Slashdot Mirror
Higher Education Fears Wiretapping Law
alphadogg writes "Institutions of higher education are up in arms over an FCC ruling on wiretapping they say could cost them billions of dollars in upgrades, expose their networks to more attacks, and jeopardize rights to privacy and freedom of speech.
"
hate our freedom?
Could the answer be 'They have history departments'?
====
Crudely Drawn Games
OK, so it was only three weeks before 9/11. And it was some other country. But you have to give him credit for achieving his policy objective, not only in his own country, but in his opponent's country too.
I find it interesting about the things the universities are concerned with. It might just be the article, but it seems the main concern is the cost of the venture est. 400 - 500 dollars a student. The next concern is hackers and the last one is freedom of speech / stifling of research.
I would think that the universities would be worried more about the free speech implications rather than the cost... I don't think the cost issue will hold up in court that well - but free speech (hopefully would).
The only other thing is that the article mentions that a negative ruleing, could force even labtops on campus to be CALEA compliant. Since I'm a student at a university that requires students going into certain majors to have a labtop (to use and plug into the campus network) - I'm wondering if that means that we as students would have to modify our personal labtops (cause they interact with the campus network).
Sadly I bet the universities will compromise on this issue - rather than go to court.
There is always a frontier where there is an open and willing mind
If you don't like the laws of this country, nobody is stopping you from picking up and moving your college/business/home someplace else.
Ahhh... that's the great thing about the good ol' USA. We don't have to just leave if we don't like the laws. We can write our representatives, vote, support candidates we like, camp out in front of the president's house, yell, complain, march and protest. Hell, you don't even have to be a citizen of this country or here legally to protest - as we've seen today.
Maybe the people with the different opinions aren't the ones that should leave, maybe it's the people who want to opress free discussions of ideas, like YOU.
Find coupons in Greeley
Internet/Echelon Compatibility Protocol
Is your network Echelon-ready?
That is why you're not supposed to let people with an emotional interest have any say in an important decision.
We've become the government we kicked out two centuries ago, except they didn't pretend to be otherwise.
"Made up/misattributed quote that makes me look smart. I am on
I like that summary, especially the order things are put in. "It's expensive, dammit! And omg, it exposes us to attacks!! And.. er... oh yeah, there's that freedom-of-speech thing, too." Very telling.
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
Like Spain, for example, where public higher education institutions are the voice of their master.
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
That does pose a potential major risk. While I am a privacy nut, there are also risks to using strong encryption for everyday communications. For example, if you are applying for a job that requires a background check, what are the chances that you'll end up with a negative report because you use encrypted communications? I can see a potential employer passing over someone because a secuirty check reveals encrypted internet communications.
I am at a university, and right now I am begining to think about the implications of online communications -- even to the point of not posting on Slashdot. If online communications like MySpace are being dregged up during the hiring process, I am wondering what sort of implications using strong encryption for email and even using services like JAP will be. They may not come out and say that you weren't hired for it, but if you apply for something National Security related, or law enforcement, it could look really, really bad.
It is almost like we are getting into a modern era of McCarthyism where freedoms once enjoyed are being traded for the fear of terrorism. While terrorism does throw a valid argument, the arguments of McCarthyism and the current issues with terrorism are quite fascinating. Terrorism does need to be addressed, but at what cost? Does the average Joe need to be treated like a criminal or investigated as such? The terms may change, but as time goes by and more and more freedoms are surrendered in the name of terrorism how will we know that they are being used for that purpouse? I really wonder how much of this is being used for political purpouses.
The views expressed are mine own and do not express the views of my employer.
Freedom of Speech means that you can speak with out reprisal. If you are affraid of what you are saying then that is an imposition of the freedom of speech. However, Freedom of Speech/Expression/Association is often used as a knee-jerk reaction when it doesn't apply.
However, Freedom of Speech is not the real issue, as you so well pointed out. We are devling into the 4th Amendment protections of 'Unlawful Search and Siezure,' and the implied freedoms of Privacy that has been recognized by the US Supreme Court. That is the real issue. Stating that the issue is Freedom of Speech is blurring the issues. You could also argue that this issue is related to the Due Process protections -- the assumption that everyone is a potential terrorist/criminal and as such their communications should be available.
More interesting is that the report that was released on Saturday or Sunday stated that their have been 3,501 abuses of the Patriot Act -- and that was what was admitted.
The views expressed are mine own and do not express the views of my employer.
>If you don't like the laws of this country, nobody is stopping you from picking up and moving
One of those laws is the Constitution. It's the root law of the US.
Some people seem not to like the Constitution. For example, they want to do mass searches without probable cause. One such person is rumored to have called it "just a God-damned piece of paper".
Are you, perhaps, suggesting that people who pass laws like USAPATRIOT, who imprison with charge or trial, who seize property without court authority and who torture their alleged enemies ought to leave the country? Wouldn't you prefer they stay so we can give them the fair trials they have denied to others?
Please keep an open mind as you read this.
I've spent the last 15 years caring about what happens in government. At 31, I've finally decided that life is too short for any of it. Every year there are thousands more laws on the books, government seizes more revenue and power over the people, your "freedom" as a citizen is destroyed even further, and I've finally realized that there's no way to stop it. There's just no way -- no government in history has ever significantly and permanently reduced its powers through the democratic process.
All I can do now is (1) concentrate on making myself and my family as happy as possible, (2) disobey as many unethical laws as possible while keeping a low profile, (3) continue my attempts to educate people about the most dangerous, destructive organization to ever exist (government), and (4) ready myself and my family to move to another, less oppressive country as soon as possible.
Don't get me wrong -- I still care about the victims of runaway government. I just don't believe it's possible to stop this runaway train anymore, and I'm not going to waste my life away trying. I've finally realized that there are much more important things in life: the things that matter to myself and my family, the things which I have a god-given right to put above everything else, especially government.
This is not a good time in history to mess with law enforcement (subpoena or not), especially at the federal level. They effectively can and will do what they want.
There's a good argument that the reason you give to not mess with law enforcement is actually a good reason TO challenge law enforcement.
Huh? No, it's more like this:
Somebody sideswipes your car and breaks your leg. As you're lying there with a compound femur fracture, you scream at the other person "For the love of God, man, that door panel is going to cost, like, a thousand dollars to replace! Weren't you even thinking about how much it would cost?! I can't afford that! If you had just waited until I was standing outside the car!"
Not that a person would be comprehensible with a compound femur fracture, but you get the idea. When your first reaction is the cost, it sort of implies that what's going on would be OK or at least closer to being OK, if that were removed. So to have the colleges put a pricetag on their objections is basically sending a message to Congress: "come up with $400 a student and you can have their freedom of speech, with our compliments."
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
President Lincoln -- who history has treated quite favorably -- declared and imposed martial law, suspended habeas corpus, and arrested people that today would probably be termed "political dissidents," including a few members of Congress.
Of course, there was gruesome live combat occuring on American soil between Americans. It's a little different when the main thing propelling the whole argument is just a spun up fear of "terrorism".
So by drawing a historical parallel between 9/11 and any other "war period" in our history, you can quite easily play into the hands of a pro-oppression argument, because there is ample historical evidence for periods of relative oppression (or at least, of substantially reduced civil liberties) during conflicts, followed by a return to normalcy afterwards.
Exactly. That's why I say THERE IS NO WAR.
Cool! Amazing Toys.
Some people seem not to like the Constitution. For example, they want to do mass searches without probable cause. One such person is rumored to have called it "just a God-damned piece of paper".
Such is the way of the facist. The foundation and ideals of his country run contrary to his own narrow and simplistic view of the world. He believes in absolutes, homogeneity, hierarchies, divine right, power and the right to use it.
The facist's deepest desire is to dominate those he feels are beneath him, without oversight or accountability. As he sees fit. The Constitution expressly forbids this to him, and thus is beneath contempt. It becomes, a document of the weak, a powerless writ of those beneath him, a meaningless formality, just a God-damned piece of paper.
That piece of paper is the only thing standing between you and the raw, unrestrained brutality of a brownshirted mob. I suggest you defend what's left of it before the pack brays with delight as they gleefully devour the carcass of your free society.
May the Maths Be with you!
No need to mention how much it costs; to do so says that you'd be okay with such intrusions if they were suddenly free.
Or it could be because the only problem, according to the people promoting this mandate, is that it's not free.
"The use-mention distinction" is not "enforced here."