." Also, how the hell do those ideas make any sense? Tarriffs on online newspapers? To do what? e-tailers to process 911 calls? I don't even know what they mean by that.
Since when has this country used intellectual elite as a pejorative term?
They should just make a www.911.com, and if you go there then a firetruck, ambulance, and police car come to whereever you are.
Yes, this would work, I know it!
All they want to do is expand their sphere of influence and further gouge Americans in true Big Government style while controlling with an Iron Fist. VoIP annoys them because they are not getting a piece of the pie they made *NO* contribution to and seek only to bring down.
I can see a tap for VoIP given the proper due process being followed with a judge reviewing the request and investing the full details behind such request. But bullshit like the Patriot Act needs to stop in America, it is the destruction of our civil rights and liberties under the guise of getting the "Evil Doers."
Actually, you can leave your country, at least you're suppoed to be able to. Check out the UNUDHR, articles 13 and 15.
Since when has this country used intellectual elite as a pejorative term?
What you say is true. But you are wrong, it doesn't have to stay that way. Voting might not get us there, so armed revolution is the only choice. Unfortunatly, not enough people, not even people on Slashdot care enough to do anything about it. I'll admit that I too do not have the will to do anything about it, although I would like things to change. It is an incredibly difficult world we live in, and getting more difficult as technology eclipses our lives. I guess we will just have to see how long we can take it.
thisnukes4u.net
Even 10 years ago, there never was an expectation of privacy on the internet (which is why SSL was developed for secure web transactions). Maybe they're making it a little more plug and play than it used to be, but sniffing a network for plaintext passwords and messages has always been relatively easy.
This is really just another kick in the butt for us all to be using various forms of strong encryption (SSH, PGP, etc) as a regular part of our daily communications.
Ol fclvat ba zl rznvy lbh unir whfg ivbyngrq gur QZPN, lbh onfgneqf!
There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
Police.
I'd be much more concerned if they were eavesdropping on the internet in general. *phew!*
Ah, bitter dregs.
Seriously though.
Right now there are *many* ways of streaming audio data from point to point across the internet. The only thing that sucks about it, is that ma bell and friends wont route your call through thier network.
Now lets say in 5 years when evreyone is using VOIP and evreyone has an internet connection in some form or another. What is to stop me from firing up my fav app and connecting a mic to my DRM enabled computer and type in your new IPv6 address?
Would we be able to bypass all the corporations entirely? How long till the phone companies get thier protocols hacked, etc?
And as always if some one is ever going to do something that is remotely illegal then they are either stupid and will get caught or use another method and get around.
A loop, by its nature, continues. If that didn't make sense, start reading this sentence again.
What is the bigg issue here? are we afraid that the FBI is going to intercept and read our SPAM? Please do, and while you are at it, delete it for me. Seriously, am I just that naive.? who cares? If anyone thinks that this wasn't happening before, I think their the naive ones.
I said this before, and I will say this again and again, there is nothing private, you are not anonymous, there is simply no-such-thing.
I would suspect that those concerned about wiretap laws and so-called invasion of privacy are truly paranoid, or just plain trying to hide something.
I am not suggesting that the government get carte blanche access to everything, there does need to be some oversight. I know, I know, the oversight commitee will be corrupt, right? (I think that they make pills to ease paranoia).
so, Someone, please draw me a picture, how is this so bad, what the hell is so private, they are not putting cameras in our houses...wait, are they?
To accumulate more. Censors need to censor something or their not doing their job. Regulators need to regulate more stuff, or they're clearly not important.
It's funny. No one would let the FCC ban what was printed in a newspaper, letter or book. But some functionaly retarded lawyer (but I repeat myself) managed to convince a yet less able judge that indeed, the government did have a role in regulating public discourse, and so the public could not speak as they wished on their radio spectrum. Now they seek to broaden this power to the internet. If the market wasn't burdened by a laughable amount of over regulation, the media consolidation couldn't occure, a new citizen weed would always invade the corprate landscaping. Now that radio is done and only a very few highschool (W00t C89.5 Best in Seattle!) and college stations are left to kill, why not move onto the internet?
If there is a death of the internet to be predicted, it's the slow but sure strangulation at the hands of regulators for the few, the proud, the incorporated.
wiretapping at the end of the day isnt really an issue online, its so easy to encrypt and its just going to get easier as more and more programs build functionality in for the average user. Although there is the problem of tracing, you cant exactly hide where your packets are going (unless you used an elaborate distributed system of people taking your packets and secretly passing them on while generating random traffic to other places) and you could also have a man-in-the-middle attack if you have no other communications channel to send keys. The point is, if everyone enctrypts, key-word flagging will be out and wiretapping will only be used in cases where its absolutely needed because only those cases will have the resources to spend time cracking encryption or tracing things or waiting for a new key to be given. Still it doesnt mean it should be a green light for tapping, but it already is, the patriot act sorted that out years ago.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Words have different meanings based on context. Grow up and deal with it.
Even after all the news surrounding the recent VoIP problems, wiretapping, TOS agreements, etc I still just signed up for Vonage, the $30/month for unlimited local and long distance was to good to pass up (Not to mention my great dislike for my current telco and the fact that I can't get another one unless I lived on the other side of the street).
My question though about wiretapping is: Is it that big of a deal? From what I've read the same rules apply, so they can't just tap into you for no reason at all. So it just seems sort of like a moot point to scream and yell about VoIP tapping, since landlines have already had that for quite some time. Where's the "This is bad because" deal? Are we worried that because now that there's a wiretapping rule in place that it means that there's the potential for hackers to exploit it? Something else?
Looking for hardware (Currently need: Large Etch-a-Sketch) Have one? See my journal!
- 1989(in russian accent) -- Due to recent budged constraints, this call is not being surreptitiously recorded....
- 1999 -- Hi. You've reached the phone number of Stephen and Regan. Our answering machine is broken -- but that's OK. Because our line is being tapped.
The shocking thing about the second message is the number of people who took it seriously. Regan's mother, left a very motherly message ("Just who do you have for roommates, and are you sure you can trust them???) that had me rolling on the floor laughing.Please leave name and phone number for future reference.
Please speak clearly and we'll get the transcript from our lawyers.
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
As I have said before on my site, there is ample reason to believe that the police are the "standing army" that our founders warned us of. Let's look at what our founders worried about, what the police and military are today
Standing army of our founders' day and age:
The police of our day and age:
No knock raids, unprecedented surveillance, military grade equipment, they are a paramilitary, not "peace officers" anymore. Don't ever, ever make the mistake of assuming that they are peace officers anymore. Between their militarization in tactics/armament, and the legal powers that put us at a distinct disadvantage, they are closer to an occupying army than what they were originally created to be.
If you think that gun control is "common sense" yet you are worried about issues like police powers then ask yourself who you would really trust with a gun. The police, many of whom are neurotic, egotistical control freaks (that's why they are attracted to positions of power, surprise, surprise....) or your neighbor? How about your own family and friends. People you can trust.
See I trust the latter, because I come from a law enforcement family that has former law enforcement from both the state and federal agencies. I have seen many more law enforcement officers in personal settings than the average person so I have a good idea of what the personality types are. Trust me, people, especially those who think gun control is a good idea, these are often some of the last people that deserve a state sanction to abridge your liberties while carrying a firearm.
The best thing that could happen to our civil liberties would be for the average citizen to be able to own any weapon that the cops can use, for the government to not be able to register those weapons and for the people to have a right to use force to resist unlawful arrest. Oh wait, unlawful arrest basically doesn't exist anymore because who are you to tell a cop that they don't have a legitimate reason to detain your unconvicted (probably felon) ass? See my point?
Click here or a puppy gets stomped!
While I am inclined to agree with you, who is the authority for this? Is there really one that can enforce it? If not, it's pretty much a moot point.
"Web" is appropriate in one sense as we are all interconnected via things like http, aim, ftp, irc, etc. Someone using the word "web" does not necessarily have to be shortening "world wide web". And even so, a majority of people using "web" interchangeably with "internet" pretty much makes it a defacto standard.
The world is full of dumb and ignorant people, and it sucks!
Does anyone have a link to the Tariff proposal? I didn't see it mentioned in the linked articles.
There's no context in which "web" means "all of the net" however. Don't confuse sloppy language use for contextual. That sort of reasoning leads to the proving that "black == white" and the ensuing fatalities at zebra crossings (with credit to D. Adams.)
Ah, bitter dregs.
You have to remember though that with Big Government out of the way, companies won't be taxed nearly as much as they are, nor will individuals. This means companies will have more profits to start with.
Additionally companies can only take things so far before the people won't take it either.
Remember the government only governs with the consent of the people, at least thats how its supposed to be. But my suspicion is our government schools stopped teachng that long ago.
As soon as the government governs without the consent of the people, and the people say NO MORE then the government legally has no power. At the point at which the people, the majority tell the government it has no power now and it is done, it is done. Legally at least. But this concept is what makes overthrowing the government legal, as it was one of the basic fundamentals of our country.
The problem of course is that the majority of people will never tell they government they don't have permission to govern them anymore. Most people will let the government trample over them as long as they get something they want. They will also let it happen at the cost of the destruction of another group of people. Ironically enough, the people that want the government to do everything for them also tend to be the ones who spout off about equality all the time, but when it comes down to it... nobody matters but themselves.
subject says it all
oh well, too bad for the americans, at least the rest of use can still use other less restrictive versions of voip
back in the day we didnt have no old school
many people refer to "the internet" as "the web" because it is an interconnecting network which relays information across the interconnecting sections.
a WEB is interconnecting and for the spider, its information is rlayed across these interconnecting sections.
ps:
you sound like the grammar nazi who taugh my senior year of nighschool. definitions and english EVOLVE as years go by. deal with it.
Troll, Troll, go away and flame again some other day
Should we really trust anything we see on MSNBC (Microsoft)? Microsoft was caught faking video tape evidence in their anti-trust lawsuit. Microsoft will lie, cheat, and steal to make money for themselves - or to stay out of trouble. They have no morals. These are the reasons they were involved in an anti-trust lawsuit, and other lawsuits, in the first place.
Microsoft Corp. is not trustworthy and we all should stop using their products. Otherwise, you are guilty of promoting a corporation of liars, cheats, and thieves.
Anyone who doesn't believe the info contained in my comment is either successfully brainwashed by the Microsoft Monopolists or doesn't keep up with the current news.
You have to remember though that with Big Government out of the way, companies won't be taxed nearly as much as they are, nor will individuals. This means companies will have more profits to start with.
So, we need to get rid of big corporations and big government at the same time. Political liberty is nothing without the economic liberty to back it up. Libertarian communism is possible, we just need to cultivate the necessary memes.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
As soon as the government governs without the consent of the people, and the people say NO MORE then the government legally has no power
That's a real good joke. Ideally, you're right. Now, back to reality, when the people say "NO MORE" that's when they become inmates.
+++ATHZ 99:5:80
Ok, I know this is bad for US citizen, but should the rest of the world care?
If the us is starting to wiretap my phone etc... it's classified as terrorism or as a act of war.
------- In the end there are no begining
Alright, so the US is now some MOB finding reasons to extort money from it's citizens. They gotta protect us from them. If we dont pay, another 911 will happen, and then if we stand up, they will start another World War to throw everyone off.
Learn how to speak with a thick southern accent and then speak without moving your lips and they wont get a thing. I have yet to find a "you talk it types" program that could handle a thick accent
Let's also consider what would happen without big government. Without big government, the big industries would have you sign your life away with the click of an EULA. Without big government your bank would have you agree to sign over your life savings to them with every deposit in some microscopic font at the bottom of the page on the agreement for your savings account. Without big government your employer would own ALL your thoughts with the signing of an employee agreement and even McDonald's would have one. Without big government your only option (other than submitting to your corporate owners) would be complete and utter destitute homelessness.
You assume that when we get rid of government we won't be getting rid of major corporations as well. As Bakunin said, "freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice, and that Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality." We need both.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
I know I'm paranoid, but that doesn't mean they're not out to get me. I sometimes wonder about the delays with IPv6. It's got built-in point to point encryption that can be enabled by default at the IP level, rather than having to support it at the application level. It would make any point-to-point connections secure, and I'm afraid we'll start seeing government mandated proxies so that wiretapping can be insured. Unfortunately, as soon as that happend, we will have lost...
So fscking what if they do that. .si as in US, and they do it anyway... (except for numbers to tap by court order), but i don't have any criminal record, so they are just playing with us all, or making bad jokes about us when we talk to our girlfriends/wifes in dirty language :)
If you got nothing to hide, you can speak freely just about evreything over phone/VoIP/mail. I don't see any diference.
Our country listens to mobile phone calls (you can tell when a light echo of your voice kicks in) and it does that randoomly on all mobile phone numbers (subscribers/prepayed). The whole thing is there is no such law in
Just live on and get used to it, there's nothing going to change
Things in a rear mirror might be behind you
Whoever modded the above as off topic clearly hasn't heard of ROT13. Who doesn't have ROT13 for their webbrowser and mail/usenet client?
it's rarely a question of whether they have the ability to, but more about the manpower. Even if they can listen to your messages, but unless you are attracting attention from them, they probably aren't. It's the same idea as with MS reading my hotmail account's email: sure, they COULD, but out of their tens (hundreds?) of thousands of accounts, why yours?
P.S. I am not a hacker...haven't reached that level of elegance yet
There should be a law requiring/prohibiting that (Please circle one)
People use the "the web" to mean all of the internet. That is what you are complaining about.
I wouldn't believe anything Microsoft said. Even if they ran a story saying the sky is blue and the grass is green. Bunch of shit-for-brains liars.
Someone in the US government needs to shutdown MS Windows OS projects claiming that the lack of security in MS Windows can aid terrorist acts. It would be all too easy for a terrorist to crack into MS windows-based machines and use them to knock out other needed systems on the internet.
Hm... maybe I need to start contacting some congressmen.
Microsoft? Oh, yeah, I remember them. Do they still make that children's toy they call an 'operating system'?
Don't say anything on the phone/email you would not shout! If you are being monitored and start using PGP, all you will do is make the monitors work harder. They will get what they want somehow.
The only thing new in this world is the history that you don't know.[Harry Truman]
Thats pretty funny!
taugh
nighschool
Who exactly did Taugh you in nighschool?
"tariffs on online newspapers"
The FCC is protecting the codependence of the official media and the government. Taxing webzines, copyright/licensing controls, the RIAA/MPAA, promoting the patent of any useful idea... the strategy is to create an unbreachable divide between "official" publishers, a few major corporations that can play ball with the government, and DIY people, otherwise on an even footing for publishing in the inexpensive, rudimentary technology of the Internet. Knowledge is power, and the threat of decentralized information undermines the government and the established media. So they're putting a stop to it ASAP.
--
make install -not war
I found it out the hard way when I left mine in my pants pocket, and wondered why my right leg felt strange after a few days.
I think that it's becoming more clear every day that the U.S. is headed in the direction of becoming a police state. The threat of "terrorism" is being used by the governemnt to expand its police powers in the name of "defending liberty." This is as good an example of double-speak as I can think of. Every step the government has taken since 9/11 has seen a reduction in the liberty of Americans to have privacy, be free from unwarranted intrusions and searches, etc.
Unfortunately, I do not think that John Kerry, if elected, will stop this trend. He has not made protection of civil liberties, except for abortion, a major issue in his campaign. He voted for PATRIOT and, AFAIK, has made no calls for it to be repealed, re-examined, sunsetted, etc. He has given me no reason to vote for him.
On the other hand, the Libertarian candidate, Michael Badnarik http://www.badnarik.org/index.php is calling for a halt to the expansion of the government's police powers. I intend to vote for him as I don't accept that a vote for a third party candidate is a wasted vote. I urge anyone concerned about the growth and misuse of governemnt power to consider a vote for Badnarik.
Just my $.02,
Ron
Impeach Barack Obama for violating the Constitutional requirement to be a "natural born" citizen to hold the office of P
Think of the simple math before you waste your vote.
The Libertarian will *NEVER* get elected, they will be lucky to have a poll showing of 6% if even. Although Kerry might not yet have presented an argument you want to you, would you rather keep the current Tyrant in office? Kerry has a good shot at winning, and sorry but given the choice between two evils I choose the evil that is not known.
A mass showing of popular vote may just be enough this time to sway the Electoral College...this obviously will never happen for a Presidential Election with a nobody running leeching votes that can de-throne Bush, at least not anytime soon.
Should have checked better, should read "If the risk of the message being deencrypted is greater than the chance of a breakthrough, don't send it."
That's right. All your base.
If you ever assumed that web was intrinsically a secure communication channel and immune to the prying eyes of the government, you are stupid beyond comprehension.
It has ALWAYS been vulnerable to wiretap at any number of levels. Unscrupulous system administrators (e.g. the famed BOFH) have always been a potential problem. The physical layers, particularly modem connections, have always been vulnerable to easy tapping. Although the use of backdoors and keyloggers by government agents is relatively new, the technology is old and has always been a threat to privacy.
The only thing that has changed now is that legal frameworks for performing taps at each level are being developed.
If you want real privacy, use encryption. There is no other way. It doesn't matter if "mere mortals have no idea what public key encryption is." If you want to communicate with someone, you can teach them how to use it. But arguing that you shouldn't have to because the channel should be secure is naive.
In other words, this article is astoundingly unimportant. Don't trust anything without good reason.
Jimmy Swaggart touched me and I have SEEN THE LIGHT.
Ideally, I'm a libertarian (with a small l). I really do want to see government get so small that I need a magnifying glass more powerful than the one I use when I play with myself to find them. I want government so small that they can fit on the head of a pin and still have room for a thousand angels.
But let's face reality. Big government is here. Big government, over the course of the year, will consume better than 60% of your paycheck through one hidden tax or fee or another. Big government is not getting any smaller and big government cares less than Slim Shady about what you think. Big government is going to continue to do whatever it feels like no matter who you vote for because both major parties, the Democrats and the Republicans, profit enormously from big government. That is a FACT and there are no pretty words that can ever change it.
Let's also consider what would happen without big government. Without big government, the big industries would have you sign your life away with the click of an EULA. Without big government your bank would have you agree to sign over your life savings to them with every deposit in some microscopic font at the bottom of the page on the agreement for your savings account. Without big government your employer would own ALL your thoughts with the signing of an employee agreement and even McDonald's would have one. Without big government your only option (other than submitting to your corporate owners) would be complete and utter destitute homelessness.
So why fight it any more? There's nothing that can be done. Happily embrace your government overlords. Freely give up all of your human rights.
Besides... if you don't like it... you can always leave the country, right?
+++ATHZ 99:5:80
Paranoia. Into your heart it will creep.
Why do so many people seem to believe that the internet deserves to be exempt from the same principles, constitutions, and lawd that govern every other communications and publication medium.
Whether you support or oppose any given law, does it really make sense to argue that the technology used to communicate or publish take precedence over the actual behavior of the communicator or publisher? Why is it permissible to regulate behavior implemented with one kind of tool but not another kind of tool?
I'vr never seen a coherent justification for treating behavior on the internet differently than the same behavior using a different tool.
Consider: speed limits existed prior to the popularity of the auto. Could someone have argued a century ago that autos should be immune from speed limit laws because they represented a new technology?
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
1) You cannot place a tariff on a newspaper. That would be one of the most obvious violations of the first ammendment I've ever seen. "Oh, you can criticize the government, but there is a tariff on that." riiiiggghhht....
2) Online retailers process 911 calls? Huh?
3) The last one is the scariest part. The US government has basically found a way to get around the constitution. They don't have the power to do something, but they can set up an agency that claims the power. But this agency can bite them back by doing things the congress doesn't want.
Does the charter for the FCC state what it can and cannot do? The FCC is the greatest example of a regulatory agency that expands it's own powers based on it's own decisions. I begin to think that the entire purpose of the FCC should begin to be questioned, and maybe the charter that established it should be rewritten.
Um, guys, doesn't IPv6 require encryption? So as IPv6 is rolled out, and IPsec becomes the default way to go (certainly for business use), what exactly is the FCC-mandated access going to buy them?
Of course, with an administration opposed to science, it might be a small step to also oppose foundational technology like IPv6. But can they do that without creating a lot bigger fuss - what with that leaving our infrastructure open to terrorists and hackers, and impeding sale of already-engineered American products?
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
I like it!
Well, in my case, it would be worth Microsoft's time to read email from my hotmail account. I, unlike most people, get many unique offers:
Those who sacrifice essential liberty for temporary safety are not deserving of either liberty or safety. (Ben Franklin)
If I were providing encryption to a Mob Boss (I do not actually know any, this is hypothetical), this is what I'd tell him after I installed it.
"For best security, always assume that the FBI has cracked the codes and is listening to your every word."
Yeah, vinnie, I washed those ten shirts. Begonia Begonia unlatch the ferret.
Yeah. FBI would probably arrest me anyway.
Technically every computerized device stores data. If your email traffic went through a ethernet switch or router that performed store and forward operations, then it could be argued that the monitoring port was making a copy of the "stored" data and not the live data.
What says that the FBI hasn't opened your TCI box and inserted a recorder? I suggest you check now if you are worried about plain-text sent e-mails and VoIP backdoors and the like. Anything electronic can be digitally encrypted. When you have a direct link such as a telephone, there is NO encryption and it only takes a tape recorder to have your phonecalls in a FBI database, unless you go and buy a phone that encrypts your telephone calls and distribute them to your friends. But I think the FBI could spot a red phone quite easily.
Karma: Good, or bust!
placing tariffs on online newspapers
It's one thing to want to wiretap people and activly defend large corporations copyrights, it's a completly different thing to shut down news sites because you don't want information being disseminated to the public. Now they are really turning into goddamn nazi's.
Candy-Coated Knowledge
Read Article 12:
Article 12. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
This seems to guarantee a right to privacy regardless, and of course the US government would never go against a UN decree... right?
Of blankness, I know nothing.
You know, (sorry to repost so soon...)
It almost seems that the US government could be found in violation of several of these basic statutes. How would someone go about making a case for this and having it heard before the UN?
This might be worth looking into, as a research project, or in the case that the current government trends continue into a new draft era America. I, for one, am not optimistic about the current political clime, and this may be a way to begin calling for help.
Of blankness, I know nothing.
"BSD: Free as in speech. Linux: Free as in beer. Windows 10: Free as in herpes." --Man On Pink Corner in #52607549.
It used to be that you did not have to worry about email being scanned because the capability to automatically infer the content from the natural language was not there. This has changed. How long do you think it will take until similar things can be done with voicemail, especially if it already lives in an electronic format? Hint: you might well come up with a negative number.
Did you know that "standing army" and "bear arms" have very specific meanings under longstanding European legal concepts?
What we call folk wisdom is often no more than a kind of expedient stupidity.-Edward Abbey
How do we round the corner of convincing people that third-party voting is NOT wasting a vote? The Libertarian ideology makes so much sense; yet, it is the radical difference from the status quo that scares people so much.
So, how can we inject Badnarik into mainstream public debate? How do we get the hard questions in there about the possibility of changing foreign policy vs. how we continually allow this slip into a "police state?" How can we get past the notion of "having to choose the lesser of two evils" to something that actually makes sense for what I perceive as the consciousness of a silent majority of the populace??
That's liberal for you folks outside the US. For some reason liberal is a dirty word to Americans. Libertarians are for liberty in both the personal freedom and economic realms. They also want small government that doesn't intrude into the lives of good people. Liberal has a negative connotation of using government to redistribute wealth from those who have it to those who don't. Since this is intended to offset the tendency of capitalism to overpay some and underpay others, it disturbs our good feelings about the US being a meritocracy.
Big Governments scare me. Big Corporarations (bigger than countries) scare me. Big Countries where most people don't vote scare me. Okay, I'm not really easily scared. But I do think we are veering off course and must do something about it.
First, while we still can, we need to get a proportional electorial system going in the US. As is, third parties don't have a chance. (see my sig) so 100% of the people are ruled by the least repulsive of the DemoRepubcraticans who only care about a relatively small portion of the US population. Since the current system benefits both of them, we can't expect much help from them.
If you must moderate, please moderate as irrelevent, not something bad, because I'm sure someone will find this interest
You've got a great point. The majority of Americans are the ones that waste their vote on the © Two Party System (tm). I'm in the minority that really *uses* my vote.
---