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."

84 of 565 comments (clear)

  1. Why Bother with the Courts? by geomon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!"
    1. Re:Why Bother with the Courts? by Ryvar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The reason the Bush administration is concerned about legality in this matter is because they aren't going after individuals or impoverished nations filled with people the average idiot American distrusts and blames for gas prices.

      They're stepping on the toes of large, multi-national corporations many of whom have major media holdings and could make life very, very painful for the US government. Translation: they ARE being watched on this one, so they have to cross the 't's and dot the 'i's.

      --Ryv

    2. Re:Why Bother with the Courts? by KenFury · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Wow first post out and already Facist is being used. Not that I disagre but.. Wow!

    3. Re:Why Bother with the Courts? by MrLint · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I agree. This is merely a blatant attempt at the US govt (under the control of the power mad) to sidestep the courts.

      If there is an actual case with actual charges all that has to be done is *file the supoena*. This administration is doing just about everything in its power to 'legalize' the ability to exercise power above the law.

      There was once when the 'republican" party and the 'conservatives' meant smaller govt, less spending, and less intrusiveness.

      I cant imagine that we need secret laws and skulduggery against our own people to fight the phantom menace

    4. Re:Why Bother with the Courts? by geomon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They're stepping on the toes of large, multi-national corporations many of whom have major media holdings and could make life very, very painful for the US government.

      Your comment reminded me of a thought I had regarding the fines that everyone wanted Microsoft to pay for using its monopoly to crush competition. Before the USDOJ action, Microsoft was one of those rare companies that made no significant political contributions to either party. I'm sure this had more to do with their wanting to stay out of someone's crosshairs, but they only made token lobbying efforts as well.

      After the judgement, they dump a ton of cash on both parties and they lobby every bill that may have an impact on their business operations.

      They're paying their fine: one congressman at a time.

      --
      "Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
    5. Re:Why Bother with the Courts? by JenovaSynthesis · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well you know how Bush loves hypocrisy. Like bitching about "activist judges" and then continuously trying to appoint a judge (and finally succeeding) his won attorney general has called an "activist judge" on several occassions and actually worked with the conving conservative whore.

      And we all love Republican's love of ethics. Like how Clinton gets head and it involves an impeachment and Senate trial. But god forbid someone even mention the shit Tom DeLay does. Or Bill Frist's violation of medical ethics with his famous diagnosis via heavily edited video tapes.

      --
      Anonymous Cowards generally receive no replies because you're a coward and I'm a bitch :)
    6. Re:Why Bother with the Courts? by geomon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Wow first post out and already Facist is being used. Not that I disagre but.. Wow!

      Apparently eveyone objected to my use of the word "socialist", so I changed it to keep everyone's panties smooth and not bunchy.

      --
      "Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
    7. Re:Why Bother with the Courts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Please don't equate greed with intelligence.

    8. Re:Why Bother with the Courts? by SA+Stevens · · Score: 3, Interesting

      'Paying tribute to the boys in Washington' has been and is the entire crux of the DOJ vs. Microsoft case. People like Larry Ellison and the Apple folks have always had well-heeled lobbyists and close connections to the 'men in Washington.' Microsoft had the arrogance to thumb their nose at the whole scene.

    9. Re:Why Bother with the Courts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Consider how many scientists you have to import now a days. Consider that elements of your religious right are trying to smash science education into the ground to protect their brand of Biblical literalism from the real world. Consider that your military and your budget is showing the strain of occupying two foreign countries, and that your economy is, at the moment, being supported in large part by a country over a billion people with an economy that's growing at enormous speed.

    10. Re:Why Bother with the Courts? by Ki+Master+George · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yeah, I really hate facists, too. What, with all their faces and all.

      --
      Before you walk a mile in someone's shoes, you should insult them so you know how they are and what they're doing.
    11. Re:Why Bother with the Courts? by falconwolf · · Score: 4, Informative

      There was once when the 'republican" party and the 'conservatives' meant smaller govt, less spending, and less intrusiveness.

      A small limited government was the platform for the Democrat party and liberals to begin with. Thomas Jefferson was a liberal democrat who wanted a small and limited government. That I am aware of the only tyme the Republican party said they wanted small government was from Nixon onward. Well also Eisenhower who came up with the term "military industrial complex". He started the Viet Nam War though strengthening said complex. Nixon when his presidental committee released a report saying hemp, marijuana, should be legalized he said he didn't care what the recommendation was, there was no way he would allow it to be legalized. It was because of the Nixon Republicans that the Libertarian Party was started. Reagan increased the size of the federal government, increased federal police powers, and pushed for maximizing minimum sentencing for drugs. This is what conservatives wanted back in TJ's tyme, a strong federal government.

      Falcon
    12. Re:Why Bother with the Courts? by alfredo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's not just "homeland security" where they have locked us out of the decision making, environmental laws are being trashed without any input.

      Any lawmaker that wants government to be more like business prefers dictatorship over democracy.

      --
      photosMy Photostream
    13. Re:Why Bother with the Courts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Whereas our current President will never allow himself to testify under oath. Therefore he can never have lied about Iraq, or the WMDs, or state-sanctioned torture, or his shady war industry dealings. People DID care that Clinton "got head." They made an absolute circus of it. "He lied under oath" was just a flimsy excuse to launch a character attack against him.

      Just for the record, I AM a citizen of the United States, and I was in secondary school at the time. A senator who came to address some of the students gave an impassioned speech about how he would resign if anyone even brought charges of infidelity against him, and that it was unbecoming of a president to behave so immorally. Two weeks later, a woman DID come up with charges against him. Needless to say, that senator continued to work in Congress as he always had.

      Posting AC to avoid the flame machine.

    14. Re:Why Bother with the Courts? by ShadeARG · · Score: 2, Informative

      The Wikipedia article for Fascism is a really interesting read. If that definition is undisputed*, then it's scary how well it's starting to fit. The discussion page makes for insightful reading as well.

      * The discussion page seems to signal an overall agreement, but the neutrality/factual accuracy warning banner has yet to be removed.

  2. Sounds bad but... by Sheetrock · · Score: 3, Interesting
    This just brings things in parity with requesting library records. Except that ISP accounts can be used for more nefarious purposes than library books.

    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.

    --

    Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
    -- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.




    1. Re:Sounds bad but... by SillyNickName4me · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Sounds bad but... by pashdown · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

  3. Bush can have my ISP data... by joelparker · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...when he gives our country his data about why our men and women in uniform are *still* dying in Iraq while Bin Laden is still at large.

    1. Re:Bush can have my ISP data... by Morris+Thorpe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Bush can have my ISP data... by aergern · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What happens when these are not explained away as unthoughtout attacks.. since it's been 5 years that we've lived with Shrub and his adminstration. What would you call it when someone thinks it out very carefully? Then they come to the conclusion that a good part of the States and the World has been bent over and they didn't even buy them dinner first? It's not shrill to state the truth.. some can be shrill about it but the truth is the truth.

      --
      Tell me what you believe...I'll tell you what you should see.
  4. Hiding the law from the people who it is directed by haluness · · Score: 5, Interesting

    and of course the feds want to hide details of it from the public

    I have read of this before, but it is very strange that in a democracy (?) laws for the popluation can be discussed/made by not letting the population know about them.

    Does'nt this seem *too* close to a dictatorship - not that the US is one, but it increasingly is seeming that certain aspects are going in that direction

  5. Re:Hiding the law from the people who it is direct by PsiPsiStar · · Score: 2, Informative

    Even worse are the laws about what a person can bring on a flight that can't even be discussed.

    --

    ___
    It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
  6. For the confused by HillaryWBush · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It's not about getting information on terrorists when they email each other.

    It's about getting blackmail data on government officials to force them to do what the Administration wants.

  7. They will defend the US to the point by cyber_rigger · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...that no one will want to live here anymore.

    1. Re:They will defend the US to the point by linguae · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Well, where do you suggest that we move to? Many of the other country's policies are going south as well. The megacorporations are controlling Europe's and Australia's policies as well, and the majority of the rest of the world is third-world and has many of its own issues. People say lots of good things about Canada, but it's only a matter of time until it succumbs to US pressure. I've also thought about Japan, but I don't know how the situation of liberties is in that country.

      Are there any free places left, or am I forgetting a few places?

    2. Re:They will defend the US to the point by cyber_rigger · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, where do you suggest that we move to?

      I don't know. I've heard some interesting things about New Zealand. I'm sure it has its drawbacks too.

    3. Re:They will defend the US to the point by demachina · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well thats not exactly true. I'm pretty sure about half of the people that voted in the last election think everything the Bush administration is doing is GREAT and really want to live in the new America and really WANT Patriot Act III to make them SAFE. Though maybe its less than half now based on recent polls, since a bunch of people who were totally snowed by Republican manipulation during the campaign, have since come to their senses and realized the current Republican domination of the U.S. is both bad and dangerous (of course the Democrats are bad and dangerous too). All I can say to those people is .... to late ..... dumbasses, you already scewed the pooch.

      The remaining Bush faithful DO want to abandon their civil liberties in the name of security and morality and they want to dicatate the same course to the rest of the world if possible. They had enough of all the liberation that started in the 60's and they want to go back to America's glory days, the 50's, McCarthyism, rigid morality, sex is taboo, homosexuals are safely locked in the closet, censorship, etc. They especially want to strip other people of their civil liberties to get them in to line with what they consider proper behavior and to eliminate any chance that they might pose any threat, real or imagined to, to there comfy ignorant little lives.

      There is unfortunately a pretty close correlation between this set of people and the fundementalist Christians in the U.S. who are of the opinion they put Bush in office so they now own the U.S., its government and all the people in it and its their prerogative to dictate to everyone else how to live and if the Constitution gets in the way then the Constitution needs to be ignored or amended. A few weeks ago I saw the scary sign of the times on the news. A church that decided no good Christain could possible vote Democrat, that it was practicly voting for the devil, and that they were now on going to be a political church and anyone who didn't support Bush and Republicans was no longer welcome in the house of God and Jesus. I wonder isolated incident or is it happening all over the country in varying degrees.

      And of course as others have said in other posts the second part of the one two punch is there are a bunch of corporations who also own the government in general and the Bush administration in particular. They want two things, docile cowed workers and if they cant get them in the U.S they will get them in China, and they want docile cowed consumers who buy their products and can't complain it they are defective, unhealty dangerous or overpriced (cigarettes and asbestors being classic examples, predatory gas prices another).

      Star Wars earned him all the money but the most prescient and important work from George Lucas was THX-1138 which was released on DVD recently and is really worth seeing. It makes you think what might happen if we let government, corporations and control freaks sieze control of our lives. Probably to late to stop it now, but at least you will recognize it as its happening.

      --
      @de_machina
  8. Begun the Clone Wars Have by dotslashdot · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Combine the fact that EVERYTHING is terrorism--copyright violations, every hacker etc. with this wonderful bit of super surveillance and how long before GNU/Linux is defined as an instrument of terrorism? Or until all of our tools become illegal in the name of the Fatherland? Begun the Clone Wars have.

  9. Diabloical by 101percent · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  10. Time to by FidelCatsro · · Score: 4, Funny

    Execute order 66

    --
    The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
  11. It figures... by flag+burning · · Score: 2, Interesting

    A man who can barely hold his own while giving a speech is now telling ISP's to turn information over. That makes a lot of sense.

  12. Re:Hiding the law from the people who it is direct by psykocrime · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  13. Unfortunately... by sumday · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  14. Shaddup! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

    1. Re:Shaddup! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Shaddup! by falconwolf · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      Falcon
    3. Re:Shaddup! by Mr.+Bendy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      But surely Harold Shipman WAS exceedingly competant at what he did. Most successful serial killer in British history.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Shipman/

    4. Re:Shaddup! by cp.tar · · Score: 2, Funny
      Chancellor Palpatine IS DOING THE BEST HE CAN to protect us from the Trade Union and the war and everything, and he NEEDS these powers.

      Sorry... what was I saying?

      --
      Ignore this signature. By order.
    5. Re:Shaddup! by tyler_larson · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Our President...NEEDS these powers.

      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
    6. Re:Shaddup! by Jackie_Chan_Fan · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It has nothign to do with terrorism. If we chip away at our civil rights in the name of terrorism... we will be left without a single right.

      Terrorism is a buzz word being used to change our entire country from a free society to a corperate police state.

      Those in power with money have the say, and you are forced by law to comply.

      Vote wisely... Vote for a 3rd party... ANY 3rd party....

    7. Re:Shaddup! by newend · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I think you've been listening to Ann Coulter for too long. The point of his statement is that there a vast number of Muslims in the world. If you attempt to pick them all out and search them, then you are going miss a lot of other potential threats. The majority of Arabs are not Muslim and the majority of Muslims are not Arabic. I believe that the Muslim religion is also the world's most prevelant.

      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.

  15. I'm so glad... by calstraycat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm so glad that the "keep-the-government-out-of-people's-lives" party is in power.

    1. Re:I'm so glad... by 77Punker · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, you see, the only people REALLY interested in being in power are the ones who, well, want to weild the power. I want to mind my own business so I don't run for office, they want to run everybody's lives so they put themselves in that sort of position.

      It's really that simple.

    2. Re:I'm so glad... by Maestro4k · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm so glad that the "keep-the-government-out-of-people's-lives" party is in power. This is why I always hope for at least a divided congress (one house controlled by each party) or a congress controlled by the party opposite of the president's. It's a lot harder to railroad legislation through when everyone's determined to fight each other. Granted they still run some horrid stuff through but it takes them longer and they're distracted by petty political squabbles a lot.

    3. Re:I'm so glad... by StevenMaurer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Don't be silly. The two major parties are not interchangable. We briefly had 2 years of all Democratic party rule back during Clinton's first term. What horrible legislation did the Democrats "railroad"? The family Medical Leave Act? Big whoop. With the Republians we've gotten a war of choice that they're managing to loose, a budget busting tax cut targeted at the leisure class, a dramatic reduction of our civil liberties, an anti-bankrupcy bill that pointedly allows CEO con-men off the hook, etc, etc, etc, etc.

      In fact, we need 12 years of solid Democratic rule to even start erasing the damage the unfettered right has done to this nation. Only when the GOP shows some willingness to control it's whacked-out wing should it be allowed veto over anything.

    4. Re:I'm so glad... by ksemlerK · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The useless Clinton AWB in 1994 which only banned cosmetic features on firearms that had no functional purpose. Somehow an AR15 with a bayonet lug, flash hider, telescoping stock, and barrel shroud makes it more deadly than one without. That was a totally useless law used for nothing other than weakening the second amendment rights of Americans. Notice that in 2004 when it sunsetted, there was no increase in violent crime?

  16. They could get all your hacker information! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    After a quick browsing of the ISP records they could know a lot about us... It seems that you have been living two lives. In one life, you are Thomas A. Anderson, program writer for a respectable software company. You have a social security number, you pay your taxes and you help your land lady carry out her garbage. In the other you are an annoying slashdot troll under the alias "Anonymous Coward" and are guilty of virtually every computer crime we have a law for, including extreme comparisons of the Bush administration to fictional works such as The Matrix or 1984. One of these lives has a future... In all seriousness, though, I can't see how giving the government access to ISP records is going to beneficial to the people. Guess the Department of Homeland Security is getting bored and needs something to do.

  17. I can see more personals like this in the future by Valacosa · · Score: 5, Funny

    Seriously, if things keep on going on the way they are, I can see a lot of personals like this popping up:

    "Single, white 22-year old Canadian male willing to `marry' American female fleeing fascist regime. Must be intelligent and conversational. Preferably aged 19-25, ethnicity unimportant."

    --
    "Live as if you'll die tomorrow." Ridiculous. You could die later today.
  18. Re:Hiding the law from the people who it is direct by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful
    The USA is far from its original ideals.

    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.

  19. Title is mis-leading. by nberardi · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Wow talk about a mis-leading head line. If you read the article in Wired it says congress is debating this. This article just starts off biased and just gets worse fromt here. It is obviouse where the writer stands on this issue and what side of the political fense the writer stands on, but last time I checked the Patiot Act didn't pass with a narrow margin and it doesn't look like it is going to pass with a narrow margin again this time.

    So for all you liberal's out there that say my guy would never vote for this, and Bush is evil because he did. Check the vote records for this back in 2001. It's all posted on the Library of Congress website.

    1. Re:Title is mis-leading. by e40 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      but last time I checked the Patiot Act didn't pass with a narrow margin... So for all you liberal's out there...

      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.

    2. Re:Title is mis-leading. by Maestro4k · · Score: 5, Insightful
      but last time I checked the Patiot Act didn't pass with a narrow margin No it didn't, but many congressmen (and women) have said afterward, repeatedly, that they were pressured into voting for it and given almost no time at all to review it. Many voted for it without having read more than a few pages. The pressure of 9/11 was used to force congress to pass the PATRIOT act without allowing them time to debate it. So yeah it was voted for near unaminously but even congress wasn't terribly happy about it. Try including all the facts instead of only the ones that paint the viewpoint you're shooting for. and it doesn't look like it is going to pass with a narrow margin again this time. Only portions of the act are up for renewal, very few in fact. The bulk of it is still intact and would take new legislation to remove it. Also it's by no means certain those portions up for renewal will pass, and even if they do it won't be so quick and easy. Numerous congresscritters have publically stated that they will _NOT_ be put in the same situation again and will be invesigating this fully before deciding this time. Multiple hearings have already been scheduled and many already completed. So for all you liberal's out there that say my guy would never vote for this, and Bush is evil because he did. Check the vote records for this back in 2001. It's all posted on the Library of Congress website. Exactly why do you assume it's only liberals who oppose the PATRIOT act? There's at least a couple of republican congresscritters who do. It's by no means a straight party line as to who supports and opposes it. When it's actually explained to someone, they generally don't support many of its provisions. Even idiots realize secret searchs without any oversight are dangerous.

      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".

    3. Re:Title is mis-leading. by SillyNickName4me · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

      And that is how democracy really got lost.. repeatedly.

      With the risk of invoking Godwin's law here, I'll quote Adolf Hitler on this since he was quite good at it:

      'Make people feel so they do not think'.

    4. Re:Title is mis-leading. by bobbuck · · Score: 2, Insightful
      No it didn't, but many congressmen (and women) have said afterward, repeatedly, that they were pressured into voting for it and given almost no time at all to review it.

      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.)

    5. Re:Title is mis-leading. by John+Courtland · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.
  20. Re:Hiding the law from the people who it is direct by Ryvar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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

  21. It's worse than you say: by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 5, Informative


    In my opinion it is worse than you say.

    Here are reviews of 35 books and 3 movies that discuss how bad it really is: Unprecedented Corruption: A guide to conflict of interest in the U.S. government.

    Background information: History surrounding the U.S. war with Iraq: Four short stories. The U.S. government declared war on Arabs long before there was Arab terrorism against the U.S.: New York Governor Pataki's statements are equivalent to a declaration of war.

    The U.S. government is bankrupt. The value of the U.S. dollar is dropping fast because the Bush administration is rapidly borrowing money. Who is doing the borrowing? These people: U.S. Federal Deficit by Political Party. If you are a U.S. citizen, you owe: $26,289.01, even if you are only 1 year old.

  22. Ahem [gets on soapbox] by 64nDh1 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The way I see it, your IP is becoming more and more like your phone number. It's part of who you are and we're fast approaching the day that the two will be essentials for anyone living anywhere in the world. You'll need your digits so people can call you, and your IPv4 or IPv6 digits for other reasons, and it'll become the norm.

    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?

  23. There's plenty of blame to go around ... by Fookin · · Score: 5, Informative
    Let us not forget a key point:

    Congress creates the bills, the President merely signs them into law.

    Where is all the uproar about the Congressmen who voted for these laws? I see plenty of anti-Bush sentiment here, but where's the outrage towards *your* representatives who approve of this?

    Get angry all you want at the occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, but don't give a free pass to the occupants of both the Hart and Russell Senate Office Buildings, they typically stick around a lot longer than a President.

  24. Re:Hiding the law from the people who it is direct by Decameron81 · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I have read of this before, but it is very strange that in a democracy (?) laws for the popluation can be discussed/made by not letting the population know about them.


    In Argentina we've recently had a similar law proposal. Fortunately there was enough people who cared to at least stop it for a while. One of the many rumours we had flying around at that time was that the Bush administration was behind all that as part of a deal to relieve some of the pressure regarding our current economical problems.

    I personally believe that these are just rumors... but I can't stop to notice that we were in exactly the same situation just two months ago.

    What the hell is going on with our so called democracies? Do they really deserve that name?
    --
    diegoT
  25. Call it by name by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Once the fascists are recognized beneath their lying masks (like NaZis - National Socialists), people are quick to call them what they are. After all the Bush abuse of the people for the benefit of his corporate government, there's no going back to his "man of the people" scam.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:Call it by name by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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

  26. Re:Hiding the law from the people who it is direct by Maestro4k · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I have read of this before, but it is very strange that in a democracy (?) laws for the popluation can be discussed/made by not letting the population know about them. Welcome to the US of the 21st century where controversial bills are passed as riders to defense spending bills and passed by voice vote (so there's no record of who voted for or against). This has been going on for some time, but it has increased dramtically under Bush's administration, and not all of it after 9/11/2001. After 9/11 almost anything goes of course. Torture's been determined legal, secret searches are fine, but hey at least we caught Bin Laden right? Oh wait we didn't... Does'nt this seem *too* close to a dictatorship - not that the US is one, but it increasingly is seeming that certain aspects are going in that direction It's not just certain aspects, our entire government seems to be happily heading towards either dictatorship or fascism controlled by the corporations. Many feel that the latter has already occurred and it's just a matter of time before the whole semblance of government by the people is dropped.

    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.

  27. Re:Hiding the law from the people who it is direct by Decameron81 · · Score: 2, Funny
    Give it a little more time... These things don't happen overnight.
    ...and just when you thought you were helping good Bush end the war and bring peace he will do a dark side lighting on Richard Stallman and throw him out of the window...
    --
    diegoT
  28. Re:Hiding the law from the people who it is direct by Maestro4k · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  29. Re:Paranoia by geomon · · Score: 2, Funny

    Sigh... here goes another moonbat delusional hatefest on Slashdot.

    Mocking Republicans for doing the same stuff that Democrats were demonized for is pure sport for Libertarians.

    The sooner people realize that there is a fractional difference between the two, the sooner we can return to true competition in politics.

    Republicans=Democrats who used to smoke pot until their kids started stealing their stash.

    --
    "Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
  30. Send it in then: by GQuon · · Score: 2, Informative

    The data you're looking for is allready available on line. Have a look here and here for example

    Here's the address that you can send your ISP info to: president@whitehouse.gov

    --
    Irene KHAAAAAAN!
  31. Re:Another "So What" by wes33 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  32. Re:Fuck the ACLU by interstellar_donkey · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Unlike past wars, this is one that isn't really going to end. The global war on terrorism's ultimate goal is to stop terrorist threats from attacking the United States.

    No matter what we do, the threat will always be there, and as such, the war will continue to go on. Granted, a government should be granted special permissions during wartime, with the understanding that when the conflict is over the population can rest easy that things will return to normal.

    Only now, any permissions granted to the government won't be temporary. We are setting ourselves up for a government that can violate the principals on which this nation was founded indefinitely.

    I for one don't want to live in a country where the government can violate my privacy. I don't want to live in a country where at whim any action can redefined as "terrorist", and I could be labeled a criminal for doing nothing wrong. We've gone past the point where "only guilty people have to worry", and are approaching "innocent people have to worry too."

    So kudos to the ACLU. Kudos to any person or group who wants to limit the powers of government. The war just isn't in Iraq, the war is here too. Like the war against terrorism, our domestic war is between those who value liberty and freedom above all else, and those who want to limit it.

    The current administration may have the best of intentions, but I can see Bush saying "It is better that the rights of 1,000 innocent Americans should perish at the hands of their own government so that the rights of one American won't be taken by a terrorist."

    --
    The Internet is generally stupid
  33. That is so true by HangingChad · · Score: 4, Interesting
    There was once when the 'republican" party and the 'conservatives' meant smaller govt, less spending, and less intrusiveness.

    That is so true. It points up the obvious that Bush people are neocons and an insult to true conservatives. Bush backers are more fascist than conservative but fascist is a tough label to sell in Oklahoma. So they call themselves conservative.

    --
    That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
    1. Re:That is so true by safari-surfer · · Score: 2, Informative

      That is so true. It points up the obvious that Bush people are neocons and an insult to true conservatives. Bush backers are more fascist than conservative but fascist is a tough label to sell in Oklahoma. So they call themselves conservative.

      They are well on their way towards making Conservative synonomous with Fascist wich is not good. I may be rather liberal myself but I share some of the same beleifs as conservatives such as a the preference for a free market system over the government controlled economy preferred by the left. Similarly there are conservatives who share some of my own beleifs, such as concern for the state of the enviroment (Yes, that's righ you dont have to be a tree hugging pot smoking hippie to be concerned about pollution, extinction and climate change). There are more brands of Conservativism than the one sold by the current White House.

  34. Re:Paranoia by Husgaard · · Score: 2, Insightful
    The sooner people realize that there is a fractional difference between the two, the sooner we can return to true competition in politics.
    I am not an US citicen, but when looking from the outside I am worried by the current state of the US democracy. The US election system has been designed to effectively only allow two parties. And during the last decade it seems like these two parties have agreed not to mention several political issues that I would think are important to the US public.
  35. When you wrongfully do others harm... by 3seas · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ... you then have reason to be concerned about retailation....

    So the more you know about those you screwed, the safer you feel in control...

  36. Terrorism by GQuon · · Score: 5, Informative
    I mean whos to say what constituits a "terrorist" website?

    The secretary of state, I think.

    Sec. 219. (a) Designation.-(1) In general.-The Secretary is authorized to designate an organization as a terrorist organization in accordance with this subsection if the Secretary finds that-

    (A) the organization is a foreign organization;

    (B) the organization engages in terrorist activity (as defined in section 212(a)(3)(B) 1a/ or terrorism (as defined in section 140(d)(2) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989 (22 U.S.C. 2656f(d)(2)), or retains the capability and intent to engage in terrorist activity or terrorism); and

    (C) the terrorist activity 1a/ or terrorism of the organization threatens the security of United States nationals or the national security of the United States.


    And here's the definition of terrorism. Think "direct action activism".

    INA Act 212(a)(3)(B)4/ (iii) TERRORIST ACTIVITY DEFINED.-As used in this Act, the term "terrorist activity" means any activity which is unlawful under the laws of the place where it is committed (or which, if 4/ it had been committed in the United States, would be unlawful under the laws of the United States or any State) and which involves any of the following:

    (I) The highjacking or sabotage of

    any conveyance (including an aircraft, vessel, or vehicle).

    (II) The seizing or detaining, and threatening to kill, injure, or continue to detain, another individual in order to compel a third person (including a governmental organization) to do or abstain from doing any act as an explicit or implicit condition for the release of the individual seized or detained.

    (III) A violent attack upon an internationally protected person (as defined in section 1116(b)(4) of title 18, United States Code) or upon the liberty of such a person.

    (IV) An assassination.

    (V) The use of any-

    (a) biological agent, chemical agent, or nuclear weapon or device, or

    (b) explosive, 4/ firearm, or other weapon or dangerous device (other than for mere personal monetary gain), with intent to endanger, directly or indirectly, the safety of one or more individuals or to cause substantial damage to property.

    (VI) A threat, attempt, or conspiracy to do any of the foregoing.
    --
    Irene KHAAAAAAN!
  37. On the flipside... by comm3c · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  38. Re:Look! He is making his Tribal identification cr by falconwolf · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    Falcon
  39. YOU JACKASS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful
    I'm not worried. Why? Because I haven't done anything wrong.
    Wow, i just want to throttle you for that comment. That opinion is why things like this are allowed to happen and why this country is circling the bowl.
  40. This Memorial Day -- Remember America by bratwiz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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

    1. Re:This Memorial Day -- Remember America by PixelScuba · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I am asking people to discuss this issue and contact your congress person and senator to let them know how you feel.I am asking people to discuss this issue and contact your congress person and senator to let them know how you feel.

      No Use, I live in Minnesota with Senator Norm Coleman. He could care less about what I think, and besides, the last time I wrote him his reply addressed me as "Mrs."

  41. Re:Look! He is making his Tribal identification cr by timbo234 · · Score: 2, Funny
    Witnessing the political-tribal call of the young male goldenchested Libertarian is a prized event for anthropologists....


    If only the same were true for trolls you might have another way of getting attention besides posting flamebait on slashdot
    --
    Pre-canned Evolution Links for all those Slashdot holy wars.
  42. less government by falconwolf · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    Falcon
  43. Re:Look! He is making his Tribal identification cr by Dabido · · Score: 2, Funny

    "one of their "scientists" had slime growing under their sink. Man, thats a whole WMD program right there, our country was clearly in imminent danger from those stinky mildew-wielding terrists"

    This has to do with the US finding Weapons of Mass Disposal units doesn't it? They had to go in for sanitation reasons! What do you think Bush meant when he said he was going to "clean up the world"? It's all about the hygene, and any dictator we find not showering and living in a little rat infested hole, just isn't hygenic enough to run a country. I say, strip them down to the underpants and scrub them with some steel wool and Jif! Let's clean up Iraq!

    --
    Sure enough, the cow costume was hanging up next to the superhero outfit and sailors uniform. (S,Spud)
  44. Re:The real face of the Republican party? by bhima · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Why do so few of these laws have time limits? Why is the justice department holding seminars for law enforcement on how to apply these new anti-terror laws to regular criminals? Why does the Bush Administration violate basic human rights? These aren't extraordinary times! The US is just having another McCarthy era. It's times like this and attitudes like yours make me glad I've gotten the hell out of the insane asylum you folks call the US. I wonder how long it's going to be until all of this "War on Terror" crap is over because so far to me it looks like it's going worse than the "War on Drugs". How long until the unwashed masses in the US wake up and realize that all of the freedoms they had back in the '60s & '70s are gone and there is no real way to get them back? How many decades will pass before they start teaching about "The War on Terror" like they taught us about McCarthy?

    But the one question that really holds my interest is how long is it going take the rest of the world to surpass the US in freedom, standards of living, fair medical care, education and technology because the Americans are busy having their militant theocracy and it's hard to get anything else done. And in my mind there are a lot of metrics to measure the "goodness" of a country and when I first moved to the US it was the top of most of them and now it seems that with every yearly study that comes out and with many of the new technological discoveries that are revealed the US slips a little more behind.

    --
    Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.