I posted this elsewhere but at the risk of being modded as redundant I'll mention it again.
The bug report is NOT that IE is decoding.hqx or.bin files - most mac browsers have always done this automatically, and it is NOT by itself a security problem.
To quote the report:
I've noticed a very disturbing "feature" in my copy of IE 5 for Mac OS X 10.1 5G48.. When it downloads some programs (namely, applications that have been encoded with MacBinary), it de-.bins them as it downloads, which is normal, but after the file is downloaded IE runs the application!
Here's another interesting report from Macintouch about the behaviour of the preferences:
Interestingly, the checkboxes appear to control only IE's internal decoding engine. Switching them off does *not* stop decoding from happening -- it simply hands the task over to Stuffit Expander (which will not automatically launch the decoded app, thankfully).
My theory is that Micro$oft assumes that.bin or.hqx files are encoded.sit files and after decoding them launches them - which if they ARE a.sit would launch Stuffit for decompressing. But even though they are USUALLY.sit files nothing says they have to be, if the file is actually an application rather than a.sit IE is launching that application.
There are a lot of comments here that are confusing the issue. The bug report is NOT that IE is decoding binhex files - most mac browsers have always done this automatically, and it is NOT by itself a security problem.
To quote the report:
I've noticed a very disturbing "feature" in my copy of IE 5 for Mac OS X 10.1 5G48.. When it downloads some programs (namely, applications that have been encoded with MacBinary), it de-.bins them as it downloads, which is normal, but after the file is downloaded IE runs the application!
Here's another interesting report from Macintouch about the behaviour of the preferences:
Interestingly, the checkboxes appear to control only IE's internal decoding engine. Switching them off does *not* stop decoding from happening -- it simply hands the task over to Stuffit Expander (which will not automatically launch the decoded app, thankfully).
My theory is that Micro$oft assumes that.bin or.hqx files are encoded.sit files and after decoding them launches them - which if they ARE a.sit would launch Stuffit for decompressing. But even though they are USUALLY.sit files nothing says they have to be, if the file is actually an application rather than a.sit IE is launching that application.
All of the planes except one had five hijackers. The reason is that most likely we already had in custody the fifth - a man detained on immigration charges because he was a suspected terrorist and was suspiciously learning to fly a commercial jet & asking about flying over NY airspace but had no interest in taking off or landing.
The guy was arrested on immigration charges rather than put under surveilance. The FBI field office asked but was refused a counterintelligence surveilance warrent because a suspected terrorist learning to fly a plane and particularly interested in New York City airspace was not enough for "probable cause"
To be fair, if they had just searched his hard drive they probably wouldn't have had enough to know what the terrorists were up to. On the other hand if he had remained free but under surveillance it seems likely we would have been able to gather enough intelligence on this cell to figure it out before hand.
ALL police powers (all government powers for that matter) involve some "violation" of our rights. They carry cuffs and have jails and prisons to "violate" your right to liberty, they carry guns to "violate" your right to life (as a last resort hopefully) And they question you, execute search warrants, wire tapping warrants etc. to "violate" your right to privacy.
The fact is a police state is not the only threat to liberty, anarchy is just as bad, and is usually a precurser to a police state. The police powers to "violate" our rights is a balance designed (when working right) to maximise our freedoms and rights. The government has the power and authority, granted by the governed, to "violate" the rights of individuals who have or are suspected of violating or planning to violate the rights of the rest of us.
Don't get me wrong, I think we must always be on guard against overreaching by the state. But often people on/. have elevetated certain rights to such an extreme that they deny *ANY* legitimate police power. Ironically at the same time they are blind to more serious overreaching by the state that threatens other rights not as elevated as the "right" to perfect anonymity & privacy.
Interesting idea, do the consumers vote on telecom policy? Do you only get to vote on issues relating to things you are actually a consumer of? For instance if I am a cell phone user but don't use dial-up do I get a say on regulating cell phone use but not internet use?
Or, is "consumer regulated" a euphamism for government regulated?
Standardization. Also cool.
You forgot, Standardization: if you want internet connectivity you have to use the standardized monopoly OS. (consumer regulated of course, probably with the consumer regulated monopoly browser too)
As long as they're guaranteed a reasonable profit, they'll do anything we want.
No, they will do anything the *majority* of us wants (that is if democracy is working well on that day, if there is any corruption then of course it will do whatever it's bought off legislators and regulators let it do). There will also be no alternatives that cater to the needs of a minority, like say Linux users.
The poster is quite correct that if we expect meaningful change in the law, it will have to come from Congress, not from the court.
To which I think we should all say - Amen! There are many laws and policies that I oppose but it is shortsighted (in most cases) to look to the court to fix it. In order for the issue to be before the court at all my position must have already lost in the congress; that is to say my position lost in the democratic process. That process is not perfect, it is not directly the "will of the people", there is certainly corruption; but it is better than the alternative.
The court is not a democratic institution, the justices are not elected, they don't even pretend to be accountable in any way to the people and they are not supposed to be. They may make the "right" decision in my opinion but if it only reflects the justices personal preferences with only a pretense of constitutional reasoning it is functioning as a benevolent dictatorship. In the short run I get what I want but it is a lousy deal for several reasons. First I have no confidence that they will stay 'benevolent' (i.e. agree with me). And anyway it is only 'benevolent' from my position as an advocate, I'm sure those that oppose my position would characterise it differently. My opponents initially 'won' in the democratic/legislative process - I can accuse them of winning through fraud & corruption but as a partisan I am probably not the most reliable witness.
Finally there are very few checks and balances on Judicial power once they have discarded the self imposed check of sticking strictly to the constitution, there is almost no recourse for the losing side. Without viable political recourse they may abandon political/democratic means of pursuing their agenda. If the issue is merely commercial there may be very few consequences, maybe a slight increase in corruption and disregard for the law. If the issue is more fundamental and emotional the consequences can be severe. Look at the incresing violence of the abolitionist movement after Dred Scott and to a lesser degree the anti-abortionists after Roe. Representational democratic politics gives us a way of resolving conflict, take that away and the if the losing side is passionate enough it may resort to more primitive methods of resolving the conflict.
I think your elevation of a right to privacy into a right to anonymity has reached an absurd level if you are offended (even mildly) by someone essentially asking the question "who are you?" before they conduct business with you. You have a right to privacy, even under some circumstances anonymity. You have no right to air travel, it is a service being provided to you and the airlines have a right (see other people have rights just like you) to put conditions on the service they render - one of which, not unreasonably, is to know who exactly they are providing the service to.
There is no way to stop a determined terrorist on a suicide mission.
This is just plain untrue, we have in the past stopped determined terrorists and God willing we will in the future. Just because we are unlikely to ever be able to stop ALL terrorists does not mean it is therefore useless to stop MOST terrorists, or even SOME terrorists. Security is not an all or nothing thing, it is a matter of degrees. You are right to point out that we will never be 100% secure but you are wrong in fatalistically implying that security precautions are therefore pointless. Locking my car door may not deter a determined car thief but it is still *more* secure than leaving it unlocked with the keys in the ignition.
I would agree that we should be careful not to give up our essential freedoms to gain a false sense of security. I would also argue that we should not pursue some policies that would really would increase security because they would undermine essential liberties. But not every security precaution is a loss of essential liberty nor is a reasonable sense of security "false".
So just what moral obligation does a company have to laid-off workers?
The question is wether we are moral equals engaged in a simple transaction: the exchange of labor for money; or is our employer our moral superior with a patriarchal obligation to care for our well being at the expense of it's own interests? If it is the first then the only moral obligations are those found in an employment contract, if the later then there is a corresponding moral obligation of loyalty on the part of the employee.
Our society seems a bit confused on this question, the answer is usually a mix which varies in it's emphasis from sector to sector but the trend has been away from the second view (mutual moral obligation) and towards the first view (no obligations beyond explicit contractual obligations). It is part of the larger social movement of maximising individual autonomy at the expense of community.
I'm not against bad things being a crime, but who gets to define what is a crime or not?
Um, Legislators? That is the entire, whole, and only point of a legislator.
Well (all in a huff) who decides who the legislators are? Well that would be all of us collectively. Some things that you think should be O.K. will sometimes be made illegal because the rest of the people don't agree with you that it is O.K. or don't care enough about it to change thier representation.
On one side ($$) it's a crime of epic proportions, on the other side it's harmless fun, investigation, proving a point, whatever. This has
been a problem since phreaking and probably far before....
Cracking into someone elses computer system, intentionally writing a destructive virus, etc. are all crimes and they should be treated as such. I don't particullarly care if someone breaks into my house and goes through my papers for "harmless fun, investigation or to prove a point" I want them arrested - the same goes for someone who breaks into or intentionally damages my computer.
I went to this editorial hoping it would shed some light on the possible dangers too our liberties but most (not all, but most) of it was a lot of alarmist hot air.
The only two things that really seemed troubling were the remarks by Lott and Gephardt, and the FBI software monitoring email. However, it is hard to evaluate what the remarks really mean since they are not tied to any specific proposals. And I don't know what the FBI software is doing exactly so I don't know if it is a violation of our liberties or simply the extension of long held and appropriate police powers to a new technology.
The section on proposed legislation was again sort of vague. Reducing our access to government information is a valid good government issue, but it is not in itself a restriction of our freedoms. The Anti-Leaks legislation sounds similar but what are the specifics of the legislation that violate our rights to free speech. As for the Flag Desecration Act, sorry I just can't get that worked up about it one way or the other. I oppose it not because criminalising flag burning would be an horrendous violation of free speech rights but because it is a trifle not worth amending the constitution to address.
As for the rest of the article there is no "there" there. Schools banning prayer is a legitimate issue but it has nothing to do with this attack - if anything such restrictions of student speech imposed by ACLU lawsuits were eased rather than tightened by last week's events. Taking down a painting or changing a mural is no violation of free speech if you are the one that owns it. And confiscating video of a crime is called "gathering evidence" and violates no ones rights - it is one of the powers granted to government by the people for the purpose of protecting our collective rights.
The example that really undermines the credibility of the author is his complaint about "private or self-imposed restrictions on expression". These people are EXERCISING their free speech in choosing what they want or don't want to say. Who the Hell is Paul McMasters to tell them what they should say and that they are wrong to change their minds in light of the circumstances. The only disturbing example given is the wire service pulling a picture after threats by the Palestinians but that is not a violation of OUR rights as U.S. citizens it is a violation of Palestinians rights by the Palestinian Authority - most other countries in the world do not have a right to free speech, it is unfortunate but it is not new nor does it have anything to do with the current crisis.
I am very worried about the potential for this crisis to lead to a loss of our liberties, but part of what worries me is the fuzzy thinking about our rights by those like freedomforum who are defending them. If you cry wolf at everything you will lose all effectiveness. FreedomForum seems shakey on making distinctions between our "ESSENTIAL liberties" and the mere inconveniences associated with the legitimate exercise of governments policing power. I fear they would preserve my "right" to leak troop movements at the expense of more fundamental rights like my right to life if I am one of the troops whose location has just been revealed to the enemy.
But people have the right to go to work without buildings falling on them, too.
That is a fallacy Jon, or at least a distortion. The implication is that people have a right to be protected from bad things by society, and I strongly disagree.
I understand your point but I have to disagree in this case. In American political philosophy the victims had a right to life that was violated by the terrorists. We may have no unlimited right to safety but we do have a right to not be killed by other people. It is the entire function of government to "secure those rights". The attack was not an "act of God" an earthquake or disease; it was an attack by a foreign organization depriving American citizens of their most fundamental right. It is the whole purpose of government to stop such violations.
Perhaps a more eloquent way of putting it would be this: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"
We need to get out from under this rock that GW has put our country.
Exactly what rock is that? To be fair to Dubya he hasn't been in office long enough to be the one that's pissed off Bin Laden. You could maybe blame his father for involving us in the Gulf War, though I'm sure that Clinton administration bombing of Serbia, Sudan, Afghanistan as well as going after Aidid in Somalia didn't win us any friends. At least Bush didn't appear to think that he could fix the third world with an occasional cruise missle.
We need to participate in the world, we need to cooperate with foriegn countries...
To some degree that is what got us into this mess. Bin Laden decided to target America when we "participated in the world and cooperated with foriegn governments" to kick Iraq out of Kuwait. If we are involved in the affairs of the world we will inevitably become a party to conflicts which will earn us enemies. I'm not saying it was the wrong thing to do but it is silly to think that we can "participate in the world" without having people that resent and oppose our participation. This will be true wether we are pursuing our own interests or the interests of the E.U. or the interests of whoever most skillfully manipulates the agenda of the U.N.
...and work together to stop this stuff.
That seems to be the plan. Now that we are cooperating with the world how exactly do you plan to "stop this stuff"?
How far behind are ID cards and strip searches to get in the mall.
Why I heard Ashcroft propose both of those plans just the other day;) Please, equating increased security at airports with strip searches at the mall, or equating changes to wire tapping rules to target individuals rather than a single phone number with issuing a national I.D. card is a rhetorical excess that does not add anything to the debate.
In a crisis like this (and in our complacency beforehand) we need to look to first principles rather than get caught up in the momentary crisis and so do irreparable harm to our liberties.
First we need to realise that government is not the only threat to our rights. In fact the whole purpose of government (in American political philosophy at least) is to protect our rights from the threats posed by other governments, organizatons and even other individuals. Or, as the Declarations puts it: "...That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men"
If we define our rights so broadly as to paralyse the legitimate obligation on the part of the government to protect our rights from threats other than our own government those rights will be trampled just a surely as if we lived under a dictatorship.
Against this is the fact that government itself, the body charged with protecting our rights is very often the greatest threat to our rights. After a crisis like this people will be willing to trade all of their other rights to enhance the power of government to protect their right to life. In other words they will be tempted to trade their liberty for security.
Some of the changes this tragedy will bring will be a justified clearing away of an accretion of rules that do less to protect our liberty than harm it by making government impotent to protect it from other threats. Some will simply be adapting the old balances to new technologies. Some will go too far and be more of a threat to our liberty than the dangers they are designed to protect against. It will take more careful thought than simple knee-jerk reactions either way to protect our rights.
None of the options are really all that palatable. I think what will happen will be some combination of the Financial Crackdown internationally and Assasination/Extraction and small scale insertions against bin Laden's organization within Afghanistan itself (if we have the Intel for that, which I hope we do but fear we don't)
I think that might be coupled with missle/air strikes against the Taliban military along with significant military support for the Northern Alliance, perhaps with small scale insertions against the Taliban with the goal to end that regime. It is not necessary to replace the regime with a better or more democratic regime (though that would be nice). The goal would just be to punish the current regime for it's support of Bin Laden - and underscore the message that harboring a terrorist "at war" with the United States is a bad idea that will get YOU killed.
I doubt the total war option is even being discussed at this point for the very reasons you mention. The country is too large, remote and inhospitable and the region is too unstable nad hostile to the U.S. - the fact that Pakistan is on the verger of civil war and has nukes makes it even more dangerously complicated.
Frighteningly it is not hard to come up with scenarios that lead to WWIII. For instance civil war within Pakistan where the radical Islamist's within the Pakistani army get the nukes and use them on a U.S. airbase operating within the Northern Alliance (sort of makes you wish we had antiballistic capabilities) Would we go nuclear? Would India? China? Russia?
Would we send the army in to a country to capture the CEO of a forign corporation and call it war? I hope not
If that foriegn corporation's sole function was to perpetrate acts of war against the U.S. then yes! and I would hope so! Al Queada is not a business it is a terrorist and guerilla army. I don't have any problem waging war on such an organization and to the degree that a soveriegn state sponsors such a group I don't have any problem waging war on those states. We should try diplomacy first to end such sponsorship and support but giving material aid to a group that is waging war on us is in itself an act of war against us.
Now, in our borders and within the borders of our allies it is a criminal justice matter for the police and the courts to handle. Just like enemy spying or sabotage is always a criminal justice matter. Most likely this will be a large part of where the war will really be fought. But in (or against) states that harbor and support (or in the case of Afghanistan, are supported by) such groups it will be war in the more conventional sense and appropriately so.
There are a lot of dangers to this "new kind of war" The problem is that there is a blurring of the distinction between warfare and criminal justice. In war justice, guilt and innocence are secondary to victory and survival. The individual soldiers killed on the battlefield are not considered "guilty" thier death is not a matter of justice or punishment for a crime. It is an unfortunate requirment to defeat the enemy. How does a war against terrorists, many of whom are on our own soil, hidden among the general population work?
I think the U.S. unfortunately has to, and is, viewing this as a war and is willing to do a lot of things that would not have been considered prior to the attack. It seems that we are pursuing a fairly prudent course. Inside the borders of the U.S. this is being dealt with as a criminal matter which protects the civil liberties of the people. Law enforcement may get some expanded powers, some of what it is seeking is probably an appropriate response to technological changes and some is overreaching with frightening potential for abuse. We should be careful to make that distinction. If we oppose every single effort by law enforcement to use new technology or counter criminal uses of technology we will lose our credibility when the issue really is one of fundamental liberties. Clearly we are at least going to suffer the inconveniences of a heightened concern for security (some of which will be silly but not an assualt on our freedoms).
Outside of the U.S. I think is where this really will look more like "war" Before this incident we were trying to snatch Bin Laden to bring him to justice. Now I think we will forego that nicety. If we find him, we will kill him.
We have also made it clear that we are willing to use "old fashioned" war to win the "new kind of war." If we find a state that is sponsoring these terrorists we will seek to "end it" (as Sec. Rumsfeld said) to deny the terrorists that support. And I can't help but think that fear of "old fashioned" war is what is driving nations not usually very friendly to us to bend over backwards to to be our new best friends. Pakistan is willing to risk civil war to help us, don't think for a minute that it is just because we asked nicely. I would imagine we asked in a way that wasn't nice at all, in a way that at least implied that civil war with the Talibans supporters in Pakistan wasn't the worst thing that could happen to them. Syria and Iran are also eager to display their support for a war on terrorism.
You are wrong. Tolkien started by creating a language, then he created a mythology to breath life into that language, then he started writing stories set in the world that mythology described.
A terrorist hell bent on hijacking a plane and flying it straight into a building killing everyone aboard including himself, would think nothing of reconstructive surgery if that's what it took.
There are perhaps very good arguments against such a system but this is not one of them.
I wonder do you leave your front door open when you leave home because a thief would think nothing of picking the lock? Any defense can be overcome in some way but that does not mean defenses are pointless. "hardened terrorists" may be capable of great intelligence and technical brilliance but they are not perfect. As they face more obstacles to the success of their mission the fewer missions will be successful.
There is absolutely no possiblity of the U.S. using nukes in this situation. So why didn't Rumsfeld or McCain come out and say so? I think for two reasons.
1) We are putting unprecedented pressure on nations that are not really very friendly with us. Pakistan for instance has been generally supportive of the Taliban and faces a significant risk of civil war if they oppose the Taliban. If it weren't for our overwhelming military superiority would Pakistan be so willing to aid us? What if Pakistan decided to ally themselves with the Taliban - Pakistan has nukes itself, we might want them to at least worry about the possiblity of a preemptory nuclear strike while they decide which side of the conflict they want to be on. The Taliban and OBL are a credible threat to Pakistan I'm sure are diplomats at least allowed them to think that we are a an even greater threat.
2) The situation may change - Al Qaeda is KNOWN to be seeking chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. It is not far fetched to think that they may get them if they don't already have them. What if the next attack is chemical weapons killing hundreds of thousands of Americans? What if we discover that an actual state (say, Iraq) sponsored such an attack? U.S. policy is to meet such weapons of mass destruction with our own weapons of mass destruction, that is the whole basis of Mutually Assured Destruction. Actually in this case there would be nothing mutual about it. For that very reason no matter how much some of these states may hate us they would not sponsor such an attack. And nations that might actually be sponsoring Al Qaeada may even now be moving against it if they conclude that the risks (possibly nuclear annihilation) outweight the benefits (harassing the US)
1 a) Osama bin Laden is not a scapegoat if he is guilty. He is a suspect because the evidence suggests it. He is a suspect because he is our avowed emnity.
1 b) I don't see how CIA support of the Mujehadeen in Afghanistan motivates OBL to attack America. In any event that support has not been ignored by the media - I have heard it on several occasions. It is certainly not a secret. However, I am not under the impression that OBL was a major focus of CIA aid they tended to support native Afghans rather than Arabic volunteers who where largely self-financed
1 c) I would also be hard pressed to say that financing and even training freedom fighters fighting against a foreign invasion makes us responsible for the future actions of some of them who later decide to become terrorists in a larger conflict against all non-Muslim centers of power.
2) Iraq's leaders are primarily responsible for Iraqi suffering. I don't fall for the impotent stance you advocate that refuses to protect us from a regime that is seeking to build nuclear and chemical weapons to destroy us.
As for the bombing of the pharmecutical plant I agree, the Clinton administrations incompetance was criminal and probably did lead to untold deaths. That, not the Lewinsky affair should have been grounds for his impeachment. But, Clinton was not wrong for striking at Bin Laden and a nation that supported him. He was wrong for rushing into action for political expediency, firing wildly and so missing the target and hitting complete inocents. And to avoid the rampant moral equivelancy no matter how reprehensible Clinton's failure was it is still a very, very, far cry from the absolute evil of intentionally targetting those innocents.
Oh yes, one more thing. The images of Palesinians celebrating in Isreal are NOT fake. I am aware of the biases and potential for propoganda from the major media. Are you unaware of the even more blatant biases and propaganda from the "independant" media?
I thought about this as well, and the politicians are going further than simple rhetoric and are talking about an actual formal declaration of war from congress when we discover who did this, and possibly against the country or countries that supported or harbored the terrorist organization. Of course under the war powers act an actual formal declaration is probably unnecessary - It is pretty clear that whoever did this is a "clear and present danger."
I am not a lawyer either but I think the government would be able to have it's cake and eat it too. By declaring war our military and the CIA would have a much freer hand in dealing with our enemies outside of the states. In a war you are also not focussed on capturing the enemy to "bring him to trial" but simply killing him. There have been attempts and plans in the past to capture OBL, a nation at war doesn't bother - if we know where he is we will kill him.
And domestically spy's and sabateurs, that is enemy agents in our country under false pretenses during war time, get the worst of all possible legal worlds. They have far fewer civil liberties protections than they would normally have as citizens or legal immigrants and they are not legally soldiers covered by treaty or international law. On top of that a lot of crimes are legally more serious in a nation at war than in a nation at peace. I would imagine there are some instances where a defendant might even find themselves in a military court rather than federal court. And while it is unlikely that being an 'accesory after the fact' carries the death penalty; a 'traitor' giving 'aid and comfort to the enemy' is a different matter.
Slashdot Mirror
The bug report is NOT that IE is decoding
To quote the report: Here's another interesting report from Macintouch about the behaviour of the preferences: My theory is that Micro$oft assumes that
To quote the report: Here's another interesting report from Macintouch about the behaviour of the preferences: My theory is that Micro$oft assumes that
All of the planes except one had five hijackers. The reason is that most likely we already had in custody the fifth - a man detained on immigration charges because he was a suspected terrorist and was suspiciously learning to fly a commercial jet & asking about flying over NY airspace but had no interest in taking off or landing.
The guy was arrested on immigration charges rather than put under surveilance. The FBI field office asked but was refused a counterintelligence surveilance warrent because a suspected terrorist learning to fly a plane and particularly interested in New York City airspace was not enough for "probable cause"
Story Here
To be fair, if they had just searched his hard drive they probably wouldn't have had enough to know what the terrorists were up to. On the other hand if he had remained free but under surveillance it seems likely we would have been able to gather enough intelligence on this cell to figure it out before hand.
Thank you for a rare note of sanity on /.
/. have elevetated certain rights to such an extreme that they deny *ANY* legitimate police power. Ironically at the same time they are blind to more serious overreaching by the state that threatens other rights not as elevated as the "right" to perfect anonymity & privacy.
ALL police powers (all government powers for that matter) involve some "violation" of our rights. They carry cuffs and have jails and prisons to "violate" your right to liberty, they carry guns to "violate" your right to life (as a last resort hopefully) And they question you, execute search warrants, wire tapping warrants etc. to "violate" your right to privacy.
The fact is a police state is not the only threat to liberty, anarchy is just as bad, and is usually a precurser to a police state. The police powers to "violate" our rights is a balance designed (when working right) to maximise our freedoms and rights. The government has the power and authority, granted by the governed, to "violate" the rights of individuals who have or are suspected of violating or planning to violate the rights of the rest of us.
Don't get me wrong, I think we must always be on guard against overreaching by the state. But often people on
consumer-regulated monopoly
Interesting idea, do the consumers vote on telecom policy? Do you only get to vote on issues relating to things you are actually a consumer of? For instance if I am a cell phone user but don't use dial-up do I get a say on regulating cell phone use but not internet use?
Or, is "consumer regulated" a euphamism for government regulated?
Standardization. Also cool.
You forgot, Standardization: if you want internet connectivity you have to use the standardized monopoly OS. (consumer regulated of course, probably with the consumer regulated monopoly browser too)
As long as they're guaranteed a reasonable profit, they'll do anything we want.
No, they will do anything the *majority* of us wants (that is if democracy is working well on that day, if there is any corruption then of course it will do whatever it's bought off legislators and regulators let it do). There will also be no alternatives that cater to the needs of a minority, like say Linux users.
The poster is quite correct that if we expect meaningful change in the law, it will have to come from Congress, not from the court.
To which I think we should all say - Amen! There are many laws and policies that I oppose but it is shortsighted (in most cases) to look to the court to fix it. In order for the issue to be before the court at all my position must have already lost in the congress; that is to say my position lost in the democratic process. That process is not perfect, it is not directly the "will of the people", there is certainly corruption; but it is better than the alternative.
The court is not a democratic institution, the justices are not elected, they don't even pretend to be accountable in any way to the people and they are not supposed to be. They may make the "right" decision in my opinion but if it only reflects the justices personal preferences with only a pretense of constitutional reasoning it is functioning as a benevolent dictatorship. In the short run I get what I want but it is a lousy deal for several reasons. First I have no confidence that they will stay 'benevolent' (i.e. agree with me). And anyway it is only 'benevolent' from my position as an advocate, I'm sure those that oppose my position would characterise it differently. My opponents initially 'won' in the democratic/legislative process - I can accuse them of winning through fraud & corruption but as a partisan I am probably not the most reliable witness.
Finally there are very few checks and balances on Judicial power once they have discarded the self imposed check of sticking strictly to the constitution, there is almost no recourse for the losing side. Without viable political recourse they may abandon political/democratic means of pursuing their agenda. If the issue is merely commercial there may be very few consequences, maybe a slight increase in corruption and disregard for the law. If the issue is more fundamental and emotional the consequences can be severe. Look at the incresing violence of the abolitionist movement after Dred Scott and to a lesser degree the anti-abortionists after Roe. Representational democratic politics gives us a way of resolving conflict, take that away and the if the losing side is passionate enough it may resort to more primitive methods of resolving the conflict.
even showing an ID is mildly offensive,
I think your elevation of a right to privacy into a right to anonymity has reached an absurd level if you are offended (even mildly) by someone essentially asking the question "who are you?" before they conduct business with you. You have a right to privacy, even under some circumstances anonymity. You have no right to air travel, it is a service being provided to you and the airlines have a right (see other people have rights just like you) to put conditions on the service they render - one of which, not unreasonably, is to know who exactly they are providing the service to.
There is no way to stop a determined terrorist on a suicide mission.
This is just plain untrue, we have in the past stopped determined terrorists and God willing we will in the future. Just because we are unlikely to ever be able to stop ALL terrorists does not mean it is therefore useless to stop MOST terrorists, or even SOME terrorists. Security is not an all or nothing thing, it is a matter of degrees. You are right to point out that we will never be 100% secure but you are wrong in fatalistically implying that security precautions are therefore pointless. Locking my car door may not deter a determined car thief but it is still *more* secure than leaving it unlocked with the keys in the ignition.
I would agree that we should be careful not to give up our essential freedoms to gain a false sense of security. I would also argue that we should not pursue some policies that would really would increase security because they would undermine essential liberties. But not every security precaution is a loss of essential liberty nor is a reasonable sense of security "false".
So just what moral obligation does a company have to laid-off workers?
The question is wether we are moral equals engaged in a simple transaction: the exchange of labor for money; or is our employer our moral superior with a patriarchal obligation to care for our well being at the expense of it's own interests? If it is the first then the only moral obligations are those found in an employment contract, if the later then there is a corresponding moral obligation of loyalty on the part of the employee.
Our society seems a bit confused on this question, the answer is usually a mix which varies in it's emphasis from sector to sector but the trend has been away from the second view (mutual moral obligation) and towards the first view (no obligations beyond explicit contractual obligations). It is part of the larger social movement of maximising individual autonomy at the expense of community.
I'm not against bad things being a crime, but who gets to define what is a crime or not?
Um, Legislators? That is the entire, whole, and only point of a legislator.
Well (all in a huff) who decides who the legislators are? Well that would be all of us collectively. Some things that you think should be O.K. will sometimes be made illegal because the rest of the people don't agree with you that it is O.K. or don't care enough about it to change thier representation.
On one side ($$) it's a crime of epic proportions, on the other side it's harmless fun, investigation, proving a point, whatever. This has been a problem since phreaking and probably far before....
Cracking into someone elses computer system, intentionally writing a destructive virus, etc. are all crimes and they should be treated as such. I don't particullarly care if someone breaks into my house and goes through my papers for "harmless fun, investigation or to prove a point" I want them arrested - the same goes for someone who breaks into or intentionally damages my computer.
I went to this editorial hoping it would shed some light on the possible dangers too our liberties but most (not all, but most) of it was a lot of alarmist hot air.
The only two things that really seemed troubling were the remarks by Lott and Gephardt, and the FBI software monitoring email. However, it is hard to evaluate what the remarks really mean since they are not tied to any specific proposals. And I don't know what the FBI software is doing exactly so I don't know if it is a violation of our liberties or simply the extension of long held and appropriate police powers to a new technology.
The section on proposed legislation was again sort of vague. Reducing our access to government information is a valid good government issue, but it is not in itself a restriction of our freedoms. The Anti-Leaks legislation sounds similar but what are the specifics of the legislation that violate our rights to free speech. As for the Flag Desecration Act, sorry I just can't get that worked up about it one way or the other. I oppose it not because criminalising flag burning would be an horrendous violation of free speech rights but because it is a trifle not worth amending the constitution to address.
As for the rest of the article there is no "there" there. Schools banning prayer is a legitimate issue but it has nothing to do with this attack - if anything such restrictions of student speech imposed by ACLU lawsuits were eased rather than tightened by last week's events. Taking down a painting or changing a mural is no violation of free speech if you are the one that owns it. And confiscating video of a crime is called "gathering evidence" and violates no ones rights - it is one of the powers granted to government by the people for the purpose of protecting our collective rights.
The example that really undermines the credibility of the author is his complaint about "private or self-imposed restrictions on expression". These people are EXERCISING their free speech in choosing what they want or don't want to say. Who the Hell is Paul McMasters to tell them what they should say and that they are wrong to change their minds in light of the circumstances. The only disturbing example given is the wire service pulling a picture after threats by the Palestinians but that is not a violation of OUR rights as U.S. citizens it is a violation of Palestinians rights by the Palestinian Authority - most other countries in the world do not have a right to free speech, it is unfortunate but it is not new nor does it have anything to do with the current crisis.
I am very worried about the potential for this crisis to lead to a loss of our liberties, but part of what worries me is the fuzzy thinking about our rights by those like freedomforum who are defending them. If you cry wolf at everything you will lose all effectiveness. FreedomForum seems shakey on making distinctions between our "ESSENTIAL liberties" and the mere inconveniences associated with the legitimate exercise of governments policing power. I fear they would preserve my "right" to leak troop movements at the expense of more fundamental rights like my right to life if I am one of the troops whose location has just been revealed to the enemy.
But people have the right to go to work without buildings falling on them, too.
That is a fallacy Jon, or at least a distortion. The implication is that people have a right to be protected from bad things by society, and I strongly disagree.
I understand your point but I have to disagree in this case. In American political philosophy the victims had a right to life that was violated by the terrorists. We may have no unlimited right to safety but we do have a right to not be killed by other people. It is the entire function of government to "secure those rights". The attack was not an "act of God" an earthquake or disease; it was an attack by a foreign organization depriving American citizens of their most fundamental right. It is the whole purpose of government to stop such violations.
Perhaps a more eloquent way of putting it would be this: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"
We need to get out from under this rock that GW has put our country.
...and work together to stop this stuff.
;) Please, equating increased security at airports with strip searches at the mall, or equating changes to wire tapping rules to target individuals rather than a single phone number with issuing a national I.D. card is a rhetorical excess that does not add anything to the debate.
Exactly what rock is that? To be fair to Dubya he hasn't been in office long enough to be the one that's pissed off Bin Laden. You could maybe blame his father for involving us in the Gulf War, though I'm sure that Clinton administration bombing of Serbia, Sudan, Afghanistan as well as going after Aidid in Somalia didn't win us any friends. At least Bush didn't appear to think that he could fix the third world with an occasional cruise missle.
We need to participate in the world, we need to cooperate with foriegn countries...
To some degree that is what got us into this mess. Bin Laden decided to target America when we "participated in the world and cooperated with foriegn governments" to kick Iraq out of Kuwait. If we are involved in the affairs of the world we will inevitably become a party to conflicts which will earn us enemies. I'm not saying it was the wrong thing to do but it is silly to think that we can "participate in the world" without having people that resent and oppose our participation. This will be true wether we are pursuing our own interests or the interests of the E.U. or the interests of whoever most skillfully manipulates the agenda of the U.N.
That seems to be the plan. Now that we are cooperating with the world how exactly do you plan to "stop this stuff"?
How far behind are ID cards and strip searches to get in the mall.
Why I heard Ashcroft propose both of those plans just the other day
In a crisis like this (and in our complacency beforehand) we need to look to first principles rather than get caught up in the momentary crisis and so do irreparable harm to our liberties.
First we need to realise that government is not the only threat to our rights. In fact the whole purpose of government (in American political philosophy at least) is to protect our rights from the threats posed by other governments, organizatons and even other individuals. Or, as the Declarations puts it: "...That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men" If we define our rights so broadly as to paralyse the legitimate obligation on the part of the government to protect our rights from threats other than our own government those rights will be trampled just a surely as if we lived under a dictatorship.
Against this is the fact that government itself, the body charged with protecting our rights is very often the greatest threat to our rights. After a crisis like this people will be willing to trade all of their other rights to enhance the power of government to protect their right to life. In other words they will be tempted to trade their liberty for security.
Some of the changes this tragedy will bring will be a justified clearing away of an accretion of rules that do less to protect our liberty than harm it by making government impotent to protect it from other threats. Some will simply be adapting the old balances to new technologies. Some will go too far and be more of a threat to our liberty than the dangers they are designed to protect against. It will take more careful thought than simple knee-jerk reactions either way to protect our rights.
Sorry didn't put the url2 001Sep14.html
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/metro/crime/A33994-
Attacks Complicate Case of Woman Held by Taliban - Washington Post
None of the options are really all that palatable. I think what will happen will be some combination of the Financial Crackdown internationally and Assasination/Extraction and small scale insertions against bin Laden's organization within Afghanistan itself (if we have the Intel for that, which I hope we do but fear we don't)
I think that might be coupled with missle/air strikes against the Taliban military along with significant military support for the Northern Alliance, perhaps with small scale insertions against the Taliban with the goal to end that regime. It is not necessary to replace the regime with a better or more democratic regime (though that would be nice). The goal would just be to punish the current regime for it's support of Bin Laden - and underscore the message that harboring a terrorist "at war" with the United States is a bad idea that will get YOU killed.
I doubt the total war option is even being discussed at this point for the very reasons you mention. The country is too large, remote and inhospitable and the region is too unstable nad hostile to the U.S. - the fact that Pakistan is on the verger of civil war and has nukes makes it even more dangerously complicated.
Frighteningly it is not hard to come up with scenarios that lead to WWIII. For instance civil war within Pakistan where the radical Islamist's within the Pakistani army get the nukes and use them on a U.S. airbase operating within the Northern Alliance (sort of makes you wish we had antiballistic capabilities) Would we go nuclear? Would India? China? Russia?
Would we send the army in to a country to capture the CEO of a forign corporation and call it war? I hope not
If that foriegn corporation's sole function was to perpetrate acts of war against the U.S. then yes! and I would hope so! Al Queada is not a business it is a terrorist and guerilla army. I don't have any problem waging war on such an organization and to the degree that a soveriegn state sponsors such a group I don't have any problem waging war on those states. We should try diplomacy first to end such sponsorship and support but giving material aid to a group that is waging war on us is in itself an act of war against us.
Now, in our borders and within the borders of our allies it is a criminal justice matter for the police and the courts to handle. Just like enemy spying or sabotage is always a criminal justice matter. Most likely this will be a large part of where the war will really be fought. But in (or against) states that harbor and support (or in the case of Afghanistan, are supported by) such groups it will be war in the more conventional sense and appropriately so.
There are a lot of dangers to this "new kind of war" The problem is that there is a blurring of the distinction between warfare and criminal justice. In war justice, guilt and innocence are secondary to victory and survival. The individual soldiers killed on the battlefield are not considered "guilty" thier death is not a matter of justice or punishment for a crime. It is an unfortunate requirment to defeat the enemy. How does a war against terrorists, many of whom are on our own soil, hidden among the general population work?
I think the U.S. unfortunately has to, and is, viewing this as a war and is willing to do a lot of things that would not have been considered prior to the attack. It seems that we are pursuing a fairly prudent course. Inside the borders of the U.S. this is being dealt with as a criminal matter which protects the civil liberties of the people. Law enforcement may get some expanded powers, some of what it is seeking is probably an appropriate response to technological changes and some is overreaching with frightening potential for abuse. We should be careful to make that distinction. If we oppose every single effort by law enforcement to use new technology or counter criminal uses of technology we will lose our credibility when the issue really is one of fundamental liberties. Clearly we are at least going to suffer the inconveniences of a heightened concern for security (some of which will be silly but not an assualt on our freedoms).
Outside of the U.S. I think is where this really will look more like "war" Before this incident we were trying to snatch Bin Laden to bring him to justice. Now I think we will forego that nicety. If we find him, we will kill him.
We have also made it clear that we are willing to use "old fashioned" war to win the "new kind of war." If we find a state that is sponsoring these terrorists we will seek to "end it" (as Sec. Rumsfeld said) to deny the terrorists that support. And I can't help but think that fear of "old fashioned" war is what is driving nations not usually very friendly to us to bend over backwards to to be our new best friends. Pakistan is willing to risk civil war to help us, don't think for a minute that it is just because we asked nicely. I would imagine we asked in a way that wasn't nice at all, in a way that at least implied that civil war with the Talibans supporters in Pakistan wasn't the worst thing that could happen to them. Syria and Iran are also eager to display their support for a war on terrorism.
You are wrong. Tolkien started by creating a language, then he created a mythology to breath life into that language, then he started writing stories set in the world that mythology described.
A terrorist hell bent on hijacking a plane and flying it straight into a building killing everyone aboard including himself, would think nothing of reconstructive surgery if that's what it took.
There are perhaps very good arguments against such a system but this is not one of them.
I wonder do you leave your front door open when you leave home because a thief would think nothing of picking the lock? Any defense can be overcome in some way but that does not mean defenses are pointless. "hardened terrorists" may be capable of great intelligence and technical brilliance but they are not perfect. As they face more obstacles to the success of their mission the fewer missions will be successful.
There is absolutely no possiblity of the U.S. using nukes in this situation. So why didn't Rumsfeld or McCain come out and say so? I think for two reasons.
1) We are putting unprecedented pressure on nations that are not really very friendly with us. Pakistan for instance has been generally supportive of the Taliban and faces a significant risk of civil war if they oppose the Taliban. If it weren't for our overwhelming military superiority would Pakistan be so willing to aid us? What if Pakistan decided to ally themselves with the Taliban - Pakistan has nukes itself, we might want them to at least worry about the possiblity of a preemptory nuclear strike while they decide which side of the conflict they want to be on. The Taliban and OBL are a credible threat to Pakistan I'm sure are diplomats at least allowed them to think that we are a an even greater threat.
2) The situation may change - Al Qaeda is KNOWN to be seeking chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. It is not far fetched to think that they may get them if they don't already have them. What if the next attack is chemical weapons killing hundreds of thousands of Americans? What if we discover that an actual state (say, Iraq) sponsored such an attack? U.S. policy is to meet such weapons of mass destruction with our own weapons of mass destruction, that is the whole basis of Mutually Assured Destruction. Actually in this case there would be nothing mutual about it. For that very reason no matter how much some of these states may hate us they would not sponsor such an attack. And nations that might actually be sponsoring Al Qaeada may even now be moving against it if they conclude that the risks (possibly nuclear annihilation) outweight the benefits (harassing the US)
1 a) Osama bin Laden is not a scapegoat if he is guilty. He is a suspect because the evidence suggests it. He is a suspect because he is our avowed emnity.
1 b) I don't see how CIA support of the Mujehadeen in Afghanistan motivates OBL to attack America. In any event that support has not been ignored by the media - I have heard it on several occasions. It is certainly not a secret. However, I am not under the impression that OBL was a major focus of CIA aid they tended to support native Afghans rather than Arabic volunteers who where largely self-financed
1 c) I would also be hard pressed to say that financing and even training freedom fighters fighting against a foreign invasion makes us responsible for the future actions of some of them who later decide to become terrorists in a larger conflict against all non-Muslim centers of power.
2) Iraq's leaders are primarily responsible for Iraqi suffering. I don't fall for the impotent stance you advocate that refuses to protect us from a regime that is seeking to build nuclear and chemical weapons to destroy us.
As for the bombing of the pharmecutical plant I agree, the Clinton administrations incompetance was criminal and probably did lead to untold deaths. That, not the Lewinsky affair should have been grounds for his impeachment. But, Clinton was not wrong for striking at Bin Laden and a nation that supported him. He was wrong for rushing into action for political expediency, firing wildly and so missing the target and hitting complete inocents. And to avoid the rampant moral equivelancy no matter how reprehensible Clinton's failure was it is still a very, very, far cry from the absolute evil of intentionally targetting those innocents.
Oh yes, one more thing. The images of Palesinians celebrating in Isreal are NOT fake. I am aware of the biases and potential for propoganda from the major media. Are you unaware of the even more blatant biases and propaganda from the "independant" media?
Congress declared war on the Barbary pirates during the Jefferson administration and they were not an internationally recognised government.
I thought about this as well, and the politicians are going further than simple rhetoric and are talking about an actual formal declaration of war from congress when we discover who did this, and possibly against the country or countries that supported or harbored the terrorist organization. Of course under the war powers act an actual formal declaration is probably unnecessary - It is pretty clear that whoever did this is a "clear and present danger."
I am not a lawyer either but I think the government would be able to have it's cake and eat it too. By declaring war our military and the CIA would have a much freer hand in dealing with our enemies outside of the states. In a war you are also not focussed on capturing the enemy to "bring him to trial" but simply killing him. There have been attempts and plans in the past to capture OBL, a nation at war doesn't bother - if we know where he is we will kill him.
And domestically spy's and sabateurs, that is enemy agents in our country under false pretenses during war time, get the worst of all possible legal worlds. They have far fewer civil liberties protections than they would normally have as citizens or legal immigrants and they are not legally soldiers covered by treaty or international law. On top of that a lot of crimes are legally more serious in a nation at war than in a nation at peace. I would imagine there are some instances where a defendant might even find themselves in a military court rather than federal court. And while it is unlikely that being an 'accesory after the fact' carries the death penalty; a 'traitor' giving 'aid and comfort to the enemy' is a different matter.