Slashdot Mirror
House Limits Patriot Act Rules on Library Records
xerid writes "From CNN.COM: "WASHINGTON (AP) -- The House voted Wednesday to block the FBI and the Justice Department from using the Patriot Act to search library and book store records. Despite a veto threat from President Bush, lawmakers voted 238-187 to block the part of the anti-terrorism law that allows the government to investigate the reading habits of terror suspects.""
How will they find who the Slashdot readers are now that they can't look for people checking out Slashdot-reviewed books?
but they should man up and throw the whole damn thing out
This is good news, but I'll still be buying 2600 with cash, thank you very much!
Err, not that I read that, that is...uh yeah...
To the making of books there is no end, so let's get started
Thank you!!!!!
"Teleporting Rodents with D-Cell Battery Displacement" theory -- IgnoramusMaximus (692000)
I wonder when the government will require everyone to have a bank account, ban bank notes, and require all purchases to be made by card.
All in the interests of removing profits by terrorists through counterfeiting, and of course to keep track of terrorists purchasing habits.
PS (OT) -- is anyone else having trouble with IP bans on slashdot? I get 2 downmods on apost and suddenly I'm IP banned! I only got this posted through Tor, but that's not that much better as slashdot blocks most of the nodes there too. Any help?
Making the moon less necessary since 1998.
Not to be cynical or anything... but how exactly is this "Your Rights Online"?
Shhhh!
It's only a matter of time until the Al Quaeda uses our public library system against us. Learning the hidden secrets of the atom bomb and building one, the end result will be campaign of terror against freedom loving people like myself. It's time to take a stand against socialist librarians across america. Who's with me? Go to your local library and steal any books relating the construction of atom bombs, chemical weapons and sheep loving. Please.
Those who dare to replace some security with freedom do not deserve security at all.
(I think George Washington said that...)
Well, it's a start. How about we require a warrant for EVERY goddamned search so that the RIGHT of the people to be secure in their homes, papers and posessions is not abridged? It's only in the freaking Constitution for Christ's sake. At the very least they should eliminate the sneaky trick that they don't even have to TELL you you're a target of an investigation. When will these bozos realize that terrorists are CRIMINALS, not "foreign combatants" who need to be locked up without any rights at all in some gulag for years under military supervision? If this goes on much longer it will be a simple matter to apply the "T" label to anyone for any reason at all under the strictest secrecy possible and they won't even have to tell you about it until it's too late.
I'm not saying I like the Patriot Act, but I really think that we should be rational in our removal of this disturbance, as we weren't rational with our creation of it in the first place.
The Patriot Act was a fast acting, country sweeping bill that made it to law simply because the governing agencies that wanted it, wanted it now, and nobody was going to stand in their way in the wake of what had just happened in our country.
That being said, if we act too strongly and remove the whole thing at once, we are setting ourselves up to the whole situation again, perhaps worse; next time they will have access to our bank statements, our cars (onboard nav computers telling the government where we are going, where we've been, etc), our schools, our whole livelihood could be changed.
That being said, if we are slow about pulling this law back out, and amending our laws so that such a catastrophy like 9/11 and the Patriot Act won't happen again, we will be more prepared for the next government incursion into privacy.
The whole thing needs to go. But we need to be able to explicitly say why each piece of it should go, and until we are unable to do that legally, the Patriot Act must stand as to keep what freedoms we still have. I have full confidence in our government to restore our constitution to its former glory, but we can't do that by making hair-triggered decisions like the Patriot Act, or its repeal.
"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
...So my plans on becoming galactic president, stealing an awesome space ship and finding the ultimate machine to run Linux on are still safe then?
Oh wait... I just let the cat out of the bag!
Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so. - Douglas Adams
Steny H. Hoyer, House of Reps, Maryland, is the guy that proposed this.
I tried to send him some e-mail, but his contact page won't accept you if you admit your zip code is out of his district. Just as well, I can think about what I want to say while I go dig up a valid zip code for his district. Want to be polite when I tell him where he can take this kind of thinking.
BTW, I got IP restricted several months back. I think it was from too much anonymous posting on a single thread. But why four anonymous posts was too many? Maybe it was because I was defending religion in those posts?
Anyway, after a couple of days I could post if I logged in first. Then after about four weeks the ban was dropped.
(Cool down? I needed to cool down? What about the guys who had to swear four times in every sentence to prove that God doesn't exist? Oh well, everywhere has their own kind of censorship, I guess.)
This wasn't how Brad Pitt and Morgan Freman discovered John Doe's apartment in seven? looking at library records?
Those goverment people watch a lot of movies, better watch over 'Blockbuster' records to find who they are... sweet vengeance.
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former" - Albert Einstein.
What does it matter when there are cameras at the library entrance? Simply that you go to a library, that you go in and "steal" intellectual property instead of buying the book, that's enough sin. After all, how are we going to have an information economy when public institutions like libraries give the stuff away for free? How are the authors going to feed themselves? You have to deal with the people who choose to go to the libraries instead of buying pay-per-view programs and sitting at home, before you can close the libraries due to "lack of attendance,", or at least completely revamp them into fully digital DRM'd bookstores. You will still be able to check out digital copies of some books, but the library will only have one copy that's permanently checked out, and instead you're ushered to buy the damn digital copy, instant download at your fingertips, only $9.99 for a non-resellable copy that self-destructs as soon as it detects someone else's fingerprints.
What the Patriot Act ought to do is act as a signal that something has gone dreadfully wrong in the American system--and therefore must be changed. For one thing, the fact that so many Americans did not oppose it, and were so easily led into accepting a complete contravention of the constitution through a manipulation of irrational fear (what if the terrorists attack my house??) shows us that there is a deeper problem in American culture. No kind of democracy can really work if people are that uncritical and deferential.
... and again.
Removing the Patriot Act is going to be incredibly difficult. Any process that does so, whether it is gradual or sudden, is going to first require a change in the whole political and cultural atmosphere, because there are so many people who genuinely believe measures like the Patriot Act are rational. So anything that removes the Patriot Act is going to do more than just remove the Patriot Act (it's not going to just be scrapped by a Democratic administration)
Whether you do it gradually or suddenly, if the Patriot Act were to be removed by representatives with little cultural change happening, then the deeper causal problems would still be there. But I think we can just as effectively remove it suddenly as we can slowly, if that process is carried out by just that--'We'. Because you're right--until the underlying factors are addressed, there is always the danger of this happening again
But I'm not sure how much that has to do with the *speed* of removing it.
And with that, the Patriot Act II will pass with flying colors.
Sort of like globalization, the overwhelming majority of people who get their panties in a bunch about how evil the Patriot Act is really don't have a bloody clue about what the Patriot Act actually does. The 'Library Statute,' while hardly ever used, happens to be one of the most easily lambasted portions of the legislation because the academics and intellectuals on the left hold libraries to be sacred places of privacy.
The fact of the matter is, the Patriot act was hardly ever used to collect library records and the Patriot act supporters know it. Any prospective terrorist is far better served by looking up public records and using the internet. Seriously, if you are a well financed terrorist who poses an actual threat to this country, would you have EVER gone to the library?
By removing the Library bit from the Patriot act, Congress can look like they actually care while still allowing the meat of the Patriot act to be renewed, if not even adding a bit more to it.
He said "Those who dare to replace some security with freedom do not deserve security at all. " Re-read that and concentrate on the bolded parts. Does something seem out of place?
who cares? the rest of the patriot's act 2 i still around id be worring about that. wtf cares if the gov't can know which books youre reading.
What does the proposed repeal of term limits and the shocking fact that you've been modded down have to do with the Patriot Act?
People introduce wacko amendments all the time.
Take off your hat once in a while.
As much as we dislike the ugly provisions of the Patriot Act, its proponents are well-intentioned people who are trying to keep us safe. They are not out to destroy democracy. They just don't realize that loss of freedom is too high a price to pay for safety.
Raise your children as if you were teaching them to raise your grandchildren, because you are.
I have read the Patriot Act and it says nothing specific about Libraries. It says a LOT about searching ANY records of small entities. This could included libraries, video rental, and even dry cleaning.
All in secret.
Come the revolution, the Bourgeois, Capitalistic, "A PARKING STICKER HOLDERS", will be first against the wall!
The CNN story is accompanied by a "Quickvote" poll, which asks "Should the FBI be able to look at the library records of people they suspect of terrorism?" Perhaps not surprisingly, almost half of the replies favor this idea. Of course, the point under dispute is if the FBI (or anyone else) should be able to sift through library records of people they don't (yet) suspect of terrorism.
In Soviet Russia, YOU know everything the GOVERNMENT does! .. kinda makes you think, doesn't it?
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
yes, but at least my library card, bank card, credit card, drivers licence, etc will all be merged into one card.
Think of the cows we can save by not requiring such bulky wallets.
Or even better - forget a National ID "card" and go straight to the implant.
Mongrel News all the news that fits and froths
You say there's no evidence this has ever happened? Of course not! Remember that the "Patriot Act" makes it illegal to tell anyone you've seen this kind of thing happen.
We're not supposed to worry, though, since this kind of treatment is reserved for "terrorists". Who is a "terrorist"?, you ask? Why, anyone the government calls a "terrorist", of course!
OK, back to our regularly scheduled paranoid rants...
-----
Sorry, I'm only a 1336 h4x0r.
um, no--the recipent(employee) need not have a bank account.
Regular salaries are payable in checks, which do NOT require a bank account of your own to cash.
actually, in NJ state law REQUIRES employers to facilitate cashing of checks, if the paycheck issuing bank is not available locally.
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
Read the summary for this proposed bill. Future seems a little shaky now doesn't it -- How does "Darth Bush" sound to you? (Amendment 22 is concerned with that little thing about only having two terms as president, for those non USoAians)
Interesting what you fail to note. The primary sponsor is a Democrat. As are 3 of the 4 cosponsors.
That said, the 22nd was only enacted about 50-60 years ago after FDR won his 4th term.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
Hope I didn't jinx anything by saying that.
It could have been a source of enlightment...
Education of the masses will be required if we're to succeed in getting this horrible anti-American law abolished. I say anti-American because it stands against virtually every principle that American was founded on. What we really need to do is put this whole damn thing into perspective so Joe Taxpayer can understand it. So here is my explanation of the whole deal:
George Bush is our version of the Emperor, the Global War on Terror is his Death Star, and the Patriot Act is his version of Darth Vader.
"On a scale from 1 to 10, people are stupid"
It's not like any of the 9/11 hijackers used library computers to do anything after all...
oops
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
Apparently, since Bush is threatening to veto (although he has never used his veto to date) this legislation unless they put the provision in question back in the bill, they will do exactly that in conference committee.
A poster on the Daily Kos made mention about it, but I can't find a direct link.
Not everyone. My Representative, John Lewis (Georgia 5th district), has his head screwed on straight. He voted against the PATRIOT Act, and I've been watching him (via his Plogress feed) come down on the right side of every major issue.
I'm sure there are others like him. Don't throw out any babies with the bath water.
I learned a long time ago to buy all my copies of "Catcher in the Rye" with cash..
Bush has only threatned veto so far to calm the right wing conservatives. He is indeed a very smart man. Throw a bone to both sides and keep them wanting more and let the house and senate fight it out like rabid dogs that they are.
The purpose of the constitution is to SECURE our rights, not to grant them. They are inalienable after all. Just because a right is not recognized in the constitution does not mean that you don't have it. (It also does not mean that you do...)
We weaken ourselves when we begin to believe that rights can be granted by an old piece of paper.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
I think the name of the Patriot Act was chosen very cunningly. It's hard to erase anything with "patriot" in its name without being called anti-patriotic the next day, with or without proper reason.
I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
Not that it matters anyway. The whole system of the 'Executive Order' renders the entire U.S. system of democratic government null & void should the administration ever decide to act on those powers. The patriot act just a bit of warming water, (as in the boiling frog analogy), and arguing over it is redundant when Bush, or any president, can legally become dictator for life at any time.
The U.S. system needs some purging and major restructuring if it can be taken seriously. Right now the whole thing is a big, stupid distraction to keep people occupied for years on end while the real game goes down, as it currently is.
-FL
Section 215 is dangerous, unnecessary, and violates the highest law of the land.
All fun and games til somebody loses an eye...
For the love of God, please learn to spell "ridiculous"!!!
Besides the blue states are the ones that support the red states - we can't damage the cash cows.
I don't trust government. I think they are liars. They distract the public, to make everyone think they are doing the work of ALL people. Well, not even all, but those who work and have families.
How about this for an idea? Members of Congress hear the outrage of people, about big brother in the library keeping tabs on what you read. So in a public showdown, congress repeals the provision of the patriot act which allows government to obtain your reading list.
Act II. People forget about the other provisions of the patriot act where the FBI can search records without a court warrent, records like your bank accounts, or even your home. And even after the search, they don't tell you!!
Act III. The Education Bill is passed. What is in the Education Bill? A provision which requires libraries to keep tabs on what people read, "to better spend tax dollars".
Act IV. People disappear. Kinda like Guantanamo bay, but Americans this time. Of course, no lawyers allowed. Okay, government will cave, we'll give you a military lawyer.
Act V. Hell folks, if it gets to Act V, we're all doomed. Some say we already are.
SOLUTIONS
#1) We take all money out of politics.
As long as public office can be purchased, we are screwed. Money is being concentrated in the hands of a small minority. If it takes $7 million per Senate seat, and some believe that the NY seat will be a multiple of that amount, then who can run? Even congressional seats are over $1 million each.
If all money was removed from political contests, then it would be a level playing field for ideas. The people own the airways, we could order 10 hours for each candidate to recieve public airtime. But we don't even get ideas, we get marketing.
I think the USA is doomed. The sad part is we are causing war in every other part of the world. We want to bring to them capitalism, so the same system of buying elections can become possible.
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
If you get blocked, and want to read try alterslash.
I use alterslash.org for most of my slash browsing, its all nicely on a single page, and no icky geen.
Damn, you can subpoena library records in a private law suit. No terrorist activity needs to be involved.
From ACLU's page:
Note the emphasized parts. ANY person or entity. ANY tangible thing. If Section 215 is so damn dangerous then why are we only worried about libraries?
(Oh and today's challenge is to actually find the word library in the text of Section 215.)
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
Here's some free advice: If you want to read a book without the government knowing about it, don't walk into a government-owned building and ask a government employee if you can borrow it.
To the article and a fair number of the comments in here, and although it's fairly fanciful, read all the way before passing judgement please.
About 10 years ago I used to regularly play a Role Play Game called Shadowrun, and it had a fairly dark, Blade Runner-ish view of the future - 2050 and beyond.
Now we're not, so far, heading into mass corporate wars, amended politics for nigh-infinite terms, and social upheaval verging on very bloody revolution right before the end of the Mayan fifth age and heading into the sixth, but from where I'm sitting, it might not be such a bad thing to happen.
You, me, and most of the other people here on Slashdot are, at least likely to be, fairly intelligent and observant people, and I'm guessing that when you look at the current state of politics and society today you must be feeling pretty ambiguous about it all.
On the one hand we've got politicians who are, quite obviously, stuffing their pockets full of as much benefits as they can get their grubby hands on - reminds me of a t-shirt I saw once with a pig-nosed fat-ass in a three piece suit eating money - while the public at large responds with "Duhr? TV gooood." whenever you point it out to them, and on the other hand there are a few people working in politics - not politicians, that word has become an insult - who are not just looking out for their own interests and are trying to do their damndest for the public, and some of the public recognise that.
The problem is laziness coupled with greed. The politicians want a huge fucking piece of the pie, while the public in general is lazy enough to accept the illusion that they're getting a slice also, and they're too lazy to think about it and realise they're getting fucked up the ass.
Most people are so fucking lazy in fact that if you said to them "you know, you could get an extra 5 miles per gallon if you read a book and tuned that engine" or "don't blow fifty dollars on a dinner for two, here's a recipe for a four course meal you can cook yourself that'll rival anything from a fancy restaurant" that they'd shrug and say something like "I can't be bothered".
I can't be bothered.
I can't be bothered cooking something when I get home from work because I'm too tired, I'll just have something from a fast food place. I can't be bothered understanding how the basics of my engine work so I can save a few bucks and change my own oil. I can't be bothered ironing my own suit/jeans/shirts/skirts. I can't be bothered thinking about what's happening in the world.
They can't be bothered with all that junk, but they can be bothered whinging about it, or throwing money at it until someone else takes care of it for them.
Sure, dry cleaning is convenient. Fast food is convenient. Mechanics are convenient. A fancy restaurant is convenient. Lot's of things we can go out and buy are convenient, but they've become a crutch.
People in general have taken convenience and a helping hand from the government and turned them into dependencies, and you know what? The government is simply going with the flow and slowly turning those growing dependencies into a tangible part of life.
It's politi-fu. Man needs a hand? Sure, just sign this, fill out these, and we'll keep a watchful eye on you while we help you out for a while. Don't worry, we're here to help.
Mother finds her child watching something she regards as porn? No problem, this department will help you protect your children by making new laws that say kids aren't allowed to watch these shows, and to help, we'll make sure the studios can't show them between certain times.
Oh, and while you're at it, would you two mind taking one of these? Don't worry, it's just a little card that lets us protect you if you happen to be driving through a bad neighbourhood and your car breaks down, or something happens at your kid's school and we need to get in touch with you, no matter where you are at the time.
His name is Robert Paulsen...
Funny you say that. In some jurisdictions it's actually illegal to be anonymous anymore. Sure, you can pay cash, but there's a camera watching the checkout line so if *they* want to know who is buying 2600 just look it up on the tape. That's why I "contract" to a random kid at the bookstore to buy it for me for $10 bucks. More expensive, but at least *they* don't know I'm buying 2600.
Seriously though, there was a recent case in West Virginia where a guy was arrested for wearing a Grinch mask. There's a law there prohibiting a person from disguising themselves in public. What aggravates me more than the mere existence and enforcement of such a law is that when I was talking about it with my coworkers they pretty much all said "Good -- I have nothing to fear/hide..."
The point is that this is supposed to be a FREE country. How is freedom supposed to continue when nobody has the balls to stand up and point out that we have laws on the books, namely the Patriot Act, that suppress portions of the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, and 14th amendments? If *they* can get away with this now then there's probably nothing *they* won't get away with!
He hasnt vetoed a bill yet in the past five years, however theres always a first time.
Something like this?
Visit http://ringbreak.dnd.utwente.nl/~mrjb/growingbettersoftware to download your free copy of the book
Darth Bush? I can only imasgine what you'd say if we had men like Teddy Roosevelt and Gen. Pershing in charge right now.
Now, did you notice that the author of the bill, Rep. Hoyer is a DEMOCRAT? How about three of the four co-sponsors who are also DEMOCRATS? Do you understand how insanely hard it is to make amendments to the US Constitution?
If you're going to be critical, at least take the time to do some research before you start talking sillyness.
Remember the Alamo, and God Bless Texas...
There are actually TWO bills proposed with that same topic. Still scary though.
Dream as if you'll live forever.
Live as if you'll die tomorrow.
~Anonymous~
Republican Representatives vote against Patriot Act. Knee Jerk anti-Republican reflex threatened. Must scramble to justify prejudice. Must reach Slashdot Liberal spinner. Must reach....mind fading...Republicans voting against....urghghg
You can tell the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
"we are setting ourselves up to the whole situation again"
Baloney.
There have been no convictions of terrorist because of this law.
None.
Zero.
The Washingtonpost just had a fascinating article about this last week. Despite all the crap that comes out of the administration, this law has had zero effect on terrorism.
It has been used extensively against U.S. citizens. However, if we need specific laws, lets enact them and stop pretending everything is about "terrorism".
Its bullshit and its just a way to remove all of our civil rights because government hates admitting that they are the employee of the citizens.
The only factor that is different from when the Patriot Act was originally passed is that the power of the President has begun to wane. He is a lame duck President whose Vice President isn't going to run for the top spot. The voices of the people who vote is as loud as it was then but now that voice attaches itself to votes for the next election cycle and money to campaign chests. A change in moral compasses on the part of your congressmen isn't what is happening here. They haven't suddenly decided that it's morally wrong to throw the Constitution aside along with yor rights. Nope, nothing like that. It's that your local Congressmen has to listen to you for a while again - to be reelected. So make noise now and let him know what you think of the Patriot Act. Tell him that you actually like the Bill of Rights and won't vote for someone who lets the President take it away piece by piece. This might be a good time to let your Congressman know what you think of the Guantanamo Bay Prison as well. After all, the weakness of the President in this matter is like blood in the water and those who have problems with these issues need to speak now when their voices will mean the most.
Enjoy your Karma, after all you earned it. Feel your Karma Joe, feel it burn.
"access to our bank statements, our cars (onboard nav computers telling the government where we are going, where we've been, etc), our schools, our whole livelihood could be changed." its already been done.
You don't want to think about how totally owned your life is (and how badly identity theft and misidentification can hurt you.)
My biggest worry is that the people (them as opposed to us, "the civilians") out there take our lives home and fuck with them.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
"The House voted Wednesday to block the FBI and the Justice Department from using the Patriot Act to search library and book store records. Despite a veto threat from King Bush, lawmakers voted 238-187 to block the part of the anti-terrorism law that allows the government to investigate the reading habits of terror suspects."
They were a staple of Russian life. Keep the [others] fearing for their lives by killing a few (or more). Other is in brackets because they weren't killing just Jews.
The Nazis were not particarly secretive about what they were doing. They just had more propaganda about it. (The parts they didn't want you focusing on.)
As for the patriot act... Imagine a world where you CANT get away with anything, on any side. Oh the horror. The HORROR!
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
In other words, President W. Bush (under this repealed ammendment) could not be so reckless and narrow-minded in his endeavors in office during his second term as he can be now because he has no chance for re-election. This is similar to members of Congress who are (generally) kept in line with the fear of losing their position if they go against enough of their constituants.
...and that's the way the cookie crumbles.
"allows the government to investigate the reading habits of terror suspects"
Who says the government only looks at the reading habits of terrorists? That's one of the big myths about this whole patriot act - that it's only against terrorists. We don't knnow who or when it's being used because it's against the law for anyone to say.
The whole truth of the matter is that America has lost it's identity. We are so busy sticking up for illegal immigrants and the rights of those who want to kill us that the every day people are just getting crapped on. Oh, sure you can always go and vote - if it's even counted. No one seems to know how the electronic vote counting works. But even if you do vote and get counted, what are your choices? The "give it all to the minorities and illegal immigrants" Democrats or the "give it all to the big business" Republicans. Wow, what a choice!
And so we get: September 16, 2003: John Ashcroft accused librarians of fueling "baseless hysteria," and of having been "duped" by liberals. "Ashcroft mocked and condemned the ALA and other Justice Department critics for believing that the FBI wants to know 'how far you have gotten on the latest Tom Clancy novel.'"
Gee, how does The National Review feel about this? It advocates explicitly adding libraries to the list of organizations subject to the law, justifying that by listing the libraries the 9/11 hijackers used in Germany... I'm having trouble making out the argument there. It's pretty breathless: "Atta used computers at the public library and worked out at a Delray Beach health club." Health clubs are scaaaary! It too belittles librarians' concerns, of course:
Google this one up and you'll come across a motherload of library organizations who are very seriously tackling the issues of intellectual freedom involved in this law. Dismissing those librarians as hysterical dupes of terrorists is not exactly calling them pinko commie fellow travelers... but we're already on our way. When does someone use the senior Bush's "card carrying" epithet?
Do another Google and you'll be able to easily find stuff like "The Ten Most Harmful Books of the 19th and 20th Centuries." Book number 4 on the list: The Kinsey Report, because it tried to "normalize deviant behaviors." Yep, those Patriot Act supporters are true believers in intellectual freedoms... They'd never abuse surveillance powers, no ma'am.
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
Assistant Attorney General William Moschella said that bookstores and libraries... 'should not be carved out as safe havens for terrorists and spies, who have, in fact, used public libraries to do research and communicate with their co-conspirators.' This comment is simulaneously rediculous and very frightening coming from an officer of a large democracy.
i just want to play go
Take a look at the 4th Ammendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause
Note it does not say a warrant is required for a search, only that unreasonable searches shall not occur. We now use the exclusionary rule to handle this.
Futhermore, warrants developed not to allow authorities to search your home, but rather to provide a shield of of immunity from something like a tort suit by ther searchee against the searchor.
If you want to learn more, Posner has provided insightful commentary on this issue.
The problem is that the gummint doesn't have the kind of selective deafness and blindness that would make them palatable.
Actually, the entire argument is mooted by the fact that the gummint has out-sourced and, in some instances even off-shored, the surveilance effort and can honestly say that they aren't keeping any records on you. They aren't anymore...
But your record is for sale from a few places...
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
How do we find out the voting record of our Representatives so we know who to thank?
In particular, is there someplace online, that shows how all the Representatives voted on this?
Rush's song Witch Hunt accurately portrays the current administration. Neil Peart should become a fortune teller.
The night is black
Without a moon
The air is thick and still
The vigilantes gather on
The lonely torch lit hill
Features distorted in the flickering light
The faces are twisted and grotesque
Silent and stern in the sweltering night
The mob moves like demons possessed
Quiet in conscience, calm in their right
Confident their ways are best
The righteous rise
With burning eyes
Of hatred and ill-will
Madmen fed on fear and lies
To beat and burn and kill
They say there are strangers who threaten us
In our immigrants and infidels
They say there is strangeness too dangerous
In our theaters and bookstore shelves
That those who know what's best for us
Must rise and save us from ourselves
Quick to judge
Quick to anger
Slow to understand
Ignorance and prejudice
And fear walk hand in hand...
The government funded the PSA so I sure hope they don't change their minds on what America is.
If carrots got you drunk, rabbits would be fucked up. - Comedian Mitch Hedberg R.I.P. 03/30/68-2/24/05
You know, if they know that *you* bought a copy of "Stupid White Men..." they'll probably also know relatively how many copies sold. Knowing that such items are becoming increasingly popular would be more effective than knowing you as an individual bought one.
I live in Maryland, not in Steny's district. But I see his ads and his discussions.
The guy is a dunce, but he's a democrat. I suspect he votes the way he's told.
Why would he sponsor a bill like this? Doesn't make sense.
In Soviet America, the Patriot Act owns you!
Just because a law etc doesn't specifically mention the internet or online communication/commerce etc doesn't mean it doesn't affect it (either directly or indirectly). Trust me, the Patriot Act in general has lots of nasties that can affect online "rights."
In addition, I've found that YRO on Slashdot can often be though of as "Your Rights, Online"... as in an online update of what's important that's happening with the laws etc that might affect your life one way or another.
I don't think it's the American system that went wrong, necessarily. There's a lot wrong with it, but I think plain old human nature played a larger role.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
The article said:
Despite a veto threat from President Bush, lawmakers voted 238-187 to block the part of the anti-terrorism law that allows the government to investigate the reading habits of terror suspects.
Possibly my own bias, but I read it as:
Despite a veto threat from President Bush, lawmakers voted 238-187 to block the part of the anti-terrorism law that allows the government to investigate the reading habits of citizens.
Aren't U.S. citizens supposed to be innocent until proven guilty in a court of law? It's not that I'm worried about them using these powers against terrorists; it's that there is no strong oversight to see that it isn't used by less scrupulous agents against ordinary citizens.
Now with 10% less Fascism and 15% fewer calories! As always, 0g of Trans Fats
But I really shouldn't be laughing at all. Every loss of rights for people in the US or the UK probably has the effect of justifying, at least in their own eyes, the actions of repressive governments everywhere else in the world, including each other's governments.
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
Yea you stand up and fight and we all get punished with even more restrictive laws. I can't help but feel like I am back in grade school. One person does something wrong, the teacher does not know who it is, so everyone is punished by losing recess. The Patriot Act diminishes the rights of everyone, in order to catch the few who are doing the wrongful acts. It is the wrong way to correct the problem. I personally cannot see how anyone can possibly argue against that. My right to privacy is gone under this act. As long as someone has even a suspicion that I am participating in something they believe is wrong, I haven't any right to privacy. The problem is that we have proven in the past that peoples suspicions do not equate to a crime and there is always someone who will weild their suspicions in a manner to serve their own desires, without concern as to how it effects others.
Frankly I'm not seeing a lot of evidence that John Ashcroft, Don Rumsfeld, and W. Bush himself are going to back away from the ideological cliff, and I'm not seeing how my Oklahoma relations will ever leave the Republican fold over public officials who lay into librarians. This is the party that, when it needs to present itself as a "big tent," puts Zell Miller on the stage to tell us about those evil "Ag-it-a-tors" with his eyes rolling back in his head.
(You know, it's almost impossible to approximate Zell's pronunciation of that word in print. How many syllables are in there, anyway??)
All I really hope for is that the next tar baby our Brer President takes a swing at happens to be a moderate -- or someone who plays like a moderate -- in today's R. party, like maybe McCain. These people were born (again) to make schisms; the only thing holding the ship together is the boatloads of corporate money that makes it a sort of oligarchy. We do see some fissures along those lines. Lynching, this bill...
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
I agree. It allows anyone in the enforcement departments to invade your privacy, based on a suspicion. They do not need to prove that you have participated in a crime, only that they believe your activities indicate that you could possibly be aligned in a manner to be able to participate in a crime. You lose your right to any privacy based on someone elses suspicions.
McCarthy would have been so proud of the Patriot Act. That alone scares me to near death.
I suspected the article of half-truth when it referred to the USA PATRIOT Act as an "Anti-Terrorism Act". It takes about 2 minutes of reading the USA PATRIOT Act on Wikipedia to realize that terrorism is only a small part of it. So, I went to house.gov and did a little research.
The bill that it is referring to is:
An amendment numbered 15 printed in the Congressional Record to prohibit funds in the bill from being used to implement provisions of Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act which permits searches of library circulation records, library patron lists, book sales records, or book customer lists under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).
There are some key points to mention here. First, this is limiting a section of FISA, which was absorbed by the USA PATRIOT Act. FISA was passed in 1978. So, all that stuff in the article about the "terrorism bill" being passed in 2001 is garbage. This is referring to a law passed in 1978.
Second, this isn't ammending FISA or the USA PATRIOT Act. This is ammending a funding bill to ensure that the funds provided by the bill cannot be used by this one section of FISA. So, it is still legal, you just can't use those special funds for it.
Third, who is paying this writer to write articles designed specifically to fan the anti-patriot act flames? If he had written what the vote was really about, it would have been news. As it is, it is propoganda.
The previous comment is purposely vague and generalized, but all of the facts are completely true.
Of course that voice of reason was drowned out and the Patriot Act passed. I remember my disappointment when the vote count was announced.
My Senator (the good one) is Russ Feingold, the ONLY senator to vote against PATRIOT.
Actually, militant Muslims seem to do a pretty good job of that themselves. Google for Daniel Pearl, Theo Van Gogh, Armenious murder, etc. Not to mention the racist bile spewing from the mouths of Islamic clerics in the middle east, Europe, and America. They are in collaboration with oppresive regimes like those found in Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia to direct criticism from their own failed leadership to the West. Face it - attempting to live according to the Quran has left your people in the dark ages. For example, while the rest of the civilized world has embraced women's rights, you insist on forcing them to cover themselves, walk behind you in public, forbid them to talk to other men, and even surgically remove their clitorises because you're not man enough to take care of business in the bedroom and keep them from going elsewhere for satisfaction.
Ever heard of an average?
passed. It allows for cia/nsa to send a request to a judge to allow them to do what ever. The evidence that they have to show is minimal. After that, they have carte blanche to do what ever they want. If they wish to tap you phone, they may do so. They do NOT have to justify who's phone they tap. They do NOT have to justify which records they pull.
Cool, right? After all it is just chasing a bunch of terrorists that are all over the place.
Except that we are now trying to give those same capabilities to the FBI/DOJ.
There are those of us who grew up in the 60's here (and some from the 50's or even 40's). We were brought up to remember what the red scare was. That was when the government held secret meetings to try and figure out who was a communist here. It turned out, there were a few, but it was far fewer than what was being reported. In the mean time, the FBI and DOJ was granted all sorts of extra powers. It was abused heavily. Many ppl had their careers destroyed over nothing. We are now heading back to that due to the lack of education amongst kids today. The fact that so many today see nothing wrong with the Patriot Act II or Gitmo bay or American ran Iraqi prison that are considered as bad or worse than what Sadaam had, is plain wrong. We alos tolerate a president who lies and even has data tampered to show a minimal connection.
In 20 years, your kids will look back at this society and wonder what a bunch of idiots were allowed to run it. Bush, Cheney and Rumsfield will be seen as the McCarthy, and even Benidict Arnolds of this age (allowing a traitor to remain in the white house is treason in its own right).
Vader is Dutch for "father."
Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
"...to block the part of the anti-terrorism law that allows the government to investigate the reading habits of terror suspects."
Ah, yes, but who are the 'terror suspects'? Everyone reading books the state deems dangerous?
Eroding ones' privacy and other rights because one is merely 'suspected' is the right way to go, if you want to end up in a policestate.
But, we ALL know the state will ONLY use its powers for the purposes it is meant, without ever abusing it. History has shown this already numerous times in the past, no?
Besides, 'if you have nothing to hide, why care that your private life is being intruded', right?
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
Who still uses the library? Full of twenty year out of date science books (at best), full of pointless romance novels that most of the readership already get by subscription, full of political fiction conspiracy idiocy, full of art books that have been doodled in by kids...
The Interent is at least up to date, people who have something interesting to say can put up a website... I don't use any of the libraries in my state anymore. Even the university libraries are way out of date, with DOS and Unix System V books more common than anything on Linux, BSD, or even Windows 2000 architecture.
If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
I was wondering about the "Jihadist training" and "flag burning" sections that popped up recently in my local library. And here I thought we were safe! We'd better renew that Patriot Act pronto!
What would Richard Feynman do, if he were here right now? He'd do some math and he'd follow through!
The portions of the patriot act that include library searches and searches of your apartment without telling you for months expire this year.
If Bush wants them to be in effect longer than that, he needs to get the congress to pass something to that affect.
So he can veto this all he wants. He can't force the congress to extend them either.
See
this.
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." -- Albert Einstein
Way to go mods!!
and martial law would be declared, thus keeping Bush in office indefinitely.
No no no, it's much more simple than that, you just repeal the 22nd amendment limiting presidential terms.
Is it just me, or does this post seem to have a higher than usual amount of "5, Informative" mods?
Terminate and stay resinous.
If you read Section 215 it would in fact cover records of shoe companies if they could prove that they were relevant to a terror investigation.
It's ironic that there's all this gnashing of teeth over what the FBI might be doing when we already had the FBI file scandal back when we had a Democrat in the big chair.
So what "basic human right" aren't we respecting? How is having a defined legal process for requesting a FISA subpoena to view records for a terrorism investigation going to cause us to plunge into chaos and anarchy?
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
What's the point... terrorists have their own Qur'ans.
So, what was the bill number of this PATRIOT Act II?
Si vis pacem, para bellum
The only thing more annoying than a Libertarian is an (un|mis)informed Libertarian
Why would you have an expectation of privacy? Hell, cant I get the records with a FOIA request? And for Christ's sake, librarians are not freaking policy makers. They run the library. Their OPINION on privacy matters carries no more weight then that of their patrons. They have bosses and have to follow the rules just like everyone else. I'd fire a crapload of them.
All I can say to that person, who imo is a very sad individual that hasn't read the constitution, is read the first 10 amendments to the constitution if you want to know what rights you have.
This is something that keeps coming up, and I have to keep emphasizing the wrongness of it because it is the root of all of the problems with our government today.
"You", a citizen, have the right to do anything not expressly prohibited to you. "They", the government, have no rights, only certain powers expressly granted to them.
The Bill of Rights is a list of SPECIALLY PROTECTED rights, which the government expressly may not create laws infringing upon, if they somehow (*cough*Article 8, Section 18*cough*) find a way to go about expanding their own powers at will. But the Bill of Rights is NOT a list of your total rights, and many of the founding fathers were opposed to its inclusion (hence why it was added afterward), because they feared that people would think that, since some rights were enumerated, that was an encompassing list of all rights. The compromise was the 10th Amendment, which is the clearest bit of language in the constitution that hammers home my point:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
In other words, if the federal constitution doesn't say No, and your state constitution doesn't say No, then you can do it. It's your right unless otherwise stated.
The (Federal) government, on the other hand, is supposed to have a very select set of powers, explicitly enumerated in Article 8 of the Constitution. The catch there is, the last clause of Article 8 grants Congress the power...
"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
So basically, every law Congress has passed, aside from Constitutional amendments, is supposed to trace back in some way shape or form to the enforcement of one of these powers explicitly granted to Congress, or to help the other branches to exercise their (also explicitly enumerated and limited) powers.
And the lawmakers have really stretched things. The one you see abused most often is the "interstate commerce" clause. Drug control laws, for example, derive entirely from that - nevermind that the same laws are applied if someone produces a drug like pot entirely in their back yard and uses it it all by themselves, never involving other states or even other people in the process. The lawbooks are full of stretches like that - some law links back to the supposed enforcement of an apparently unrelated power of Congress, and then applies equally well in situations unrelated to the exercise of that specific power, effectively growing the powers of the Federal government.
And since such Article 8 abuses supersede the 10th Amendment protections of your universal human rights (because such abuses 'legitimately' grant Congress further powers, as far as the 10th Amendment is concerned), it seems they can get away with it.
The system is broken.
(Not to mention, even if it weren't broken in just this way... the Constitution still allows individual states to wield whatever powers they please except these, and a few others added in later amendments. Even if the feds weren't able to be draconian... chances are the states still would).
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
I was really concerned about the government being able to read my library records. Not that I have anything to hide, but I do value my privacy. I asked the head librarian about it and turns out her and many other librarians are fighting this tooth and nail. She said the computer was set up to only keep track of books that were checked out. Once they returned all records of them being checked out are deleted! They have the capability to keep extensive logs but choose not to due to the Patriot Act. For a small town like mine I was really impressed.
Congress shall make no law respecting the bounds of common sense.
C'mon guys, we've seen this a million times. The library thing makes the news, but it doesn't make the news that now they have the right to search left-handed people without a warrant. Or some other crazy shit.. This library thing is a big deal, but no law ever gets made without a ton of unrelated or, more ofter, directly counterproductive material written in.
Anyone know enough about this scene to give the lowdown on what they aren't reporting?
The USA Patriot Act is proof that we need a second American revolution. We need to overthrow the despots in Congress and the White House in the same way we got rid of King George because the tyrants in our government have become far worse than King George ever was.
Just remember that according to the USA Patriot Act, all our founding fathers are terrorists. They were not part of a recognized national military and they used gorrilla tactics against the red coats. Poetic irony, isn't it.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
What aggravates me more than the mere existence and enforcement of such a law is that when I was talking about it with my coworkers they pretty much all said "Good -- I have nothing to fear/hide..."
There is some truth in that statement.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a very private person, and I hate to be tracked by authority figures of any kind. But more than that, deeper than that - I hate *having* to hate being tracked.
I'm a very open and honest person. I normally cannot stand to keep secrets; it feels dishonest and wrong to me. So what bothers me about authoritative violations of privacy is not that they are finding out something about me, but that there is any reason for me to not want them to know something about me.
I don't read 2600 Magazine (honestly, I probably wouldn't grok most of it), but people keep using it as an example here so I will too. Say I read 2600. I don't mind that everybody else in the book store can see that I'm buying it. I've got no reason to hide that from them. If one of them got all uppity about "you're one of those evil hacker-types! You must die!!!" and tried to do something to me for buying a magazine (and the subsequent inferences therefrom), everybody would side with *me* because it's according to our social contract - the real and living one as everybody understands it, even if not as written on paper - one citizen cannot stop another citizen from buying whatever damn magazine they please, and if someone tries to, *they* are in the wrong. I will have the support of the general populace, which is the real power base in any civilization.
But if "the government" (whichever) decides to track my magazine purchases, and for some reason doesn't trust people who buy 2600, and then comes down on me as a "terrorist hacker" because of it, the public will go "Oh - the government says he's evil, it's their job to protect us from evil people, so they must be right." And now I have little to no real recourse.
The point I guess I'm trying to make here is that being concerned with our privacy isn't getting to the root of the problem. Having privacy is a stopgap measure to keep the government from wielding against you powers that it shouldn't have in the first place. But to get to the real problem, we shouldn't be focusing on the privacy, although that is a good interim measure - we need to focus on WHY do we need this privacy in the first place? If the system worked properly, if we had a true, concrete and axiomatic system of law, such that people could be assured that they know very clearly and simply what is and is not allowed (of both them and the government), and that such a balance was reasonable to both parties... nobody would need to keep secrets, and probably nobody would *want* to keep secrets unless they were in violation of the law.
That's where that attitude of "I have nothing to hide" comes from. These are people who trust that the system is flawless and thus only criminals have things to hide - which is how it SHOULD be, but not how it IS. The person saying that, in your example, could be entirely unaware that he is, in the eyes of the law, a criminal by some technicality, and that if caught they would do horrible nasty things to him and all the other people like him would nod and say "The government says he's a criminal, it must be true."
The attitude is correct, that only criminals need to keep secrets from the law. The problem is not that we can't keep secrets - the problem is that we NEED to, because too many things that should not be called crimes, are, and that the general populace is complacent in that.
A friend of mine expressed a similar notion about gun control. He, like me, really isn't all that much into guns. Would rather never have to have one. But that the government doesn't *want* him to have guns is scary - "why shouldn't they want me to have guns? do they want to do something bad to me that they can't do if I keep my guns?" - and in that case, he just might consider keeping some, even though he'd rather not have to.
Replace "guns" with "secrets" and see how that paragraph parses.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Whatever. The larger point regarding Executive Orders and the illusion of democracy remains.
-FL
It's pissed me off, for one. I can handle not being able to moderate, and being called to metamoderate all the time, but
1) being banned from posting under any circumstances from certain places because of actions of other people and
2) watching my fan/friendlist slowly becoming 'unpopular opinion' and being unable to post more than once or twice a day is lunacy.
Vote with your feet.
GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
Hey, it's a good thing I decided to read a while before writing the reply that I was thinking of. It'd just be a dup of your message. The image of would-be terrorists descending on public libraries to check out books on making atomic bombs is good for a bit of humor.
...."
Instead, I'll add an example from a college physics course that I took maybe 30 years ago. At the end of one chapter, the list of exercises included one along the lines of "Using the equations in this chapter and table X in the back of the book, calculate the critical masses of the following isotopes
This was followed by a footnote symbol, and the footnote at the bottom of the page advised that telling the answer to this exercise to anyone without a top-secret security clearance was a felony under US law, with punishment including life in prison or execution.
Everyone in the class thought this was pretty funny. It taught us something useful about the sanity of US "security" laws.
So it's not just libraries that our neocon leaders think are aiding the terrorists. Many college bookstores are selling information critical to bomb making. They openly sell such books to anyone with the $50 or $75 price tag.
Somehow I suspect there just might be better solutions to the problem than attacking libraries and college bookstores.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
Despite a veto threat from President Bush, lawmakers voted 238-187 to block the part of the anti-terrorism law that allows the government to investigate the reading habits of terror suspects.
Knowing they can look at those records, puts a chill on anyone wanting to read anything at all. It's like a virtual ban, better yet a virtual burning of books. Let's say you want to read The Communist Manifesto, Machiavelli's The Prince, or Mein Kampf. You could be tagged a terrorist for reading Winnie the Poo or Atlas Shrugged.
When we run out of oil, then we can burn all those books to keep us warm by pumping out more CO2.
--
In times of stress people become both more religious and more warlike.
I jumped in a little late. (as always)
Could the reason that the might be willing to remove this part of the Patriot Act is to be able to keep the rest intact?
One of the most common attacks on the Patriot Act that cannot be defended is the Library records section. If the remove this section it makes the rest of the Act easier to keep intact. So really they might be giving up a little to gain a whole lot more.
-Anyone seen my hat? It's all shiny and made of aluminum.
In order to get such a Section 215 subpoena the officer has to in fact provide probably cause and support by oath the needs for it. The fact that it's done in a different court system doesn't short circuit anything.
How does a Section 215 warrant abridge your or the press's freedom of speech?
Trials come long after searches. Totally irrelevant to the matter at hand.
The people detained at Gitmo are in fact not US citizens nor were they detained on US soil and thus do not enjoy the protections of the Consitution of the United States. Moreso by the strictures of the Geneva Conventions these people are unlawful combatants and can be summarily executed.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
Like I've been telling people since Bush was elected -- it's not his second term I'm worried about, it's his third term!
Zhrodague.net - I do projects and stuff too.
You must be new here.
Google (and sometimes the press) is your friend.
That article isn't about PATRIOT II, despite the title. It's about a finance bill that included an expansion of the definition of "financial institution". Care to try again?
Si vis pacem, para bellum
The only thing more annoying than a Libertarian is an (un|mis)informed Libertarian
Nearly all parts of Patriot Act II were placed under the bill. IOW, it has the title of being a finance bill, but the vast majority of the bill is the patriot act II. It is therefor the patriot act II.
Hoyer, my US rep, can say whatever he wants on the House floor. The fact is that the actual text of the bill simply says that the 22nd amendment is repealed. No ifs, ands, buts, and especially no exceptions for Bush. The scaremongering is not entirely unfounded. Republicans need a 2/3rds majority in the House (close), the Senate (not quite as close) and 34 states (again, close) before they can start printing "W in '08" bumper stickers. All I can figure is that they've used the FBI's new powers to find some pretty juicy stuff on the Dems who are sponsoring this bill so that it's not quite as transparently obvious a power grab.
The Republican who proposed this bill is working for the same masters. It matters not who is in the Oval Office, because the people with all the money can buy off ANYONE.
Eliminating the two term maximum is just an exercise in cost-cutting.
lawmakers voted 238-187 to block the part of the anti-terrorism law that allows the government to investigate the reading habits of terror suspects. God forbid they seek a warrant...
WOW - This is scary and depressing! Fortunately for us, almost everything you've said IS NOT TRUE. YOU (and everyone else who believes this, which seems to be most every poster on this board) need to read: 1) Executive Order 12333, 2) The Patriot Ac, 3) What you call "Patriot II", 4) the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, aka FISA, and 5) Have someone knowledgeable about how the U.S. government actually works explain the intelligence and law enforcement activities involved in collecting information in the U.S. Now, having said that, it will be difficult to accomplish #5, because as I've read forums like this over the past year, I've learned that almost no one has actually read and understands the above listed documents and how the process actually works to PROTECT the Constitutional RIghts of ALL Americans, AND non-citizens in the U.S.
Let me address your specific claim:
you said "It allows for cia/nsa to send a request to a judge to allow them to do what ever. The evidence that they have to show is minimal. After that, they have carte blanche to do what ever they want. If they wish to tap you phone, they may do so. They do NOT have to justify who's phone they tap. They do NOT have to justify which records they pull."
Ok, WRONG ON ALL COUNTS to everything above. READ the law and the restrictions on CIA/NSA domestic intelligence collection. Read the PROBABLE CAUSE REQUIREMENT in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and the JUDICIAL REVIEW required. HMM, guess that doesn't count! Read US criminal law that ALLOWS SUBPOENAS for "LIBRARY RECORDS", actually, its ANY business record, that the FBI has used for 10+ YEARS in kidnapping and other violent crime investigations that were not permitted in National Security investigations before the Patriot Act. HMM, I guess its ok to subpoena important records that will help identify or locate a suspected kidnapper, but NOT OK to do the same thing to DEFEND THE NATION and all of the Rights and Freedoms YOU AND I have, which, if you learn your history, are GREATER IN THE USA THAN ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE WORLD. Don't believe me, ask any competant historian!
People - PLEASE TRY TO LEARN THE TRUTH BEFORE ADDING TO THE IGNORANCE DISPLYED DAILY IN THE "OH NO! THE PATRIOT ACT IS TAKING AWAY ALL OF MY FREEDOMS!!" RANT...
The truth is the government could care less what you are reading. A small number of dedicated Americans are trying to keep the nation and our freedoms safe from people who WANT TO KILL YOU. Yes, you know about the millions the Nazi's killed, I Hope you know about the 50-75 MILLION the SOVIETS and CHINESE COMMUNISTS murdered (YES, that was THERE OWN PEOPLE). Its real folks, we AMERICANS too young to fight in the last Great War have just never seen it.
Next time you're in Washington, DC, visit the Holocost Memorial Museum.
So much for all that "First Lady Librarian" bullshit they use to con rednecks into thinking they're with the "smart people".
--
make install -not war
What if only 75% thought it was a stupid law?
Or what if only 25% thought it was a stupid law and 50% didn't care because they don't pick their nose anyway?
It's not necessarily a quantitative matter of strict percentages. It's just a qualitative matter of "if I do this, and someone tries to stop it, will there be any significant power on my side of the issue?" There's a quote I don't quite remember about laws which criminalize everybody being unenforcable - the police become the extreme minority and all the other "criminals" can simply overwhelm them.
This of course relies on the premise that the average person is going to stand up for his or her self if they think they've got any real chance of winning, which is really the point I'm making - if I think I'll get in serious trouble for doing something, either I'll stop doing it or make sure I don't get caught (keep it secret). If I think I'll "get in trouble" but that I've got enough people/power on my side to win out of that trouble, then "screw you if you want to know if I pick my nose or not. I do. What are you going to do about it?"
The fact that at least a large minority, if not a majority, of the population think smoking pot is no big thing, has not done much to curb the ridiculous laws and sentencing guidelines like 3-strikes, etc.
That's an example of the power balance above. People should be able to get away with doing things like that - the government shouldn't have the power to stop them. That power is given to them by the legitimacy that we the people as a whole grant them and the laws that they enforce. Enough people support those laws and the power of the government to enforce them that most pot smokers/growers/dealers don't have much of a chance of winning if it comes to a conflict, and yet they don't believe they should have to stop, and so they keep it secret. That's a good interim solution, but the real solution is to remove such power from the government.
Your dream of an open, secretless utopia is just that - a utopia. There will always be political power structures of one nature or another and privacy is one of the strongest defenses against the abuse those power structures inevitably enable.
True, it is a dream, and I doubt I will see it come to pass in my lifetime, probably not even my childrens' lifetimes. But I think that it is possible to arrive at a simple and consistent set of canons (in the sense of "canonical law", i.e. axomatic law, not in the religious sense) that everyone would freely consent to in principle, things like the right to freedom of expression (or non-expression), and the right to consent (or not) to decisions about yourself as you will - and of course the corresponding responsibilities to respect those rights in others. Those two are just my basic 'canons' that I base all my "moral" or "ethical" judgements on, and while I think they're pretty damn universal, I'm open to the possibility that they could be refined further.
Once you've got a simple, consistent, canonical law laid down, it's just a matter of making sure it's enforced properly, and keeping those enforcing it from gaining too much arbitrary power. Making sure the general populace is in charge of the enforcement of truly universal laws is a sure way to guarantee "majority rule, minority rights".
The whole concept of fixed, canonical law is where constitutional government comes from. No longer are the rulers arbitrarily making up whatever rules they feel like at the time, but they've got a fixed set of guidelines that they are charged with enforcing. (At least, that's how it's SUPPOSED to work). And making sure that the rulers themselves are approved by the general public is the whole concept of democracy.
We haven't always had these things: rulers used to descend genetically or seize power by force and often claimed a divine right to rule, and then went about making arbitrary decrees and edicts as they pleased. We've come a long way since then. I think we've still got room to improve from here, too. That's all I'm pushing for.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The point is that there is a threat and there should be a mechanism to deal with it.
That mechanism includes court reviews before subpoenas can be served. The other fact is that anyone can subpoena any records in a suit if they show cause and need.
There's a whole bunch of hand wringing about the new "fascist state" when in fact it is nothing of the sort.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
The point is that the Geneva Conventions define what a lawful combatant is. Anyone operating outside of those strictures is thus violating the convention.
The whole point of the Geneva Conventions were to reduce civilian casualties by declaring civilians illegal targets and ensuring that the people actually doing the fighting can be identified as separate from the civilians.
The people that we are getting all veklempt about are running around dressing as civilians or as (even worse) police and press and deliberately targeting civilians.
You keep getting all mixed up with laws pertaining to US citizens on US soil.
Meanwhile an aid worker is pummelled with stones by "peace loving" Muslims because she happens to be breast feeding her baby in public. "Honor" killings are going on throughout the EU. "Insurgents" are beheading hostages and video taping it.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
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.)
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
remove television advertising, but allow television coverage of campaigns.
people might not be as exposed to the cannidates as much, but you really don't learn much from TV campaign ads anyways.
The cost to run a campaign should be less, though it does require one to be more proactive to learn a cannidates position.
Bring back the old version of slashdot.