Slashdot Mirror
U.S. Government Intervenes in EFF vs. AT&T
An anonymous reader writes "Reuters is reporting that the US government has 'filed a motion on Saturday to intervene and seek dismissal of a lawsuit by a civil liberties group against AT&T Inc. over a federal program to monitor U.S. communications.' More from the article: " In its motion seeking intervention, posted on the court's Web site, the government said the interests of the parties in the lawsuit "may well be in the disclosure of state secrets" in their effort to present their claims or defenses ... A hearing is scheduled for June 21 before federal Judge Vaughn Walker." You may recall a few weeks ago when the DOJ asked the judge to dismiss the case. They've now taken the next step required to quash this legal action.
welcome our new, government-inconveniencing-case-dismissing overlords.
Since Bill Clinton classed his penis as a state secret.
Lawsuits are as American as Apple Pie and Baseball.
When you can't sue anyone and everyone who has done or is doing anything you don't like, the terrorists have won.
Last I checked there were three suits pending on this exact issue, and the EFF suit was just one of them. Surely the executive can't brush off all of them.
Anyway I doubt they'll get their motion. While congressmen can be bought off and Supreme Court justices can be replaced, I see no reason why a normal civil court judge would roll over and abdicate his authority just because the executive branch is whining that they don't want oversight by other branches of government.
EFF needs support from all of us in this action
Guess what, the feds want the judges to approve their snooping and silence anyone daring to oppose it.
In a free country, the judges would give the government the proverbial finger and go ahead with the case. Let's see how it turns up in the US.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
In its motion seeking intervention, posted on the court's Web site, the government said the interests of the parties in the lawsuit "may well be in the disclosure of state secrets" in their effort to present their claims or defenses ... A hearing is scheduled for June 21 before federal Judge Vaughn Walker."
If I interpre this right...they want the case dismissed because it will discose state secrets? So it's okay to violate civil liberties and then get away with it because to defend it would hinder state security? Well what about my security? Hell what about my RIGHTS? Next to make a phone call you'll have to requisition phone time giving information like: number you're calling, receiving party, topic conversation.
That which does not kill me only postpones the inevitable.
the carpet, that will be exactly when the citizens of the US will know that big brother is watching, and Mr. Orwell was right. Its time for all US citizens (and now EU citizens) to make such matters of privacy a voter issue. Ask your current representatives how they stand on such issues, ask all prospective candidates, and then vote with your privacy in mind on the upcoming, and every subsequent election.
If you are not sure how to find out some of that information, go to eff.org
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
Gov: This is not the truth you're seeking.
Judge: This is not the truth we're seeking.
Gov: Dismiss the case. <waves hand>
Judge: Case dismissed.
Tag: Bullshit
Then people will be able to search all these rubbish that goes on day to day by one convenient tag.
I did see this coming... But frankly am unhappy about it none the less. The funny thing is that this wouldn't reveal anything we don't already know.. All it would do is confirm facts and everyone who knows anything about politics and law should be aware that confirmed facts are a dangerous weapon.
Only a dictatorship would take steps to prevent anyone from knowing if their rights were being violated.
If Mr. Bush is so sure of his assertion that nobody's rights are being trampled and that all of his Executive Orders approving these actions are legal, then he shouldn't be afraid for these actions to face the rule of law.
But then, the administration knows full well that none of this will stand up to a legal challenge.
You are witnessing the actions of a dictatorial administration consumed with the belief in its own superiority and its own place above the law. Bush believes that as President, he can do anything he wants without regard to the law; he believes himself to be invinceable.
Unfortunately, as Congress and the courts stand now, he's right.
We are the fire that lights our world.. and we are the fire that consumes it.
Anyone think that maybe there might be good and legitimate reasons for this system?
No. If there were good and legitimate reasons, they would have simply obtained warrants.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
Government tells government's courts that it didn't break the law. Government agrees. Film at 11.
The ______ Agenda
Just curious, but has anyone thought that our own government might not be the bad guys here?
Look, the idea of keeping the government in check by due process of law and constitutional guardrails is that, if it is bad, it doesn't do extreme damage, like turn into a dictatorship. When it's good, then of course it's hindered in its ability to serve citizens quickly and efficiently, but that's the price to pay.
Oh and yes, here's a hint: a good government is so rare you haven't seen one in your lifetime anywhere in the world.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
If you're going to ask us to work through the correct channels here, then can we at least require the rest of the government to operate via the correct channels, too? That's the main problem people have here. It's not necessarily the actions that they're taking (though some argue that, too), it's how they're going about doing it.
This guy's the limit!
Text of motion: Government's Motion to Dismiss, or for Summary Judgment [PDF, 1.8M]
EFF's page on the case: http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/att/
I know that I am about to taste the wrath of /. for daring to question the mindthink
I think that this is the most telling typo I have ever seen on Slashdot.
I'm not an American, so this is just my $0.02, but to those of you that are, your government seems to be taking away more and more of your civil liberties. America is supposed to be the land of the free, etc. etc. I think it is time that American government representatives were reminded of this - specially with elections coming up. They will do anything to remain in power. If you all tell them you are not going to put up with this kind of BS, then maybe they will stand up for you.
If everyone is silent, one day it will be too late. Speak up in unison to keep rights you have fought for over the past 200+ years. You know what they say - use em or lose em!
Good Luck!
Anyone think that maybe there might be good and legitimate reasons for this system?
Of course! Good Lord, man, no one I know has any problem with going after terrorists.
The problem here isn't that the system can be used to nail the bad guys. The problem is that there is absolutely no oversight, and it violates the law. Worse, any attempts to apply oversight have been shut down. If the system isn't being abused, then what the hell is all that about?
Our system of government is predicated on the notion that power inevitably corrupts. This system involves a lot of people, and the idea that absolutely all of them are uncorruptable is absurd.
On this very site as we type, it's reported that the U.S. Government is in negotiations to obtain the same sort of private information from European countries. Quite likely, that sharing will go both ways. Furthermore, media companies are closer than you'd like to getting access to that data, too, in order to "fight piracy". Other companies can't be far behind. Are we to believe that everyone who will eventually have access to our private communications without oversight will be on the up-and-up?
It is the potential for abuse that is the problem. And the fact that this administration has actively resisted any attempt to apply checks and balances in order to prevent abuse is extremely troubling.
Kythe
In Soviet Union the government gives the judges the fing...... oh no wait that's the United States.
Just curious, but has anyone thought that the average slashdotter might not be wrong here? That there might actually be reason to worry that these records could be used for things other than to rapidly roll up terrorist groups after a initial attack instead of having to arrest 5000+ in the aftermath of 9/11? That maybe they are legitimately concerned about protecting a system that allows them to dissent?
This is starting to smell awfully similiar to the early days of the Watergate investigation
Be better in bed. Wikiafterdark!
As my moniker suggests, I prefer a balanced judgement to a dogmatic one. Interestingly, in this particular case, a balanced judgement doesn't answer your question with "Yes" or "No."
Rather, I take this approach.
Assertion: The government is not the bad guys
Conclusion: It is ok to violate our rights if it's for a good cause.
I would think that the above conclusion seems nonsensical. If we accept that the current administration's plans don't include Big Brother-like control over the American public (a proposal that to some, might seem unrealistic, but I am willing to accept it for the sake of argument), that still leaves the question of whether it is RIGHT to be carrying out these surveillance programs.
The ends almost NEVER justify the means; a superior stating of this adage is the following:
"It is never a question of whether the ends justify the means; the means make the end."
In this case, the means being used are possible encroachments on the civil rights of American citizens. Acceptance of that kind of program can only have one end: surveillance of American citizens themselves.
That is not a power I want my government to have, regardless of how "safe" it might make the country. I am not willing to give up my fundamental rights for the ethereal promise of safety.
The US government is and always was, accountable to the American people. The system of checks and balances was put in place so that the no single branch of government could have enough power to destroy the rights of American citizens; the belief was that if one branch acted improperly, at least one of the others could kick them back in line.
What President Bush is attempting to do is tantamount to suppression of the system of checks and balances put into place specifically to protect us from government abuse.
And I leave you with one final question:
If what Bush has approved is so upstanding and legal, why should he fear a legal challenge? I, for one, would like another branch of government besides President Bush to tell me that my freedoms are not being violated, not because I think President Bush is lying, but because that's what the other branches are there for in the first place. And a healthy dose of suspicion of the government is very necessary to a free democracy; that is the only way a society remains free.
We are the fire that lights our world.. and we are the fire that consumes it.
When the judicial system is being asked by an agency to not permit itself to look into a subject, you know there is something VERY wrong with this government's actions.
Even if this were really the most effective way of rooting out terrorist actions, the fact that they seem to feel they have to shield themselves from judicial inquiry breaks the accountability of such a system. Are judges and juries too dangerous for our security network now? Are constitutional protections now too restrictive for our intellgence needs?
Do we really need an unnacountable set of parasites feeding on our basic rights in order to protect us from an invisible set of enemies now? If so, does the debate about if we need these things need to be outside public consideration?
Sounds great except both parties candidates support this shit. What then? Welcome to the two party system.
As a non-US resident, I have to wonder exactly what press this is getting in more mainstream media outlets. Can a US-based person give me an idea of what kind of reponse this decision is being met with beyond the internet? Hell, is it getting any response at all?
There have been quite a few news happenings in the past week about increasing restrictions on American's privacy rights in order to be a little safer from terrorism (and by terrorism, I mean drugs and crime and dissidents in general, as well as people blowing up stuff). We must be really, really safe now! Props to the all-powerful executive branch and the rubber-stamp congress.
This is bullshit that the reason they claim they can't take it to court is because of secrets, they should have thought of the consequences before breaking the law.
I agree that Republicanism is the worst form of government, except for all the others. But we still have to make trade offs for security.
No we don't, that's my point: when you make tradeoffs, you open the door to tyranny. Dictatorships almost invariably start by some powerful ruler using some strikingly frightening event to declare that "special rules" must be enacted to fight whomever did the deed, and planting enough fear in people's minds so that they accept making the tradeoffs. Once that's done, they can use the special rules to enact some more special rules, etc..., until the country is a dictatorship.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
So vote for a third party, duh.
Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
Suppose there are rumors that a member of the opposition party in Congress visits a psychiatrist, or that one of their wealthy contributors has a drug habit? I certainly wouldn't put it past a small group operating out of the Vice President's office (say for a purely hypothetical example) to conduct research and leak selected results to the press.
The Administration proclaims this database is being used very narrowly, strictly for going after "the bad guys" (America's enemies), but unless they describe the design of the program in detail, how can we be confident that that is the case, now and in the future?
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. People died for these rights. Human beings had to say goodbye to their girlfriends, wives, parents, and children forever in order to go die a likely horribly painful death. They did this because they believed there was some value in these rights. They sacrificed themselves so that the majority of us would, in privlige, enjoy the benefits of their sacrifice. Today, in this day and age and by not caring, we as a people are telling those TRUE patriots "You can take your sacrifice and shove it up your ass." Ironically, liberty and freedom are being attacked by the same people claiming to be inspired by it.
Big Brother in the form of an increasingly powerful government and in an increasingly powerful private sector will pile the records high with reasons why privacy should give way to national security, to law and order, to efficiency of operation, to scientific advancement and the like. -Justice William O. Douglas
Then they should prepare some legislation detailing how to deal with it. Instead they've chosen to ignore any and all rules that were in place. And before you say, "But it would take them too long to prepare new legislation," remember how quickly they put the PATRIOT ACT together...
This guy's the limit!
You know, you clowns who always say, "If you haven't done anything wrong, you don't have anything to worry about."
It sounds like the government wants to know my business without me knowing their business. THAT'S EXACTLY BACKWARDS of how this country is supposed to be.
Of course we should take your summary as accurate. After all, Bush himself says it's bullshit. So does his attorney general Gonzales. And Cheney says "go fuck yourself".
Rumsfeld, is that you?
--
make install -not war
Coulda swore we were talking about reality here. No problem then! Vote for the Good Guys party and everthing will be ok. Then we can all just sit and laugh at the antics of those previous maroons.
But we still have to make trade offs for security.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -- Benjamin Franklin
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
But there does need to be some avenue for the government to actually have a functioning intelligence system. Warrents are for criminal prosecution. This is about foreign intelligence.
I think this displays a serious misunderstanding about the law and the way our system works.
The warrants in question are obtained from a court that is explicitly designed to deal with foreign intelligence, called the "Foreign Intelligence Survellience Court". The law in question is called the "Foreign Intelligence Survellience Act" (FISA). They were set up expressly for the purpose of dealing with foreign intelligence issues and the wiretaps necessary to carry out intelligence gathering.
No objection has been put forth that the current law cannot deal with. The one thing that the law wouldn't allow for is abuse of the system. In other words, the fact that they're avoiding the law and the system strongly implies that it's being abused.
The FISA system has been in place for three decades, and has dealt with tens of thousands of wiretap requests quite successfully. And because the "foreign intelligence" apparatus can be abused to harm Americans, that system provides oversight and a check.
Seriously, the arguments you're making could just as easily be used to justify putting cameras and microphones in everyone's houses.
Kythe
Judges can be impeached, so it is indeed possible to replace them. I imagine it's not that easy to impeach a federal judge, but it has happened before.
The "in Soviet Russia" jokes have become obsolete. They're simply not funny anymore. "In Soviet Russia, the government monitors you", "In Soviet Russia, the products dictate the market", and so on.
The whole fun of twisting subject and object in a sentence around and placing "in Soviet Russia" in front of it is simply not funny anymore. It's true. It's where we're heading. Communism won. Slightly differently than we feared, but the result is the same.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Yup. The executive branch can commit all kinds of fraud which the courts will constitute a "political question" because they could not undertake independent resolution of the issues "without expressing lack of the respect due a coordinate branches of government." There's an enlightening discussion in US v. Stahl, 792 F.2d 1438 (9th Cir. 1986).
Are you kidding? They got the PATRIOT act out of Hitler's bunker. They just had to freshen it up a little. Hitler didn't have email.
last I knew, when the police collected evidence illegally, and knowingly, the evidence was thrown out. Too bad the courts will probably let it slide for the sake of our great nation, and it's apathetic people.
"Better to be vulgar than non-existent" -Bev Henson
I agree that Republicanism is the worst form of government, except for all the others.
What the fuck is Republicanism? Republican is a political party, and I can think of a lot of things that are better than the Neocon dream, a representative democracy with a weak executive branch being one of them.
This country would be a whole lot better if our electorate were informed.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
This motion to dismiss the case goes against the very idea of having checks and balances, and if anything the motion itself is unconstitutional. I hope we (the American public) do not allow for this to occur. I hope this issue continues to gain media coverage, because it has the makings to be a very hot political issue. Something needs to be done to make sure this case gets heard.
One idea i have is to simply boycott of AT&T, Verizon, and Bellsouth. Corporations need to understand that they cannot sell out their customers, either to nasty spammers of the US government, without serious repercussions. Someone needs to picks up this idea and runs with it, because it will send the message home. Convince people to switch to other telco companies that did not participate in this such as Quest, or better get make the move to encrypted VOIP.
Then they should prepare some legislation detailing how to deal with it.
You mean like some sort of fireign intelligence surveillance act?
remember how quickly they put the PATRIOT ACT together...
A year or more, as I recall. They were just waiting for a chance to get it passed, and 9/11 was the perfect opportunity.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
Because the US is attacking Iran in the next one to five months - before the fall elections.
Two aircraft carriers are moving through the Pacific to join a third already in the Gulf as we speak.
The US is running Kurdish and Iranian dissident groups on incursions into Iran, to stimulate Iranian incursions into Iraq. The Turks are severely upset, having massed 250,000 troops on the Turkey side of the Iraq border.
Once the Iran war launches, it will "bomb" all other concerns off the front pages - including the Republican bribery scandals, the CIA agent leaking, the wreck of the US intelligence services by Bush, etc., ad nauseum.
The end result of the attacks on Iran will be a ten-year guerrilla war two to four times as big and damaging to the US as Vietnam.
By this time in 2008, even Karl Rove will be demanding Bush's impeachment - oh, wait, Karl's being indicted this week (he told the President so last week and AG Gonzales went into the courthouse Friday to hear the indictment.)
So forget the spying on US citizens.
By the way, the Narus company that builds the hardware referenced in the EFF case is run by an "Israeli immigrant" (read: Mossad) - and one of the the directors is a former NSA guy.
Anything more you want to know?
Better learn to welcome your new Bush overlord...cause he already knows if you don't approve.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Bush is nominating Hayden to direct the CIA. Even though Hayden broke the law by spying on us, saying the 4th Amendment doesn't require probable cause. It does.
So Bush's government is derailing justice to protect his compiling vast complex databases of our private communications. In the hands of Iran/Contra conspirators.
After Bush's Justice Department agreed to drop their in-house investigation into Bush's NSA wiretap spying because Bush's NSA told them they didn't have security clearance, these lawsuits are the main obstacle to Bush spying on you as much as he can, taxpaid by you.
Next week, NSA whistleblower Chris Strom will reveal to the Senate how the NSA domestic spying goes even further than these latest exposures (despite Bush denial at every step). Probably spying on us with our satellites, which they scare us into paying for as part of that useless $BILLION Star Wars missile shield.
Feel safer?
--
make install -not war
This is working through the correct channels. They are not suing the Bush adminstration for constitutional violations, therefore congress does not need to be involved. They are suing AT&T for violating a federal law that is supposed to protect the privacy of their customers.
If the NSA has probable cause to get the phone records of a specific person, they can easily get a warrant in very little time. If they don't have probable cause, then they shouldn't be wasting their resources on that person.
And if you think the NSA's actions are prefectly legal, you need to read this.
If the monitoring of phone communications by the government is allowed, it definitely will be abused for political reasons. Neither republicans nor democrats have a squeaky clean record in terms of abuse of government security precautions. Since 9/11, many of the leaders of the lesser political parties have been flagged at airports as possible security risks. They weren't flagged because they were threatening, but because of their political positions.
If the president can't do his job without violating the rules of due process, he should step down and let somebody more competent do the job. The president's first priority should be to protect our freedoms. His second priority should be to keep us safe. Not the other way around.
And the most interesting aspect of the "war" on terrorism is that it can never be won. And as such can be used to justify these excesses for as long as the state of 'emergency" exists.
BTW, I'd be prepared to see the number of increased "threat" levels rise as we get closer and closer to the mid-term elections. The government, after all, has to remind us of why we need it.
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
You obviously can't read well enough to figure out that the Constitution doesn't GIVE you one god damned thing. Seriously, what is wrong with you?
Oh, i know that the PATRIOT ACT was fully prepared and waiting for a 'convenient' opportunity to present it. Maybe they should've had some other legislation in line, too. Unless they were certain that it wouldn't get passed...
This guy's the limit!
It's funny, you actually post a counter argument which prompted a slew of replies, yet you get modded into the ground. Your attempt to start a discussion was gimped because you dare speak against the hive mind. I don't see any difference between the actions of Slashdot modding, and those of the Bush administration trying to squash this case.
You bring up a great point in that the government has good intentions for what they did. There was an intelligence breakdown and we got raped on our own soil. The administration decided to do what it took to try to prevent this from happening again. Unfortunately they stepped outside the bounds of out legal and civil rights system.
And unfortunately, the real story here of the government trying to do the right thing by doing the wrong thing won't get meaningful discussion on this site.
Lets hope this gets fixed...c'mon modders. Otherwise I fear we're doomed to continue to have poor leadership because the people just want to close their eyes and cover their ears and scream "THE GOVERNMENT IS EVIL" instead of taking a real look at the issues and involving themselves in the process.
Help me take back Slashdot. When did 'News for Nerds' become 'FUD and Conspiracy Theories for Extremist Nutjobs'?
With that, everything can be justified and this is exactly the method how more and more freedom and right to privacy gets taken away if they succeed getting through with this scheme.
What is missing in this whole process is that the method - snooping, creating laws to take freedom away is not fixing the underlaying cause of the problem, quite the opposite. More and more people get unhappy, and what is the underlaying cause for terrorism? That's not getting away with patching up the goofs done with spying outside the law.
The people in power are so full of themselves that they don't realize creating more pressure will create even more resistance. Maybe they even want it that way to stay in power.
The "free" USA... sure, my ass!
We have a intelligence committee in the congress for a reason
And we all know how independent congress is of the white house. That's why we also have judicial oversight. The FISA court is specifically for intelligence matters, and isn't some 'random judge without security clearance'
In Soviet Russia, the government controls the companies.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Privacy is necessary for free speech to have any meaning.
That's why all the Founding Fathers published *anonymously* the Federalist Papers and related writings in support of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
We are the fire that lights our world.. and we are the fire that consumes it.
They were just waiting for a chance to get it passed, and 9/11 was the perfect opportunity.
Yeah, maybe if by "opportunity" you mean "execution". Ever seen the Loose Change videos?
Just because it can't be explained doesn't mean it isn't true. Science fits into reality... not the other way around.
Hi Ol Chap,
Well, as a life-long US citizen, I can truthfully say that most people don't even care about politics...
Even now, relatively few realize what the Patriot Act means.
The mainstream news sources will never come right out and show/say how our rights are being affected. They always maintain a neutral stance. In some respects that is good, but there is also a time when I think they should speak out. Most news stories are fluff, like which dog won the local dog show.
The public is so used to everything being 'okay', that anyone who speaks radical ideas (such as any of rights are being taken away) is usually labeled as a wacko. Yes, there are many wackos shouting nonsense on public tv, and they are generally ignored. Some of these wackos even try to profit from their position. So sadly, if a genuine reasoned person were to logically show what is going on, the public wouldn't care. Too much crying wolf...
- Cheney's hunting accident got 10x more press coverage than the Patriot Act.
- Except for slashdotters, I would wager that the result of the US doesn't even know who or what the Electronic Frontiers Federation (EFF) is. And they probably wouldn't care.
- The only stories that get recurring coverage (such as over many ways or even a coupe of weeks) are murders... Governmental things are generally mentioned briefly once and rarely again.
Heck, in my state capital city, people don't even plainly talk about propositions coming up for a vote. Relatively evil contents are put inside the clean box of some shiny catch-phrases and people will vote based upon the catchphrase, not the contents...
It turns out that these environmentally friendly propositions are behind put forth by `environmental groups' whose sponsors consist of those who are completely against enviromental protection... [But the public doesn't see it because of their name and because the public doesn't read the proposition text].
When I play Tribes online, I often enjoy taking a few shots at teammates [like when they have the flag].... Blowing up a few blastwalls and defensive turrets (especially when my team is way ahead)... My teammates don't even catch on until my score turns negative.... Unfortunately in the real-world, the same thing is happening...
And the common public is (blindly) supporting it!
The problem with politics is that the general public doesn't see its relevance to their daily lives. They would rather spend their efforts keeping track which gas station is offering gas $0.10 cheaper than think about how to use less gas (or buy a smaller car).... And certainly contemplating exactly where the oil comes from, who is profiting by it, or at what price is completely outside general consideration.
In short, most people are ignorant and/or apathetic. Of those that aren't, many/most profit from this general ignorance/apathy.
There is a huge amount of mainstream coverage of this.
h tm, which permits the corporations to *voluntarily* disclose these records to anyone they want, including the estranged husbands of battered women, if it suits them.
NB: I listen to both liberal and conservative radio talk shows on and off, and touch base with both liberal and conservative press when I have the time to do so. In the interestes of full disclosure, I'm pretty jaded about our media.
In general, the liberal portions of the press are formally outraged, but are conveniently ignoring Title 18 USC 2701 (c)(1) http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/usc2701.
While the conservative portions of the media are protesting that the operations are perfectly legal, but not pointing to this as a voluntary disclosure (the companies involved were in fact paid $$$ to "volunteer" the records), and are themselves ignoring the fourth ammendment issues and the common law privacy rights issues surrounding the constitutionality of Title 18 USC 2701 (c)(1) in the first place.
Meanwhile, everyone is ignoring the fact that there are two sets of surveillance operations: one, which broke in the news months ago, having to do with actual communications intercepts, and this more recent one, which has to do with collection of information for traffic analysis (and from that, subsequent social network analysis built on top of that).
The liberal side is trying to paint this traffic analysis as if the "communications records" in question were actual recordings of conversations, rather than endpoint identification and call duration; the conservative side is still defending everything as being perfectly legal and above board (techincally, they are correct about the legality, from my reading of the laws, but whether or not this is "above board" really relies on whether the laws being used to collect the information are in fact constitutional).
Nobody is addressing whether or not the Patriot Act provisions mean this same information can be used by law enforcement for non-terrorist related criminal investigations, or what the implications are for tarring people with the same brush, if they happen to have a black sheep in their family who keeps in touch, and therefore associates them with a legitimately identified criminal social network.
I also haven't heard anyone talking about whether or not standard traffic analysis fuzzing techniques are being utilized by The Bad Guys(tm), like intentionally identifying phone numbers associated with groups, and calling them from within multiple points in a covert terrorist network, to link the networks together, and therefore either (a) hide in plain sight, or (b) broaden the target list sufficiently that the investigative requirements would be prohibitive. All it would take is different people calling from the same phone number to the same network connection point with a "wrong number" and being excessively chatty to get the connection time up.
Nobody in the media is talking about what happens when these records, if they are shared, are mined after the fact to provide overwhelming circumstantial evidence in the pursuit of a personal vendetta against a private citizen by a minor official.
All in all, it's a standard media feeding-frenzy, with a lot of noise, no one touching any of the important issues (might kill the goose that laid the golden egg, doing that...), and both sides posturing in no provable or disprovable way that might end up stopping the fun before the subject has been milked for all the public attention that they can wring out of it.
Hope that answers your question.
FWIW: I think my cynicism here is fairly representative of most average "man on the street" U.S. Citizens. Don't take the actions of our government, or the distorted cartoons of those actions, as represented by our media, at face value, and don't take them as being representative of U.S. Citizens in general; we aren't the jackasses our media makes us out to be.
-- Terry
Warrent's are the correct channel for criminal prosecution. But Al Qaeda is not a criminal organization, they are a terrorist organization. The US does not have the means to prosecute a criminal globally except in a few rare circumstances. Hence we need mechanisms for intelligence that are governed differently (note not laxer, just targeted around intelligence)
Are you kidding? They can of course go abroad and use any illegal method they like to hunt for, trap, and kill Al Qaeda operatives and supporters. But I'll be damned if they can do it in America, to Americans! If someone is suspected of having ties to foreign terrorist organizations, then get a warrant if these enemies are within the U.S. borders. If not, then send a sniper. Don't give me this spoonfed bs that the administration spouts off about. Maybe you'd like to live under King Bush, but I for one am appalled that this issue is not causing people to pass out from sheer anger.
Republican the party and republican the system of government have nothing to do with one another. The US was founded as a republic, therefore our system of government is referred to as republican. If you'd read the Constitution you'd know this.
Here's my DeCSS mirror, where's yours?
The only mistake they made with Padilla was Ashcroft's bragging that he was in custody. How much easier it would have been had we never heard of him. Even though the government finally brought charges against Padilla, it still claims the right to hold so-designated enemy combatants indefinitely without charge. The last court to the review that claim upheld it, and after the USSC dropped its interest in Padilla, it is unlikely that a higher court will revisit it in the near future. So ponder for yourself - how many suspicious phone calls does it take to earn a label of "enemy combatant" that will never have to be defended in a proper court of law? That will never require enough corroborating evidence even for a warrant? And that could lead to your being incarcerated indefinitely, without recourse? This whole topic has nothing to do with the system of justice as we know it.
The 2nd Amendment doesn't give you the right to a gun, it gives the states the right to raise a militia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republicanism
I'm looking to get rich. I've got steps #2 (????) and #3 (PROFIT!) planned out, but am having trouble coming up with #1.
The Constitution gave me a handjob this morning.
#19845
A vigilante may be trying to save lives when he sets out to stop a murderer. That doesn't make him any less of a criminal when he ends up accidently or negilently harming, even killing, innocents.
Legal procedures have been carefully set up to control the power of the state and protect the innocent. They provide a means for the government to conduct surveillance on criminal suspects - they can GET AN FSCKING WARRANT.
Failing to follow these procedures makes them criminals and enemies of the United States. Can we just impeach this treasonous motherfucker already?
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Here God is replaced with sex.
False religion is only one drug of the masses (opiate, if you wish.)
Protectionism is the valium.
Ethnocentrism, Xenophobia and self-righteousness the cocaine, meth, and steroids
Mass media (Television, radio, MSN and CNN.com) - LSD.
Prostitution - Xtasy
Pornogranphy - Herbal X (not as stimulating, but apparently won't get you in as immediate hot water either)
Seems to me a greater danger is poised by the governments intentions to quell the suit. State secrets or not, the motion and precedent the government is putting forward place Americans at greater risk then anything like the small time operations of any Al Qada-like group.
Governments will have a bias towards gathering as much control over it's citizens as possible and the US courts still sometimes have to restraint those who would overstep their given boundaries (heh, if I had it my way, they'd all be dead already).
If you get wrath it's not for questioning the mindthink...I'm not even sure what that is. You might get flack for taking a gutless coward's stance toward civil liberties, which don't seem very important to people sticking up for an over-reaching administration empowered by a spineless Congress.
The bottom line this is useless for tracking down terrorists. All it takes is for one of the cutouts to be a coffee shop or other public place and the pattern goes out the window. Likewise if one of the cutouts uses Nike Net and walks the message to another party. Pretty basic trade craft. We're not the only country monitoring telecom.
What it is good for is keeping tabs on who those pesky newspaper reporters are talking to, and for outlining your political opponents support network, and people donating money. Saves the government thugs a lot of running around when they know right who to intimidate. And you can make customer lists of businesses critical of your administration and send the feds out to talk to all them and watch their business dry up overnight. It's really good for those kinds of things, not very useful for tracking terrorists.
Besides, if this is such a good thing, then brief Congress and have the oversight legalized. Most times you do that BEFORE spending billions of dollars monitoring innocent Americans and then get caught with your hand in the cookie jar.
It's not paranoid to suggest the current administration and their supporters are the biggest threat to America to come along in the last 150 years. Terrorists can knock down a building or blow up a chemical plant, but Bush is undermining the foundation of our country.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Who needs to be able to read if it can do that?
1979. We've passed telecommunications privacy bills since then. Of course, when we did that we were expecting the problem would be the telecom companies selling the data, not handing it over to the government...
it was reported i found this mentioned in another thread below. Now - should you be more concerned that these guys don't know the actual meaning of the 4th or concerned that they are trying to create a meme and general belief that it actually says something different.
perhaps you should be concerned that it wasn't WIDLY reported (or do you watch fox?)
You're probably a troll but you're also a moron. Read the 4th amendment sometime.
I bet half the world joins me as I proclaim: FUCK THE U.S. GOVERNMENT!
Well, off to change my IP address! See ya!
Summary for the impatient: you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy when it comes to the phone numbers you dial, and therefore the government doesn't need a warrant to get records of them. I strongly suspect that a court would refuse to issue a warrant before the government at least asked for the records, unless the government was claiming that time was an issue. (In which case they probably would've gotten a warrant since, in my non-lawyer opinion, one would clearly have been approved and it covers their butts.)
i'm not sure if your +1funny or -1flamebait. maybe just --naive.
Fascinating; you cannot understand the difference between a VOLUNTARY rating system, one which ANY user can bypass with a simple change at the top of the page, or one which terminates a process GUARANTEED by the American Constitution? To make a comparison such as you've drawn above reminds me of the over-used but appropriate "apples to oranges" comparison.
Mods may sometimes be heavy-handed, but I have seen waves of both right- and left-leaning moderators make their might known on various topics. Simply watering down discussion and moderation down to "GUBMIT IS EVIL" distracts from genuine concern over our federal system's inability to color inside it's own lines. Discussing how "the government trying to do the right thing by doing the wrong thing" IS being discussed here. Railing against it by making crude comparisons only distract from that. One might wonder why you are trying to distract.
I would rather Joe Sixpack close his eyes, cover his hears, and scream "THE GOVERNMENT IS EVIL" as opposed to "THE GOVERNMENT IS GOOD". At least then those of us who know what's going on could get things done.
And the first amendment doesn't give you as an individual the right to free speech, but only the press.
You better watch out
You better not cry
You better not pout
I'm telling you why
Santa Claus is comin' to town
Santa Claus is comin' to town
Santa Claus is comin' to town
He's making a list
He's checking it twice
He's gonna find out
Who's naughty or nice
Santa Claus is comin' to town
Santa Claus is comin' to town
Santa Claus is comin' to town
He sees you when you're sleeping
He knows when you're awake
He knows if you've been bad or good
So be good for goodness sake
So you better watch out
You better not cry
You better not pout
I'm telling you why
Santa Claus is comin' to town
Santa Claus is comin' to town
Santa Claus is comin' to town
The kids in girl and boyland
Will have a jubilee
They're gonna build a toyland
All around the Christmas tree
So you better watch out
You better not cry
You better not pout
I'm telling you why
Santa Claus (is comin' to town)
Santa Claus (is comin' to town)
Santa Claus is comin'
Santa Claus is comin'
Santa Claus is comin'
To town
What?
I'm secure in my house. Nobody has seized my private files, on my computer or otherwise. If they were to do so, it would be unconstitutional as well as criminal.
If I broadcast a message, with or without knowing full well that someone besides the intended is going to hear me (eg. a passers-by, the operator, my neighbour), I cannot expect my communications to be de facto secure.
#19845
can't we turn the "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about" table on the administration?
We have a democratic republic as our form of government here in the US. A republic is where representatives gather together and represent their constituencies. We are a democratic republic because we vote for who our representatives will be.
As a contrast, a simple republic could be where powerful, but not elected, people meet and represent their constituencies. A simple democracy is one man, one vote -- on laws itself. The simple democracy worked in ancient Greece, where only land-owning men were considered 'citizens'. Before the communications age, simple democracy would have been untenable -- it would simple take to long to propose laws and have discussion about them based on men moving paper around on horseback. But with the advent of the internet, people are now advocating Direct Democracy, where all the citizens of a country have a direct vote in various issues.
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
The US was founded as a republic, therefore our system of government is referred to as republican.
No, it's a representative republic. If you had stayed awake in your civics class, you'd know that instead of making up weird names for it.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
The state secrets or breach of national security intervention is surely the ultimate trump card for the government to squash legal proceedings before they reach their natural conclusion. While I believe that this power is necessary in extraordinary cases where the danger of immediate and irreparable harm is obvious, I also believe that it should be used in an extremely narrow and judicious fashion since the fallout (pun intended) from its frequent use would destroy the very democracy that the provision is designed to protect. Does anyone know of a case where a judge has NOT granted the request of the government for immediate suppression and dismissal under this statute?
Eh, the people who have been screamning "THE GOVERNMENT IS EVIL" are the right-wing nutziods who now form Bush's hardcore support base. Why? They hated the government ecause they're reactionaries with facistic tendancies.
Parent wrote:
... just invoke the state secret card! Now all 40,000 think they're the in the 4,000 being spied upon.
> Suppose that a deep cover agent of the US, who is providing critical intelligence about a hostile foreign power, cheats somebody in a business transaction. The person cheated sues. It could easily be the case that the information disclosed in the course of the suit would make the agent look suspicious. In a case like this, there would be a legitimate reason for the government to want to put a stop to the lawsuit.
Except: Once the government plays the "state secret" trump card, everybody in the entire world will know about it. That means anybody who can add 2+2 and has ties to the defendant will start checking up on the defendant. Thus, invoking "state secret" in a civil trial will probably blow the spy's cover.
Now apply a bit of logic: The spy agencies are smart enough to know that the person being spied upon knows how to add. They know that if they play the "state secret" card, the spy's cover is probably going to get blown. Thus, we can conclude that they probably won't play this card to protect a spy in an ongoing mission. Instead, they'll just make the spy "disappear."
That leaves us with the conclusion that all this "state secret" trump card does is prevent someone from being forced to reveal state secrets under oath. And as the parent suggested, it's possible that the reason for keeping it secret is to make everyone with reason to be spied upon think they're one of the ~4,000 actually being spied upon.
Think of it this way: Suppose you're the government and you've got 40,000 persons of interest. You can only afford to spy on 4,000, so you "accidentally" reveal that you're spying on 4,000. Suddenly a few lawsuits appear, but not to fear
I, for one, welcome our right wing, overly religious, paranoid Republican overlords-...
Umm, I'm already six years late for that statement, aren't I?
Solomon
"Twice half-assed makes an ass whole." --Solomon K. Chang
I don't care if there are good and legitmate reasons for taking these actions. I am far more concerned with what a corrupt government authorized to use these powers could do to me and my country than I am afraid of what islamofascists can do to me and my country when a scrupulous government lacks them.
AT&T is not a state, and thus cannot have any state secrets to disclose. If another state shared such a 'secret' with a public company, it's no longer secret is it?
See Amendment X:It is The People that have unenumerated Rights.
See Amendment IX:
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Donate $50 to the EFF.
Today.
You know I think the reality of the 9/11 situation was that the methods then in place to combat just such a eventuality were distrupted. Intelligence gathered by methods already in place was ignored. Planes and set contingencies meant to intercept were hindered by changes in authority from military to state and information was smothered regarding the hijackers themselves. If the intelligence and military communities were able to do their jobs with the systems they already had in place. If the intelligence was listened to and acted on the planes would have never had been a weapon and if that contingency had failed the planes would have been shot out of the sky in short order if the military had been left to do their job. Intelligence is a red herring. Welcome to the USSA, The United Surveillance State of America. Tech will smother us unless we somehow use it to decentalise ourselves.
Quantifying chaos since 63
Why would they? I suggest you read Smith v. Maryland (1979).
Hi. Please see my comments in response to someone who brought up Smith v. Maryland in a different thread. In short Smith v. Maryland applied in 1979 but I do not think it applies in 2006, becuase the Smith v. Maryland suit is founded on the subjective question of what constitutes a "reasonable expectation of privacy"; however, privacy laws (and laws concerning exactly when the government must ask for a warrant before obtaining certain information) have changed significantly since 1979, meaning that what may be considered a "reasonable expectation of privacy" in 1979 is different from what may be considered a "reasonable expectation of privacy" in 2006. Thanks for the link though.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
Pray for the victims of the next "terrorist attack" that these criminals will stage.
Impeach Bush now! Put this criminal bastard in jail.
I'm not commenting at all on how valid those 14 characteristics are. I wouldn't know, I'm not an expert on facism. My arguement is that these characteristics were obviously created with a political agenda in mind, and not by a political scientist who is an expert in fascism.
If you aren't doing anything wrong, what have you got to hide? And from that we can conclude what about an administration which tries to hide so much?
These are extremely ominous developments. What is worrisome is not merely that the executive branch is engaging in these illegal and unconstitutional activities, but that it is so brazenly asserting a right to do so. In past administrations, e.g. Nixon's, great efforts were made to keep activities like this a secret. Nixon understood that it was unconstitutional for the "Plumbers" to break into Daniel Elsberg's psychiatrist's office or to tap the phones of the Democratic National Committee. He did not want these activities disclosed because he knew they would not be tolerated by his political opponents or even by his political allies. In comparison to Nixon's administration, Bush's efforts at secrecy are relatively lackluster. Indeed, whenever they are faced with a disclosure of one of these kinds of activities - torture, holding people without charge, circumventing the Geneva convention, spying on innocent civilians without a warrant, etc, - they assert that these activities are perfectly justified.
In a strange way, Nixon's attempt to cover-up his administration's illegal activities involved an implicit acknowledgment of the rule of the law - he engaged in a cover-up because he knew what he had done was illegal. Bush and company don't try very hard to cover up their illegal activities, because they don't care to understand that what they have done violates the Constitution.
As the logic of this plays out, it is going to become apparent that *there must be a constitutional crisis* if we do not want to see the Fourth Amendment eviscerated. If the executive asserts powers it should not have, then either the legislative or the judicial branch, or the people directly, will have to bring the system back into balance. Otherwise we face a slide into tyranny. We cannot allow Bush's justifications of these unconstitutional acts to stand, because they provide precedents that are too threatening to our fundamental liberties. A constitutional crisis is inevitable - and essential - for the health of our democracy.
Come on. Don't feed the Troll. It's not that hard.
Since the program will waste investigative resources it will *harm* national security. No, I do not see good and legitimate reasons to hurt my country's safety.
/. for daring to question the mindthink
>taste the wrath of
Yes, there is a lot of "mindthink" on Slashdot. Most of us think with our minds. There are exceptions.
Is there any doubt that George W Bush is fascist. Not only he is eroding the civil rights, he is bankrupting america. Thanks bush for being a fucking asswipe. I don't which party is in power as long as the "try" to help the public and obey the laws.
I think that this database system will be about as effective against terrorists as region coding in DVDs is against pirates. The average citizen is much more affected by this than terrorists who know to avoid regular, non-anonymous telephones.
Possibly, but nowhere near the level of misunderstanding that gave rise to FISA. It is constitutionally dubious as to whether the legislature can pass a law that circumscribes the executive's ArticleII Sec.2 powers, even if an executive were to sign such a law (as Carter did). It is likely that the current FISA statutes will be replaced by something more realistic in light of the needs of the intelligence community.
Dictatorships almost invariably start by some powerful ruler using some strikingly frightening event to declare that "special rules" must be enacted to fight whomever did the deed, and planting enough fear in people's minds so that they accept making the tradeoffs.
Not to worry yanks, I'm packaging a shipment of vaudeville masks as we speak.
All these months of emotional repression are leaking out, and I for one don't care to constrain myself. This Godwin's Law horseshit is straight out of Orwell - and please let's start trying to smear me as a paranoid hippie of some sort, because after all, who the fuck uses cautionary novels for support? (well, besides the Bible Thumpers, but I'd say Orwell remains relevant to our times)
Laughing at people who compare things to Hitler is ignoring a very large question that you (and in this case I am referring to the Grandparent and those of his mindset) should (if you weren't so educated fucking stupid) be asking yourself/yourselves: Why is this person so upset?
If we can't cite Hitler, we can't learn from our mistakes. If we can't learn from our mistakes, there's no point in making mistakes. If there's no point in making mistakes, then we should live in constant fear of making a mistake. If we should live in constant fear of making a mistake, we should all wipe ourselves out, because mistakes are inevitable, whether they be supporting facists or making a spelling error on Slashdot.
I am sick and tired. I can TASTE the contempt I have for people like you in my TEETH. "I'm content to be stupid, I enjoy being a parrot, and I can be happy with making little sacrifices - I'm not a bad person. Why can't everyone else be just like me?"
I... there's just so much contempt within me that I find it almost impossible to coherantly express how I feel. It's thanks to moron idiots like you that Stalin was able to remain in power. It's thanks to moron idiots like you that Hitler was able to commit crimes against humanity. It's thanks to moron idiots like you that Bush and the fascists in office can feel free to trample all over every basic human dignity and liberty alike, because you will accept, and even defend, this practice. Not because you actually relate to it - though it gives you a goofy rise, much like how civilized people get a goofy rise out of watching Sonny Chiba movies - but because you are a crippled creature, willing to surpress your basic, ingrained notion of Right, and Wrong, and Fair. Whether through phony intellectualization or simple contempt for whoever's hurt your feelings (which you allow to spread over to the rest of humanity because epic destruction is so awesome), you become a creature of contempt. And even if you were touched by these idiotic policies which your contemptable straw man voodoo rhetoric supports - you know, say your brother got shot to death in Iraq, your father was imprisoned for talking with an old college bud of his and joking about killing the President, and your mother was stalked and raped after trying to rally people in support of your father - you would still sooner claim it the fault of liberalism, misunderstanding, dirty Islamic towelheads who have no right to anything, violent videogames, or God's Will - rather than simply admit that you are wrong, that you have been wrong, that your desire for a cheap rise, a moment of feeling Intellectually Gifted, and/or your simple crass thoughtlessness - whatever it is - is to blame.
The problem isn't that people feel, or think, that Bush is like an American Hitler. The problem is inside you, and inside anybody who would laugh off a comparision without actually giving it some thought, just because they read on Somethingawful/Fark/The "New" MAD Magazine/your satire source of choice that it's apparently "ridiculous" to say such things. Because "OOOOH HITLER, LOL! OMG, WTF, BBQ??? get it??? (insert heavy handed dose of "we're saying this is funny, in an unfunny way, because we think we actually ARE funny in some way, and therefore right - irony" here)", or something.
I have yet to actually read anywhere a coherant and sober reason for why it's a fallacy to compare things to Hitler or the Nazis. Maybe it's because Moderate folk (who can be just as emotionally overwraught as diehard Liberal or Conservative - leaning folk) can't stand t
If we're talking about reality, then all this is moot anyway, since 99% of the US doesn't care about things like this since we have far more important things to worry about like American Idol.
You must read a different /. then I do.
This is the lyrics to Anti-Flag's "Anatomy Of Your Enemy" which was on their 2002 release "Mobilize" (btw, pick up the recently released "For Blood and Empire", awesome cd...):
10 easy steps to create an enemy and start a war:
Listen closely because we will all see this weapon used in our lives.
It can be used on a society of the most ignorant to the most highly educated.
We need to see their tactics as a weapon against humanity and not as truth.
First step: create the enemy. Sometimes this will be done for you.
Second step: be sure the enemy you have chosen is nothing like you.
Find obvious differences like race, language, religion, dietary habits
fashion. Emphasize that their soldiers are not doing a job,
they are heartless murderers who enjoy killing!
Third step: Once these differences are established continue to reinforce them
with all disseminated information.
Fourth step: Have the media broadcast only the ruling party's information
this can be done through state run media.
Remember, in times of conflict all for-profit media repeats the ruling party's information.
Therefore all for-profit media becomes state-run.
Fifth step: show this enemy in actions that seem strange, militant, or different.
Always portray the enemy as non-human, evil, a killing machine.
[Chorus:]
THIS IS HOW TO CREATE AN ENEMY. THIS IS HOW TO START A WAR.
THIS IS HOW TO CREATE AN ENEMY.
Sixth step: Eliminate opposition to the ruling party.
Create an "Us versus Them" mentality. Leave no room for opinions in between.
One that does not support all actions of the ruling party should be considered a traitor.
Seventh step: Use nationalistic and/or religious symbols and rhetoric to define all actions.
This can be achieved by slogans such as "freedom loving people versus those who hate freedom."
This can also be achieved by the use of flags.
Eighth step: Align all actions with the dominant deity.
It is very effective to use terms like, "It is god's will" or "god bless our nation."
Ninth step: Design propaganda to show that your soldiers
have feelings, hopes, families, and loved ones.
Make it clear that your soldiers are doing a duty; they do not want or like to kill.
Tenth step: Create and atmosphere of fear, and instability
and then offer the ruling party as the only solutions to comfort the public's fears.
Remembering the fear of the unknown is always the strongest fear.
[Chorus (repeat)]
We are not countries. We are not nations. We are not religions.
We are not gods. We are not weapons. We are not ammunition. We are not killers.
We will NOT be tools.
Mother fuckers
I will not die
I will not kill
I will not be your slave
I will not fight your battle
I will not die on your battlefield
I will not fight for your wealth
I am not a fighter
I am a human being!!!
"It ain't a war against drugs.it's a war against personal freedom" --Bill Hicks
To question Bush is to question the word of God. What kind of Satanic asshole are you, anyway?!
-- Mark
It's already got a name -- totalitarianism. As in history textbooks have a section called "the totalitarian regimes of the 30s and 40s". Interestingly, most of them were originally democratic, Russia being the notable exception.
Moron, republicanism is what you call it when your nation IS A REPUBLIC. Like early Rome or modern France or the USA pre-1996. This is as opposed to true democracy like classical Athens, parlimentary democracy like Canada or England, Communism like China or North Korea, or a theocracy Iran or the USA circa-1996.
Sadly you don't see much of that in other democracies, or on national level issues. And since virtually no one votes in local elections, it doesn't mean much. Still, it sounds nice.
Just because something helps your government get rid of terrorists, doesn't mean that it's a good idea.
Aside, I note that Bin Laden is still at large and laughing his ass off at America's half-hearted attempts to get him. He'll probably die of lung cancer long before an American gets anywhere near him. For god's sake, we know where he is!! The Pakistan/Afghanistan border! JUST GO AND SHOOT HIM! They only reason it hasn't happened yet is that his continued "menace" is the best thing that ever happened to the Republican party. They'll hold total power over the US for as long as he lives and keeps releasing his assinine little videos. So there's no real motivation to actually capture him. All this spying is probably more to keep tabs on guys like Kaczinsky and McVeigh, since, ya know, spying on Americans wont help much with stopping terrorist organizations located in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan (who are America's allies, supposedly).
I'm not passing judgment on R.v.W. or anything else. All I'm saying is that, by making a litmus test of that ruling, politics have forced justices into a commitment of absolute obedience to precedent. By their public admission that "No matter what I, personally, believe, I will honor precedent," justices are forced to honor all retarded rulings previously made rather than giving them the flexibility to adapt to the changes of the world.
I have no answers. This is really one of those "worst form of government, except all the others" kinds of situation. We have to honor precedent, or we fall into anarchy; but we have to disregard bad precedent, only who knows what decisions we're making today that are bad? (Okay, we all have opinions, but a century fom now at least half of them will be demonstrably moronic.)
By the way, I found your earlier post very well-thought out, though not entirely convincing. (That's newspeak for "mod parent insightful.")
Could someone tell me what the hell this is? Why do I keep seeing it? Is it common spam, or some clever Slashdot in-joke? Why isn't it modded down? I know a mod might not have gotten to it yet, but I don't think it was modded the other three or four times I've seen it, either.
There are a number of reasons why people aren't talking impeachment, these days, but the most obvious one is: "President Cheney"
I suspect I know the answer to this already, but I'll ask it anyhow, just in case a legal person can respond and we'll learn something about it:
Can we begin impeachment proceedings on BOTH of them and try them as a pair, impeach or not, hang together or serve together?
The constitution doesn't begin to cover it, but what about legal lore? Can congress make that move?
"Anyone think that maybe there might be good and legitimate reasons for this system?"
.45 rag head losses.
No.. no good can come of this system. I fear my government for than just a few rag heads. Thats what guns are for. Rag head vs
now as far as the government fighting the big issues like nukes, bioweapons.. yes.. go for it guys.
but i really do not like the idea of a big brother government.
Just imagine the possibilities for misuse of power.
if hitler had this technology i guarantee fewer jews would be here.
think about that for a moment.
"Look, the idea of keeping the government in check by due process of law and constitutional guardrails is that, if it is bad, it doesn't do extreme damage, like turn into a dictatorship. When it's good, then of course it's hindered in its ability to serve citizens quickly and efficiently, but that's the price to pay".
Precisely. The Founding Fathers (like most other intelligent people who have ever thought the matter over) overwhelmingly felt that "the less government, the better". In other words, government is a necessary evil. So if a government is "hindered in its ability to serve citizens quickly and efficiently", that shouldn't be of too much concern, as the citizens should depend on the government for as few things as possible. It is certainly not as bad as the alternative of too much government.
Unfortunately, with the passage of time all governments appear to extend their roles through a form of "mission creep". They start out lean and mean, but while they occasionally acquire new functions, they never discard old ones.
The worst imaginable scenario is one in which government does everything for everyone. The scope for corruption and inefficiency would be mind-boggling, if only because there would be no competition and no alternatives.
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
I didn't read anywhere that Bush had anything to do with this case. He's probably not even aware of it. There are far more entities in the government than George Bush. If it was a president that you liked, then you would probably say it was the repbulican congress or someone else causing all these problems.
or else!
The point with Godwin's Law is that the mention of Hitler/Nazis is very often too emotionalizing to continue the discussion in a constructive way, thus it diminishes the probability of resolving the debate in a good way.
The reason for this is that just by mentioning words such as "Hitler" or "Nazi" you are stirring up images and irrational thoughts that everyone of us is confronted with when learning about that part of history. We connect these words with visions of extreme atrocities against other humans, but also with simple anti-nazi propaganda that we have been fed with since WWII.
A very simple example to reflect this: if I were to say "Hitler did many good things." the first thought that will go through most people's minds would be that I am a nazi with all the characteristics associated with one (racist, anti-semitic, authoritarian etc.). Thing is, that I'd consider myself as quite the opposite of a nazi, yet I would stand by that sentence above because it is true (as true as "Hitler was not a good man."). Yet due to the reasons mentioned above most people will react irrationally to my statement and any possibility for rational discussion will be buried.
This is why mentioning Hitler as a comparison to augment a rational debate will only work with certain (educated) people, but usually not if your peers are your average Joe Doe - yes, even here on Slashdot, though at least here fortunately the demographics seem to be scewed a bit towards the 'rational debaters'. Apparently the moderation system improves the SNR as well ;)
And when you gaze long enough into the code, the code will also gaze into you.
Hey, as far as the Thief in Chief is concerned, THERE IS NO CONSTITUTION. We are all his personal slaves, and he is our master ("the decider"). How dare anyone question anything that he approves of?
First off: Nothing for you here to get really excited here. Please save us your FUD.
I just ran this through a text diff and all I can see is that he condensed some of the prose and shifted it into present tense. No matter what, those 14 points are very valid and nobody needs to be an "expert on fascism" to see that. As far as you're "expert requirement" is concerned, do I need to know everything there is to know about toilet tissue to wipe my self? As far as expertise in the subject matter is concerned, people do really need to know that oh so glorified Cicero was just another slumlord who did his best to advance poverty in Rome just like they do here today. But even without that kind of background knowledge, people can certainly see what is happening in their lives today all too clearly and if anything that makes everbody an "expert" in the subject.
You can't really accuse the original poster of malquoting "Dr. Lawrence", and no matter what it still doesn't even put the slightest dent into the validity of those 14 points.
America is supposed to be the land of the free, etc. etc. I think it is time that American government representatives were reminded of this - specially with elections coming up. They will do anything to remain in power. If you all tell them you are not going to put up with this kind of BS, then maybe they will stand up for you.
Difficult in a country with a de facto political duopoly... Only in some states you can hope to vote a somewhat privacy minded duopoly member into a crumb of federal political power.
Yes, I know about arguments pro and contra majority systems, but this is most certainly to be counted on the contra side.
If I broadcast a message
I'd tend to agree with respect to a broadcast message. However, a phone call from one person to another is about as narrowcast as anything gets.
To summarise the summary of the summary: people are a problem. ~ h2g2
What Americans got to know as "Communism" was actually what you described.
There, I fixed it for you.
...military control is one way of gutting the CIA for the purpose of subverting intelligence operations that may uncover truths that are "inconvenient" for the current adminstration. The military, with its strict hierarchy and narrow focus, is much less likely to have access to the kind of independent thinking and breadth of expertise that is necessary for extracting the truth from a set of conflicting accounts, observations and intepretations of events. Transferring intel analysis to the DoD will make it much easier to "manage" the product. Plans to strip the CIA of its analysis functions have been formulated and are most likely already being implemented.
Do you get to define what the word 'terrorist' means, and who is one, or is the Federal Government the only body that is capable of doing it?
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
...showing the most common sence in the whole matter posed the rhetorical question, "Wollen Sie uns weismachen, daß zehn Millionen amerikanischer Bürger mit Al Qaida in Verbindung stehen?"
Al Qaida and other groups that use violent dissident actions are not generally appealing by their primary operational mode to majority of Citizens of the United States, and it is insane to assume otherwise as a basis to conduct such wide sweeping methods of data collection.
The system is not what makes government "enlightened." Only people can do that. This is akin to the saying, "Guns don't kill people..."
When the leaders are liars who promote their views through bribes and threats rather than using reason and logic, you have what we have now: an unenlightened system.
Of course! Good Lord, man, no one I know has any problem with going after terrorists.
... because this brings attention to their cause.
In the sense that the federal government means, I oppose going after terrorists. There, I've said it.
Terrorists are inconsequential. 2001 was the worst of any year in history: terrorists killed nearly 4000 people across the globe. In every other year beforehand, terrorists had killed < 800, and in years since, < 1200 people annually. By comparison, automobile accidents kill tens of thousands, heart disease and cancer each kill over half a million.
Meanwhile, what terrorists *want* is for us to come after them. Their goal is to disrupt life through fear. They want to shake things up. They want us to start wars. They want us to change our laws, wiretap our own people, whatever
Terrorism is an activity that thrives only off of attention and reaction, which we've given them in abundance the last few years. Frankly, the best thing we could have done is to just ignore them.
Now, I don't mind "going after them" with law-enforcement techniques as we would any other serious criminal - that's an appropriate response that would have been the best thing we could have do. Much worse to give them more response than they deserve. Incredibly stupid to start a war and wiretap all of our own citizens - the terrorists couldn't have hoped for more.
I stole this sig from someone cleverer than me.
To take aim more directly at the points, I would ask you to look up the wikipedia entry on facsism. There are similarties like those shown in the 14 points. However, many of th 14 points have stretched those similarities quite a long way. Many of the 14 points are simply ways in which governments of all types have tried to gain power. Some of the more definining characteristics of facism are discussed in the wikipedia article:
"Fascism in many ways seems to have clearly developed as a reaction against Communism and Marxism, both in a philosophic and political sense, although it it can be seen as opposing democratic capitalist economics along with Marxism. It viewed the state as an organic entity in a positive light rather than as an institution designed to protect collective and individual rights, or as one that should be held in check. It tended to reject the Marxist notion of social classes (and universally dismissed the concept of class conflict), replacing it instead with two more nebulous struggles: conflict between races and the struggle of the youth versus their elders. This meant embracing nationalism and mysticism, and advancing ideas of strength and power as means of legitimacy, a might makes right that glorified war as an end in itself and determinant of truth and worthiness. An affinity to these ideas can be found in Social Darwinism. These ideas are in direct opposition to the ideas reason or rationalism characteristic of the Age of Enlightenment, from which liberalism and, later, Marxism would emerge." I'm curious to see if you find that paragraph to describe the current administration.
Wouldn't this be a radical extension of the state secret doctrine/privilege? I mean, we're talking about evidence that is already in the hands of the plaintiff (to a significant extent), that deals with a private entity and not something in government possession, and, to state the important but obvious, is all over the freakin' news. The cat is out of the bag. As far as I can tell, the cases that the government relies on don't even begin to apply here.
The thirty-six current co-sponsors of H. Res 635 to create a Select Committee investigating the grounds for recommending President Bush's impeachment are Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-HI), Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Rep. Michael Capuano (D-MA), Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA), Rep. William Lacy Clay (D-MO), Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), Rep. Danny Davis (D-IL), Rep. Sam Farr (D-CA), Rep. Chaka Fattah (D-PA), Rep. Bob Filner (D-CA), Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), Rep. Mike Honda (D-CA), Rep. Jackson, Jr., (D-IL), Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX), Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA), Rep. John Lewis (D-GA), Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), Rep. Betty McCollum (D-MN), Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA), Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA), Rep. Gwen Moore (D-WI), Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Rep. James Oberstar (D-MN), Rep. John Olver (D-MA), Rep. Major Owens (D-NY), Rep. Donald Payne (D-NJ), Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY), Rep. Martin Sabo (D-MN), Rep. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Rep. Fortney Pete Stark (D-CA), Rep. John Tierney (D-MA), Rep. Nydia Velazquez (D-NY), Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA), Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), and Rep. David Wu (D-OR). Source. All Democrats, but still members. I'm not sure if any are up for reelection this term.
If no member of Congress is willing to stat the process, it does not start.
The US Constitution Article I, Section 2 grants the House "the sole Power of Impeachment." (Section 3 places trial of such impeachments with the Senate.) Under the House Rules, impeachment is governed by Section 603 (in sec. LIII) of Jeffereson's Rules. This states (ommitting crossreferences):
Most of these methods (such as the abovementioned Select Committee) are internal, but not all. Since a trial necessarily can exhonorate as well as convict, it is not inconceivable that a President might demand his own impeachment trial, to confront and counter debilitating political attack by rumor and innuendo; however, I would consider it implausible given the personal and political character of President Bush. (The president referring the VP for impeachment is barely more conceivable in present circumstances.) Charges may also come from a state legislature, as folk in California, Vermont, and Illinois are currently pushing; if conveyed this way, it must be addressed as a priveleged bill, taking precedence over all other House business. Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is currently investigating the executive, with Libby indicted by a grand jury, and Rove anticipated to follow; it's not inconceivable that Cheney or Bush might be next on his list.
With a Republican controlled House, the potential exists for bills so introduced to be p
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
Depending on your definition of "good," it can be argued that there hasn't been one in any lifetime.
The labor movement marches. We recently saw demonstrations over illegal immigration we saw marches and protests.
Where are the protests over this? I would enthusiastically participate in rallies protesting these actions, but so far I've yet to see anyone calling for any, let alone organizing.
We need a "HOLD GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABLE" day and spread the word. Could we get 250,000 people to march on DC over this? IMO it's a *much* bigger deal than illegal immigration. several hundred thousand people in DC would be a force to be reckoned with. Comments on slashdot or Kos are not.
Terrorism is a crime. Murder is a crime. You don't think that the FBI and police use intelligence?
"the needs of the intelligence community"
Or the needs of those in control of the intelligence community.
No I did not miss the point you're trying to make. In fact I carefully went through a text diff to see whether he added or modified any thesis of the 14 points. As far as credentials are concerned... a mild degree of common sense should be sufficient to understand what he wanted to convey.
:-) worship of the state is concerned they do fall short of that (for now).
''I'm curious to see if you find that paragraph to describe the current administration.''
Well, let's see what I can come up with for you here:
"Fascism in many ways seems to have clearly developed as a reaction against Communism and Marxism, both in a philosophic and political sense, although it it can be seen as opposing democratic capitalist economics along with Marxism."
Well, let's see superficially "we" are still opposed to communism, marxism in all of its forms and offshoots and there still is the issue of North Korea awaiting Liberty's Torch to light that country up. Even though the "War on Terror" has superseded the cold war paradigm in the case of North Korea you would undoubtedly be treated to rethorics reminiscent
of the yadda yadda they gave us at the height of the cold war. As far as opposition to democratic capitalist economy is conerned, I think anybody can see to what great lengths they go to pamper big business while stomping on small and medium businesses.
"It viewed the state as an organic entity in a positive light rather than as an institution designed to protect collective and individual rights, or as one that should be held in check."
As far as downright worship is concerned, Americans for example defer the Office of the President of the United
States (insulting the person who is president instead of insulting the institution of presidency). A much better
example of blind worship is the believe in the sancticity of "The Law". I know however what you're driving at and
as far as downright Cardassian
"It tended to reject the Marxist notion of social classes (and universally dismissed the concept of class conflict), replacing it instead with two more nebulous struggles: conflict between races and the struggle of the youth versus their elders. "
Actually they're busy getting rid of the middle class right now. As far as pseudoclass conflict is concerned, isn't that exactly how they operate today? As of late we have in varying degrees of intensity and bloodshed "Blacks vs. Hispanics", "Whites vs. Blacks", "Hispanics vs. Whites", "Men vs. Women", "Youth vs. Seniority", "Christians vs. Pagans", "Pagans vs. Satanists", "Real Satanists vs. Satanists", "Homophobes vs. Homophiles", "US vs. Terror", "Hard-workin' Joe Sixpack vs. Potheads", "Large People vs. Athletes" etc. etc. etc etc. "Rich vs. Poor" is kind of drowned out by all that noise and distraction isn't it?
"This meant embracing nationalism and mysticism, and advancing ideas of strength and power as means of legitimacy, a might makes right that glorified war as an end in itself and determinant of truth and worthiness. "
Well as far as Mysticism is concerned, you might want to check out the huge stone owl where Georgy Junior and Georgy Senior worship every year at the Bohemian Club in Northern California. This btw is NOT another one of those "crazy" conspiracy theories, this is documented and I recommend you check out the ritual that was taped by Alex Jones. Also checkout the Wikipedia article on the subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cremation_of_care . I'm not an expert on cult rituals but I've been told this ritual goes back all the way to Babylon.
As to "Might makes Right" they're not into telling that the world straight into its face. Instead they bring on the might and then have public relations firms make it sound "right. Power and military might are advanced considerably in order to make even more things go "right".
An affinity to these ideas can be found in Social Darwinism. These ideas are in direct opposi
What you are saying makes good sense. But I think the idea behind the post you are referring to is still a provocative one: in the recent years has the United States adaopted any policies that are identifiable with Facsism in particluar (from a professionals point of view, to address your compaint)?
Now I know what you are saying: the poster used a potentially misleading/unathoritative source. OK, but when you look at an authoritative one, are there any more similarities in any aspects the US government now to Facsism compared to the past? From what I have read the basic answer is "no," mostly because the US has been in similar circumstanmces before as far as wartime and quasi-wartime activities are concerned: Manifest Destiny westward expansion, the Civil War, the Vietnamese Conflict, and WWII are interesting comparisons. What makes this Administartion unique to me is the skill and sophistication with which they have acted and their fairly close partnership with religious persons.
Having said "no" I will say that what my government is doing in my name to "protect" me makes me feel a lot less safe than anything Al Qaeda has ever done, including 9/11. I shake my head almost every day when I read the news.
uR iGn0ranc3, Their Power
...If a corporation/government uses the "State Secrets" law to avoid prosecution for illegal acts then invoking the law should be handled similar to pleading "entrapment", it should be considered an admission of guilt and the case should proceed directly to the (civil/criminal) penalties phase.
I read that as saying that the government claims that the EFF's motive in bringing the suit is to force disclosure of state secrets, as if EFF only cooked up the suit to aid America's enemies. That's a transparent ploy to evade the issue that's really being tried: did the government violate the law?
I would guess that a good government would be like good sewage pipes; most people don't even have to think about it.
While a bad government would spray fecal matter into the air circulation system.
Is't illegal wiretapping and collecting data in violation of the law a felony? If it could be proven that bush was directly responisble for the recent illegal survailance then he could be impeached. I think that there is no way that the techniques the president/NSA are using are not in direct violation of constitutional, statutory, and precidential law. If only somebody would hold the president legally accountable for his actions...
411 Y0UR 8453 4R3 8310NG 70 U5!! -NSA
Go ahead! Throw your vote away! Muahahaha!
Did you ever notice that *nix doesn't even cover Linux?
Time to make friends with our local police and make sure they aren't "just doing their job" but actually protecting people and not the laws. When laws turn upside down you have to make sure the police don't blindly follow. "Just doing my job" is no excuse for anyone.
This seems to be a boogyman argument that this is going to happen, but I state for the record that the USA will not be invading Iran, at least any time soon. Besides having to deal with the occupation of Iraq, there is a huge domestic issue as well that is going to stop this from happening.
The President of the United States can't simply go to war with whomever he chooses. Oh, he can drop a few bombs and rattle sabres, but any serious attempt to go to war with Iran is going to be bloody and vicious. It is also going to take a formal declaration of war by the U.S. Congress.
The point being here that hard-core conservatives aren't going to let Congress get bully-whipped into this pansy "resolution for the authorization of the use of force". There was some opposition in conservative circles to Iraq in part to do this, and Iran is simply going to be the point where these right-leaning people will force it to come to a head. Adding this conservative (aka Republican) opposition to the idea plus the Democrat opposition, makes the whole idea moot and even laughable that it might even happen.
In order for a declaration of war to really occur, it will likely require something like a nuke being detonated... particularly if it blew up inside U.S. borders, and could be traced or at least blamed on Iran. At that point all the Iranian government could do is kiss their hind ends goodbye. For their own sake, I highly doubt the Iranian government is that stupid. And that would open the possibility of nuclear war against Iran as well, where there would be targets that would be useful to nuke, unlike Afghanistan. The Taliban merited a nuke attack by the USA, but there was nothing that would be useful to nuke nor was there anything that couldn't be also taken care of by conventional arms just as easily.
And there won't be a gurrella war, it would be total war with mass conscription inside the USA with an expansion of the U.S. Army to over 10 million soldiers. This is something the U.S. economy does not need, nor would it be good for anybody in the world to see a U.S. Army of that size again (like it was during WWII).
When he was a poor unsuccessful artist at the age of 21 his mother died and he gave his share of orphans' benefits to his younger sister Paula (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler).
He gave many Germans back the sense of worth after the defeat in WWI, many Germans believed they were unjustly humiliated by the actions of the 'winners' because before and throughout the war they were on par with other leading European nations like England and France, yet afterwards they were politically basically begging for mercy.
This was not only a matter of hurt feelings, but of real suffering as Germany along with the other countries devastated by the war was struggling to recover, but additionally had to pay tremendous reparations according to the Versailles treaty. Hitler disregarded the Versailles treaty (which at the time was seen as unfair by other countries as well) and created many jobs helping Germany out of the recession.
He improved the infrastructure by having railroads and the autobahn built. At the same time he commissioned Porsche with creating the Volkswagen ("people's car") Beetle so everyone could drive around in an affordable car. (Even 70 years later people still are.)
By acquring the Sudetenland, mainly inhabited by Germans at the border region of Czechoslovakia (Munich Agreement) he arguably decreased tensions in that region. It earned him Time magazine's "Man of the Year" title. (After WWII the 3 million Germans were forced to leave their homes in the Sudetenland)
Up until then he was seen by most other leaders as the strong little, maybe a bit awkward, guy (parodied brilliantly be Chaplin) who helped Germany back up. Britain's prime minister upon returning from Germany is quoted saying "My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour. I believe it is peace in our time."
Also, up until then his leadership hasn't caused human casualties yet (though in some places Jews and 'associal people' were already harshly persecuted). Some historians believe that if he had been assassinated 1935 or even 1938 (before the war and before anti-nazi and anti-German propaganda really set off) he would have gone down into history as the powerful authoritarian leader that helped stabilize Germany. Nazi and fascist sentiments permeating through society (at that time not only in Germany), as the basis for the power of his political party, would still have had to struggle against communist (Germany is after all the country of Marx) and capitalist ideologies (e.g. US companies had established footholds in Germany and worked together with German companies even after WWII had began) - especially when realizing the inevitable clash of these ideologies and the resulting Cold War Germany would have had not choice but to pick a side (or 'be picked').
Disclaimer: Though this post might not look like it (due to reasons mentioned earlier) I maintain that Hitler was a bad person. But I also want to point out that he was a human like anyone of us and thus we all are prone to the same faults and weaknesses: we have to constantly reevaluate ourselves and others whether we fall victim to hatred and fascist tendencies. - This is the lesson that many people neglect to learn from this particular part of history.
And when you gaze long enough into the code, the code will also gaze into you.
The Bill of Rights limits a government's rights. It applies to what the government can't do. It has nothing to do with whether or not your neighbor or Joe Blow can intercept traffic or data. It has nothing to do with any of the shit you mentioned.
The US government mass-intercepting your call records (esp. without a warrant nor valid reason) is unreasonable search and seizure.
Article IV, Section 4:
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
Nowhere in the Constitution does it say "representative republic"
Here's my DeCSS mirror, where's yours?