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."
Time is of the essence on this one, as those campaigning in tight races need something to prop up their electoral base. Somehow I find it refreshing or disturbing that for the past few weeks I've had to call in to Washington three times for poor legislation. So here's the the deal.
The bill is S. 2845, and the portion of debate here is (Information Sharing) Sec. 206, among others. Find your Senators here. Then I want you to e-mail, call, whatever. I, personally, like to call and be firm but nonetheless polite. Don't contact Sen. McCain's office unless you're from Arizona: there is no, no, no, no national politic. None. Your message will be either be forwarded to your state Senators' offices or discarded, and I don't want some aide doing tallies to think that everybody who contacted them was from every state but the one with their voters.
E-mail will also work, and hell, if you have all of ten minutes and $2, consider writing a very basic letter and overnighting it USPS. Remember: you don't have to convince them, all you need to let them know is that you are opposed to it. Paper talks.
Don't say I didn't say all of this - right here three years ago.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Hmmm... "McCain envisions erecting physical checkpoints, dubbed "screening points," near subways, [...] Internet hubs "
Internet hubs? Man, that's going to suck. "The networked printer needs paper, dear, I'm heading down to the basement" 'Badge, sir?'
More seriously, even when I drive into D.C. and pass in spitting distance of the Capital, the occassional roadblock/checkpoints don't ask for ID. They rely on an officer doing a quick visual survey of the vehicle and occupants.
I don't see how IDs will help. 'Hmm... according to your ID, you're a known terrorist criminal. I'll have to search your car.' No, far more likely a potential terrorist will either be a clean slate (new recruit) or have a faked ID.
So the only use is either to hassle ordinary citizens while pretending it's helping fight terrorism, without really increasing safety or security. I predict the bill will pass by a landslide.
For the children's sake, of course.
A.
Of course we all know that it is only a pre-election PR stunt which will most probably get forgotten by most of people few months after the election, however it will continue silently violating privacy and after reading this article I must say that it sounds frightening. It is frightening because it goes much further than necessary, mostly affecting honest people. When new supposedly anti-terrorist security measures such as this one are introduced, Bruce Schneier always asks a great question: "would it have stopped 9/11 if we'd had it in place then?" Good question.
Sincerely,
Pan Tarhei Hosé, PhD.
"Homo sum et cogito ergo odi profanum vulgus et libido."
Maybe '1984' was just a deadline that slipped a little...
"Money is a sign of poverty." - Iain Banks
I wish you could mod bills -1, Flamebait.
They used the phrase "in Soviet Russia" in the writeup.
That means you don't need to mention it here in the comments section.
[insert witty sig here]
It looks like you're building a fascist police state. Do you want me to...
The challenge when bills like this are proposed it to come to where the proponents are, rather than setting up a civil liberties versus safety showdown. To oppose this, we need to frame the argument in ways that relate to the safety concerns that are driving the bill-- otherwise, people will always pick safety over some seemingly paranoid and vague worry about big brother. The case needs to be made that this restricts freedom, which is the goal of the terrorists, and that it will not increase safety, which probably could be easily demonstrated by analyzing previous attacks and whether or not this type of checkpoint would be able to head them off.
- - - - - -
The Regular - slashdot for politics (news for wonks)
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.
McCain envisions erecting physical checkpoints, dubbed "screening points," near subways, ... and any other "critical infrastructure" facility deemed vulnerable to terrorist attacks.
I know they have good sandwiches, but are they really a target for terrorist activity? I just can't see Osama Bin Laden blowing up my local Subway with a 747.
everyday is another shooter.
I for one welcome our new Department of Homeland Security overlords.
I'd throw in a "In Soviet Union" joke as well, but I have to go and dig a hole in my garden to hide in when the guys in jackboots come for me...
People couldn't type. We realized: Death would eventually take care of this.
This is the kind of thing tha keeps pushing me toward libertarian... /In Soviet Russia, (fill in yourself) //Family Guy
I didn't need those civil rights anyhow... Im sure the politicians, which are mostly nice people anyhow, except for those dirty (other party) who eat babies, wont do anything wrong with that info.
(/sarcasm)
Support more choices in goverment-Vote 3rd party.
Dear Americans,
we have always seen your nation and its many achievements with the highest respect. After the dreadful 9/11 attacks, we have responded with tremendous loyalty and friendship, and we were sure that one of the planet's oldest democracies would react wisely and adequately.
However, after three years, we have come to the conclusion that your government is curtailing your rights and stealing your money. While this is a domestic issue and not of our business, your government's international behaviour is a wholly different story. International treaties have been breached. Old friends have been alienated. Fear has been spreaded. In general, we think your current administration has made the world more dangerous.
After the breach of international law, we do not have much trust left in your country. So, dear Americans, if you wish to participate again in the international family of peoples, feel free to join us! Just get rid of that jackasses.
Should you choose to keep your current government however, we, The World, would feel obligated to intervene. Like it should have be done after Munich 1938, your government will then be forced from power by an international coalition of the willing, to prevent further damage.
You see, you're either with us or against us!
Yours sincerely,
The World
a marked down sale on used Minority Report DVDs. Next thing you'll see is some bill proposing funding for a project to develop precognitive abilities in drug babies.
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!
Basically, complacency. If a terrorist really wanted to accomplish some task (and let's assume he/she doesn't mind getting killed in the process), this travel database is good only for post-mortem analysis. Why? Simple, the terrorist just starts taking "regular trips" to establish a history. Once people are comfortable or consider such trips normal, the terrorist can move with near impunity. Heck, the 9/11 guys conducted test runs!
This is simple social engineering. In my job, I service customer accounts. During my first few visits, I may get asked who I am by several people wondering if I'm where I should be. After a while, even the most security-conscious place treats my coming and going as a normal routine requiring no scrutiny. After that, I'm free to walk through almost the entire plant without question. If I wanted to, I could steal a lot of information or cause damage.
The same applies to the travel database. If the 9/11 guys were willing to plan for years to pull off the attack, what makes anyone think they wouldn't take the time to "establish" themselves as "normal" travelers. This database, like CAPPS, won't do anything but let the government obtain information about its own citizens.
-- Fugacity: Confusing chemists since 1908
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.
Except a quick check of the calendar at http://www.congress.gov/ shows that congress is not in session right now. The House has nothing on the schedule this week, and the Senate is not scheduled to convene until mid-November. Sigh. Can't journalists use the web yet?
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.
Following the link in the story takes me to the parent page of the gigantic bill written to implement the recommendations of the 9/11 commission. There are dozens of amendments, and some comments above pointing me to 1017 and 3081, but I'm having trouble following the maze of links.
Could someone link to the controversial portion please?
and this is what you get.
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
just enter your ZIP code
"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."
[btw, there are good reasons the Constitution was changed to popular election of Senators.]
I trust the popular vote more than I trust the kind of dorks who get elected to state office.
Also, your proposal creates a conflict of interest for ambitious state legislators.
If we're going to remove Senators, let it be by popular vote.
I've long been in favor of allowing recall petitions in ALL states, for ALL state offices.
Why don't they concentrate on safeguarding dangerous materials?
The plane that crashed in Lockerbie, Scotland (killing 270) was brought down with 400 grams of Semtex, an RDX-based compound.
Term limits are nothing but pure idiocy. Most communities who enacted them back in the early 90's are now learning to regret them.
The Framers certainly never intended to have Senators serve in a transitory manner. The Senate was deliberately designed to be a conservative institution that would have the power to slow change in government. The framers shared a fundamental cynicism in the ability of the people to elect suitable legislators.... which is why it is very difficult for members of the House of Representatives to accumulate real power.
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
http://thomas.loc.gov/r108/r108.html click senate, on sept 30th. Choose text of amendments. Look for pages s10154-s10155
Here are some interesting excerpts:
SEC. __01. AMENDMENTS TO THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT RELATING TO IDENTIFICATION OF INDIVIDUALS.
(a) ANTIFRAUD MEASURES FOR SOCIAL SECURITY CARDS.--Section 205(c)(2)(G) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 405(c)(2)(G)) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(i)'' after ``(G)'';
(2) by striking ``banknote paper'' and inserting ``durable plastic or similar material''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new clauses:
``(ii) Each Social security card issued under this subparagraph shall include an encrypted electronic identification strip which
shall be unique to the individual to whom the card is issued and such biometric information as is determined by the Commissioner and
the Secretary of Homeland Security to be necessary for identifying the person to whom to the card is issued. The Commissioner shall
develop such electronic identification strip in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, so as to enable employers to
use such strip in accordance with section __03(b) of the National Intelligence Reform Act of 2004 to obtain access to the Employment
Eligibility Database established by such Secretary pursuant to section __02 of such Act with respect to the individual to whom the card
is issued.
SEC. __02. EMPLOYMENT ELIGIBILITY DATABASE.
(a) IN GENERAL.--The Secretary of Homeland Security (hereinafter in this title referred to as ``the Secretary'') shall establish
and maintain an Employment Eligibility Database. The Database shall include data comprised of the citizenship status of individuals
and the work and residency eligibility information (including expiration dates) with respect to individuals who are not citizens or
nationals of the United States but are authorized to work in the United States. Such data shall include all such data maintained by
the Department of Homeland Security as of the date of the establishment of such database and information obtained from the Commissioner
of Social Security pursuant to section 205(c)(2)(I) of the Social Security Act. The Secretary shall maintain ongoing consultations with
the Commissioner to ensure efficient and effective operation of the Database.
(1) IN GENERAL.--No employer may employ an individual in the United States in any capacity if, as soon as practical after such
individual has been hired, such individual has not been verified by the employer to have a social security card issued to such individual
pursuant to section 205(c)(2)(G) of the Social Security Act and to be authorized to work in the United States in such capacity. Such
verification shall be made in accordance with procedures prescribed by the Secretary for the purposes of ensuring against fraudulent use
of the card and accurate and prompt verification of the authorization of such individual to work in the United States in such capacity.
(c) CRIMINAL PENALTY.--Any person who--
(1) continues to employ an individual in the United States in any capacity who such person knows not to be authorized to work in
the United States in such capacity, or
(2) hires for employment any individual in the United States and fails to comply with the procedures prescribed by the Secretary
pursuant to section __03(b) in connection with the hiring of such individual,
[Page: S10156] GPO's PDF
shall upon conviction be fined in accordance with title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both
SEC. __07. USE OF CARD; RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.
Nothing in this title or the amendments made by this title shall be construed to establish a national identification card, and it
is the policy of the United States that the social security card shall not be used as a national identification
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
how is this a troll?
It's merely expanding on other posts about writing to Congress.
Yup. Our planes are vulnerable. Our trains are vulnerable. Our buses, our taxies are vulnerable. Any public transportation. I'm not even sure that our sidewalks are safe -- we should remember to track which sidewalks people have been on and scan them for bombs before they can step out onto the street. Mom and pop shops aren't safe either, they should be protected. Every last grocery store, ... and every vehicle, for sure. You know how many car bombs get used in, say, the middle-east? Protecting your subway won't prevent that. Oklahoma City bombing? Truck, parking lot, explosives.
... yeah. You see how it works?
The problem is that no matter what you protect, people intent on attacking will just pick another target. Terrorists don't need the targets to be big buildings or subway systems -- they might give up if the only thing left to attack is an abandoned barn in the middle of Kansas, but I'm not even sure of that. Just think of the ways you could go about hurting people, and then think about what good security checkpoints on subways will do. Sure, it'll avoid attacks in the subway (maybe) -- people will feel safe while they're in the subway, then as soon as they come out, they'll panic again. And then we'll have an attack in the subway anyway, and
Terrorists win when we're afraid. This shows that we obviously have a problem here -- we're terrified of a few dozen guys somewhere with a chip on their shoulder and some explosives in their backpacks. Is life worth living in constant terror of something that might not happen and that you really can't prevent? You're not safe. We never were safe, we just thought we were.
Now, I think it'd be perfectly appropriate for people who do want the extra security to pool their funds and hire private guards, armored carriers, or whatever it takes to make themselves feel safe. If you want the security, you should at least be able to buy it. You can have your guards check our ID's before letting us anywhere near you. But some of us honestly don't give a damn. It's just not worth the hassle.
They could do so much better and without the checkpoints. All they need are a tracking chip in your passport and/or national ID card and readers embedded in entrances to transportation systems. They could make it very attractive and sell it as a "freedom pass" so you could bypass customs, immigrations, and airport security. Yeah, if they put a positive spin on it, they could get 90% of the population to approve, then the other 10% would look like we've got something to hide and get the punishment we deserve simply for standing in the shameful, body check line, all because we didn't bother to buy a "freedom pass"
If you must moderate, please moderate as irrelevent, not something bad, because I'm sure someone will find this interest
Sorry man. I guess you're a troll because you don't oppose this.
Not everything is analogous to cars. Car analogies rarely work.
So do you suggest we make no attempt at security?
Of course protecting one area will not prevent attacks on others. Protecting the subway will however protect the people who use the subways on a daily basis.
I find you whole argument rediculous. It's preposterous to suggest that people should hire their own security instead of depending on the government to provide it. It is the government's responsibility to protect its citizens, whether that be from conventional military attacks or terrorist attacks.
Not everything is analogous to cars. Car analogies rarely work.
Yup. Our planes are vulnerable.
... and every vehicle, for sure. You know how many car bombs get used in, say, the middle-east? Protecting your subway won't prevent that. Oklahoma City bombing? Truck, parking lot, explosives.
Ahh, and here is the point where you take it too far, you take a statement about protecting places where large groups of people gather and apply it to where few people are.
... yeah. You see how it works?
Yeah, but it's getting better. I'd like to see it get onto the level of Israli plane security.
Our trains are vulnerable.
Yes, they seem that way. At least the ones I've seen. Then again, I don't know what is going on behind the scenes.
Our buses, our taxies are vulnerable. Any public transportation. I'm not even sure that our sidewalks are safe -- we should remember to track which sidewalks people have been on and scan them for bombs before they can step out onto the street. Mom and pop shops aren't safe either, they should be protected. Every last grocery store,
The problem is that no matter what you protect, people intent on attacking will just pick another target. Terrorists don't need the targets to be big buildings or subway systems
This is where I believe you are wrong. To train a terrorist properly, to get them to the US and in the position to attack takes time, manpower and money. The US isn't like Isreal or Iraq. There aren't hordes of islamic fundamentalists at our borders who want us dead. They are for the most part overseas. While Al-Quadia and other groups likely have sleeper cells in the US, it would be illogical from their standpoint to blow themselves or something else up unless it was going to inflict mass harm. Sure, you might scare a few people if you launch a suicide attack on a bus, but to kill 20 people, it isn't worth it for the small amount of resources they have here. If you have, say 50 to 100 agents in the US, are you going to waste one to kill 20 people, or would you rather they take their time and find the route that will cost the most casualities? This is why the US needs to protect anywhere people gather in large numbers. They are the ideal target for an attack, not "every sidewalk" and you sarcastically brought up. Your main point, that we can not go that far is true but that does not mean we should not go to every length possible to protect innocent life.
Sure, it'll avoid attacks in the subway (maybe) -- people will feel safe while they're in the subway, then as soon as they come out, they'll panic again. And then we'll have an attack in the subway anyway, and
Just like there has been another American plane hijacking post 9/11? You are drawning conclusions you can not prove. FYI, most people do feel really safe here, there isn't much panic.
Terrorists win when we're afraid. This shows that we obviously have a problem here -- we're terrified of a few dozen guys somewhere with a chip on their shoulder and some explosives in their backpacks.
No, we are concerned about a few dozen guys HERE with nuclear suitcases or such. Terrorism in the US is different than Terrorism overseas.
Is life worth living in constant terror of something that might not happen and that you really can't prevent? You're not safe. We never were safe, we just thought we were.
Nobody is living in constant terror. "The terrorist have won if you take any preventitive measures" is a rather weak arguement IMO.
Now, I think it'd be perfectly appropriate for people who do want the extra security to pool their funds and hire private guards, armored carriers, or whatever it takes to make themselves feel safe. If you want the security, you should at least be able to buy it. You can have your guards check our ID's before letting us anywhere near you.
Utter nonsense. The trains should be handled as the planes are. How would private bodyguards searching you b
*sigh*
"What good does it do we, the people, to have these kinds of people representing us for 30 or 40 years?"
Because we the people have chosen that man to be the best representative of our values and beliefs in the federal government, we made that choice as a majority democratic vote.
The people want Senator X, they like and agree with him. Now, after 12 years, with a 70% approval record and noone who so accurately agrees with the populace as this Senator, you want to remove him from power. Why? The people, whom decide the elected officials, want Mr. X.
The people should be smart enough to vote for whom they want, without term limits(with the exception of the President, in my opinion) and gotchas that hinder their choice.
The same is true of a judge being forced to hand down mandatory sentences. He is a judge, his opinion and knowledge was chosen to aide and contribute to the legal sytem, why are you tying his hands? Why even have a judge. Just hire Judge Dread with a motorcycle and the cops can hand out prision sentences more efficiently...
But, what if there are exceptions, what if it isn't a black and white case? Nope, too bad, you commited X you serve Y, no questions, no gray area, no exceptions.
The world isn't that simple.
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.
I wouldn't consider the Murrah Federal building a place where "few people are". You've not shown a clear delineation of how many people should huddle together for protection before they deserve it, either. Nor would I consider it proof that our security is good to say that we haven't had an attack since 9/11 -- when was the previous one before 9/11? What attacks, precisely, have our counter-measures thwarted? We actually have no clue how good our security is, except for, say, research papers proving that ethnicity-based screening is easy to circumvent and actually counter-productive if your enemies are halfway intelligent (which I know is often doubted.) We've put a lot of people in jail (military or not,) we've given our police forces extra powers we had previously sworn never to give them, but have we actually improved anything?
... even the Algerians seem to be changing their minds about terrorism. Things change, and not just because of physical security -- in fact, I've seen very little evidence (actually none) that increased physical security is really doing anything at all to protect us from, as you put it, "reality."
... (for those who care, I'm not implying which, if any, of the above should or should not be federal programs.)
Nuclear suitcases are exactly why sidewalks are cause for concern -- that's where you'd scare the most people, make them feel vulnerable. This isn't about efficiently killing people -- terrorism is about making you feel fear. (People don't throw their own lives away easily, yet consider Palestinians blowing themselves up and yet killing nobody, or only a few other people. The ratio is terrible, but the effect is palpable.) People react even to relative failures, like France did to the 8 people who died in a series of bombings of the parisian metro in 1995. Police and military in every school and metro station? Sarin gas attacks in the Tokyo metro system killed, what, a dozen people? Was there increased security? Were there further attacks?
Political change seems like a much more effective way of keeping people safe. The Basque ETA will likely try to find new ways to fight for independence, after the Madrid bombings -- the response was such that it was obvious this would no longer be a viable method. The Corsicans, the Northern Irish
My worry is that we'll concentrate on one method of protection, ignoring all other possibilities. Our response to 9/11 was to increase security on planes, but we pretty much entirely ignored every other possible vector of attack. We weren't attacked, even though we were wide open. Does that mean anything? The move seemed much more geared to making our population *feel* safe than actually *be* safe -- we had had attacks against planes, but our planes were now safe, so all was well again, obviously. It's an expensive placebo, no? And no, you don't actually feel safe -- if you did, you wouldn't be asking for this protection.
Private bodyguards are already in use; obviously someone thinks they're appropriate and effective. But they're localized, they don't affect those of us who don't want to be affected. And they don't require federal funds. (Yup, even a non-republican can care about how much we spend.)
You're right, terrorists have failed to hurt and scare me enough to react. But if you want to save lives that can be easily saved yet aren't, invest in sending food and medication to countries that need the help, researching new cures, education to prevent spreading diseases and the misuse of guns and drugs, vehicle safety, programs to encourage people to stay healthy (fewer, say, heart attacks), better/cheaper healthcare so people won't go without even when it's available,
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.
"Subways"? Are they nuts? Have they ever seen a horde of hectic New Yorkers hustling to make their trains during rush hour? They can't even stop turnstile jumpers, and they're going to stop terrorists? Just blowing up a subway entrance, outside the checkpoint, in Times Square will do their dirty work. This is yet another stab at police state and its corporate welfare.
--
make install -not war
True, but something more important happens in just 1 week: an election. ALL the representatives, and 1/3rd of the senators are up for election. If they see a response now, they know it is an issue. Make sure you mention that you are basing your vote on how they vote on this - that will get attention. Then vote both this election based on their promise. If they break the promise (or take the wrong side and get elected anyway), vote against them next time around.
There is one thing congressmen fear more than anything else: voters with a long memory. So give yourself a long memory and use it.
This is where I believe you are wrong. To train a terrorist properly, to get them to the US and in the position to attack takes time, manpower and money.
How much training and money does it take to legally buy an assault rifle and fire it in the mass of people that is a New York City sidewalk in the morning? Have you ever fired one? It's easy! Hell, nearly any fit person of legal age could wreak havoc, financing it by working a part-time job for a few months.
How much training does it take to legally and inconspicuously buy gasoline and fertilizer, mix in large barrels, that are set to go off by a primer made up of yet more household materials? Even the inbred idiots who attacked the Oklahoma City federal building were able to do something similar. In fact, the only reason they could have been tracked was because they used blasting materials as the priming charge, but this isn't even necessary if you're willing to take one for Allah's team and ignite the thing yourself.
What everybody seems to forget is that 9/11 was accomplished by men with perfectly legal papers and boxcutters... boxcutters...
Under what kind of draconian government surveillance and "protection" would we have caught THAT? I implore you, how can you adequately defend your weakest, unexpected point without going to extremes? A patient, intelligent man who's willing to die for his cause is a deadly weapon indeed.
Every system has a flaw. Every armor a chink. We can't sit back and pretend that just because our enemy is blinded by religion that they're stupid too. September 11th is proof that they can and will find our venerable points. Now we can either accept this as something which cannot be changed and resume life under the freedoms we supposedly cherish, or we can cower behind a false sense of protection that does little to address the real problem. This bill (along with the PATRIOT Act) represents the latter.
We'll never adequately secure ourselves. Our infrastructure was never designed with that in mind. It was designed for efficiency, convenience, and freedom of movement. To attempt to do so not only has diminishing returns but is also self-defeating. Defense, therefore, is not a realistic option, our only chance is to take a pro-active stance against the enemy and take the fight to them.
-Grym
*vulnerable
Argh! That's the last time I write a post at 5:30 in the morning!
-Grym
Every system has a flaw. Every armor a chink. We can't sit back and pretend that just because our enemy is blinded by religion that they're stupid too. September 11th is proof that they can and will find our venerable points. Now we can either accept this as something which cannot be changed and resume life under the freedoms we supposedly cherish, or we can cower behind a false sense of protection that does little to address the real problem. This bill (along with the PATRIOT Act) represents the latter. We'll never adequately secure ourselves. Our infrastructure was never designed with that in mind. It was designed for efficiency, convenience, and freedom of movement. To attempt to do so not only has diminishing returns but is also self-defeating. Defense, therefore, is not a realistic option, our only chance is to take a pro-active stance against the enemy and take the fight to them.
This argument is illogical though. Yes, a pro-active stance is needed, but a defensive stance is important too. You don't say, well "We'll never adequately secure ourselves." so we might as well not try". You keep trying to secure yourself, and to protect the juciest targets. If you prevent terrorists from hitting their primary target which would kill 3,000 and they hit something else that kills 300 instead isn't that worthwhile?
Your logic, that we can't protect ourselves from everything so we might as well not put forth the effort to protect ourselves from anything is the same thinking naieve computer users have twards security. How many times have you heard "Well, I just think if a hacker REALLY wants to get in he can, so I don't bother patching anything." It's the same pattern of thinking.
A few other points:
How much training and money does it take to legally buy an assault rifle and fire it in the mass of people that is a New York City sidewalk in the morning? Have you ever fired one? It's easy! Hell, nearly any fit person of legal age could wreak havoc, financing it by working a part-time job for a few months.
Pointless, you would at most kill a few people before they scattered and you would be caught. From a terrorist standpoint it wouldn't be worth the time and effort.
How much training does it take to legally and inconspicuously buy gasoline and fertilizer, mix in large barrels, that are set to go off by a primer made up of yet more household materials?
Go try to buy that fertilizer nowadays and see how well it goes.
Even the inbred idiots who attacked the Oklahoma City federal building were able to do something similar.
Inbred idiots? Do you assume that because he was southern or because of his anti-government views? He was ex-military, I wouldn't call him an idiot. Nutjob yes, idiot no.
What everybody seems to forget is that 9/11 was accomplished by men with perfectly legal papers and boxcutters... boxcutters...
Huh? 3 of the hijackers were here illegally, and a few of the others were on expired student visas. Their being here was a direct failure of the INS, but you don't really hear about that. As for the boxcutters, try bringing them abord a plane today. Even if you manage it, try hijacking one and see if you don't end up like the terrorists in pennsylvania did. People look at the world differently post 9/11.
If you prevent terrorists from hitting their primary target which would kill 3,000 and they hit something else that kills 300 instead isn't that worthwhile? Your logic, that we can't protect ourselves from everything so we might as well not put forth the effort to protect ourselves from anything is the same thinking naieve computer users have twards security.
No. That's not my logic at all. My logic is that it's the government's responsibility to protect me from nuclear, biological, and chemical threats. Those are materials that are already illegal to have and should be restricted, and that's where I think their efforts will be most effective and appropriate. It's never been nor should it ever BE the government's ability to monitor the private lives and movements of innocent civilians, which is exactly what the wiretapping provisions of the Patriot Act and the proposed bill in question establish.
Pointless, you would at most kill a few people before they scattered and you would be caught. From a terrorist standpoint it wouldn't be worth the time and effort.
From a terrorist standpoint, it's perfect. It can't be stopped, and it makes people too afraid to even go to work. See... here's what you're missing: with the modern day media we have in the United States, it doesn't take much to scare the bejeezus out of people. How many people did the Anthrax letters kill? How many people did the DC Sniper kill? It's not the body count that matters, it's the effect upon the population it can produce. Random, unstoppable violence is terrifying and WOULD work.
Go try to buy that fertilizer nowadays and see how well it goes.
Well I'm no chemical engineer, but I am a biologist. All fertilizers, even the ones you can buy at Lowe's or Home Depot, have nitrates. These, when mixed with an accelerate, can produce a massive explosion. Sure, the yield may not be as high as was accomplished because of a difference in concentration or type of the nitrates, but that's not really the point I was making, was it? The point is that LEGAL household chemicals can easily be used to make bombs.
Inbred idiots? Do you assume that because he was southern or because of his anti-government views? He was ex-military, I wouldn't call him an idiot.
Well, I wouldn't exactly fellate him either. I am a southerner, sir, and I'm calling him an idiot because he set off a bomb (no matter how well made YOU think it was) next to a fucking preschool because there happened to be a "government" building there. Listen, I don't trust the government. In fact, I believe it's a part of our American heritage to be distrustful of ANY strong centralized power, which is exactly why I oppose these bills.
As for the boxcutters, try bringing them abord a plane today. Even if you manage it, try hijacking one and see if you don't end up like the terrorists in pennsylvania did. People look at the world differently post 9/11.
You're entirely missing the point. I'm not saying that hijacking a plane with only a boxcutter is possible anymore. Obviously it's not. But there exists a weakness today in our infrastructure which can be exploited with very few men and supplies, and there's nothing we can do to stop it, because we'll never plug every hole. Such is the consequence of living in a free society. And we can either accept it or pretend that it doesn't exist because our biometric government implanted records and checkpoints will keep us all safe.
-Grym
It is true that Fortress America is safe from invasion. No country has anywhere near the naval fleet needed. The logistical demands alone are astounding.
:
However, I forsee an economic war brewing, and in that realm we are in a world of hurt. We finance our deficit spending by printing money, which the rest of the world buys. We are now beginning to see this change. I expect to see a switch to the Euro as the default currency for trade over the next couple of years regardless of who wins the election. This will mean a drastic drop in the dollar versus other currencies, and possilby hyper inflation. We may be able to invade countries, but short of nuclear blackmail we will not be able to force the world to buy dollars.
Here is an article about it from the last decent (IMO) congressman in DC
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul213.html
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!