Slashdot Mirror


DoJ Mulls Tracking Picture Uploads

Dominus Suus passed us a link to a C|Net article about a disturbing threat to privacy from the Justice Department. According to the article, a private meeting was held Wednesday between Justice officials and telecom industry representatives. With individuals from companies such as AOL and Comcast looking on, the officials continued overtures to increase data retention by ISPs on American citizens. This week, they were specifically looking to have records kept of photo uploads. In this way, and 'in case police determine the content is illegal and choose to investigate,' an easy trail from A to Z will be available. The article provides a good deal of background on the Bush Administration's history with data retention, with ties to events even older than the Bush presidency. "The Justice Department's request for information about compliance costs echoes a decade-ago debate over wiretapping digital telephones, which led to the 1994 Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act. To reduce opposition by telephone companies, Congress set aside $500 million for reimbursement and the legislation easily cleared both chambers by voice votes. Once Internet providers come up with specific figures, privacy advocates worry, Congress will offer to write a generous check to cover all compliance costs and the process will repeat itself."

169 comments

  1. the cash by Dance_Dance_Karnov · · Score: 1

    And just who is going to pay for the ungodly amount of storage this would require?

    1. Re:the cash by GoMMiX · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No problem man, they've got it covered. See, we'll outsource the service and hosting to India and borrow the money from China.

      It's all good.

    2. Re:the cash by mastershake_phd · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And just who is going to pay for the ungodly amount of storage this would require?
       
      Why us of course.
       
      And the next step is keeping track of what pictures you download. At that point it will be easier for each ISP to just cache the entire internet. Then finally the term "the internets" will be accurate.

    3. Re:the cash by GnarlyNome · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You are going to pay for it

      --
      Diplomacy is the art of saying "Nice doggie" until you can find a rock. Will Rogers
    4. Re:the cash by nurb432 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Its the government.. WE get to pay.. its called taxes, remember?

      Cost is no object when its not your money.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    5. Re:the cash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Simple the professional politicians will simply roll out a new tax program with a nice sounding name, like "POCIA Protection of Children On The Internet Act." Since the Clinton administration already built the hardware to scan E-mails and The Bush Administration has been given cart blanc to search the Internet they are all set.... The politicians can charge the POCIA to Internet providers who in turn will pass the cost onto you.
      "Who pays corporate taxes?" "Wrong you and your parents pay corporate taxes, the corporations simply pass on the taxes" --My Eighth Grade Economics Teacher

    6. Re:the cash by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 1

      DOJ data charge on your bill

    7. Re:the cash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No U!

    8. Re:the cash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      And just who is going to pay for the ungodly amount of storage this would require?

      Joe Whatsisname. Uhh, yeah -- Joe Taxpayer.

      This shit gives whole new meaning to "guilty until proven innocent" -- just keep all the evil shit around in case we decide ten years down the road that it's really evil.

      Fuck these bastards to the lowest, hottest pit of Hell.

    9. Re:the cash by Dzonatas · · Score: 1

      They decided to give Google a tax break in exchange for storage services.

    10. Re:the cash by sglines · · Score: 1

      What's the problem, doesn't Google already do this?

  2. How about SSL? by hcobb · · Score: 1

    Won't they have to outlaw https and ssh in order to track uploads to secure sites?

    --
    Henry J. Cobb http://www.io.com/~hcobb Any sufficiently cool technology is indistinguishable from religion.
    1. Re:How about SSL? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do not freak out. This is not the end of the world.

    2. Re:How about SSL? by TodMinuit · · Score: 1

      Pfft. Encryption-schyption. I'd like to see them eavesdrop on my station wagon trunk full of quarter-inch tapes!

      --
      I wonder if I use bold in my signature, people will notice my posts.
    3. Re:How about SSL? by amRadioHed · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Flickr has shown us the originality is a lost art.
      YouTube is for people who have a camera but lack talent. And where exactly does that leave slashdot? A place for people with a keyboard but no original thoughts?

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    4. Re:How about SSL? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And where exactly does that leave slashdot? A place for people with a keyboard but no original thoughts?

      My thoughts exactly:P
    5. Re:How about SSL? by LaughingCoder · · Score: 1

      +5 Insightful!

      --
      The more you regulate a company, the worse its products become.
    6. Re:How about SSL? by obyom · · Score: 1

      Station wagons don't have trunks.

    7. Re:How about SSL? by solevita · · Score: 1

      Station wagons don't have trunks.

      It's more like a One-Time Pad.
    8. Re:How about SSL? by sd_diamond · · Score: 1

      Station wagons don't have trunks.

      And now you see just how brilliant his encryption scheme really is.

    9. Re:How about SSL? by wkk2 · · Score: 1

      Copying tapes is slow. Now you know why service was so slow when you stopped for lunch.

    10. Re:How about SSL? by Original+Replica · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yeah, no original thoughts! Where does that leave slashdot?

      --
      We are all just people.
  3. move along, nothing to see here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    just some impossible scheme dreamt up by a clueless bureaucrat

  4. Welcome to amerika ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So the question is if this goes through (which seems 50/50 at this point) what will the US Govt. want next in say three to five years? Maybe if people think about that this latest move won't sit so comfortably.

    1. Re:Welcome to amerika ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The real goal of the whole thing is to some day maybe 5 years down the road be able to track uploads of sound amd video. That way they can bust people who upload viacom videos to youtube or put some movie out there. Of course they use childporn photos to set it up but how long till its tracking video too just in case. Sure it's not technically feasible now but it will be...

    2. Re:Welcome to amerika ... by QCompson · · Score: 1

      RTFA, they already want to track videos as well.

  5. The Supremes by toonerh · · Score: 1

    At this point, I think the US Supreme Court should draw a line, once and for all.

    1. Re:The Supremes by toonerh · · Score: 1

      OK, "Reflections of the life you took from me..."

  6. The Bush administration is the most corrupt... by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The Bush administration is the most corrupt administration the U.S. has ever had. Here is my summary of the corruption: George W. Bush comedy and tragedy.

    I find it scary how little U.S. citizens know about the activities of their government. Part of the reason is that the Bush administration uses the same method of abuse Microsoft uses. Both exploit the fact that it is difficult for people to defend against many, many abuses, each small in themselves. Both, in my opinion, use sophisticated public relations methods to sell their lies.

    I hope you will write your own summary of U.S. government corruption and send it to your elected representatives.

    --
    Is U.S. government violence a good in the world, or does violence just cause more violence?

    1. Re:The Bush administration is the most corrupt... by garcia · · Score: 4, Informative

      I hope you will write your own summary of U.S. government corruption and send it to your elected representatives.

      The same corrupt ones that are tacking on pet project spending bills to the "War on Terror" because they know that fucker won't veto his big project?

      I find it scary that you say that Bush is the corrupt one and think that by sending the other side a letter they will give a shit.

    2. Re:The Bush administration is the most corrupt... by oldwindways · · Score: 5, Informative

      Corruption in Washington is nothing new. Over a century ago, the Grant Administration was plagued by a number of embezzlement schemes involving members of the cabinet, relatives of the president and his close associates. The parallels are striking when you compare Cheney's Halliburton with the Bristow (Secretary of the Treasury) Whisky Ring, the Belknap (Secretary of War) Trading Post incident, Jay Gould's and James Fisk' triggering of Black Friday, and the Sanborn Incident.

      Every time accusations were made, the Republicans would "wave the bloody shirt," claiming that the southern Democrats were trying to destroy the government just as they had in the civil war (not unlike the call to national security and invoking the fear of terrorism we see in politics today).

      Some things never change, and it seems like politics is just as partisan as it ever was. For an interesting take of the chaos of the Grant years and American society, I suggest reading Gore Vidal's 1876, while historical fiction, it attempts to adhere strictly to the facts of what was going on during that chaotic election year. The parallels to the 2000 Presidential Election are quite interesting as well; the only thing missing are hanging chads.

      --
      "Si vis pacem para bellum" -Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus
    3. Re:The Bush administration is the most corrupt... by cheater512 · · Score: 1

      The government isnt corrupt. Its just not acting in the nation's best interests.

      Which is why I'm in Australia. :)

    4. Re:The Bush administration is the most corrupt... by Zephiria · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Okay look, is their really a need to compare microsoft, that makes software, with the USgov which activly kills its citizens and doesn't give a damn about the rest of them.

    5. Re:The Bush administration is the most corrupt... by nickmalthus · · Score: 1

      Your article on the hidden history of the bush family dealings was revealing. It is a sad state of affairs when such information is only disseminated through the labors of caring virtuous citizens and is completely ignored by the corporately controlled media.

      Given the administrations current track record on warrentless wiretapping one can only imagine what the executive branch would do with unfettered access to all internet access archives. Government surveillance was a key tool used to oppress dissidents in nazi germany and communist russia. Such unchecked power can only lead to abuse and corruption. Anonymity has it's place in a true Democracy.

      --
      If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be-T J
    6. Re:The Bush administration is the most corrupt... by goldspider · · Score: 1

      I always thought FDR's attempt to cram through unconstitutional New Deal laws by trying to pack the Supreme Court was a pretty underhanded, corrupt move. Wouldn't you agree?

      The bad thing about this administration is that it has a cooperative legislature and largely indifferent judiciary.

      --
      "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
    7. Re:The Bush administration is the most corrupt... by jimmydevice · · Score: 1

      The laws restrict spying on individuals but does nothing to protect the statistical analysis of any information they may intercept. This allows the govenrnment and their agents control and insight into financial and political realms. With a corrupt administration, this is the equal to a crystal ball that can be used for personal / corporate gain.

    8. Re:The Bush administration is the most corrupt... by Scratch-O-Matic · · Score: 1

      What is your opinion of the earlier law mentioned in the article...the one passed during the Clinton administration?

      --


      Evil is the money of root.
    9. Re:The Bush administration is the most corrupt... by jimmydevice · · Score: 1

      And the Australian Gov is not corrupt? I thought our leaders were cut from the same filthy cloth.

    10. Re:The Bush administration is the most corrupt... by Viper+Daimao · · Score: 1

      anyone else see the similarities between what the DOJ is asking ISP's to do with retaining customer data, and what is already asked of gun store owners, which is to retain all their records of gun purchases? I don't want the govt coming for my uploads or my guns.

      --
      "In the game of life, someone always has to lose. To me, if life were fair, that someone would always be Oklahoma." -DKR
    11. Re:The Bush administration is the most corrupt... by k1e0x · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah, its not just Bush, this sort of stuff has been going on for years and years.. its just getting to a point where people are finaly able to see it.

      --
      Bringing liberty to the masses. - http://freetalklive.com/
    12. Re:The Bush administration is the most corrupt... by Prune · · Score: 1

      While your page is interesting, it needs some very serious editing if it were to present an air of professionalism and authority. Consider a statement you wrote such as "7) Children of alcoholics, such as former president Bill Clinton, often have some of the same behavioral symptoms even if they don't drink. (Abusing sexuality is a common symptom of alcoholism.)" Correlation does not imply causation. There are much more plausible causes behind Clinton's infidelity, such as being married to someone like Hillary, or having a high sex drive, etc. There is also a problem of organization and consistency--you seem to have thrown a bunch of things together in a rather haphazard way. Including things like tabloid reports and some of the more extreme conspiracy theories, among other stuff, is a sign of lack of critical thinking. You really need to rework this article, otherwise many reasonable readers will dismiss it (and I don't regard the average slashdotter as a reasonable reader), which would be a shame since there is potential.

      --
      "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
    13. Re:The Bush administration is the most corrupt... by gitarman · · Score: 1

      To what end are you needing to change the subject? Are you such a panty waste that you cannot stand to see your hero denigrated that you need to see if anyone is willing to throw some crap at someone you hate or (more likely) do you feel that in some way, a little clinton bashing will make what the current administration is / has done more pallatable. Whatever presidents 1 - 42 did or failed to do is irrelelvant, as is what any other country's leader(s) have done in case you were about to make a favorable comparison between Mr. Bush and Mr Hussein or Genghis Khan or whomever (how's that a really pedantic use of a nearly obsolete use of the objective case during a rant!] Either you agree with the Administration or you don't and according to the latest polls less than 30% of Americans do agree. I can only hope that those who agree with him are those appearing on FOX's "'R' you smarter than a 5th grader (and losing miserably). Unfortunately or fortunately, we are so cowed or afraid of speaking out that the administration will continue this slide into totalitarianism and we will still be sitting here arguing when they come and take our computers away. (O.K. maybe that's a little reactionary but hey, sue me!)

    14. Re:The Bush administration is the most corrupt... by budgenator · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Oh Bullshit, the Bush Administration isn't really more corrupt than even the Clinton Administration. Bill Clinton was a willing Bottom for Big Corporate Entertainment, now the Bushies want to track every independently produced image or video distributed. It's all the logically continuation of the previous steps; the next step will be making increasingly draconian record keeping requirements similar to the porn industry's 2257 Regulations. At first It'll be more like having to keep model releases on all distributed images or videos, then the addresses will have to be kept current, next a "no animals were harmed" statement until finally your on-line wedding album will need a certificate saying all boobies fondled were prosthetic not real. This will keep the cost of entry high enough to keep most out and maintian the *IAA distribution monopolies.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    15. Re:The Bush administration is the most corrupt... by neomunk · · Score: 1

      While you do draw very valid distinctions between the two, and I don't think that the original poster implied an EQUALITY between the two organizations, there are surely some similarities also.

      I think the big similarity being pointed at is the tendency of both organizations to 'bully' smaller competitors (even if said competition is purely potential or even imagined potential) through unreasonable means. Though MS may not resort to outright PHYSICAL assault on it's prey (and it DOES have 'prey') it HAS been known to resort to propaganda attacks, fiscal assaults and even coercive intimidation. They both use their weight to knock around anyone who does toe the line, and invariably it is a line they they themselves have drawn.

      Again, murder is far far worse than a forceful buyout and liquidation, but both are strongarm techniques.

    16. Re:The Bush administration is the most corrupt... by neomunk · · Score: 1

      Which is why -I- don't write articles... I think it would probably be similar.

      But, a suggestion to you, someone who seems to know a bit about text presentation, help the GP out and organize the information for them. I mean, if you care enough, I don't know if you do or not. Or at least a small chunk of it, just as a preview. Sometimes really creative people get caught in the creativity (and creativity doesn't mean 'making things up' it can be connecting the right dots in the jumble as well) at the expense of organization and clarity of presentation.

      If this comes across as a sarcastic bash or something like that, it's not meant to be such, it's meant to be a helpful suggestion.

    17. Re:The Bush administration is the most corrupt... by Scratch-O-Matic · · Score: 1

      The proper term is pantywaist.

      I support this measure and I support Clinton's as well. Bush is not my hero and I don't hate Clinton. Have a nice day.

      Oh, by the way...what did you think of the law that was passed during the Clinton administration?

      --


      Evil is the money of root.
    18. Re:The Bush administration is the most corrupt... by gitarman · · Score: 1

      The proper term is pantywaist. Hmm.. I knew I should have checked that! It seeems weird though. as I had assumed it derived from literally waste of a panty

      I support this measure and I support Clinton's as well. Bush is not my hero and I don't hate Clinton. Have a nice day. Guess I misunderstood your intention...

      Oh, by the way...what did you think of the law that was passed during the Clinton administration? Actually, I'd just about rather go to Gitmo than to be dragged into another useless political discussion. Sorry, but I don't recall which law you are referring to, but assuming that it may be as wasteful as this is likely to become and, let's face it, this along with many of the domestic policies of late, are leading to a bureaucracy where there will be a dossier on every individual with the complete history of each of us (and one must assume most of the developed world) to make it nice and easy for the respective governments to be able to keep even more political prisoners anyone listening??? Orwell got the year wrong but really, compare these policies + make the comparison of Newspeak to Political Correctness.. oh there I go again and I didn't want to get into this discussion, UGH!
    19. Re:The Bush administration is the most corrupt... by Scratch-O-Matic · · Score: 1

      The law I referenced, mentioned in the article, related to another requirement for RECORD KEEPING to facilitate investigations involving the use of a telephone. Just keeping the records...not snooping, not reporting, not judging.

      I suspect that where you and I differ is that I have no problem with an ISP or other service provider being PREPARED to assist in an investigation. To use the classic and obvious example, if police come across blatant child porn photos on the internet, I really and truly believe that they should be able to go to to the ISP and say, "Hey, who uploaded these pictures?" Now, if the police show up and say, "Hey, who uploaded this picture of Bush with a Hitler mustache photoshopped on?" then you and I will stand together in opposing such abuse.

      Perhaps you run a web or email server, as I do? This law strikes me as no different than requiring me to keep the automatically generated logs rather than periodically deleting them. If you look at the standard logs, you'll see that they could be of great use to law enforcement investigating a crime...but they are very far from constituting a "dossier" on all users of the network.

      Regardless of who is President, be it Clinton or Bush or whomever comes next, I tend to side with the guy who discovers a crime and is responsible for solving it.

      --


      Evil is the money of root.
    20. Re:The Bush administration is the most corrupt... by gitarman · · Score: 1

      I suspect that where you and I differ is that I have no problem with an ISP or other service provider being PREPARED to assist in an investigation. To use the classic and obvious example, if police come across blatant child porn photos on the internet, I really and truly believe that they should be able to go to to the ISP and say, "Hey, who uploaded these pictures?" Now, if the police show up and say, "Hey, who uploaded this picture of Bush with a Hitler mustache photoshopped on?" then you and I will stand together in opposing such abuse.
      Yes, we do differ there! I prefer to believe that "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 IMHO that includes that the government is not entitled to keep copies of my correspondence on the off chance that they may make something I've said or up/downloaded illegal. OTOH I believe that if they suspect anyone of engaging in an illegal act they certainly have the right to get a warrant to snoop on my activities. so long as the Judicial dept is not left out by "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."

      **** quoted material from U.S. Constitution Amendment #4, in case you haven't read that lately :-P

    21. Re:The Bush administration is the most corrupt... by Scratch-O-Matic · · Score: 1

      Yes, we do have different interpretations of illegal search and siezure.

      Two minor points before we agree to disagree:

      if they suspect anyone of engaging in an illegal act they certainly have the right to get a warrant...

      Ahhh, that's the easy part, isn't it? If you suspect a known person of wrongdoing, it is indeed easy to watch them and confirm or refute the suspicion. The tricky part is being able to find an unknown person who has committed an act that is a confirmed crime, as in the example I gave of blatant child porn. So a picture was uploaded...how do I find out who did it?

      on the off chance that they may make something I've said or up/downloaded illegal.

      Making something illegal after the fact is "ex post facto"...also prohibited by the Constitution. I'll assume that you don't really think that's what we're talking about here.

      Thanks for the thoughtful debate!

      --


      Evil is the money of root.
    22. Re:The Bush administration is the most corrupt... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      is their really a need

      "there".

    23. Re:The Bush administration is the most corrupt... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      has it's place

      "its".

  7. join the EFF by gonk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    www.eff.org

    1. Re:join the EFF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have they ever won a case? Like seriously, I know they've lost alot and set bad pecedents. Have done anything positive?

    2. Re:join the EFF by kdemetter · · Score: 2, Interesting
    3. Re:join the EFF by heroofhyr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There is a difference between doing something positive and succeeding in one's efforts. Someone who works in a soup kitchen feeding the homeless is doing something positive. They aren't ending homelessness, but that doesn't make what they do pointless. If you read the timeline of the EFF here, you'll find their "wins" and "losses." Most of the time they seem to just be writing friend of the court briefs rather than being directly involved in the case, so it's difficult to accurately claim they lose a lot in court.

      --
      brandelf: invalid ELF type 'KEEBLER'
    4. Re:join the EFF by chainLynx · · Score: 1

      Or, even better, donate lots of money to the EFF. Maybe around $500 million dollars to counter the effects of the money that's going to be potentially paid to the ISPs... where's Bill Gates when you need him?

    5. Re:join the EFF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone who works in a soup kitchen feeding the homeless is doing something positive. They aren't ending homelessness, but that doesn't make what they do pointless.

      Or does it? They are enabling the homeless, thus helping to ensure that there will be more of them. I would argue that's worse than pointless; it's counterproductive.

      Now, training the homeless, that's a different story.

    6. Re:join the EFF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have 2 points here.

      #1 Hard to be trained on an empty stomach.

      #2 Trained for WHAT exactly? All those new high paying manufacturing jobs we keep creating? Oh, I know, the tech support we're not REALLY outsourcing.

      Oh, I got it, we can train them to be born into a well-to-do family and have snobbish unrealistic attitudes about themselves! Yay!

  8. The Supremes were a singing group. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    "... I think the US Supreme Court should draw a line..."

    The U.S. Supreme Court already drew its line. It elected George W. Bush.

    --
    Will the U.S. government violence end 3,000 years of violence in the Middle East? Or, increase it?

    1. Re:The Supremes were a singing group. by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      That deserves a "+1 Excuse me while I go cry now" mod.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    2. Re:The Supremes were a singing group. by toonerh · · Score: 1

      "The Register" uses this cute phrase - I like it. (And liked Mary Wells).

    3. Re:The Supremes were a singing group. by jo42 · · Score: 1

      And they're building an aircraft carrier named after the moron.

      Fork me.

  9. Yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and anonymous proxies, onion routing etc...

    This is another stupid law that would fly in the face of both underlying technology and common sense being pushed by control freaks using their tired old "think of the children" line.

    1. Re:Yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh and I forgot about the data: URI scheme...

      This law would be totally unworkable.

  10. Not far enough! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Why stop at uploads? Let's track downloads too! And not just images - lets do web traffic, news, mail, chat. Let's record ALL on line activity. That's the most comprehensive solution. That way no criminals can possibly get away with anything. Unless they use encryption... Or other peoples insecure wireless AP's... Or TOR... OR - you get the idea. Well, OK criminals will probably still be able to get away with a lot, but the average American will be under tight surveillance and we can make damn sure that *they* don't do anything their not supposed to. That's probably good enough, right?

    1. Re:Not far enough! by dfgchgfxrjtdhgh.jjhv · · Score: 1

      Why stop at just Americans? It could track everyone in the world who isn't a hardened criminal or paranoid.

      We could make sure no 'normal' person, in the world, emails pictures of their kids, gets a bit to 'extreme' in their home made porn, or wears the wrong colour tie in photos.

  11. A hosting issue by hack++slash · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The article says it would be up to the web sites to store backups of the images with relevant date/time/source IP data, but what if you host pictures on your own ADSL or whatever connection, would you still be liable to store copies with the relevant source information?

    --
    To do something right, you often have to roll up your sleeves and get busy.
  12. just the current move in a long game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what if you host pictures on your own ADSL or whatever connection, would you still be liable to store copies with the relevant source information?

    Exactly, they're making you liable. Then they'll push for "harmonization" under the pretense of a free trade agreement to close the loophole with overseas hosting.


    The answer needs to be a resounding "NO" before we get to that stage, write your representatives.

    1. Re:just the current move in a long game by deevnil · · Score: 1

      Why should we have to write our representatives about civil liberties?

    2. Re:just the current move in a long game by ScrewMaster · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I know, our elected representatives are citizens too, and you would think that they wouldn't want to live under the bad law they make. I've come to accept that the profiteering that goes on in Congress is rewarding enough that it's worth moving the country in the wrong direction by leaps and bounds, and they must figure that, as powerful as they are, they aren't really subject to those laws anyway. For the most part they're right. Occasionally one of them gets sacrificed to make the plebs think that Washington is policing itself, but that has little apparent effect on the rest of them, fine-sounding speeches aside.

      People like to make jokes about Steve Jobs' "reality distortion field". I'd like to point out that a much more powerful version of the same effect permeates Washington D.C.. I was born there, as it happens, and even as a small child I could feel it, a little. I wasn't sure what it was, but something was definitely out-of-kilter even way back then. When we returned home (to another state) I felt an overwhelming sense of normalcy so I know our leaders are driving the country while under the influence of something.

      So, our elected officials go to Washington with the best of intentions, perhaps with a sincere desire to make the nation a better place ... and then they get within range of the D.C. distortion field. I believe that it's a lot like picking up a girl in a bar and going home with her. It all seems to make perfect sense at the time, but the next morning you wake up and go "Oh my God ... what have I done?"

      But by the time you wake up, it is way too late.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    3. Re:just the current move in a long game by Aaron+Isotton · · Score: 2, Funny

      So, our elected officials go to Washington with the best of intentions, perhaps with a sincere desire to make the nation a better place ... and then they get within range of the D.C. distortion field. I believe that it's a lot like picking up a girl in a bar and going home with her. It all seems to make perfect sense at the time, but the next morning you wake up and go "Oh my God ... what have I done?"

      This is ridiculous and doesn't make any sense. "Girl", "bar" and "morning" are not even words. I believe you wanted to say:

      So, our elected officials go to Washington with the best of intentions, perhaps with a sincere desire to make the nation a better place ... and then they get within range of the D.C. distortion field. I believe that it's a lot like downloading a keygen from the internet and running it under your admin account on your main machine. It all seems to make perfect sense at the time, but after the next reboot you wake up and go "Oh my God ... what have I done?"

    4. Re:just the current move in a long game by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      "Girl", "bar" and "morning" are not even words.

      Maybe not to the average Slashdotter, but you just try and explain "rooting" to a politician: you have to speak to people in terms with which they are familiar. Believe me, our Congressional representatives are very familiar with girls, and bars, and mornings after.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    5. Re:just the current move in a long game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Looks like you'll never earn the title of JokeMaster.

    6. Re:just the current move in a long game by The+Master+Control+P · · Score: 1

      I'm so terribly sorry that those horrible hackers planted a script on my server (which happens to use ext2fs) that corrupts my bootloader then runs "shred -z -n 40 /var/log/httpd/* /var/log/*; reboot". It's even worse that the bastards made it execute if I type "oh shit feds" into a terminal, as I'm prone to do when suprised... I wish I could help you find the SOBs, but all my logs got erased. Here, look for yourself:

      [screen flashing 'PWNT BY CHINESE']

      Fuck fascism.

    7. Re:just the current move in a long game by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Who said I was joking.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    8. Re:just the current move in a long game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      just try and explain

      "try to explain".

  13. hows about this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Encrypt your photos B4 you upload them but a new algortihm that would allow you to enclose 2 pictures in on file use the wrong or forged key to decrypt the photo for viewing you get nowt alright maybe a picture of a cows arse use the correct key on the correct computer bingo photo is viewable ..

    Not the easiest thing to implement but it would go a long way to frelling up government plans for snooping on everyone (this goes for the UK as well as the US ) cus blair is just a bad .

    Not realy anon just cant be doin with more accounts here ther and every where ,,....

    Pete N

    1. Re:hows about this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "frelling"?

      Either you are some really nerdy geek, or you are some really geeky nerd, or you watched Farscape last night, or you live in your mother's basement, or some combination of the above.
      In any case, I'll bet that schoolyard bullies beat you up regularly and that you have no girlfriend.

      Oh yeah, blah blah blah chess club blah blah blah shirt pocket protector blah blah blah.

  14. Surveillance - not just being mulled about.. by Otefred8 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I know, 4 days old, but still rather relevant,from eff.org (http://www.eff.org/news/archives/2007_02.php#0051 40):

    "Washington, D.C. - The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) filed suit against the Department of Justice today, demanding records about secret new court orders that supposedly authorize the government's highly controversial electronic surveillance program that intercepts and analyzes millions of Americans' communications.

    When press reports forced the White House to acknowledge the program in December of 2005, the administration claimed that the massive program could be conducted without warrants or judicial authorization of any kind. However, in January of this year, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales announced that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) had authorized collection of some communications and that the surveillance program would now operate under its approval. EFF's suit comes after the Department of Justice failed to respond to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for records concerning the purported changes in the program (...)"

    Seriously.. I echo the former post; join the EFF. Changes are ONLY going to take place through efficient lobbying (but then it also works really well, Halliburton has proved that beyond doubt..)

    1. Re:Surveillance - not just being mulled about.. by HomelessInLaJolla · · Score: 1

      Changes are ONLY going to take place through efficient lobbying Efficient lobbying does nothing to cut the government off from their supply of money. History has shown that if the citizens rise up and protest then a subcommittee is formed to resolve the differences in opinion. The major talking points of the public protest are identified and the bill is restructured to neatly sidestep those issues. Five years later the same proposal is reintroduced with the modifications necessary to negate the debate points of any public protest.

      The only real solution is to quit funding those fools. Try telling your employer you would like to withhold your taxes as a patriotic assertion of citizen's rights.
      --
      the NPG electrode was replaced with carbon blac
  15. What else is the DOJ for? by neimon · · Score: 1

    Except to enforce property rights for the elite few who can afford to buy them? It's certainly not for investigating corruption in government, nor upholding the Constitution, nor, really, for anything lately. After all, Habeus Corpus isn't actually MENTIONED in the Constitution. Nor the right to privacy. Nor is the right to breathe air. Therefore these things don't exist.

    Oh, there was the one thing about the purjury of one President in an endless fishing-expedition investigation into a two-bit, decade old land deal, the evidence based on illegal phone-tapping by a Repubican hack. That was a good collar.

  16. Privacy by AlHunt · · Score: 1

    > DoJ Mulls Tracking Picture Uploads

    There's still a great deal to be said for the dialup BBS.

    --
    1 in 4 Maine children in struggle with hunger.
  17. Yakima Cowboy spy shop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    I think this has already happened. I live in south-east Washington state, 60 miles south of the NSA's cowboy echelon site. About 6 years ago, a huge fiber install project seemed to cover every dirt road in the county. Population density here is 0-20 residents / square mile in rural areas. None of this build-up resulted in any change in the available phone service ( POTS only ). All the fiber lines seem to originate from the Fed's BPA fat pipe ( the same one The Dalles Google is attached to ) and run up these dirt roads. They seem to aggrigate at Goldendale Wa. and branch to Yakima down highway 97, Although some seem to head up into the unpopulated mountains. Urban dwellers are used to fiber on every street, but orange poles on every dirt road cutting through wheat fields seems strange. I probably should shut up now.

    1. Re:Yakima Cowboy spy shop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      If you look at the yakima NSA site with google earth you can see the 10 or so satellite dishes, the power plant and fuel storage, a waste treatment plant, service buildings, the one story complex and to the north, about 500 huge piles of excavated earth. A fire inspector let slip a few years ago that the installation has 100's of underground levels. Your tax dollars at work.

    2. Re:Yakima Cowboy spy shop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I probably should shut up now.

      Don't worry, we're sending someone around to debrief you right now.

    3. Re:Yakima Cowboy spy shop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So start digging it up! Cut the head of the dragon, see?

      Fiber splits are soooo much fun to splice.

    4. Re:Yakima Cowboy spy shop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you be a bit more specific on where to look for their facility from Yakima? Google Maps shows a lot of territory and frankly none of it looks fishy. Can you give us an idea of where to look along 97?

  18. That is the goal, yes by Eternal+Vigilance · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A few thousands, or even tens of thousands, of motivated criminals (outside of the ones who "own" the country, of course) are of no real threat to the established order - they will almost always prey on the populace.

    A few million, or tens of millions, of motivated citizens are absolutely a threat to rule by the few - which is why anything that allows the populace to realize their predicament and then organize to change it must absolutely be stopped.


    There's free as in speech, free as in beer, and free as in range. Americans are free in the latter sense.

  19. ASCII art by JackMeyhoff · · Score: 1

    And how will they block ascii art?

    --
    http://www.rense.com/general79/wdx1.htm
    1. Re:ASCII art by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With Unicode Ninjas.

  20. What about traffic via the US by jrumney · · Score: 1

    Damn. Now I'm going to have to be careful to run traceroute before uploading anything to a server, just in case it goes via the US and some future law change makes uploading pictures of kittens illegal retrospectively. No way do I want my pictures sitting in a US government owned database, especially with their attitude towards applying US law to foreigners.

  21. Republican Values by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1, Funny

    Republicans bring you smaller, less intrusive government.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:Republican Values by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Republicans bring you smaller, less intrusive government for business. I fixed that for you.
    2. Re:Republican Values by ACMENEWSLLC · · Score: 1

      >>Republicans bring you smaller, less intrusive government.

      One of the reason many of us Republicans don't like Bush, either. I was not pleased when he ended up being our candidate.

    3. Re:Republican Values by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Who did you vote for in 2004?

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  22. They should just CUT the bullshit! by andydread · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Its all about terrorism, child porn, and piracy I am sick to death of them beating this dead horse. Why dont they just get right down to it and ...

    1)put cameras in our homes. (They'll just check them when there is a suspicion of a crime)

    2)ban all sex out side marriage

    3)ban all non secular music.

    4)ban all non missionary position sex

    5)ban all violence on TV

    6)ban all gay people

    7)ban the GPL

    Use installed camera to enforce all banned.

    8)tag us and record where we go with gps ( they'll only check it if there is suspicion of a crime)

    10)mandate car manufacturers to install tracking devices. (they'll only check it if . . . )

    11)build a berlin wall around USA (to keep out terrists and drugs, and illegals and..) keep us in?

    12)ban all weapons but handguns which are useless when the people wake up from Shitney Shears and Anna Dickhole Sith and try to rise up and take back their country.

    I wonder who really fooled us Americans that we have the right to any semblance of privacy any way.

    As far as the DOJ and law enforcement goes who needs to investigate anything anymore All we the righteous people of law-enforcement need is a great big control panel that we can monitor everyone and when we suspect them of a crime we just push a button and voila they are in prison. Who the hell needs due process anymore

    Welcome people to the United States Socialist Republic. The USSR.

    1. Re:They should just CUT the bullshit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Number 6 and 11 would do nicely.

    2. Re:They should just CUT the bullshit! by bjackson1 · · Score: 1

      3)ban all non secular music.
      Sounds like a pretty good idea to me!
    3. Re:They should just CUT the bullshit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you meant ban all secular music. Secular means attitudes, activities, or things that have no religious or spiritual basis. So, non-secular would refer to those said items with a religious or spiritual basis.

    4. Re:They should just CUT the bullshit! by Russ+Nelson · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ITYM fascist.

      --
      Don't piss off The Angry Economist
    5. Re:They should just CUT the bullshit! by Nappa48 · · Score: 0

      I agree...no really, I do.
      Screw privacy.

    6. Re:They should just CUT the bullshit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Its all about terrorism, child porn, and piracy I am sick to death of them beating this dead horse. Why dont they just get right down to it and ...
      1)put cameras in our homes. (They'll just check them when there is a suspicion of a crime)
      2)ban all sex out side marriage
      3)ban all non secular music.
      4)ban all non missionary position sex
      5)ban all violence on TV
      6)ban all gay people
      7)ban the GPL
      Use installed camera to enforce all banned.
      8)tag us and record where we go with gps ( they'll only check it if there is suspicion of a crime)
      10)mandate car manufacturers to install tracking devices. (they'll only check it if . . . )
      11)build a berlin wall around USA (to keep out terrists and drugs, and illegals and..) keep us in?
      12)ban all weapons but handguns which are useless when the people wake up from Shitney Shears and Anna Dickhole Sith and try to rise up and take back their country.
      I wonder who really fooled us Americans that we have the right to any semblance of privacy any way. As far as the DOJ and law enforcement goes who needs to investigate anything anymore All we the righteous people of law-enforcement need is a great big control panel that we can monitor everyone and when we suspect them of a crime we just push a button and voila they are in prison. Who the hell needs due process anymore Welcome people to the United States Socialist Republic. The USSR.

      13) Get John Carpenter to make a movie about it. http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0116225/

    7. Re:They should just CUT the bullshit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      11)...Berlin Wall...keep "you guys" in: everybody else (aliens) heading South to Chavez freedom oil land:-)

    8. Re:They should just CUT the bullshit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      11)build a berlin wall around USA (to keep out terrists and drugs, and illegals and..) keep us in?

      As if any other country would let Americans in.

    9. Re:They should just CUT the bullshit! by Catbeller · · Score: 1

      1)put cameras in our homes. (They'll just check them when there is a suspicion of a crime)
      - Wait.
      2)ban all sex out side marriage
      - Effectively done is some of the redder states.
      3)ban all non secular music.
      -
      4)ban all non missionary position sex
      - non-*procreative* sex. See last week's story on a proposal to check prospective married couples for evidence of procreation abilities.
      5)ban all violence on TV
      - except for coverage of our glorious war against Terror
      6)ban all gay people
      - see 2
      7)ban the GPL
      - not an issue yet with the fascists (yes, let's use the real term for once)
      Use installed camera to enforce all banned.

      8)tag us and record where we go with gps ( they'll only check it if there is suspicion of a crime)
      - FYI : your cell phone is a GPS tracker. They can turn it on without you knowing, if they feel that you are a person of interest.
      10)mandate car manufacturers to install tracking devices. (they'll only check it if . . . )
      - wait. it will happen. Also, your phone is already a tracker.
      11)build a berlin wall around USA (to keep out terrists and drugs, and illegals and..) keep us in?
      - WELL! Got an answer for that: it happened last January. We in the U.S. now are eligible to be put on a spanking new "Can't Leave List", enacted at the same time the new passports were. If you are on the list, you cannot leave by car, sea vessel, plane, or train. Not kidding. We are locked in. As for Canada, they are using our giant criminal violations database with vengeance - if you had a pot violation in 1971, you can't cross over ie leave the U.S. So forget walking if you've ever done anything naughty. And forget leaving at all if someone decides you don't merit the privilege.
      12)ban all weapons but handguns which are useless when the people wake up from Shitney Shears and Anna Dickhole Sith and try to rise up and take back their country.
      - No gun you ever will possess will penetrate their Darth Vader armor. And you can't fight sonic weapons, microwave cannon, solid-state lasers, tasers, lightning cannon (yep, they have electron cannon under development), really BIG guns, railguns and super surveillance.
      I wonder who really fooled us Americans that we have the right to any semblance of privacy any way.
      - forty years of school budget cuts in civics, and the rightification of the national consciousness that precludes questioning police force.
      As far as the DOJ and law enforcement goes who needs to investigate anything anymore All we the righteous people of law-enforcement need is a great big control panel that we can monitor everyone and when we suspect them of a crime we just push a button and voila they are in prison. Who the hell needs due process anymore

      Welcome people to the United States Socialist Republic. The USSR.
      - I like "USSA". The USSR was never this bad. they didn't have the tech.

  23. The animated GIF is back. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    98 frames of kittens and 1 frame is a hidden image (delay time in GCE set to zero).

    Let's all do like the fools at the DOJ and take leave of our senses.

  24. Trail from lobbyist to law will be available? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    In Capitalist West government demand picture easy to trace back to you.
    In Soviet Union government demand airbrushed picture leave no trace of you.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  25. US Law by hey! · · Score: 2, Insightful

    One peculiarity of US law is its way of breaking down different forms of communications, a system that is based on archaic technologies.

    IANAL, but this is pretty much my understanding of the situation.

    Privacy of electronic communications is protected mainly by the Electronic Communication Act of 1986, which consists of three parts:

    Title 1, Wiretap Act: protections communicaiton that have some kind of audio component (paradigm: phone calls)

    Title 2, Stored Communications Act: protects electronic communiations while they are in transit or in temporary storage (paradigm: email held in spools, e.g. the old arpanet mail which often sent email through UUCP over 300 baud phone links to reach computers that weren't directly connected)

    Title 3, Pen Register Act: prevents placing devices on phone lines to record phone numbers.

    Each title of ECPA was written with electronic communication technology as it stood ca 1985, which means that by 1990 it was clearly obsolete. But there is no such thing as an obsolete law, or at least obsolete laws continue to operate in unexpted ways. In this case, the provisions of ECPA have been extended by process of analogy to many situations that weren't even considered in 1985. Many curious questions arise. For example, it would appear that the government cannot rifle through email spool directories without a warrant. But what about when it is delivered to your in box? Many people use their in boxes as filing systems. It would be one thing if it was stored on your computer, but what if it is stored at an ISP?

    Or this: the government can't put a pen register on your phone lines -- basically a mechanical device that records the electrical singals on your phone line and makes a paper tape of the numbers you call. Constitutionally they are not prevented from doing so because you are disclosing the phone numbers to a third party -- the phone company. So what about email logs? They are covered by the same constitutional doctrine, but don't appear to be covered by ECPA, which envisions installing a device to reocord transient signals.

    Or this: what if there were an image format that included audio commentary? Would this trigger the Wiretap act? Is this why the AG is talking about picture uploads and not movie uploads? Note once again the capriciousness of US law.

    As a non-lawyer, I don't really follow all the ins and outs of the developments in information privacy law, because it's not really worth my time. There's no way a nonspecialist can keep track of the twists and turns of case law. The bottom line is this: unlike the EU, we do not have a fundamental, legally protected right to information and communication privacy in the US. The strategy of US lawmakers has been to avoid the recognition of any new rights, but to curb specific abuses when they reach the outrage level.

    The result is the capriciousness we have seen. A non-lawyer can't really know what is rights are vis a vis the government, because it depends on a rather haphazard patchwork of statues, viewed through the series of lenses that are judicial analogizing.

    The courts have to operate this way, because people who feel outraged by violations of what common sense tells them is a right of privacy keep bringing lawsuits trying to employ a broken down system of statues that implicitly assume those rights, but don't explicitly secure them.

    We have reached the point in the US where an ordinary person really can't know what his rights are. Special interests, and officials of a statist bent, have found so many ways to violate the spirit of individual and community liberty embodied in the Constitution, while avoiding technical illegalities. Constitutional law has been stretched to its limits to cover rights clearly implied by the Constitution (e.g. substantive due process), but this process leaves protection of individual and group rights thin and patchy.

    I believe is time for a new declaration of human rights in the US along the lines of

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    1. Re:US Law by Russ+Nelson · · Score: 2, Informative

      Stop thinking about your constitutional rights, and start thinking that the constitution doesn't give the feds the ability to tap our phones. If it's not specifically called out, they can't do it.

      --
      Don't piss off The Angry Economist
    2. Re:US Law by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      Yeah, what we really need to do is get rid of a document that explicitly enumerates a subset of our natural rights, and explicitly states that it is only a subset in favor of a document that purports to grant specific rights "Except where prohibited by law."

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
  26. photo nonsense by no.no.notorious · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    good, incarcerate those involved with child pornography.

  27. What pisses me off by MikeRT · · Score: 1

    Is that none of the big political blogs care one bit about this. Sure, they'll write volumes about things like the NSA wiretapping program, but it's so far been largely up to smaller blogs to track this issue. I've been following it now since the first serious proposal about a year ago. What gives? Why is it so hard to get non-geeks to care about an issue that amounts to one of the biggest police state advances in the last twenty years?

    The only problem with this issue is that it will cost them a lot of money to support all of the services affected by it. It won't be like the telecoms with just a few companies affected. Potentially tens of thousands of businesses will have to be compensated if they want similar compliance.

  28. This is not about the DOJ; It is TIA by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    If you ever work with the feds esp the DOD or other organizations, you will find that the best way to hide things is in the open as something else. In addition, leave all sorts of nonsense data to make it hard to find (steganography). It is actually how we do the bulk of our work. Such as most secret facilities are amongst the general public and looks like a store or a general building.

    One of the problems with TIA(Total information Awareness) was the idea of taking in ALL the data and processing it. What is needed to make it work is to have groups store part of it and then process it as needed (data a implies b implies c). But to do it openly will mean that groups will fight it. So tie the military and the doj together closely and then make it happen. What is interesting is that member of congress have to know that this happening or W. is operating totally rouge. If so, then he has other plans then simply info about terrorism.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  29. freefall by moxley · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Unfortunately the Supreme Court isn't going to help us.

    We live in an authoritarian capito-fascistic state. You can choose to ignore it, you can tell yourself that it doesn't affect you personally (yet); but that won't change the fact. We have government that reinterprets laws and standards to mean what they decide they need to mean to fit their agenda at the mmoment (which usually, in all moments, is CONTROL), it's a system of institutionalized corruption.

    Electing someone from the either large party isn't going to help us - I mean, there are a few exceptions in both major parties, but none of the big names really.

    I think that the people are going to have to find a way to organize and save our constitution. The system will not save itself because it is compromised. It could be hacked or manipulated and forced to work for us should large groups of people be willing to stand up for their rights - but unfortunately that's not going to happen by voting or by any of the rigged or tilted mechanisms in place.

    What people who say things like "I don't mind, I'm not doing anything illegal" fail to realize is that it doesn't matter - because once the entire system of surviellance and control is in place, once you have no privacy or anonimity it is too late - because then the definition of what is legal and what is illegal can be changed.

    It's not like they ever give your rights or your expectations of personal liberty back once they have been taken away - even when these things are promised (like sunset provisions) at the time such legislation is proposed.

      Aside from that, what if you were at one time in drug rehab - or are a member of a group like AA and all of these records are stored forever and then down the line the whole world can find out all of your private personal stuff.

    The slippery slope is no more - we're almost in freefall.

    1. Re:freefall by Cheeze · · Score: 1

      What? I can't hear you over American Idol playing on the Comcast DVR in the background.

      --
      Why read the article when I can just make up a snap judgement?
    2. Re:freefall by evought · · Score: 1

      Another very serious problem is that it is so difficult to maintain a chain of evidence in an electronic world. Will the ISPs take proper precautions to secure their data and logs from attackers and forgeries? If the DoJ drags you into court claiming you uploaded an illegal file two years ago, how do you defend yourself? Logs are just data, data is easily edited. Without electronic signatures on every log entry, it is easy to just add a new one or modify an existing entry. Who would be able to tell?

      A digital timestamping service like stamper lets me prove I did something at a particular time, but how do I prove a negative?

      Why would the government do something like this? Silencing political enemies, dealing with "inconvenient" people, chilling free speech, and stopping investigations into corruption when they do not have any real charges to use. (corrupt) Police now will sometimes follow and harass individuals looking for dirt; how much easier when it can be created, complete with convincing audit trail. Hand a jury an "exploited child" and they won't listen to a defense.

    3. Re:freefall by Ayal.Rosenthal · · Score: 1

      Big Brother where art thou? Oh, you're reviewing this site. Understood.

      --
      Social liberal, fiscal conservative, always sarcastic.
  30. The DOJ only seeks to control the sheep by QCompson · · Score: 1

    My favorite part of the article: Only universities and libraries would be excluded, one participant said. "There's a PR concern with including the libraries, so we're not going to include them," the participant quoted the Justice Department as saying. "We know we're going to get a pushback, so we're not going to do that."

    They don't have time to deal with entities which give a "pushback" when there are so many companies, politicians, and citizens who are ready to roll over, bark, and beg on command. Terrorism and kiddy porn are such effective justifications because most people don't even bother to examine the issues, much less debate a proposed law.

    The U.S. has been whipped up into such a senseless frenzy over terrorism and kiddy porn that it's going to be a long time before Congress becomes rational about the subjects. Privacy and (pseudo)anonymity are some of the things that made the internet so popular, but unfortunately this type of emotional hype and scare tactics will make the internet far less private than the postal system and telephone network.

  31. Copyright/ownership? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What affect will this have on copyright/ownership? I mean text and images on a public site is one thing, but what about premium content from online vendors? I imagine they would be a little mad to find out that their material belongs to someone else. Perhaps the porn industry will fight this. Didn't they sue Google for linking to their images?

  32. The DOJ is broken by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    The US Justice system is already broken. They have prescribed life sentences for free speech, as in Dr. Ali Timimi's case, who is a US citizen.

    You may excuse that case because he's a muslim, but it won't be long before similar convictions are carried out in general.

  33. The NSA FAB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From the NSA employment web site: "You may also be working in our microelectronics fabrication facility, including a 20,000-square-foot "Class 10" clean room. In this setting, you will be performing such tasks as electron beam maskmaking and "direct write" wafer lithography." They have their own FAB? We're fucked.

  34. Never thought I'd say it. by bguzz · · Score: 1

    DRM would fix this.

    1. Re:Never thought I'd say it. by jimmydevice · · Score: 1

      Please explain. The statement "DRM would fix this" does not compute.

    2. Re:Never thought I'd say it. by bguzz · · Score: 1

      Think about it. All you have to do is DRM any pictures you upload. Any caching or storage would require a "circumvention device," and the DoJ is in violation of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. ;-)

    3. Re:Never thought I'd say it. by Caspian · · Score: 1

      Yes, but the American government has shown that it is willing to break FAR more ancient and important laws than the DMCA. Like, say, the writ of habeas corpus.

      --
      With spending like this, exactly what are "conservatives" conserving?
  35. Agreed: don't let Bush-hate blind you to history! by FooAtWFU · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Or to the present. Governments have been corrupt for as long as it's been around; it's usually just a question of "how much". I think most Republicans were well aware of government corruption in the Years Gone By, especially when Congress was mostly Democrat - indeed, it's one of the reasons why the Republicans were the Party of Small Government. But with the past 6 years or so, it seems that Democrats have opened their eyes to see corruption while the Republicans have become the oblivious ones (or complicit ones, on a case by case basis).

    When you get down to it, if I have to name the nation's most Corrupt Administration off the top of my head, I'd say Andrew Jackson. Good old "To the victor belong the spoils" Jackson. Good old "Trail of tears" Jackson. Mr. "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!" Jackson. Good old "man-of-the-people" Jackson. Good old man-of-the-people Bush is at least trying to work something positive in Iraq (though one can easily question its effectiveness) - what was Jackson doing with the Indian Removal business? That's far more criminal than the Iraq war ever was or will be. And if you wanted me to name the President that did the most to restrict civil liberties during his term in office, that's easy. Abraham Lincoln, yo. Writ of habeus what now? That's right. And the Great Emancipator walked all over freedom of speech and such, too.

    --
    The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
  36. You should be writing your news media by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    Look, congress will do nothing just because you wrote a letter. If they were really wanting to clean up, then they would doing such things as push to have Sibel Edmunds ungagged.

    But what congress can not handle is having light put on them. If you send an e-mail to the congress man, send it to a reporter. In fact, the smart thing is to target several investigative reporters and let them know of any response from the pol. Once a congressman is looking at the media, they tend to get nervous and will push harder. Want to really make it happen? Put up a web site devoted to the letters AND the response. Now you are putting pressure on the media to respond.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  37. You forgot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    They want a:
    1. balanced budget
    2. To minimize our interactions with other govs. We are suppose to just guard our shores and not interfere in other countries.
    3. against corruption.
    4. All for good morals.
    The republican party that I knew as a kid (and was around with lincoln) is long gone with RRRs. I suspect that Hitler would be proud that his party won just by taking over another party.
    1. Re:You forgot by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      When were you a kid? I've been around a while, and I can't remember a Republican government (Congressional majority or president) that actually did even one of those things. Lots of talk about them, but never any action.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  38. Just use Snoopblocker.com anonymous proxy server by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    or many other https proxy servers located outside of the US. The DOJ can suck my dick!

  39. Re:Just use Snoopblocker.com anonymous proxy serve by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Uh, until they block access to those, fucknut. Not that hard to do. "You will only access servers within the US, citizen ...".

  40. My guess would be... by xx01dk · · Score: 1

    ...that we're being naive if this sort of thing isn't going on already. What with the vast amount of our telecommunications that are already surrepticiously monitored by our government, why are they even bothering with public discourse?

    I guess my point would be: how are digital photo uploads any different from any other form of digital media?

    On one hand, I find myself thinking, go ahead and look all you like at anything I have put online, I've nothing to hide. On the other hand, this could count on the running (and unfortunately growing) list in my head of things that I used to consider private which now my government would say is not.

    Fine, whatever. So long as this sort of thing is only used to fight crime, then I guess I'm all for it. Just don't get all uppity at my anti-establishment fark chops and my uber-leet gaming website forum signatures in Photobucket.

    --
    There is simply too much glass..
    1. Re:My guess would be... by PPH · · Score: 1

      What with the vast amount of our telecommunications that are already surrepticiously monitored by our government, why are they even bothering with public discourse?

      Because its not about terrorism or foreign intelligence. They need this sort of law on the books to make the existing monitoring admissible in court. Most likely for copyright enforcement.

      Its not about making the world safe for democracy any more. Its about making it safe for Disney and Time Warner.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    2. Re:My guess would be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fine, whatever. So long as this sort of thing is only used to fight crime, then I guess I'm all for it.

      You know, in a certain way, I actually envy your naivety. The world must be a beautiful place when you're so naive that you can't see why this is a bad idea and when you seriously believe that "as long as it's only used to fight crime, it will be OK".

  41. Maybe it's Texan Values by budgenator · · Score: 1

    Maybe it's the "everything is bigger in Texas" mentality; look at what LBJ did to JFK's little scrimmage in Viet Nam.

    --
    Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  42. Make them look stupid by Animats · · Score: 1

    Make Gonzales look stupid. What terrorist who's a real threat is going to upload pictures to a web server. Hello? Write to your congressman.

  43. Doc Ruby At the Quads by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With apologies to Ernest Lawrence Thayer

    The outlook wasn't brilliant for the student march that night;
    The quads were filled with rent-a-cops and not a picket sign in sight;
    With Cooney busted for possestion, and Barrows, the riot laws;
    A sickly silence fell upon the supporters of The Cause.

    A straggling few got up to go, in deep despair. The rest
    Clung to that hope which "springs eternal in the human breast;"
    They thought, If only Gay Doc Ruby could be rallying that mob,
    We'd put up even money now, with Doc Ruby at the quads.

    But Flynn preceded Doc Ruby, as did also Jimmy Blake,
    And the former was a no-good and the latter was a fake;
    Forlorn, that stricken multitude discouraged by the odds,
    For there seemed but little chance of Doc Ruby's getting to the quads.

    But Flynn let fly a bottle, to the wonderment of all,
    And Blake, the much despised, set a bomb off in the hall,
    And when the dust had lifted and men saw what had occurred,
    Jimmy beaned the Dean of Students, while the bombed out library burned.

    Then from five thousand throats and more there rose a lusty yell,
    It rumbled through the valley, it rattled in the dell,
    A Harley roared up from the street, and was tearing up the sod,
    And Doc Ruby, Gay Doc Ruby, was advancing through the quads.

    There was ease in Doc Ruby's manner as he wheeled into his place;
    There was pride in Doc Ruby's bearing and a smile on Doc Ruby's face,
    And when, responding to the cheers, he lightly gave a nod,
    No stranger in the crowd could doubt `twas Gay Doc Ruby at the quads.

    Ten thousand eyes were on him as he gunned the throttle loud;
    Five thousand tongues applauded as he signaled to the crowd.
    And while the nervous officers grabbed the night sticks from their hips,
    Defiance gleamed in Doc Ruby's eye, a sneer curled Doc Ruby's lip.

    And now a can of tear gas came hurtling through the air,
    And Doc Ruby stood a-watching it in haughty grandeur there,
    Close by the haughty Doc Ruby, the can unheeded sped --
    "That ain't my style," said Doc Ruby. "Break it up!" the coppers said.

    From the streets, black with people, there went up a muffled roar,
    Like the beating of the storm waves on a stern and distant shore.
    "Kill them; kill the pigs!" shouted someone from the mob;--
    And Doc Ruby guns his engine, and wipes-out on the lawn.

    With a fist of protest shaking, Doc Ruby's visage shone;
    He jumped back on his Harley; he bade the march go on;
    The Harley takes off through the quads, 'till it hits a vicious bump;
    And Doc Ruby sails through the air, landing smack upon his rump.

    "Fascists!" he screeched, "Capitalist, Imperialist, Racist, Sexist pigs!"
    "If I must I'll ride a tricycle, but we'll have this march - you dig?"
    They saw his face grow stern and cold; they saw his muscles strain,
    And they knew that Gay Doc Ruby wouldn't lose that bike again!

    The sneer is gone from Doc Ruby's lip; his teeth are clenched in hate;
    He sniffs with cruel derision as he lets go of the brake.
    And now he throws it into first, the clutch he now he lets go,
    And now the air is shattered as the bike takes off - alone.

    Oh! somewhere there's a campus town where they drum and chant all night.
    They protest for the rain forest, and demand the wart-hog's rights.
    And somewhere bongs are being passed, and somewhere radicals shout;
    But there is no joy at Old State U -- Gay Doc Ruby has Wiped Out!

    1. Re:Doc Ruby At the Quads by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Anonymous slashstalker Coward tilts at the Doc Ruby windmill.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  44. Start by legalizing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe they should start by legalizing whatever the hell it is they seem to be smoking?

  45. Re:the cash - no run on LInux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, it'll all run on Microsoft using their volume purchase agreements and will use state of the art SAN systems.

  46. This is an opportunity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Start my own ISP,
    build small storage system,
    download same images of winnie the pooh from myself, over and over again, trillions of times.
    bill congress for storing each "download instance" at going rate decided on by likes of Comcast and AT&T (read: gold plated)
    record images by using pointer system to unique image (Special compression system :-) )
    profit.

  47. Re:Agreed: don't let Bush-hate blind you to histor by epee1221 · · Score: 1

    I'd have said Woodrow Wilson, but it's pretty much the same idea.

    --
    "The use-mention distinction" is not "enforced here."
  48. "Pedophile Loophole" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Only universities and libraries would be excluded, one participant said. "There's a PR concern with including the libraries, so we're not going to include them," the participant quoted the Justice Department as saying. "We know we're going to get a pushback, so we're not going to do that."

    Yeah, that is until 5-years later when they use FUD to rally the parental groups in to closing the "pedophile loophole."

  49. Preoccupation with p0rn? by PPH · · Score: 1
    Or does the MPAA dictate law enforcement priorities? Why just track pictures? If terrorism, illegal drugs, or money laundering were of any concern, the justice department would need to track the source of everything including text messages (IM, email, Usenet posts, etc.). Terrorists and criminals could coneivably conduct all of their business using text alone.

    One interesting thought: If they are ignoring text, can I yEnc or uuencode my p0rn before posting it and be exempt from these tracking requirements?

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:Preoccupation with p0rn? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      can I yEnc or uuencode my p0rn before posting it and be exempt from these tracking requirements?


      Just base64 it into a data URI. I'm reminded of this phrack issue (loopback 0x0f):

      ... to actually make use of the Phrack article:
       
      "Below is the schematic diagram (gps_jammer.ps) in an uuencoded gzipped
      PostScript file. This is the native Xcircuit[12] format and is used for
      ease of viewing, printing and modification."
       
      How many FBI agents weaned on Windows will it take to get past the first
      hurdle: uuencoded?
       
          [ So many that after 8 month we decided to help them out:
            http://www.phrack.org/dump/phrack_gps_jammer.png
                Or for the advanced agent:
       
            $ uudecode p60-0x0d.txt && gunzip -d gps_jammer.ps.gz && \
              gv gps_jammer.ps
          ]
      Authorities are clueless, they shouldn't be pushing laws on subjects they fail to grok.
  50. Ribbit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is it warm in this pot or is it just me?

  51. Tor by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 1

    The more you tighten your grip, the more people will learn about Tor (The Onion Router), the more they will setup proxies, and the more that the Internet will get clogged with useless extra traffic that didn't need to happen if you just left people more alone.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  52. Re:Agreed: don't let Bush-hate blind you to histor by Xabraxas · · Score: 1

    It seems in our country that whichever party is in power becomes corrupt and eventually the other party calls them out on it and things swing back the other way. The problem is that then the very same party that called out the corruption then becomes corrupt themselves. It seems the old adage, "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely" is still as true as it ever was. The only difference between communism and our current system is that we have two corrupt parties to choose from instead of just one.

    --
    Time makes more converts than reason
  53. most corrupt USA government admin by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    When you get down to it, if I have to name the nation's most Corrupt Administration off the top of my head, I'd say Andrew Jackson.

    Agreed! When Jackson forced the Cherokee living in the Carolinas, and northern Georgia, west on the Trail Of Tears he was sued in the USSC. When the Justices ruled against him Jackson said he was the commander in chief and if they wanted to stop him then they'd have to get their own army.

    Mr. "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!" Jackson.

    Yeap! That's what he said.

    Abraham Lincoln, yo. Writ of habeus what now?

    The Justices ruled against him too. It may be ironic, in that he was a slave owner, but Thomas Jefferson was against slavery and may of tried to do the most for liberty. In early drafts of the DOI, Declaration of Independence Jefferson wrote everybody including slaves and women had the same rights. However because some who believed in slavery eventually signed the DIO this was taken out.

    Falcon
  54. A slippery fish by Statecraftsman · · Score: 1

    There can be no surer way to popularize TOR(The Onion Router) than to implement this sort of surveillance.

    1. Re:A slippery fish by blakmac · · Score: 0

      The only problem is that TOR can be traced. Everything can be traced, everything can be broken. It's just going to be up to everybody to stay one step ahead of the machine.

      --
      http://wstewart.php0h.com - the sugarbuzz project blog
  55. ungag Sibel Edmonds? by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    Look, congress will do nothing just because you wrote a letter. If they were really wanting to clean up, then they would doing such things as push to have Sibel Edmonds ungagged.

    It would be nice if Sibel Edmonds were ungagged however as with many other dreams I've had I doubt it will ever happen. If people knew just how bad things were in the FBI's translation unit they'd loose all belief in the FBI. Not having read or heard about her for some months I went ahead and News Googled her and there was all of five results, and what was the first one? Narconew's Narcosphere, besides /. one of my fav websites.

    Falcon
  56. child porn by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    We could make sure no 'normal' person, in the world, emails pictures of their kids, gets a bit to 'extreme' in their home made porn, or wears the wrong colour tie in photos.

    Remindes me of a case that came up a few years ago while taking a photography class in college. Some parent took photos of their child(ren) whiile in the bathtub. They dropped off the film and went to pick up up later. When they claimed the photos they were arrested for child pornography. I find this sad, growing up it was common for a parent to take a photo like this and no one thought bad of it. Years ago I used to be a member of a naturalist, also called nudist, group and with the way things are today I wonder what would happen if parents who were members of such a group brought their child(ren) to meetings or get togethers.

    Falcon
  57. Habeus Corpus isn't actually MENTIONED in the by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    Constitution

    Maybe not but at least one USSC ruled Habeas Corpus is a right and that denying it is unconstitutional:

    1861: Abraham Lincoln detains thousands, ignores court
    During the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln suspends the writ of habeas corpus, arresting anyone who expresses sympathy with the South and holding them without presenting evidence against them or giving them a trial. Hundreds of draft resisters are imprisoned, along with newspaper editors, judges, lawyers, and legislators. By some estimates, more than 13,000 people are arrested overall. When Chief Justice Roger Taney declares the president's actions unconstitutional, Lincoln blatantly ignores the ruling. He also shuts down newspapers that express pro-South views.

    Nor the right to privacy.

    Again, at least one USSC ruling affirmed privacy is a Constitutional right. I don't have a handy link but in the early 1800s the USSC ruled that the right to anonymity is an important part of the freedom of speech, if people couldn't remain anonymous then they weren't able to enjoy political speech freely, that if they had to give up anonymity what they say could be used against them they couldn't enjoy free speech.

    Falcon
  58. Who did you vote for in 2004? by falconwolf · · Score: 1
    1. Re:Who did you vote for in 2004? by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      You're not ACMENEWSLLC, who apparently is the kind of Republican who votes for Bush, but doesn't feel responsible because they wanted him not to be a Republican. Consistent with invading Iraq, but not feeling responsible because they wanted it to greet us with flowers and hugs.

      But I am curious. Were you a registered Republican in 2004? Did you vote in the primaries? For whom? Did you support Badnarik's lawsuit challenging the Ohio results?

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    2. Re:Who did you vote for in 2004? by ACMENEWSLLC · · Score: 1

      I voted for him both times. Of the two candidates, he was my preference. Doesn't mean I really like the guy. I just liked him better at the time than I did John Kerry, or Al Gore.

      I actually support the war in Iraq, and support it to this day. Personally I think we should of never liberated Kuwait. Saddam Hussein was our puppet prior to that. ( http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-5 3783.html ) Had we left that alone, I think we'd of been much better off than we are today. We have a vast history of supporting groups to overthrow governments all over the world. We did so in Iraq, and Hussein took power. Then we sort of tried again, and he ended up killing those we half supported.

      However we are where we are, and if it takes us 50 years to get that region stable, then so be it. It's been unstable for hundreds of years. 50 years is not a long time in the grand scheme of things. We stayed in many countries for many decades after WWII. We do what it takes to get the job done. We have made a commitment. We should stick with it.

      That's my opinion. MOST of the country disagrees with me. That's fine. That doesn't change my opinion.

    3. Re:Who did you vote for in 2004? by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      We did "leave that alone", prior to Saddam invading Kuwait. He threatened to invade, Bush Sr said he wouldn't intervene, he invaded, Bush attacked, evicted him, and shut him down. Clinton's containment forced him to disarm while resistance could develop. Then Bush Jr invaded, throwing the country into chaos, a premature overthrow much like Bush Sr's failure to back the Kurds as they tried to kick Saddam out of Kurdistan.

      That region was stable for hundreds of years until Britain carved it up and partnered with the US in a series of murderous puppets. The US interference in Iraq has done nothing but kill hundreds of thousands, millions of people on all sides for decades, including locking up Iraq's oil for decades while prices (and profits) have skyrocketed, along with global insecurity.

      We stayed in many countries after WWII entirely because their united people and their truly democratically chosen governments asked us to. In the wake of a war against the Nazis, who nearly took over the world. We spent that time, and continue to spend that time, based there in a military partnership led by the locals against a monolithic Soviet military threat, now increasingly irrelevant now that the Soviets are long gone. WWII and our Iraq invasion/occupation have little in common. Just because they both go "boom" and your Republicans tell you they're the same, doesn't mean they have much in common.

      So thanks for clarifying. Your "opinions" have been totally wrong for decades. You've gotten your way in every choice you've made. With the leaders you've chosen, the US is in more danger than ever since 1942, and in retrospect probably more. Squandered not only the 9/11/2001 solidarity, but much of the solidarity and respect (and even fear) we'd built since the WWII you so misunderstand. Sticking with your commitment is suicide.

      So I'm dying (figuratively, and many others dying literally) to know who you like in 2008.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  59. MODERATORS, Please MOD PARENT UP by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    If you read the link that he points to, it shows that Sibel Edmunds may finally be able to testify by simply connecting the dots between known info. If she does, this will probably cause Congress to act and finally push to have her gag order removed (even if it takes down one or two top dems).

    Gads, I hope it is true.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  60. EVERYONE is GUILTY of something by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry to shout, but I would really like to hear some opinions about this.

    I feel that the real objective behind this is not to clean up the streets, but to insure that everyone is possibly guilty of something. I have noticed that in almost every significant case, one of the first steps is to grab all the computers, look for the porn, and then ANNOUNCE that 10 or 20 pictures of KIDDY PORN were found.

    Now, I would not care about this if I truly beleived it, but I think most of the time this is just used to get the person to plead guilty to multiple counts of conspiracy to steal grapes from the Grocery store. Is there anyone who has erotic pictures on their computer who would bet their life that every girl was 18 when the photos were taken? Years ago a friend of mind had a copy of the Vannessa Williams issue of Penthouse, because he felt it might be a collector item in the future. Then a lawyer told him that the issue could be considered Child Pornography because it also had nude underage photos of Tracy Lords(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traci_Lords ).

    If a person could face charges because of an old issue of Penthouse, is there anything really safe? I found it frightening that one of the reason the Feds asked for this power is in case they later find that some photos were ruled illegal, they can go after everyone who had ever downloaded them.

    I fully support putting kiddie molesters in prision, but I really have concerns people could be threatened with long prison sentences because some girl that showed you her boobs at Mardis Gras was 2 days under 18 years old.

    But the worst part is that such a picture can be used by the government to keep from having to prove someone is really guilty because no on can take the risk of spending 10 years in prison, and being labeled as a sex offender, when all you have to do avoid it is to drop a joint (given by the cops) in your friends car so they can get the "Real Crimminal".

    My biggest worry about these small things is that they can be used coerse unjust confessions out of innocent people.

    Comments? I would love some one to convince that I am wrong about this, and they would NEVER abuse this power.

  61. All your Base64 are belong to... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    TGV0IG1lIGdldCB0aGlzIHN0cmFpZ2h0Lg0KDQpUaGUgZ292ZX JubWVudCBoYWQgdGh
    lIGtub3dsZWRnZSBhbmQgZGF0YSBhYm91dCA5LzExIGJlZm9yZ SBpdCBoYXBwZW5lZC
    wgYnV0IGZhaWxlZCB0byBwcmV2ZW50IGl0Lg0KDQpUaGUgZ292 ZXJubWVudCBjb2xsZ
    WN0cyBUT05TIG9mIHJhdyBkYXRhIGFzIGl0IGlzLCBhbmQgY29 sbGVjdHMgaXQuDQoN
    CklmIHRoZXJlIGlzIGEgcHJvYmxlbSBjdXJyZW50bHksIGFjdG l2aXR5IChpLmUuIHV
    wbG9hZGVkIHBob3RvZ3JhcGhzKSBjYW4gYmUgcmVwb3J0ZWQgY W5kIHRha2VuIGRvd2
    4sIGFuZCBtb3N0IGxpa2VseSB0aGUgY3VscHJpdCB0cmFja2Vk LiBBbHJlYWR5Lg0KV
    2h5IHdvdWxkIHRoZXJlIG5lZWQgdG8gYmUgYSBuZXcgbGF3IG9 uIHRoZSBib29rcz8g
    QW5kIHdoeSB3b3VsZCB0aGlzIGRhdGEgbmVlZCB0byBiZSBzdG 9yZWQ/DQoNCkkgZ3V
    lc3MgaXRzIGxpa2UgdGhlIGZhY3QgdGhhdCBHLlcuIGNhbiBvc GVuIHVwIGFueSBVUy
    BtYWlsIGhlIGZlZWxzIGxpa2Ugbm93LiBVbnJlYXNvbmFibGUg c2VhcmNoIGFuZCBzZ
    Wl6dXJlPyBObywgc2VlLCBpdCBtaWdodCBiZSB0ZXJyb3Jpc3Q gcmVsYXRlZCEgDQpT
    Q0FSRSBUQUNUSUNTISBBUkdIIQ0KDQpJIHRoaW5rIEkgc2F3IG EgY2F2ZSBuZWFyYnk
    gSSB3b3VsZCBsaWtlIHRvIGxpdmUgaW4uLi4uA

  62. If you read the link that he points to by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    it shows that Sibel Edmunds may finally be able to testify by simply connecting the dots between known info.

    Maybe I missed it but I went up to the top and didn't see a link about Sibel Edmunds, except the one I posted, which says this. Maybe someone else posted another one.

    Gads, I hope it is true.

    I'd love to see Sibel being able to speak out without a sword hanging over her head.

    Falcon
  63. You're not ACMENEWSLLC by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    I don't know what ACMENEWSLLC means so I can't say whether I am or am not.

    But I am curious. Were you a registered Republican in 2004? Did you vote in the primaries? For whom?

    Since the first tyme I registered to vote I've registered as independent or no party affiliation. I prefer to do my own thinking and not what some party wants. I've voted for candidates from 5 different parties, Democrats, Green, Libertarian, Reform, and Republican. And as I've only been registered in two states and both require party affiliation to vote in primaries I've never voted in them. However if come next year Ron Paul is in the Republican primary I will change my affliation to Republican just to vote for him, of course afterwards I'll change it back to no party affiliation. I've already voted for him once, in 1988 he ran for president as the Libertarian Party candidate and voted for him then. Actually it during that election that I heard of and learned about the LP, and been a supporter since.

    Did you support Badnarik's lawsuit challenging the Ohio results?

    I don't ever recall hearing about a lawsuit Badnarik filed. I would support such a lawsuit though, especially after Deibold's CEO pledged to deliver Ohio's vote to Bush after the state bought Deibold voting machines.

    Falcon
    1. Re:You're not ACMENEWSLLC by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      ACMENEWSLLC was the user to whose post (to which I linked) I replied, to which post of mine you then replied.

      It's interesting that you didn't hear that Badnarik and Cobb sued for an Ohio recount in 2004. There was quite a lot of discussion, especially after House and Senate Democrats forced debate on certifying Ohio's Electoral ballots. I'd think a true independent, who'd even temporarily join parties just to promote individual candidates, would have heard if their candidate were suing for a recount. Especially if joined in their suit by a candidate with largely opposed policies, a suit which could have radically changed the election results, and thereby the course of history (eg. Iraq War). But it seems that you didn't. Which explains how such a serious electoral crisis could make so little impact on the general population, most of whom are even less politically aware than those who just pick from the duopoly.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  64. Re:Agreed: don't let Bush-hate blind you to histor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bush is at least trying to work something positive in Iraq

    You still believe him when he spouts that shit?
    I never did.

  65. Badnarik's lawsuit for Ohio recount by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    I'd think a true independent, who'd even temporarily join parties just to promote individual candidates, would have heard if their candidate were suing for a recount.

    I don't pay as much attention as I should I admit. Right now I'm just trying to live day by day, it's been a struggle for me since I survived a terrible accident which left me with a diability. While I was in a coma the docs told my family it would be a miracle if I lived but I'd argue with them now.

    Falcon
    1. Re:Badnarik's lawsuit for Ohio recount by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry to hear that. I hope you make it, and eventually thrive. Sounds like you've already gotten thru the worst. Good luck.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  66. I'm sorry to hear that. I hope you make it, by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    and eventually thrive. Sounds like you've already gotten thru the worst. Good luck.

    Thanks. In a sense some say I was thriving, after going through my medical records the docs and therapists I saw said it was amazing I was doing so well. However most things are a struggle for me.

    Falcon