Slashdot Mirror
Archive.org Defeats FBI's Demand For User Information
eldavojohn writes "Although we don't know what they were after due to the settlement, a gag order was just released that kept Internet Archive member Brewster Kahle quiet. The FBI had issued a national security letter to them under the Patriot Act. Kahle fought it. Hard. The EFF came to the aid of his lawyers and what resulted was one of the only three times an NSL has been challenged: all three have been rescinded. The FBI agreed to open some of the court files now for it to be public. The ACLU added, 'That makes you wonder about the the hundreds of thousands of NSLs that haven't been challenged.'"
A five year prison term might be preferable to experiences like this, especially when ratting out the FBI can save hundreds of thousands of innocent people from further constitutional abuse. I can not demand heroic action by others but I wish there had were more than three in the hundreds of thousands of abused citizens so far. Innocent people going to jail for protecting privacy of other innocent people would shut this monster program down fast.
Vote for anyone but Republicans in 2008 and vote out everyone who had anything to do with the poorly named Patriot act.
well done Internet Archive.
That would be everyone in government of that time, except for Russ Feingold.
I thought you couldn't discuss a NSL, so how would we know that hundreds of thousands of them have been issued?
Are they tracked somewhere publicly, and wouldn't that defeat the whole point of being secret about them?
And given that these are clear-cut violations of free speech, how is it that the entire NSL program still exists? The first time one of these was challenged, I thought any judge worth their salt would declare the NSL anti-constitutional.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
Vote for anyone but Republicans in 2008 and vote out everyone who had anything to do with the poorly named Patriot act.
Personally, the voting record is more important to me than whether they have an R or D beside their name. If that means that I'm voting in Republicans then so be it. I'd rather have a Republican who refused to vote for the Patriot Act than a Democrat who dropped to his knees and pucked up to the Bush administration. Not that there are many Republicans who fit that description...
Boy, I'm sure the telcos are hating this. This story shows once and for all that "the government told me to" is not a valid excuse for violating civil rights.
[b.belong('us') for b in bases if b.owner() == 'you']
Resist the temptation to make this partisan. Democrats were perfectly willing to vote for the PATRIOT Act and then try to excuse their complicity after the fact. That is not a commendable act.
Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
Can someone send him a letter telling him to shut up?
I like to place meaningful quotes in my sig, so people will know that I know what meaningful quotes are.
Or giving Bush a blank check to wage war for that matter. Not that I think that the Democrats are worse than the Republicans, on whole. I think the Republicans, as an organization, are definitely more corrupt. But the Democrats failed to take a solid stand when it mattered, and I'm not going to forget that, even if I vote Democrat out of necessity.
A five year prison term might be preferable to experiences like this, especially when ratting out the FBI can save hundreds of thousands of innocent people from further constitutional abuse. I can not demand heroic action by others but I wish there had were more than three in the hundreds of thousands of abused citizens so far. Innocent people going to jail for protecting privacy of other innocent people would shut this monster program down fast.
Vote for anyone but Republicans in 2008 and vote out everyone who had anything to do with the poorly named Patriot act.
You had me right up until "Vote for anyone but Republicans...Us against them. Good over evil. With or against us. Sheep think in those terms.
The emotional rhetoric from politicians never ends and their simple minded constituents emulate that behavior instead of engaging in critical thinking.
You do realize that there were PLENTY of Democrats that had voted for the Patriot Act. Hell, IIRC 99% of Congress didn't even read the God damn thing!
Allowing small group of people that benefit disproportionably to the many, to create an indentured servitude is not patriotic, fighting it is. The maintaining of the separation of powers, protecting the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution as well as defending them is the is the ultimate Patriotic Act.
It is time for transfer of power from the few to the many, the wise (conservative) and those that value freedom (liberal), and those that value both, (party free independents for collective control).
Laws of changed such that we have become cattle simply to be herded and this is most unpatriotic.
"an infinite player that has lost his finite mind" ~Infinite Play the Movie (it blends with reality)
Actually, except for the biblical references it seemed pretty much like your standard basement-dweller's +4 Insightful rant. I think if he got a user account, dropped the religious stuff, and started bashing on the President more directly, he'd have the makings of a top Slashdot political commentator.
Klingon programs don't timeshare, they battle for supremacy.
At this point in my life, I wouldn't mind going to prison for five years for violating an NSL gag order, as long as I was able to tell the public what the hell the FBI wanted. I don't have kids or family to support, and only student loans debt.
We live with systems based on fictions and it is time for the truth to prevail. No govenment, army or police power can stop 100 million people acting in unity. We need to transfer power to the collective eliminting egoic intentions and special interests from warping insitituions, industries, and professions. Paramount to the success of the collective is the preservation of the liberties of the individual, the freedom of expression and the pursuit of happiness with no fear of persecution. For it is the pioneer, radical, outcast, eccentric, rebel, non-conformist, and those that question the status quo that are essential to the evolution of mankind, the collective, being they are the impetus for change, discovery, and invention needed to adapt and evolve
"an infinite player that has lost his finite mind" ~Infinite Play the Movie (it blends with reality)
I agree with you that heroic stands need to be made in the face of abuses of constitutional rights; in fact, I wholeheartedly agree with the entire first paragraph. However, even though this will get modded down into oblivion, your final sentence ruins the entire spirit of the post, turning it from an insightful, inspriational comment into a partisan insult. (Disclaimer: I am not affiliated or registered with any major party, though I did vote for Bush in 2000) Abuses of personal privacy by the FBI/CIA are nothing new, and cannot be blamed on either the national Republican party or those Congress-critters who voted for the Patriot Act while the rubble of the WTC was still being cleared from the ashes.
I agree that major sections of the Patriot Act brush up against the grayest of gray areas in the realm of constitutional law, and that they should be revisited and even repealed. Given time, any reactionary measure should be reviewed and revised. Emotions and political actions do not observe Newton's laws of motion. If anything, each action is met with an underwhelming lack of reaction (Katrina and the Gulf Coast) or an overzealous attempt to keep anything bad from happening again, ever, at any cost (America: Sept. 12, 2001-present). There is precious little middle ground when an appropriate response is ever made.
See the Patriot Act for what it was in historical terms: a reactionary measure passed and supported by representatives of a hurting, angry nation. Considering the national mood at the time, it was the "right" thing to do: Americans were more than happy to give up essential liberties for Bush's promise of temporary security. His approval ratings set new historical record highs in the weeks immediately following the 9/11 attacks and the start of the Afghan war.
These metrics cannot be blamed on the whole of the Republican party or on the Congress seated in 2001-2002. Instead blame the current administration for continuing to act as though we are attacked on our soil on a daily basis, more than 6 years after those attacks. The Dubya Bush administration is like a paranoid meth addict, convinced that there is someone right there hiding who might "endangerfy our American way of life". While legitimate threats exist both inside and outside our borders, a bombing, the destruction of a major landmark or building, even a massive attack that cripples or destroys a city will not change our way of life. America will go on; hopefully, continuing to uphold and honor our constitutional rights.
Perhaps the saddest part of 9/11 is that the attacks themselves did not change America's way of life. America's panicky reaction and an adminstration that used this panic to grant itself unsupervised and unconstitutional executive powers changed our American way of life. Such results can not be blamed on the current Republican national party, nor on Al Qaeda, nor on the Reps or the Dems who supported the original Patriot Act. Full responsibility should rest squarely on the man in the White House. George W. Bush has preyed on the fears of the population in every speech and policy for years, reaping the benefits of governing a nation of sheeple. He has made his legacy from this, and it will not be remembered fondly in years to come.
khasim (12/9/06): In a blind taste test, more people preferred Coke over the Pepsi that I had previously pissed in.
What is this, a kookiest rant competition? I thought that event was celebrated later in the year. Personally, I'd like to see this guy and twitter in a cage match...
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
Newest entry on US no-fly list: Brewster Kahle
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Vote for anyone but Republicans in 2008 and vote out everyone who had anything to do with the poorly named Patriot act.
Personally, the voting record is more important to me than whether they have an R or D beside their name. If that means that I'm voting in Republicans then so be it. I'd rather have a Republican who refused to vote for the Patriot Act than a Democrat who dropped to his knees and pucked up to the Bush administration. Not that there are many Republicans who fit that description...
Ron Paul is a republican who refused to vote for the Patriot Act.The Dubya Bush administration is like a paranoid meth addict
Yes. But not because of the attacks anymore, they fear you, their people. And it's not an isolated phenomenon. You can see it all over the "western" world, with more and more paranoid surveillance laws coming into existance. Most of them targeting the internet, which is a perfect tool to assemble and organize people of the same interests. Interests that may and often do go diametrally against the goals of our governments.
The advantage governments have over their subjects is that they are organized. No, don't laugh, I know how bureaucracy weighs it down, but they have the advantage of having trained specialists in every field necessary. Something you don't have. You are not a lawyer, bureaucrat, IT professional, PR guru and fundraiser all rolled into one. That's what gives your government an edge over you (in case one wants to stand up against the government). With the internet, people can organize and gain access to the same specialists the government has.
The same holds true for corporations, btw.
Now, the internet also allows organisation of partisan groups who won't just fight with legal means but also illegal ones. And that's what they're really afraid of. Since they already managed to bleed the "lower incomes" completely dry, not only siphoning away the little rest of their savings but also pushing them so deeply into debt that they can't spend anymore, the meager rest of the middle class is the next target. The divide between rich and poor opens wider, the number of poor people growing, and it's a matter of time until the mob reaches critical mass again. Their attempt with the increased surveillance is to make sure it's easy to identify the "heads" of such movements and decapitate them before they can gain momentum.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
"Don't Tread on Me".
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Here is the URL of March 2007 " A Review of the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Use of National Security Letters" published by the Office of the Inspector General. Note section IV, "Improper or Illegal Use of National Security Letter Authorities." http://cryptome.org/fbi-nsl/fbi-nsl.htm A link to the pdf is available there as well.
That's why you vote for Obama. Clinton supported the PATRIOT act. Clinton supported the war. Obama was against both of those. I was honestly planning on voting Libertarian, because I can't bring myself to vote for anyone who supports the PATRIOT act and all this other crap...but Obama fits that quite well.
Oh I know there's no shortage of fanatical Paul supporters, whose existence assures that Paul and other Libertarian candidates will never be elected to any office of significance.
I was trying to be funny. Apparently I misjudged my ability to make funny posts. Sorry.
[b.belong('us') for b in bases if b.owner() == 'you']
I recognize the fact that there are times in which the violation of privacy and the suspension of certain rights are necessary for security reasons. However, I have never heard a valid reason as to how judicial oversight and transparency interferes with this. In what way does due process hinder investigations? Is it a time efficiency thing? No problem, lets streamline the process and allocate more resources to quicken it. Will it clue in those being investigated? No problem, we could have clauses which delay but never prevent full disclosure. Why does does this kind of request NEED to be secret? The only conclusion I can draw is that it must be secret because it is illegal.
Nobody read it. The Senate received the bill at 6 AM for a 9 AM vote. The bill ran to hundreds of pages. Not one member of Congress could have read it and understood the consequences of the bill in less than 3 hours.
:)
Russ Feingold said at the time he wasn't necessarily opposed to the bill but couldn't vote for something with such sweeping changes without having time to read or research it. He has said since then that after reviewing it he supports about 95% of the things in the bill. He strongly opposes that other 5% that is total crap.
Man I love having him as my Senator
I'm not sure what kind of crack you're smoking, but Barack Obama voted to renew the PATRIOT act.
Why does this remind me of the "lettre de cachet"? -a fill-in-the-blank warrant the rent a thug is sent out with where he fills it in as he needs. France got rid of them in 1790, our Constitution has provisions against this. Now all it takes is a Lawer with a power tie and a BIC Pen to ruin your life.
Welcome to the Land of the Free.....Have you any rights to declare?
- Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
that sort of says it all, no?
The three that challenged it broke the "law" by so much as telling their lawyer that they had received The Letter. I'm sure that if The Letters permitted people to discuss them, more than three people would have spoken to their lawyers and done something about it.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Grandparent's point was that Feingold was the only Senator to vote against it. There were also 66 Representatives who opposed it (mostly Democrats, but yes, including Ron Paul.)
The court documents are available as well as other information.
We hope this helps de-spook some of these demands and encourages other libraries and recipients to consult lawyers and consider their alternatives.
http://www.archive.org/iathreads/post-view.php?id=192021
Personally I think whoever chose the name of the bill and made sure it was rushed through without time for it to be read should be imprisoned as a driving force back to monarchy. Voting against it was deliberately made to look unpatriotic. Without being able to consider the content the vote was on the name alone - so the vote was along the lines of "do you want to look like a dirty commie or not? The guy that wants to be King says it's a good idea and if you go againt the King you go against the country".
I guess there is one candidate for President that didn't vote for USAPATRIOT or the Iraq war...
But that's an exercise for the reader.
Get your Unix fortune now!
Republicans are well known for holding the line and sticking to their talking points. They've worked hard to earn this reputation, and there's no reason to forget that they've repeatedly unified behind awful ideas.
Obama voted against the AUMF and filibustered the permanent reauthorization of the PATRIOT act. Additionally, he wont be tempted to hold the Republican line, seeing as how he is a Democrat.
The same logic applies to other good Democrats. It works against the Republicans - we need look no farther than Ron Paul to see what happens to Republicans who respect the constitution and the rule of law.
Obama didn't vote for either Patriot Act or the Iraq War ... because he wasn't in office at the time. He did, however, vote *against* reauthorizing the Patriot Act. He's also on the record opposing the Iraq War, though I don't have handy the details of his war appropriations voting record.
Interesting factoid about the Patriot Act: it was passed in a hurry (we all know), and it was presented as legal tools for fighting terrorists. Now, I'd be fine with that, on the face of it - however, DOJ has been heavily promoting it as set of laws (and amendments to existing laws) for fighting crime. Yes, they are promoting to district attorneys etc. using all those bypass-the-constitution-anti-terrorism goodies to inspect the accounts and lives of people who aren't suspected of terrorism.
In other words, the Patriot Act doubles as an end-run around the Constitution for ordinary criminal cases. When I mention this in conversation to folks, many of them say they think this is fine! I don't.
O lord, bless this thy holy hand grenade, that with it thou mayest blow thine enemies to tiny bits, in thy mercy.
A narrow majority and the president's veto authority.
Of course, a principled conservative might oppose the patriot act in support of smaller government, but conservatives are on the whole unprincipled.
Too busy staying alive... ~ R.A.
Make no mistake - the teachers unions have nothing to do with it. The students are more than capable of fucking it up all on their own, and tend to take pleasure in doing so.
[BTW, nope, I'm not a teacher, so this rant is not self serving at all; I'm just a product of and a witness to the system, and to me the educations that kids receive these days matches quite well what society considers to be "just right" - a generation of retard parents gives rise to a generation of retard kids, and anyone smarter than that average level of retardation has to really fight the system]
Yes, the Senate approved the reauthorization unanimously.
However, Congress is two parts, the Senate, and the House of Representatives.
In the House of Representatives, Republicans voted 214 for, 14 against, Democrats 43 for, 156 against.
Code or be coded.
It's the perennial question - how exactly do we exit Iraq? What's your idea? Me, I'm against the war, but I'm not for pulling out hastily. Because, I wonder what will happen... will more people die, will it be as many as the U.S. and its allies have killed already ... will there be further ethnic cleansing and displacement of people beyond the millions who've been "invited" to leave their homes, etc.
Help me Obi Wan.
O lord, bless this thy holy hand grenade, that with it thou mayest blow thine enemies to tiny bits, in thy mercy.
That is the entire problem, the people who thought this was a great idea are the same ones who don't mind being watched.
My big point of the year is this: The government isn't some far off, distant, thing that takes our money (and still is in debt), builds roads (to nowhere) and fights (immoral, illegal) wars. The government, in this great nation, IS the people. Once people realize this we can return to a society that valued freedom and the (history book) ideals that we were founded on.
This country needs its own French Enlightenment. It needs to have some writers, thinkers and speakers who don't involve themselves in the process at that level but rediscover the ideals we have strayed from (liberty!) and promote them to the masses. When people start saying The Government can look into your life then it's time to remind them that they are trying to look into your life, they are the ones trying to police your life. Start examining them for flaws, with most people it's not hard, and manipulate them if you have to - they need to realize that this is a very slippery slope.
Get your Unix fortune now!
The Patriot Act wasn't passed unanimously. Russ Feingold (D-WI) voted against it.
Russ Feingold makes me proud to be from Wisconsin.
Obama voted *FOR* reauthorizing the Patriot Act, and has consistently voted for funding the war. Funny how he claims to represent change but is really more of the same.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Yup, I got it wrong - it was Kucinich who voted against both. I misread a blog post summarizing Obama's floor speech on Patriot Act.
O lord, bless this thy holy hand grenade, that with it thou mayest blow thine enemies to tiny bits, in thy mercy.
Too late for that, they're already trampling us and our rights with their boots.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
You can almost forgive them for that. Most of them voted to authorize the Commander in Chief to do whatever is necessary to keep the US safe when they voted to support the troop build up and that permission to use them if needed. Very few assumed the Office of the President would use it's power in a knowingly needless way, which it appears is exactly what the President did.
The entire pretense for the invasion was a lie, we know it was a lie because up until Sept 11, 2001 when reporters asked anyone in the current administration about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the universal answer was "they aren't a risk and they don't have them". We can now summize that 9/11 was used as a politically expediant way to enact the vision of the New American Century, whose members rose to being in the Presidents office.
Those who voted to authorize the President to do what was needed and later recanted once they realized what happened were honestly trying to do what's right. No one seriously considered that the President would be so reckless that he would actually make the country more unsafe to live in and more vulnerable to terrorists. Seriously, why would any President do that, even ones you didn't like at the time? They made the same mistake the rest of America did, trust a bunch of self confessed Neo Conservatives to not invade random countries as a demonstration of power and instead focus on actually stopping more attacks on US and Allied soil from killing more people. Just ask Spain and Great Britian how much of an impact invading Iraq had on stopping terrorism and if that money would have been better spent.
Burn Hollywood Burn
My understanding is that it wasn't rushed through - the original draft was debated for about three weeks, and had very strong bipartisan support. Enter Bush & Co stage left. They took the bill, modified it quite substantially, and then after having had the presses run overtime printing it through the night, made it available the morning of the vote. Nobody had a chance to read it, much less understand its implications.
What puzzles me is why Congress even voted on this version rather than tossing every copy into a bonfire, and then re-scheduling a vote for the original version. Then, they blew it a second time when they voted to re-authorize it.
Suffice it to say that the Bush regime is largely to blame for the PATRI0T act, but the fact that it's still here means there more than enough blame to go around.
It's "Stasi", with two s. "Stasi" is an abbreviation for "Staatssicherheit", as in "Ministerium für Staatssicherheit" ("Ministery for State Security").
By the way, don't "Ministery for State Security" and "Department of Homeland Security" sound awfully similar? I don't know whether the DHS's name is unfortunate or just cynical...
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
Looks like a Markov bot to me. I think it reads Slashdot posts, cuts them into pieces and glues those pieces back together in order to generate a more or less convincing post.
Note how it wrote "(Score:-)" once. To me it looks like the bot read the score from a post and mistook it for actual content; the colon is the end of the fragment and since colons don't occur too often in Slashdot posts the most likely token to begin with a colon is a smiley.
There definitely is some kind of supervision going on, though; the bot clearly expresses some opinions, mostly anti-Bush and pro-conspiracy theory. Of course it might be possible that this comes from Slashdot having an anti-Bush bias, but I don't think that it's that extreme; also, conspiracy theorists usually end up flamed and ridiculed, so a truly random bot would rather toss around random flames instead of chemtrail theories.
I think the most likely explanations are both related to the bot being trained selectively - either on posts with certain views (so the bot ends up emulating them) or on very long posts (so the bot builds up a useful set of sentence fragments quickly). The latter would explain the bias towardy kookery*; kooks tend to write very long posts, even though not all long posts are kooky.
* Note that I don't think that anti-Bush sentiments are kooky; chemtrail theories are, however. That and only few people still insist that Gore is/was the US president.
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
Yeah, see, I think you might have that a little backwards there. You seem to be going towards the aphorism "Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely", which is anecdotally true for most of human history. But the entire point of Separation of Powers and Checks and Balances is to prevent the accumulation of virtual or actual "absolute" power in any one branch of the American government. When one branch (in this case, the Executive) makes a blatant and bald-faced power grab, it's the responsibility-- and duty-- of the other two to rein in that power. If the power is deemed necessary and proper for the well-being of the Union and the people at large, then the other two branches must find a way to ensure that the Executive cannot and does not overstep the legal and proper boundaries of the Constitution in utilizing that power; if that can't happen, then the power is rescinded and the people's rights are more protected (even if there's a slight drop in security).
A strong, overbearing Executive branch creates a police state. A strong, overbearing Legislative branch creates an ineffectual bureaucracy. A strong, overbearing Judicial branch creates a tyrannical dictatorship. None of those things are even remotely close to happening in the US (though we're currently en route to the police state Bad Ending, it's just very far off).
And a side note. We're talking about how we need revolution and regime change and all that sort of fast-movement stuff. Moving quickly is what got us into this mess. The 'Patriot Act' was rushed into law; we jumped to conclusions on Iraq; and so on and so on. In America, regime change happens every four to eight years like clockwork, and things move a little bit more slowly. Be patient. We have six months until the election and eight months until the inauguration. Once that happens we'll see some faster progress back to normalcy.
(Non-Americans, please give us a couple of months into 2009 before you start saying that we haven't changed. Like I said, this stuff takes time.)
"Why Subscribe?" Good question...
The name is rather more appropriate than it might seem at first glance when you realize the purpose of the bill is to identify and remove any and all patriots.
Do these graphs have the same shape? Do they look at all alike? No. All of the gold cost increase has come in the last 5 years, whereas the health care cost is a nice linear line extending all the way back to the 60s.
How about oil, then? Here's a graph showing historic oil prices. Unlike health care, the graph has a very similar shape to the rise in gold prices. However, the magnitude of the price increase is more than 3 times greater than the price increase of gold. In other words, oil still would be expensive.
Food. That is your next point of contention. Go here and run some searches on the same time period for different food prices. The only one that I could find with a correlation to gold prices was "eggs". Cue "golden egg" joke. So what lessons from economics or history suggest that it's a bad idea to keep the cost of basic necessities relatively constant? That's a grand idea... cheap necessities for all. The problem is that it doesn't jibe with history. Food and fuel prices have never been stable, not even when we were on the gold standard.
Putting us on a gold standard would make gold expensive again, and pretty much wipe out its use as an industrial commodity. It's completely arbitrary as a standard, too. Why not pick something else?
Most importantly, why not just legislate the monetary policy instead of basing the currency on an arbitrary element? Gold was picked because it is shiny and pretty and fairly rare - a very strange criteria for a currency standard, and one that should have your geek-senses tingling for a more scientific reason. Of course, the environmental consequences of digging for the now artificially-inflated price of gold are pretty horrendous as well.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
However, note this entry in the American Library Association's policy manual:
Unfortunately, you have to give a member ID to read the ALA policy manual (WTF?).
I just read