Slashdot Mirror


How has the USA PATRIOT Act Affected You?

wetdogjp asks: "October 26th, 2004 marked the third anniversary of the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act (or USA PATRIOT Act, as it is more commonly known). While the Slashdot crowd can certainly muster the enthusiasm to debate its pro's and con's, I'd like to know: How has the USA PATRIOT Act affected you, personally? How has it interfered with your personal and professional life? Has this act influenced your Presidential vote?"

172 of 1,062 comments (clear)

  1. Umm by TheKidWho · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How about it has not effected me one bit. Just like how it has not effected 99.9% of Americans.

    1. Re:Umm by DCAFarkas · · Score: 2

      I think as people read the head line they are coming to that reaalization too, and frankly, I think it's great that /. put up such a well thought headline/article.

      --
      All your base are belong to seit.
    2. Re:Umm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Hey, dumbshit. The whole point of the PATRIOT Act is that you won't know if you're under investigation under the terms of the PATRIOT Act.

      Rule #2: If this your first revolution, you have to fight.

    3. Re:Umm by Hatta · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You may think so, but with "sneak and peek" searches. you may never even know.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    4. Re:Umm by jjh37997 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      How about it has not effected me one bit. Just like how it has not effected 99.9% of Americans.

      Considering the government can now obtain secret warrents and perform search without your knowledge how do you know it has not affected you?

    5. Re:Umm by Scoria · · Score: 5, Funny

      As Americans, we are responsible for perpetuating our civil liberties. According to your response, we shouldn't exhibit concern for the 0.1% of Americans that have been affected. That complacency would merely encourage the legislators to enact additional laws, and those laws would eventually affect 100% of the American population.

      --
      Do you like German cars?
    6. Re:Umm by UniverseIsADoughnut · · Score: 2, Funny

      speak for yourself, because of a typo in it i was forced to be turned into a parrot, and others i know too. Not only was the bill not read, it wasn't spell checked either.

    7. Re:Umm by TheKidWho · · Score: 2, Funny

      Nope Its only benefited me, how about all of the terrorist cells that have been brought down in the US only because the Patriot Act allowed them to.

    8. Re:Umm by Ubergrendle · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Well, I work at a Canadian bank and we've had to stop outsourcing alot of our contingency server hosting to the US. Given certain provisions and interpretations of the PATRIOT act, we cannot guarantee privacy of personal data to our customers -- as we must do as indicated by Canadian law. So now instead of having a primary datacentre in Toronto and a backup in South Carolina, we're moving everything out west to Alberta. We still run servers and call centres in the US, but all the data warehousing is now 100% Canadian.

      So, if you work in IT, I suspect alot of people have been indirectly affected but don't realise it. I doubt you'll have SWAT teams bursting into your house and seizing your home PC due to using Kazaa, but the aggregate affect over the entire economy is tough to measure.

      --
      John Maynard Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"
    9. Re:Umm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I was affected by the Patriot Act. I work for a major bank and we added fields to all of our customer data tables to accomodate new regulations from the Patriot Act. It gave me something to do for a few weeks.

    10. Re:Umm by asdfghjklqwertyuiop · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If the CIA really wants to read my /. posts, tap my phone and hear me order a pizza, or read my e-mail mailing lists that I subscribe to, more power to them.


      And people like this are registered voters... *shudder*...

    11. Re:Umm by Rayonic · · Score: 4, Funny

      > How about it has not effected me one bit. Just like how it has not effected 99.9% of Americans.

      On the contrary, it just got you modded down. ;-)

    12. Re:Umm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you're not doing anything illegal, then you don't have anything to worry about.

      Cool. You've got a point there. So... you won't mind if I install this inconspicuous 2.4 GHz wireless camera in your bedroom, right? After all, you're not doing anything illegal, and I'm one of the very "people" who's represented by the same US government who passed the PATRIOT Act.

      Don't worry, bro'. I am the government, and I'm here to help.

    13. Re:Umm by asdfghjklqwertyuiop · · Score: 5, Insightful

      how about all of the terrorist cells that have been brought down in the US only because the Patriot Act


      Imagine how many terrorist cells would be brought down if we just turned the world into a complete police state.

    14. Re:Umm by aacool · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Let's put it this way - it creates a culture of fear. Of course, a lot of that is because of the hype and media manipulation by partisan entities. However, there is still a level of uncertainty among minorities.

      Sundance has a film running on this theme that has a few illustrations

      Also, remember Pastor Martin Niemoller's poem in the 1940s

      First they came for the Jews
      and I did not speak out--because I was not a Jew.
      Then they came for the communists
      and I did not speak out--because I was not a communist.
      Then they came for the trade unionists
      and I did not speak out--because I was not a trade unionist.
      Then they came for me--
      and there was no one left to speak out for me.

      Basically, that is the concern that causes some people to speak out about the Patriot Act.

    15. Re:Umm by Deagol · · Score: 2, Interesting
      That's all fine and dandy until posting dissenting opinions online or ordering pizza by phone becomes illegal.

      Then you may think twice about those powers you so casually dismiss.

    16. Re:Umm by asdfghjklqwertyuiop · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not like I have anything to hide.


      Me neither. Heil Hitler.

    17. Re:Umm by erick99 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I live about 50 miles from both Baltimore and Washington, D.C. and I live about 10 minutes from Fort Detrick. In my travels around these areas including the three airports I cannot say that I have been affected by the Patriot Act and I don't know anybody who has been. This could obviously change any day now but so far, so good.

      --
      http://www.busyweather.com/
    18. Re:Umm by erick99 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That hasn't happened and it is only your opinion that it will. You need to argue from facts rather than pseudo-straw man arguments.

      --
      http://www.busyweather.com/
    19. Re:Umm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.

      That's easy.

      All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."

      Herman Goering
      Nuremberg prison, 18 April 1946

      In addition:

      Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

      Listening to Gearge Bush is like listening to the NAZI's of Germany circa 1939 and not paying ittention to our founding fathers.

    20. Re:Umm by mikewren420 · · Score: 4, Funny
      Not like I have anything to hide.


      Me neither. Heil Hitler.

      Godwin's law... I win! :)
    21. Re:Umm by rco3 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So, you're saying that the intent will always match the usage? It never will be (and never has been) used for purposes other than combating terrorism? You're new on this world, aren't you?

      Ever heard of a guy named J. Edgar Hoover? Richard Nixon? You think if you come home someday and find a bug on your phone you're going to be able to say into it, "Whoa, dude, I'm a musician, not a terrorist!" and they'll immediately come remove the bug?

      Only terrorism, huh? How about this? How about this? Or this?

      Dude, face facts. It doesn't matter what the people who voted for the PATRIOT act intended, what matters is how it's used - or, in reality, abused. Fact is, it's being used EXACTLY the way Ashcroft and cronies intended - for non-terror-related investigations.

      --

      Ce n'est pas un vrai mouvement de robot!
    22. Re:Umm by MoneyT · · Score: 2, Informative

      I've said it before, I'll say it again because no one has done it for me yet.

      Show me the section of the patriot act which gives the government the authority to obtain a "secret" warant.

      --
      T Money
      World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
    23. Re:Umm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yes... what about those cells.

      Could you list them? Because there *ARE NONE*.

      You need to read some history books. The allies created the state of Israel after WWII. They took a portion of Palestinian land and gave it to the Jewish people fleeing Germany.

      Israel and Palestine have been at war for half a century. They both commit terrorist acts against one another, but we *support* Israel! This is why you are considered an enemy by those terrorist cells. We support the very acts we so vehemently object to, every day.

      You may not agree with Usama's tactics. You may not agree with his ideals. You may think he is a terrible person. But he is a very intelligent person. He was trained by our CIA, and he has a degree in civil engineering. And once you cut through the fundamentalist islamic bullshit, he has a point.

      Our support for specific middle eastern countries is based on our current need for oil. If we remove our dependancy on foreign oil, we are no longer required to support people in the middle east. Once you do that, you won't have a 'terrorist threat' because you won't be funding attacks on them.

      The enemy of my enemy is my ally. And the ally of my enemy is my enemy. No?

    24. Re:Umm by pawnIII · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually, Hoover was collecting infromation on influential people far beyond the Nixon administration. Hey seemed to have a particular liking to Frank Sinatra & the rest of the rat pack, Lucy & Desi, and almost any other person who affliated with with said people.

      This information, which he held in a special vault, was thought to be used to help him keep his reign over the FBI.

      What type of data were in the files. Not just allegations of potential wrong doing, but sexual relations, money transactions, friends lists, and any other piece of gossip attached to the persons name.

      This was done by a man, whose purpose of being brought into the position, was to clean-up the same type of corruption that he was doing. If you think these tactics have changed, then your far more trusting than me.

      Shoot, even Orson Wells was trying to get Hoovers endorsement on '1984', hopefully to sell books.

      Now on to the topic.

      How has the Patriot Act affected me. Well to my knowledge, it hasn't. Then again, I doubt most of the Celeb's who Hoover investigated knew about the massive file built up on them. The said files, never we destroyed, until Hoover died, and his secretary thought it wouldn't really do Hoover any justice to have these files found by the public.

      Also, since the Patriot Act isn't permament, I would believe law enforcement officials would be less likely to push the boundaries of the Act.

      For Americans to be willing to be so trusting of a government that has not been very great at protecting the rights of its citizens, seems to be unAmerican.

      I rather not have a President that will do anything to win the war on Terror, than a President that will win the war on Terror while upholding the aspects that make us Americans to begin with.

    25. Re:Umm by bwd234 · · Score: 5, Informative

      " wacko... seriously, we live in a democracy as you're witnessing tonight - not a dictatorship"

      First off, this is NOT a democracy, it is a representative republic. When is the last time YOU voted on a new law? If this was in fact a democracy, your vote would decide who is president, not the Electoral College's.

      "Paranoia is out there..."

      I agree, I guess that's why you posted anonymously!

    26. Re:Umm by vantango · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It has affected me.. I'm a foreigner. The patriot act has essentially revoked the visa-waiver program and now requires me to be finger-printed (and photographed) the next time I enter the US. I'm not going to be going there anymore. I'll spend my vacation dollars somewhere else.

      The last time I was there (earlier this year), my wife and I had to undergo additional security screening at every single airport we used. I don't want to be treated like a criminal everywhere I go and I will avoid going there on business as well.

      But who cares?

    27. Re:Umm by Dyolf+Knip · · Score: 5, Informative

      The PATRIOT Act also allows _any_ judge anywhere in the country to authorize a search of your house, no matter where you live. In other words, the feds need only find one single judge to rubber stamp their warrants and they have essentially unlimited power of searches in every state of the union. So just what good is the requirement of a warrant?

      --
      Dyolf Knip
    28. Re:Umm by asdfghjklqwertyuiop · · Score: 2

      You have evidence that the world is going to be turned into a complete police state?

      The PATRIOT act, detention of people without due process, John Ashcroft's war on "indecency"...

      Well, that's in the US at least. Many other parts of the world lag behind us a bit...
    29. Re:Umm by ottothecow · · Score: 4, Insightful
      But the constitution is there in part to protect the minority from the majority (of course not on every issue but on many such as civil rights and liberties).

      This is also much of the reasoning why I disagree with the politicians who decided to put gay marriage ammendments (and civil unions) on the ballots this year. The CLEAR majority of people are not gay and in many states tend to be against homosexuality. The ammendment shouldnt be set out for the majority to repress the rights of the minority, but it should be dealt with by the legislators (and then the courts) who were too pussy to decide so they stuck it on the ballot. And whatever happened to the full faith and credit clause? Maybe a state can decide to dissalow gay marriages to take place in THEIR state, but as I read the constitution, they would be required to honor gay marriages preformed in other states.

      --
      Bottles.
    30. Re:Umm by the+angry+liberal · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You left the part out about where they can come into your home, search your belongings, and remove belongings without telling you.

      Thank goodness the laws had an expiration date on them. We have to remember, the number of terrorists convicted as a direct result of these infractions on our Bill of Rights remains a big 0.

      To quote a small section I think is wrong:

      "reasonably suspected based on credible evidence of engaging in terrorist acts or money laundering activities."

      The "or money laundering activities" leaves an open invitation to abuse. This opens the uses of this law up to be used against just about anyone, not just terrorists. Take the abuses in vegas and dope busts. None of this activity will save anyone from any terrorist.

      While I feel it is important for the US to maintain a sense of law and order, I do not condone such an extreme set of laws to bust pot smokers and adult entertainers for their doings.

      --The Angry Liberal

    31. Re:Umm by TheCaptain · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No...the Patriot Act has affected me terribly.

      It filled my former favorite "news for nerds" website into a fucking partisan whinefest.

    32. Re:Umm by thenightisdark · · Score: 4, Informative

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename= article&node=&contentId=A16287-2003Mar23&notFound= true

      Under prior law, if the primary purpose of a search was to obtain "foreign intelligence information," the FBI could obtain a secret warrant through the court established by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to conduct a physical search or wiretap without notifying the target of the search. The counter-terrorism law lowers the standard to permit the FBI to conduct a secret search or wiretap if intelligence surveillance is a significant purpose of the search. Thus, under the new law, law enforcement could conduct secret searches for the primary purpose of investigating criminal activity, with the auxiliary significant purpose of intelligence surveillance. This could circumvent the 4th Amendment's probable cause requirement for obtaining a search warrant.

      from

      http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oi d= 9392

      --
      Piracy is Adam Smiths invisble hand fisting you in the ass, Mr. Gates. - MightyMartian (840721)
    33. Re:Umm by bergeron76 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So to summarize:
      The PATRIOT Act has likely cost this country untold numbers of jobs. EVERY country that does [customer sensitive] business with the US has most likely pulled thier resources out of this country, in order to comply with their own laws.

      So, basically, the PATRIOT Act has affected me both directly and indirectly. However, I can't say how it's affected me directly just yet because I haven't hit the "arrest him now" threshold.

      If I ever do, I won't know about it and neither will you because they don't have to have a reason anymore.

      --
      Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't change the world. It's the only thing that ever has.
    34. Re:Umm by Karn · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah, government has never abused its power before. That kinda shit never happens. Well, it happened in the past, but it won't happen again. Right?

      --


      Why do I keep typing pythong?
    35. Re:Umm by Karn · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't believe you can invoke Godwin's law in this case. The Nazi reference is valid, since the Nazi rise to power happened in a democracy.

      Democracy is meaningless unless there are checks and balances, which is why freedom-loving people are up in arms over the Patriot Act..

      --


      Why do I keep typing pythong?
    36. Re:Umm by SidV · · Score: 5, Funny

      First they came for the smokersBR> and I did not speak out--because I was not a smokers.
      Then they came for the red meat eaters
      and I did not speak out--because I was not a red meat eater.
      Then they came for the drinkers
      and I did not speak out--because I was not a drinker.
      Then they came for me--
      and I said "Do whatever you want. I've been eating bean sprouts and drinking Soy milk for three years and I'm ready to jump in front of a Bus."

    37. Re:Umm by MoneyT · · Score: 5, Informative

      Well, for one, you didn't answer what I asked, you didn't provide me with a section. But here is the section you're refering to:

      SEC. 218. FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE INFORMATION.

      Sections 104(a)(7)(B) and section 303(a)(7)(B) (50 U.S.C. 1804(a)(7)(B) and 1823(a)(7)(B)) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 are each amended by striking `the purpose' and inserting `a significant purpose'.


      For 2, this doesn't change things. The FBI could still obtain taps against you under FISA. What this does is allow the FBI to persue a criminal prosecution if they find said information. Furthermore, it ignores two very important aspects.

      1) If you were in court over this, and lawer worth his salt would argue that any basic criminal evidence found falls under this aspect of FISA

      C) that such information cannot reasonably be obtained by normal investigative techniques;

      And you would get said evidence suppressed.

      2) It also ignores that there are a ton of hurdles to jump through to use any FISA tap against a US citizen.

      --
      T Money
      World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
    38. Re:Umm by Anonymous+Custard · · Score: 4, Informative

      Maybe secret's the wrong term, but it's illegal for you to disclose that you've been served by such a warrant. See http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html , section 215, revision to 501 (d):

      "`(d) No person shall disclose to any other person (other than those persons necessary to produce the tangible things under this section) that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has sought or obtained tangible things under this section."

      So a warrant exists, and no one is allowed to mention it. They must keep it a "secret". Thus you could call it a secret warrant, though a "classified" warrant might be more accurate.

      So that is the section of the patriot act which gives the government the authority to obtain a "secret" warrant.

    39. Re:Umm by databyss · · Score: 3, Informative

      Wrong, they do need a search warrant, they just don't need to tell you in advance. Please read: http://www.factcheck.org/article259.html so you can understand what you're talking about.

      --
      Hmmm witty sig or funny sig? Maybe elitest techy sig!
    40. Re:Umm by Korgan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I dunno... Seemed to really excite J.E Hoover and the FBI he ran. Maybe asking people that ran into him (like the Martin Luther King or Kennedy families) might give you some insight into that question.

    41. Re:Umm by allism · · Score: 3, Funny

      So, in effect, the PATRIOT Act is creating jobs?

    42. Re:Umm by WindBourne · · Score: 2, Informative

      It is not the CIA or NSA that the act gave capabilities to. They already had it. It was to DOJ and DOD that gained. They had limited access to this kind of knowledge. The difference is that the DOJ and DOD are far more political than either CIA or NSA.

      Patriot Act II did give some more capabilities to all of them

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    43. Re:Umm by Korgan · · Score: 3, Informative

      Really? It hasn't happened? Short memory there.

    44. Re:Umm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Agent Alice: How's the covert electronic suveillance of Slashnerd 172441 going Agent Bob?

      Agent Bob: Mostly just harmless anti-government raving Agent Alice. Chances of this dork ever belonging to any sort of revolutionary or terrorist group are pretty fucking slim I'd say. He'd fucking bore them to tears and they'd take him out and execute him themselves. I mean Jesus Christ he even encrypts his goddamned grocery list. He encrypts his personal journal. Like he needs to. Anyone reading it would stop from sheer boredom after a couple of paragraphs. The only thing that keeps me from shoving my Glock in my mouth and blowing my brains out is the porn. He may be a boring dork but at least he has plenty of stolen pornsite passwords. I run his packets though a filter and it snags out the images and video/audio streams and dumps them to a folder for me to peruse. Saves me from having to go find the stuff on my own.

      Agent Alice: Pretty clever there Agent Bob since you're getting paid to monitor the subject rather than surf for porn. I bet you even named the folder 'Evidence' or someting like that didn't you.

      Agent Bob: Of course I did.

      Agent Alice: *chuckles* Keep up the good wood... er I mean work Agent Bob.

    45. Re:Umm by GileadGreene · · Score: 4, Informative
      Shoot, even Orson Wells was trying to get Hoovers endorsement on '1984', hopefully to sell books.

      Uh... I think you mean George Orwell. You know, the same chap who wrote 'Animal Farm'.

      Orson Welles was the guy behind the panic-inducing radio broadcast of War of the Worlds, the movie 'Citizen Kane', etc. He never had anything to do with '1984'.

    46. Re:Umm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      In 1995, I was peacefully arrested as part of a fur protest. Shortly after the PATRIOT Act was passed, the FBI showed up at my door to ask questions about my friends.

      You see... despite the fact that we were part of a peaceful protest, with no group affiliations, the ALF is officially listed as a "domestic terrorist" group, and all animal rights activists must be ALF members, right?

      This sort of power scares me. That's clearly stretching the limits.

    47. Re:Umm by ckaminski · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Just because I may love and trust my government doesn't mean I trust my neighbor, or my banker, or the crackers and criminals trying to get my data so they can steal in my name...

      No. Simple precautions like encryption, which protect me are grounds for further scrutiny...

      Total BS.

    48. Re:Umm by gordo3000 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      honest question, what kind of law did you vote on, county or state. If its county or smaller, yes we have that. But I'm doubting its state or nation wide. I know for florida we can't vote on a law directly but we can force it to be looked at and do have a choice for state constitution ammendments. If you did vote for a statewide law, I'd be interested to know where you are from.

    49. Re:Umm by DZign · · Score: 3, Insightful

      and those really affected by it are probably not in the possibility to post about it on /.

    50. Re:Umm by TheLittleJetson · · Score: 4, Insightful

      let's not forget, the patriot act was invoked to gag the ACLU in a case against the act itself on the grounds that it is blatantly unconstitutional.

    51. Re:Umm by KillerLoop · · Score: 2, Funny

      HTGS75OBEY21IRTYG54564ACCEPT64AUTHORITY41V
      KKJWQK HD23CONSUME78GJHGYTMNQYRTY74SLEEP38H
      TYTR32CONFOR M12GNIYIPWG64VOTER4APATHY42JLQ
      TYFGB64MONEY3IS4YO UR7GOD62MGTSB21CONFORM34
      SDF53MARRY6AND2REPRODUCE 534TYWHJZKJ34OBEY6

    52. Re:Umm by Frodrick · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Democracy is meaningless unless there are checks and balances, which is why freedom-loving people are up in arms over the Patriot Act..

      Absolutely. Although if you want real chill, look at GWBush's abuses of freedom and Due Process and then compare them to the powers of the Nazi Gestapo at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gestapo .

      The differences are only in magnitude - so far...

    53. Re:Umm by Urkki · · Score: 5, Insightful
      • You'll have to come up with another word than "marriage" for homosexuals, because that word is taken, just as "white" can't reasonably and meaningfully be redefined to also mean "purple".

      Ah, but there's a meaningful difference between white and purple. There's no meaningful differencde between homosexual and heterosexual partnership defined by word "marriage". Well, there is if you want the word to imply that there is a possibility for the male and female being biological father and mother for common children. But if you add that requirement, then for example sterile people could not get married by that definition. On the other hand, if you define marriage to mean a partnership defined in the Bible, don't be surprised if others disagree.

      Marriage is very much a social term, and as social structures change, also the meaning of the term must change. Language lives with the society, words get new meanings etc. But since "marriage" is an archaic term that doesn't have a definite meaning in modern language and global community, it should be replaced for example with "registered parnership" in all legal text etc, to avoid misunderstandings and confusion about the core issue. "Marriage" should be reserved for religious contexts etc, where the ambiguiety would not matter since context would be more clearly defined.

      • Divorces or child traumatisation don't enter into this, nor whether marriages are right or wrong.

      If one type of "registered partnership" is given preferential treatment by law because some people think it's the only "right" way to have such a partnership, and other types are denied same priviledges (eg tax breaks, divorce law protections), then it does enter into this. If somebody thinks it's wrong and causes a lot of undue suffering (which is does), why should they pay more taxes so that those "married" can pay less?
    54. Re:Umm by HyperCash · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So if you're two gay neighbors get married how the hell are you FORCED to "support" their marraige. How about you try this: Mind your own fucking business and let other people live their own lives.

      --HC

      --
      So I'm jump'n up and down screaming show me the money.
    55. Re:Umm by Zorilla · · Score: 2, Funny

      No, he tight!

      --

      It would be cool if it didn't suck.
    56. Re:Umm by marcus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      All you guys are skipping around the core point.

      What business does the federal government have in defining my or your personal life? All these troubles with definitions disappear if the feds simply get out of the "marriage business".

      Marriage as I see it, is a very personal and private thing. I really don't see any reason for ANY government to be involved.

      --
      Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgement.
      - W. Wriston, former Citibank CEO
    57. Re:Umm by MasterClown · · Score: 2, Informative

      The main problem is that our Judicial branch no longer has the power to grant/revoke wiretap privileges. All they can do now is to verify that a form stating that the FBI, et al, has filled out some forms correctly to proceed with wiretapping.

    58. Re:Umm by benhocking · · Score: 3, Insightful
      You'll have to come up with another word than "marriage" for homosexuals, because that word is taken, just as "white" can't reasonably and meaningfully be redefined to also mean "purple".

      OK, for sake of argument, let's assume that you're assumptions are correct. I.e., Marriage:union(male,female)::White:rgb(255,255,255 ). Now, if several people decided that they wanted to use the word "white" to mean purple, (or "bad" to mean cool, or "phat" to mean good looking, etc.), would it seem logical to create a constitutional amendment defining white as being the presence of all colors insomuch as one is referring to light and the absence of all colors insomuch as one is referring to pigments?!? Would you feel that your white picket fence was under attack just because other people called their purple picket fences white? Would you feel that the White House itself was suddenly threatened?!? By your own analogy, can you see how inane a constitutional amendment defining marriage is?!?

      And yes, I realize that you did not explicitly state that you either supported the amendment, or that you feel that marriages need to be "defended", but obviously there are some people who do feel this way.

      --
      Ben Hocking
      Need a professional organizer?
    59. Re:Umm by Augie+De+Blieck+Jr. · · Score: 2, Informative

      "We have to remember, the number of terrorists convicted as a direct result of these infractions on our Bill of Rights remains a big 0."

      Actually, the number is a little bit higher than that:

      "The report said the act helped secure six guilty pleas from an al Qaeda "sleeper cell" in Lackawanna, N.Y.; allowed the surveillance of a reputed terror cell in Portland, Ore., resulting in convictions of six persons in a scheme to travel to Afghanistan to fight U.S. forces; and the successful prosecution of a money launderer for Colombia's leftist rebel group, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC."

      We are still counting al Qeada sleeper cells as terrorists, aren't we?

    60. Re:Umm by rco3 · · Score: 2, Informative

      So, only criminals fear the cops?

      True story: a cousin of mine is involved with in a child custody case. The father is a cop - doesn't want anything to do with her (one night stand), but is fighting for custody of the baby. He has illegally taped her phone conversations, harassed her, attempted to enter her home against her express permission, done god knows what sort of research into non-publically-available files in order to get ammunition for the court case... and it's twice as hard to stop him because he's a cop. She's not a criminal, but she certainly needs to fear the police. And it's not just him - who knows how many of his fellow officers are willing to abuse their powers to "help one of their own"?

      Truth is, the more power you give policemen and law enforcement in general, the more that power will get abused. PATRIOT act is a perfect example; it's intended to fight terrorism, but people who have nothing to do with terror are being attacked with it. It may be true that some of them are guilty of other crimes... but that doesn't make the abuse OK. If 20,000 people have their rights violated to catch 10 criminals, then PATRIOT is wrong, wrong, wrong. It violates not only the letter but the spirit of the Constitution of the United States - same one Ashcroft, Bush, etc., have sworn to uphold.

      "Laws aren't enough to prevent bad people from doing bad things."

      Nope. You got that right. But PATRIOT makes it easier for law enforcement to do bad things.

      --

      Ce n'est pas un vrai mouvement de robot!
    61. Re:Umm by default+luser · · Score: 2, Insightful

      On a related note don't use PUBLIC schools to teach children that homosexuality is okay and normal (i.e. sex ed programs in a few states).

      Why not?

      The government has been teaching tolerance since the civil rights movement and the appearance of "equal opportunity."

      In the same school that teaches that homosexuality is okay and normal, you might find teachers also delivering the message that being born retarded is normal.

      And the fact is, retardation defects in their various forms are a NORMAL minority of all births. But instead, many attach the stigma that these people are "abnormal," or perhaps even "monstrosities", simply because their limited exposure dictates such a reaction. These people believe that retardation makes people less human, but they don't tend to speak up about it because these "lesser" people rarely tend to directly involve them.

      You get a similar reaction from a large portion of the population when you mention homosexuality...a large portion of people label them automatically as less than human. But then, most of these people don't tend to get worked up about it, because they're rarely directly affected by homosexuality.

      The last time the reactionary portion of the population got worked up about homosexuality was in the late 70s and early 80s, when homosexual groups were fighting for recognition. This may not seem like much, but consider this: here was a portion of the population that had existed since the dawn of mankind...and had been ignored as an abberation, rather than embraced as a variation, in our modern times. These were people fighting to be called human, and on the other side were people who had been indoctrinated that such an unholy, filthy creature could not exist on God's green earth.

      So certainly, now that they've pretty much won that harsh battle, they're out to reap all the legal benefits of being "human". I'll tell you one thing, I love seeing people get their panties in a bunch over the concept that marriage is "holy" matrimony, and that such a union would be "unholy". These people mush have been asleep the day that legal benefits of marriage were conceived of in this country. There no longer any requirement for marriage to be "holy"...you can get a civil ceremony in any of the 50 states (yup, even Utah), and you can reap all the lovely legal / monetary benefits of a contract of marriage.. ...Unless you are gay. See, some of you folks still don't think homosexuals are people, and that THEY might also want to get a piece of all these lovely benefits. And worst of all, marriage is one of the oldest "exclusive" clubs...existing members pander all the people they like to join up. Clubs maintain legitimacy by continued membership.

      But clubs also have this strange mentality that you can see in many different instances in thius modern world, and that lies in a loss of legitimacy when a club becomes less exclusive. People would refer to this concept as "bandwagon", and can be seen in everything from fashion fads to sports teams. "Early adopters" tend to shun the bandwagon fans...after all, they tend to make the early adopters look less unique and creative.

      So here you have it. Most of the folks who don't blindly call on religious arguments to shun the thought of homosexual marriage fall into one or both of the above two categories.

      Exclusive Club: people who are married want their marriage to mean something. By allowing in "animals", they believe this devalues the exclusive nature of marriage. I know, it's crazy, because ANY PAIR OF IDIOTS can get married, but people really have this glorified mindset. Thus, the system perpetuates itself because people, as members, actively recruit (ever had your mother bug you for the thousandth time to get married? No? Is your mother STILL BREATHING?). Because they convince themselves that the system IS EXCLUSIVE, they come to the conslusion that they need to recruit...and who better to recruit then their own offspring, who just happen to

      --

      Man is the animal that laughs.
      And occasionally whores for Karma.

    62. Re:Umm by Don'tTreadOnMe · · Score: 2, Informative

      Interestingly, my wife and I pay more taxes than we would if we were single. So, at least in Virginia, USA, you should be advocating gay marriage, since then the buggers will pay more taxes.

    63. Re:Umm by HyperCash · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Let me live my own life, and don't force me to apply tax breaks or extend employment benefits to gay "spouses"!"

      Sure, just as long as you don't force gays to apply tax breaks or extend employment benefits to straight "spouses"!

      --HC

      --
      So I'm jump'n up and down screaming show me the money.
  2. Not much. by Wig · · Score: 5, Funny

    It hasn't really affected me. I do hear some clicking in my phone every time I talk on it, but I think that's just the phoneline.

    1. Re:Not much. by Tackhead · · Score: 2, Insightful
      > It hasn't really affected me. I do hear some clicking in my phone every time I talk on it, but I think that's just the phoneline.

      To be serious-and-informative for a moment: I've heard the same clicks. If you're calling customer support, that click is probably a buggy attempt by the phone system and/or some VOIP gateway at throwing a periodic "beep" at you to inform you that your call is being recorded for quality purposes by some asshat in India.

      To be serious-and-kinda-snarky-about-it: if your phone's being tapped under PATRIOT provisions, you're not gonna hear a beep or a click.

      So either way, rest easy :)

  3. thank god by mongolian · · Score: 2, Funny

    At least I know somebody else is keeping logs of my AIM conversations so I dont have to use the disk space.

  4. Judging by the numbers so far... by ylikone · · Score: 5, Insightful
    It seems that Americans like the Patriot Act and are willing to put up with 4 more years of this nonsense.

    I'm a Canadian that feels deeply disappointed that so many Americans can still vote for someone like Bush. Yikes!

    --
    Meh.
    1. Re:Judging by the numbers so far... by ThosLives · · Score: 2, Informative
      Here are some actual "rational" reasons why this may be the case:

      1. Economy and jobs: Raising minimum wage ~40% in 2 years will cause the unemployment rate to skyrocket. If I recall, Kerry's plan is to raise minimum wage to $7 from about $5.30 or so by 2007. I'm thinking someone forgot to tell him that yes, those few people left with jobs will be paid more, but you'll have about 40% fewer people currently at the minimum wage level employed. Or, a lot more people will be paid under the table. That's not to say minimum wage increases aren't due, it's unclear how raising minimum wage 40% in 2 years will create 10M jobs in 4.
      2. Issues of "safety" vs "freedom". I'm not aware that Kerry has detailed a better plan of how to make us safe without causing the average citizen a little hassle at the airport or border crossing, or the possibility that someone is watching over what you're doing. Thinking that "if we talk nice with the world community people won't attack us" is naivite at best. That's like saying that if you tell the school bully "please don't hit me" he won't hit you. This isn't to say that all Bush's plans are the best either, but in my stance being proactive is better than being reactive. Granted, you can be much too proactive (which is what a lot of the beef with the PATRIOT act and Iraq is), but some folks would rather have someone with a stick they have to be careful around to protect them from others. Maybe not the best idea, but it is at least understandable.
      3. Various moral issues. Not sure how to rate this on the "rational" scale, but judging by the state ballot proposals for things like marriage (most states with this on their ballots have voted to ban same-sex marriage by margins of 2 or 3 to 1), one can see that the majority of the population still has conservative values, and will tend to vote into office a leader which will support those same values. I know that a couple big issues are the marriage issue and abortion and these cannot be overlooked. True, one can argue that limiting marriage and limiting abortion limits freedoms, but in a sense limiting my ability to steal from you limits freedoms as well. The question is how to determine which freedoms are limited and which are not. This is one of the sticky points of a democracit republic - on some level you have to do what the majority wants.

      So, while those might not be answers you like, there are at least three reasons why at least 29 million people (as of 22:50 EST) could vote for Bush. They weighed those issues against such things as war, taxes, environment, and that's what they chose. Indeed, you can make a similar list for those some 27 million who voted for Kerry. The thing is, there is no single objective standard that most are willing to accept by which to judge candidates and their platforms, so we still have this voting process. Personally, I like voting better than trying to beat up all the people who think differently than I, because I know I'd have been pummelled quite some time ago.

      Yes, there are some folks who vote irrationally, and some who actually deliberate over which issues they are going to weigh more than others and vote a certain way even considering the shortcomings of the person (and by consequence, administration) for whom they have voted.

      --
      "There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)
  5. No affect, so far by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I have not been personally affected by the existance of the PATRIOT act as of yet.

    However, in 5-10 years if the PATRIOT act is still around, I believe things will change greatly. Once the US stops chasing people around the globe these very convenient changes in rights and law will be used against everyone equally.

    Not to mention: I doubt it's exactly fair to ask this question here, because anyone who actually *has* been affected by the PATRIOT act probably no longer finds themselves in a position where freedom of speech or the ability to access devices for global communication are available to them.

    1. Re:No affect, so far by LardBrattish · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Do you really believe that if Bush wins today there will be any end to the "war on terror"? It is an unwinnable conflict that can be used as a bogyman to scare the American people into voting Republican until the economy totally collapses.

      The most telling thing I have ever read on /. was the article somebody linked to in their sig which listed all of the American presidents since 1900 ordered by GDP growth and change in unemployment rate (IIRC) what I do remember was that the worst Democrat had a better economic record on those measures than the best Republican.

      On that basis I fail to see how any rational ordinary American could vote Republican. The economy will go to hell in a handbasket & you'll probably end up out of work.

      Mind you the military will be much stronger - on the downside you'll have to have a stronger military because the rest of the world will hate you more...

      --
      What are you listening to? (http://megamanic.blogetery.com/)
    2. Re:No affect, so far by arminw · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ....until the economy totally collapses...

      Worry about the economy was not much of a consideration of previous generations of Americans who were more concerned about freedom -- of themselves and others. Starting with the brave men of the revolutionary war, all through our history, freedom was the greater concern than mere money. In WW1 and World War 2, this country fought for freedom at a much greater cost than Iraq. Getting rid of Hitler and the Japanese miltary machine was very expensive in terms of money and especially in American lives and very few Americans complained, but they knew it was their duty to rid the world of a dangerous tyrant and an enemy that treacherously attacked Pearl Harbor. It was not the Republicans that were in power then. Now, when the hour has come to get rid of an enemy that treacherously attacked in NY and Washingto DC, many are balking at the cost.

      I cannot understand that the democratic party could not find a better candidate for president than Kerry. There have been some GREAT presidents who were democrats, such as Roosevelt and Kennedy. Most /.ers are probably too young or were not even here yet to remember the shock that went through the US when the popular John Kennedy was cut down by an assassin's bullet. I myself was young then, but will never forget that day. Freedom has always been costly in terms of lives and money and it seems that the younger generation is less willing to pay the price.

      --
      All theory is gray
    3. Re:No affect, so far by killjoe · · Score: 2, Insightful

      THe difference between the two world wars and this one should be obvious to anybody. First of all those world wars were many nations against each other. They were team efforts. This war is the US against the world (or at least some amorphous entity). Our opponents are patient and willing to wage a ten year war just like they did in afghanistan. Osama said as much. They want to bankrupt us by slowly bleeding us to death and their plan is to pop up once in a while and cause us to spend a a few billion dollars more trying to kill them.

      I know it's heresy but I'll say it anyway. In my opinion neither world wars were a success in the long run. WW1 saw a devestated germany from which nazism arose and WW2 saw a triumphant russia and china from which communism arose. To me it was a push. Sure we defeated hitler but in turn we had decades of brutal communist rule in russia and china. Hardly a net freedom.

      Finally. The costs of this war are not being paid yet. That will come in a few years when the dollar starts losing value big time (it's already stating) and inflation starts rocketing up. It's happened after every war and it will happen again.

      As for Kerry, yes. Surely Clarke was a better candidate. This is what happens when you let the citizens of iowa and new hampshire choose the candidates. Why they went for kerry I'll never know.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    4. Re:No affect, so far by Trinition · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Now, when the hour has come to get rid of an enemy that treacherously attacked in NY and Washingto DC, many are balking at the cost.

      I don't see anyone balking at the cost of operations in Afghanistan. I for one wish they'd spend more there and catch Osama to at least give the world a sense of progress against terror.

      Now, Iraq, that's where people are balking at costs.

    5. Re:No affect, so far by Darby · · Score: 4, Insightful

      but they knew it was their duty to rid the world of a dangerous tyrant and an enemy that treacherously attacked Pearl Harbor. It was not the Republicans that were in power then. Now, when the hour has come to get rid of an enemy that treacherously attacked in NY and Washingto DC, many are balking at the cost.

      Nobody is balking at the cost of doing this.

      What every patriotic American (i.e. ones who actually do their duty to be informed citizens rather than subjects) balks at is the fact that we are involved in a war in a country that didn't have a damn thing to do with the attacks on us while Bush is using our fucking tax dollars to help fund commercials promoting the country that did actually attack us (Saudi Arabia).

      It's really dishonest of you to try and compare the fiasco we are involved in to WW2.
      A valid comparison would have been if Japan bombed us and then we invaded China.

      Freedom has always been costly in terms of lives and money and it seems that the younger generation is less willing to pay the price.

      The younger generation is no less willing to pay the price for freedom.
      What they are less willing to do is to die to provide benefits to GE, Halliburton, Bechtel, and various other war mongering corporations while providing no benefit to themselves or their country.

      They are not willing to die for the lie that the Iraq war is. We are there not to promote freedom or democracy or any of the other lies that only the most ignorant could possibly believe. Now it's clear that only an extremely ignorant person could believe that because it isn't even the reasons we were given.
      So many people in this country are so cowardly and ignorant that they have completely blocked out the fact that the only reason the Iraq war had any support in the first place is that Bush flat out lied that they posed an immediate and immenent threat to the US. Now this has been proven to be a lie and it has been proven that Bush knew full well that it was a lie.

      The only reasons that he currently has any support at all are that too many people have a greater loyalty to their party than to their country. I.E. they are so incredibly cowardly and lacking in integrity that they can not admit that they were wrong and do the honorable thing.
      The only other major reason that Bush has any support is because of all the people in this country who think that they are Christian, but are too ignorant to even know what that word means. Anybody who thinks that Bush is a Christian is dumber than a bag of rocks.

      What these people really want and Bush has given them is somebody to promote their petty ignorant hatreds and prejudices. He gives them somebody who tells trhem that it is good for them to impose their beliefs on others at the point of a gun regardless that that is directly contrary to what this country at one time stood for.

      So it really isn't surprising that not many people want to go die to help tear down every good thing this country used to stand for.

      The really sad thing is that these ignorant hate monhgering religious zealots are exactly what this country was founded to get away from.
      They always talk about how America was founded by Christians who were trying to escape persecution, but they ignore the simple fact that makes the pseperation of church and state an absolute necessity for a free society to exist:

      The Christians were the ones doing the oppression in the first place.
      Now they are doing it here and now. It's sad that they are so ignorant and deluded that they fail to recognize that religious rule has never once in the history of the world led to anything good.

    6. Re:No affect, so far by TheDredd · · Score: 2

      the way things are going over there, in 5-10 years the US needs to be liberated

    7. Re:No affect, so far by metlin · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's really dishonest of you to try and compare the fiasco we are involved in to WW2.
      A valid comparison would have been if Japan bombed us and then we invaded China.


      The first country that the US attacked and invaded after Pearl Harbour was Morocco -- a *French* colony that had nothing to do with either the Japanese or the Germans.

      Funny, eh?

  6. Alot by ZeeCog · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Completely robbed me of my faith in my country.

    --

    -Zeecog

    1. Re:Alot by medelliadegray · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I completely agree.

      Dont forget: Feeling disgraced that millions of people have died to preserve liberties which we just discarded like used toilet paper.

      it also enrages me.

      --
      Troll, Troll, go away and flame again some other day
  7. By making me less trustful of my own government. by Shayde · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I used to be apathetic about government and politics. Uniniterested in 'what those wanks in Washington were doing'. The first inkling of a problem was the CDA (Communications Decency Act), which was scary, but okay, some bad legistlation is bound to happen.

    Then Bush and his cronies moved in, and anything even approaching preservation of civil liberties, the Constitution, or... okay, lets be honest, our dignity... went totally out the window in pursuit of idealism and Empire building.

    I'm ashamed that the coutnry I live in could put a man like George Bush in power, could support a congress that would ratify such onerous legislation as the Patriot Act, and, what's worse, even consider re-electing this man. (As I type this, the US elections are still undecided).

    More commentary on my blog, I'm done ranting here. :)

    --
    Event Management Solutions : http://www.stonekeep.com/
  8. Well... by Jormundgandr · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Not that I know of. But that's the whole point isn't it?

    --
    -sig removed for tax purposes-
  9. Personally... by FiReaNGeL · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As a Canadian, you would expect that it has NOT affected me. But in the light of recent news, I'm not so sure anymore. I'll get flamed for this, but why should your government Patriotism give them every right in MY country? Canadians are patriotic too, love they country, want to protect it, etc... did we ever invade USA citizens privacy like this? Sure, its to fight terrorism... but be careful not to damage your relations with your allies by doing so (if its not already done, with France and the Iraq war).

    1. Re:Personally... by Rew190 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Most of us sane Americans don't believe there are too many patriotic aspects to said act.

      Sure, its to fight terrorism... but be careful not to damage your relations with your allies by doing so (if its not already done, with France and the Iraq war).

      Totally agree, but you'd better not argue that with a stanuch right winger as they would probably tell you something like "Other countries have no control over us!" or similar spin, much like what we saw at the second debate over the global test comment.

  10. How this influenced my vote... by Pollux · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Has this act influenced your Presidential vote?

    This is simple. Why I voted for Kerry:

    1) President Bush empowered himself to take the civil liberties away from US Citizens. The last president I remember really hacked away at rights explicitly stated in the US Constitution was John Adams (correct me if I'm wrong). Bush claims that it will only be used on terrorists, but merely being accused of being one automatically strips you of your civil liberties. Declared guilty before proven innocent. Even Timothy McVeigh still received a lawyer and a trial.

    2) President Bush guarded nothing in Baghdad except the oil refinery. I truly believed up until I read about this that "liberating" Iraq was not because of the oil, but because Saddam was hiding something up his sleeve. I tried to convince everyone I could in Egypt that it wasn't about the oil.

    1. Re:How this influenced my vote... by TummyX · · Score: 2, Insightful


      President Bush guarded nothing in Baghdad except the oil refinery


      Guarded nothing but? Don't believe everything you read. OIL is needed to rebuild Iraq (it's the cornerstone of Iraq's economy afterall).

    2. Re:How this influenced my vote... by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Other Presidents who took away civil liberties include

      Lincoln - During the Civil War, Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus and frequently imprisoned Southern spies and sympathizers without trial as well as imprisoned Newspaper editors and martial law was declared in cities like Baltimore.

      Wilson - During World War I, Congress curbed civil liberties with sweeping censorship and antisedition laws. In 1919 the Attorney General, A. Mitchell Palmer, responded to a bombing at his home by authorizing raids in 33 cities and arresting 6,000 people, most of them immigrants, some of them citizens, on suspicion that they were Communists or anarchists. Soon after declaring war on Germany and its allies in 1917, Congress ruled that the U.S. mail could not be used for sending any material urging "treason, insurrection or forcible resistance to any law." It punished offenders with a fine of up to $5,000 and a five-year prison term. The government soon banned magazines including THE MASSES and THE NATION from the mails for expressing anti-war sentiment.

      FDR - Japanese American Internment, German American Interment, Italian American Internment. On Feb. 19, 1942, Roosevelt signed an executive order authorizing the secretary of war or military commanders designated by him to establish "military areas" from which "any or all persons" could be removed. In 1942 the Supreme Court ruled that Roosevelt's military commissions were constitutional when used to try eight Nazi saboteurs for violating the laws of war, spying and conspiracy.

      Truman - National secrecy laws, CIA establishment

      Clinton - The copyright laws, President Clinton asked Congress for the authority to conduct "roving wiretaps''--that is, wiretaps not on a particular phone but on any phone used by a particular individual--without court approval. Although that specific provision did not pass, the 1996 terrorism bill did expand the government's wiretapping authority. During the Clinton administration, HUD began investigating and threatening community activists who objected to shelters and public housing units in their neighborhoods. In New York, Berkeley, Seattle, and other places HUD enforcers demanded correspondence, minutes of meetings, flyers, and lists of contributors on the grounds that the activists were engaged in illegal racial harassment.

    3. Re:How this influenced my vote... by jcam2 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Sounds to me like the severity of civil liberty violations have actually been reducing over time!

  11. Vote for President? by DreadPiratePizz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why would this affect my vote for president when both major candidates are in favor of the act?

    1. Re:Vote for President? by SevenTowers · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Vote for somebody who doesn't support it! If everybody thinks change is impossible, it really does become impossible.

      --
      Imperium et libertas
      Autocracy and freedom
  12. Eesh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Can I move up there with you?

    Seriously, I am completely convinced this is entirely rigged. I've been all over the US in the last couple years, and I have met so few people who view the last four years in a positive light.
    Not to mention the number of electronic voting devies used in this election, ALL (as far as I know) which have been *proven* to have hackable and faulty security. How scary is that?

    We also have a system here that does not allow the majority to vote for president (majority vote in 2000 was for the other candidate who was cheated out of office).

    The saddest thing of all is that, if there are really this many that prefer our current president, not many of them seem to understand that our pestering of other nations is what results in terrorism, and we ourselves are to blame. It really is so confusing and sad to see your fellow humans this way.

  13. Checking Account by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    A couple of months ago, I went into a bank to sign up for a checking account. Since I am under 18, my parent's were going to be co-signers of the checking account with me. I was told that I wouldn't be able to open an account without a state ID. At the time, I didn't have a state ID or driver's license, and so I was promptly told that I couln't open an account. I know most people have driver's licenses so it's not a problem for them, but for people under 18, it is another hurdle.

  14. How has the Patriot Act affected Osama Bin Ladin? by marktaw.com · · Score: 4, Interesting

    At a time when some of our compatriots were dazzled by America and hoping that these visits would have an effect on our countries, all of a sudden he (Bush Sr.) was affected by those monarchies and military regimes, and became envious of their remaining decades in their positions, to embezzle the public wealth of the nation without supervision or accounting.

    So he took dictatorship and suppression of freedoms to his son and they named it the Patriot Act, under the pretence of fighting terrorism.


    - Osama bin Ladin

  15. RE: Patriot Act, Bush, etc. by King_TJ · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Well, perhaps it bears reminding you then that BOTH Bush AND Kerry came out in support of the suggested "part 2" of the original Patriot Act. In fact, when questioned about the details, Bush said he would be "largely in support of it, with a few changes" while Kerry said he was in total support of the bill, as-is.

    I'm an American who is deeply disappointed that more people can't see past the B.S. that is our current 2-party system and place a vote for the Libertarians.

    Insanity, as they say, is doing the same thing over and over but expecting different results.....

  16. Re:Not much, really. by End11 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Yes, because after all "rights" and "freedoms" were not designed so you could do things the government doesn't approve of, and the only people who care about them must pretty much be terrorists anyway. What kind of a weirdo doesn't want the government to have unlimited power to go through their shit? The kind with something to hide of course!

    --

    Which is worse: ignorance or apathy? Who knows? Who cares?
  17. Re:Talking about the patriot's affect on yourself. by Xyrus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The main reason you don't hear anything is because it is one of the provisions of the patriot act.

    You are not allowed to discuss any charges brought against you. You can be held without council. You can be held indefinately.

    Why do you think the ACLU/EFF couldn't talk about their case against the Patriot Act?

    If your civil liberties die in a country with no one around to defend it, do you make a sound?

    ~X~
    "You have rights....then you have wrongs."

    --
    ~X~
  18. I encrypt by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's made me aware of government intercepts in ISP's, so I've setup postfix, cyrus, courier and sendmail wherever I use them to use SSL whenever possible. I also finally bought a real cert (from InstantSSL for $50).

    I suppose Carnivore and Echelon were there before Patriot but it didn't wake me up as much.

    It bothers me personally and politically, yet there was no candidate I could vote for who was against Patriot and for Preemption. In the end, Patriot was lower on my scale. You could say I like my terrorism policy like my operating systems - preemptive rather than cooperative.

    I'm firmly of the opinion that no matter what we do to try to protect the country there is a way around those measures. Short of locking everybody in their houses there are opportunities for terrorists to strike.

    So we shouldn't step on _any_ civil liberties of Citizens and we should be on the offensive.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  19. You must be some sort of terrorist to even ask by cometsnake · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm sure that the people effected most by the PATRIOT Act aren't reading /. Do they have broadband in Guantanamo?

  20. Not me. But so what? by Dyolf+Knip · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What are we supposed to do, wait until a few million people _are_ affected by bad laws before suggesting they are not in our best interests? That sort of thinking got us the War on Drugs and millions of citizens spending time in prison and law enforcement constantly expanding its scope to try to enforce fundamentally unenforcable laws. Most americans weren't affected by the Alien and Seditions Acts. Most americans in the north weren't affected by slavery laws. Most germans weren't affected by the Nuremburg laws. Just because it doesn't screw over >50% of the population in the first 3 years of its existence doesn't mean that it shouldn't be fought. Particularly when the law itself demands that any uses and abuses be kept hidden from the public.

    --
    Dyolf Knip
  21. A fun experience: by Epona · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Last February, I had just returned home from the mall and was parked outside of my apartment when I got a call from a friend of mine who was waiting for me in the lobby. Just as he was walking outside to say hello, all the people who looked as though they were walking home from work suddenly turned on us and whipped out badges. These were members of the Secret Service Police (in charge of money fraud etc) and the Anti-terrorism task force.


    My friend was taken away in about 5 minutes to some secret underground interrogation room, and didn't come back for about 3 hours.


    I was questioned at the scene about any knowledge I had about blank checks and my friend's connection to terrorist organizations.


    The police asked to search my car, and when I refused, I was suddenly surrounded by members of the SWAT team, dogs, machine guns and all.


    They searched my car with me on the ground at gun point (during rush hour in downtown DC, no less!), and needless to say, found no fake checks.


    When all was said and done, the man in charge of the Anti-Terrorism Task Force/Secret Service Police shook my hand and thanked me for doing a great service to America, and a great service for freedom. My pleasure.


    Apparently, someone with a grudge against my friend had called a contact at the treasury dept. and told him that we were all involved in a money laundering scheme. They take those threats pretty seriously.

    Oh yeah, they also stole the chinese food I had brought home for lunch :(

    --
    No heaven can heaven be, if my horse isn't there to welcome me.
    1. Re:A fun experience: by euxneks · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, what happend to the one with a grudge? Is he in Jail at least? I consider this an egregious breach upon your rights, not to consider a terrible waste of resources.

      --
      in girum imus nocte et consumimur igni
    2. Re:A fun experience: by anethema · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Aparently you dont get it. With the PATRIOT act..there are no rights of that kind. If you are a 'suspected' terrorist, it is perfectly legal to detain you, search you, put you under surveilance, etc. None of this needs a court order.

      A waste of resources? Yes.
      A breach of his rights? Not anymore, he had no rights.

      Good ole USA.

      --


      It's easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.
    3. Re:A fun experience: by Epona · · Score: 2, Interesting
      A breach of his rights? Not anymore, he had no rights.

      Yeah, basically- I told the police they couldn't search my car and that lasted about 5 seconds- once they pulled out the machine guns, my first thought was, "well, technically they may have no right to do this, but they have guns and I don't want to be a hero right now". Since I wasn't *technically* the one who was under suspicion I am unclear about whether they had a right to search me without a court order, but since they claimed to be acting under the PATRIOT ACT I'm sure any legal action I took would have been useless.


      -Katie


      --
      No heaven can heaven be, if my horse isn't there to welcome me.
  22. mentality it brought... by wooby · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Though the Patriot Act specifically hasn't affected me in any way I realize, the mentality the War on Terror brought to law enforcement, manifested in the Patriot Act, has.

    In the summer of 2002 my family was in the middle of selling a house, and potential buyers were often touring, checking things out.

    One couple with a digital camera was photographing the interior when they opened my room closet and discovered my trusty potato gun. They decided it was a device of terror, photgraphed it, and forwarded the images to the state police when they got home. My family and I didn't know until the next day, when some serious looking dudes showed up.

    Luckily the police were relatively reasonable and left without incident, but the whole thing was disconcerting.

    I came to realize that I feared the self-deputized public more than any law they could come up with in Washington. Whenever the terror level goes up, and citizens are told to "be watchful," what does that really mean? Eyeball dark-skinned people with foreign-looking head-dress, or poke around someone's house sneaking out pictures to send to the police?

    I'll give our leadership the benefit of the doubt, and presume that they're not entirely aware of the shift in public thought they're sponsoring. I couldn't propose a much better way of handling it all, either. I just know that as an individual, living in America after 9/11, it's starting to be weird and suck and I hope that it doesn't get any worse.

  23. Every time I hear... by boudie · · Score: 2, Insightful

    the word "homeland" makes me think it's Germany in 1938.

  24. Bush "Bashing"? by Shoten · · Score: 5, Funny

    #!/bin/sh

    case $Election_Outcome in
    Kerry )
    echo "The Patriot Act has had a significant impact on my life. Some of it has been indirect, like the Wiccan friend (who was my friend before she was even Wiccan) in another part of the country who warned me that knowing her might jepoardize my clearance...it already had for some of her other friends. And the only reason why is because of her affiliation with a Wiccan coven. I'd point out that the Supreme Court has ruled that Wicca is a valid religion, and that covens are eligible for tax-exempt status as such." ;;

    Bush )
    "Ah, the glorious Patriot Act! It has done nothing but brought cheer and happiness to me since it was first conceived. My papers are in order, ja?" ;;

    esac

    --

    For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
  25. As a scientist... by xanthines-R-yummy · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I have to go through a blood-borne pathogens training seminar twice a year where I work. Despite not working with blood or infectious agents, I will be required to sign a statement saying I will agree and comply with the Patriot Act. Refusal to sign will apparently lead to non-compliance with safety training, which will lead to no grant money! The NIH will not authorize grants for researchers who do not have the proper protocols and properly trained staff (ie safety training).

    Will this really affect me in any meaningful way? Probably not. However it's still a little weird.

  26. No Problems by zugcat · · Score: 3, Funny

    The CENSORED act has not affected ma at all. I work at CENSORED and we have no CENSORED. I have noticed no difference in my life at CENSORED since theCENSORED act came to be. I can even process CENSORED reports and look at all the files in the CENSORED. I do not believe that the act has caused any censorship or CENSORED on the part of CENSORED . Any on who think they are affected adversely onlt need to lodge a complaint with the bureau of CENSORED. You can e-mail them at CENSORED@CENSORED . You can also reach them via the url www.CENSORED.CENSORED Respectfully, CENSORED

    1. Re:No Problems by ZorbaTHut · · Score: 2, Funny

      I tried emailing them at that address, but the email bounced. I don't think they got it. :(

      Oh, wait, there's a police car pulling up outside. Maybe they got it after all. I'll let you know how it turns out.

      --
      Breaking Into the Industry - A development log about starting a game studio.
  27. Re:Something not so funny. by TopShelf · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Except for that Oklahoma City bombing, of course.

    --
    Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
  28. (it's one of the reasons) why I am voting for Bush by ant_tmwx · · Score: 2, Funny

    he's a self proclaimed war president. who doesn't like war? especially pre-emptive offensive ones, where many innocents & soldiers are dying. but it was a war on the concept of 'terror.' well at least the first country, Afghanistan, was involved. luckily, he kept up an atmosphere of fear & had the country terrified.

    USA PATRIOT Act. I had too many Constitutional rights, freedoms, & liberties. I can spare a few, can't you? whatever idiot* said 'Those who would give up essential liberty for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.' probably had no experience. The ACLU can't even discuss their case against the gov ABOUT the USA PATRIOT Act. no one will deny, thats pretty awesome!

    Attorney General Ashcroft. I don't even feel like bringing up legit reasons like covering boobs on statues OF the personification of Justice. (the turn on almost caused me to rape.) crisco, anyone?

    I don't like people to express opinions if they are different from my own. even if they do it peacefully & respectfully. of course, I am assuming those in power will always hold the same views as I do. Love America, Hate Bush

    * Ben Franklin

  29. Loss of faith by ncrypted · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The USAPATRIOT act may not have affected me in any material way, but it has affected me in some very serious ways, namely a loss of faith in some of the basic principles that make up my idea of what America IS.

    By allowing expanded powers to the investigative branches of the government with only minimal oversight by the judicial branch, the act undermines my protections under the 4th amendment. Sneak-and-peak warrants have been allowed under the FISA and criminal statutes since the late 60's, with probable cause, and with bench approval.

    Now, however, the standards have been lowered to a point that the average citizen can have their private records and personal affects searched (and bugged) for, what would have been in the past, only minimally suspicious behaviors. Imagine, for instance, that you are a student researching a paper for a comparative religion class that takes you into the realm of researching reasons, justifications, and methods used by suicide bombers/terrorists. With only the barest of oversight, the government now has the right to partake of surveillance that would have been considered "beyond the pale" only 3 years ago.

    My biggest complaint, however, has nothing to do with the above. It has to do with the "Enemy Combatant" detainments that have been an ongoing problem in the judicial system. Under the 6th amendment, we have the right to a speedy and public trial. By right, we have for the last 200+ years enjoyed this protection under the bill of rights. Now, though, if the government can come up with a reason to label you an enemy combatant, they can hold you for an indefinite time in an undisclosed location, with no access to legal counsel.

    At one point in the past, I was a Muslim. I frequented a mosque that I discovered (many years after the fact) was frequented by "unsavory" types that were recruiting people to fight in one of the earlier Palestinian Intifada's. Do I now have to forever look o'er my shoulder to see if I am being followed? Maybe.

    Both of the above situations are also are protected by the 14th amendment (due process), but this due process has been undermined by the USA Patriot act.

    How can we truly call ourselves the land of the free when we allow our constitutional freedoms to be circumvented by acts of congress?

    --
    == That terrible green-green grass, and violent blooms of flower dresses, and afternoons that make me sleepy.==
  30. As someone who isn't a US citizen... by mike_sucks · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... and who doesn't live in the country:

    The Patriot act has made me decide to never go to the US. There's a lot of stuff I'd like to see and do there, but I will never enter the US as long as Bush is in power and legislation like the DCMA and the Patriot Act are law.

    /mike

    --
    -- "So, what's the deal with Auntie Gerschwitz et all?"
    1. Re:As someone who isn't a US citizen... by Frogbert · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I have to second that, as I child I always want to go to the USA, see disney land and so on. I got older and realised the Disney trip was probably not going to happen however I still wanted to go there and see the sights, perhaps even study there or get a Utah prostitution license to take home as a souvenir.

      But then this crap, I'm an Australian, our country is aparently part of the "Coalition of the willing" yet if I went to America I would have my fingerprints taken and probably my DNA. I know for a fact I would have trouble getting through customs and so on.

      My guess is that America will have a tourism downturn in the future, and this crap will be the cause of it.

  31. Re:Something not so funny. by fucksl4shd0t · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As one poster pointed out, you wouldn't have caught Timothy McVeigh with your scheme.

    You also wouldn't have caught the dude that burned all those churches in the South a few years back, nor any of the abortion-clinic bombers, nor would you have prevented the Columbine Massacre, not to mention the Kittamer Massacre.

    Unfortunately, in the USA, we have cheapened citizenship so much that there is almost no difference in privileges and rights claimed by non-citizens and a citizens in the USA.

    The declaration of independence sorta sets the stage. It is a legal document that declares our freedom from Britain. Personally, I'd like to see the Brits point out how we've failed to meet our promises in said Declaration, and that means ownership of the country reverts back to them. Wouldn't that be fun? Anyway, the Declaration of Independence says something about holding certain rights to be inalienable, and says *nothing* about "inalienable only for american citizens, but foreigners don't enjoy these rights in our land".

    This country was built by immigrants. To treat foreigners like you would treat them is to spit on our own roots, and then, of course, we can never go home again.

    --
    Like what I said? You might like my music
  32. The Libertarians need to get more serious by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The problem is they go too hardcore and also often act like assclowns. I mean if you asked me what party I was, I'd have to say Libertarian. Their general views seem to match my general views on the majority of issues. Problem is the party itself gets all extreme about them, and that's just not a way to break in to the current system.

    Then they also pull stupid ass stunts that make them look immature. In Arizona, they got an order to show cause as to why they were excluded from the debates. Now they actually had a legit argument. See the presidential debates have 3 requirements to get in:

    1) You have to actually be elegible (as in native citizen, of proper age, etc) to be president.

    Seems good, I mean if you are disqualified form running, no point in you participating in the debates. Badnarik meets this one.

    2) You have to be on the ballot in enough states to theoritically be able to win a majority of the EC.

    Also seems good. You have to win a majority (or be elected by the House of Representitives if there is no majority winner) to become president, so if you aren't on enough ballots ot get it, you aren't really in the running. Badnarik also met this.

    3) You have to have shown a fairly large popular support, I think to the effect of 10%.

    Ok well this one is problematic. Seems to me that keeps it a 2-party game. I mean popular support could very well be gained in the debates. Badnarik did not meet this.

    So there was a legit reason to take this to court. They probably would have lost, but it is a worthy challenge. Good idea right? Er, no.

    They didn't actually do it to get it to court. They waited till the night of the debate, and then attempted to force their way in and have Badnarik serve the papers. Well that does fuck-all good. For one, you can't serve papers for a lawsuit you are involved in, and it wouldn't do any good anyhow since the debate was already happening. Badnarik even stated the whole stunt was just to get arrested and get publicity.

    Well between the extreme Libretarian position and the asshattery of things like this, they just ruin their chances.

    I really wish that they'd mellow out, become more moderate and get serious. I think they could become a credible threat if they did. However as it stands they are basicalyl just a fringe party. I know a lot of people that consider themselves Libertarian and I don't know any of them that considered voting for Badnarik.

    1. Re:The Libertarians need to get more serious by Money+for+Nothin' · · Score: 3, Interesting

      *claps*

      Thank you! You are absolutely correct... The LP's problem is that they sell 1 "Big Libertarian Package" as the solution to everything -- as if free markets are a miracle elixir.

      Well, for the most part, free markets *are* close to a miracle elixir, :-) but good luck convincing everybody else of that. The LP needs to sell their stance in pieces at a time, being staunch and principled when it counts, and moderate at others.

      IMO, Arnold Schwarzenegger is as close to a Libertarian as anybody has ever elected to significant office (Ron Paul aside, although I think Ah-nold actually is more powerful in his position). True, he's not libertarian on gun control and his support of Bush is disheartening, but otherwise, he exhibits some rather libertarian traits.

      But Schwarzenegger is not a big-'L' Libertarian. He realizes he cannot sell full drug legalization to voters, so he instead sells marijuana legalization for medicinal purposes. He can't sell privatization of most govn't functions to people, so he sells the easier privatizations first. He attempts to fund the govn't in a relatively low-tax way, e.g. via his $15b bond issue.

      Like Ronald Reagan, the CA governor he seems to emulate (but with a deeper streak of social liberalism), Arnold sells to the public a package of strong (but not extreme) fiscal conservatism in the face of "economic girly-men", social tolerance, and sunny Reagan-style optimism.

      Personally, I think the Libertarian Party ought to emulate Schwarzenegger if they want to break their current Presidential popular-vote record of 1% (in 1980, with Ed Clark, who eventually founded the Cato Institute). Of course, the LP, being run by Randroids left over from the 1960s when "The Fountainhead" and "Atlas Shrugged" were big hits are still the ones running the show -- and Randroids, of course, don't compromise.

      So we're stuck w/ the LP of today until the damn idealistic Randroid old farts leave.

      Based on what admittedly-little (not being a CA resident after all) I know of Schwarzenegger, I would *gladly* vote for him for President on either a Republican or Libertarian ticket (of course, this would require a change the Constitution - which is pretty unlikely). If he were running for President today in place of Bush, no doubt in my mind, I would vote for Schwarzenegger, as would many Americans, I believe... but as it stands, I voted Badnarik, and most Americans will likely vote for Bush (the polls appear to be shaping up that way). *sigh*

      My *ideal* Presidential candidate would be my favorite moderate libertarian and economic deity, Milton Friedman. But alas, he has no interest in actually running for office, and at his present age of 92, he's really too old now anyway. But Schwarzenegger is, by Arnie's own statements, basically one of the intellectual offspring of Friedman's books ("Free to Choose"). Fortunately, it seems to show too...

    2. Re:The Libertarians need to get more serious by Gooba42 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The most frustrating and scary part of the Libertarian party and/or people claiming to belong to it is their uncompromising stance on the hallowed "Free Market". A handy example is the belief that, left to its own devices, Microsoft wouldn't choose to crush the life out of any and all competition by fair play or foul. The fact that, at least publicly, the Libertarians admit to *no* exceptions either in theory or in practice is impossible to comprehend. The free market is a great theory but reality doesn't allow any theory to flourish unchanged. The idea that *all* problems stem from interference by government rather than from greed leaves me wary.

      --
      I just found out there's no such thing as the real world. It's just a lie you've got to rise above. - John Mayer
  33. Yea, so give away all your freedoms!! by cbreaker · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The hell with it! In fact, let them look through my desk at work whenever they want! Who cares! Hey, it's cool, you wanna search my house next? Go ahead, as long as you do it when I don't know about it! I'm not doing anything wrong, so who cares about privacy? I don't! More power to you!

    --
    - It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
  34. USA PATRIOT by Riktov · · Score: 2, Funny

    It's made me realize that Struggling To Unite Populations In Distress, America's Completely Relying On Nationalistic Yet Moronic Symbolism.

  35. Re:Something not so funny. by raodin · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Thats debatable. The language used in the constitution (and more importantly, the bill of rights) imply that most rights apply to non-citizens.

    Most importantly regarding the current treatment of non-citizen "terrorists":

    Amendment V : No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

    Amendment VI : In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

    Amendment XIV Section 1 : All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    You'll note that at other points in the Constitution and its amendments, when it means citizen, it SAYS citizen.

  36. SPREADING FEAR YOU INSENSITIVE CLOD! by drewzhrodague · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The US Patriot Act has caused me to fear my government even more than normal. Now, when I work on my projects, even if I am not actually a terrorist, I worry that I may be labled as such. Is this the way a law abiding citizen should feel at home?

    --
    Zhrodague.net - I do projects and stuff too.
  37. Wow, what a funny man you are... by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This would be the same country that was built on slavery, that had racial segregation and which treated blacks as second class citizens until only a few decades ago, that still treats its indigenous peoples as worse than second class citizens in many aspects, that has clear sexual discrimination in the workplace (women still earn less than men), that has clear homophobic discrimination in government (gays in the military), that has a President that wants to discriminate further against gays (gay marriage), that has illegal internment of anyone with even partial Japanese heritage (during WWII) and McCarthyism (when freedom of expression went out the window) in its recent past and has now resorted to illegal internment and religious McCarthyism again.

    Yeah, because nothing could ever be shown to have been held unfairly against anyone at anytime in America's recent history, could it?

    --

    "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
    1. Re:Wow, what a funny man you are... by johnlcallaway · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yep...those Europeans were very good at getting the slaves over here too...and those Africans were very good at giving them up to us (between the times they were slaughtering each other.) And the Europeans were very good at wiping out the indigineous population when they got here. And everyone should have the right to have sex with whomever they want whenever they want because it's all about the pleasure and how we feel inside and has nothing to do with health factors or moral beliefs. And lets not forget those silly Germans during WWII and Stalin

      It's all a matter of what OPINION you have, and about choosing which facts to present and which to ignore. The fact is while the US hasn't been perfect, neither has anyone else. The EU is rapidly becoming one of the most heavily regulated and largest welfare state around, Africa and the Middle East still continue to be very unstable, China's human rights record is abysmal, and on and on. The question isn't who is the best, but who is not the worst. One could just as easily point to many of the Middle East and Africa problems and lay their cause squarely on the back of 18th and 19th century European colonialism.

      --
      I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
  38. Reminder: Sneak and Peek *DOES NOT SUNSET* by MacDork · · Score: 5, Interesting
    And since "sneak and peek" DOES NOT SUNSET, be prepared to not know for a long time to come. The gubmint has been trying to slip this one by us since well before 9/11. It was shot down at least three times in recent history. First it was the Cyberspace Electronic Security Act (CESA). Then the Clinton administration tried to push it through with a meth bill. When that failed, they tried to sneak in through as an amendment to a bankruptcy bill. All the while, the DOJ, led by Reno, was claiming to already have this power without any need for additional legislation in the Nicodemo Scarfo case.

    Your only hope is to have it shot down in the Supreme Court now. Both parties have been pushing for this for some time. The People had already spoken. We consistently and emphatically told them 'hell no'. Three strikes, you're out, right? Oh no! Now the world's a different place with all the terrorists running about! Privacy is great an all, but the founding fathers could hardly anticipate terrorism! Get with the program you whining liberal pinkos! Now the FBI can sign their own warrant, sneak into your home, plant bugs and video cameras, and basically make Amendment 4 null and void.

    May I make one suggestion; Would you be so kind as to change your name from FBI to KGB and give up any pretense? Thanks.

  39. Re: ob Office Space quote by rayde · · Score: 2

    I can't believe what a bunch of nerds we are. We're looking up "money laundering" in the dictionary.

  40. It's real. by icefaerie · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The PATRIOT Act has affected me quite personally.

    I'm a high school senior. This summer, I was in Ithaca visiting Cornell. After our visit to the campus, we decided to do some exploring of the area, because it's really quite lonely up there but also quite quaint. We figured we could find a cute little town down by the lake there. We decided to check out Aurora on Route 90.

    Well, we turned down another road by accident. It was unmarked and at a 10% grade downhill. We wound up at the lake, certainly, but not in Aurora. We found ourselves at a power plant. Obviously, we knew we were in the wrong place, so we stopped.

    My dad suggested I get out of the car and take some pictures. The sun was setting and the area was terribly scenic. At this time, another car, a dark sedan that had been following us down the road, made a quick turnaround. I proceeded to get out of the car and take some pictures. My dad called me back, so I ran back to the car, and we drove off. That was at 7:38 pm.

    Fast forward to 11pm. My family is at the hotel, and my sister and I are trying to go to sleep. For reference, we have two adjoining rooms, one for my parents and one for me and my sister. Somebody bangs on my parents' door saying he's with the state police. My sister and I heard it and we assumed it was a joke.

    It wasn't a joke at all. The New York State Police really came into my parents' room and started questioning them. My sister and I had sort of gotten up and were listening through the door. Keep in mind that at this time I'm in my pajamas and without my contacts. The officers notice someone next door, and we come into my parents' room.

    The State Police were investigating a possible terrorist threat: me.

    My dad had been talking for me, but there were inconsistencies in his story. Obviously. He wasn't the one taking the pictures after all. I didn't remember exactly what happened, as in which picture I took in what order, because it wasn't as if I thought I would need to know that.

    THe officers want to see my camera, so my dad goes and gets it from the car. I'm in tears, because here I am, half blind and not dressed, being accused of being a TERRORIST.

    I showed them my camera, and they thought it was digital, but it's not; it only appears so because it's got a large LCD status display on the back. (Thank goodness I stick to film, because I don't want to think about what might've happened to me had it been a digital camera.)

    The entire scene at the plant had been recorded by a security camera, and the way the other car was there coupled by how I ran back to the car and how quickly my dad turned around made our behavior seem very suspicious.

    The police told me that that power plant supplies one-sixteenth of the power to the East Coast and that knocking it out would leave millions without power for months. My case was especially worsened by the fact that there had been a legitimate threat against another area plant that same day. They told us we were lucky they found us: they'd had to stop a bulletin going out to the whole East Coast looking for our car. If they hadn't, the next day we would have been surrounded by 20 state police cars with guns to our heads. If that's not a threat, I don't know what is.

    They wanted my film. I used up the last shot on the roll just by taking a picture of the floor, and then I handed the film over. The fact that I had fourth amendment rights never occurred to me. I was quite frankly scared out of my mind. Other people I've told said they would have refused, but my life had just been threatened. I think that's the part they don't get.

    So they took my film and left. I couldn't sleep for quite a while and was quite visibly upset through the next day.

    I'm still paranoid about police.

    It took me quite some time to realize that I had done nothing wrong. There were no signs of warning or anything near the power plant. No "Authoriz

    1. Re:It's real. by targo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I had a similar experience this spring when visiting the otherwise nice state of Louisiana.
      I had been recording our trip by taking pictures of all kinds of random stuff that we saw, and one day we saw some cool-looking oil refinery by the roadside. I stopped, got out my camera and snapped a pic of it, then continued the drive. ONE MINUTE later there was a police car behind us; they made us stop and forced me to erase that picture. Being an immigrant with less than zero rights in this country, I complied.
      The absurdity of the whole situation (real terrorists would not have stopped, and would have just taken a picture, or even better, found it on the web on the official homepage of the plant) didn't really get to the cops.
      Or perhaps, this is all just part of the game. Nobody really cares about the terrorists, and the government is simply and blatantly trying to scare people into submission.

    2. Re:It's real. by will_die · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So where was the PATRIOT Act used?
      Nothing that happened was done differently because of a FEDERAL act, it was the STATE police.
      The police could before the PATRIOT act ask you questioned, before the PATRIOT act they could ask you to let them see or have something. So how has the PATROIT act affected you?

    3. Re:It's real. by molo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They wanted my film. I used up the last shot on the roll just by taking a picture of the floor, and then I handed the film over.

      The point is that my civil right were violated.

      Not if you voluntarily gave over the film. If they asked for it and you refused and they took it anyway, then you would have a case.

      -molo

      --
      Using your sig line to advertise for friends is lame.
    4. Re:It's real. by icefaerie · · Score: 2, Informative

      It wasn't really voluntary, since I was being threatened. Not to mention that even if I had had my senses about me that I could have refused anyway, because my parents would have made me hand it over.

  41. Re:Something not so funny. by Methuseus · · Score: 4, Funny

    I think you mean Khitomer Massacre.

    --
    Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, though I'm not yet sure about the universe. - A Einstein
  42. The Real Dangers by Thangodin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There are three problems with the Patriot Act. The first is obviously a suspension of due process. Within 6 months of passing it, the Bush administration was boasting that it had been used to to prosecute drug dealers. This has nothing to do with terrorism, and showed the real intent: a law which could be used to suspend normal due process in the investigation and prosecution of anyone, not just terrorists.

    Secondly, there is the invasion of privacy. I really could care less if anyone read all my email or searched my computer. There's nothing incriminating. But this lack of concern only applies if the intent is criminal investigation. Political persecution is another matter. The Patriot Act is a perfect cover for a fascistic Star Chamber. If a group within the intelligence community decided that only those with the proper political views should rise to prominent positions, the Patriot Act would give them the clout to find out who does or doesn't hold these views. The persecution part is easy--just call a prospective employer and drop hints about an investigation into your background and affiliation with criminal organizations. The Patriot Act makes the Thought Police a real possibility. This is why law enforcement was required to get permission and provide notification. It permits ordinary citizens to catch the scent of this kind of activity, permitting correction by civil and political action. A crucial part of the checks and balances of the American system has been disabled.

    The third danger is high noise and low signal. If the intelligence community becomes involved in the unneccesary surveilance of innocent civilians, the time, expense, and manpower devoted to this is diverted from genuine threats. The end result is less security, not more. In one of the debates, John Kerry mentioned thousands of hourse of surveilance tapes that have never been watched. Who is going to watch all of this? This is noise. In Britain, where cameras have been installed everywhere, their main usage is to bust people for traffic violations. I suppose that if a terrorist attack does occur, they can look at the tapes later and say, "Oh, there go the terrorists."

    What the intelligence community needs to do is focus, get people on the ground, and stop the political infighting that is clogging the system. That means that people in the intelligence community should check their political opinions at the door when they come in, and stop pulling stunts like outing CIA operatives for political gain. The draconian measure currently being used won't help either; if you know a guy who is innocent but might have a lead, you're a lot less likely to give his name if you think he might get shipped to Guantanamo Bay just because he might be a couple steps removed from suspicious characters. And finally, they would have to get rid of John Ashcroft, the incompetent git who lost an election to a dead guy, shut down the FBI people who informed him of the suspicious group of Arabs training in a flight school in Florida, and who has detained 6000 people without finding a single terrorist. As long as he's in place, nothing else will matter.

    1. Re:The Real Dangers by shufler · · Score: 2, Informative

      "Oh, there go the terrorists" example: There is the footage of Mohammed Atta checking in at the airport.

    2. Re:The Real Dangers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      >In Britain, where cameras have been installed everywhere, their main usage is to bust people for traffic violations.

      This is because, in Britain, there are many cameras specifically designed to catch speeding motorists and motorists running red lights. Since vehicle drivers kill far more people than terrorists this seems a reasonable priority. Unless, that is, you are trying to scare people into voting for you.

    3. Re:The Real Dangers by TyrranzzX · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Secondly, there is the invasion of privacy. I really could care less if anyone read all my email or searched my computer. There's nothing incriminating.

      Ahh, correction bub. There's nothing incriminating, yet. They'll think of something. If you're reading Al-Jazeera, for example, then perhaps you're conspiring with terrorists. Or perhaps they don't particularily like some radio show you've downloaded and are sharing on a p2p app. Or perhaps you have "subversive" tendancies because you read "subversive" web content, such as slashdot?

      First, you pass the privacy laws so you can spy on everyone, then you begin persecuting the most extreme first, then begin persecuting the less and less extreme while justifying it more and more. Perhaps it's in my interest to see violent drug merchants and suicide bombers go to prison, but it certainly isn't in my interest to see protestors go to jail, or coworkers. But those protestors are just as bad as the drug cartel or mafia, because of some likeness I have yet to hear of.

      How do I know it's going this way? Started with islamic militants, moved onto US citizens with ties to said islamic militants, then moved to drug merchants and prostitutes, and now we've got wiretaps on people who go to and organize peaceful protests and the police ontop of buildings taking pictures of said protestors. Next stage seems to be shutting down websites such as indymedia's, among others, confiscating our weapons, with probably a crapton of voting fraud and probably rioting to go with it. But that last part is just my prediction.

  43. Empirical evidence by MacDork · · Score: 4, Informative
    • On June 9, 2002 Jose Padilla--a.k.a. Abdullah Al Muhajir--was transferred from control of the U.S. Department of Justice to military control. Since that time, Padilla has been held in a navy brig in South Carolina.
    • Padilla has not been charged with a crime, and does not have access to a lawyer in his detention.

    Source

    11/3/04 - 6/9/02 = 2 years, 4 months, and 3 weeks.

    No charges, no trial, no lawyer. Nothing. Welcome to your new home citizen. Enjoy your stay here at the Ministry of Love.

  44. At least 2 ways: by Money+for+Nothin' · · Score: 5, Insightful

    1) Personally: It offends my sense of civil-libertarian principle. The law leaves Americans less-free to go about their business unmolested by the hand of Big Brother. Restrictions on freedom should always be as few as reasonably possible, and the PATRIOT Act certainly doesn't qualify as a justifiable reasonable restriction on freedom in my book. It didn't 3 years ago, and it still does not.

    2) Professionally: Having worked in the financial industry, the PATRIOT Act made my employer more-transparent to the govn't for terrorist-spotting purposes. This is a drain on our system resources and therefore, our productivity, and therefore, our efficiency, and therefore, our profits, and therefore, my income. So the PATRIOT Act has regulated away some (perhaps admittedly-small) amount of my income -- and for what?

    Nothing except freedom-reduction and inefficiency, as far as I can tell.

    Here's a better question: how many terrorists have we caught thanks *solely* to the PATRIOT Act? If we are to justify the law as useful for catching terrorists, then we had better *judge* it based on how many terrorists we catch -- NOT whether we have each been harmed by it. After all, a law that does nothing is a useless law wasting space on the shelves of law libraries across America, continuing to displace liberty in the name of security.

    Indeed, true liberty is a lawyer's empty bookshelf.


    And if the PATRIOT Act has been unsuccessful in catching terrorists, then the law has failed and we damn well had better repeal it for freedom's sake (and then proceed to find a better solution to the terrorist problem).

    Look, just because the law hasn't affected somebody *yet* doesn't mean it *never* will. Take the tax cuts of the Reagan era -- it wasn't a week before Democrats were saying "OMG, it's not working!" But the process isn't that fast -- and in the end, the tax cuts worked.

    So too will it be with the PATRIOT Act -- we may not have each been severely violated by it yet, but it is likely we will, sooner or later -- just like the DMCA. Therein lies the problem with the PATRIOT Act, the DMCA, the McCain-Feingold Act, or any other law: sooner or later, it comes back to bite you in the ass. But few people realize it until it's too late...

  45. Re:Something not so funny. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative
    You're a fuckin retard. Here is wikipedia's definition of what a terrorist is:

    Terrorism refers to the methodology of using violence to incite a fearful reaction from a civilian population, for the purpose of achieving a political, religious or social goal. Terrorist acts can be carried out by individuals, groups, or governments.

    The use of the terms terrorism and terrorist is politically weighted, as these terms (and historically, other terms like them) are often used in propaganda to drum up support in opposition to the designated "terrorists."

    Nations that support forms of organized violence (particularly where civilians are harmed) will tend to dissociate themselves from the term, and will use neutral or even positive terms to characterize their own combatants - such as soldiers, freedom fighters and patriots, all of which can be ambiguous.

    Terrorist is a term for one who is personally involved in an act of terrorism. Terrorist tactics may also be used by dissident groups or other actors to achieve political ends or for purposes of extortion.

    You don't think McVehigh counts as a terrorist? I pray people in Oklahoma are not nearly as ignorant as you.

  46. I had my bank accounts frozen...sigh by ScooterBill · · Score: 2, Interesting

    After a move to an apartment, I decided to change my address with my banks, etc. This apparently triggered something which froze all my accounts. I took so long to straighten out that I had to borrow money from friends to make my payments and to live. My broker told me this was a new government requirement from the Patriot Act.

    Thing is, I was freaked out that all the freedom we claim to have in this country was suddenly pulled out from under me. Most people don't think they could ever be affected by things like this but I am much more of a civil libertarian because of it.

  47. The Democrats voted for it too by John+Jorsett · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Then Bush and his cronies moved in, and anything even approaching preservation of civil liberties, the Constitution, or... okay, lets be honest, our dignity... went totally out the window in pursuit of idealism and Empire building.

    You may not have noticed, but the USA Patriot Act passed 98-1 in the Senate, 356-66 in the House, meaning the vast majority of Democrats voted for it too. If you hate the Act, you can equally blame the Democrats for whatever ills it brings.

    1. Re:The Democrats voted for it too by pocketfuzz · · Score: 2, Informative
      I'm ashamed that the coutnry I live in could put a man like George Bush in power, could support a congress that would ratify such onerous legislation as the Patriot Act, and, what's worse, even consider re-electing this man.

      I don't see the sentence where he blames only the Republicans in Congress.

      --
      Bring on the asteroid
  48. Don't live or work in the States, don't visit.. by torpor · · Score: 4, Insightful

    .. the States.

    Because of PATRIOT Act, I have completely cut all involvement with America down to whatever interaction happens on the Internet with a few Americans I know, and a close circle of friends I occasionally stay in touch with and see when they travel the world.

    I no longer work with Americans. I no longer travel to the U.S. for business. (trade shows &etc) I'm not taking any chances; the U.S. has become a techno-militaristic fascist state, and no longer represents to me, a member of the so-called "free world", the bastion of freedom and expression that it once did.

    The U.S. is a Cop, and you don't hang with cops if you don't have to. And if you have to, you don't want to.

    --
    ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
    1. Re:Don't live or work in the States, don't visit.. by SpacePunk · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "The U.S. is a Cop, and you don't hang with cops if you don't have to. And if you have to, you don't want to."

      Well, junebug, here's a little life tip for you. It's good to know cops, it's good to be buddies with cops. For several different reasons. You will get a faster response time if the cops know you if you should need their help. You have an 'inside' to the local law enforcement goings-on. Criminal elements will be more likely to stay away from you and yours.

      So, don't hang out with cops if you want. Perhaps you have something to hide, perhaps not.

    2. Re:Don't live or work in the States, don't visit.. by torpor · · Score: 2, Funny

      If it weren't for us, you'd probably be speaking German.


      thanks to you, i'm speaking american .. your point?

      --
      ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
  49. "Not Me?" by Noksagt · · Score: 3, Insightful

    A lot of people have been quick to respond that it hasn't affected them. Howthe hell do you knowthat? Many provisions of the PATRIOT Act prevent you from learning that it has been used against you. Just because you haven't had US Marshals knocking on your door doesn't mean you haven't had your library record analyzed. Just because you haven't been detained without charges doesn't mean that more of your tax money isn't going to extra surveilance that is ethically questionable and wouldn't be legal without the PATRIOT Act.

  50. Re:Something not so funny. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Alright, well, howabout guys with beards then? If we just watchout for guys with beards, we'll be safe....

  51. Re:You underwhelm me. by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Firstly, nice to see you using the Anonymous Coward option for what it was designed for: letting people freely spout whatever they want to free from persecution. Ironically, it's that sort of anonymity and protection of freedom of expression that the PATRIOT ACT essentially undermines.

    Having said that, I do prefer it if people are willing to stand up and be counted when voicing a viewpoint that's diametrically opposed to my own. If nothing else, it makes it easier to track a conversation back and forth if I know which messages are being posted by which individual. Funny though, there are some out there that would say that standing up and being counted just makes it easier to weed out unwanted voices of dissent, as many a political prisoner throughout history could testify.

    Secondly, it's nice to see you skim over those parts of my post that you don't feel like addressing, presumably because you have no way of rationalising away those forms of unfair discrimination and abuses of power.

    Yeah, ignore the fact that a country theoretically built on the principle that "all men are created equal" was practically built with the blood, sweat and tears of a subjugated people. Ignore the fact that the Constitution valued the life of a negro slave as 3/5ths of a man, or that the freed slaves never did get their 40 acres and a mule in compensation.

    Ignore the fact that, as recently as a couple of generations ago, blacks couldn't drink from the same water fountain as whites, that blacks had to give up their seats to whites, that blacks couldn't share the same classrooms as whites and that lynchings were a way of life.

    Ignore the fact that as badly as black Americans have been treated, that native American peoples have been treated far worse, from the days of Plymouth Rock to Custer to today.

    Ignore the fact that a woman doing the same job as a man who's equal to her in every other aspect other than their genders is likely to be earning less than her male counterpart, and is far less likely to be promoted than her male colleague.

    Ignore the fact that being gay in the US military is akin to being unfit for service. As if a gay man is any less capable of firing a rifle, driving a tank or flying a plane.

    Ignore the fact that the 43rd President of the United States would actively seek to take rights away from people based purely on their sexuality, even where those rights have been specifically granted to them by one or more of the States.

    Ignore the fact that nothing more than a person's ethnicity has been used in the past to justify their imprisonment. Japanese Americans and others who spent most of World War II illegally imprisoned in internment camps clearly didn't have any rights.

    Ignore the fact that a person's beliefs, however privately they may be held, have been reason enough to hound them unendlessly. Ignore the fact that McCarthyism ever existed and, to put it mildly, that it flew in the face of free speech.

    Ignore the fact that post-September 11th, hundreds of Americans of Middle Eastern descent were interned without any legal representation or even access to their families whatsoever. And, whatever you do, ignore Camp X-Ray and everything that's gone on there.

    Ignore the racial and religious McCarthyism that's going on right now, where people are routinely discriminated against because their skin is the wrong colour or because of their faith.

    And above all, ignore any point that espouses a viewpoint that you disagree with.

    I made a list in response to comments by someone who clearly didn't believe that innocents could be unfairly targetted in the US. I made a list to educate him that, unfortunately, innocents can and have been unfairly targetted in the US several times.

    The land of the free isn't supposed to be the land of the free for most of the people, it's meant to be the land of the free for all of the people.

    If you're so uncomfortable with a short list of examples of your country's failings then you really need to examine why it is you feel the need to defend the indefensible.

    --

    "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
  52. How the "PATRIOT" Act has affected me by senahj · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Nausea at the retreat from the courage and ideals
    that once characterized this nation.

    Once we were the land of the free and the home of the brave.
    Now we're the land of the secretly-surveiled,
    and the home of the anxious-about-safety.

    "When the freedom they wished for most
    was the freedom from responsibility,
    then Athens ceased to be free,
    and never was free again."
    - Edith Hamilton

    --
    Wait a minute. Didn't I say that on the other side of the record? I'd better check ...
  53. You could have hours of fun with this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Ring up and report yourself. Make sure you have a lawyer with you or a news crew and see what happens.

    Or just randomly report people who you think are terrorists. When they start dragging people away in droves, thats when people will start to feel the outrage.

  54. Please don't call it the "Patriot" Act by some+guy+I+know · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's not the "Patriot" Act; it's the "USAPATRIOT" Act.
    Please use the full acronym, or its full name: "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism".
    The "USAPATRIOT" Act has nothing to do with patriotism, so calling it the "Patriot Act" is misleading.
    (Considering how the Act is being misused these days, even using its full name is somewhat misleading (How is copyright infringement "terrorism"?).)
    Personally, I pronounce it "the you sap at riot act" to avoid confusion.
    Other pronunciations are "the US ap uh TRY ot act" and (as Jar-Jar) "the YOUsa pah TR-R-RE-E-E at act".

    --
    Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
    1. Re:Please don't call it the "Patriot" Act by AviLazar · · Score: 2, Insightful

      See the problem is - they spent too much money and brainpower actually assigning a sound statement to "USA PATRIOT" letters instead of making it a sound act.

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    2. Re:Please don't call it the "Patriot" Act by jotok · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Er...fair enough, but the point of the thread is to detail exactly how it has affected you personally, rather than bitch about it's being "misused" in generic terms. Innit?

  55. Moderators: Why is this moderated funny? by babybird · · Score: 2, Informative

    Why is this modded funny? This is making a serious point.

    --
    Keith D.
  56. Re:Something not so funny. by StikyPad · · Score: 2, Informative

    Unfortunately (fortunately?) the Declaration of Independance is not a law, it's just a document. They represent the ideas that we've supposedly based our government on, but it has no legal merit. I'm sure you weren't implying that, but some people seem to think it's part of the Constitution.

  57. Re:Something not so funny. by torpor · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The problem of terrorism is due to almost exclusively people who are not American citizens.

    The 'problem' with terrorism is in its definition. Who says what a terrorist is, and who says what a terrorist does? Find that person, and you have found someone who stands to profit from both sides of the terror coin.

    Terror'-ism' is a pop-psych brain-trick designed to herd the masses towards a desired point of view. It is not a valid argument for civilization, nor is it a valid argument for war. To treat 'terrorism' as if it were a new problem, and not as old as the hills in which we build our cities, is to attempt to re-define it for political gain in the new language landscape presented by the modern American empire, and its media.

    Any foolish 'patriot' who falls into the trap of believing that someone who does not 'hate terrorism' is an enemy of their land, has become a victim in point of fact of terrorist ideology ...

    Terrorism is an ideology. Those who define that ideology are the true terrorists.

    --
    ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
  58. Re:You underwhelm me. by ryturner · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You obviously dislike america, but you do have some valid complaints. But living in the real world, what country does it better?

  59. Brooklyn Bridge by bdowne01 · · Score: 3, Funny

    I recently took a trip to New York and walked across the Brooklyn Bridge. The PATRIOT act kept that bridge from being blown up. I liked that walk.

    --
    -brain
    1. Re:Brooklyn Bridge by svallarian · · Score: 2, Funny

      Just be glad you didn't take a picture of it and be arrested on the other side for "aiding terrorism".

      Steven V>

      --
      I patented screwing your mom. But it got revoked for "prior art."
  60. Re:You underwhelm me. by Troy+Baer · · Score: 2, Informative
    I take it you've never been to a reservation.

    The reservations are on land that settlers didn't want. Native Americans who live on the reservations are often barred from working off the reservation, either by law (in some cases they're not considered U.S. citizens) or because of discrimination. Most of the reservations have no economy to speak of other than a small amount of tourism (and maybe the casinos you mentioned, but only in some cases). Poverty and alcoholism are usually rampant, and if there is a casino, many of the folks on the reservation don't see any money from it because of corruption.

    A few years ago I went on a service trip to Oaks Indian School, which is basically an Lutheran-run orphanage on the Cherokee reservation in Oklahoma. It was an eye-opening experience. I'm originally from a rural area of Ohio just on the edge of the Rust Belt, so I had a little bit of an idea what poverty looks like. I had no idea it would be as bad as it was. Just absolutely heartbreaking.

    --Troy
    --
    "My life's work has been to prompt others... and be forgotten." --Cyrano de Bergerac
  61. Re:You underwhelm me. by killeena · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It has been drilled into our heads, ever since we were in elementary school, that we live in the greatest country in the world. Maybe people should actually open their eyes, and take a look around. There are plenty of other countries that are just fine. What about Norway? Or Canada? Japan? I am not saying to go and move somewhere else, or that the U.S is the worst place to live, but there are other places. Maybe we should stop believing the bullshit that is pushed into our heads without questioning it.

    --
    Freedom would be not to choose between black and white but to abjure such prescribed choices. -Theodor Adorno
  62. What about the positive impacts? by iamwahoo2 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Despite the fact that the USAPATRIOT Act was taken straight out of the "How to Create A Police State Tutorial" there have been some positive impacts. Investigative agencies were clearly trying to do their jobs with their hands tied. The trick is to find a way for them to do their job, while still keeping a proper system of checks and balances in place. The PATRIOTACT probably does a poor job of this, but hopefully in its' new form it will do more to protect citizens rights and provide them the appropriate due process. The patriot act has done a lot to make us safer. The 9/11 hijackers were suspected terrorists were under investigation before the incidents, and had the PATRIOTACT been in place at that time, the plane hijackings would never have occured.

    Of course, any positive effect that the P-ACT may have will in the long term be counteracted by the extreme seeds of hate that the Illegal War in Iraq is creating among Muslims (actually more than just the Muslims, pretty much everyone will hate us soon). In the long haul, this administration will make us LESS safe.

  63. Re:You underwhelm me. by lukewarmfusion · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're not a troll.

    His post included "sins of the past" and "sins of today" - see the parts about the post 9/11 internment, sexual discrimination, homophobic persecution, etc.

    As for your challenge, I'm not sure why anyone would take that seriously. It's a misdirection. Instead of honestly and directly confronting the issues he brought up, you're changing the subject and trying to get him to answer a loaded question. If you're willing to ignore real social issues of the past and of today, I can only expect you to ignore them in the future. That is, until you're the victim of one of these issues.

  64. Re:You underwhelm me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "The japanese were put in camps because they were a security risk during a war."

    Prove it.
    Seriouely. How many of those imprisoned Japanese were spies or saboteurs, or terrorists intent on reducing or eliminating America's ability to wage war against Japan?
    Personally, I can't recall that ANY of them were ever found guilty of such offenses.
    The same has happen for men of Middle-Eastern descent. Has there been even ONE that was a true terrorist? THat was in colusion with the REAL enemy of America, UBL?
    No. you are simply trying to justify your racial hatred, as your fore-fathers justified their racial hatred of negroes by claiming they were "less than human". And, like them, you will eventually be shown to be the bigotted racist you truely are.

    "Being gay in the military makes the other guys uncomfortable."

    I'm so sorry you are so uncertain about your manhood. Tell me...do you still giggle and act childish if you see a woman naked in public?
    You obviously would have the emotional maturity of a 10 year old if being around a homosexual makes you "uncomfortable". Quite frankly, I would be far more uncomfortable around "real men" who can't even understand that what they are shooting at is a cow, when the word "cow" is written on the side of it!
    And people wonder why colleges and other institutions haven't truely gone "co-ed". Most of humanity hasn't matured past an elementary grade level emotionally.

    "Homosexuality is treated as the norm, when in reality, it should be classified as a mental disorder."
    So has joining a cult. Yet that has become socially acceptable, too.

    "When someone behaves in a way that obviously isn't natural"
    1.) Define "Natural" that doesn't also mena "comforms to MY viewpoints".
    2.) Since homosexuality has been documented in the "wild" (and I'm not talking about gay bars) with animals, what makes you think that humans would be somehow exempt from this?

    "While gays need tolerance, they also need help to get past their disorder."
    Tell me...Do you like blonde women? Brunettes? Larger women or smaller? Or maybe you just perfer pictures?
    Are these "disorders"? No. These are what you were pre-programmed with.
    Being raised by a homosexual does not mean you will be homosexual, just as being raised by a heterosexual means you will be heterosexual. There is more than environment at work to determine sexual preference.
    The Common Cowbird (In Illinois - look it up) will lay its eggs in another bird's nest. That doesn't mean the juvenile cowbird grows up thinking it's a robin, or sparrow. It grows up KNOWING it's a cowbird, and mates with other cowbirds.
    It would be the same with homosexuals. They are born "knowing" they are homosexual (even though mentally they are being beaten into submission by narrow minded fools).
    Attempts to "get them past their disorder" is no more than brainwashing to make YOU feel better about yourself. It isn't there to help anyone else but you.

    "And the other things you mentioned about religious/racial descrimination...those are just sad and unfortunate tendencies of human race."

    You actually resign yourself to this fact, or are you happy since you appear to be on the "winning side" for now?
    There are many "sad and unfortunate tendancies" of the human race. Not the least of which are violence and a desire to subjugate those not conforming to your viewpoint. The only reason this is so is because of weak-minded people who cannot see past the end of their nose.
    ARG!
    How can you sit there and simply ACCEPT that people are descriminated against?
    You are the vilest person on the planet. YOu KNOW what you (and others) are doing is wrong, yet you perpetuate the atrocities because "it's normal human nature".
    Next thing you know we'll be returning to the Burning Times, where innocent people are burned or drowned based on their beliefs!

    This is NOT what America was founded for. This is, in fact, the opposite of our founding father's principles a

  65. Re:You underwhelm me. by jrmann1999 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Could you further explain how Japanese-AMERICAN citizens are a security risk? Are you saying that during wartimes people who were born here and raised by families that were born here should be interned because they are a "security risk" based on their heritage?

  66. Well at least they gave you some valuable info by gelfling · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Luckily the State cops TOLD you something vauable about the power output of said plant so just in case they were right about you you could have used that intel to wreak havoc in the US.

    And that boys and girls is in a nutshel what the fuck is wrong with the PATRIOT act. It's an excuse for penis size challenged law enforcement shitheads to brag to you about how 'in the fucking loop they are' and how important they appear to themselves.

    The thing about a police state is not so much the laws, it's the fact that everyone considers themselves YOUR cop. And cops while they do an important and needed service to the community is something we don't need too much of. Think of the people you went to high school with who became cops. Do you want them micromanaging your life?

  67. What makes you think this could be answered!? by Herschel+Cohen · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The ACLU is fighting a portion of the Patriot act right now, however, it cannot explicitly publish the sections it is fighting due to the current P.A. forbids it!!

    Let's say you or someone you knew ran afoul of some section due to an innocent action on your part. What makes you think you could legally comment/mention/inform others of your predicament? It might be that you would be locked away with no <I>rights</I> to communicate with <B>anyone</B>.

    I have a question of you: Do you happen to work for our misnamed Department of Justice?

  68. Re:You underwhelm me. by bebec · · Score: 2, Insightful

    We are a people inundated with propaganda proclaiming America's superiority. Unfortunately, far too many people are willing to accept that propaganda as truth. I fear that as a society we are too lazy (or perhaps too apathetic) to go out on our own, search for facts, and form our own opinions. (Please note that I'm aware this is a gross generalization. There are many out there who do not fit into that group.) Our government supports this, in fact, counts on it for the success of its agenda. Those who choose to express a different view must be shut down. Freedom of thought causes dissension, and what government tolerates that?

  69. Re:Something not so funny. by TheRaven64 · · Score: 3, Funny
    Personally, I'd like to see the Brits point out how we've failed to meet our promises in said Declaration, and that means ownership of the country reverts back to them.

    On behalf of Britain, I would like to make the following announcement to the people currently inhabiting the former British colonies in North America:

    You broke it, you can buy us a new one. Or not. We don't really want one anymore. Colonies are so passé these days. Either way, we don't want it back unless you get it repaired first.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  70. it was used against us in a copyright case... by margaret · · Score: 2, Informative


    http://sg1archive.com/nightmare.shtml

    (I am the wife of the target of the investigation, aka "HurricaneMB" in the attached comments.)

    The story was posted on slashdot a while back too, but I don't have the link at the moment. The slashdot comments critized our story for being vague. Well, duh, there's an ongoing criminal investigation. What were we supposed to do, hand the feds their case on a silver platter? Tons of reporters called asking for more details, but our laywer, who was kinda pissed that we posted anything at all on the internet, said not to talk to them. When this is all over (hopefully sometime next year), we will tell our story in much more detail.

    And yes, it did influence our vote for President.

  71. Home Depot wouldn't give us a joint account by micksterama · · Score: 2, Informative

    My wife and I applied for a Home Depot Expo credit card before we begin redoing our kitchen. We listed both of our incomes since together they were pretty high and because my credit is much better than that of my wife, we hoped to up her score (long story short, her credit is much better now but I digress...) Well I get a letter stating that I am approved and she can be a cardholder but they cannot issue a joint account. I call Expo's credit services to inquire why I can't have a joint account-was it my wife's credit? Was it something else... The minimum waged person answering the phone says to me: "It's because of the PATRIOT ACT." I stopped for a second, paused in disbelief, and said: "The PATRIOT ACT?" She responded: "Yes, the PATRIOT ACT." Okay so now I am angry and wondering if I am suddenly considered a terrorist threat (which after that Franks and Beans dinner last night may actually be....) I ask to speak to a supervisor... Supervisor gets on the phone, very nicely, explains that due to the increased paperwork and documentation required by the PATRIOT ACT, Home Depot and Home Depot Expo no longer give out joint accounts, only a second card for applicants spouses... I ask incredulously, "The PATRIOT ACT?" She says "Yes." Because of potential money-laundering issues, banks and other financial institutions have to keep track of every social security number and new account... Now I can understand that you can get fertilizer and diesel fuel at a Home Depot or at least the fertilizer, and borrow one of their cute little trucklets, but give me a break. If we had a joint account we'd have almost double our credit line. Now it pays for my wife to open a separate account... The worst part, Home Depot still hasn't changed their credit application and nowhere in the disclosures does it mention the lack of availability of joint accounts...

  72. Re:Please don't call it "America" by kalvyn · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Stimpy you EEEDIOT!!!

    Columbus was a greedy spaniard (PC DISCLAIMER: no offense to you greedy spaniards out there, not that all spaniards are greedy. :-D) and had no idea he had found a new continent. He was looking for a cheaper way to get to the East Indies so that he could profit by selling spices. He then found gold and the greed fed on him. Anyway, to actually correct your "facts", America was named after Americus Vespucius in 1507, a year after Columbus's death (1506).

    Just thought I'd clear up a little history that people don't know before it gets rewritten again. :-D