Perhaps the energies Perens (et. al) have not been entirely fruitless. But they're not hugely sucessful either. If you could harness all that slashdot discontent and direct it into focused coding, rather than pissing and moaning, a great deal more would be accomplished.
Which brings me to my second point. What does it matter if some little company in California creates a closed source product? Whose freedom does this impinge on? With the exception software patents, everyone else is essentially free to code as they please. The point being that the two can exist simultaneously. Yet RMS has been known to advocate prirating commercial software.
Futhermore, GPL software has, for the most part, been totally unfriendly to geeks. Not only in "userfriendliness" and GUIs, but also in terms of software functionality and purposes. In general, it is software that appeals to geeks and geeks alone. To advocate RMS's idea of freedom, is to say: The geeks' right to code free of non-free-software influences, exceeds the right of the average user to enjoy software that meets their needs. I disagree.
Both free and non-free software have certain unique advantages over one another. Not only can they coexist, but they're strengthened by one another -- they push one another to mature and expand in scope. So I come full circle. Let both do their best to succeed; let the cards fall where they may. As a matter of optimizing the results though, free software should worry about what is going on within its own community. Bolster and explain free software, but don't try to tear down anything that is not free.
If people on slashdot spent half as much time coding as they did worrying about what other people are doing in relation to GPL (et.al), this would be a moot point. It is one thing to extoll the virtues of true GPL; It is another thing entirely to piss and moan about what a few select individuals (companies) are doing. If you truely believe GPL creates a superior product, get them where it hurts; CREATE a better product. Period.
I'm aware I might get flamed for this, but so be it. I tire of the "me toos", RMS "rah rah" crowd, knee-jerk-reaction-crowd-to-geek/privacy-instrusio ns, etc.
From users' perspective this would be a great solution. However, there are some serious cost and manufacturing issues here. Not only do you have to pay for rather expensive volatile memory and all that comes with it, but you also have to pay for an increasing complex unit with moving parts. I'd expect such a unit to cost easily 2 to 3 times as much.
I'd probably be willing buy such a unit if I were convinced it were well constructed, but i'm rare in that department. =)
Ok, sure you can always argue that the benefactors will take as much control as they can. But is this wrong? Where do you stop? Do you tell them they must donate to their alma matter? Or to charity XXXX?
Might it have occured to you that the benefactors are trying to do more than just give to the school, and that they actually have a specific goal in mind?
Sometimes this personal goal is "better" than the universities intended goals; sometimes it is not. Who is to judge? I've seen plenty of waste on both sides.
The money is benefactors. The choice belongs to the school. Some schools do refuse to accept such donations as a matter of policy. But such policies can be detrimental to the school in the long run. In either case, I wouldn't advocate external regulation. It should be left to both parties to decide.
You're confusing broadspread high level malice with low level screwups. When you bunker up in some compound, and start shooting at people you can't expect to be perfectly safe. Even if you personally aren't pulling the trigger. Things get hairy. Everyone's life is on the line.
Civil trials are NOT proof of innocence or guilt. It is a proponderance of the evidence, not beyond a shadow of a dobut. Futhermore, its being reviewed by a layman jury who knows nothing of what it is like to be under fire. The question is, what where they looking at?
Any lawyer worth his weight is capable of painting the Feds as being evil, and can then take admissions of shooting to the bank. But just because a single sniper shot an "innocent" (person not happening to be carrying a gun), doesn't even mean he violated protocol. A jury simply isn't qualified to review such cases. Even if he did violate protocol, it doesn't mean he did so maliciously or even particularly recklessly. Nor does it indicicate higher level involvement. Why do you assume his superiors would want an "innocent" person killed? It is just hogwash...
I know nothing I'll say will change your mind, but i'm going to say it anyways. While I can understand why people might be concerned about Echelon, TEMPEST is not in the same league. If the government wants to kill or spy on you, there isn't much you can do about it. There will always be other methods which you're simply not aware of. FOIA in case of TEMPEST is neither necessary, nor very beneficial (as a countermeasure against the gov't).
When you starting implying that "The Government" (Justice Dept.) knowing murdered innocent people, you blow a great deal credibility. Widespread conspiracies are myth.
It is technically possible, but I've yet to see any credible proof that this method works. There are a lot of outside factors that first must be isolated, not to mention tuning in on the right frequency range. I believe it'd take some pretty advanced equipment to make any sense of the radition given from the CRT itself at a reasonable distance. If you know of credible source, or a site that really describes that method in detail, please do tell.
Where as my described method is pretty much industry standard, and is much easier to reconstruct. I've seen it in action.
I'm no expert, but from what little I have read it doesn't read the CRT emissions itself, it reads from other things. Such as the PC card or monitors' frame buffer or whatever. But there are restrictions on distance as its a rather feeble signal. I have little doubt that having multi buffers written to simultaneously, or just random noise on that frequency, would confuse things greatly.
I NEVER ONCE ADVOCATED FOR ACTUAL USE. Not once in this thread. Get this through your thick skull.
What I WAS doing was setting up a theoretical situation to discuss the intrinsic nature of this device. eg: Is this device (if it behaves exactly as described) itself good or bad -- ignoring all the extraneous situations? Many think it wrong. I disagree. This is all the justification I need. You're bringing nothing but extraneous material in, stuff that has already been covered mind you.
The Constitution doesn't require you to wear blinders when discussing liberties. Just because the Constitution might not allow it in law, doesn't mean that you're not allowed to consider the possibilities. In fact, laws are that much stronger for it.
Futhermore, your understanding of the Constitution is both incomplete and incorrect. It is a dynamic document and it is open to interpretation. Laws regarding wiretaps and such happen to be an interpretation. Also, a hell of alot more speach than just "immediate threats" have been restricted. You need to read up on your history, not to mention law.
This is the last time I'll respond to any of your comments, as you obviously get your jollies off on it. If you can't see beyond the pathetic little box that is your life, atleast try to be a little bit less catty.
Linux wouldn't be Linux if it weren't open source. It would have never spread the way it did, and as a result it would be an entirely different OS. I don't see how this can be debated. Linux when it was first released was extremely crude. Who is going to want to use such an OS amidst all the other alternatives?
I mostly agree with your impression of/. as of late. However, not having all the facts, I do have some real concerns about this.
I've seen first hand how many teachers (particularly grade school teachers) "sort" kids out. Those who can fill in all the neat little boxes and do exactly as she (yes, stereotype) says, get a gold star. Those who don't are told they're stupid, or their parents are told not to expect much of them, etc etc etc. One of my sisters, for example, was told by her teacher in Kintergarden that she thought that my sister was not capable of succeeding in school because she couldn't (or wouldn't) draw a straight line or fill in the boxes with crayon. Yet many years later, she graduates from the top of her class, gets 15XX on her SATs, and is about graduate from Princeton. I've known of MANY cases like this. God forbid if the parents had listened to the teacher... I, for one, am convinced that this world has lost some of its best minds to such ignorant teaching habits.
Your computer is only as accurate as your data. The data being supplied by teachers and such is bound to highly skewed. Not to mention that I don't think shrinks have the best grip on this world.
Consider ADD (Attention Deficit Disorder) for example. I have little doubt the disorder exists. It is scientifically diagnosed. Teachers normally direct students to the doctors. Yet we have thousands, if not millions, of kids being prescribed ritalin en masse. I don't believe most of these kids are truely ADD, or even have problems which require medication. My main objection is less the drugs than it is the sudden drop in expectations. As a result the levels of performance are dropping through the floor universally. I don't believe it is that kids are getting dumber (not genetically atleast). I see real harm here.
Now maybe this system is pretty well thought out. Then again, maybe it isn't. In either case, its a fine line to walk, particularly given the history of shrinks and teachers. Especially when you consider the actual risks of getting killed at the hands of a pyschotic school mate (its about the same as getting struck by lightning). They could save far many more lives by spending that money on Hepatitis testing, or what have you.
anyways..I'm tired. My apologies for my somewhat incoherant writing....Zzzzzzzzzzzz
My beef with this whole deal is primarily logistical. The odds of a kid getting killed at school at the hands of a pyschotic student is extremely slim. Like 1 in 10 million, or something to that effect. There are far greater dangers that can be averted with less spending.
Not to mention, I'm distrustful of pscyhologists. And particularly teachers who take up the crusade based on a faulty understanding of shrink's faulty evaluations. Just look at all the kids who're now diagnosed with ADD (I believe its a legit condition, but far overprescribed), or otherwise cast aside in the name of whatever disorder. If a kid has problems, he's all too often assumed to be ADD or what have you. Rather than helping the kid out, but keeping the bar at the same height. They simultaneously lower the standard (very hurtful), and prescribe drugs.
I have little doubt that teachers (particularly grade school teachers) will start casting kids aside with this new witch hunt. Little Joey gets into a fight or two. Little Joey gets sent to shrink. Little Joey gets put into "special" program where they don't expect him to behave, and they might even request the kid be medicated... They're going to aggrivate the situation.
...anyways, I'm too tired to bother going on and write half decently, I've been at it all week. Hasta
"If we had a magical little scrying device which could pick ONLY terrorists out of thin air without invading the privacy of non-terrorists, it would be find (sic)"
Yes, I think so too. This is all I've been interested in. If you had read what i've said many times over in this thread, I stated repeatedly that such a device is impossible to create and administer in the real world. Such I am not advocating it.
Are you trying to be argumentative, or are you just not listening? I'm not arguing that we should attempt to build such a device. It is ONLY the intrinsic nature of it (as described) that I concerned about here. Ignore the fallibility of the creators and the honesty of the administrators for just a second. Ask yourself IS this device wrong? I think not, period.
If you fail to see the relevancy of such a question, then you are just hopeless.
Theory and Practice ARE different, I never said otherwise.
I wouldn't say it is the least bit complex. I'm employing my intellect, not using the Constitution as a crutch. This machine would ONLY be triggered by ACTUAL plans to kill thousands. Such speach is NOT protected by the Constitution.
They had poison and low yield explosives. All which were relatively hard to obtain. Terrorism was a totally unknown concept then. The availability of massively destructive weapons was certainly a large part of it.
I'm not saying we SHOULD have Echelon. I'm playing devil's advocate for Echelon, but only in a "perfect world" where the machine works exactly as described and there is no potential for abuse. Many people still say this is intrinsically wrong. I disagree. I don't have any problem with a computer (read Magic Black Box) which will only trap/acton content with plans to kill thousands of people.
No, I am not an advocate of Echelon for the previously mentioned reasons (eg: logistical and abuse factors), perhaps devils advocate. The machine of which I describe is subject to neither logistical nor abuse concerns. It may strike you as a subtle distinction, but its a hugely significant one nonetheless. The ONLY thing i'm advocating is the right to investigate those who intend bodily harm to our citizens -- all others pass through unmolested and unrecorded as specified.
Give me something other than a gut reaction that this is evil "just cuz" or "because the Constitution says so".
I highly doubt what you say about the border is accurate, but it doesn't change much. The fact of the matter is that if you want to come back from Mexico, you're subject to search. You don't have a choice. Besides you're not always made aware of what they're searching for, or how.
What is the difference between your package being "scanned" for drugs and money, and your communications being scanned for ACTUALLY illegal content. In both cases, only the guilty are impinged on (in theory). You can call it whatever you want, but in practice its the same thing in my opinion.
How about sobriety checks? Those have cleared constitutional challenges and are very similar.
My speach shames you? That is kind of ironic for one who supposedly supports the Constitution. It should affirm your believe in the country that I can utter essentially unpopular views, and live to tell about it.
The right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describe the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be searched.
******
Ok, first point. These all refer to physical search and siezure. They didn't have electronic communication when the Constitution was promulgated. It says nothing of the right to search non-physical things. Laws regarding wiretaps and such are an interpretation.
Additionally, the courts have held for awhile now that you have little to no expectation of privacy on the internet (unlike the telephone).
Furthermore, the key word is "unreasonable". Is a computer which only flags threats to national security reasonable? I think so. As it stands now the post office does inspect mail for drugs and what not. The police have been setting up sobriety checkpoints in many states now for sometime now, this too has withstood the challenge. What is the difference?
The specific issues in the 4th Amendment that I was addressing, however was not the wording of the 4th Amendment. It was the basis on which it was written. It is based on experience. Based on long experience, you'll never have a perfect situation like I described. They simply realized that you had no assurances of "fairness". Which is why the Constitution is written the way it is written, with balance of power and all that. My machine only exists in a "perfect" world, the Constitution does not.
This device just means that you can't say you're going to build a bomb and mean it. You can't yell fire in a crowded theater. Commercial speach (eg: ads) is not unregulated. The FCC regulates what you can say on public airwaves. You can't make threats to kill the President. You can't slander/liabel. You can't threaten to kill someone. Why should you be entitled to saying you want to blow DC at length? There are limits as to what you can and can't say. Deal with it.
"I require free and private speech period." Your freedom and privacy is 100% intact, unless you happen to be building a bomb. I hardly see how anyone can have a moral objection to a computer processing your data (as described). As it stands now, your packets are already being processed by many machines before it reaches its destination. Not to mention the chance that someone else may be sniffing it. Or it may end up in the wrong mailbox. Or end up in root@'s mail. You name it.
I suppose I require a lower level explanation, as I don't regard freedom from computer parsing to be a fundamental natural law, or what have you.
I realize you're not going to agree, no matter what I say. Your example is different in many ways, because its physically invading your domain. Where as mine is strictly bits, which you have no direct attachment too.
I just want you to answer one question. WHAT is intrinsically wrong with the described machine? Pretend the 4th Amendment does not exist for just a minute. The 4th Amendment is a law based in fact and EXPERIENCE, not a shield from private intellectual thought.
You're sending messages via RF out into the world. The RF is intercepted and processed, unimpeded on its journey. You never hear, smell, know, or are affected by it, unless you happen to actually be planning to kill many people. It never enters your house. Only what you communicate with others is readable by this machine. Only messages in which you intend to harm a great many people are reported or acted upon to anyone. Many tragedies could be avoided with such a device. Where is the evil?
In reality, I have serious issues with building such a machine. Because such a machine simply can't be built. Nor can we necessarily trust anyone with such a responsibility. This what the Fourth Amendment speaks to, the practical considerations. But within my described scenario, I don't see the issue.
Here they're violating the sanctity of your home -- things which you might not share with ANYONE. For many people this would be a huge issue. But also, you've got HUMAN AGENTS who're highly subjective. You may walk in on them. They'll certainly not be able replace everything exactly. Who may decide they don't like other things they don't see (porn, etc).
Let us imagine that instead of going in your home, they flew over your house for chemical or thermal (FLIR) precursors, of say drug production. It observes this and nothing else. Would you have a problem with this? They've done it before.
My BlackBox scenario is setup such that it is not subjective, and its only searching for things that are an immediate threat to national security. While I suppose some may be highly sensitive about a machine reading their email, within my scenario its not a sufficient objection.
I'm not advocating that we throw the Constitution out the window. But how exactly do you propose we stop lunatics from conspiring to build bombs? With the internet, they've got a vast resource of information on bomb building, a few milliseconds away, without ever having to leave your home. No traditional investigation techniques are sufficient.
What if Echelon were perhaps smarter, more impartial, and more discrete than any judge. That it could decide if something is "bad" before it lets anyone see, or act on it. I'm asking you to identify WHAT exactly is so evil about the machine I describe (though I dont think it possible).
I am NOT advocating Echelon. I think the potential for abuse is high, maybe too high. Much the same reason why you wouldn't want these other things.
The case I was trying to setup is a Magic Black Box Scenario. Where it only marks content which threatens national security, everything else is left unmolested. I don't have a problem with this explicit scenario. But I'll be the first to tell you that this is virtually impossible.
I, for one, don't have a problem with a DNA database as long as its only used for to match criminals to violent crimes (not abuse).
Police searching your vehicle and the like, is totally different. Here you're clearly being inconvenienced. Not to mention the cops aren't gauranteed to behave properly. How about instead of searching your car, they merely use a highly accurate machine (or dog) at the border to sniff for drugs? Oh wait, they already do that. Is this wrong? Or mail? They inspect that too. If you go to the airport, they X-ray your baggage. Sometimes they sniff it too.
We live in a very different age today. When the Constitution was promulgated, one man (or a small group) could not kill thousands. They had no nuclear bombs, no biological weapons, no chemical warfare, hi-yield explosives, automatic weapons, etc. The only way to kill vast numbers of people was to assemble an army. There was no need to read mail, if someone wanted to raise arms you'd know soon enough.
Today, I can communicate securely and instantaneously with other like minded wackos in milliseconds without ever leaving my home. Conventional spying methods wouldn't even know I exist. Information is key. If there really is a way to safely analyze and trap this information before it does harm, we have an obligation to do so. But, I reiterate, this doesn't mean I advocate Echelon. It just means that I think we should THINK about it, not just dismiss it offhand.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps the energies Perens (et. al) have not been entirely fruitless. But they're not hugely sucessful either. If you could harness all that slashdot discontent and direct it into focused coding, rather than pissing and moaning, a great deal more would be accomplished.
Which brings me to my second point. What does it matter if some little company in California creates a closed source product? Whose freedom does this impinge on? With the exception software patents, everyone else is essentially free to code as they please. The point being that the two can exist simultaneously. Yet RMS has been known to advocate prirating commercial software.
Futhermore, GPL software has, for the most part, been totally unfriendly to geeks. Not only in "userfriendliness" and GUIs, but also in terms of software functionality and purposes. In general, it is software that appeals to geeks and geeks alone. To advocate RMS's idea of freedom, is to say: The geeks' right to code free of non-free-software influences, exceeds the right of the average user to enjoy software that meets their needs. I disagree.
Both free and non-free software have certain unique advantages over one another. Not only can they coexist, but they're strengthened by one another -- they push one another to mature and expand in scope. So I come full circle. Let both do their best to succeed; let the cards fall where they may. As a matter of optimizing the results though, free software should worry about what is going on within its own community. Bolster and explain free software, but don't try to tear down anything that is not free.
If people on slashdot spent half as much time coding as they did worrying about what other people are doing in relation to GPL (et.al), this would be a moot point. It is one thing to extoll the virtues of true GPL; It is another thing entirely to piss and moan about what a few select individuals (companies) are doing. If you truely believe GPL creates a superior product, get them where it hurts; CREATE a better product. Period.
o ns, etc.
I'm aware I might get flamed for this, but so be it. I tire of the "me toos", RMS "rah rah" crowd, knee-jerk-reaction-crowd-to-geek/privacy-instrusi
From users' perspective this would be a great solution. However, there are some serious cost and manufacturing issues here. Not only do you have to pay for rather expensive volatile memory and all that comes with it, but you also have to pay for an increasing complex unit with moving parts. I'd expect such a unit to cost easily 2 to 3 times as much.
I'd probably be willing buy such a unit if I were convinced it were well constructed, but i'm rare in that department. =)
Ok, sure you can always argue that the benefactors will take as much control as they can. But is this wrong? Where do you stop? Do you tell them they must donate to their alma matter? Or to charity XXXX?
Might it have occured to you that the benefactors are trying to do more than just give to the school, and that they actually have a specific goal in mind?
Sometimes this personal goal is "better" than the universities intended goals; sometimes it is not. Who is to judge? I've seen plenty of waste on both sides.
The money is benefactors. The choice belongs to the school. Some schools do refuse to accept such donations as a matter of policy. But such policies can be detrimental to the school in the long run. In either case, I wouldn't advocate external regulation. It should be left to both parties to decide.
This CNN article is old. I could have swore I read it a couple months ago. Maybe I'm wrong. Or maybe CNN is just recycling the same old crap...
The Nazis were no good at keeping secrets. By the time Joe Nazi knew it, the Jews knew as well. As did most other countries. That was no secret.
You're confusing broadspread high level malice with low level screwups. When you bunker up in some compound, and start shooting at people you can't expect to be perfectly safe. Even if you personally aren't pulling the trigger. Things get hairy. Everyone's life is on the line.
Civil trials are NOT proof of innocence or guilt. It is a proponderance of the evidence, not beyond a shadow of a dobut. Futhermore, its being reviewed by a layman jury who knows nothing of what it is like to be under fire. The question is, what where they looking at?
Any lawyer worth his weight is capable of painting the Feds as being evil, and can then take admissions of shooting to the bank. But just because a single sniper shot an "innocent" (person not happening to be carrying a gun), doesn't even mean he violated protocol. A jury simply isn't qualified to review such cases. Even if he did violate protocol, it doesn't mean he did so maliciously or even particularly recklessly. Nor does it indicicate higher level involvement. Why do you assume his superiors would want an "innocent" person killed? It is just hogwash...
I know nothing I'll say will change your mind, but i'm going to say it anyways. While I can understand why people might be concerned about Echelon, TEMPEST is not in the same league. If the government wants to kill or spy on you, there isn't much you can do about it. There will always be other methods which you're simply not aware of. FOIA in case of TEMPEST is neither necessary, nor very beneficial (as a countermeasure against the gov't).
When you starting implying that "The Government" (Justice Dept.) knowing murdered innocent people, you blow a great deal credibility. Widespread conspiracies are myth.
It is technically possible, but I've yet to see any credible proof that this method works. There are a lot of outside factors that first must be isolated, not to mention tuning in on the right frequency range. I believe it'd take some pretty advanced equipment to make any sense of the radition given from the CRT itself at a reasonable distance. If you know of credible source, or a site that really describes that method in detail, please do tell.
Where as my described method is pretty much industry standard, and is much easier to reconstruct. I've seen it in action.
I'm no expert, but from what little I have read it doesn't read the CRT emissions itself, it reads from other things. Such as the PC card or monitors' frame buffer or whatever. But there are restrictions on distance as its a rather feeble signal. I have little doubt that having multi buffers written to simultaneously, or just random noise on that frequency, would confuse things greatly.
I NEVER ONCE ADVOCATED FOR ACTUAL USE. Not once in this thread. Get this through your thick skull.
What I WAS doing was setting up a theoretical situation to discuss the intrinsic nature of this device. eg: Is this device (if it behaves exactly as described) itself good or bad -- ignoring all the extraneous situations? Many think it wrong. I disagree. This is all the justification I need. You're bringing nothing but extraneous material in, stuff that has already been covered mind you.
The Constitution doesn't require you to wear blinders when discussing liberties. Just because the Constitution might not allow it in law, doesn't mean that you're not allowed to consider the possibilities. In fact, laws are that much stronger for it.
Futhermore, your understanding of the Constitution is both incomplete and incorrect. It is a dynamic document and it is open to interpretation. Laws regarding wiretaps and such happen to be an interpretation. Also, a hell of alot more speach than just "immediate threats" have been restricted. You need to read up on your history, not to mention law.
This is the last time I'll respond to any of your comments, as you obviously get your jollies off on it. If you can't see beyond the pathetic little box that is your life, atleast try to be a little bit less catty.
Linux wouldn't be Linux if it weren't open source. It would have never spread the way it did, and as a result it would be an entirely different OS. I don't see how this can be debated. Linux when it was first released was extremely crude. Who is going to want to use such an OS amidst all the other alternatives?
I mostly agree with your impression of /. as of late. However, not having all the facts, I do have some real concerns about this.
I've seen first hand how many teachers (particularly grade school teachers) "sort" kids out. Those who can fill in all the neat little boxes and do exactly as she (yes, stereotype) says, get a gold star. Those who don't are told they're stupid, or their parents are told not to expect much of them, etc etc etc. One of my sisters, for example, was told by her teacher in Kintergarden that she thought that my sister was not capable of succeeding in school because she couldn't (or wouldn't) draw a straight line or fill in the boxes with crayon. Yet many years later, she graduates from the top of her class, gets 15XX on her SATs, and is about graduate from Princeton. I've known of MANY cases like this. God forbid if the parents had listened to the teacher... I, for one, am convinced that this world has lost some of its best minds to such ignorant teaching habits.
Your computer is only as accurate as your data. The data being supplied by teachers and such is bound to highly skewed. Not to mention that I don't think shrinks have the best grip on this world.
Consider ADD (Attention Deficit Disorder) for example. I have little doubt the disorder exists. It is scientifically diagnosed. Teachers normally direct students to the doctors. Yet we have thousands, if not millions, of kids being prescribed ritalin en masse. I don't believe most of these kids are truely ADD, or even have problems which require medication. My main objection is less the drugs than it is the sudden drop in expectations. As a result the levels of performance are dropping through the floor universally. I don't believe it is that kids are getting dumber (not genetically atleast). I see real harm here.
Now maybe this system is pretty well thought out. Then again, maybe it isn't. In either case, its a fine line to walk, particularly given the history of shrinks and teachers. Especially when you consider the actual risks of getting killed at the hands of a pyschotic school mate (its about the same as getting struck by lightning). They could save far many more lives by spending that money on Hepatitis testing, or what have you.
anyways..I'm tired. My apologies for my somewhat incoherant writing....Zzzzzzzzzzzz
My beef with this whole deal is primarily logistical. The odds of a kid getting killed at school at the hands of a pyschotic student is extremely slim. Like 1 in 10 million, or something to that effect. There are far greater dangers that can be averted with less spending.
Not to mention, I'm distrustful of pscyhologists. And particularly teachers who take up the crusade based on a faulty understanding of shrink's faulty evaluations. Just look at all the kids who're now diagnosed with ADD (I believe its a legit condition, but far overprescribed), or otherwise cast aside in the name of whatever disorder. If a kid has problems, he's all too often assumed to be ADD or what have you. Rather than helping the kid out, but keeping the bar at the same height. They simultaneously lower the standard (very hurtful), and prescribe drugs.
I have little doubt that teachers (particularly grade school teachers) will start casting kids aside with this new witch hunt. Little Joey gets into a fight or two. Little Joey gets sent to shrink. Little Joey gets put into "special" program where they don't expect him to behave, and they might even request the kid be medicated... They're going to aggrivate the situation.
...anyways, I'm too tired to bother going on and write half decently, I've been at it all week. Hasta
"If we had a magical little scrying device which could pick ONLY terrorists out of thin air without invading the privacy of non-terrorists, it would be find (sic)"
Yes, I think so too. This is all I've been interested in. If you had read what i've said many times over in this thread, I stated repeatedly that such a device is impossible to create and administer in the real world. Such I am not advocating it.
Are you trying to be argumentative, or are you just not listening? I'm not arguing that we should attempt to build such a device. It is ONLY the intrinsic nature of it (as described) that I concerned about here. Ignore the fallibility of the creators and the honesty of the administrators for just a second. Ask yourself IS this device wrong? I think not, period.
If you fail to see the relevancy of such a question, then you are just hopeless.
Theory and Practice ARE different, I never said otherwise.
I wouldn't say it is the least bit complex. I'm employing my intellect, not using the Constitution as a crutch. This machine would ONLY be triggered by ACTUAL plans to kill thousands. Such speach is NOT protected by the Constitution.
They had poison and low yield explosives. All which were relatively hard to obtain. Terrorism was a totally unknown concept then. The availability of massively destructive weapons was certainly a large part of it.
I'm not saying we SHOULD have Echelon. I'm playing devil's advocate for Echelon, but only in a "perfect world" where the machine works exactly as described and there is no potential for abuse. Many people still say this is intrinsically wrong. I disagree. I don't have any problem with a computer (read Magic Black Box) which will only trap/acton content with plans to kill thousands of people.
No, I am not an advocate of Echelon for the previously mentioned reasons (eg: logistical and abuse factors), perhaps devils advocate. The machine of which I describe is subject to neither logistical nor abuse concerns. It may strike you as a subtle distinction, but its a hugely significant one nonetheless. The ONLY thing i'm advocating is the right to investigate those who intend bodily harm to our citizens -- all others pass through unmolested and unrecorded as specified.
Give me something other than a gut reaction
that this is evil "just cuz" or "because the Constitution says so".
I highly doubt what you say about the border is accurate, but it doesn't change much. The fact of the matter is that if you want to come back from Mexico, you're subject to search. You don't have a choice. Besides you're not always made aware of what they're searching for, or how.
What is the difference between your package being "scanned" for drugs and money, and your communications being scanned for ACTUALLY illegal content. In both cases, only the guilty are impinged on (in theory). You can call it whatever you want, but in practice its the same thing in my opinion.
How about sobriety checks? Those have cleared constitutional challenges and are very similar.
My speach shames you? That is kind of ironic for one who supposedly supports the Constitution. It should affirm your believe in the country that I can utter essentially unpopular views, and live to tell about it.
Not totally meaningless either....
"...place to be searched..."
and
"...people or things to be siezed.."
The Fourth Amendment (1791):
The right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describe the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be searched.
******
Ok, first point. These all refer to physical search and siezure. They didn't have electronic communication when the Constitution was promulgated. It says nothing of the right to search non-physical things. Laws regarding wiretaps and such are an interpretation.
Additionally, the courts have held for awhile now that you have little to no expectation of privacy on the internet (unlike the telephone).
Furthermore, the key word is "unreasonable". Is a computer which only flags threats to national security reasonable? I think so. As it stands now the post office does inspect mail for drugs and what not. The police have been setting up sobriety checkpoints in many states now for sometime now, this too has withstood the challenge. What is the difference?
The specific issues in the 4th Amendment that I was addressing, however was not the wording of the 4th Amendment. It was the basis on which it was written. It is based on experience. Based on long experience, you'll never have a perfect situation like I described. They simply realized that you had no assurances of "fairness". Which is why the Constitution is written the way it is written, with balance of power and all that. My machine only exists in a "perfect" world, the Constitution does not.
This device just means that you can't say you're going to build a bomb and mean it. You can't yell fire in a crowded theater. Commercial speach (eg: ads) is not unregulated. The FCC regulates what you can say on public airwaves. You can't make threats to kill the President. You can't slander/liabel. You can't threaten to kill someone. Why should you be entitled to saying you want to blow DC at length? There are limits as to what you can and can't say. Deal with it.
"I require free and private speech period." Your freedom and privacy is 100% intact, unless you happen to be building a bomb. I hardly see how anyone can have a moral objection to a computer processing your data (as described). As it stands now, your packets are already being processed by many machines before it reaches its destination. Not to mention the chance that someone else may be sniffing it. Or it may end up in the wrong mailbox. Or end up in root@'s mail. You name it.
I suppose I require a lower level explanation, as I don't regard freedom from computer parsing to be a fundamental natural law, or what have you.
I realize you're not going to agree, no matter what I say. Your example is different in many ways, because its physically invading your domain. Where as mine is strictly bits, which you have no direct attachment too.
I just want you to answer one question. WHAT is intrinsically wrong with the described machine? Pretend the 4th Amendment does not exist for just a minute. The 4th Amendment is a law based in fact and EXPERIENCE, not a shield from private intellectual thought.
You're sending messages via RF out into the world. The RF is intercepted and processed, unimpeded on its journey. You never hear, smell, know, or are affected by it, unless you happen to actually be planning to kill many people. It never enters your house. Only what you communicate with others is readable by this machine. Only messages in which you intend to harm a great many people are reported or acted upon to anyone. Many tragedies could be avoided with such a device. Where is the evil?
In reality, I have serious issues with building such a machine. Because such a machine simply can't be built. Nor can we necessarily trust anyone with such a responsibility. This what the Fourth Amendment speaks to, the practical considerations. But within my described scenario, I don't see the issue.
Here they're violating the sanctity of your home -- things which you might not share with ANYONE. For many people this would be a huge issue. But also, you've got HUMAN AGENTS who're highly subjective. You may walk in on them. They'll certainly not be able replace everything exactly. Who may decide they don't like other things they don't see (porn, etc).
Let us imagine that instead of going in your home, they flew over your house for chemical or thermal (FLIR) precursors, of say drug production. It observes this and nothing else. Would you have a problem with this? They've done it before.
My BlackBox scenario is setup such that it is not subjective, and its only searching for things that are an immediate threat to national security. While I suppose some may be highly sensitive about a machine reading their email, within my scenario its not a sufficient objection.
I'm not advocating that we throw the Constitution out the window. But how exactly do you propose we stop lunatics from conspiring to build bombs? With the internet, they've got a vast resource of information on bomb building, a few milliseconds away, without ever having to leave your home. No traditional investigation techniques are sufficient.
What if Echelon were perhaps smarter, more impartial, and more discrete than any judge. That it could decide if something is "bad" before it lets anyone see, or act on it. I'm asking you to identify WHAT exactly is so evil about the machine I describe (though I dont think it possible).
I am NOT advocating Echelon. I think the potential for abuse is high, maybe too high. Much the same reason why you wouldn't want these other things.
The case I was trying to setup is a Magic Black Box Scenario. Where it only marks content which threatens national security, everything else is left unmolested. I don't have a problem with this explicit scenario. But I'll be the first to tell you that this is virtually impossible.
I, for one, don't have a problem with a DNA database as long as its only used for to match criminals to violent crimes (not abuse).
Police searching your vehicle and the like, is totally different. Here you're clearly being inconvenienced. Not to mention the cops aren't gauranteed to behave properly. How about instead of searching your car, they merely use a highly accurate machine (or dog) at the border to sniff for drugs? Oh wait, they already do that. Is this wrong? Or mail? They inspect that too. If you go to the airport, they X-ray your baggage. Sometimes they sniff it too.
We live in a very different age today. When the Constitution was promulgated, one man (or a small group) could not kill thousands. They had no nuclear bombs, no biological weapons, no chemical warfare, hi-yield explosives, automatic weapons, etc. The only way to kill vast numbers of people was to assemble an army. There was no need to read mail, if someone wanted to raise arms you'd know soon enough.
Today, I can communicate securely and instantaneously with other like minded wackos in milliseconds without ever leaving my home. Conventional spying methods wouldn't even know I exist. Information is key. If there really is a way to safely analyze and trap this information before it does harm, we have an obligation to do so. But, I reiterate, this doesn't mean I advocate Echelon. It just means that I think we should THINK about it, not just dismiss it offhand.