Slashdot Mirror
Bush Wants Right to ISP Customer Data
bryan8m writes "Wired is reporting that the Bush administration wants back the ability to make ISPs turn over information on their customers. The U.S. Court of Appeals is handling the case and of course the feds want to hide details of it from the public. The law giving the government the power to seize communications records from 1986 was strengthened in 2001 by the Patriot Act and struck down after the ACLU challenged it."
When did the Bush administration become concerned about legality? Their previous stances on issues including torture, sovereign right of nations, and the role of Article 2 power has been done without discussing it with anyone.
Now all of the sudden they are getting a read from the courts?
Fucking facists.
"Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
...that no one will want to live here anymore.
The most important thing is to make sure that with any additional powers granted there is enough oversight from a disinterested third party to insure said powers are used only within their intended scope for their intended purpose.
While I agree with the importsance of this, I'd like to point at the importance of questioning if a power is needed at all, and not granting it if such a need cannot be proven. Checks and balances can only work when they are not bogged down in burocracy and procedure to be effective. Too much power with a too big counterweight (oversight by 'uninterested' 3rd parties) easily results in a substational amount of burocracy.
I'm not a bush basher generally. I'm not totally against the RIAA and MPAA.
But I must say, that this initiative is truely diabolical. My freedoms to surf the internet privately is clearly being breached here.
Are we going to see them applying the same interpretationist polcies that they use on television to the internet. I mean whos to say what constituits a "terrorist" website?
Goodbye my friends. I think 1984 has truely, and finally come alive, and its time for some of us to go underground.
Does'nt this seem *too* close to a dictatorship
Hell yeah, it does.
not that the US is one, b
Give it a little more time... These things don't happen overnight.
// TODO: Insert Cool Sig
the, "if you've got nothing to hide, why worry?" argument will probably win this one. but guys, c'mon. This descision will quash terrorism... don't you see...?
sudo killall humans
The bad part: "To expand the FBI's power to seek records without the approval of a judge or grand jury."
This means no oversight, and opens the door for all kinds of abuse. Giving the government a little grief? No problem, they'll just have to make life hard for you.
I'm so glad that the "keep-the-government-out-of-people's-lives" party is in power.
Well yeah but you have to remember that all this is about fighting terrorism.
If they hate our freedom the only way we can stop them is buy taking away our freedom.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
It looks more like a plutocracy with the wealth and power being concentrated in the top few percent of the population. The only direction now is down into despotism.
In some ways it's worse than a dictatorship, if you think about it. Most people in nasty dictatorships have an all-to-clear a picture of exactly what kind of behaviors will get them 'disappeared.' It's not a guarantee or anything (you may be a government-critic's brother, for instance), but at least you have a sense of your position on the terrain.
In the United States the law is so hopelessly complex, the enforcement so arbitrary, and adherence to the concept of checks and balances is such a farce that very few people are entirely sure of the legality of all their actions. Or what the consequences would be. We have developed a culture of lawyers for precisely this purpose - we walk on pins and needles hoping to God we aren't crossing some local, state, or federal ordinance without realizing it.
To live in the United States without having a law degree or the money to employ someone with one full-time is to be a second-class citizen.
--Ryv
Bullshit, he's not even coming close to "the best". Maybe the best "he can" but when he ignores everyone telling him that none of his airline regulations are working and he ignores us, it's time to accept that his best just doesn't cut it.
We're still sitting ducks for someone sneaking shit onto an airplane while screeners profile for british shoe bombers (oh wait, they're not, they're profiling for "people who look like they might be muslim", ignoring the fact that muslims are in just about every country in the planet and every color humans come in), meanwhile El Al has had one successful hijacking in decades, and not for lack of people trying.
I'm sorry mods, but I can't see how that's insightful.
What does one thing have to do with the other?
It seems many of us are simply predisposed to attack anyone whose ideology is different from ours. Without thought.
Sadly, I think this is what our political leaders have taught us: shrill reponses to just about anything proposed by our enemies (those who don't align with our politics.) It is a scary, scary practice and one that is getting worse.
Disclaimer: I'm not saying I advocate the war or the topic. In fact, I've not even RTFA.
How would people react if the Bush, or any, administration claimed the right to be able to tap anyone's phone for any reason?
From the article:
The legal filing with the 2nd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in New York comes amid a debate in Congress over renewal of the Patriot Act and whether to expand the FBI's power to seek records without the approval of a judge or grand jury.
And will they also seek the entitlement to search domestic residences without a warrant approved by an authority figure? Would I be far off in this seeming to be about the same? For those who lost their short term memory, and those who like repetition:
without the approval or a judge or grand jury
How do you respect a law like that?
What do I think? All I know is that it certainly feels like whatever any corporation wants they get, but whatever I want (and others like me want), even when it's constitutional freedoms, I don't get it because it would inconvenience some corporation. So I'd have to say we're well down that road to control by corporations and I wouldn't be surprised to see congress and the courts dissolved and the presidency turned into a dictatorship in my lifetime.
In the United States the law is so hopelessly complex, the enforcement so arbitrary, and adherence to the concept of checks and balances is such a farce that very few people are entirely sure of the legality of all their actions. Or what the consequences would be. Actually it's getting easier to figure it out, all you have to ask is "Will this make some corporation mad?" if the answer is yes then it's probably against the law or soon will be. Also the consequences will be quite dire, you'd be better off murdering someone. To live in the United States without having a law degree or the money to employ someone with one full-time is to be a second-class citizen. Frankly I think we're below second-class, we're tolerated as necessary only because we buy the products the corporations make. If it wasn't for that we'd probably be in deep shit.
why don't you think that it will soon *be* law that you keep logs for all activity for say six months or a year? If you don't "have the capacity" then get out of the ISP business - the big boys will have the capacity ...
I worry that your head is in the sand on this.
Yer all a bunch of commie pinko liberal America-haters. Our President is doing the BEST HE CAN to protect us from terrorism, and he NEEDS these powers.
While I am a liberal, classical liberal, just as Thomas Jefferson was, I am not a "commie", I very much am a capitalist just as Adam Smith wrote about in "On the Wealth of Nations". Others here seem to be fascists.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Well now. If you're gonna bash people for being liberal and stupid... perhaps you shouldn't be conservative and stupid.
Fact: it was impossible for anyone other than the authors of the Patriot Act to read it. There was no time. It was rammed through Congress at a time when questioning the content, even if there was time to read it, would have been considered unamerican. Perhaps you'd like to forget that little detail.
As for it passing again without much debate: we'll see. I can see it going both ways, and if it goes down without much debate, I will not be surprised. It's human nature for most people not to get too upset at slow erosion of rights--that's what this is, bit by bit dismantling of our rights. The people standing up (eg, Feingold) are cally "nuts". Go figure.
So because Democrats trample on our civil liberties, that exempts Bush from severe criticism for doing the same thing.
Can I have some of whatever you're drinking?
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
You may say the article is biased, but frankly you're showing far more bias than it does. Also everything is biased, you have to realize this and learn to read the bias as well so you can make up your own mind. Personally I support some sections of the PATRIOT act and not others. If I had to chose between the whole thing going to get rid of the worst sections I'd err on the side of caution and say yes, it should be removed. As Benjamin Franklin said "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
And frankly, do you really feel more secure now than you did before the PATRIOT act was passed? I don't, at best I feel I have the same level of security, at worst I have a new enemy -- my own government who treats me like a criminal in the name of "fighting terrorism".
most morons in the US that i can think of would allow such a search if presented the argument of 'if you have nothing to hide, why worry"
it has never made ANY sense to me as to why someone would willingly consent to a police search, but as i learned from my recent encounter, people really are too stupid to realize they have the right to say no.
He is announcing to all the world that he wants to associate himself with neoliberal economics.
I don't know what you mean by saying I assoiciate with neoliberal economics, as far as I'm concerned there isn't much difference between it and neoconservative economics, both are for corporate aristocracy. Just as Thomas Jefferson was, I am wary of the corporate aristocracy and believe more people should own and run their own small business. At the same tyme I believe in a small and limited government, and liberty. I don't want to live in any dictatorship, either rightwing or leftwing.
Unless you just want to be sarcastic and don't care otherwise, you might point out what you think are problems on the issues.
FalconShould there be a Law?
What the hell are you talking about, Anonymous paranoid Coward? Your insane rant might be at least more *specific* if you declared an actual subject, instead of talking about some undefined "that" in your first sentence, then frothing about it for a paragraph. But maybe you're not up to it - you're invoking some kind of imagined AC posts by me that don't exist, but seem to provoke your shadowy paranoia.
What "tenuous implication"? That fascist Nazis posed as socialists to grab power from people who knew fascists were bad, as I explicitly stated in the post that triggered your delusions? Or the explicit statement that Bush poses as a "compassionate conservative", while denying the unnecessary pain and death he creates? Which parallel to the Nazis you expanded further, with your tales of a politician who takes over a credulous party by assuming labels like "conservative" or "socialist", depending on the preference of their targeted constituencies.
Sure, I learned in preschool (too scary to call it "kindergarten", eh?) to recognize an insane bully. Like Hitler, like Bush, and like you, Anonymous raving Coward. Fancy the fascism yourself, eh? Why not be strong enough to come out and strut it?
--
make install -not war
Too bad the filibuster didn't exist then. They could have extended debate! HA! Seriously, if you're sworn in as a congresscritter, grow some freakin' balls and do what you need to do instead of crying about pressure. If you're not smart enough to expect some arm twisting as a legislator for a country with 300,000,000 people and a $2,200,000,000,000 annual budget, then you don't belong in office.
(Of course, when Clinton did worse things than the Patriot Act allows and did them to real Americans none of these people said squat. This is all political.)
An open letter on this memorial day. A time to remember our countrymen and the sacrifices they made for our freedom. Consider the price of freedom, and how fleeting it is. What must be taken with mighty armies can be given away with the stroke of the pen...
I've read that congress is considering revisions to the Patriot Act, and that President Bush is pushing for more powers to intrude in secret into lives of Americans. Please don't let our nation go down this road. I am asking people to discuss this issue and contact your congress person and senator to let them know how you feel. Freedom is not free, it must fought for and held close dearly, in the statehouse and on the battlefield.
In America a battle is raging that is threatening our freedom in the name of terrorism. It used to be "drugs", then it was "the children", and now its "terrorists". The government doesn't care who the bogeyman is, it simply wants more power, and it will use any excuse possible to get it.
When the events of 9/11 occurred, everyone-- the politicians, the President, the newscasters, and the people everywhere-- said "We must go on with our lives, if we change who we are as a result of the trajedy then the terrorists have won..." I hate to say it then, because that's exactly what we did. We allowed our government to put in all these draconian measures that would have scared the pants off us if we had seen it in a hollywood movie on September 10th. We have fundamentally altered our country in response to what the terrorists did, and our freedom and liberty is at stake.
We are no longer as free as we were. We are no longer as kind to each other as before. We run around the world acting like the bully, and we've even lost the respect for ourselves-- our own moral compass and lamp of righteousness. We used to be the shining beacon of freedom and liberty for all the world to see. Now we're reviled and hated in many parts of the world and shunned by our friends and allies.
We've changed a lot since 9/11. Government agents can search your home and seize your property without anybody ever knowing what happened. They have even made talking about it a "national security" crime. These are things are supposed to happen in Cuba. These are things that happen in China. These are things that are supposed to happen only in the farthest, darkest, most oppressive corners of the world-- not in America, "the land of the free".
It has been said that people who give up their liberty for safety have neither. It would seem that since 9/11, Americans have looked away while lawmakers stripped away fundamental freedoms that are guaranteed to us under our constitution. Since the birth of this nation we have championed against tyranny, oppression, and the subjugation of humanity all around the world. What an irony that we must now remind ourselves of these very principles and warn our politicians to step lightly to avoid leading us into the abyss.
Step away from that edge! Guide us back into the light and liberty. America was great before, and shall be great again. All that is required is the wisdom and the courage to stand up and speak against what we all know is wrong. America has a mighty weapon, and its not our tanks, its not our ships, its not our weapons of mass destruction-- America's mightiest weaspon is ourselves. Our love for humanity, our reaching out to stop the oppressors of the world, our zest for life and our yearning to be free.
The terrorists who aim to defeat us can never win because they simply can't understand our spirit. But the politicians who govern us can defeat us. They are charged with protecting our spirit and keeping the beacon of liberty lit for all the generations that come. It is not the terrorists I fear. We have mighty armies and very smart people that will eventually defeat them, of this I am ce
See, that first thing you said "they were pressured into voting for it" means the motherfuckers weren't doing their jobs. If you can be pressured into voting for something you have not read, you should ALAWAYS SAY NO. Pisses me off to no end.
Slashdot is proof that Sturgeon's Law applies to mankind.
I think it's funny whenever anyone calls for less government. How do you define this?
I use the COnstitution of the USA as my guideline. Get rid of all the agencies, departments, and offices not specifically authorized by the Constitution. Here's a directory of federal agencies, LSU Libraries Federal Agencies Directory, most of which aren't specifically authorized by the Constitution.
FalconShould there be a Law?
It's interesting how the current president always gets put on the face of any government operation, as if it were all his idea.
The president doesn't want the names of ISP customers. The Lawyers want those names. The police want those names. The people who want additional power are the people who can actually use it. The president supports it because the idea sounded reasonable when it was presented to him. The only thing he's been personally campaigning about is social security. The rest is just side notes.
Fifty to one says he's got no idea what this whole argument is about. Do you really thing George W. Bush understands this debate?
"With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is not necessarily a good idea...."
RFC 1925
I think the most effective way to run things would be to ensure that every person is well screened and all bagagge is checked. Unfortunatly, Bush is too busy giving rich people their taxes back so he can't afford to properly outfit the nations needs. Look at the coast guard's requests for protecting ports that go unanswered.
In a speech Ann Coulter listed about 20 attacks made against US forces by Muslim extremests. Her conclusion was that at some point it's not a racest profile it's the profile of the villian. The problem with this logic is that it doesn't acknowledge all of the attacks by domestic militant groups like the Oklahoma City bombing. It also opens up the search to too wide of a group. The equivalent would be to haul in every white male in his 30's and 40's ever time there is a serial killer. When 10% of the population matches the profile you have to make the profile more specific.
I believe the guy was French not British, btw.