Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
Headline: "Politics: States Pass Thousands of Info Restriction Laws"
Slashdot: "Nothing for you to see here, please move along"
Thousands of laws? Um, not quite. From the article:
and later in the article:
The article is informative, and the actual data is compelling enough without going chicken little in the /. headline. . .
When life gives you lemons, make lemonade. But when life gives you crap, please don't make a beverage out of it.
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....
And All I Ask is a Tall Ship And a Star to Steer Her By
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
so true
Purple, because ice cream has no bones.
Freedom of Speech isn't very useful when you no longer know what to say.
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.
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!
my last sig was too controversial... now, a new and improved useless sig!
"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
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?)
"I would say that 99 per cent of what my father has written about his own life is false." - L. Ron Hubbard Jr.
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.
Excuses Are Like Assholes - Everybody's Got One
"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.
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.
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."
What?
Thomjamin Frefferson said it, originally, but his multiple personality disorder confused biographers as to who they were actually writing about.
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'
//de ~ 9cimi
"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
What a shocker.
k /
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/newswee
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?
"On a scale from 1 to 10, people are stupid"
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.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
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/