Slashdot Mirror
It's "1984" in Europe, What About Your Country?
An anonymous reader asks: "A few hours ago, the European parliament accepted a proposal '...on the retention of data processed in connection with the provision of public electronic communication services...'. Summarized: any data (internet connections, traffic, email, file sharing, SMS, phone calls) of 450 million people of Europe has to be collected by telcos, to be used by governments in their fight against 'crime and terrorism' ... oh, and child porn, of course. In Germany, over-the-sea reports are limited and usually do not include the latest developments in law and order, but since Slashdot has readers all over the world, I would like to ask: how is the status of YOUR country in terms of anti-terrorism-laws, observations and such? Any recommendations where one can still live free and unobserved in a non-nanny state?"
The moon, I guess (assuming that nobody else owns it). Let's face it, liberty is dying. Unless some libertarians, Goldwater conservatives, Ron Paul, socially liberal Democrats and Republicans (in the true sense of the word liberal; somebody who advocates freedom), and other liberty-minded people band together to take control from our power-hungry authoritarian leaders, the USA is going to turn into "1984" as well.
Speaking from Denmark (part of the EU), I would say that 1984 is definitly moving closer. The techincal aspects that makes it, more or less, impossiple to record everything a person says and of course the loss of privace aside, I find it the most scary thing, that the general attitude seems to be: "If you don't have anything to hide, so it doesn't matter, does it?"
Until countries decide that the central banks are evil nothing will change. This is something that has been a very big issue historically. Most great leaders were killed going against the Central Privately Held Banks. They have complete power and now want complete global control. Only a very, very, brave leader will fight the Central Bank. Here in the US, our late President Kennedy issues US Bank Notes in direct competition with the Federal Reserve. They day he was assasinated they revoked them. This is by far the one issue that completely trumps all others. The central banks are responsible for wars, depressions, murders, and complete financial enslavement. Money may be the root of all evil, but the privately held central banks are pure evil.
Mind | Body | Spirit | Cash
New Zealand is relatively good. I'm biased, I live here.
One of the last attempts at privacy invasion that hit the media was a case of the postal service (which is an SOE) was gathering data on house conditions. This information was deemed to assist with targeted advertising, for a price. There was a large public backlash.
On TV news, there were some quick queries put forward to members of the public. I'll never forget the American dude was simply said, "I moved to here from America to get away from this kind of stuff."
The one thing worrying me is possibility of NZ signing a Free Trade agreement with the US. You get dicked when you do that. But we're quite anti-American here due to the Iraq war, so we may be safe for now =)
Well here's a big fat FUCK YOU BACK
:-)
:-(
You feel good now that you've got that off your chest, don't you?!
if nothing else to prove that things are fucked up everywhere
Considering that the US House of Representatives just passed the Patriot[sic] Act today, your timing is impeccable.
"Fascism could better be called 'corporatism', for it is merely the merging of state power with corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini, the Italian dictator who "invented" fascism
Obviously you do not understand the term "Chilling effect". Without some privacy you simply DO NOT have any freedom. Seriously. I can't beleive this was modded insightful.
You know... if you were a terrorist, isn't that exactly what you'd do? Get your buddy to distract the cops by showing them his bag while you walk on to the subway with the bomb in your bag.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
um, no. re-read your link. according to what you linked to, 1 Eurpoean billion = 1,000,000,000,000. which is most certainly not 1 million. however, i think most of the world now uses the definition of 1 billion = 1000 million
You obviously never studied this issue seriously
You obviously only studied one side of this issue seriously, and close your mind to understanding both sides of an issue is sad. Yes it does modify peoples behavior, But so does having a lot privacy, knowing that you can say whatever without any evidence that you said it, you may say things which is harmful and could lead to lack of freedoms. Lets say there is a population who feels that some minority doesn't deserve a right, and they would go anonymously posting their feelings about it leading the greater population of sheeple to believe in it and than make laws that restrict freedoms of the minority. If this individual wasn't so anonymous people would be able protest and debate him forcing him to modify his behavior to take a more moderate stand.
The greatest threat to our freedom is not lack of privacy, it is our blind side of our minds that makes us want to ignore information or ideas that conflict with our current ideas.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
They say that there is a silver lining to every cloud. This is a pretty damn big cloud (as it covers all of Europe) and the silver lining is impressively small...
/dev/urandom | nc $FOO.co.uk 9 to fill the databases with garbage and render the monitoring economically unfeasible.
But hopefully this will spur the use of encryption in all communications, with temporary key pairs. If you don't have your secret key anymore, they can't subpoena it.
HTTPS by default is better than HTTP by default. (Though we'll have to deal with millions of self-signed certificates...)
I can imagine the protesting now, by the way: cat
I suggest you read about Griswold v. Connecticut for more information about the U.S. Supreme Court's take on the right to privacy.
Precisely. Privacy is certainly not a freedom of speech. It is a freedom of self interest though--bound up with that 'pursuit of happiness' that was oddly enough put into one of America's founding documents.
Griswold is the legal backing of this right. It was a '65 case about contraceptives that 7 of 9 justices backed, because the understanding of privacy is inherent in the other constitutional protections (in their "penumbras," as Justice Douglas wrote for the majority). All Justice nominees are asked about their agreement with this case, since it's pretty important to senetors as well. Roberts was non-commital on everything, but you could tell from his tone that he agreed with Griswold at least.
The problem comes down to a (possibly) simpler moral question of order versus freedom. In D&D terms, Lawful vs. Chaotic. The mean of American humans, I'm pretty sure, is still in the neutral range.
Which is not to say that it's not something that should still be faught for. (Yeah, yeah, I'm Chaotic Good, you shouldn't have asked.)
No, supermakret cards are totally different than you knowing the store owner in the country.
If you lived in the country, where everyone knows everyone, there is a symmetry of non-privacy. Gus the storeowner knows you, knows your dirt. You know him and know his dirt. When your purchases are recorded on a supermarket scanner, you have no idea who sees this data, and you certainly aren't entitled to see the records of *their* shopping habits.
In the country, everyone knows everyone, and you have at least a minimum of a personal relationship. Everyone has a vested interested in doing good by everyone, at least to maintain their reputation, and heck, they might even like you and care about you.
Your modern supermarket purchases, however, probably aren't even read by an individual. They are just used to manipulate your purchases so the store can maximize the money they make off of you. Any individual who sees your purchase data won't actually be there to help you repair your car on a Sunday afternoon. Also, the data that is collected is probably scanned by law enforcement. Gus the storeowner might have a good idea about what you purchase, but he's not regularly spilling the beans to the feds about it.
The 'technology' involved in everyone knowing everyone is the hard-wired human person and group tracking. This has probably been going on since before Homo sapiens. The technology involved in supermarket purchase scanning is qualitatively different, and can be used in ways that 'knowing everybody in a small town' cannot be used.
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
I have been looking for just such a place in which to retire, but without much success. It's ironic that the people of the Russia now have more personal liberty than we do here in the USA from what I've read. It's almost as though we're slowly reversing roles with them.
Grand Cayman island is probably the place with the least governmental interference in people's lives that I've found thus far, but the cost of living is pretty high there judging from the cost of real estate.
9/11 Eyewitnesses to Explosive WTC Demolition 1 of 2
Seriously, if you really think the 'average american' gave a damn about their rights, then why doesn't the Libertarian party get more recognition?
Why don't more people actually research candidates before voting instead of bitching after an election?
Lots of people like to point fingers, but I would rather they just shut their mouths. There are plenty of ways to actively work towards greater freedom (or towards more government control, welfare, or whatever you wish).
As a Representative Republic, elected leaders should do what is BEST in the interest of citizens regardless of what they are griping about with their shallow common knowledge. (this has no direct relation to 'freedoms' or being big brother).
I don't believe in gun control (let's see, compare the crime rates in Illinois..where guns are highly feered vs Kentucky with an open firearms policy). Armed citizens thwart criminals. Criminals will ALWAYS have guns regardless of any laws (duh..they are criminals).
On the other side, there are a few instances of when it isn't in the public's best interest to know what it takes to keep our country secure. Joe Public cannot handle the reality. Good example: most Americans don't want to visit slaughter houses to know what gets put into their hotdogs. They just want to eat them without being bothered with the details.
So on that note, most people never wanted to be bothered with the fact that the Echelon network has been inplace for longer than porn sites. Carnivore (FBI system) has been around for awhile too.
Why do you think 128bit export encryption was banned for so long?
Do you _really_ think that they are getting lax? How about the fact that technology exists to circumvent it? (oh, you thought the best cryptographers and graduates from Cornell, Harvard, Berkeley work at some company like Symantec or Microsoft???)
oh, and throw out the tinfoil hat. Tempest technologies suggest a hat made of thick Pb. And they are more stylish.
When socialism goes to an extreme it's called communism and when capiatlism goes to an extreme it can be called fascism. I think it's clear that in certain aspects, the government is shifting from a government for the people to a government that does nothing but serve corporate interests. The fear induced by the threat of terror is just a clever excuse/diversion. The grand irony I find in all of this is that if you want to get away from this you actually have to shift to the left. One of the only vocal members of the Senate who is standing up to this (Russ Feingold from Wisconsin) is a democrat.
http://www.stockmarketgarden.com/
Sorry but no.
In the UK we have a 2 (maybe 3 if you laugh long shots) party system. All the other parties get no TV time and voring for any of them is a waste of a vote. I personally threw my vote away on one of these parties because I refused to vote for either of the main two (one was run by a slimy asshole and the other is the current government who are also slimy assholes).
Honestly in the world we live in, 1 vote is worthless. People cannot compete with TV and any who try usually end up on the wrong end of a major smear campaign. The government repeatedly go illegal things (David Blunkett anyone?) yet get away with it because no one can honestly stand up to them.
Power has shifted in the world. 9/11 made the mass public afraid of every little bump in the night. Have you ever tried to calm down a child who's terrified of the boogie man? It just doesn't work, you can clam him for a moment, but the second you leave his side he freaks out again. Now try and calm down entire countries..
Governments have all the power, all the laws to make you disappear and now they're watching your every move. This isn't democratic in any sense, it's comming up to 1984 and people are letting it happen because "politics are boring".
I like muppets.
I used to feel all idealistic and outraged about this, but by now I'm ready to face reality. Governments and media corporations are big and powerful; privacy-conscious individuals are tiny and weak. Most people don't care about privacy, because they simply do not understand it (and because they don't exercise their free speech rights anyway). After all, if you're not a terrorist, then you have nothing to hide -- right ?
So, I am pretty sure that the erosion of privacy is inevitable. It will happen sooner rather than later. Question is, how can a tiny, weak individual protect himself from the Homeland RIAA anti-terrorist piracy-fighting taskforce ? I can think of a few solutions, but all of them are sub-par.
So... any other bright ideas ?
>|<*:=
Imagine a world in which everything every government (or other group in power) did was immediately 100% transparent to any observer. I can see no downsides to this whatsoever - the depressing thing is that it's eminently possible, equally sensible - but ultimately impossible.
The UK, democratic? That's pretty funny.
We've got a government which was elected to power by 22% of the electorate, and even a large proportion of that 22% seem to hate them, and felt that to vote for them was the least worst option, faced with the alternative of a Tory party fixated on petty-minded immigration and taxation policies, or the opportunist Liberal Democrats, whose sole guiding principle seems to be "we disagree with any contentious policy anybody else announces".
But worse than that, all the main political parties focused their election campaigns on a small number of seats which they expected to decide the election, assuming that it wasn't worth fighting tooth and nail for areas which could be expected to conform to type. Within those constituencies, they were interested only in wooing a small number of swing voters, meaning that they all had broadly similar manifestos, differing only in fairly minor details. The total number of votes they were chasing was estimated by one respectable source which I can't remember right now to be in the region of 7,000. Yes, that's right, the 2005 UK General Election was all about getting 7,000 people to vote the right way, and to hell with everybody else. Political ideologies? Old hat nowadays. It's all about the acquisition and retention of power and absolutely nothing else.
The parliamentary majority secured by Labour through this hollow victory has until very recently been sufficient for them to do force through just about any legislation they want, very little of which seems to be in the public interest. Endless "anti-terror" legislation is forced through without many people noticing, under the cover of smokesceens like the foxhunting "debate" which they kept rolling for years because it was emotive and contentious enough to distract people without actually mattering a damn in the grand scheme of things.
So we're fucked on three counts: Most people's votes don't matter in terms of deciding who gets into power, all the main parties are essentially the same anyway, and the Government does whatever the hell it pleases once it gets in through weight of numbers and a spineless opposition.
As Gil Scott-Heron said, "Mandate my ass".
The government hoax is probably the oldest, most pervasive and stubborn of hoaxes. It's the belief in non-existent "states" and "nations" and that "government" is both legitimate and necessary. In the geographic area of the North American continent commonly referred to as the "United States," it's claimed only "government" can provide the service of protecting "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." This is nonsense if only for the reason "government" has no duty to protect anyone and their property.
Another reason is: no service or product should be provided at the barrel of a gun. It's that simple. There are no exceptions unless one believes people have no rights. If one believes people have no rights then "government" is not "necessary" to "protect" what doesn't exist. If you believe people have rights, then you don't "protect" them without their freely given consent. Also, protection is not submission to the violent unaccountable control of another nor is violent domination a legitimate method of doing business. Would you hire people who don't acknowledge you have property, to protect your property? I wouldn't:
"The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State; individual so-called "ownership" is only by virtue of Government, i.e., law, amounting to mere user; and that use must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State." Senate Resolution #62, April 1933.
What exactly is "government?" Have you ever seen a "government?" While there are varying degrees, "government" is one man violently controlling the life and property of another man. In some places this violent control is "decreed" to be for the latter's "own good" and "protection" and hailed as the "best system in the world." Because it's based on violence, there are no "states" or "nations," "states" being "voluntary associations." You may recognize that violent control over a man's life and property is what we like to call... slavery. Slavery is a form of "government," and in most cases, if not all, synonymous with "government." Govern means control, not protect. Have you ever noticed the word "protect" is mysteriously not included in any definitions of govern?
"govern. To direct and control; to regulate; to influence; to restrain; to manage. State v Ream, 16 Neb 681, 683." Ballentine's Law Dictionary, page 530.
In "democracies" and so-called "democratic republics," slaves are given the false choice of choosing new masters. The old plantations can be seen as "political subdivisions" such as "cities," only smaller: "nations" have "presidents," "states" have "governors," "counties" have "commissioners," "cities" have "mayors" and plantations have masters.
"Government" is a group of men and women providing the service of protecting "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" at the barrel of a gun. We have no choice in accepting and paying for their wonderful services. Their services are so valuable we're compelled to accept and pay for them. And non-political libertarians and voluntaryists are the extremists?
To keep this short, I'll use statements from politicians themselves i.e., their sacred "law" that's worshipped, revered and most important, feared. Compare the following:
"tax. A forced burden, charge, exaction, imposition or contribution assessed in accordance with some reasonable rule of apportionment by authority of a sovereign state upon the persons or property within its jurisdiction to provide for public revenue for the support of the government, the administration of the law, or the payment of public expenses. 51 AmJ1st Tax 3." Ballentine's Law Dictionary, page 1255.
"The organized use of threats, coercion, intimidation, and violence to compel the payment for actual or alleged services of arbitrary or excessive charges under the guise of membership dues, protection fees, royalties, or service rates. United States v McGlone (DC Pa) 19 F Supp 285, 286." Ballentine's Law Dictionary, page 1051.
The first is a "kinder, gentler" way of descri
They're is no rules similar to the Patriot Act or anything similar yet in Canada. But the politician speeches are showing that they are slowly preparing the canadian population for it, for the sake of "security", of course.
This is interesting, because only on theses times we see which principles are held serious and which are not. Freedom of expression and the rights for privacy are always the first things to fall when things are getting "serious". Just like it's a favor they're doing to us when we're good kids.
Ok. But who's going to control THEM while they control us?