US To Employ Overhead Spying Domestically

DigitAl56K writes "The Washington Post reports that 'The Bush administration said yesterday that it plans to start using the nation's most advanced spy technology for domestic purposes soon' and that Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff has said that 'Sophisticated overhead sensor data will be used for law enforcement.' Initially, it appears that the administration plans to leverage conventional satellites for domestic surveillance purposes. Congress last October delayed launch of the DHS office that would coordinate law-enforcement requests for satellite and other technical data, and demanded answers to legal questions about the program. The administration supplied answers that some Congress members characterized as inadequate and appears determined to go ahead anyway."

Comments

Is that admissible in court?????

[Doug52392]

I don't even think you can use evidence collected by this type of illegal surveillance in court! So if I, for example (NOTE TO THE NSA, I AM NOT DOING THIS, I'M SIMPLY GIVING AN EXAMPLE), hacking into some computer, the NSA catch me with their illegal warrantless computer, and try to try me in court, can't I just challenge the evidence they are using or something? Claim it can't be admitted into court?

In all respects, I knew this would happen. You destroy civil liberties with a pointless war, and what do yuo get? A POLICE STATE. What the United States are doing IS HOW HITLER GOT HIS RISE TO POWER! Could we be overthrown by an evil dictator soon?

First Post :)

Re:Is that admissible in court?????

[gardyloo]

Somewhat implicit in your response is that you assume that you'd even see the inside of a public courtroom. If the administration can ignore laws which people heretofore assumed applied to them, who's to say that people allegedly caught with this "new" technology are entitled to a fair hearing? Scary stuff.

Re:Is that admissible in court?????

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

How cute, somebody who thinks he'll have a trial. A trial where he gets to see the evidence, no less.

Re:Is that admissible in court?????

[firex726]

Who says they have to give you a trial, or even charge you.

They got detainees in Gitmo, that have been there for years with out trial or eve being charged with a crime.

Somehow I don't think the rhetoric of "You used illegal surveillance to jail me", will do much to convince them to let you go.

Our government will do anything it wants, and no one is going to stop them. We the people have already show how apathetic we are to this treatment.
But hay, enough with all this thinking and having opinions; American Idol and Survivor are on!

Re:Is that admissible in court?????

[sempernoctis]

The problem with law enforcement mechanisms that invade one's privacy has never been the legal use of them, but the potential for abuse of them. The courts are only one arena where this information could be used.

Re:Is that admissible in court?????

[PopeRatzo]

Our government will do anything it wants, and no one is going to stop them.

Admissible in court?? It was a court (the Supreme one) that we have to thank for all this, after their boneheaded decision in November of 2000.

Long after other presidents have been forgotten, George W. Bush will be remembered for what he did.

And domestic spying from outer space isn't even close to the worst. Hell, compared to the torture business that's been breaking in the news in the past 2 weeks with the John Yoo torture memorandum and now the information about the "star chamber" that layed out the plan for this torture regime, domestic surveillance like this is barely a blip on the radar of evil.

Re:Is that admissible in court?????

[erroneus]

Actually, it is. It says nothing about differentiating between citizens and non-citizens. Where does it say in the constitution that these rights are for citizens only and/or that non-citizens should be excluded from these rights?

Re:Is that admissible in court?????

[amRadioHed]

That's just flat out wrong. There are a few places in the constitution where it specifically refers to citizens, everything else including the bill of rights applies to all people.

Re:Is that admissible in court?????

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought they were called "inalienable rights" because they applied to everybody, no matter what? Where does it say otherwise?

How can we function as a nation if our marching order is to treat citizens of other countries as less than human and not deserving of basic civil rights? Although, now that I think about it, it would partially explain Bush and company.

Re:Is that admissible in court?????

[last-omega]

Hmmm, It would seem that this question should be posed to all the Presidential candidates; Will you if elected, continue the in place, domestic spying programs?

Re:Is that admissible in court?????

[DaedalusHKX]

I wrote to my various congress critters, state side and federal side... so far, I have yet to ever get anything back but a cookie cutter letter. Hell even the signature was a copy.

Pretty sad that people like you still believe that congress critters listen.

Re:Is that admissible in court?????

[digitig]

Actually our govt (the US govt) can only do what we give them the permission to do. You don't like it, write your congressman and/or senator. Be vocal, or we can just bitch and complain. Our choice. And don't forget to include a bigger backhander than his/her corporate sponsors can provide. Then they might take notice of your letter.

Re:Is that admissible in court?????

[jamstar7]

While great in theory, the practice seems to be rather different.

Congress these days seems to be taking care of its constituents nicely. Its true constituents, the corporations who donate to their re-election campaigns. The citizenry is their product, and we have been delivered to their constituents. Unless you are a massive campaign contributor, they're not listening to you. And I mean 'massive' as in the case of 'borderline illegal'.

You say that they can be voted out, but this is very unlikely. Somebody quoted me a figure of 98% re-election results for a sitting Congresscritter, although I haven't found any links on it, so take that figure with a grain of salt. Even if the figure was as low as 66.67% re-elected, replacing a sitting Congresscritter literally takes an act of Congress. Possible, but you'd have better luck playing the lottery.

Re:Is that admissible in court?????

[Anonymous Coward]

It's called extraordinary rendition. Which itself is an extraordinary term.

Re:Is that admissible in court?????

[Anonymous Coward]

Quote which part of the constitution gives you inalienable rights. It doesn't exist.

The Declaration of Independance has that wording, and is by its definition an illegal document.

Posting anonymously since people posting facts seem to be getting troll modded to oblivion while people spouting group-think get modded up.

Re:Is that admissible in court?????

[Qzukk]

people posting facts

Only when twisted inappropriately. While the grandparent is wrong about "inalienable rights" in the Constitution, the great-grandparent poster is wrong about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights giving "specific rights to citizens of the US", they do no such thing: the first lays out the powers of the federal government, and restrictions on those powers, the second lays out further restrictions on those powers. The rights exist separately from the Constitution and its amendments.

Re:Is that admissible in court?????

[budgenator]

Is it illegal for the police to watch walking down the street without a warrant, no. One of my friends is a cop, he is required by the courts to look through the cars windows for a handicap sticker before he can write a ticket for parking in a handicap space, do you think this is a unreasonable search? Is looking through a window with your eyes any different from using a camera on a pole. from a police helicopter of a blimp? Is taking a picture with a camera from an aircraft any different than looking and is doing something like taking a picture from a aircraft any different than takeing a picture from a spacecraft? Is taking a picture through the your window with visible light coming through really that much different from taking a multi-spectral image of the thermal IR pouring through your houses walls?

The problem isn't that the Government is taking away any rights you have, the problem is believing you have rights that you don't.

Re:Is that admissible in court?????

[AndresCP]

Wow, with the first post you're already referencing Hitler. Impressive.

Re:Is that admissible in court?????

[Anonymous Coward]

That is why the government is doing whatever they want to do and getting away with murder.
Our own people don't know what is written on their own Constitution.
The Constitution of the United States doesn't use the word "citizen" but the word "national" of the United States, being a national of the United States anyone living in the territory or under the jurisdiction of the United States. There is no difference between citizens or non-citizens.
Now regarding your "I am a citizen they cannot do that to me" thing, let me explain something to you. The Act of the Congress that gave the President powers to declare War on Iraq and to wave war against the Al-Qaeda and their allies, gave powers to the President and the Civil and Military agencies of the federal government to incarcerate ANYONE suspicious of being an enemy agent or an enemy of the United States. And that means military incarceration under a military jurisdiction (Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghrabi and so on). Military incarceration is ruled not by the Codes and Laws of the United States but by the Geneva Convention. However, the Geneva Convention applies only to "military corps, regular and irregular" so if you are not actually engaged on an armed militia, you are just a civilian, and will be under military incarceration. So that means no protection under the Geneva Treaty, or the VIP treatment including: waterboarding, electrical shock, cavity search, stay in Guantanamo without bail or right to a trail on a civilian court. The goods.

Re:Is that admissible in court?????

[Nimey]

My experience is almost always the same -- occasionally I'll get a reply that looks like the rep actually took the time to write back personally, but only if I took a position that the rep shared. To be fair, they probably get a goodly number of letters & it's hard to do all of them justice.

For the most part, since my area is thoroughly Republican, writing to my reps seems to be a waste of time. My HoR rep, in particular, is a powerful Republican (Roy Blunt) who doesn't give a tinker's damn about what his constituents think except inasmuch as it gets him reelected[1]. His counterpart in the Senate (Kit Bond) is the same, and being powerful Congressional Republicans, they are among Bush's chief enablers.

[1] One particular incident sticks: a few years ago in the regional town I lived in, a protest in favor of gay rights was held while Blunt was in town. They invited him to speak with them, but he refused, saying that he doesn't represent "those people". I was under the impression that a representative was supposed to do just that, represent the people of his district or state. Silly me.

Re:Is that admissible in court?????

[evanbd]

Not to mention that the Constitution and Bill of Rights don't grant any rights at all. Not a single one. They merely recognize some of the rights that all people already have. That's why they're called rights, not privileges or some such, after all.

Re:Is that admissible in court?????

[spisska]

Is looking through a window with your eyes any different from using a camera on a pole. from a police helicopter of a blimp? Is taking a picture with a camera from an aircraft any different than looking and is doing something like taking a picture from a aircraft any different than takeing a picture from a spacecraft? Is taking a picture through the your window with visible light coming through really that much different from taking a multi-spectral image of the thermal IR pouring through your houses walls?

Don't they teach you knuckleheads anything in Civics class anymore?

Yes, using a multi-spectral image of the thermal IR pouring through one's houses walls is quite a bit different than looking in car windows for a handicapped sticker.

Here is the Fourth Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

This explicitly says that randomly peeking behind peoples walls and into private property or belongings, without probable cause, is neither legal nor acceptable. Not in the 18th century when the rules were written, and not now. The fact that there is technology to do now what wasn't possible in the 1780s makes no difference. This is not a right that the US government has, based on its own rules. Please also note that the Amendment refers to people, not to citizens.

Another bit of enlightenment is in the Tenth Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

There is nothing in this amendment, or the Constitution as a whole, that gives the Federal government the kind of surveillance rights you suggest. The Fourth Amendment prevents the Federal government and state governments from assuming these rights. Therefore, it is not legal, it is not something the government is permitted to do, it is not constitutional, and it is not acceptable.

If you really think you have nothing to hide, then why not invite me over to go poking through all your stuff?

Re:Is that admissible in court?????

[TubeSteak]

One of my friends is a cop, he is required by the courts to look through the cars windows for a handicap sticker before he can write a ticket for parking in a handicap space, do you think this is a unreasonable search? It's called the plain view doctrine
For the plain view doctrine to apply for discoveries, three criteria must be met:

1. the officer is where he has a legal right to be,
2. ordinary senses must not be enhanced by advanced technology, and
3. any discovery must be by chance.

So it is a perfectly reasonable search.

Is looking through a window with your eyes any different from using a camera on a pole. from a police helicopter of a blimp? Is taking a picture with a camera from an aircraft any different than looking and is doing something like taking a picture from a aircraft any different than takeing a picture from a spacecraft? AFAIK, taking pictures from an aerial vehicle is considered legal, but not if you're doing so to peer into a window from an angle that is not normally accessible. Otherwise see #2 of the plain view doctrine.

Is taking a picture through the your window with visible light coming through really that much different from taking a multi-spectral image of the thermal IR pouring through your houses walls?

The problem isn't that the Government is taking away any rights you have, the problem is believing you have rights that you don't. The problem may be your ignorance of the rights you have.
Especially if you think police using IR cameras is legal.
The case is KYLLO v. UNITED STATES and was decided June 11, 2001
Long story short: Without a warrant, technology "not in general public use" is a violation of the 4th Amendment.

Side Note: findlaw.com does not throw up a reg page if you spoof your referrer as Google Bot

Re:Is that admissible in court?????

[cpricejones]

"National security" are the words they need to use to push the courtroom proceedings from being judge/jury situation to a military tribunal. And of course if it's "in the interest of national security" then the information cannot get out because it will "jeopardize national security."

The parent mentions dictatorship. Here is a great article about the steps necessary to secure power in that fashion, and the author (Naomi Wolf) compares what has happened recently to other situations in the past.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/naomi-wolf/ten-steps-to-close-down-a_b_46695.html

Re:Is that admissible in court?????

[stubob]

Point of clarification: the Fourth Geneva convention, as written, applies to standing armies, organized militias, and civilians. The current administration has interpreted that to mean "unlawful combatants" have no protection under the Geneva convention. However, they are ignoring the Commentary to the Fourth Geneva convention that states that unlawful combatants shall be tried under domestic law of the detaining state. It also states specifically that there is no intermediate state, no one in enemy hands can be outside the law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Geneva_Convention

Blowback

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

We called the phenomenon of encountering weapons we handed out for anti-soviet use turned against us "blowback". This is the other flavor. All the defense contractors knocking together widgets for our wars aren't going to stop there, not when profits are on the line. The next logical market is domestic. The fact that the current administration loves abuses of power and defense contractors in equal measure doesn't much help. Nor does the revolving door between government posts and corporate positions. This time, "blowback" means having the weapons and techniques we use abroad come home to meet us.

Re:Blowback

[mikelieman]

It's like we're living in the world of Verhooven's Robocop. Or maybe Miller's cause he's so much cooler...

Re:Blowback

[Anonymous Coward]

the current administration loves abuses of power

The current administration. As if the exponential growth of the US federal government over the past century, in both revenue and power over the people, and the steady consolidation of power into the hands of the few -- everything which makes abuse of power readily possible -- can be attributed to the current administration?

Re:Blowback

[Jafafa Hots]

the current administration loves abuses of power The current administration. As if the exponential growth of the US federal government over the past century, in both revenue and power over the people, and the steady consolidation of power into the hands of the few -- everything which makes abuse of power readily possible -- can be attributed to the current administration? Previous administrations were always pushing the envelope, stretching things further and further, with occasional steps outside. The current administration took a Zippo to the envelope, said "fuck you and your stupid envelope," and called us terrorist sympathizers, traitors, and actual terrorists if we complained.

Re:Blowback

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Addendum, since I posted in haste the first time:

Besides the obvious privacy and civil liberties concerns, I'm worried about what this will do to the quality of policing. The old cliche about everything looking like a nail when you have a hammer is not without a measure of truth.

The way you think about a problem is, in no small part, determined by what tools you have to conceptualize and solve it. In this case, tools designed for military and intelligence use are being transferred to police use. Even with the best of intentions, the patterns of thought will likely end up following them.

Military patterns of thought and police patterns of thought are, and must be, different. The details are numerous; but at the core the police are there to protect civil society and the military is there to defeat the enemy. At times the police are used to this purpose in direct confrontations with criminals; but their work is most successful if it heads off the situation before it becomes one of direct confrontation between society and criminal.

Given military material culture the subtle and implicit pressure on police will be quite strong. If you have tools designed for hunting down and neutralizing the enemy, that is how you will end up thinking about your job. If spending on unsexy; but effective, tools(like having cops walking the beat, being familiar with the community, etc.) is weakened by spending on high tech wizbangs, you won't have much of a choice.

Such an outcome would just be really lousy. If policing is reduced to merely catching offenders after the fact and nothing more than civil society has lost the war before it even fights the battle. Even if I fully supported the government's right to use intrusive surveillance and force, I couldn't endorse this outcome. A society held together by rules and force and without civic spirit is doomed; and the use of military methods for police purposes buys a small measure of extra force at great cost in civic spirit.

Re:Blowback

[Anonymous Coward]

The current administration took a Zippo to the envelope, said "fuck you and your stupid envelope," and called us terrorist sympathizers, traitors, and actual terrorists if we complained.

The previous president -- not just his administration -- called his political opponents terrorist sympathizers. The only difference back then was that 90% of the mainstream media voted for him, so they were more than happy to go along with his program.

"But I also know there have been lawbreakers among those who espouse your philosophy... The people who came to the United States to bomb the World Trade Center were wrong.... How dare you suggest that we in the freest nation on Earth live in tyranny.... There is nothing patriotic about hating your country, or pretending that you can love your country but despise your government." (May 5, 1995)

and

"But do not condemn people who work for the government. That's the kind of mentality that produced Oklahoma City." (June 1, 1995)

and

"We recognized, once again, that we can't love our country and hate our government." (December 31, 1995)

See also Virginia Postrel's "Does Reading This Make You A Terrorist?" (July 1995)

Funny how a lot of the people who are outraged now were (at best) not paying attention then.

So this means we all can spy on each other....

[3seas]

.... as soon as google makes the interface accessible.

Re:So this means we all can spy on each other....

[Dekker3D]

heh... gps was originally a military technology, publically accessible now. and it's being used by some corporations to track where their employees' cell-phones are going. it's a scary thought, but you might actually be on to something -_-

New generation of privacy concerns

[DigitAl56K]

If we take the fourth amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. .. how does this apply to aerial or satellite surveillance where we are now talking about technologies that can monitor us everywhere we go and using different techniques than we are used to?

Examples:

• If I am reading e-mail on my phone outdoors (for the sake of argument lets assume it was transmitted securely) and I'm not openly displaying it to others, yet a UAV can see the text because it's above me, am I secure in my effects? What if it is a public place but there is nobody near me and it would be unreasonable to assume that anyone could see what I'm looking at? Even in the workplace, when I type my password into my desktop my coworkers, should they be near my desk, look away because their is an assumed need for privacy under some circumstances.
   
• Satelites and UAVs do not just see in the visible spectrum. What happens when they are capable of looking into our homes either actively or passively via different ranges of the spectrum? One one hand, if I am yelling inside my house and there are people outside who overhear, that's my own fault. If a UAV can discern objects and people through a roof, monitor radio emissions and so forth, is that the same thing? My intuition says no, but I doubt it's defined.
   
• Satelites, UAVs, and even cell networks have the ability to track our every move, and by monitoring us all build a social probability map (if you are regularly near other individuals and perhaps at some point have travelled to the same points at the same time or along the same route, you probably know them, can be expanded to group relationship probabilities). Although I don't have much of an expectation of privacy in public places, I do not have an expectation that I should be monitored in my every move and in every relationship I have with other individuals by any entity. However, increasingly that is a) possible, and b) likely.

Where are Americans, and the in fact the rest of the world, going to draw the line?

I am also gravely disappointed in Congress these days. The ask "is it legal?", or "can we manage privacy?" instead of noting that these kind of activities go against fundamental principles on which the United States was founded. "Is it legal?" is a gateway to allow anything, because as the Bush administration has demonstrated the law can be so easily changed, ignored, or interpreted, that it is a useless guard against any desire of the president.

Re:New generation of privacy concerns

[woot account]

"The Fourth Amendment doesn't apply to domestic military operations."

We're far beyond the ability to fight back against the stripping of our rights. Fight back and you're a terrorist, pedophile, and communist, of course.

Re:New generation of privacy concerns

[explosivejared]

If we take the fourth amendment

That's the weak point of most arguing for stronger privacy rights. The fourth amendment only protects you against unreasonable searches and seizures. Now some will flame away with their own personal views about what unreasonable means and what secure in ones papers, etc. means, but the fact is the view that is in vogue in most political circles is that unreasonable means that the person searched was somehow greatly inconvenienced by the search. This doesn' provide a very strong defense for privacy.

So, we are forced to look elsewhere. The greatest argument for privacy comes from the fourteenth amendment.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The pertinent language their regarding privacy in there is the phrase "...property, without due process of law..." Therefore, any person arguing for a strong right to privacy has the fact on their side that the fourteenth amendment requires due process for any act that the government takes to manipulate the property of a citizen, intellectual or otherwise, must come with due process. This is where the libertarians have it right. To have any sort of privacy we must strengthen property rights, intellectual or otherwise. Now I know intellectual property is not a popular concept around here, but is going to become a political necessity in the near future when the cost barrier to record and store massive amounts of data about a citizen becomes lower and lower.

In short, forget the fourth amendment. No matter its original intent, it's been chopped up and rendered almost useless when it comes to effectively guarding privacy. A spying program is essentially a government requisition of private intellectual property. Due process is a much stronger defense for privacy.

Re:New generation of privacy concerns

[Agripa]

Satelites and UAVs do not just see in the visible spectrum. What happens when they are capable of looking into our homes either actively or passively via different ranges of the spectrum? One one hand, if I am yelling inside my house and there are people outside who overhear, that's my own fault. If a UAV can discern objects and people through a roof, monitor radio emissions and so forth, is that the same thing? My intuition says no, but I doubt it's defined.

In 2001 the Supreme Court held in Kyllo v. United States that the use of a device from a public vantage point to monitor thermal radiation from a person's home was a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, and thus required a warrant.

This is different from using a radiation detector or drug sniffing dog because both of the later are much more selective about what is revealed.

Re:New generation of privacy concerns

[DaedalusHKX]

Isn't it ironic, that communism and fascism aren't all that different? Its just a different economic model, in that in one, the government OWNS and CONTROLS everything to the benefit of the owners of the government, while in the other, the government is OWNED by a few and controls everything to the benefit of those same few.

Communism, and Fascism, in practice, were the precursors to what we have today. Even socialism is too limited a term to cover the social and economical controls imposed from above.

Those guilty, however, reside next door, not at some white washed building in DC.

Re:New generation of privacy concerns

[acvh]

"domestic military operations"?

"DOMESTIC MILITARY OPERATIONS"?

that phrase scares the shit out of me. i want the military standing at the border looking out, not standing on the street corner looking at me.

If There Was Any Chance...

[Pantero Blanco]

If there was any real chance that this system would be used primarily for border defense, maybe I wouldn't mind it as much. But there really isn't... DC politicians have made it quite clear that they regard the nation's citizens as their enemies, not foreigners who enter the nation illegally.

This is for suppressing civil disorder and riots if it becomes necessary.

More on the "advanced spy technology"

[DigitAl56K]

Last year CNET reported on at least one county in North Carolina already using a UAV to "monitor gatherings of motorcycle riders at the Gaston County fairgrounds from just a few hundred feet in the air -- close enough to identify faces".

Discovery Channel's Future Weapons has provided insight into numerous UAVs, including the Fire Scout, Global Hawk, Predator 2, and the Dominator, their coverage of the Predator 2 particularly demonstrating surveillance and tracking capabilities of these units.

According to DefenseNews the US Air Force just announced the purchase of 28 Predators as part of a contract awarded to General Atomics. The US Air Force has just begun running ads on cable TV as part of their "Above All" campaign that feature the UAVs (sorry, no online video yet).

Initially, it appears that the administration plans to leverage conventional satellites for domestic surveillance purposes.

All of the paranoid responses..

[bagboy]

ignore other potential good uses from such technology.. Imagine being able to catch Kidnappers, fugitives and the ilk before they actually do more harm. Fleeing bank robbers, etc.. In all technology there is a chance for abuse of authority, be it in your own office or with government control. Chance for abuse does not negate the ability for technology to be helpful to society. To be sure - be vigilant of government practices, but don't cut off your feet to spite your nose either.

Re:All of the paranoid responses..

[Anonymous Coward]

Imagine being able to catch Kidnappers, fugitives and the ilk before they actually do more harm. Imagine your government wrongfully accusing you of a crime and thereafter tracking your every movement and association.

At what point do we say enough is enough? We can already catch kidnappers, fugitives and the ilk. We already have helicopters. At some point the potential for abuse, which we know based on virtually every aspect of the Bush administration and governments worldwide will be realized eventually, must outweigh the marginal benefit we gain.

Re:All of the paranoid responses..

[RockModeNick]

I'll take my chances on the small risk of danger from kidnappers and the ilk rather than the given total decay of privacy. It doesn't even matter if any if it is admissible in court, they just give the local police a "anonymous tip" and then they show up and search people, all you need for a search is reasonable suspicion, it's not near as restrictive as getting a warrant. I'll take the TINY risk from criminals over the certainty of abuse.

Re:All of the paranoid responses..

[Grave]

Chance for abuse? CHANCE FOR ABUSE?!

Are you new to the world? This administration has abused every single bit of leverage or opening they've been given. You're damned right we're paranoid, and our government has demonstrated repeatedly why we need to be. Congress is questioning the legality of it while Bush is burning every copy of the Constitution he can find. I don't care at all whether this is legal - it cannot be allowed. As a nation, we elected a whole lot of congressmen in 2006 for the purpose of reigning in Bush and the Iraq war. Not only have they utterly failed to do so, they've allowed our civil liberties to be even further trampled upon. Congress doesn't seem to have the stomach for blocking the administration's abuse of power, so we as voters are left with a choice between evicting as many as possible and starting over, or just electing the same old crew to do the same old job.

I pray that all the Slashdotters who complain about stories like this (and who are citizens the USA) are going to use their right to vote this November to make their voices heard.

This will be interesting to observe...

[gweihir]

And it definitely is a case for "Wehret den Anfaengen". Somehow I doubt that the US population will do much better than others to prevent the creation of first a sueveillance state and then a dictatorship. Of course this is proceeding slower than most other efforts in that direction in the past, but I think if I would be living in the US, the time to become really afraid is now. Probably the best chance against this is the next election. Seems for once you have acceptable candidtaes all around, which must be a first in recent history.

"Fighting Americans since 2000"

[unity100]

... another violation of your rights, brought to you by Bush & co & sons. Coming to a theater near you. Enjoy.

In answer, this little ditty:

[fyngyrz]

Da Ditty

They took a posse after posse comitatus
You know it's cuz those fuckers hate us
They'll use the mil-i-tary
Our ass to quickly bury
If anonymous, we try to make us.

--fyngyrz

Re:civil....

[Anonymous Coward]

Do they want a civil war?

Yes. Thats why they're building detention camps to hold hundreds of thousands of people. Mass civil unrest would give the current administration and the 'elites' in power the excuse they need to remove all remnants of democracy and declare martial law.

Is the USA still a democracy?

[Futurepower(R)]

"Could we be overthrown by an evil dictator soon?"

I wonder about that also. Will those who are in control of the U.S. government allow elections this time in November? Or will there be some "threat" that those in power say requires them to continue in power?

In my opinion, the purpose of the U.S. government's war with Iraq is largely to make money for weapons and oil investors.

But money is not the only purpose. One key to understanding why Cheney and Rumsfeld and the Bush family want violence is understanding the mental illness of anger. It is true that they are apparently helping their friends and family who have investments in weapons and largely hidden business with the U.S. government. But they are also acting out their anger. It's the anger of people who have put money first in their lives. It's the anger of alcoholic personalities; both George W. Bush and Dick Cheney have been arrested for driving while intoxicated.

Re:Is the USA still a democracy?

[PopeRatzo]

Could we be overthrown by an evil dictator soon?

Where have you been for the last seven years?

Re:Is the USA still a democracy?

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

How not so?

Operates independently of law, and unilaterally re-writes laws as they are signed.

The US Congress is like Julius Caesar's Senate - soon to be like Tiberius and Caligula's.

Re:Is the USA still a democracy?

[DigitAl56K]

While he's Evil, he's fortunately not a dictator. George W. Bush:

I hear the voices, and I read the front page, and I know the speculation. But I'm the decider, and I decide what is best. And while we laughed and cried in apathy and disenchantment, he decided. And no man, law, constitutional or human right could stop him.

Is this he not a dictator?

Re:Is the USA still a democracy?

[Anonymous Coward]

The election will be permitted... its not like any of the choices will lead us on a path divergent from the one we are on. There is no choice. Just the same wine in different bottles. Like Pepsi and Coke, taste a little different but made of the same cr@p that is no good for us. Unfortunately, unlike Nazi Germany we are the world's sole Mega Power, with the advantage of technology making this round much more certain.

Re:Is the USA still a democracy?

[Daimanta]

retoric retoric retoric *yawn*

You are still able to post this. W was democratically elected(blah blah blah 2000 Al Gore blah blah). The Surpreme Court is not doing it's job.

There is no dictatorship. W is doing what he wants and nobody really gives a shit. That's not his fault, it's the fault of the people that have the power to stop this kind of behavior.

W is not a dictator, you and the Surpreme Court are lazy bastards.

There.

I said it.

Now mod me down.

Lazy fuck.

Re:Is the USA still a democracy?

[illumnatLA]

"Could we be overthrown by an evil dictator soon?" I wonder about that also. Will those who are in control of the U.S. government allow elections this time in November? Or will there be some "threat" that those in power say requires them to continue in power? Not to get all "Conspiracy Theory," but I kind of wonder if this has been in the works since the time Prescott Bush, father of George H. W. Bush plotted with other business leaders to overthrow the government of FDR. "41," I believe, has been quoted as admiring the monarchy of Saudi Arabia. It wouldn't be all that surprising. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot

Re:Is the USA still a democracy?

[DigitAl56K]

This also has some truth to it. I think what has happened is that Bush & Co. recognized early on that by controlling the media, not necessarily the majority of the media, but the media the reaches the majority of the people, that they can get away with whatever they like, that only a vocal minority would even be aware of what was going on around them, and that this minority are not the group of people that would protest in a fashion that would actually effect a change.

Painting with a very broad brush, you can probably say that people fall into one of three categories: they are ignorant of the ongoing situation, they have been instilled with too much fear or disenfranchisement in those elected to defend them, or they simply have no idea of any real means to make a difference.

Given the ease at which you can be branded a terrorist these days I bet a large chunk of the /. audience falls into the second category.

Re:Is the USA still a democracy?

[CodeBuster]

I wonder about that also. Will those who are in control of the U.S. government allow elections this time in November? Or will there be some "threat" that those in power say requires them to continue in power? Utterly ridiculous, of course they will there is no power or precedent for the 'state of emergency' in the United States.

In my opinion, the purpose of the U.S. government's war with Iraq is largely to make money for weapons and oil investors. The market for weapons has expanded dramatically internationally ever since the end of the Cold War so while the War on Terrorism and the Iraq War are potential profit centers for weapons manufacturers they are not soley responsible for the increase in the arms business. Men have always been interested in newer and more efficient ways to cut their neighbors' throats so this is really nothing new. As for the oil investors (myself among them) there is absolutely NO profit in Iraq. The American oil companies do not control the Iraqi oil, the Iraqis do. If American tankers fill up with Iraqi oil then they are paying the world price set on the mercantile exchange in Chicago and despite what you may have heard the oil business is not spectacularly profitable. It earns large revenues yes, but it also incurs large costs so at the end of the day it is maybe 10% profitable. That is a healthy profit yes, but there are many other American companies with even higher profit margins so why single out oil for your ire when the likes of Bechtel, Blackwater, Haliburton, and others who are profiting directly from the war at your (the taxpayers' expense) beckon? At least the oil companies provide you with a full gas tank for your money, what has Haliburton done for you lately? The war in Iraq has neither reduced prices at the gas pump nor profited American oil companies, if anything it has made the business tougher.

But money is not the only purpose. One key to understanding why Cheney and Rumsfeld and the Bush family want violence is understanding the mental illness of anger. Anger is an emotion not an illness. Everyone gets angry from time to time, even you (hence your venemous post).

It is true that they are apparently helping their friends and family who have investments in weapons and largely hidden business with the U.S. government. What are these "hidden business" that you speak of? The government is in the business of spending your tax money and they certainly don't make money, quite the opposite. I have also invested in the weapons business and it has been a good investment for me as well. There are a few things that men will always want to buy: drugs, weapons, and entertainment. This is why I am an investor in the VICE fund. Invest in vice...you won't be dissapointed (well at least not by the returns)

It's the anger of alcoholic personalities; both George W. Bush and Dick Cheney have been arrested for driving while intoxicated. Not sure about Cheney (although his doctor would certainly recommend against drinking given his known cardiac conditions) but by all accounts George W. Bush has not touched alcohol since 1986 when he became a Teetotaler. The man has other faults to be sure, but alcoholism and drinking are not among them.

Re:Is the USA still a democracy?

[phantomfive]

I wonder about that also. Will those who are in control of the U.S. government allow elections this time in November? Or will there be some "threat" that those in power say requires them to continue in power? The election will take place, terrorism notwithstanding. Remember that even during the civil war, there were elections. In general, for a group to win a coup, they have to have (at least complicit) support of around 30% of the people, and a lot of them have to be in control. Do you really think Bush could rally support of 30% of the generals, fighter pilots, marines, soldiers, etc? He is not a charismatic military leade, they are not going to follow him.

Look at it a different way: we are not living in a world where overtaking the government is even considered. A common parallel people have been making is to the Nazis: they were a democracy, voted the wrong people, and then became a dictatorship. Could it happen here? Remember the Germans had just barely left its monarchy behind. In the previous century, Chancellor Bismarck had actively looked for excuses to mass kill his political opponents. In a society like that, people learned that they should just go along if they didn't want to die. The first thing the Nazis did after gaining power was kill all their political opponents. People accepted it as normal. If you want to rest your mind more on the matter, study the details of some Latin-American dictators, or study 19th century France, begin to get an idea of what it takes to overthrow a government, and you will begin to feel that America is alright.

n my opinion, the purpose of the U.S. government's war with Iraq is largely to make money for weapons and oil investors. The US is quite capable of spending money on weapons without going to war (see the F22-Raptor, for example).

There were a number of different reasons to enter Iraq. The main reason is that Iraq is a strategically important country, and IF a friendly democracy is maintained there, it will be a stabilizing influence throughout the entire middle east. This is all clearly outlined in the ideology of PNAC, of which Rumsfeld is a member. They'd been pushing to oust Saddam since at least 1998.

Personally I was opposed to the war from the beginning, however, I am now grudgingly having to admit that there have been some good effects from the war as well. It can be argued that one of the main reasons Syria left Lebanon is because they were afraid they would be invaded by the US. Also, despite some horrible mistakes, the US really does look good compared to Al Qaeda in Iraq (compare Abu Ghraib to Al Qaeda, who tortured and killed people in horrible ways, raped girls, etc), and the rest of the middle east is starting to notice. There are even starting to be signs of divisions within the terrorists. It's hard to hate soldiers who are building schools and giving candy out to kids.

There is also evidence that Bush really felt Saddam was evil, and needed to be destroyed. He included him in the axis of evil, after all.

Re:Is the USA still a democracy?

[rastos1]

You are still able to post this ...

..providing you are in free speech zone. You are still able to post this on /., but try it somewhere where it matters.

Watchbird

[hack slash]

Has anyone else seen the "Masters of Science Fiction" episode "Watchbird"? If you haven't, do.

Avoiding the technical issues of having an autonomus flying robot that can stun & kill people, the actual story of how politicians would use something developed for military use decide that a modified version could work just as well for domestic use, isn't far from the truth as has been shown here in the UK when a council used the RIPA to spy on a family for a month (including watching them in their house and following them in their car) because they applied for their 3-year old to go to a primary school and the council wanted to make sure the family wasn't cheating the system.

It proves that is the powers are there for the people in charge to use then there's no way in hell they won't eventually (ab)use those powers.

There's a website I came across last year...

[Jafafa Hots]

...that vowed to track abuses of power, defend privacy rights and freedoms, fight fascism, defend the constitution.

It was based in the south, covered with the flags of the USA and the CSA, and railed against Clinton for the filegate thing, Waco, etc.

Odd thing was, it hasn't been updated since around 2000, the forums have gone strangely silent. Not a peep about Bush.

I think perhaps these brave defenders of freedom are so outraged by Bush, so aware of constitutional issues that they say the threat more clearly than others, and that they have decided to take their movement underground, make it more clandestine.

Yeah, that's probably it.

IR-shielding paint, anyone?

[zazelite]

I perceive that there will soon be a huge market for IR-shielding devices for your home.

This reminds me of that 'Weeds' episode where a couple of HomeSec goons going over high-altitude IR photographs can clearly see the giant cross that Nancy is using as a sun lamp for her crop (after Doug stole it from a church), even with the roof in the way.

We already have an FBI!

[elucido]

I'm sorry but you aren't making any sense. If you want to use federal powers for good police use, there already is an FBI.

What these people are trying to do is give LOCAL COPS the ability to access top secret spy technology.

Will these local cops have top secret military clearance? That is not being mentioned. Will these local cops have to follow all the federal laws?

Wtf is going to be next? Giving corporations police powers and making CEO's into deputy and letting them access all the top secret spy satelites and launch UAVS?

Do you realize what this does? The domestic law enforcement is even more filled with moles than the federal law enforcement. So instead of having to worry about the Soviets, the domestic law enforcement has to worry about the bloods, the crips, mafia, MS13, the vice lords, and all these other gangs and mafias who have infiltrated and who have moles all throughout domestic law enforcement and police departments all over this country.

If we give the domestic law enforcement access to all this technology, don't you realize that you'll be giving even more power and access to the very criminals you think this technology will be targeting?

You think they are stupid? They read the news too, they go to Slashdot too, their spies in the police department soon may have the power to look into your house and see what you do.

Re:welcome to your new totalitarian home

[Tony Hoyle]

There's still time to amend the law so he can have another term. Another war breaking out should just about do it.

If he can't manage that, just engineer an election. That's quite easy provided you don't get stupid.. win by 51%-49% and few will be able to seriously question the result.

One nation...

[kosty]

... under surveillance.

well

[memnock]

i could hope that a new administration will mean that there will be a change to this policy. even if that happened though, the pendulum would probably swing back to the surveillance again.

on a related note, i noticed cameras on the traffic signal arms at an intersection near my home that look a lot like surveillance cameras. there are two sets of cameras with each signal now: what i THINK of as a traffic camera, that monitors traffic flow (more like a counter) and has been on the signal for a long time now, and then a "regular" camera, with a lens for real imaging and thus, watching and recording what happens in or near the intersection.
i'll admit i don't read the local paper (not that it'd likely be reported), so i don't know if there is a public explanation for these newer cameras, but they do intrigue. if i start to ask questions, i'll be the crackpot of course.

Wordaphobia

[Workaphobia]

Your hasty disclaimer - that your relevant, mild, and ordinary hypothetical is indeed just a hypothetical - speaks volumes towards your fear of your own government.

I would recommend neither qualifying nor apologizing for such words. Don't let them take away your right of expression by censoring yourself for them. Instead, embrace your words and defend the strength of your feelings with an indignant fury.

You might want to read this essay: http://www.harpers.org/archive/2006/06/0081057

You already are overthrown...

[Eternal Annoyance]

confirmed step 1) Make the people uninterested in elections (as far as I'm aware in the USA there's an election for way too many things).
confirmed step 2) Give the people a common enemy (terrorists).
confirmed step 3) Use step 2 to give yourself additional additional powers (partiot act)
confirmed step 4) Divert attention of the people to something more interesting then the situation at home (war).
confirmed step 5) Make use of the chance created by step 4 to give yourself more rights, and strip (or circumvent) the rights of the people.
step 6) Something happens which gives you a reason to use your extra rights (economic collapse?)... among which
step 7) Cancel the next presidential elections for an undefined period.

Notice how close you are?

Re:What are they looking for?

[DigitAl56K]

Some of you people need to get over yourselves. You're not important enough for the government to care about. The government wants to know about everyone so that they can data mine to identify people they do care about, and you better hope through some ill twist of fate you don't end up matching their criteria - and who knows what that is? The ACLU reports that the US terror watch list now has nearly one million names on it. Do you actually believe there are nearly one million terrorists in the country? Hmmm?

And this is news?

[ScrewMaster]

The administration supplied answers that some Congress members characterized as inadequate and appears determined to to ahead anyway.

Well, if nothing else we have to give Hell, Bush, Cheney & Co. an "A" for persistence. This is totally within character for them, as well as the various agencies that have sprung up around and because of them (the TSA, for example.) This is going to get much worse before it gets better ... assuming it gets better. Now granted, Federal law enforcement has gotten too big for its britches before (such as the FBI under Hoover) and eventually Congress had to take notice and rein them in. There is a pendulum effect here, these things tend to go in cycles. Of course, under Hoover the FBI was a direct threat to Congress itself, which no doubt explains their desire to restrict the FBI's activities. I doubt concern for the citizenry had much to do with it, but at least they were willing and able to put some controls in place.

The problem is qualitatively different today: Congress has proven inept at providing adequate oversight, and itself is interested in yet-more-powerful government. I don't think we're going to find salvation in Washington ... they're on a collective power trip and see no reason to stop. Remember Darth Vader's first scene? He said "There will be no-one to stop us, this time." I think we're in the same boat as Princess Leia.

Re:What are they looking for?

[Qzukk]

Some of you people need to get over yourselves. You're not important enough for the government to care about. As the marginal cost of watching any individual person approaches zero, so does the amount of "importance" required to justify the ever-decreasing expense.

So too, does the cost of doing it wrong.

Movie reclassification

[Prisoner's Dilemma]

Now I'm going to have to reorganize my movie collection moving titles like '1984' and 'Enemy of the State' from science fiction to current events.

There is a congressman who will vote against this

[rohan972]

Ron Paul.

Check out his voting record. Maybe you're not libertarian, but show me where he has voted in favor of any advances of government power like this.

I'd like the answer to...

[stabiesoft]

Because the bush administration tortured people in violation of the geneva convention, will you hand over bush, cheney, rice, powell, ??? to the hague for trial for crimes against humanity as required by international law?

Re:What are they looking for?

[seanadams.com]

Some of you people need to get over yourselves. You're not important enough for the government to care about.

Really? I am on the TSA's terrorist watch list. I am not allowed to use electronic check in at the airport, and I get my bags searched every time. This is not my paranoid imagination - airport personnel have explicitly told me so... but when I've called TSA they won't take me off the list and they sure as hell won't tell me how I got on it.

What have I done? Hell if I know. I'm a white non-religious male. I've bought a spur-of-the-moment one-way plane tickets. I own guns. I've spoken out on Slashdot a time or two. I've googled some weird shit. I will never know exactly how I got on that damned list, but the fact of the matter is I am getting special scrutiny from Bush's cronies and I have no fucking idea why.

Maybe YOU haven't been inconvenienced by this regime yet, because you stay home and watch TV all day. Just try exercising your freedoms and see what happens.

545 people decide for all of us

[Reziac]

An article someone sent me which makes similar points:

===================
545 People
By Charlie Reese --

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.

Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, we have deficits?

Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does.

You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.

You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.

You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.

You and I don't control monetary policy, The Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president and nine Supreme Court justices - 545 human beings out of the 300 million - are directly, legally, morally and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress.

In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered but private central bank.

I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority.

They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman or a president to do one cotton-picking thing.

I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it.No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.

Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.

What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall.

No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits.

The president can only propose a budget.

He cannot force the Congress to accept it.

The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes.

Who is the speaker of the House?

She is the leader of the majority party.

She and fellow House members, not the president, can approve any budget they want.

If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million can not replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts - of incompetence and irresponsibility.

I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people.

When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.

If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red.

If the Marines are in IRAQ, it's because they want them in IRAQ.

If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.

There are no insoluble government problems.

Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power.

Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like 'the economy,' 'inflation' or 'politics' that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

Those 545 people, and they alone, are r

Hey, great idea here ...

[tuxgeek]

Let's just strap George W. Bush to a rocket, give him some binoculars and launch him into orbit. I can hear him now, "Hay, thoss 2 are git'n it doggie styel, arrist thim. ann look et thim, iz a three sum goin on, greb thim tew. dam! ah dint bring me no vas-lin, sheut!"

I know it'll work, well, it worked for the coyote anyway.