Slashdot Mirror
Surveillance Is on the Rise, Straining Carriers
Carl Bialik from the WSJ writes "The number of telephone wiretaps from 2000 to 2004 authorized by state and federal judges increased by 44%, the Wall Street Journal reports, in part because of a rise in terrorism investigations after 9/11, and because the Patriot Act extended surveillance to Internet providers. All the surveillance activity can put a strain on carriers. 'Smaller telecom companies in particular have sought help from outsiders in order to comply with the court-ordered subpoenas, touching off a scramble among third parties to meet the demand for assistance', the WSJ reports, adding, 'Government surveillance has intensified even more heavily overseas, particularly in Europe. Some countries, such as Italy, as well as government and law-enforcement agencies, are able to remotely monitor communications traffic without having to go through the individual service providers. To make it easier for authorities to monitor traffic, some also require registering with identification before buying telephone calling cards or using cybercafes.'"
It has been said before, but welcome to George Orwell's 1984. The thing that gets me is the lip service paid to liberties. If governments are going to go to these lengths then why deal with the pretense of having "freedom"? What is next? Thoughtcrimes?
Why not just tell all communication corporations that they are taking them over and they will now be owned by the government so that surveillance can be conducted on the civilian populace? I'll tell you why..... It would be Revolution! So, our government(s) are slowly, methodically, chipping away at individual freedoms under the guise of "protecting" us. Benjamin Franklin had it right. If we are willing to give away all of this, we do not deserve freedom. The time is NOW to reverse these power grabs for Presidential authority and no oversight. Vote out those representatives and senators that have supported eliminating our rights and take back your lives.
Seriously, corporations are being saddled more and more with the burden of government oversight and expense which ironically, seems to be occurring more and more with Republican administrations. Government is larger now that it has ever been before and the US government is that largest bureaucracy in the history of the planet. There is a price for a government of this size and that is inefficiency and it is being sold to us under an umbrella of fear.
The other side of the coin is government subsidized corporations that are no longer having to compete in a fair and open market place as long as they agree to do the bidding of whoever is currently in power, further destabilizing the ideal of capitalism.
Remember people: The USA is only a couple hundred years old. If we want to stick around, we need to be more careful with how we allow ourselves to be governed. Because if we allow the infrastructure in place to arbitrarily discriminate those who may or may not agree with the overall power structure, then you could find yourself easily under investigation. Take a picture of the wrong thing? Say the wrong thing in an open forum like Slashdot? Support the "wrong" political candidate? Read the "wrong" books? Fail to conform in any way to the overall top 40 culture and you might find yourself on the wrong side of the "firewall" unable to get a job or participate fully in society or possibly worse.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
They're trying to offset the costs of the wiretaps, and taking a swing at Google, who isn't playing nice with government requests, at the same time.
Anything can make sense if you look for the conspiracy angle.
Ramen
I thought this was going to be about mailmen with hernias.
just from the fact that our rights have been violated on such a consistant basis. Up 44%??????? Are you kidding me? I'm *sure* that all these are completely related to terrorism and not other things.
Of these factors, only the fear of terrorists (foreign and and domestic) has risen noticably in recent years. Hence the willingness of the citizens of democracies to accept their governments' attempts to prevent new attacks.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
In David Brin's book "Earth" he talks about a future society with zero privacy. However rather than the Orwellian 1984 version of no privacy, he talks about a world where everyone, from the farmer in the field, to the president of the united states having zero secercy. He debated that with the prolifiation of technology the idea of privacy had become obsolete, and the only way to prevent people with money and power from abusing their ability to spy on the average individual make it so EVERYONE had the capibilities.
I'm not sure if I agree with this thought, but when it comes to privacy, perhaps we've already gone too far, and privacy IS history. Perhaps it is time for total transpancy.
China to require registration for text messaging Thursday February 02, @12:44PM Rejected
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China_Business/HB03Cb 04.html
Had this story been posted this wouldn't be news.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
I have resorted to pigeons. This post was sent via a pigeon which flew to India where my outsourced-poster hit the submit button
...says:
"The next Slashdot story is visible early to free day pass visitors; sponsored by Verizon Business."
Amusing timing.
picpix image polls. create - share - vote. fun!
You know, there's a reason the fourth amendment exists. This BS of "if you have nothing to hide, you don't need privacy" is crap. Why are people ok with handiong power over to the state. What happens when a bad president gets elected? Who honestly think that can't happen? Right now Bush may be good, but many of his supporters will say clinton/democrats are bad. And vice versa. The point is, once the state has all this power good luck trying to curb abuses.
.. nobody will dispute that. The problem is that the innocent do, and it's the burden and responsibility of the free to ensure it. Many have forgotten Ben Franklin's words "those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither".
Second, all humans have an INHERENT right to privacy. Even the constution alludes to that when it says the "right against unreasonable searches without warrants shall not be violated"
All of us have the responsibility of ensuring that innocent humans are not harmed by overzealous and wrong "security" measures. How is it in the nation's interest for all her citizens to have to explain to God why tyranny was carried out in the name of security?
Terrorists don't deserve due process or privacy
A contracting company that does wiretaps tauting the strain on carriers. Poorly written hype.
Please sign petition to restore sanity to our banking system!!!
http://financialpetition.org/
It's a technological attempt to solve a problem not solvable through technological means.
Even if literally EVERY phone call was monitored (a nearly impossible feat), what's to stop "terrorists" from talking in code?
E.g.:
Terrorist_1: "How's the weather?" ("How's our plan going?")
Terrorist_2: "Fine." ("Fine.")
Terrorist_1: "That's good. Is it going to rain tomorrow? ("Are we ready to go with our attack tomorrow?")
Terrorist_2: "Yes, the weatherman says so." ("Yes, Osama gave me the go-ahead.")
Once terrorists start pulling tricks like this, then what would the wiretappers try? Arresting anyone who calls anyone in the Middle East and talks about innocent-sounding subjects?
With spending like this, exactly what are "conservatives" conserving?
The number of telephone wiretaps authorized by state and federal judges increased by 44%
And how many more were not authorized?
Developers: We can use your help.
The #1 theme of the Bush administration has been fear: terrorists, they say, are an existential threat so dire that any and all means used to oppose them are justified.
No.
Various nations have seen and defeated far worse threats than terrorism. Liberty is not a weakness, it is a strength. A robust and fair justice system is not a weakness, it is a strenghth. Democracy is not a weakness, it is a strength. Combined they serve as the absolute best form of not only protecting ourselves from others but protecting ourselves from ourselves.
I wholly reject the notion that the threat posed by "terrorism" is so substantial as to justify any tactic. I am not afraid, and I will not be goaded into fear by the government. I will fight, but I will fight for liberty, justice, and democracy, and will oppose all efforts to undermine them, whether from abroad or at home. I hope those of like mind throughout the civilized world will do similarly.
"I'm not sure if I agree with this thought, but when it comes to privacy, perhaps we've already gone too far, and privacy IS history. Perhaps it is time for total transpancy."
Privacy isn't history. The problem is twofold. One to obtain privacy, one has to work harder. Two most people don't know how to obtain privacy.
Water is wet and the sun rises in the east.
/.'ers and absolutely nothing will change. No one will take any action. Americans could (and do) change rules and regulations when the will is there. No will = no change.
1. I'm not sure why this is an issue. It's been happening for quite a while in one form or another. Doesn't anyone wonder where these personal data companies get their largest customers?
2. Articles like this assume the gov't entities are super-functional and actually do something with this data. They'll catch a few more of the dumbest criminals and that's about it. It's flushing money down a toilet building giant datacenters storing petabytes+ of information.
3. All the "oh no's!" from
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
Wire taps my ass. Check out: http://www.askcalea.net/
Yes, I have worked for various carriers though out my professional career; everything from RBOC/LECs, CLECs, CAP's, Cellular. The current state of affairs is freakin depressing. The old school method of getting a wire tap is:
1) Get a court order
2) Submit it to a carrier to get a tap
3) Carrier puts on tap and makes all sessions available to authorities.
Ya want to know how it works now.
1) Remote login (law enforcement)
2) Start recording (aka run a few commands)
3) WTF happened to the court order
All companies that make communications equipment have CALEA access built into their equipment. The system is getting freakin abused and no one has a clue that this *hit is going on.
PS: Yeah, I am just a wee bit touch about the situation.
PSS: The telco folks have always done their job; but that wasn't good enough... Direct access is what has been given away.... and that is a load of horse *hit. By the way; CALEA stands for Communications Assistance Law Enforcement Act.
"Why is J. Edgar hoover on your phone?"
"Well, why shouldn't he be on my phone? After all, he's on everybody else's!"
<* rimshot *> - Hey, thanks folks; don't forget to tip the wait staff - I'll be here until Wednesday.
And this increase only reflects the cases in which warrants were obtained - who knows what the actual increase is under presidunce "we don't need no steenking warrants" saviorbush?
Eloi are stupid, throw morlocks at them!
With all the increase in wiretaps, all we've really done is bury the important intercepts under mountains of useless data. Like out of all the Bush wiretapping, how many warrants were actually issued? It wasn't that many, less than 20 if memory serves. Out of thousands of wasted man hours combing through wiretap intercepts. Not to mention the potentially crippling political backlash from an electorate that really doesn't like being spied on by anyone, especially their own government.
This is FEMA and Iraq all over again in intelligence gathering. It's insane, likely illegal and it's not going to work right, ever. So it's illegal AND stupid. What a combination.
Hopefully we'll get smart before spending ourselves into a hole we can never get out of, but I'm not holding my breath. This is the country where 52% of the population can't tell the difference between a real war veteran and a draft dodging, Conneticut frat boy prentending to be a religious fighter pilot from Texas.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
USA: Put a stop to this NOW.
Watch as dissent becomes a threat to national security.
Do you really believe this is to stop terrorism?
What side are you on?
No I don't mean "With us or with the terrorists" trite.
I mean what side are you on?
The side of freedom, self-government, equality, tolerance?
or the side of oppression, protection, surveilance, revenge?
There are people from all nations who represent both sides. Some are fighting for the "terrorists" and some are fighting for the "freedom fighters"
People like Bush & Osama have tried to polarise this for their own agendas by hijacking the english language with doublespeak like "Freedom", "Honour" and "PATRIOTism" and the "With us or against us" rhetoric, but don't be mistaken.
If you don't put a stop to this *Now* you will regret it.
Rich Gentlemen Hide - The Existential Comic
Just goes to show how chicken little the left really is on this subject.
p ort/table300.pdf
Let me get this straight, wiretaps have not EVEN DOUBLED since 911, despite the war, despite so called invastions of privacy, and you want to cry more about it?
Personally, sounds like they have not done enough wiretapping, I would have expected a doubling or tripling of wiretaps.
Instead I find they are very restrained in their requests.
FYI: here is the baseline for 1999 and why they were tapping. 890 were for narcotics, and only 45 landed in the "other" catagory that was not a criminal investigation.
http://www.epic.org/privacy/wiretap/stats/2000_re
in 2004, 1308 were for narcotics, so there is the growth of 44 percent. Other grew to 64, also an approximately 44% increase.
http://www.uscourts.gov/wiretap04/Table3-04.pdf
64 people in a population of 250 million. THAT is restraint, not taking peoples liberty.
Yes I know that does not include the so called "illegal wiretaps" by the President. I am not too worried unless the taps were not on inbound international calls from known terrorists calling people here in the US. If that is what they are, then there is no crime in doing that.
Anything else and they have to explain it.
Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
This is nothing more than a government conspiracy to restart the economy by forcing the entire telecom/internet community to upgrade their equipment to accomodate new services and increasing surveillance. The economy was roaring on the upgrade craze prior to 2000 and then went into the toliet after that. On that note, I'm buying more Cisco and Microsoft stock. :P
"Of these factors, only the fear of terrorists (foreign and and domestic) has risen noticably in recent years. Hence the willingness of the citizens of democracies to accept their governments' attempts to prevent new attacks."
Well the new threats by Osama, and Muslims rioting and death threats certainly isn't helping give anyone peace of mind. The world is a more dangerous place, period.
The level of surveillance is getting so pervasive, so heavy, and so generalized it's actually stratching the ability of our telecom services to obtain it all.
If the communications industry can't keep track of it all, just think of the kind of strain it must be putting not just on the people who have to relay this information (the telecom people) but on the people who actually have to READ it-- the people who have to actually go THROUGH all this information trying to make sense of it all. Now after they have to go to all that information, think how much time they must have left over, when they arrange the next set of warrants, to select good targets instead of just casting a troll net.
Now think, the people who look at these warrants and decide whether to approve them, usually with (reasonably) incomplete information-- think how overworked THEY must be, think how hard it must be to tell the clearly innocent from the probably-caused suspicious.
Think exactly how truly large the number of people being listened in on must be.
But don't worry. If you aren't a TERRORIST, you won't be targeted.
You're right. Worrying about personal freedoms is just ridiculous.
Hell, you don't have to go all the way to the Middle East to find someone who hates me. There are people much closer than that, should we be spying on them too?
The FAULT lies with the US Government and the US citizens. Yes, certain groups in the middle east have done horrible things, and we have no/little control over what they do. OTOH, we have complete control in how we respond.
Find coupons in Greeley
All the surveillance is worth it, because we've caught all the terrorists! I feel safer knowing we've got all those Qaeda evildoers. I'm finally satisfied that we've caught Osama in our dragnet. And the byproduct, catching all the drug mafia, has really cleaned up the streets - and our nation's veins. So we've made some Quakers paranoid - they live to quake, right? And, in an unexpected bonus, the Republicans won't be taken by surprise by any Democratic Party dirty tricks. If only we'd let Emperor Nixon protect us, in his wisdom, we'd have all the oil we want, and terrorists would never have attacked us.
--
make install -not war
Criminals will evolve as this techonlogy evolves.
If they know they are probably being tapped, or that their phone conversation might be being recorded by their telcom company ( something I think will happen given the cheapness of storage ) they will stop using it.
I'm not in the business of crime, so I have no need to be hiding my conversations. At the same time I don't want my personal talks about marital troubles being recorded and used against me in a divorce court. ( Sweetie if you reading I don't want that it is just hypothectical ). If I was in crime I certainly wouldn't be talking about it on the phone. Here are my alternatives.
First I'd encrypt several times in a way only know by me and the other side to make it appear to be binary data.
Then I'd chat on private channels on Counter-strike servers or something. Something that I know is not logging. I suppose the govt could sniff the packets and record them all and try and extract the info, but is it worth it. After the tap had been placed on my internet account I guess they would start recording all the packets, but that would sure add up. Heck I'd stream movies in the background just to make it harder. If I was being really paranoid I sent chunks of the message through several channels.
On top of that I'll use a code agreed on by the both parties. "I hate the Dallas Cowboys" means meet me here at xyz time or something.
I think it'd be better if they could tap into my machine via backdoors and take screenshots, however, this would probably require a human, and would be pretty detectable.
If the govt thinks they can just start a blanket approach to this problem, I think they'll find that it will just change the problem. Better to over use taps so people are lazy and continue to use easy to monitor channels.
The argument that we might have stopped 9/11 by having programs like this is a bit silly. We had so much more evidence then phone calls. The FBI and several people knew about the people who where going to do the attack, they just didn't act. Hindsight is 20/20, and if something even remotely like that happens again it will be taken very seriously.
Personally if you do make a phone call out of the country I think the govt has a right to monitor it. They setup the infrastructure and they have jurisdiction to anything dealing with the border. If you fly out of the country they can check you bags at customs and a whole slew of other things. The thing that they need to do is just lay that out. Let people know that they can be tapped, and if they are notify them. When you call long distance before the call starts play a message. "This phone call may be monitored by the U.S. govt for security reasons".
People will say that terrorist then won't use the phone system and we can't catch them that way. Well news flash they already are not.
Freedom 9/11 victory 9/11 lurks freedom internets 9/11!
What happens when a bad president gets elected? Who honestly think that can't happen?
Yeah! I mean, just look at...
Right now Bush may be good...
Wait... you lost me. These two sentences refer to ideas that connect together, but I don't think it's the way you think they do.
---GEC
I'm but the humble pupil, seeking to snatch the scratchbuilt pebble from the master's fully articulated hand
Ok...I have had about enough of this spying nonsense. Lets just admit that its going to happen, noone is going to stop it and just deal with the future. First I propose that since the government is digging so deep into the telco world to spy on everyone, why don't they just deliver the final blow to the industry? Lets just go with government owned communications infrastructure.
We won't have to deal with these dirty money grubbing telcos anymore (see Bellsouth's behaviour over free wifi, or Verizon's wanting more money from the internet content providers)
We won't have service that is any worse. (Government work isn't typically much worse than what we get now)
The prices will go down. (No profit margins to maintain)
This way the government isn't crushing the smaller business for the big telcos by mandating wiretaps. Now its equal for everyone involved.
Disclaimer: This is not meant to be serious, I know some have a problem reading into things like this. Thank you.
The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
"What is next? Thoughtcrimes?"
Actually we have had thoughtcrimes for a while. I'm sure others can add other examples, but the "Hate Crime" laws are specifically and solely thoughtcrime laws. For example, you might get a year for lighting someones lawn on fire. This act, even if it was designed to intimidate the homeowner because you hate them, might still only get you a year. BUT, if you light the fire in the shape of a swastika, you are likely to get 6 years. This means that you will spend 5 years in prision not because you destroyed their property, you threatened them, or even because you hate them. You will spend 5 years in prison because of your beliefs. Because of your "thoughts".
Now, don't think I am trying to defend neo-nazis or anything. I think that the person that picked a victim out of a phonebook and decided to intimidate them and destroy their property should get the same sentence. No one should sit in jail because of their beliefs. Even if I think their beliefs are vile.
Worrying about keeping your privacy at the expense of your brother's or mother's life is not ridiculous?
If you are not muslim, your life is insignificant. Read the quo'ran.
...outsourcing, outside the country, so that the very information the spooks deem "sensitive" and "worthy" will first be massaged by third world employees who may very well be closer aligned with those fighting the U.S.. I concur that fear has been blasting our senses via the news, and by making the boogey man ephemeral and nebulous, any gauge of effectivenes (or lack thereof) is purely speculative. By throwing in scenarios like the tapping of Christiane Amanpour, of CNN, one also opens up the ability of tapping Kerry advisor Christiane Amanpour. Democracy's key strength is diluting the demands of the mob through checks and balances, but given the compromises to Democracy to satisfy corporate and government interests that's a moot point as well. Where's H.L. Mencken when you need him.
I think this is much more interesting than the constant railing against our government's efforts to monitor terrorist and foriegn government agent communication. At least in this country there are several hands this information has to go through. Like the article says, outside of the U.S., governments have the ability to monitor communication directly.
I know that Slashdot is left-leaning and apparently never misses an opportunity to post a "see, President Bush sux0rs!!!!" story and this is just par for the course. Do you think that other liberal administrations haven't monitored communication in this country? As a matter of fact, if you think back over all administrations we've had, which administrations have done more to hurt this country rather than help or protect it? Jimmy Carter's giveaway of the Panama Canal, hostage crisis disater, energy policy disaster, coverup of the three-mile island disaster or remarks that there was no need to apologize for Viet Nam? Bill Clinton's transfer of missle technology to China, bombing an asprin factory and killing the janitor, ignoring an opportunity to capture Osama Bin Laden when he was offered, and (since everyone likes to point out lies) lieing under oath and being impeached? L.B.J./Kennedy starting the Vient Nam war or his remarks about Thurgood Marshall - "Son, when I appoint a nig**r to the court, I want everyone to know he's a nig**r."?
The fact is, President Bush will be trashed no matter what he does or doesn't do. National Protection? He's infringing on civil liberties!! Natural Disasters? He didn't move fast/more/personally or did too much. (Didn't he plant explosives and blow up the dikes himeself?)
ConsultingFair.com
What keeps me sane is that every time I hear or see a topic like this, there's a lot of uproar. Maybe it's not always for or against the side I'm on. The important thing is that we don't ALL just bend over and take it. Some do, some don't. It gives me the sense that if/when things do go completely wrong, there will be some who will set it right... kinda like what happened 200 years ago.
One trouble with that, as with all utopian visions, is that implementation never follows design. As Communism inexorably devolves into dictatorial oligarchy, a select few would have privacy while the rest lived as slaves to the Eye.
Even if that weren't to happen, democratic tyranny would be unavoidable. If everyone knows what everyone else is doing, a sheeplike uniformity would be the result, with any oddballs subjected to public disgrace. "You painted your bathroom what color? Weirdo!" "Look, he's got a flashlight under the covers! He's doing something private under there! Pervert!" "You spanked your child? Abuse! Abuse!"
Some of the greatest joys in life are private. A quiet conversation with a spouse. Reading a bedtime story to a wide-eyed child. Singing off-key in the car. Posting anonymous trolls on Slashdot.
The right to privacy is not just an invention of the courts to justify abortion, though some read Roe v Wade that way. Privacy is infused in the Bill of Rights, from the right to practice religion as we see fit, the right not to have troops in our homes, the right to own weapons, and the right to be secure in our "persons, houses, papers, and effects".
Whether abused by the powerful or not, the world Brin proposes is a totalitarian hell.
sigs, as if you care.
Interestingly enough, I find that from the WSJ, the number of wiretaps last year is only at 1,710 in 2004. 1,710 wiretaps for the year vs a USA 2004 estimated population of 293,656,842 is 0.00058% of the population (assuming one tap per person). Hardly something to gawk at.
... Yet, 2000 was a local low, the lowest since 1997 (difference of 4 taps), so you could just as easily say "the number of wiretaps from 1997 to 2004 are up 43%". The 1999 wiretap count is at 1,350, which means only a 26% increase from 1999, since 2000-2001 (election year) involved a large decrease (-11%) from the previous year. I'll leave this to others to argue the exiting government's preparedness for 9/11/2001.
.... there's a 16% increase in federal wiretaps from 2002-2003, and another +26% increase from 2003-2004, to a current 730 Federal Wiretaps for the year 2004. Wiretaps are going up across the board, but looking back at history, 1993-1994 shows the greatest increase in federal wiretaps, single year up 32% compared to +26% in 2004-2005.
That made me want to find previous years, so I stumbled on a watchdog group, EPIC, which puts the 2000 wiretap count at 1,190 for a +43.6%
From their data, which goes back to 1968, and a few pokes with Excel, we can see that State Wiretaps outnumber Federal by a 3:2 ratio every year back to 1998
The top 3 years of increases in the last twenty are 2001 (25%) 2004 (18%), and 1994 (18%). The wiretaps in 2004 are roughly double the amount in 1991.
If we group by Presidental Office years (since each president tends to change policies and staff when they come into office, group by 4 years), the Bush Administration increase is +14.6% in the first term... impressive, but short of the Clinton Administration's increase of +17.7% in its first term. However, neither president matches the rates of increases in the 80's, with 35% increase by Reagan and 20% increase by Bush Senior.
The network itself was a stateless system, and now being tapped to be a stateful system. Not the original design of the net... and this will kill the bandwidth. Hello 56Kbs days.
Cynicism alert:
I dont know about you, but personally I would rather get used to the idea of having a 9/11 once every 2-4 of years, than give away my real freedoms, not the ones advocated by our Texan Overlord.
Hell, I will ever risk my life and I would bare with the risk of having my kid becoming the victim of a pedofile than allowing those shady people to go through all our personal data (general pornography statistics my arse, google hold on there).
Someone with a little sense, and not afraid to show it! I keep trying to tell people, all that these new measures succeed in doing is criminalising the normal people who hate what their government is doing. How long before "political dissent" becomes "terrorist activities" in the US?
Admittedly, they might catch a couple of terrorists occasionally, but when that happens, if they were stupid enough to get caught like that, they weren't much of a threat in the first place.
"Hey, why does this Anthrax taste like sugar?"
Also there is the possibility that the ones that are caught are decoys for the real operations to keep the DHS occupied, but just a wild guess there - its what I would do if success was important.
I swear we should be allowed to give mod points to sigs... "-1, Offtopic"
Seriously, it's like human civilization is developing schizoid paranoia. I do not want to be alive right now. Please, can someone hurry up and perfect cryogenic technology so I can be frozen until everyone gets done with their authoritarian jonesing and the world lightens up to a reasonable level?
Many posters are trying to come up with explanations as to why the public is not outraged at this Big Brother situation. I would like to provide a very simple and clear reason why the general public does not really care.
The public does not care about these privacy invasions, patriot acts, wiretaps, etc, becuase they hear people whine about how our privacy is being invaded everyday, but it has yet to actually happen.
Let me clarify.
There has yet to be a single major case of someone who wasn't really evil being anything other than mildly inconvienced. If and when some average joe is taken advantage of, or criminally or financially damaged, THEN you will see people upset.
I'm not saying I agree with any of this big brother crap that the government is doing. I'm just saying that so far, they have actually used all of these technologies as they promised to do, and have not targetted anyone innappropriately. Until they do, no real effort to battle these invasions will begin.
Big ones, small ones, some as big as yer 'ead!
Give 'em a twist, a flick o' the wrist...
But today's wiretapping system isn't set up that way. The way it actually works is that there's a back door into the routing system for telephony, SS7. The back door is run by private companies, mostly Verisign. Verisign calls this their NetDiscovery Service. Wiretapping is done by issuing commands to switches (phone, cellular, IP) over the SS7 network.
Take a look at what Verisign describes as the subpoena processing flowchart. Note that there are no blocks on that chart for the court system. There's no data transfer back to the court system. The "legal review" step is marked as "optional". There's supposed to be a subpoena to start the process, but there's no external validation that what is monitored matches the subpoena.
That's the real problem. We need to put the courts back in the loop. It's wrong for them to be out of it. Courts have an obligation to monitor compliance with their subpoenas, and to oversee law enforcement. They're being denied the tools to do it.
You make a good point, but I must argue that I don't care about the cause, I care about the effect! So what if it's not being consciously orchestrated to some grand scheme by an evil secret political cult. The gradual (and rapidly accelerating) loss of freedoms and complete disregard for the constitution in America needs to be stopped. As you stated part of the problem is currently elected officials either thinking too short term or not at all, that means that organised or not they are still part of the problem. We need to get people into office that are going to think past their next election and do something for WE THE PEOPLE instead of ME THE PUBLIC FIGURE.
I think another thing that needs to be recognized and dealt with in our government (and this applies to all parties, and goes back to Wilson policies [some will argue Lincoln]) is this fine line that policy makers keep walking between what is legal and what is constitutional. For instance the current hullabaloo about Bush's secret wiretapping keeps being touted by him and his cronies as legal under current law and presidential constitutional powers. If it were blantantly so then there wouldn't be the huge outcry that there is now, so obviosuly at best it's a convoluted or extremely technical argument that its legality hinges on. My issue is that regardless of the technical legal loophole Gonzalez et al may present, it is pretty flagrantly unconstitutional and immoral. Someone needs to stand up and say "Even if this is proven technically legal, it goes against the principles of freedom and everything that America should stand for, therefore we should reword the laws to MAKE it illegal!"
Bully for Bush that he MAY have found a gotcha clause somewhere, that doesn't mean he should get to use it, that means we should PATCH it!
There is a process in place for performing wiretaps of this nature, and that is the FISA court. It is already secret, wiretaps can already be started 72 hours in advance of even applying for a warrant through that court. It provides oversight and all of the expediency that an intelligence agency requires. And the stupid protest that somehow using that court would tip off the terrorists under investigation is ludicrous. To accept that as truth means either A) they believe the FISA court is compromised and the cases heard are being leaked to terrorists, or B) up until now terrorist cells were so stupid as to think they government isn't trying to find them and eavesdrop on their communications. Frankly B seems more plausible than A, and if A were true then there's a lot more to worry about then the legality of the wiretapping! Studies by the CIA and other government intelligence agencies have already demonstrated that sophisticated terrorist groups like Al Queda already operate with complex forms of communication to hide their tracks. They speak in codes, they use disposible cell phones, they change communication mediums and lines often. They have guidelines that if an operative is late checking in then assume they are captured and scrap the entire plan and come up with a new one. These people are not learning anything new by hearing from the NY Times that the government isn't going through its secret court to get orders to wiretap them. They are aware the government is actively seeking them, what the hell could they think we've been doing since 10 minutes after the first plane struck the towers??
It seems pretty clear that the only people being aided in any way by this warrantless surveilance program is the administration that has initiated it and is preventing any oversight of their activities. As they say, turnabout is fair play. If you've done nothing wrong Mr. Bush then you should have nothing to hide. Let the FISA court look at these cases and determine if they meet the burden of proof required by law!
-- I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. It's not my fault that life sucks so much. --
So, start "straining" the onerous government agencies with FOIA (freedom of information act) requests.
Read any good sonnets lately?
The problem with everyone having the power to spy on everyone else is that social conformity becomes easier to enforce. All the things society thinks you should not be doing will be logged, pointed out, and punished. No more speeding, doing drugs, or extramarital affairs. But, of course, it won't stop there, the society's views being what they are. It will gradually apply prohibitions on all the other deviant forms of behaviour, like thinking about evolution, learning chemistry, theorizing about physics, or making any other new thing that "scares" people because they don't understand it. So say good bye to science and all technological progress. But people will go even further. It is the little mind's most fervent desire to make all the other minds smaller in order to feel better about its own lack of ability, skill, and achievement. Monitoring can easily be expanded to make sure people aren't "working too hard" and making everyone else look bad. Or, in the opposite extreme, to find out who has any ability whatsoever and put them to work under a slavedriver's whip so that the people in power could laze around day after day watching the supplication of their cringing slaves. Privacy is the only thing standing between us and total social control, which inevitably leads to complete destruction of civilization, since that is what society has always really wanted in their vile little hearts.
Shouldn't the carriers be shouting "No free ride for surveillance!" and charging the gov't a premium for this service?
Web 2.0 == Giant Blogspam Circle Jerk
"odds are overwhelming stacked against the resistance. You have a military that vastly outguns a ragtag citizen militia and a compliant media that would paint the opposition as traitors and terrorists . . ."
Good points, but you're overlooking several things.
An armed uprising in the U.S. wouldn't consist of a bunch of farmers walking out into a field with a banner which reads "we are revolting" and taking on a modern military head to head. It would be a conflict of ambush, sabotage and other guerilla tactics. Never underestimate a determined resistance movement fighting on its home soil. Viet-Nam and Afghanistan in the 1980s come to mind, and let's not forget Iraq . . . whose insurgency had its "back broken" ages ago. The important thing here is that there is nothing superficial to distinguish a citizen going along with the program from a revolutionary or a sympathizer who isn't.
You also forget that members of the military, reserves, national guard, etc. are still citizens with friends and relatives. Some of the soldiers would not take kindly to orders directing them to kill other U.S. citizens.
Some of my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ take this belief and then say, "Well, since God is watching us anyway, who cares if the government decides to look in on my life? I have nothing to hide. And even if I did something wrong, God is more important and I care more about what He thinks."
The problem inherent with this logic is that wicked men will be the ones who will be doing the watching. These men would have the ability to shift the behaviors and actions of people based upon the information they possess. This shift may not be in alignment with what my God requires of me, so I cannot support this monitoring.
Just a thought...
--Chag
as a simple result of your sources, you're only counting the wiretaps that were obtained through the courts.
There are actually more wiretaps-- maybe significantly more wiretaps, it's hard to know?-- happening than that lately, because as Attorney General Alberto Gonzolez tells us, getting a warrant for a wiretap is just too much of a bother.
This sounds flippant but it isn't. To rephrase what you said. When people would rather march around than sit on the couch you'll have a revolution.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
An armed uprising in the U.S. wouldn't consist of a bunch of farmers walking out into a field with a banner which reads "we are revolting" and taking on a modern military head to head. It would be a conflict of ambush, sabotage and other guerilla tactics. Never underestimate a determined resistance movement fighting on its home soil. Viet-Nam and Afghanistan in the 1980s come to mind, and let's not forget Iraq . . . whose insurgency had its "back broken" ages ago. The important thing here is that there is nothing superficial to distinguish a citizen going along with the program from a revolutionary or a sympathizer who isn't.
A fair point.
You also forget that members of the military, reserves, national guard, etc. are still citizens with friends and relatives. Some of the soldiers would not take kindly to orders directing them to kill other U.S. citizens.
I have to disagree. An overriding theme of most militaries is dehumanization. On the battlefield, the killing of human beings is referred to by disconnected terminology like "taking out a target". A soldier, trained to carry out orders without question will not resist. Even if an order is illegal, a soldier risks jail or execution if he or she cannot prove that fact before a military kangaroo court.
That said, plenty of killing of US citizens went on during our civil war. The size of Gettysburg National cemetery says that soldiers wouldn't seem apt to disobey a direct order to kill other citizens. At that point, those fellow citzens become the enemy and must be destroyed as ordered.
Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
the revolution will not be televised
the big brother wiretaps will not be documented in the public record
Stuff like this always reminds me of this nice quote:
Privacy is a transient notion. It started when people stopped believing that God could see everything and stopped when governments realized there was a vacancy to fill. - Roger Needham
The title of the article and initial response to it are the actual problem- not the wiretapps.
From the article: increased by 44% to 1,710..
However the title fails to consider there are 300 MILLION people in America and that there were only 1,710 wiretapps.
This equates to 0.00057%
Orwellian my big fat behind. Some people just want to scare all people.
Cogito Ergo Sum
This sort of thing comes and goes. Right now we're in a particularly controlling phase. But we had it before in the early 50s with McCarthy. Just substitute communist/red for terrorist. The major difference today is that the technology for surveillance is better. The aggressive use of it by a hawk Bush administration is no different than the 50s though.
As most of you know, the attack on personal liberties was beaten back in the 60s, through the hard work and organization of many individuals, mostly sparked by the Vietnam war.
However, the Republican party *has* changed since the 50s. They used to be the party for minimalist government, states' rights, etc. In the 80s, they realized that the ordinary voter doesn't really care about those things at least not on a high priority. So they went after the Christian right (and, by extension, the South). For years, the Democrats had been winning elections by pulling the southern Democrats but the Republicans got a foothold by reinventing themselves as the "family values" party.
So back to the original post. The religious right (mostly Christian in this country) has little respect for personal liberties. Feathers may get ruffled by me saying this, but on the topic of free speech, they are little different from other large religious groups like Islam or Judaism. They would quickly adopt surveillance policies and impose their morals on others if they thought it brought more people in line with their beliefs.
That attitude is enhanced by a presidential administration that not only supported them to get votes, but believes as they do. Top that off with the threat of terrorism (however minor now, they still bring it up to keep the public on edge), and you have a new McCarthyism.
The Libertarian party is far more like the "old" Republican party than the current administration is.
Will the attack on personal freedoms ebb again? I believe it will. But we will have to work hard to change the direction things are going right now. People will have to stand up and say enough is enough. Some people will have to get arrested unfairly. And we're definitely going to have to get out and vote.
The 9/11 attack hurt America long after the initial deaths of individuals. The government has started taking away our freedoms, handing the terrorists a political victory. The sad part is that this administration doesn't see it.
The plain fact is that most effective way to curtail Bush's power and protect what left of the Bill of Right is to elect a democratic Senate and House this november. If the Dems regain controll of even one house of Congress, we can hope that the legislative branch will start to do more than simply rubber stamp the executive branch's whims.
You may hate the democratic party, you may usually vote for 3rd parties or Republicans or not vote at all, but if you want to check the power of the executive branch,then suck it up and vote for a Democrat.
AKA "The Next Great Depression". In the 1930s, the US was very much at risk of full-scale Communist revolution, as was happening around the world at that time. As much as the neo-cons would like to believe that FDR was a socialist at heart, the New Deal was a desperate attempt to stave off such a revolution by filling the bellies of the most destitute.
Social Security was a part of the effort, and was also political manipulation of statistics at its finest: cut the unemployment rate by reclassifying massive numbers of the unemployed as "retired".
Interestingly, in the 30s, the US had effectively no debt, so taking a hit to run these massive social programs was more feasible. Today, the US is encumbered both by foreign-held debt and entitlement programs. It would be much less able to respond to a depression today in the way it did in the 30s. If you think the US is unpopular in the world today, wait until it tries to weasel out of $9T+ in foreign-held bonds.
Your Rights Online: Verizon Threatens Fed's 'Free Lunch'
It is always interesting to read how the Government wants to invade our lives, listen to you talking to your girlfriend about how your day went... Do you people honestly think that this is the goal?
Seriously. If you are talking to someone in Iran about blowing up a site in the US, I want the Government listening to that call. I want the Government protecting me against people who get pissed off over a cartoon and riot for weeks, and want to burn our flag and kill innocent people, even though the cartoon was published somewhere else. These Islamic Extremists are freaking nut jobs (they definately outnumber the homegrown terrorists)... If the Government wants to listen to them, then they have 90% of the US behind them. Read the polls.
Some people get out of hand, and yes, so doesn't the Government. We are the greatest country in the world, and I don't care if anyone thinks differently. We are, and I would fight and die for the US and my way of life if I had to. My freedom and my liberties, my way of life... You can say what you wish, but the fact is that nobody has it as good as the US.
I can only guess what they said when they suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War, or imprisoned Japanese during WWII. Whatever the case, what is the Government supposed to do to protect us? There are many arm chair quarterbacks, and many that just hate everything the President does. Clinton did wiretaps, Carter did, JFK did.
Perhaps it is just a case of "You can't please everyone"?
DISCLAIMER:
I don't believe what I write, and neither should you.
You also forget that members of the military, reserves, national guard, etc. are still citizens with friends and relatives. Some of the soldiers would not take kindly to orders directing them to kill other U.S. citizens.
... the whole nine yards.
I have to disagree. An overriding theme of most militaries is dehumanization. On the battlefield, the killing of human beings is referred to by disconnected terminology like "taking out a target". A soldier, trained to carry out orders without question will not resist. Even if an order is illegal, a soldier risks jail or execution if he or she cannot prove that fact before a military kangaroo court.
Sounds like you haven't served in the U.S. military. We are, believe it or not, thinking people, not automatons. First of all, we aren't *allowed* to perform police duties on American soil under normal circumstances. But I know even if martial law were declared, many of us would simply refuse to conduct operations against Americans for the purpose that is being discussed here. Would I shoot someone who shot at me first? Sure. But I believe American commanders are smart enough to know their troops don't want to kill other Americans. You'd probably see operations conducted in more of an anti-riot style than a war style - i.e. lockdown with curfews, tear gas and other crowd control measures,
Having said that, I agree that things come in cycles. I'm not going to decry Bush for using tactics that Presidents in the past have. Many people in the comments above have already listed such Presidents, so I'm not going to. But, these are not new strategies, nor are they the worst we've seen. Look at the prison camps we had for Japanese Americans in WWII. The Communist witch hunt, and all the rest. We happen to be on an upswing, and as a reaction, I suspect that the next generation of voters will go the other way. Then, when the country hits another time of need, someone will step up, and we'll lose freedoms again.
Does it bug me? Yea, it does. Am I scared that life just will never be the same and we'll all die in thought-prison? No. Its silly to compare this to 1984 (as so many have already), because of the term of one president. Also, its silly to blame Bush. Remember, Echelon was started in Clinton's term.
Want to find other gamers to play board and role playing game
"We need to get people into office that are going to think past their next election and do something for WE THE PEOPLE instead of ME THE PUBLIC FIGURE." These people get in all the time, and then immediately get voted out after doing exactly what you want them to do. Remember a large share of voters fall for multi-level marketing schemes.
--
WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
For example, you might get a year for lighting someones lawn on fire. This act, even if it was designed to intimidate the homeowner because you hate them, might still only get you a year. BUT, if you light the fire in the shape of a swastika, you are likely to get 6 years. This means that you will spend 5 years in prision not because you destroyed their property, you threatened them, or even because you hate them. You will spend 5 years in prison because of your beliefs. Because of your "thoughts".
Hate crime leglislation might have had some good intentions, but it's very bad in practice. EVERY violent crime is a hate crime. If someone beats the crap out of you, they might not "hate" you, but chances are they don't like you very much. If someone beats the crap out of you because you're gay, it doesn't matter WHY they don't like you - the end result is you got beaten up.
IMHO, there should be no difference between a violent crime and a "hate" crime under the law. Why are we so intent on punishing the intention and not on punishing the action? If Joe the mass murderer kills 16 people, the courts should not care WHY he did it - they should deal with the fact that he did and punish him accordingly.
All the people I know who would fall into a category that would be specifically "protected" by hate-crime leglislation agree with me on this one too. They don't want any more "protection" than any other citizen gets - they just want to be treated (and "protected") the same as everyone else.
The minute you start dealing with people differently because of some aspect of their being (like skin color, religious preference, sexual preference, etc) is the same minute you start (consciously or unconsciously) segregating them from the rest of society, and that becomes a dangerous slope to start sliding down.
I was in the park the other day wondering why frisbees get bigger and bigger the closer they get - and then it hit me.
Yeah when I wrote my initial post, I was looking for a better word for "religious right". It is too broad with many interpretations. The rest of my post tried to clarify it but I'll try another paragraph instead of a word.
I meant: conservative Christians, often fundamentalist, who think freedom of speech is fine as long as it agrees with their beliefs. They often disregard the Constitution (ex: separation of church and state). They often have an attitude of: who cares about privacy because my faith is strong and therefore I'm doing nothing wrong.
They are missing the whole point. When we give up personal liberties, or specialize on a single religion, we chip away at the foundation of our government. It becomes more a dictatorship and less a system of checks and balances, however inefficient that may be.
I know not all Christians fall into that category, but the ones who do, are in large part supportive of the current Republican party.
Let me get this straight .. you are okay with giving up liberty for security? The whole point is that once you give up these liberties you are making yourself insecure in the long term. Liberty itself is required for security. Why do you think the Bill of Rights limiting government power was created? So, aside from the fact that you are willing to give up liberties for some some false notion of "permanent safety", let's see if the criteria is met by the current situation.
.. it is:
But using the correct quote would take the punch out of your fear-mongering, would not it? You'd have to -- both -- point at a single essential liberty given up, and explain how the gained security is only temporary. Oops, it is not longer a clear-cut sound bite now, is it?
Actually
Essential liberty: As per fourth amendment: right to be secure against unreasonable search without warrant and probable cause shall not be violated
temporary safety: The Patriot Act, which expires btw, TEMPORARILY, suspends that liberty.
And yes, your clarification above is both a much better definition, and something I'd agree with a lot more readily. Not that my one opinion matters that much, but still.
Want to find other gamers to play board and role playing game
And one final word:
Please note that I believe this can happen with ANY large religion. In the U.S. it just happens to be Christianity. Politicians and public figures know that religion can be abused as a means of controlling the masses (see: the recent Mohammed cartoon debacle in the Arab world for a good example...)
Anything can make sense if you look for the conspiracy angle.
Everyone knows the telecoms are in trouble. It's a conspiracy of the laws of physics that their little copper wires can't carry the bandwidth of a coax cable. They've been whining about "making investments" for years now. Usually, they whine in the direction of Washington, asking their regulators to allow them to engage in all sorts of product bundling and monopolistic tactics in order to "recoup their costs".
So, given that you're a cash-strapped regulated monopoly with a failing business model, how exactly would you convince the government, that lately has taken a greater interest in spying on its citizens, to help you out?
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
In other words, voters need to stop letting themselves be distracted by breads and circuses which serve only to obscure the fact that candidate X is not really looking out for their best interests in the larger sense and long term.
*Note: I am using gay marriage here as an example of a "hot-button issue" that is often flouted during campaigns simply to garner votes from people who feel very strongly about it. Other things like taxes, "for the children" programs, etc are used similarly. The larger populace never seem to notice that these supposedly all-important issues that are referenced in nearly every campaign speech seem to always dip to the far background when the candidate actually makes it into office. Amazing how it was so important before the election that they couldn't shut up about it, but once in office it's a backburner issue at best.
-- I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. It's not my fault that life sucks so much. --
In the end, the power to allow or disallow useful intercepts, is in the hands of the people communicating. Not the law. Not the providers. It's up to you. All you have to do, is care enough to decide to do something about it.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
My issue is that regardless of the technical legal loophole Gonzalez et al may present, it is pretty flagrantly unconstitutional and immoral. Someone needs to stand up and say "Even if this is proven technically legal, it goes against the principles of freedom and everything that America should stand for, therefore we should reword the laws to MAKE it illegal!"
Sorry, you're dreaming. The people calling bush to task are not doing it because they believe the wiretapping is wrong, they believe he just went about it the wrong way. So we're going to see the exact opposite of that. It will be proven technically illegal, and they will change the law to make it legal. The fight going on now is not about the people's rights, but the congress's powers.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
I think most of us know soldiers have a conscience.
What if your commanders ordered you into a subsection of an American city inhabited almost entirely by a single minority, say of the muslim religion, in order to quell a rebellion. Would you not think differently about firing on those people, some of whom may not have their citizenship yet?
My point is that I remember my commanders being very good at giving us good reasons for what we were about to do even if it was something that we didn't think was a good idea, and you'd be surprised how effective the words, "you're a soldier, now do your fucking job" can actually be to most grunts. All they have to say is that the people in this area are threatening the safety of America, and everyone will go running in screaming like a jihadist.
What happens when the ratio of content vs monitoring flipflops..
i guess that is when we can change our name from USA to USSA...
---- Booth was a patriot ----
i really wonder how americans tolerate fbi/cia and co monitoring and slowly becoming the BIG BROTHER
be carefull it doesnt take much for them to become a modern day KGB
for one im glad i dont live in the USSR (ooops i meant the USA)
Can you have cashless transactions without knowing identity? And how can you know identity without constant identity surveillance? This, a cashless global economy, is what I suspect is being built and surveillance is but one necessary component apparently. Everywhere you look the propagandists are telling us surveillance is a good thing. Look how exciting car chases are from the vantage of a helicoptor. And if only the police could identify that car and turn it off remotely when it's involved in a car chase. Or how about the wonderful surveillance protecting helpless children ("we're doing it for the children") from predators; catching the bad guy by identifying him on video, etc. I get three and four stories on my LOCAL nightly news, BACK TO BACK, involving the goodness of surveillance. Some of the problems surveillance might solve may look good at first, but with tyranny being the default state for most of human history, this system looks like an absolute nightmare. The message is surveillance is nothing to worry about. I call horseshit on the engineers bringing this about and that they have seriously miscalculated and should fear the potential consequences (not by me though as I'm no crusader).
What about turning off somebody's credit if they don't support the political party or an unpopular war? And when you realize there is really only one political party, that's pretty scary. I could add a million examples. So can most of us. This system being unveiled -- and I believe it's already built -- looks like a prison to me. The average consumer is the prisoner and very few others without any apparent democratic values are the guards. The only values I can detect is a military style chain of command.
I wonder if this unveiling system is in jeapory of crashing and burning. The engineers will do everything they can psychologically to finesse (force) this right into the open while preventing a panic. And I resent that secrecy.
One good thing here is that Slashdot is starting to allow people to talk about it. I'm disgusted with Slashdot for its manipulative modding practice and making comments disappear. Anybody with their thinking caps on can learn a lot by these actions and what Slashdot really is. The hand has been tipped. You can't put the horse back into the barn. A lot of you folks have a lot of nerve taking an oath to uphold the Constitution and then ignoring it for the number of decades this system has been in production.
what the hell could they think we've been doing since 10 minutes after the first plane struck the towers??
Sitting in a classroom reading books...
Video and screencaps here: http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/bush-911.htm
LOL
Interestingly enough, I find that from the WSJ, the number of wiretaps last year is only at 1,710 in 2004.
;)
But what about the wiretaps that they don't disclose?
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
Brin's "The Kiln People" is a detective novel in such a society. Another plot elements are one-day golems that work for you.
__
Men with no respect for life must never be allowed to control the ultimate instruments of death.
GW Bu
" So, how bad does it have to get before we revolt?"
I lived through the '60s. It was a LOT worse then than it is now.
One big difference: Civil rights for Black folk (or lack thereof). The LAWS were in place but not ENFORCED. Things had been quiet while the first generation went through school (after the previous round of troubles got them in - under federal escort), but as they got to college/job/voting/fighting age they found the doors closed - to jobs, to housing, to voting.
Then a few assasinations and acquittals of cops precipitated riots that literally burned cities. Like the Rodney King thing, but much bigger, and all over the country.
This led to real reforms - in voting, hiring, and housing sales. (And to a welfare system and public school "reforms" that ended up with their victims destroying their OWN families and culture. They're worse off now. But it's not because of institutional barriers any more.)
Another big difference at about the same time: The draft. It avoided a massive reprise of the Great Depression by "Channeling" the Baby Boomers into government-preferred occupational paths via the threat of literally enslaving them for two years and hauling them off to a jungle war.
That was enough to cause escalating major riots - filling the streets - including a march on Washington literally surrounding and besieging the pentagon, multiple bombings of research institutions, more riots, smashing and burning of banks and facilities of other corporations seen as complicit in the war/draft (chemical companies, universities, corporations making military equipment, the monopoly phone company {which collected a war tax}, and so on.)
And it also resulted in lowering the voting age from 21 to 18, dumping a Democratic president for a Republican, ending the war, and ending the draft. And the shooting of college students by National Guardsmen at Kent State University. (Just days after a similar incident at Jackson State - a black college - that you rarely hear about.)
With real reform for the carrot and gunfire into crowds for the stick, the "revolution" moved from the ammo box to the ballot box.
The two formerly oppressed classes (blacks and military-age youth) are now no longer oppressed - at least not to anywhere NEAR the extent they were then. Education is available to those with the will to pursue it. Jobs are open to all comers who have acquired the necessary education and credentials to hold them. The military is voluntary, so college age youth are no longer enslaved. Lynchings of "uppity" blacks are no longer prevalent. And so on.
And the current standard of living, even in the inner cities, is far above that prevalent in the '60s.
What has to happen, in order for some kind of revolution, is that the daily grind for most people has to become such a losing proposition that they would rather march around in the streets instead of go to work that day.
We are SO far from that it's hysterical.
And one of the reasons leftist direct-action revolutionaries (as opposed to those who push for their changes through electoral politics and propaganda) get nowhere is that one of their tactics is to TRY to make things WORSE to "radicalize" the population, in the hopes of precipitating the sort of situation you're describing. But the general population has caught on to this tactic, and rightly ascribes the problems to the actions of the "revolutionaries", not to the government's reaction trying to suppress these crimes.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
At least, they did up until a couple years ago when the company involved got caught selling wiretap into to drug dealers.
The company is run by Israelis, gets financial assistance from the Israeli government - and also sells mass transit video surveillance systems - including the one in the London Underground - which gives them unrestricted access to the video records and the Underground.
Convenient.
Israel has figured out how to spy on everybody - be the country with the companies manufacturing the hardware and software every other country uses to spy on each other. Sheer genius.
It's no wonder that master Israeli spy Raefi Eitan was involved in the DoJ theft of the PROMIS database mining software from the INSLAW corporation. The DoJ gsve it to the NSA, who "modified" it. Later, a copy supposedly ended up in the hands of - wait for it - Osama bin Laden.
Gee, I wonder how that happened...
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
I too am a pretty diehard cynic, so this isn't news to me. That's why I lamented this attitude and suggested what should happen. Do I expect it to? Nope. It's yet another one of the rights that are being hollowed out under the guise of protecting us. It's very clear that the current congress has no interest in truly checking presidential powers, even to a certain degree at the loss of their own. If they truly wanted to do something about it there are numerous issues that could be used to start impeachment. Not all of them are viable, but there certainly seem to be enough to find something that will stick. And that's a problem too, and related to what I was upset about. There are lots of things that are disturbing about the Bush administration and how it has handled a very difficult time for America. There will obviously never be full consensus on going to war, but the way Bush has reacted to and manipulated feelings about 9/11 has been far less than optimal. there is ample evidence that it was wholly a war of choice, that Iraq was a political target that was mostly unrelated to the events of 9/11, that intelligence on WMDs was cherry-picked, that certain threats were overblown to manipulate the public to support the war. The list goes on (torture, renditions, billions unaccounted for, no-bid contracts). One or two isolated incidents could be attributed to mistakes or overzealousness, but as a whole we get a pretty clear picture that this president and administration are really just doing what they want and manipulating whatever they need to to achieve their goals. And because at every step of the way it has been technically legal or plausibly deniable they're getting away with it. At the very least one has to admit that this is probably not the best way to run a government. Even if one supports Bush's goals and policies they can probably agree that there are many things that he's done that are shady or at least questionable and probably could have been acheived in a much more freedom-minded way. Our international relations and world sentiment towards America have gone south with Bush's poll numbers. To ignore and offend our allies is as much a risk for this country in the long run as is ignoring national threats.
Getting back to congress' powers, the delegation to the president to essentially fight a war without declaring a war is again, something that should never have been allowed. Most presidents point to "hundreds" of past incidents of the president authorizing military force without congressional permission, but when one actually looks into the details of these incidents you find that most of them are engaging pirates or manuevers involving 100 or fewer soldiers. I do not deny that the president needs the power to order such MINOR operations without having to explicitly run it through congress, however when we're talking about a major ooperation that involves a massive portion of all branches of the military and is likely to last years (even if we thought it would only take a few weeks, once it became obvious the conflict would last longer it should have been revisited) we need a declaration of war. The president's current feelings about this as expressed in the State of the Union, was basically 'well, right or wrong it's too late to turn back now, I've painted us into a corner and now you have to support my actions.' I don't think that's the approach we should be taking to an international conflict that costs the US hundreds of billions of dollars, lasts for years, and has resulted in the deaths of over 2,000 servicemembers. The congress may have the power to authorize use of force to the president, but by the constitution they cannot delegate away their right to declare war. Again, technically we haven't decalred war, but who can argue that what we're doing isn't a war? Vietnam unfortunately set the nasty precident that such a large and long conflict can be considered not a war, but not all precidents are co
-- I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. It's not my fault that life sucks so much. --
I think the first thing that needs to be changed is that the Senate needs to be changed back to a more dignified "upperhouse" with a serious distinction between that and the HoR.
Thigns changed early last century when they decided to put Senate seats on the ballots. Previous to that the Senate was comprised of delegates from each state's legislature, selected by the legislatures themselves - NOT by the populace.
Most of the time these Senators selected by the state legislatures were ex-governers and statesmen with no political ambition because their political careers were largely on the decline. These were the true professional politicians who were not apt to have knee-jerk reactions to public opinion. They were our republic/proxy part of our democratic-republic and helped prevent mob-populist rule.
I think that having this system revert to the way the Framers intended it would be a good thing for the country.
Libertas in infinitum