DHS Wants To Monitor the Web For Terrorists

clustro writes "Under the belief that terrorists are 'increasingly' recruiting US citizens, Department of Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano says that increased government monitoring of the Internet is necessary to thwart them. It is believed that Fort Hood shooter Major Nidal Hassan and attempted Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad were inspired by radical Internet postings. Speaking at a meeting of the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy, Napolitano said, 'We can significantly advance security without having a deleterious impact on individual rights in most instances. At the same time, there are situations where tradeoffs are inevitable.'"

Comments

When you are looking for a needle in a

[Presto Vivace]

hay stack, you don't need more hay. There were so many warnings about the Ft Hood shooter, the idea that more monitoring of the Internet would have prevented the tragedy is simply laughable.

Re:When you are looking for a needle in a

[mim]

exactly. all this will do is make people more paranoid, furthering the "state of fear" that they already foster and to quote: "without having a deleterious impact on individual rights in most instances." in most instances?? get real.

Re:When you are looking for a needle in a

[Anonymous Coward]

you don't need more hay.

Oh yes you do! More hay = bigger and better bonfire :)

Re:When you are looking for a needle in a

[Anonymous Coward]

[A]ll this will do is make people more paranoid.

This is going to change anything? The idea that some government agency or another isn't already monitoring the web for terrorist activity is inconceivable.

Re:When you are looking for a needle in a

[Fluffeh]

exactly. all this will do is make people more paranoid, furthering the "state of fear" that they already foster and to quote: "without having a deleterious impact on individual rights in most instances." in most instances?? get real.

But they want people scared and paranoid. Scared people are much more willing to trade personal freedoms for "relief" from the fear of the "bad people" out there.

Re:When you are looking for a needle in a

[BrokenHalo]

...all this will do is make people more paranoid, furthering the "state of fear" that they already foster...

True - but this is a symptom of the hole we've dug ourselves into. Trouble with saying "we don't negotiate with terrorists" is that that cuts out all your options. All that's left is to kill everybody.

Re:When you are looking for a needle in a

[andy1307]

There were so many warnings

I'm sure there are so many warnings about a lot of people who'll never actually do anything. We have the benefit of hindsight in Nidal Hassan's case.

Re:When you are looking for a needle in a

[Anonymous Coward]

They've already started; they're just looking for permission now that they've the technology worked out. Look for traffic from southeastern Virginia, especially Ft. Eustis, that pretends to be referred by Google but without any keyword.

Re:When you are looking for a needle in a

[Runaway1956]

Uhhh - how much have you actually read about Hassan? The man made treasonous statements in the presence of other commissioned officers. The only thing that held those officers back, it seems, is the liberal feel-good policies that would have branded them as racists, and/or intolerant religious bigots.

I wasn't an officer, but I reported less treasonous statements made by a little freak skinhead who worked for me. Nazi, neo-nazi, skinhead, whatever you care to call it, the freak drew swastikas everywhere he could draw them, and praised Hitler and his policies. His attitude toward blacks was disgusting, and his attitude toward our flag was little better. I don't know how the little freak ever got into the service.

Hassan? Same thing.

If you've read very much of what I post around here, or elsewhere, I am NOT EVER "politically correct", and I'd have reported Hassan again and again, even if I had to send letters to BuPers, the Pentagon, the White House, and to congress. No man in uniform should ever run at the mouth like Hassan did. Most certainly not a commissioned officer.

Re:When you are looking for a needle in a

[Anonymous Coward]

Trouble with saying "we don't negotiate with terrorists" is that that cuts out all your options. All that's left is to kill everybody.

Sounds like a plan. Lets get to it.

Re:When you are looking for a needle in a

[linzeal]

This has little to do with international terrorist groups and more to do with domestic right wing militias and left-wing anarchists. If you think even 50% of the money allocated for investigating terrorism is used for over seas operations and groups, you are sadly mistaken. Even groups like Greenpeace who albeit may stage some rather spectacular displays of non-violent protect by hoisting banners up the sides of buildings have been routinely investigated under the auspices of these new anti-terrorism laws. In fact, I would say these laws, as a tool, are mostly ineffectual against international groups, mostly because of the sheer amount of translation and intelligence analysis that would need to be done to catch a single potential terrorist act is of a vast amount more than abusing these same powers to silence unwanted protest from mostly non-violent protesters. NYC spent millions of dollars tracking, documenting and arresting many of the groups who protested last years RNC convention.

Re:When you are looking for a needle in a

[Anonymous Coward]

You... you... racist, intolerant religious bigot you!
 
/I keed, I keed

Seriously, there were a ridiculous number of big, red warning flags thrown up by Hassan. Amazing how they were all dismissed and ignored until after the shit hit the fan.

Re:When you are looking for a needle in a

[gringofrijolero]

It doesn't matter how laughable the idea is. The problem is the psychology behind the belief that it's a good idea to do these things and grant even more authority to the state. Forget the logic of any proposal like this and study the mental condition of the subject.

Re:When you are looking for a needle in a

[db32]

Oh pft. That only counts when the wrong person is president. When a Dem is president it is apparently perfectly acceptable to go on long anti-government/presidential rants while wearing the uniform. In fact, as far as I can tell that whole "disparaging remarks" bit is completely reversed when a non Republican is in office. Go ahead and try to report someone saying "someone should just shoot him" through a long chain of people who vocally agree.

It isn't some liberal whining policy nonsense that stopped anyone reporting and any attempt to blame that is just more of the same political scapegoating bullshit. What it was is that those people were spineless no integrity clowns just happy to write a shiny review and pass him off to someone else. God forbid they jeopardize their own ability to make disparaging remarks when they don't agree with their leadership or have to actually show an ounce of leadership ability while dealing with problem troops. Honestly, if those people were paying any attention to anything other then their own self absorbed world they probably could have headed off the problem before Mr nutjob went totally bonkers. I am 100% certain that he had to listen to the same crap I have heard for years. Babbling about kill all the muslims, cheering at civilian casualties, other such disgusting behavior. I had a friend take shit for being an "arab" because he was dark skinned... He was a fucking Hawaiian. There is an identical total lack of leadership in dealing with that kind of crap. We have soldiers of arabic descent that have their lives threatened on a daily basis in the field by the very people who are supposed to be serving with them. If your own team is constantly threatening you, what do you think that will do for unit cohesion? Do you think that guy is ever going to believe they won't just leave him to die somewhere? Maybe they will just kill him and cover it up. A total and complete lack of integrity is tearing the military to ribbons, not some liberal agenda.

Just watch, that kid that supposedly leaked those documents... When it turns out that they include a bunch of dirty dealing of the Big O and Hillary they will be cheering that he is a hero instead of a traitor. However, if it implicates Bush/Cheney then they will still be screaming "off with his head".

Re:When you are looking for a needle in a

[Anonymous Coward]

That's actually really cool. How would a noob like me on Linux check for something like that?

Re:When you are looking for a needle in a

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone needs to pull Janet aside and tell her that the NSA is already doing this. She needs to focus on border security first, once that is solved, we will think about giving her little dept more responsibility.

Re:When you are looking for a needle in a

[hedwards]

I noticed in the article that they're not specifying what it is that they'd be monitoring. Which quite frankly frightens me more than a little. Depending upon what they're monitoring it could be a reasonable and necessary step or it could be bat shit insane like a lot of the DHS initiatives have been. Monitoring hate speech website is more or less obligatory, I'd assume that somebody's already doing that, tracking people that routinely go to them is probably a reasonable trade off. But tracking everybody that comes across a site like that is almost certainly ridiculous.

For better or for worse it's hardly unheard of for supremacist groups to order hits via postings on the internet. Not specifically aimed at one person, but at anybody interested in carrying out their agenda. Which is what probably spurred this interest in monitoring the threats online. But without knowing what exactly she meant, it's really hard to know whether it's a good idea or terribly frightening.

Re:When you are looking for a needle in a

[WillDraven]

Nazi, neo-nazi, skinhead, whatever you care to call it,

Just for future reference, the term skinhead and accompanying style has been co-opted by so many groups of various political leanings as to be practically meaningless other than actually referring to having a shaved head.

For what it's worth, almost all the skinheads I've met have been members of groups such as the ARA (Anti-Rascist Action), AFA (Anti-Fascist Action), and SHARP (SkinHeads Against Racial Prejudice).

Re:When you are looking for a needle in a

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, NSA is already monitoring everything in the world so we have the two usual things.

1) Another power grabbing empire building bureacrat. Ever seen an agency head who actually decreased the size of their empire?

2) More politicians trying to do an end run around the First Amendment to the US Constitution so they can go back to the old back room style of power & money grabbing.

Re:When you are looking for a needle in a

[NeutronCowboy]

Liberal feel-good policies in the army? Really? The place where hazing is still tolerated, being gay is a fireable offense, religious proselytizing is a CO-supported activity and women run into a code of silence when dealing with rape?

Really? I know the current storyline is that everything bad comes from liberals, but at some point the narrative just becomes so ridiculously detached from reality that it's laughable. Feel free to show me a source that proves me wrong, but it better be a study and not somebody else's opinion.

Re:When you are looking for a needle in a

[Anonymous Coward]

Own a website, check the access log for these bogus referer URLs and note the peer addresses.

Re:When you are looking for a needle in a

[Anonymous Coward]

"we don't negotiate with terrorists"

Isn't this already a contradiction when US political correctness forces you to consider every religion as equal despite its teachings? (Thus negotiating with religions where terror is an instrument)

Re:When you are looking for a needle in a

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh look, another brainwashed tool. You guys are becoming like Ford Mustangs - no matter where I look, there's a butt load of you.

Re:When you are looking for a needle in a

[revjakenash]

Earlier in the thread some body said that if you believe 50% of the money allocated was going to overseas operations you're wrong. It is important to point out that the DOD's counterrorism apparatus is massive, well funded, and conducts only overseas operations. That's why when your deployed in central command (OIF/OEF) you earn a global war on terrorism ribbon. Occasional investigations of american left or right wing groups (many of which conduct activities which fit the DOD's definition for terrorism) by the DHS or the FBI is a drop in the bucket compared to the anti-terrorism work done by our service members overseas. When was the last time there was predator drone that took out senior leadership at greenpeace headquarters?

Re:When you are looking for a needle in a

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm pretty sure he didn't make a single treasonous statement in front of you, since there's no such thing--unless we was actually offering advice to someone waging war against the US in front of you.

But hey--no need to abide by the laws of that constitution you swore a fucking oath to uphold and protect--that'd be inconvenient.

Re:When you are looking for a needle in a

[Attila Dimedici]

There were so many warnings

I'm sure there are so many warnings about a lot of people who'll never actually do anything. We have the benefit of hindsight in Nidal Hassan's case.

The thing is that no one who made the types of statements Nidal Hassan made should be allowed to remain in the military. Even without the violent content, the settings in which he said some of what he said should have lead to his discharge.

Re:When you are looking for a needle in a

[Jane Q. Public]

Saying "someone should just shoot him" is a statement of opinion and is in no way threatening. That is in the same category as "I hope he chokes." It still falls under the umbrella of protected speech. However, if one were to say something like "I would like to shoot him" or "I am going to shoot him", that might be interpreted as threatening and suspicious. There is a difference. Making threatening comments about the President is illegal in America today (a law with which I disagree because it sets the President above all other citizens), but it is quite possible to make extremely disparaging remarks, or wish someone ill, without threatening anybody.

It is also possible for someone who is dangerously insane to say disparaging things that are not threatening, illegal, or suspicious. Where do you draw the line between honestly protecting someone from harm, and stepping all over the free speech rights of everybody else?

Further, people sometimes tend to confuse the office of the President with the country itself. Even threatening the President, while illegal, is not treason per se. The President is not the country or the Constitution, and it is possible for the President himself to engage in treason. In my opinion some past Presidents have. But a statement like for example "I will do anything to achieve the downfall of the United States" is definitely a treasonous statement.

--
"That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer, is a Maxim that has been long and generally approved." - Benjamin Franklin

Re:When you are looking for a needle in a

[crackerpipe]

hay stack, you don't need more hay. There were so many warnings about the Ft Hood shooter, the idea that more monitoring of the Internet would have prevented the tragedy is simply laughable.

QFT. Not only that, the same was true about 9/11. These agencies seem to want to continuously expand their turf and substitute greater monitoring for poor police work. Look at the DEA budget in its inception year of 1972 or 3, and compare it with their budget today. Careers get started and people understandable want to grow their careers and the importance of their agencies. Ironically, most of this is supported by "right wing" types. The same right wingers who ofter want a leaned down government almost always want to eliminate constructive regulations, but almost never want to eliminate wasteful, unchecked redundancy in law enforcement or intelligence. Again, we had all the stuff we needed to stop 9/11 at the very time it happened. We don't need anything else other than better cooperation between agencies and continuing tactical and engineering developments.

Incidentally, the way this is headed, it's not going to just be the DHS. Note the recent Federal ruling protecting local police department intelligence files in NYC, a city level of law enforcement. Dukes of Hazzard podunk police departments can presumably gather significant intel without release, and they, like all other agencies, will simply grow in areas that don't have resistance. The law-enforcement, intelligence bloat is far out of hand and there is no way to reel it back in. What's the drawback, other than moral? Well, our economy is down the sh*tter. There's a reason why our Western economies beat Communist controlled economies back in the time that they were total-surveillance societies. We are killing our economy and our future by killing our freedoms. Police and intel play an important role in their place, but they don't produce anything for our economy. Let's get back to pre 9/11 transparency and prosperity.

Re:When you are looking for a needle in a

[fluffy99]

Technically, NSA is not authorized to monitor communications in the US without court authorization. The fact that the FISMA court process to get that approval is a joke and frequently ignored is a separate issue.

Personally I have no issue with them monitoring public forums, internet or not, or obvious trouble signs. I do draw the line at intercepting and monitoring communications where the people involve have some expectation of privacy. If there is reasonable suspicion then get a warrant and monitor deeper. Facebook or slashdot postings don't count as private. The problem is when they started maintaining a database of internet id and email addresses cross-referenced to individuals. I know somewhere there is a file with everything I've ever posted under my various ids.

Re:When you are looking for a needle in a

[db32]

Wrong. All of that only applies to civilians. The UCMJ is what makes disparaging remarks made about the officers appointed over you (to include the POTUS) a punishable offense. That is what irritates me. I watched more than a few people get tongue lashings for saying bad things about Bush, and then those same people giving the tongue lashings say some insanely derogatory shit about Obama. This lopsided enforcement basically implies that you aren't allowed to talk bad about Republicans, but others are OK.

Re:When you are looking for a needle in a

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhhh - how much have you actually read about Hassan? The man made treasonous statements in the presence of other commissioned officers. The only thing that held those officers back, it seems, is the liberal feel-good policies that would have branded them as racists, and/or intolerant religious bigots.

I wasn't an officer, but I reported less treasonous statements made by a little freak skinhead who worked for me. Nazi, neo-nazi, skinhead, whatever you care to call it, the freak drew swastikas everywhere he could draw them, and praised Hitler and his policies. His attitude toward blacks was disgusting, and his attitude toward our flag was little better. I don't know how the little freak ever got into the service.

Hassan? Same thing.

If you've read very much of what I post around here, or elsewhere, I am NOT EVER "politically correct", and I'd have reported Hassan again and again, even if I had to send letters to BuPers, the Pentagon, the White House, and to congress. No man in uniform should ever run at the mouth like Hassan did. Most certainly not a commissioned officer.

I find it cute how you make it so painfully obvious you're a neo-con troll that I didn't even have to read past your first 6 sentences.

Re:When you are looking for a needle in a

[Vellmont]

The only thing that held those officers back, it seems, is the liberal feel-good policies that would have branded them as racists, and/or intolerant religious bigots.

Quite an accusation to make without anything to back it up. Care to reference at least an article or interview that substantiates your statements, or is this just your own personal theory based on personal bias?

Re:When you are looking for a needle in a

[andy1307]

I'm all in favor of reporting Nidal Hasan's treasonous statements and kicking him out of the army. There were a lot of warnings about your neo-nazi subordinate but he didn't actually shoot 13 people, like Nidal Hasan did... That just proves my point.

Re:When you are looking for a needle in a

[Runaway1956]

"Care to reference at least an article"

You need look no further than Google, and one of the first hits, from the NYTimes:

Slashdot error - I need to spoonfeed a link: Title of article is "Army missed warning signs of Major Nidal Hasan's Fort Hood massacre: military review" at http://www.nydailynews.com/

While that particular article, by itself, doesn't reveal very much, it SHOULD put you on the right road to finding dozens of other articles about Hasan. He made comments early in his education that should have tipped people off, he made comments late in his education that were truly alarming, and later as an officer and a doctor, he articulated sympathy for the Islamic jihadists fighting against our forces.

Let me try to find one particular quote for you - searching - - - -

Not exactly what I was looking for, but pertinent:
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/199506.php

Can't find the exact quote I'm looking for at the moment, but there is a lot of insight into Hasan's mind here:

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/014754.html

If, from these links, you cannot use Google to find more damning evidence against both Hasan AND his superior officers, then you aren't trying.

The fact is, it was obvious during Hasan's internship that he was a loose cannone, he was dangerous, and that he held treasonous views. He most definitely established that his first loyalty was to Islam, and that he had little loyalty to the United States, or to the Army which he was sworn to serve.

Re:When you are looking for a needle in a

[Jane Q. Public]

You have me there. That's true. However, the principle still applies, even if the military code does not conform to that principle.

My comments were not about whether any of this is enforced fairly in the military. I was referring to the legal rights, in general, of civilians.

But historically (NOT fairly), I would expect what you say to be true, since Republicans have historically been "Hawks" and Democrats have historically been "Doves". I understand that this no longer seems to be true; nevertheless that has been the tradition and I would expect the old guard to be entrenched in that tradition... aside from right or wrong.

Re:When you are looking for a needle in a

[Anonymous Coward]

Get a warrant on reasonable suspicion? Fuck that shit. The fourth amendment requires probable cause.

Re:When you are looking for a needle in a

[Anonymous Coward]

But they want people scared and paranoid. Scared people are much more willing to trade personal freedoms for "relief" from the fear of the "bad people" out there.

Don't be stupid. If anything, "they" want people scared and paranoid about terrorists (or child abusers, or communists, or illegal aliens, or whatever), not the state.

Quite the opposite, "they" want the average citizen to trust the state to deal with all those evil people. That doesn't mean "they" won't occasionally do things that increase fear of the state if "they" think the trade-off is worth it, but the idea that this is the goal of what "they" do? Stupid, plain and simple.

Re:When you are looking for a needle in a

[db32]

Well sure, but the GP was talking about "liberal" policies stopping military members from doing their jobs right. I'm saying it isn't liberal policies causing the problem. The funny thing is, this Republican bias crap is a relatively recent development. I suspect the driving force was the anti-military behavior of the left leaning civilian populace during Vietnam. It was some of the most divisive weak minded behavior possible. Prior to that military support was fairly united regardless of political leanings. WWI/WWII vets were heroes. The braindead hippie attitude that blames the military instead of the politicians is pathetic. Sadly, it even extends into today serving to keep the military a mostly Republican base. I love listening to these idiots whine about how the military should just not do X, Y or Z thing they don't like. I just calmly explain that what they are asking for is a violation of the constitution. The constitution promises a publicly controlled military, and if the military is doing what it wants instead of what it is told then it isn't publicly controlled. So, effectively, they are demanding a military coup. If that doesn't get their little hippie brain in a panic I ask "And what makes you think that the military, the new owner of all of the power, is going to do what YOU want them to do now that they have been liberated from taking direction from elected leaders?"

Re:When you are looking for a needle in a

[KillerLoop]

But there is no relief, ever. It just keeps going on and on, generating and amplifying fear along the way. What a miserable way to live life.

Re:When you are looking for a needle in a

[jc42]

The problem is when they started maintaining a database of internet id and email addresses cross-referenced to individuals. I know somewhere there is a file with everything I've ever posted under my various ids.

Actually, if it's at all like how such things usually work, that file contains maybe half of what you've written, plus a large number of things written by other people with (personal or host) names similar to yours. There's probably also a lot of stuff from other people on machines with similar IP addresses, or with the same IP address at a different time due to dynamic addressing.

I've occasionally googled my own name, and found lots of things written by others with the same name. (The US Census Bureau says there about 1500 people with my name. ;-) I've seen bibliographies that have things that I wrote listed next to things written by several of the others with the same name. I know a few of them, actually, and we all think it's pretty funny.

So far, there don't seem to be any real nut cases with my name, so it's easy to laugh at. But, for example, I have a friend named Colin Ferguson. If you don't recognize the name, just google it. He does like to tell people that he's neither the mass murderer nor the Canadian actor. He sometimes does this with a weird grin on his face. ;-)

Anyway, the confusion caused by similar names is an old one in the "national security" business, and they have never been very good at dealing with it. So there probably isn't a file that contains all that you've written and only what you've written. What there is, is a number of files (kept by different agencies) that jumble stuff by and about you with other stuff by and about other people that they can't (be bothered to) distinguish from you.

Re:When you are looking for a needle in a

[CommanderIsm]

if those child molesting mutha fuckers really did record everything, they would know that they, the american pig dogs cause most of our worlds problems. hey, Dept. of Homeland Security - you are a sick bunch of mother and father fuckers - monitor that that you twats, when you have finished, make the planet safer by going and fucking yourselves. investigate 9/11 - no don't bother - we know it was an inside job the world's biggest terrorist is the USA - second it is your bum chums in israhell so again monitor that and know that you are evil

Re:When you are looking for a needle in a

[Vellmont]

So basically, you've got nothing, and you expect me to try to hunt down your story for you. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. You make the claim, you provide the proof. The links you provided say nothing about "liberal policies" or fears of being accused of racism or religious intolerance. So I guess I'm going with personal bias, and manufactured blame.

(Oh, and BTW the New York Daily News is just sliiightly different than the New York Times.)

Re:When you are looking for a needle in a

[Runaway1956]

Personal bias. Imagine that. No one at slashdot, or anywhere on the web would have the nerve to voice a fucking OPINION, would they?

I call 'em like I see 'em. I see liberal bias, and I see neocon imperialism, and I see the rest of the conservative world to frigging confused to make a difference. Then, there's the Tea Party. I haven't decided about them yet.

But, yes, there is plenty of liberal bias to go around, anywhere and everywhere. I hope the real conservatives pull their heads out of their asses, divorce the neocons, and start doing things right. Life might be good - or not.

But, the links I gave you do support the opinion I gave you - if you bother to read them.

Re:When you are looking for a needle in a

[Vellmont]

There's a difference between opinion, and manufacturing facts. You've most certainly done the latter to form the former.

And then break RSA.

[nunojsilva]

Won't this just catch the ones who plan their attacks with no encryption?

Also, even if it catches those, isn't the internet a little big to filter without getting overloaded with stuff to analyse? Unless everyone starts using ASCII youtube, I suppose...

But surely, this gives potential to the idea of fake alerts to make sure security forces will be somewhere else waiting for an attack, while the real one happens on their backs.

Re:And then break RSA.

[gmuslera]

For much resources you have now, there are widely available strong enough crypto to ensure that if you don't want to be hear, you wont. So the "normal" people will lose privacy, and the ones you say you want to control dont.

To make things worse, if this goes on people that care about privacy will use hard encryption, and eventually will be chased because of that because "they have something to hide", "could be terrorists", etc, etc.

So this don't have anything to do about terrorists coordinating thru internet, but effectively terminating privacy at world scale (and prosecuting the ones that want it). So much for a government that say that cares about freedom and human rights.

Ben Franklin spinning in his grave

[Anonymous Coward]

We can significantly advance security without having a deleterious impact on individual rights in most instances. At the same time, there are situations where trade-offs are inevitable.

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

Re:Ben Franklin spinning in his grave

[Joce640k]

Let her publish her email/web activity on the web for six months before doing this.

She's got nothing to hide, right?

The sooner we encrypt everything, the better. Why aren't we doing it now? Seriously. Is it because the Boys In Black pay regular visits to Microsoft to make sure messenger stays as plain ASCII?

Re:Ben Franklin spinning in his grave

[nurb432]

I don't think he is, or at least not for the reason you are eluding to.. A lot of us are not willingly giving it up, but having it forcibly taken from us with no *realistic* recourse.

Re:Ben Franklin spinning in his grave

[Anonymous Coward]

No because Bill Gates enjoys eavesdropping sexting. And as a matter of fact IRC is WAY better. Use public key cryptography for everything :-)

Re:Ben Franklin spinning in his grave

[hitmark]

because cryptographic systems are worth nada without a web of trust. And right now, there is none thanks to the larger root certificates being corporate.

Re:Ben Franklin spinning in his grave

[tftp]

because cryptographic systems are worth nada without a web of trust. And right now, there is none [...]

There may be none for geeks; crypto enthusiasts like using the technology, but they don't really have any secrets worth securing, and so the WoT is kind of not very important. On the other hand, terrorists have secrets, and they *already* have their WoT - it is based not on digital certificates but on personal contacts. Terrorists, like every illegal and underground organization, need WoT not just to send messages; they need it to even meet and talk to each other. But when a terrorist needs to communicate over the Internet, he will personally travel to Pakistan (or wherever) to receive his keyring from his handler.

There is of course a possibility that a terrorist can be simply given a https:/// URL of some webmail in Asia, and given that browsers usually don't save encrypted pages (and the pr0n mode saves nothing at all) it's easy and convenient for a terrorist to have a medium security communication channel that leaves no plaintext on the user's computer. A live boot CD would offer security that is comparable to PKI, as long as no ciphertext needs to be retained. Considering the issue of the trusted computer, the boot CD and SSL might even do better than a locally ran crypto.

Re:Ben Franklin spinning in his grave

[hitmark]

well, its been some years since it was made, but i recall a claim that al-quaida would not bother with any kind of secrecy while talking over satellite phones.

you got to be kidding me

[Anonymous Coward]

They'll eventually use this law to bust pot smoking Americans who upload themselves hitting the pipe on youtube.

Re:you got to be kidding me

[Anonymous Coward]

News flash. Don't record yourself committing a crime and post it on the internet.

Want to smoke some weed? Go ahead. Be my guest. I smoked weed like a chimney for years. I'd smoke it in places that most stoners wouldn't dare light up for fear of being busted.

One thing I never did do though was record myself smoking it and put it where the whole world can see it.

Re:you got to be kidding me

[Shark]

I think their main concern right now is the people using the Internet to point out their failures. Those are the 'radical terrorists' that truly scare politicians. Typically the real (violent) terrorists are pretty good from a politicians perspective: they're the ultimate excuse provider for any drastic control measure the government wouldn't have gotten away with otherwise.

Most of the people here calling Janet Napolitano and the government at large on their bullshit are the real threat in their mind, the ones making a rational case of just how wrong they are. A government with genuine concern towards terrorism typically attempts to limit its media exposure, as the US did in the 60s and 70s. Nowadays, terrorism is very useful politically, any little accident has a 'could it be terrorists? news at 5' angle added to it.

Terrorism is part of any system that has political inequalities (so pretty much any political system). Any control method used to stamp it is much more likely to fuel it in the long run, it makes the controlling force seen as the oppressor, which is the key element in any terrorist cause. If there genuinely is a brewing home-grown terrorism in the US, I'd suggest that it might have something to do with the government starting to oppress its own people. Not really out of malicious intent, but merely out of stupidity incompetence. That is on a systemic level, not individual... The people at the top live in a reality distortion field that would make Steve Jobs jealous, and the people at the bottom, good intentioned as they may be, are simply not in a capacity to do good.

Re:you got to be kidding me

[uninformedLuddite]

Thank God I live in a pot-sane state. If I was to walk up to a cop on duty here and ask him for directions whilst blowing a joint the worst he could do is fine me $20 and take my dooby. In the US I would probably get shot.

Re:you got to be kidding me

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm I see your idea as a pretty remote possibility. I don't think our politicians hate us and want to cement their power by turning us into some weird Orwellian state. I think the politicians of every successful country today understand that power comes from the strength of the country and it's better to have a shot at being elected for 4 years in the most powerful country on earth than it is to have a tinpot dictatorship in a country with a 30% literacy rate.

There are plenty of bureaucrats who like to abuse their power, and they are the real problem. I don't think it's a conspiratorial goal, like all these bureaucrats get together and say hey let's wipe out our adversaries, etc. I think it's more on an individual level.

And they are enabled and empowered by one thing -- our complete lack of practicality in fighting terrorism. We simply cannot pass a law that limits powers to be directed against a few named entities, because that's "unfair" or "racist" or whatever. I would support a law that says mosques can be monitored with no warrants. Anybody who's ever been to mosque can be monitored for all I care. Anybody who buys a koran at barnes and noble. Anybody who logs onto a website that has to do with Islam.

But obviously there will be no laws like that because they are discriminatory. We can't pass laws that address reality because we are paralyzed by not being discriminatory. This is why we get 78 year old white women being body-scanned in airports. And why the laws on the books let some cop with a dick up his ass arrest people on "terrorism" charges when any regular person would say, no, that had nothing to do with terrorism.

Go To Hell

[EdIII]

We can significantly advance security without having a deleterious impact on individual rights in most instances. At the same time, there are situations where trade-offs are inevitable

First, you're full of crap.

Secondly, there are NO SITUATIONS in which that trade-off is acceptable. NONE. There is no such thing as, "We will abuse the rights of some, just a little bit, but it will work out net positive".

It's absolutely negative, fuck you, and get out of my country. You don't deserve to be here, YOU are a greater threat to my "American Way of Life" than that Fort Hood terrorist ever was, or could have been.

Ohhh, and Mrs... if you are reading this.. seriously fuck you. That's the most asinine and offensive statement towards my rights and liberties by a public official that I have heard in a long time.

Re:Go To Hell

[Anonymous Coward]

A-Fucking-Men!

How long before this shit has people rooting for the terrorists and it comes full circle and creates freedom fighters?

Re:Go To Hell

[oodaloop]

Why do you hate America so much?

Re:Go To Hell

[cfortin]

Absolutely. And it also shows how out-of-step with the current net these people are. Given the way people rejoice in their liberty on the net, there would be whole theater groups getting set up just to troll DHS.

This, people, this right here is the natural result of electing a pile of leftist socialists, the smug 'we understand the social models, so we can make things better if we control everything' mindset. A aristocracy of arrogance. No understanding of the noise in the system, or the importance of having noise there.

Re:Go To Hell

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not being a good liberal. You're supposed to cheer the abuse of rights when a socialist is in power. You're only supposed to speak out with anger when it's a Republican in power, where you're to pretend that it's all about abuse of rights and not simply who's in the White House.

Re:Go To Hell

[joe_frisch]

Though I might have put it more politely, I agree to some extent. How many deaths a year do we have from terrorism? Is that number really big enough to justify giving up some of our rights?

On the other hand, we already consider rights to be a trade off against security. Most people support allowing some forms of surveillance with a court order. Laws haven't kept up with improving technology, so there isn't really a black and white "this violates our rights and that does not".

I don't have serious objections to collecting information to stop terrorism. what I object to is using that information to stop other crimes. We already accept the idea that our military is given different tools than our police: We don't give the police attack helicopters, grenade launchers and nukes. By the same sort of argument, I don't mind the military having extensive surveillance technology to stop international terrorism, but I DO object to that technology or information obtained from it being used to stop other crimes like copyright violations.

Re:Go To Hell

[betterunixthanunix]

"This, people, this right here is the natural result of electing a pile of leftist socialists"

Wow, I have never heard of the republicans referred to as leftist socialists. They are, after all, the party that started the trend toward more and more surveillance, and Bush administration officials have publicly voiced approval of Obama administration policies.

Oh, yeah, and the one socialist in the US Senate does not approve of the increased surveillance: http://sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=1cabd1b9-84c1-4f8f-a93d-2731bfe273fe

Re:Go To Hell

[Anonymous Coward]

He doesn't hate America. He loves America. He abhors and hates the things the American government is doing to this once great country. He's pointing out that the American government does not see that there are not shades of gray where these laws and beliefs are concerned. the American government should know that but they clearly do not.

Re:Go To Hell

[flajann]

Why is it that anyone critical of the US Government is labeled as "hating America?" The two are completely different.

Re:Go To Hell

[oodaloop]

I was kind of going for funny, not troll. Oh well.

Re:Go To Hell

[Runaway1956]

I'm pretty certain that even in 2001, the total number of Americans killed by terrorists was a rather small fraction of the number of Americans killed on our highways. Sometimes, it's hard to put things in perspective, but it's worth the effort.

Re:Go To Hell

[Threni]

Really, all sites need to offer https really. Why doesn't Slashdot? You can't claim to give a shit about freedom, security etc and force users to use the internet in plaintext - it doesn't make any sense.

Re:Go To Hell

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is it that anyone critical of the US Government is labeled as "hating America?" The two are completely different.

Some people are simply pussies.

Re:Go To Hell

[aronschatz]

Oh good, another person that blindly supports a political party.

There are stupid people in BOTH parties. These are PROGRESSIVE ideas and progressives have invaded both parties. Who care what party they are from if the policy is bad.

I guess you're okay with the situation now since it a Democrat in power? You should ALWAYS deny the government any additional power at the expense of your individual rights.

Re:Go To Hell

[betterunixthanunix]

"I guess you're okay with the situation now"

You guess wrong, probably because you did not understand the point of my post. Here, I'll put it plainly for you: neither the democrats nor the republicans actually care about the rights of the people.

Re:Go To Hell

[slashqwerty]

From the article

As terrorists increasingly recruit U.S. citizens, the government needs to constantly balance Americans' civil rights and privacy with the need to keep people safe, said Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano.

But finding that balance has become more complex as homegrown terrorists have used the Internet to reach out to extremists abroad for inspiration and training.

This should not be a difficult balance to find as it is spelled out in the constitution that this woman swore to uphold. Specifically, she needs to present a judge with probable cause and ask him to sign a warrant. Considering that judges practically rubber-stamp the things it should not be difficult.

Re:Go To Hell

[Anonymous Coward]

No situations? How about after multiple shootings in a school by multiple persons, where some students give up their individual rights to be searched for weapons, or the evidence of gunpowder on their hands, in an attempt to catch those who shot fellow classmates? Now, I don't like censorship or complete monitoring either, but I think you've gone a little off the deep end when you say there are "NO SITUATIONS," "NONE." How about a bank robbery in which you and others were taken hostages, and police want to make sure they got all the hostage takers and none slip through law enforcement's hands?

Re:Go To Hell

[xororand]

Slashdot offers HTTPS to subscribers.

Re:Go To Hell

[mpe]

Secondly, there are NO SITUATIONS in which that trade-off is acceptable. NONE. There is no such thing as, "We will abuse the rights of some, just a little bit, but it will work out net positive".

AFAIK there's no historical example of this ever having happened.
On top of this you often get "anti-terrorism" laws used against people who are self evidently not terrorists, not used against actual terrorists, even turn out to be useless/redundant when it actually comes to dealing with terrorism.

Re:Go To Hell

[Anonymous Coward]

Republicans and Democrats are both trending toward socialism, with Democrats favoring economic socialism and Republicans favoring social socialism (ie forcing their values on others). With the two teams trading power, what we end up with is a zig-zag path to totalitarianism. Everyone focuses so much on the laft right paradigm that they totally miss the fact that politics is not a two way street, it is a compass. The "left" and the "right" are on the left and right, respectively, while freedom is above, and statism is below.

For more, take a look here: http://www.politicalcompass.org/

And for some reason, Slashdot keeps logging me out whenever I click into a story. It's really annoying.

Re:Go To Hell

[Anonymous Coward]

Sadly being listed as Republican does not stop one from being a leftist socialist, heck just look at W Bush.

Re:Go To Hell

[ae1294]

Slashdot offers HTTPS to subscribers.

Yeah they have to have your credit card and address on file for national security reasons.

Re:Go To Hell

[WillDraven]

PROGRESSIVE

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Re:Go To Hell

[Anonymous Coward]

What difference does it make who started it? What matters right now is who is furthering it. This is like a child yelling at the playground aid who caught him throwing stones at others "but HE started it!" Yes, the Republicans did pass some things like the Patriot Act and Bush did authorize warrantless wiretapping. What this administration is working toward is much more widespread and dark than either of those two acts or anything that has come from them. If people want to keep pointing back to the last administration to justify the problems of the current ruling elite, we'll sit around and bicker while it all slips out from under us. I have to imagine that is part of what politicians these days hope for and count on.

Re:Go To Hell

[jafac]

Well, the sick thing about all this. . . is the whole POINT of terrorism, is to TERRORIZE the target population, and cause them to react in this way (limit freedoms, increase fear, racial xenophobia, escalate conflict, provoke war, draw attention, etc.). And the US played right into it.

These arguments were made in the wake of 9/11 - of course. But were immediately drowned-out among the "OMG! brown people blowing up stuff on our soil!" (because there was nowhere near the national concern, of course, over the threat posed by Tim McVeigh or various domestic militia movements - who hate our liberal democracy just as much as Osama bin Laden. And for the same ideological reasons).

I *do* have a problem with allowing terrorists to succeed, in their goal, of shutting down 4th amendment and 1st amendment protections. (and 6th and 8th). Out of fear. Via the tried and true mechanism that gives this method of warfare it's name. They (the terrorists) spent far less money than the RIAA did lobbying to violate our 1st and 4th amendment rights. (Probably, both the terrorist groups, and the RIAA/MPAA spent less money on provoking the fear that gets our rights violated, than WE spend, as taxpayers, on the national infrastructure of lawyers and police to violate our own rights.)

That's the sick thing.

We pay tax money, to FORCE our citizens to become educated - we learn in history, and civics classes, about our rights, our constitution, and what terrorism is (at least we did in the 1980s and 1970s when I went to school) - but then, apparently, we get into the voting booth, and we've forgotten all about that, and we're wetting our pants in fear over what our President's business-partner's rogue son is doing in 'stan, "Oh Please, big brother! please take our rights away! We're so terrified of what we're seeing on FoxNews! OMG! SCARY! We'll pay ANY PRICE to feel safe! Please save us!!!"

Re:Go To Hell

[Threni]

Lol!

I mean, it has to be free, so everyone can use it. No-one's going to pay for it, and even if they did, what sense does it make to pay in such an easily trackable way. "Hmm...if only there was some way to discover which websites the owner of credit card 522491029930293023 visits..."

Re:Go To Hell

[Anonymous Coward]

I personally believe that being critical of the government is the most patriotic thing one can do.

Re:Go To Hell

[Shark]

Government wants more power. Terrorism provides government with more power. Do you honestly think they've got any intention to stop it? The shift towards home-grown terrorism is a godsend. It means gaining more power over your actual citizenry rather than that of some hell hole in the middle east. It's a beautiful, self-sustaining engine: The more you oppress, the more terrorism you get, the more you are justified to oppress... It runs on death and misery.

Re:Go To Hell

[ae1294]

Hmm...if only there was some way to discover which websites the owner of credit card 522491029930293023 visits...

Just ask the ISP for the list of sites for the owner of CC 522491029930293023, name Robert Waken who lives at 37 New Wood Ln, 27721.

P.S. I was making something of a joke in the previous message but never-mind....

Re:Go To Hell

[Gazoogleheimer]

I'm a socialist, which grants me the interesting position of watching everyone jabber their mouths off with the term without ever actually knowing what it means...

Re:Go To Hell

[slick7]

neither the democrats nor the republicans actually care about the rights of the people.

It's not about Left versus Right, it's about YOU versus THEM. THEM being the elitists who don't give a rats ass about YOU. Anything that THEM can do to "stir the pot" allows YOU to worry about trivial matters instead of focusing on the main point of eliminating the middle class (however wide a range you wish it to be) and having only the very rich and the very poor. The poor who will fight the rich mans wars while struggling at the same time to put food on the table, clothe and shelter their families. YOU are nothing but grist for the mill. I do not espouse anarchy, but when the elite start stratifying themselves into classes, they're doomed. Changes are coming. They always have. It's the only constant.

Re:Go To Hell

[slick7]

PROGRESSIVE

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Pro means for. Con means against. Progress, Congress.
You do the math.

Re:Go To Hell

[slick7]

Well, the sick thing about all this. . . is the whole POINT of terrorism, is to TERRORIZE the target population, and cause them to react in this way (limit freedoms, increase fear, racial xenophobia, escalate conflict, provoke war, draw attention, etc.). And the US played right into it.

The US didn't play into it, they are one of the main players and you are the played.

Re:Go To Hell

[EdIII]

It's okay. I was laughing when I read your post.

Re:Go To Hell

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm pretty sure if there was anything dangerous or indicative of violence posted on these threads that the Big Stinky Boss Taco would report it, as he should. There may not be a man in the middle attack, but if you post something that indicates steps toward violence, you will be reported. And that is justified.

Re:Go To Hell

[vxice]

It fits right in with the terrorists hate our way of life, if you criticize us because you think we aren't doing a good job you hate our way of life and must therefore be a terrorist. Off to political prison for you commie. Just as any critic of him was soon found by McCarthy to be a communist and no longer eligible to be a critic. I also find this disturbing and anytime I'm asked I simply respond "Love your country always. Your government when it deserves it." That is slightly paraphrased from Mark Twain. Also a new point I've been wanting to try is that if America is the best and perfection is impossible then there will always be something wrong with our country and if you don't think we deserve a better country you want us to fail like the terrorists.

Re:Go To Hell

[Anonymous Coward]

The more you oppress, the more terrorism you get, the more you are justified to oppress...

Close, but not accurate. The NWO wants more power. They create hundreds of covert organizations that hire thousands of paid goons to act as terrorists. The "terrorists" create fake terror. Then the NWO agents within the govt ask public for more power to stop these so-called terrorists. Rinse and repeat over decades, and they will very powerful overlords, and we, the common public will have little freedom, fewer assets, fewer things to own.

This is analogous to Norton hiring full-time virus writers to create viruses so they can generate more income.

Re:Go To Hell

[arth1]

"Love your country always. Your government when it deserves it." That is slightly paraphrased from Mark Twain.

Didn't he say '"My country, right or wrong", is like saying "My mother, drunk or sober"'?

Anyhow, the biggest danger to a country is usually found within it. But you won't find those threats by snooping on the citizens; you have to aim much higher. The danger isn't the vote casters, but the vote buyers.

Re:Go To Hell

[vxice]

The line is from Chesterton's first book of essaysThe Defendant(1901) from the chapter, "A Defence of Patriotism": "'My country, right or wrong,' is a thing that no patriot would think of saying. It is like saying, 'My mother, drunk or sober.'" Appears to be what you are referencing. From Quotemeister

Re:Go To Hell

[Dracophile]

Though I might have put it more politely, I agree to some extent.

The problem with putting it politely is that it engages and to some extent validates their view. They should be told to fuck off. I don't know anyone has to be nice to them.

Re:Go To Hell

[Cassius Corodes]

social socialism! You heard it here first folks!

Also - I'm quite tired of people hating on socialism. Many of its ideas form the backbone of the western world. Minimum wage, unemployment benefits, paid holidays, weekends, sick leave, workplace safety, N-hour week, overtime, child labour laws, trade unions, healthcare and to a lesser extent pacifism and egalitarianism esp. in regard to minorities. All these ideas were and still are socialist ideas, that are now largely taken for granted, but not long ago were the scene of bloody battles.

So by all means criticise socialist ideas that you disagree with, but dont do as the above poster has done, and just use it as a label for "things I dont like". You are basically spitting on people who have died fighting for your rights.

Re:Go To Hell

[thelexx]

Same reasons criticizing Israel gets you labeled an anti-Semite - stupidity and ignorance.

Re:Go To Hell

[stdarg]

because there was nowhere near the national concern, of course, over the threat posed by Tim McVeigh

Timothy McVeigh was not part of a large, organized network that received state support and funding.

I *do* have a problem with allowing terrorists to succeed, in their goal, of shutting down 4th amendment and 1st amendment protections.

That's so amazingly naive.. you think terrorists care about your 4th amendment rights one way or the other? Whether you're racist or not? They have real goals, sometimes personal, religious, or political. I'm curious what you think was the "real" purpose of the IRA. Presumably not to fight the British occupation, that's far too obvious. Maybe they just hated democracy too?

but then, apparently, we get into the voting booth, and we've forgotten all about that, and we're wetting our pants in fear over what our President's business-partner's rogue son is doing in 'stan, "Oh Please, big brother! please take our rights away!

In the past, America has gone pretty extreme in that direction. It always turns around. We didn't have an anti-Japanese genocide after WWII -- despite the scary start of putting them in concentration camps. We didn't end up banning all political parties and going back to a monarchy back when simple membership in the KKK was criminalized.

In the past, America has shown that it can take practical, temporary political actions. Whether those actions achieve concrete security goals is debatable (I think the KKK thing worked, for instance), but the whole slippery slope argument that people like to trot out about freedoms is tired.

Re:Go To Hell

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know when 'it' all started but Cliton surely contributed towards more surveillance after Oklahoma, but anyways labeling it as a republican/democrat issue shows that you are still falling for the right/left paradigm. Sure their tactics are different, but the strategy is the same for both parties - less liberty.

Re:Go To Hell

[Zymophideth]

While we're on the subject of numbers. Deaths from 9/11 attacks: 2,752. U.S. Military Fatalities under Operation Enduring Freedom: 1,125. U.S. Military Fatalities in Iraq under Operation Iraqi Freedom: 4,407.
http://www.icasualties.org/ http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/10/29/wtc.deaths/
So the U.S., by their own ambitions, more than doubled the 9/11 death count with their own soldiers and they still haven't brought the man behind the heinous act to justice. I'm not even going to bring up civilian casuatlies as that would just bring me to tears.

Re:Go To Hell

[betterunixthanunix]

"Minimum wage, unemployment benefits, paid holidays, weekends, sick leave, workplace safety, N-hour week, overtime, child labour laws, trade unions, healthcare"

Perhaps you do not spend as much time paying attention to the opinions of far right or libertarian commentators as I do, but I have heard arguments against each of those. I have seen people claim that weakening all of the above will help slow the rate of offshoring and thus improve everyone's lives.

Re:Go To Hell

[Cassius Corodes]

I would note that even you (presumably right-wing/libertarian?) still said weakening rather than removing.

Re:Go To Hell

[psithurism]

Well America _is_ the real American values this country was founded on.

Citizens, politicians and laws that don't agree with my, err, those values are disagreeing with America.

I was going to add a , but I'm not sure I'm joking.

Re:Go To Hell

[flajann]

It fits right in with the terrorists hate our way of life, if you criticize us because you think we aren't doing a good job you hate our way of life and must therefore be a terrorist. Off to political prison for you commie.

What's this "we" shit, jingoist?

It's quite clear to anyone who has been paying attention -- and I don't mean a CNN couch potato, either -- that what they hate is US government involvement in manipulating their countries, supporting their enemies, and the myriad of other hegemonic things US gov does around the world. They never seem much of the US civilian "way of life" -- that's too abstract and removed from them. What they do see is what's right in front of their noses -- US troops blowing up their villages, bombing their camps, cutting off supplies, manipulating their governments, etc. THAT is what they're responding to. They could care less that you might love watching baseball or I might love to take a walk through the woods.

Then again, I do recall an open admission on the part of the US government a number of times that they would try to manipulate and influence perception by infiltrating various groups and online establishments to "sow seeds of propaganda".

So, exactly whom it is do you work for?

Re:Go To Hell

[flajann]

Same reasons criticizing Israel gets you labeled an anti-Semite - stupidity and ignorance.

And merely asking probing questions about the "Holocaust", like exactly where that "6 million" figure came from, will get you landed as a "holocaust denier".

It's a sad day when it's wrong to challenge and inquire.

Re:Go To Hell

[Shark]

Heh, I'm aware of that, but since that's a sure way to have yourself labelled as a tinfoil hat conspiracy theorist, I stick to the general principle this crowd would agree with. If one genuinely researches the level of collusion and influence trafficking in the high spheres of government, finances and academia, one can very much see what you refer to as the NWO. Anyone else just shrugs it off as delusional, it's a lot less work and spares you the obligation to try and do something about it.

Re:Go To Hell

[vxice]

"US troops blowing up their villages, bombing their camps, cutting off supplies, manipulating their governments, etc." Is the exact kind of thing that your government doesn't deserve your loyalty for. And no where do I say that they don't do that or that they should be excused for it. Actually if you actually read the post I say the exact fucking opposite. I criticize the ignorant America can't do wrong sentiment. So where is this rabid pro American propaganda I am sowing. Oh wait sorry this is slashdot I forgot my bad, your tinfoil hat must be on a bit loose and is letting it the teh government mind control waves so that they can infiltrate this exclusive community that is impossible for just anyone to join where everyone is so mentally malleable that anything they read online will instantly change their mind. Sorry I screwed up the plot.

Re:Go To Hell

[flajann]

Well, you'll need more tin foil than just for a hat, considering they are planning to install the T-ray render-your-ass-naked scanners in all US airports, where perverts will be looking at you, your wife, and your kids rendered digitally naked as they walk through.

And yes, it's more than just a conspiracy. It's actual fact. And the sheeple in this country don't seem to care, either.

Going to have to figure out how to build a portable EMP device to render the pervert's toys useless.

There's terrists growing in them thar intarwebz!!

[Anonymous Coward]

What's this, total information awareness 2.0?

Yes, of course we need more tracking of everybody, everywhere, everywhen. Because these people obviously cannot think of anything else to do. What else can you do, if you can't even keep a job flipping burgers? *facepalm*

The only use I have for this icon of solidified paranoia, so aptly seconded by arrogant incompetence compressed into a TLA dedicated to harassing travelers, is to stuff it full of tranquilizers and drop it traitjacketet into the deepest dungeon, to rot ever after. And there would be much rejoicing.

Re:DOWN WITH TEH BUGGERMENT!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Because only Republicans want to violate your right to privacy and civil liberties... right?

Less Freedom != More Secuity

[VortexCortex]

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
  - Benjamin Franklin

Also: If we outlaw the visiting of radical websites, only outlaws will visit radical websites?

At this rate it wont be long before we have a convictions based on "pre-crime" behavior ala Minority Report.

Re:Less Freedom != More Secuity

[Anonymous Coward]

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

According to the DHS, the liberties you will give up are not essential and the safety you will gain will be permenant, so the quote does not apply.

Re:Less Freedom != More Secuity

[silentsteel]

Why is this modded troll? This is actually, very likely the answer you would receive from the nuts at DHS if you brought this quote up to them. At the very least it should be modded funny, in a sick twisted sort of way.

Re:Less Freedom != More Secuity

[Runaway1956]

"According to the DHS"

Yes, I got that. There are a lot of other things I don't like about Napolitano. The bitch should have been drowned while she was still a pup.

Re:Less Freedom != More Secuity

[Anonymous Coward]

DHS is trying to trace the quote to its original author as the quote has a treasonous tone and appears to glorify terrorism.

They won't catch anyone

[betterunixthanunix]

Case-in-point: there were dozens of warning signs about the September 11 attacks, and that was without any additional Internet monitoring. The problem has nothing to do with detecting the communications of people who are planning an attack, but with correctly using that information.

Re:They won't catch anyone

[drinkypoo]

Case-in-point: there were dozens of warning signs about the September 11 attacks,

And just to be clear on what these "warning signs" were, one of the chiefest ones was a paper that described the risk that someone would do just this, and that plans to do so had been intercepted. Or in other words, we knew the attack was coming and we did nothing to prevent it. This is the kind of thing that just drives conspiracy theorists into a frenzy.

Re:They won't catch anyone

[Nikker]

I just figured they needed a crayon picture of a bomb with a telephone number and address. Never figured they could do anything beyond that.

Re:They won't catch anyone

[Anonymous Coward]

There were also plenty of warning signs of the Pearl Harbor attack but it served the office holders of the government better by allowing it to happen instead of doing what they could to at least try to stop it. For instance DHS PATRIOT act etc. These things would never have been possible without 9/11 or something equally visible to the public. Most of these horrendously intrusive laws are mostly written and just sitting there waiting for someone to submit them to the process of lawmaking when politically appropriate situations present themselves.

"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event--like a new Pearl Harbor" "Daniel McKivergan", newamericancentury.org, web.archive.org, May 30, 2007 PNAC

The more things change the more they stay the same.

Everything old is new again.

Re:They won't catch anyone

[f3rret]

It is a false assumption that because the US government had access to plans that outlines the 9/11 attacks that they could or even should do anything about it.

Now I cannot say exactly how much information goes through the intelligence agencies every day, but I am going to assume it is a not insignificant amount.
At any given time I am sure that there are several international terrorist groups that are planning to pull some operation and never actually go through with it, and I'm sure a lot of those sound a lot less crazy than the 9/11 attacks.

My point being that intelligence gathering of the sort you need to do to track down terrorists is an inherently "noisy" process which makes it extremely unlikely that you'll ever stop any operation from going live the best you can hope for is stopping one while it is in progress.

Incidentally this is the same reason why Echelon and other large scale monitoring systems are more or less useless for discovering and operation which has not already been identified through other means (HUMINT or whatever); the sheer volume you'd have to sift through to potentially discover anything of interest is simply mindboggling.

Theatrical Security

[Voulnet]

This is what they call theatrical security: No real outcome, no real benefit, just a stage to let people gradually abandon their rights of privacy. Nothing to see here, move along people... Reminds me of when people used to write all sorts of fake alerting messages on the internet to distort intelligence scanners and fill them with false positives. Like this: bomb terrorist Osama George Bush Saddam nuclear improvised explosive devices infidels

Re:Theatrical Security

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that it isnt theatrical only, it is theatrical, but it is behind the curtain they they are stripping rights and freedoms away from us, one dollar and one law at a time.

Re:Theatrical Security

[nurb432]

Nothing to see here, move along people...

I disagree, there is a LOT to see here, and we should be fighting this nonsense, not just "moving along". Apathy is just as bad as 'its for the kids' when it comes to losing our rights and freedoms.

Re:Theatrical Security

[rolando2424]

For those of you who use Emacs, you can use M-x spook when composing email

(Or you can use it with twitter)

Example: terrorist Ft. Meade strategic supercomputer $400 million in gold bullion quiche Honduras BATF colonel Treasury domestic disruption SEAL Team 6 class struggle smuggle

Re:Theatrical Security

[Voulnet]

You're totally right. Apathy is what makes this world so screwed up when in fact it's filled with good people.

It reminds me of the Bystander Effect. Look it up if you're unfamiliar with it.

Re:Theatrical Security

[Voulnet]

Haha, that is nice, I didn't know about it. Auto-panic generator.

Re:Theatrical Security

[flajann]

Nothing to see here, move along people...

I disagree, there is a LOT to see here, and we should be fighting this nonsense, not just "moving along". Apathy is just as bad as 'its for the kids' when it comes to losing our rights and freedoms.

I think he was being sarcastic.

Re:Theatrical Security

[Runaway1956]

"Apathy is what makes this world so screwed up when in fact it's filled with mediocre people."

I think that's more accurate. Great people are very hard to find. Good people are difficult to find. Mediocre people are everywhere.

Re:Theatrical Security

[Threni]

> "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br

Who is this "Charlie Br"? Charlie Brown? Brouhaha? Bronson?

Re:Theatrical Security

[BigSlowTarget]

On average people are below average

Re:Theatrical Security

[Runaway1956]

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Windows+is+like+the+faint+smell+of+piss+in+a+subway%3A+it's+there%2C+and+there's+nothing+you+can+do+about+it.

Re:Theatrical Security

[slick7]

On average people are below average

Common sense is so rare, it's a fucking superpower!

Hope and change

[Anonymous Coward]

that you can believe in.

Re:Hope and change

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey! It was a catchy phrase won him the election... That's all that mattered... Madison Ave. at its very best

who's to blame?

[muckracer]

When the fox is guarding the hen house, is he really to blame for taking more and more liberties (pun intended)?

Or those who:

a) put the fox in the hen house in the first place

b) leave the fox there even after knowing it ain't no good

c) fail consistently to adequately protect themselves from the fox and his intrusive methods despite having the tools to do so?

Re:who's to blame?

[wizardforce]

Unfortunately the idiots that think the fox was a necessary addition outnumber those of us that know better. The fox is always to blame *and* so are those who were stupid enough to let fear make the decisions for them.

Re:who's to blame?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe if they installed more security cameras in the hen house?

Re:who's to blame?

[newdsfornerds]

You mean the Fox broadcasting corp, right?
HEH

Re:who's to blame?

[vxice]

"The fox is always to blame" is a sentiment that really avoids the issue. It is pushed by those who don't like feeling bad about what they have done so they rephrase the issue. If everyone is too stupid to realize that the fox should not be guarding the hen house their fellow citizens need to inform them of the reality. You can't bury your head and hope the rest of the world works well. If that doesn't work try terrorism. Worked against the British during the revolution and brings attention to your cause.

Re:who's to blame?

[simoncpu was here]

What will we replace the fox with? Privacy invasion is bad, but how can we adequately protect ourselves from terrorists? I think the people who put the fox in the hen house can't see any other solution.

Re:who's to blame?

[stdarg]

I think the problem is people aren't scared of terrorism in general. You'll always have your Timothy McVeighs and your unabombers. People are scared of the Islamic jihad, which is far larger than any other terrorism threat today. The problem is we can no longer pass laws that target a group of people. Instead of saying "we're going to have warrantless wiretaps on anybody who goes to a mosque, or anybody dealing with this list of countries" we have to say "we're going to have warrantless wiretaps on everybody, because anybody *could* be a terrorist."

In the past, the US has done things like declare the KKK to be a terrorist organization and make simple membership a crime. And things like the internment of Japanese nationals in WWII.

My point isn't whether that approach is better or worse, but it explains why we have this "fox in the henhouse" issue to begin with. In order to be more fair, everybody is subjected to the fox.

I guess memories run short...

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember how Carnivore FAILED in independent tests (Source: Cryptome) or how hackers stole gigabytes of DoD information by sending it through 80/tcp, bypassing DoD firewalls?

I guess the government forgets easily..

DHL

[Anonymous Coward]

I read this as DHL wanting to monitor the web for terrorists who sabotage their shipping delivery times and quality.

It wouldn't be the first time using them as an excuse either...

Disturbing

[Protoslo]

Apparently the speech focused on one of those situations where "tradeoffs are inevitable." If Hassan and Shahzad were "inspired" by radical internet posts, I cannot conceive of any further investigative tradeoff that could have been made while still maintaining constitutionality. Even if they had made radical internet posts, they would have to be inciting imminent lawless action or alluding to their participation in criminal plots/conspiracies/etc. to justify a search warrant. The FBI is already on the lookout for people who post such things on public online forums.

Napolitano's comments suggest an effort by the Obama administration to reach out to its more liberal, Democratic constituencies to assuage fears that terrorist worries will lead to the erosion of civil rights.

I would hate to think that anyone liberal on civil rights would find these statements comforting...

"Her speech is sign of the maturing of the administration on this issue," said Stewart Baker, former undersecretary for policy with the Department of Homeland Security. "They now appreciate the risks and the trade-offs much more clearly than when they first arrived, and to their credit, they've adjusted their preconceptions."

Yes, I'm sure "liberals" will be relieved that Stewart Baker, former Assistant Secretary (nice research, AP) of the DHS for George W. Bush, approves of the Obama Administration's "security" policies. When Republican hawks talk about "mature" security policies, they mean the ones that Dick Cheney dreams about at night, the ones that Bush was trying to step back from in his final two years; they mean Obama's current policies.

Re:Disturbing

[Runaway1956]

Actually, Hassan and Shahzad are quite different cases. Hassan had a history of making treasonous remarks, and going off on seemingly irrational tangents. He was a known loose cannon, subject to military scrutiny and discipline. He really should have been dealt with very early in his career, and firmly.

Shahzad, on the other hand, is basically an unkown nobody, who could easily have evaded everyone's radar, if he were world-wise. No commission, no military background at all, no real education, not a public figure, nothing. Just another dummy who wanted to be something/somebody, and failed because he was stupid.

Re:Disturbing

[AHuxley]

Making treasonous remarks always seems like fed bait.

Re:Disturbing

[http]

Janet Napolitano is being very liberal with your civil rights.

Re:Disturbing

[stdarg]

Shahzad, on the other hand, is basically an unkown nobody, who could easily have evaded everyone's radar, if he were world-wise. No commission, no military background at all,

Except his father was the Vice Air Marshall of the Pakistan Air Force, and Pakistan's establishment (military and political) has a long history of supporting terrorism and Islamic extremism.

Tools are already in place, but not used

[indytx]

This is all fine and good if it actually makes us safer, but it won't. Maj. Hasan was investigated by the FBI for his contacts with radical clerics well before he went on a shooting rampage, but he was still allowed to buy a gun because this information or even a flag was never placed into the instant background check database, and the terrorism task force that was watching him didn't receive notice that he bought a gun and a bunch of ammo. Here's an idea, make it so the FBI knows when a terrorist it's investigating is buying a bunch of guns and ammo. Why don't we start there?

Re:Tools are already in place, but not used

[misexistentialist]

It would have been rather bizarre if an army major was prohibited from buying a gun... And even if the FBI were notified, it doesn't seem like they would have done anything, since they had no problem with a guy with security clearance who swore an oath to protect the USA openly being an Islamic extremist.

Re:Tools are already in place, but not used

[webdog314]

Sorry to pick nits, but why would being an army major make it more or less acceptable to buy a gun? The fact that you might know how to use a gun has absolutely no bearing on your the level of psychotic behavior (beyond the negative implications of PTSD). It certainly doesn't mean that you would make a better candidate for ownership, or that you are ANY less likely to use it for a violent crime (quite the opposite actually).

I agree with the rest though.

Re:Tools are already in place, but not used

[janrinok]

"...being an Islamic extremist."

I'm not sure if I've read this correctly, but I thought that they knew that he was a Muslim but not that he was an extremist. I'm not American but I don't think that it has yet been made illegal to follow any specific religion - nor should that ever be the case! An individual's religious beliefs has nothing to do with the State. Many of those close to him DID know that he held extremist views but, apparently, they did not take the necessary steps of raising the matter with anyone who could assess his suitability for either his post or for buying firearms. There were lots of mistakes made but I don't think that the FBI were to blame for them. It wasn't the case that the FBI 'had no problem' with the person that you describe - rather, they we not aware of the facts because nobody bothered to tell them.

Not being an American, I might have missed some critical reporting but that's how I recall it being reported here.

Re:Tools are already in place, but not used

[misexistentialist]

If you aren't competent enough to own a gun you surely aren't competent enough to be employed by the military. I guess it's true that the military restricts access to its own toys, but they are usually lethal enough that it's best to wait until soldiers are on another continent before taking them out.

Re:Tools are already in place, but not used

[misexistentialist]

According to Wikipedia the FBI intercepted emails between Hasan and Anwar al-Awlaki--a preacher of jihad and a suspect investigated in 2002 for assisting in the 9/11 attack--in the year before the shooting. The FBI and military opened an investigation...but nothing happened. Unless Hasan was working as a double-agent before he went crazy, it's difficult to understand why he was given a pass. Maybe they thought it was better if he focused on killing soldiers rather than civilians? Maybe they don't really care, since more terror=fatter budgets.

Re:Tools are already in place, but not used

[Attila Dimedici]

If an army major is someone who should be ineligible to buy a gun, they should be ineligible to be an army major (or any other rank in the army for that matter...unless they are currently in military prison).

Re:Tools are already in place, but not used

[Attila Dimedici]

He made a large number of statements to his fellow officers that indicated he was an Islamic extremist. His superiors should have known that he was an Islamic extremist. Even if they did not, the actions he did take, should have led to his discharge from the military.

Re:Tools are already in place, but not used

[spidr_mnky]

This is all fine and good...

Um ... no. But I like what you said after that.

Re:Tools are already in place, but not used

[webdog314]

They are not buying a guy for use in the military... which would be to kill people. They are buying a gun for use outside of the military. I'm not at all worried about the army major with a gun to do his job, I'm worried about that same guy bringing his work home with him.

The army employs people to do something that is completely unacceptable any place else within our society. So someone using a gun within the confines and regulations that go along with a military career is different than the same person wanting a gun for personal use. In the later sense, they should be treated NO differently than anyone else.

Re:Tools are already in place, but not used

[Attila Dimedici]

If someone fails the background check to buy a gun, I don't want them in the army either. Someone who is ineligible to buy a gun, should also be ineligible to serve in the military.

And here it is

[davmoo]

If nothing else, this proves that a Democrat administration is no more concerned about individual rights than the previous Republican administration was.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Re:And here it is

[Robert Bowles]

Moderators, please "untroll" this comment.

Is directing negative comments towards ${YOUR_PARTY} inherently trollish and anything positive "insightful"?

Re:And here it is

[davmoo]

I wasn't at all surprised. Another thing the big parties have in common besides little concern for individual rights is neither party can take any criticism. This is what happens when you have extremists running the show in both parties, instead of having a party that truly represents the majority.

This one will probably get trolled too, because a "troll" mod is just another way of saying "too close to the truth and it makes me unhappy".

Re:And here it is

[Hurricane78]

And you only found out about this now?

Damn, do you even know that what we nowadays call “lobbying” and “donations” used to be called highly illegal treason, and punished like murder? And with good reason!

Nowadays, if someone still believes the parties are anything buy bought sock puppets, he does not deserve to vote or stay in the country! Seriously. How fuckin delusional must one be, to still believe that you live in a democracy?
That’s like the Soviet Union people believing they lived in a communist society. (For that to happen, the “interim” government would first have had to dissolve itself.)

Goes to show how well the media brainwashes even people like you and me. :/

The only solution I have left, is to found a new state, based on only 5 rules:
1. No life-form shall ever rule over another life-form.
2. Everything is allowed, unless it’s going against rule 1.
3. The definition of “rule” “right” and “wrong“ is relative, and hence completely individual for every life-form.
4. In case of differences in definition, the life-forms who have the difference, and only them, shall resolve those differences, or they must go separate ways.
5. There is only one “punishment“: Separation.

That’s all that’s needed. From that, the individual senses of right and wrong (which replace the oppressive concept of a global set of laws) grow, and people start to group by mindsets.

Re:And here it is

[Hurricane78]

Ooops, a bug fix:

3. The definition of “rule over” in rule 1, and of “life-form“, “right&” and “wrong”, is relative, and hence completely individual for every life-form.

Re:And here it is

[Hurricane78]

Dammit! A typo. I should not create rules for a state after having woken up in the afternoon with a hangover. ;)

On the other hand, that could also be the famous words uttered by big leaders when founding most new states. )

Re:And here it is

[Draek]

Your state would be the functional equivalent of an anarchy, and would degenerate into one in short order. Most importantly is the fact that killing another being isn't 'ruling over' them, and that you didn't define the manner in which differences could be 'resolved' nor a particular protocol for doing so. Not that it'd be practical to do so, considering pretty much everything we eat constitutes some form of life-form but still.

Re:And here it is

[tftp]

Most importantly is the fact that killing another being isn't 'ruling over' them

It is, because "ruling over someone" means determining his future to some extent. Killing someone is the ultimate setting of his fate.

you didn't define the manner in which differences could be 'resolved' nor a particular protocol for doing so

Please read the GP comment again. There are up to N lifeforms, each unique. If two of such lifeforms meet and need to resolve a conflict, there would be N^2 possible manners and protocols that they could settle on. Nobody has any authority to define anything and shove that decision down the lifeforms' throats. Two intellectuals might want to play chess; two kickboxers might want to beat each other for a while.

pretty much everything we eat constitutes some form of life-form

If a fruit tree or a cow are unhappy about their situation they are always free to discuss that with their owners. I'm sure if a cow presents a good case, the rancher will let it go, after the cow returns the money spent on raising of that cow up to this point. Wolves in the forest will be glad to learn about such a separation.

Re:And here it is

[Anonymous Coward]

I like to eat meat and therefore would be violating your rules by indirectly rule over an animal. Also Spaying/Neutering Cats and dogs helps with population explosions.

Re:And here it is

[alexo]

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

When will people understand that the "new boss" has always been, and always will be the same as the "old boss"?

That is the point.

[n00btastic]

Free speech sometimes encourages behaviour against the institution.

When I entered high school the internet exposed me to anti-Christian propaganda. This led me to think about my belief system in a more analytical way. I am sure there are some people in Utah who would like to have removed my access to all dissenting religious thought for the same reason.

People who want to limit your access to information are trying to control how you think and how you act. People should do what they feel is right, and most importantly their actions should be the result of a well informed thought process.

Surely Nadal's actions were not efficient. He did not change anything, but he made his choice. Now he's dead. But you can hardly say he was a child who was indoctrinated by some internet posting.

Flame me if you will.

Re:That is the point.

[Anonymous Coward]

Please, "anti-christian propaganda" is not propaganda. You have learned (probably from a church) that when christianity is viewed in anyway other than practising it, is an attack on christianity, and is therefore lies, as christianity (and your particular denomination) is the one true truth.

And for you to call something "anti-christian propaganda" you are missing the point of what you were reading.

All religion is bullshit. They all are based on the same fallacy: We cannot prove there is no invisible super-human-type entity that made the universe and/or oversees us all, so there must be one. And here's his representative on Earth, that bloke in a frock (and probably his knob in a young boy).

And religions promise "the truth", but "the truth" is unknowable. Anyone who accepts that a truth is knowable is liable to be manipulated by other people.

Which religion is actually teaching the truth, if they all claim to? Maybe it's one, but most likely it is none.

Please get you mind out of the fucked up thinking that leads people to accept religion[1]. The religions push people to think in these ways, so as to make sure the religion has followers. And those followers give money, and power, to those running the religions.

[1] I think people often call this faith. ie take what another person says at face value, and don't doubt it. And no, they won't be trying to manipulate you. Oh no.

Re:That is the point.

[slashdotisgay2]

Oh look, another pussy posting as AC. If your views on religion are so perfect, then don't post as AC. Not like it matters, your still an idiot with a cock in his ass and one is his mouth.

Re:That is the point.

[n00btastic]

Forgive me, but I do not see any points at which we are necessarily in disagreement. To quote the Wizard's 10th rule: "Willfully turning aside from the truth is treason to one's self."

I think you were mostly upset about my use of the term 'propaganda.' There may be negative stigma behind this word, but it is not necessarily implied. Google says propaganda is simply "information that is spread for the purpose of promoting some cause."

It is all relative. Freedom fighter, or terrorist, it is all based on the observer. If you want to argue about something you should bring it beyond semantics.

Re:DOWN WITH TEH BUGGERMENT!!!!

[WrongSizeGlass]

There have been, and will continue to be, terrorist activities against governments, religions and 'peoples'. This includes the United States and 'our way of life' but isn't limited to the US by any stretch of the imagination. These acts of terror are committed by people of all nationalities and religions. It's evident that we all "just can't get along". The vast majority of these efforts aren't because of "perceived government eavesdropping on landlines, cellphones and e-mail" - they are because some extremist didn't get enough hugs from mommy, or someone of a nationality or religion other than theirs disrespected or harmed them or their way of life in some way (real or imaginary).

In the US this isn't a Republican vs. Democrat issue. The Republicans tend to campaign on the 'national security' issue much more than the Democrats, and regularly use it in their talking points. When the Republicans are in power they advance this agenda openly (though we'll never be aware of most of the details). The Democrats tend to campaign on alliances and détente, though they don't use coordinated talking points effectively. When the Democrats are in power the also advance an agenda of national security, but do it quietly and "behind the scenes" (and we'll never be aware of most of the details). Both parties use & promote surveillance and other activities that attempt to skirt the limits of the Constitution and the laws. The Republicans take their flack for it up front and the Democrats take their flack for it when it exposes itself.

What a facist

[Tisha_AH]

Quote:
"Fighting homegrown terrorism by monitoring Internet communications is a civil liberties trade-off the U.S. government must make to beef up national security, the nation's homeland security chief said Friday."

She goes on to say that the TSA procedure to not retain copies of the pictures taken by airport scanners is "protecting our rights". If the argument is going to be made that not making copies is "good enough" let's ask Rolando Negrin, the TSA employee who was arrested and fired after beating the snot out of one of his co-workers for their cracks about the size of his genitals.

http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local-beat/TSA-Fracas-After-Body-Scanner-Reveals-TMI-92971929.html

So, if someone only "publicly" derides your appearance, reading habits or porn preferences then your rights are violated. If the government gives unfettered access to the fine details of your private life to a select group it is a good thing?

The process is supposed to be based upon reasonable cause and suspicion. Evidence is to be presented to a judge who would issue a search warrant to give the government the temporary permission to snoop into the details of your private life to collect evidence of a crime. Homeland Security is quick to jump onto any opportunity to treat every American as a criminal "who just hasn't been caught yet".

4chan

[hoggoth]

Goodbye 4chan, it was fun while it lasted *sniff*

"Class of 2010 you are charged with insensitivity, cruelty towards animals, cruelty towards the handicapped, beastiality, crimes against nature, child pornography, anti-government ranting, promotion of drug use, homosexuality, cyber-stalking, cyber-bullying, and a host of other charges we will come up with before your trials."

Re:4chan

[Entropius]

The 4channers will all just fire up Tor, or 4chan will move to freenet.

We humans are made of swatikas

[Anonymous Coward]

Sometimes I hope the christians are right and my death leads me to a better world.

Re:We humans are made of swatikas

[uninformedLuddite]

You need to have faith that they are right and live by their code because if they are right your death means you are up the creek without a paddle

trade-offs are inevitable

[nurb432]

Well of course they are... :(

It sure is theatre!

[AnonymousClown]

As an example, she noted the struggle to use full-body scanners at airports caused worries that they would invade people's privacy.

The scanners are useful in identifying explosives or other nonmetal weapons that ordinary metal-detectors might miss — such as the explosives that authorities said were successfully brought on board the Detroit-bound airliner on Christmas Day by Nigerian Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab.

First, they do invade privacy it's just that folks have given up in arguing with the Government or there's the folks who are stupid enough to believe that it's important - I know a couple of them.

Secondly, that Nigerian boarded the aircraft IN NIGERIA! How many of these scanners do you think are going to be in piss poor third world countries?! NONE. And that's were most of the threat is coming from.

In the meantime, our stupid Government is scanning us: me, you, them, the 99.9999999999999999999999999999999% of travelers who just want to fucking get to their destinations. Of course, those big shots making policy, they don't fly commercial! Congressmen fly on private jets -Have a look.

Security is just theater for us little people to follow and be inconvenienced by.

Re:It sure is theatre!

[fluffy99]

First, they do invade privacy it's just that folks have given up in arguing with the Government or there's the folks who are stupid enough to believe that it's important - I know a couple of them.

Secondly, that Nigerian boarded the aircraft IN NIGERIA! How many of these scanners do you think are going to be in piss poor third world countries?!

Didn't he go through security again in Amsterdam before boarding the NW flight 253? I don't really care about the body scans myself even though I do consider them to be an invasion of my privacy. I'd much rather keep the janitorial staff from rummaging through my luggage. Bomb sniffing dogs are cheaper in the long run.

Even if we actually manage to secure the airports without making it painful for the average citizen to fly, the terrorists will simply focus on something else. There are potentially thousands of other viable targets such as the railways, subways, water supplies, refineries, the dikes surrounding New Orleans, etc. The whole reason terrorism is successful is that we're bankrupting ourselves to protect against a threat that is trivial to pose. An enemy spent less than $5000 to talk an impressionable Nigerian into boarding a plane with a bomb in his pants and suddenly the US is spending $200 million on body scanners.

Hope I'm not declared a terrorist...

[AmazinglySmooth]

At first glance, people respond with, "seems reasonable." But. If you happen to be on the wrong side of a political argument (GM bond holders), then info found on the internet can be used to coerce you so the result matches the government's desired outcome. Don't think it can happen? Ask BP why they so easily agreed to give up $20B.

"Tradeoffs are inevitable?"

[flajann]

"Trade-offs are inevitable?" Doublespeak for "we're going to screw your rights in the name of 'terrorism'".

Considering that the issue of "terrorism" -- in the US, at least -- is no where near a level you could possibly consider epidemic, this is just a poor excuse for the government to spy on ALL its citizens.

And if the government doesn't like what you're doing, you'll wind up being labeled a "terrorist", and they will swoop down on you, kick your doors in, confiscate all of your computers and smartphones, and CDs/DVDs and anything else where you might be hiding "terrorist activities".

And where is Obama in opposing all of this crass nonsense? Hell, I bet he supports it!

Welcome to the new boss! Same as the old boss!

Re:"Tradeoffs are inevitable?"

[vxice]

"Trade-offs are inevitable?" in clear American is you either get to catch all the criminals even the terrorists or some criminals slide by law enforcement so that terrorists fighting say over reaching intrusions into privacy or maybe taxation with out representation also get by. This is why those who would trade liberty for safety deserve neither they trade a smaller evil (home intrusion) for a greater evil (government agents breaking into your home and confiscating terrorist material). Never forget the founding fathers were terrorists in their day and patriots today.

"Monitoring" can mean two things.

[Entropius]

If by "monitoring" they mean "reading publically-available websites", then I have no civil-liberties problem with this. It might not be a good use of law enforcement resources (they'd benefit me, the taxpayer, more by finding the people who steal cars and break into houses), but there's nothing wrong with the DHS using publically-available information to do their job.

This, of course, is contingent upon them only using that information in an ethical way. If they want to subpoena my ISP and send the police to hassle me because I said "Fuck the police", then that's a problem. But that isn't directly related to the DHS' monitoring of the web.

Monitoring of private communication (email, IM, which websites I read) is a whole different ball game. Ethical arguments aside it is simply not practical -- the real "bad guys" can hide so deep behind cryptography and steganography that the only people turned up by this monitoring will be people who are a little too ardent (for their tastes) in saying "Fuck the police".

I'm visiting Italy, and they really do make it hard to get an internet connection that they can't investigate. I had to give my passport information to the hotel before they'd give me a damn wifi account (and they have accounts, on an authentication server that's always grossly overloaded, where in the US there'd just be a public AP). But of course anybody really up to no good would do their dirty work over Tor or through an anonymising proxy, while these sorts of "security" measures instead just make it hard for a bunch of scientists to check their experiments.

We can have all the discussions we want about whether there is a fundamental right to private anonymous communication, but the technological reality is that anyone who wants it enough will have it regardless. Monitoring etc. is just going to make /b/ load slowly because everyone has to load it over Tor.

This is news?

[cjb658]

I thought they already did this.

Wish I knew...

[Anonymous Coward]

I assume your question is directed at Janet Napolitano.

Well, I wish I knew why she and her kin do hate America that much. Maybe she was deprived from something as a kid. Whatever.

feature or a bug?

[Presto Vivace]

all this will do is make people more paranoid, furthering the "state of fear"

Fuck America.

[Anonymous Coward]

Monitor that you fucking Nazis.

Re:Fuck America.

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear citizen Anonymous Coward at 121.33.25.101:

Your use of the world "Nazi" has been duly noted and recorded for your protection.

Sincere regards,

The Guv'mint.

Re:DOWN WITH TEH BUGGERMENT!!!!

[flajann]

It's got nothing to do with "our way of life" (Bush propaganda), but US hegemony. If the US wants to continue to stick its nose in everybody's business, it can expect terrorism.

Bring our troops home. Pull them out of the 100+ countries they are stationed in. End the war already. Close Guantanamo Bay already, and return that land to the Cubans. And stop supporting Israel so damned much!!!

Once the US starts minding its own business in the world, it'll see much less of this so-called "terrorism threat".

Meanwhile, China is laughing at the US. Whilst the US weakens itself by chasing paper tigers, China is building itself up economically. Notice how they DID NOT go into negative growth during the economic downturn, while the US did. Hello. Is anyone paying attention?

Growing your Military Industrial Complex destroys wealth. Building up your manufacturing and production to meet the civilian market grows your wealth. It's that simple. And something the United States is totally lost on.

To hell with the needle, and the haystack.

[Runaway1956]

"Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius."

Re:To hell with the needle, and the haystack.

[Oddscurity]

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.

Re:To hell with the needle, and the haystack.

[e9th]

Nisi scire Latine potes.

Re:To hell with the needle, and the haystack.

[Oddscurity]

Thanks, but I already knew Latin wasn't my strong suit.

Re:To hell with the needle, and the haystack.

[The Wild Norseman]

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.

"Come on boys. We don't want any trouble in here. Not in any language."

Re:To hell with the needle, and the haystack.

[BrokenHalo]

Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius.

The notion of killing everybody and letting God sort 'em doesn't do much good when you have to apply it to your own people.

And (BTW) although Latin was a universally compulsory subject when I went through high school in the '70s, my sympathies are entirely with the anglophones who consider such usage to be otiose.

Re:To hell with the needle, and the haystack.

[Anonymous Coward]

Heh. Sorry, but your Latin's wrong.

The most common version of this quip has "altum videtur"; "videtur" is in the passive voice. "Video" usually means "to see", but in the passive voice, it also means "to appear" - "to be seen as", if you will. So the meaning of the above part is "[...] is seen as profound", or "seems profound".

"sonatur" is also in the passive voice, and what you said would translate to "is sounded as profound", which makes no sense. What you're looking for is "altum sonat" - "sounds profound".

Thank you, Gracious Overlords.

[Robert Bowles]

Miniluv really has a doubleplusgood idea here. Crimethink must be stopped, and this is a great first step to protecting us from ourselves.

situations vs. rights

[Theodore]

Rights must win, every time.
Freedom vs. safety,,, freedom... we are not guaranteed safety, we are guaranteed freedom.

Quote: Napalitano said it is wrong to believe that if security is embraced, liberty is sacrificed.
HER version of security, no; history of mankind, no...
This is not dogma, it's truth and history: Every time security is embraced, liberty IS sacrificed.

Every time someone tells you "we are under threat, you need to not do X"
That's when you need to say "NO. We are going to ignore you and double X."
THEY are the ones who are threatened, and they probably deserve it.

Fear is someone telling you, "don't step on a rusty nail".
Terror is, don't go outside without permission, because you might get tetanus and die.

Re:situations vs. rights

[Hatta]

This is not dogma, it's truth and history: Every time security is embraced, liberty IS sacrificed.

No no no, this is all wrong. Liberty IS security. Every bit of liberty we lose decreases our security against tyrannical goverment.

We have a voice

[Anonymous Coward]

I keep hearing on policies that are winding us down toward a Totalitarian Government. In response to these policies, I hear complaints, but never action.

I believe we need to band together and work toward informing the general public of what is going on. From that, we need to show our representatives that if they wish to stay in office, they need to start opposing these sort of laws.

I am not calling for any form of violent action. I ask of from all of you, these things.
1. Do some searching on the internet. There are plenty of reports of the abuse of these anti-privacy laws.
2. Go out and talk to those that live near you, show them what you found.
3. Ask the people you talk to to talk to everyone they know about what you have talked about.

Perhaps, in time organize protests.

If we sit back and unhappily watch as we are stripped of our rights, we apparently don't care about them as much as we say we do.

Don't Worry, It's Normal.

[Anonymous Coward]

In every self-resp... er, florescent dictatorhip that sells out it's own people, land, goods, resources, dignity, and sovreignity for trinkets, notoriety or social standing - the people are the enemy. They have to be as brashly monitored as possible. And pushed about, cowed, bullied, distracted, patronized - into a state of timorous annullment, unthinking terrified collaboration and self-effacement. And obsession with meningless fads and trifles. Ever licking the hand that lashes them. Or is that " ... the boot of the hand ... " ?

Check.

I'll throw some more hay onto the haystack

[captain_dope_pants]

The youngest ocelets climb low up the yellow hitech house. Will they trudge ton to Sama binded or laden with sand? Some to the r southern astygmatics lambbast ardsley want to offer help. We can canvass ass in a teflon pan. They govern mentalists with an iron hand.

** Waits for the Feebs **

Re:I'll throw some more hay onto the haystack

[AHuxley]

Just need to drip out a feed day in day out :
Summercon keebler GEODSS FIS Rewson, SAFE, Waihopai, INFOSEC, ASPIC, NSA/CSS, CDC, DOE, SAAM, FMS, HPCC, NTIS, SEL, USCODE, CISE, SIRC, CIM, ISN

Didn't they already do this ?

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember them putting boxes in ISP's about 9 or 10 years ago. The boxes were packet sniffers. They could basically see any data that was not encrypted, which a lot of it wasn't back then, like email passwords, ect, ect.

Re:Didn't they already do this ?

[AHuxley]

Now they hope for better than world lists like:
NADIS, NMI, SEIDM, BNC, CNCIS, STEEPLEBUSH, RG, BSS, DDIS
They have software like:
http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Mind_Your_Tweets:_The_CIA_Social_Networking_Surveillance_System
http://wikileaks.org/wiki/EU_social_network_spy_system_brief,_INDECT_Work_Package_4,_2009
They want your friends and friends of friends too ;)

Re:DOWN WITH TEH BUGGERMENT!!!!

[TubeSteak]

It's got nothing to do with "our way of life" (Bush propaganda), but US hegemony.

The western world has been attempting to recreate the Pax Romana for the last few hundred years... with limited success.
And i'm afraid they don't understand how the world could work without at least one super power nation to "enforce" the peace.

Government

[darjen]

We should be more concerned about monitoring the DHS for internal threats against our own lives and property.

And here I thought

[niftydude]

that they were going to use child pornography to justify having to do this. I guess the polls must of shown that terrorism was still the hottest button topic.

All hail the Messiah

[Anonymous Coward]

Vote for change for the hope of the change.

That hopey, changey thing is working out soooo well.

Land of the Free: RIP

[Thumper_SVX]

Seriously... 15 years ago when I came to the USA I felt that I was moving to the land of the free. I'm now looking at all the stuff the government is doing and seriously considering moving back to my country of origin so that I can give my son a better upbringing than I feel he can get here with the laughable "Security Theater" we have here. I have watched just about every freedom that Americans have had for hundreds of years basically vanish in 10 years. At the rate things are going I wonder if Mexico are going to have to start patrolling their borders to watch out for Americans trying to escape the tyranny.

Also, the focus on the "Terrorists" is pathetic. We've had terrorists in the USA as long as the USA has existed. The only reason they're clamping down now is because they see an opportunity to destroy our way of life and they grabbed it. What about the Neo Nazis? I'd say they're as bad or in some cases worse than the people who have committed the more recent public terrorist acts in the USA. Oh no, sorry... we can't clamp down on them; they're white. They make up a significant voting pool in the Midwest so we can't do anything about them.

It really pains me to see this country going down the tubes so rapidly... giving up everything that made America great. The sad thing is that the core values and ideals... hell even the core laws and rules are good. However, it has now become common practice to ignore the words of those base laws (like the constitution) while claiming to uphold the spirit of them.

want too?

[Anonymous Coward]

FOOLS they are already doing it and have been for while. THEY got caught doing it and now are asking for the right to wiretap your internet

Idiota!

[xTantrum]

Seriously, I can't wait till these old farts in office die off so they can be replaced with younger, tech savvy individuals who understand the internet is a revolutionary product and a paradigm shift. You cannot monitor it and you can't censor it because the genie is already out of the bottle. As with any medium - books, radio, television - you will have individuals of all kind who use it to further their cause and express their point of view. Hey ignorant Politicians, I know you don't need a degree to get in office so I'm going to spell it out for you. The revolution is building, information wants to be and will be free. Whether that just compounds the peoples apathy or reverses it has yet to be seen, but you cannot stifle this medium. Reminds me of the other idiot serving who wants an internet kill switch. Idiot.

Re:Idiota!

[joebagodonuts]

You can monitor and censor. Ask China. There will always be folks who can get around, but that will be small minority

Duplication of Intelligence Collection

[Anonymous Coward]

Lets see the cost/benefit for this hair-brained scheme.

The good guys are getting their best information from human sources set up to target the worst of the firebrands, then com-int after this.

Web pages are that that - noise and static, a distraction from the main game. And the tactics and techniques are good, so hiring a few more 100 to surf the web is not productive. Those resources would be better deployed in shopping malls / coffee shops overhearing others conversations or taking transcripts.

Further Internet

Re:Duplication of Intelligence Collection

[AHuxley]

East Germany faced that, 2-3 people sitting in and reporting back on a 10 person peace/church protest group.
Guess they hope software will sort it all out this generation.

Re:Warning Sign

[TaoPhoenix]

I'll go you one better.

TOM CLANCY warned the hell out of us, and we Luved it! (At least the bestseller book list sez so.) It's Executive Orders from ... 1995!!

Well, they will be in for a surprise...

[Hurricane78]

...when their detector’s alarm goes off, and in big red letters displays the IP addresses of their own network as the main terror threat to the nation. ;)

Mirror mirror on the wall, who’s the biggest terrorist in the world?
Dang! I just shattered like that... ;)

Must be Bush's Fault Right?

[Lawrence_Bird]

If this were not a frightening abuse of liberty it would actually be hilariously funny as it is coming from the most left wingEEEEE progressive democratic administration this country has seen.

How is this any different than a cop or FBI agent showing up at a meeting of some group and pretending to be a member or just standing quietly in the corner listening to everything that is said with no court order allowing it?

Little Brother

[supersloshy]

This is slightly off-topic, but is anyone here familiar with Cory Doctorow? He wrote a book I just finished called Little Brother where this same thing happened (except a little more localized and extreme) and he shows how pointless it really is. The book can be found here for download and it's under a Creative Commons BY-NC-SA license. If I was in Marcus's position right now (the book's main character), I'd be scared and facepalming at the same time. I wouldn't be scared of terrorists; I'd be scared of my own government! And to think we always shoot down the very ideas of some foreign governments that "don't respect freedom" when we're doing the very things we hate. It just doesn't make sense.

THis is stupid, but it will happen.

[WindBourne]

Every western nation already monitors the net. So, does the NRO, NSA, CIA, and DOD. DHS just wants to repeat what everybody does. FBI will soon say that they want to as well. Oh Wait.... They already do.

A quick guide to slashdot posting

[northernfrights]

It's really quite simple, just follow these simple steps:

1. <insert creepy government entity> wants to <insert generalized ability of impossible complexity>
2. Oh noze!

Here are some examples:

-The Pentagon wants to monitor your sweat glands
-DARPA wants to grow future armies from lunch meat
-Joe Lieberman wants to quarantine fat people

Re:A quick guide to slashdot posting

[slashdotisgay2]

-DARPA wants to grow future armies from lunch meat

As long as they make some of them out of turkey, I'll just eat them. Who needs guns?

Re:A quick guide to slashdot posting

[slick7]

-DARPA wants to grow future armies from lunch meat

OH NOZE, my spam just overthrew my microwave.
S ome
P eople
A re
M issing

There is another way to deal with terrorist..

[3seas]

Just remove their reasons for being which will have the side effect of destroying their ability to gain followers.

We can start here with What the World Wants
The trick is to get the waring mindset addicted into rehab. so we can use the resources to do this, to remove terrorist reasons for being.

Amazing how much psychological power Terrorist have over the waring mindset addicted in using their self supported dependencies effectively.
 

Did you know

[AlgorithMan]

Did you know that the "enabling act" (which gave Hitler total power over germany in 1933) was a misbalanced anti-terror law?

This is why Arizona was so glad to be rid of her..

[bjdevil66]

Janet Napalitano was the one who turned on the 1st statewide speed camera system on state highways. She thought nothing of any privacy issues or anything else, other than the "$90,000,000 in annual revenue the system would generate." (Luckily for us, our current governor Jan Brewer - yes, the one that signed the illegal immigration bill everyone thinks of when you say "Arizona" anymore - is going to allow the camera program to expire...

When Janet the Carpetbagger left us high and dry in AZ for a post in DC she'd been sucking up for during Obama's campaign (and just when a ton of red ink her AZ budgets had ran up hit the fan), many of us Arizonans were really glad that she left town. However, we knew there was a dark side to her taking the DHS Secretary position, and now we're starting to see it. May God help this country if she gets her way on all of her initiatives...

it's Illegal!

[BrendaEM]

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Re:it's Illegal!

[Anonymous Coward]

This is about public websites, not your facebook account. And the jury is still out as to whether the 4th Amendment covers personal profiles on the web too.

Re:it's Illegal!

[slick7]

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Bullshit, Executive Order 1984-707/404 negates the Constitution. So where's your government now?

Fear is an important ingredient for terrorism

[HalAtWork]

Do they really want to make people so afraid that they would rather fight blindly anything that stimulates them the wrong way instead of discerning actual dangers and confronting them intelligently?

Re:Fear is an important ingredient for terrorism

[slick7]

Do they really want to make people so afraid that they would rather fight blindly anything that stimulates them the wrong way instead of discerning actual dangers and confronting them intelligently?

Eventually the fearful will get to the point where they won't be afraid anymore, then what. A man once said that the only thing to fear is fear itself.
The truth will set you free, but first you are going to get really pissed.

Re:Fear is an important ingredient for terrorism

[billcopc]

Dude, welcome to 2001. People already fight anything that doesn't perfectly align with their hollywood interpretation of a normal life.

When people are scared of an unseen boogeyman, they become paralyzed. Rational thought goes out the window and they become highly susceptible to "soothing" thought control, which is how one morphs a supposed democracy into the current plutocracy. Fear makes society malleable, the greater and more ominous the scare, the less people notice when you crank up the oppression.

parent is insightful

[Anonymous Coward]

(not Redundant, damn my clumsy finger)

Don't worry, only the most rational conspiracy theorists need these inconsistencies to fire them up. A true conspiranoid will see a white wall and claim it's hiding something evil under all that paint.

Jefferson also spinning.

[Anonymous Coward]

Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty.
--Thomas Jefferson

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.
--Thomas Jefferson

Re:Jefferson also spinning.

[slick7]

Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty. --Thomas Jefferson

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it. --Thomas Jefferson

I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy.

Young farts will replace the old farts

[Presto Vivace]

Seriously, I can't wait till these old farts in office die off so they can be replaced with younger, tech savvy individuals who understand the internet is a revolutionary product and a paradigm shift. I don't think that a mere generational shift will fix this problem.

Re:DOWN WITH TEH BUGGERMENT!!!!

[Libertarian001]

You've never actually studied international ethics, have you. Your proposal is very noble, but incredibly naive.

Re:DOWN WITH TEH BUGGERMENT!!!!

[Attila Dimedici]

Growing your Military Industrial Complex destroys wealth. Building up your manufacturing and production to meet the civilian market grows your wealth. It's that simple. And something the United States is totally lost on.

So, the U.S. wasn't the wealthiest country in the world in the second half of the 20th century?
What you don't seem to be aware of is that your proposed strategy for the U.S. to follow is the one that most Western European nations have been following since the late 1960s. It hasn't worked as advertised for them. There have been more terrorism attacks in Europe against Europeans than in the U.S.

Those who sacrifice liberties for safety deserve ?

[Anonymous Coward]

So how long until the state becomes the terrorist group?

Iran, China, Venezuela

[WED Fan]

What they learned from the Iranian elections was that need control of all the means of communications. They want to know who is criticizing the government. If you organize to criticize, they will consider that terrorist in nature.

A government that can't govern will resort to oppression.

Well, I've got to go pack my bags. I'll need a few creature comforts with me wherever Aunty Janet's shock troops are going to take me. See you on the other side.

Mrs...

[Anonymous Coward]

Public officials largely are a product of the society even with a "2 party system" the two of them still generally reflect the populace (including how they get away with corruptly ignoring the people because the people don't care enough.)

Americans are quite cowardly. They often can't stand hearing this because of all the over compensation that goes on to counter the truth.
Its no surprise, the culture, politicians, and media promote and exploit it from birth. Rich people have more to lose and this is a rich populace with everything to lose. If you have nothing to lose, its much easier to be "brave" and it also helps if you "don't think it'll happen to me" so the topic doesn't get much thought. Furthermore, escapism is a huge business and its far easier to turn away to be distracted by something more pleasant - Americans get worse each year as the situation continues to degrade the best they've done so far is to go out and vote for Obama but then they go right back to neglecting their citizenship and expect everything to be fixed in the background.

To the scared American paying too little attention (a majority) officials telling them to give stuff up to save a few more children sounds reasonable. Officials are looking good and/or getting the power they may crave. Its a complex situation they may want the power to fix things the public says it wants and/or they may want the popularity of improved statistics for sound bites and/or they may crave POWER... or all of the above. Even an honest official in this society has to play the game and can't make the changes they want without playing it and maintaining or getting more power to do good. Its a system and a culture in a complex relationship that produces the direction we have today and no single person is going to do much to that momentum from the inside or outside. (plus the corrupt powerful forces will oppose changes out of fear of losing what they have in the current situation.)

I don't know just how bad the Department of Fatherland Security is; but it is on a bad trajectory and good people are only tiny forces pulling it in directions whose impact has little to do to change the general direction - unless it continues for an extended period of time it can slowly turn around-- but we don't do that here-- we flip back and forth between two parties who are more concerned about canceling each other out than nudging trends in better directions.

Oh, how can I hate America when I love canada and don't mind most of central and south america?

Re:DOWN WITH TEH BUGGERMENT!!!!

[vxice]

You have half of the solution there. Yes bring some of our troops home. But there are many places that they are doing good and bringing good will to America both past and present. Hitler is the most obvious example but there are others. The real problem is when we argue that we need to support our 'dear friend' Israel and then hide them from any attempts at accountability such as the Goldstone report. When they act contrary to American interests they get a free pass even though they have hundreds of nuclear weapons. Yet if one brown skin gets one, Iran, the end of the world is near and only counter active measures that may actually drive Iran to produce weapons. Unless of course you're a crazy crackpot dictator willing to tow the American line, here is looking at you Musharraf and Mubarak with over 30 years of 'emergency powers' and yes I know the former is no longer technically in control of his once country but he was while we were dumping money on him while Egypt is the second largest receiver of American aid tied to Israeli levels, it is this inconsistency that is the true problem. American leaders can't come out to the world and say we only really care about ourselves but instead there is some garbage about democracy and freedom from oppression. The Sudan has the only sitting head of state to be charged, while in office and his latest election was hardly free or fair, yet not a peep. When in a mostly free and fair election, freedoms and fairness were revoked in East Jerusalem where the Israeli police had to approve any campaigners restricting 'terrorists' like Hamas in favor of terrorists and thieves like Fatah and polls were allowed to stay open longer, we attempt to destroy the elected government and punish the people by withholding jobs, food, sanitation equipment and other necessities because they didn't 'vote right' we have given up on American values and are actively destroying them at home yet all the while claim to be a beacon of light in the dark, that is really what drives the rest of the world nuts.

Terrorists aren't that dangerous

[Anonymous Coward]

In the big picture, terrorists are an annoying fly. Look at the actual death rates in the US. 42,000 people die each year in auto accidents, 20,000 of those due to drunk driving, and yet we haven't done anything to make cars safer in years, and we do little or nothing to curb drunk driving. 20,000 people die each year from the common flu. And we don't even mandate vaccinations. But terrorists killed 3,000 people nine years ago, and we have used that as an excuse to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on a pointless war that has only made things worse. And the closet fascists in the security agencies of our government are using the terrorist boogeyman to try to dismantle the constitution and put us all under 24x7 surveillance. Wake up and smell the con-job citizens!
The absolute best possible approach to terrorism would be to IGNORE it. That's right. Put terrorists in the same category as killer bees, lightning strikes, and bear maulings. Tragic but rare occurrences that just don't justify taking any action over. If we would just calm down and use a little common sense, we would realize that all the fanfare over terrorism is EXACTLY what the terrorists WANT. They want to destroy our freedom and our liberty, and we are helping them do it. If, on the other hand, we treat them like the deranged lunatic-fringe that they are, and basically greet their acts with a tremendous sigh and a yawn, we will reduce them to impotent ranting fools - which is what they deserve.

Terrorism and $$$

[Anonymous Coward]

For the Police and Security types this whole thing is a giant self fullfilling prophcey. The more LE you add, the more "crimes" they find, the more they justifify their jobs, the more the LE they add, the more "crimes" they find, the more they justify their jobs.....

Now, This leads to other problems because the more "crimes" you find, the more people you put in jail, and once your there and out the chances of you leading a productive life afterwards is greatly reduced. Mostly because we have few manufacturing jobs in the US anymore where these people could work out their days.

What does this have to do with terrorism? Nothing at all. Mostly because in my opinion most of the homeland security grant moneys dont get spent finding osama bin laden or any of his cronies, but get dispatched to the local police to spend on new toys, which they seem to enjoy (ever seen the lighting packages on most police cars these days?)...

Granted we want to live in safety, however we are slowly turning into a police state on a war against fear. Overall we are more likely to be killed in an automobile accident, heart attack, cancer, etc or some other more or less normal means than getting blown to smitherines by a terrorist.

Re:Warning Sign

[Jedi Alec]

Indeed, but he did get one thing wrong in the sequels...we found a big pile of natural resources in Afghanistan, not in Russia.

Cue nuclear missiles inbound on american soil in 3...2...

Well, Janet --

[dwiget001]

-- lemme see. If this was past, "other party" administration(s), what would your response have been to such musings?

What's that? Oh, you would have voiced something along the lines of "Bush and his administration are abusing their authority *and* proposing things that are un-constitutional. He and Cheney should be prosecuted!" Or something to that effect.

As I have said before, we are just getting more of the same (some much for "Hope and Change" huh?) and much, much worse.

Re:DOWN WITH TEH BUGGERMENT!!!!

[uninformedLuddite]

So, the U.S. wasn't the wealthiest country in the world in the second half of the 20th century?

If a US treasury/bond has the sum of one million dollars written on it can you tell me what it is really actually worth?

i was just thinking about peace but

[shnull]

the way this goes i see no alternative but to euthanise everyone born before 1970, its too ridiculous these people would like to set the world back and keep it there where they knew it, holding everyone back. Incredible, and the way everyone acts. Do they put prozac or zyprexa in tapwater these days?

Re:DOWN WITH TEH BUGGERMENT!!!!

[WNight]

The only solution to Israel that doesn't involve genocide is find a place for the Palestinians.

The countries that attacked Israel in all the wars could all stand to lose some more land considering how they contributed to the Palestinian's problem then by helping strand them and now by lamenting the situation without offering them a home.

Of course ideally we'd bulldoze both sides' holy places to remove their justification for fighting.

Good Lord I need coffee

[Theoboley]

I read this as "DHS wants to monitor web for Torrents"

Then read summary involving terrorists and thought... WTF do they need to monitor Torrents for Terrorism for??

Need Coffee.

Why would terrorists recruit over the net?

[elucido]

hay stack, you don't need more hay. There were so many warnings about the Ft Hood shooter, the idea that more monitoring of the Internet would have prevented the tragedy is simply laughable.

In all my years I've never seen anybody recruit anybody into any gang, tribe, mafia, or trusted group entirely over the internet. At some point the terrorist has to meet with the potential recruit in the offline world, why not monitor these meetings? I'm sure it would be somewhat easy.

On the other hand to monitor the entire internet more than it already is, is this even possible? They already have an NSA doing just that right?

"How" would terrorists recruit by internet?

[elucido]

I just don't see how they could recruit over the internet without compromising their identity in the process. It wouldn't be difficult for the feds to set up some websites and monitor them. Frankly the terrorists just don't seem to be smart enough to outsmart the NSA or the FBI. When/if they become that smart then they'd still have to meet in person to do training. Any data transmissions also go over the wire and all data can be analyzed by the NSA, CIA, or whomever.

So I don't understand how they plan to improve the situation. Do they plan to hire more analysts? Theres already more data than can be deciphered and analyzed. There simply is not enough CPU resources, analysts, or time to analyze every single bit of data flowing through the wire.

Maybe I'm wrong and they analyze every bit in some classified way. If this were the case then why not let the NSA do it? Why the DHS? Can anyone explain?

Then maybe they should say so.

[elucido]

And honestly if they want to reduce our liberty to help themselves do their job perhaps they should get another job. I'm all for them doing what they are paid to do, but to do it in a reckless way is to defeat the purpose of the job they are doing. If they do the job to defend and protect liberty you cannot protect liberty by removing it.

Also domestic terrorism is a job for the local police and the FBI. Thats if we even want to call them terrorists because while the right wing fascist Nazi's, and the militias may be called terrorists, it's not a fact that they are. The country has not decided yet whether these groups are freedom fighting patriots or terrorists. The same goes for Greenpeace and the ELF. These groups might be called terrorists but it's not remotely the same as foreign groups.

I hope these types of changes wont be used to declare another war on American citizens in the way the war on drugs was used. We may find that someday we are on the domestic terrorist list and these new powers used against us if we aren't very careful to draw a hard line in the sand which says liberty cannot be sacrificed for any, ANY reason.

If we have to live with the threat of Neo Nazi's, of Anarchists, of anti abortion murders, I'd rather live with that and be free than be a slave and have the illusion of safety. That's the options you get because you wont be any safety when the big corporate interests that the DHS are protecting decide to screw you over by putting pesticides in your food. The DHS also cannot protect the wetlands, and the DHS won't protect workers, won't protect innocent fetuses, won't protect anything but large corporations.

So if you give up liberty to increase profits (thats what security is measured in), then you will end up in an even more dangerous country where profits are high.

Hassan was a nut.

[elucido]

There are a lot of nuts like Hassan. He's insignificant. There were nuts worse than Hassan, like Sirhan Sirhan and there have been actual political assassinations in this country from MLK, to Malcom X, to Kennedy, and we are supposed to change everything because of Hassan? Hassan attacked a military installation not civilians.

We should think very carefully of the powers and responsibilities we give to the DHS.

There aren't enough analysts.

[elucido]

You can have all the data you want from all of the internet. Even if the entire internet were able to be scanned and searched through like a semantic engine it still would not reduce the amount of time spent analyzing the data.

Data collection isn't the problem. Analyzing the data collected is the problem.

Liberty vs Profits (Profits win every time!)

[elucido]

The proper context is never going to be "liberty vs security" for workers. The proper context of this situation is "liberty vs profits". In specific it's "liberty vs CORPORATE profit". To be even more specific it's "liberty vs BIG CORPORATE profit". This is about the security of big corporate profits.

The reason we lose liberty is because big corporations feel entitled to profit at the expense of the Constitution itself. If the Constitution gets in the way of profits the Constitution will be trashed/ignored/modified. Empowering the DHS allows for the big bad evil Corporations like some of the oil companies which destroy the environment, or some of the banking companies that put everyone in debt, or some of the food companies which make everybody sick, to have the power and legal ability to keep doing what they are doing and perhaps do much worse in the future.

So this debate must not be framed in a way which is deceptive. It's not your security they are talking about. It's corporate persons they are talking about and really it's only the corporate aristocracy, not ordinary corporate persons. The older the corporation is the more likely it is on the short list of corporate aristocracy.

If you don't like the situation or the debate then stop accepting the frame. Start by rejecting the false meme of liberty vs security and reframe it as liberty vs corporate profits. That is what is really at stake. The children who actually have parents who are old money wealthy need to take a careful look at whether or not THEY want to sacrifice liberty so their parents can make a little bit extra money today. It's their futures at stake.

A lot of them think that their money will be able to shield them and shelter them completely but this isn't entirely the case. If the beaches are destroyed by oil spills, if species of fish and animals go extinct, then the entire world is less beautiful and less diverse. If the internet is less free then the information on it wont be as compelling and they too will have to live with a diminished internet. It's the unintended consequences that affect ALL young people which is why young people (in specific the young wealthy) need to really consider what matters to their quality of life and whether or not they want to give that up to guarantee profits. There are some things in this world that money cannot buy.

Encryption wont stop the NSA.

[elucido]

The best encryption will slow the NSA down but it wont stop them. PGP's key length is not large enough that it cannot be cracked. It's large enough that it would take weeks to do it. So in general the use of encryption while secure enough to keep them from simply sniffing the data up, it wont stop them from putting a gun to your head and torturing the data out of you.

So if you use encryption and they suspect you are a terrorist, you'll be kidnapped and tortured, and this could last anywhere from minutes to years, or even for the rest of your life if they put you in a Supermax prison. The point is if you do use encryption it doesn't stop the rubber hose cryptoanalyst.

Web of trust? What trust?

[elucido]

Lets face it, even if you aren't a terrorist you probably have no one you can trust. The terrorists probably have more people they can trust than the average American/domestic citizen has. The USA is a nation of informants, you never know if your neighbor is informing on you or not. You never know if your best friend, your wife, or your son or daughter is informing on you.

So even if you use encryption it's pretty much worthless against the might of the federal government. They'll use networks of informants, they'll offer large amounts of money for anyone who helps them. They'll also use all kinds of threats including blackmail, death threats, and the threat of a lifetime in some secret prison to get people to become informants against you.

So honestly there is no way to keep any secrets from the feds. The best you can do is live a clean life and keep all the radicals in your outer circle rather than in your inner circle.

Re:Web of trust? What trust?

[hitmark]

so basically, soviet russia with sham elections (either side is in the pocket of the true power anyways) and no overt political prisons.

Unlikely.

[elucido]

because cryptographic systems are worth nada without a web of trust. And right now, there is none [...]

There may be none for geeks; crypto enthusiasts like using the technology, but they don't really have any secrets worth securing, and so the WoT is kind of not very important. On the other hand, terrorists have secrets, and they *already* have their WoT - it is based not on digital certificates but on personal contacts. Terrorists, like every illegal and underground organization, need WoT not just to send messages; they need it to even meet and talk to each other. But when a terrorist needs to communicate over the Internet, he will personally travel to Pakistan (or wherever) to receive his keyring from his handler.

There is of course a possibility that a terrorist can be simply given a https:/// URL of some webmail in Asia, and given that browsers usually don't save encrypted pages (and the pr0n mode saves nothing at all) it's easy and convenient for a terrorist to have a medium security communication channel that leaves no plaintext on the user's computer. A live boot CD would offer security that is comparable to PKI, as long as no ciphertext needs to be retained. Considering the issue of the trusted computer, the boot CD and SSL might even do better than a locally ran crypto.

While using a keyring personally handed to them from their handler sounds easy, how are they supposed to meet their handler without the US spy satelite picking that up? How would they meet their handler without being seen by anybody anywhere? How would they go to a place like Pakistan and not set off red flags?

The only way this would work is if they were born in Pakistan to begin with and have family who comes from Pakistan to the USA. It would seem to be next to impossible for individuals to go to terrorist training camps and then come back and not trigger any sort of red flag.

LiveCDs on the other hand actually are secure but only if theres no backdoor anywhere in the Linux Kernel or in any software used. Do you trust the Linux Kernel programmers with your life? I doubt terrorists do and I doubt you do or anyone else here. Since you don't trust them with your life, one would conclude that real terrorists would have to take the Linux Kernel and customize it so that it's trusted and make some sort of terrorist specific live-CD.

I don't think at this time the terrorists have that level of technical sophistication but that is something to look out for in the future.PKI is also very secure but it's not secure if you don't know how to use it. Most people using it don't know how to use it and one could conclude the terrorists wont know either. If the terrorists know how to use it then it would be very hard to deal with.

But this is assuming we have terrorists who are also at the highest most elite level of computer savvy. It's possible that some computer scientist turned terrorist, someone like the UNABOMBER could pull something off. It's still not going to be easy because once they connect to the internet every communication they send out will be monitored by the NSA or some letter agency. So if they send PGP encrypted data out the NSA would probably pick up on it instantly and start cracking it.

Re:Unlikely.

[tftp]

how are they supposed to meet their handler without the US spy satelite picking that up?

Spy satellites are not magic. You meet someone in a building, or at night, or on a cloudy day. Satellites can't recognize people's faces anyway (and they don't see them either.)

How would they meet their handler without being seen by anybody anywhere?

It's not a requirement. A huge crowd offers very good privacy, see Karachi.

How would they go to a place like Pakistan and not set off red flags?

Through a 3rd country, perhaps? Those guys may have several passports, all legal, if they are citizens of several countries (or simply they might want to use fake or stolen passports.) Besides, a handler can easily travel from his base in Pakistan to a neutral country - like China or India - if necessary.

It would seem to be next to impossible for individuals to go to terrorist training camps and then come back and not trigger any sort of red flag.

Once you leave the US territory the USA has very little knowledge of where you are and what you are doing - unless you are so important that they assigned some spies to follow you.

LiveCDs on the other hand actually are secure but only if theres no backdoor anywhere in the Linux Kernel or in any software used. Do you trust the Linux Kernel programmers with your life? I doubt terrorists do

Hard to say. I trust Toyota with my life, for example. And note that terrorists are routinely risking their lives; their very occupation is a huge risk. It's probably far more dangerous for a terrorist to take a stroll in a park than to obtain a random copy of Linux and use it for random browsing. If someone is onto them to the extent that they do MITM on them and feed them a backdoored Linux CD (can't imagine how would they know!) then the terrorist's goose is already thoroughly cooked.

I don't think at this time the terrorists have that level of technical sophistication but that is something to look out for in the future.

Majority of "foot soldiers" are, and will be technically incompetent. However they will follow instructions that are written by a well educated terrorist. Why do we think AQ doesn't have its own IT? There are probably lots of AQ sympathizers who aren't fit to carry the rifle but are perfectly willing to give advices. It would be very unwise to assume that AQ is a bunch of idiots.

So if they send PGP encrypted data out the NSA would probably pick up on it instantly

Unlikely. "This here JPEG is completely corrupted, sorry about that." or "This here MPEG2 movie of my vacation is playing fine, however the last two bits of each pixel of each frame carry some other information..." With the sheer volume of messages sent over the Internet, it's not possible to analyze the content in real time in hope of finding something in it. Even an Excel spreadsheet, with one byte of a .pgp file in each cell,formatted as currency, will confuse the hell out of any traffic analyzer - even a human, if you make a token effort to colorize your "sales report for region of $foo". I'm sure it will sail through even if the terrorist doesn't bother PGPing his message and just formats the ASCII plaintext this way.

Re:Unlikely.

[elucido]

how are they supposed to meet their handler without the US spy satelite picking that up?

Spy satellites are not magic. You meet someone in a building, or at night, or on a cloudy day. Satellites can't recognize people's faces anyway (and they don't see them either.)

How would they meet their handler without being seen by anybody anywhere?

It's not a requirement. A huge crowd offers very good privacy, see Karachi.

How would they go to a place like Pakistan and not set off red flags?

Through a 3rd country, perhaps? Those guys may have several passports, all legal, if they are citizens of several countries (or simply they might want to use fake or stolen passports.) Besides, a handler can easily travel from his base in Pakistan to a neutral country - like China or India - if necessary.

It would seem to be next to impossible for individuals to go to terrorist training camps and then come back and not trigger any sort of red flag.

Once you leave the US territory the USA has very little knowledge of where you are and what you are doing - unless you are so important that they assigned some spies to follow you.

LiveCDs on the other hand actually are secure but only if theres no backdoor anywhere in the Linux Kernel or in any software used. Do you trust the Linux Kernel programmers with your life? I doubt terrorists do

Hard to say. I trust Toyota with my life, for example. And note that terrorists are routinely risking their lives; their very occupation is a huge risk. It's probably far more dangerous for a terrorist to take a stroll in a park than to obtain a random copy of Linux and use it for random browsing. If someone is onto them to the extent that they do MITM on them and feed them a backdoored Linux CD (can't imagine how would they know!) then the terrorist's goose is already thoroughly cooked.

I don't think at this time the terrorists have that level of technical sophistication but that is something to look out for in the future.

Majority of "foot soldiers" are, and will be technically incompetent. However they will follow instructions that are written by a well educated terrorist. Why do we think AQ doesn't have its own IT? There are probably lots of AQ sympathizers who aren't fit to carry the rifle but are perfectly willing to give advices. It would be very unwise to assume that AQ is a bunch of idiots.

So if they send PGP encrypted data out the NSA would probably pick up on it instantly

Unlikely. "This here JPEG is completely corrupted, sorry about that." or "This here MPEG2 movie of my vacation is playing fine, however the last two bits of each pixel of each frame carry some other information..." With the sheer volume of messages sent over the Internet, it's not possible to analyze the content in real time in hope of finding something in it. Even an Excel spreadsheet, with one byte of a .pgp file in each cell,formatted as currency, will confuse the hell out of any traffic analyzer - even a human, if you make a token effort to colorize your "sales report for region of $foo". I'm sure it will sail through even if the terrorist doesn't bother PGPing his message and just formats the ASCII plaintext this way.

I dont think everything you said in this post is true. Satelites can see through buildings. Satelites can see faces. Satelites might not be as good on a cloudy day, I'll give you that but the spy drones can still see. And they definitely have night vision, the cover of night is a complete myth.

Also the USA has the ability to know where you go and what you do even when you are overseas. It's not that they aren't collecting the information but it's more that they might not take it seriously or fully analyze the information. They knew about the 911 hijackers. They know who went where and who did what.

And thats exactly what I said. They collect all the data so they'd definitely see it but they wouldn't have the time to analyze

Re:DOWN WITH TEH BUGGERMENT!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's got nothing to do with "our way of life" (Bush propaganda), but US hegemony. If the US wants to continue to stick its nose in everybody's business, it can expect terrorism.

You're heading on a tangent; (according to the government) the threat really is no longer foreign, but domestic, terrorism. They don't say it directly, but I believe it's true.

And should we give up our rights to "prevent" domestic terrorism, those of us who fight for those rights will become the terrorists.

Ridiculous policy against foreign terrorism is nothing compared to the Pandora's box that is the war against domestic terrorism. At least you can claim citizenship when you're investigated for being a foreign terrorist.

The fight against domestic terrorism will become, without the slightest doubt, a tool for those in power to silence and remove those who would stand up for our rights as they become chiseled away - because terrorism is not a threat against life and liberty, in the government's eyes, it's a threat against the governing establishment.

Re:DOWN WITH TEH BUGGERMENT!!!!

[flajann]

It's got nothing to do with "our way of life" (Bush propaganda), but US hegemony.

The western world has been attempting to recreate the Pax Romana for the last few hundred years... with limited success. And i'm afraid they don't understand how the world could work without at least one super power nation to "enforce" the peace.

Slight alteration: "enforce" the "peace". Because, as you know, war is peace, freedom is slavery...

Maybe it'll work out in the end

[Anonymous Coward]

At this rate we won't have to worry about terrorists much longer because we won't have any freedom or prosperity for them to hate.

Re:DOWN WITH TEH BUGGERMENT!!!!

[flajann]

You've never actually studied international ethics, have you. Your proposal is very noble, but incredibly naive.

International Ethics? Are you kidding? Can you really say with a straight face that any country behaves ethically in the global arena?

Alas, there is what should be, and then there is what is. I don't think I am the naive one here. Governments all have one and only one mission: to see their own self interests. "Ethics" is the fiction you feed your citizens so they won't riot against you. Right up there with bread and circuses.

Understand the verisimilitude that rules the day.

Re:DOWN WITH TEH BUGGERMENT!!!!

[flajann]

Growing your Military Industrial Complex destroys wealth. Building up your manufacturing and production to meet the civilian market grows your wealth. It's that simple. And something the United States is totally lost on.

So, the U.S. wasn't the wealthiest country in the world in the second half of the 20th century? What you don't seem to be aware of is that your proposed strategy for the U.S. to follow is the one that most Western European nations have been following since the late 1960s. It hasn't worked as advertised for them. There have been more terrorism attacks in Europe against Europeans than in the U.S.

How do you define "wealth"? Seems to me that the US is the most in debt in the world. Well, I suppose debt can appear to be "wealth" until the "devil" calls in his due.

You tell me what happens to the US "wealth" when China decides it doesn't want to prop it up anymore. Indeed, what's happening now! These aren't exactly great economic times if you haven't noticed. So where's all that "wealth" of which you speak?

Re:DOWN WITH TEH BUGGERMENT!!!!

[flajann]

You have half of the solution there. Yes bring some of our troops home. But there are many places that they are doing good and bringing good will to America both past and present. Hitler is the most obvious example but there are others.

Hitler? Well, there's the packaged story we are all fed about that time; then there is what actually happened. Stalin was a real bad-ass, worse in many respects than Hitler. And yet the US and Great Britain allied with him. So it was a choice of which bad-ass to align yourself with. Stalin's overall plan was to allow Hitler to mop up Western Europe, then he'd come in and mop up Hitler. He was quite surprised when Hitler came over and kicked his butt!!

Why, after all this time, do we still have so many troops deployed in so many areas of the world? Why isn't there a push to allow these countries to develop to the point where they can take care of themselves so that the US can bring those troops home? Why oh why do we still have troops deployed in Japan to this day? Hello. Did I miss something?

It is clear that there is much more going on than just "doing good", whatever that is supposed to be. The US loves its hegemonic place in the world, and is not about to give it up. Even if it means plunging the country into an unrecoverable economic situation.

Re:DOWN WITH TEH BUGGERMENT!!!!

[flajann]

The only solution to Israel that doesn't involve genocide is find a place for the Palestinians.

The countries that attacked Israel in all the wars could all stand to lose some more land considering how they contributed to the Palestinian's problem then by helping strand them and now by lamenting the situation without offering them a home.

Of course ideally we'd bulldoze both sides' holy places to remove their justification for fighting.

Well, the whole Israel affair goes all the way back to just after WWII. Basically what is now Israel took that land over from the Palestinians or whomever was there before. I believe the UN was behind it, and it was badly planned with little consideration for the indigenous folks there.

Which evolved, of course, into the mess you have today.

Re:DOWN WITH TEH BUGGERMENT!!!!

[flajann]

The fight against domestic terrorism will become, without the slightest doubt, a tool for those in power to silence and remove those who would stand up for our rights as they become chiseled away - because terrorism is not a threat against life and liberty, in the government's eyes, it's a threat against the governing establishment.

Alas, very true. But well, the US government is already too big and too powerful for its own good. And I can say exactly the same thing about China and probably quite a few others.

We need a common-mode solution to an ever growing and vexing problem.

Israel / Palestine

[WNight]

Many Jews were already there, buying land and homesteading in relative peace with the other inhabitants. While it wasn't thoroughly peaceful the situation took an ugly turn when the nations around the new state declared their intent to drive every last jew into the sea and attacked.

In the end the Palestinians suffer because they harbor some terrorists and thus can't (peacefully) stay where they are, but are seen as a lesser people by the Arab countries surrounding them so nobody will give them a new home.

I can't give any weight at all to the ridiculous historical claims. Yawn. The people who lived there in the past are dead. The people there now have the only reasonable claim "I was born here". So the people in the refugee camps need to be given something else, but something of comparable quality.

Re:Israel / Palestine

[flajann]

I can't give any weight at all to the ridiculous historical claims. Yawn. The people who lived there in the past are dead. The people there now have the only reasonable claim "I was born here". So the people in the refugee camps need to be given something else, but something of comparable quality.

That's whats so damning about situations like these. Same can be said for the native "Americans" vs. the settlers that came here and took their land. It began peaceful at first; then got ugly. And no one alive then is alive today, but look at the state of affairs with the aborigines.

Re:DOWN WITH TEH BUGGERMENT!!!!

[vxice]

No where did I suggest that we were right for allying with Stalin or that our troops always do good. I argued that our policies need to change so that we are only involved where we can actually do good and that that is not impossible.

Re:DOWN WITH TEH BUGGERMENT!!!!

[flajann]

The US's track record is seriously lacking, past and present. Obama is just as war-mongering as Bush, if not more so. Thus I've dubbed him, "Bushbama". Not to be confused with "Bushbaby". Well, Obama is hardly a *baby* Bush.

There goes Flash

[joelsanda]

The end of a reign of terror for CPUs the world over.