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."

66 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 tjstork · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Guns and homemade bombs worked pretty good against an army with tanks, snipers and airplanes in Algeria, Viet Nam, Afghanistan (twice), and in Iraq. So yeah, let's imagine a scenario where the Feds try to impose some sort of dictatorship... you'd have an army of 500,000 active duty soldiers trying to suppress an technologically sophisticated and armed citizenry with 80 million rifles and god knows what sort of homemade contraptions. Good luck. Government by the consent of the governed is a statement of fact, not an ideal.

      --
      This is my sig.
  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 furball · · Score: 5, Funny

      I am a criminal. That's why I use encryption. Same reason I have a gun.

    4. 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.

    5. 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.

    6. Re:We should start encrypting everything by Ortega-Starfire · · Score: 5, Funny

      Criminals of the USA unite! All we have to lose are our freedoms. Wait, we lost those already. Unite!

      Guns, check
      Knives, check
      Crypto, check
      Copy of constitution and laminated ten command- er amendments, check
      Internet connection, check

      Go! Go! Go!

      Am I missing anything?

      Oh yes:

      Law abiding citizens of the USA unite! All we have to lose are our freedoms. Wait, we lost those already. Unite!

      Guns, check
      Knives, check
      Crypto, check
      Copy of constitution and laminated ten command- er amendments, check
      Internet connection, check

      Go! Go! Go!

      Am I missing anything?

      --
      ---- Liquid was a patriot ----
    7. Re:We should start encrypting everything by samcan · · Score: 5, Informative

      Oooh, do we get to have a discussion about the formation of the Constitution and how this totally violates the Bill of Rights and how scared the citizens were of a big national government and that's why we first had the Articles of Confederation which were weak like a bad cup of coffee and now we have the Constitution which is sooooooooo being violated?!

      Phew. That many 'ands' in a sentence is annoying.

      IMHO (which, by the way, is never humble :-) ), our government was not intended to be a large overreaching government. Control was supposed to be retained by the people. Under the original Articles of Confederation, the U.S. government was more like an informal gathering, a club, per se. This didn't work out totally, as it was seen that a few uprisings, such as the Shays' Rebellion, could destroy the confederation.

      The States sent delegates to fix the Articles, which the delegates ended up scrapping and instead creating the Constitution. However, I believe that some of this animosity towards large behemoths carried over. Look at the Bill of Rights, which were added after the Constitution was ratified. They in many instances reserve power to the people, and to the States. The federal government is thus limited in what it can do.

      Even though the Bill of Rights was ratified after the Constitution was ratified, from what I understand, some States made the implied passage of the Bill of Rights a condition to their ratification of the Constitution.

    8. Re:We should start encrypting everything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This shouldn't be rated funny but rather insightfull. Any lawyer or cop can tell you that you are almost certainly guilty of something.

    9. Re:We should start encrypting everything by Das+Modell · · Score: 3, Informative

      That's pretty much what this law professor/former defense attorney says at some point.

    10. 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.
    11. Re:We should start encrypting everything by witherstaff · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Man, you sound like the southern states - I thought we took care of state rights with that little civil war of Northern Aggression? Some say Lincoln was the father of big government. Big Business won, state's rights lost, and further rights have kept slipping ever since.

      The founders really didn't want an all powerful central government - good intentions and paving the way have taken care of the original design.

    12. Re:We should start encrypting everything by samcan · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I think a butchered quote from Orwell's 1984 says it best:

      Whoever controls the present, controls the past. Whoever controls the past, controls the future.

      The schoolchildren are the next generation. Whatever the students in school are being taught, that is what will be the policy of our government this next generation. What will our students learn if the past is corrupted?

  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 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.

    5. 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
  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!
    1. Re:WWJD by jollyreaper · · Score: 5, Funny

      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.

      I think his reaction would have been more along the lines of "Goodness, what is that peculiar blue box you stepped out of?"

      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    2. Re:WWJD by Palshife · · Score: 5, Funny

      He's an American. He'd ask about the DeLorean ;)

      --
      Attention deficit disorder is a complicated issue, spanning several major... HEY LET'S GO RIDE BIKES!
  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. Fascist America, in 10 easy steps by jawtheshark · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Fascist America, in 10 easy steps

    My history teacher pointed those out in 1997 and he wasn't thinking of the USA back then. I thought: come on, it can't be that easy! However, seeing what happens in the USA, I humbly have to retract that opinion.

    1. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy: 9/11 Terrorists, enemy combatants and unspoken Islam
    2. Create a gulag: Two words... Guantanamo Bay
    3. Develop a thug caste: Not yet, I think so at least.
    4. Set up an internal surveillance system: See article
    5. Harass citizens' groups: Again, see article and peaceful oriented groups have already been infiltrated. Okay, my source is Roger Moore so a grain of salt the size of Canada is needed.
    6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release: This goes along with Guantanamo. However, non-fly lists are in those lines....
    7. Target key individuals: Is most certainly happening....
    8. Control the press: Conglomerates do this... Don't even bother. Real historic dictatorships couldn't do this as well as capitalistic US.
    9. Dissent equals treason: If you're not with us, you're against us.... I have to say no more.
    10. Suspend the rule of law: Habeas corpus is gone, more laws have followed and more will follow.
    --
    Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
    1. Re:Fascist America, in 10 easy steps by commandlinegamer · · Score: 3, Funny

      [quote]my source is Roger Moore[/quote] You've got the inside scoop from James Bond ?!

    2. Re:Fascist America, in 10 easy steps by jawtheshark · · Score: 3, Informative

      Fuck... That's what happens if you watch Moonraker on DVD... I meant Michael Moore. Sorry about that!

      --
      Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
    3. 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
  8. 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 Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      With that view, you can thank **McCain** for not voting to help prevent this! What a coward!

      And, as you yourself point out, Obama's FISA vote doesn't actually have anything to do with this upcoming FBI surveillance ability.

      So, WTF with mentioning Obama?

      Also, are you an idiot? The FISA bill that Obama signed made the concession that previous violators would not be convicted, in exchange for tightening the powers of the president. So, if anything, that bill is the exact OPPOSITE of empowering government to do this kind of thing in the future. You can make the argument that not punishing previous violators sets a precedent for lax pursuit of violators in the future, but that's outside the scope of the bill itself. The fact is, the FISA bill, at least on paper, imposes greater limits on the president's ability to order wiretaps.

  9. 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
  10. 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.
  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. Trends shape history by Brain-Fu · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    The net effect of current trends is a lot of corruption in our government, plainly visible to the public, with a large collective yawn in response.

    Sitting around shouting that people need to stand up and do something will not, in and of itself, create a trend of people standing up and doing something.

    For that we will need something bigger. And more painful.

  13. 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.

  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.
  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.
    3. Re:armed result == bloodbath by falconwolf · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Aren't those in the military trained to follow orders from the government no matter what?

      I'd ask my nephew, but he's a Marine stationed in Iraq, however when I was in the army we were taught not to follow orders we thought were illegal or violated human rights. When sworn in, yes people are sworn in when they go into the military, people pledge to uphold the Constitution of the USA though.

      Surely those who would refuse to raise arms against those they were ordered to kill would be few and far inbetween

      I take it you've never been in the military but when I was in there were plenty of people who'd disobey any such order. Viet Nam had a number of examples of fragging where unpopular officers had fragmentation grenades, where the name comes from, tossed at them by those under their command.

      Falcon

  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. Re:which the Justice Department denies by delong · · Score: 3, Informative

    Whatever happened to reasonable suspicion?

    What about it? Government does not need reasonable suspicion to investigate you. It needs reasonable suspicion to justify an investigatory detention, and probable cause for an arrest or seizure. Some searches and seizures are investigations, but not all investigations are searches or seizures.

    The Fourth Amendment, Article V, and the Fourteenth Amendment do not prevent the government from conducting investigations for any rational purpose it darn well pleases.

  18. Ob. Bash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Stormrider: I should bomb something
    Stormrider: ...and it's off the cuff remarks like that that are the reason I don't log chats
    Stormrider: Just in case the FBI ever needs anything on me
    Elzie_Ann: I'm sure they can just get it from someone who DOES log chats.
    *** FBI has joined #gamecubecafe
    FBI: We saw it anyway.
    *** FBI has quit IRC (Quit: )

  19. 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.

  20. 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.

  21. 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.

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

    The terrorists have won.

  23. Not the only place by Iowan41 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    California supreme court decides that the 1st Amendment doesn't apply in their State. Federal District court in Oregon and the 9th Circus decide that the people of Oregon do not have the right to petition for redress of grievances and vote on laws passed by their legislature - which is the procedure in Oregon's constitution. Don't forget VAAPCON and the FBI files, when the Clinton's used the FBI and the IRS to intimidate political opponents.

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

    oh, wait. :(

  25. 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.

  26. Re:Not the best plan by blueg3 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The exact function of lots of people using encryption (or buying things in cash, or using anonymizers, etc.) is that an attacker (in this case, the FBI) can extract no information from the fact that you're using encryption (or whatever). They don't need to spread themselves thin, but it's no longer a useful "hey, this person might be up to trouble" flag.

    I agree that this is good.

  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 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

    2. Re:ammo box by lawpoop · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

      The average American soldier probably doesn't have a problem considering an Iraqi civilian a 'terrorist', and therefore firing on him, but he might have a more difficult time buying the idea that a mass uprising of averge, everyday white Americans is "Al-Qaida in America".

      Some things will be just too big to spin.

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    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. 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
  29. This has been going on since 2000. by Max+Threshold · · Score: 3, Interesting

    In 2000, I was investigated by the FBI after calling Janet Reno "the enemy I swore an oath to defend the Constitution against" in an email to my father and cousin. Within three days of my sending the email, they had interviewed numerous co-workers and convinced my housemate to keep tabs on my whereabouts so they could interview me. Interestingly, the printed copy of my email contained only what I had written; the parts of the conversation I had quoted were blacked out.

    This was a few months before the name "Carnivore" started appearing in the news. The FBI swore up and down that Carnivore was only used to monitor suspected criminals. But I have no involvement in any kind of criminal activity (beyond the usual file sharing and moonshining, which I'm sure they know about so I don't mind saying it) and yet I was under surveillance. We are ALL under surveillance, and have been for a long time.