Slashdot Mirror


Berlin's Digital Exiles: Where Tech Activists Go To Escape the NSA

An anonymous reader writes with this story about how Berlin has become a haven for Laura Poitras and other journalists who want to limit the amount of NSA disruption in their lives. "It's the not knowing that's the hardest thing, Laura Poitras tells me. 'Not knowing whether I'm in a private place or not.' Not knowing if someone's watching or not. Though she's under surveillance, she knows that. It makes working as a journalist 'hard but not impossible'. It's on a personal level that it's harder to process. 'I try not to let it get inside my head, but I still am not sure that my home is private. And if I really want to make sure I'm having a private conversation or something, I'll go outside.'

.....We're having this conversation in Berlin, her adopted city, where she'd moved to make a film about surveillance before she'd ever even made contact with Snowden. Because, in 2006, after making two films about the US war on terror, she found herself on a 'watch list'. Every time she entered the US – 'and I travel a lot' – she would be questioned. 'It got to the point where my plane would land and they would do what's called a hard stand, where they dispatch agents to the plane and make everyone show their passport and then I would be escorted to a room where they would question me and oftentimes take all my electronics, my notes, my credit cards, my computer, my camera, all that stuff.' She needed somewhere else to go, somewhere she hoped would be a safe haven. And that somewhere was Berlin."

231 comments

  1. Land of the Free by narcc · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Germany?

    How times have changed...

    1. Re:Land of the Free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you've never been there your entire life?

    2. Re:Land of the Free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He hasn't been in the U.S.A. of his grandparents his entire life either.

    3. Re:Land of the Free by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 5, Informative

      Berlin has a history of this. I believe, during the Cold War, it was the one place under West Germany's governance whose residence were not subject to the German military draft. So it became a haven for left-leaning I dividuals.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    4. Re:Land of the Free by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 2

      ... left-leaning I dividuals.

      Hmm... looks like the "n" key in my iPad is broken.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    5. Re:Land of the Free by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Germany experienced first hand how democracy and government can go bad, so now has some of the strongest privacy and protection laws in the world. They are determined never to let it happen again.

      Plus, Germany is not part of Five Eyes.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    6. Re:Land of the Free by grcumb · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Germany?

      How times have changed...

      Er, not so much. Berlin in the 1920s was an island of intellectual freedom and experimentation in all kinds of artistic, social and political philosophy before the corruption and incompetence of the Weimar regime brought everything crashing down.

      In the 1970s, it was haven for an entire generation of the European avant-garde. David Bowie's song Heroes is pretty much a story about two lost young lovers living in a besieged Berlin:

      I can remember
      standing by the wall
      while guns shot above our heads
      and we kissed as though nothing could fall.

      It's no accident that the song is available in German as well as English.

      You can go back even farther if you like. Similar to London's position as the maritime gateway to the Continent, Berlin's position at the crossroads between East and West, North and South in Europe has ensured that it's a popular mixing spot for political, social and artistic cultures.

      --
      Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
    7. Re:Land of the Free by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      At least this story tells us that living under a police state is not an irreversible condition. Things can (and do) change. But it's not easy, or pleasant.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    8. Re:Land of the Free by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Apropos of your sig:

      This Laura Poitras is a hell of a reporter. She's got a documentary out right now called "Citizen Four" and it's about her initial contacts with Edward Snowden.

      If any of you want to see a movie that's a real-life thriller and will have an impact on you beyond anything else that's in the theaters, go see this movie. It's going to win the Oscar for Best Documentary.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    9. Re:Land of the Free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      You can't even mention a Nazi or you'll be imprisoned.

      That's complete nonsense.

      It's like they think all of that bad history will simply disappear if they outlaw any discussions or symbols attached to it.

      While a number of symbols are outlawed indeed, discussions are not. What caused you to be this misinformed?

      I would hate to think what the German government would do to me if I went there and they saw my swastika tattoo. Despite being a part of my cultural heritage and part of my belief system, they'd probably label it a Nazi symbol and throw me in prison.

      As long as you don't show it in public, you're fine.

      Please stop spreading bullshit like this; it would generally be advisable to not comment on subjects you don't know jack shit about.

      Signed,
      A German

    10. Re:Land of the Free by Mister+Liberty · · Score: 1

      Your stuck 'N' key seems to make schizophrenics of all us INdividuals; I fear it may be under control of the SA.

    11. Re:Land of the Free by Mister+Liberty · · Score: 2, Funny

      Torrent please?

    12. Re:Land of the Free by Mister+Liberty · · Score: 0

      Five Eyes? Six Nays!
      As Berliners say.

    13. Re:Land of the Free by Zanadou · · Score: 3, Funny

      Well, there's your problem right there.

      The iPad doesn't have keys!

    14. Re:Land of the Free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Er, not so much. Berlin in the 1920s was an island of intellectual freedom and experimentation in all kinds of artistic, social and political philosophy before the corruption and incompetence of the Weimar regime brought everything crashing down.

      It happened in Germany, it can happen in the USA.

    15. Re:Land of the Free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      People forget (or ignore) the fact that the first country Hitler took over was Germany.

    16. Re:Land of the Free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So looks like the germany is setting up for the 3rd war, it might even get to be the protagonist this time.

    17. Re:Land of the Free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As long as you don't show it in public, you're fine.

      Hello oppression.

    18. Re: Land of the Free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting, these left leaning "freedom lover's" didn't just go to east germany to escape

    19. Re: Land of the Free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ok why dont you walk aroud new your with a, "I live 9/11 t-shit".

    20. Re:Land of the Free by gatkinso · · Score: 1

      Indeed. How times have changed.

      --
      I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
    21. Re:Land of the Free by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      discussions are not

      That depends on the subject.

      "Whoever publicly or in a meeting approves of, denies or belittles an act committed under the rule of National Socialism of the type indicated in Section 6 subsection (1) of the Code of Crimes against International Law, in a manner capable of disturbing the public peace shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than five years or a fine."

      "Whoever publicly or in a meeting disturbs the public peace in a manner that assaults the human dignity of the victims by approving of, denying or rendering harmless the violent and arbitrary National Socialist rule shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than three years or a fine."

      "Whoever disparages the memory of a deceased person shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than two years or a fine."

      So yes, discussions are fine, provided that you do not openly disagree with the party line. That's how it worked in East Germany, as well, it's just that the number of subjects so protected was far greater.

    22. Re:Land of the Free by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Torrent please?

      So basically, she does all that ballsy reporting, and you now want her to not get paid for it? Awesome.

    23. Re:Land of the Free by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      I'll tell you what, Mr Liberty. You go see Citizen Four and if you believe it wasn't money well spent, I'll refund every nickel of your ticket (and throw in a large popcorn).

      Do we have a deal?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    24. Re:Land of the Free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you really too lazy to type the name of the movie and the word "torrent" into a search engine? How does the Pope know if you prefer one torrent site over another or .torrent files compared to the links, etc...

      It took me longer to type this post than it did to find a torrent. I'm not going to post it for you. Learn to help yourself and stop wasting other people's time. You provided no reason for anyone to help you.

    25. Re:Land of the Free by Eythian · · Score: 3, Interesting

      More usefully, will there be/is there a place to buy it DRM-free legitimately?

      The irony would be too painful if it were only available locked up.

    26. Re:Land of the Free by jelizondo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Does that include plane tickets?

      Contrary to what you think, not all of us have cineplex nearby or the inclination to be surrounded by strangers in a dark place...

      The studios make the mistake you are making, it's not only about money; it's about convenience. Make it available and I will gladly pay for it.

      I own a couple of hundred movie DVDs and about 500 hundred music CDs, plus perhaps a thousand books; but if I can not buy something which is available thru piracy, then a pirate I become...

      Content-producers need to realize it's a big, big world and stop thinking of their little corner of it.

      --
      Be very, very careful what you put into that head, because you will never, ever get it out. - Cardinal Wolsey
    27. Re:Land of the Free by johanw · · Score: 2

      It IS already happening in the USA.

    28. Re:Land of the Free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fine, forget about it. I'll just not watch it then.

    29. Re:Land of the Free by znrt · · Score: 2

      if it's not on torrent, it's not worth bothering. if it's worth watching, it will be, eventually.

      have fun with your pocpcorn.

    30. Re: Land of the Free by The+Ickle+Jones · · Score: 1

      Any law banning that would be unconstitutional.

    31. Re:Land of the Free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People forget (or ignore) the fact that the first country Hitler took over was Germany.

      People forget (or ignore) that anyone who wasn't a teenager or younger at that time is either dead on the verge to be.
      Current Germans have about as much to do with WWII as current Americans have with slavery.

    32. Re:Land of the Free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Germany experienced first hand how democracy and government can go bad, so now has some of the strongest privacy and protection laws in the world. They are determined never to let it happen again.

      Good for them, and good luck with that.

    33. Re:Land of the Free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Whoever publicly or in a meeting approves of, denies or belittles an act committed under the rule of National Socialism of the type indicated in Section 6 subsection (1) of the Code of Crimes against International Law, in a manner capable of disturbing the public peace shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than five years or a fine."

      Not allowed to use Nazi partisanship to incite a riot.

      "Whoever publicly or in a meeting disturbs the public peace in a manner that assaults the human dignity of the victims by approving of, denying or rendering harmless the violent and arbitrary National Socialist rule shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than three years or a fine."

      Not allowed to use Holocaust denialism to incite a riot.

      "Whoever disparages the memory of a deceased person shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than two years or a fine."

      OK, you get me on this one - it either needs more context, or it looks like you get 2 years in prison for speaking ill of the dead.

      So yes, discussions are fine, provided that you do not openly disagree with the party line.

      No, discussions are fine, so long as you don't use certain inflammatory topics specifically to "disturb the peace." (or whatever the German original language is) Even in the US, you're not allowed to use your free speech to incite a riot. If you can manage to incite a riot over the color scheme of My Little Pony, you get to go to jail.

    34. Re:Land of the Free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      - in a manner capable of disturbing the public peace
      - in a manner that assaults the human dignity of the victims
      - disparages the memory of a deceased person

      Sounds reasonable.

      Also, "[...] or a fine", which I assume is the usual case. My city has a law that could get me fined for throwing snowballs, yet I believe it's rarely used (unless you're hitting cars or police officers, that is).

    35. Re:Land of the Free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But I'd rather see it for free like every other movie I watch.

    36. Re:Land of the Free by Immerman · · Score: 1

      That would be a more dramatic claim if human trafficking wasn't alive and well within the US.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    37. Re:Land of the Free by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      I can't deny the holocaust in germany. they still have something to learn about liberty.

    38. Re:Land of the Free by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      terrible example. america has has a race issue for the better part of 3 centuries. longer than it's existed. the legacy of slavery impacts race relations to this day.

      Our president is black, and people were wondering if he was a real american... It was a huge thing for a reason.

      i'm fairly sure germany has effectively outlawed the national socialist party. that's solved one problem, but they have a bit to learn about free speech.

    39. Re:Land of the Free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... or the inclination to be surrounded by strangers in a dark place...

      Paranoid much?

    40. Re:Land of the Free by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      no you wouldn't. they'd have to determine that you called for imminent violence and that a reasonable person would have anticipated it.

      If you say that MLP dolls are on sale, and it causes a stampede where kids are trampled to death, you're fine. If you tell a group of your fanatic MLP followers to go go fuck up a store and to let none of those kids in their way stop them from getting their hands on swag. you'd probably be looking at a lot of jail time.

    41. Re:Land of the Free by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      each law on the books is one more restriction on your liberty.

      it's never used? then purge it.

    42. Re: Land of the Free by whistlingtony · · Score: 2

      Start talking about the Koran or explosions while you're in an airplane.... It may not be ILLEGAL per se, but they'll still ground the plane and give you a cavity search..... America is NOT the land of the free, no matter how many times you repeat it to yourself.

    43. Re: Land of the Free by The+Ickle+Jones · · Score: 1

      If you were to read my other comments, you'd see that I haven't been repeating that to myself at all. It looks more like I despise the way America currently is, which I do.

      Yes, that would probably happen, but that doesn't change the fact that it's unconstitutional.

    44. Re:Land of the Free by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I can't shout "fire!" in a crowded theatre in the US. Few countries have absolutely unlimited speech.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    45. Re:Land of the Free by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      i don't think you can shout fire in a crowded theatre in any nation. It's one of those things where the well-being of a society balances with the rights of an individual. Inciting panic and imminent tragedy is one of those gray areas.

      Denying the holocaust would be tantamount to holding a KKK rally i imagine. And we've had those here without repercussion.

      do we really believe anti-semitism is gone from germany? one can make the argument that the only thing this kind of ban accomplishes is obfuscate the size of the problem. Let them speak, count them, know your enemy.

    46. Re: Land of the Free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What if a gun nut goes on a rampage? Are you willing to take that risk just to watch a movie?

    47. Re:Land of the Free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "So basically, she does all that ballsy reporting, and you now want her to not get paid for it? Awesome."

            She did get paid, as a reporter, the documentary is just milking it.

    48. Re:Land of the Free by anyGould · · Score: 1

      Sure you can. Next time you're at a theatre, stand up and yell "Fire" at the top of your lungs. Easy.

      What you're confusing is the act of speech with the consequences of it - you'll get in trouble for creating a disturbance, or the injuries you caused when people stampeded over each other to get out of the room. But there's no-one standing there with a sniper rifle.

    49. Re:Land of the Free by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Not allowed to use Nazi partisanship to incite a riot.

      I'll grant you that it does mention "disturbing the public peace", but that is a much lower standard than inciting a riot. For example, swearing or making loud noises inconveniencing surrounding people is also "disturbing the peace".

      Not allowed to use Holocaust denialism to incite a riot.

      I don't see anything about inciting a riot or even"disturbing public peace" in this quote:

      "Whoever publicly or in a meeting disturbs the public peace in a manner that assaults the human dignity of the victims by approving of, denying or rendering harmless the violent and arbitrary National Socialist rule shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than three years or a fine."

      All it says that if I "assault the human dignity" of someone in a public place by "approving of or denying ... the violent NS rule", I end up in prison. And there are people who did end up that way - look up "Holocaust Denial" in Wikipedia. Meanwhile, I'm not aware of any riots incited by said denial.

      Even in the US, you're not allowed to use your free speech to incite a riot. If you can manage to incite a riot over the color scheme of My Little Pony, you get to go to jail.

      intentionally causing an imminent (in direct connection to the speech) illegal act, and there must be a significant likelihood of that act to occur, not just a fleeting possibility. A mere advocacy of law-breaking or violent act does not constitute illegal speech, because it does not lead to an imminent violation of the law. For example, in Brandenburg v. Ohio (which established that standard), a KKK member on trial was charged with inciting when he publicly called for "revengeance against niggers and Jews" on a public rally. He was found not guilty, because neither the imminence nor the likelihood requirements were satisfied.

      The establishment of that standard is why, of all developed countries, US still has the strongest protection for political speech.

    50. Re: Land of the Free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Chancellor merkels father did

    51. Re:Land of the Free by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Who decides what exactly "assaults the human dignity" of anyone, or "disparages the memory"? These are so vague as to be meaningless - they can mean one thing today and another tomorrow, depending on who is interpreting them. In practice, this can be easily used to suppress political speech. For example, denying or even disputing that Holocaust occurred was deemed to be "assaulting the dignity" of its victims in and of itself on more than one occasion. So, in effect, you simply can't have a discussion on that topic.

    52. Re:Land of the Free by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      How is that any different from denying the holocaust in Germany? You can physically say it, it's just the consequences...

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    53. Re:Land of the Free by doccus · · Score: 1

      I don't know just how "free" Germany really is.. almost every form of access that westerners take for granted, most especially on the internet.. comes up with a big "Verboten! You kann Nicht do. You are verboten to doenload!! verboten to see!! Verboten to tink about ze war!! " Of course these restrictions are mostly media related ones, but using copyright rules as a way of restricting freedom of information is becoming well established, already. There'sa other restrictions too, dealing with freedom of speech.. all to avoid "offending" anyone, that simply become another millstone to drag around. Anyone who thinks Germany has "freedom of speech" has never been there.

    54. Re:Land of the Free by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      or the inclination to be surrounded by strangers in a dark place...

      Just how do you think you came into being?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    55. Re:Land of the Free by Agent0013 · · Score: 1

      The establishment of that standard is why, of all developed countries, US still has the strongest protection for political speech.

      Unless you don't happen to be in a "Free Speech Zone" while doing it.

      --

      -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
    56. Re:Land of the Free by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      There clearly are boundaries to freedom of expression to the extent that it infringes on the others' freedom to be left alone (you don't get to exercise free speech in my yard, for example, or in front of an apartment complex blasting it with a megaphone at 2am). The original idea of "free speech zones" was along these lines, but they have been increasingly abused since then.

      Even so, most of the country is still a "free speech zone", and you can still publish what you want in a newspaper, book or on the Internet. So political speech is free in practice.

    57. Re: Land of the Free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Could you rephrase that in English?

    58. Re:Land of the Free by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      More usefully, will there be/is there a place to buy it DRM-free legitimately?

      Absolutely. After a short run in theaters, it will be available for a DRM-free download.

      Poitras has addressed this, I believe.

      http://www.imdb.com/title/tt40...

      When I saw the movie at the theater, it was followed by a session where Laura Poitras appeared via Skype and took questions. She's a genuine badass freedom fighter.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  2. Anti-Godwin? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "God save sacred Germany!"

    --Claus von Stauffenberg, c. July 1944, while being shot by Nazis

    Guess Germany has learned something about overbearing government.

    1. Re:Anti-Godwin? by Mister+Liberty · · Score: 1

      Maybe so, but he did give it a shot. Which anonymous coward does Obama have anything to fear of?

  3. Who would've thought by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    that the USA's NSA would be the successor of East Germany's Stasi, 25 years after the Berlin wall fell.

    1. Re:Who would've thought by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I cant even have dinner conversation with someone over the age of 30 in the USA without rampant jingoism and political correctness. If I really spoke my mind I would be killed. By the state, by the minions of the state, by ignorance, and by complacence.

      I have a cousin a nephew. Who is a 'veteran' (yet he doesn't even have his ID, his DD214, or any legit story about his service). I question everything they say. They randomly support this jingoistic attitude.

      I have random friends at school. I can't tell them about the horrors I've seen. I don't dare. I don't want to be ostracized.

      I served honorably.

      Many soldiers. Many people who are patriots and supported the US feel this way. Are this way now. When, where and how do we take a stand for what is right?

    2. Re:Who would've thought by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Anyone who knew of their and their buddies doings, some of which have been well-known for decades now. Remember COINTELPRO? All the democracies other agencies replaced with friendly power-hungry tyrants? Can you really expect that kind of people to not try to one-up the Stasi?
      Act shocked all you want, but if you did not see it coming it's because you had your eyes willingly shut the whole time.

    3. Re:Who would've thought by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      After all USA is a world leader in everything else so in spying too.

       

    4. Re:Who would've thought by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      Over the age of 30? or under? I am not a veteran but I have found that the younger crowd seems far more locked into the PC mindset than older people.

    5. Re:Who would've thought by aliquis · · Score: 1

      He may have been joking about live in East Germany.

      I'm not sure.

    6. Re:Who would've thought by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When your cousin is also your nephew, you might have a distorted view on reality.

    7. Re:Who would've thought by Mister+Liberty · · Score: 2

      The younger crowd farts in an off key and they think they're some freedom fighter. In reality present young generations buy the "State"'s eff you dee lock stock and barrel. Exactly that's why us older ones cannot die just yet; it is us -- we are the blossom of our respective nations; we've got jobs to carry out.

    8. Re:Who would've thought by DerekLyons · · Score: 2

      I cant even have dinner conversation with someone over the age of 30 in the USA without rampant jingoism and political correctness.

      As someone well over thirty - I'm gonna call bullshit on this one. Either you're overgeneralizing or you're the actual problem.
       

      I have random friends at school. I can't tell them about the horrors I've seen. I don't dare. I don't want to be ostracized.

      Sounds like you're the problem here. What kind of sick fuck wants to tell random people about "the horrors they've seen"?
       

      Many soldiers. Many people who are patriots and supported the US feel this way. Are this way now. When, where and how do we take a stand for what is right?

      Yeah, lurkers support me in email too. Never mind you've failed to show anything is actually wrong to take a stand for or against - if you must take a stand, I'd suggest doing it down at the local VA until you can get a counselor. Because it sure sounds like you need one.

    9. Re:Who would've thought by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      I have a cousin a nephew. Who is a 'veteran' (yet he doesn't even have his ID, his DD214, or any legit story about his service).

      I'm a veteran.

      From about 30 years ago. I couldn't tell you where my DD214 is to save my life.

      And there's not a whole lot other than "we flew to Holy Loch and went on patrol. Then we flew back when the patrol was over." that I could tell you, what with all the security clearances surrounding playing with the Navy's nuclear reactors....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    10. Re:Who would've thought by ahabswhale · · Score: 0

      To compare the US intelligence agencies to the Stasi is not only intellectually dishonest, it's fucking stupid. Read some actual history and then come back because you have no fucking idea what you're talking about and you're insulting what the people of East Germany went through.

      --
      Are agnostics skeptical of unicorns too?
    11. Re:Who would've thought by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      cant even have dinner conversation with someone over the age of 30 in the USA without rampant jingoism and political correctness.

      You need to move out of the South and stop hanging around conservatives.

    12. Re:Who would've thought by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? It's the younger crowd that doesn't care about gays having sex or getting married, want drugs legalized, have less racism, etc... Don't forget it's most of the old farts in positions of power who are corrupting everything.

    13. Re:Who would've thought by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah, cause that stuff is SO important. The old farts have got you fighting over bullshit, while they murder the rest of the world, all in your name. You think having gay marriage is more important than NSA spying, cause you're idiots.

    14. Re:Who would've thought by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To compare the US intelligence agencies to the Stasi is not only intellectually dishonest, it's fucking stupid. Read some actual history and then come back because you have no fucking idea what you're talking about and you're insulting what the people of East Germany went through.

      Two Words: Parallel Construction

    15. Re:Who would've thought by SuricouRaven · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Different time periods, different tools. The Stasi needed a huge state machinery in order to carry out their monitoring because so much of the activity had to be done by an individual worker - listening to calls, reading letters. The NSA has the advantage of automation: Computers can read every email automatically and pick out only the interesting highlights or patterns.

      How much effort would it have taken the Stasi to find out 'who has sent the traitor a letter over the last year?' Today, it's one SQL query.

    16. Re:Who would've thought by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Of course you'd think that, as you have made post after post containing ridiculous generalisations based on things like gender. Political Correctness is lambasted by those it calls out as being narrow-minded. It's just a way of ensuring that language is accurate. That will naturally cause problems for people whose pathetic world-views are not based on accurate appraisals, but on knee-jerk reactions formed from unchallenged prejudice. So yeah - that you think it's a bad thing probably means it's actually awesome.

    17. Re:Who would've thought by dave420 · · Score: 1

      The most egregious behaviour of the Stasi involved turning members of the public against each other, with threats of imprisonment or harassment should one decline their offer. Their information-gathering activities, while disgusting, were a distant second concern to most people. Being approached by the Stasi affected everyone regardless of activity, and would change lives overnight. My soon-to-be-father-in-law's father was approached by the Stasi and asked to work for them. He accepted, went home, grabbed his family and some possessions, and fled to the west, never to return.

      So the Stasi finding out who send whomever a letter didn't matter much to those under the Stasi's shadow, at least not when compared to them knocking on your front door for a chat.

    18. Re:Who would've thought by ThomasWingard · · Score: 1

      I cant even have dinner conversation with someone over the age of 30 in the USA without rampant jingoism and political correctness. If I really spoke my mind I would be killed. By the state, by the minions of the state, by ignorance, and by complacence.

      I have a cousin a nephew. Who is a 'veteran' (yet he doesn't even have his ID, his DD214, or any legit story about his service). I question everything they say. They randomly support this jingoistic attitude.

      I have random friends at school. I can't tell them about the horrors I've seen. I don't dare. I don't want to be ostracized.

      I served honorably.

      Many soldiers. Many people who are patriots and supported the US feel this way. Are this way now. When, where and how do we take a stand for what is right?

      I am over the age of 30, served honorably after being drafted, am not a fan of 'jingoism' or polictical correctness. I don't fear being 'killed' for what I say, though I realize coherent conversation is not the fruit of senseless babbling with closed minds. You might consider saving your 'pearls' for those who aren't wallowing with other swine. Thank you for your service.

    19. Re:Who would've thought by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      No. PC is about controlling the narrative via the redefinition or replacement of words, phrases and their meanings, and social shaming for noncompliance. For example, calling illegal immigrants 'undocumented workers' is a lot less accurate because it side steps the issue on the table (whether they should count as citizens or be sent home), but it is a lot more emotionally appealing to uninformed bystanders who have yet to take positions on the subject.

  4. I remember by HangingChad · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I remember when the US was the country people would come to when they wanted to get away from oppressive regimes.

    --
    That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
    1. Re:I remember by nitehawk214 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You must be getting up there in years. At 35, I am not sure I am old enough to remember it.

      I am old enough to remember "ra ra tear down this wall" and other propaganda bullshit from the 80s, but I was too young to understand this was just grandstanding. I can remember the "if you don't support bombing countries you are unamerican" from both the Republicans and Democrats in the 90s. And I remember the day the USA became a police state. It was after the turn of the century on a day in September.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    2. Re:I remember by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be fair, that's just when it became overt. COINTELPRO started in the 1950s, for example.

    3. Re:I remember by swb · · Score: 5, Informative

      You could argue that the last time the US was "free" was prior to about 1910.

      Before the 1911 passage of the 16th Ammendment the government's power to collect income taxes was extremely limited. A good chunk of the loss of financial freedom could be attributed to the income tax and all the various laws that grew up around enforcing it, such as limits on cash transactions, financial reporting, etc.

      1909 saw the passage of the "Smoking Opium Exclusion Act" which barred the importation of opium, the first time a substance was banned for consumption. Followed up with the Harrsion Act in 1914 which got tougher on opioids and restricted them to medical uses. This leads to the next step, alcohol prohibition in 1920. Although it was overturned, it was the first big attempt at wholesale regulation of previously free behavior. The entire thing grew into the war on drugs and all the loss of freedom we now associate with it, including contributing to controls on cash transactions, a total erosion of search and seizure and mass incarceration.

      Lots of other firsts from that era -- the Red Scare, the rise of Federal law enforcement, etc.

      You can say we were "more free" in the 1970s or 60s or whatever, but it seems like we really started to lose it around 1910 when the Federal Government began to assert itself as a central law enforcement and control authority.

    4. Re:I remember by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some of this was that information did not flow as freely back then about the US government's wrong doing, so people were unaware and believed the propaganda about the US.

      Some of this was that there was no other choice. E.g., the US destroyed Guatemala. Not just staged a coup against the democratically elected government, and installed a right-wing dictator (that has been common for the US since the 1950s), but, still, decades later, funded a genocide in Guatemala. People fled to the only place they could-- north, to the US.

      Here they were met at the border with summary repatriation without hearing (against the law, but a dictate of the Reagan administration that was funding the genocide). Some of those repatriated faced summary execution as soon as the planes landed back in Guatemala. And, if they did get past the U.S. border, a toxic anti-immigrant public sentiment greeted these people fleeing the destruction that the US itself caused in their native country.

      Repeat for Reagan's death squads in Nicaragua, etc., and you start to see that it isn't so simple that all these people simply wanted to come here.

      No, it wasn't just Reagan. He is was very active in killing people though, so examples are easy to come by. Every Democrat and Republican president's administration has been guilty of these atrocities, but it just wasn't common knowledge domestically or abroad.

    5. Re:I remember by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 2

      I remember when the US was the country people would come to when they wanted to get away from oppressive regimes.

      Unfortunately, like me, you remember a time when people came to the US to escape more oppressive regimes. Sadly the reality is that was back when our government lied to us and we (mostly) believed what we were told. Or ignored the facts that were staring us in the face. I was born after WW2, but the Japanese internment camps were one very glaring example.

    6. Re:I remember by DoomSprinkles · · Score: 1

      When I was a young teen (14 or so) my good friends parents decided to go tbe ex-patriot. They moved permantly to mexico. At the time I thought it was dispicable turning their back on their country. I get it now... they saw the signs earlier than the rest of us

    7. Re:I remember by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

      ...it seems like we really started to lose it around 1910 when the Federal Government began to assert itself as a central law enforcement and control authority.

      Some will tell you even today, it began with the 'War of Northern Aggression'..

      I would tell you it began with the Whiskey Rebellion.

      And I do know why it's 'hip' to blame Wilson right now...

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    8. Re:I remember by DoomSprinkles · · Score: 2

      I love how the members of one party think they do no wrong and solemnly believe everything bad stems only from the opposing party. It seems as though only recently are people seeing the truth... behind every good deed is countless horrible deeds. Swallow the red pill or tbe blue, either way you end up asleep.

    9. Re:I remember by rasmusbr · · Score: 2

      Okay, but they apparently missed the signs that Mexico was entering failed-state territory.

      The police allegedly just shot up 43 protesters and handed them over to a so-called drug gang, one of the paramilitary proto-governments that are waiting in the wings to attempt to take over if the Mexican government fails completely.

    10. Re:I remember by DoomSprinkles · · Score: 1

      I wasn't really considering "where" they went, just that they did. Mexico certainly wouldnt be my choice

    11. Re:I remember by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's interesting to contrast the German/European concept of freedom with the one out outline in your post about the US.

      In Europe people see the government as their instrument to protect themselves from marauding corporations, poor health and extreme poverty. In the US those things are welcomed in exchange for the slim chance of getting rich, or at least no interference from government. In one view the government is a tool that society uses collectively, in the other it is a necessary evil that is inflicted on you. The reality is probably somewhere in the middle.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    12. Re:I remember by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Russia is actually a much better choice. Secret police will tell you when they are pissed. Instead of pulling covert methods onto you.

    13. Re:I remember by Deadstick · · Score: 1, Interesting

      The reality is probably somewhere in the middle.

      Newsweek addressed that notion in an article 30-odd years ago on a subject I don't remember, except that someone had written that. The article speculated on what an editorial might have said in 1935:

      "Germans see Hitler as the charismatic, dedicated leader who can guide them out of poverty and despair into a new age of security and pride in their heritage. Americans see him as possibly destabilizing. The truth, as always, is somewhere in between."

    14. Re:I remember by Deadstick · · Score: 2

      ex-patriot.

      (whimper...)

    15. Re:I remember by HiThere · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The US is still a country that isn't oppressive...not measured against a global average. It's just headed the wrong direction, and taking "not currently oppressive" steps that will make the slide into an oppressive state difficult to stop.

      E.g., a database identifying everyone by photo and voiceprint isn't, in and of itself, oppressive. It's only when you mix it with authoritarian legislation that it becomes so. Alternatively it could be a database for ensuring that sick or injured people could be treated with due care to avoid medications that they were allergic to.

      The problem is that the government is untrustworthy. You can't trust them to have good intentions, so when they do something that has multiple possible uses, you need to expect that they will abuse it. They may also use it beneficially, but here a kind of inequality rears its head: Any one act can do a lot more damage than good. So if you think something will be used for both good and bad, you need to expect that the bad will to a lot more damage than the good heals.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    16. Re:I remember by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The US is still a country that isn't oppressive...not measured against a global average. It's just headed the wrong direction, and taking "not currently oppressive" steps that will make the slide into an oppressive state difficult to stop.

      Maybe not yet, but by God we are up for the challenge! Check back in a couple of years.

    17. Re:I remember by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    18. Re:I remember by swb · · Score: 2

      The Civil War argument I've heard before but you really don't see significant changes in personal liberty as a result. The Whiskey Rebellion seems more dubious as I think you can make a strong argument for the tax and the response by Washington (and this case, quite literally George Washington) plus there doesn't seem to be any single enduring legacy of loss of personal liberty stemming from it.

      Sadly, liberty and democracy have been on the losing end throughout history. We could say it died with the failure of the reforms of the Gracchi, Sulla's march on Rome and dictatorship, or the decline of the Senate at the rise of the Empire.

    19. Re:I remember by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Ah yes, good ol' Reductio ad Hitlerum. This is why no one from the rest of the world bothers to have serious discussions with Americans.

    20. Re:I remember by ahabswhale · · Score: 1

      Actually, they still do.

      --
      Are agnostics skeptical of unicorns too?
    21. Re:I remember by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      You could argue that the last time the US was "free" was prior to about 1910.

      Yes, before 1910, if you were a white male (and not Irish or some other undesirable immigrant), then you indeed had a lot of freedom.

      If you were black or female, forget it. Women coudn't even vote then.

    22. Re:I remember by Eythian · · Score: 1

      Don't measure against averages, measure against absolutes, or against the best if that's easier.

      Have a look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L... and sort each column in left-to-right order, only three countries appear at the top. Fortuntately I live in one of them. I expect that we won't be on top in 2015 thought :(

    23. Re:I remember by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In many places Women's Suffrage wasn't addressed until World War I, including Canada, where it wasn't until 1940 that the women of Quebec gained full suffrage. There is a history of slavery there and oppression of native people, who also segregate(d) and ostracize(d) descendants of slaves.

    24. Re:I remember by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

      Um, yes, what's your point? I never said the US was worse than any place else, I just pointed out that it wasn't all that free 1910 as some people believe, it was only free for a certain privileged portion of society.

      In addition to that, it wasn't even all that free for white males, depending on where you went. All that stuff in the Bill of Rights (freedom of speech, religion, etc.) didn't even apply until the 1900s sometime. Before that, it was considered as applying only to the Federal government: the Federal government could not pass laws restricting freedom of speech, religion, etc. and force the States to follow them. However, individual States could, and did, have all kinds of anti-freedom laws, official religions, etc. All these people who like to open- or concealed-carry firearms today? Back in the "Old West", there was no such right: any time someone entered a town, they had to surrender their guns to the local sheriff, and could only get them back when they left town.

    25. Re:I remember by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      A paper illustrating the segregation of blacks in Canadian schools.

      In spite of Torontoís good record on school integration, racism was not completely absent. As one man reported to the American abolionist S.G. Howe, "I must say that, leaving the law out of the question, I find that prejudice here is equally strong as on the other side [in the United States]"

      After 1850 African Canadians were refused admission outright to common schools in towns such as Charlotteville (southwest of Hamilton along the Lake Erie shore), Malden, Windsor, and Sandwich, where the people were said to have ìa strong old-fashioned English hatred of oppressionî.76 If a black child attempted to join a class, the white students were often taken out of school by their parents, or teachers dismissed their classes.77 When certain teachers in Sandwich, Windsor, Charlotteville, and West Flamboro (north of Hamilton), expressed a desire to admit black students, school trustees in these areas threatened to withhold the teachersí salaries or fire them unless they refused admission to black students.78 In the Hill case of 1854 the Supreme Court ruled that, if a separate racial school had been established, black students had to attend it, no matter the quality of the school or its distance from home

    26. Re:I remember by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reading comprehension fail.

      Parent:

      No, it wasn't just Reagan. He is was very active in killing people though, so examples are easy to come by. Every Democrat and Republican president's administration has been guilty of these atrocities, but it just wasn't common knowledge domestically or abroad.

      Your reply to parent:

      I love how the members of one party think they do no wrong and solemnly believe everything bad stems only from the opposing party

      I am that original AC, and I am not of one or the other of those parties. Reagan was a butcher, and examples of his atrocities made the point in answer to the original statement (besides, I lived in Guatemala to witness first hand, so more than "just an example" to me). But, as I said, they were all murderers. E.g., Clinton murdered 500,000 Iraqi children in his sanctions against the Iraqi people (per UNICEF). Baby Bush and Papa Bush both were behind coupes in Haiti that toppled the SAME popular and democratically elected president (not to mention their murder sprees through the birthplace of human civilization). Obama's administration had its first coupe (Honduras) within the first few months of his presidency-- it was funny that he came out against it, at first, then changed his tune-- I guess, after he realized, it was his government that was behind the overthrow. Obama, of course, continued the Bush killing spree, making it his own.

      Going back further, it is the same thing. Right up to and including its founding. The US was founded on slavery and genocide.

      The point is the US is a fucked up place, and always has been.

    27. Re:I remember by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I expect someone with such a low id to have more sense, guess I'm more the idiot for it. I don't see how you can be much more than 12 years old if you really believe the database itself isn't oppressive. Either you've no imagination, or you don't know more than 2 or 3 people in the whole world. There isn't any good in such a database. Better to let every child molester in the country go free than to have such a thing. People like you are exactly why the US we all thought we lived in doesn't exist. You're so afraid of the stranger next door, you'll give up everything to have thugs protect you from him. I never understood how cowardly Americans are until all of Boston agreed to martial law to catch a couple of teenagers. Chickenshits, one and all.

    28. Re:I remember by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could argue that the last time the US was "free" was prior to about 1910.

      When half the country couldn't vote? Bullshit.

    29. Re:I remember by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could argue that the last time the US was "free" was prior to about 1910.

      Bullshit. All sorts of groups were being oppressed at the time. Racist and sexist laws and attitudes were everywhere.

      There was *never* a time when the US was truly "the land of the free and the home of the brave."

    30. Re:I remember by The+Ickle+Jones · · Score: 1

      E.g., a database identifying everyone by photo and voiceprint isn't, in and of itself, oppressive. It's only when you mix it with authoritarian legislation that it becomes so.

      Bullshit. It's oppressive because it's a massive violation of people's privacy rights.

    31. Re:I remember by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US is still a country that isn't oppressive...not measured against a global average.

      Do you have a source for that? There are a few examples of oppressive regimes, but its usually the same few that shows up at the top.
      There are also a bunch of nations in Africa that you don't want to go to, but mostly because of anarchy rather than oppression.
      I'm not convinced that the US is better than the global average.

    32. Re:I remember by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      "Germans see Hitler as the charismatic, dedicated leader who can guide them out of poverty and despair into a new age of security and pride in their heritage.

      It's funny how that seems a lot like America. Leaders are chosen mostly based on charisma, e.g. the ability to do well in TV debates and project a good image in advertising. Americans are very proud of their heritage and their country, and I needn't even start on the until trillions spent on "security". Being strong on security is a requirement for any president.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    33. Re:I remember by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Civil War argument I've heard before but you really don't see significant changes in personal liberty as a result

      ..supposing, of course, that you are white.

      (Oh, I know: It's all much more complicated. But who could resist?)

    34. Re:I remember by Immerman · · Score: 1

      >Sadly, liberty and democracy have been on the losing end throughout history..

      And yet, somehow, when seen over the course of centuries they seem to be gradually winning. Do you suppose that's modern propaganda, or is the apparent contradiction the result of a sawtoothed advance, where liberty and democracy are bought with often bloody rebellion and then lost to creeping corruption until it gets bad enough that something triggers the next uprising?

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    35. Re:I remember by drew870mitchell · · Score: 1

      >we really started to lose it around 1910 when the Federal Government began to assert itself as a central law enforcement and control authority.

      First, absolutely not. Regarding the income tax, money does not equal freedom.

      Second, the individual states have repeatedly proven themselves unable to protect minority rights or even outright hostile to the concept. Without a strong federal government anywhere from 15 to 30% of the population would be third-class citizens.

    36. Re:I remember by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      :) so you're chopping your parents decision in half and are only presenting the part that wasn't terrible? and you're using it as an example of "wisdom"?

      way to undermine yourself.

      "he decided to leave the US by blowing himself up, shows them, can't take his liberties" - wise decisions

    37. Re:I remember by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      you want those rights? convince enough people that they're important, and when enough people make a stink the legislature will legislate a gaurantee for privacy. until then, it's up for grabs.

    38. Re:I remember by Immerman · · Score: 1

      In fairness, publicly accusing your superiors in the secret service of grossly inappropriate behavior probably counts as receiving warning of their displeasure.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    39. Re:I remember by The+Ickle+Jones · · Score: 1

      Thanks, that sure helped me; I had no idea that having the general populace behind you and willing to actually do something would be helpful. Why don't you go offer your useful advice to people living in North Korea, where just saying the wrong thing can get you and your family murdered or imprisoned?

      And no, it's not up for grabs. It's currently unconstitutional, but people let them get away with it.

    40. Re:I remember by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      north korea has a constitution?

      they definitely need help, but i don't think we've progressed to the point where open criticism of the government will get you locked up... exhibit, this very conversation. conflating oppression does more to weaken your argument than it does mine.

    41. Re:I remember by The+Ickle+Jones · · Score: 1

      conflating oppression does more to weaken your argument than it does mine.

      You're an idiot. I never compared anything.

    42. Re:I remember by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      ... i'm not the one that brought up north korea. and look up conflation.

    43. Re: I remember by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Americans see G W Bush as the charismatic, dedicated leader who can guide them out of poverty and despair into a new age of security and pride in their heritage. Europeans see him as possibly destabilizing. The truth, as always, is somewhere in between."

    44. Re:I remember by The+Ickle+Jones · · Score: 1

      You stated that I made a comparison. I did not. You were wrong.

    45. Re:I remember by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      i implied that you made a comparison, as you implied the comparison yourself.

      technically, i never said you made a comparison, i said you conflated the two scenarios.

      you can't say i'm wrong for implying that you implied something.

    46. Re:I remember by The+Ickle+Jones · · Score: 1

      i implied that you made a comparison, as you implied the comparison yourself.

      Nope. I implied no such thing. I merely mentioned North Korea in the same comment, which does not mean I was implying a comparison. Also, your statement that I was conflating something was actually explicit.

    47. Re:I remember by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      "Thanks, that sure helped me; I had no idea that having the general populace behind you and willing to actually do something would be helpful.

      And no, it's not up for grabs. It's currently unconstitutional, but people let them get away with it."

      hey, since you said you weren't making a comparison and were just making a reference to north korea for kicks. lets remove that reference and see if your comment still makes sense in context.

      nope, it was critical to the point you were trying to make. you were conflating the two situations otherwise you would have no post.

    48. Re:I remember by The+Ickle+Jones · · Score: 1

      hey, since you said you weren't making a comparison and were just making a reference to north korea for kicks. lets remove that reference and see if your comment still makes sense in context.

      Non sequitur. I could remove random parts of your comment to render your comment indecipherable, but that wouldn't mean you were making a comparison. Learn more about logic. I made no comparison. If I had, I would have said, "This is just like North Korea!" or something similar. But I didn't.

      nope, it was critical to the point you were trying to make.

      Actually, it does still make sense. Not that it would mean anything if it didn't, but in this case, it makes complete sense.

    49. Re:I remember by HiThere · · Score: 1

      That, of course, *is* a problem. I don't have unbiased sources. I'm not even sure that such a thing is possible. There are too many different ideas of what is oppressive, and what is liberating.

      E.g.: If you are afraid to walk down a street at night because government policy says that they don't police such, is that oppression? Yi! You could equally say it's liberating, and some people would certainly find it so. That's an extreme, but many policies are liberating to one group of people while oppressing another. Do you think that theives and murderers should be oppressed? I do. But not at all costs, and drawing that line is not anything that all people agree on.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    50. Re:I remember by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think, US lost its freedom that day in december 1913, when the Federal Reserve Act was signed and the Federal Reserve System was born.

      The rise of the police state and errosion of the US constitution is been payd by that privatly owned international banking cartel.

      About the IRS
      The Bureau of Internal Revenue, and the alleged Internal Revenue Service were not created by Congress. These are not organizations or agencies of the Department of the Treasury or of the federal government They appear to be operated through pure trusts administered by the Secretary of the Treasury ( the Trustee ).

      The organization of the Department of the Treasury can be found in 31 United States Code, Chapter 3, beginning on page 7. You will not find the Bureau of Internal Revenue, the Internal Revenue Service, The Secret Service or the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and firearms listed.

      We learned that the Bureau of Internal Revenue, internal revenue, Internal Revenue service, internal revenue service, Official Internal Revenue Service, the Federal Alcohol Administration, Director Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms Division, and the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms are one organization.

      The investigation found, that except for the very few who are engaged in specific activities, the Citizens of the 50 States of the united States of America have never been required to file or to pay "income taxes". The Federal government is engaging in constructive fraud on a massive scale. Americans who have been frightened into filing and paying "income taxes "have been robbed of their money. Millions of lives have been ruined. Hundreds of thousands of innocent people have been imprisoned on the pretense they violated laws that do not exist. Some have been driven to suicide. Marriages have been destroyed. Property has been confiscated to pay taxes that were never owed.

      In the last century the United States acquired by CONQUEST the territory of the Philippine Islands, Guam, and Puerto Rico. The Philippine Customs Administrative Act was passed by the Philippine Commission during the period from Sept. 1, 1900 to August 31, 1902, to regulate trade with foreign countries and to create revenue in the form of duties, imposts, and excises. The act CREATED THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S FIRST TRUST FUND called Trust fund #1, the Philippine special fund (customs and duties), 31 USC, Section 1321. The Act was administered under the general Supervision and control of the Secretary of Finance and Justice.

      The Philippine Commission passed another act known as The Internal Revenue Law of Nineteen Hundred and Four. This Act created the Bureau of Internal Revenue and the federal government's second trust fund (internal revenue), 31 USC, Section 1321. In the Act, Article 1, Section 2, we find, "There shall be established a Bureau of Internal Revenue, the chief officer of which Bureau shall be known as the Collector of Internal Revenue. He shall be appointed by the Civil Governor, with the advise and consent of the Philippine Commission, and shall receive a salary at the rate of eight thousand PESOS per annum. The Bureau of Internal Revenue shall belong to the Department of Finance and Justice." And in Section 3, we find, " The Collector of Internal Revenue, under the direction of the Secretary of Finance and Justice, shall have general superintendence of the assessment and collection of all taxed and excises imposed by this Act or by any Act amendatory thereof, and shall perform such other duties as may be required by law.

      It was clear that the Customs Administrative Act was to fall within the JURISDICTION of the Bureau of the Internal Revenue which bureau was to be responsible for "all taxes and excises imposed by this Act," which clearly include import and export excise taxes. This effectively MERGED Customs and Internal Revenue in the Philippines."

      At some unknown date prior to 1940 another Bureau of Internal Revenue was established in Puerto Rico. The 62nd Trust Fund was created and named Trust Fund #62 Puerto Rico special

    51. Re:I remember by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By birth we are each a Citizen of the State of New Jersey, or a Citizen of the State of California, or a Citizen of the State Florida, or a Citizen of the State of whatever State you wherein we were born, and at the same time, we are all Citizens of the united States of America, AND ARE NOT SUBJECT TO ACTS OF CONGRESS, OTHER THAN THE 18 GRANTS OF POWERS SPECIFICALLY CITED IN THE Constitution for the united States of America. People who are born or who reside within the federal District of Columbia, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, the Northern Mariana Islands, any territory, on any naval base or dockyard, within forts, or within insular possessions are called U.S. citizens AND are subject to Acts of Congress. Within the Law, words have meanings, that not the same meanings, that are accepted in common usage. our Constitution is the Constitution for the united States of America. The U.S. Constitution is the Constitution of Puerto Rico.

      http://www.usa-the-republic.com/revenue/BATF-IRS Criminal Report.html

    52. Re:I remember by superstition222 · · Score: 1

      The Trail of Tears was loads of fun. So were the camps for American citizens of the wrong racial group.

    53. Re:I remember by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      :) only if you assume sarcasm does it really make sense in the way you wanted.

      so you weren't making a comparison to the situation in north korea. Then i fail to see how you were supporting your statement. Or were you just throwing out words?

      i didn't even get to make the point that we have a semi-functional democracy, so your point is kind of moot to begin with.

      we had multiple "springs" in the middle east because like-minded people thought that dictatorship wasn't for them. It works, just because it hasn't worked in North Korea doesn't really invalidate my point.

    54. Re:I remember by swb · · Score: 1

      Then again, maybe we'd look back and see the period about 1800-2000 as one of those blips in the data set, an anomoly of time and place not seen before or since.

      I've wasted most of my so-called reading on ancient Rome from about the rise of Marius to the fall of Rome so I don't have a very good grasp of the "high" period of the Roman Republic but even by 100 BC Rome strikes me as extremely undemocratic and more like a kleptocratic plutocracy with just enough distribution of power that no one family can gain the kind of power utlimately obtained by the Judeo-Claudian dynasty a century later. It's hard to believe that a century or more before the rise of Marius that Rome was significantly more democratic or inclusive or even if they were that it was far enough along in its development as a civilization to matter.

      But even assuming Rome up to Augustus WAS largely democratic, what came after? You really don't see anything like individual liberty and democratic institutions until the 18th century.

      Sure, we've had a good run for a couple hundred years but the current trends aren't encouraging, especially vis-a-vis our own increasingly corrupt plutocracy, mass surveillance, a hyper-active law enforcement apparatus and a growing rejection of liberal democratic thought in non-western culture.

  5. 4th Amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

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

    1. Re:4th Amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects

      The government can argue that since they seized your house due to whatever bullshit reason it is no longer your house, find another house to be secure in you damn trespasses and respect others right to private property!

      against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated

      Due to the increased tension in the middle east we do not find this search of your personal effects or the seizure of your water bottle to be unreasonable.

      If you want to protect your rights I recommend against relying on the constitution. If you do your only defense will be a piece of paper that not only is full of loopholes but also can be amended.

    2. Re:4th Amendment by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      ... is this guy suggesting you shoot the TSA agent for taking your water bottle? leaving aside the fact that you knew you'd have to forfeit your bottle before you bought your ticket... does he imagine that this will somehow, let you fly?

  6. Escape NSA in Berlin by burni2 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    You can't escape an intelligence agency especially in Berlin!

    During the cold war Berlin(DE) like Viena(AT) was a central station for spies.

    But she feels safer, that's a relief.

    1. Re:Escape NSA in Berlin by cyrano.mac · · Score: 1

      Obviously, you've never been there.

    2. Re:Escape NSA in Berlin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Vienna has two N's, and Germany's capital is actually a very decent place to hide from the NSA in the wake of the concern over spying on Merkel.

      So you're wrong but you feel right, that's a false relief.

    3. Re:Escape NSA in Berlin by Guy+Harris · · Score: 1

      Vienna has two N's, and Germany's capital is actually a very decent place to hide from the NSA in the wake of the concern over spying on Merkel.

      So you're wrong but you feel right, that's a false relief.

      And the Soviet Union disappeared a while ago, so burni2's "during the cold war" argument is a bit silly at this point in any case.

    4. Re:Escape NSA in Berlin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      In Berlin she'll be monitored by all intelligence agencies. It would amount to protection by vital competition. Something like gut bacteria.

    5. Re:Escape NSA in Berlin by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      http://www.newsweek.com/german...

      we spy on them, they spy on us. :) trust but verify. It's the most conservative and safest way to operate on the international stage.

    6. Re:Escape NSA in Berlin by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      :) i like it. spy vs spy

    7. Re:Escape NSA in Berlin by burni2 · · Score: 1

      Your right, I'm already there ..

    8. Re:Escape NSA in Berlin by burni2 · · Score: 1

      The cold war was not about the soviet union, the su was russia and some puppet states anyway.

      And Berlin today is the gate to the east, Poland, Belarus, Russia, etc.. so it really is interesting for spies today, and when you have many spies in one place you need to monitor them.

    9. Re:Escape NSA in Berlin by burni2 · · Score: 1

      How is the concern over the spying on Merkel helping anyone to stay off the radar in Berlin, you remember the pictures from the UK & US embassy ?

      Berlin as our capital is stuffed with embassies, and embassies are targets for intelligence.

    10. Re:Escape NSA in Berlin by burni2 · · Score: 1

      What a relief she escaped the python and went straight for the lion herd.

  7. pretty foolish by silfen · · Score: 3, Informative

    Germany has "strict" privacy laws, but they largely apply to organizations that don't pose a big threat to privacy in the first place. Police, courts, financial institutions, businesses, tax authorities, secret service, "state police", health insurers, and employers can have a field day with your private data in Germany. The government can easily use telecoms and online services to access private data. This is a country where you must declare your religious affiliation to the government and that spies on democratically elected members of parliament as a matter of course. To the degree that it provides a refuge for Americans on no-fly-lists and under special scrutiny, that's just because it is a separate country; I think you can be pretty certain that as an American activist in Germany, you are closely scrutinized.

    We clearly have serious problems with a government that has become far too intrusive and invasive in the US. But Europe has no good ideas for how to fix these problems, least of all countries like Germany.

    But, hey, if you disagree, name some specific German laws that we could adopt in the US that you think would help, and explain how they would make a difference.

    1. Re:pretty foolish by NoKaOi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Germany has "strict" privacy laws, but they largely apply to organizations that don't pose a big threat to privacy in the first place. Police, courts, financial institutions, businesses, tax authorities, secret service, "state police", health insurers, and employers can have a field day with your private data in Germany.

      The US has strict privacy laws too (more specifically the Bill of Rights), and those laws apply to everyone. The problem in the US isn't the absence of such laws, it's the absence of oversight and enforcement of those laws.

    2. Re:pretty foolish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It seems to me that even when we citizens have so little power, in Germany some things can still be enforced. This does not help of course because German agencies do not spy on German citizens - they just exchange information with US agencies. Really sad thing is this: we lost our privacy but we did not gain any security. Enemies of the West (among other things) get ever more savage and successful provoking ever more brutal and effective response of (mostly) US military.

    3. Re:pretty foolish by silfen · · Score: 1

      True; that's why I said we have a problem "with a government that has become too intrusive": we clearly do have a problem with enforcement. But what's your point? Enforcement in Germany is certainly no better than in the US; that is, the BND and BfV and similar organizations have even less supervision than the NSA and CIA do in the US. Most of the "enforcement" of data protection and privacy in Germany consists showy accusations against America and American businesses, largely driven by political and business motives.

    4. Re:pretty foolish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US has strict privacy laws too (more specifically the Bill of Rights), and those laws apply to everyone. The problem in the US isn't the absence of such laws, it's the absence of oversight and enforcement of those laws.

      Then those laws aren't worth a shit, are they?

      Thanks for your diatribe. Please drive thru.

      CAPTCHA: Dishonest

    5. Re:pretty foolish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's pretty funny that you say you require "...specific German laws that we could adopt in the US that you think would help...". I would point out that you alluded to such laws without naming any specifically, and then you asserted that the unnamed laws don't help.

      Also, you stated " I think you can be pretty certain that as an American activist in Germany, you are closely scrutinized." Based upon what factual evidence do you make this statement? I ask only because you seem quite enamoured of such facts from others. Why don't you meet that standard?

      Now I'll play. One such law is the Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC. This is being amended by the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), not yet implemented.

      You state that these do not help. I strongly assert that they do help, and my proof is about the most important proof that can exist. A US citizen, Laura Poitras, with the ability to live literally anywhere in the world, chose an EU country to shield her from intrusive and overbearing spying activities. EU laws may not be perfect but the issue isn't and never was perfection. It's a tolerable balance between security and privacy, between collective rights and individual rights, between the protection of free speech and the prohibition of incitement.

    6. Re:pretty foolish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is a country where you must declare your religious affiliation to the government

      They're only asking if you are catholic or protestant to know who gets the church tax on your income.
      If you ask me, they should have gotten rid of that tax decades ago. I officially became an atheist the day I had my last exam in university.

    7. Re:pretty foolish by HiThere · · Score: 2

      It's quite difficult to have less supervisions than the NSA and the CIA. Those are people who can lie to congress under oath, be found out, and still not pay ANY penalty.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    8. Re:pretty foolish by Compholio · · Score: 1

      The problem in the US isn't the absence of such laws, it's the absence of oversight and enforcement of those laws.

      Why would you enforce a law that has no explicit penalty, seems like a waste of resources ;)

    9. Re:pretty foolish by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The US has strict privacy laws too (more specifically the Bill of Rights),

      Uh what? No it doesn't. While the Supremes have traditionally held that you have a right to privacy which is implied by the rights which are enumerated, there is no strict right to privacy — especially in the bill of rights, which explicitly does not define what level of privacy you're entitled to. It leaves that up to laws to be defined by the federal government later (their power to do so being elsewhere granted) when it for example prohibits "unreasonable" search and seizure. Since it's not actually defined, the government is free to define it elsewhere. What needs to be on a warrant is defined there explicitly. Warrants are still a thing. There is a lesson to be learned there, and the lesson is that when they left certain things open-ended, they completely punted on them.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    10. Re:pretty foolish by silfen · · Score: 1

      It's quite difficult to have less supervisions than the NSA and the CIA. Those are people who can lie to congress under oath, be found out, and still not pay ANY penalty.

      It is quite easy to have less supervision. For example, state security agencies may not even have to report much to parliament; the executive and legislative branch may be colluding to maintain the status quo; or when they are found out, the press doesn't write about it and nobody cares. That's the situation in Germany.

      Yes, what's going on in the US right now is bad, in large part due to massive abuse of power of this and the previous administrations. But the US at least stands a chance of addressing this because people here are widely pissed off and our legislators have enough teeth and independence from both parties and the president to change things once voters wake up to how important this is.

    11. Re:pretty foolish by gl4ss · · Score: 2

      uh they're not reporting to the parliament and when they something to the parliament they lie.. it's even worse than no supervision, it's deceit.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    12. Re:pretty foolish by silfen · · Score: 1

      Oh, goodie, let's apply your reasoning to another kind of offense, say, murder. What you are saying is that a society in which murder is illegal but is occasionally not prosecuted due to corrupt prosecutors is worse than a society in which murder is legal, commonly committed, and nobody cares. Sorry, but I think you got it backwards.

    13. Re:pretty foolish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly, nobody in the government cares what religion you have. They just want to know whom you want to pay taxes to.
      And that is only if the church you are member of wants it that way.

    14. Re:pretty foolish by Immerman · · Score: 1

      That would depend very much on the details. I would much rather live in a country where anyone could legally kill anyone else, that one where an elite 0.1% could go on murdering sprees without legal repercussions, but anyone who lifted a weapon against them went to prison.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    15. Re:pretty foolish by silfen · · Score: 1

      Well, of course, that analogy has nothing to do with reality.

      In both Germany and in the US, surveillance and invasions of privacy by the government are widespread now. In Germany, they are legal and voters are ignorant and apathetic about it. In the US, they are illegal and people are pissed off about it.

  8. I wonder... by TWX · · Score: 1

    ...how much effort on her part has been put into finding out why she's been questioned at customs and so thoroughly searched. From what's been shown so far, those that don't fight against what they perceive as injustice against themselves are basically guaranteed to repeat that injustice, while at least some of those that have fought back against such injustices have had some success through he courts in ending it and in potentially helping to end it for others as well. Some of the recent rulings on the no-fly listings would dictate that legally fighting back seems to be more effective than just complaining.

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
  9. No you don't, you just remember incorrectly by Overzeetop · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No you don't. You just don't realize that the people who fled here in the 17th century to avoid the oppressive regime in England created a whole new oppressive regime for the indigenous people. And it was so rampant into the 18th century that they wrote an entire constitution (that didn't apply to said indigenous people, or the slaves that were imported) to try and protect it. Then in the 19th century, half the country tried to repress the other half - destroying their entire way of life. By the 20 the century we were into your bedroom and your liquor cabinet trying to impose morality on the immoral. And we can't forget McCarthysim - oooh, that was a really good one, followed by the Hoover FBI.

    Oppression is as much a part of humanity as humanity itself.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    1. Re:No you don't, you just remember incorrectly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You just don't realize that the people who fled here in the 17th century to avoid the oppressive regime in England created a whole new oppressive regime for the indigenous people.

      You do realize those people you claim were seeking freedom where actually seeking the freedom to repress others because of their religious views, right? England at the time wouldn't let them be as severe as they wanted to be.

    2. Re:No you don't, you just remember incorrectly by Guy+Harris · · Score: 1

      No you don't. You just don't realize that the people who fled here in the 17th century to avoid the oppressive regime in England created a whole new oppressive regime for the indigenous people. And it was so rampant into the 18th century that they wrote an entire constitution (that didn't apply to said indigenous people, or the slaves that were imported) to try and protect it. Then in the 19th century, half the country tried to repress the other half - destroying their entire way of life.

      If you're referring to the Civil War, the way of life that was destroyed was based on, err, umm, the oppression of slaves, so destroying that way of life was a good thing.

      And we can't forget McCarthysim - oooh, that was a really good one, followed by the Hoover FBI.

      Hoover did that sort of thing well before he was head of the FBI; see, for example, the Palmer Raids.

    3. Re:No you don't, you just remember incorrectly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The weak are meat, and the strong do eat.

    4. Re:No you don't, you just remember incorrectly by Mister+Liberty · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The Civil War was not about the oppression of slaves (contrary to popular belief). It was about the crushing of dissent.
      Exactly what the US is still about the present day.

    5. Re:No you don't, you just remember incorrectly by Deadstick · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Indeed. If you're talking about the Mayflower Pilgrims, they had found religious freedom in the Netherlands and it scared the shit out of them.

    6. Re:No you don't, you just remember incorrectly by ultranova · · Score: 2

      The Civil War was not about the oppression of slaves (contrary to popular belief). It was about the crushing of dissent.

      And the particular thing being dissented against was the looming eradication of slavery. Which goes to show that you can be the small band of rebels taking on overwhelming odds and still be the bad guys.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    7. Re:No you don't, you just remember incorrectly by Mister+Liberty · · Score: 0

      Lincoln was a slaveholder.

    8. Re:No you don't, you just remember incorrectly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ooh! I love this game!

      "Lincoln was an alien."

      "Lincoln was a lizard person from the X Dimension."

      "Lincoln faked his own assassination, travelled forward through time and became Adolf Hitler."

      See, without any credible citations, my blather is as compelling as yours.

    9. Re:No you don't, you just remember incorrectly by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Lest we forget, McCarthy was right. There really were communists in the State Department, and they really did mean to use their position to undermine the US government and replace it with a communist one. Let's just get our history straight. It is entirely appropriate for the people to be protected in this way.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    10. Re:No you don't, you just remember incorrectly by Guy+Harris · · Score: 1

      The Civil War was not about the oppression of slaves (contrary to popular belief). It was about the crushing of dissent.

      I never said what the Civil War was about. I was merely responding to what appeared to be a complaint about the South's way of life having been destroyed; if that's what they were referring to, much of that way of life should have been destroyed, so the destruction of that way of life wasn't a bug, it was a feature.

      Sadly, although the 13th Amendment to the US constitution finally added one more freedom that the Constitution defended, the "except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted" clause left a rather large loophole through which several states snuck (not that the North was a land of rainbows, magic ponies, and racial equality).

      (And not that the Southern states were paragons of freedom even for white people, especially white people who wanted to teach slaves to read and write or didn't particularly want to participate in patrols hunting down runaway slaves.)

    11. Re:No you don't, you just remember incorrectly by The+Ickle+Jones · · Score: 4, Insightful

      McCarthy was right in the same way that the people terrified of terrorists are right; communists existed, and terrorists do exist, but both threats were overblown. And none of this justifies infringing upon people's liberties.

    12. Re:No you don't, you just remember incorrectly by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Lincoln was a slaveholder.

      He must have been a remarkable individual, then, to go against his own financial interests to do right by his nation. Contrast this with the Confederacy who's legacy - aside from a pile of corpses - was doing to the concept of "state's rights" what Nazis did to the swastika, all so their wealthy could avoid paying their workers.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    13. Re:No you don't, you just remember incorrectly by bluegutang · · Score: 1

      "(that didn't apply to said indigenous people, or the slaves that were imported) to try and protect it. Then in the 19th century, half the country tried to repress the other half - destroying their entire way of life"

      You're condemning the US both for allowing slavery and for abolishing slavery? Doesn't seem like you're coming to this subject from an unbiased place.

    14. Re:No you don't, you just remember incorrectly by aralin · · Score: 1

      Oppression is as much a part of humanity as humanity itself.

      You see ... that is the thing.. no. Some countries, like US, England, Spain, France, Russia have a much richer history of oppressing both citizens and other countries than others. It seems to be a trait that concentrates into some tight areas of general assholery.

      --
      If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
    15. Re:No you don't, you just remember incorrectly by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      to be fair,

      "Lincoln faked his own assassination, travelled forward through time and became Adolf Hitler."

      i would be very interested in this movie.

    16. Re:No you don't, you just remember incorrectly by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 1

      For some reason, this DNS-and-BIND guy has to bring up McCarthy at every opportunity, like he was some kind of national hero. It's ridiculous.

      --
      We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
    17. Re:No you don't, you just remember incorrectly by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      The Civil War was primarily about secession, and secession was primarily about slavery. The war was not about slavery, but slavery was a large part of the cause.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    18. Re:No you don't, you just remember incorrectly by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Um, the US, England, and France have been a lot less repressive of their citizens than lots of other countries in the past few centuries.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    19. Re:No you don't, you just remember incorrectly by aralin · · Score: 1

      France indeed has its hay day in the past, although they made up for it in 16th to 19th century. England ... you should talk to the Irish and Scottish and Welsh citizens. If someone cleans up their act for 50 years, after centuries of horrible repression, I'd say they are not quite reformed yet. US, I think you might check with the immigrants for current situation, check with gays for anything up to 5 years ago and with women and blacks for anything up to 50 years ago. People tend to forget some horrible abuses quite quickly it seems. I should have added Germany, Austria, Japan and China to the mix, but they are sort of obvious.

      The point is that you have places like Iceland, Danemark, some countries in Central Europe, like Switzerland and to some extent Poland, Slovakia, Czech Republic, maybe even Hungary, if you ascribe the communists to Russian influence and many others where things like slavery, oppression, wars of conquest, are simply not on the menu for 500 years or so. There are places where people are kinder and peaceful by nature.

      --
      If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
    20. Re:No you don't, you just remember incorrectly by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      OK, I'm happy to say that Denmark, for example, is less repressive than the US, but the US is far less repressive than many other countries. The US is far from perfect, but many other countries are farther.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    21. Re:No you don't, you just remember incorrectly by aralin · · Score: 2

      Since US does not exist even those 500 years, let's look at what happened during the 250 that it exists: Continent wide Genocide of Native Americans, Slavery, Apartheid, Kukkluxklan, One major Civil War, Close to 100 covert CIA operations to change regime of other countries, Only country in history that used Nuclear Weapons on civilians. Want something more recent? Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, What about NSA having surveillance system that KGB openly envies? FBI collecting dossier on politicians for blackmail since its inception? Now this gets even better: 25% of world's prisoners or 2.2 million people in prison, that is 0.5 million more than China, which is considered a totalitarian state with repressive regime and has 4 times the population of US. Not just that, but 750,000 of those are usually for low level drug offenses like marihuana, which is safer than alcohol. Prohibition is a matter of policy, not public safety, so you can easily say that those are political prisoners. Still sitting on your high horse?

      --
      If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
  10. Sue. by Etherwalk · · Score: 1

    Sue.

    If they have no reason to believe you're breaking the law, sue. If you are being harassed and detained by government officials for exercising your constitutional rights, that is exactly what the federal courts are for.

    1. Re:Sue. by HiThere · · Score: 2

      Not everyone has a lawyer on retainer just idling his time away, and plenty of money. Even then, I believe that precedent is against her. IIRC it has been ruled that the constitutional guarantees don't apply to people crossing the border (or, for that matter, bein within 200 miles of either a border, an international airport, or a sea port where foreign ships might dock...please note this covers most of the population of the country).

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  11. Two options: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Through force or feet :) Given that the soap box and ballot box aren't working, you should consider the foot boxes, or the soapbox turned racer and roll right on out of the country!

    Seriously though American isn't going to change until the people have to deal with the full consequences of their own actions, and those of us who've been telling them why those actions are a bad idea really have no reason to still be here when the 'sky falls down' as it were.

    Find a place or make a place. If you can't trust those around you, make yourself a group or society where you can.

    Captcha: lifeboat

  12. Safe from NSA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What does Germany not have computers? Phones?
    I think if you wanted to be 'safe' from the NSA you'd need to be in some African 3rd word country like Sierra Leone or Niger....

  13. USA is the villan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    NSA is far worse than Stasi.

    Stasi at least had break into house to plant BUG. NSA just has to press button at computer and listen to anyone in WORLD for no reason.

    USA is LEASE FREE country in world. MUCH less than GERMANY.
    to anyone in the world.

    Germany RESPECT RIGHTS of peoples.

  14. Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nobody needs to be promoting Nazis or the Holocust.

    USA is so backward this way -- Nazi == Good, Gay == Evil.

    Enjoy your republicans.

    1. Re: Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Germany denies the Nazis existed. It's illegal to even bring those events up.

    2. Re: Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Germany denies the Nazis existed. It's illegal to even bring those events up.

      So that's why films like Downfall, Das Boot, and Die Weiße Rose could neither be made nor shown in Germany.

  15. Anti-Godwin? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    von Stauffenberg's complaint was that Hitler was losing the war for them. He had no problems with the Nazi party while they were winning wars...

  16. Creepers by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

    Colonel Morris Davis, the whistleblower, tells a story of how he and one of his children were home one night when they were scheduled to be out of town (apparently, they missed a flight). They were sitting upstairs when they heard people breaking in downstairs. Col Davis came down and found the door unlocked (he had locked it) and his personal files gone through.

    They came into his house when he and his kid were at home. We have monsters working for our government.

    It might have been Thomas Drake that told the story. One of those guys, though. Both heroes, in my book, for exposing the illegal surveillance of our government on American citizens who have not committed any crimes.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re:Creepers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They came into his house when he and his kid were at home. We have monsters working for our government.

      So it would have been fine if his kids weren't at home? They clearly tried to do it when they weren't there. Please stop adding manipulative emotional extras to your arguments. The kids being present has nothing to do with anything and makes you look like one of those crazy 'think of the children ' people.

    2. Re:Creepers by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      My guess is that you don't have children.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  17. USA is a very sick country by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Watch American TV sometime - not from youtube, but actual airtime TV.

    Every other commercial is for diabetes catheters or for a drug with a silly name (presumably to secure a unique domain name), or for a lawyer suing the maker of the previously advertised silly-named drug. Ad nausum, rinse and repeat.

    ^ This is what the USA is producing now. You guys are sooooooo fucked.

    Ciao from Europe.

    1. Re: USA is a very sick country by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you are right, burn the whole motherfucker down right now

  18. LOL. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You said Niger.

  19. Privacy Does Not Exist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am sure everyone has seen the recent news that using EEG computers can decipher internal speech. Well, that can be done remotely too using radio waves and its a very old technology. Modern versions use transmitters on satellites and exploit properties of standing waves to penetrate shielding and deep underground. A modern system can track and decode neural signals even 50 meters underground in a moving train, or at 30000 feet in an aircraft. There is no such thing as privacy and if the NSA/CIA wish to listen, there is nothing you or anyone else can do about it.

    Stop the cloak-and-dagger, hiding on street corners, that is privacy 1960's style. Welcome to a brave new world.

    1. Re:Privacy Does Not Exist by MildlyTangy · · Score: 1

      I am sure everyone has seen the recent news that using EEG computers can decipher internal speech. Well, that can be done remotely too using radio waves and its a very old technology. Modern versions use transmitters on satellites and exploit properties of standing waves to penetrate shielding and deep underground. A modern system can track and decode neural signals even 50 meters underground in a moving train, or at 30000 feet in an aircraft. There is no such thing as privacy and if the NSA/CIA wish to listen, there is nothing you or anyone else can do about it.

      Stop the cloak-and-dagger, hiding on street corners, that is privacy 1960's style. Welcome to a brave new world.

      Dude, you need to adjust your tinfoil hat, you are speaking all sorts of crazy pseudo-scientific gibberish.

      Sure, the NSA is listening to our communications, but the shit you are spouting is absolute fiction. I wish it wasnt, because the technology you describe would be stunning and would have amazing far-reaching effects across a multitude of scientific and Engineering disciplines. It would be a massive boon to communications and remote sensing all around the world, and in space.

      Maybe you should have a go at writing some science fiction novels, you could make a fair bit of money as an author.

    2. Re:Privacy Does Not Exist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is easy to replicate, moreover, even basic universities have the tech to confirm the principle.

      Try it.

    3. Re:Privacy Does Not Exist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But who will say it to you, zitizen MildlyTangy "yes, this technology exists".
      I think nobody. And your precious scientists and engineers outside the NWO - military industrial complex, will see it as well as their own ears without a mirror.
      You can neither confirm nor deny.

    4. Re:Privacy Does Not Exist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Dude, you need to adjust your tinfoil hat"

      Have you any idea how many times throughout the years, on this very website, people have 'tinfoil hatted' other people for denouncing the very shit surveillance we now know has been going on? I'm sick of these words 'tinfoil hat' Slashdot should sensor them. Not saying I agree with the OP, but I do disagree with your characterization of him.

  20. LOL. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whaddup dawg???

  21. WARNUNG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am German and I once worked on contract for Deutsche Bahn in their data center there. I did make some political remarks in an online discussion with my real name. It pertained nuclear war and the details of this.

    This resulted in a Nasty Trap being set up for me by the landlord of the hotel and quite a few co-conspirators in Mahlsdorf, Berlin. They had a smoke-bellowing fire and a large attack dog. The hotel landlord claimed "there are lots of dogs out there now" and other nasty stuff.

    So, folks, Berlin IS UNDER NSA-CIA control like any other part of Germany. If you fall out of line, they will try to drive you into suicide.

    But the New York Banksters do not know the fighting spirit, intelligence and tenacity of REAL Germans (as opposed to Collaborateurs Sucking Up To America. We once kicked out the French and so we will do with the Anglosaxons.

    The sooner you leave us alone, the earlier we will stop messing with your economy. It is YOUR choice, my dear Americans.

    1. Re:WARNUNG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you want to learn more American Occupation methods in Germany, look at the interview of Ulfkotte on RT. Essenitially, CIA buys all major journalists in Germany and often even makes them publish articles which they have written themselves.

      Also, Bundeswehr and BND consider themselves first and foremost servants of America. They WILL be used against any German who questions American politics seriously. Think of Mk1 Eyeball attacks which are a powerful weapon against those who dont know this technique. It is essentially "big men staring into your eyes while walking by". If you have ten of this events in one day, chances are you drop yourself off a bridge in anxiety. Which is of course THE OBJECTIVE.

      Sunglasses are an efficient countermeasure.

  22. Re:Just don't mention Nazis or the Holocaust by Deadstick · · Score: 1

    The tour guides at Hitler's mountaintop chalet, the Eagle's Nest, are certainly upfront about it.

    (Actually only foreigners call it the Eagle's Nest; that name was hung on it by the international media in 1938. Germans call it the Kehlsteinhaus.)

  23. meh by behrooz0az · · Score: 1

    Yeah, If I was a terrorist I would keep my plans on my computer, my pictures on my camera and let them have it. Has the NSA gone nuts?
    Guys it's 2014v Terrorists use encryption, remote servers, proprietary protocols, things that even NSA hasn't heard of.

    --
    Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion. -- Spazmania (174582)
  24. Opposite experince... by bayankaran · · Score: 2

    Interesting. I had the opposite experience...the Americans I meet now days - at least the educated ones - seem to be apologetic about America, its foreign policy, lifestyle choices, oil addiction, consumerism and all that.

    --
    Tat Tvam Asi
    1. Re:Opposite experince... by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      i apologize for nothing.

      Dirty hippies, and dirty rednecks.

      US is great, it's not perfect, but you know... if men were angels.

  25. Fear of the USA by MildlyTangy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Over the years, I have said quite a few things critical of America and its surveillance state, and of its gun culture, on this site.

    Because of this, I think there is a pretty good chance that if I ever went to the US that I would discover that Im on some watchlist, and that travelling there would be quite scary and difficult.

    Thankfully there is no reason for me to ever travel there.

    Now I can see what they mean by "chilling effect". This is some pretty scary stuff.

    The moral of the story?
    Dont say anything critical of the US on any digital device. It will come back to haunt you.

    1. Re:Fear of the USA by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Yes and if you are in Germany you can track the issues back to the 1950's. West Germany and the NSA, GCHQ needed local telco experts that could be trusted.
      One network to track all calls. One network to know all West German phone numbers. Staff tame to the US and UK where selected and stayed in place.
      The tame staff then promoted the next generations with the same US and UK understandings. A Gehlen Organization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... for the West German telco systems.
      Great for tracking exposed East German deep penetration agents. Now great for tracking the press as they report on wars and tame telco surveillance.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    2. Re:Fear of the USA by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 2

      You are misinformed. There are loads of people inside the US who are critical of it, the gun culture, etc;
      I'm one of them.

      Essentially the way it works is, when the NSA creates a "profile" on you they weigh various factors to determine how much of a "perceived threat" you are. Sure, you disagree with policy and protocol, etc; but unless you are actually a threat, they just monitor.

      However, I'm sure they keep a neat little treasure trove of things by which in the future they can put pressure on anyone they want, which really is the real reason behind the surveillance.

      The main thing people need to understand is, what happens to all that data about people, the "profiles", when a regime comes into power that isn't hesitant to "put pressure" on those it doesn't like, whether they have done anything wrong or not.

      That is the real question.

      --
      We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
    3. Re:Fear of the USA by aralin · · Score: 1

      Exactly this. So now that you have been critical of US, I would advise against traveling anywhere in middle east, Russia or China or to visit any mosque. If you avoid those things, you should be still fine. Otherwise, welcome to the watchlist. It is a select group of fine individuals. Maybe we should make badges for ourselves.

      --
      If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
  26. Berlin Surveillance Precautions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Laura, watch out for that leather wearing, pale haired homosexual, standing at the street corner seemingly innocent, and smoking and chewing an apple at the same time!

  27. Holocaust Survivor Leaving US - Sees What's Coming by Paul+Fernhout · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Granted from 2005: http://www.rense.com/general65...
    "I had been stationed in Germany for two years while in the military, so I lit up, and commented about how beautiful the country was, and inquired if he was going back because he missed it.
    "No," he answered me. "I'm going back because I've seen this before." He then commenced to explain that when he was a kid, he watched with his family in fear as Hitler's government committed atrocity after atrocity, and no one was willing to say anything. He said the news refused to question the government, and the ones who did were not in the newspaper business much longer. He said good neighbors, people he had known all his life, turned against his family and other Jews, grabbing on to the hate and superiority "as if they were starved for it" (his words).
    He said he was too old to see it happen right in front of his eyes again, and too old to do anything about it, so he was taking his family back to Europe on Thursday where they would be safe from George W. Bush and his neocons. He seemed resolute, but troubled, nonetheless, as if being too young on one end and too old on the other to fight what he saw happening was wearing on him. ...
    I have related this event to you in the hopes it will serve as a cautionary anecdote about the state of our Union, and to illustrate the path we Americans are being led down by a group of fanatics bent on global economic and military dominion. When a man who survived the fruits of fascism decides its time to leave THIS country because he's seeing the same patterns that led to the Holocaust and other Nazi horrors beginning to form here, it is time for us to recognize the underlying evil inherent in the actions of those who claim they work for all Americans, and for all mankind. And it is incumbent upon all Americans, Red and Blue, Republican and Democrat, to stop them."

    What has really changed from the Bush years of great significance in that regard?

    See also:
    "They Thought They Were Free: The Germans, 1933-45"
    http://www.press.uchicago.edu/...
    ""What happened here was the gradual habituation of the people, little by little, to being governed by surprise; to receiving decisions deliberated in secret; to believing that the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information which the people could not understand, or so dangerous that, even if the people could not understand it, it could not be released because of national security. And their sense of identification with Hitler, their trust in him, made it easier to widen this gap and reassured those who would otherwise have worried about it.
    "This separation of government from people, this widening of the gap, took place so gradually and so insensibly, each step disguised (perhaps not even intentionally) as a temporary emergency measure or associated with true patriotic allegiance or with real social purposes. And all the crises and reforms (real reforms, too) so occupied the people that they did not see the slow motion underneath, of the whole process of government growing remoter and remoter."

    Jews who moved to Israel seem to me overall to have interpreted "never again" in terms of who has the most guns. But there is another perspective on that, which is to think that "never again" should be about militaristic bureaucracy getting out of control. A culture like the USA (or Israel for that matter) can be full of guns and people who know how to use them, but still infested with militarist bureaucracy infesting every aspect of life (including via perpetual full-surveillance "schooling"). Like bureaucracy, humans have had a long association with fire, and fire is useful to warm our homes and cook our meals, but it is a terrible thing when it rages out of control.

    That said, how should we behave when we are essentially t

    --
    A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
  28. Citizen Four by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 1

    I went and saw this film last Friday. It was pretty good up until the scenes where they interviewed Snowden. It was interesting seeing him speak about what he did, why he did it, etc; He is obviously very intelligent and eloquent. However, it starts to get boring, and I felt that the film makers need to do some editing towards the end.

    However, with that being said, the concepts behind the film, the point they tried to make, was made very well.

    There was a great article in the NYT recently, that I can't find the link to now, that showed how surveillance, and the knowledge of being watched are inherently detrimental to a functioning democracy and actually cause people to be less creative. The self censoring that is now going on(unless of course you want to expose your sex life, drug use or any number of ordinary vices, as long as they don't question state or corporate power) is a direct result of what Americans now know.

    We are being monitored on a 24/7 basis, and have been since the Patriot Act was passed.

    --
    We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
    1. Re:Citizen Four by joh · · Score: 1

      I think there's no way to go forward with technology and not have that (being monitored one way or another). The REAL test is if we can still manage to have rights and use them regardless of being monitored or not. All too often all this surveillance panic is used by people as an excuse for being cowards. The real test of you being a freedom-loving individual is not if you're against or pro surveillance. The real test is if you dare to be yourself DESPITE it. Because if all of us just act as free individuals all surveillance in the world isn't going to make us less free. But if we give in to that kind of terror we won't be free.

      In short: Do not ever wait to be not monitored before you act freely. Because you can't prove a negative anyway. Freedom is nothing that ever will be handed out to you.

      To Berlin: East Berlin (and all of the GDR) was the most perfect surveillance state that ever existed. Still, when the people stood up and wouldn't take it anymore, it collapsed. What good is knowing everything to a government if "everything" just amounts to "they are fed up with us and won't take it anymore"? I think many people underestimate what Germans did in 1989: They got rid not only of a government, but of a government that had all the powers in its hands. There's a lesson to be learned from that. The people are more powerful than the state.

  29. Follow the money by dtjohnson · · Score: 1

    Laura Poitras has made some 'feel bad' documentary films that have won awards but obviously not much revenue. Yet she spends her life traveling the world and pursuing do-good noble causes in support of people supposedly suffering under the yoke of US oppression. Who is funding her travels, hotel bills, restaurant tabs, etc.? Most of the attention that she gets from the US Government is likely related to the source of her funds. If there is one thing that the 'War on Terror' has shown us, it is that the money trail is more important than just about anything else. No matter if it is Al Qaida, ISIS, IRA, Fatah, Hamas, or whoever...following the money always leads to the main stem.

  30. Nothing to Fear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There, you see, those who have done nothing wrong have nothing to fear!
    Now, can we just table all this NSA nonsense? We have to have it to protect American citizens!

    sarcasm /OFF

  31. "I'll go outside" by superstition222 · · Score: 1

    "And if I really want to make sure I'm having a private conversation or something, I'll go outside." Apparently, she has never heard of the mockingjay.