States Pass Thousands of Info Restriction Laws

nebaz writes "The AP has published an article analyzing over 1000 laws passed by state legislatures since 9/11, and discovered a disturbing trend. More and more information is being made unavailable to the public. Some of this information may seem reasonable, dealing with national security and all, but there are other things, such as safety plans at schools, medication errors at nursing homes, and disciplinary actions against state employees, that are becoming restricted." From the article: "In statehouse battles, the issue has pitted advocates of government openness - including journalists and civil liberties groups - against lawmakers and others who worry that public information could be misused, whether it's by terrorists or by computer hackers hoping to use your credit cards. Security concerns typically won out."

Comments

privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is it the government can make pretty much anything secret even when it has nothing to do with security, and meanwhile citizens are losing more and more privacy from things like warrantless wiretapping? Bunch of hypocrites.

Re:privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

Ignorance is Strength

Re:privacy

[rbannon]

You said, "Why is it the government can make pretty much . . ."

Damn, you give they have of your labor and you expect to be treated with respect?

Americans need to wake up and realize that the growth of governments is the single biggest threat facing our survival. Need I go on . . .

Re:privacy

[mrmeval]

It has nothing to do with hypocracy and everything to do with corruption and control.

Re:privacy

[antarctican]

Why is it the government can make pretty much anything secret even when it has nothing to do with security, and meanwhile citizens are losing more and more privacy from things like warrantless wiretapping? Bunch of hypocrites.

Because politicians don't like public scrutiny. They suddenly have an excuse to close off access for information which could be used to hold them accountable or embrassass them. They like to make decisions behind closed doors which benefit themselves and their supporters and not have the nosey public interfering, heaven forbid the information could be used to toss them from office.

Up north we're experiencing a similar problem at the federal and provincial (BC) level. Governments which are increasingly becoming more secret in their dealings and contracts - and we don't even have them using security as an excuse! Combine this with an apathetic public which just assumes all government is corrupt and you have a situation where the politicians get away with whatever they please.

It's typical of right-wing governments, they know their agendas mainly benefit a small, elite group despite any rhetoric they may spew. This is why they like secrecy so much, heaven forbid the public actually catch on to the number that's being pulled on them.

The solution is to stop whining and actually become politically active. Our cousins to the south certainly have a bigger battle ahead of them with a two party system where both parties are self-serving groups of individuals with a complete disconnect from the ordinary citizen. But if we continue fighting, in time we can wake the public up to this assault on democracy and freedom.

Re:privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

Because politicians don't like public scrutiny. They suddenly have an excuse to close off access for information which could be used to hold them accountable or embrassass them. They like to make decisions behind closed doors which benefit themselves and their supporters and not have the nosey public interfering, heaven forbid the information could be used to toss them from office.

Well, I agreed with you, until you said that this is typical of "right-wing governments" (implication: left-wing governments don't do this).

"When given a choice between privacy and accountability we always choose privacy for ourselves and accountability for everyone else. This is especially noxious when it's some all-powerful leader making the choice."
  -David Brin

And not just politicians, but lawyers, police, teachers, non-profits, corporations, etc (but only the right-wing ones, right!?)

Re:privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously you've never actually lived in Canada. If the Liberal party is right wing, I'd hate to see what you think is left.

Re:privacy

[osbjmg]

Solid comment... a little proofreading never hurt eh? Another note - Americans, as in North Americans? I think that's pretty ignorant to assume the U.S. comprises all Americans.

Re:privacy

[jacksonj04]

The USA doesn't have "a two party system where both parties are self-serving groups of individuals with a complete disconnect from the ordinary citizen"?

Re:privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

Just as it would be ignorant to believe that Ireland comprises all Irish, that France comprises all French, and that China comprises all Chinese. Things would be so much easier if people just stayed within their own borders.

Re:privacy

[black mariah]

And it's fucking dumb to try to make that point and fuck up on the fact that not all North Americans are from the USA. However, the less pathetically pedantic amongst us know that "Americans" means "Citizens of the United States of America". People from Canada are Canadians. People from Mexico are Mexican. It continues. No other people are "American" so just fucking deal with it you goddamn shithead.

Re:privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

Most politicians do not care about their consituents. They care about themselves, they care about power, they care about staying in power as long as possible. Rarely do they do anything to relinquish that power. Locking up the communications, data, and government plans will further their goal of keeping the people dumb, and promoting their own power plans. And this crosses party lines. If anyone thinks that the left is different, look long and hard at people like Teddy Kennedy or Tom Daschle. Both of those clowns did very little to benefit their constituents. They're backstabbing fools who would do anything to stay in power.

To anyone who thinks the right or the left is better, you've fallen into the media's trap. Look at the history of Rome. Power corrupts from within, and the media is blind to it, as are most people. We're in for a fall, and it's going to be a bad one.

Re:privacy

[Chandon Seldon]

There's a lot of evidence that the system in the United States is exactly like that. What makes you think it isn't?

Re:privacy

[BrynM]

The solution is to stop whining and actually become politically active.

Though you are in many ways correct, that is an idealistic point of view to hold here in the US. To ask a typical american to be "active" for anything sounds too much like work to them. Then come the mental justifications and excuses such as "I don't have time" or "well it really isn't my problem - it's waaaayyy over there". Further, to say "just participate" and not hand someone the tools to do it is a cop-out too many intelligent americans use.

Instead, I've found it's better to encourage people to simply question everything - especially motivation. Then teach them to link up where they were right and be willing to laugh when they are wrong.

For example, someone I knew was addicted to celebrity life and tabloid-ish who's hot and who's not type things. Any mention of politics would get his pat answer: "That may be life, but that's not living. Next Subject." It really bothered me that someone who was intelligent, cynical and funny could be that closed-minded.

So I started pointing out that someone who was getting press in a slow crescendo (ie:"hot pictures" then "shocking scandal" then "heartfelt interview") probably had something like a movie or a book in the works. He eventually began to see when particular celebrity marketing machines were accelerating to generate buzz as well. Finally, he learned that he could apply those observation skills to anything. Today, he loves to talk politics as much as music. (Note: I didn't plan for this, but learned from what was happening over the course of months).

"Question everything" is a cliche for a reason. Good advice is often repeated. Luckily it turns out that people actually like to be sceptical, but most don't know how to do it critically. Once they know how, they can't help but participate in some way.

Re:privacy

[networkBoy]

Vote for me then.
My platform consists of shooting all the corrupt politicians*. The moment I become corrupt I will thus shoot myself :-)
-nB

*not really, my platform is actually "constitutional fundamentalist", though shooting the corrupt politicians is a tempting idea to submit as the new national past time.

Re:privacy

[70Bang]

There are a few times when it's nice to see someone representing the executive branch get nailed. The affiliates got a lot of airplay about this until the punishment was doled out. What the PI did was film the cop's car over his dashboard so the speed could be seen real-time. The cop must have been one of the finest available. He didn't notice someone sitting on his immediate right bumper for a lengthy distance.

Unfortunately, that's an extreme. There's nothing like driving one of our interstates at the speed limit (70mph) and see someone with a couple of [unlit] strobes and silent sirens cruising along at 80+.

Here in Indy, 465 is like a public race track betwixt races. With three lanes, there's the occasional opportunity to have a cop trapped behind you in the leftmost lane doing 55mph (the speed limit) and the other two lanes aren't going to give them room, either. I'll frequently keep going instead of worrying about my exit just to pace and know it's got to be killing them to do 55. If they want to kick the lights & siren on, there'll likely be a check (by moi) as to whether they really had an emergency.

Re:privacy

[Susceptor]

Its easy. You are a big company lobbyist. You go give your favorate senator a "donation", and he discovers the importance of keeping your companies dirty secrets, secret. All of the sudden, your company is protected for national security reasons. presto.

Re:privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

The founding fathers realized this and tried to make a government that would last as long as possible given the time they had.

The Bill of Rights is the equivalent of a color-coded threat warning for oppression. Regardless of the debate on each of those rights, they specifically laid out the terms. By the time the articles can no longer protect the citizens, it will no longer be the same government.

Re:privacy

[TapeCutter]

The only difference is the reaction, the right-wingers kick your arse and take your money, the left wingers take your money and lock you up for re-Nedification. I'm nearly 50 and still haven't worked out which is worse.

Re:privacy

[Woldry]

"Question everything"? Why? ;-)

Re:privacy

[jacksonj04]

My bad, didn't twig that parent was from Canada and thus thought they were talking about South America.

Re:privacy

[rben]

Because politicians don't like public scrutiny. They suddenly have an excuse to close off access for information which could be used to hold them accountable or embrassass them. They like to make decisions behind closed doors which benefit themselves and their supporters and not have the nosey public interfering, heaven forbid the information could be used to toss them from office.

Exactly right.

Democracy can't work in secrecy. In terms of government information, the only thing that absolutely must remain secret is who you voted for at the ballot box. Everything else should be weighed very carefully.

While there are some legitimate security concerns over some information, you don't have to think too hard to find excuses to classify anything you want to cover up. Don't want people to know you planned on invading Iraq all along? Classify it. Want to keep the public from learning about mistakes and coruption in the new Homeland Security Department? Eliminate whistleblower protection laws and classify the reports that reveal mistakes.

We could take the easy out and blame this all on President Bush who seems reluctant to hear anything he doesn't want to hear. Certainly, he has plenty of faults and seems to do a worse job every day. We could blame a flawed election system that allowed the Supreme Court to appoint Bush President in 2000 and left us wondering about the mistmatch between poll results and voting results in key states in 2004. But the real blame belongs squarely on the shoulders of the American Public. Because, to tell the truth, we've sent a clear message that we value security, even false security, over freedom. We don't want to question our election process, because we're afraid we'll find out that we've been manipulated all along and never really had a voice. We want to continue on in our energy guzzling lifestyles no matter how many Americans and foreign nationals have to die to insure the flow of that oil.

If reading this makes you angry and you want to scream out at me that I'm wrong, then good! Do something to demonstrate that I'm an idiot. Call your congressional representatives. Yell at them. Vote in every election like it matters, because it does. Get involved in the political system and take it back. Insist that talking about politics at parties isn't rude, it's vital to protecting our way of life. Get outraged about our complacency, which is destroying the values the Constitution was set up to protect.

Re:privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

They can't. First, no law can be made that superceeds the Constitution unless it is a constitutional ammendment. If it is not a constitutional amendment and the law comes into conflict with the constitution, then the constitution prevails. The problem is, those in power have gotten too powerful and nobody who is loyal to the people will challange them. Many of the new laws are "gangster like" in nature. As a government employee, I can tall you there are a lot of hidden agendas, "criminal like" activities and waste of tax dollars. Many of these activities are made into laws, and so are supported by the courts. For example, A contractor sues a customer because they refused to pay for the work done. Although the contractor has over 20 years of experience and a good history, the court dismisses the case because the contractor is not licensed (A way for the government to get a piece of the pie and serves no other function). Unlicensed contractors do not have the privy of the courts. Courts are not interested in justice, just the laws as they are writen (except when a judge does not like it and decides to ignore it always in fovor of government).

Re:privacy

[LilGuy]

Hate is Love. Death is Life.

Lets have our 5 minutes of hate now.

Re:privacy

[tom's a-cold]

Then come the mental justifications and excuses such as "I don't have time" or "well it really isn't my problem - it's waaaayyy over there".

"I don't have time" is often the truth. I am politically active. I also work, on average, 70 hours per week and have a family. The sad reality is that my activism is constrained by available time, and there are a lot of enthusiastic, underworked idiots who devote far more time to politics than I can. That's (for example) how school boards get taken over by creationists: it's the most important thing in the zealots' lives but the balanced, sane people have other priorities. One of the reasons for those different priorities is that the US economic system is such that there is strong pressure to work more hours than is healthy.

Instead, I've found it's better to encourage people to simply question everything - especially motivation.

No matter how much your friends question it, other people's motivation is generally unknowable. For all that I can truthfully say, George W Bush may be a sincere man striving to do good for the American people. But if so, it doesn't matter, since the objective result of his actions is no different than if he were a dimwitted, vainglorious popinjay surrounded by unscrupulous cronies (a possibility that is far from unlikely). For this reason, questioning motives does little but drives people into unproductive ad hominem namecalling. Better instead to question the consequences, and the difference between the stated rationale for an action and what will happen if it's carried out. Whether those differences are because of hypocrisy, lack of foresight or a disciplined but faulty analysis process are of no consequence.

Asking who benefits and who suffers from a decision is another good line of inquiry. Sometimes that will provide strong circumstantial evidence of motivation, but never discount the role of "useful fools" in history.

Re:privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not?

Re:privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, because clearly Canadians are stupid and unworthy of your time. Keep forgetting about the rest of the world, and then, when the rest of the world forgets about you, you won't have any recourse.

Remember: We're bigger than you.

Re:privacy

[ultranova]

Why is it the government can make pretty much anything secret even when it has nothing to do with security, and meanwhile citizens are losing more and more privacy from things like warrantless wiretapping?

The Government has nukes. Citizens don't.

Besides, the government is made from the financial elite, and such individuals wield great power in a semi-capitalistic society even without being politicians and being able to use the US Army to enforce their will.

Or, to put it in other words: In Imperial America, the government watches you !

Kinda makes you wonder if the tea tax was really worth a rebellion...

Re:privacy

[WoodieR]

not hypocrites ... fascists.

Irony...

[dshaw858]

Headline: "Politics: States Pass Thousands of Info Restriction Laws"
Slashdot: "Nothing for you to see here, please move along"

Re:Irony...

[ginotech]

It's disturbing to realize that its ironic for most slashdot articles today...

You know what sucks?

[Anonymous Coward]

Crowdism.

Re:You know what sucks?

[Anonymous Coward]

But not as much as Anonymous Cowardism

Thousands of laws?

[McShazbot]

Thousands of laws? Um, not quite. From the article:

Legislatures have passed more than 1,000 laws changing access to information

and later in the article:

States passed 616 laws that restricted access -- to government records, databases, meetings and more -- and 284 laws that loosened access. Another 123 laws had either a neutral or mixed effect

The article is informative, and the actual data is compelling enough without going chicken little in the /. headline. . .

Re:Thousands of laws?

[aussie_a]

Perhaps he meant American thousands? Just as an American billion is actually quite a small number (when compared with a real billion), perhaps American thousands suffer from the same plight ;)

Re:Thousands of laws?

[msobkow]

"The great trend out there - that sweeps across any record - is privacy," said Charles Davis at the Freedom of Information Center in Missouri. "There's a push by government that every time Joe Citizen's name is mentioned in a government document, it's an inherent threat to Joe Citizen's privacy if that document is released."

Sounds like they may be misunderstanding the intent of the information privacy laws. Personal information is to be secured and not released to anyone without an audit record. A clerk brings up your medical file -- it gets audited. Some cop brings up your license info on a remote terminal -- the access is audited.

That personal information should never be available to third parties without the express and explicit consent of the individual or their guardian. That does not mean there is a problem with providing aggregate data/reports that are too broad to identify individuals.

Re:Thousands of laws?

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, government profits off both "loosening" and "tightening". That is their business. When employing coercion as your means to your end, there is no "correct" or "ideal" level of coercion. (Of course, "none" is unacceptable.) What this boils down to is that government profits off everything it gets its hands on, even outright failures like Amtrak. When you're spending other people's money, you can't lose.

Re:Thousands of laws?

[slavemowgli]

616 + 284 + 123 = 1023 > 1000. The article talks about "more than 1,000 laws changing access" (emphasis mine), not about 1,000 laws restricting access.

Of course, the overall trend is still pretty obvious...

Re:Thousands of laws?

[larry bagina]

The slashdot title: "States Pass Thousands of Info Restriction Laws."

Thousands (plural) means more than 2,000. Reality is, 616 of the laws restricted information - a net change of 332 new information restricting laws.

Re:Thousands of laws?

[bcmg150]

I personally blame Carl Sagan for the deflation in the American Billion.

Re:Thousands of laws?

[Bad D.N.A.]

Thousands (plural) means more than 2,000. Reality is, 616 of the laws restricted information - a net change of 332 new information restricting laws.

Accuracy like this just gives geeks a bad name

Re:Thousands of laws?

[r_jensen11]

I think it was more in terms of quantities of WMD's. I swear, I'm going to make that a counting unit by the end of the decade.

Re

[Alex P Keaton in da]

Something that bothers me:
Social security numbers being used for ID. I thought it was, when social security was enacted, against the law for social security numbers to be used for anything else besides social security.
I also hate that companies make many millions selling info about me- credit bureaus and such. And then the credit bureaus want to sell me a service to watch for errors they may make. I would like info about me to be private, unless I choose to disclose it.
What a joke. I just feel like sometimes we double dead bolt the front door and install a state of the art security system on the front door, and leave the back door wide open....

Re:Re

[LeonGeeste]

Agree and disagree. If Congress created the SSN with the specific condition that no business ever use it as a way of identifying someone (which they did, and which people violate routinely), they need to put a stop to this. But I seriously doubt it would help the problem that you describe. If the SSN weren't around, credit agencies would just create a different unique identifier that they would all share, and it would be just as hard to take out a loan or hide from a credit record. Asking that lenders make loans with no clue who you are or what your history of paying back load is, creates a huge adverse selection problem. Not that you were advocating this but someone always suggests that in such discussions.

You're of course right that they need to better protect this, but my question is, why hasn't competition between lenders and between credit reporters sorted this out already?

Re:Re

[Alex P Keaton in da]

I agree with your point- especialy because, due to the fact that I am anal about money, I have a very high credit score.
What really, really bothers me is that I have to pay to see my credit score. I have to pay for information that is floating around about me.(For those of you who haven't checked it out, the free credit report you get every year does not include your score). And what really irritates me, are those ads that say that for only $19.95 per month, the credit bureau will monitor your score and let you know if they make a mistake!!!
It gives me a great business idea for programmers- For only 19.95 per month, we will let you know when we make an error writing code!

Re:Re

[__aaahtg7394]

why hasn't competition between lenders and between credit reporters sorted this out already?

You'd need real competition, in a real free-ish market for that. Sadly, neither of these are really free markets anymore.

Credit reports are handled by under five companies. This makes sense, as you want to minimize the amount of actual work you have to do when you want to check someone's credit. Unfortunately, it creates an oligopoloy. This is, in my humble opinion, the single worst market for the people. With a truly open market, egregious abuse is handled by the market. In a monopoly, the government is willing to step in to push gently against egregious abuse. But with an oligopoly, the goverment doesn't want to step in, yet there isn't really enough of a market to eliminate people. So, you can effectively collude without communicating directly: you only have to watch the market's reactions to other people, and use that as a gauge for your own moves. If everyone plays this right, each will take turns pushing the envelope, testing a little bit further.

It's a brilliant use of a non-obvious information channel.

Lenders are increasingly in the same sort of environment: you have a lot of little banks and credit unions left, but the majority of the market is locked up in these giant new interstate banks. They don't have quite as tight a hold as an oligopoly would, but it's damned close. People put up with the absurd fees at their bank in large part because they know that, no matter what bank they go to, they're going to get screwwed about equally.

Personally, i do all my banking with credit unions. The people are nicer, the rates are better, the fees are reasonable, and, at the end of the year, if any money was made, i get a few bucks of it thrown into my account. Which i move into my "share" account: the savings account that determines how much of the credit union i own.

Re:Re

[LeonGeeste]

In that case, what do you think about Wal-mart's plan to offer financial services? Will it further cartelize banking, or offer real competition?

ben franklin

[jollyroger1210]

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

so true

Re:ben franklin

[whereiswaldo]

"All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing."

Freedom of Speech

[michaelhood]

Freedom of Speech isn't very useful when you no longer know what to say.

Re:Freedom of Speech

[omegashenron]

Freedom of speech is useless anyway - before freedom of speech you need a free education in order to have something intelligent to say and before freedom of speech you need free healthcare to be able to live long enough to be heard.

What good is freedom of speech if you are restricted anyway... eg defamation laws and I remember reading a paper which said in Oakland, a secret service officer had a talk with students who suggested that someone should take bush out.

Freedom of speech is a concept that is touted by politicians to win elections because "freedom" has an emotional connection for a lot of people. The only other time that "freedom of speech" is important is when the US wants to use it to attack it's enemies... "they are bad because they don't allow freedom of speech"

If you play the general argument of "freedom of speech but within the law", you can say that all countries have free speech so what is so important about it?

Re:Freedom of Speech

[rossifer]

you need a free education in order to have something intelligent to say

You're radically overstating the value of formal education, let alone publically provided formal education. To counter what appears to be a serious reality distortion field in your vicinity, I suggest you look up the definition of autodidact.

Libraries, my family's bookshelves, and now the internet have provided me more education than any public school ever did. BTW, my definition for autodidact: someone who hasn't had the hunger for learning burned out of them by public schooling.

you need free healthcare to be able to live long enough to be heard

Yeah, cause in the US, where almost everyone has to pay for their healthcare, nobody lives to be thirty. No wait, that's not right either...

Your arguments seem to put a lot of responsibility for your fundamental abilities on other people (teachers and medical professionals in these two sentences alone). I suggest you look inward and attempt to build up an ability to speak for yourself without all the external scaffolding. At least at that point, you'll be certain that what you're saying is all yours.

Regards,
Ross

Re:Freedom of Speech

[omegashenron]

Libraries, my family's bookshelves, and now the internet have provided me more education than any public school ever did. BTW, my definition for autodidact: someone who hasn't had the hunger for learning burned out of them by public schooling.

I would like to see you enter the job market with the "I taught myself" mentality - yes it has worked for some who have formed their own companies and been in the right place at the right time, however for anything you say to be taken seriously, you need to back yourself up with some form of credentials. Secondly, the last time I checked they did not have a public-use lab at any of the places you mentioned (computer lab does not count) not to mention adequate access to scientific journals (larger public libraries do, however nowhere near the range offered at most tertiary institutions) Thirdly, it is far harder to get a research grant acting as an individual.

You are right, it is a stretch with the healthcare argument, however I am still mad about when my cousin broke his arm in the US and before a doctor would even look at this screaming kid, my Aunt handle insurance details - that attitude is inhumane and inexcusable.

I suggest you look inward and attempt to build up an ability to speak for yourself without all the external scaffolding. At least at that point, you'll be certain that what you're saying is all yours. The "external scaffolding" you talk about must also include the books at your library and beloved internet. There is no need to re-invent the wheel.

At the end of the day, I just wanted to say that the US isn't as great as it is cracked up to be - the year that I lived there really opened my eyes up as to how my own country is way better and the only reason that I would ever return (to the US) is to see my family (grandparents etc).

Re:Freedom of Speech

[Woldry]

publically provided formal education ... libraries

While I agree with your general point about formal education, I think it bears pointing out that virtually all libraries that are accessible to the general public are publicly provided. Not formal, perhaps, but definitely tax-supported, at least in the United States. There are rare exceptions (I used to work for one.) The same could be said, probably, for much of the information and infrastructure that allows you to educate yourself using the Internet. These facts don't invalidate your point about self-education, of course, but it's important to remember that the government has grown so pervasive that even the most principled libertarian will find it very difficult to avoid sucking a little at the public teat these days.

Also, on a different note, the information in libraries (and on the Internet, of course) is one of the things the governments are cracking down on. I currently work in a library which is in a community near a nuclear power plant. About a year ago officials from the state version of FEMA came and removed the "Emergency Response Plan" from the library -- the one that gives recommendations and guidance for fire departments, police, hospitals, and so on, telling them what to do in case of a serious accident at the plant. They told us that the information was "no longer public information." And our administration willingly complied, over the objections of the staff. What distressed me most was that one of the things in that plan was the public evacuation routes -- the ones the citizenry should follow to minimize traffic jams and to be best able to avoid the areas directly downwind of the plant.

I don't know about you, but after seeing the way the first responders responded during Katrina, I'm not about to trust our local officials to remember to inform the general populace about how to handle such an emergency.

Re:Freedom of Speech

[rossifer]

I would like to see you enter the job market with the "I taught myself" mentality - yes it has worked for some who have formed their own companies and been in the right place at the right time, however for anything you say to be taken seriously, you need to back yourself up with some form of credentials.

So, unless I provide you some form of concrete identity, you won't believe that each year, thousands upon thousands of highly gifted people find fulfilling work and lives after dropping out of high school? Why not look it up for yourself and stop making my point for me?

As for my story, I acquired a diploma from a public high school, and earned a bachelor's degree from a state university, then started learning most of the skills I use in my day-to-day work. Since then, I've started two companies (a consulting firm and a web-services company), both of which were profitable from day one.

On the other hand, my fiance dropped out of high school, completed her GED, got an associate's degree, a teaching credential, a bachelor's degree, a master's degree, and is now working on the dissertation of her PhD. After high school, she paid the tuition for all of that being a elementary school teacher, tutor, etc. (well, I'm paying for the Ph.D., but it's our money). She started being an effective autodidact long before I did...

Secondly, the last time I checked they did not have a public-use lab at any of the places you mentioned (computer lab does not count) not to mention adequate access to scientific journals (larger public libraries do, however nowhere near the range offered at most tertiary institutions) Thirdly, it is far harder to get a research grant acting as an individual.

Did you think I argued that self-learners avoid universities? You didn't read the Wikipedia article I linked to. Universities are very important and useful to lots of kinds of people, autodidacts included. As an aside, an autodidact probably won't get the same thing as someone attending because their parents expect them to and are footing the bill...

Most importantly, universities (1) aren't freely provided and (2) you don't need to attend one in order to have a political identity or express a political opinion (i.e. attending a university only contradicts the original post, not my rebuttal).

At the end of the day, I just wanted to say that the US isn't as great as it is cracked up to be - the year that I lived there really opened my eyes up as to how my own country is way better and the only reason that I would ever return (to the US) is to see my family (grandparents etc).

You may be suprised to find that my family and I are looking to emigrate from the US in the next few years and we're not alone. Personally, I'm not all that happy with recent trends in this country and I don't think I'll be able to influence things for the better. There's a lot of talk about liberty and freedom around here, but less and less actual liberty and freedom every year. I want to leave while I'm still able to, but there are a few responsibilities I need to take care of first.

Regards,
Ross

Re:Freedom of Speech

[rossifer]

I think it bears pointing out that virtually all libraries that are accessible to the general public are publicly provided. Not formal, perhaps, but definitely tax-supported, at least in the United States.

You are, of course, completely correct. However, I wasn't arguing against tax-supported institutions, just observing that the "free" public education system in the US isn't the best or only way to learn enough to participate in our democracy.

The original argument was that you can't exercise free speech without a free education... Which has been thoroughly rebutted.

Regards,
Ross

propaganda

[PipoDeClown]

we have to find a way to draw all attention from usa back to china or russia again.

Re:propaganda

[omegashenron]

You mean by using the more effective, 24-hour propaganda machine suggested by Rumsfeld which is paying journalists to write favorably about the US and it's war effort?

I wonder how much propaganda the US is involved in domestically and in other regions around the world and I really think organisations such as RSF (reporters without borders) should do more to discourage it - no wonder reporters are always getting locked up.

There are two sides to every story and NO news source ever presents both, everyone has an agenda.

Re:propaganda

[HermanAB]

No need to wonder, just tune in to CNN and VOA.

Re:propaganda

[smitingpurpleemu]

So it got out that the US does what every occupying power does when it takes over a country? It truly does not surprise me that the US has a propaganda machine working in Iraq, and it shouldn't surprise anyone.

Re:propaganda

[omegashenron]

what every occupying power does when it takes over a country
It's just the hypocrisy that I don't like... eg. The whole China and free press thing... How does the US expect international support when they can't even practice what they preach. I just get the feeling that most of US foreign policy is complete and utter bullshit... Bush & Co really need to show less of an international presence and concentrate more on domestic issues, at least then they wont be screwing up the world.

1983?

[jimktrains]

Lately the ignorance and stupidity of the populace and governments has started to bother me. All the stupid patents, stupid laws, stuff that is suppose to be good, but is implement horrible (read: welfare and the new prescriptions drug thing for seniors, for starters). There is no need for the government to pass many of the laws it does, and I think that this makes good examples of the government making laws that are suppose to help people but do more harm, but what can a citizen do if no one else cares (or do other people care, and I not know these people, equally possible)?

Re:1983?

[Anonymous Coward]

1983? 1983??? Please hand in your geek credentials by monday morning.

Re:1983?

[voice_of_all_reason]

You dumbass, he was implying that we're on the brink of an Orwellian world.

Re:1983?

[Concerned Onlooker]

welfare and the new prescriptions drug thing for seniors, for starters

Well, you started out good there but these two examples are really nothing. Sure, lots of people aren't happy about funding welfare but that's just money crap. It all pales in comparison to the really dangerous issues and laws that this administration is working on. Bush wants to make it illegal (punishable as terrorism!) for reporters to write about the illegal things that the government does. If that does not scare the hell out of people then I begin to conclude that people don't really cherish freedom of expression and freedom from repression. Look around. In history who are the people crushing freedom of the press? Yes, generally it's tyrants.

Re:1983?

[jimktrains]

I was stating a concreate example of where the government didn't do something the correct way. I understand that it doens't map to the issue, just amking the case that the government is incompetent.

Re:1983?

[quanticle]

Hear that? That was the sound of the grandparent's point sailing above your head.

He's mentioned 1983 deliberately, because, while things aren't as bad as 1984 yet they're on their way to becoming that way.

Police State In Construction?

[Anonymous Coward]

The US and the UK seem more and more to be a police state in development. Look at this video that shows evidence supporting that: http://revradio.org/movies/ml.wmv

Re:Police State In Construction?

[__aaercy5451]

142 MB!! I don't have time to wait 15 minutes.

He who gives up his liberty...

[alexhs]

... in the name of security, deserves neither, and loses both. -- Thomas Jefferson (*)

These laws are hardly surprising in that light...

(*) misquoted, I'm getting different wordings for every page quoting it, and it is sometimes attributed to Benjamin Franklin.

Re:He who gives up his liberty...

[SeeMyNuts!]

Thomjamin Frefferson said it, originally, but his multiple personality disorder confused biographers as to who they were actually writing about.

Re:He who gives up his liberty...

[Anonymous Coward]

Keep in mind, in the wording of this phrase (which actually would make sense for a crafter of a government to utter, unlike some other reported versions) treats liberty as a whole. So, this is not giving up a portion of liberty, it is giving away ALL of your liberty. As such, it does not speak to this current topic.

Educated people need to start spreading the truth

[lowell]

about whats going on with Federal and State govs and not buying the "its for your own good" as being an exceptable answer as to why TYRANNY is ruling the land here in the USA. If restricting FREEDOM and INFORMATION is the answer then our ELECTED officials must have asked the wrong question.

Vote the sorry bastards out and start electing real live humans to political offices not these morons we have now. Start with campaign funding reform. For the love of all thats good and pure do something. Dont let these SOB run this once great land into the ground.

please sign st911 petition

[rattler14]

The scholars for 9/11 truthbelieve this is no mere coincidence. Through analysis of the physics, it has been concluded that WTC7 fell in a manner not consistent with a "pancake" theory. They are asking for full access to the evidence (photos, video, etc) that NIST used in their report to either support or rebut these claims. So even if you think they are "conspiracy nuts", the release of these documents would prove them wrong... so do it. Sign the petition :) Yes, I expect to be vehemently attacked. But whatever. What good is karma if you can't speak your true beliefs!

Re:please sign st911 petition

[Anonymous Coward]

We all know it was the Bush administration that took the buildings down before the evil Jews that secretly control all the banks and real money in the world could destroy them just to blame the Muslims for it. Check out some of the news about children's eyes that the Isralies are stealing from palestinian children if you want to know how evil these folks are.

I guess in the usual fashion the Bush plan to destroy the towers before the Jews could blame it on the Muslims didn't really work that well. Anyway, we all know who was really behind it.

Re:please sign st911 petition

[Corbu Mulak]

"Anyway, we all know who was really behind it."

Yeah, those damn Grays!

Re:please sign st911 petition

[Cheapy]

Aliens? I thought it was the Mossad!

Re:please sign st911 petition

[MightyYar]

I actually prefer Penn & Teller's take on the issue:

Linked at this blog

Security?

[MarkusQ]

medication errors at nursing homes,...disciplinary actions against state employees, that are becoming restricted...worry that public information could be misused, whether it's by terrorists or by computer hackers hoping to use your credit cards. Security concerns typically won out.

Oh come on, security is not what they are concerned about.

In fact, I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of cases when a politician says that something must be kept secret "for national security reasons" they are really telling that the information would embarrass (or incriminate) them or their political allies. It's about as dumb as saying "I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you." Or the philanderers who tell their spouse that they are secret agents working under deep cover for the NSA.

For that matter, the whole idea of "security through obscurity" is flawed. Secret emergency plans for schools? What in the heck is the point of having a plan if nobody is allowed to know what it is?

--MarkusQ

Those who ignore history...

[Anonymous Coward]

http://eserver.org/thoreau/civil.html

~Gildas

FOIA'd computer software?

[Kreldon]

Given the propensity of state and federal government to want to classify anything and everything under the sun as "sensitive security information" (or some such arbitrary bullshit), I have to wonder how long it'll be before computer source code currently available under FOIA or its state equivalent (i.e. Veteran Affairs' VistA health informatics software) is also classified that way.

(Has anyone ever FOIA'd their state government for in-house software to look at?)

Re:FOIA'd computer software?

[iminplaya]

Has anyone ever FOIA'd their state government for in-house software to look at?

Yes...well, kind of

Obligatory Chomsky

[michaelhood]

"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate." Noam Chomsky

How the govt/military views the world

[zephc]

If you want a good insight on how the military and the current administration views the world, I suggest reading about Tom Barnett. There's an interview at http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.a sp?ID=16779

There's a video of a talk he gave via CSPAN from a June 2004 at http://theconspiracy.us/CSPAN/ has the video in XviD format (can someone torrent this?)

Re:How the govt/military views the world

[Phrack]

Uh, re-read Tom Barnett. And check his blog entries. The Pentagon is just as focused on "Great Power War" and resulting budgetary requirements (F22 and other like nifty but hugely expensive hardware) as it ever has. The administration, while willing to use the Leviathan force, completely fails in the SysAdmin role.

Congress is still the bigger problem. The administration cannot create new law.

No Hypocrites Here

[doublem]

It's not about being fair, but about maintaining control.

It's the best interest of those in power to ensure they can keep a tight lid on everything, while demanding every aspect of the the citizens' lives be exposed to government review and scrutiny.

Remember, your rights and life mean nothing to the government, except as grist for the money mill.

Problem...

[C10H14N2]

"Educated people" think these things are in their interest.

No matter how idiotic one side seems to be on an issue, it's counter-productive to boil it down to ignorance vs. education, intelligence vs. stupidity, because often, you're arguing with educated, intelligent people who have different values and interests. How many times has the argument about state-sponsored [X] come down to: only stupid people find anything of value in socialism and only an ignorant person would think that socialism is inherently bad. So, then we move on to good vs. evil and all that non-sense.

IMHO the problem is idealism in general. The Left (in the USA) has become LESS idealistic than it used to be--which is actually a GOOD thing, in theory--while The Right has become outright militant in its idealism. Unfortunately, it's rather hard to fight popular, militant idealism with pragmatism...but that may change as people tire of these fights and simply want things to be functional. We may see that as early as November.

Secrecy and Shame

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want to know why so many things are secrets now, listen to this week's edition of This American Life, entitled "Habeus Schmabeus".

It's brilliant radio--interviews with former Gitmo detainees included--presenting evidence that most of the people apprehended and fucked over by the US government are guilty of absolutely nothing, and are being held, still...because if their stories were widely known, even the 1/3 of Americans who still love their Bush would be utterly appalled at what The Land of the Free has turned into under this bastard.

It's secret, and they're imprisoned, to save his face and save him some shame. The local laws are just the same crap on a less horrific scale.

Actually the terrorists have won

[Anonymous Coward]

security is not what they are concerned about.

Actually it is, the US is losing a war. Terrorism works by introducing more laws and more police-state actions on the target population. The terrorists really are winning, but the US government is too arrogant to see it. They are more concerned about new bombs and bodycounts as predictors of victory.

John Boyd the military strategist stated that one of the most important underpinnings of war is morality. To beat a country morally you have to morally isolate it. Look how morally isolated the US is now. It is selfish (communal safety trumps individual freedom) and they violate the rules of behaviour they profess to uphold. The US doesn't have a moral leg to stand on.

Re:Actually the terrorists have won

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, I remember how Donald Rumsefeld comes out every day to give us the total number of terrorists killed so far... oh wait, he doesn't. In fact, the DoD has been trying to stay as far away from bodycounts as possible. Strangely, the emphasis seems to be on things such as elections and constitutions and infrastructure as measures of success.

Let's see, when was the last time body counts were the way the DoD measured a war's success? Why, it was Vietnam. Someone needs to check his clock and make sure that it's plugged in. You may also want to know that in the thiry years you have been absent from this world "free love" has died due to a little thing called AIDS. I suggest you get yourself tested.

And when did the US ever try to beat anyone "morally?" What were we dropping out of those flying fortresses anyway? Bibles? Did we build soup kitchens in Nagasaki to get Japan to surrender? Was that Habitat for Humanity we sent in to Latin America to contain Communism? I'm confused by this utopian vision of a by-gone age where the US didn't get its hands dirty or act selfishly in order to get where it is today.

And psst... did you know that we lost the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, World War I, and World War II because the government introduced new laws and police state actions on the population? We almost lost the Mexican War, but fortunately Congress still kept that standing army small! Unfortunately, the Spanish completely massacred us in the Spanish-American war by making us an empire.

Maybe I should have said "enlightened people.....

[lowell]

as in enlightened to the fact that this country has been hijacked by its elected leaders.

Why all these laws?

[iminplaya]

When all they have to do is copyright everything. Hey, it works for Scientology. If everything like the weather service and map makers, etc. goes private, then IP law will have more teeth than those against murder and rape. It won't be long before a freedom of information request becomes a DMCA violation. If that doesn't work, then all you need to do is scream "terrorist!" at anyone who dares to question the authority of the gov't. Y'all let me know when you wake up from your slumber and start to vote these bums out of office. The change has to come from your own selves. Until you take action, you will find that this is only the beginning. "You aint seen nuttin yet."

There's a Very Easy Solution to This

[Black Copter Control]

I'd tell it to you but then I'd end up in jail.

Some things shouldn't be open source

[Anonymous Coward]

>>safety plans at schools

Some things should *not* be open sourced. One of those nearest and dearest to me would be the safety plans for my kids' schools.

Re:Some things shouldn't be open source

[Ruie]

>>safety plans at schools

Some things should *not* be open sourced. One of those nearest and dearest to me would be the safety plans for my kids' schools.

So how much do you trust the competence of people who created those plans ?

Re:Some things shouldn't be open source

[Reziac]

Not only that, but without access to said plans, how do you expect to find your own kid in the event of an actual emergency??

And how would you know if the plans might actually put kids in more danger than if there was no plan at all?

Realworld example of some years back: fire escape plans that sent kids out onto a busy main street, rather than toward quieter side streets.

ISTM such screwups are far more likely than any hypothetical use of said plans by a (OMG!!) Terrorist or Child Molester, or whatever is this week's Official FUD.

US Gov in Violation of Sec. 802 of Patriot act

[lowell]

ie. Bird Flu, SARS, whatever...

SEC. 802. DEFINITION OF DOMESTIC TERRORISM.

                `(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;

                `(B) appear to be intended--
                        `(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
                        `(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
                        `(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and

                `(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.'.

Voltaire

[Millenniumman]

A witty saying proves nothing.

Re:Voltaire

[strider44]

Your witty saying doesn't disprove his point either. A witty saying just gets the point across quickly and efficiently with a bit of entertainment on the side. You might have well made a post saying "Look over there, a cow! Therefore his statement is wrong."

Re:Voltaire

[Millenniumman]

Look over there, a cow! Therefore your statement is wrong.

Simulacrum

[digitalextremist]

The question is not concerns over security.

The discussion is the clarity of our view of reality as it actually is.

I for one don't particularly care what a group which claims authority judges to be law if it does not coincide with how reality works.

Truth frees. End of discussion. Bring all the legislation you want, doesn't change the fact or destract actual truth seekers. Not in the least.

No human will decide what I will or will not know if I decide to get involved. It's that simple. Decree away 'government'

Mod up

[Anonymous Coward]

Humanity itself is flawed. We are greedy violent creatures that the political elite, both left and right, deny exist. Yet we carry on in a manner that exemplifies our animalistic ways. The main two political sides in the US are delusional and deny this. You have the delusional right who believe in a galactic good versus evil and define conservative as "how much money will it make me?". On the delusional left you have belief in cultural & monetary evil and the underlying goodness of humanity followed by a snobbish cultural marxism which believes that anyone and everyone should be welcomed with open arms.

Obligatory /.

[CHESTER COPPERPOT]

"The smart way to keep /.'ers passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable stories, but allow very lively debate within those stories - even encourage the more critical and dissident views by modding up. That gives /.'ers the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the time the fanboy conjecture of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the discussion." Cowboy Nealsky

Restricted IQ's

[Anonymous Coward]

Just thinking in the digital age is a danger. The gov't must dumb everybody down in order to maintain control.

What?!? Our govt is poor on civil liberties??

[tji]

What a shocker.

There was an interesting article in Newsweek this week, describing how the 9/11 commission recommended an oversight board to make sure the government was protecting our civil liberties.

It was set up in December 2004, but the board has never hired a staff or had a meeting.

So, yeah.. Our government really takes civil liberties seriously..

The article is available at: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11677336/site/newsweek /

The important thing to remember

[KarmaOverDogma]

when it comes to information that certain people don't want you to know is that there are often many ways to get it, if enough people are interested, or if it is important enough

It's very much a cliche, but information wants to be free. The problem here is the increasing difficulty with which certain kinds of legitimate 'right-to-know' information can be obtained legally.

It's a sad fact that most people pay less attention to state politics than federal, assuming that they pay any attention at all. I am very interested, but media typically gives it less attention, unless there's somebody who was killed or something along those lines that makes us feel even less in control than we alreday are. I have to listen to alternative news often to get any depth at all (NPR, state news channel, etc).

The best I can see us really doing here is paying closer attention to goings ons, and most of have neither the time or inclination for it (present company probably excluded, of course).

Exactly what laws?

[pingveno]

Are these particular closings of government information (which could include such things as personal records) related to an essential liberty? How many of these laws are for privacy, how many are for protection of essential infrastructure, etc.? Numbers can be twisted around to mean a lot of different things; only an in-depth look can really tell you.

Here is all you need to know about this:

[Lokni]

There will not be an election in 2008, and the United States will slide into a form of dictatorship. And there is PLENTY of evidence for this if you open your eyes and do some reading. Did you know that there is new legislation about to be passed that makes it a felony for any newspaper/journalist to publish a story about FISA, or about GWB's wiretapping program? That same legislation also makes it legal for the NSA to continue to spy on American citizens without a warrant, at any time, for up to 45 days, for ANY reason. Do you feel secure in your government not using it for improper purposes? If your answer to that was yes, you seriously need to read up on Nixon and why FISA was created in the first place. To add insult to injury, this new law also retroactively protects the government upto the date when President GWB began the warrantless wiretap program. So despite the fact that Bush broke FISA as well as the Constitution, Congress is giving him a get out of jail free card. I could go on for days... just look at it this way, if you get most of your news from CNN, Fox News or any network news, you are getting about 25% of the story with all of the details just glossed over. If you care about the United States of America, you would be wise to find a different news source other than the ones owned by billionaires.

Re:Here is all you need to know about this:

[Anonymous Coward]

Here is another great one that was posted by the New York Times yesterday: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/11/national/11terro r.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin Imagine being charged with a crime, but the evidence is classified, the judge's rulings are classified, and the government's response to the defense team's motion for dismissal is classified. So here you are sitting in jail, hoping that the American legal system (where you are innocent until proven guilty) will not fail you, and your defense lawyers are prevented from reading ANYTHING about the case... because it's all classified. How is that for a free country?

Re:Here is all you need to know about this:

[imthesponge]

"Did you know that there is new legislation about to be passed that makes it a felony for any newspaper/journalist to publish a story about FISA, or about GWB's wiretapping program?"

Citation please.

Re:Here is all you need to know about this:

[NcF]

I've gotta second this, as his claim is so farfetched. Please, enlighten everyone as to the reputable source you found this fact from.

Re:Here is all you need to know about this:

[Concerned Onlooker]

This Real Player-required audio report should help. The Bush administration doesn't like whistle blowers letting the public know about their illegal activities. So those leaks are going to stop. Except, of course, for the leaks that the administration wants to happen.

Re:Here is all you need to know about this:

[91degrees]

Yes. It's a shame really. I was hoping to escape there when Britain became a dictatorship.

Do you know of any free countries? If not, I might decide to flee to China or Saudi Arabia. At least they're honest about restricting people's rights.

Re:Here is all you need to know about this:

[imthesponge]

Okay, here's the article that that report is based off of. The only bill it mentions is one that a Senator is considering; it's nowhere near being made law.

Re:Here is all you need to know about this:

[Anonymous Coward]

" There will not be an election in 2008..."

Oh please. There will be an election in 2008. The Democrats, in their infinite incompetence will nominate Hillary Clinton, even though she has a snowball's chance in hell of winning against any remotely viable Republican candidate. In a switch over the 2000 and 2004 elections where the entire platform of the Democratic candidate was "I'm not Dubya!" the Republican platform will be "I'm not Hillary." This focus on the...uh..."personalities" will neatly prevent any discussion of any issue of relevance and at the same time energize the population into voting against their least favorite candidate by voting for the other guy, with anyone voting for a third candidate treated as a traitor by people voting major party, just like 2000 and 2004. The Republican candidate (chosen by elite super-rich members of the Republican party hierarchy, just as Hillary is chosen by super-rich Democrats) will win becuase 1) Hillary's got no chance and 2) the Republican fraud machine is better than the Democrats. It won't really matter because both candidates would lead the country further down the fascistic path, just that the Republicans are a little more efficient and honest about it. But don't you worry, you'll still get to vote, and it might even be counted by our super-secure paper-trailless voting machines manufactured by all sorts of companies aligned with either major party. Vote for Kang! Vote for Kodos!

Re:Here is all you need to know about this:

[PhoenixOne]

Unless something *really* bad happens, I don't see this happening.

I am, however, very worried about how fair our election system is and fear that it may be even more questionable come 2008. The current "paperless" system has brought up a lot of unanswered questions.

But, if we do end up a dictatorship, and we meet each other in the same "Freedom (internment) Camp", feel free to slap me for missing the obvious warning signs.

Re:Educated people need to start spreading the tru

[BobSutan]

You are correct in that it all starts at campaign finance reform. But guess what? It'll never occur, the same way congress gives themselves raises they would NEVER approve of CFR as it'd limit each and every one of them and their ability to get reelected. After all, what's the use in obtaining a position of power if every Tom Dick and Harry has an equal chance at obtaining that same position, regardless of how many strings your daddy had to pull and how rich you are?

Here's a more likely reason:

[i41Overlord]

"In statehouse battles, the issue has pitted advocates of government openness - including journalists and civil liberties groups - against lawmakers and others who worry that public information could be misused, whether it's by terrorists or by computer hackers hoping to use your credit cards.

Or by normal citizens trying to monitor where their taxes go, and people that supposedly work for them. Joe Politician can't let Joe Public find out what he's really doing, now can he?

Bush surrendered to the terrorists

[gvc]

Bush surrendered on 9/11. He said, "Yes we should be terrified. We should forsake all we believe about tolerance, justice, liberty and privacy. We should attack the (evil-doers, axis of evil, freedom haters, people who see things differently from us). We will play the terrorists' game according to their rules."

Imagine if the most powerful nation in the world had had a leader with the strength to say "We are not afraid. We will overcome terror by declining to be terrorized. We will never waver in our resolve to protect the principles on which this nation was founded."

Re:Bush surrendered to the terrorists

[Anonymous Coward]

3,030 died in 911
100,000 in iraq
shame on you usa

World revolution needed?

[thealsir]

This country is run by a bunch of megalomaniac nuts who need to get booted. In fact, more and more countries are. There needs to be a world revolution or something. Hmm...

Re:World revolution needed?

[Josh teh Jenius]

Where do we sign up?

...of course...we all want to see the plan.

Re:World revolution needed?

[Anonymous Coward]

Please stay where you are.
The world police have your address and will be coming around shortly to have a little chat.
Don't worry no charges will be pressed.

Remember?

[smitth1276]

Does anyone remember the terrorist's laptop that was confiscated in Iraq that contained emergency plans for specific elementary schools in the United States? That actually happened, and those sorts of things could obviously be exploited for very bad reasons. Don't jump to conclusions so easily.

"Freedom of speech" == "Don't be evil"

[thealsir]

'nuff said. Impossible to maintain idealistic statements only serve one entity: that of those spewing the rhetoric.

Mod parent troll

[Eli Gottlieb]

And off to the side you have an Anonymous Coward who spews baseless assumptions and crude insults on how debauched humanity as a whole is.

Somebody, please: Prove humanity is better than that. Mod this troll down.

Re:Mod parent troll

[BVis]

Somebody, please: Prove humanity is better than that. Mod this troll down.

Trouble is, he's right. People are shallow, greedy, willfully ignorant creatures who only work for the greater good when forced. The only thing keeping society from imploding is the rule of law.. and when the leaders start ignoring it we're all in a lot of fucking trouble.

Social Security as ID #

[quanticle]

Social security numbers being used for ID. I thought it was, when social security was enacted, against the law for social security numbers to be used for anything else besides social security.

As far as I know, that law is still on the books, but enforcement is so low that everyone goes ahead and uses your Social Security number for identification anyway. The most egregious example is a bank website that uses it for your username. So, whenever you log on to view your account online, you're exposing your social security number for all to see.

Re:Social Security as ID #

[Anonymous Coward]

The worst thing is that yes, you have the option of not disclosing your SS# to anyone. But then you don't have a job, you don't get credit, you don't own a home or rent an apartment, and you don't go to a university.

you are so right

[acvh]

limiting access to information had nothing to do with security and everything to do with protecting politicians and their contributors. here in NJ a bill has been introduced to restrict the public's access to property tax info, while making it easier for realtors to get it. introduced by, you guessed it, a realtor masquerading as a legislator.

i got it ...

[Anonymous Coward]

pikard failed. we are borg(usa) err.. (tm) sorry.
this is too good!!! :)

The trend

[tubapro12]

Democracy is closely followed by hypocrisy.

Re:The trend

[Anonymous Coward]

this is a script eh? on ruby? no? mono? dotnet? no? u got me ...(sh1t my thoughts are on each (smally-) piece of over powered cars (tieres-) touching asphalt each second, EVERY second!!!)
problem please, real ones first.
(-)really?
(...) damn i hope someone posts a formula to tire rubber.
nothing has been built/planned for the sucesse of(a)dying dinosaur, not even
politics of the 20th centaury. you're all home free to start your ownzz revolution!
(p.s. might be a way to make jobs, u know law .. uhm .. wat again ...solicitating service err...hard to get info .. errr)

serious

[Anonymous Coward]

can we all (internet lovers) and (peace lovers) and (make a better world lovers) and (etc lovers) have a serious assumption on how a real (u know me) (like it) u (likes it) society (internet) could possibiliy be used to harness the power of (666 satan death genocide etc etc etc etc etc etc) please.
i "love" it when the knight in shining armour nails his leg to a tree, break his
sword to a tree and assums his life insurance is going to pay for his kids education (politics are bad!)?
yeah we need a old russian beowulf with some grits in ((mac*)-washington sucks*).

Remember Folks...

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember folks, when you're asking questions and not being a patriot: you're letting the terrorists win.

America's pissing in the wind. Stop being silent and start asking questions.

Some people need to read this: http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/declaration.h tml

sorry about the fascist pigs

[Anonymous Coward]

It happens on all net forums now. The grunting pigs come out in force to try and disprove relatively simple engineering. Silly really, but they still try.

wtc7 fell completely in 6.6 seconds, freefall would have taken 6 seconds at 27 stories high.

Of course it was blown. No way in hell all that "pancaking" would have occurred and only resulted in six tenths of a second delay. And you can just look at the damn videos. Geez it is obvious. Anyone who maintains otherwise is technically ignorant, crazy, or a mercenary fascist supporter, either by ideology or by cashing the check, or they have been threatened, if they are public figures with some serious grant money or media face time at stake.

Buildings 1 and 2 had several teams of vague "engineers" come in in the weeks previous to the attack and close off entire floors and make everyone leave as they "worked". To this day, no explanation of what this work was, who the people were, who authorised access, nothing.

Let's just guess what happened then.

Keep up the good work, don't get discouraged by the net goons, there's thousands of them out there now, petit brainwashed pawns, of little "intelligence" (that's a hint for those idiots) and less importance.

Re:sorry about the fascist pigs

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

wtc7 fell completely in 6.6 seconds, freefall would have taken 6 seconds at 27 stories high.

I believe the top twenty stories were in fact in freefall. This coupled with the essentially structurally void interior, combined with the vast amount of dust and falling detrius, seems to give the impression of a complete collapse in 6.6 seconds.

The towers collapsed because a jumbo jet crashed into them. No further explaination, conspiracy or engineering is required. The is no skyscraper in the world that can survive that. Full Stop.

It could be thousands...

[raehl]

Who knows how many laws restricting information we don't know about due to laws restricting information about laws restricting information?

Companies

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not just the government doing this, most companies are too. When will y'all get it through your thicks skulls that you have more daily dependency on private companies than on the 'government'? In fact, most of the so-called 'government' functions were outsourced to private companies long ago.

Security did not win out.

[subreality]

Security concerns typically won out.

No, politicians running from accountability like cockroaches from the light won out.

I'd be happier if this kind of stuff actually did bring us some security. Unfortunately, we're only getting less secure against the corruption of our own government.

You probably believe anything Bill O'Reilly tells

[lowell]

you....

Do you even remember the tape that the Feds showed was supposed to be Osama admitting to the attacks, its been proven that it was not the same Osama that we have all seen since then. Different guy, go find a copy of Prof. Steven Jone's video on the subject, or prove me wrong.

Re:Social Security Number

[flackrum]

Here's some info to help clear up the confusion regarding use of SSNs (from the Social Security Administration's site):

If a business or other enterprise asks you for your SSN, you can refuse to give it. However, that may mean doing without the purchase or service for which your number was requested. For example, utility companies and other services ask for a Social Security number, but do not need it; they can do a credit check or identify the person in their records by alternative means.

Giving your number is voluntary, even when you are asked for the number directly. If requested, you should ask why your number is needed, how your number will be used, what law requires you to give your number and what the consequences are if you refuse. The answers to these questions can help you decide if you want to give your Social Security number. The decision is yours.

Specific laws require a person to provide his/her SSN for certain purposes. While we cannot give you a comprehensive list of all situations where an SSN might be required or requested, an SSN is required/requested by:

* Internal Revenue Service for tax returns and federal loans
* Employers for wage and tax reporting purposes
* States for the school lunch program
* Banks for monetary transactions
* Veterans Administration as a hospital admission number
* Department of Labor for workers' compensation
* Department of Education for Student Loans
* States to administer any tax, general public assistance, motor vehicle or drivers license law within its jurisdiction
* States for child support enforcement
* States for commercial driver's licenses
* States for Food Stamps
* States for Medicaid
* States for Unemployment Compensation
* States for Temporary Assistance to Needy Families
* U.S. Treasury for U.S. Savings Bonds

Source: http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/

----

States can further regulate and restrict private use of social security numbers.

For example:

"In Michigan, in almost all instances it is illegal to require a Social Security number to be written on a check as a condition of acceptance of that check."

Source:http://www.michigan.gov/ag/0,1607,7-164-3 4739_20942-103001--,00.html

----

And some boring history:

When did Social Security cards bear the legend "NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION"?

The first Social Security cards were issued starting in 1936 and did not have this language.

SSA's policy is that the Social Security card is not an identity document. The card only verifies that the SSN on the card is assigned to an individual whose name is on the card. It does not verify that the person presenting the card is the person named on the card.

Therefore, the January 1946 version of the card first contained the language at the bottom of the card reading "FOR SOCIAL SECURITY PURPOSES -- NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION." Then the language was changed beginning with the September 1961 version of the card to read: "FOR SOCIAL SECURITY AND TAX PURPOSES - NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION". However, the language was removed beginning with the January 1972 version of the card because it was confusing to employers and others who viewed it because they were not sure whether to accept it as evidence of the individual's SSN. The language has not been on subsequent versions of the card.

Source: http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/

Maybe there is a need for extra protection

[tinkerton]

Apparently nobody ever thinks of the risks of terrorists infiltrating the voters and distorting the election results.
With smart voting software these terrorist votes could be flagged and filtered out at an early stage, before they do any damage. (pauses, savoring the lopsidedness)

feh, meh, geh...

[soren]

I'm pretty inspired to mention ... http://soren.org/gov/silent.html ... for whatever reason.

Re:feh, meh, geh...

[Phist]

From http://soren.org/gov/silent.html

If the people really cared about their fellow man, they would control their appetites (greed, procreation, etc.) so that they would not have to operate on a credit or welfare social system which steals from the worker to satisfy the bum.

Since most of the general public will not exercise restraint, there are only two alternatives to reduce the economic inductance of the system.

- Let the populace bludgeon each other to death in war, which will only result in a total destruction of the living earth.

- Take control of the world by the use of economic "silent weapons" in a form of "quiet warfare" and reduce the economic inductance of the world to a safe level by a process of benevolent slavery and genocide.

The latter option has been taken as the obviously better option. At this point it should be crystal clear to the reader why absolute secrecy about the silent weapons is necessary. The general public refuses to improve its own mentality and its faith in its fellow man. It has become a herd of proliferating barbarians, and, so to speak, a blight upon the face of the earth.

They do not care enough about economic science to learn why they have not been able to avoid war despite religious morality, and their religious or self-gratifying refusal to deal with earthly problems renders the solution of the earthly problem unreachable to them.

It is left to those few who are truly willing to think and survive as the fittest to survive, to solve the problem for themselves as the few who really care. Otherwise, exposure of the silent weapon would destroy our only hope of preserving the seed of the future true humanity...

Open source works/improves because its open....

[3seas]

Shutting down information access is contrary to that.

Do a search on "Trillion Dollar Bet" read the transcript. Realize that much money doesn't just appear and then vanish into nowhere (if you do that you are smarter than those involved in the trillion dollar bet).

Look at the time lines of things like dotcom boom and bust, Worldcom, Enron, etc..creative financial hiding, and realize the WTC had an attach on it once before, that failed.

Look at the time lines.

Ted Turner once said that 9/11 was an act of desparation, then he was probably threated with anthrax by the US government.

Wake up people. People don't do things for no reason, and the nuts certainly wonm't be able to gather up much of a maintainable following without some connection to evidence.

Don't want to be fearful of terrorism? Then remove the cause of it, stop screwing others over so badly.Stop giving them a reason to retailate.

Ben Franklin and I believe it was either Truman or Rosevelt (sp?) who said in essence, a country willing to sacrifice freedom in exchange for security will have neither and deserves neither.

Are we not seeing the evidence of this being true?

It's the Bush Plan to Increase your Safety

[webweave]

Here's another reason Bush is making America safer.
Every time you loose a freedom it's one less reason
for Bin Laden to hate you.

Re:It's the Bush Plan to Increase your Safety

[The Master Control P]

Conservatives say that the terrorists hate our freedom. Liberals say that if that were the case, they'd attack some small European country. With the Denmark/Mohammed fiasco, us liberals need to rethink our response :P

Meanwhile in Rhode Island

[kilodelta]

The biggest non-compliant body with open record laws is our legislature. In reality they are compliant but they don't use technology to do so. While they do publish House and Senate journals - you can't keyword search them.

But there are ways around that. The applications guy in my office has figured out how to scrape the journals and relate relevant bill info. Too cool.

Re:Educated people need to start spreading the tru

[kellyb9]

Not to be a total ass, but your so called "freedom" was even restricted by the founding fathers of our country. It doesn't take anyone much time to research the fact that even John Adams, the second president of the United States, had restricted freedom, and for what? basically he made a law that stopped people from publically critisizing him and other officials (Read up on Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798). I believe it can even be argued that our country has made a tradition of restricting personal freedoms, especially but not always limited to times of crises. I really don't see any freedom restricted in your above comments?

Regardless, I believe the United States is one of the freest countries in the world.

P.S.: The word you were looking for above was "acceptable" not "exceptable", also the word "tyranny" is used incorrectly. The word tyranny refers to one person as an absolute ruler of a country. As in, "King George was a tyrannical ruler." That simply isn't the case if you're referring to elected officials in gov't.

Land of the free, home of the brave

[Anonymous Coward]

LMAO!

What's scarier...

[Kittie Rose]

This only happens because half of America is too stupid to find a problem with it. I don't know how this will ever improve. No wake up call seems to be big enough.

Capitalism

[Anonymous Coward]

In a capitalist system, everything revolves around money. Remember this when approaching this choice, Assured Loss of Civil Liberties vs. Possible Credit Card Hackers. You see, civil liberties have no immediate monetary worth, credit card hackers do, ergo, even if credit card hackers are only a smokescreen that has nothing to do with why (because this truly only makes sense if you don't know how to exploit someone elses credit card) these laws are being passed, they win. These laws are not designed to stop credit card scandals, they are designed to give the government more and more control over the people, that's not conspiracy, the less you know, the less you can oppose them on. Even in capitalism, knowledge is wealth (because it's a commodity), the more they have and you don't, the more they make and you don't.