EPIC Sues NSA Over Information Gathering

and this surprises us? by ijx · 1999-12-03 21:56 · Score: 1

in this country, we are raised to fear and distrust the government.

it would seem they want to give us reason to do just that.

spooks are spooks forever. period.

So what if they don't provide the documents? by ghoti · 1999-12-03 21:59 · Score: 2

What would happen if the NSA would simply ignore the lawsuit, or not do as told? What could happen to them (other than somebody "being responsible")? Could the NSA's buildings be searched by police?

--
EagerEyes.org: Visualization and Visual Communication

Re:So what if they don't provide the documents? by elysion · 1999-12-03 22:05 · Score: 1

What would happen if the NSA would simply ignore the lawsuit, or not do as told? What could happen to them (other than somebody "being responsible")? Could the NSA's buildings be searched by police?
Who polices the police? We give an agency carte blanche in the name of national security, and we get surprised when they push the envelope. The fact that they refused an FIA request is interesting, isn't it?
Perhaps it's time to take an axe to the agency's budget.
Re:So what if they don't provide the documents? by netpuppy · 1999-12-03 22:08 · Score: 2

As far as I can tell, the NSA still has to obey court orders ... which is what EPIC will be seeking. The worse question, of course, is how you tell if they aren't complying. How much work will it take to falsify a bunch of documents, provide them to the court, and never let on whether or not they are actually doing civilian surveillance.

The only way you could be sure they were complying would be to have open access to the information they are collecting ... and that isn't likely to happen when NSA pulls the national security card for real.

How do you monitor something that is considered so secret that even judges and courts can't really review it?

--
good. fast. cheap. (pick any two, you can't have all three)
Re:So what if they don't provide the documents? by hald · 1999-12-03 23:14 · Score: 1

Well, if Congress is serious about providing oversight (which is another question entirely) they do have one pretty powerfull weapon, which they have used to impose their will on other agencies before,...
THE MONEY
"So, you guys won't give us the documents we want, we won't fund your agency at the levels you desire."

Hal Duston
hald@sound.net
Boring is good
Re:So what if they don't provide the documents? by jcr · 1999-12-03 23:35 · Score: 1

Well, legally speaking, the director of the NSA and any of his subordinates who refuse to comply with a congressional subpeona can be jailed for contempt of congress.

-jcr

--
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Re:So what if they don't provide the documents? by symbolic · 1999-12-04 00:15 · Score: 1

How do you monitor something that is considered so secret that even judges and courts can't really review it?

Easy...it's been suggested before. You don't fund it. If the NSA pisses off enough people in high places, Congress can eat their lunch (of course, this requires elected officials whose spines don't collapse at the first sign of a campaign contribution or political favor).
Re:So what if they don't provide the documents? by BVD · 1999-12-04 01:03 · Score: 2

Nope. Congress does not really have any power over the NSA. The NSA gets its funding from the Executive Branch ( much like the secret service ) and it is agaist the law for congress to starve the Executive branch for $$$. National Security $ is paid on several lump sums, and it is up to Clinton's aids to divide it up amongst 'their' agencies.
Re:So what if they don't provide the documents? by Tim+C · 1999-12-04 01:23 · Score: 1

I strongly believe that no one and nothing should be above the law. At the end of the day, it is our last line of defence against powerful corporations, individuals and government agencies, etc, who otherwise could pretty much do whatever they wanted without fear of being stopped or punished.

Here in England, we used to have a group of people who were absolutely above the law - the monarchy. Eventually, (some of) the people rose up against them and stripped them of most of their power, replacing them with a Parliament of elected representatives. (This obviously did not occur without a considerable amount of bloodshed)

Why? Because no matter how corrupt, how self-serving they may become, they do not have the God-given right to be in their position of power. As long as the people are watchful, and do not hand them too much power, what they have can be taken from them if it becomes necessary.

Once an organisation of any kind gains the power to ignore the due process of the law, it would be very hard indeed to take action against them should it become necessary. After all, if you can't even gain access to their files, how can you hope to prove anything?

The problem then, of course, becomes one of striking the right balance between laws that give the courts and police enough power to do their jobs effectively, without taking away any fundamental rights from the private citizen. But that's a matter for a different debate :o)

Tim

--
It's official. Most of you are morons.
Re:So what if they don't provide the documents? by zbo · 1999-12-04 05:31 · Score: 1

Well its happened several times with the CIA, probes into the CIA by congress showed all kinds of illegal activites... they eventually got out. I don't think the NSA has a flying chance in hell.
Re:So what if they don't provide the documents? by Detritus · 1999-12-04 12:04 · Score: 2

Maybe on some other planet.
The Congress has a great deal of control over the funding of the executive branch. If they want to zero out the funding for the NSA, they could do it tomorrow. The executive branch can make policy but it can't force the congress to appropriate money to implement that policy. Agencies such as the CIA, NRO and NSA have more autonomy than other federal agencies. That could end quickly if congress gets pissed off.

--
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
Re:So what if they don't provide the documents? by Tau+Zero · 1999-12-05 21:24 · Score: 1

The Congress has a great deal of control over the funding of the executive branch. If they want to zero out the funding for the NSA, they could do it tomorrow.
That's if they could handle the backlash. Consider for a moment how J. Edgar Hoover kept himself in the top-dog spot at the FBI. Now think about how much dirt the NSA must have on all kinds of people as a result of their work. I'm not just talking congressmen, but their staffers, judges, the families of the above, and other people who might suddenly find their positions and security threatened by an NSA bent on defending itself. If it came to trying to shut the NSA down, there would be a lot of bodies in the streets after the battle (politically speaking).

--
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.

The real issue isn't privacy, but accountability by crashdavis · 1999-12-03 22:04 · Score: 2

This lawsuit isn't about whether the NSA is reading email it shouldn't be reading (to say nothing of faxes, voice recognition on phone convs, etc.). The evidence is overwhelming that it is. The real issue is whether anyone has the ability to stop them, which I doubt.

They have the story of how all this snooping is necessary to fight against all these imaginary terrorists out there down pat by now.

I'll be surprised if it ever actually gets to a trial.

--
"The difference between theory and practice is small in theory and large in practice..."

Now We'll Know by Carnage4Life · 1999-12-03 22:05 · Score: 1

Maybe now we'll find out the extent to which our privacy is being invaded for reasons of national security.

I wonder if Echelon monitors Slashdot posts as well?

Qaddafi Panama cracking Serbian Peking FSF PLO BATF fissionable Clinton FBI KGB NORAD Nazi counter-intelligence Legion of Doom colonel Waco, Texas SDI Panama DES PLO spy nuclear assassination Cocaine Rule Psix fissionable South Africa NSA

Bad Command Or File Name

Re:Now We'll Know by cheese63 · 1999-12-03 22:16 · Score: 1

Maybe now we'll find out the extent to which our privacy is being invaded for reasons of national security

no you won't.
Re:Now We'll Know by finkployd · 1999-12-03 23:46 · Score: 1

I wonder if Echelon monitors Slashdot posts as well?

I'm kind of waiting to see that myself. :)

Finkployd
Re:Now We'll Know by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-04 02:41 · Score: 0

I wonder if Echelon monitors Slashdot posts as well?
Nah, they probably just use AltaVista. :)

The big question... by Issue9mm · 1999-12-03 22:06 · Score: 3

Well, it seems like most of this has been discussed recently in many other related stories, so I'll try to be brief.

The biggest question I've run across thus far, that nobody's been able to definitively answer, is how accountable is the NSA, and to whom? The NSA seems to be flying in the face of accountability on this one, simply refusing to produce documents that they should be entitled to reproduce.

I'm hoping that the NSA does have to produce said documents, so that we may be able to find out, at least to some extent, how badly we're being spied on, or at least what they're willing to admit.

Another part of me (take this how you want) actually hopes that the NSA is found in a manner that they don't have to produce these documents. This could set a precedent for us, the common people, allowing us to keep our private documents, and not be forced to make them public. Of course, we know that won't happen, but still, it's nice to dream.

Re:The big question... by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-04 00:06 · Score: 1

The NSA reports and is accountable to an undersecretary in the Department of Defense.
Re:The big question... by georgk · 1999-12-04 02:21 · Score: 1

I read about NSA's responsibility in the Book "The Puzzle Palace" by James Bamford (A Tip from a former /.-Article;) and it said that there is a law (from the sixties AFAIK) that states that the NSA doesn't need to reveal anything about it's activities. A cite: "...NSA is able to virtually deny it's own existance..."
That is somewhere at the beginning of the book (first 200 pages) and I'm telling from memory. I might be able to find the page if somebody's interested...
But not now.... ;)
ciao Georg

Who watches the watchers? by robwicks · 1999-12-03 22:07 · Score: 1

Sounds like it's time to remind the spies who runs this outfit.

Hopefully the spies won't show us who runs the outfit. I don't know if government paranoia can be overcome sufficiently to truly hold the NSA accountable.

--

Logic ... merely enables one to be wrong with authority. -- Doctor Who

Re:Who watches the watchers? by Tom+Christiansen · 1999-12-03 22:49 · Score: 2

Great title. It's often quoted, sometimes a bit mangled. But it's just as true now as then, which just goes to show you that Man remains Man, regardless of how "civilized" he becomes.
The original wording was
"Pone seram, cohibe." Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Cauta est et ab illis incipit uxor.
"Bolt her in, keep her indoors." But who is to guard the guards themselves? Your wife arranges accordingly and begins with them.

It's from line 347 of the sixth Satire from Juvenal (circa 60-130 anno domini). For the curious, here's an English translation of the whole thing--since for some peculiar reason, Babelfish is completely ignorant of Latin. :-(
Then again, Juvenal was discussing women here, not spooks, and one presumes (or hopes) that these are slightly different concerns. :-)

Good Guv, Bad Guv by Tom+Christiansen · 1999-12-03 22:09 · Score: 4

in this country, we are raised to fear and distrust the government.
(I presume you mean in the United States of America.)
Well, certainly many of us are, and by and large, I'd say your statement is considerably more true here in America than it is in many other countries. Isn't one of the fabled three great lies I'm from the government, and I'm here to help you.?
My perception is that countries with more paperwork, regulations, and government overhead actually get that way because people like having a government to take care of them and watch over them. Compare the American sentiment toward government with how people feel in France and Germany, for example. Where many Americans tend to place government in the problem set, I get the feeling that many Europeans place government in the solution set.
Does America fear government because of 1776? Is part of it because we were often colonized by refugees, even back to the Pilgrims? Does France similarly dislike nobility because of their own revolution? If so, why do they enjoy so much government intervention?
What about Australia? They, too, were colonized by many of society's underdesirables. Do they have a similar attitude toward their government? Does their not having a revolution influence their viewpoint?

Re:Good Guv, Bad Guv by the+eric+conspiracy · 1999-12-03 23:11 · Score: 2

Compare the American sentiment toward government with how people feel in France and Germany, for example. Where many Americans tend to place government in the problem set, I get the feeling that many Europeans place government in the solution set.

I think that a lot of the problems people feel with their government, particularly the federal government arise from the sheer size of the US, and it's cultural diversity.

It is impossible for the federal government to do ANYTHING that doesn't gore some ox somewhere, so people would rather have it do nothing. This sort of problem doesn't exist, say in France, where you have really only two major groups - those who live in Paris, and those who are beneath notice by the Parisiennes.

Do Americans feel anywhere nearly as strongly about their state governments? I really don't think so.
Re:Good Guv, Bad Guv by 1010011010 · 1999-12-03 23:35 · Score: 2

It's because, here. we don't take government as a given. We know that we created the government to serve us. In other countries, the government was usually inherited. Way back when, we purposefully set up our government to work for us, and limited its powers to specific areas. They knew that governments were, inherently, untrustworthy. Power corrupts, etc. Our government was a reaction against traditional governments, where rights are grantedto citizens at the government's discretion. Those governments set themselves abobe the people. Ours is of the people, but stays that way only due to vigilance on the part of the governed. We've been remiss recently -- especially since World War I.

That it's grown outside its bounds is laregely our fault for letting our employee -- the government -- develop a bad attitude. It doesn't have to stay that way.

--
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
Re:Good Guv, Bad Guv by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-04 04:30 · Score: 0

I've often wondered if its a cultural thing. There seems (from an UK perspective) to be a sense of yearning to the relevantly recent frontier culture of the USA. Certainly this is strongly portrayed within the US media I have been exposed to (this does not make it true). Whereas European/Asian/Arabic cultures have existed through multiple Governmental changes and perhaps do not see Governments as such a threat, but part of the nature of things. The nearest nations to the USA would be Canada, Aus., NZ, etc. These countries have at least until recently be British/European and as such possibly kept a stronger connection with their cultural roots (in a collective sense).

Craig Summers
cgs@baraddur.f9.co.uk
Re:Good Guv, Bad Guv by osu-neko · 1999-12-04 09:37 · Score: 2

IANAH (I Am Not A Historian), but I suspect the reason American's hate government is that we're really not used to it. Europeans have lived under one form of government or another for a long, long time, and they're really had no choice about it -- you couldn't just move away, everyplace else also had a government. In the US, for a long time what little government we had was from overseas. Then we revolted and set up our own local government. But if you didn't like it, move west. For most of the history of life on the North American continent, if you didn't like being governed, you could just pack your bags, head out, and set up home someplace away from government. In wasn't until 1890 that the frontier era was declared over, and even then, it was easy to get away from people if you wanted. Technically, you were under the domain of some brand new state government, but it really didn't matter much. So really, after thousands of years of human habitation and almost 500 years of European decended habitation, it's only been the last century that American's really had to put up with government. So, we don't take it granted that the government can or should do this or that, we get quite huffy every time it seems to be expanding its influence in any way. I suspect our history has more to do with that than anything else.

--

--
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."

EPIC's press release by rlkoppenhaver · 1999-12-03 22:10 · Score: 3

can be found at http://www.epic.org/open_gov/ foia/nsa_suit_12_99.html

Contempt charges? by Tom+Christiansen · 1999-12-03 22:14 · Score: 2

So, they spurned the House subcommittee, eh? If Congress can't make them do it, I don't imagine that they'll pay attention to anyone else, either.

Then again, getting thrown in jail for Contempt of Congress, Contempt of Court, or both, would probably stand a good chance of being noticed.

Re:Contempt charges? by Dave+Scherer · 1999-12-03 23:11 · Score: 1

I don't think you can go to jail for contempt of Congress.

If you could, a lot of Americans would be in jail :)
Re:Contempt charges? by Adaere · 1999-12-03 23:21 · Score: 1

In the intelligence business, you are supposed to go to jail before you talk, I think. It's your job to help protect "national security" by refusing to divulge sensitive information. With the CIA hearings (I forget when, I was either not born or too young to remember), the director met in secret with a Congressman to explain what it was he couldn't answer for public record and the matter was settled.

--
On the internet, no one knows you're a frog.
Re:Contempt charges? by ostiguy · 1999-12-03 23:52 · Score: 1

Contempt of Congress charges were the basis of a few Supreme Court cases in the 50s, revolving around former communists and HUAC

Surpise, Surpise by DJ+Cricket · 1999-12-03 22:17 · Score: 2

Just like the government. Need to make it look like they were innocent and knew nothing about it. A big investigation will be held, some lacky will get fired after he 'abused his office' and all of america will sleep better knowing the threat is gone.

Re:Surpise, Surpise by kraig11 · 1999-12-04 03:07 · Score: 1

Ah, yes. Everybody in every government department inherently knows what everybody in every other department is doing, and also implicitly, through inaction, approves of it. While I'm all for taking a government agency to task when it screws up, and for government accountability, sometimes they really do tell the truth. Really. Sometimes when an agency says that it was a few people doing things and not telling the people they're supposed to have told, that agency is telling the truth. Anybody who believes that government agencies, particularly those charged with security, always lie, needs to perform a self-reality check.

Come on, people by finkployd · 1999-12-03 22:18 · Score: 5

Why are you acting like the US is a place where the government is out to protect the citizens. Government agencies believe to the core that they know better than us. That's why they take our money and spend it better than we would, take our children and send them off to die someplace that hates us, take our guns since we can't be trusted with them, and take out privacy because who knows what damage we might be planning behind closed doors.

Our system of government once worked, and worked pretty good. But like all governments eventually do, it became corrupted and ceased to work for the people, it now works for itself.

Our rights have pretty much become non existant. What were once considered unalienable rights that could not be taken away are now dangerous to the public (or to the government), and must be regulated, or removed. We won't miss them, we'll be given promises of safety in return.

Maybe someday there will be another Declaration of Independance. Perhaps even a Revloutionary war where people who still want live free from oppression and fear might fight for their beliefs.

Nope, not in this age. We'll just express outrage today then vote the same people into office because they belong to the party that once held the ideals we believed in.

Finkployd

Re:Come on, people by Tiro_Dianoga · 1999-12-04 00:10 · Score: 2

Your points are reasonably justifiable, but we need to remember who we are dealing with.

>> Nope, not in this age. We'll just express
>> outrage today then vote the same people into
>> office because they belong to the party that
>> once held the ideals we believed in.

I'm guessing you are talking about the (Congressional) Republicans.

Its the Executive branch thats running the NSA bullshit. That's a branch run by non-elected bureaucrats. It was designed to be overseed by Congress. Sadly, the quality of oversight from Congress has been poor in the last 30 or so years (except when they've been trying to pin scandal directly to Clinton). No president really has control of what goes on very far below the cabinet level, and most probably don't care.

Besides, the office of the President is pretty much a national popularity contest. Presidents can be passionate about issues, but usually only pay attention to the really

I am personally very proud of Republicans because of their persistance on this issue. The issue is still only at the subcommittee level, though, and the NSA will probably adopt a strategy of doing just enough to keep from REALLY pissing Congress off.

I generally favor Democratic policy, but I don't know what they think about this. Members of Congress won't speak publicly about this, at least not until the public demands them to take a stand, so I guess its time for me to get out the stationary and write.

So where does this go? I can see some members of Congress attempting shutting down the NSA. It certainly has the power. It would be interesting but disheartening to see a power-play reaction from the NSA, that could result in Constitutional crisis (!).

I think the bureaucrat-politician distinction should be made. According to the Constitution, politicians run Congress and bureaucrats do what the politicians say their job is. What's happened now is the NSA has become independent of the process. They get to pass secret budgets, and they get to ignore Congress' questions, both of which are apparently unConstitutional.

The way to abort this orchestration of bureaucracy is to remind the politicians what their job is. I think many will be more than willing to stir up and demagogue an issue as valid as this. More power to them...

everyone's begging for an answer
without regard for validity
the searching never ends
it goes on and on and on for eternity.

--
Boo!
Re:Come on, people by finkployd · 1999-12-04 01:26 · Score: 1

I'm guessing you are talking about the (Congressional) Republicans.

Mostly, but it applies to most who are in office these days.

Finkployd
Re:Come on, people by warlock · 1999-12-04 01:53 · Score: 2

The problem, as you point out, really boils down to the majority of people in $COUNTRY falling for that "trust us, for we screw you for your own good" line. Its sad, but it happens as people stop caring for liberty having taken it for granted after a couple of generations of being "free".

We, the rest that know better, constantly remind them that liberty that is not guarded will be eventually lost, but then we're labeled paranoid or something.

Here are some quotes from fellow paranoid people then:

The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do.
--Eric Hoffer

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
--Benjamin Franklin

Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficent.
--Louis D. Brandeis

In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger. I do not shrink from this responsibility--I welcome it.
--John Fitzgerald Kennedy

I would rather belong to a poor nation that was free than to a rich nation that had ceased to be in love with liberty.
--Woodrow Wilson

-W (who lives in a poor European country)
Re:Come on, people by bonehead · 1999-12-06 03:32 · Score: 1

Maybe someday there will be another Declaration of Independance. Perhaps even a Revloutionary war where people who still want live free from oppression and fear might fight for their beliefs.

What a happy day that would be if it were to come. Unfortunately, I doubt that it will. The prosperity that our nation has enjoyed has had an unexpected, and unfortunate, side-effect: People don't want to do anything for themselves anymore. Why raise and butcher a steer when McDonald's has hamburgers already cooked up and ready to eat? Why learn to change the oil in your car when the Sears Auto Center will do it for $15? Why mow your lawn and shovel your walk when you can just move into a condo where these things are taken care of for you? Why think for yourself when MSNBC is right there ready and willing to tell you exactly what to think? Those of us who see the perverse relevance of those questions are, unfortunately, a minority. People today don't want freedom from oppression, they want freedom from responsibility.

Nope, not in this age. We'll just express outrage today then vote the same people into office because they belong to the party that once held the ideals we believed in.

No, we won't even express any outrage, because most folks like the way things are. The "average" American finds things like Echelon *comforting*, not *threatening*. These are the same people who believe that our government is still the "of the people, by the people, and for the people" institution that they were told it was in high school history class, that the 10:00 news is showing them an unbiased view of the information they are being spoonfed, and that the police will protect them from the bad guys.

The problem is that the comfort they derive from these beliefs is so powerful that they will not give them up, no matter how irrefutable the evidence that you put in front of them. Show them government corruption, they'll label you an anarchist. Show them media bias, they'll call you a propogandist. Demonstrate to them that the police are powerless to protect them from an armed intruder in their home, they'll stick their fingers in their ears and hum loud tunes until you go away.

As far as voting the same people into office, yeah, it'll happen. Won't be as a result of my vote, though. Most elections I only vote for one or two offices and leave most of the ballot blank. Some people feel comfortable voting for the lesser of two evils. I'd prefer to withhold my vote altogether than to vote for a candidate who doesn't support my ideals.

Big Brother IS watching... by synesthesia · 1999-12-03 22:25 · Score: 2

Well, 15 years late, we've finally come to _1984_. While not the first news that's been broken about ECHELON, it's amazing how few people actually know about this program. What's even scarier (to me) is the reaction I get from my students when I tell them what we know of ECHELON so far. 80 percent of them don't really care, and the remaining 20 percent care but don't get upset. I'm just a cranky paranoid prof. in their eyes, and admittedly, I do tend to get cranky when I see my constitutional rights infringed upon. But is it paranoia when there is proof that people are listening to my conversations??? This is the type of government intrustion that the 6th ammendment is supposed to protect us against. (If anyone is unfamiliar with THAT, take a look at: http://www.constitution.org/billofr_.htm )

If anyone else gets stark-raving-fist-pounding-clothes-ripping mad about this type of stuff (or just a little miffed), please take a gander at http://www.aclu.org/action/echelon106.html . There's some info there on ECHELON and an opportunity to fax your congress members and senators about the NSA and their ECHELON program. I wonder what would happen if the slashdot effect went political? Boggles the mind...

Re:Big Brother IS watching... by alhaz · 1999-12-04 00:35 · Score: 3

You see, that's what's *Really Sad*

What we're dangerously short of in this country is people who believe strongly about things who can keep from making themselves appear the fool.

I'm from Utah, lived here most of my life, though I've traveled a lot. A few years back, slick willie unilaterally declared a national park down in our southern region.

Y'all thought it was pretty neat, us getting another national park. But, all states rights aside, we were, for the most part, pretty miffed about it. You've gotta understand, first time around, Willie took third place here.

There were just a couple things that ticked us off, states rights aside.

First, the particular sort of clean-burning coal that can be mined there, is pretty rare. It's only present in economically feasable ammounts in that spot in Utah, and in some parts of Indonesia. From an economic standpoint, that ticked off the potential coal miners who might have had jobs there. We can't all be geeks.

Second, the federal government already owns 72% of our land mass. That really chapps our hide, since we're the only state they've done that to. Snatching another parcel of it and declaring it a park sortof adds insult to injury.

Third, a signifigant portion of that land mass belonged to our department of education. Utah is both the state that spends the least ammount per student, and the state that spends the largest portion of it's budget on education. Why? Because our department of education isn't able to raise signifigant funds on it's own. Primarily because the land parcels alloted to it are out in the wilderness, surrounded by federal land, and restricted from development.

Fourth, because declaring a parcel of land a park is the second best way to ensure that the wilderness is *degraded*, rather than preserved. Second only to developing it commercially. If you want to preserve wilderness, you declare it a primitive area and restrict access to humans and animals only, no wheeled vehicles of any kind. There are some beautiful primitive areas in northern Utah. Visit them some time. Be prepared to hike and get rained on. Bring your own food, pack out your own garbage.

Now, there's a good reason I'm explaining all of this, it's not just a soap box.

A few months after Willie pulled this stunt, a local college hosted a debate between various pundits and officials on the issue.

Among those who were present was the head man from the Utah Wilderness Alliance. People who feel very strongly about preserving nature.

What transpired made me pretty angry, and what made me angry came from the UWA guy, and not because of what he believed.

It was because when they finally asked him a question he didn't have a good answer for, his reaction was to tell his heartbreaking story of his failure to integrate with normal society and his spiritual rebirth in the desert badlands.

He sounded like a complete kook. People walked out. I was one of them.

What's heartbreaking is that the people who really care about an issue somehow can't keep their pants on in public, most of them at least.

It's pretty simple guys, you've just got to maintain your sanity, or at least a good illusion of sanity.

When you stand up and proudly reveal that you're a borderline nutcase, you discredit yourself, your followers, and everything you believe in.

And you do the nation a disservice by letting your issue be labeled irrational by behaving in an irrational manner.

--
This is just like television, only you can see much further.
Re:Big Brother IS watching... by Admiral+Burrito · 1999-12-04 03:20 · Score: 1

What we're dangerously short of in this country is people who believe strongly about things who can keep from making themselves appear the fool.
[snip]
It was because when they finally asked him a question he didn't have a good answer for, his reaction was to tell his heartbreaking story of his failure to integrate with normal society and his spiritual rebirth in the desert badlands. He sounded like a complete kook. People walked out. I was one of them. What's heartbreaking is that the people who really care about an issue somehow can't keep their pants on in public, most of them at least.

f1r57 p057! :-/

Seriously though, I agree with what you're saying, but I'd like to make a counterpoint.

By now you've probably heard the music of Rage Against The Machine. They have become totally mainstream, even though their causes would be considered by most people to be on the fringe. They shout their messages on the radio and TV all the time. Nobody calls them paranoid, but I think anyone else who said the things they say probably would be.

I've been trying to figure out why they get lots of airtime while other people get funny looks for saying less.

I've come to the conclusion that the average american doesn't actually listen to the message. They like the sound and the rebelious image but don't really hear the message behind the lyrics.

So here we have a group of people with a "radical" political message who haven't made fools of themselves. Everyone hears them yet it seems to me that they can still only really preach to the choir.

If the mainstream public thought Rage was paranoid, they'd at least understand the message behind all that shouting.

So I think it's really a damned-if-you-do/damned-if-you-don't sort of situation. You can appear crazy and have people understand that you're saying something different, or look sane and have people think it's business as usual.

Either way people will hear and believe whatever least disrupts their view of the world.

Well, if the NSA has nothing to hide... by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-03 22:28 · Score: 0

They should have no problems handing over the documents. All this nonsense about National Security is just an excuse to hide their wrongdoings. Federal agencies that have nothing to hide should have no problem letting the people read their mail.

Wow, that sounds *really* stupid (though some of the points are valid, the conclusion sure ain't!).

So why do people think it sounds better when you turn it the other way around?

Re:Well, if the NSA has nothing to hide... by bnenning · 1999-12-03 22:52 · Score: 1

Because the government has to play by different rules. Government is the only agency of society that can legitimately use violence and threats of violence to resolve issues. That is a great deal of power, and if unchecked would rapidly lead to totalitarianism. Thus strong limitations are placed on the government to insure that it does not abuse its power. One of those limitations is that government agencies (which exist on taxpayer money) do not get to operate in absolute secrecy except in extreme circumstances.
Plus, your assertion that this is equivalent to reading the NSA's mail is silly. The suit requests specific information about NSA activities that they are required by law to provide. Think of it as the equivalent of an SEC filing for a corporation.

--
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
Re:Well, if the NSA has nothing to hide... by um...+Lucas · 1999-12-04 00:10 · Score: 2

What really needs to happen is for a trusted oversight committee to be formed. The NSA should not and will not release anything that has any pertinence to National Security to the general public. Why? Because then it's in the open for the "enemy" as well. If the NSA's email were available for everyone to peruse as Microsofts was for their trial, that'd really spell the end of their effectiveness. Because of their secrecy, we, and everyone else not directly affiliated with them, can only speculate as to the extent of their capabilities. If their abilities were to be common knowledge, then it'd be much easier to devise ways of sidestepping them.

So, what would really need to happen is for a 3rd party committee of 100% trusted individuals should audit their work in order to accertain if they are or are not overstepping their bounds. If it's found that they are indeed breaking the law in some aspect of their operation, that can be brought to light. But until they're actually found guilty of wrongdoing, it just isn't safe to open up their innards for all to see...
Re:Well, if the NSA has nothing to hide... by Fastolfe · 1999-12-04 00:26 · Score: 2

If it's found that they are indeed breaking the law in some aspect of their operation, that can be brought to light.

And if this committee came out and said, "The NSA is acting within the bounds of their charter and in the spirit of protecting the interests of the United States," would people really be satisfied?

Especially with the number of conspiracy theorists among Slashdot posters, would this really be enough? Who's to say the committee isn't being influenced somehow? What if they were corrupt and in on the conspiracy from the start? What if they were brainwashed? What if they were replaced with duplicates developed in a secret NSA laboratory?

The most vocal of us would never be satisfied until they saw, first-hand, that the NSA wasn't doing anything wrong (which is obviously quite impossible), and even if they did, they would continue to be suspicious ("Why didn't they let me into *that* room.. I bet that's where they do it all..")

So long as the NSA has its veil of secrecy (a much needed thing), there will always be people in the US that believe the worst.

But yes, for those of us that are more "normal", such a trusted committee inquiry seems to be the logical way to handle any probe into the NSA's actions.
Re:Well, if the NSA has nothing to hide... by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-05 09:09 · Score: 0

Well put. For an example of how a trusted committee can engender little public confidence, look no further than the Warren Commission.

What the Hell are they doing with all our..... by Nexeslad · 1999-12-03 22:30 · Score: 1

infomation? I I doubt their going to all the trouble just to profile every person in the US? I have two guesses. One they're planning something huge with someone else and the other party need to know us intmitly as a people. Two (the more likely guess) ths NSA is doing domestic spying simply to justify thier expences accounts. If they don't do something then congress well give them less funding every year. That means the spys will be downsized. So to keep themselve employed they need a crap load of busy work.

--
Do not wright in this space.

Re:What the Hell are they doing with all our..... by Fastolfe · 1999-12-04 00:01 · Score: 2

Assuming they are acting domestically, they're probably monitoring those that have ties with people they're monitoring overseas. If I were the NSA I'd be rather interested in the conversations going on between US citizens and people close to Saddam Hussein.

As others have suggested, they could also be monitoring transmissions, e-mails and phone calls for certain key phrases or conversations, analyzing those that contain suspicious material.

Of course, we don't really have much proof of such domestic activity (hence the request for documents), but it's not hard to come up with a few explanations for domestic surveillance that aren't so far-fetched. Use your imagination.

Of course, I'm not saying they're right in doing so at all.

I, for one, am thankful by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-03 22:33 · Score: 0

We should all be thankful that the ADL/FBI/NSA make such a strong surveillance team to monitor for hate and intolerance in order to prevent another Holocaust. Christians, patriots and other extremists *need* to be monitored!

Re:I, for one, am thankful by finkployd · 1999-12-04 00:37 · Score: 1

Come on, moderators, that was clearly a joke.

Finkployd
Re:I, for one, am thankful by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-04 02:38 · Score: 0

Yes, but Christians really do need to be monitored. They're nutters, and they hunt in packs.

www.infidels.org

www.lucifer.com

NSA = way out of control by coldfusion · 1999-12-03 22:36 · Score: 2

Someone needs to pull the NSA back in - they're rapidly becoming a rogue government agency. They don't respond to congressional requests for information, they don't talk to the media, they don't believe in the FOIA, they don't believe in upholding their charter and federal law (about spying on domestic communications). That's a dangerous situation, and so I hope this (and other) court cases work out.

Makes you sometimes wonder if NSA's secrecy is because they don't have anything, rather than because they have too much.

--
-cf

Re:NSA = way out of control by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-04 01:05 · Score: 0

The possibility that they don't have anything is an interesting one. Their silence re cryptography has always made me believe that they _can't_ crack anything (I, for one, don't give them the benefit of the doubt).
Thoughts from other slashdotters?
Re:NSA = way out of control by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-04 02:39 · Score: 0

even if they do work out, nsa may still choose to ignore the courts. i certainly wouldnt put it past them.
Re:NSA = way out of control by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-04 10:25 · Score: 0

The NSA has not been silent at all.

They have strongly opposed export of crypto, and even tried to get key escrow and backdoors placed in domestic products. Of course they aren't going to say what they can or can't crack. not that anyone would believe them anyway.

I see their opposition to export as a good sign that they CAN crack strong crypto. Here's my logic:

Anybody in the world can easily download strong crypto. PGP is already available worldwide. So terrorists, etc. are using it. What the NSA fears is everyone using it routinely, encrypting their christmas shopping lists. If its use becomes that widespread, there will be too much traffic to sift through. But if they couldn't crack some of it, why would more traffic make such a difference?

It's not proof. But it's a good indication. Afterall, they are codebreakers. What do you think their billions of dollars worth of Crays are cracking? 56 bit DES?

I think there are actually many govts in the US. The president and congress are not aware of most of it. Many focal points of power. So yes, the NSA is beyond the law, and there's really nothing short of POWER/FORCE that will change that. But who has that much power? Perhaps no one. Thus they are a modern form of govt in themselves, treating people as cattle, with some as yet unknown motives of their own. They also, like the CIA, have their own sources of income. (See Military-Industrial Complex and Drug Trafficking.)

Danger Will Robinson... by GW+Hayduke · 1999-12-03 22:52 · Score: 2

If you haven't all figured out by now,
Responding to ANY sort of /. article dealing with encryption, The Alphabits bowl of cereal the US Government Hides behind (NSA, CIA, DEA, FBI, BLM, DOJ, MS, HUD, LMNOP...) automatically kicks the chemical tracking elements that are implemented in caffeine (most noticably in Mt.Dew coffee, surge and jolt.. ever wonder why they called them JAVA cookies????) and are transferred through our keyboards through an electro-chemical process which identifies us through our own unique keyboard typing stresses, that returns the MAC addresses of our brains and livers to the great datawarehouse that is buried right next to the Church of Latter-Day Saints geneology archives in Big Cottonwood Canyon, or is it Little?????.. So when the revolution comes, they will be able to track us down and put us to use encoding the records of the world in a new technological breakthrough for Y2K... the keypunch...
NOOOOO... I went through that once.. never again...
Now where did I put that red pill?????

Oh never mind

--
-- Life: Hate the Game... Love the cereal

Dumb move on the NSA's part by Kwil · 1999-12-03 23:06 · Score: 1

Who was the brain in the NSA that came up with this idea? "We just won't respond."

What they should have done was just sent back a file-folder with the word Echelon pencilled on the cover and a bunch of pages covered with black marker. They would have nicely avoided any grounds for the suit and stopped further publicity on the matter.

Someone just wasn't on the ball.

Kwil

--

That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze

I'm sure this poster will be flaggd... by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-03 23:09 · Score: 0

bleh

They're probably already knocking on his door and hacking his box as we speak, just to "ask some questions" about revolutionary movements...

Re:I'm sure this poster will be flaggd... by finkployd · 1999-12-03 23:18 · Score: 1

They're probably already knocking on his door and hacking his box as we speak, just to "ask some questions" about revolutionary movements...

No, I was just kidding about it all. I actually like the government, I mean they do great work.
It was all sarcasm.

Look, taxes are good. They pay for roads and welfare and midnight basketball.

Gun control is necessary after all the school shootings we've been seeing. Besides, what kind of barbarian needs a gun in this day and age :)

The Constitution was created by a bunch of dead white guys, they gave way too much freedom to overcompansate for the little they had before.

Government has shown us the follow of our ways, we need some control.

So forget all I said. I was just in a bad mood. I didn't mean any of it. There is no revolution, false alarm everyone.

Finkployd

Now maybe that damn van will go away....

:)

Single standard! by 1010011010 · 1999-12-03 23:10 · Score: 2

I think you're confusing the difference between private citizens and a spy agency of the federal government. The government derives its power from the consent of the governed in this country, unlike others. We, as the bosses, the ultimate authority have every right to compel the NSA to pony up. Whenever the government isn't held accountable, it's the citizens who have shirked their duty. We also have every right to hide what we're doing from them. In most other countries, the government grants rights to its citizens. In this one, the citizens delegate some power to the government. It's important to remember that, and make sure it stays that way.

In short, I hope the NSA does end up being forced to deliver. If they can spy on us, why can't we "spy" on them? Who are they?

--
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.

Re:Come on, people -- toss the tea! by 1010011010 · 1999-12-03 23:19 · Score: 3

Maybe someday there will be another Declaration of Independance. Perhaps even a Revloutionary war where people who still want live free from oppression and fear might fight for their beliefs.

You know what? We don't need another Declaration or revolution. We just need to start defending our rights as citizens. The government only gets away with what we let it get away with. "No" is the most powerful word in the English language. And we, as U.S. Citizens, are entitled to tell our government(s) "no" any old time we want. If enough americans decided to not pay federal income taxes one year, it would all be over for the IRS. They can hassle a small number of dissidents, but not a large number. Especially not a large number exercising their 2nd amemdment rights.

Our rights are taken away only when we allow them to be. Learn how to say "No!" again! U.S. citizens are oppressed only to the extent that they allow themselves to be! Keep in mind that the government works for us, at our discretion. If you ran a business, and your security guards were caught rifling through your private files, you'd fire them, and probably prosecute them, right? Why is it different for the government?

--
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.

NSA and plausible denial by hogwaller · 1999-12-03 23:26 · Score: 2

My step-dad's dad used to work for the NSA as
a cryptographer MANY years ago (he's dead now).
He never talked about his work or his job. Ever.

The way agencies like the NSA work is through
compartmentalization and plausible denial. No one
within the agency really knows what anyone else is doing.
The vast majority of NSA employees
are day to day footsoldiers, the usual kind of worker that any large bureau needs to keep functioning.
But the culture of plausible denial pervades the place, so even the paper clip order is classified.

The NSA will never release any meaningful document regarding ECHELON. It's like asking
a leopard to change its spots.

Two great books about the NSA are "The Puzzle
Palace" and "Wilderness of Mirrors". Maybe I'll submit a review to Hemos....

Re:Come on, people -- toss the tea! by finkployd · 1999-12-03 23:26 · Score: 1

"Agent Smith, we are going to have to shut this guy up before he reaches a large audience."

I agree, we no not need a revolution (not yet, anyway, the trend isn't looking so good for the future). But do you think the IRS is going to stand for that kind of talk or planning.
They will discover child porn on your computer and you'll be wisked away before you have a chance to organize something like that. The rest of the world will go on as usual and you will become a radical right wing legend, only to be laughed off as "that can't happen here".

The government is full of layers of security that look out for the government.

Here's a wierd thought...the Matrix is real, just not the way they showed it in the movie.

You know, you wake up on the wrong side of the bed, a certain story is posted so slashdot, and a mild mannered man becomes a political dissident. I need coffee. :)

Finkployd

the NSA... by Dark+Fire · 1999-12-03 23:31 · Score: 1

I would like to know what the NSA has been doing. We don't fully know how many terrorist plots may have been foiled by them. Yes, the terrorist threat may be imaginary, but it also could be very real. A lot of countries don't like the U.S. much. Maybe by doing what they are doing, they are saving us a lot of grief. The only reason I can think of as to why they wouldn't want to tell us what they are doing is due to a public outcry about privacy. The public should know what they are doing though.

Re:the NSA... by Fastolfe · 1999-12-04 00:15 · Score: 3

I agree.. it all boils down to how much privacy you're willing to sacrifice for security. So long as my private details are kept separate from my identity as much as possible, so long as these details are dealt with by computer as much as possible, and so long as those people chosen to deal with such data do so discretely and without disclosure, I'd be willing to sacrifice a lot if it meant some terrorist threat would be neutralized and lives would be saved. The idea is that if such an "invasion" never affects me, my life or *others' perception of me*, then it doesn't really affect me at all, and I'd be willing to take some sacrifices here.

There are others that don't agree with me, (many very vocally so), which is fine. I'm not going to force my privacy limits onto anybody else (as many do). It's just that there will *always* be a trade-off here, and no matter where you draw the line, there will *always* be people that want that line elsewhere, so the best you can do (from the government's standpoint) is to draw the line in the best place you can and to do your best to appease those who want it elsewhere (which may include keeping the location of that line quiet).

Again, I'm not trying to say this is right or wrong, but there is logic in the government's (NSA's) behavior. Whether that's a violation of our constitution or laws is another matter, and one that will probably be met and settled, but just remember: For every personal, domestic privacy gain, we lose ground in the national security game. In this day and age, if this loss is acceptable to you, then by all means proceed to tear the NSA a new asshole if it suits you.
Re:the NSA... by Bartmoss · 1999-12-04 02:02 · Score: 1

And you wonder WHY other countries do not like the USA much?
Re:the NSA... by Shelled · 1999-12-04 03:37 · Score: 3

I agree.. it all boils down to how much privacy you're willing to sacrifice for security.
The same justification was given for the KGB. They were highly effective in the national security game. Any guess how many lives were spent, how much suffering there was, in the pursuit of "security" and "saving lives"? You're right, it is a balance between security and freedom, and there'll always be an argument about the finer details.
There's an interesting article in the December Harper's outlining how many freedoms are already forfeit or infringed in fighting the war on drugs. They include:
- more restrictions on free speech (stemming from doctors recommending the medical use of marijuana)
- curtailments to freedom of religion (based on a case of two Native Americans practicing an ancient rite involving peyote)
- the right to vote ("one in three black men in the both Alabama and Florida is permanently barred from voting" because they were incarcerated)
- unreasonable search and seizure (allowing "agents to smash down doors without warning and without evidence of crime.")
- property rights (property can now be considered guilty of a crime, you have to prove it isn't. If you can't, or miss the ten day deadline for challenging the seizure, it becomes part of next year's police force funding.)
- and facing your accusers (in order to protect 'professional' informants)
Add to this the privacy rights lost in the fight against terrorism and pornography, and the erosion that continues on an almost daily basis (thanks Billy!) Now finally consider how much all this protection has really meant in your own life. Is the balance still a good one?
Re:the NSA... by Fastolfe · 1999-12-04 05:34 · Score: 2

The same justification was given for the KGB.

I wasn't trying to justify an invasion of privacy. I was just pointing out the line that must be drawn, and what sits on either side of it.

more restrictions on free speech (stemming from doctors recommending the medical use of marijuana)

I wasn't aware that doctors were breaking the law by making such a recommendation. Do you have more information to back this up? To my knowledge, marijuana is not classified as a drug unfit for medicinal value. I believe there is an official classification system for these types of things (based on how dangerous it is and setting conditions on how it can be used or prescribed), and marijuana is towards the bottom of that list.

the right to vote ("one in three black men in the both Alabama and Florida is permanently barred from voting" because they were incarcerated)

What does this have to do with the war on drugs?

If you're convicted of a felony, you lose the right to vote. That's something that's been on the books forever. Just because people are getting convicted of felonies and losing the right to vote doesn't mean we should stop fighting the crimes. Or would you rather see convicted felons have the right to vote again?

unreasonable search and seizure (allowing "agents to smash down doors without warning and without evidence of crime.")

Again, I wouldn't mind seeing information to back these claims up. If agents are breaking into homes without a search warrant, that's something more people need to be aware of, and those agents need to be tried and convicted of the crime. Though, if they have a valid search warrant, I don't really see what the problem is. If you don't like the way search warrants are issued, take that up with your legislature.

property rights (property can now be considered guilty of a crime

Properly restated: Property used to commit a crime can be confiscated by the authorities as evidence (and essentially becomes forfeit), where you are not necessarily entitled to get it back.

That's just part of the law itself. If you feel that is unconstitutional, it's your DUTY to bring this to the attention of your lawmakers or file a lawsuit with the intention of having the law declared unconstitutional and invalid.

and facing your accusers (in order to protect 'professional' informants)

I didn't realize this was a right. Where in the Bill of Rights is this "right" protected?

These issues are each little flame wars in their own rights. I'm not going to try and argue about how they're good or bad. If you don't like the laws that make these things happen, let your lawmakers know. Get something done, don't just post articles in Slashdot about it.
Re:the NSA... by Shelled · 1999-12-04 08:08 · Score: 1

One of the article's authors coordinates drug policy litigation for the ACLU, so I'll trust it's accurate. With that preamble,
I wasn't aware that doctors were breaking the law by making such a recommendation.
According to the article, the federal drug czar, General Barry McCaffrey, "is threatening to arrest any doctor who merely mentioned to a patient that marijuana might alleviate the suffering caused by AIDS, cancer, or other serious ailment."
You asked in regards to losing the right to vote after being convicted of a felony,
What does this have to do with the war on drugs? .....That's something that's been on the books forever.
The author was making the point that so many people are being caught up in the 'drug net' that significant percentages of some social groups are losing the right to vote. Only ten states currently banish felons for life. And, yes, if you've done the time I do think you should get the vote back.
unreasonable search and seizure (allowing "agents to smash down doors without warning and without evidence of crime.")

Again, I wouldn't mind seeing information to back these claims up.
The authors talk about colonial fury at the Crown's use of "writs of assistance" to enter any premises without warning in the search for contraband. It lead to the inclusion of the prohibition against "unreasonable searches and seizures" in the Bill of Rights. They continue,
"Since the early 1980's the Supreme Court has authorized cascading exceptions to this rule, allowing police helicopters to peer into windows, highway troopers to search the passengers of cars whose drivers appear suspicious, and, most notoriously, state agents to smash down doors without warning and without evidence of a crime."
The practice is referred to as "dynamic entries" and has reached the point that, in New York City, they had to enact an official policy on replacing the doors of those found innocent.
Properly restated: Property used to commit a crime can be confiscated by the authorities as evidence (and essentially becomes forfeit), where you are not necessarily entitled to get it back.
You missed the point, they don't have to prove anything. Quoting once again:
"Beginning in 1974 the Supreme Court blessed the unholy idea that property could be seized and sold by the government without arrest, conviction, or due process. Under the strange fiction that property itself can be guilty (e.g. United States v. One 1974 Cadillac Eldorado Sedan), the cops take your property, leaving you to prove that it has no connection to a crime. If you miss the ten-day deadline for challenging the seizure, or can't post bond, you lose."
On facing an accuser in a criminal trail, you asked
I didn't realize this was a right. Where in the Bill of Rights is this "right" protected?
The Sixth Amendment.
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."
Sorry for picking your article, it was the first I came across that made a coherent statement for a "weak" privacy policy. I wanted to raise the question of just how much is actually being sacrificed in the name of security. Couple the above facts with the allegations about the NSA and the price is getting pretty dear.
Finally, I do let my lawmakers know, just not in your country. Unfortunately, mine has a long history of Xeroxing your legislation and enacting it a few years afterwards.
Re:the NSA... by the+eric+conspiracy · 1999-12-04 21:34 · Score: 2

According to the article, the federal drug czar, General Barry McCaffrey, "is threatening to arrest any doctor who merely mentioned to a patient that marijuana might alleviate the suffering caused by AIDS, cancer, or other serious ailment."

It seems to me that this is rather weak evidence that any doctor is having his First Amendment rights trampled on. Until such an arrest actually occurs, this to me is just some mouthing off by a person who has no actual power to put his thought into action.

The author was making the point that so many people are being caught up in the 'drug net' that significant percentages of some social groups are losing the right to vote. Only ten states currently banish felons for life. And, yes, if you've done the time I do think you should get the vote back.

This is not a case where individual rights are being eroded. As the original correspondent noted, disenfranchising felons has been practice in the US for a long time.

Since the early 1980's the Supreme Court has authorized cascading exceptions to this rule, allowing police helicopters to peer into windows, highway troopers to search the passengers of cars whose drivers appear suspicious, and, most notoriously, state agents to smash down doors without warning and without evidence of a crime."

This is not new! Police have had hot pursuit search powers for much longer than the early '80s. Even under the Consitution there are exceptions to requirements for search warrants - customs agents, for example are not required to obtain warrants before conducting searches.

Beginning in 1974 the Supreme Court blessed the unholy idea that property could be seized and sold by the government without arrest, conviction, or due process.

This is one that is real, and very much a problem. One of the tricks is that by seizing property you can impoversh the accused, making it impossible for him to pay for legal defense.

On facing an accuser in a criminal trail

Again, this is a long established principle, not something new. The fact is that some law enforcement agents must remain anonymous to be able to do their work. Like most Constitutional issues, there are no absolutes. You have the right to do xyz UNLESS it infringes on the right of somebody else to do something important.
Re:the NSA... by ErikZ · 1999-12-05 04:06 · Score: 1

Actually, the sad thing is that I don't wonder at all.
When I was was serving in the Air Force in GB, I was asked several times why we blew up a platoon of their tanks during the Gulf war. It was difficult to describe 'Fog of war' to people and it made me wonder how much effort our government put into apologising.
We killed more of our own people in that war than the enemy did.
Later
Erik Z

--
Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.

Checks and balances by Robin+Hood · 1999-12-03 23:37 · Score: 2

I for one think it's great that this can happen. Even if I didn't believe EPIC holds the "high moral ground" in this case, I would still think this is, in part, a good thing. The U.S. Constitution set up a system of checks and balances to ensure that no one governmental body, executive, legislative, or judicial, would have too much power. (Although I think the Supreme Court is starting to have too much legislative power for my taste, but that's another subject). But then these three-letter agencies were set up, with little or no checks on their power. Sure, they have a charter, but what happens if/when they break that charter?

Well, this is what happens. Groups of citizens say to these government bodies, "Your just authority derives only from our consent, and we don't consent to this." Now it merely remains to be seen what the NSA will do.

You know, in a way their actions so far make a weird kind of sense. I mean, it's a really good idea for an agency devoted to cyptography and information-gathering to release as little information as possible to the outside world. Which is why when you ask an NSA employee anything, he/she is likely to respond, "No comment." It's standard policy. But it seems that someone forgot just exactly who they're supposed to report to, and who they're supposed to keep in the dark. You keep your enemies in the dark, not your bosses. It would seem that someone forgot who the NSA's bosses are.
-----
The real meaning of the GNU GPL:

--
The real meaning of the GNU GPL:
"The Source will be with you... Always."

Re:Checks and balances by Fastolfe · 1999-12-04 00:21 · Score: 2

but what happens if/when they break that charter?

They lose their funding (at least the amount used to fund whatever it is that is deemed illegal), and/or whatever upper-level management involved gets slapped with fines or indictments.

Essentially, Congress ultimately decides things like this, but really any of the 3 branches of government could step up and kill the NSA, if suitable conditions and information arise.

The scary thing is... by I+Hate+Myself · 1999-12-03 23:53 · Score: 0

Not Echelon or their spying activities, but their complete disregard for the citizens and our elected government. Not only does their handling of this situation prove that they are involved in domestic spying, but probably things far worse than that.

Congress is the good guy by Fastolfe · 1999-12-03 23:57 · Score: 2

Our congress is made up of our own people. You don't just join up with congress and sign a document saying you will ignore the bit about being a representative of the people and do whatever it takes to further the evil causes of the hidden government.

Remember: this whole thing started with a House subcommittee inquiry.

I know it may seem like congress is just another government agency that does things behind closed doors, but to those of us that actually know a bit about our government know better. Try visiting to www.congress.gov. You can find a detailed accounting of everything that was done in the house and senate on a particular day (as recent as the previous day).

For this reason, any government *agencies* that might be acting contrary to the wishes of a group of people (or the law for that matter), would have to take extraordinary steps to *avoid* such government branches as the legislative and judicial. So, basically, our "government" *is* largely innocent and knew nothing about the activities of the agency. Agencies like this are largely their own entities. They don't have to share every detail about their operation with other government branches/entities.

Our system of government works, IF we start taking a part in it again. The percentage of our population that has the faintest inkling of what our congress is doing, what laws are being passed, or even who their senators and representatives are is an insignificant fraction (I'd bet under 1%), despite the fact that this information is (by law, I believe) posted and made available very conspicuously.

In fact, it's this same government that passed the Freedom of Information act which is allowing people to even request these documents in the first place. Hardly the act of a government that wants to hide details about its operation.

As far as the "fix" of firing someone set up to take the heat, remember again that congress is made up of people that represent you. Chances are, if you're not satisfied with the NSA's "fix", there will be those in congress that aren't satisfied with it either. I really doubt it'll die that easily.

Have some faith in the people you elected. If you can't trust them, why did you elect them?

Re:Come on, people -- toss the tea! by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-04 00:05 · Score: 0

To use our example, not paying taxes:

How can you not pay your taxes? You can not file your taxes, but they take the money from your employer. Every convienience- like not having to send them a check for your taxes- whittles away our freedom. chris

Will this open more lawsuits? by blogan · 1999-12-04 00:07 · Score: 1

How much evidence is there for the existence of Echelon?

Will people now sue the government for trying to cover up Roswell? Sue the CIA for assassinating Kennedy?

They'll sic Ken Starr on them by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-04 00:08 · Score: 0

Give old KS $40 million, and he'll get to the bottom of it in no time, him and the noted Attack Chihuahuas Trent Lott and Denny Hastert.

And if you believe that, you also believe KS can make a good case for the first $40 million he spent.

So, there is your answer. Absolutely nothing. There is no one to call the NSA on the carpet, not in either party.

Look, the NSA has the goods on everyone, and everyone is afraid of being blackmailed. Look at old Newt Gingrich. Nobody could figure out why he got real quiet after shooting off his mouth. Can you spell Callista Biskek? I just wonder what old Starr did, I'd like to get some entertainment for my tax dollars.

Everyone in power knew Newtie was screwing around on his wife. She came out of Rep Gunderson's office, a direct line to the White House. You should assume all elected officials are similarly compromised, makes it much easier to predict their behavior.

Imaginary Threat by jyang · 1999-12-04 00:20 · Score: 1

I just think American goverment and media put out imaginary threat to the public to justify their own alternative motive. In the cold war it was the Communists, As one south american politician complains, "anything progressive in the world is regarded by American as communism". U.S. practiced international McCarthyism for 30 years, stage rigged elections, coups, commit assassiations through their puppet goverement. Even today on slashdot people just use "Commie" as a dirty word. What a myth!

After the cold war it's terrorism. Well, a lot of terrorism is the revenge of what U.S. did to other country. Iranians hate U.S. because U.S. overthrown Iran's democratic elected goverment. I am not saying terrorism is right, but it's laughable that U.S. is holding the moral high ground here. People in Congress keeps talking about "Rogue Nation". The term itself is wrong and racist. If you apply your standard to other people, then I'm sure it's fair to some one to call U.S. "rogue nation".

And there were imaginary threat of AIDS, school violence, drugs etc. I am sick n' tired of some "moral majority" leader show up on TV and say (in southern accent) "well, as long as we can save one child, cutting off testicles of sex offender would be worth it". (Imagine George Carlin say that sentence, okay, laugh).

If we continue on this slippery slope, after 200 years U.S. would become as messed up as any old world, with divisions, hatres and depressions. And I hope future generations could migrate to Mars, cuz earth would be the Evil Empire.

--
--- You make things foolproof, and they'll find you a damn fool.

Re:The real issue isn't privacy, but accountabilit by symbolic · 1999-12-04 00:31 · Score: 2

To add to this, we don't know exactly what the NSA does in terms of the RESULTS of what it is actually able to accomplish. Having no accountability, what exactly do we GET for the millions of dollars that are spent funding this organization each year? If the NSA is as important as *IT* seems to think it is, why wasn't it able to prevent the bombing of the Murrah building by Timothy McVeigh? Or the bombing of the World Trade Center? Or the top-secret information on nuclear weapons that made its way into the hands of the Chinese government?

Even if the NSA makes the claim that it "didn't have the proper surveillance resources" or some other nonsense, it doesn't MATTER. If someone is truly intent on committing an act of aggression, they don't NEED the internet, OR a phone, OR a computer. Can you say, "Doiyyyyy!"

The main issue to remember is that ... by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-04 00:42 · Score: 0

They refused to submit these same documents to
the House Commitee. They pretty much told the
U.S. government to F*** off. Do you think they
care about anyone below that level, and can you
say piss off Congress and there goes your budget,
bud!

FBI, not NSA, is the real worry by Matthew+O'Keefe · 1999-12-04 00:50 · Score: 3

The NSA's charter does not include domestic surveillance, period. As I understand it, any NSA employee found to have participated in domestic surveillance is instantly fired. If you resent the NSA because of their role in suppressing US encryption technology, I think that's changed: they're too smart not to have known that cats been out of the bag for a long time. Your real beef should be with the FBI, which AFAIK has been the agency most opposed to any loosening of encryption regulations in the US. The FBI is charged with domestic surveillance, not the NSA. The FBI is pushing Internet "wiretaps" on the IETF and other sorts of restrictions to electronic freedom, not the NSA.

The NSA was formed for a very specific reason: before WWII, military intelligence on foreign governments was gathered by the Army and Navy. Interservice rivalries meant this intelligence information was often not shared. In particular, the Navy had extensive information about Japanese preparations for war in the Pacific and was aware that the Japanese embassy in Washington was destroying documents, a sure sign of impending hostilities. This information was not shared with the Army, which was charged with protecting Hawaii, and this is part of the reason the Army was caught completely unawares by the Japanese at Pearl Harbor (incompetence, arrogance, stupidity also played a role). [Henry Clausen was tasked by the War Department to investigate why we were taken by surprise at Pearl Harbor. His book, "Pearl Harbor: Final Judgement", tells this story.]

The NSA's mission is vital in providing information about foreign government's intentions in what remains a very dangerous world. If you aren't curious about the military intentions of North Korea, China, Iraq, and Russia (for example) given their history in the 20th century, then you are highly naive about the dangers facing both the US and its allies. The one job even libertarians give the government is national defense. Let's let the NSA do this job right.

And why is EPIC wasting its time with FOIA requests and other kinds of posturing when it could be doing something about strenghtening 4th amendment protections (prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures without a warrant) for email communications. Its outrageous that the cops (or your boss) have to get a warrant to wiretap your phone, but don't need a warrant to search your email.

Re:FBI, not NSA, is the real worry by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-04 04:23 · Score: 0

Yeah, right.

"So you're the guys I hear breathing on the other end of my phone."
"No, that's the FBI."
"So you, uh, overthrow hostile governments, set up friendly dictators?"
"No, that's the CIA. We're the good guys."
Re:FBI, not NSA, is the real worry by hogwaller · 1999-12-04 04:30 · Score: 1

The NSA has been instrumental in supressing encryption technology. The National Security Advisors to the Executive Branch of the US Gov't. are some of the ones most responsible for current encryption policies.

In "Privacy On The Line" by Whitfield Diffie (you know...the guy that invented public key crypto), he shows the history of public policy on crypto. He makes no bones about who has been largely responsible for current policy, and it sits on the shoulders of the various Directors of the NSA. I believe Bobby Inman had the position when public key crypto was developed.

The NSA's Charter is all well and good, but I damn sure ain't gonna trust an Agency that has virtually unlimited computing and financial resources to look out for my privacy by adhering to its charter. Domestic surveillance or no, the NSA is in the biz of collecting, collating and analyzing information. The net is a big ol' candy store to those geeks.

Re:The real issue isn't privacy, but accountabilit by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-04 01:28 · Score: 0

Not all of the terrorists are imaginary. Did you ever notice the USA has been relatively free of terrorists acts by outside parties? A few notable exceptions exist, such as the World Trade Center bombing in NY, of course... But compared to European countries, we have terrorism largely in check despite our fairly liberal open-borders policy, and the fact that many see us as The Great Satan and the greatest target.

The NSA is doing a pretty good job. For all the supposed privacy breaches, please point to a case where the NSA clearly misused their eavesdropping capabilities to harm someone? (Please, no unsubstantiated rumors from foreign companies that say the NSA sells secrets to US countries.)

If you want to rally against an organization, why not pick the FBI, who has made it near policy to clearly MISUSE their power again and again?

Crime down; NSA claims credit by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-04 01:37 · Score: 0

It's ludicrous to say that the NSA is doing a "pretty good job" just because the incidence of terrorism in the US is low.

If we're going to give them credit for a lack of terrorist acts, let's credit them with the decreases in violent crime, abortion, and unemployment, too. After all, they won't tell us what they are actually doing (even if they are violating the law by doing so) so they of course must be responsible for anything good that happens. Right?

Re:Crime down; NSA claims credit by ErikZ · 1999-12-05 03:30 · Score: 1

Geez, this is straight out of the Simpsons:

"..it's like saying this rock keeps tigers away."
Homer:"It does?"
"You don't see any tigers do you?"
Homer:"Honey, will you sell Daddy that rock for 5$?"

Later
Erik Z

--
Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
Re:Crime down; NSA claims credit by bonehead · 1999-12-06 02:49 · Score: 1

It's ludicrous to say that the NSA is doing a "pretty good job" just because the incidence of terrorism in the US is low

Which brings up an interesting point. How likely is it that we would see a sudden increase in terrorist activity should Congress decide to play with the NSA's budget? What better way to justify your own existence than to go out and create some of the very same problems that you are supposed to be solving.

Which brings up yet another interesting point. Has this already happened?

Non-Taxpaying by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-04 01:40 · Score: 1

Being a non-taxpayer requires a certain level of commitment and sacrifice. I think it is probably a mistake to pursue such a course for financial reasons. There are other considerations, however, as when one ceases to believe that the government represents him, and wishes to deny its continued legitimacy (and funding). The first rule to being a non-taxpayer is not to accept government benefits. No social security, no unemployment insurance, nothing which is not actually forced upon you. To do otherwise is both impractical and immoral. You cannot simultaneously deny their authority and profit from it. So you cannot be an employee, because this is, in fact, a government benefit. You can contract, that's an entirely different matter. And as a contractor, you do not have your compensation withheld. There is a great deal more to this than can be reasonably covered in this slashdot reply. As a starting point, you may wish to read the documents at http://www.etext.org/Politics/FrogFarm/

eschelon is BS by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-04 01:54 · Score: 0

There have been stories about the government watching e-mail ever since I started using USEnet in the early 80s. Keywords at the bottom of postings always were supposed to screw over some mystic thing in the net that's watching everything.

What a bunch of BS

Re:Come on, people -- toss the tea! by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-04 01:55 · Score: 0

You know what? We don't need another Declaration or revolution. We just need to start defending our rights as citizens.

I am afraid that it is far too late for that.

- Publius.

I hope the US brings the NSA in line by Bartmoss · 1999-12-04 02:07 · Score: 1

Because if you folks don't, I'll have to stop considering the USA as a place of democracy. And please, stop spying on your allies, ie. most of Europe, for example - or I'll have to consider the US a hostile nation. Along with Australia and Great Britain.

Now, I know my personal opinion won't matter much... but unless Echelon is stopped, whoever throws England out of the EU will get MY votes.

Re:I hope the US brings the NSA in line by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-04 03:03 · Score: 0

There are plenty of EU countries who spy on the US. I consult for Citibank, and I have seen security brochures here warning us about spying attempts by the German Govt, for example. I've come to expect other govt's to spy on me, and my gov't to spy on other goverment's citizens. To assume anything else is naive, because it's in each countries' interest to spy. What I object to is the end-run that Echelon does around domestic spying, by allowing the UK to spy on US citizens and then share that info with the NSA, and vice versa. Ken McKinney
Re:I hope the US brings the NSA in line by cpt+kangarooski · 1999-12-04 08:00 · Score: 1

Nevertheless, I think that it really sucks when the US spies on anyone save during wartime. In attempting to save the country from a real or imagined threat we are destroying the ideals which it is founded upon from the inside. 'United States of America' is just a name; it doesn't have any value. The reasons are much more worthy of protection than the particular incarnation.

I'm not saying that we have to be impotent, but it's unAmerican to do a lot of the stuff that the NSA, CIA, FBI and other three letter agencies have done.

--
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Re:I hope the US brings the NSA in line by Detritus · 1999-12-04 13:09 · Score: 2

Everyone spies on everyone else, whether they are allies or enemies. Secretary of State (later War) Stimson's naive view that "Gentlemen do not read other people's mail" has never been popular. Even Stimson changed his mind on the subject.
Are you going to throw France out of the EU? The DGSE has a very active intelligence program. They spy on everyone.
The CIA and NSA are supposed to collect intelligence that may have military or diplomatic value to the United States. That includes information on the armed forces and weapons systems of our allies. After a coup, yesterday's ally may be today's enemy. Weapons systems are often sold to countries that may not always be friendly to the United States.
Echelon is just a way to pool resources, share intelligence and avoid duplication of effort.
If you don't like it, use encryption and avoid satellite and microwave links. If you transmit information over the airwaves, you run the risk of having it intercepted by any intelligence agency with SIGINT capabilities. Even if the NSA was closed down, there would be a long list of other intelligence agencies to worry about.

--
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
Re:I hope the US brings the NSA in line by Detritus · 1999-12-04 13:38 · Score: 2

If you wait for a war, especially in modern times, it is too late. You need an existing intelligence infrastructure and it takes years to get it up to speed.
Ideally, war can be prevented or avoided with good intelligence. Part of the stability of the Cold War was due to the United States having accurate information on Soviet strategic forces such as long range bombers and ICBMs. That took some of the fire out of the arms race and allowed the United States to make decisions based on reality, rather than Kruschev speeches or red scare paranoia in congress.

--
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat

Revolution Rising by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-04 02:09 · Score: 0

That time is now. The people of this country are going to take back democracy, we're going to take back our government from the corporations.

Re:Come on, people -- toss the tea! by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-04 02:14 · Score: 1

The American revolution was a defensive war, it was a war for independence. Those who call for revolution today fail to recognize that this would be a war for control of an existing government, a civil war, and consequently an aggressive war. Even if undertaken for the best reasons.

On the other hand, a declaration of independence would have to be undertaken on the part of several states, none of which seem inclined to do it, and the consequences of which are likely to be rather unfortunate indeed. So this is pretty much of a non-starter.

Ultimately, the only solution is individual -- leave. Where to go, however? This is an interesting question.

Re:What really is the problem? A few ideas by Chompster · 1999-12-04 02:20 · Score: 2

I will agree with the above statements, but I believe the comments written above this one were less of a "blame the NSA" and more of a "this is another example of the corruptness of our government" argument.

The main thing you have to remember about survailence is this: Consider the number of people in the U.S.; some 200 million, i suppose, and in order for a given random individual who happens to be making an especially seditious post-- they would have to have very very many homes or businesses surveiled. Stop for a minute and consider the sheer volume of survailence equipment that would entail! Of course, even the strangest things are possible.

Does the FBI or NSA(or whatever government agency) really keep tabs on every fractious individual? It is so unlikely as to be nearly impossible. And secondly, in theory, they should not be so stupid as to partake in such actions. Think about the implications! The scorn and odium generated from such actions should be immense!

Well, i will cease rambling and make a point.

This implies several possibilities:

1. The FBI is NOT surveiling us, it is merely paranoia and a misguided search for answers.
2. The FBI is surveiling a high number or random locations in order to gain intel. The company from which they ordered their supplies was forced into silence and the records of the purchase were successfully destroyed. Our supposedly wasted tax money has been used for the purpose of purchases similar to these.
3. The FBI is surveiling a high number of random locations in order to gain intel. They have another means of acquiring equipment, perhaps through the government. This could mean that there are government factories.
4. (in deferrence) The FBI does partake in surveilance, but only under certain circumstances such as people whom are reported to partake in things such as gang activity, certain activist groups, etc,. Since not many are watched, not much equipment is needed.
5. (Ad Absurdum) The FBI a/o NSA keeps track of everyone's characteristics. Seditious individuals are tracked constantly, and surveiled at all times. The resources needed for such operations are either purchased from allied businesses or from acquired from a possibly unknown and vast governent resource. If even the slightest suspicion comes over a certain project, they remove any traces of their presence, leaving themselves unknown.
6. (the mean) The FBI engages in surveilance, but is kept in check by other parts of the government. Some invasion of privacy they get away with because of corruption. They do not spy very much, and if even the slightest suspicion comes over a certain project, they remove any traces of their presence. Their invasion of privacy is by no means right, but does not account for a major conspiracy. They do move against seditious groups, often totally ignoring any rights they have as citizens.
7. (a completely different view) The FBI does not exist, but is just a facade used to deter and redirect. The real agency engages in any of the six above.

If there are any you think i left out feel free to tell me. Solving a problem like this can be done using the classic and pragmatic scientific method. Which would mean we are 1.indentifying our problem or 2.creating a hypothesis.

Either way, it is a constructive way to deal with this problem. Granted some of my ideas above were very fantastic, but because the chance that they could exist was greater than 0% I had to include them.

Lastly, i would like to say that if we are able to indentify our problem correctly, then we can more properly deal with it. Throwing rocks and shooting guns (or screaming conspiracy for that matter) does naught but rouse people into impulsive and probably destructive action. We have a problem to solve, and we should solve it the best that we are able. Hopefully.

-Chompster
Unexpected Kernel Trap at 101010
Don't Panic!

--
This isn't a redundant post; I just set my threshold to 6.

Enemies and Employers by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-04 02:25 · Score: 0

Or perhaps they just remember who their enemies are? It is afterall us, the people of America, or really, the people of this entire planet, who are their enemy. We are the ones they spy on. I can understand the need to monitor a nation's communications if it is hostile to our country, but it's clear the NSA goes FAR beyond that.

Secret Congressional Meetings suck by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-04 02:30 · Score: 0

In other words the CIA director met with the congressman in private and said leave us the fuck alone or the media finds out about your cross dressing, or drug habit, or secret gay lover, or the $20million some big corporation bought you off with.

What about your M5, by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-04 02:38 · Score: 0

eh?

OT: No. by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-04 03:30 · Score: 0

Interstingly, "No" might be the most powerful woerd in the English language, but it doesn't exist in Irish. Neither does "Yes" for that matter. If someone asks you a question, you reply in kind eg.

Q. Is the sun shining?
An bhfil an ghrian ag taitneamh?

A. It is / It isn't shining
Ta se/Nil se ag taitneamh

Also, there's no verb "to have" - you say "it is with me" "Ta se agam"

In the context of the Sapir-Whorf (sp?) hypothesis, this is interesting.

Irish people are known for their ability to "talk the hind leg off a donkey". This could be because speaking their native language is a never-ending version of that kid's party game where you can't say yes or no.

Also, the lack of a concrete verb that means "to have" may be linked to lax notions of personal ownership in tribal celtic society - once you stole something (usually a cow, or territory), it was yours, but only for as long as you could keep it...

Truman Memorandum by FooGoo · 1999-12-04 04:47 · Score: 1

By memorandum of October 24, 1952, President Truman established the National Security Agency (NSA) as the organization within the U.S. Government responsible for communications intelligence (COMINT) activities.

nsa102452.htm The National Security Agency Established 1952

--
People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them

Spokane Free Speech fight of 1910 by eliduc · 1999-12-04 05:38 · Score: 1

On the one hand, I'm tempted to say tell that to all the prisoners of the war on drugs, for instance. They've been saying "no" to the current (clearly unjust) drug laws for decades, for all the good it's done them.

On the other hand, you have a point; direct refusal by the people has been known to work. For instance, in the Spokane free speech fight of 1910, the local government tried to outlaw speaking in the street to prevent union agitation. Well, they got together enough workers to each take their turn up on the soap box, say "fellow workers", and get arrested, that they filled the jails. They put such a tax burden on the city that they had to repeal the ordinance. They won through direct action, and as Utah Phillips says, it comes to us highly recommended.

Now the problem with this is that it would have to happen on a massive scale to have any effect in today's society. It requires a huge number of individuals to sacrifice their personal freedom for the general good. How likely is that, and how reasonable as a method of changing society? I don't know. Might be worth a try though.

"Freedom is something you assume. Then you wait for someone to try to take it away from you. The degree to which you resist is the degree to which you are free."-Campbell

Re:Spokane Free Speech fight of 1910 by 1010011010 · 1999-12-04 08:11 · Score: 2

Yeah, but I wouldn't really call drug users an organized group. It's not like they're staging "national grow some dope" days or anything.

And, yes, it is difficult to get people to take action when they're basically happy, and not willing to give up anything short-term to gain something long term. But, they're basically happy, after all...

But another problem is, they're uninformed. Even juries are usually uninformed. Typically, courts try to keep juries from knowing that they are the law, practically speaking. Juries can legally strike down laws rather than either convict or free the defendant. Most times, the judge does not include that in the instructions to the jury. Samuel Chase, signer of the Declaration of Independence, and supreme Court Justice, (1796-1804?) said: "The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts." Look here for more info on that.

The problem is a citizenry uninterested in protecting its own freedoms reminds me of what Heinlein said about the draft: "countries which require a draft to defend themselves deserve to perish" -- or some such. I can't find the actual quote at the moment. Here's a zinger from Sam Adams, though:

"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home and leave us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."

If you're intersted in areading a lot of pro-liberty maxims and aphorisms, look here.

--
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
Re:Spokane Free Speech fight of 1910 by eliduc · 1999-12-05 06:02 · Score: 1

It's not like they're staging "national grow some dope" days or anything.
Ironically enough, they have.
You're right though, of course, about lack of organization and ignorance.

[4] Property Rights & "Civil Forfeiture" by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-04 07:28 · Score: 0

(Don't have the time/inclination to find cites on all these issues, but here's info on this one...)

The trick here, as I understand it, is:

They arrest you and charge you with some crime. They seize your property, on the grounds that it was used to commit the crime. Then they discover that, oops, they don't have enough evidence to prosecute you, so they drop charges. But they keep the property anyway, since even if you didn't commit the crime, somebody did. And if you want your stuff back, you have to sue the government, and, in the process, prove that you didn't do anything wrong. This guilty-until-innocent approach is justified by the excuse "well we didn't prosecute you (a criminal law action), we just confiscated your stuff (civil law)."

This monkey business has become so pervasive that Congress has actually become concerned enough to consider some legislation to restrict it. It's also interesting to note that much opposition is coming from the various police agencies, on the grounds that they have become dependent on the cash generated from their ill-gotten goods. Reason Magazine has a much better rant than mine, along with a slew of links at http://www.Reason.com/bi/bi-forf.html.

-------------------

BTW, if you're really interested in all of this, the search engine at Progressive Review can deliver a wide spectrum of opinions and information. Here are a couple of starters: "no-knock searches" "medical marijuana"

Re:Come on, people-II & III by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-04 08:14 · Score: 0

Very much true. The blame for the present situation can be laid at many feet. Citizens,politicians,policemen,,etc. Part of it is that we've lose the "participitation" in participatary goverment. How many don't vote? How many even know who their representative in congress is? Quick! What is representative so and so's position on a particular issue? Anybody even know how goverment works? The ultimate responsability for the goverment desired falls on the shoulders of the govern. The citizens are asleep at the switch and the goverment runs amok.
Complain all we want, we've gotten what our actions (*or lack of*) has produced.

Thanks for the links (NT) by Fastolfe · 1999-12-04 22:56 · Score: 1

The coolest job at NSA. by ErikZ · 1999-12-05 03:52 · Score: 1

>I wonder if Echelon monitors Slashdot posts as well?

Yeah, my job at the NSA is to read slashdot for, ah, national security reasons.
Where's my playboy?

Later
Erik Z

--
Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.

Congress has all the power. by Sangui5 · 1999-12-05 07:14 · Score: 1

While the whole checks and balances thing is nice, in reality, congress has all of the power. They have the power to propose constitutional amendments (per article V) and, since they are the head member of the political parties, they have the power to get them shoved through all of the state legislatures.

If the NSA really pissed congress off, they could constitutionally ban it and require the president to do away with them or face charges of treason. And in addition, congress has exclusive power of the purse, as set forth in article I, section 9, clause 7:
Clause 7: No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

Re:The real issue isn't privacy, but accountabilit by gorilla · 1999-12-05 21:31 · Score: 2

I think you have too look at why terrorism occurs in various parts of the world, and compare the circumstances to the USA.

There is no substantial movement anywhere within the US for independence. This is the cause of some of the terrorism related to Northern Ireland, in Southern Spain, and the Middle East.

There is also no engrained religious conflicts, the cause of some of the terrorism in Northern Ireland, the Middle East, and India.

Most importantly, there isn't a history of these conflicts going on for generations. Indeed, the act of emigration tends to cause people to concentrate on their similarities instead of their differences, causing the formation of communities from 'the old country', sharing their experiences as they become acustomed to their new nation.

Given this, the US does not have a low level of terrorism due to any action by it's government, but due to it's internal sociopolitical makeup.

Slashdot Mirror

EPIC Sues NSA Over Information Gathering

114 comments