Slashdot Mirror
Wiretapping Lawsuit Against AT&T Dismissed
BalanceOfJudgement writes "A major victory by the federal government was won today when a federal judge dismissed the lawsuit against AT&T for providing phone records to the federal government. From the article: 'The court is persuaded that requiring AT&T to confirm or deny whether it has disclosed large quantities of telephone records to the federal government could give adversaries of this country valuable insight into the government's intelligence activities'" Not to be confused with the EFF case, this case was filed by the ACLU on behalf of author Studs Terkel and other activists who argued that their constitutional rights had been violated by the actions of AT&T and the NSA.
RIP America, good things never last.
One has to ask one's self who the true enemies of this country are.
Vote with your dollars.
Shouldn't this be in YRO?
Admitting that our government spies on it's own citizens 'give adversaries of this country valuable insight into the government's intelligence activities'?
Propaganda levels are approaching Soviet era Moscow.
My *&$@ing jaw dropped when I saw the headline. 'I THOUGHT THE JUDGE JUST WENT FORWARD WITH THE CASE!!'... Halfway down the article 'Not to be confused with the 500 other stories this month about AT&T Lawsuits by the EFF'....
...I was about to start a riot.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
Ok, so someone sues AT&T for providing the government with data, and the judge rules that by even revealing whether this is the case or not would give away information about how the government gets it's data. Does anyone else think that's slighty worrying? Now this has happened, no-one can ever sue any firm that may or may not be involved with helping the government out with intelligence, because the information resulting from such a case would lead to information becoming public domain about how the government performs its intelligence ops. So we're all screwed.
There is nothing interesting going on at my blog
Before the grammar nazis jump on my case.
Has this judge ever even read the constitution?
There's no out clause in the fourth amendment. It doesn't end with "Unless, the government wants to keep it secret."
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
The phrase "a major victory was won by the federal government" was written tongue in cheek. I don't consider this a good thing at all.
We are the fire that lights our world.. and we are the fire that consumes it.
There really is a fundamental flaw in this system.
I am doing something.
You ask what I'm doing.
You say it's illegal.
If I tell you, it will expose secrets.
I don't expose secrets.
You don't know what I am doing.
You can't tell me what I am doing is wrong, because you don't know what I am doing.
I am doing something. Too bad.
How exactly is it that the government can set up a system that is completely impervious to moral question? Keep in mind, this really is the NSA's wrongdoing, but it's more or less impossible to sue the government. Now, the government is saying you can't sue them either!?
What if the NSA was secretly executing suspected terrorists without warrants, due process, etc? Oh hell, let's say they were hiring a private (non-government) corporation to do that for them. It would obviously be illegal, but how would stopping that be any different? Someone would say "you can't just kill people, it's illegal", and the NSA would say "you can't ask that question, it would expose state secrets". And the NSA would continue to kill "terrorists".
Shouldn't this program be immediately halted while the morality (oh hell, legality) of it is in question?
Partial Credit: The Engineer's Best friend
"Well, the bridge didn't fall all the way down!"
Die dulci freure.
Now if you'll excuse me, I have some fiddling to go do by the fire. I think "The Rights of Man."
KFG
HELLO WORLD
19538 19538
HELLO WORLD
04459 04459 77439 77439 14510 14510 73596 73596 74103 74103
81170 81170 64198 64198 54810 54810 51142 51142 61185 61185
49592 49592 04667 04667 47460 47460 56294 56294 06202 06202
11445 11445 28444 28444 09760 09760 53536 53536 76213 76213
16216 16216 69948 69948 66729 66729 33354 33354 48293 48293
10186 10186 48699 48699 04914 04914 21108 21108 89073 89073
81194 81194 67595 67595 20106 20106 76223 76223 26133 26133
67364 67364 46206 46206 41307 41307 07683 07683 63114 63114
K-BYE
is it just me, or are the terms "citizens" and "adversaries" pretty interchangeable for any federal issues these days.
I really don't have all of the details so I can't actually say for sure whether this lawsuit would have uncovered information that could have decreased the United States' ability to combat terrorists, however, the truth is I DON'T CARE. There are a lot of things that COULD be done to increase security in the States, but many of them would be worse than the very things they would seek to eliminate. From what I know I would argue that this is probably one of them, though again, I don't know the true details. In a free country you simply can't have allegedly illegal government programs that aren't subject to claims of illegality. There's an argument to be made for suspending such things in times of true emergency, distant conflicts with various terrorist organizations likely to last indefinitely not being one.
More than likely there is an extensive spying program with relatively poor and easily avoidable detection methods and that's the reason it is being so well protected. Only the atmosphere of fear, uncertainty, and doubt is helping them "fight" terror, the program itself probaby doesn't do much besides producing false positives. If the details were made public it would almost certainly be cancelled even if it was legal.
Haiku for you!
(1) Quote: "He also said Terkel and the other plaintiffs in the lawsuit, which sought class-action status, had not shown that their own records had been provided to the government. As a result, they lacked standing to sue the government, he said."
Okay... this lawsuit is fundamentally about secret wiretapping, right? So how can the judge say "you don't KNOW that you were wiretapped, so you can't sue" with a straight face? _NO ONE_ knows whether or not they have been spied on. THAT'S THE ENTIRE FUCKING POINT!
(2) How can the judge possibly say that "news reports amounted to speculation and in no way constituted official confirmation that phone records had been turned over." Isn't Bush getting in front of a podium and denouncing the liberal media for revealing state secrets enough of an "official confirmation"?
I'm partially bitching about the sorry state of affairs here in the USA, but I'm also asking a serious question: Is this shit for real? Is there anyone, anywhere, who wants to defend it? Seriously, I know there are some hard core conservatives here on slashdot. I'd actually like to see how some of you view this ruling... does ANYONE want to defend it?
There is a concept in our Constitution which is generally called "separation of powers." Each of our branches of government is supposed to have specific and limited powers which are used in in part to further the common good and in part to keep the other branches from destroying our republican system (not to be confused with the Republican party which seems intent on destroying our republican system. Newspeak anyone?).
Anyway, the question is whether allegiance to our current government ought to supercede our allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America which defines our system of civil liberty.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
because lord knows those "enemies" didn't see all the press about this...
I guess this answers our question, the only conservatives that can support this are the ones that think we shouldn't care about the loss of our liberties or that they can accurately compare the leader of the "free world" with the instigator of the holocaust.
For any of you IANALs out there, can this be appealed? I'm appalled by this decision - the executive branch of today is truly above the law.
If I were a telephone provider looking for a market niche I would start advertising my decision not to participate in the government's illegal spying program _right now_. Of course, I would be very surprised if any of the monopoly-prone government sucks ups actually do it. You have to admit that there are a lot of people that would flock to such a provider and not a lot of people who would specifically avoid them. If the government really wanted to get devious they could encourage such a move then illegally seize the information and force the company to pretend it never happened. That's what I would do if I was in the business of burning the last shred of freedom out of the land of the free - it would be a great terrorist trap and a great way to spy on ultra-liberal opponents as well.
Haiku for you!
The really baffling thing about this case is that the government somehow made the argument that terrorists, given uncertainty about whether or not the government is snooping in this way, will assume that it isn't happening.
Any competent terrorist has almost certainly been operating under the assumption that this already happens for years. I mean, they're being hunted by the world's biggest military power, and we're supposed to think they don't even take basic precautions?
It's always been Eastasia. Eurasia is our friend. Best keep that in mind for the two minute hate.
Last I heard, US Cellular still insists on a warrant or court order before handing over its records. Their market is mostly only the midwest and great plains states though.
Let me see if I've got this right: You don't have standing to sue to find out if you were wiretapped unless you can prove you were wiretapped.
Hmm.
With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plead; but to tyrants I will give no quarter. -- William Lloyd
I remember once hearing the proud words of a US firefighter who was involved in the Ground Zero cleanup, saying something along the lines of "the terrorists will never take away our freedom".
And he was right. It took the Bush Administration to achieve that one.
Sits back and waits to modded down by neo-con fanatics.
...is going fairly well. I cannot say that I've follow this closely from across the pond, but a recent Slate article praises the judge for not falling for the government line, doing exactly the opposite of what this other judge did (ie he said that the "We have to be careful for our national security!" stuff is a bunch of hooey).
And here I was lead to believe (by various slashdotters, you know who you are!) that when it comes to litigation, the EFF was nigh incompetent. Looks like they're doing better than the ACLU, although it might just be a different judge thing.
If the Republicans had an ounce of integrity they'd impeach Bush and Cheney themeselves. But there's no fear the party of incompetent hypocrites would ever do the right thing for the country. They're too busy blaming other people for the ills of the nation.
Hey, maybe monitoring everyone's phone calls, they really have figured out the vast liberal conspiracy.
UnAmerican asshats.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Lisp wins again; too bad freedom loses. http://www.franz.com/resources/educational_resourc es/white_papers/
Everybody's a libertarian 'till their neighbour's becomes a crack house.
and other activists who argued that their constitutional rights had been violated
Have these people read the US Constitution? There may be a right to privacy, but it is not enumerated nor implied in that document. The closest you can get is the ninth and tenth ammendments, which are the two that are NEVER honored.
The core problem is that privacy is a vague (and very modern) concept. If I give someone a phonebook with your number in it, have I violated your privacy? How much worse is it if it's an unlisted number? Or if I give it to the government instead of to my neighbor? Or if I'm a phone company instead of an individual? Because privacy is such a nebulous property, the answers to these questions are anything but clear. The closest the courts have gotten to a definition (in the absence of anything in the Constitition itself) is the not-quite-so-vague concept of "expectation of privacy". But with the every changing technological landscape, expectations get pretty hard to pin down.
Senator Barbara Boxer regularly spams my inbox with junk. How did she get my address? Why isn't the local Registrar of Voters being sued for giving her my personal information? Why isn't Yahoo being sued for selling my account information to the highest bidder? Why isn't my old landlord being sued for telling my creditors where I moved? What makes that any of that different from what AT&T did?
AT&T didn't hand over any voice tapes of your private conversations. They might have handed over the times a call was place from your number to your mother's number, in aggregate with millions of other such records. To everyone the former is a privacy violation, to to many the latter is not. Simply because the line is very fuzzy and wide.
I'm not arguing that there isn't a right to privacy. Rather I am arguing that you're on very loose ground arguing over a constitutional right to privacy. If you think the situation is going to improve, you're sadly mistaken. I strongly suspect technology will make privacy obsolete.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
There are no politicians to vote for who are not corrupt.
...try running for office yourself?
I am curious as to the identity and class of the "terrorist" who would benifit from said information. To benifit the would have to have use for said information, and not currently have access to said information. I can't imagine many groups fall within the intersection of those categories. Oh well, not my homeland.
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
Mod parent up.
What kind of moronic, head-stuck-up-his-ass dyed in the wool IDIOT modded parent down?
Are there genuinely assholes that believe in this security through obscurity? If so, I hope you still defend my right to arms, so that when the day comes, and push comes to shove, I'll be able to go down fighting.
This ruling is absurd. The invocation of state secrets, an absurd doctrine, in such a mundane case, is absurd. This level of monitoring is absurd, as is SBC (AT&T Reborn! Empire Reborn!) playing lapdog to an administration that was supposed to be about small government.
Thankfully, I know that I'm wealthy enough, and smart enough, and connected enough, that when people like me fail, and our freedoms are wiped out, and the mass arrests start, I'll be able to get out. My parents fled horrifying regimes elsewhere in the world; I never imagined I might have to do it here, as well. It doesn't hurt that I have citizenship in 3 countries. For the rest of you stupid fucks that let this happen, rot in hell.
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
How could someone who considers him/herself to be a true conservative support such a radical attrition of civil rights? One is seriously tempted to quote from J. Scalia's dissent in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld where he argues vehemently that the courts ought not to be the agents of silent attrition of deeply held Constitutional rights.
Just as Rome started out with the first Triumverate (of Julius Caesar, Cassius, and Mark Anthony) and ended up eventually with the depravity of Nero and Caligula, so too we are following down this path if we don't take sufficient corrective action now.
No true conservative could defend these trends. That is, unless that "conservative" upholds Caligula or Nero as a great example of good governance...
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
And watching the court decide not to ask AT&T whether they're illegally spying on us could give residents of this country valuable insight into the government's intelligence activities. If we were paying attention.
--
make install -not war
Who do I buy off?
What have you got to hide, citizen?
Privacy is for terrorists. Law abiding, God fearing citizens should be proud of people knowing what they're doing. Only wicked people hide their activities.
Would you rather be free or be safe from terror? (end right wing satire)
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
Ignoring the civil liberties aspect.
Ignoring the government secrecy aspect.
Ignoring that the NSA is legally bound not to conduct domestic surveillance.
Those are some pretty FUCKING big pills to swallow, but I'll pretend, hypothetically, that I can let those things go. *gulp*.
The government's argument is this:
1. We are not conducting such surveillance, nor have we done anything illegal.
2. The reason we have not done anything illegal is because you cannot demonstrate that AT&T provided records to the government.
3. Forcing the government to provide such evidence might alert the terrorists that this surveillance program, which does NOT exist, is watching them, making us less safe.
4. Therefore, this case should be dismissed.
These statements are not congruent. There's no defensible argument here. One of the government's position is that AT&T did not provide records to the government. If that didn't occur, then there is no potential security risk. The entire government "reponse" is that we aren't doing any surveillance, but proving that may, potentially, alert Terrorists to the surveillance we are doing.
Frankly, I'm depressed we have a Republican Congress, because this kind of outrageous, unconstitutional, illegal, dictatorial, fascist behavior, layered in hypocrisy, deserves impeachment .
We impeached a President because an intern blew him, and he was misleading about it in Congressional Hearings.
Bush has, and continues to, lie about the existing of a ubiquitous domestic surveillance program that is without a doubt illegal, and his justification is, "Because I'm the boss, you all are children, and you can't handle the truth"
You cannot have it both ways. You cannot protect the secrecy of an illegal surveillance program under the grounds that it "doesn't exist". I hope, Mr. Bush, that the Heaven and Hell you believe in are real, so that you may burn in the lowest levels of hell, that reserved for traitors.
I say this as a person who supports the war in Iraq, I say this as a staunch conservative. Rot in Hell, Mr. President.
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
Col. Mustard did it in the Ballroom with the Lead Pipe. Fuckers.
I would welcome a Caligula or Nero. It would wake people and force them into action.
I have nothing to say.
Slashdot readers, more than just about anyone else, understand why the EFF's work is so important. YRO, right?
Got Encryption?
Like that the Supreme Court upheld Betamax?
Like your Broadcast-flag-free gear?
But most Slashdot members haven't joined the EFF. The EFF is fighting organizations that are thousands of times the size of the EFF, and the EFF is winning- that's the sort of thing to make you think Join the EFF today. Someone has to pay for the EFF, and right now that someone isn't 98% of Slashdot.
Yes, really. Slashdot has members in the high-hundred-thousands or low-millions. The EFF has nowhere near even 1/30th or 1/40th of that many members. 39 of 40 Slashdot members are relying on the donations of that 40th member to keep the EFF going. The 'Foundation' in Electronic Frontier Foundation doesn't mean 'trust fund.' It means 'you can make a tax deductable donation and that'll be helpful.'
Did you like that the Communications Decency Actgot killed?
Remember how quickly Sony got slammed for their rootkit?
Remember how long it took for non-technical people to understand how damaging the rootkit was? That's part of why the EFF is so important- they understand why the technical details matter so that they're ready when you call. But a small non-profit member-based organization depends on money from their members to run.
Disclaimer- I support the EFF and I know many of the people there- the 23 people who make the EFF look like it's 10x the size it is.OK, the answer to the question, did ATT give the government call records is blatently obvious.
:) ).
The real question is should that be legal?
I think the court just took the easy way out and said they didn't want to get involved.
The only way to change this is by voting.
I'm not sure how I feel about the true question. I have worked with the spooks and I can tell you for a fact, they save lives. Whether I would rather have less privacy and less terrorism v. more privacy and more terrorism is a tough call to make (get it, call to make?
Anyhow - vote your choice and quit bitching.
slashdot troll = you make a compelling argument I do not like the implications of.
I wish my sig weren't so appropriate today. :-/
Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
Have you ever heard of a signing statement? It's apparently a way for the president to advise, interpret, or negate specific portions of legislation put forth by Congress. The US Supreme Court has already ruled that a line-item veto is unconstitutional, but this is essentially what these signing statements allow. Bush has used this to challenge 750 laws so far, one of which includes the ban on the torture of detainees. The whitehouse says its "important for the president to express reservations about the constitionality of certain provisions of laws." (source: Cafferty on CNN).
Hello? Anyone home? Did Bush skip school the day they discussed the Supreme Court in civics class?
I'd never heard of signing statements before, but apparently Bush thinks he can use these to completely override both the Constitution and Congress. I amazed at his outright contempt toward the principles he was sworn to uphold. But I guess if he can lie about that, he can lie about anything...and he has.
you had the right to liberty (which has to include systemic encroachments on life and liberty as well as specific actions such as imprisonment) and the right to security from unreasonable searches and siezures. I would think that this story would fall at least under the latter.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
of people to be put up against the wall and shot for treason when the revolution begins!
...men have gave their lives to change the way they were being governed.
What is getting arrested compared to that?
So, the way I see it, you have a couple of possible outcomes of actual action taken from alleged phone records analysis.
1) You are a regular joe. Nothing of interest ever happens in your phone records. Nothing happens.
2) You are a bad person. Maybe your records are used to make a note that someone else ought to take a look at you, maybe without mentioning the fact that these phone records are what raised the flag. This is the grey area.
3) You are a very very very bad person, and something very very bad, and possibly unconsitutional, but well deserved happens to you. No one will ever know.
IANAL and all that, but it seems to me a key clause in the 4th is "unreasonable"... Judges change from time to time, but it is a good thing Constitutional matters aren't heard by juries, because what the public thinks is reasonable keeps getting stupider and stupider as time goes on. (At least I am pretty sure about that, let me call my psychic hotline circle of freinds and ask their opinion.)
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
Wouldn't that make for some great AT&T slogans:
Help fight Crime: drop a Dime!
Let Us slip it IN, or the Terrorists win!
EFF you must fear, for Bin Laden is Near!
Liberal Croud leads to a Mushroom Cloud!
Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
We still need a Caesar. Wouldn't want to be him though.
"You're everywhere. You're omnivorous."
Many of these trends didn't start there. However, they have been particularly blatant in seeking to expand executive power, and the courts have been overly lax at allowing them to do so.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
I don't think the bush admin or the right wing realize that the terrorists' goal is not to 'defeat us' but to spread confusion, fear, division, and dissarray. Getting us to give up our rights is a victory for them. If the rational for dismissing the lawsuit is that dismissing it denies the enemy even a partial victory or tool or them to use towards a some kind of advantage, such a dismissal does just the opposite. Dismissing the AT&T lawsuit hands one over to the terrorists. In a 'war on terror' where out enemy is not a nation, but an ideology, our only true weapon is how determined we are to adhere to our forefathers' vision of a nation based on the rights of its citizens. Even during an undeclared war.
Any dictator can reign bombs and bullets, but only the truly brave can dare to defend the rights of the people when borders are threatened, and stand by the conviction of the idea that it is the people that are more important, rather than the government. And, if we perish under such a cause, then liberty is a thing too beautiful for the world to grasp, freedom too nobel for humanity to possess. We deserve to fall under the hand of evil, if we can't stand up for what is right.
"We are all geniuses when we dream"
- E.M. Cioran
You can't tell me what I am doing is wrong, because you don't know what I am doing.
No, this is not a fishing expedition.
In this case, we know what they are doing and that it's wrong. A credible witness has come forward and told us about wiretapping, which violates the fourth amendment by violating your right to be secure in your home and private papers. What's missing is proof of the extent of the crime. It's not if they were doing something wrong or what that wrong was, GWB has admitted it, it's how much wrong was done.
Shutting down the investigation for "security" is outrageous and disgusting. They might as well tell us, "if we have to get search warrents to violate you, the terrorists will win." There are laws against domestic spying and they are being violated.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
"They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Ben Franklin, 1759
ie. We Are Screwed... and thank you so much for doing it in broad daylight.
'The court is persuaded that requiring AT&T to confirm or deny whether it has disclosed large quantities of telephone records to the federal government could give adversaries of this country valuable insight into the government's intelligence activities'
In other words, "adversaries of this country" can safely assume AT&T disclosed large quantities of telephone records. In the unlikely event that they didn't, our adversaries will surely and prudently prefer err on the side of caution.
Citizens of this country, by contrast, have been denied even the semblance of justice, as their own government tramples over their rights.
If that isn't victory for the "adversaries of this country" I don't know what would be.
In a country ruled by commercial interests, what did they expect the judge to do ? Rule against a major corporation ? I really like the way the court avoided answering the question whether constitutional rights have been violated.
I blame Diebold!
From what I can tell, the goal of intelligence gathering in America has not been used to spy on non-terrorists.... but who knows.... maybe all of America is as evil as most /.ers seemed to think. But I seriously doubt it.
I mean the judge says disclosing the info endagers the country. but doesn't the ruling kind of imply that AT&T did assist the government? otherwise, if they have nothing to hide, then they would have the case and prove that they were "innocent". as it stands, it's clear that they are covering shit up.
seems like the government has a double standard here. we shouldn't be worried about why they are listening to us. so shouldn't they be OK with us listening to them?
The US has seen worse times in the past, from concentration camps for Japanese Americans in WWII, to the two sedition acts, to the first and only use of nuclear weapons, deserved or not. The good news is that so far we've always managed to bounce back. It's possible that some day the masses will realize that we're heading the wrong direction... does anyone know of a way to hasten the coming of this day, or plan for what to do if it does not happen?
You bet they've been investigating! They've been protecting the children from those baseball-playing steroid freaks! "We really do live in a world of terror when due process no longer exists." - JC Denton
Umm...Rome did not start with the Triumvirate. As point of fact, the triumvirate was the last gasp of the Roman republic upon which much of our current governmental system is based. As I've said in other posts, Bush is akin to Sulla. He thinks he's singlehandedly saving the nation, but in reality is setting the precedents that allowed the Triumvirs, Dictators-for-life, Princeps, and finally Imperators (from which we get emperors) to take control and successfully dismantle the republic. Bush brought the army into Rome, but I fear those who will emulate him far more. We have disabled nearly every one of the safety mechanisms installed in our constitution by the founding fathers precisely to avoid the predicament we're in now. Checks have failed, and balance is little more than an idealist's memory. It's only a matter of time until a populist crosses the Rubicon in the name of restoration and reform. Once such an event occurs, it will be many generations before the people regain the power they passively handed to the tyrants. As for myself....I shall be Cicero - the last voice of the republic. (Yes, I know he was killed in the end as the Triumvirs shook hands and silenced dissenters.) I shall make one small change, however. I shall offer hope for the future where Cicero looked only to the past. I neither cast my fate with the Caesars, nor glorify our history. In the words of another visionary..."I have a dream.............".
He who would be a man, must be a nonconformist. -- Emerson
Rome did NOT start with the first triumvirate, it started much earlier, the traditional date being 759 BC.
If you mean the EMPIRE started with the first triumvirate, it wasn't those three people.
The first triumvirate was Caesar, Pompey and Crassus.
The second triumvirate was Octavian, Lepdidus and Antony.
And, the empire didn't end with the "depravity of Nero and Caligula." The empire went on for hundreds of years after that, in fact it even expanded and became more stable.
If you're going to make historical parallels, please make them accurate.
And, I would suggest a much better parallel to be the crackdown of social mobility that happened under emperors aroudn the time of Diocletian.
quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Bush has used this to challenge 750 laws so far, one of which includes the ban on the torture of detainees.
The word is "sidestep"..not "challenge".
Ole!
+&x
No true conservative could defend these trends.
They keep using that word. I do not think it means what they think it means.
KFG
the counter argument is that this is not "unreasonable." Ultimately unless a court examines the issue, the matter cannot be decided as a matter of law. This means that the real issue is as much a matter of due process (fifth ammendment) as it is a matter of the fourth.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
"They that will not give up a little liberty to purchase essential safety, do not live to appreciate either." - Anonymous Coward, 2006
Bin Laden wanted America to live in fear. To understand we are not free. 9-11 brought this country together, under horrible circumstances. But then Bush stepped in and finished what Bin Laden was trying to do.
Stop sitting their and claiming that this is the Bush administration or that things are now somehow different. Wipe the crust from your eyes and look at the history of this nation "long ago" to the times when a little known of American spy named Christopher Boyce was sent up the river for selling sensative data to the Soviets. At first the case wasn't going to go to court and Boyce was going to go free because the government itself decided that if they couldn't prosecute Boyce with spying without revealing what it was that he had sold to the Soviets (technical satellite data) that it would do too much damage to national security and foreign relations. Unfortunatly for Boyce he also stole some junk data on a system that was never produced, this was the information that he was brought to charges on and not the actual data that truely damaged national security nor the data Boyce had showing that the US (read CIA) actively dickered in Australian politics.
Does it make it right? no. But, again, this is not the first time that charges haven't been brought to light due to national security concerns and in Boyce's case it's much more ironic since his charges actually delt with damage to national security from foreign threats as opposed to domestic spying. If people would get their head out of the sand and stop acting like this type of shit didn't go on before the Bush administration we'd be a lot better off. I guess it sucks knowing that "the home team" has been playing this game for a long long time.
In it, he described a technique they used to determine which of the many cultural attaches at the Russian embassy were KGB. They set up radio monitors near the embassy, and correlated radio traffic - just the traffic, mind, as it was encrypted, and they had no idea of the message contents - with the entry and exit of various Russians. In surprisingly short periods of time, they were able to identify key controllers and residents.
When Wright published his book, the British government tried to get him charged under the Official Secrets Act. As he had wisely buggered off to Tasmania, they were unable to reach him. When the British press tried to print excerpts (the book was banned), they were charged with contempt. Here's what's somewhat hopeful in this story: the Law Lords (Britain's equal to the Supreme Court) eventually decided that since the material was available elsewhere in the world, it was pointless to try to restrict it in Britain. An early case of "information wanting to be free"?
What was once true, is no longer so
I don't think the terrorists care whether we have freedom or not. They want power for themselves just some interests in our government. They pretent do want to overthrow us but all they need to do to further their perverse ends is survive our current attacks (much like Hizbullah in the current conflict). As we cause more suffering in the Middle East, they become more powerful.
The correct thing to do is to ignore the terrorists and stand up for social justice in an international setting.
But the only people who lose in this court case are the people of the US. The winners are those who tink that democracy is the last step above anarchy.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
I don't want to detract from the seriousness of the argument, but it wasn't Julius, it was Augustus Caesar. The triumvirate was after the death of Julius. However, that is beside the point. I entirely agree with your analogy. And this is a trend nt only in the US, but all over the world. In my country, India, the government recently significantly weakened the RTI Act, which used to uphold the citizens' right to know about the internal workings of the govt. And that was a few days after the Mumbai blasts. The 9/11 bug is spreading :-(
First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win. -Gandhi
This case was dismissed because many people in all four branches of our government (I'm including the 4th estate) believe that the executive branch needs unlimited authority in order to "fight terrorism".
I noticed this bit
and I have three questions.Then I noticed this bit
and I have to say that I thought the said "founders" spilt their blood trying to convince what is now called "native americans" to give up their lands and go away and die.Then I noticed this bit
and it surprised me. I thought the Chinese more or less owned the modern USA ?And I was finally bestruck with
I have to say that you're more than correct there; the only consolation I can think of to offer you is that you will not be sliding for long. Its a slippery slope, but an awfully short one.Since this is /. , I'll add a final note the above text consists of my frank questions and thoughts (there is no implied criticism or "put-down") - I'd be glad to read any answers or corrections But it really would be good if you folks could REFRAIN FROM GETTING EXCITED
How many beans make five, anyhow ?
The F***ing Opinion, for those that don't know acronyms, can be found on this page. Case Number 1:06-cv-2837.
I beg to differ. Bush is nothing like Sulla. Yes, Sulla thought he single-handedly saved the nation. But in fact, he did. As a brilliant General he was victor in the wars in Italy "the Social Wars" which in fact pacified Italy and save Rome and the Republic from possible extinction, or at the very least a massive amelioration of their power. Yes Sulla was a dictator, etc. but he was actually brilliant personally and DID save the republic initially. Bush has not actually defended the USA from anything, isn't a brilliant person or general. The deference shown to Sulla (which enabled him to continue as virtual dictator) was in gratitude for saving the Republic.
quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
1st: I was admittedly being melodramatic for effect, but while it was after the establishment of the British parliamentary system, that system still answered to a King if not in practice then in spirit and in technicality. Also, the French Revolution happened after the American revolution and was in fact partially inspired by it, so I don't understand your point there. In addition, slavery was something that many of the founders opposed but were force to keep for political reasons, and it in any case is a shameful institution which the United States has thankfully long since abolished. The point of my comment was to highlight that America was the original place where all (admittedly and unfortunately) whites were created equal before the eyes of the law, and where the rights of average americans were supposed to be irrevocably protected by the Constitution. 2nd: Nope, you're confusing "founders" a very select group devoted to freeing our land from the shackles of monarchy and creating a nation built on the concepts of liberty with the expansionist portion of the "colonists" who took matters into their own hands in dealing with the natives, an activity which was repeated with equally brutal force in every land conquered by Westerners. While this is, of course, wrong, you can't blame the founders for the actions of people who had little relation with them or their values. 3rd: I don't see how that matters, though it is a fact that I am sickened by and acknowledge. While China does not "own" us yet, it is certainly well on its way. Despite this, currently America is still supposed to be a free nation in every sense of the way until China starts pulling in the reigns and we choose to accept them or *hopefully* break them at all costs. While the United States controls its own destiny, it should not voluntarily shuck its freedoms. 4th: Sadly, this is true, and so few people understand it. In any case that is not a consolation, just a bitter reminder that more than words may be neccesary to overturn these tragic events eventually. I welcome debate on anything I saw though I'd ask you to take the parts that are obviously melodramatic for what they are, as some parts of what I said were intended to convey a message of my emotion rather than to display facts, and I thought I represented them as such. In any case, go ahead and reply back if you have any further questions, though your thoughts I'm afraid I can't adjust ;)
That brings up the question... Will Bush be declared a war criminal when this all shakes out. I don't think that it takes a leap of logic to come to the conclusion that he is. The other question will be whether the "I was just following orders" will hold more water when US war criminals are being tried any better than when the war criminals were German.
Aside from completely turning off anyone that would possibly support you, that is a very slippery slope that you are purposing.
First, if you threaten violence, people get fucking pissed off. It wouldn't be effective at all. And that's ignoring the fact that you would be called a terrorist (I'm not sure if you are actually advocating terrorism or not) and thrown in jail.
Second, it goes against the democracy that you supposedly want to protect. Things might be fucked up, but at least there can be an election without a shot being fired. Violence would completely destroy that. At least there is a system already in place that has the potential to sort out all this crap.
You can bring about tremendous change with non-violence. Just look at Gandhi. He took on the British Empire and won. They suffered a hell of a lot in the process, but violence wasn't required.
First thing is for those who feel such ritgeous indignation about this to examine their reaction to the carnavore program under Clinton. If you were just as outraged then, good for you.
Let's look at the current situation. Say somewhere abroad we capture a laptop of one of the bad guys who is planning a nasty attack in the United States. The laptop has the numbers of the people he has been calling in the states. Clearly there is the need to be able to identify who the guy was talking to here quickly. There is no wiretapping.
Oh. I thought you said "Why don't you try runnning Office for yourself?"
... I've just had a similar discussion with my frieds (greenish-dems, libertarianish-reps...) a couple of days ago. My solution was for the US to adopt a kind of ZERO-party policy (not one-party, Soviet-style -- where I am originally from -- nor "multi-party", "multi-" meaning, for all practical purposes, "two") -- more along the lines of, it would be illegal to be elected (at whatever level, but especially the highest one) on any party's platform, only on his/her own virtues/accomplishments/whatever... ;-)
;-)
My friends liked the idea, but I am not sure if outright banning political parties would be acceptable for "The People"... OTOH, how different are the two major parties from the organized crime?
Paul B.
This is gonna get modded to oblivion, but here goes. As a member of the Executive Branch, Bush can decide what laws he enforces or not. That is the power of the Executive. Much like the police's greatest power comes from choosing what laws they enforce, the same with Bush. Each branch of government has at least one uber power, the Courts can hold a law unconstitutional, Congress can over ride a veto and pass a law with out the president, and the president can choose what laws he enforce and what laws he does not. It's all in the checks and balances...
Our civil liberties were never designed to protect fascist individuals who plot and carry out attacks against innocent civilians. Al Qaeda is very keen about this fact and seems to be quite knowledgeable of our laws and our politics. The main goal of al Qaeda's attacks on September 11 was to throw our government into chaos. So far they are succeeding brilliantly. Our Congress is so divided that we can't accomplish a damn thing that might give the other party the upper hand. Shame on you Congressmen for being so selfish and so stupid!
The leaked program is clearly explained as only listening in on suspected terrorist, some reports have chosen to sensationalize this by mis-charactirizing the program as a non-discriminatory civilian spying program, but have no proof and contradict the little we know about the program. The security program actually goes to great lengths to protect our civil liberties by having several external checks in place that make it very difficult to abuse the program.
Conspiracy theories are fun, but what really matters is the truth and the truth is, that terrorism is the real threat to our civil libirties.
Question: What does it take to "vote wisely" if all the candidates you can choose from are "bad"?
hany
My recollection is the Franklin spoke those words regarding the stationing of troops in people's homes.
Also, I'm forced to wonder what the people who filed this suit, or many on Slashdot for that matter, would think about the actions of the good Mr. Franklin regarding the private communications of persons hostile to the United States living within it, as noted below?
You also have to wonder.... are there any groups we have to watch out for in addition to Al Qaeda, such as Hamas and Hezbollah? If so, what might they be up to? Do we need to worry about sleeper cells? Anyone who might be taking up arms against the US? Do we need to worry about our peaceful neighbors to the north? Hmmmm....
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
I just donated a minute ago, and I'm getting a spiffy t-shirt out of the deal. I've been meaning to give a little something to the EFF for a long time - it feels good.
Hi friend of digital freedom,
Your thoughtful gift today of $25.00 means a world of difference to the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and our ability to defend digital freedom.
On behalf of our Board, staff and volunteers, thank you for your contribution and for helping to protect digital freedom. Our friends at MAKE Magazine and Anonymizer.com also appreciate your support! Take advantage of their EFF member exclusives:
- Get a discount on your MAKE subscription with this promotional
code: CMAKE. http://www.makezine.com/subscribe/
- Try Anonymous Surfing with your free 30-day trial! Download the
software here: http://secure.eff.org/anonymizer (Please note that
the software only runs on Windows 2000 and XP.)
Sincerely,
Nicole
Nicole Nguyen
Membership Coordinator
Electronic Frontier Foundation
415-436-9333 x120
nicole@eff.org
PS: I will send you an acknowledgment letter and any associated premiums to the mailing address listed below. Your gift is tax deductible as allowed by law. Our tax ID number is 04-3091431. EFF respects the confidentiality of its supporters and we do not lend, rent or sell our lists of donors at any time. No goods or services were provided in consideration of this contribution.
All your base are belong to Google.
The first two words ("Your Rights") misled people into thinking that rights did in fact exist. The section is being disbanded for lack of applicability. A new segment, entitled, "Ways in which liberals want to help the terrorists" is being contemplated, but the details haven't been worked out yet.
On a positive note, "online" remains usable, and we hope to see it worked into the new version.
[PROSECUTOR]: Your honor, the United States would like to introduce this document as Exhibit D. It shows that the defendant is indisputably guilty.
[JUDGE]: Where did this come from?
[PROSECUTOR]: Sorry, can't disclose. National secrets. Remember, Unites States v. John Doe?
[JUDGE]: [RESIGNED SIGH] Fine...
And we're yet another step closer to being completely, irrevocably, screwed.
"A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
idk man I think something about them jumping a police barricade was what got them arrested... not for just "showing up" XD
Vetos aren't required?
Well, that is slightly out of date now that Bush has vetoed a bill.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
In a court:
Attourney: Did you sleep with John?
Witness: No, I didn't.
Attourney: Did you sleep with Mark?
Witness: No, I didn't.
Attourney: Did you sleep with Nigel?
Witness: I refuse to answer that question.
The difference with AT&T is that it's happening before any trial. But the conclusion is obviously the same.
I know what you mean, I've been unsuccessfully arguing for years that we should return to the ship and nuke the pentagon from orbit.
It's the only way to be sure.
"Oops, I always forget the purpose of competition is to divide people into winners and losers." - Hobbes
...and start suing the judges personally for their violations of our rights? I bet a few high-level judges getting their low-budget asses sued publically by many people will start making them change their minds, especially when the lawsuits start breaking them financially, and in the PR section.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
I'll tell you something quite sad..
I actually panic'd after I sent that, because I did not click the 'post anonymously' button.
So: A note for any 'law and order' types reading this. the above was what educated people call 'really crappy satire', paraphrasing a quote from the popular science fiction cinema film 'Aliens'. If you believe otherwise then that is your delusion, not mine.
"Oops, I always forget the purpose of competition is to divide people into winners and losers." - Hobbes
Our candidate? CowboyNeal..Well at least he might get the cowboy diplomacy right.
The Constitution is clear on privacy, maybe you didn't read that part. Go ahead, I'll wait. Got it? good, here it goes:
m endment04/01.html#1
4th Amendment
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.
Lets translate that for those of you who lack critical thinking skills.
"The right of the people..." doesn't say citizens, just people...
"..to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, effects..." This means MY stuff, MY crap, MY things, Stuff I own...get it?
"against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated" and just who determines what is unreasonable? Oh, this is the part you can figure out just who shall not do the violating. hint: it's the government) Remember, to seize something, you have to be able to see it.
"and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation" Oh, THATS, who determines what is unreasonable.. Warrents must be issued by who? A court. And under WHAT circumstances? Upon Oath or affirmation.
"and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Oh, they government must be specific in their search, such as specific in WHO they are going to search and WHAT they are looking for.
So now let's put this back together:
4th Amendment
The government of America shall not be able to look for, see or take from any person in America or it's territory any thing that a person owns unless the government has gone before a judge, presented evidence of wrongdoing, recieved a warrant from that judge to look for specific items in possession of specific people in specific places.
Feel better now? Oh, it doesn't SPECIFICALY mention privacy?!? Thats because in colonial America, someone wanting privacy as in "I need some provacy" meant using the restroon. Thats how we got to refere to out genitals as "private parts". They certainly wouldn't talk about pissing in the 4th Amendment right?
Oh, and privacy is not a modern concept as you asserted, see
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/a
School is dismissed.
However, from the article you cited:
"There is a sense that the president has taken the signing statements far beyond the customary purviews," Specter told the administration's representative, Michelle E. Boardman, deputy assistant attorney general in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel. "There's a real issue here as to whether the president may, in effect, cherry-pick the provisions he likes and exclude the ones he doesn't like."
Moreover, the problem is not that Bush is commenting on the laws, it is that he is effectively rewriting the laws. For example, he signs a law banning torture. Then, he 'comments' that the law doesn't apply to government employees (or some such nonsense).
Actually there is a large amount of case law that deals with 'state secrets'. Essentially, if forcing the govt/it's agent (AT&T) to admit to acting in a certain way exposes a 'state secret' then the court needs to dismiss the case. It dates back to the war of 1812 IIRC. Someones family tried to enforce a contract a spy had signed with the US govt, the court said that forcing the govt to acknowledge hiring the spy would endager the govt intelligence efforts.
Wether I agree or not, this case is almost exactly on point, the difference being internal vs external intelligence gathering. I still think that the issue is going to end up at the SCotUS before it dies.
I'm glad you listed your non existant sources when giving away this rudely incorrect information.
Pretty much everything you said in that statement is wrong, lets recap
The Green party is for the relaxation of only marajuana laws not the ones you listed.
Abolishing the senate and intelligence agencies? What are you even talking about?
The plans to "destroy the US economy" and the ubiquitous "other ridiculous plans" are ridiculous notions in themselves and NOT something the Green party advocates.
It is true the Greens are for same sex marriage and anti death penalty, but I honestly dont think most people believe thats fringe or crazy at all
Congratulations, you're an idiot. It's really sad you got modded 5 informative for that.
Go to www.gp.org for the real stances on the issues. Don't make shit up or believe that.
Third Party supporters have a serious persecution complex. Sure, they are marginalized somewhat, but not nearly as much as they make it out to be. the simple fact of the matter is NO THIRD PARTY holds a single seat in congress.
The Senate is currently: 55 Republicans, 44 Democrats, 1 Independant (no-party)
The House is currently: 231 Republicans, 201 Democrats, 1 Independant, 2 vacant seats
When one of the third parties suceeds in even getting ONE representative in congress then we'll take. Hell I even like the goddamn Green Party and if I had a viable Green candidate to vote for I would vote for them over a democrat.
However they should be in on the debates - because then the country can see the Green Party is not just Ralph Naderites, and that Libertarians are trickle-down economics neoreaganites, and that the Constitution party is just a bunch of KKK and white supramacist members with a sense of orwellian naming.
If you cannot keep politics out of your moderation remove yourself from the Mod Lottery.. NOW!
Nice groupthink.
Now pat each other on the back and congratulate yourselves on your "bravery" and "courage."
Parent voted for Gore and Kerry.
What the fuck are you talking about? What people woke up and did something when those two were around? The monarchy went on forever. Once you get a Caligula or Nero you are already fucked.
"...And I'm willing to bet that someone, somewhere in the US Gov't has a dirty secret that could be used for some old fashioned arm twisting behind the scenes.
tinfoil hat wearin speculation at best, but remember that your security is only as good as your weakest link, if everyone in the World can find out that AT&T is spying on people (Gov't jumping on it kind of confirms it) than all someone bad would need is a job at AT&T to spy on Government staff.. "
Well.
Probably the most effective dirty secret of that kind is that the President of the US and the Prime Minister of Great Britain conspired with members of their staffs and elements of the military and security services of their respective countries to start wars and invade two other sovereign countries who had not done anything which could possibly have provoked a war and were at no time a threat to any of the US or UK interests. The wars seem to have been undertaken for short-term political gain, and with so little future planning that they were readily take over by criminal elements in both the US and the occupied countries, and now look to have destabilised the whole world. One outcome of the attempt to justify these wars is the almost complete extinguishing of traditional freedoms in both the US and UK, which will take generations to recover.
In undertaking these wars, these two men have been responsible for war crimes which should earn them execution. We have a fair amount of proof which would stand up in a court of law.
And, suprise, suprise, we aren't going to get that court case. If we don't get that, how are we going to get anything else that you might dig up?
I wasn't outraged then because it hadn't reached my radar screen. On further research, I am outraged *now* about what happened under Clinton in these areas. Clinton was also the president who really started the erosion of our civil liberties in the fight against international terrorism, let us not forget, but the relevant laws never made national news (in 1999 when I did read the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, I *was* outraged but by then it was a little too late).
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Just duck...and cover...that's right - duck...and cover.
I keep trying to tell people, the people in power are *not* conservatives. Not that I'm a conservative (I belong to no party), but when people like John Dean are calling your administration corrupt, it's time to look at what these people seriously represent. And if you don't exactly trust the former counsel to the last most corrupt president we've ever had (understandable), try looking up William F. Buckley Jr. and Barry Goldwater, and see what they have to say about the current administration and their tactics. If there's any more proof that the "neoconservatives" are nothing more than fascist wankers, you don't have to look any further than the people who founded and shaped modern conservatism.
Please, please, please, understand, I am not attacking traditional conservative values; I'm trying to help conservatives recognize that their party has been taken over by a group of scoundrels who are against everything conservatives believe in. These people picked your party because of the unquestioning loyalty which makes it possible for them to do these horrible things and still have support. The conservative party is successful because of their "united we stand" loyalty. Please stop supporting them, and actually vote your values.
Nathan's blog
This should be filed under: "Shit That Was Bound To Happen." Wow...what...a...surprise....
Right on. It seems that all these people who complain would rather see your children dead then let the government do its job (protecting your freedom).
"Heh. Seems you got some freedom that needs protecktin' there, Joe. It sure ain't safe out here in the open air, no-siree. Howsabout I take that there freedom and place it in a nice, safe box for you, so's none of them terrorists can get at it? You know them terrorists are hidin' everywhere. EVERYwhere. THERE'S ONE NOW! Under that bush. He almost got your freedom.
"I better take that freedom from you. To make it safe, you know."
In the US, more people die from AIDs than from terrorist attacks by an order of magnitude, but I don't see the government spending *nearly* the same amount of money trying to stop AIDs as they do trying to stop terrorists. More people are killed by their spouses than by terrorists here in the states. Should we outlaw marriage?
Stop being a pussy. The world is a tough place. Wear a cup.
If the government were serious about stopping terrorist attacks, we'd adopt a sane non-aggressive policy in the Middle East. Instead of defending actions that curtail the very freedoms they swear they are trying to protect, why don't you demand the government take meaningful action to protect us from terrorism, by weaning the US off oil, creating economic stability in the Middle East through mutually beneficial commerce, and ceasing support of Isreal's aggressive military actions?
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
> any evidence obtained from this ill gotten booty would not be usable in court, this
> in turn makes convicting the terrorist that much more difficult
You get it now?
THAT's why our government imprisons people without a trial.
It's a lot easier than arguing that silly "civil-liberties" and "rules of evidence" stuff.
Someone may have already posted something similar, but I really hate wading through the mindless drivel to find it... If you're not doing something on the phone that could get you arrested, why care about your phone records? If you ARE doing something that could get you arrested, then the phone company already has records; be concerned about THEM rather than the government... The politicians don't care about your extramarital affairs; they're too busy trying to keep their own quiet. They can have my phone records, hell, they can listen in as I talk to Mom about that recipe for Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, tomato and Spam. So long as they don't make that recipe a government secret, fine by me. Let's not forget there's a bridge out there that wouldn't BE out there if not for the Patriot Act. It's in Brooklyn; the FBI had snippets of someone speaking in Arabic and kept hearing "Brooklyn Bridge", so they checked the guy out and stopped us from being attacked again.
That quote is just as true as Al Gore claiming to "invent the internet" - maybe even less. The sole source is from Capital Hill Blue - the TheOnion of political news.
Last post!
To most people the Republicans and Democrats are not the same... When you say they are, all you are saying is that you are so far out of mainstream politics that you can't see the differences. They look the same to you because you want something radically different.
Yeah, I know. It's like saying the Cripps and the Bloods are the same. How stupid! Everyone knows that one is red, and the other is blue. It's easy to tell them apart.
Or it's like saying the Broncos are like the 49ers.
I think you see what I'm saying.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
Law abiding, God fearing citizens should be proud of people knowing what they're doing.
The key problem is that the government is trying to make me more afraid of them than of God.
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
Any opportunity to refile once nation... out of danger?
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
"I am more concerned about the gossiping wife of the local democratic precinct committeemen at the DMV who has unrestricted access to motor vehicle records (and who knows what else).
Or maybe the police dispatcher who runs background checks on eligible men for her Thursday night bowling league team mates."
There are more intrusive and less secure systems to worry about. This is nothing.
One of the worst days in human history was the day in 1849 when a U.S. Federal judge declared that corporations have the same rights as individuals.
First, you've the date wrong. The case cited is Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, 118 U.S. 394 (1886).
Second, it really wasn't decided by a judge as part of the case; it was merely a remark from one inserted into the decision by a court reporter.
Third, that wasn't the ultimate toll of doom. The real problem was Dodge v. Ford Motor Company in 1919, in which the Michigan Supreme Court first ruled that a corporation had no obligation to society other than seeking profit for its shareholders... a case oft cited by the SCOTUS since.
And thus, we have an entity with most of the legal rights of a person, and the legal obligation to act like a sociopath to whatever degree permitted by law.
The bad news is that there really isn't any good path to fixing the problem. Most of the suggestions to "repeal" this are ill-considered knee-jerk responses to the problem, without considering the reasons that led to corporations, nor the impact of changing the rules.//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
-Eric
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
I'm thinking that this doesn't mean that 1/3rd of their projects relate to DRM. RFID isn't even on their list of legal cases. Here's the EFF's major topics:
- Privacy
- IP
- Fair Use and DRM
- File Sharing
- Innovation
- Free Speech and Censorship
- Bloggers' Rights
- International
- E-Voting
Looks like you disagree with 11% of the list, not 50%: where did the 1/2 come from? Was it that you heard a lecture by Cory Doctorow? Because he does like talking about the DRM, sure.But if you get a take-down notice, or you get sued because of your blog post, or you want to built technology without Hollywood's permission, who other than the EFF is going to understand both the technological and the legal- even Constitutional- implications? The EFF is innovation insurance.
> 'The court is persuaded that requiring AT&T to confirm or deny whether
> it has disclosed large quantities of telephone records to the federal
> government could give adversaries of this country valuable insight
> into the government's intelligence activities'
Whew! That was a close one! Now terrorist organizations may continue to presume and operate as if AT&T did not disclose the records.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Well, Hon. Matthew F. Kennelly, since you are against privacy, you get none.
312.435.5618 (w)
847.475.1673 (h)
Work Address:
Everett McKinley Dirksen Bldg.
219 S. Dearborn St., 20th Floor
Chicago, IL 60604
Home Address:
2217 NOYES ST
EVANSTON, IL 60201
Or do you think you own data gathered by 3rd parties? Far as I can tell, it belongs to AT&T. Complain as a customer if you want (or refuse to give them your custom... with VOIP that's entirely possibly now). But if they want to give it to the government for any reason that's their choice. A foolish choice, perhaps, but theirs nonetheless.
For example, going over major bloggers' coverage of the AT&T ruling last week, I'm not seeing too many articles that specifically talk about what the EFF is. So then readers who like- heck, love what the EFF is doing won't think that the EFF needs support, because 'Foundation' has different meanings:
I noticed that Slashdot only mangled my post in the region where I said, "I'm in the same position on marriage that I am on Judaism: Is Judaism a race or a religion? I think that's what offended the Slashdot Censors.
Only his tendency toward a dazed stupor prevented him from screaming aloud.
While I agree he was an excellent military commander, I must disagree with much of your comment. The republic was in a state of civil war, but neither side was out to destroy the republic. Both sides wanted greater influence and stature in the government, but neither was looking to be dictator for life. Sulla "saved" the republic by marching his army into the city of Rome and establishing himself as dictator at the point of a sword. He was not "enabled" by the deference of the people, but by his habit of proscribing, exiling, or executing those who dissented. The precedent he set enabled Caesar to later justify his crossing of the Rubicon to his troops. As shown by other events in history, civil war does not necessarily result in the complete overthrow (Republic to Empire) of a government. Had Sulla not set the precedent of assuming supreme executive authority via use of the army and had simply served his 6 month stint as dictator before returning control of the republic to the senate, then the Triumvirate and subsequent empire may have been avoided by a different political and social climate. Sulla was not a brilliant politician. He was a capable soldier. His social programs were neither revolutionary nor long lasting. His consolidation of power was formulaic. Personal brilliance is therefore questionable (especially when compared with Caesar, or even the much maligned Catiline) as is the "public's" (are you refering to the plebs, patricians, equites, tribunes or senators?) "gratitude" for his actions. Rome was not facing "extinction" as the social wars were civil. Sulla's actions made the collapse of the republic inevitable, as it would be unreasonable to assume that a future leader would not use the precedent of trumping the word of the senate and the rule of law via military force.
He who would be a man, must be a nonconformist. -- Emerson
Do you really think a historical day would change the future ? These peeps had years to take away your freedom; this won't be solved on one day, even if it is the 4th of July; even if it is called "Independence day" ; since there is no Independence anymore.
Welcome to the collective.
--- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
The title of this article as well as its description is wrong and misleading (and no I'm not all that new here)...
The issue of the lawsuit was not "Wiretapping" - it was Call Detail Records.
A Call Detail Record says "This Phone Number called that Phone Number at this time and the call lasted this long. Their primary purpose (especially for a long distance company like AT&T (pre SBC merger)) is for billing purposes.
A *wiretap* is the government listening to or recording the *Content* of your phone calls. Those are very different things.
Final 2006 "Proof of Global Warming" US Hurricane Count -> 0
While I agree with the rule-are-rules crowd, and certainly agree that changing our rules opens things up for abuse, that is the paradox. "If we give up our freedoms, the terrorists win!". Of course this is true, but corollary is "If the terrorists win, they will take your freedoms."
Dealing with human societies and politics just suck. That's why I am a geek. Things are more complicated than what can be solved by slashdotters tossing banter about.
All I am saying is philosophical and pragmatic issues don't mesh perfectly.
I don't know what the answer is, but As a geek, you have to admit that seeming good "systems" can go horribly wrong. (Subtle tipping points, chaotic interactions, etc.)
As a simple example; Let's stipulate that you have a Happy Island Civilization (HIC). Now the Hics are happy productive pacificts, and have strong laws against meddling in other's affairs. To punish someone to the full extent of the law you need a photograph of them performing the lawless act. Furthermore, you have strong protection of freedom of religion wherein you must honor the beliefs of the religious. It is strictly against the law to kill people.
So, one day, God himself tells some bothersome other (Bo) to kill all the Hics. So, Bo moves to the island, and starts slashing the throats of the Hics during the night. Even though he clearly has a bloody knife the next morning, noone SAW him do anything, so nothing can be done. One night, a security camera catches Bo in the act, but the photo has to be destroyed on religious gounds, by the Hics own rules that Bo can't be photographed.
This goes on for quite some time, Hics getting killed, one by one...
One day, some of the Hics get pissed off enough to get together a lynch mob and take care of Bo. They don't talk about it, and since noone saw the mob do anything, no-harm no-foul.
So, while the rules haven't formally changed, the rules tacitly Hic society did what was necessary to insure it's survival.
We don't even need to posit such societies. The real world has seen many societal interactions which ended with devistating results for one civilization over another when one plays by different rules.
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
As a followup to this, I would like to clarify that I am *NOT* urging republicans to vote democrat; on the contrary, I would encourage more conservatives, especially those concerned with where the current government is going, to go out and vote republican. Especially in the republican primaries. Why? When I think of all the other republican candidates that would have been so much better than Bush (eg, McCain), I weep that more people don't vote in primaries. I've been tempted myself to register republican just so I can vote in the primaries, but to me that feels dishonest, and I'm not sure if the end of getting a better president could justify the means of lying about my party allegiance (ie, none).
Oh well, no one is probably even reading this.
Nathan's blog