Slashdot Mirror
EFF Unveils Search Tool for FOIA Results
The EFF has released a beta version of a new search tool that lets you mine the documents the EFF has unearthed using FOIA requests and lawsuits over the years. Quoting: "In celebration of Sunshine Week, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) today launched a sophisticated search tool that allows the public to closely examine thousands of pages of documents the organization has pried loose from secretive government agencies. The documents relate to a wide range of cutting-edge technology issues and government policies that affect civil liberties and personal privacy." I tried a search for "border" among the documents relating to the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement and turned up 21 results and fascinating reading.
Next up - energy policy.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
...but couldn't they just make them searchable via Google? Why reinvent the wheel?
Enjoy your fascism.
Let me guess before looking, hundreds of PDF files with those annoying black lines through
that parts people are really interested in.
but i donate to EFF frequently too.
After Obama reversed himself on FISA I wrote his campaign demanding a refund of all monies I had donated to them. When I received said refund I donated every single penny (>$500) to the EFF. They do good work and unlike the ACLU they aren't hypocrites, at least as far as I can tell.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
bah that site is censored couldn't find any UFO
I'm glad the EFF is doing this. I haven't submitted any FOIA requests, but having heard tales of the bureaucratic mess it involves, I am not particularly excited to as well. The fact that the EFF is making this information which now has freedom more accessible can only be applauded.
Douglas Whitaker
They do good work and unlike the ACLU they aren't hypocrites, at least as far as I can tell.
hypocrite
Unless they're secretly fighting for individual gun rights, they're not hypocrites.
You know what he's talking about. The ACLU stands for civil liberties but then chooses to selectively uphold a very common interpretation of the 2nd Amendment (that individuals have the right to keep and bear arms).
It is by my will alone my thoughts acquire motion; it is by the juice of the coffee bean that the thoughts acquire speed
Unless they're secretly fighting for individual gun rights, they're not hypocrites.
They profess to fight for civil liberties yet ignore part of the Bill of Rights? They read every single part of the Constitution as broadly as possible when it fits their agenda while simultaneously claiming that the 2nd amendment is a "collective" right? They consider every single mention of "the people" in the Bill of Rights to refer to individual rights except for that one time?
Seems pretty hypocritical to me.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
I do know what he's talking about. The problem is it doesn't make any sense. Not everyone agrees on the meaning of the second amendment, and it doesn't automatically make someone a hypocrite if they disagree with you.
Given the reference to "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State," the ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right...We do not, however, take a position on gun control itself. In our view, neither the possession of guns nor the regulation of guns raises a civil liberties issue.
Usually I side with the ACLU but this reads like doublespeak. If they're against people having guns then they should just take the position that gun ownership is not a basic inalienable right, and disagree with the Second Amendment. I don't think they would waste their time trying to appeal it.
The individual vs collective argument is bullshit. Individuals are part of whatever "collective" they choose, no? The NRA can own guns but not its members? This makes no sense.
Unless they're secretly fighting for individual gun rights, they're not hypocrites.
They profess to fight for civil liberties yet ignore part of the Bill of Rights?
I'm not a fan of the ACLU for other reasons, but the last time I looked a their stance on the 2nd amendment, it was, essentialy, "there are other organizations, which are much better funded than we are, that are focussed exclusively on second amendment rights. Therefore, we'll direct our effort to protecting the other nine."
Doesn't seem hypocritical to me for them to devote their energy to the 90% of the bill of rights that needs defending, and not the 10% that has a large and active defense already.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Since when have the NRA been interested in defending The Constitution? They are quite happy to see the whole lot go, apart from the 2nd amendment, and the government know this. The NRA are the ultimate hypocrits.
The NRA will be the first in the queue for the free blackshirts when the shit finally comes.
Since when have the NRA been interested in defending The Constitution? They are quite happy to see the whole lot go, apart from the 2nd amendment, and the government know this. The NRA are the ultimate hypocrits.
Got any evidence to back up your claim that the NRA doesn't care about the rest of the Constitution? Either way though, they've never claimed defending all civil liberties as their mission. The ACLU has and that makes them hypocrites.
The NRA will be the first in the queue for the free blackshirts when the shit finally comes.
Do all ~4.3 million members get blackshirts or just the organization?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
I'm not a fan of the ACLU for other reasons, but the last time I looked a their stance on the 2nd amendment, it was, essentialy,
Look again.
Doesn't seem hypocritical to me for them to devote their energy to the 90% of the bill of rights that needs defending, and not the 10% that has a large and active defense already.
"In our view, neither the possession of guns nor the regulation of guns raises a civil liberties issue."
That doesn't seem hypocritical to you? The regulation of a right that has existed for hundreds of years and which is enshrined in the Bill of Rights isn't a civil liberties issue? I wonder if they take the same position on the so-called "free speech zones"?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those in common use at the time finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
In some countries heat seeking shoulder launched SAMs are in common use, but I wouldn't want my neighbors in possession of anything like that. And what kind of weapons aren't dangerous? Nerf guns? Come to think of it, the Second Amendment states the right to bear arms, it never mentions firearms.
Unless they're actively campaigning against the second amendment-- and as far as I've ever heard, they're not-- it's not hypocrisy, just directing resources where they're needed.
I am, however, not terribly happy about the ACLU for other reasons
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
A principle of the Information Age: Government is wise to organize itself and its records so it can swiftly and efficiently respond to freedom-of-information-act requests. Resistance to such requests is wasteful and makes government look out-of-touch. --Ben
Benjamin Wright, Dallas, Texas, benjaminwright.us
Unless they're actively campaigning against the second amendment-- and as far as I've ever heard, they're not-- it's not hypocrisy, just directing resources where they're needed.
I'm sorry but for an orginization that claims to be about civil liberties to come out and say that regulating a natural right "doesn't raise a civil liberties issue" is extremely hypocritical and deserves nothing but scorn.
There are other organizations, like the NRA, the CRPA, the Firearms coalition, several dozen PACs, and many more, defending second amendment rights. I'm much more worried about attacks on the other nine.
There are also other organizations actively working to infringe on our second amendment rights. I'm not aware of many organizations (other than the Government ;) actively working to undermine the other nine.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Come to think of it, the Second Amendment states the right to bear arms, it never mentions firearms.
But what does it say about monkey arms?
If I had a SAM, and my neighbor had a SAM, I'm not sure I'd be terribly afraid of my neighbor. I might be frightened enough to get a SAM if my neighbor suddenly got one. But, considering that it'd be a surface-to-air missile, I wouldn't be terribly scared of my neighbor, but of what he knows is coming.
All kidding aside, if I was competent in firearms, and my neighbor was competent in firearms, I wouldn't even blink twice about him getting firearms. If I was competent, but my neighbor wasn't, I would be pretty scared if my neighbor suddenly bought a gun and started showing it off. But I don't have a gun, and my neighbor has one, I'd be terrified.
And the popular mentality as been, and always has been the latter. This is the same kind of mentality that xenophobia comes from, but instead of guns, it's usually wealth. When somebody acquires an advantage or a perceived advantage, this type of fear causes everybody else to surpress that person. The correct course of action is to figure out how to acquire the advantage for themselves, to level the playing field. But nobody thinks that way.
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
If I had a SAM, and my neighbor had a SAM, I'm not sure I'd be terribly afraid of my neighbor.
I wouldn't be afraid of my neighbor either. But I would be TERRIFIED of airplane travel.
All kidding aside, if I was competent in firearms, and my neighbor was competent in firearms, I wouldn't even blink twice about him getting firearms. If I was competent, but my neighbor wasn't, I would be pretty scared if my neighbor suddenly bought a gun and started showing it off. But I don't have a gun, and my neighbor has one, I'd be terrified.
If you're both professional snipers, I guess it comes down to who gets off the first shot now, doesn't it? I'd hate to live in your neighborhood. Who would want to go through life guessing which of their neighbors they have to kill before they get killed first?
The correct course of action is to figure out how to acquire the advantage for themselves, to level the playing field.
THERE IS NO LEVEL PLAYING FIELD. This is life and death, not CounterStrike. Most people prefer not to live in war zones for a reason.
They're not being secretive about their position on the issue. They're being very up-front and honest about it. If they called themselves a civil liberties organization, never took second amendment cases and didn't explain the reason for not taking those cases, you might have a case for hypocrisy.
But they do state their position on the second amendment. By pointing that out, your link actually shows that they're not hypocrites. They don't fit the definition.
Now, I won't accuse you personally of this without evidence, but I've talked to other people that expressed the same sentiment, that the ACLU is hypocritical for their position on the second amendment. They often claim they would support "a real civil liberties organization." But it soon becomes apparent that they favor blasphemy laws, warrentless wiretapping and other unchecked government powers, and generally all sort of things that act against civil liberties.
These people are faking a virtue they don't have so they can attack the ACLU while claiming moral high ground. That fits the dictionary definition of hypocrite perfectly.
If you were a sniper, and your neighbors were competent snipers as well, you wouldn't snipe your neighbor for no good reason. If you started sniping your neighbors, your neighbors wouldn't just sit there. The threat of retribution is a huge factor. It keeps people civil and in line. People can't be bullied around anymore. And it makes people realize that the small, petty things are pretty inconsequential in the long run. It is the basis of the constitution, that the government fear the people, and the people fear the government. That's what keeps the government in line.
Having weapons is power, and power is freedom. If you love freedom, you will love power. Not power over others, which are only for oppressive cowards, but over oneself. Freedom is a responsibility. It is a burden. Use it right, use it well, or despite what the Declaraton of Independence says, it can be taken away (this already exists in the form of prison). Granted, not everybody wants it; most people probably want to be spoon-fed what to think and do. But that's more an indication that democracy is eventually doomed to failure. Those in government have power over others. And it is agreed that they work for the benefit of all, in exchange for society giving them this power. But if society has no power, no ability to fight back, then the government power is disproportionate to the power of the people. And then the government doesn't need to fear the people anymore, and can run them over at will. That is what has happened.
Generally, the more powerful a weapons is, the more control needs to be exercised, and more training needs to happen before it should be used. That is, the more powerful a weapon, the fewer situations it is appropriate for. A knife is a weapon. Anybody can use a knife with a few hours of instruction. As a tool weapon, it is probably the most versatile. A gun is a more powerful weapon. It requires hours of training to be able to be used. As anything else, it requires years of training to be able to be used well.
People say, "I don't want to spend all my time training to defend myself. I want to do other things with my time." That is their right. But it is not their right to say, "I don't want others to train, because I'm afraid of them." And it is not their right to impose this upon others. But that is what people do when they are afraid. They level the playing field, to the lowest common denominator. You see it with education, and everybody complains about how the "smarter" kids are held back by the "dumber" ones.
Society is so afraid of weapons, that even punching somebody is assault with a deadly weapon. The police charges that person for the assault at their discretion, but it doesn't mean that the law is written otherwise. If the person you punched was someone in the government or sufficiently connected to the government, you certainly would be charged with assault with a deadly weapon, regardless of the circumstances. That's what happens when the playing field isn't level. That's what happens when society no longer has power.
But in truth, what I speak of is an ideal world. It's not just about training. Part of weapons training is to learn the appropriate response to any given situation. The word "appropriate" automatically implies a degree of subjectivity. For such a world to exist properly, the entire culture must change. And that's never going to happen, certainly not overnight.
So there's no ideal. But it's not like shootings aren't happening even where guns are banned. It's not like there are no school shootings or murders in DC or NYC. So the current situation is ineffective as is. I'd rather live in a world knowing that my neighbor could shoot me a whim, than live in a world not knowing so, and eventually being shot by my neighbor on the same whim anyway. And I'd rather be able to defend myself, than leave it up to other people who might or might not, depending on their whims. Because looking at history, and speaking from personal experience, no matter how "good" or "right" I might be, I'll only reap the benefits of their protection when their goals coincide with mine.
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
I'd rather live in a world knowing that my neighbor could shoot me a whim, than live in a world not knowing so, and eventually being shot by my neighbor on the same whim anyway. And I'd rather be able to defend myself, than leave it up to other people who might or might not, depending on their whims. Because looking at history, and speaking from personal experience, no matter how "good" or "right" I might be, I'll only reap the benefits of their protection when their goals coincide with mine.
But that's the problem. Too many people want the illusion of safety over the ability to keep themselves safe. They're lazy, and want someone else to handle it, and by the time they realize that nobody is will be as willing to defend you and your family aside from yourself it will be to late. The news scares them about public shootings, but never seems to not that if someone in the crowd had their own gun and the ability to use it properly that it likely wouldn't have been so bad.
There is actually white boxes in the documents. A quick search revealed that they have chosen to censor the amount of money they have paid to AT&T et al. That can't possibly be a national security issue!
Quite funny how corrupt the system is actually (funny for those of us living in less corrupt countries, that is).
After Obama reversed himself on FISA I wrote his campaign demanding a refund of all monies I had donated to them. When I received said refund I donated every single penny (>$500) to the EFF.
OT, but I find that pretty depressing. US politics has lost all pretence that money is unconnected to policy: we'll do what you pay for, or your money back!
Sigh.
"And the meaning of words; when they cease to function; when will it start worrying you?"
I was very surprised that I even got the money back to be honest with you. I wrote that letter out of principle and expected to get a form letter back at best. Few weeks later I got a check in the mail.
Funny thing was that I specifically requested that they only refund the direct donations I had made. I had also purchased a number of items of merchandise (bumper stickers, t-shirts, etc) and didn't seek a refund for those items, figuring that I had gotten tangible items for my money. They refunded that money as well.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
example, i have just created two new wikipedia pages and edited another, showing that a system advertised as being developed to 'help humanitarian organizations fight disease' is also being used by the FBI to track suspects. my sources were these EFF documents which i read after seeing the slashdot story and doing a random search for 'iraq'
The response might have been a little different had they not had more money than they could spend.
(Since I've commented in this thread, I can't use mod points to upvote one of your comments about the ACLU's position on the 2nd Amendment, a position which tends to not get much scrutiny. While I don't consider their position hypocritical as much as unfortunate and dangerously naive, I appreciate you bringing it to light.)
The response might have been a little different had they not had more money than they could spend.
Probably. My only wish is that I could have gotten a refund for the five days I took off work and spent campaigning for them during the primaries. Got caught up in the Obama-mania (and my own personal dislike of Hillary and wish to see her defeated) and couldn't see the forest for the trees. Live and learn I suppose.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
That would be great if anything like that ever actually happened.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
I'm confused. Are you accusing me of lying about receiving the refund or claiming that Obama never reversed himself on FISA? In the former you are an asshole and in the latter you are hopelessly naive -- he went from "I will filibuster any bill containing telecom immunity" to voting yey for said bill.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Agreed.
The latter.
You are right. I am hopelessly naive and clueless. I didn't even know that the POTUS votes for bills! ROTFLMAO
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
You are right. I am hopelessly naive and clueless. I didn't even know that the POTUS votes for bills! ROTFLMAO
I take it back. You aren't naive and clueless. You are a fucking moron. He voted for it while he was a member of the Senate. See where it says "Obama (D-IL), Yea" on that page? Since your memory apparently only goes back to Jan 20th 2009, here is one of the news stories that covered when he promised to filibuster any bill containing telecom immunity.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
That article is dated October 24, 2007. Presumably you donated prior to that date? Beyond that, you are the moron for thinking that absolutes exist in the real world.
...
Give me any person on the planet and I will show you someone who made a statement in good faith that they did not hold true to when more evidence became available and/or the situation changed.
Also, you cited the promise but have yet to show me where he reversed. I'm not saying he didn't, but I never argued he didn't make the statement. Presumably you read a recent Slashdot article and concluded that Obama "reversed himself on FISA"? (HINT: He didn't). In any case, if you got a refund good for you. You will get all of the benefits of his presidency, complain the whole way, and have contributed nothing. You are a fine American citizen indeed.
Now off you go
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Beyond that, you are the moron for thinking that absolutes exist in the real world.
Where did I say that absolutes exist in the real world? All I said was that he failed to honor his promise not to support a bill containing telecom immunity.
Give me any person on the planet and I will show you someone who made a statement in good faith that they did not hold true to when more evidence became available and/or the situation changed.
The situation didn't change. He made a political calculation. In that respect he's no worse than most other politicians. It does go to show how empty his promises of a "new kind" of politics were though, doesn't it?
Also, you cited the promise but have yet to show me where he reversed.
I linked to his 'yea' vote for the FISA bill which contained telecom immunity. What more do you want?
You will get all of the benefits of his presidency
What benefits would those be? The increased national debt that my children's children will be paying off? A massive expansion of the entitlement system that's already on course to bankrupt this country in a few decades? More political games from the White House that promised to bring us a "new kind" of politics? Thanks, but no thanks.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
The phrase "off you go" is apparently foreign to you ;-)
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Apparently so is an in depth examination of politics to you, since you apparently weren't aware of Obama's prior service as a United States Senator.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Yeah. I thought he was a Janitor before running for President.
...
I have a life. I know how to delegate. I trust Obama most , which isn't the same as having blind faith. Anyone who says there is little difference between Bush and Obama would surprise me if they could tie their own shoes, so my expectations haven't exactly been shattered. Go through life believing you have a clue. Believe that a guy who openly ignores his oath saying that he will do whatever he wants as long as his dog and his wife back him isn't fundamentally different from Obama. In my experience no amount of common sense reasoning will force feed people like you a clue. There is a reason why "off you go" is the sum total of intellectual exchange I care to have with you. Now, seriously, off you go
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Anyone who says there is little difference between Bush and Obama would surprise me if they could tie their own shoes
Of course I never claimed that, so I fail to see why you would make that statement. Unless you are one of those partisan hacks that thinks anyone who disagrees with Obama has to be right-wing neo-con who longs for the days when the Texan was in charge.
Go through life believing you have a clue. Believe that a guy who openly ignores his oath saying that he will do whatever he wants as long as his dog and his wife back him isn't fundamentally different from Obama.
Yep, you are one of those hacks. I do find it amusing that Bush has been gone for almost two months and the Democratic partisans still can't let him go. You guys have more in common with the Republicans than you think -- you remind me an awful lot of the GOP hacks who kept foaming at the mouth over Bill Clinton months after GWB replaced him.
BTW, not that you care, but I never voted for GWB and rarely agreed with any of the policies he sought to implement.
There is a reason why "off you go" is the sum total of intellectual exchange I care to have with you
I don't know if I'd call anything coming out of your keyboard an 'intellectual exchange' but it sure is amusing ;) If you don't care to have it why do you keep coming back for more?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Yes it does, and you're a hypocrite if you disagree with me! :)
Which is more painful? Going to work or gouging your eye out with a spoon? Find out!
http://www.workorspoon.com