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?"
It is a relatively modern Idea that Freedom is equal to Privacy. While the truth they are rather disjunct concepts. You still have the right of free speech you can still say whatever you want and just as long as it doesn't cause direct harm, (Like yelling Fire in a crowded room) you have the right to say it.
But just recently the right of privacy seems to be implicit to your freedom of speech. With freedom of speech (At least the American ideal) you should be able to state your views without getting arrested for it. But it doesn't state that you can say it without anyone knowing that you said it.
I am not saying you shouldn't fight to keep your privacy, but it is not taking away a right, it is taking away a luxury, that we enjoy. In many ways I want to keep privacy, because then we are able to say our views that can shake things up without breaking social norms of living in the real world. But on the down side as with any luxury, if we over use it we get comfortable and abuse it. Saying things that should not say and shake things up that if a person had a chance to think twice about it wouldn't shake up. Pushing society too fast is as dangerous as letting it become stagnate, and Luxuries like privacy should be treated well or could be forced to be removed.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Last I checked there were only 6 billion people on earth - so 450 billion people in europe in the last month would be a intrest feat.
(On a related note - why do they have a "mail us if you see something wrong" when it doesnt do anything to email them)
snowulf.com
Any recommendations where one can still live free and unobserved in a non-nanny state?"
The answer is directly proportional to how much money you have and how willing you are to spread it around.
Funny? Yes. True? Sadly yes as well in most of the world.
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
My, that's a big population you have there, Europe! How did you get so big?
I agree the concepts are distinct, but most people who value freedom are wary of "big brother" style governments that perform far too much surveillance on their own citizens, because that puts them in a dangerously powerful position to later use that information to restrict freedoms.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
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.
So who has the storage space necessary to pull this off?
503 Sig Unavailable
The Signature could not be accessed. Please try again later or contact the administrator
But just recently the right of privacy seems to be implicit to your freedom of speech. With freedom of speech (At least the American ideal) you should be able to state your views without getting arrested for it. But it doesn't state that you can say it without anyone knowing that you said it.
If I call my friend up to chat about the old college days I absolutely have a right to privacy. What I talk to an old friend is ABSOLUTELY none of the governments business.
I'm astonished at how some people in the United States act. NYC recently implemented random bag searches in the subway- only they can only search your bags and only before you get on the subway- if you don't want to be searched you can walk away (exactly what kind of terrorist this is supposed to catch is beyond me and a subject for another debate). What astounds me about this, however, is just how many people go out of their way to be searched. If the cops don't call you over to be searched you don't have to stop- I've walked past every time without being stopped. Some people, however, walk over to the cops, open their bags and show them the contents without being asked. I have no idea what society I am living in but I would love to find some place in this world where people actually have self respect and care about their rights.
-sirket
It has been shown that slick monitoring of information does not protect citizens from terrorism. Monitoring the general public is such a large undertaking that funds spent doing that have far better places to be spent. If given the chance, the general public would not elect to do such a wasteful activity. It is ineffective, just as the current rules regarding airline screenings do not work. Knives and "weapons" still make it on the airline, etc. By monitoring the general airwaves, terrorists will use encryption. What then? Force all communications over non encrypted channels? What about bank transactions, etc? You can not protect the public from its self. Safety is relative, and its been proven that consumers do not want that level of "safety" for that price.
I'll just summarize my fears like this: If you lack privacy, tyrants can go unchecked in power.
/need/ privacy in order to sustain a democracy.
And of course, without privacy, everything the citizen does is clear to the government, but the government can act without the same level of transparency.
The government stops working under the whims of the people, and the people start working under the control of the government.
We
http://mediagoblin.org/
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
who | grep -i blond | date cd ~; unzip; touch; strip; finger; mount; gasp; yes; uptime; umount; sleep
You obviously never studied this issue seriously. The absence of privacy forces people to modify their behavior. The less privacy, the less freedom of behavior. It is not just illegal behavior that is suppressed, but any behavior that is outside the accepted norms.
Lack of privacy is the single greatest threat to freedom we now face.
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 =)
Utter tosh!
Privacy allows one the right to think what one wants without a coersive government locking one up.
When a government monitors emails, and builds networks of who knows whom, I find it extremely intrusive.
Europe has history. If any of the evil governments that existed in it's past existed today, they would need about fifteen minutes to get a long list of everyone they did not like, (and those that communicated with them) and lock them up or worse.
The "luxury" you speak of was in existance previous to the information age when governments could not track your thoughts, personal networks, banking information, health information and all the other info that they keep in large databases. Today, fridges and toasters are networked and will betray you, not simply a disgruntled family member or the neibour's kid. Did you know they keep track of what food you buy via your safeway card? That is "total information awareness" and it is not to protect you, but to protect your government from you. What did Echelon do to prevent Sept 11? Nothing. Terrorists used countermeasures and will continue to do so. They may be deranged fanatics but they're not stupid.
Look at Iraq. They have government goon squads that execute thousands a month. (Morgues are filled.) Thanks to the information age, not are actions considered treasonous but thoughts also. An email. A phone call. It's OK until it's your ass. (Or knee cap or skull.) Your slashdot posting of 2002 may seal your fate.
Don't be so foolish to assume that all future governments will be benign.
In the mean time it is our responsiblity to build networks resistant to these policies.
-b
I live in one of those places and in some ways it's worse than a data rich urban area. If I go to the store they know me and will mention that they saw my wife in there this am, she had the pot roast for lunch and said she was going to her hair appointment.
Sooner or later you have to go to the co-op for something. After that someone will know you. The mail carrier knows where you live and what magazines you subscribe to. The police don't need to pry into your business because everyone already knows.
It's really not any different, just lower tech.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
You can say any right is a luxury. People define what are rights.
I suggest you read about Griswold v. Connecticut for more information about the U.S. Supreme Court's take on the right to privacy.
Though I'm hardly old enough to remember this but only thru my parents and some very early memories, the propoganda during world war II about how evil to population of hitlers rule was.
Today, thanks to the internet, we all know it was bull shit... that people of one country are just like the people of another... all having their daily living concerns.
This whole terrorism blow up was not without a cause. You screw someone enough and they will retaliate or someone else will use it as an excuse to.
So it is with the WTC..... and the trillion dollar bet... a stock market gamble that drain south east asia of their economy. and then the totally disconnected but some how magically connected via bush adminastration and threated media helping to bang war drums.....
The point is simple... of the over 6 billion people on this planet, it is a small fraction of a percent that is totally responsible for the excuse of terrorism.
Search the web for trillion dollar bet and "what the world wants"....
And see what the few are doing to keep a much better world from us all.
They are the real terrorist and as the deceptive do, they clain its someone else.
This whole thing reminds me of ACDC's song "We're on a highway to hell", because... - oh hello there uniformed men - I was just posting on Slashdot, nothing to worry.. - aah let me go - neeed to keeep posting...
And when you gaze long enough into the code, the code will also gaze into you.
True, they are not equivalent, but that does not mean privacy is not a right. In the US its considered covered under the 4th amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated More on this here.
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.
How do you capture this information.... do you try it at an application layer? You'd probably capture it at IP as you don't want to ignore TCP/UDP/other layer4 protocols. Do they expect telcos to SPAN all the traffic inbound AND outbound to some monster sniffer(s). You'd want to filter out the control (bgp,ospf etc..) traffic, but a 10Gb pipe (20Gb/s if you think about full duplex). If we used marketingmath whereby a 10Gb ~ 1GB...
The largest EMC DMX (DMX-3) can handle approximately 251TB of storage. You'd fill up the array in ~70hrs (3days!) using ONLY a single 10Gb/s link. Remember that large disk arrays out there have interfaces that are 2Gb/s FibreChannel. So you'd need atleast 5 interfaces (in a perfect world once again), that were capable of 2Gb/s. So you can forget about SATA arrays, as those couldn't dream of this bandwidth.
Oh yeah... how do you back this thing up... Fastest tape drives out there run 150MB/s (LTO-3) application throughput with compression.
Good Luck...
Your local SAN Administrator.
...Somalia. They've been without a central government for 15 years. Some say it's anarchy, some it's the libertarian dream. But it's not a police state for sure.
please excuse my apathy
"What I talk to an old friend is ABSOLUTELY none of the governments business."
Not even if you two are seriouly planning on flying planes into buildings or releasing sarin gas in a subway?
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
"Chilling effect" Is one of those words meant to spark emotional response of negative feeling about a topic, without us having us think about it.
It is much like how the Bush administration made the general US population believe there were WMD in Iraq when they used the term "A Slam Dunk" or in a commercial when they say choosing their products is a "No Brainer", it is a way of proving a point to a person emotionally and allowing them to bypass rational thinking.
Congratulations you have been scammed by using pop-culture wording. I was just listing to NPR this morning about it. Insightful is being able to see past these pop words meant to make us feel in the way the author wants us to.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Well called.
Bill C-74
Long term, no, it doesn't look as though Canada is 'safe' when it comes to privacy. Short term, if federal elections become annual as minority gov'ts are successively defeated, perhaps they'll have a hard time passing much of anything. Any Canadians thinking about voting Liberal in January should consider this bill before doing so.
Loose lips lose spit.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
They're monitoring the dead, too.
"it's not about aptitude, it's the way you're viewed" - Galinda
Looks like the Federalists were right.The argument that privacy is not a right is based on the fallacious idea that our rights are limited to those listed in the Bill of Rights. The 9th Amendment is pretty straightforward: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. (Emphasis mine).
There are only two possible rational interpretations: First, that all actions are rights unless that action is explicitly prohibited, or Second, that there is a mystical list of "other rights" floating around somewhere that nobody knows about, except obviously you, and maybe some other people in government.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
Wow, Europe sure had alot more people in 1984!
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
Well, sir, if privacy is just a luxury we can do without, would you mind sharing with use your real name, date of birth, full address, phone number, SSN (or whatever ID is used in the country of your residence), bank account numbers, a few choice passwords, etc.?
No?
Hmmm. How about the name, address, phone number and an accurate physical description of your current "significant other" and, while you're at it, please tell us how he or she is in bed, in as much elaborate detail as you can recall.
Also no?
Fine, Just take some digital pictures of your adorable children (or other pre-teen family members) in the shower and put them on a publicly accessible web page along with their names and the address of the school they go to.
Still no?
You know what, forget it. I'll just contact the establishments that have your personal info and ask them for it. Maybe install a tap on your phone line and a key logger on your computer as well and, just to be thorough, ask your cell phone company for some triangulation data.
What? I can't?
Bummer.
Hey, not a problem. There's this individual, Joe something-or-other, who's desperate to get a date with my cousin. She says he's not very bright but still sort of fun to see him go out of his way to impress her. Lately he's been telling her about his job in some law enforcement agency and how they're tracking suspected terrorists and that they can do all those things I talked about without needing a warrant or "probable cause" or anything because, let's face it, those pesky accountability issues just made their job harder so they got a couple of laws passed to get rid of them.
Anyway, I spoke to cuz and she believes Joe will do it if she's nice to him and pretends to be really interested in his boring stories. So you see, chum, not a problem!
And if you have probable cause then get a warrant and tap the line. But keeping a record of every call and communication that everybody makes on the off chance that a terrorist may have made a call? No way.
-sirket
You know, really, I think the government reactions to terrorism have and will hurt this country more than the destruction of two sky scrapers and the loss of thousands of lives. A good quote someone here on /. I think has in their sig, says something like "Terrorists can attack our freedom, but only Congress can destroy it." Isn't that the truth.
The more and more we limit people's freedoms, the more similar we become to the sick visions of people like Osama bin Laden. They want a world in which people have few if any freedoms, and where no one may dare diagree with Islam. We are moving in the direction of the first, and if you replace 'Islam' with 'our government', we might be headed towards that one as well.
What I'm saying is that, while terrorist attacks are horrible and despicable, having a "few" people die from terrorist attacks is far better IMHO than giving in to those terrorists who love to murder innocent civilians in cold blood and volunteering to give away our freedoms. Granted, this may be easy for me to say, as I have not been directly, personally affected(no one I know has been killed/injured/involved) by terrorism, but I would really like to think that I would still believe this even if I had been directly affected. I'm sure that probably wouldn't be the case though.
Every time you post an article on Slashdot, I kill a server. Think of the servers!
"Seriously, if you really think the 'average american' gave a damn about their rights, then why doesn't the Libertarian party get more recognition?"
h tmlh tml
Because the Libertarians have an aura of wingnut whackjob in general. Not a flame, but the truth. One Libertarian can make a point, two can make an arguement but for crying outloud if you have a bunch of them around it's like Trekkies. I just looked over the platform of the National Libertarian Party, on the surface it seems...alright, but you know about those folks out there that'd have the sidewalks sold off to the private sector.
It's like some of the"Paleo-Conservative" organizations and sites, on the surface it's you can see thier point, but it's not long till someone writes a piece on how Slavery was on it's way out and the Slaves in the South were better off slaves than free.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance61.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo29.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo37.
I own firearms and support the 2nd Amendment however statements like "I don't believe in gun control" seem broad, I mean if Timmy is a Meth-head who won't go to jail for Meth now that theres no Drug Laws, can he go buy a full auto M-4 with an M-203 underslung? Thats the issue I have with the Libertarian Party's platform, it's mighty scarce on details and refinement.
Unfortunately, the federalists were wrong.
Here in Australia our constitution was based on the very principle you refer to and includes no individual rights other than freedom of religion and the right to a trial in relation to certain types of offence. To this day a bill of rights is opposed, mainly be conservative politicians, because "we couldn't list all of our freedoms" and "it would be unneccessary" and so on.
Sadly, we have recently seen wave after wave of terrible, terrible legislation encroaching on the lives and freedoms of ordinary, innocent people. Refugees are treated like criminals rather than people who are likely to be seeking shelter and are detained in appalling conditions in the desert or on remote islands, potentially indefinitely. The original inhabitants of this country are marginalised and ignored. More fundamentally, every Australian is now subject to arbitrary and relatively unchecked laws relating to 'terrorism' which allow for extended periods of detention without trial and without a warrant. These laws are enthusiastically promoted by the police and security agencies. Australia has one of the highest rates of phone-tapping in the world, and also retains ridiculous sedition laws essentially making it illegal to criticise the government too strongly.
We have it worse than the US - at least you have SOME protected rights. We have none, and in times like these that means we are gradually losing them all. A bill of rights is essential in protecting basic freedoms, which are not inherent characteristics but human constructions and therefore must be protected by humans.
Read Pynchon.
more people die by car crashes, diseases, normal crime, etc etc.
Where are the billions spend to fight those?
I own firearms and support the 2nd Amendment however statements like "I don't believe in gun control" seem broad, I mean if Timmy is a Meth-head who won't go to jail for Meth now that theres no Drug Laws, can he go buy a full auto M-4 with an M-203 underslung? Thats the issue I have with the Libertarian Party's platform, it's mighty scarce on details and refinement.
Sounds like by "refinement" you mean "special ways to stick it to people I don't like."
Under the Libertarian system, Timmy the Meth Head has every right to arm and protect himself -- as you mentioned he hasn't commited a felony deserving of having his rights stripped. So in the event of a National Emergency, Timmy the Meth Head could defend himself as well as any of the rest of us.
That's about the only situation Timmy could USE such a weapon though. The guns you named aren't hunting weapons, so that's out. They're a little overkill for private defense, so Timmy *might* (IANAL) be liable in certain cituations there, but he gets a fair day in court like anyone else. As for the homicide that you're implying Timmy the Meth Head would commit with that weapon -- that is already illegal, and already carries some of the harshest penalties we still allow in our society. Also, any accidental killings that occured while he was under the influence would face stricter penalties and in many cases be treated as pre-meditated (willingly took the chemicals, willingly operated the device impaired). That is also, already a regular part of law.
The trouble with true freedom is that you have to give it to people you don't like.
~Rebecca
If I call my friend up to chat about the old college days I absolutely have a right to privacy. What I talk to an old friend is ABSOLUTELY none of the governments business.
You are absolutely right there.
With regards to this new EU rule, the slashdot blurb of course doesn't mention this, but what they are going to store is the fact that you chatted to your friend between this and this time, but not the content of this conversation. While this is bad and stupid, it is not by far as bad as the blurb is trying to make it look.
Supposedly this is usefull to get an insight into the conenctions between individuals who might be involved in terrorist or criminal activities.
Of course, about all investigations resulting from attacks in the last half decade point at a lack of cooperation and not of information (usually the information was actually there), but who cares.
The more and more we limit people's freedoms, the more similar we become to the sick visions of people like Osama bin Laden. They want a world in which people have few if any freedoms, and where no one may dare diagree with Islam. We are moving in the direction of the first, and if you replace 'Islam' with 'our government', we might be headed towards that one as well.
See, judging from what I've heard of their material, what they're wanting is pretty much what most slashdotters seem to be wanting - the US government to get it's nose out of their business. What they want is the US to stop interfering in middle-eastern politics, and letting them get back to killing/getting killed by the Israelis. I'm the first to condemn terrorist methodology, but really, let's not get into demonizing our opponents. It's stupid, irrational, deceitful, and it clouds the real issues.
(Note to any outraged future posters: I am not endorsing terrorism, I am simply asking we look at their motivations analytically rather than emotionally)
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
In many ways privacy does protect that, and in a sense that's one of america's founding principals, that citizens reserve the right to become "terrorists" if the government gets out of hand. To the British, the american "rebels" were terrorists. This is the thing that scares me most about terrorism, it's persicuting an "idea" not a crime. The people who crashed a plane into the towers were MURDERERS -- who cares what their motivation is. It's like "hate crimes" - is it any worse to kill a random stranger than it is to kill someone because they're a certain race that you hate?
Also, if the government had just cause to think that those two friends were plotting to crash a plane into a building, then they should go to a court, state for the record what they think, and why, and with a judge's permission tap the phone for a certain amount of time. If it turns out they were wrong, they should tell the person and destroy all evidence. They shouldn't be able to get a secret warrant and never disclose what/why the did to anyone.
The whole idea is that there's supposed to be a balance. The balance is getting out of whack.
RandomAndInteresting.comdefending the world from stupidity since 1979
Ah, well it's because the dead can vote here. So they're counted too.
May contain traces of nut.
Made from the freshest electrons.
Quite so. What this all boils down to is a single question that our societies must answer: 'is freedom worth dying for?'
We certainly used to believe that the answer was 'yes'. Many of our ancestors died fighting various oppressors, be they warlike dictators or exploitative bosses or selfish aristocrats or slavers... They believed in freedom, and fought for it, and often died for it. Millions and millions of them.
Now, however, we're cowards. We aren't prepared to die for freedom. We're prepared to give up every last precious liberty in order to slightly reduce the risk of a few hundred or thousand people getting blown up every few years.
This is pathetic, and a horrible betrayal of what was fought for in the past. We're no longer prepared to die for freedom; we're prepared to give it all up to marginally reduce an already minor risk to our own precious lives. We suck.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
Don't panic, it's just another European directive - we'll just ignore it like we do most of them. Even if somebody in power gives enough of a damn to enforce it, it will take ten years for them actually get around to it, and not without much grumbling and demands for the EU to actually fund its implementation, at which point it will get cut from the budget and quietly forgotten about.
need a free COBOL editor for Windows?
Of course I'd want my family to live.
But lets change this situation to something closer to reality:
Let's imagine that the FBI comes to you one fine day and says: "Sir, we suspect that a terrorist attack will destroy a flight at some point. Incidentally, your entire family is going to be flying on a plane at some point. In order to possibly try to prevent it we need to stomp on the freedom and the rights of everybody in this country, including you and your family. Also it is almost a given that your family will be directly negatively affected by this - your daughters ex-boyfriend has made a call to the terrorist burning hotline in a fit of jealous rage, so she'll be vanishing soon. We'd like you to decide whether we should give you the illusion of security. And make it quick, you never know when they could strike again"
Even if you give up every right you ever have and become a slave to your government, you will not have made terrorism impossible, it will still be able to happen, and the side effect is that you will be living in fear like you wouldn't believe every damned day of your life, because that guy you just cut up? Might call the 'Witch / Terrorist buring hotline' with your license plate. You run a sucessful business? Your competitor can get the competative edge, whilst you are in solitary for planning to blow up a turnpike.
You need to ask yourself, IF these actions are taken will it solve the problem? Could you think of a way of doing it anyway? The answer is almost invariably NO, it wouldn't solve anything, but it would harm you. Remember the old saw: Cutting off your nose to spite your face.
How would ANY new laws bring back your dead loved ones? How would fewer rights bring them back either? How would living in a constant state of fear honor their memory? And most importantly, how would surrendering everything stop it happening again? Sure you can stop / make much harder a particular attack vector, but there are always new ways to do something... If you are alive, you are at risk, the only way to be safe is to die.
One last thing, how would you like to know that your innocent wife was locked up on death row about to die as an innocent casualty of the war on terror. That your new laws to protect your wife actually killed her? Because all this 'so some innocents will be caught in the net, its worth it to protect the rest of us' is fine, until you or those you love are the innocents lost for the cause....
I agree. I have friends who are Libertarian, including one who ran for State Legislature on the LP ticket. I don't know every detail about the official LP platform, but this person who got his parties nod, has views that seem kind of extreme. Such as "There should be no public education. Children should get the education that their families can afford." "There should be no laws preventing the dumping of toxic waste in rivers. Every square foot of every river should be privately owned, and the owners can sue polluters in civil court for damages." I sleep better at night by assuming that the Libertarians will never be a serious player in US government.
Are you a Libertarian? Here's a test; finish this phrase: An ounce of prevention is...
1) worth a pound of cure.
2) government tyranny and an assault on human dignity.
Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. --Mark Twain
As things stand now, Timmy the Methhead has no problem getting guns from his shady friends. At least, under a libertarian scenario, some of his victims might be able to shoot him before he shoots them, instead of waiting 15-60 minutes for the cops.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
Let's say you knew ahead of time that a drunk driver will kill your family. Would you outlaw alcohol? Would you outlaw cars? We accept risky devices and behaviors that we know will kill people. It's part of being free.
This example is much better than yours, seeing as how drunk drivers kill about 20,000 Americans every year. Terrorists in the US killed about 3,000 people 4 years ago. Where is the $21B "War on Drunk Driving"?
Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. --Mark Twain
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
Let's see if I'm following all this.... Timmy the meth head, because he breaks societal norms by taking drugs and ruining his own life (nothing in the parent posts indicate that he has done any direct harm to any other "citizen") automatically relinquishes all other "rights" because he is a "potential" threat to "others" (since we all carry a gun for ourselves, it's all the defenseless "others" we have to worry about). Now one arguement is that everybody has the "right" to arm themselves, educate themselves, organize and communicate among themselves, and defend themselves in whatever ("legal") way they deem fit. Of course the poor defenseless child doesn't know how to do all this.....but her parents do! And who says an old person can't fire a gun? As far as "sneaking up behind" goes, a killer can do that with or without a gun, since by "sneaking" he limits the victim's awareness of his intentions until it is too late. So far, the libertarian perspective makes sense to me....but let's look at the other extreme. Ban all guns. Only the gov't gets guns. Ban all drugs. Regulate the movement of all "suspicious" persons (to prevent "sneaking") regardless of their having committed any previous harmful act. That means set up armed "checkpoints" and ensure people have "papers" to cross boundaries. Go "preemptive" on their asses and make an example out of every person who is "statistically" more likely to become violent. Monitor all communications to ensure nobody slips through the cracks. Lock up little kids who draw pictures of soldiers. It keeps snowballing because there's always SOMEONE who manages to commit a crime, which shows that we're not "preventing" hard enough, which means we have to (so sorry!) take away a few more "freedoms" in order to protect the "freedom" of the "innocent". Destroying what you're protecting is not a good way to ensure that the "protected" object survives. Now obviously, a balance between these two perspectives would be best, but it's been made abundantly clear through historical precedent that "balance" is not something governments are good at. So if "balance" can't be regulated or imposed, then let's go for the "dispersion" method of making everybody responsible (*gasp*) for their own actions, and de-centralize to the point that we achive dynamic balances of consensus in each community.
He who would be a man, must be a nonconformist. -- Emerson
> just in case you haven't noticed, Slashdot != the federal government. Why exactly
> would the OP be obligated to release any details of his personal life to a private
> entity such as yourself?
Just in case you haven't noticed, that was exactly the point of my post, specifically the last part.
However, I'll try to state it in more clear terms:
Governments (federal and otherwise) are comprised of people. the same goes for law enforcement, intelligence, "secret service" and other governmental agencies.
Individual people, in general, have their own agendas. They can be dishonest, deceitful, jealous, vengeful, prone to criminal activity or just under pressure to perform wrongful acts.
Therefore implicitly trusting a group of individuals that you have never met is not a very good idea.
And the logical conclusion is that implicitly trusting a government or its agencies is not a very good idea.
The question that you need to ask yourself is: is there a chance that my private information will be abused?
Most of the SlashDot tinfoil-hat crowd fear governmental abuse but I believe that abuse by individuals is at least as likely.
Now, I can live with some loss of privacy, provided I trust the safeguards against abuse but, unfortunately, given the incidents of policemen planting evidence and getting off with "a note in their permanent record", I do not have this trust.
If the constitution (or the equivalent) of a country said something to the effect of "any person in a position of power or authority who is found guilty of abusing their power or authority shall have their genitals publicly mauled by a pack of rabid rats" and there were significant safeguards implemented to ensure that a large number of violators are caught, convicted, and punished accordingly, then I would be satisfied that the risk of abuse is low enough for me to trust a government.
The motto of the Spider-man movie was "with great power comes great responsibility". I believe in a different motto "with great power there should come a great fear". Because responsibility is just an empty word, easily brushed aside unless backed by a real fear of the consequences of abusing this responsibility.
Until that day comes, I don't want their prying hands anywhere near my information.
Any private information that has the potential of being misused must remain private unless there is a *really* good cause for the government to peek at it, and then there should be a rigorous process of examining the cause, approving the *limited* invasion of privacy and safeguarding the data, with lots of people involved and each one *accountable* for their decisions and actions.
Freedom is not when the people fear the government, it's the other way around.
Come on, we're *far* ahead of Europe in moving towards 1984. We've got Goldstein, er, Osama, Bush, Rove et al are re-"purposing" why they invaded Iraq almost daily, the GOP has completely and totally forgotten every reason they gave for impeaching President Clinton*, and the media, at least until the last month, has almost exclusively reported what the White House and the GOP wanted, denigrating any opposition.
mark "I am not a number, I am a free radical!"
* draft dodger
smoked dope (ignore Bush & cocaine)
lied to Congress
sent troops in without proper equipment
sent too few troops in
no exit strategy
nation building
etc, etc, etc...
There is always a plethora of pedantic jackasses on Slashdot. First off- try quoting everything I said and not what you want to cherry pick.
What I said was: "If I call my friend up to chat about the old college days I absolutely have a right to privacy. What I talk to an old friend is ABSOLUTELY none of the governments business."
Let me restate this in a way that will make you happy- "The government has ABSOLUTELY no right to UNILATERALLY log or monitor the calls of it's citizens."
Thomas Jefferson once wrote: "As revolutionary instruments (when nothing but revolution will cure the evils of the State) [secret societies] are necessary and indispensable, and the right to use them is inalienable by the people." --Letter to William Duane, 1803.
How can one work to keep the government in check, or overthrow it if necessary if the government can keep complete track of a persons communications?
I say "worth a pound of cure".
So in following with that belief, we should immediately detain all undesirables to "work camps" as a preventative measure against crime.
What, that's not reasonable? The problem with the "preventative measure" is that it strips a person of the right to be presumed innocent. Sure, it might be effective, but it disregards the rights that should be afforded to people. Every bit of freedom that is allotted to a person enables him/her to commit a crime against another person, but those freedoms do not ensure that the person will commit a crime. By speaking I could rally a group to form a coup. With a car I could drive over dozens of pedestrians. Walking down the street after stores have closed, I could break into one and steal things. Owning a photocopier I could make counterfeit money and attempt to use it. But just as easily, I could use these liberties for my lawful daily life - conversing with coworkers, driving to work, walking after dark, making photocopies of my documents - and never do anything unlawful. But should I be stripped of these liberties simply because that's the easiest way to prevent my being capable of committing crime?
The answer is no. In America, at least at some point in time, the idea was to allow the citizenry the freedom to choose if they would follow the law of the land, instead of being chained to it. If a person commits a crime, the courts and law enforcement exact the penalty after the person's trial. The people are not stripped to a state of serfdom to protect the ruling class.
This ideology may not prevent crime, but more importantly it does not inhibit lawful people, who by their lawful nature diserve to have their liberties protected by their government. You could irradicate crime by simply killing all people, but having depreived them of their rights you have not reached a solution in congruence with a free society. You have acheived totalitarianism.
perl -e "eval pack(q{H*},join q{},qw{70 72696e74207061636b28717b482a7d2c717b343 637323635363534323533343430617d293b})"