Slashdot Mirror
Phil Zimmermann Replies To CNet On Biden
A couple of days ago we discussed a CNet article on the tech voting record of Joe Biden, Barack Obama's running mate. Philip Zimmermann, who was mentioned in that piece, sends the following note to set the record straight.
"In his 23 August opinion piece in CNet, Declan McCullagh wrote on Joe Biden's suitability as the Democratic VP nominee, Declan quotes me, creating the impression I criticized Biden for some legislation that Biden introduced in 1991. Declan's quote from me is out of context because it does not make it clear that I never mentioned Biden in my original quote at all when I wrote about Senate Bill 266. Second, Declan's quote is drawn from remarks I wrote in 1999. Declan seems to be trying to draft me in his opposition to Biden, and, by extension, makes it seem as if I am against the Democratic ticket. I take issue with this."
Read below for the rest of Phil's comments.
When someone serves in the Senate for 30 years, we have to judge them by their whole body of work. Much has happened since 1991. I don't know what Biden's position would be today on the issue of encryption, but I would imagine it has changed, because I can't think of any politicians today who would try to roll back our hard-won gains in our right to use strong crypto. In fact, considering the disastrous erosion in our privacy and civil liberties under the current administration, I feel positively nostalgic about Biden's quaint little non-binding resolution of 1991.
Declan's article seems to imply that I would prefer McCain over the Democratic ticket. But McCain's stated policies on wiretapping, the Patriot Act and other policies that undermine privacy and civil liberties are a seamless continuation on the current administration's policies.
When someone serves in the Senate for 30 years, we have to judge them by their whole body of work. Much has happened since 1991. I don't know what Biden's position would be today on the issue of encryption, but I would imagine it has changed, because I can't think of any politicians today who would try to roll back our hard-won gains in our right to use strong crypto. In fact, considering the disastrous erosion in our privacy and civil liberties under the current administration, I feel positively nostalgic about Biden's quaint little non-binding resolution of 1991.
Declan's article seems to imply that I would prefer McCain over the Democratic ticket. But McCain's stated policies on wiretapping, the Patriot Act and other policies that undermine privacy and civil liberties are a seamless continuation on the current administration's policies.
But McCain's stated policies on wiretapping, the Patriot Act and other policies that undermine privacy and civil liberties are a seamless continuation on the current administration's policies.
And what of Obama's support for illegal wiretapping indemnity?!?
Phil is not the first person to feel that they have been deliberately misquoted by Declan 'make it up' MuCullagh, he probably won't be the last.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
But this is an election. Taking statements in context has been in strict violation of the law since the Roman Republic.
Since the summary neglected to include it, here's the actual quote from the CNet article:
Zimmermann, who's now busy developing Zfone, says it was Biden's legislation "that led me to publish PGP electronically for free that year, shortly before the measure was defeated after vigorous protest by civil libertarians and industry groups."
Oh, yes, that REALLY makes it sound like Zimmermann is a McCain man, and not just someone who Biden tried to screw over in the past.
In short, this article is yet another poor excuse for Slashkos to continue pushing Obama. Guarantee you'll never see an article on Slashdot from a McCain supporter.
For some reason, Declan thrives on trashing Dem candidates and gaining publicity for it.
Declan was responsible for the media misinterpretation of Al Gore's statement that he "took the initiative in creating the Internet."
McCullagh himself once claimed that "If it's true that Al Gore created the Internet, then I created the 'Al Gore created the Internet' story
So what he's saying is that he rescinds his criticism because he wants Obama to win. Ends justify means?
Here is what McCullagh said: "Biden's bill -- and the threat of encryption being outlawed -- is what spurred Phil Zimmermann to write PGP, thereby kicking off a historic debate about export controls, national security, and privacy. Zimmermann, who's now busy developing Zfone, says it was Biden's legislation "that led me to publish PGP electronically for free that year, shortly before the measure was defeated after vigorous protest by civil libertarians and industry groups."
I think Zimmermann is reading too much into the words above. I just don't see how that can be interpreted as saying that Zimmermann opposes Biden himself.
"In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
assume they have been bought and sold so many times, that they don't really have any position on any issue. If they were your foe 15 years ago, that doesn't mean they're your foe today. Nor your friend.
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
Sure does.. Well remember Bush and Dick vs. Gore and Clitton? Colin was in the mix too.. Who's mccain's running mate? I'm expecting someone named Abel.
I have to, also, but not because of anyone's name. The problem is that he chose a corrupt long-time senator, which cancels out Obama's advantage over corrupt long-time senator McCain (unless McCain also chooses a corrupt senator as his running mate).
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
FoxNews agrees
Is it just me,
Yes
"I take issue with this."
No one cares.
Declan's quote from me is out of context because it does not make it clear that I never mentioned Biden in my original quote at all when I wrote about Senate Bill 266.
Speaking of misquoting, here's what McCullagh actually wrote:
Here "Biden's legislation" is "Senate Bill 266". So Zimmermann really did say that it was a law, proposed and advanced by Sen. Biden, that led him to preemptively publishing PGP.
The paragraph quoted above is correct in fact and in spirit. I'm not exactly sure what Zimmermann is opposed to. While I'm blissfully ignorant of who this McCullagh guy is outside of the recent Slashdot stories about him, I'd say he's right at least this one time.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Maybe Phil should have digitally signed his original comment :-)
Take Nobody's Word For It.
It seems like that last thing he would want is the names on his ticket invoking images of the islamic terrorist that allegedly masterminded the twin towers attacks...
That's right, allegedly masterminded. Everyone with a clue knows that it was a CIA/Israeli Mossad joint black op.
At least it's marginally better than Evan Bayh (pronounced like "bye"). Imagine: "Obama-Bayh. McCain: hello."
I'm no fan of the immunity. Far from it. But you do realize that that bill was going to pass even without him, right? And Obama did try to remove that part of the bill.
But there were enough Republicans & "blue dog" Democrats in this election year that they would have been painted as "terrorist sympathizers" for voting against FISA at all (indeed, that is exactly what the right-wing forums tend to call them).
And it doesn't help that McCain wholeheartedly supports this. He voted for FISA before he voted against it, and he's supported it many, many times on the campaign trail.
Finally, it's not over. The EFF is now suing the government directly. I'm not happy with this state of affairs, but Obama is still the better of the two when it comes to this issue.
Or maybe it's a good idea to have the names on his ticket invoke images of the Islamic terrorist that the Republicans failed to deal with.
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
that Biden is a shill for the media cartels who also hates encryption and Net Neutrality? To wit: Joe Biden Loves RIAA Biden loves RIAA, FBI tech Biden: Pro-Copyright Friend of RIAA, MPAA
Part of the hardcore faithful who believed in Apple long before it was cool again to do so
Biden's political record is fairly typical of strong government Democrats. It's really the Republicans who are supposed to be more on the side of smaller government and stronger civil liberties.
Unfortunately, Republicans largely have abandoned their libertarian positions. They have deregulated the economy, but it has led to a financial disaster in the banking and housing sectors.
Had the Republicans taken a stronger stand on civil liberties while advocating a well regulated economy with noninflationary fiscal policies, and consistently low-interest monetary policies, they would not be in the situation they are in right now.
Shock! Horror! Next we'll be hearing of ursine defecation in arboreal settings.
Let alone view Slashdot.
"Must... crawl... out of ooze... evolve lungs..."
rt
I'm not attacking you, but it you'd said something like that 3 months ago, you'd have been skewered, and your moderations would reflect it.
That reads to me as a version of "the ends justify the means", which doesn't sit well with me, and probably a lot of other people too. I bring this up because 3 months ago, there's no way you'd have any insightful mods, but now, you're flying high.
I have to wonder, is that because people's minds have changed that much, or because they're more interested in their guy winning?
From someone who is inherently claiming to appreciate diversity, you seem to lack the understanding that Democrats do not all share the exact same worldview as each other.
Declan's worldview seems to be "Let me make up a whole bunch of shit about other people so I can sell copy/ads without any regard for the truth." If we're to take him as a proper representative of the Libertarians, then the Libertarians deserves to remain a fringe group. (Btw, I don't think we should take Declan as a proper representative of all Libertarians - I know some of them who are capable of making intelligent and honest assessments. Declan swims in similar waters as Ann Coulter.)
I would hazard to say that many party-thinking followers have a problem seeing beyond "us vs. them." I'd put the Republicans right in that boat along side the Democrats.
Having said that - I realize I'm pigeon-holing the two parties firmly in "them" territory. I'm just not sure what affiliation I'm associated with to make up "us."
Are you calling these candidates corrupt simply because they've been in the senate for a long time, or do you have some other reason to believe this. Biden was chosen because he has experience, political experience means being involved in politics for a long time. It's not fair to say that he (or McCain) is corrupt simply because he's been around a while.
Each and every time I'm reminded that people not only watch that garbage, but take it seriously, I bleed a little from my anus.
I don't think he is really thinking about how to sell ads, the Ann Coulter comment is more on target.
Declan is a libertarian, not a Libertarian. I would certainly not consider him a partisan booster for anything other than himself and his own career.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
I'm assuming you consider "corrupt long-time senator" to be synonymous with "long-time senator", and running from there; otherwise, you'd be expected to actually come up with some backing for your assertions. (Biden may have been around for a while, but he's no Ted Stevens).
Don't you mean, unless McCain chooses someone perceived as fresh and new? Otherwise, you've got plank with a fresh face and one old face, and another plank with two old faces... and that's assuming that President and VP are given equal weighting, which obviously isn't the case.
I have been thinking about the telcom immunity issue. What they did is illegal, sure, but who is "breaking the law?"
If a police officer commands you to rob a bank, who is more criminal? You or the cop? Of course you are guilty of the crime, but the cop is the one who created the scenario and motivation. You would not have broken the law had the officer not compelled you to do so.
So, BushCo should be charged with the crime and the telcos are accessories.
For the Dems, this is the same thing. Their worldview doesn't accomodate any political thinking more complex than us vs. them.
Some Dems, sure, but of course the same is true of many libertarians. In most of the political threads here, for example, you'll find folks saying the Democrats and Republicans are the same because they both support things like the concept of taxation. If you're not an anarcho-libertarian, you're "one of them".
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
How is this still getting modded up? For the last time, Obama voted AGAINST telecom immunity. Read that again: he voted AGAINST telecom immunity. He has always been against it and probably will always be against it. If it were up to Obama (and most Democrats), the immunity provision would have been stripped from the legislation.
Actually he is a libertarian, he once told me that he was just interested in knocking down both sides.
Perhaps someone in the know could bolster this claim with examples of his hit pieces on Republicans.
Not that the absence of these things means he's necessarily a Republican. Many economic libertarians -- especially the capital-L sort that genuinely believe that markets are the transcendant mediating social institution -- tend to see the Democrats as the greater of two evils because Dems have a greater tendency to also see state/public institutions as part of the toolset of active policy, while Republicans tend to at least pay lip service in opposition to this.
At any rate, the problem with knocking down both sides is that human society really doesn't allow for a power vacuum. You create something else to fill it first, or you reckon with the unintended consequences of whatever emerges. And you either have private power checked only by other private power, or you come up with a mediating public social institution. I'd be fascinated to hear what Declan's particular proposal is, if he's not so busy manipulating things that he's taken the time to genuinely think things through.
Tweet, tweet.
John grows a tree. Someone puts forward a tree-cutting proposal. Paul votes for it. John criticises the tree-cutting proposal.
Years later, someone makes what they say is an overview of Paul's voting record on tree-cutting proposals. They quote John's criticism.
John feels however that he has come to like Paul, and likes him more than the alternatives. John therefore says that he never intended to criticise Paul.
The herring in this case is that the question on order is Paul's voting record on tree-cutting proposals. Whether John now likes Paul or not is not as relevant. Pulling back criticism by saying it was directed at the legislation (that Paul voted against) rather than at Paul himself, is a herring.
For Politics, I trust THIS Zimmerman:
Youtube Channel
Personal Website
> Guarantee you'll never see an article on Slashdot from a McCain supporter.
You're absolutely right. You don't get points for posting on Slashdot!
McCain Asks Supporters To Campaign On Blogs
I must be out of the club because I don't know who Phil Zimmerman is. And I don't know who Declan is. And I don't read CNet any more. And I don't know anything about this bill. (And I don't really care about Biden because VP is a "nothing" job, but I can't see how Biden is going to help Barack get any votes.)
I feel fine though.
Was back in the mid-1980s, when he was beating the drum for protectionism to keep TI and Intel in the DRAM business. His plan was basically to fuck over the entire computer industry to protect two vendors from competitors who were doing a far better job. He's why we had that period of memory prices actually going up for a short while. That's when I decided he was a pig-ignorant, big-government interventionist that we'd all be far better off without.
In the years since then, he's been one of the assholes who promoted the DMCA, he voted for the Iraq war and the Patriot act, (in fact, he bragged quite a bit at the time that the patriot act was based on a similar attack on the bill of rights that he'd written shortly after the Oklahoma City attack.)
So, when faced with his first major decision, the guy spewing all this hogwash about "change we can believe in" chooses an apparatchik who's spent half of his life in the senate, voting for anything that could possible increase the power of the federal government.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Fighting terrorists is like getting hit by a woman. If she hits you like a man, you hit her back like a man. If a terrorist hits you like a nation state, then you hit them back, like a nation state. That means, no courts, no tribunals, only war and death for them.
So yeah, I would almost agree that the torture of three Al Qaeda operatives was bad morally. We should have killed them on site!
You need to stop pretending that terrorism is a criminal act. Criminals don't seek to destroy a government or a people - as they ultimately are a sort of parasite that needs its host to live. Terrorists want to destroy the state and take over. You seem to want to live in a fantasy world where boundaries of the world's nations matter. They don't. They don't matter to software developers, corporations, leftists, rightists, and they certainly don't matter to terrorists.
You and your kind keep intimidating that the best course for the USA is to cut some sort of a deal with radical Islam. Perhaps we should reason with them. Well, maybe you should have spared everyone 50 million dead and not guaranteed Polish neutrality in 1939 or perhaps just handed Singapore over to the Imperial Japanese Army. Quite often, people that want to kill you and take your stuff aren't interested in reason, they are only interested in your stuff, and your life is just a trouble to them. But be that as it may, what sort of compromises with Al Qaeda should we make? Where was the criminal court for the WTC occupants, for Daniel Pearl and for all the Iraqi people they beheaded? There wasn't any. These people are evil and there's no negotiating with them.
So tell us, what compromise in the name of peace in our time should we make with Al Qaeda and other radical islamic groups? Shall we permit men to beat their wives? Shall we allow polygamy? Maybe we should encourage illiteracy. What other book do you need besides the Koran. I've read enough of your police state + compromise with Islam crap in the UK and I can see that it is absolute crap. You can turn London into Al London if you like, but I prefer Washington DC to stay Washington DC, and if the Muzzies don't like it, then fuck them. They've already shit up their own part of the world and can't even put together a meaningful economy despite loads of oil money, and we're supposed to adopt elements of that failed culture?
Get real.
This is my sig.
I hear what you're saying, but that just isn't good enough. The importance of the lesson to the Telecoms and the administration outweighs the quality you speak of. The price was too high.
To quote LongNoi "QZTR was right and won't leave me alone because I called him a moron when I was wrong" FYS
Hey kdawson! Keep the posting to piss the right-tards off. It's fun to watch them froth at the mouth! lolz
What does any of this matter? Joe Schmoe's vote counts just as much as any of ours, even if he has a 48 IQ, dropped out of fifth grade and believes the earth is flat. The vast majority of voters don't give a fuck about things like privacy or freedom or abstract things like information and intellectual property. Most of them aren't even capable of abstract concepts - PERIOD.
All people care about is that a candidate believe in baby jesus and will give them free stuff - be it health care, tax breaks for breeding, free medicine, early retirement, free education, etc.
If by "libertarian" he only cares about eliminating taxes, but doesn't care about other liberties and turns a blind eye to the moral majority legislating in our bedroom and so on. Then he's probably really just a Republican who is unwilling to call himself such.
There's a lot of them out there, people who claim to be libertarian who aren't. I don't know why? For the shock value, or they think it sounds more intellectual or something.
What part of the constitution are you saying the CORPORATIONS violated? People's right against unreasonable searches and seizures? Because that's not something the corporations are violating -- they already have data. They don't need to search you for it. What may be unlawful on the side of the phone companies is that they gave out private information, which maybe that violates privacy laws, but it's not what the 4th amendment is talking about. The 4th amendment specifies what the government is not allowed to do.
my blog
Where's Dick Armey and Jack Kemp, when you need them? When those two got out of politics, that's really when the Republican Party went to the shitter.
The thing is, the deregulation of the banking market was well intended. The Republicans wanted to see everyone who wanted to have a house, get a house. To do that required money. To get that money, without raising taxes, they allowed investment banks to get into the mortgage business. Since mortgages promise a guaranteed return on the investment to a lender that exceeds most other instruments - even some stocks and many bonds, there was a flood of money into the mortgage space, and everyone who wanted a house, pretty much got a house. Of course, in that starry eyed vision of deciding that everyone should have a house, Republicans never asked, "hey, should everyone -really- have a house?"
As far as civil liberties go, I think, in total, you could make the argument that people are more free today than they were under Clinton. Yes, there is the likely chance that the NSA is reading all of our email (encrypted or not), but, the IRS has been demanding all of our financial transactions for more than our lifetimes and that's way, way worse. At least, under Bush, IRS enforcement has been chopped and new taxpayer rights were enacted. And, taxes were cut.
SO yeah, under Bush, and ostensibly McCain, the government reads all my email, but, at least I still have the right to more of my money and the right to invest where -I- think it should be invested. Conversely, Obama actually has not promised to stop reading my email, but, taxes are going to up and there's going to be all sorts of regulation, plus, he's going to try and take away my guns at some point.
All in all, I would prefer if Republicans actually got back to favoring limited government. At this point, I think we could probably attract some tech types by throwing the FBI and ATF onto the chopping block along with the IRS, Dept of Education and Environment.
This is my sig.
Biden's not one of the good guys. Never was, never will be.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
And who decides what the line is between "criminals" who get a day in court and "terrorists" who you feel should be shot on sight? You? George Bush? Whoever has the gun?
That's a pretty damned good question, I'll give you that.
How about this. IF we say that someone who has a rifle is a criminal, they get tried like a criminal, but if they are coming at you with a big bomb of some kind, you kill them.
The thing about terrorism is that it's just a function of technological advance. It used to be that you had to have a nation state to wage a war, but now, just like anyone can print 100 books at home, anyone can start a war. So, I would say, if they've got a big ass bomb, then yeah, you just assume the declaration of war and kill them. If they got a pistol and are just shooting up a 7-11 to get some crack, they get a trial and jail. IT's two entirely different things.
The weapon of choice determines the scale. Crime - little weapons - terrorists - big weapons, get it?
This is my sig.
If what we're discussing is, as Zimmerman is, the relative merits of Obama and McCain, it doesn't help to point out issues on which they're both bad, since these don't actually give a reason to vote for or against either of them. Both Obama and McCain supported the final FISA bill that contained the illegal wiretapping indemnity. Therefore, pointing that fact out doesn't really help in helping me decide who to vote for, unless we're discussing the pros and cons of voting for a third party.
If you look at the issues on which they actually had different positions, on the other hand, we might get some information. For example, Obama voted to strip immunity from the bill you allude to. McCain, on the other hand, didn't vote on the amendment at all, but even worse, indicated he opposed stripping immunity from the bill and would've voted against doing so had he been present for the vote. So while they are both equally bad on supporting the final bill, Obama comes across somewhat ahead in actually trying to take immunity out of it, whereas McCain actively supported keeping immunity in it. In short: Obama tried to take immunity out and eventually caved on the final bill once that attempt failed; McCain tried to keep immunity in and enthusiastically supported the final bill that contained it. Neither of those positions is a clear great one (most Slashdotters would've preferred: tried to keep immunity out, and then voted against the entire bill if that failed), but the Obama position is clearly less bad than the McCain one on that issue.
The Patriot Act issue is another distinguishing issue, which is why Zimmerman points it out.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Is that he should have just told Hillary to stuff it at the convention and put a muzzle on her husband. Yes, I understand the need for unity and to make everyone happy, but, Democrats are foolish to pretend that someone who is an ardent supporter of Hillary Clinton is going to be voting Republican anyway. She shouldn't be getting huge spots on the convention and neither should he. There shouldn't be a big roll call - he won the nomination and this is his event.
This is my sig.
You, my good sir, are the one living in a fantasy world. By attacking "terrorists" as if they are a nation state (which they are NOT, by any definition I've ever read),
We are all nation states now. That's just the thing. Technological advances have made it so that any citizen can effectively wage war. 200 years ago, could a single man bring down a building? No, you needed a bunch of people. Now, a single man with a good truck bomb can take out an entire building with hundreds of people in it, if he wants.
Generally speaking, you are right. Government is by the consent of the governed and simply as a practical matter, when the power of individuals to resist is so high, you have to have the central government make -some- compromises. But, what's happening now is that ever smaller minorities, aided by ever larger advances in technology, are being allowed to bully an ever larger amount of people. This isn't an act of crime, it is an act of war and you have to respond as if it is war.
As far as the Geneva Convention goes, Al Qaeda didn't sign it. If you don't sign the geneva convention, the other party in the war isn't obligated to abide by it either. This didn't just happen in our time. During World War II, the Japanese didn't sign onto the Geneva Convention and really opened the war by essentially killing all the allied POWs. So the USA didn't actually take many prisoners back...
In fact, did you know that, at the end of World War II, Eisenhower was so pissed off when he discovered the death camps that he actually REVOKED the POW status of German soldiers and thus denied them Geneva Convention rights? They got their food and red cross packages per the convention, but the deal was, that, from a perspective of international law, they had no rights at all, and only got what they got in terms of fair treatment by the Allies as a gift, rather than any treaty mandate.
Al Qaeda captured are not US citizens and thus are not afforded the protections of American law. That's pretty simple.
I don't believe that our foreign policy created terrorists. There has been an expansionist and radical component to Islam for 1500 years, and it simply continues to this day. Bin Laden and company might use imagined abuses as an excuse for their acts, but they see themselves more like the conquering caliphs of old, before those caliphs got crushed by the mongols.
This is my sig.
FYI the facility is located on Folsom Street (at Second Street). There is no Fulsom Street.
FoxNews agrees
Well, color me skeptical, homer. Even for Fox News that seems a bit over the top. Do you have any other references to that image? Otherwise, I've got to believe that's photoshopped.
Then, let's see, under Bush, oil prices have gone up, increasing the standard of living in middle eastern states, and, Bush has put in a democracy in Iraq, which, despite all the violence, is actually growing rather dramatically economically.
So.. if, as you say, terrorism is America's fault, then, when Obama comes in, and quits buying foreign oil, or drives oil prices down, then, wouldn't you say that Obama would be fomenting terrorism? I mean, if we cut a people off from their only means of income, wouldn't they be pissed off?
Incidentally, if the Kurds are so pissed off at the USA, then, why has there not been a single American combat casualty in Kurdish Iraq -during the entire war-. Seems to me, that between the no-fly zone first and then the removal of Saddam, second, the Kurds are actually pretty damned happy with the USA. Similarly, the lion's share of American troubles in Iraq were with the Sunnis, who were associated with Saddam. Since the invasion, Bush has restored the marshes, drained by Saddam, that were the economic lifeblood of Shiites, and furthermore, the guys that were elected in the elections brought about by Bush, were in fact, primarily all shiites!
Now your man Obama would say that that was all mistake, that we should have let Saddam continue to oppress the Shiites and the Kurds, excaberating the very problem that YOU claim the USA to have caused.
I mean, if you sincerely believe that the USA's sponsorship of putting in dictatorships in the 1950s was the cause of today's terrorism, then doesn't it make sense that Bush's policy of removing the dictatorships the USA installed, at least in Iraq, seem to be conceptually the right thing to do?
This is my sig.
What may be unlawful on the side of the phone companies is that they gave out private information, which maybe that violates privacy laws, but it's not what the 4th amendment is talking about. The 4th amendment specifies what the government is not allowed to do.
Unless the phone companies were acting as agents of the government.
Slashdot - The great and glorious cluster fuck of Internet wisdom.
> This article is tagged 'slashkos', what does that term mean?
They're comparing Slashdot to the Dailykos, a site known for being extremely liberal. In other words, it's yet another form of conservative whining.
Is he?
Is CNet going to respond to this allegation of outright manipulation of the facts?
Are you calling these candidates corrupt simply because they've been in the senate for a long time, or do you have some other reason to believe this.
Mostly their voting records.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Well, color me skeptical, homer. Even for Fox News that seems a bit over the top.
I think it's photoshopped, too, but for other reasons.
The "terrorist fist-jab" is about as over the top as it gets, without actually re-branding it "Republican News" -- so nothing they do surprises me anymore, so much as saddens me.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Constitution say, US Citizens have rights. Foreign POWs, foreign invaders, and foreign asshats on foreign soil bringing foreign bombs to soldiers deployed in foreign countries don't.
Wrong. Treaties cannot take precedence over the Constitution but properly ratified treaties are the supreme law of the land in the US. Despite what Bush would have you believe, POWs do have rights under US law via the Geneva convention which is - you guessed it - a treaty. The United States is party to numerous treaties some of which explicitly grant certain rights to some of those "foreign asshats" under various circumstances. Granted there are also cases where those same "foreign asshats" don't have rights but you'll have to get specific about when and where and what circumstances.
Or maybe Biden was chosen for involvement in something that apparently just showed up on the Judicial Watch blog today.
Excerpt:
A major news agency[apparently a link to an ABC story in blog] points out that the vice presidential candidate's longtime advisor and campaign fundraiser, Chicago attorney Joseph Cari, was indicted in 2005 for helping the convicted Syrian fundraiser (Antoin Rezko) who bankrolled Obama's political career operate a massive kickback scheme.
Not that this necessarily means Biden was part of the scheme, but it certainly looks suspicious. Another in the looks suspiciousTM category is the fact that Biden's son is the DE AG.
What does any of this mean? Hell if I know, I'm not that interested in the two-sides-of-the-same-coin candidates. In any case, corruption seems to be an all too common unfortunate side effect of being involved in politics for a long time (being a career politician). There is certainly some truth to the oft quoted saying of Lord Acton(?) that power corrupts... etc. While it may not "be fair," saying one is corrupt simply because of being in a position of power rather goes with the territory, particularly when one doesn't have a clear record to the contrary, and more especially when they are associated in any way with questionable actions.
Just as an aside, like what appears to a fairly high percentage of /.ers, I personally don't care for either Obama or McCain and think they're both bad choices.
Of course I didn't RTFA... why would I do that? You really are new here aren't you? Don't let my UID fool you.
And who decides what the line is between "criminals" who get a day in court and "terrorists" who you feel should be shot on sight? You? George Bush? Whoever has the gun?
If I have the gun, then yes.
paintball
"And who decides what the line is between "criminals" who get a day in court and "terrorists" who you feel should be shot on sight? You? George Bush? Whoever has the gun?"
That's an outstanding, and important question. I'm a strong supporter of military action against Al Qaeda and the Taliban, but you bring up a damn good point.
The short version of my argument for non-uniformed combatants at war with the US is one of citizenship. US Citizenship, or lack of, should be a prime factor. While that doesn't necessarily save US terrorists from a death sentence, it should get them their day in a civilian court. Timothy McVeigh tried to bring down the Federal Government via organized terrorist action, and he got a trial. Bill Ayers' Weatherman bombing of the Pentagon got him a trial. He got away with it (in fact, he brags about having gotten away with it), but that's a risk you take going to trial, because they're citizens. Now, the law has always been somewhat different for US Citizens engaged in military action against their own country, so we're still in some strange territory here even if the combatant is a citizen... and I don't have all the answers here.
But I'm convinced of one thing; under no circumstances should a non-uniformed, non-citizen combatant get a civil court trial, especially if captured overseas. The Geneva Convention says shoot them on the field upon capture, and I've begun to think that's actually a pretty good idea. Offer a military tribunal if they'll surrender in the field, with the assurance that they wont be hung, provided they haven't taken part in an atrocity of some sort, and agree to work with intelligence agents in efforts to capture and defeat their comrades.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
The administration got absolutely no useful information as a result: they got a series a bogus leads that all turned out to be wild goose chases. And now that the use of torture is known there is no prospect of getting any criminal convictions in a real court of law.
George Tenet has said that the enhanced interrogation techniques ("torture" for those who are "nuanced" on the left that apparently claim moral equivalence between waterboarding and Saddam's cutting out of tongues, raping children in from of parents, and chopping off fingers) gathered more intelligence than all other intel programs combined. Now, you can say Tenet is a liar, but I'd like to hear who your source is on this, other than an anonymous, anti-Bush source in the CIA who doesn't have the balls to ID himself.
Tenet says the interrogations uncovered networks and broke up plots in the U.S.. - Note on this interview - For some astonishing reason, 60 Minutes edited it and removed the part where Tenet claims EIT gathered more intelligence than all other programs combined. Here's the part 60 Minutes cut, but CBS's affiliate did not:
"Here's what I would say to you, to the Congress, to the American people, to the president of the United States: I know that this program has saved lives. I know we've disrupted plots," he tells Pelley. "I know this program alone is worth more than the FBI, the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency put together, have been able to tell us."
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
properly ratified treaties are the supreme law of the land in the US.
Actually, according to US legal priority rules, treaties are supreme until a conflicting federal law is passed. In other words, whichever is passed last prevails. One could argue the Military Detainee Act supersedes Geneva, assuming Geneva even applies.
Geneva distinguishes between POW's and unlawful combatants. It takes a carrot-and-stick approach. If you are a signatory and abide by its requirements (fight for a country, in uniform, according to the rules of war), you get its protections as a POW. Unlawful combatants are only granted "humane treatment," not the other POW privileges. The great irony is that treating unlawful combatants better than POW's seems to be what people here are advocating, which runs contrary to the spirit of Geneva.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
The telecommunications industry is highly regulated. While they may not run afoul of the fourth Amendment, they may damn well have violated statutory federal law.
Xenon, where's my money? -Borno
But can you find us a politician who isn't? At least we know that Obama also listens to Lessig.
McCain, on the other hand, is pro-censorware, anti-Net Neutrality and pro-copyright. And he listens to Carly Fiorina for both technology and economic advice.
Don't get me wrong. I'm NOT excusing this. I don't like this from either party. But of the two, Obama is the only one who even cares a little about copyright reform, and that counts for something. The FISA vote was just to keep the Republicans from claiming he supports terrorists. I still hate it, but he has a point.
We have signed numerous treaties regarding how wars are to be conducted and how prisoners are to be treated. These treaties are just as legally binding as the Bill of Rights.
Xenon, where's my money? -Borno
US Citizens have rights [...] foreign invaders [...] deployed in foreign countries don't.
So US troops are free for all, are you sure you want that?
Corruption means accepting bribes (in one form or another). A voting record alone can not prove, or indicate this.
I'd also like to point out that it is completely unreasonable for us to expect a complete absence of corruption in our politicians. They are human, so doing stupid things and going on power trips is par for the course. We shouldn't expect more of our politicians than we would deliver ourselves.
I would think that would be more of a reason not to select him, since this thing would sink a campaign or lead to impeachment if it were true. I'm not saying that it's not true, but Obama would have to be monumentally stupid. Then again Edwards ran a campaign while he was paying rent on a mansion for his mistress and likely his love-child, so there is really no limit to the stupid things politicians will do.
oops, mis-moderated. Replying to undo.
look all i hear is change change change. what we are gonna go from mediocre to really really lousy. I would have thought that most ppl here make at least 40k a year. the whole platform is just about how much money they can take from you and give to your gardener. what? you mean you dont have one? well according to the change meister you are rich and you will bear the brunt of the taxes he will levy to implement "change". dont kid yourself rich is a code word for white middle class. give the government a dollar and you will get 15 cents back and a new bureaucrat to come by your house and "advise" you how to spend it. good luck with your heroes.
The US Gov should outsource wiretapping to India then - after all wiretapping of US citizens could be legal in India ;).
Seriously though there's the UKUSA and Echelon stuff (where it is suspected that "outsourcing" was done), and all those fancy laws.
To me the fact they didn't even bother to do it "properly" with all the available loopholes, shows how much contempt they have for the US citizens now.
The US Gov goes: "We're using your precious constitution as toilet paper", and seems most of the US people go "Hey, what's on the other channel." rather than "Hey you can't do that!".
Anyway that also happens in most countries, just those other countries are a fair bit weaker than the USA.
In our 2006 Technology Voters' Guide, which ranked Senate votes from July 1998 through May 2005, Biden received a mere 37.5 percent score because of his support for Internet filters in schools and libraries and occasional support for Internet taxes.
Computer viruses, spread via the Internet, have cost tens of billions of dollars. Suggesting that such a cost center be subject to taxation is no different than taxing cigarettes and alcohol to discourage their use and provide for medical treatment of related diseases. Those are frivolous complaints, but they're equated with the current administration's systematic and reckless abuse of the Fourth Amendment right to privacy.
If I get my opinion of Phil Zimmerman or the right to freedom from unlawful search & seizure -- or anything or anybody for that matter -- from Cnet, may God help me!
"I can't imagine how things could get any worse!" (some guy) "That could just be failure of imaginatioÂn on your p
One could argue the Military Detainee Act supersedes Geneva, assuming Geneva even applies.
There is no "Military Detainee Act" that I am aware of. Perhaps you are referring to the Detainee Treatment Act or maybe the Military Commissions Act of 2006? These at most supplement the Third Geneva Convention and do not contradict it as far as I can tell. If you are referring to a specific instance of the Geneva Convention being superseded you'll have to point it out before I concede the point.
Unlawful combatants are only granted "humane treatment," not the other POW privileges.
Which is a bizarre argument designed to skirt the spirit of the treaty even if we concede the legitimacy of the "unlawful combatants" argument - which I do not. Furthermore torture under any definition is inhumane treatment and in violation of both the Geneva convention as well as US law. Whatever other legal issues are in play it seems clear that prisoners are not always being treated humanely.
The "loophole" you mention is a contrivance by the Bush administration to behave in ways that if they were a small nation could have them brought up on charges for crimes against humanity. I'm not so naive as to think that behind closed doors the "rules of war" get followed reliably but official US policy has been anything but civilized nor has it been a model for the rest of the world to follow. Frankly I expect our leaders to behave better.
The great irony is that treating unlawful combatants better than POW's seems to be what people here are advocating, which runs contrary to the spirit of Geneva.
Who is advocating that? Insisting that we not torture people and granting some sort of legal status instead of holding prisoners in a legal limbo for all eternity is not remotely close treating them better than POWs.
Neither are suitable candidates for the office, just like neither Windows (old and stogy) nor Mac OS X (youthful and slick) are suitable operating systems for my computer. All are under the control of someone who has something to hide.
Colin Dean Go a year without DRM
Legislators are corporate puppets, bought and paid for by campaign contributions. If they are complicit in the violation of your constitutional rights, they are as much traitors as the legislators they bribe with their so-called "campaign contributions" they pay to both major parties and their candidates.
Corpoprations and unions should not be allowed to contribute or lobby. Only human beings should have that right.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
Biden: I'm open to policy adjustments as technology changes.
Obama: As new violations of the constitution occur, we need to tweak public policy.
McCain: I'm against wiretapping. Ever since electricity was introduced, we had to face this problem. Frankly I don't see why we can't all use insulated wires and be done with this problem?
He's out now, pending a re-trial.
Wired also posted an overview of PGP and S.266 on the 10th anniversary of the shebang in 2001. It's worth noting that Biden introduced the legislation, but also was one of the Senators responsible for removing the anti-crypto section.
Biden's still a thorough douche toward tech, specifically peer-to-peer networking and free speech on the Internet.
> Compromise we can believe in.
You'd rather have someone who believes in screwing us over and who will never compromise on that position?
I wouldn't.
He is a self-professed zionist. Believe it.
I wasn't the one comparing Americans with Saddam. You guys were, by abusing the word "torture" to suit your needs. The point is, if waterboarding is "torture," what word do you use for Saddam's atrocities?
We have been waterboarding all Navy pilots and Special Forces operators during training long before Bush was President. If our military personnel can take it, it can't be that bad.
I think it's funny that you lefties are concerned about scaring al Qaeda terrorists with some water, but we can put a bullet in their heads if we see them running around in Kabul. Can't wiretap them, can't get them wet, can't try them in military tribunals, but if get them in our sights, and we can shoot them with an M-16. So we can kill them, but not scare them. Got it.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
exactly right.
""In his 23 August opinion piece in CNet, Declan McCullagh wrote on Joe Biden's suitability as the Democratic VP nominee, Declan quotes me, creating the impression I criticized Biden for some legislation that Biden introduced in 1991. Declan's quote from me is out of context because it does not make it clear that I never mentioned Biden in my original quote at all when I wrote about Senate Bill 266. Second, Declan's quote is drawn from remarks I wrote in 1999. Declan seems to be trying to draft me in his opposition to Biden, and, by extension, makes it seem as if I am against the Democratic ticket. I take issue with this.""
So in 1999 you made a ruckus about a bill from 1991 *that was introduced by Biden* but for some reason its not fair to point that out?
Look if you want to vote for Obama/Biden *despite* some of the crap he has pulled regarding IP fine, I cna understand but dont put on the kneepads and ignore the crap they did! thats who politicians become unaccountable..
"Ahh! Arrogance and stupidity in the same package, how efficient of you!" --Londo Molari
I'd also like to point out that it is completely unreasonable for us to expect a complete absence of corruption in our politicians.
Then I'd like to point out that it is completely unreasonable for us to tolerate such corruption, whatever our expectations are.
They are human,
They are our representatives, and they are our leaders. Don't you think we should hold them to a higher standard?
Because that is Godwinbait. (You know who else was human? Hitler!)
We shouldn't expect more of our politicians than we would deliver ourselves.
We should expect at least as much as we would deliver ourselves -- else, why aren't we running? Why are we asking them to do the job instead?
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
"They are our representatives, and they are our leaders. Don't you think we should hold them to a higher standard?"
Are they super-human in some way? I don't think so. That leads me to believe that it's unreasonable to hold them to a higher standard. Corruption impacts all politicians.
If you dropped a bowling ball on your food 10 times and it hurt you every time, would you expect it not to hurt on the 11th time?
"We should expect at least as much as we would deliver ourselves"
And do you deliver perfection? If so then you should be running for president, but I doubt you do. It's not reasonable to expect someone else to be uncorrnptable when you yourself are not. I'm not saying that it's okay, or fair, or that it "should" be this way, but that's how it is and that's all there is to it.
Are they super-human in some way?
"Human" is not a fixed integer; it's a range. Is a crack-whore sub-human in some way?
I'd like to think that the crack-whore is human, and that the politician is human. But I would hold the politician to a higher standard than I would hold the crack-whore.
I don't mean "higher standard" as in "higher than the human range; superhuman" -- I mean it as in "higher than the minimum requirement of being human."
Because that's what you seem to be implying -- that the only standard we should hold them to is that they are human.
And do you deliver perfection?
No, but I don't deliver corruption, either.
It's not reasonable to expect someone else to be uncorrnptable when you yourself are not.
Am I corruptible? Show me how.
No, my only blind spot here is that, having not had many positions of power, I don't know what it would take to corrupt me, if it's possible. So I honestly don't know what I'd do as a politician. I'd like to think I'd be every bit as honest as I am now.
But that doesn't make me a hypocrite. It just makes me naive.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
It's true that you need to have a position of authority to be corrupt, so not having had significant authority wold lead to a lack of evidence. However, it seems like almost every politician who has been around for a while has had a corruption scandal.
There are other ways to tell that you aren't incorruptible. Have you ever lied to someone? This is an abuse of your power to control the perception of others for personal gain. Stealing is much the same, as is cheating. Yet these are all things that most people do very often. If you abuse the power of your words and your hands, it is probably reasonable to assume you would abuse other power similarly.
To me it seems that the problem with government is how we relate to it. We expect and demand perfection from imperfect people, and then when our unreasonable expectations are not met, we are let down. It's better not to have unreasonable expectations and decide what authority to give our leaders with the understanding that they are imperfect.
FFS!
1. All new U.S. states since circa the 1770s must be INCORPORATED territories BEFORE becoming U.S. states!
2. U.S. States are sub-divisions of a corporate city-state known as Washington DC, posing as government.
3. The CONstitution restricts government not corporations.
4. Corporations are CONtrolled by regulations and statute.
5. The definition of fascism is the convergence of corporate and government interests.
6. Washington DC, by default, is:
A. Colonialism, apparently MORPHED INTO -
B. Fascism.
7. TAKE YOUR PICK.
8. Now you know why the U.S. constitution is being violated by the so-called U$G.
RR
The waterboarding manual used by the CIA was taken from Chinese communists in 1957, which they used on Americans to force confessions - not gather information. So, how long have you been a member of the Communist party?
And before that, we sentenced Japanese soldiers to 15 years hard labor for waterboarding American troops. Are you saying he shouldn't have been punished for torturing American troops?
And finally, by the Administrations standards, John McCain was never tortured in Vietnam.
However, it seems like almost every politician who has been around for a while has had a corruption scandal.
That could as easily be an indication of a problem with our system, and not a problem with fundamental human nature.
I think it runs a bit deeper. A Dune quote: "Power attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible."
There are other ways to tell that you aren't incorruptible. Have you ever lied to someone? This is an abuse of your power to control the perception of others for personal gain.
Not necessarily for personal gain.
I can't remember lying recently. I don't know that I could say I've never lied.
Stealing is much the same, as is cheating.
And these, I don't do.
It's worth considering that no such principle is absolute -- there can be mitigating circumstances. That would tend to support this:
We expect and demand perfection from imperfect people, and then when our unreasonable expectations are not met, we are let down.
But to that, I would say that often, such circumstances don't constitute an excuse -- Frank Lucas (American Gangster) wasn't a particularly bad person, and we can understand his motivations. In the same circumstances, we might have done the same.
But when caught, he had to face the consequences. Our empathy doesn't excuse him.
It's not that I am particularly surprised that politicians are corrupt. What bothers me is that it's accepted, and not challenged -- that however much we might empathize with them (or demonize them), we don't often actually impeach them, and make them answer for their abuse of power.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
I'm not trying to excuse corruption. That would imply the authority to judge them. I do not have that authority. But I do know that their corrupt actions hurt me. It makes sense to try to limit the effects their corruption will have.
If we hold all our politicians to the standard that they must be perfect and incorruptible, we will have no politicians. The problem is not that the system is broken. Any "system" which grants power and authority is prone to abuse. We should try to limit corruption by removing the obviously corrupt from office. But that will never be enough. We need to limit the authority of government.