Slashdot Mirror
New Security Bill Proposed
frdmfghtr writes "ZDnet is reporting on a new security bill coming up right before the election in November that is geared towards increasing security in the U.S. "One section anticipates storing the "lifetime travel history of each foreign national or United States citizen" into a database for the convenience of government officials." Senator McCain and HLS secretary Tom Ridge are mentioned specifically in the article: "McCain envisions erecting physical checkpoints, dubbed "screening points," near subways, airports, bus stations, train stations, federal buildings, telephone companies, Internet hubs and any other "critical infrastructure" facility deemed vulnerable to terrorist attacks. Secretary Tom Ridge would appear to be authorized to issue new federal IDs--with biometric identifiers--that Americans could be required to show at checkpoints." Reminds me not-so-vaguely of checkpoints in Soviet Russia where you needed papers to pass."
Not to be the voice of reason around here, but the only thing on that list where they legally can not demand ID is the subway ( yet ). So many people alow themselves to be tracked anyways because of subway passes and credit cards. There have been rulings on almost every other location saying that the police can demand ID on planes, trins, busses, federal installations, and other sensitive areas. This does take it to a new level and I think the courts will have to decide is the 4th amendment applies when dealing with national security.
Despite my optimism I could see something like this going either way when it comes to the courts. I could see them saying that no seasure could take place unlesss there was suspision of wrongdoing, or I could see them saying this is a very limited seasure because it's already within police ability to stop and question people and check ID's at most of these locations.
Up till not the courts have been split on issues like this, the most recent being that you can't require protesters who have done nothing wrong to be scanned by a metal detrctors.
* If you vote FOR this bill, then you voted 58 times to RAISE TAXES.
* If you vote AGAINST this bill, then you voted 58 times against sensible measures to keep America safe.
A politician can't win with that kind of propaganda, so why even play the game?
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Wow, sorry to hear this news. Watching from Canada, it's sad, scary and funny. Nice how the USSA and former USSR have the same lack of privacy with total different governemt structures. And how democracy doesn't help... or we will find that out after the presidential election I guess. I vote that Canada joins the EU!!
Ever notice how many of these bills get put together in the Senate, versus the House? There's a reason why the people didn't popularly elect the Senate in the original constitution: the state legislature is better able to control a state's senators than its own people.
What we need is to abolish the popular election of the Senate and let the state legislatures remove their senators whenever they feel they aren't doing a good job. Most of the millionaire/billionaire assholes that have been in the Senate in the past 30-50 years would probably never have gotten there if the states had control and could remove that at will for sponsoring bad legislation.
Let's face it, the number of voters informed enough to know the parallels between the Soviet Union and Tom Ridge's proposals are few enough that they couldn't vote these guys out.
Click here or a puppy gets stomped!
I'm usually not the one to worry about the erosion of civil liberties, being somewhere to the right of Newt Gingrich, but the idea of monitoring foreign visitors is just plain stupid. My reasons may not fit with the way a typical knee-jerk slashdotter would think about it, but in no particular order, here they are.
First, there's the manpower problem. Who does the monitoring?
Second, how do you know who to monitor, or does everyone get checked around important places? From a practical point of view, that places undue burden on society. After all, these are supposedly the most important places, and will usually be very busy already.
Finally, you can't monitor everyplace. What if someone starts buying tankfuls of diesel fuel and dumping them in major rivers? Or, a simple underwater mine could distrupt shipping on the Mississippi River. A concerted attack at all of the locks would be very effective, and the attacker could just drive away from most of them.
What about the miles and miles of unprotected railways in the U.S.? Most of the time, the geniuses in charge of railroad routing put all the tank cars in a train together. Since they're all going to the same place, usually, this is an obvious thing to do. The trouble is, you have tank cars full of sulphur trioxide (or even sulfuric acid) and hydrochloric acid right next to tank cars full of anhydrous ammonia. Ever mix a liter of HCl with a liter of ammonia and take a whiff? (No, because you're still alive.) A relatively small charge can derail a train; well-placed bomb would be disastrous.
Since it's impossible to defend against specific acts of terror, the only sensible alternative is to find and preemptively attack the organizations that sponsor and use terrorist tactics.
sigs, as if you care.
If the rest of the world made a united attempt to reduce america it would happen. Not that it is ever likely to happen.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
By the way, the "Internet Hub" thing would make for a great comedy sketch. Imagine the cost of putting up a checkpoint at a $60 piece of hardware... "That $76,253.00 bill is for the network hub in Accounting sir, but Homeland Security won't sign off on the checkpoint so Accounting still can't get email."
US Democracy:The best person for the job (among These pre-selected choices...)
Maybe this is what happens when The Red Terror collapses. Could it be that Soviet Russia was what kept the USA free? That a free society excells only when there is an equally repressive society against which to compare?
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
Oh, agreed. I don't hold up Roosevelt as a paragon of any kind - nor would many do so with Ben Franklin - but the sentiment embodied is correct.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
There is nothing much more than I can say than that this is so stupid.
We've heard from conspiracy "nuts" back in the 80s and 90s warning us about this kind of thing, and what will happen. Big Brother is getting too much power.
I seriously hope this doesn't pass.
We here are slashdot are very sensitive about the right to privacy, but it seems that many others in the country are not. They don't seem to see the problem with these bills, thinking "it will make me safer" and "I'm not doing anything wrong, so what do I have to hide". Typically when people do try to argue for it they invoke scary images of 1984 and evil shadowing totalitarian government, and the general public tends to respond to this by brushing them off as a bunch of conspiracy theorist loons. I must admit that of all my political beliefs the right to privacy is the one that I am weakest at arguing, which tends to mean that I don't rigorously understand it myself.
So my question to you all out there is this - What good writings do you know of that explain clearly why privacy is fundamentally important to free society? What ways of explaining the issue have you found the general public to be receptive to? I ask this not only to learn to be more persuasive, but to deepen (and perhaps challenge) by own views on the subject.