Using Fourth-Party Data Brokers To Bypass the Fourth Amendment

An anonymous reader writes "Coming out of Columbia Law School is an article about commercial data brokers and their ability to provide information about individuals to the US government despite Fourth Amendment or statutory protections (abstract, full PDF at Download link). Quoting: 'The Supreme Court has held that the Fourth Amendment does not protect information that has been voluntarily disclosed to a third-party or obtained by means of a private search. Congress reacted to these holdings by creating a patchwork of statutes designed to prevent the government's direct and unfettered access to documents stored with third-parties; thus, the government's access is fettered by various statutory requirements, including, in many cases, notice of the disclosure. Despite these protections, however, third-parties are not restricted from passing the same data to other private companies (fourth-parties), and after the events of September 11, 2001, the government, believing that it needed a greater scope of surveillance, turned to the fourth-parties to access the personal information it could not acquire on its own. As a consequence, the fourth-parties, unrestricted by Fourth Amendment or statutory concerns, delivered — and continue to deliver — personal data en masse to the government.'"

Comments

Bend over citizen

[davebarnes]

Loopholes. Always loopholes.

Re:Bend over citizen

[Anonymous Coward]

What's even more awesome than normal in this case is that they're not only playing Big Brother, but they're being tremendously fucking inefficient about it and getting information that's muddled by the whisper game. The waste of money through poor efficiency and accuracy AND violation of freedoms involved here has to be some kind of record.

Re:Bend over citizen

[joocemann]

Loopholes. Always loopholes.

The B.S. in this whole thing, that which stinks, is that whatever they are wordsmithing as 'fourth party' is STILL a 'third party'.

You can't get around it just by renaming it. Everyone on this planet knows the definition of 'third party' is NOT tied to the number of hands something has passed through at all.

WTF, really. Lets get a prosecution on this crap. The new administration is complacent in the old and has done nothing to bring JUSTICE to the US. Remember that, despite how you (and I) may have voted for the promise of a new era of honorable leadership.

Re:Bend over citizen

[digitalunity]

True, but consider the alternative. If the government couldn't collect any information without receiving it directly from citizens or under a subpoena, they wouldn't know shit! At first this sounds nice, but given the mostly advantageous activities of law enforcement, I think I like it more the way it is.

The real 800 pound gorilla in the room is the lack of strong federal privacy laws that dictate what corporations may do with our information. Companies should not be allowed to trade, buy or sell personally identifiable information about consumers except to those parties where needed to complete a transaction(i.e. credit bureau, DMV, etc.) without their explicit permission. Any time a consumer wants to give that permission, it should be an opt-in only scheme and it should be illegal for companies to limit their services to those who choose to participate in such information sharing programs.

Re:Bend over citizen

[joocemann]

I disagree. Everything can be accessed once they have a shred of evidence to warrant access. This has been standard since long before anything as silly as the patriot act. It's the whole point of a warrant, really.

Without evidence, I can hardly agree that anyone should ever have unblocked access to my privacy, or yours. I'm amazed that my military, which I served in, is not fighting people who break my constitutional rights.

I agree with you about companies. The problem is that our country permits companies to do almost anything they want in agreements with customers and they give the customers the consumer power. Sadly, we're all a bit too ignorant or careless to ignore the companies that abuse us. I wonder if that has anything to do with the oligo-glomerate associations that direct media/information and politics?

Re:Bend over citizen

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

The fact that the media knows exactly who signs their paychecks certainly doesn't help; but I suspect that there are more fundamental problems.

Up until fairly recently, the scope and utility of "indirect" surveillance methods has been extremely limited by hard technological constraints. The available direct methods were either highly invasive(having thugs ransack your house, looking for incriminating evidence, is hard to ignore), highly symmetric(the classic "small town where everybody knows everybody and somebody is always looking through their blinds" scenario), highly expensive(pretty much anything that involves sending out field agents and collecting big filing cabinets full of paper), or some combination.

Sheer cost presents one valuable passive defence against surveillance. Even if the state has unlimited legal power, their supply of jackbooted enforcers is finite, which places a hard cut-off on the set of people worth spying on. Invasiveness doesn't create hard cut-offs; but means that the state must either confine its surveillance to unpopular people, or pay a public relations/popular discontent cost every time it hits a sympathetic target. Symmetry is not a limit to surveillance per se(in fact, traditional societies with high levels of surveillance symmetry are often virtually transparent); but it effectively retards the development of opaque concentrations of surveillance power.

Contemporary technology has substantially relaxed all these restraints. Having your data silently copied and collated somewhere out in the aether of the complex modern economy is virtually invisible. No muss, no fuss, no doors battered down, no raids to upset the neighbours. It is also highly asymmetric. Only the most dedicated privacy wonks even know who knows about them, much less knows anything useful about those entities. This is, in part, because those entities take pains to hide("national security letters" vs. ordinary warrants, national security classifications, opaque corporations that, at most, are obliged to provide certain financial data, if publicly traded) ; but also because of the sheer complexity of modern civilization and life. If you live in a small town, knowing all possible surveillance entities requires basic social skills. In modern society, you basically need to be, or have access to, an investigative reporter, a lawyer, an accountant, a techie, and a fair surveillance expert yourself just to keep up. The final issue is cost. Two things have changed here. One is that the contemporary developed world is really fucking rich by the standards of any point in human history(at least until the fossil fuels give out). We can simply afford to spend far more on things that don't put food on the table without driving the population into the depths of squalor that provoke revolutions. The other is a little more subtle: a lot of modern surveillance data is "free" or cheap because its creation is subsidized by some other purpose. For example, the need to connect(and bill for) your cellphone calls is what finances the collection of substantial amounts of handset location, call record, and financial data. Transferring those data to the Feds is just a small additional cost. Advertising and marketing firms are perhaps even more dangerous in that regard. Once data concerning consumers becomes a commodity, the free market efficiently goes about collecting it. The Feds spend a great deal of money on surveillance, it is true; but these private sector processes are a potent multiplier of the bang they get for their buck.

This is why I am extremely pessimistic about the fate of privacy. Even if the political climate for privacy were better(and, frankly, it fucking sucks right now), we would still be crafting regulation against the tide of private sector incentives for surveillance. As any number of examples show, regulating against business incentives is hard. Further, because so much of modern surveillance is silent, and seemingly unobtrusive, it incurs a much smaller politic

Re:Bend over citizen

[Z00L00K]

But if the government pays to get the information - then they are actively searching, even though it's through a proxy.

Shouldn't the 4th amendment still be valid then?

I think that a court decision is needed here to determine if this actually is an acceptable way of circumventing the 4th amendment.

Re:Bend over citizen

[Interoperable]

The real 800 pound gorilla in the room is the lack of strong federal privacy laws that dictate what corporations may do with our information.

Yes, corporate third parties must be restricted in the way they handle personal information. Otherwise they may sell it to parties who could use it against us...such as the government.

Of course I agree with you that it is, in general, much worse if that information ends up in the hands of people who would use it maliciously for their own gain rather than in the hands of the government. However, when that information ends up in the hands of the government, the breach of trust is much more fundamental. The government can, under no circumstances, violate the personal rights that they exist to protect. The means and ends are both irrelevant when it comes to the violation of the rights and freedoms of citizens by the government. The breach of trust that occurs when such a violation is committed undermines the legal system and the democratic process.

Sure, the malicious "fourth-party" may be more likely to do damage to an individual than the government, but action can be taken against those who sell out personal information for gain. A few thieves won't do too much damage, but when the government circumvents the laws protecting the rights of it's own citizens, those laws and rights start lose meaning, which is far, far scarier.

Re:Bend over citizen

[Teun]

Indeed, the fact that privacy laws carry (in the USofA) different weight for private companies and the (Federal) government is one of the reasons the system is broken.

I'm working in the EU division of an internationally operating but UK based company and am partly responsible for privacy policies as demanded by local (Dutch) law.

The gap with UK law is big but the USofA is really another world.

We are only allowed to share personal data with US companies that each and individually sign up to a 'Save Haven' agreement as the US law does nothing to protect our employees privacy.

As a private person I can understand the deep felt desire by Americans for local freedoms though I don't agree with their fear of 'Big Government', therefore I see stronger and mandatory Federal law as the only solution to the problem of the presently fragmented sytem.

Re:Bend over citizen

[Anonymous Coward]

The real 800 pound gorilla in the room

The metaphor is "elephant in the room"
you've mixed it with "where does an 800lb gorilla sit"

Re:Bend over citizen

[mysidia]

Indeed...

First Party: The original person the information belongs to.

Second Party: An entity the 1st party directly shared the information with.

Third Party: EVERYONE or anyone else who got the information from any source other than directly from the First party.

Re:Bend over citizen

[fyngyrz]

Shouldn't the 4th amendment still be valid then?

The 4th amendment is valid no matter what. The constitution provides the authorizing mechanism for the US federal government, and to some extent, the state governments; from the definitions therein, there are only two kinds of power: Authorized powers, which comply with the constitutional requirements, and unauthorized powers, which do not.

The federal government is deep into the use of unauthorized powers, the most egregious of which are: Ex post facto laws, violations of the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 9th and 10th amendments, inversion of the commerce clause, and asserting article V powers (which require massive co-operation from the congress and the people) via direct misuse of article III, which manifests as a stroke of a judge's pen.

Because the constitution has no teeth, that is, there is no punishment of any kind defined for stepping outside the bounds it defines, there is no control mechanism available. Further, the government continues to create a web of unauthorized law to cover its tracks.

Consequently, any relief -- in the constitutional sense -- for any government use of unauthorized power, is impossible to obtain working within the system.

Re:Bend over citizen

[Atlantis-Rising]

This is an incredibly dubious piece of legal scholarship, so I must ask you to provide some detailed evidence that this is actually the case. Legal scholars everywhere appear to disagree with you.

Re:Bend over citizen

[b4upoo]

Perhaps the real answer is to allow individual citizens to study others, including corporations and the government using the same tools and tactics that are used to study citizens. Let the chips fall where they may. The chances are that unless someone is a really rotten egg that they will have just about the same number of negatives in their life history as everyone else. It sort of takes the power of negative information and castrates it.
                    Imagine being interviewed for a job and the guy mentions that pot possession incident in your past and your reply is that it is not equal to his drunk driving arrest nor his AA membership. Truth can be fun.

Re:Bend over citizen

[geminidomino]

...but given the mostly advantageous activities of law enforcement

I don't take that as a "given" at all. I want to see real evidence that the majority of law enforcement activities are "advantageous" to the citizenry (as a whole) before I will consider the possibility that you may be right.

Using, for example, the prison population of this country as a metric, it would seem that most of the activity is going after non-violent drug offenders, and I don't find that particularly advantageous to anyone except the various police organizations themselves.

Re:Bend over citizen

[geminidomino]

This is an incredibly dubious piece of legal scholarship, so I must ask you to provide some detailed evidence that this is actually the case. Legal scholars everywhere appear to disagree with you.

What is dubious about it? Who disagrees?

(And before anyone decides to pretend they are clever by shooting back with "fyngyrz made the assertion, so fyngyrz needs to provide the evidence", I will point out that the response could easily be distilled down to "Nuh uh. I know other people who disagree, but I won't say who they are."

Re:Bend over citizen

[Svartalf]

The Bill of Rights DOES have teeth.

Any time a Fourth Amendment rights violation occurs, any case, at any level, DIES on the spot and any evidence that stems from that violation must be discarded along with the case. Period.

It's just that you can't presume that the government has ANY requirements to observe the Bill of Rights restrictions on their activities- you have to assert these rights when they're applicable. Entirely too many people think that these rights are automatically activated. NO.

For example, in the decision of U.S. vs. JOHNSON (76 Fed, Supp. 538), Judge Fee states:

The privilege against self-incrimination is neither accorded to the passive resistant, not to the person who is ignorant of his rights, nor to one who is indifferent thereto. It is a fighting clause. Its benefits can be retained only by sustained combat. It cannot be claimed by attorney or solicitor. It is valid only when insisted upon by a belligerent claimant in person.

Your rights in this space are NOT automatic. You must insist upon them and they must actually apply. The reason why they "don't have teeth", etc. is because NOBODY seems to be willing to actually challenge each in every one of these when they encounter them for reasons of "you can't fight city hall", etc.

Re:Bend over citizen

[digitalunity]

Clever eh? Language changes. Adapt.

Re:Bend over citizen

[digitalunity]

I've posted many times before my opinion on non-violent drug offenses and the far reaching extension of the commerce clause to cover whatever the government wants it to mean to achieve an end.

A lot of law enforcement activities are important. I think we can all agree it's a good idea to have police monitor roads for people who drive dangerously, extremely drunk, people who steal, embezzle and defraud. If drugs were non-criminalized nationwide, I think a lot of people would find the police to be quite a lot more useful. The amount of money we spend as a country to fight a social problem with military and law enforcement solutions is staggering.

You're right though-the current drug laws create thousands of jobs, between local police task forces and special assignments, state police, the entire DEA and a significant need for prison beds stems from drug laws. End that and you kill thousands of jobs. There is big money in private run prisons and they will fight tooth and nail to protect that, to the detriment of our country.

Not to sound callous or anything, but the detriment to central south america, latin america and mexico is a hundred times more negative. Something like 10,000 people a year are being murdered a year in mexico over highly lucrative drug trafficking into OUR country. Legalize it and Mexico would rapidly become a safer and richer place to live.

Re:Bend over citizen

[geminidomino]

"A lot" is not "mostly" and even the ones you mentioned seem to be extremely... shall we say "selectively enforced?"

I'm not sure whether the mention of the whole anti-drug industry. Was it meant to be an advantage of the "drug war?" Because you could create another 10000 jobs by hiring 10000 torturers for use in criminal investigations. Needless to say, the bad far outweighs the good in that idea.

Re:Bend over citizen

[Gorlash]

No, such Bushism's do not constitute "changing of the language"....they simply demonstrate the idiocy of the speaker.

Re:Bend over citizen

[fyngyrz]

The Bill of Rights DOES have teeth.

Yes? Well, let's see.

Any time a Fourth Amendment rights violation occurs, any case, at any level, DIES on the spot and any evidence that stems from that violation must be discarded along with the case. Period.

No. For instance, the constitution does not authorize any search unless it is reasonable, and it defines reasonable as showing probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and the subsequent generation of a warrant. The country is pervaded by searches that violate the requirement; and they don't kill the cases, nor is the evidence discarded. There are search laws for within X miles of the border; there are search laws for searching US citizens at the border; there are search laws for searching people's cars, homes, and etc., all without complying with amendment IV. So you're completely wrong here. next:

It's just that you can't presume that the government has ANY requirements to observe the Bill of Rights restrictions on their activities

The constitution - also known as the highest law in the land - forbids such laws and activities to the federal government. So you can indeed presume that they cannot do so - they are not authorized to do so. If they do such things, they are in violation of the law.

For example, in the decision of U.S. vs. JOHNSON (76 Fed, Supp. 538), Judge Fee states:

Read amendment four. Find me where it states anything about "only people how fight get these rights. Back yet? Didn't work out so well, did it? It doesn't say, or imply, or reference, any such thing, anywhere. So the fact is, Judge Fee is making law where he has no authority to do so.

Your rights in this space are NOT automatic. You must insist upon them and they must actually apply. The reason why they "don't have teeth", etc. is because NOBODY seems to be willing to actually challenge each in every one of these when they encounter them for reasons of "you can't fight city hall", etc.

No. You miss the entire point. When I say that the constitution has no teeth, I mean that when government stooges like Judge Fee enter into unauthorized lawmaking such as your fine example above, which is the very first step and the primary responsible step in unauthorized government power acquisition, there's nothing in or about the constitution that says, for instance "...and if any government official or member of the judiciary violates this portion of the constitution, they shall be hung by the neck until dead." People like Fee can do anything they want, because the constitution is a paper full of laws without consequences. It'd be like a law that said you can't drive over 50 miles an hour, but authorized no fine, no license pulling, no insurance fee changing, no pulling you over, no nothing. It just says you can't speed. Such a law is absolutely toothless, unable to control you in any wise; and that is exactly how the constitution is written. It isn't about the defense of rights in a courtroom by the citizen; it's about a complete lack of defense against the government disobeying the authorizing document that gives them the right to exist in a very specific manner, and no other manner.

Re:Bend over citizen

[digitalunity]

Ending drug criminalization would kill thousands of jobs. No doubt exists about that in any reasonably intelligent person.

I'll leave exact figures to people who analyze such data, but I'd bet a significant number of those lost jobs would be reincarnated in the drug cultivation and distribution business. There are no advantages to the drug war. It's a black eye in our social conservatives attempt to combat social disease. Chronic use of addictive drugs with harmful effects such as cocaine and methamphetamines is a social disease. Entry into the criminal justice system is the start to a downward spiral for many people. They need treatment, not prison.

I do not advocate maintaining our current drug laws to keep thousands of people employed. It's bad policy for the citizens. It's bad finances for the government. It's just bad. The mention of those in the "drug war" were meant to outline just how many people and how many levels of government have an interest in maintaining the drug war. The war on drugs won't find an end until sheer financial desperation in the states or mass citizen unrest occurs leading those with power to enact change to get off their asses.

Re:Bend over citizen

[digitalunity]

If you got the impression that I regurgitate bushisms because of my sig, a Dick Cheney quote and the only reasonably intelligent thing he ever said, you're just wrong. To what other idiocy do you speak of? If you disagree with the content of my post, elaborate on that.

If you have nothing to contribute beyond sayings, phrases, metaphors, analogies, similes, grammar or spelling, take it to digg or wherever it is that bored children hang out at.

Re:Bend over citizen

[Gorlash]

The "Bushism" I refer to is your mixing/butchering of metaphors, which is one of his trademark failings. It has nothing to do with any quote from Cheney. Then, when it was pointed out, you brushed off as if it were a change in the language, thus trying to excuse a plain old mistake with a flat-out lie. You can attack me all you like, but it won't change the facts.

Re:Bend over citizen

[digitalunity]

It's not an attack. I speak the way I speak. You can mock Bush for his inability to say "nuclear" or pronounce many other common words and phrases all you want, but that seems pointless when there is so much more about him to mock. His inability to form well reasoned arguments comes to mind.

I don't change language. Collectively though, a society can redefine the meaning of the words and phrases with which they convey ideas. Redefinition occurs through changed usage. I don't believe metaphors can't be mixed or adapted. You think "800 lb. gorilla" and "elephant in the room" can't be mixed. I disagree. We can agree to disagree. Or not. Seems like a waste of time to me though.

Re:Bend over citizen

[Gorlash]

You just can't admit to making a mistake, can you? I'm done wasting my time here, you've made yourself perfectly clear. You're -never- wrong.

Re:Bend over citizen

[Atlantis-Rising]

Just as a very simple example, the 'violations' of the 9th and 10th Amendments that he cites are almost certainly based on entirely flawed understandings of what those amendments actually do.

Troxel v. Granville, US Public Workers v. Mitchell, etc, etc, etc.

Finally, from a political science point of view, government is sovereign and the US government is based on split sovereignty. The Federal government has an incredible amount of power- and it must, by simple virtue of its existence.

Re:Bend over citizen

[amoeba1911]

First: Me, as in First Person Shooter
Second: You, as in a Second Person Narrative
Third: He/She, where the person is neither You nor Me, it's a third party.
Fourth: there is no such thing because Third already encompasses everything that is not First or Second.

There's me (the one who wrote this), you (the one reading this), and them(anyone who is not me or you). You can't just invent a new name for them and pretend you're not referring to them when you say it's them, it's still them.

I find this play on words to be incomprehensibly stupid.

We're doing it to ourselves

[inKubus]

It's our government, and if it's screwing us it's basically us screwing ourselves.

Non-sequitur and off-topic, has there ever been a media anti-trust action in history?

Re:We're doing it to ourselves

[saaaammmmm]

Stop screwing yourself. Why are you still screwing yourself? The government is making us screw ourselves!!!

Re:We're doing it to ourselves

[joocemann]

It's our government, and if it's screwing us it's basically us screwing ourselves.

Non-sequitur and off-topic, has there ever been a media anti-trust action in history?

If there was, you probably didn't hear about it.

Funny? Scary.

Re:We're doing it to ourselves

[Requiem18th]

That's funny but at face value sounds unrealistic, the parent already said government is *us* so anything the government does is a reflection of our own will. Of course that's a lie, the government don't listen to the public anymore.

I don't claim to understand the problem or to know the solution. it is vast. I'll talk about Mexican politics but I guess its roughly the same in the US. My representative said during his campaign that he wold work to lower taxes. And the very next thing he did was rise them. Now I didn't vote for him but the people that did, did so because of his campaign promises, I assume so how could he betray his word so easily? We need a mechanism to punish politicians for betraying their people but what can we do?

During our last presidential election fraud a massive pacifist protest was launched to have every vote counted because thousands of votes from the poorest regions of the country were omitted from them count for no sane reason. The protest was huge and lasted for over a month. It didn't work.

Are we supposed to start a violent revolution (again)? But carrying weapons is illegal and even if it was legal using them is not, planing on using them is not. That's the very definition of thought crime but the same is true in the States. Just planning a coup d'etat is already illegal. Only way to accomplish this is keeping it secret and small ensuring failure. Even that is impossible to carry because the government spies on the population and the population has bought on the idea that it's ok for the law to access all private information it claims to need in the name of protecting us.

Worse yet, violent uprising *is* a crime so they wouldn't be even transgressing the law which they do regularly anyway.

Do we have any realistic (effective) options to punish politicians for not keeping their promises?

Re:We're doing it to ourselves

[wellingj]

"A small body of determined spirits fired by an unquenchable faith in their mission can alter the course of history." Mohandas Gandhi

Re:We're doing it to ourselves

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

It's our government, and if it's screwing us it's basically us screwing ourselves.

No, its the monied and powerful screwing those who don't have as loud a say in what the government does.

Non-sequitur and off-topic, has there ever been a media anti-trust action in history?

What do you mean by "action" - federal lawsuit? There certainly have been plenty of actions - like the creation of laws preventing one company from owning all the television stations in one area.

Re:We're doing it to ourselves

[countertrolling]

Do we have any realistic (effective) options to punish politicians for not keeping their promises?

And despite breaking their promises, they are frequently reelected by the same public. Why is everybody trying to pass the blame for their own failures? A mass movement needs to be consciously controlled if it is to be controlled at all. We shouldn't be talking violence before taking the very first step of accepting responsibility. So for now, even the feeblest effort to vote them out (including entire corrupt parties - democrat/republican, PRI/PAN, etc) might have the desired effect.

Re:We're doing it to ourselves

[Svartalf]

During our last presidential election fraud a massive pacifist protest was launched to have every vote counted because thousands of votes from the poorest regions of the country were omitted from them count for no sane reason. The protest was huge and lasted for over a month. It didn't work.

Mainly because it wasn't those votes that chose the President. The popular vote never DOES choose him or her. Never has. Maybe never will. The choice of President comes from the Electoral College- which is established as the rules in the Constitution (To which, changing this would require a Amendment...which hasn't passed to date...). The President is indirectly elected and as such, while there might have been some bogosity going on with the election everyone thought was going on, it didn't have the significance you or anyone else thinks it does.

If you want to fix things, you need to better understand how the rules apply to yourself, to them, etc. As for realistic options for punishing politicians? Get enough people pissed off at how both parties are doing and choke them out with independents or with a third party that will, at least for a time, honestly represent your wishes. So long as you have people voting party lines and the people in office towing the mark on what their party wants, you're going to keep having that downward spiral.

Re:We're doing it to ourselves

[nurb432]

You honestly believe the federal government is still 'us'? I don't. It has been a self supporting anti citizen entity for as long as i can remember and 'us' isnt a part of it anywhere. ( except that we are forced to fund it )

Re:We're doing it to ourselves

[jschottm]

If you want to fix things, you need to better understand how the rules apply to yourself, to them, etc.

It's also neat to read posts in their entirety, like where they say they're referring to Mexican politics.

Re:We're doing it to ourselves

[Requiem18th]

It's okay Mexican Politics work roughly the same.

I'd dare to say that Mexico has a stronger presence of alternative parties than the US, but the public is very polarized between two main parties PRI and PAN (read them as Mexican Republican Party A and Mexican Republican Party B) and people don't so much for one or the other but *against* one or the other, making it a two party system anyway.

I'm getting the feeling a Condorcet method could be the greatest advance one could add to Mexican elections.

Equal protection from government and corporations

[Rakshasa Taisab]

This is something that has had me puzzled for quite a while now. Why does the US have this fetish with keeping the government out of their private lives, yet allow corporations free reign to use, misuse, misplace and basically be asses with the same information?

In e.g. Norway all sectors are under the same law, this including corporate, governmental and academic uses. Obviously certain organizations are allowed to store more information than others.

Re:It's not a loophole, it's a feature.

[sys.stdout.write]

This demonstrates a remarkable failure to understand the article.

The SCOTUS ruled that Fourth Amendment protection against illegal searches and seizures doesn't extend to where you voluntarily disclosed the information to a third party. In response to these rulings, Congress passed a statute to prevent the government from overreaching. It appears to have a loophole, and I'm sure in time Congress will fix it.

It's going to be concerned about stuff like this, but making unsubstantiated complaints about veiled illegitimacy is completely counterproductive.

Re:Equal protection from government and corporatio

[CrimsonAvenger]

Why does the US have this fetish with keeping the government out of their private lives, yet allow corporations free reign to use, misuse, misplace and basically be asses with the same information?

Most of the Americans who want the government to stay out of their private lives would also like corporations to stay out of their private lives.

In general, we can usually manage to get laws passed limiting the extent to which corporations can abuse our private information, but apparently there's no real way to get the government to pass a law that limits themselves....

Facebook exists for a reason.

[Fantastic Lad]

When 'free' web services which are obviously tremendously expensive to maintain and which feature only a token handful of banner ads. . .

I don't know the economics of Facebook and Yahoo and Google, but it certainly seems that there would be a TON of money available for the kind of information they pull in. Do corporations actively resist selling a constantly renewable resource they specifically crafted their web sites and web applications to generate? I have no trouble believing that Facebook is selling everything they glean about you to the highest bidder. It's Google that I find myself wondering about; their "Don't Be Evil" thing is so effective that even I have the slogan burned into my mind.

But do those Google ads REALLY pay for entire data centers and dedicated trunks and hundreds of miles of fiber optics?

Really?

-FL

Re:Facebook exists for a reason.

[Anonymous Coward]

Today I'm feeling quite safe with google and - to a lesser extent - facebook, because they're doing fine financially and these data are what gives them an edge over their competitor so they want to keep it to themselves. The problem is when they fall in the yahoo category, "used to be great but now needs any cash it can find". Who's to say that five years from now facebook isn't gonna be faded out and trying to sell everything to stay alive too ? The very same facebook that knows pretty much everything there is to know about you ?

Worst part of that is that we can't even blame the companies that would do that; they're companies, selling what they can to make money is what they exist for. The control is supposed to come from the laws, which seems to be more and more screwed up all over the world with every year passing by ... When you take a second to really think about it, you realize our right to privacy is already completely screwed up, and nobody (5% of people) seems to care as long as their tv is working.

Re:Facebook exists for a reason.

[AHuxley]

The dreamy thing about google and facebook is you type in your inner thoughts and group with like minded people.
Its an intel dream. Just add their own and sit back and watch who joins.
They get IP's, details, gossip and locations.
If anything starts to connect in real life, they are in it from day one as trusted members or know who they are and can pull one aside to buy/blackmail.
The 1980's east bloc found it so hard to crack the CIA backed peace and church fronts. They flooded the groups with agents and helpers but found nothing useful in the short term.
The US has learned from all this and wants in on any new groups, the net is perfect. The end users think they are just 1 IP in millions and will slip under the radar, they are not.

Re:Facebook exists for a reason.

[TheLink]

I've always wondered whether the NSA is buying billions of dollars of Ads from Google, or various other companies :).

They can always get the money. The US military has "black budgets". The US Federal Reserve refuses to disclose where trillions of US dollars has gone to and only a few people are kicking up a fuss about it (there's a persistent senator and even Bloomberg has tried, but they're not getting much traction - the citizens care more about the notorious bonuses which are much smaller in amount).

So it's a matter of whether they can disguise the transfer well enough.

That said, google should be able to make a lot of $$$$ if they ever dealt in stocks and other financial stuff, and used what they know. While it's not quite insider trading, they do have an advantage. And they could do something innocuous and profit from it: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2008/09/six-year-old-st/

I doubt they do the second thing though. As for the first case, I do wonder who are buying all those ads - I know a fair number are, but fact is google typically finds your organization and products well enough without you needing to advertise.

Re:Facebook exists for a reason.

[Fantastic Lad]

They can always get the money. The US military has "black budgets". The US Federal Reserve refuses to disclose where trillions of US dollars has gone to and only a few people are kicking up a fuss about it (there's a persistent senator and even Bloomberg has tried, but they're not getting much traction - the citizens care more about the notorious bonuses which are much smaller in amount).

Hm. Yeah.

From what I gather about black budget projects comes from looking at the evolution of the development of military technology. But of course similar rules would also apply to intelligence. With military tech, the real and/or perceived need for secrecy turns into a black budget project which, after enough time, even a lowly office like the president is not always automatically briefed on, especially if the party values change flags from those which originally implemented the secrecy. The power shifts to the private sector where the lack of public oversight makes keeping secrets much easier. The problem is that this is a double-edged sword. The flow of money is not accounted for, and so putting money into one program doesn't mean it won't move to other programs which aren't even on the secret books. With enough money, advanced technology and paranoid self-protection, and with high level financial institutions and the media getting pulled into the act, (as has been shown beyond any question through FIOA documents), then secret industrial concerns gather steam and grow beyond public control altogether.

When the lobbies are connected to the very agencies funded by black programs instigated by the government itself, what is a humble Mister Smith in Washington supposed to do? The whole game gets massively complicated and paranoid and dead-locked into a certain type of momentum. The few un-corrupted politicians out there find that it's easier to just go with the flow because it's impossible to ever be informed enough to make an intelligent decision. Throw into that the ever-present element of psychopaths drawn to power, and the whole thing gets very, very ugly. That child prostitution ring involved at the White House (which nobody likes to recall or talk about) was just a small fin of the leviathan poking above black water.

I do remember, a couple of years ago now, trying to work out who originally provided seed capitol for Google and what their control stake was. I seem to remember that it came from three or four significant sources, and at least one was linked directly to names which were tightly involved with early microchip pioneer development, which in turn had deep roots in the clandestine miasma of WWII surveillance and radar technology. There was a great deal of hidden money, hokey-pokey spy stuff going on throughout those early days, and Google is only about three or four handshakes away from that bunch of Kevin Bacons.

But that was just a day of me thinking, "Oh dear! Look at all of these connected names and influences." Nothing solid, of course. Though, I do have a friend who was tight with management at a very high profile software company during the tech boom when everybody was playing fast and loose, and he assures me that Facebook has significant links to the intelligence community. I never tried to check up on that, but the basic premise seems altogether too likely to cast aside.

I'd still very much like to believe that Google the Good is what they say it is and that there are no dark tendrils woven into the mix.

On the bright side. . .

Even if there is a corrupt element, for such a vast snooping program to function, people need to feel open and unrestricted on the internet. And that level of connection allows positive energies to build as well. --And positive energies build geometrically; they are based on knowledge accumulation. (Two facts can automatically self-connect to reveal information which is otherwise hidden, and the more knowledge which gets fed into the network, the more quickly this kind of information combustion occurs.) The Da

Query

[PakProtector]

I am not a Lawyer, but wouldn't this make those agencies contracted to do this by the Government de facto Agents of the Government, and therefore any materials obtained by them in violation of the 4th Amendment poisoned?

Also, wouldn't a judge have to throw out such evidence as its method of gathering is a clear end-run around the Constitution?

Re:Query

[betterunixthanunix]

"wouldn't a judge have to throw out such evidence as its method of gathering is a clear end-run around the Constitution?"

In theory, sure, the courts would have to uphold our constitutional rights. In practice, the courts ruled that the government can use information collected by corporations, and congress created laws to prevent that behavior (a rare display of backbone). The courts also ruled that email stored on a third party system is not subject to 4th amendment protections.

Re:Query

[Hurricane78]

Protip: If someone creates a convoluted rule system, and you’re then buying into his rule system, and try to argue on the definition of those rules, you have already lost before you started.

The better way is, to not buy into their crapola in the first place, but have your own set of values that you are secure in. Then you can let them play in your reality, instead of you entering theirs. :)

Re:Query

[AHuxley]

"method of gathering is a clear end-run around the Constitution?"
The NSA used to set up near international trunklines and follow the Russians and their client states.
Where is the NSA now?
Their cubical workers are out in Georgia, Hawaii, Lynn, MA, Arizona, CA, Missouri, Virginia, Ohio via their own new builds or your local "Fusion center"
Why the US heartland? What is decades of spy on spy skill set doing in the fly over states?

Re:Query

[quickgold192]

As long as the govt didn't enlist the corporation to collect the evidence in the first place, the corporation would not be a govt actor (it would be a vigilantee). Also, if the govt is not on a quest for evidence, the info collected is fair game. Oh, and IANAL but I have had 3 credit hours of law which seems good enough for this thread.

Re:Query

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

As long as the govt didn't enlist the corporation to collect the evidence in the first place, the corporation would not be a govt actor (it would be a vigilantee).

Correct. Seems to be that historically, as long as the cops didn't ask - directly or indirectly - for the evidence BEFORE it was collected, then the collector is not considered an agent of the government.

However, in cases like this, it seems to me that an excessive use of such services creates an implied request for the collection of such information and in particular a contract to deliver any information in an ongoing fashion would pretty much define them as acting on the behalf of the government. That they might have other customers for the same information should not be enough to void that relationship either.

Re:Query

[Fantom42]

Protip: If someone creates a convoluted rule system, and you're then buying into his rule system, and try to argue on the definition of those rules, you have already lost before you started.

The better way is, to not buy into their crapola in the first place, but have your own set of values that you are secure in. Then you can let them play in your reality, instead of you entering theirs. :)

Protip: If someone creates a set of values, and you're then buying into these values, and try to argue on the definition of those values, you have already lost before you started.

The better way is, to not buy into their crapola in the first place, but have your own convoluted rule system that you are secure in. Then you can play in your own invented reality, instead of leaving your mother's basement. :)

Sharing vs taking.

[khasim]

Why does the US have this fetish with keeping the government out of their private lives, yet allow corporations free reign to use, misuse, misplace and basically be asses with the same information?

At the most basic, it is a difference between voluntarily sharing the information versus involuntarily having it collected.

Corporations compile the information about your purchases and such in order to persuade you to purchase their products.

Governments compile the information about you in order to limit your freedom.

Re:Sharing vs taking.

[Cyberax]

"At the most basic, it is a difference between voluntarily sharing the information versus involuntarily having it collected."

Do you voluntary provide information about you to LexisNexis ?

Thought so.

Re:Sharing vs taking.

[AnotherUsername]

Governments compile the information about you in order to limit your freedom.

Are you kidding me? Yes. The only reason the government exists is to limit your freedom. That's obviously the only reason that the government has information on you.

It has nothing to do with figuring out how many representatives your area should have in government.
It has nothing to do with figuring out how many police officers, firefighters, and paramedics your area needs in order to provide sufficient coverage.
It has nothing to do with figuring out if the school you went to is providing a good education.
It has nothing to do with figuring out if you are owed veteran benefits if you were in the military and deployed.
It has nothing to do with making sure that the various utilities are sufficient for your area, so that you don't have blackouts all the time.
It has nothing to do with anything that could possibly be good. The only reason the government could possibly have for compiling information about you is because it wants to limit your freedom. Give me a break.

Re:Sharing vs taking.

[aaarrrgggh]

Credit reporting agencies would be a better example.

Re:Sharing vs taking.

[Romancer]

Interesting how you couldn't even get an example that would be identifying of an individual. This is pretty much what we are all talking about here. Not statistics that are population based, but individual pieces of information that are linked to you as an individual.

The rebuttal is obviously still needed but the examples are telling of what people believe about data mining. Incorrectly.

Not even your "school you went to is providing a good education" is individually specific since the stats are recorded at the school level and then reported in order to get funds without the student IDs attached to a long "premenant record" detailing lunch choices in grade 9.

The "if you are owed veteran benefits if you were in the military and deployed" is kinda funny that you bring up since it's working for the government to protect freedoms but it still doesn't represent what we're talking about. That's not the same as gathered information dince it's first of all, a fact, on record, at the organization that is supposed to handle the processing of the checks and members recieving benifits. It's their data as much as it is yours.

This is about shifting data from the parties involved in the actions required to make it in the first place, to an organization that only wants the data for the sake of the data, not to give you another check, get it?

Re:Sharing vs taking.

[jlarocco]

None of the things on your list require any kind of private information that wouldn't already be available in the government's own records.

In the context of the 4th amendment, gathering information about individuals is very much tied to limiting freedom, because the implication is that the information will be used to prosecute and/or punish them.

Re:Sharing vs taking.

[cyberthanasis12]

I don't know about LexisNexis.

But do you "voluntary" provide detailed information about yourself to the insurance company (which in many cases is a private corporation)? Well, where I live, it was my right to deny to provide the information, but if I didn't, I would not get insured.

What about registering software? For example a friend bought the 3 licenses of an anti-virus, and he had to register giving his name and e-mail, which should not be fake.

Re:Sharing vs taking.

[selven]

No I don't. I don't have any relationship whatsoever with LexisNexis.

Re:Sharing vs taking.

[Vegeta99]

C'mon mods. He's named Thomas Hobbes, and says the state of nature is every man for himself (war of all against all), with all rights reserved for himself (that is, Man in the state of nature can kill you to take your wallet. You better hope you're bigger. He also says, quite famously, that life in a state of nature, is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short".

Now, you'll see that I was saying both posters were right. To see it as a troll would mean you didn't pay attention in social studies in high school.

Pay in cash

[AHuxley]

All that 'discount' is really you signing over your life to a set of private databases.
The US gov also buys the same info in bulk.
Then you have the shadow security and marketing sub set that feeds the US gov a stream of top quality filtered info on US suburbia ie You the US slashdot reader.
The terror watch list will never go down and they will milk it for their investors and shareholders for generations.
Lists are just a small part of a huge cash river of your tax $ paying to keep a few 1000 of you safe from.
Note how the deals, tv games and send in for a discount forms all want your email now to ;)

Fourth parties?

[Lakitu]

Isn't a fourth-party just another third-party?

There is no fourth party.

[topham]

There is no such thing as fourth party.

Third party is used to define a party not directly involved. A third party to a third party is still a third party.

Re:Equal protection from government and corporatio

[AHuxley]

Corporations write laws in the US. If a left leaning type starts getting ideas, his or her 'aid' will pull them back in line as they worked for or want to work for the area their boss is to be watching, regulating.
Do you expect to get a great job if your boss was screaming about public health care, land mines, lead, mercenaries having fun with children, drugs and the CIA, water quality ect.
All that is taboo in the USA.
If the advisor fails, the left or right swaps out the right or left with a more corporation friendly person and team.
A man or woman who knows who pays for their lifestyle, elections and a few naughty extras.
If its a mess and mid term, just blackmail or force a recall. Fox will get the "left" trouble maker, the liberal blogosphere the right.
If they are clean, work on the family tree or get someone close to them to make them fail.

Re:Equal protection from government and corporatio

[joocemann]

We're not like that because it is cold in Norway and it would be costly and hard to make the move.

Just please don't claim we have WMDs before invading to bring us the Democracy you think we deserve... we know we have em.
----

Don't you wish we could get the best things from the top governments and establish that? I sure do. Hell, I bet most of our politician's on a personal level would appreciate it as well. The problem is that those changes are not in line with corrupt political processes that directly influence our every word in politics.

Wtf is a revolution? The facade of a fresh start, only to be subverted by the exploits of man in a system bidding *money* as a prize, pitting us against each other in competition for survival... We've done that once, and over 200 years later we're finding out its the same turd with the same peanuts.... it just looked liked it flushed down for a little while.

If we don't see the problem as a result of true causes, our cultures, our ethics, our ideas (such as money), then we won't ever really fix it. If you've read this and you can't imagine a functional world without money, you're not trying, or able, and your simple brainwash will always be a roadblock to progress.

Re:Equal protection from government and corporatio

[Spud Stud]

"Why does the US have this fetish with keeping the government out of their private lives, yet allow corporations free reign to use, misuse, misplace and basically be asses with the same information?" Because corporations cannot use (misuse) said information to jail people.

What does LexisNexis have about me?

[khasim]

They'll have nothing that isn't available to anyone who would spend the time to go to the courthouse and look up the legal documents.

So yes, the information that LexisNexis has about me is voluntarily provided EXCEPT in the cases where the disclosure was mandated by law (legal records).

Its due to misunderstanding of law

[bussdriver]

The same literal minded thought that insults the intelligence of the legal system by playing technical games with clear intent to violate the law, allows 3rd/4th/5th party circumvention. This same literal thinking allows corporations exemption from all laws imposed upon government.

In the USA corporations are thought to be separate entities and given ridiculous levels of power (which hasn't always been the case.) The truth is that corporations ARE government entities whose entire existence and basic operation depend upon government. Simply because a kind of government created organization is "independently" managed does not mean it is not a government entity. Therefore, corporations fall under the classification as government unless specifically specified otherwise (or there may be a blanket law which may exist, I don't know. If it does exist, then the government clearly agreed with this logic.)

People get upset when government exempts itself from the laws and creates excuses for doing so. But if they can create a generalized hack that is less obvious... By empowering a 3rd party they pay... individuals being more difficult to use & scale; the corporation is perfectly suited to this task.

Re:Equal protection from government and corporatio

[The Mighty Buzzard]

Wow, you managed to keep from sounding like a complete nutter right up until your last paragraph.

Re:Equal protection from government and corporatio

[AnotherUsername]

I personally trust the government far more than I trust corporations. The government isn't a for-profit organization. Corporations are. Therein lies the difference. I truly wish that the government would regulate corporations far more, especially how corporations manage information on people.

Re:Equal protection from government and corporatio

[joocemann]

That's funny. Our predecessors lived without money. Birds live without it. Mice. Rats. Bacteria.

Sometimes we find intraspecies competition in nature, but often we find intraspecies cooperation.

Given models of similar organisms to us, we have observed competition for mates, but not competition for survival among the same species. And so not only can I imagine a world without money, a world of cooperation and completely varied culture (not nature.. don't blame nature unless you've got facts on this one); but I can also postulate that the competition for survival within our species may likely be caused by the existence of money.

In nature vs nurture, nurture goes a long frikkin way with humans. I observed a flock of birds in a huge V today. I noticed how every bird knew to immediately repeat the bird ahead of itself, and so they moved in a very short-time delayed unison. You could see the wave of reaction move from front to rear. I couldn't help but think about how we've developed a culture of individualism and self interest; that we could never get 100+ humans together and have them all cascade each others actions for a greater good... not with our current beliefs and trainings from our culture. It doesn't help that some people are so firmly washed with it that they cannot imagine a world outside of the box they were assembled in.

Your Constitutional rights

[Tumbleweed]

Don't worry, both major political parties will do the same thing to correct this injustice! And both will blame the other party, while doing nothing about it.

Re:Equal protection from government and corporatio

[Tumbleweed]

We're not like that because it is cold in Norway and it would be costly and hard to make the move.

Just please don't claim we have WMDs before invading to bring us the Democracy you think we deserve... we know we have em.

Lutefisk _is_ considered a biological weapon outside of Norway, you know.

So, would you like to be the 52nd state (after Canada, of course - they have dibs), or a territory like Puerto Rico? If you choose to become a state, you get free flags. If you choose to be a territory, you get less hassle, but no flags. A difficult choice, I know, so take your time.

Re:Equal protection from government and corporatio

[spiffmastercow]

The US is a corpratocracy. Signing your life over to your corporate overlords is so ingrained in the culture that nobody even thinks about it anymore. We only have a federal government so that we can keep up appearances.

This makes no sense

[Yaur]

I don't see how they can just radically redefine a word that is a common use with a generally well understood meaning. If this becomes the "real" definition than that would seem to make just about every NDA and non-compete (among other things) written to date worthless.

Re:Equal protection from government and corporatio

[zippyspringboard]

Here in the USA most of us have been duped into thinking that the Government and Large corporations are at odds with each other. Instead of realizing that each represent a consolidation of power, and pose similar threats (and more often than not work together). We spend so much time divided and arguing about who represents "evil" ( the Govt or the Corporations) that they both pretty much get to do whatever the hell they want.

Re:Equal protection from government and corporatio

[Mr. Slippery]

Because corporations cannot use (misuse) said information to jail people.

Dmitry Sklyarov might disagree.

The government is, effectively, the enforcement arm for corporate power (and all other sorts of private power).

Re:Copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

but if you believe that, then the phone book, and all data in it is copywritten. It's a "good thing" that data itself can not be copywritten. If that weren't the case, then all information would be copywritten.

Re:Information wants to be free man...

[zippyspringboard]

It's not actually free unless EVERYONE has access to it. If my personal information is being SOLD that seems to indicate it's not very free. And furthermore, I suspect that the Govt and The Corporations involved are working very hard to keep much of their personal information from escaping and becoming free.

Re:Equal protection from government and corporatio

[Bob_Who]

Good point. The issue should be that corporations should not have more rights than our government or its citizens. Then again, shareholders and their lobbyists are not necessarily American. Maybe this is how unemployment can go up to 10% in the same year that the stock market gains 20% . Corporate interests no longer serve the citizens, perhaps.

Re:Equal protection from government and corporatio

[CodeBuster]

Because corporations cannot use (misuse) said information to jail people.

In the US we also have longer prison terms than any of the EU countries, with the possible exception of the UK, for similar crimes. This is mostly due to decades of "get tough on crime" initiatives commonly introduced by politicians to score political points with ignorant and misinformed constituents. Additionally, there are many more "mandatory minimum" sentences for crimes committed here in the US which tie the hands of judges and require harsh punishments; even for non-violent or first time offenders. Finally, a felony conviction in the US these days is like a modern day "scarlet letter"; almost certainly punishing those convicted even after a sentence has been served with lower income, job discrimination, and social ostracization (i.e. no more forgiveness or second chances). So perhaps now the GP can understand why some of us (the ones who can still think for ourselves anyway) are so concerned about an overreaching and powerful government that doesn't respect privacy and pokes around in people's private affairs.

Re:Equal protection from government and corporatio

[the_fat_kid]

Because corporations cannot use (misuse) said information to jail people, yet.

There fixed that for you

Re:Equal protection from government and corporatio

[wellingj]

.... or so the theory goes.

Re:Equal protection from government and corporatio

[wellingj]

I know it's in my sig but I'd like to hear your well thought out rebuttal to this. Then you might be taken seriously.

Re:Equal protection from government and corporatio

[wellingj]

And statists always forget that the easiest and fastest way to change a corporation is to stop giving it money, which is not possible with the government. It's for this reason that it takes tens of years to change the government, but corporations can be made, broke, and resurrected in better forms in tens of months. The government doesn't have any interest in being good because it's survival based less on being good and more on being unobservable.

Re:Copyright

[benchbri]

There was a case about phone book copyright. can't be asked to look it up now, and I don't know the result, but hey, it's three in the morning and theres half a bottle of whiskey left over from last night next to me.

Re:Copyright

[mysidia]

Feist v. Rural, US Supreme court 1991, telephone companies do not have a copyright on telephone listings.

Copyright covers creativity, not the mere act of collecting existing information.

However, there are things they could do to make their listings as a whole come under copyright : things like adding 'creative' fake entries, inserting jokes, or various other bits of miscellany in the pages of the directory, that involve a creative process.

But the actual information, as in real names, and phone numbers, is not copyrightable.

It was the whole point of the Database directive in Europe.

Additional protections/restrictions on the use of databases.

Databases aren't subject to copyright, so some big companies felt they needed a law to allow them to restrict use of their publicly accessible databases in ways they couldn't otherwise

Re:Equal protection from government and corporatio

[glitch23]

However the US government will gladly pass laws that expand its limits and/or size. It all comes down to the government being corrupt in many areas, down to specific members of Congress. Corporations can lobby Congressmen easier and more effectively than individual citizens. Congressmen will listen to the corporations more than the citizens who voted them into office.

Ghandi, eh?

[fyngyrz]

"A small body of determined spirits fired by an unquenchable faith in their mission can be taken without warrants, have their property seized, be securely imprisoned, not be given access to lawyers, or even a phone call, get waterboarded, give up all their co-conspirators, and disappear forever." --fyngyrz

Re:Ghandi, eh?

[wellingj]

And so people will talk even more about oppression by state. No one said it would be fun.

Re:Ghandi, eh?

[telomerewhythere]

I personally am very interested in what is happening in Iran. Mousavi and co. seem to be getting close to actually doing something. But on the flip side, think of Al Queada and re-read the quote by Gandhi. Still very accurate.

As regards your sig, the original quote goes more like "The love of money is a root of all kinds of injurious things." I, for the life of me, do not know why it is misquoted so much.

Re:Ghandi, eh?

[wellingj]

It's only a misquote if you think I'm quoting from one source but am actually quoting from another.

I agree with you statement about Al Queada. The problem is that the US largely still refuses to ask the deeper questions of 'why'. So goes the question on global warming and so goes the question on terrorists motives. It's a solved subject to one politician or another, but in reality they both deserve much more thought.

I cheer for the people of Iran. May they reform their country though their own means without US meddling. If we do meddle it will likely turn out no better than North and South Korea.

Re:Ghandi, eh?

[Attila Dimedici]

It's only a misquote if you think I'm quoting from one source but am actually quoting from another.

So because you quoted from a source which misquoted the original source the OP is wrong? The OP didn't say that you were misquoting, they only said that your sig was a misquote.

Re:It's not a loophole, it's a feature.

[pmontra]

Maybe the loophole has been the creation of a new business category: I knew that there are two parties in a contract and everybody else is a third party. I learnt about fourth parties a couple of minutes ago. It could be that I'm ignorant but I can't help thinking that they've been playing with words to work around rules. They should have changed them instead.

The term fourth party doesn't seem widespread: it's about 1/1000th less frequent than "third party" according to google search. Its use seems related to politics (four party systems) and logistics. By the way this ./ article made the first page of http://www.google.com/search?q=%22fourth+party%22

Re:Equal protection from government and corporatio

[flyingfsck]

The USA doesn't really have privacy laws. Canada and a few other countries do. That is why it is always an argument in the USA - their laws are weak on privacy.

Data Protection Act

[keean]

The UK has the Data Protection Act to prevent this kind of thing. Companies storing personal data must officially register, and must not share the data without the person concerned giving permission. You have the right to see a copy of any data held about you on payment of a small fee (to cover administrative costs). The law even prevents govenment departments from sharing data.

However, a recent amendment was passed that allows a minister (the Home Secretary I believe) to grant exemptions to this, and to compel disclosure from third parties - this was under the pretense of counter terrorism, but no safeguards were built into the procedures, so the exemptions could be used for political purposes.

Re:Equal protection from government and corporatio

[pmontra]

The assumption is that people spend time producing things they don't need and use money as a tool to facilitate the exchange of that time with the time someone else spends producing the things they need. Example: I write sw that I don't need but I need food somebody else produces. If you remove the causes for this assumption is currently true you remove the need for money.

There are some parts of this world were there is little need for money, basically everywhere people produce or collect from the surrounding environment nearly everything they need but that's impossible in areas with more than very small population densities. The kind of organization we need in a world with urban-like population densities requires either money or that a lot of people volunteer to spend time doing unpleasant activities, something that I feel difficult to believe.

There are some sci-fi books with automatic factories that create for free all the stuff people wish but that will be just sci-fi for a long time. Furthermore human nature and physics plays against it. Example: a lot of people might want a house at the sea front of tropical islands but space there is a finite resource. Who gets those house?

Re:Equal protection from government and corporatio

[mspohr]

In general, we can usually manage to get laws passed limiting the extent to which corporations can abuse our private information, but apparently there's no real way to get the government to pass a law that limits themselves....

Actually, I think it is the other way around. Corporations pretty much run the government and they prevent laws that would restrict their access to information. Corporations collect lots more personal information and use it with limited disclosure for all kinds of reasons that the government is prohibited from doing.

Indeed, the whole point of this article is that corporations have information that the government is prohibited from collecting so the government is trying to do an end run around these laws to get at the information that corporations have but it is currently prevented from collecting.

We would be much better off with stronger laws that prevent corporations from collecting this information. I personally am offended that corporations can collect financial and medical information on me and sell it to anyone who is willing to pay the price.

Re:Equal protection from government and corporatio

[Rakshasa Taisab]

No....

You got the Privacy Act of 1974 which limits only _GOVERNMENT_ use of personal information. In 2006 several laws were attempted passed, but got rejected cause they would increase the cost of startup companies doing business.

WTF is that? Is not the cost to society worth mentioning? The cost to the 700k people every year in the US that has their identity stolen not a part of the equation... When the control of corporate America is so lax that CC companies don't even bother to check if the SSN matches the name on the application?

Re:Equal protection from government and corporatio

[wellingj]

So in a nutshell, you and I couldn't have this conversation (if you call it that) in a world without money because it would be incapable of producing all of the technology that makes it happen?

I took some liberties. Am I putting words in your mouth?

Re:Equal protection from government and corporatio

[pmontra]

I see your point but I think your conclusion doesn't take into account that people like to invent new things and that there will always be leaders to motivate other people to help them researching and building new stuff. So progress won't end if we had sci-fi all-you-can-wish factories but people that just want to eat, drink and get tan will be able to bore themselves to death. IMHO that's better than forcing them to work all day just to stay alive.

Re:Equal protection from government and corporatio

[moortak]

Yeah, FISA never happened.

Re:Equal protection from government and corporatio

[joocemann]

You understood me backwards. I am speaking from the US.

Re:Equal protection from government and corporatio

[joocemann]

Before barter there was cooperative existence.

I am unique in that so many anonymous cowards like yourself (trolling and hiding behind anonymity) are so wrapped up in a simple line of thought that you'd rather watch Ouch My Balls than make an effort to actually apply your brain and knowledge to something as useful as brainstorming.

Later coward. Reply with a handle or get ignored.

Yea. and just as we were being fed with the 'great

[unity100]

america, the country of freedoms, boo boo left, left is no freedom etc etc in the china porn crackdown thread by the right wing nutjobs.

i see, america is a right wing country, where you are 'free' and you are 'private'. yet, apparently those privacy and freedom are all in the hands of private corporations, instead of state it seems.

if i would have to make a choice, i would rather have my freedoms in the hand of the state, instead of some fucking private party. at least, i have a legal claim to the state, whereas, i dont have shit of a claim against a private party.

Re:Equal protection from government and corporatio

[CrazyDuke]

It's because we suffer under the delusion that corporations cannot be part of the amorphous entity known as government.

Re:Equal protection from government and corporatio

[joocemann]

I will first tell you that Ayn Rand is an effective and influential philosopher, but most of what she claims is flawed in that it is based off assumptions that are not universally rational.

Lets begin. The beginning of the article makes clear where the whole basis of the argument fails, which will likely be reiterated as I analyze the rest of her arguments based on these assumptions.

"Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears, or of the looters, who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce."

I will tell you it fails because it:
1) Assumes that a human culture (not our current one, but ALL POSSIBLE cultures) *must* regard fellow peoples as moochers.
2) Assumes that man will absolutely and always loot, or take by force.

These assumptions she makes are unfounded. I cannot prove that there absolutely *can* be a theoretical culture (though it has been observed in some small isolated communities). But she has done nothing to prove that man absolutely IS the way she assumes. Her assumption is a product of post-facto observation of our current culture, but does not give reason to know for sure that it is absolute.
---

next flaw.

"When you accept money in payment for your effort, you do so only on the conviction that you will exchange it for the product of the effort of others. "

In this, Rand assumes that there is no charity, or that I would not receive an equity of my effort and simply pass that benefit/equity to my peers. Charity is observed all over the place, so even in our current culture she is flawed in this. And beyond that, the sheer statement she makes precludes that a person would absolutely and always receive money for their effort.

Since this is long, I will simply tear apart the paragraphs.

3rd paragraph: She assumes that all goods and wealth (which is being used in place of money, but we know is NOT money) are products of man's intelligence. An apple is not produced by man. water is not produced by man. They are present and exist in our natural world, they are goods, and they have a value (which is much more akin to wealth than 'money' is).

4th paragraph: In this paragraph Rand assumes that she can define honesty, or that her definition of honesty is absolute. This is not true nor proven. She has not shown us anything to prove that our cultures *require* an understanding of honesty in the definition she makes. Simply because I exist and I can disagree, I prove her wrong. I would say an honest man is one who does not lie, but being my fellow man I would love to give more than he may give back for a greater good of my species and planet. Ayn Rand cannot be right because I exist with my own belief to prove her assumptions of all people to be wrong.

5th paragraph: This paragraph assumes, again, that charity does not exist or that all possible human cultures MUST be in competition or at least some state of quid pro quo. Her assumptions are based on her observation of our current culture, but speak in ways that would serve to describe all universally possible cultures. No facts prove this.

6th paragraph: Again, assumes that money must always exist, that cultures cannot do work without feeling need for compensation.

7th paragraph: The first sentence is observably true. Money does no necessarily buy happiness; though it is evident that money can buy happiness for some.
---

I could go on picking the rest of this to pieces but it's pretty well destroyed by now in that I've made it very clear that she makes several assumptions that are by no means absolute and are not rationally founded.

I hope you take me seriously when I say that is is possible to change our cultures, our ways as people, our beliefs, our methods and interactions, our values. I hope you take me seriously when I urge you to brainstorm and imagine yourself in a culture that operates in these differences; to not even try is merely a personal wall of resistance to maintain

Re:Equal protection from government and corporatio

[The Mighty Buzzard]

Hmm? Oh, no... I've given it quite a little bit of thought and decided you're taking a position that is at best ignorant and at worst utterly vile and reprehensible.

I'm fairly certain you don't even understand what money is and absolutely certain that you haven't thought through all the ramifications of this fruitloop idea.

Re:Equal protection from government and corporatio

[geminidomino]

Kind of bit yourself in the ass with that particular response. Just made yourself look like a Rand nutter flaming a Roddenberry nutter.

Re:Equal protection from government and corporatio

[geminidomino]

Before barter there was cooperative existence.

Yes. Grog "cooperated" with Cronk by graciously having his head crushed in so that Cronk could avail himself of Grog's fresh brontosaurus burgers.

Re:Equal protection from government and corporatio

[CrimsonAvenger]

You got the Privacy Act of 1974 which limits only _GOVERNMENT_ use of personal information. In 2006 several laws were attempted passed, but got rejected cause they would increase the cost of startup companies doing business.

You are assuming, as many do, that "government" is synonymous with "federal government".

We also have State governments around here, which are quite capable of passing laws on their own.

I note that I received in the mail this morning a card "amending" my customer agreement with AT&T. Which included a line to the effect "this modification doesn't apply if it runs counter to State laws where you live". And another line "this doesn't apply at all if you live in California". One of the nicer things about California is its very strong consumer protection laws....

Re:Equal protection from government and corporatio

[The Raven]

You make it too complicated... the very few clean ones are simply too few to worry about. Power does corrupt.

Re:Equal protection from government and corporatio

[EllisDees]

>I observed a flock of birds in a huge V today. I noticed how every bird knew to immediately repeat the bird ahead of itself, and so they moved in a very short-time delayed unison. You could see the wave of reaction move from front to rear. I couldn't help but think about how we've developed a culture of individualism and self interest; that we could never get 100+ humans together and have them all cascade each others actions for a greater good

Have you never been to a big city? If so, did you notice all of those really tall buildings? How many people do you think it takes to create each of those? What do you think motivates those people to spend their time working in such a dangerous place?

GENERAL STRIKE!

[misexistentialist]

GENERAL STRIKE!

Driver license became a national ID

[fluffy99]

This is exactly the avenue the Feds took to get a ad-hoc National ID in place. Using financial incentives, the fed govt has basically bribed the states into having the same set of required elements and data contained on each state's drivers license. Almost all of the states (a few refused the money - I don't recall which ones) are also using the same contractor to house and maintain the database. The fed govt gets indirect access to this database via the same contractor using symantec's like "we don't have access to the data", yet they have contractors who can "provide reports from this data".

Don't believe me? Go look up the requirements for allowing a state drivers license to be used as a passport for driving across the border.

Re:Equal protection from government and corporatio

[joocemann]

Wow. You put your name up, coming out of hiding. But you're just as worthless and pointless. At least we now know who is watching Ouch My Balls.

Later, troll. Your assumptions and perspective are far too shallow and simple to have a real discussion about anything other than status quo.

How about them niners?

Re:Equal protection from government and corporatio

[joocemann]

Money motivated them; and because our culture pits us against each other in unnecessary competition for survival with money in the middle of the ring.

Re:Equal protection from government and corporatio

[joocemann]

And I'm pretty sure your understanding of money is about as limited as your capacity to think outside of the box you were built inside.

Your sig further iterates how simple and worthless you are in any sense of conceptual thinking.

You're just a roadblock. I have to wait for people like you to die before anything can really change. The only facts that limit progress are shallow fundamentalist ignorami like yourself.

Lets test your idiocy... Why is it that you don't owe your parents money for raising you and providing for you? How is that possible, given your shallow assumptions of how people can *only* exist?

Why don't you think about that for a second... Don't bother writing me back because everything you've said (including your sig) tells me you'll do nothing more than stare at the inside of your box and rattle some chains to feel good about your world view.

Bye.

Corporations As Persons

[not_hylas( )]

Corporations As Persons:

What you have to realize within these illegal transactions - bypassing the Constitution - is that you are dealing with immortals [insert vampire analogy] - these companies have that supreme advantage over all of us, putting us in a lesser category, of well, serf, basically.

Once you understand this you know where you really stand and why this "person-hood for corporations" must come to an end. Within this "law" companies are representing us [de facto] which is rediculous.

Easy

[nurb432]

Because the corporations buy the laws.

Re:Equal protection from government and corporatio

[geminidomino]

Nope, I'm not the AC you responded to, just someone else who took exception to your childishly naive delusions of human nature.

Your response to me, however, outs your true nature and belies the silliness you were spouting. Well done.

Re:Equal protection from government and corporatio

[joocemann]

Human 'nature'? Give me some scientific references.

I hope you're not simply echoing something you've assumed or been told is natural. Give me some facts.

Re:Equal protection from government and corporatio

[geminidomino]

I would, but as I already said, you've outed yourself in your flame response to me. It's not worth the time, since I have no reason to believe you're not unwilling or unable to be educated.

So I choose to allow you to continue to revel in your delusions that "before barter" (as laughable as that time frame is, in and of itself) the whole human race was one big unicorn-fart-sniffing hippie commune.

And I realize that consequently, you will also go on thinking that you stumped me and "won" something here. That doesn't worry me, either, because people like you aren't that important to me.

Re:Equal protection from government and corporatio

[EllisDees]

If you believe that there is no such thing as human nature, you have quite a bit to learn. From our innate ability to form languages, to our universal preference to find symmetric facial features beautiful, there are countless examples of attributes that apply to all of us. Money may be a human invention, but even monkeys will trade food for sex. We cannot choose to be other than what our nature makes us, any more than we can choose to have 8 limbs.

Re:Equal protection from government and corporatio

[joocemann]

Nice cop out. I just asked you to educate me, but now you won't.

My guess is that you have no evidence and that I am right about your echo/assumption.

I got a feeling your mom cheated on your dad. Ask me for evidence.. do it... I'll tell you to fuck off and cop out just like your coward irrational ass is.

Stupid shallow idiot fucks preaching fundamentalist ideas with no facts to back it. Nothing new in this world. Its almost funny to watch idiots like you fight each other, none having a foot in the world of fact.

Fuck off.

Re:Equal protection from government and corporatio

[joocemann]

I didn't say anything about the absolute absence of human nature. What I said was that our current culture is by no means proven a result of absolute human nature. It may have arisen from older indigenous and ignorant peoples and was developed/cultured into our every inch of existence, but that does not conclude that because it is such that it must always be such.

I'm arguing with a man with a simple mind, that is all. He cannot imagine a world outside of the one he is in, and claims the one he is in is the only way possible as deemed by human nature (but not giving me any evidence to prove it).

Re:Equal protection from government and corporatio

[winwar]

"And statists always forget that the easiest and fastest way to change a corporation is to stop giving it money, which is not possible with the government."

Utter crap. I can remake my state government easier than I can remake my utility provider. I can starve my state and counties of taxes via initiative (not a wise idea in my opinion but people are doing it). It's not possible with the utility (even if I disconnect from the utility, I am just trading one supplier for another). If you starve IBM, Intel or Walmart another corp will take their place and commit the same unpleasant acts.

If government sucks, it's because people want it to suck. People just don't want to take personal responsibility for it.

I can hardly believe...

[fyngyrz]

...you could actually be ignorant of the pervasive violations in the constitutional areas I named. The government -- by which I mean the congress and the supreme court, and all the courts below them, consistently step far out of constitutional bounds, just as they are now.

Ex post facto law is forbidden both the federal and state governments. Both have made such law and use it presently; two good examples are removing the right to carry firearms post-sentencing for felons, which increases their sentence exactly per the definition[3d], and registering sexual offenders post-sentencing, which does the same. The constitution says in article I, section 9: No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed. That takes care of the feds. In Article I, section 10: No State shall ... pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law. That takes care of the states. That SCOTUS has attempted in "that depends on what you mean by 'is'" fashion to redefine punishment as only some of the content of judicially ordered consequences only serves to solidly implicate SCOTUS in the crime of constitutional violation, and in fact is exactly the type of Article III attempt to pursue article V goals I was mentioning previously. There is no constitutional authority for judges - at any level - to define, or redefine, what the constitution means. Article III does not provide for it, nor does article V reference article III by jot or tittle. Article three assigns SCOTUS to sit in judgment on constitutional law cases. Not to make or judge constitutional law itself. Obviously they have usurped this power, but READ the constitution: It is not given them, and therefore it is wholly unauthorized.

First amendment violations are everywhere. "Free speech zones." No speech within X distance of a funeral. Permits required for public meetings. The classic, and totally wrong, "no shouting fire in a theater" (we shout "fire" in schools... we call it a "fire drill" and there is no problem - and those are kids! We're all trained for it. Further, if someone trampled someone else, THAT is a crime and we have laws for it, thereby obviating ANY supposed social need for violating the 1st amendment in the trumped-up theater example.) Suppression of comic artwork that offends (and that's all it is, because there is certainly no "victim.") The FCC forbidding ANY significant citizen use of the broadcast bands, and handing them over tied with a neat bow to corporations. The bottom line here is that the 1st amendment reads: Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech and so barring exercise of article V, no law such as the above is authorized. Consequently, these are all solid examples of unauthorized exercise of power, ie, government out of control.

2nd amendment violations are everywhere. The 2nd amendment reads: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. For those who cannot be bothered to do a little research, "well regulated" means "everyone should show up bearing a specific minimum number of bullets, arms and comparable ready equipment", not "subject to regulations." "Militia" means capable fellows of fighting age. Not "national guard" or "army." They're simply saying that in order that it may be possible to immediately gather useful fighting folk from the populace at any time, ready to go in a reasonably organized fashion on literally no more than hours notice, said fighting folk are going to need to be armed. Regardless, that phrase is not a directive to the government, it is explicatory, that is, simply shows some of the rationale they were using at the time. The operative phrase is the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Well, that's pretty damned clear, isn't it? Are there laws that infringe on the rights

Re:I can hardly believe...

[Atlantis-Rising]

Might I suggest you actually learn something about the law before you go off on meaningless idiotic rants?

Re:Equal protection from government and corporatio

[The Mighty Buzzard]

I really don't know why I bother. Chalk it up to a slow news day but I'll go ahead and educate you.

For starters, keep track of who you're arguing with. I haven't stated anything besides my opinion that you're likely an idiot. Now on with the education.

Money is an abstraction of a person's time/effort/property's value to society at large or in part. Usually, though not always, it has very little value in and of itself and is instead used as a method of storing one's time/effort/property for later use or trade. It need not even exist physically, such as with electronic records banks keep. This is fine as it is an abstraction to begin with.

It's really very simple. If I put forth effort on something, say a bit of coding, I expect to be rewarded for said effort. If I decide to take a nap instead, I expect to get a nice nap as reward rather than pay or ownership of the code I wrote. If I decide to take a year's worth of naps I expect to be in serious trouble. This is as it should be. It is fair and just.

Being compensated as if I worked hard when I was taking a nap is absurd and would most assuredly lead to me taking more naps. On a global scale that would lead to an immediate and massive collapse of society as a whole.

Being forced to work rather than take a nap would be worse though. We call that slavery and it's fairly widely regarded as a very bad thing.

Now me, I also contribute some of the code I've written to society at large because I understand the economics of scarce goods vs infinite goods, because I see the value to myself in advancing society as a whole, and because I'm just that kind of nice guy.

Now on to my sig... I really don't care what you think of it. If you're too much of an imbecile to understand how a little green piece of paper being traded for goods or services works, it's probably too much to expect you to grasp the humor value of something being absurd and true at the same time.

If you're waiting for people like me to die, might I suggest holding your breath. We make up almost the entire population of the planet and that isn't likely to ever change. While you're waiting though, feel free to exchange goods and labor for your comforts rather than dealing with filthy money. It will even work slightly better on a personal scale than it would on a national or global scale. I'd say let us know how it works out but your ISP likely doesn't have far too much pot lying around that they need someone to smoke up for them, so you won't be talking with us again if you do.

In closing, take a bath, hippie.

Re:Equal protection from government and corporatio

[joocemann]

Thanks for further iterating my point with your shallow view and assumption of a one-way absolute existence. I understood money in the context to which you explained long before you felt you needed to explain it. And now I will show you why you fail, and my whole point this whole time which you missed for the product of your flaw.

Lets pick your point apart, piece by piece, and I may point out that you've provided no evidence to support any argument against my critical analysis of your opinion. I am open to be shown convincing evidence otherwise.

For starters, keep track of who you're arguing with. I haven't stated anything besides my opinion that you're likely an idiot. Now on with the education.

Note that you've stated that what I said was not possible, and that you also thought I was an idiot. You will see why your false assumption of the prior led you to the latter conclusion.

Money is an abstraction of a person's time/effort/property's value to society at large or in part. Usually, though not always, it has very little value in and of itself and is instead used as a method of storing one's time/effort/property for later use or trade. It need not even exist physically, such as with electronic records banks keep. This is fine as it is an abstraction to begin with.

Let me begin by pointing out that you are speaking of money, as a necessity, within our current culture. If you go read what I had written to you prior, you will notice I have always directed the changing of our culture in tandem with my hypothesis.

It's really very simple. If I put forth effort on something, say a bit of coding, I expect to be rewarded for said effort. If I decide to take a nap instead, I expect to get a nice nap as reward rather than pay or ownership of the code I wrote. If I decide to take a year's worth of naps I expect to be in serious trouble.

In this you even state your opinion is simple, and rightly so. You assume that YOUR expectations are the ONLY expectations. We're not talking about you, we're talking about potentials and other observable cultures. You assume that mankind, through your own present culture relative influenced desire, can ONLY exist in this way. You believe, without evidence to support such, that this is absolute, that no other possibility could exist. What you believe is akin to a child being raised in a community where women are always subservient, and thus having a limited view of what is possible, not only believing that women must be subservient, but that it is absolute and that it is the ONLY way. This is not true. Evidence to demonstrate your opinion is universal would be great here.

This is as it should be. It is fair and just.

How so? This is how it should be in your limited world view; your irrational assumption as to the definitive cultures of people. In our current culture most would agree it is fair and just, but that's not the point, which I think you might be either understanding by now or deliberately ignoring. Our current culture was never the topic of discussion and your opinion is by no means a universally applicable truth.

Being compensated as if I worked hard when I was taking a nap is absurd and would most assuredly lead to me taking more naps. On a global scale that would lead to an immediate and massive collapse of society as a whole.

It is absurd in our current culture, and in our current culture it may likely result in collapse, starvation, and death. But we were never talking about our current culture. I made it quite clear that we are talking about an alternative culture. The people of East Timor existed in a way much different than this. They are evident of an alternative culture that is not as you describe to be absolute, and their culture has been observed and recorded in recent history. As I said before, I think you might be now getting the point

Re:Equal protection from government and corporatio

[geminidomino]

How does it feel to be completely predictable?

Sure.

[fyngyrz]

You can suggest it. And in return, I suggest you learn what the constitution is: the authorizing document for the federal and state government, and all law that said government makes. It isn't law, then constitution. It's the other way around. When the government violates the constitution, it's not operating in an authorized manner. You can quote contrary law (and contrary judicial decisions) until you're blue in the face and you'll be completely wrong because your first principles are wrong.

Re:Equal protection from government and corporatio

[joocemann]

How does it feel to be completely predictable?

Exactly. I guessed that you would have no evidence and here you are with no evidence.

Good job on that one.

Lets predict that you may or may not come back with more smarmy dogshit but will not come back with any evidence. Again.

somebody's finally 'gettin' it' ????

[seekertom]

I read the first several posts, and am partially gratified to see that some of us actually are beginning to see that the whole schmear of government actions AGAINST us ought to finally be considered en-toto... as one big operation, albeit delivered in such small doses as not to cook the frog all at once. We need to quit looking at all these wee slap-in-the-face policies, and recognize the TOTAL effect they have on us about-to-be-annihilated Americans. George Orwell had it right... our govt has ALREADY usurped the people's power to govern themselves. How many things have come to pass during the past few (several? many? always?) years that you and I and a heluvalot of others have seen as harmful to our American way of life, ie, life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness (not to mention 'freedom'), and had to watch as these things became law, because there is n o t o n e d a m n t h i n g we could do about it? Today it comes out that OB's group has PASSED a new tax law requiring gun owners to register and pay taxes on all guns owned! (I doubt the senate even read the proposed law...) Sure we have an amendment that provides for the right to bear arms, ie OWN GUNS, but if the IRS can pass a (first) law to tax them, they can pass subsequent laws to tax the holy hell out of them, making them totally unaffordable! Sure, we have constitutional rights in this country, but just think how many of your rights have already been superceded by current law, 'protecting' us from such things as terrorists, and the most obvious group, OURSELVES! I said partially gratified... to really make me happy, I need to see someone come up with a plan that will brings things back under control of the people. Someone started the idea of the 28th amendment which forces congress to be a part of any law they enact, but ya know what chance THAT would have of even being introduced, let alone passed by congress! Yet the idea of the people LIMITING the powers of our govt is fundamental to America, so why would we NOT push this into law? And better yet, why would congress be opposed to such a thing? We're sinking fast, folks. Unless someone 'way smarter than I am gets up and starts running some viable ideas into the mainstream, we all need to lower our deductible and increase the cap on our med plans, 'cause a lot of us are going to have our arses cut off just below the belt before it's over! thanks fer lis'nin' seekertom