Slashdot Mirror
ACLU Joins Fight Against Internet Surveillance
aychamo writes "The American Civil Liberties Union today joined an expanding group of organizations filing lawsuits against a new rule that increases the FBI's power to conduct surveillance on the Internet. The rule being challenged is one the Federal Communications Commission adopted in September, granting an FBI request to expand wiretapping authority to online communications.he ACLU charged in a petition to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that the ruling goes beyond the authority of CALEA, which specifically exempted information services. "The ACLU seeks review of the CALEA order on the grounds that it exceeds the FCC's statutory authority and is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, unsupported by substantial evidence, or otherwise contrary to law," the organization charged in its petition."
After all, how long can we maintain the 1st with out it?
At this point the only people monitoring my University's network traffic are bored CS students. However, if that kind of deal came into effect I don't think the already cash strapped department could handle the added weight. Hell, half their staff or more at this point are student oncampus work-study jobs.
Start a happiness pandemic
The ACLU is doing something that isn't going to piss the majority off?
"You will do foolish things, but do them with enthusiasm." - S. G. Colette
Instead of ignoring the second amendment, or crusading for the rights of Neo-Nazis to march through black neighborhoods the ACLU is doing something that's actually positive. I applaud them for this.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
No.. most of their stuff does not. Just most of the stuff that jokers like O'Reilly and Limbaugh like to focus on.
Almost all of their cases are about protecting the civil rights of the individual against the "man". You don't hear about most of those, because Fox News won't highlight them.
"I have as much authority as the pope, I just
don't have as many people who believe it" - George Carlin
"The diverse organizations also warned that the expanded eavesdropping rules represent only the beginning of what will become a broader effort to regulate the Internet."
Is this to fight terrorists or to regulate the internet? or both?
How much privacy are people willing to give up in order to fight a war without a clear enemy?
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
Isn't there value in a debate over the limits of religious freedom? I don't agree that someone should be allowed to cover their face in a driver's license photo either, but I don't begrudge the ACLU for bringing the case. One of the biggest dangers we face as a society, hell, as humans, is that we tend to believe that certain ideas like "religious freedom" are unchanging and self-evident; they're not. In fact, they're sources of constant contestation and both shape and are shaped by society. Insofar as the ACLU's driver's license lawsuit forces us to think about the limits of religious freedom, and furthermore just what we mean by "religious freedom", I say it's worthwhile; we certainly wouldn't be having this conversation otherwise. The idea that it's wrong to even ask those questions is, in my opinion, a much bigger threat than any possible outcome of the lawsuit.
Well said... You can always peg a Rushbot/O'Reillybot inside of 5 seconds when they unleash an uninformed and simplistic statement about the ACLU. O'Reilly and his ilk are successful because they manipulate the uninformed. The best way to do this is through the creation of "enemies"... the ACLU... George Soros and his "War on Christmas"...etc.
my religion lies somewhere between buddhism and super monkey ball - pamphlet?
While I agree with your logic, your last couple of statements are a bit laughable. Can you imagine a revolt with privately owned guns in this day and age?
.50 cal machine gun."
"Hey Billy-Bob, we're gonna go overthrow the government. You stand here and when the STEALTH F*CKING BOMBER comes over that hill and tries to drop a 500lb smart bomb on your ass, try to shoot him first with your Vietnam surplus
I think the point you should be trying to make is that the majority of the military needs to divided up and put under direct *local* civilian control. Therefore, if the federal government wanted to use the military against the people, they would have to convince the local civilian leadership to issue those orders, which would be a much safer situation, until the civilian leadership in New Hampshire decides to bomb New York... but nothing's perfect.
In the event that a particular state attempts to us its military against its own people, then a coalition of other states could get together and liberate that state (hopefully).
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
Dude, are you OK? You're getting overly serious about a comment posted on an internet message board that was a reply to someone else. I just don't want to see you keel over with a heart attack or anything.
Take it easy bud, it's Friday. Relax.
The point about the media is conceded, so long as the media digs itself out of the hole it's in now, where it's just a mouthpiece for the administration anyway.
However, if I were the government, and wanted to shoot my own people, I suppose I'd commandeer all radio stations and TV stations to make sure that none of them were under the control of the "eeevil terrorists", and most of the public would go along with that because most of them are sheep, just like the Iraqis or anyone else in the world. They want the government to protect them, which is why they'll gladly give up the freedom of the press, freedom of speech, and their guns in the interest of national security. The press will gleefully broadcast the press conference where the president tells the people that these measures are in their own best interest, and if you're not with us, you're against us. Then the press will show interviews with mouthpiece after mouthpiece that was recommended by the administration as a good source of balanced news.
And yes, the people could wage a guerilla war, but they're going to find it harder to do than the Iraqis because over here the gov't has your address on file, can tap nearly every means of communications you might use to organize (and with the patriot act, they have the right to do that just by labelling you a terrorist). They can stop all sources of funding for you (the banks are under federal control), and they don't just have 100,000 army guys to throw at you, they have every bit of the federal military, the national guard, and every single law enforcement officer will have your license plate number scrawled on their dashboard.
On top of that, you wouldn't be considered patriots, you'd be considered the bad guys because you blow things up, kill the good brave soldiers of the land, and otherwise be a disturbance of the peace, and people really care more about their SUV in the driveway, their cable TV, and their porn, and they don't really care about their freedoms. Therefore, everyone else will be ready to turn you in as well.
So yeah, it would be harder for a present day American to be a revolutionary, much harder than it is in Iraq. You're going to run out of willing suicide bombers in the US much faster than you will in Iraq.
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain