Because the Supreme Court has interpreted warrantless searches and seizures as unreasonable unless preceded by probable cause.
Nonsense. There's no probable cause needed for a police roadblock, is there? Yet the Supreme Court has declared them to be reasonable searches.
The FBI does not run your library. Neither does the federal government. Ever wonder why there are different branches of government and why there this whole "checks and balances" concept that people keep talking about?
No. It's certainly not so that one branch of government can't share information with another one, though.
Ever wonder why police have to get warrants before kicking your door in and searching your home?
No. It's obvious why they do.
So what? I'm talking about what we've done as a response to 9/11.
But since it happened before 9/11 it can't possibly have been done as a response.
Then I'll try to explain: Many of those things will infringe on privacy and Constitutional rights. If you say "anything goes" as long as it prevents terrorism, then maybe America is not really the right country for you.
But I NEVER SAID THAT.
Any law which allows the government to track your whereabouts and travel does abridge your fundamental freedoms.
Nonsense. Not being tracked isn't even a freedom, let alone a fundamental one.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures..." Ever heard of that? How is it a reasonable search to require that I provide biometric proof of identity in order to board a plane?
How is it not reasonable? They've been doing it for years, and very few people have complained.
The federal government has no Constitutional authority to require law-abiding Americans to present any form of identification before they engage in private transactions.
Sure it does. It has the power to regulate commerce among the states and the power to make all laws necessary to use that power. It also has the power to tax and spend, and part of that power to tax and spend includes the power to withhold funding so long as it is not being coercive. Again, I suggest you take a course on Constitutional law before you start whinging about what is and isn't Constitutional.
As far as I know you do not need ID for travel between the countries of the EU. Correct me if I'm wrong.
If I find a cite, I'll send it.
In any case are you seriously suggesting that we require ID to travel between our own states?
Not all borders, by all modes of travel, as that'd be impossible. But this particular law seemed to be that interstate travel by bus or train would require an ID.
Maybe you should give your life for your country. That'd certainly be a good start. Personally I think I do more for my country alive than dead, thank you.
the majority of people's opinions were ignored in that election
Once again, the majority of people didn't vote in that election.
You're right. I misspoke. The majority of votes were ignored in that election.
Bloodshed can be kept to a minimum if the majority of people use the system in place.
The system in place is not designed to give the majority whatever they want.
And if you're in the minority, then it's going to take even more time and bloodshed.
Hell, that's how the US became its own country.
Off the work of oppressed minority slaves? Yep.
The colonies fought for a secession, not a take-over. If you want to secede from the US, be my guest.
Your guest maybe, but the US won't let me, just like they didn't let my state during the civil war.
If everybody who supports drug abuse, excessive gambling, and prostitution wants to secede from the US, I'll support them 100%.
Actually, I only want the right to legitimately grow and use drugs or drug containing products, and the right to gamble non-excessively. But the government has taken that right away from me.
If, however, this group wants to fight to take over the US government, expect resistance.
Oh trust me, plenty of people have fought the US and lost who only wanted to exercise their God-given rights.
The system should protect the rights of the people even when the people fail.
It tries.
And it fails.
The system, however, can not read people's minds. That's why we have the right to vote, so the people can express their opinions.
You keep confusing rights with opinions. When the majority of people decided that it was OK to keep slaves, that didn't make it right. The system should protect the rights of people, regardless of what popular opinion has to say.
When people don't vote, they don't have opinions. It's their way of saying that they are complacent with the status quo.
Or maybe they're not able or allowed to vote. Or maybe they just realize that their vote isn't going to accomplish anything. Or maybe they just feel that all the candidates are equally incompetant.
The system protects their rights by continuing to go about its business as usual.
Again you seem to be confusing rights and popular opinion.
every candidate has at least one issue which I disagree with
Then run yourself. If the majority of people agree with you, they'll vote for you.
Nonsense. The majority of people will have never heard of me. I'm not old enough to run as a Senator or President anyway.
>The majority of people aren't doing shit
That's not a failure of the system. It's a failure of the people.
No, it's a failure of both.
Are you implying that a dictatorship is the only way to get things done?
Of course not. A republic with strict constitutional limits on the powers of government guaranteeing the rights of the citizens is the way to get things done.
No, the election which led to the Electoral College's election.
That's hardly the most important election, and the majority of people's opinions were ignored in that election.
You do realize that you're actually allowed to go into a little booth and cast your vote, right?
Sure, I can cast my vote, which might be counted, and certainly won't change anything. I'm aware of that.
If the majority of "people" want something done in this government, they can do it.
Eventually, with much bloodshed, perhaps. And if you're in the minority, then it's going to take even more time and bloodshed.
The system works. The people don't.
The system should protect the rights of the people even when the people fail. Therefore it doesn't work.
I'd rather die in a terrorist attack than gut the Constitution to prevent one.
Oh yeah, and I'd rather be alive and not have the Constitution than be dead and have it. The Constitution is there to protect my freedom, and when I'm dead I don't have any freedom.
The reason that it is brought up is that the Bush administration is hell-bent on using 9/11 as an excuse to erode Constitutional and human rights in the name of fighting terror.
So it's a strawman argument. OK.
Law enforcement can gather information about people with no court orders and no probable cause.
Why should it take probable cause or a court order to gather information?
They can go into your library and demand to see the list of books you've checked out -- even if you've done nothing wrong.
The government runs my library. Why shouldn't they be allowed to demand information from themself?
We've had U.S. citizens detained for months at a time with no charges leveled against them and no access to lawyers.
Yes we have. Long before 9/11.
We have POWs in Guantanamo Bay -- but we call them "Enemy Combatants" to avoid abiding by the terms of the Geneva Convention.
We are abiding by the terms of the Geneva Convention. And the term "enemy combatant" is much older than 9/11.
The problem with having no litmus test like whether something could have prevented 9/11 is that there is no end to things which could help in the fight on terrorism.
I don't see how that's a problem.
Cameras in restrooms to spot people with explosives strapped to themselves. Strip-searches of people boarding Amtrak trains. Repeal or modification of the Second Amendment (right to bear arms), Fourth Amendment (barring unreasonable search and siezure), Fifth Amendment (rights to due process of law), Sixth Amemdment (right to speedy and public trial, right to counsel, right to an impartial jury of peers), and Seventh Amendment (protection from double jeopardy).
Correllation does not imply causation. Yes, these things wouldn't have helped stop 9/11. But that doesn't mean that anything which wouldn't stop 9/11 is a bad idea.
I know that you're not suggesting that such steps would be appropriate
Good, then apparently you read the rest of my post, where I said that this still might not be a good idea.
, but, lacking such a test, there will be someone to argue in favor of any of those things.
There obviously should be a test. But whether or not something would stop 9/11 is not that test. There are plenty of things which wouldn't stop 9/11 which are a good idea (as I said, stopping nuclear weapons from being taken on board airplanes). And there are plenty of things which would have stopped 9/11 which are a bad idea (stopping Arabs from boarding aircraft, for instance). Whether or not something would have stopped 9/11 is irrelevant.
No matter how many laws are passed and freedoms abridged, terrorism will happen.
Absolutely. But there are certain laws that can be passed which will greatly reduced the amount of terrorism that happens and don't abridge any fundamental freedoms.
We can either live our lives in terror, as the perpetrators of 9/11 wanted, or we can be brave and stand up for our way of life.
Or we can be brave, stand up for our way of life, but continue to make adjustments in our laws which make us safer.
I'd rather die in a terrorist attack than gut the Constitution to prevent one.
This law is perfectly Constitutional. So that's a choice you're not being asked to make.
There's no sense in writing to a democratically elected representative on issues about which that representative has already made up her mind.
Simple. Don't vote for her at her next election.
So I don't vote for anyone, because every candidate has at least one issue which I disagree with? That doesn't accomplish anything.
However, I personally do not see how laws against drug abuse, excessive gambling (there is plenty of gambling in this country... what do you want, a craps table in every corner store?), and prostitution are somehow oppressing you.
The laws aren't against drug abuse, they're against cultivation of certain drugs and trafficking of certain others without a license, prescription, etc. They oppress me because they take away my right to grow pot, to buy glasses without going to a doctor, to put into my body whatever I want whenever I want to.
Some forms of gambling are legal in some places, but it's illegal for me to call up a friend in Las Vegas and place a bet on a football game. It's illegal for me to fund a PartyPoker account with paypal. And a bunch of other things, all of which oppress me.
As for prostitution, I'm not sure what the federal laws are regarding prostitution, and they're not oppressing me, but they are oppressing prostitutes.
One of the jobs of government is to protect people from themselves.
This is what I get for discussing things with an anon. IHBT.
Furthermore, the majority of people are already against a number of laws which are on the books.
What is this majority doing to change the laws?
The majority of people aren't doing shit.
They're certainly not electing leaders who agree with them.
The only way to elect a leader who agrees with you on everything is to elect yourself. Even if I was able to run for all positions (I'm too young), I certainly wouldn't be allowed to hold them all at the same time.
In 2000, the majority of the people in the US didn't even bother to vote in the single most important election our government has.
What, the Electoral College? The majority of people aren't allowed to vote in that.
If people want something done, they should do it.
I want all drug laws repealed, so I should do it?
Don't complain about the system just because people don't bother to use it. It's in place, it works. People just don't care.
It's in place. It doesn't work. And I have every right to complain about it.
The federal government has no jusrisdiction over intrastate transportation.
LMAO! From Wikard v. Filburn to Heart of Atlanta Model v United States to Katzenbach v McClung to Daniel v. Paul the Supreme Court has ruled time and time again that there need be very little tie-in to interstate commerce to regulate a wholly intrastate activity. United States v. Lopez has stemmed the tide a bit, but I highly doubt a case can be won against a law which regulates the intrastate portions of an interstate transportation company. Even if it could, do you think these companies are going to fight for your rights or are going to do whatever is most convenient for them? When you fly from San Francisco to LA do you have to show ID?
Sure, our country, its associated government, and the life and people here in general are in many respects very different from the USA, but no one here ever even thinks to protest the existence of national ID's.
It's rare to see the protest of state IDs (drivers' licenses) here. People have grown used to them.
But the whole national ID card idea is new, and there are a lot of libertarian-minded people on Slashdot. Most of the people protesting a national ID card would protest drivers' licenses too, if it wasn't for the fact that people have grown so accustomed to them that there's virtually no chance of getting rid of them.
And what's great about public transit is that you can booze up and get to wherever you're going. Now.. how am I to buy booze without an ID? Oh right.. booze is optional too, I guess.
You must be young. I haven't shown ID to buy booze in years.
Soon, everything will be optional.. available only to those who submit their lives to the State and the Corporation.
I certainly agree with your sentiment. Driving should be a right, not a privilege. Driver's licenses and license plates should be optional, not driving.
We could just requires all citizens to have passports. It all works the same.
Of course we couldn't, because forcing all citizens to have passports would be unconstitutional. Withholding highway funding for states who don't turn their drivers' licenses into national ID cards, on the other hand, that's constitutional.
The Constitution was a good idea while it lasted, but we've nearly reached the point where the lawyers have exploited all the loopholes in it. I only exaggerate a little.
Let me ask a question. Do you think that having border controls reduces terrorism, or do you think that we could allow anyone who wants to freely enter country without any increase in risk to our country? If it's the latter than we have a fundamental difference in opinion, because I think border controls obviously reduce terrorism.
I really don't understand why people keep bringing up whether or not this would have helped against 9/11.
Actually, I think it's a good litmus test, really.
No it isn't. Stopping people from taking nuclear bombs on planes wouldn't have stopped 9/11. Requiring airline pilots to be licensed wouldn't have stopped 9/11. Keeping bin Laden out of the United States wouldn't have stopped 9/11. Stopping Mexicans from smuggling Radium into the US wouldn't have stopped 9/11. But all these things help stop terrorism.
No one should be or have been able to get onto a plane with box cutters (a small penknife maybe, since you'd have to actually stab directly into someone's aorta to kill them).
Yes, and making laws to stop these things is useful. But not all laws which help stop terrorism have to be able to stop 9/11.
The ID thing is a valid point. Even US citizens joined in the attack on the US.
That doesn't make it a valid point. It means we need to do more than just stop people from illegally being in the country, but it doesn't mean that we shouldn't also stop people from illegally being in the country.
We cannot anticipate every action and kill every potential terrorist. But we *can* improve our image in the world so that the terrorists have fewer potential recruits.
Like I said, Europe already requires ID for travel between states. Requiring the same in the US doesn't hurt our image very much.
Yeah, uh, sorry about that. But I still think 9/11 is a good litmus test. If you put in a block that didn't work against terrorists in the past, why will it work in the future?
Because 9/11 isn't ever going to happen again. In fact, 9/11 most likely wouldn't happen again even if zero changes were made. The fact that the fourth plane went down in Pennsylvania only a short time after the first plane hit the WTC is evidence of that. Stopping terrorism != stopping 9/11.
It's called "learning." When we failed to defend against that specific attack, the need arose to analyze it and determine what we did wrong; Find out what we could have done to have prevented it; Locate the holes in the system that were exploited and plug them up.
Sure, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't bother to protect against different attacks.
How does requiring our own citizens to carry more identification prevent terrorist attacks?
That's really simple. Some terrorists are not legally in the country. Some of those terrorists will get caught either by not having ID or while trying to illegally obtain ID.
In terms of attacks from our citizens (i.e. Oklahoma City), how does having a valid driver's license stop someone from blowing up a building?
You seem to have the misconception that a method of defense must stop every single type of attack in order to be useful. This is obviously not true.
In terms of attacks from foreign visitors (i.e. 9/11), are we going to not allow them to travel at all?
Of course not. Valid foreign visitors will have temporary identification saying that they're a valid foreign visitor.
If you want to change the laws, write your democratically elected representatives.
There's no sense in writing to a democratically elected representative on issues about which that representative has already made up her mind.
Draft proposals for changes and rally support for those proposals. They will be democratically voted on by our democratically elected representatives. If the majority of the people agree with you, the law will pass. Otherwise, it won't. Please explain how this process is "evil."
I'll let Thomas Jefferson do it for me:
All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate which would be oppression.
The concentrating [of powers] in the same hands is precisely the definition of despotic government. It will be no alleviation that these powers will be exercised by a plurality of hands, and not by a single one.
Furthermore, the majority of people are already against a number of laws which are on the books. Your assertion that if the majority of people agree with me, the law will pass, is nonsense.
Setting real minimum documentation requirements is a good thing -- that way someone can't just pick the state with the weakest requirements and get a valid ID there.
Assuming you believe we should have a national ID in the first place.
The scary parts of this bill have to do with the data contained by the license, the database, and the integrated network.
Not having an integrated network or database is just security through obscurity. I don't see how this is scary.
As for the data, I don't have cookies enabled, so I'm not able to read the actual story. But I seriously doubt retinal scans and fingerprints are part of the proposal. Even if they are, I don't see that big of a deal. It's not like a non-criminal can change his identity without the help of the government anyway.
Also, let's repeat once again that all the 9/11 terrorists were travelling on perfectly valid, non-faked passports. This wouldn't have helped one bit.
I really don't understand why people keep bringing up whether or not this would have helped against 9/11. 9/11 is over, we have to look to the future, not the past.
Will this help fight against terrorism in the future? Sure. Is it worth it? I'm not sure. Standardizing licenses isn't so bad, and from what I can tell requiring fingerprints or retinal scans would require an additional law to be passed. Requiring ID for interstate travel is less of a good thing, but they do it in Europe already so it's not that bad.
I guess I'd prefer to see no drivers licenses at all, but the vast majority of people would be strongly against me on that one. And they do have a point. Our borders are far too big to adequately protect against people getting in unlawfully. Presumably a plan like this would help catch people even after they've already gotten in.
Is it worth it? The problem is I can't really come up with any real arguments against it. I guess the only problem is if the government turns evil then all the infrastructure to track citizens is already in place. Of course, between drug laws and gambling laws and prostitution laws, maybe the government already is somewhat evil.
The way I see it, this is a clear issue of states' rights.
The thing is, Supreme Court precedent is strongly against this point of view. The problem is that the government isn't directly mandating a federal ID, but rather refusing highway funding to those states who don't participate. It's the reason we have a drinking age of 21 in the US, and South Dakota v. Dole answered the question of whether or not it's Constitutional.
Frankly, with all the caving the Supreme Court has done over the last 200 years wrt states rights, we should just get it over with and abolish states rights altogether. Let the states exist like counties or incorporated cities, they basically already do.
They've finished what, 5000 books in 4 years? How long will it take them to finish the Library of Congress? We'll have good OCR software that can do it automatically long before they'd ever get done.
The Gutenberg project hasn't even managed to get Encyclopedia Britannica 1911 done yet. Distributed proofreading is not the solution. The time wasted on these efforts should be spent toward making natural language processing software which could do this work automatically.
More specifically, this is probably developers who have signed up for their (EULA-laden) API.
This license does not include any resale or commercial use of this site or its contents; any collection and use of any product listings, descriptions, or prices; any derivative use of this site or its contents; any downloading or copying of account information for the benefit of another merchant; or any use of data mining, robots, or similar data gathering and extraction tools. This site or any portion of this site may not be reproduced, duplicated, copied, sold, resold, visited, or otherwise exploited for any commercial purpose without express written consent of Amazon.com.
Not very much incentive for us developers to "plunder information on [Amazon's site for our] own ends".
The dotcom era should have taught these so called visionaries one thing, you actually have to have a business plan before you can transform business models.
More like, when someone offers you a 4 million dollar investment but insists on complete control over the company, you should say "no thanks" and look for a different investor.
But hey, that's just what I learned during the dotcom era.
Slashdot Mirror
Because the Supreme Court has interpreted warrantless searches and seizures as unreasonable unless preceded by probable cause.
Nonsense. There's no probable cause needed for a police roadblock, is there? Yet the Supreme Court has declared them to be reasonable searches.
The FBI does not run your library. Neither does the federal government. Ever wonder why there are different branches of government and why there this whole "checks and balances" concept that people keep talking about?
No. It's certainly not so that one branch of government can't share information with another one, though.
Ever wonder why police have to get warrants before kicking your door in and searching your home?
No. It's obvious why they do.
So what? I'm talking about what we've done as a response to 9/11.
But since it happened before 9/11 it can't possibly have been done as a response.
Then I'll try to explain: Many of those things will infringe on privacy and Constitutional rights. If you say "anything goes" as long as it prevents terrorism, then maybe America is not really the right country for you.
But I NEVER SAID THAT.
Any law which allows the government to track your whereabouts and travel does abridge your fundamental freedoms.
Nonsense. Not being tracked isn't even a freedom, let alone a fundamental one.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures..." Ever heard of that? How is it a reasonable search to require that I provide biometric proof of identity in order to board a plane?
How is it not reasonable? They've been doing it for years, and very few people have complained.
The federal government has no Constitutional authority to require law-abiding Americans to present any form of identification before they engage in private transactions.
Sure it does. It has the power to regulate commerce among the states and the power to make all laws necessary to use that power. It also has the power to tax and spend, and part of that power to tax and spend includes the power to withhold funding so long as it is not being coercive. Again, I suggest you take a course on Constitutional law before you start whinging about what is and isn't Constitutional.
As far as I know you do not need ID for travel between the countries of the EU. Correct me if I'm wrong.
If I find a cite, I'll send it.
In any case are you seriously suggesting that we require ID to travel between our own states?
Not all borders, by all modes of travel, as that'd be impossible. But this particular law seemed to be that interstate travel by bus or train would require an ID.
Is it even constitutional?
I don't see why not.
Maybe you should give your life for your country. That'd certainly be a good start. Personally I think I do more for my country alive than dead, thank you.
the majority of people's opinions were ignored in that election
Once again, the majority of people didn't vote in that election.
You're right. I misspoke. The majority of votes were ignored in that election.
Bloodshed can be kept to a minimum if the majority of people use the system in place.
The system in place is not designed to give the majority whatever they want.
And if you're in the minority, then it's going to take even more time and bloodshed.
Hell, that's how the US became its own country.
Off the work of oppressed minority slaves? Yep.
The colonies fought for a secession, not a take-over. If you want to secede from the US, be my guest.
Your guest maybe, but the US won't let me, just like they didn't let my state during the civil war.
If everybody who supports drug abuse, excessive gambling, and prostitution wants to secede from the US, I'll support them 100%.
Actually, I only want the right to legitimately grow and use drugs or drug containing products, and the right to gamble non-excessively. But the government has taken that right away from me.
If, however, this group wants to fight to take over the US government, expect resistance.
Oh trust me, plenty of people have fought the US and lost who only wanted to exercise their God-given rights.
The system should protect the rights of the people even when the people fail.
It tries.
And it fails.
The system, however, can not read people's minds. That's why we have the right to vote, so the people can express their opinions.
You keep confusing rights with opinions. When the majority of people decided that it was OK to keep slaves, that didn't make it right. The system should protect the rights of people, regardless of what popular opinion has to say.
When people don't vote, they don't have opinions. It's their way of saying that they are complacent with the status quo.
Or maybe they're not able or allowed to vote. Or maybe they just realize that their vote isn't going to accomplish anything. Or maybe they just feel that all the candidates are equally incompetant.
The system protects their rights by continuing to go about its business as usual.
Again you seem to be confusing rights and popular opinion.
Then run yourself. If the majority of people agree with you, they'll vote for you.
Nonsense. The majority of people will have never heard of me. I'm not old enough to run as a Senator or President anyway.
That's not a failure of the system. It's a failure of the people.
No, it's a failure of both.
Are you implying that a dictatorship is the only way to get things done?
Of course not. A republic with strict constitutional limits on the powers of government guaranteeing the rights of the citizens is the way to get things done.
No, the election which led to the Electoral College's election.
That's hardly the most important election, and the majority of people's opinions were ignored in that election.
You do realize that you're actually allowed to go into a little booth and cast your vote, right?
Sure, I can cast my vote, which might be counted, and certainly won't change anything. I'm aware of that.
If the majority of "people" want something done in this government, they can do it.
Eventually, with much bloodshed, perhaps. And if you're in the minority, then it's going to take even more time and bloodshed.
The system works. The people don't.
The system should protect the rights of the people even when the people fail. Therefore it doesn't work.
I'd rather die in a terrorist attack than gut the Constitution to prevent one.
Oh yeah, and I'd rather be alive and not have the Constitution than be dead and have it. The Constitution is there to protect my freedom, and when I'm dead I don't have any freedom.
The reason that it is brought up is that the Bush administration is hell-bent on using 9/11 as an excuse to erode Constitutional and human rights in the name of fighting terror.
So it's a strawman argument. OK.
Law enforcement can gather information about people with no court orders and no probable cause.
Why should it take probable cause or a court order to gather information?
They can go into your library and demand to see the list of books you've checked out -- even if you've done nothing wrong.
The government runs my library. Why shouldn't they be allowed to demand information from themself?
We've had U.S. citizens detained for months at a time with no charges leveled against them and no access to lawyers.
Yes we have. Long before 9/11.
We have POWs in Guantanamo Bay -- but we call them "Enemy Combatants" to avoid abiding by the terms of the Geneva Convention.
We are abiding by the terms of the Geneva Convention. And the term "enemy combatant" is much older than 9/11.
The problem with having no litmus test like whether something could have prevented 9/11 is that there is no end to things which could help in the fight on terrorism.
I don't see how that's a problem.
Cameras in restrooms to spot people with explosives strapped to themselves. Strip-searches of people boarding Amtrak trains. Repeal or modification of the Second Amendment (right to bear arms), Fourth Amendment (barring unreasonable search and siezure), Fifth Amendment (rights to due process of law), Sixth Amemdment (right to speedy and public trial, right to counsel, right to an impartial jury of peers), and Seventh Amendment (protection from double jeopardy).
Correllation does not imply causation. Yes, these things wouldn't have helped stop 9/11. But that doesn't mean that anything which wouldn't stop 9/11 is a bad idea.
I know that you're not suggesting that such steps would be appropriate
Good, then apparently you read the rest of my post, where I said that this still might not be a good idea.
, but, lacking such a test, there will be someone to argue in favor of any of those things.
There obviously should be a test. But whether or not something would stop 9/11 is not that test. There are plenty of things which wouldn't stop 9/11 which are a good idea (as I said, stopping nuclear weapons from being taken on board airplanes). And there are plenty of things which would have stopped 9/11 which are a bad idea (stopping Arabs from boarding aircraft, for instance). Whether or not something would have stopped 9/11 is irrelevant.
No matter how many laws are passed and freedoms abridged, terrorism will happen.
Absolutely. But there are certain laws that can be passed which will greatly reduced the amount of terrorism that happens and don't abridge any fundamental freedoms.
We can either live our lives in terror, as the perpetrators of 9/11 wanted, or we can be brave and stand up for our way of life.
Or we can be brave, stand up for our way of life, but continue to make adjustments in our laws which make us safer.
I'd rather die in a terrorist attack than gut the Constitution to prevent one.
This law is perfectly Constitutional. So that's a choice you're not being asked to make.
Simple. Don't vote for her at her next election.
So I don't vote for anyone, because every candidate has at least one issue which I disagree with? That doesn't accomplish anything.
However, I personally do not see how laws against drug abuse, excessive gambling (there is plenty of gambling in this country... what do you want, a craps table in every corner store?), and prostitution are somehow oppressing you.
The laws aren't against drug abuse, they're against cultivation of certain drugs and trafficking of certain others without a license, prescription, etc. They oppress me because they take away my right to grow pot, to buy glasses without going to a doctor, to put into my body whatever I want whenever I want to.
Some forms of gambling are legal in some places, but it's illegal for me to call up a friend in Las Vegas and place a bet on a football game. It's illegal for me to fund a PartyPoker account with paypal. And a bunch of other things, all of which oppress me.
As for prostitution, I'm not sure what the federal laws are regarding prostitution, and they're not oppressing me, but they are oppressing prostitutes.
One of the jobs of government is to protect people from themselves.
This is what I get for discussing things with an anon. IHBT.
What is this majority doing to change the laws?
The majority of people aren't doing shit.
They're certainly not electing leaders who agree with them.
The only way to elect a leader who agrees with you on everything is to elect yourself. Even if I was able to run for all positions (I'm too young), I certainly wouldn't be allowed to hold them all at the same time.
In 2000, the majority of the people in the US didn't even bother to vote in the single most important election our government has.
What, the Electoral College? The majority of people aren't allowed to vote in that.
If people want something done, they should do it.
I want all drug laws repealed, so I should do it?
Don't complain about the system just because people don't bother to use it. It's in place, it works. People just don't care.
It's in place. It doesn't work. And I have every right to complain about it.
The federal government has no jusrisdiction over intrastate transportation.
LMAO! From Wikard v. Filburn to Heart of Atlanta Model v United States to Katzenbach v McClung to Daniel v. Paul the Supreme Court has ruled time and time again that there need be very little tie-in to interstate commerce to regulate a wholly intrastate activity. United States v. Lopez has stemmed the tide a bit, but I highly doubt a case can be won against a law which regulates the intrastate portions of an interstate transportation company. Even if it could, do you think these companies are going to fight for your rights or are going to do whatever is most convenient for them? When you fly from San Francisco to LA do you have to show ID?
I suspect that fingerprints and retinal scans were editorial examples included to try to scare people, not in the actual law.
Sure, our country, its associated government, and the life and people here in general are in many respects very different from the USA, but no one here ever even thinks to protest the existence of national ID's.
It's rare to see the protest of state IDs (drivers' licenses) here. People have grown used to them.
But the whole national ID card idea is new, and there are a lot of libertarian-minded people on Slashdot. Most of the people protesting a national ID card would protest drivers' licenses too, if it wasn't for the fact that people have grown so accustomed to them that there's virtually no chance of getting rid of them.
And what's great about public transit is that you can booze up and get to wherever you're going. Now.. how am I to buy booze without an ID? Oh right.. booze is optional too, I guess.
You must be young. I haven't shown ID to buy booze in years.
Soon, everything will be optional.. available only to those who submit their lives to the State and the Corporation.
I certainly agree with your sentiment. Driving should be a right, not a privilege. Driver's licenses and license plates should be optional, not driving.
I thought it was that failure to identify yourself can be grounds for a temporary "Terry stop".
We could just requires all citizens to have passports. It all works the same.
Of course we couldn't, because forcing all citizens to have passports would be unconstitutional. Withholding highway funding for states who don't turn their drivers' licenses into national ID cards, on the other hand, that's constitutional.
The Constitution was a good idea while it lasted, but we've nearly reached the point where the lawyers have exploited all the loopholes in it. I only exaggerate a little.
Sure, we should have just ceded control of our country to the Taliban. That'd stop the terrorists!
Let me ask a question. Do you think that having border controls reduces terrorism, or do you think that we could allow anyone who wants to freely enter country without any increase in risk to our country? If it's the latter than we have a fundamental difference in opinion, because I think border controls obviously reduce terrorism.
Actually, I think it's a good litmus test, really.
No it isn't. Stopping people from taking nuclear bombs on planes wouldn't have stopped 9/11. Requiring airline pilots to be licensed wouldn't have stopped 9/11. Keeping bin Laden out of the United States wouldn't have stopped 9/11. Stopping Mexicans from smuggling Radium into the US wouldn't have stopped 9/11. But all these things help stop terrorism.
No one should be or have been able to get onto a plane with box cutters (a small penknife maybe, since you'd have to actually stab directly into someone's aorta to kill them).
Yes, and making laws to stop these things is useful. But not all laws which help stop terrorism have to be able to stop 9/11.
The ID thing is a valid point. Even US citizens joined in the attack on the US.
That doesn't make it a valid point. It means we need to do more than just stop people from illegally being in the country, but it doesn't mean that we shouldn't also stop people from illegally being in the country.
We cannot anticipate every action and kill every potential terrorist. But we *can* improve our image in the world so that the terrorists have fewer potential recruits.
Like I said, Europe already requires ID for travel between states. Requiring the same in the US doesn't hurt our image very much.
Yeah, uh, sorry about that. But I still think 9/11 is a good litmus test. If you put in a block that didn't work against terrorists in the past, why will it work in the future?
Because 9/11 isn't ever going to happen again. In fact, 9/11 most likely wouldn't happen again even if zero changes were made. The fact that the fourth plane went down in Pennsylvania only a short time after the first plane hit the WTC is evidence of that. Stopping terrorism != stopping 9/11.
It's called "learning." When we failed to defend against that specific attack, the need arose to analyze it and determine what we did wrong; Find out what we could have done to have prevented it; Locate the holes in the system that were exploited and plug them up.
Sure, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't bother to protect against different attacks.
How does requiring our own citizens to carry more identification prevent terrorist attacks?
That's really simple. Some terrorists are not legally in the country. Some of those terrorists will get caught either by not having ID or while trying to illegally obtain ID.
In terms of attacks from our citizens (i.e. Oklahoma City), how does having a valid driver's license stop someone from blowing up a building?
You seem to have the misconception that a method of defense must stop every single type of attack in order to be useful. This is obviously not true.
In terms of attacks from foreign visitors (i.e. 9/11), are we going to not allow them to travel at all?
Of course not. Valid foreign visitors will have temporary identification saying that they're a valid foreign visitor.
If you want to change the laws, write your democratically elected representatives.
There's no sense in writing to a democratically elected representative on issues about which that representative has already made up her mind.
Draft proposals for changes and rally support for those proposals. They will be democratically voted on by our democratically elected representatives. If the majority of the people agree with you, the law will pass. Otherwise, it won't. Please explain how this process is "evil."
I'll let Thomas Jefferson do it for me:
Furthermore, the majority of people are already against a number of laws which are on the books. Your assertion that if the majority of people agree with me, the law will pass, is nonsense.
Setting real minimum documentation requirements is a good thing -- that way someone can't just pick the state with the weakest requirements and get a valid ID there.
Assuming you believe we should have a national ID in the first place.
The scary parts of this bill have to do with the data contained by the license, the database, and the integrated network.
Not having an integrated network or database is just security through obscurity. I don't see how this is scary.
As for the data, I don't have cookies enabled, so I'm not able to read the actual story. But I seriously doubt retinal scans and fingerprints are part of the proposal. Even if they are, I don't see that big of a deal. It's not like a non-criminal can change his identity without the help of the government anyway.
Also, let's repeat once again that all the 9/11 terrorists were travelling on perfectly valid, non-faked passports. This wouldn't have helped one bit.
I really don't understand why people keep bringing up whether or not this would have helped against 9/11. 9/11 is over, we have to look to the future, not the past.
Will this help fight against terrorism in the future? Sure. Is it worth it? I'm not sure. Standardizing licenses isn't so bad, and from what I can tell requiring fingerprints or retinal scans would require an additional law to be passed. Requiring ID for interstate travel is less of a good thing, but they do it in Europe already so it's not that bad.
I guess I'd prefer to see no drivers licenses at all, but the vast majority of people would be strongly against me on that one. And they do have a point. Our borders are far too big to adequately protect against people getting in unlawfully. Presumably a plan like this would help catch people even after they've already gotten in.
Is it worth it? The problem is I can't really come up with any real arguments against it. I guess the only problem is if the government turns evil then all the infrastructure to track citizens is already in place. Of course, between drug laws and gambling laws and prostitution laws, maybe the government already is somewhat evil.
The way I see it, this is a clear issue of states' rights.
The thing is, Supreme Court precedent is strongly against this point of view. The problem is that the government isn't directly mandating a federal ID, but rather refusing highway funding to those states who don't participate. It's the reason we have a drinking age of 21 in the US, and South Dakota v. Dole answered the question of whether or not it's Constitutional.
Frankly, with all the caving the Supreme Court has done over the last 200 years wrt states rights, we should just get it over with and abolish states rights altogether. Let the states exist like counties or incorporated cities, they basically already do.
They've finished what, 5000 books in 4 years? How long will it take them to finish the Library of Congress? We'll have good OCR software that can do it automatically long before they'd ever get done.
The Gutenberg project hasn't even managed to get Encyclopedia Britannica 1911 done yet. Distributed proofreading is not the solution. The time wasted on these efforts should be spent toward making natural language processing software which could do this work automatically.
You just agreed that the corporation is only running three debates. They're not running the election. Just three 90 minute TV shows.
More specifically, this is probably developers who have signed up for their (EULA-laden) API.
Not very much incentive for us developers to "plunder information on [Amazon's site for our] own ends".
The dotcom era should have taught these so called visionaries one thing, you actually have to have a business plan before you can transform business models.
More like, when someone offers you a 4 million dollar investment but insists on complete control over the company, you should say "no thanks" and look for a different investor.
But hey, that's just what I learned during the dotcom era.