Slashdot Mirror


National Security Letters Ruled Unconstitutional, Banned

A U.S. District Court Judge in California today ruled that so-called National Security Letters, used by government agencies to force business and organizations to turn over information on citizens, are unconstitutional. Judge Susan Illston ordered the government to stop using them, but gave the government a 90-day window to appeal the decision, during which the NSLs may still be sent out. The letters were challenged by the Electronic Frontier Foundation on behalf of a telecom who was ordered to provide data. "The telecom took the extraordinary and rare step of challenging the underlying authority of the National Security Letter, as well as the legitimacy of the gag order that came with it. Both challenges are allowed under a federal law that governs NSLs, a power greatly expanded under the Patriot Act that allows the government to get detailed information on Americans’ finances and communications without oversight from a judge. The FBI has issued hundreds of thousands of NSLs and been reprimanded for abusing them — though almost none of the requests have been challenged by the recipients. After the telecom challenged the NSL, the Justice Department took its own extraordinary measure and sued the company, arguing in court documents that the company was violating the law by challenging its authority. The move stunned the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which is representing the anonymous telecom. ... After heated negotiations with EFF, the Justice Department agreed to stay the civil suit and let the telecom’s challenge play out in court. The Justice Department subsequently filed a motion to compel in the challenge case, but has never dropped the civil suit."

59 of 231 comments (clear)

  1. Patriot Act is unconstitutional by inputdev · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's nice to see checks and balances. I wondered what happened to those.

    1. Re:Patriot Act is unconstitutional by aaaaaaargh! · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Looks more like David against Goliath to me.

    2. Re:Patriot Act is unconstitutional by Hatta · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is all just part of the process in getting it to the Supreme Court where they will be rubberstamped. And then no one can ever challenge their constitutionality again.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    3. Re:Patriot Act is unconstitutional by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

      I wondered what happened to those.

      David Copperfield made them disappear. He best, longest running gag yet. And nobody has even noticed yet...

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    4. Re:Patriot Act is unconstitutional by Immerman · · Score: 2

      The checks were cashed in order to tip the balances.

      I can only assume that in this case either somebody didn't get their check, or somebody with some integrity was accidentally allowed to hold an important office. Either way I'm sure lots of powerful people are scrambling to rectify the oversight.

      Let's all give a big round of applause to Judge Susan Illston for actually upholding her oath and doing her part to rein in the beast of unrestrained government power. hopefully the Supreme Court will show similar backbone in the inevitable appeal.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    5. Re:Patriot Act is unconstitutional by fyngyrz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah. Except this David doesn't even have a sling. It's going to go to SCOTUS, they'll side with the save-the-children, oh-no-terrorists, and it's-for-your-own-good crackpottery that dominates the mindset of our legislature and our judiciary.

      Interstate = intrastate, ex post facto = go ahead and add punishment (just call it something else), probable cause = "well, we thought it was a reasonable search", borders = 100mi from the.... borders.

      Come on, we know exactly how this is going to go.

      Although I have to say, three fucking big cheers for trying, little people.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    6. Re:Patriot Act is unconstitutional by Immerman · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Damn, someone even more cynical than me. Gods I hope you're wrong.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    7. Re:Patriot Act is unconstitutional by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Patriot Act" was a very highly manipulative naming for a very unpatriotic act. Smoke and mirrors all too common and further enabled by current major media.

    8. Re:Patriot Act is unconstitutional by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      What you mistake for cynicism is merely a more fashionable brand of naivete.

    9. Re:Patriot Act is unconstitutional by slimjim8094 · · Score: 5, Informative

      [Once it's been upheld by the Supreme Court], no one can ever challenge their constitutionality again.

      Not quite. Ever heard of Plessy v. Ferguson? It's admittedly much more difficult (on the balance for good reason) to challenge a previously-decided Supreme Court decision, but by no means impossible. That's just one (probably the most famous) example of the Court reversing itself, but there's a lot more.

      --
      I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
    10. Re:Patriot Act is unconstitutional by akboss · · Score: 4, Funny

      It's nice to see checks and balances. I wondered what happened to those.

      The checks bounced and the balances are tipped over.

      --
      "Remember, politicians and diapers should be changed often and for the same reason."
    11. Re:Patriot Act is unconstitutional by triffid_98 · · Score: 2

      Really? I thought his best illusion involved getting supermodels to marry him.

    12. Re:Patriot Act is unconstitutional by Immerman · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Hey, a new addition to the doublespeak dictionary: Cynicism is Naivete.

      You may well be right, and that would be a deeply worrying trend since unlike most flavors of naivete which lead people to overreach their abilities (and sometimes succeed), cynicism leads people to attempt nothing at all, and thus certainly fail.

      Thank you for a potentially productive perspective, I'll have to try it on the universe for a while see if it fits.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    13. Re:Patriot Act is unconstitutional by fyngyrz · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Arizona vs. United States last year ended identity demands "on suspicion of brown-ness."

      Sadly, it'll just move the corruption to a manufactured pretext mode: "I saw him swerve", etc. It'll no more stop this than NY cops pulling over black people preferentially has stopped despite loads of negative publicity, etc. It'll no more stop than the USG will let Cat Stevens back into the country. The whole damned shooting match is corrupt. I suspect it will serve as a lesson for Governor Brewer to treat Obama with more respect. But yeah, the decision went the right way. So did Heller -- but for many of the wrong reasons, and under an opinion that was batshit crazy. It can happen.

      Pacific Operators Offshore v. Valladolid, kept big business from slithering out of it's medical obligations

      This was such an edge case that it will have almost no impact on anyone, anywhere. Which in my admittedly cynical view, probably serves to explain how it went this way.

      US v. Jones let a known-complete-dirtbag walk because the GPS tracker was placed on his car a day after the warrant expired. I can think of few better cases of upholding the 4th amendment than this

      Yeah, that's a win, no doubt. If you count having to chase totally obvious government malfeasance all the way to SCOTUS a win, sigh. I know I couldn't afford to do it. But -- hopefully -- it'll make future cases expire on contact. Assuming there aren't other circumstances, like, the federal government actually caring about the case and claiming no one can see the reasons because they're state secrets and other such highly fragrant fertilizer.

      I don't think we've quite lost yet.

      Well, here's to you and your optimism. I'd buy you a beer if I could. I'd just as soon be completely, utterly wrong.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    14. Re:Patriot Act is unconstitutional by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 5, Interesting

      "But the US Supreme Court, in their infinite wisdom, came to the brilliant conclusion that they were supreme."

      And therein lies the problem. At least if you listen to the Federal Government, rather than reading history.

      When debating about whether to ratify the Constitution, the States were repeatedly guaranteed that the Supreme Court would be the ultimate arbiter ONLY when it came to matters of the powers enumerated in the Constitution. On questions of WHETHER the Federal government was exceeding its Constitutional powers, the Supreme Court was not to be relied on. Because -- of course -- the Supreme Court is part of that same government. And it was never intended that the Federal government should have the authority to decide what its own powers are. If it were, there would have been no need for a Constitution in the first place.

      Following is an excerpt from James Madison's "Report of 1800" before the Virginia legislature. Modern English translation below.

      "However true therefore it may be that the judicial department is, in all questions submitted to it by the forms of the Constitution, to decide in the last resort, this resort must necessarily be deemed the last in relation to the authorities of the other departments of the government; not in relation to the rights of the parties to the constitutional compact, from which the judicial as well as the other departments hold their delegated trusts. On any other hypothesis, the delegation of judicial power would annul the authority delegating it; and the concurrence of this department with the others in usurped powers might subvert forever, and beyond the possible reach of any rightful remedy, the very Constitution which all were instituted to preserve."

      In other words, the Supreme Court is normally "supreme" in matters of normal Federal law, but NOT "in relation to the rights of the parties to the constitutional compact" (the States). His reasoning for this is perfectly solid: since via the Constitution, the States were creating the Federal government, and ceding some of their powers to it, the Federal government cannot be more powerful than the States themselves, except in those areas explicitly set out by the states in that same Constitution. The Supreme Court cannot lord it over the States because the States created it and gave it power in the first place, which is a logical contradiction. ("On any other hypothesis, the delegation of judicial power would annul the authority delegating it;")

      And where the question of whether the Federal government has exceeded its authority arises, the Supreme Court is no more immune to power-grabbing than the other branches of the Federal government. ("... the concurrence of this department with the others in usurped powers might subvert forever, and beyond the possible reach of any rightful remedy, the very Constitution which all were instituted to preserve.")

      Therefore, when the Federal government is deemed by the States to have exceeded its rightful powers as enumerated in the Constitution, it is "the right and the duty" (as he and Jefferson wrote elsewhere) for those States to resist the Federal government, and declare that "law" null and void.

      That is exactly what you are seeing today, with a great many states voting to "nullify" Obamacare, certain gun and marijuana restrictions, and other Federal "laws" that they feel are unconstitutional.

    15. Re:Patriot Act is unconstitutional by Runaway1956 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ""on suspicion of brown-ness.""

      You're the governor. The bureau of vital statistics and voting records, along with other documents indicate that you have x million legal residents who are *whatever*. But, your police forces routinely encounter ten or fifty times that many *whatever*. And, when your police forces encounter them, it's almost always due to law violations.

      And, you're incapable of drawing any conclusions from those few, simple bits of data? Really?

      The conclusions might be erroneous, the conclusions might be almost-right, the conclusions might be perfectly on target. But, OBVIOUSLY, someone needs to look at *whatever* people, make some attempt to determine which *whatever* people are legal, and which are not, which are law abiding, and which are not, and SHIP OUT THE ONES WHO DON'T BELONG!

      Or, are you of the opinion that anyone and everyone in the world who wishes to "improve their lives" should just drop in, and expect the US to provide for them?

      People who are incapable of distinguishing subtle details hear that "suspicion of brown-ness" sound byte, and assume that it is exactly the same as "driving while black". Yeah - they are somewhat similar. But, you might consider the fact that "driving while black" targets people who are perfectly legal, while "suspicion of brown-ness" targets illegal aliens, many of whom are breaking a lot more laws than just immigration.

      --
      "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
    16. Re:Patriot Act is unconstitutional by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "'Patriot Act' was a very highly manipulative naming for a very unpatriotic act. Smoke and mirrors all too common and further enabled by current major media."

      Kind of like "Affordable Care Act"? The one that would fine people thousands of dollars for not buying insurance they already couldn't afford to buy?

    17. Re:Patriot Act is unconstitutional by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 2

      ... For the sake of completeness I should add: "And which has already driven insurance premiums up significantly, and will likely do so much more once all the provisions are in place?"

    18. Re:Patriot Act is unconstitutional by anagama · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Seriously, fuck you. If there is anything the Obama administration has proven, is that Democrats ONLY hate the GWB neo con agenda when the GOP does it. When a Democrat is even more hardcore than GWB .... Fucking crickets. America would better off by far if every GOP and DNC POS simultaneously had massive strokes. It could be called the stroke of luck in future history books.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    19. Re:Patriot Act is unconstitutional by number11 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "'Patriot Act' was a very highly manipulative naming for a very unpatriotic act. Smoke and mirrors all too common and further enabled by current major media."

      Kind of like "Affordable Care Act"? The one that would fine people thousands of dollars for not buying insurance they already couldn't afford to buy?

      You mean, that act that provides subsidies for low-income people to buy insurance with, and tightens the screws on employers who don't provide health insurance? That prohibits insurance companies from dumping/refusing you because you were sick?

      Yeah, it's a crappy law, tailored to keep the big insurance companies happy. They should have just expanded Medicare to cover everybody (health care shouldn't have anything to do with the tender mercies of employers or insurance companies, and Medicare's overhead expense is a small fraction of what insurance companies cost), but the insurance business (which largely overlaps the financial business) is too powerful to let themselves get cut out of the picture that way.

      But it's better than the previous situation, where medical problems are the #1 cause of both bankruptcy and homelessness, where the wealthy and well-insured get great care, and the hospitals have to eat the cost of care for those who can't afford it.

    20. Re:Patriot Act is unconstitutional by 10101001+10101001 · · Score: 2

      The conclusions might be erroneous, the conclusions might be almost-right, the conclusions might be perfectly on target. But, OBVIOUSLY, someone needs to look at *whatever* people, make some attempt to determine which *whatever* people are legal, and which are not, which are law abiding, and which are not, and SHIP OUT THE ONES WHO DON'T BELONG!

      So, how do you determine which people are legal? And on what basis do you only deport the non-"law abiding" illegal ones or really have that as a basis for anything except as the start of being able to tell if a person is illegal.

      Or, are you of the opinion that anyone and everyone in the world who wishes to "improve their lives" should just drop in, and expect the US to provide for them?

      No more than I think the US should provide for you. There is a rather extreme absurdity in the idea of citizenship. It was at one time a descriptive term--to say you were a citizen of a town/city/country meant you lived there. Now, it's a prescriptive term--to say you are a citizen of a town/city/country means you're legally entitled to live there. Who should pay taxes should be linked to who lives in an area. Who derives benefits in an area should be those who live in an area. There's no real logical basis to think that being 1cm within designated borders should magically leave you to "expect the US to provide for [you]" nor should which vagina you happen to drop out of nor who happened to be the inseminator of your life really determined how much cash the rest of you should give you.

      About the only real logical reason I can see to prescribe citizenship is to (1) provide a framework to limit what the government can do to fuck you over by making it clear that you live somewhere--but that really speaks of a limiting of scope instead of treating all people as equal and allows for "enemy combatant" and other selective relabelling/redistricting/whatever to justify abuse--, (2) to slow down immigration so the free flow of individuals doesn't create economic collapse because of the influx of immigrants--but that practice isn't practiced in-country and there's been plenty of examples where there's been just as ample reason to, say, slow down Easterners from moving to California in the post Civil War era--, or (3) to properly track people for income taxes, or similarly applied taxes, purposes--but then that falls upon government to put a short lease on businesses which clearly is the more fundamental problem in the regard, anyways.

      People who are incapable of distinguishing subtle details hear that "suspicion of brown-ness" sound byte, and assume that it is exactly the same as "driving while black". Yeah - they are somewhat similar. But, you might consider the fact that "driving while black" targets people who are perfectly legal, while "suspicion of brown-ness" targets illegal aliens, many of whom are breaking a lot more laws than just immigration.

      "Driving while black" targets people who are presumed guilty of a crime, based on fun statistics that note the higher incarceration rate of male blacks, especially in "bad black neighborhoods"--feel free to note a lack of "bad white neighborhoods" with "driving while white". "Suspicion of brown-ness" is precisely the same presumption of guilty of a crime, based on the fun stats you suggest above. In both cases, there's clearly something wrong with presuming a person guilty and demanding they prove their innocence in some way or just generally harassing people because of your presumptions. And to add to the point, when it becomes clear that you need a "legal" reason to pull someone over and harass them for their ID, you just make up something like speeding regardless of whether they were or not. Unless they have ample evidence to the contrary and are well connected, its "[black/brown] [wo]man's word vs a cop", with potential insinuation of racism that likely will get a person no where, especially as it's

      --
      Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
    21. Re:Patriot Act is unconstitutional by gd2shoe · · Score: 2

      Freedom > safety

      Hmm. On reflection, that seems to be a silly statement.

      Can freedom exist without safety? Freedom to do what, exactly? Freedom to beat your neighbor senseless? Freedom to avoid being beaten senseless?

      Can safety exist without freedom? Safety from what, exactly? Those who would kidnap you, beat you, and take your stuff? What if they are from the government?

      It seems, properly defined, that freedom and safety are indelibly linked.

      --
      I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
    22. Re:Patriot Act is unconstitutional by Immerman · · Score: 2

      "necessarily" being the key word in that sentence. I'm all for fighting the good fight, but there's a limit to how much I'll risk if I believe I'll lose in the end, and I don't think I'm an exception in that.

      It's hard to argue that cynicism isn't, generally speaking, a demotivating force. Unless of course you're the sort of parasite that wants to get a piece of the action yourself, in which case it provides entirely the wrong kind of motivation for promoting a healthy society.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  2. Link to donate to the EFF by cervesaebraciator · · Score: 4, Informative
    1. Re:Link to donate to the EFF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah, this actually makes me want to donate outside of the bundles. It's great to see an organization that is fighting for the rights of individual citizens instead of companies and the government.

    2. Re:Link to donate to the EFF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      I don't live in the US, but I've gone ahead and donated to the EFF.

    3. Re:Link to donate to the EFF by BlueStrat · · Score: 2

      Yeah, this actually makes me want to donate outside of the bundles. It's great to see an organization that is fighting for the rights of individual citizens instead of companies and the government.

      So, you're advocating people lend financial assistance to a "terrorist organization" (EFF having been placed on the double-secret-probation terrorist list by the DoJ/DHS)? Enjoy your stay at Gitmo. /sarc

      Seriously though, it would not surprise me in the least to hear in the near future that the DoJ/DHS has labeled the EFF as some sort of terrorism-supporting organization. That's the problem with wars against nebulous and ill-defined groups such as "terrorists". All it takes is redefining/widening what the definition of a "terrorist" and "terrorism" is to label any political opposition as "enemies of the State".

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    4. Re:Link to donate to the EFF by MrEricSir · · Score: 2

      Is there a way to donate 100% anonymously? I don't want my name on yet another "sucker list."

      --
      There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
  3. Actually... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    they are constitutional. I have proof but you're not allowed to see it. I'd tell you how many pages that proof has but that would endanger the lives of officers in the field.

    1. Re:Actually... by Alwin+Henseler · · Score: 2

      Pics or it doesn't exist.

    2. Re:Actually... by shentino · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You know what's interesting is that the Bill of Rights is in the constitution as a pack of 10 amendments, whereas the laws that even define the concepts of state secrets and classified information are established at a federal statute level.

      Given the supremacy clause, shouldn't my civil rights trump concerns about national security?

      The law that says I am entitled to due process outranks the law that says I have to let the government play keep-away with information.

    3. Re:Actually... by amiga3D · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's the interpretation that gets you. They simply redefine the words of the Constitution so that it means what they'd like it to say.

  4. Anonymous telecom? by reve_etrange · · Score: 2

    My bet is on a small ISP based in Santa Rosa, CA.

    --
    .: Semper Absurda :.
    1. Re:Anonymous Telecom? by number11 · · Score: 2

      My question is, why would the telecom want to remain anonymous? Wouldn't they gain plenty of positive attention from consumers if they showed they were sticking up for their privacy?

      Because they're not allowed to identify themselves.

      According to the Wall Street Journal, the company is Credo Long Distance/Mobile. More power to them, if you need LD or cell service check them out (they used to be "Working Assets" until they separated the telco stuff from the financial stuff). (They also contribute a percentage of their profits to various causes).

    2. Re:Anonymous telecom? by reve_etrange · · Score: 2

      Actually TFA asserts the telco is CREDO / Working Assets, which provides mobile and land-line services primarily to non-profits. Sonic.net was a good guess though, they have done similar things in the past.

      --
      .: Semper Absurda :.
  5. Challenging Authority by ohnocitizen · · Score: 5, Insightful

    the Justice Department took its own extraordinary measure and sued the company, arguing in court documents that the company was violating the law by challenging its authority

    . Stunning is the right word. That lawsuit, which appears to still be active, is an affront to a nation of laws with respect for civil rights. Legally attacking citizens for challenging authority ought to carry a steep political price.

    1. Re:Challenging Authority by fyngyrz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That lawsuit, which appears to still be active, is an affront to a nation of laws with respect for civil rights.

      Who are you talking about now? Norway? Sweden? Vulcan?

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    2. Re:Challenging Authority by servognome · · Score: 4, Funny

      Don't be silly, Norway and Sweden don't exist

      --
      D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
  6. Supreme court by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There should be a mechanism for cases like this to leapfrog to the SC. Nothing will be decided 'till it gets there. (I should live so long...)

  7. what can Joe Citizen do? by v1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    to support this and help it get driven all the way to the top SCOTUS?) so it gets set in concrete?

    --
    I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    1. Re:what can Joe Citizen do? by cervesaebraciator · · Score: 5, Informative

      Give money to the EFF. You'll even get a nifty t-shirt out of the deal if you like.

    2. Re:what can Joe Citizen do? by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The main thing you can do, is when people ask you to vote for the constitutional amendment which legalizes NSLs, say you're going to vote against it and why, and then when election day comes, follow through on the promise.

      --
      "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
  8. Precedents by istartedi · · Score: 4, Informative

    And then no one can ever challenge their constitutionality again.

    Well, there's the Dred Scott decision; but the process of challenging that one killed 600,000 Americans.

    Less difficult challenges were "Buck vs. Bell" which IIRC was the one that allowed states to sterilize people against their will and was the source of the infamous "3 generations of imbeciles are enough" quote.

    I'm sure there are plenty of other cases; but the bottom line is that SCOTUS ruling one way doesn't etch things in stone. You know what they say, Freedom isn't Free. Sometimes you have to die, fill the jails, lose all your money, etc; and if you're lucky you'll live to see your grandchildren get their God given rights back from those who stole them.

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    1. Re:Precedents by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 3, Funny

      3 generations of imbeciles are enough

      That one obviously had to be reversed. Where else would we get enough imbeciles to fill Congress?

  9. Justice Department is just like an HR department by redshirt · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Many people think that a corporation's Human Resources department is there for the protection of the employees. In reality, the opposite is the case - to protect the management from the employees. The same is true for the Justice Department. It doesn't exist to protect the people, but rather to protect the administration and control the population. Sure every once in a while they manage to do the right thing to satisfy the people. My HR department organizes an annual summer picnic.

  10. Holy crap? by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 4

    How is this not all over the front of every news site's homepage?

    1. Re:Holy crap? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Maybe they all got NSL demanding they not publish it?

    2. Re:Holy crap? by Sulphur · · Score: 2

      How is this not all over the front of every news site's homepage?

      When someone can be judge, jury, executioner, and managing editor ...

  11. Re:This is impossible by DaHat · · Score: 2

    I'm still waiting to hear his definition of "transparency"

  12. Re:Justice Department is just like an HR departmen by DragonWriter · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Many people think that a corporation's Human Resources department is there for the protection of the employees.

    Which is silly, because if companies even wanted to expend the slightest effort to pretend that was the case, they would call it "Employee Services". They call it "Human Resources" quite honestly -- its there to manage corporate resources that happen to be human.

    In reality, the opposite is the case - to protect the management from the employees.

    No, its there to protect the value of the employees (including those that are "management") as corporate assets; protecting the corporation from harm when those assets operate outside of the corporations desired parameters is a part of that, but doesn't define the role. This is much the same role as, say, the department tasked with overseeing factory operations has with respect to heavy machinery.

    Sure every once in a while they manage to do the right thing to satisfy the people. My HR department organizes an annual summer picnic.

    Manging morale for the purpose of increasing retention and productivity is part of the positive value side of protecting the value of the employees as corporate assets as much as mitigating the harm from dissatisfied employees is on the negative value side. You oil the machine to keep it working while it is working as desired, and you contain the damage and discard it as quickly as possible when it stops doing so and becomes a liability to keep around. All part of the same mission.

  13. Re:This is impossible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    I think you've already seen his answer.

  14. "Secret Government" is a huge threat to us all by erroneus · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Even as I was a TSA screener for a while, the whole "papers please!" measures that have been coming down have simply reminded me of "Nazi Germany" from old movies and the like. At some level I found it amusing if only because people were so easily pushed into accepting this. Nobody questioned things enough. Nobody asked "why is the security threat condition never 'GREEN'?" Of course I was also disgusted by it. That we were told to explain to people about rules which were 'secret' and couldn't be shown to them made me feel like a real shit. I was glad to finally get another job when I could.

    A government which cannot be trusted has already betrayed the people and it needs to be corrected. "It was my job" was an excuse I used too... though, the things I let slip by me... well... :) I can't say that I let them slip by intentionally, but in one attempt, I was foiled by a co-worker who ratted out a one-legged man who had marijuana in his pocket. I *so* wanted to let that go...

    1. Re:"Secret Government" is a huge threat to us all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yes! At last someone has seen the truth - everything is Just Fine.

    2. Re:"Secret Government" is a huge threat to us all by dcollins · · Score: 2

      "Nobody questioned things enough."

      I disagree. In my experience of things political, questions don't do dick. We need assertions and declaratory statements, like: "No", "I will not do that", "This is bullshit", and "We will organize, resist, and defeat you". Questions in a political context are like farting in a windstorm.

      --
      We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
    3. Re:"Secret Government" is a huge threat to us all by crdotson · · Score: 2

      You're right. We should really wait for it together a lot closer to a totalitarian state before worrying.

  15. Re:The Justice Department by ChrisMaple · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The "Justice" Department is Obama's tool of vengeance against those who oppose his holy proclamations.

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  16. Re:This is impossible by ChrisMaple · · Score: 2

    It's written in transparent ink.

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  17. Anonymous Donations Are Accepted by cervesaebraciator · · Score: 4, Informative
    From their privacy policy:

    We are pleased to receive anonymous donations in the mail, but please note that your personal information is required if you choose to donate using our online form.

    Their address is:

    Electronic Frontier Foundation, 454 Shotwell Street, San Francisco, CA 94110

    This is probably as close as you can get to anonymous, unless you have a friend drop off cash at their office.

  18. Re:The Justice Department by amiga3D · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Some people still think there are two parties in Washington instead of two faces of the same party, the Money Party.