Slashdot Mirror


As of October, FBI To Allow Warrantless Investigations

I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "Attorney General Michael Mukasey has agreed to allow Congressional hearings, but not to delay, the implementation of new FBI regulations that would allow them to spy on American citizens who are not suspected of any crime. As an editorial in the New York Times points out, this is a power that has a history of abuse. In times past, it was used to wiretap Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. and to spy on other civil rights and anti-war protesters." As Dekortage points out, "Several senators have formally complained that citizens could be investigated 'without any basis for suspicion,' which the Justice Department denies."

67 of 574 comments (clear)

  1. That sucks D: by B4light · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That sucks D:

    1. Re:That sucks D: by Daimanta · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Bush was right: The consitution is just a damn piece of paper. Don't count on it to protect you. Don't count on the ammo box too, guns are useless against an army with tanks, snipers and airplanes. Keep voting Dems, Reps or the lot like it and you will sink deeper and deeper in shit untill you are stuck and can't get out. Because then you are fucked. And it won't be pretty.

      --
      Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
    2. Re:That sucks D: by Firehed · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, and just in time for the election, too. Big surprise.

      --
      How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
    3. Re:That sucks D: by quanticle · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Its a completely different situation. First, American soldiers, by and large, don't know Arabic. This means that they're dependent on a relatively small pool of translators, which can be (and are) targeted for assassination and intimidation. Once its translators have been killed or scared off, the US Army is blind, deaf and dumb - making for a much easier target.

      Second, there's the lack of cultural knowledge. Even if all American soldiers spoke perfect Arabic and perfect Kurdish, they'd still have a hard time in Iraq, just like you'd have a hard time (initially) after moving to a new city. It takes time to learn the local culture, the local slang, and which neighborhoods are the trouble spots. A local with years of experience is going to fit in much better than the interloper, even if the two have identical skin color and speak the same language.

      Finally, there's the problem of supply lines. All the resources for our troops have to be shipped out from the US. While airlifts can rush troops into a conflict area, it is extremely difficult to supply an army by air. Therefore, the US has to rely on ocean shipping, which is cheap, but very slow.

      Fighting an insurgency on home soil, the US army would be subject to none of these disadvantages. Language and cultural barriers would be slim, and the problem of supply lines would be significantly ameliorated. Meanwhile, the insurgents would have to find safe havens, which would be significantly more difficult, given that the US is a larger country, and has a significantly larger interior region that would be relatively safe from border raids.

      --
      We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
    4. Re:That sucks D: by BoberFett · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Idiot. Who do you think provides the supplies that drive the US war machine? If the US government declared war on the populous, who is going to pay the taxes to support the military? Or supply their food? Or manufacture the weapons and ammo?

  2. We should start encrypting everything by ksd1337 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We should start encrypting all our data, no matter how "unsuspicious" or "ordinary" it may be. Everything from conversations between family and friends to financial records (though you should be already encrypting the latter anyway.)

    1. Re:We should start encrypting everything by Linux_ho · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Oh, you say you're not a criminal? Why are you using encryption if you have nothing to hide, citizen? Prepare to be boarded.

      --
      include $sig;
      1;
    2. Re:We should start encrypting everything by oldspewey · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How do I encrypt a conversation with my family? Use pig latin?

      "iHay oneyHay! owHay asWay ourYay ayDay?"

      When the FBI talks about spying they mean spying. They aren't going to stop at snooping your email. They're going to bug your phone. They're going to snoop your physical mail. They're going to go through your banking records. If you raise sufficient attention (say by encrypting your trivial email) they may even park a black van down the street with a bunch of electronic equipment in the back.

      --
      If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
    3. Re:We should start encrypting everything by KovaaK · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you raise sufficient attention (say by encrypting your trivial email) they may even park a black van down the street with a bunch of electronic equipment in the back.

      That's the goal, I'd imagine. If we get them to waste enough resources on spying on ordinary citizens, we hope they will realize that it is hopeless.

      In reality, they would probably come to the conclusion that they need to profile people better before they decide to spend such resources.

    4. Re:We should start encrypting everything by lymond01 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Oh, you say you're not a criminal? Why are you using encryption if you have nothing to hide, citizen? Prepare to be boarded.

      You do not chase me because I run. I run because you chase me.

    5. Re:We should start encrypting everything by Goblez · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Or we'll end up paying for more pointless Government bureaucracy while more hard-to-fire government employees laugh at how easy their job is spying on Joe Schmoe and their own personal soap opera of his life.

      --
      - Kal`Goblez
    6. Re:We should start encrypting everything by WillRobinson · · Score: 2, Insightful

      best thing is to format your hard drives, and get out more.

    7. Re:We should start encrypting everything by Original+Replica · · Score: 5, Insightful

      do we get to have a discussion about the formation of the Constitution and how this totally violates the Bill of Rights

      I wonder at what point the act of precisely pointing out how certain government actions are illegal, will become an illegal act? Everyone knows that the Founding Fathers employed terrorist tactics (for warfare at the time shooting from behind a tree instead of from a straight line in a field was the equivalent of using civilians for cover in today's warfare) So endorsing a return to their ideas of Rights is an implicit endorsement of fighting your government with terrorist tactics. It's not that far a stretch considering that asymetric warfare will be the only way to unseat the power elite in America should we as a society ever feel the need to do so. Voting between two brands of big government and centralized wealth, is a poor substitute for the kind of freedom this country was originally designed for. So at some point in the tightening of the DHS fist of security, accurately citing history will be a form of inciting terrorist acts.

      Paranoia is my new litmus test for predictive accuracy.

      --
      We are all just people.
    8. Re:We should start encrypting everything by DamnStupidElf · · Score: 2, Insightful

      When is https://slashdot.org/ going to be anything more than a redirect to http://slashdot.org? How many subscriptions would pay for the beefier hardware to support SSL for most of the users?

  3. And what are us Americans going to do about it? by Drakin020 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Nothing.

    That's right, nothing.

    No one will do a single thing about it as long as they can watch their TV shows.

    People need to stand up and defend their rights, but unless it derails their daily lives, nothing will change. ....I hate being so negative...But you know it's true. :-/

    --
    The greatest revenge in life is massive success.
    1. Re:And what are us Americans going to do about it? by The+Moof · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's becuase everyone I talk to thinks "I don't do anything illegal, why should I care."

      Which, as anyone here will tell you, is a terrible argument.

    2. Re:And what are us Americans going to do about it? by moderatorrater · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No one will do a single thing about it as long as they can watch their TV shows.

      He said, posting on slashdot.

      But seriously, what do you want to happen? Would you like everyone to rise up in an armed revolt? The last time something like that happened, we were left with the bloodiest war in US history, and that was before the advent of a lot of the modern weapons of war. Write to their congressmen? I wrote to Harry Reid while I lived in Nevada, and what I got back was a form letter that looked like it could have been written by a white house aide!

      Get involved in your local party politics; grassroots efforts are the only peaceful way to pull this off, and changing from within the system seems to be the best method. Or get involved and try to grow a third party to where they can take a seat in congress.

    3. Re:And what are us Americans going to do about it? by nomadic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      People need to stand up and defend their rights, but unless it derails their daily lives, nothing will change. ....I hate being so negative...But you know it's true. :-/

      Just so you all know, posting indignant posts on slashdot doesn't count as defending your rights. Preaching to the converted != protest.

    4. Re:And what are us Americans going to do about it? by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In the Soviet Union they...oh wait, it is happening here.

      --
      It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
    5. Re:And what are us Americans going to do about it? by Zen_Sorcere · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Sadly, things will have to get a whole lot worse before the people of 'merica will remember their rights are actually theirs, and not something the government should be able to strip away.

      How many marches and protests did we have regarding the war in Iraq? What did Cheney say when asked what he thought about all the protesters? He said, "So?" (that may be a direct quote or a paraphrase, I honestly cannot recall. But it was certainly the gist of what he said).

      So we find ourselves at a point where the peaceful protesting isn't doing any good, but people are not yet at the point for switching to a less softer stick.

    6. Re:And what are us Americans going to do about it? by no1home · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ah, TV... truly the opiate of the masses!

      Get involved in your local party politics; grassroots efforts are the only peaceful way to pull this off, and changing from within the system seems to be the best method. Or get involved and try to grow a third party to where they can take a seat in congress.

      I agree entirely: people need to get out there and get involved. When the system is breaking, fix it from within, not through violence.

      That said, it seems that politicians become corrupt or unable to fight the corruption after joining the ranks of other politicians. Say you become a Congressman. You have a plan, and there is no compromise! Ya, sure. You realize that, to get anything done, you have to compromise, you have to trade favors. Not long after, you find compromise to be easy. A little longer still, and you become compromised yourself. Now, you are part of the problem. I don't say this to discourage (OK, maybe I say it because I'm discouraged), but to show the limits of what can happen. For a political uprising to work, it must truly be an uprising, involving all walks of life in this (US) country. Not a few disgruntled partisans, not one minority, but universal.

      Back to my agreeing with your statement, this means the grass roots efforts must involve people from the suburbs, the inner cities, and the country-side; it must involve the blue collar and white collar workers; it must involve the many religions and the non-believers.

      Failing that, then yes, it must involve guns. I hope it never comes to that. I fear that it might.

      --
      I hope this comment is well received... I could have moderated instead!

      Persecutors will be violated!
  4. Regs don't trump the constitution. by jcr · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The FBI can decide whatever they want as far as their regulations are concerned, but if it gets to court, any evidence they gather illegally is useless.

    It's not that hard to get a warrant, and if they're too fucking lazy to call up a judge and explain why they think a warrant is needed, they're endangering the public.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    1. Re:Regs don't trump the constitution. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      they're endangering the public

      I think you've just hit upon what government doesn't ever want you to realize:

      It is government itself that is the biggest threat to you, your family, and your freedom.

      this is a power that has a history of abuse (from the summary)

      Correction: The power itself is the abuse. How can a special "right" to bypass justice itself NOT be abuse? The concept of guilty before proven innocent -- in whatever slimy manifestation it appears -- is an attack on human rights before the discussion even started.

    2. Re:Regs don't trump the constitution. by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      remember that rule that evidence obtained via torture wasn't admissable? ooops, they just created an *entire* separate legal system to handle those cases...

      not legal, certainly not just, but sadly it is our current reality

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    3. Re:Regs don't trump the constitution. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Read carefully. From TFA (emphasis added):

      Attorney General Michael Mukasey intends to let Congress have its say before signing controversial new guidelines that reportedly broaden the FBI's authority to conduct investigations. But he will not delay their implementation.

      Sounds like he'll tell his agents to go ahead in October, and then when the agents are caught in a civil suite by some citizen who didn't like being spied on, Mr. Mukasey can deny responsibility because he hadn't signed the papers yet. Big Brother gets his illegal intel and a scape goat.

  5. WWJD by colmore · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think if you told Thomas Jefferson that the United States would be up to this sort of thing, someone would have gotten a musket ball to the chest.

    --
    In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
  6. whoopie by jollyreaper · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How is this any different from how they're operating now? What does it matter that they're no longer going to breaking a law they never paid any attention to in the first place? Karl Rove tells Congress to take their subpoena, shine it up real nice, turn it sideways and shove it right up their collective asses. Consequences? So far, none. Will there ever be? Doubtful. Will it be any different for the FBI? Doubtful.

    --
    Kwisatz Haderach
    Sell the spice to CHOAM
    This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    1. Re:whoopie by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How is this any different from how they're operating now? What does it matter that they're no longer going to breaking a law they never paid any attention to in the first place?

      So it works like this:

      Step 1: Do whatever you want to do.

      Step 2: When Congress or the people complain, ignore or deny Step 1.

      Step 3: Announce that you will do whatever it is you started in Step 1.

      Step 4: What's the point in complaining, they're already doing it?

      I'm sure there's profit in there somewhere.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
  7. What.The.FUCK by maynard · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You can partially thank Obama's FISA vote for this. While this is not - specifically - a function of FISA, the loosening of surveillance regulations it implied.

    And they said, "We don't spy on Americans."

    Right.

    This is how it's supposed to work:

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

    Looks like we won't get that back without a bit of organized political action. I still recommend General Strikes. Shut the economy down and let the elites twist. Talk about a class war. Yeah, and they fucking won.

    1. Re:What.The.FUCK by shiftless · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Looks like we won't get that back without a bit of organized political action. I still recommend General Strikes. Shut the economy down and let the elites twist.

      Sounds good until you realize that the average American household has $8,000 worth of credit card debt--not to mention mortgages, car loans, etc. Most Americans are one or two paychecks away from financial ruin. Americans in general are too spineless, and dependent on the "system", to ever revolt against it.

  8. COINTELPRO by spun · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Who says they need to take anything before a judge? Look at what they did with COINTELPRO. Infiltration, psychological warfare, legal harassment, and extralegal violence were all considered acceptable tactics.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  9. Nice guy by ScrewMaster · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Attorney General Michael Mukasey has agreed to allow Congressional hearings

    That's big of him. He'll "allow" Congress to hold hearings? Who wears the pants in this family, anyways?

    --
    The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  10. Investigate is one thing, prosecute is another by You+Don't+Know+Me · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It will be interesting to see how this holds up at trial - just because the FBI does it doesn't make it legal. If anything, this may hinder prosecution if the "evidence" found in these activities is found to be inadmissible.

    On the other hand, if the courts turn a blind eye to that whole "due process" bit it may well be time to move to a country that makes to pretense of "freedom".

    Of course, I have nothing to hide (well, except the full bookshelf of banned Paladin Press books, a few chemicals, some explosives and a few other odds and ends).

  11. Sigh... by KovaaK · · Score: 5, Insightful

    From the last link about senators complaining:

    Among their fears: Americans could be targeted in part based on their race, ethnicity or religion

    and

    Citing remarks earlier by Mukasey about the new rules, the spokesman said an investigation would not be opened based solely on a person's race, ethnicity or religion.

    That isn't the problem. I'm glad that they are attempting to slow it down and stop it, but why does it have to boil down to racism for them to stop it? Why can't they just say "this is completely against what the founders of our country intended"...?

    1. Re:Sigh... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why can't they just say "this is completely against what the founders of our country intended"...?

      Because the Founders are long dead and cannot speak for themselves. We the People, who were supposed to stand in their stead, have forgotten that.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  12. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? by Alain+Williams · · Score: 5, Insightful

    All of these new police powers never seem to come with more accountability or independent oversight.

  13. Not the best plan by davec727 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    They want to sit in a black vehicle for hours at a time on a sunny street in August? Just so they can decrypt my midget porn? Joke's on them.

    1. Re:Not the best plan by blueg3 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's relevant to remember that they're going to be allowed to conduct warrantless investigations. This doesn't automatically mean they're going to go about investigating anyone and everyone on a whim.

    2. Re:Not the best plan by rubycodez · · Score: 5, Insightful

      no, they'll investigate specific people on an agenda.

      That agenda might be making trouble for those who oppose policy, those who protest, those who question government statistics on economy, etc.

    3. Re:Not the best plan by n3xg3n · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Which is why we all need to use encryption methods. If they see that someone is using encryption, using the "If you have nothing to hide" mentality they will assume that you do have something to hide, and you will become a viable target. If large amounts of people do this then we can protect our privacy by causing the watchers to spread themselves too thin.

  14. We need the USSR back. by smellsofbikes · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Raise your hands, everyone who is surprised by this...

    yeah, that's what I thought.

    We need the old USSR back. As odd as this seems, there was actually a sense of competition going on back then -- competition for goodness. I remember mocking the USSR for having secret courts, secret laws, secret prisons. Now WE have those things. I think that at least in part it's because we no longer have competition to compare and contrast our government's behavior to, so people are less apt to associate this kind of totalitarian behavior with The Evil Empire. As a result, we become The Evil Empire.

    I'm not cheering for Russia as it stomps around in Georgia, mind you, but an odd side-effect of it might be that we start acting like the USA, rather than Trashcanistan.

    --
    Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
    1. Re:We need the USSR back. by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't think that actually works. The worst abuses of freedom in US history happened during the Cold War, after all. Remember J. Edgar Hoover? COINTELPRO? McCarthy? Spying on civil rights activists?

      The whole problem is that nobody is willing to take the long view. People in government are willing to do anything to defeat the enemy of the day, and damn what consequences it has afterwards.

      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
    2. Re:We need the USSR back. by PPH · · Score: 2, Insightful

      McCarthy was right. The Communists sought to undermine our government and system of civil rights. It appears as though they have won the war.

      "We have met the enemy, and he is us." -- Pogo

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  15. armed result == bloodbath by moderatorrater · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Seriously, there is no good way for an armed revolt to be pulled off right now. It took over 100 years for the Civil War to be recovered from, and those guys thought 100 / minute was pretty sweet. We've got van mounted miniguns that can shoot thousands of bullets per minute and are completely mobile. Terrorist actions could win the fight in theory, but in reality it's much harder to fight as a terrorist because the collateral damage turns the population against you. I just don't see any way an armed revolt could work given the realities of today's military.

    1. Re:armed result == bloodbath by sleigher · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Except that if things really ever got to that point it is likely the country would be split and the military would also have splinter factions that support the revolution. Remember that the military is just a bunch of 'us'. I would expect most of the military to support the Union but there would certainly be access to commanders and weapons. Obviously this is an extreme example.

      --
      All points of time and space are connected.
    2. Re:armed result == bloodbath by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Terrorist actions could win the fight in theory, but in reality it's much harder to fight as a terrorist because the collateral damage turns the population against you. I just don't see any way an armed revolt could work given the realities of today's military.

      Which is presumably why the vast power of the United States military, supported by numerous allied nations, subdued Iraq and established a secure replacement government so quickly. Oh, wait, they still haven't quite done that, have they?

      You seem to be confusing terrorism with asymmetric warfare. The two concepts, while often encountered together, are quite different.

      You are also assuming that all that military and security power would willingly turn against its own people if it really came to the crunch. That seems unlikely, and it would only take a relatively small amount of resistance in military units or intelligence organisations to cause a great deal of damage. After all, that is why these groups take security so seriously when confronting other foes.

      The really sad thing is that the US government (and those of many other nations) have basically talked themselves into the current madness by overreacting to a small number of isolated but high profile events, developing a culture of fear, and giving absurdy disproportionate emphasis and resources to vaguely defined goals that are somehow supposed to prevent any further high profile bad events. In other words, the terrorists have won, because now the government is doing their job for them and forcing people to change their behaviour out of fear. Meanwhile, orders of magnitude more innocent lives have been lost in the resulting conflicts than ever were in the original attacks. Even worse, orders of magnitude more damage has been done by wasting time, money and public awareness on assorted wars on abstract nouns instead of basic things like making roads safer, curing illnesses, heating the homes of the elderly in winter, and improving the education and opportunities of our kids so they don't go on to become bored and disillusioned enough to explore lives of crime in the first place, any of which alone would do more to improve the health and happiness of the nations than any military action or national security effort ever could.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
  16. I hope ... by PPH · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... any of you that get the chance ask Obama/McCain what they intend to do about this if elected.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  17. If any of you ignorant, fat, bible-thumping... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    ...Yanks describe yourselves as being from "The land of the free and the home of the brave" ever again, I will kill you. Seriously, I'm not joking.

  18. Don't Ask What Your Country Can Do For You by EgoWumpus · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Worrying about what other people are doing about it will only go so far. What are you doing about it? Posting on Slashdot - or preaching to the choir - doesn't count as an affirmative action.

    --

    [Ego]out

  19. Re:There is still hope by Legion303 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yes, the democrats have certainly done all they can to reverse the trend in the last two years, from Nancy Pelosi's "impeachment is off the table" all the way through congress "considering" a ban on lead in toys (what's to consider, guys?). I'm voting a straight "none of the above" ticket this time around, thanks.

  20. One Wonders Why the FBI Wants This by CodeBuster · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The FBI is a law enforcement agency, not an foreign or even a domestic intelligence gathering agency. What is the point of gathering information in an unconstitutional manner when it will ultimately be of ZERO use in securing a conviction? If the defense attorney can show that warrantless spying or other unconstitutional methods generated the initial leads then everything else which follows from that, even if gathered legitimately, can be thrown out of court on the basis that none of it would have ever been obtained if not for the initial unconstitutional leads. With no evidence of any wrongdoing (because everything was thrown out) there is no case against the defendant.

  21. Re:Trends shape history by LoweD · · Score: 2, Insightful

    History is not made by individuals. History is made by trends. Specific individuals who are surfing at the leading edge of a trend may get the spotlight, and hence the credit, but really it was the trend that made the change, not the person.

    A trend is only an idea. It cannot think, act, or change anything. It has neither will, nor power.

    Individuals

    make

    history.

    Regulations like this do not pass because of an invisible hand guiding human affairs. They pass b/c somebody works toward that end. The same can be done, to the opposite effect. Sure, sitting around and shouting may not do much, but marching and shouting sometimes do the trick.

  22. Re:Fascist America, in 10 easy steps by corsec67 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    When was the last time a TSA officer killed someone and got paid leave while they had an "internal investigation" and found the officer not guilty?

    When was the last time that a TSA officer beat someone up in handcuffs and didn't get any consequences?

    When was the last time TSA smashed someones door down and shot all of the dogs in the house, again without repercussions?

    Hell, when was the last time a police officer got sent to jail?

    (Not saying that TSA is bad, just saying that Police Officers are indeed a thug caste, who are all immune from prosecution on just about every law, and are assumed to be in the right when their word differs from anyone else)

    I really, really wish this post would be worth of a "-1 Troll" moderation, but all you can say is "give more citations".

    --
    If I have nothing to hide, don't search me
  23. Man oh Man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I knew this country would end up down this road eventually but I didn't think it would happen in my lifetime. Lets see what was it we hated about communist Russia, oh ya KGB. Seems the FBI thinks some of that power wasn't such a bad idea.

    Decide to fly up and see grandma, Show me your papers (real id) oh you are on the watch list (terrorist watch list) to jail you go (nice little place in cuba) must watch your family now (warrantless investigation) guess I'll see you soon grandma (in cuba that is)

  24. This means one thing by Froeschle · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The terrorists have won.

  25. In Soviet Union... by phr1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    oh, wait. :(

  26. Trapped by Derosian · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Does anyone else feel like there is no solution to the growing problem of American apathy?

    If I use peaceful means, no one cares.
    If I use violent means, people become martyrs and I am vilified.

    Sometimes I feel like there is no solution to the current government's problem short of a revolution which will occur far down the road, long after I am gone, and that is rather frustrating.

  27. ammo box by falconwolf · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Don't count on the ammo box too, guns are useless against an army with tanks, snipers and airplanes.

    Tell that to the Chinese. At the Tiananmen Square protests the 38th Army, responsible for security in Beijing, and other local units refused to fire on demonstrators. So the People's Army had to send in the 27th Army, based outside of Beijing. Chinese officials were afraid the army would split into warring factions because of this. It would be even worse in the US military. I don't know about you but I served in the US Army and just as happened in Viet Nam when soldiers fragged officers and others when they gave bad orders, plenty of people in the US military would do the same if they were ordered to fire on people in the US.

    Falcon

    1. Re:ammo box by Daimanta · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, soldiers wouldn't fire on innocent civilians, but I reason they have no problem with "terrorists". People carying guns don't look innocent and if they pick up their guns to fight, expect a big intel spin on it. They will do it, I have no doubt about that.

      --
      Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
    2. Re:ammo box by falconwolf · · Score: 4, Insightful

      People carying guns don't look innocent

      They may not look innocent to someone from a big city but they look fine to others. Growing up many people I knew owned firearms. My dad, who retired from the US Air Force, gave me a .22 long rifle rifle before I was 10. Between him and my best friend's dad we were taken out for target practice a bunch of tymes. And I knew others who did the same. Actually at least several tymes a year we'd have barbecues with 20 to 50 people where we'd cook gator tail, seafood, frog legs, venison, and wild boar or hog. Hunting, and fishing, was big with these people. And saying they only use rifles and not guns, handguns, shows you don't know much if anything about hog hunting. A handgun is needed for this, even after being shot a hog can attack you and hunters know this so they also carry a gun. The same applies to alligators.

      Falcon

    3. Re:ammo box by StrategicIrony · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Oh bullshit.

      Rebellions are started by rabble-rousers. Usually a small group of people get together and cause a big fuss.

      In the past, a determined group of 50 people could march on a town-hall meeting and pretty much overpower the local authorities by force. This was the case in almost every society where rebellion was successful, be it revolutionary France, pre-renaissance Scotland, Hapsburg Austria, colonial America, etc.

      If a group of pissed off radicals with guns entered a US city, there would not be substantial resistance to shooting them down.

      You don't just suddenly get 40% of the population to take up arms against the country. It doesn't happen spontaneously. It's a bit of a grass-roots thing and our government is EXTREMELY good at rooting out grass-roots armed resistance.

      "the people of the US" in this sense is a misnomer. They wouldn't be out shooting Jane Soccer Mom... it would start with that crazy hippie who screams about freedom and those hackers who must have been up to no good.

      If they showed up on the steps of the capitol with weapons, what do you think would happen? If they weren't shot on site, they would be met by a well-trained force of anti-riot police bearing full body armor, riot shields, tear gas, mace and loaded weapons.

      One of the reasons for the riot police using so much "non-lethal" weaponry is that there far less resistance to shooting at protesters with that stuff, but it's enough to put down almost any crowd, as violent political protests in massively corrupt countries like Venezuela, Nicaragua, China, Kenya, Ethiopia, Uganda and others have shown.

      You simply don't have a pissed off band of civilians having ANY success against a large group of trained combatants with specialized crowd dispersal devices COMBINED with tactical weapons advantages.

      I just don't see it happening.

  28. best thing is to format your hard drives by falconwolf · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Formatting your hard drive doesn't erase or make the data unreadable. There are a nmuber of programs that can unformat a disk and recover the data. Googling unformat recovery results in more than half a million results. The first result, Deleted NTFS Partition Recovery 1.0, recovers "ntfs data from deleted, formatted and damaged NTFS and NTFS5 file systems of windows operating systems." There are a number of other programs that do the same. Actually I have to use such a program to recover data on a hard disk on my Linux PC. It's motherboard failed and because it was under warranty I took it into the shop where I got it to have it repaired. I specifically told the tech not to erase or format that drive, it was the second hdd in the PC and used to store user data, but when reinstalling Linux he put it on automatic which did reformat the drive.

    I wished I had an external hdd for backups, because the hdd holding the user files was 750GB and had more than 500GB on it using DVDs it would have taken more than 90 disks. Now I have a 500GB and a 750GB external hdd. I use the 500GB drive but haven't used the 750GB drive yet.

    Falcon

  29. So much for by rossz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So much for the Democratic majority putting a stop to government abuses as they promised. I'm sure the DailyKos crowd will denounce Bush for this. He deserves lots of blame, but the Democrats deserve contempt. They have the numbers to push through almost anything they want. From where I'm sitting, however, nothing has changed. The government is still violating the Constitution, my Rights no longer matter, the people in power are still enjoying their pork (pork spending has, in fact, increased with the Democratic majority).

    Fuck the Democrats. Fuck the Republicans. The government needs an enema.

    --
    -- Will program for bandwidth
  30. Since when did POW's ever get court trials? by unassimilatible · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ooops, they just created an *entire* separate legal system to handle those cases...

    Uh, excuse me, but when did POW's or unlawful combatants ever get access to civilian courts? Seems to me the history and legal precedent (Civil War, WWII) was to use military tribunals. Your post suggests that Bush made up some new legal approach. If anything, the current paradigm gives more rights (district court review of habeas corpus; DC Circuit and SCOTUS appellate review) to those less deserving (unlawful combatants not complying with any aspect of Geneva) than any enemy combatant in American military history. But suddenly, because it is Bush prosecuting this war, the enemy deserve to be Miranda'd and Mark Geragos defending the in a civilian court?

    --
    Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
  31. not exactly by 1800maxim · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The people who used the terrorists to their advantage have won.

  32. Re:Hmmm. by One+Childish+N00b · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I know you're trolling, but you're invoking a common right-wing argument that simply needs to be shot down, so I'm going to reply anyway.

    Here's the thing: You, as non-Muslims, cannot stop radical Islam. That is not a threat, it is a statement of fact. You cannot stop radical Islam because one of the major arguments, if not _the_ major argument, that terrorist leaders use to recruit people into their organizations is how the West is evil and is out to destroy Islam. The old argument that every survivor of a US bomb attack in Iraq becomes a terrorist or a sympathiser has been surpassed, and now every Muslim who sees his people being shot, bombed and invaded every night by the US is going to become more and more open to the few loudmouth idiots that will tell him they're doing it because they hate Islam, because they want to wipe Islam off the planet. Every time the US kills one radical Muslim, it is likely to create maybe five more, and the number of them will grow as long as you keep feeding the arguments of the loudmouth idiots that recruit them.

    Now, on the other hand, you _can_ stop your government being stupid. At least, with far less bloodshed. So vote out the bad apples, write long letters to the good ones, and if all else fails, yes, you may have to rise up against your government. You rose up against us and cast off an oppressive leadership, and I respect you immensely for it. You can vote them out, if you got off your arses and did something about it every now and then. You could gun them out if it came to it, with your massively armed citizenry and an army that I would hope still believes in the reasons the country was founded, and would side with the people. Do it. Now I'm not saying that looking down my nose because I'm British, and we've backed ourselves into a corner on this as well, but you're the country that broke away from us to 'gain their freedom' - the whole point of your country's existence is based on a dream of liberty and justice. Act like it.

    --
    Dealing with lawyers would be a lot less tedious if they all looked like Casey Novak.
  33. My Contribuition - ROT13 (I'm Serious) by DeanFox · · Score: 2, Insightful


    I write code for a living. I send nothing across a wire I haven't encrypted (AES). Nothing I store in a data base is human readable. If my program needs a parameter file, I convert each entry even to something as simple as ROT13, then for fun maybe I'll swap the first and last bytes. It doesn't have to be fancy just enough that scanners won't pick it up.

    The only way the Government is going to be able to mass search everything is if they don't have to work for it. And as programmers we've been feeding them nothing but plain text. No wonder they're so twittered about reading everybody's stuff. They can!

    The next time you write code and create a file convert it to something non-readable. The next time you design a system that connects over a wire use secure sockets. We're the solution. Quit handing your data over on a silver platter. I don't.

    -[d]-