Lawmakers Threaten Legal Basis of NSA Surveillance

Nerval's Lobster writes "The author of the Patriot Act has warned that the legal justification for the NSA's wholesale domestic surveillance program will disappear next summer if the White House doesn't restrict the way the NSA uses its power. Section 215 of the Patriot Act will expire during the summer of 2015 and will not be renewed unless the White House changes the shocking scale of the surveillance programs for which the National Security Administration uses the authorization, according to James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.), an original author of the Patriot Act and its two reauthorizations, stated Washington insider-news source The Hill. 'Unless Section 215 gets fixed, you, Mr. Cole, and the intelligence community will get absolutely nothing, because I am confident there are not the votes in this Congress to reauthorize it,' Sensenbrenner warned Deputy Attorney General James Cole during the Feb. 4 hearing. Provisions of Section 215, which allows the NSA to collect metadata about phone calls made within the U.S., give the government a 'very useful tool' to track connections among Americans that might be relevant to counterterrorism investigations, Cole told the House Judiciary Committee. The scale of the surveillance and lengths to which the NSA has pushed its limits was a "shock" according to Sensenbrenner, who also wrote the USA Freedom Act, a bill to restrict the scope of both Section 215 and the NSA programs, which has attracted 130 co-sponsors. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) has sponsored a similar bill in the Senate."

Comments

So what if Congress doesn't reauthorize it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Obama has a pen and a phone, and he's not afraid to use them.

Re:So what if Congress doesn't reauthorize it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Executive is not accountable to the legislature. Separating the branches of government is starting to look like a bad idea in hindsight.

Re:So what if Congress doesn't reauthorize it?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not a bad idea. Though the recent application of "we'll do what we want and either make laws retroactive or use prosecutorial digression not to go after those who helped us" is scary and only getting worse.

Re:So what if Congress doesn't reauthorize it?

[hermitdev]

The executive branch is accountable to the legislative. The whole checks and balances thing. If Mr. President does decide to continue this surveillance on executive order, it could very well get him impeached (repubs are looking for a reason, and this is would be a damn good reason).

Re:So what if Congress doesn't reauthorize it?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's it? Impeachment is the check that provides the balance? It's not effective if Congress isn't willing to use it. To impeach the first black would be racist!

Re:So what if Congress doesn't reauthorize it?

[mysidia]

Obama has a pen and a phone, and he's not afraid to use them.

The house has an impeachment power.

Re:So what if Congress doesn't reauthorize it?

[colinrichardday]

And if Congress decides that the NSA gets a budget of $0?

Re:So what if Congress doesn't reauthorize it?

[flaming error]

"To impeach the first black would be racist!"
That might not be far off, considering that nobody impeached Bush for doing the same things.

Re:So what if Congress doesn't reauthorize it?

[meglon]

They just don't have anyone with enough brains to understand THEY HAVE TO HAVE A REAL REASON. Their base is even worse, comprised of complete fucking idiots and think they can impeach someone just because they disagree with him.

Article 2, Section 4:

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Even more on point, you may want to go back to the Constitution and reread it if you're going to be basing your argument off it:

Article 1, Section 3:

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

Re:So what if Congress doesn't reauthorize it?

[mysidia]

They just don't have anyone with enough brains to understand THEY HAVE TO HAVE A REAL REASON.

Correct... "I have a pen and a phone" implies a willingness to sign an unlawful order; that is, to say, an order to a law enforcement body, to begin or continue conducting activities that are in violation of the constitution, or unlawful.

It is a matter exclusively for the judgement of the House, as to make the finding of law whether this is such a high crime as to warrant articles of impeachment

And then exclusively for judgement of the Senate, as to whether the evidence shows that the president committed the alleged crime(s).

Re:So what if Congress doesn't reauthorize it?

[dryeo]

The power of the purse was how the English Parliament became all powerful. Congress can defund or trade funding to neuter the executive.

Re:So what if Congress doesn't reauthorize it?

[meglon]

Correct... "I have a pen and a phone" implies a willingness to sign an unlawful order; that is, to say, an order to a law enforcement body, to begin or continue conducting activities that are in violation of the constitution, or unlawful.

No, it's not. It implies a willingness to sign an Executive Order, which has nothing to do with unlawful or unconstitutional behavior. You may believe Executive Orders are unlawful or unconstitutional, but you would be wrong. Every president has issued them, and the only time their constitutionality seems to come up is when some ideologically driven asshole disagrees with whichever president signed them.

There has been no reason to impeach Obama, but ideologically driven assholes continue to try to rationalize the most absurd lies out there to try to find one.

Re:So what if Congress doesn't reauthorize it?

[Anonymous Coward]

"To impeach the first black would be racist!"
That might not be far off, considering that nobody impeached Bush for doing the same things.

WUT?!?!?!

I hope that's sarcasm, because:

Bush didn't have recess appointments overturned in court because he made them while Congress was actually in session.

Bush didn't have his Attorney General held in contempt of Congress for refusing to turn over documents.

Bush didn't use executive orders to unilaterally change laws passed by Congress like Obama has done with Obamacare.

Bush didn't have his Director of National Intelligence perjure himself in Congress over the NSA's surveillance.

Re:So what if Congress doesn't reauthorize it?

[mysidia]

No, it's not. It implies a willingness to sign an Executive Order, which has nothing to do with unlawful or unconstitutional behavior.

No, you're wrong. Whether or not an executive order is related to unlawful behavior, depends on the content of the order.

The president can sign as many executive orders as he or she wants, but none of them have the force of law. The executive has absolutely no power to make law or interpret law.

However: in the event that the president signs any executive order directing his staff, officials, law enforcement, etc, to conduct any illegal activity ---- such as illegal searches, then it is within congress' discretion to charge the president of high crimes, including crimes against the constitution, if they find that the actions directed by the order were illegal based on the law constructed by congress, and that the unlawful acts were intentional -- with the president knowingly and intentionally signing an order that would direct actions contrary to the law.

Re:So what if Congress doesn't reauthorize it?

[sjames]

Violating the oath to defend the Constitution would fall under high crimes and misdemeanors.

Re:So what if Congress doesn't reauthorize it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you daft? Signing an EO telling a federal agency to commit a crime would be unlawful. Your parent isn't saying he has done this. He's saying that if Obama ordered the NSA to continue the dragnet after the supposed authorization was rescinded THAT WOULD BE UNLAWFUL.

This isn't rocket surgery kid.

Re:So what if Congress doesn't reauthorize it?

[celle]

"Bush didn't have recess appointments overturned in court because he made them while Congress was actually in session."

          Congress wasn't screwing around with sessions when Bush was in either since they were on the same team.

"Bush didn't have his Attorney General held in contempt of Congress for refusing to turn over documents."

          Congress was on his side and his attorney general justified all the illegal stuff released by Snowden that's coming out now and AG office were still fucking up in court on major cases. But congress after the 2006 elections did start nailing G.W. Bush's AG near the end of his reign.

"Bush didn't use executive orders to unilaterally change laws passed by Congress like Obama has done with Obamacare."

            You mean like extra-ordinary rendition, creating the very programs we're all ranting about, going around the constitution on just about everything. Remember Bush was doing all if not more illegal things than Obama is doing now. We just found out about them on Obama's watch.

"Bush didn't have his Director of National Intelligence perjure himself in Congress over the NSA's surveillance."

        And how do we know?

        Face it Bush was no angel and actually considering he put most of the crap in motion still rates worse than Obama any day. Don't forget to give a big 'sieg heil' to another Bush creation, your friendly Department of Homeland Security representative on your way to lockup.

Re:So what if Congress doesn't reauthorize it?

[Anonymous Coward]

The NSA won't care.
Consider how many "Black Budgets" probably funnel cash to them.

Re:So what if Congress doesn't reauthorize it?

[JDG1980]

Obama has a pen and a phone, and he's not afraid to use them.

The Republicans have been looking for an excuse to impeach President Obama that would pass the laugh test. If Obama openly defied a shutdown of surveillance programs, that would give them not only a good reason, but one that might actually have some bipartisan support.

What I think is more likely is that the NSA would keep operating the way they are anyway, with or without Presidential or Congressional authorization. Short of completely de-funding them, there is little that can be done to make them stop. Some other government agencies have been willing to ignore their nominal leaders – for example, some federal prosecutors have brought cases against medical marijuana distributors despite being specifically told not to do so by their boss, Attorney General Holder.

Re:So what if Congress doesn't reauthorize it?

[RabidReindeer]

They just don't have anyone with enough brains to understand THEY HAVE TO HAVE A REAL REASON.

Like, for example, that the president lied about blowjobs.

Re: So what if Congress doesn't reauthorize it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Didn't work so well for The CIA when congress ceased their funds for the contras in the 80:s.

Re:So what if Congress doesn't reauthorize it?

[tburkhol]

Obama has a pen and a phone, and he's not afraid to use them.

The Republicans have been looking for an excuse to impeach President Obama that would pass the laugh test. If Obama openly defied a shutdown of surveillance programs, that would give them not only a good reason, but one that might actually have some bipartisan support.

Except Obama hasn't been threatening to use executive order to counter Congress on surveillance. (actually, given that the programs are legal under the PATRIOT act, wouldn't a countermanding executive order cease surveillance?) Anyway, the "threat" of executive order has been to move policy upon which Congress has failed to act these past five years: immigration, education or jobs training, and background checks probably most notable. The power of executive orders is really very limited - he can't order anything that violates law; he can at most change the extent to which those laws are enforced. You know, like how he's already told INS not to bother deporting non-criminal, undocumented immigrants if they were brought into the country as minors.

Re:So what if Congress doesn't reauthorize it?

[Anonymous Coward]

The executive branch is accountable to the legislative.

Oh Really? Nope, that's bullshit. The PATRIOT Act Retroactively granted immunity to the ISPs who were Already helping the spying agencies perform vast warrantless wiretaps. They have no accountability, otherwise we wouldn't have blackwater mercenaries who are subject to no law commanding our troops overseas.

The only thing worse than an idiot is an idyllic and ignorant fool.

Re:So what if Congress doesn't reauthorize it?

[hermitdev]

While I'll agree Bush instigated a number of these policies/programs, it has been entirely within Obama's power to cease them, which he has not done. If anything, he has expanded upon them.

You're right, Congress wasn't "screwing around" as you put it. Bush never had a super-majority in either house see: party divisions. As much as I don't agree with a lot of what happened during Bush's administration, most of it occurred through the proper means, i.e. congressional legislation followed by a signature. Obama has now committed to use of executive order, and some of what he's proposing to order could be viewed as violation of established federal law, and be grounds for impeachment.

For instance, the recent executive order to increase the minimum wage for companies doing business with the federal government. This is sort of open ended. For instance, if an FBI agent buys lunch from McDonalds, is that doing business with the federal government? Does it matter if it was paid our of pocket versus expensed? Does he have the authority to do so? The federal minimum wage is a federal law, and he is countermanding federal law in doing so. I'm not a lawyer, but on the surface, this latest executive order could provide grounds for impeachment. The case law would be the impeachment of Andrew Jackson. He was impeached for countermanding federal law.

Re:So what if Congress doesn't reauthorize it?

[hermitdev]

That those acts were passed doesn't make them constitutional. Not that the constitution seems to pass for anything other than a napkin these days.

Fuck the beta

[Anonymous Coward]

"MOVIN’ ON UP" my ass

Re:Fuck the beta

[buswolley]

http://slashdot.org/recent Vote up the Fuck Beta stories

Re:Fuck the beta

[chebucto]

Beta must die

Re:Fuck the beta

[dknj]

Just want to add, this is not the voice of the truely concerned slashdot users. But likely being done to detract attention from the more sensible posts about classic slashdot. If posts like these are going to dominate the comments then the true reason for the other slashdot site will be silenced.

Re:Fuck the beta

[Anonymous Coward]

AND WHY THE FUCK ARE TFSs ABRIDGED??? IS 100 WORDS TOO MUCH TO PAY ATTENTION TO THESE DAYS?!?!?!
i know caps are like yelling slashdot. that is precicely what i'm doing as you are pissing me off with your innane bullshit. leave the classic page alone or i'll go start anonydot... with hookers and blackjack!

Re:Fuck the beta

[mcgrew]

I did before I came here, every single one of the "beta sucks" stories, just posted a "beta sucks" /. journal, and sent them an email informing them that when classic is gone, so will I be.

I suspect all that will be left after classic is gone is APK, ethanol-fueled, the goatse guy, the GNAA guy, and that guy who wants you to clean his PC, Oh, and don't forget Bert, and the other two trolls Bilbo met.

Re:Fuck the beta

[mcgrew]

No, what he said echoes my sentiments. Going from a 19th century mansion to a Habitat for Humanity house is NOT "moving up." It's a shame Dice wants slashdot dead. I'll miss it.

Re:Fuck the beta

[Monkey-Man2000]

If you took their survey you'll see they know most long-time /. users are outraged. The first question was something like, "Did you know, you can find the classic slashdot layout at a link at the bottom of the page" Answer: No. Next question, "did you find it?". Answer: No (it's buried in a text box). Next question, "Do you have any suggestions for improving the usability of the beta" Answer: Go back to classic Slashdot by default. Etc., etc., They know the beta's shit and don't care because they are going to use the site to phish irregular users into their "Business Intelligence" BS. They don't care to keep us here, they just want the name for the geek-chique with the managers that may think they're hip because they've heard of /. but never actually visited. I hope Taco made a mint on this and the other "editors" as well because they sold out hard -- I knew something was seriously wrong when he jumped ship after so many previous acquisitions....

Re:Fuck the beta

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I guess it's fair to fuck the beta because it's sure as hell fucking us.

Delete the beta. Burn the code. Sack the developer.

Guys, this is definitely a case where you have to nuke it from orbit, just to be sure. There is no way you can keep going if you stick your middle finger so firmly in our faces and shout BETA FUCKING BETA FUCK YOU!

We'll just leave.

Re:Fuck the beta

[Anonymous Coward]

Beta must die

I was around when the last slashdot site update came around... People were saying the same thing then... Yet people are still here... This, too, will pass. People just don't like change.

Re:Fuck the beta

[Anonymous Coward]

Instead of first post we need 1000 "Beta Sucks!" every time a new article is posted.

Re:Fuck the beta

[TheGratefulNet]

NSA?

we want to throw eggs at the 'beta' from slashdot. we've heard enough about the NSA.

we can't change the NSA and congress won't do a damned thing. we won't ever trust our government again (not that we ever really did) and whatever they say, they will be lies.

if obama wants to get back in our favor, he should have a talk with the Dice guys and straighten them out.

(yeah, I'm not holding my breath on that one, either).

Re:Fuck the beta

[Anonymous Coward]

If you took their survey you'll see they know most long-time /. users are outraged.

Also because all of the "fuckbeta" and "betasucks" tags that I saw 12 hours ago are gone. I'm surprised they haven't deleted the "Fuck Beta" comment threads, but I suppose there are so many people posting in those threads that they can't do so without pissing people off even more.

In all fairness, some of the complaints were heard during the last redesign. Unusable CSS. Broken javascript. blahblahblah. They made their changes and people adapted. They'll make these changes and people will adapt. Yes, many will leave, but the whole point is to make the site more accessible to more people. ie, to lower the comfort-with-technology filter. They'll turn into another political discussion site, just focused on surveillance and privacy rather than guns and abortion.

Re:Fuck the beta

[Anonymous Coward]

The Cake says:

Adblock the beta!

Re:Fuck the beta

[SleazyRidr]

Holy shit. Filtered by the highest rated stories, they're ALL about how no-one likes the beta. I realise that corporate wheels take a long time to change direction, but if this shit isn't fixed soon it'll be fairly clear that they don't give a shit about anyone who uses this site. I'll be following this story: http://slashdot.org/submission... for some new ideas.

Re:Fuck the beta

[dholmes51300]

I have to agree... FUCK BETA. I wonder how many user's posts of disliking beta before /. gets a clue or if the anti-beta movement covers the bulk of all users.

Beta kills children

[Laxori666]

Yesterday, I had a child. My dear son. Today I found him dead. He left a suicide note: "The only reason for my death is Slashdot Beta."

Also I had a daughter a few days ago. But then I also found her dead. This time she had been murdered. The autopsy came back: She had been mauled by Slashdot Beta.

This must end!! Think of the children! Kill the Beta!

Re:Beta kills children

[richlv]

well, slashdot... this is now up to the "funny" level - i mean, 90% of comments being about suckiness of beta :)

get a geek to tell designers and coders how it should be. and give him/her the right to kill... ok, throw out of the building anybody suggesting stuff like the "beta".

Re:Beta kills children

[Laxori666]

Hello sir,

Thank you for your concerns! I am not sure if you read my post. My dear son - and also my daughter - they both died! The Slashdot Beta was clearly at fault! It was confirmed scientifically by autopsy and also by investigation of the suicide note my dear son left.

Please, I want no other children to get hurt by the Beta. If even this has small chance of working - it will be worth it.

Thank you, I hope you understand my urgent pleas!

Re:Beta kills children

[TheRaven64]

If Slashdot didn't die the LAST three or four times they revamped the site (no matter how much everyone knew it would), it sure as hell won't die with this one.

Each of the last times, they made some things better and some things worse, and they fixed the worst regressions before they forced everyone to move to the new version. Now, they have made the site basically unusable. I've been here for about 10 years and was in the top 5 most active commenters for a couple of quarters of that, and I'm still no on beta. If I do get forced to move to beta, then goodbye Slashdot.

Re:Beta kills children

[Common Joe]

well, slashdot... this is now up to the "funny" level - i mean, 90% of comments being about suckiness of beta :)

Huh. I guess we may have actually achieved "nerd rage" here. :P

-- Common Joe

Slashdot Valentines Day Massacre: Boycott Slashdot because "Fuck Beta!": February 10 - 17

And Support Okian Warrior's Alternate Slashdot Idea!

Re:Beta kills children

[Anonymous Coward]

I realize it's a slight modification, but there's a word for that: Defenstrate.

Re:Beta kills children

[Anonymous Coward]

I suffered the same for days. It started with the children, then my wife, then my neighbors, friends, and the rest of the town. That's when I decided to try MyCleanPC. Now thanks to MyCleanPC my computer is rid of Slashdot Beta once and for all and i can finally rebuild my life

Re:first

[buswolley]

Screw Beta Slashdot. Stupid dumb asses.

And this is why

[phantomfive]

And this is why it can be smart to put time limits on bills, even if you think they are a good idea at the time. In that sense, the original authors of the Patriot Act were smart.

Re:And this is why

[Omega Hacker]

Agreed. Automatic expiration of laws help weed out old crap, and force lawmakers to *actively* support reauthorization of any bill and thus face any fallout over bills that might have seemed good at the time (no, I do *not* think the "patriot" act was a good thing at a time, but a lot of morons did) but have since proved to be a bad idea. Bonus: if lawmakers were required (after radically re-arranging the congressional rules) to re-up every single bill, we'd have a *LOT FEWER* bills in total. As long as they are not given the "out" of letting their underlings ([tenured] staff) re-up old stuff, they simply have a finite amount of time to both re-up and develop new bills.

Re:And this is why

[icebike]

And this is why it can be smart to put time limits on bills, even if you think they are a good idea at the time. In that sense, the original authors of the Patriot Act were smart.

This will be something like the third re-authorization. (It expired piecemeal, making it easier to re-authorize it piecemeal).

We not only need sunset into bills, we need to require an ever increasing majority to re-authorize these laws.
(As well as (nearly) unanimous consent to lower those requirements.)

You can bet that at the time grows near, there will be an "incident" that just "happens" to come along which will have the usual useful idiots demanding more protection, and tighter scrutiny. The drumbeat of fear will be revved up again. Someone will put forth minor meaningless tweaks and tell us the problem is solved. Opponents will be vilified and demonized in the press, mistresses will surface. You name it. Its not like we haven't seen this before.

And we need to enact penalties for judges that fail to uphold their oath of office.

Re:And this is why

[rk]

I have thought that some kind of third legislative branch, whose only power was to rescind laws older than 2 or 3 years, would be a useful check and balance on the current system, which seems only capable of expanding the size of the law. This branch too, would probably need some checks and balances.

Re:And this is why

[Sarten-X]

That's only useful in a specific case, though, where one piece of legislation is the sole authorization for a government action. That's pretty rare (to the point where I doubt this is even such a case).

For everything else, having an expiration date means that the actual state of the law would change even more than it does now, so everybody has to spend more money and work even harder just to make sure that they're still in compliance with the newly-revised rules that are subtly different that the previous rules, because the politicians wanted to look like they were actively improving things.

Similarly, the increased volatility of the law means that legal precedent is also more volatile, so the cost of a court case gets worse as there's more room to argue about how a rule's expiration affects previous judgments. While a criminal case is waiting for the court to settle, the legality of the alleged crime could even change, especially if it's politically beneficial for the legislators to override the judicial branch.

Mandatory expiration dates for legislation fall into the large category of "ideas that cause more problems than they solve".

Re:And this is why

[king neckbeard]

That said, the alleged impermanence of a bill can be used as a way of justifying something we would normally object to, and renewals of those bills are lower pressure because they aren't changing the law.

Re:And this is why

[Anonymous Coward]

No, they weren't "smart". If they were "smart", they never would have given explicit permission for such massive abuse, especially without judicial oversight. This abuse was entirely predictable. They were less than completely stupid because some of them did demand some sort of limit, in the face of the wave of jingoistic sentiment occurring in the wake of 9/11.

The obvious thing to do now, is not to revise it: it's to *block* revisions, pointing out that the NSA and the Department of Homeland Security cannot be trusted, they've proven they can't be trusted, and there's no reason to ever think they *can* be trusted.

Re:And this is why

[cavreader]

I have some serious doubts that the "drumbeat of fear" ever really existed in the first place. Opinion polls are worthless and depending on who shapes the questions can be spun by both sides of the argument. It would be great if the polling firms were required to provide the detailed methodologies being used to reach their conclusions. Using relatively small sample sizes and then extrapolating and applying the results against 350 million citizens requires some details to test the accuracy of the results.

Re:And this is why

[Antique Geekmeister]

> Mandatory expiration dates for legislation fall into the large category of "ideas that cause more problems than they solve".

By raw numbers, perhaps. But the problems that they solve are so large and pervasive that they're worth considering. The sheer bulk of existing legal codes, dating back to the Constitution itself, makes sensible analysis of existing law infeasible for even a reasonable legal researcher.

Re:And this is why

[icebike]

The fear hasn't existed for a long time.
The drums of fear are still being pounded hard and loud. Just read a few of the administration's fear talk about why we have to have continued data gathering.

Re: And this is why

[Anonymous Coward]

yes the were smart. they realized, all you gotta say is "limit" and the dumbass american fucktards will bend over for it. then you just put another limit in place.
kinda like xp isn't it?

Re:And this is why

[cavreader]

I think a lot of people mistake fear with pissed off. The government can ramp up their oversight using either emotion.

Re:And this is why

[Anonymous Coward]

Automatic expiration of laws help weed out old crap, and force lawmakers to *actively* support reauthorization of any bill and thus face any fallout over bills that might have seemed good at the time

They have a way around that. It's a voice vote. They do that when no one wants to be on record supporting a bill, but they actually do support it. That's how the Patriot act extension passed the Senate in 2010.

Democrats have retreated from adding new privacy protections to the primary U.S counterterrorism law, stymied by Senate Republicans who argued the changes would weaken terror investigations.

The proposed protections were cast aside when Senate Democrats lacked the necessary 60-vote supermajority to pass them. Dashing the hopes of liberals, the Senate Wednesday night instead passed -- by voice vote without debate -- a one-year extension of key parts of the USA Patriot Act that would have expired on Sunday.

Re:And this is why

[Reziac]

"We not only need sunset into bills, we need to require an ever increasing majority to re-authorize these laws"

That's a really good point. It's hardly worth the bother if reauthorizing is trivially easy. If the law has really earned its keep, then that ever-increasing majority should see its value and vote for it, eh? And if not... well, maybe it wasn't such a good idea after all.

At least, not if you want to get re-elected.

Re:And this is why

[Anonymous Coward]

The sheer bulk of existing legal codes, dating back to the Constitution itself, makes sensible analysis of existing law infeasible for even a reasonable legal researcher.

The bulk of the existing legal codes is due to one thing only: ethical conflict of interest on the part of legal professionals, as a class in society.

The legal professionals staffing the various legislatures and Congress could do something about this, as could those in the judiciary. But the larger and more complex the legal system, the greater the long term demand for the services of legal professionals. Even those lawmakers who are not legal professionals are subject to the most powerful lobbying group in the country, the Bar Associations. Hence the conflict of interest.

The right to ethical practice of law, and ethical government, is certainly a fundamental right arising under the 9th Amendment. Even the appearance of conflict of interest must be avoided whenever possible. The sheer bulk of the existing legal codes shows that we have gone far, far beyond just the appearance of conflict of interest. The conclusion necessarily follows that a huge percentage of the existing legal codes exist in violation of the Bill of Rights, and hence much of what government and the legal profession do in the name of the law is in fact illegal, sometimes even criminal.

It is nothing short of gross misconduct on the part of the legal profession to have allowed the legal system to become the disaster and mess that it currently is.

The Patriot Act is a prime example of a law that is illegal simply on the basis of the right to legal ethics. Do we really need a law that is hundreds of pages long? How can the public possibly exercise its right, arising under the 9th Amendment, to serve as a check and balance on the government when a law is this huge? Can we ever justify a law of this size? The answer to these questions is clearly, "NO". The government that governs best, governs least.

The expiration of the law is not what will make the surveillance activities illegal. An illegal law can not authorize government surveillance, so the NSA surveillance was never legal to begin with. The fact that the surveillance violates other fundamental rights (in addition to the right to ethical practice of law) arising under the 9th Amendment would of course give us a second basis for concluding that the surveillance was illegal.

Lawmakers, of course, being legal professionals, have little interest in acknowledging the ethics issue here, so it is not surprising they are trying to find another basis for going after the Patriot Act, now that it has been clearly shown to be massively unpopular amongst those members of the public with functioning brains.

Empty threat

[Anonymous Coward]

>James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.)

A laughably empty threat. The Republican bloc is unlikely to do anything that would curb military or intelligence related activities.

Re:Empty threat

[M. Baranczak]

The Republican bloc is unlikely to do anything that would curb military or intelligence related activities.

Unless there's a Democrat running those intelligence related activities. Then there's actually a good chance.

Reminds me of that time when Slashdot hired a gang of meth-addled rhesus monkeys to redesign their site.

Re:Empty threat

[cold fjord]

You apparently don't pay much attention to defense matters. You should look into the "peace dividend" in the 1990s, and the current defense sequestration cuts.

Re:Empty threat

[lgw]

The Republican bloc is unlikely to do anything that would curb military or intelligence related activities.

You haven't been paying attention. The Republicans are up in arms over this, with the RNC calling the NSAs activities straight up unconstitutional and calling for their end with no mention of terrorism nor other weasel wording.

Re:Empty threat

[Anonymous Coward]

Reminds me of that time when Slashdot hired a gang of meth-addled rhesus monkeys to redesign their site.

Oh, come on now. I thought /. was supposed to be a 'judgement free zone' when it came to Simian Addiction Disorder.

Re:Empty threat

[icebike]

>James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.)

A laughably empty threat. The Republican bloc is unlikely to do anything that would curb military or intelligence related activities.

The two prior extensions were pushed through by Democrats. After 8 years, its time to stop blaming Republicans.

On Saturday, February 27, 2010, President Barack Obama signed into law legislation that would temporarily extend for one year three controversial provisions of the Patriot Act that had been set to expire:
Authorize court-approved roving wiretaps that permit surveillance on multiple phones.
Allow court-approved seizure of records and property in anti-terrorism operations.
Permit surveillance against a so-called lone wolf, a non-U.S. citizen engaged in terrorism who may not be part of a recognized terrorist group.

Its useful divisive idiots like you that keep trying to make this a partisan issue rather than getting you own party to actually READ the constitution.

Re:Empty threat

[gIobaljustin]

Sadly, they're only up in arms about it because it's democrats doing it. The same would be true the other way around.

No one actually seems to care about the freedom aspect of this whole situation.

Re:Empty threat

[Rob the Bold]

The Republican bloc is unlikely to do anything that would curb military or intelligence related activities.

Unless there's a Democrat running those intelligence related activities. Then there's actually a good chance.

No. Unfettered spying ^B^B^B^B^B^B intelligence gathering is the most bipartisan issue there is. Repubs and Democrats have both controlled houses of Congress with the other party in the White House. Have they actually done anything, even to score political points? No. No, they haven't. Will they? No. No, they won't. And no, voting Ron Paul won't fix it either -- sorry guys. Basing the whole thing on the promise and integrity of one guy doesn't work if there's no one to hold him accountable. Until Congress is willing to do its job, this won't get fixed.

Re:Empty threat

[Anonymous Coward]

If it helps free us from illegal mass surveillance, fine, I'll take any legislative allies I can get. Digital rights is one of the worst and saddest parts of the Obama administration's record.

Re:Empty threat

[guises]

The Republicans are the ones who passed the Patriot Act in the first place. They're only against this because they think they can pin it on Obama.

Re:Empty threat

[Rockoon]

The Republicans are the ones who passed the Patriot Act in the first place.

Don't be an ignorant fuck.

H.R. 3162 aka "THE PATRIOT ACT" passed the House in 2001 with 357 Yay votes and only 66 Nay votes. 145 of those Yay votes (40%) were Democrats. Only 15% of the House voted against it.

Then it passed the Senate 98 Yay to 1 Nay. The only Senator to vote against it was Feingold from Wisconsin.. yes, a Democrat.

Somehow I can amazingly find information on the internet such as which Representatives and Senators voted for which bills. Good thing indeed. It allows me to not exist in a state of ignorant fuckness.

Re:Empty threat

[guises]

You've confused me. How have you refuted what I said? Republicans passed the bill. The only reason they're against it now is because they believe that they can pin it on Obama. These are true things. What you seem to be pointing out now, what is also true, is that Democrats passed it too. So what?

If you want to turn this into partisan dick wagging, I'll point out that the largest number of opponents of the bill and it's extensions, both in quantity and proportionally, have been Democrats. The most recent extension in the house was 196 Y - 31 N for Republicans in the house and 54 Y - 122 N for Democrats, in the Senate the majority of both parties supported it but the no votes were 19 D and 4 R. However, overall the bill has gotten support from both parties.

Hm. It's possible that you are upset over my use of the words "the ones." I'll grant that my statement would have been better made if I had said, "The Republicans were the ones in power when Patriot Act was passed in the first place." My intent was to emphasize that Republicans were firmly behind the bill when it was passed, and have been firmly behind it since then, not to imply exclusivity.

Re:Empty threat

[lgw]

And the author of the section of the Patriot Act that the NSA is using to justify it's actions is leading the charge here. Do you really find it impossible to see past your prejudices?

Re:Empty threat

[guises]

You think I should be more selective? That I should only oppose section 215? I think there's much more that's wrong with the Patriot Act than just that little bit.

Re:first

[Anonymous Coward]

This x100.

James Sensenbrenner Jr.

[HairyNevus]

Would it be too much to ask of Wisconsin's 5th district to not re-elect this asshole? Probably...we couldn't get MN's 5th congressional district to stop electing Bachmann.

Re:James Sensenbrenner Jr.

[icebike]

What about all the other Democrats that pushed through the last reauthorization?

The scale of the surveillance and lengths to which the NSA has pushed its limits was a "shock" according to Sensenbrenner, who also wrote the USA Freedom Act, a bill to restrict the scope of both Section 215 and the NSA programs, which has attracted 130 co-sponsors.

The author of the Patriot act has seen the light, and yet you do nothing but call him names?

What has YOUR guy been doing all this time? Oh yeah, reauthorizing it year after year.

How can you be so ignorant of the truth, yet so quick to post insults?

Re:James Sensenbrenner Jr.

[HairyNevus]

How can you be so ignorant of the truth, yet so quick to post insults?

Pot. Kettle. Black:

What has YOUR guy been doing all this time? Oh yeah, reauthorizing it year after year.

Never have I voted for Obama.

Re:James Sensenbrenner Jr.

[meglon]

Well, if the author of the Patriot Act hadn't been such a cowardly anti-American prick back in 2001, along with all the other cowardly anti-American pricks that voted for it, we wouldn't be having an issue now... would we? Your "truths," however, seem to be missing a little something...Obama signed it, yes (and he shouldn't have), but it was congress that passed the authorization he signed.

Why is it you want to single Obama out for what the majority of congress passed, without calling them out as well?

Re:James Sensenbrenner Jr.

[Mr. Shotgun]

Small point, you meant to say Minnesota's 6th district which is stuck on crazy, not Minnesota's 5th District who elected the first Muslim to serve in the house of representatives in the form of Keith Ellison. The two districts are close geographically, but very far apart politically.

Re:James Sensenbrenner Jr.

[tburkhol]

What has YOUR guy been doing all this time? Oh yeah, reauthorizing it year after year.

Never have I voted for Obama.

He's not talking about Obama. He's talking about your Representative and Senators. You know, the people who actually write, sponsor, and submit bills for presidential signature. House votes have been 275/174, 280/138, and 250/153, Senate votes have been 89/10, 89/10 and 72/23. Those are pretty sizeable bipartisan majorities, especially in the Senate.

So, how about your senators? How many times have you written then about your privacy concerns?

Military state

[Anonymous Coward]

If the NSA is a DoD/Military "agency", and Eric Holder approved using them to assist the civilian Dept. of Justice, then American's are truly living in a military state. How long until Holder and Obama are impeached for this? As if International Watergate wasn't bad enough....

Re:Military state

[Anonymous Coward]

The only credible reason for impeachment is sex scandal. Americans are idiots.

Re:Military state

[Anonymous Coward]

It's called military assistance to civil authorities. The US is not a "military state." Don't be an asshat.

Re:first

[buswolley]

Vote up the Firehose stories http://slashdot.org/recent

Beta and Astroturfing in one post

[Anonymous Coward]

Awesome, we have here in one post

- The warning-note about the idiotic Beta plan pushing forward, and
- Yet more slashdot spinoff site astroturfing by Nerval's Lobster, aka slashdot's astroturfing ghostwriting editor

It's plain as day why Taco left. The corporate morons are doing their best to ruin this place.

Pardon me

[jodido]

Pardon me for not leading with a negative comment on Slashdot Beta (if I did comment it would be highly negative) but, let's stay on topic. It will make zero difference if the NSA has a "legal" basis or not. The govt will simply assert the president's "right" or power to "defend the country" and which court is going to say no to that?

Re:Pardon me

[Anonymous Coward]

Beta Sucks!

Re:Pardon me

[hermitdev]

which court is going to say no to that?

Hopefully the Supreme. It is their job, after all, as dictated by the Constitution (for whatever that's worth, these days).

Re:Pardon me

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want you can change back to regular slashdot with the link on the bottom right somewhere.

One can only hope

[icebike]

Section 215 of the Patriot Act will expire during the summer of 2015 and will not be renewed

Its time to put this experiment to bed. Like prohibition, which lasted 13 years, the Patriot act (now 13 years old), and damage it has caused needs to be rolled back. Not just Section 215, but other major portions of the act as well.

We are not safer now. We are simply less free now. It has not prevented terrorist attacks, either here or abroad. Boarder security continues to be a utter joke, and secrecy provisions are the antithesis of our supposed freedoms.

Its probably time to start yanking your congressman's chain. Its time to point out that the simple fact we are not asleep any more is basically all that is needed, and all that was ever needed. Its time to point out that 13 years of lies and secrecy is enough. Its time for them to stop carrying the governments message to their constituents, and start carrying their constituents message to the government.

Do I expect this to be successful? No. Not as long as a single one of those congressmen were in office for the initial passing, or the prior re-authorizations. They are too heavily invested in the act, and the administration has too much control over them.

Time to clean house. Stop fearing your district's loss of seniority by electing new people. Vote them all out. If we do it piece meal, career bureaucrats and career politicians will just co-opt the new members. Remove the leverage.

Re:One can only hope

[Anonymous Coward]

Could always knock on the door of their multi-million dollar homes with a smile and ask...

Re:One can only hope

[oodaloop]

Boarder security continues to be a utter joke

Indeed, the Silver Surfer could strike at any moment!

Re:One can only hope

[Princeofcups]

Stop fearing your district's loss of seniority by electing new people. Vote them all out. If we do it piece meal, career bureaucrats and career politicians will just co-opt the new members. Remove the leverage.

All that will do is make the next batch of puppets cheaper to own. Until corporations are muzzled, nothing will change.

Re:One can only hope

[TheGratefulNet]

"wow, I keep replacing this fuse and each time I replace it, it blows."

but lets not try to understand why the circuit is faulty. lets just keep revoting in new 'fuses' and hope that this one does not blow....

(the system is broken. voting new for old is not going to do anything other than play musical chairs.)

Re:One can only hope

[Spamalope]

Its time to put this experiment to bed. Like prohibition, which lasted 13 years, the Patriot act (now 13 years old), and damage it has caused needs to be rolled back. Not just Section 215, but other major portions of the act as well.

Like Cointelpro, they'll just rename and reshuffle the programs while still doing exactly what they want. You can't reveal they're back at it without committing a felony after all...

Re:One can only hope

[BlueStrat]

Until corporations are muzzled, nothing will change.

I'll copy-paste a section from another of my comments in another thread and article that addresses this point.

http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

The US doesn't have a Left/Right, (R)/(D) problem as much as it simply has grave, ongoing, massive and broad civil rights violations being committed by the government against the entire population under both major political parties.

If the government can be reined-in and brought back under the people's control and end the massive corruption, then corporations and banks, etc would also be brought under control, once you have a government that will actually prosecute corporations/banks/financial institutions and their heads who violate the law, and without any favoritism.

I believe that two of the things that *must* be included in any proposed solution for it to have any credibility whatsoever are term limits for all in Congress to end "career politicians" and strict rules with criminal penalties for going from a government post/office/position into a private sector job/position for any entity over which/whom you had power/influence, in order to stop the revolving-door corruption in D.C.

"Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason." - Mark Twain

Strat

Confessions Of an Ex-SLASHDOT BETA user

[Anonymous Coward]

Day 1: It wouldn't stop, the redirecting. At first I thought it was malware. Had my first drink in a long time.

Day 2: Barely had the strength to carry on as the BETA REDIRECTIONS continue.. trying not to talk to hallucinations at the bar and in the bathroom which laugh at me about these redirections.

Day 3: Discovered the BETA redirections were random, and while at first they looked somewhat usable, when I looked at me and my monitor screen in the mirror, a horrible woman with flesh hanging off of her body looked back, trying to lead me into a dance as the word BETA appeared across her rancid breasts.

Day 4: These BETA corridors go on FOREVER! On the plus side, I've taken up disassembling vehicles to corner this BETA beast and sacrifice myself rather than lead others to discovering it. I ate some red snow.

Day 5: Finding it harder to concentrate. I've ate some more of the red snow. The taste is starting to grow on me.

Day 6: This typewriter is the only entertainment I have, apart from throwing things at the walls, trying to get some response from the BETA which is now taking over my mind.

Day 7: Hahahahahha! Would you believe it? I'M STILL BEING REDIRECTED TO SLASHDOT BETA PAGES! AHAHhahahaah! Type, type, ding, ding! Wooo!

Day 8: The hallucinations are actually real! Would you believe it? They have offered to help me if I agree to work for them. I'm thinking about patenting this delicious red snow, the taste is unreal!

Day 9: Having black out sessions where I cannot remember large passings of time. Found some makeup, thought I'd paint a joker smile on my face to amuse the people only I can see!

Day 10: Productive today, part of what I wrote for my new screenplay:

I cannot opt out of Slashdot BETA!
I cannot opt out of Slashdot BETA!
I cannot opt out of Slashdot BETA!
I cannot opt out of Slashdot BETA!
I cannot opt out of Slashdot BETA!
I cannot opt out of Slashdot BETA!
I cannot opt out of Slashdot BETA!
I cannot opt out of Slashdot BETA!
I cannot opt out of Slas

(drops of blood on paper)

Re:Confessions Of an Ex-SLASHDOT BETA user

[LookIntoTheFuture]

So, Slashdot beta == Rancid Breasts. Sounds about right. I make the same face when I think of either one.

Finally a solution

[litehacksaur111]

I think this is great. We just need to get Congress to not reauthorize the Patriot Act and then all this crap can finally get rolled back. Hopefully the TSA can be next.

Re:Finally a solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Tomorrow: Congress finally moves to pass one peice of legislation in 2014. Patriot Act. Extended!

We can't let the big scary black man have this!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's face it, a lot of these fucktard Republicans were all for these types of programs under Bush. Only most Democrats have remained consistently against.

MOD UP!

[Anubis350]

I'm willing to burn my not-inconsiderable karma on this, the beta really destroys the flow of what I actually come here for - the discussion! If it becomes mandatory it'll kill a site that has been my favorite place on the web for a long, long time

Re:MOD UP!

[buswolley]

Exactly. ,p>Who gives a damn about karma if no one is here to enjoy it, Slashdot?

Listen to your users.

Re:MOD UP!

[LookIntoTheFuture]

Dear Slashdot,

It's never too late to do the right thing. Please reconsider killing classic. It's instantly recognizable as Slashdot. A "trademark" of Slashdot if you will. It is a big reason why people come here to comment and lurk. It is loved. FFS, beta is the New Coke!

Re:MOD UP!

[Monkey-Man2000]

Dear God this thread! DICE is killing a beloved brand if they go to this horrible new format. WE DO NOT WANT AND WILL NOT USE IT!!!

Re:MOD UP!

[naff89]

I disagree -- New Coke was, in many ways, actually an improvement over Coke Classic according to their taste tests. That was a case of people simply being biased to what they were familiar with, coupled with a very vocal angry minority.

The Slashdot redesign is objectively, and demonstrably, significantly worse than Slashdot Classic.

Re:MOD UP!

[SleazyRidr]

Well, here at /. we're familiar with comment sections that are easy to navigate, easy to read and simple to follow. As with many others, I usually already know the stories before they come to /. from Reddit/Ars/other news sources. The only reason to come to /. is the (partially) informed comments and discussion following the article. It's like if they made New Coke taste like lemonade: sure lot's of people like lemonade, and you can make money selling, but that's not why people drink Coke.

Re:MOD UP!

[SleazyRidr]

Online communities come and go. I've been part of a few that have died: either the people backing it decided that they didn't want to any more, or new people came in and eventually changed the feel of the community. I realize that I haven't been here as long as a lot of other people (yes there are 7 digits in that ID) so the sting of nostalgia doesn't hit me as hard (or you might say I'm one of the new people who have changed how /. feels). It's always important to have a back-up plan. If the classic layout does get implemented, people will go somewhere else for their news: if we all go to the same place, we can keep the same feeling of community. Any good suggestions out there?

Finally a use for a Do-Nothing Congress

[Anonymous Coward]

Now how can we get any use out of a Know-Nothing Congress?

some comment to check the new beta stuff

[Anonymous Coward]

wtf

Re:first

[lister king of smeg]

Has anyone tried to email the editors directly to see if the can talk some since into their DICE pointy haired boss's or maybe we could find the email of the DICE PHB responsible and we could slashdot his inbox...

That is the stupidest idea I've ever read on /.

[Anonymous Coward]

It may make sense to have an automatic expiration on bills like the PATRIOT ACT, but as a general rule for law that would result in complete chaos. Good God, we would never get anything done if we had to rehash out **EVERYTHING** every 5, 10 or 20 years.

It's bad enough when it comes to the damn Federal Budget every damn year.

And the demonization we've seen of "Obamacare", that would become the general rule. Nothing would ever have time to be fully implemented, given a run and known. It would be hell an order of magnitude beyond where we find ourselves today.

Re:That is the stupidest idea I've ever read on /.

[mysidia]

It may make sense to have an automatic expiration on bills like the PATRIOT ACT, but as a general rule for law that would result in complete chaos.

Actually: I would favor a constitutional requirement, that every new tax, revenue bill, regulation, OR grant of rights to any government entity has to be written so that the bill must be re-authorized or automatically expire by the house a minimum of three times, no sooner than 2 years after the original bill was passed, no longer than 6 years, AND at least 3 of the required re-authorizations separated by a minimum of 14 months.

That way, if the current session of congress does something stupid --- the NEXT congress has to continue to support it after the next two elections, OR the default is that the new experimental law goes away.

Re:That is the stupidest idea I've ever read on /.

[tragedy]

It may make sense to have an automatic expiration on bills like the PATRIOT ACT, but as a general rule for law that would result in complete chaos. Good God, we would never get anything done if we had to rehash out **EVERYTHING** every 5, 10 or 20 years.

I think that would be a great idea for exactly that reason. It would create a limit on how big the active body of law could get. That would be a good thing. You could create a system where laws could get a longer term if, for example, they were put to a public vote.

Re:That is the stupidest idea I've ever read on /.

[sociocapitalist]

It may make sense to have an automatic expiration on bills like the PATRIOT ACT, but as a general rule for law that would result in complete chaos.

Actually: I would favor a constitutional requirement, that every new tax, revenue bill, regulation, OR grant of rights to any government entity has to be written so that the bill must be re-authorized or automatically expire by the house a minimum of three times, no sooner than 2 years after the original bill was passed, no longer than 6 years, AND
at least 3 of the required re-authorizations separated by a minimum of 14 months.

That way, if the current session of congress does something stupid --- the NEXT congress has to continue to support it after the next two elections, OR the default is that the new experimental law goes away.

You mean like George W. putting patriot act in place and Obama renewing it?

Re:That is the stupidest idea I've ever read on /.

[mysidia]

You mean like George W. putting patriot act in place and Obama renewing it?

Hm.. good point... on second thought.... put the bills to a popular vote for re-authorization within 2 years?

Re:That is the stupidest idea I've ever read on /.

[sociocapitalist]

You mean like George W. putting patriot act in place and Obama renewing it?

Hm.. good point... on second thought.... put the bills to a popular vote for re-authorization within
2 years?

Nah that would be democracy - which is not the American way of doing things.

Re:That is the stupidest idea I've ever read on /.

[CrimsonAvenger]

OR grant of rights to any government entity

Government entities to not have Rights. They only have Powers. And only such Powers as are granted to them by the People.

The People have Rights.

At least, that's the theory.

Re:That is the stupidest idea I've ever read on /.

[Anonymous Coward]

We are not a democracy, strictly speaking. We are a republic.

Re:That is the stupidest idea I've ever read on /.

[mysidia]

Government entities to not have Rights. They only have Powers.

Another name for their powers are "legal rights"

Because all their rights come from the law which is written down. When government officials start getting de facto powers or "legal rights" that are not written down..... that is the mark of tyranny starting, or the people losing sovereignty.

The People have Rights.

The people have moral rights, which are not really backed up by the law ---- only by feeble efforts to name some of the most critical ones.

Unfortunately, as government expands ---- the people's moral rights are only worth the paper they are printed on.

In fact... the "legal rights" of government officials become more powerful.

Really about NSA surveillance?

[cdrudge]

Is this REALLY about the NSA surveillance? Or is it about leverage for Congress critters, particularly Republicans, on the Executive branch?

"You want your PATRIOT Act renewed? You need to cut back on your surveillance. And my surveillance, we mean repeal Obamacare (or whatever the bill(s) du jour are)."

Besides, whether or not the NSA surveillance is authorized, do you think the NSA gives a fuck. They are going to do it anyways. They'll just have to be sneakier.

Re:Really about NSA surveillance?

[Anonymous Coward]

Besides, whether or not the NSA surveillance is authorized, do you think the NSA gives a fuck. They are going to do it anyways. They'll just have to be sneakier

One would hope that anyone who misappropriates public funds for an illegal search would see prison time when it eventually comes to light.

I know, I know, I'll keep dreaming...

Re:first

[buswolley]

I'd like to participate in this article. Seems interesting. Instead Im wasting my time trying to make Dice realize that they are messing up

Useful feedback?

[Anonymous Coward]

I haven't read much useful feedback for the developers yet other than OMG BETA SUXORS! SCREW THE BETA!

I've seen it for the first time today, the design I don't mind. But one thing that frustrates me is not being able to click parent comments when I'm viewing "4 and higher".

What other problems are people having?

Re:Useful feedback?

[Anonymous Coward]

Comments almost never load in Firefox 26.0 under windows 7, generally have to reload the page several times.

Re:Useful feedback?

[glavenoid]

There is literally *not one single thing* that works in any manner that can even begin to approach what is commonly referred to as "usability". That in and of itself is constructive criticism because it would be impossible to enumerate every problem with the new site.

But to answer your question, here is the official thread with plenty of detailed criticisms and suggestions

Re:Useful feedback?

[dryeo]

Every time I've tried the beta and try to see the comments, I get

Shazbot! We ran into some trouble getting the comments.
Try again... na-nu, na-nu!

signed another long time user who will be gone if the classic interface goes away.

Re:Useful feedback?

[TheNastyInThePasty]

The beta doesn't add any useful new features. All it does is remove them and severely fucks up the best part of this site: the commenting and moderation system. If the commenting system goes out the window, why would I come here? The stories are always several days or a week old, the editors are terrible at their job, and all of the actual articles are on other sites I could browse instead.

What the hell, Dice?

Re:Useful feedback?

[slick7]

Every time I've tried the beta and try to see the comments, I get

Shazbot! We ran into some trouble getting the comments. Try again... na-nu, na-nu!

signed another long time user who will be gone if the classic interface goes away.

The lawmakers ARE the threat.

Re:Useful feedback?

[TubeSteak]

You must have some weird kind of Stockholm Syndrome to be linking the official thread as beta.slashdot.org

Just say no to beta: http://slashdot.org/~slashdotblog/journal/634763

/and no to shortened urls: http://slashdot.org/~slashdotb...

Re:Useful feedback?

[Evtim]

Or mod points. I cannot see if I have some, how many ect.

Sorry but I tried it and found it unworkable in 10 minutes. If it takes longer than that to find the functionality they are doing it wrong...

Won't someone

[Anonymous Coward]

please think of the children?!
say no to slashdot beta!

Hey, this new /. beta isn't bad.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, I'm just kidding, it's fucking dreadful.

Anyone remember Judgement at Nuremberg?

[sandbagger]

Actor Maximilian Schell died last week. He played the defence lawyer in Judgement at Nuremberg. It's a film about the trial of judges who were around before Hitler came to power and stayed on rather than resign. It's a great, great, film. Here's a bit of Spenser Tracey's verdict at the end:

'There are those in our own country, too...who today speak of the protection of country...of survival. A decision must be made in the life of every nation...at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy...to rest survival upon what is expedient, to look the other way. The answer to that is: Survival as what? A country isn't a rock. It's not an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for. It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult.'

The trouble is, there is no practical existential threat from Al Qaeda. There is no unified command structure amongst the Muslim nations - many of which have the same ethno-linguistic-political-economic divisions that have the western nations bickering all of the time. They have no army. No navy. No air force. They are not a fundamental threat to the west and the overreach of this sector of government needs to be brought back into perspective.

Re:Anyone remember Judgement at Nuremberg?

[riverat1]

The trouble is, there is no practical existential threat from Al Qaeda.

This can't be reiterated enough. The response to 9/11 was completely out of proportion to the actual threat posed by the perpetrators. GWB said they hate us for our freedom so what do we do? We turn around and reduce our freedom. What kind of sense does that make?

Re:Anyone remember Judgement at Nuremberg?

[gIobaljustin]

This can't be reiterated enough.

It can be. We mustn't make this issue about the efficacy of the programs, but about freedom. Mentioning that the programs are ineffective is fine, but we must make it clear that they would be unacceptable even if they worked.

Re:Anyone remember Judgement at Nuremberg?

[Anonymous Coward]

It makes sense if you realize Al Qaeda was never the real enemy. It was just a very convenient excuse for the government to grab more power. And it worked. The majority of people are sheep and took it hook line and sinker. It's all straight from Orwell's 1984. Give them a great war to distract them from their current troubles and the failure of the government to do anything about it so the politicians can keep stuffing their pockets and their friends pockets.

Re:Anyone remember Judgement at Nuremberg?

[LDAPMAN]

There was no "existential threat when the Nazis invaded Poland or when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. In the long term jihadist islam may be more of a threat than either of those.

Re:Anyone remember Judgement at Nuremberg?

[LDAPMAN]

And no I'm not defending the NSA. I think they have gone way to far. However, I do believe that radical islam is a threat that must be exterminated just as surely as Naziism and the radical Shinto warrior sect that controlled Japan.

Re:Anyone remember Judgement at Nuremberg?

[Anonymous Coward]

The trouble is, there is no practical existential threat from Al Qaeda.

This can't be reiterated enough. The response to 9/11 was completely out of proportion to the actual threat posed by the perpetrators. GWB said they hate us for our freedom so what do we do? We turn around and reduce our freedom. What kind of sense does that make?

The response being out of proportion is a good thing.

Responding to acts of aggression and war proportionally just means the aggressor gets to decide upon what kind of violent conflict there's going to be.

If a bully is willing to get his shins kicked and he knows you're going to respond proportionally, he'll kick you in the shins. But if he knows you damn will might rip out his spine and strangle him with it, cut off his head, go bowling with dead skull, shit down the bloody stump of his neck, gut him like a fish, feed his entrails to the dogs and, then burn the dog shit, he won't kick you in the shins in the first place.

Re:Anyone remember Judgement at Nuremberg?

[Anonymous Coward]

Makes them hate us less, because we have less freedom.

Dunno, sounds sensible to me... *snort*

AC

Re:Anyone remember Judgement at Nuremberg?

[Rockoon]

I'm pretty sure we instigated the Japanese bombing of Pearl. For fuck sakes in the first quarter of 1941 Roosevelt moved the Pacific fleet to Pearl, began a military buildup in the Philippines, and then followed that up in July by cutting off Japans oil supply.

..then in December of that year, we were surprised that Japan attacked? No. We expected it, because we instigated it. We just didn't expect it to be Pearl. We expected it to be the Philippines.

..and to quote wikipedia, "A Gallup poll just before the attack on Pearl Harbor found that 52% of Americans expected war with Japan, 27% did not, and 21% had no opinion."

So most Americans expected war with Japan... because we were not innocent.

Re:Anyone remember Judgement at Nuremberg?

[Anonymous Coward]

It makes perfect sense when you know that he and the people that pull his strings are the real terrorists. They really hate us for our freedom. Nuff said

Re:Anyone remember Judgement at Nuremberg?

[terryducks]

radical islam is a threat that must be exterminated

Wrong choice of words.

Radical anything needs to be controlled and sidelined. Not exterminated. In many nations immigrants don't melt into the culture anymore, they're insular. The populus needs education. The "right to free speech" isn't to criticize your fellow man but to critiized and call out abuses w/in the governement. To say that the minority can't abuse everyone else; no beating your SO. Do want you want in the privacy of your home. but you can't dictate or pass laws what I do in public.

The good of all society must be a consideration and not what you think it should be.

Re:Anyone remember Judgement at Nuremberg?

[gIobaljustin]

The response being out of proportion is a good thing.

Good for who? For us? The result was that we get molested at airports, spied on, and drained of money. That's not a good thing.

Re:Anyone remember Judgement at Nuremberg?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not any more so than radical christians, or radical jews. How many people have radical muslims killed recently (say last 50 years)? How many have the christians and jews?

Re:Anyone remember Judgement at Nuremberg?

[Culture20]

So it's not the non-proportional response that's wrong, but the nonsensical response. It's like telling a bully "don't hit me or I'll give myself a swirly in the backed-up toilet! I'll really do it!"

Re:Anyone remember Judgement at Nuremberg?

[LDAPMAN]

The specify antecedents of Pearl Harbor are irrelevant. It's the world view and yes, religion, of the extremists that is important. If you want a better example, the rape of Nanking had nothing to do with the US. It had everything to do with the Japanese society at the time.

Re:Anyone remember Judgement at Nuremberg?

[LDAPMAN]

No...right choice of words. Anyone whose religion calls for the death or subjugation of myself or my society must be exterminated. Obviously, those that reject that position as a result of education or any other influence are no longer included in the population that must be defeated. The others....need to die as surely as Hitler and Goering.

Re:Anyone remember Judgement at Nuremberg?

[Anonymous Coward]

There was no "existential threat when the Nazis invaded Poland or when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor.

Um, WTF? By that point, the Germans had already overthrown the Austrian government and marched their army in . The Japanese were already in China.

Industrialized nations that go around invading sovereign nations are most assuredly "existential threats" to the world.

Re:Anyone remember Judgement at Nuremberg?

[Anonymous Coward]

"...pretty sure we instigated the Japanese bombing of Pearl."

I'm SURE we did. See "Day Of Deceit" by Robert B. Stinnett
copyright 2000. ISBN 0-684-85339-6

Re:Anyone remember Judgement at Nuremberg?

[gIobaljustin]

It's both. The response has caused us to waste trillions on something we barely should've responded to at all. But mostly, it's the fact that the response violates people's freedoms, which wouldn't be okay no matter how dire the situation.

Re:Anyone remember Judgement at Nuremberg?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm pretty sure we instigated the Japanese bombing of Pearl. For fuck sakes in the first quarter of 1941 Roosevelt moved the Pacific fleet to Pearl, began a military buildup in the Philippines, and then followed that up in July by cutting off Japans oil supply.

You are misinterpreting these events.

1. The Pacific Fleet had no practical ability to invade Japan, it was much too small (ships can't invade anything, you need warm bodies, and the Pacific Fleet didn't have anything close to the numbers needed), and the logistics problems of projecting force over the huge distances involved were enormous.

It took YEARS of construction (at a frantic pace that could only have been justified by a state of war) to build enough ships to actually threaten Japan with a successful invasion, not to mention the enormous build-up of the land forces required. The pre-wartime USA had one of the smallest armies in the world, for a nation of its size.

2. The military build-up in the Philippines was equally insignificant from an offensive perspective. Again, think logistics. Warfare in that era required staggering amounts of supplies on an ongoing basis, all of which had to ultimately be moved to the soldier on or the near the front.

If you don't understand military logistics, I suggest starting with Martin van Creveld's book for an overview.

3. No principle of international law requires any nation to sell goods to another nation. A refusal to do so is not an instigation for war. Many alternate sources for oil existed, even in the 1940's.

In creating the sanction US simply expressed its displeasure at the Japanese invasion of China, a reasonable thing to do, and something the Japanese could have predicted would happen.

If one chooses to be a bully or otherwise do evil, good people are likely to have a problem with that, and (rightly or wrongly) people tend to generalize that aspect of interpersonal behaviour to international situations.

The Japanese got away with the invasion of Korea, but they pushed their luck too far in attempting China. Even then, they might have succeeded -- much as Communist China would later succeed with its invasion of Tibet -- had the Japanese not been stupid enough to provoke a war with the predominantly "isolationist and anti-war" USA.

The USA was innocent of wrongful actions in this particular case. That certainly hasn't always been the case, but it was this time.

Protest Beta

[LoRdTAW]

Dice, I am protesting the beta site. I will not follow any links from a beta redirect and I will not participate in any meaningful discussion.

Your new Slashdot design is hideous. The comment layout is an abomination which is /.'s strong point, its why we come here. This isn't twitter or Facebook, we come here to get away from that. Please abandon your attempts to cash in on this site, you will loose more members then you will ever hope to attract with your new and unimproved design.

Fellow /.'ers, join me in this protest. Do not post a comment related to a beta redirect article or click any links. Instead, post a comment in protest of the beta design.

Re:Protest Beta

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe you meant to say "lose" not "loose".

Re:Protest Beta

[dkleinsc]

I concur: They should have simply put in the OMG Ponies! design and been done with it.

Re:Protest Beta

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember:
Your mom == "looser"
You == "loser"

Re:Protest Beta

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot will cease to be slashdot to me if they go thru with this switch. Fuck beta

Re:Protest Beta

[Monkey-Man2000]

Hear, hear! I'm with you on this!

Re:Protest Beta

[Common Joe]

Not only have I done this, but I'm protesting by boycotting as well.

-- Common Joe

Slashdot Valentines Day Massacre: Boycott Slashdot because "Fuck Beta!": February 10 - 17

And Support Okian Warrior's Alternate Slashdot Idea!

Beta DNS problems

[Anonymous Coward]

Please help all attempts at browsing to beta.slashdot.org have failed. After intensive troubleshooting noted cause traced to DNS returning a non-routable IPv6 address. While it is great to see Slashdot embracing brand new technology like the now 16-year old IPv6 protocol and 15-year old TLS protocol you would think they would have tested the site better before deploying such a leading edge technology stack. I'm sure if I could actually get to it I would be equally amazed at its ultra childish modern look.

[superuser@superslashfailed.us ~]$ dig AAAA beta.slashdot.org

; > DiG 9.9.4-RedHat-9.9.4-8.fc20 > AAAA beta.slashdot.org ;; global options: +cmd ;; Got answer: ;; ->>HEADER- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 14240 ;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 1 ;; OPT PSEUDOSECTION:
; EDNS: version: 0, flags:; udp: 1280 ;; QUESTION SECTION: ;beta.slashdot.org. IN AAAA ;; ANSWER SECTION:
beta.slashdot.org. 1337 IN AAAA f0ad:be1a:d1e:d1e:d1e::1000 ;; Query time: 1 msec ;; SERVER: 8.88.888.8888#53(8.88.888.8888) ;; WHEN: Wed Feb 05 16:49:21 PST 2014 ;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 131

Indeed

[rmdingler]

There is no good side of the aisle any longer, no matter where on the political spectrum you find yourself.

Admitting your side is wrong, too, is the first step.

FUCK BETA

[Anonymous Coward]

FUCK BETA. Fucking fuck this fucking beta fucking shit fuck.

Day 1: It wouldn't stop, the redirecting. At first

[Anonymous Coward]

Day 1: It wouldn't stop, the redirecting. At first I thought it was malware. Had my first drink in a long time.

Day 2: Barely had the strength to carry on as the BETA REDIRECTIONS continue.. trying not to talk to hallucinations at the bar and in the bathroom which laugh at me about these redirections.

Day 3: Discovered the BETA redirections were random, and while at first they looked somewhat usable, when I looked at me and my monitor screen in the mirror, a horrible woman with flesh hanging off of her body looked back, trying to lead me into a dance as the word BETA appeared across her rancid breasts.

Day 4: These BETA corridors go on FOREVER! On the plus side, I've taken up disassembling vehicles to corner this BETA beast and sacrifice myself rather than lead others to discovering it. I ate some red snow.

Day 5: Finding it harder to concentrate. I've ate some more of the red snow. The taste is starting to grow on me.

Day 6: This typewriter is the only entertainment I have, apart from throwing things at the walls, trying to get some response from the BETA which is now taking over my mind.

Day 7: Hahahahahha! Would you believe it? I'M STILL BEING REDIRECTED TO SLASHDOT BETA PAGES! AHAHhahahaah! Type, type, ding, ding! Wooo!

Day 8: The hallucinations are actually real! Would you believe it? They have offered to help me if I agree to work for them. I'm thinking about patenting this delicious red snow, the taste is unreal!

Day 9: Having black out sessions where I cannot remember large passings of time. Found some makeup, thought I'd paint a joker smile on my face to amuse the people only I can see!

Day 10: Productive today, part of what I wrote for my new screenplay:

I cannot opt out of Slashdot BETA!
I cannot opt out of Slashdot BETA!
I cannot opt out of Slashdot BETA!
I cannot opt out of Slashdot BETA!
I cannot opt out of Slashdot BETA!
I cannot opt out of Slashdot BETA!
I cannot opt out of Slashdot BETA!
I cannot opt out of Slashdot BETA!
I cannot opt out of Slas

(drops of blood on paper)

Day 1: It wouldn't stop, the redirecting. At first I thought it was malware. Had my first drink in a long time.

Day 2: Barely had the strength to carry on as the BETA REDIRECTIONS continue.. trying not to talk to hallucinations at the bar and in the bathroom which laugh at me about these redirections.

Day 3: Discovered the BETA redirections were random, and while at first they looked somewhat usable, when I looked at me and my monitor screen in the mirror, a horrible woman with flesh hanging off of her body looked back, trying to lead me into a dance as the word BETA appeared across her rancid breasts.

Day 4: These BETA corridors go on FOREVER! On the plus side, I've taken up disassembling vehicles to corner this BETA beast and sacrifice myself rather than lead others to discovering it. I ate some red snow.

Day 5: Finding it harder to concentrate. I've ate some more of the red snow. The taste is starting to grow on me.

Day 6: This typewriter is the only entertainment I have, apart from throwing things at the walls, trying to get some response from the BETA which is now taking over my mind.

Day 7: Hahahahahha! Would you believe it? I'M STILL BEING REDIRECTED TO SLASHDOT BETA PAGES! AHAHhahahaah! Type, type, ding, ding! Wooo!

Day 8: The hallucinations are actually real! Would you believe it? They have offered to help me if I agree to work for them. I'm thinking about patenting this delicious red snow, the taste is unreal!

Day 9: Having black out sessions where I cannot remember large passings of time. Found some makeup, thought I'd paint a joker smile on my face to amuse the people only I can see!

Day 10: Productive today, part of what I wrote for my new screenplay:

I cannot opt out of Slashdot BETA!
I cannot opt out of Slashdot BETA!
I cannot opt out of Slashdot BETA!
I cannot opt out of Slashdot BETA!
I cannot opt out of Slashdot BETA!
I cannot opt out of Slashdot BETA!
I cannot opt out of Slashdot BETA!
I cannot opt out of Slashdot BETA!
I cannot opt out of Slas

(drops of blood on paper)

Re:first

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems like these assholes want to compete with digg.com for users again (this time, for lack thereof). I'll sooner use mobile view than this shart.

can't log in

[Anonymous Coward]

I haven't been able to log in to Slashdot for a couple of months now with my markjhood2003 user id. I was hoping the beta would fix that, but no luck. It accepts my login, but I'm not logged in.

Re:first

[Princeofcups]

Screw Beta Slashdot. Stupid dumb asses.

Someone sold this to their bosses, so there is no way they can back down now. 2014, the death of slashdot.

no way to vote up

[Anonymous Coward]

The beta doesn't seem to have any way to vote up comments or filter by score.

fuckbeta

[Anonymous Coward]

Listen here developers of the Slashdot beta...
Take the fucking blue pill quick...this is not the one.

Everybody already agrees that this is illegal

[Trailer Trash]

So, what is Congress going to do? Oh, I know. They'll allow this law to "time out" - a law that doesn't allow this, anyway - and then it'll be even more illegal! Yes, it'll be so illegal that......... what? Eric Holder will finally get off his ass and investigate?

Here's what makes this stop. Rather than saying "you no longer have statutory authority to do _______" (which they don't have now, anyway, but stick with me) we need to write a simple law that says "the government may not do ______, and if they do, it'll be a class A felony with a penalty of _______ for all employees involved".

Oh, that's crazy talk! Really? Oddly, any law that restricts non-governmental officials from an activity is written exactly like that. Read through statutory law sometime.

It's only when government is supposedly "restricted" that they conveniently forget penalties. It's time we put them back in. Throw a couple of people in prison and this crap will stop.

i gotta a better idea why don't we shove 215

[Anonymous Coward]

up obamas ass. and the rest of the patriot act up bush's ass?
I mean we got it shoved up our ass, why should we have all the fun?
congress already has their heads shoved up their own ass. So, what, do we just wait for the supreme's to die? Cause we don't wanna case a preparation h shortage.
You'lda thought with all these well regulated millitia's we got runnin around one of those facist's would use their power to fight tyranny instead of killing kids and poor people.
But i guess that's what happens when whitey slipped below that 50% number. Hows it feel to be french?

Re:first

[Monkey-Man2000]

The editors know... we made it clear in the beta announcement thread and at least one editor said he was going to bubble it to the top of the foodchain. This is a topdown order and going to straight-up KILL slashdot. I don't think DICE even cares, and apparently neither do the editors as their still drawing paychecks. This is some serious shit; I don't know how things went down but I'd like to think Taco had the integrity to leave when he knew which way the ship would be going -- maybe he had family concerns financially. But the others, I feel bad for them, but damn, goddamn indeed, they need to stage a revolt because the users of /. are about to if this shit is forced down our throats....

Lawmakers "Threaton"

[MobSwatter]

The penguins use harsh words, reptiles proceed to nod, wink, and critique the theatrics.

Death Warrant Ordered By President Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

The killing of Mr. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.) as required by Secret Executive Order signed by President Barak Hussein Obama will end this issue.

Otherwise, there seem a "bit" of a problem with Slashdot-Beta, a.k.a. SlashFuck-1.

Ha ha

What about the NSA

[tchdab1]

Is anyone going to address the NSA surveillance issue behind the law? It's pretty well established that they're sucking up every possible piece of information because their world view is based in maximum paranoia (if the other guys are capable of doing this, they're probably doing this). Yet their info-vacuum yields little to no results. If we judged their potential for abuse like they judge the world's threats, there would be no NSA. So what kind of intelligent intelligence agency do we rebuild the NSA and it's ilk into? Anyone? Boehner?

If Congress won't renew it

[WCMI92]

Obama will "act on his own" using his phone and pen.

No one has stopped our nascent "emperor" from ruling by Diktat yet...

Re:first

[Anonymous Coward]

Take it from someone who's worked for a few places: Caring about what happens with your projects only results in your being flagged as a doormat that can be manipulated.

You end up doing all the work without suitable credit.
You end up taking the blame because you act guilty when you jump on any fires.
Because the people who don't care can use the fact you do care to push your buttons, you don't get to make the decisions, they do.
Because they get to make the decisions, they can keep reminding you and everyone else how important they are, and how foolish you are, by undermining your progress.
Loop

You don't have to be an asshole. Heck, you can care, if you do so in private. But, unless masochism is your thing, don't be the nice guy that sacrifices himself. It won't be appreciated enough to justify it, even on the best of days, if at all. Oh, either way, you do still have to maintain that "I'm just telling you what you want to hear" fake caring that passes as social discourse at the risk of being branded as some other form of misfit. It is meant to sound fake. And, again, don't be an asshole about it.

testing beta comments

[KingOfBLASH]

dude beta sucks big giant hairy goat balls

beta is shit.

[Anonymous Coward]

throw beta in the bin with other software failures and turds.

Impeachment is a *political* act

[Anonymous Coward]

Impeachment is a political act done by politicians trying to save their own skin. It was designed that way. (Just like the Electoral College....)

If Clinton's poll numbers were as bad as Nixon's was when Nixon was threatened with impeachment, Clinton would have either resigned or been successfully impeached.

If a President is unpopular enough - for any reason - that enough Senators and Representatives want to toss him overboard, they'll come up with a reason that fits the letter of the Constitution.

Re:Impeachment is a *political* act

[Muad'Dave]

Just so you know, Clinton was successfully impeached, just not convicted by the senate (he was in fact acquitted).

Beta

[Jadeus]

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Quisque a rhoncus dui. Quisque aliquam lorem commodo tincidunt dignissim. Morbi nunc est, dignissim quis ullamcorper eu, varius sed mi. Vivamus tempor vehicula feugiat. Fusce dictum est faucibus mauris adipiscing ullamcorper. Phasellus id erat pellentesque dui ultrices dapibus. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam nibh ante, malesuada eget lacinia ut, commodo nec diam. Proin fringilla metus nibh, ac sollicitudin lorem congue ut. Nunc quis metus auctor, luctus turpis vitae, varius purus. Sed non augue est. Sed consectetur feugiat nunc vel sodales. Etiam semper arcu quis lorem scelerisque, eget aliquam tellus blandit. Class aptent taciti sociosqu ad litora torquent per conubia nostra, per inceptos himenaeos. Etiam et odio ut eros semper ultricies quis nec nunc. Maecenas enim quam, semper ac elementum et, euismod ut diam.

Slashdot has been an institution, despite it's owners best efforts; one of the last vestiges of the bad ol' days. Wallowing in death throws for so long, it's almost a release to see it go down. The only sad part is the community that gets snuffed out as part of it.

Patriot act smokescreen

[WaffleMonster]

With third party doctrine relied upon almost exclusively to produce with little or no showing what everyone in modern society assumes and thinks to be their property as constitutional basis to legitimize what otherwise would be constitutionally illegitimate what really could one expect legal effect of the patriot act going away to be?

The linchpin seems to be the third party doctrine you pull that patriot act, stored communications act and all manner of accumulated doublespeak becomes unconstitutional overnight.

What is sad to me I personally don't object in principal to governments being allowed to access information or search you or your home as long as evidentiary standards are met and a non-puppet legal regime reviews and signs off on it.

By all the shenanigans and overreach (both real and imagined) where things are actually headed is a situation where governments lose that capability more than would ever be necessary had they simply behaved themselves.

Re:first

[TheGratefulNet]

2014, the death of slashdot.

and, I'm sure, netcraft will confirm it, eventually.

Alluring treat basket full of tenderness

[animeshroy]

It is the occasion celebrating the years of love and togetherness. Cherish the amazing memories and plan for a great future with a wondrous choice of anniversary items for your beloved and your loved ones. Drive your dear ones crazy with the excitement by sending them authentic silver plated item to make it look absolute divine. An array of color-coordinated blossoms adds extra charm to this moment. Send Online Gifts of Flower and Cakes to Mumbai and all over in Maharashtra on Valentine’s Day. Visit us: http://www.mumbaionlineflorist...

Empty threat.

[Anonymous Coward]

"the legal justification for the NSA's wholesale domestic surveillance program will disappear next summer"

It never was there in the first place. They'll just declare some other law sufficient for legitimizing their dragnet collection, have the secret FISA court state for the record that they continue to be utterly out of control and oversight, have this statement be declared a national security secret and that's it.

As long as you feed them the money for doing so, they will continue to crap on people's right. Closing down the toilets will just make them shit in the streets.

The only way to stop their constitutional violations is to pull their funding. Massive dragnet collection and storage needs massive resources. As long as those resources are provided, they will get used for their marked purpose.

/, have destroyed their site

[Anonymous Coward]

I've read /. from the sidelines for years and it was perfect for me, but I just HATE this new design and everything about it. Why change it?! It worked, it was clear. Not it's a ghastly MESS just like so many other marketized sites for the masses. I came here to quick assimilate new and interesting information and I had immediate access the the messages most relevant to my interests. Now..... oh this is really awful. I'm actually upset, because /. was so special. Why can it not be left alone but promoted for the "specialness" that it has, rather than changing it to make it look superficially familiar to the Facebook crowds etc. It's just so awful.

I don't mind the beta

[Anonymous Coward]

It's fine. All the content is there, I don't see what the problem is.

slashdot beta sucks

[Anonymous Coward]

That alone won't help, since they'll just wave it through. It should be required for all members of congress / senate to sit through a public, complete reading of a bill before they are allowed to vote for it.

Legal

[residents_parking]

So it's legal right now? Just asking.

I'm just a dumb foreigner...

[Archtech]

... but I had the impression that nowadays the only legal justification anything needs is that the Fuehrer (sorry, President) wants it to happen.

As if that would stop the NSA.

[Anonymous Coward]

The Federal Government does not answer to Congress or the President. It has become an unstoppable monster.

Re:first

[c]

But the others, I feel bad for them

I don't. Those of us who've been around for a while remember when the current batch of editors came onboard, and compared to the original crew they're useless; about as effective at editing as patent examiners are at examining patents.

I used to have most of them filtered out, but unfortunately if I kept those filters Slashdot would be (more) content-free.

So, fuck 'em. And fuck beta, of course.

Political blackmail and smear

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no way the Administration will let go of the most powerful political weapon it has ever had. It has already been used on Christie and will be used on anyone who opposes re-authorization.

Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

Because no one knew about it then. Edward Snowden I guess could make a time machine, go back and leak the info then, and test your hypothesis. But as the facts now, not only did no one know the extent back then, what we do know is that Bush wasn't nearly as bad as Obama's been.

Ah

[Anonymous Coward]

A lot of legal scholars believe what the NSA is doing is emphatically illegal, which obviously fits the criteria.

This of course makes your statement about idiots incredibly funny.

So basically another Reddit

[Ayanami Rei]

Or ... whatever.

I Prefer Classic Slashdot Too

[Phoenix666]

I took a look at Slashdot Beta. I don't get it. It doesn't add anything, but instead takes away from what Slashdot is. I don't care about Slashdot BI or Cloud or whatever. Slashdot's entire value proposition is and always has been its community. If a pointless redesign alienates and destroys that community, Slashdot will quickly vanish from the Earth. All the hokey moves the MBAs at the acquiring companies have pulled the last 5 years have really dented my love for the site. When Malda left it felt like losing a brother. The site is a shadow of what it once was, but I still come back for the community. I don't know where the community will go if Dice pushes through this catastrophe, but I'm sure it wouldn't take long before a successor would step into the void.