faq
code
awards
journals
subscribe
older stuff
rob's page
preferences
submit story
advertising
supporters
past polls
topics
about
bugs
hof
| Civil Liberties And The New Reality |
Posted by
JonKatz
on Wednesday September 19, @10:30AM
from the beyond-knee-jerk-rhetoric dept. We need a broader discussion about the tech world's growing and sometimes simplistic anxieties about free speech, privacy and other civil liberties in the wake of last Tuesday's attacks. It's been suggested that while thousands have lost their lives, millions more are in danger of losing certain rights because of the new wiretapping and surveillance authority the Justice Department is seeking. Those are valid worries. But there is a new reality in the post-World Trade Center world, one that now may have to balance some rights against others and prepare for aircraft-bombs, biological and chemical attacks,and horrific assaults on civilians. As bad as it was, it could have been much worse. I'm not sure I'm ready to tell those kids whose parents didn't come home last week that they and others down the road just have to suck it up because people may be unwilling -- even temporarily -- to lose any measure of privacy.
Politically, America is an intensely polarized country, where discussion of issues quickly tends to bog down in notions of what is "left" or "right," thus ideologically pure, and consideration of a wide range of issues, from gun control and abortion to privacy and surveillance -- quickly freeze people into opposing camps characterized by rigidity, hostility and absence of communication. On the Net, people with particular interests increasingly often talk only to one another and consider only their own particular values and beliefs.
In fairness, let me declare my own warped perspective at the moment. I live just west of New York City, felt much affected by a visit to the attack site, and live in a town which has apparently lost somewhere between 30 and 40 people. Elsewhere in the country, life is beginning to move on, as it should, but in greater New York, it's still all death, all the time, on TV and in other media. As bits of bodies get pulled out of the wreckage, people give up hope of finding people from the wreckage, people give up hope of finding the people they love, and disruptions continue as the funerals and memorial services increase. People here remain numb and heavy-hearted.
It's easy to be suspicious of Attorney General John Ashcroft and of the FBI he heads when they say they need broader powers to wiretap, monitor the Net and conduct surveillance of Americans. Many people worry that once these powers are granted, they will never be given back. And some of these people don't have a comforting record of sensitivity when it comes to protecting privacy, free speech and individual civil liberties. But the terrorist attack has changed the entire context of these discussions, putting the issues far beyond knee-jerk reflexes.
But there is also something reflexively knee-jerk in the automatic "they-are-taking-our-freedoms-away" response from certain quarters online. The Justice Department isn't proposing dropping all restrictions or warrants or oversight regarding wiretapping and surveillance. They propose to ease some of them. This may or may not be a good idea. But it needs -- deserves -- to be rationally and openly considered.
First- and second-generation Internet dwellers value their freedoms, and have often had to defend them. Our government, sponsors of the CDA, Carnivore, and the DMCA -- it doesn't have a noble history here. Few people in government have ever made privacy and freedom online a political priority.
But the cataclysm at the World Trade Center is a historic event, and many people do, in fact, need to "get it." We will be living, thinking and behaving differently. Many of us -- if we and our families want to live safely -- will have to redefine our traditional politics, and consider new ways of defining certain rights.
The night of the attacks, reporters asked a New York City fire official why the city put out a desperate call for gas masks and vaccines that morning. "We thought one of the hijackers might possibly be carrying Anthrax -- there were some intelligence reports about that." The official stopped. "If they had been," he told reporters, "there might be 100,000 dead people, maybe more."
My own record of yowling about privacy and the First Amendment ad nauseum is clear enough, so I feel entitled to consider some other points of view, especially this week.
Certain rights -- equality, liberty -- are considered inviolate. But almost all rights are subject to a series of checks and balances, always subject to circumstance, never absolutes granted without reservation, in perpetuity, regardless of external circumstance. Yes, people online have the right to keep their communications private and people have the right -- I believe -- to move online and travel in the real world without their movements being monitored and recorded by governmental authorities. But people have the right to go to work without buildings falling on them, too.
This is how the WTC attacks have challenged our system of rights. The thousands of dead and millions of others who work in vulnerable office towers, or travel or study or live near airports (or schools, or ports, or national symbols) have rights too, and they have been grievously violated.
The government has an obligation to protect them.
These terrorists are technologically skilled, government authorities say. They use the Net to e-mail one another, and to send encrypted files, sometimes online, at other times via Zip disks or other media. They move money online, make plans there, thus avoiding possible interception by traditional intelligence monitors listening to phone and cell calls. Is it really totally unreasonable for authorities to seek broader powers to follow these conversations? Wiretap laws are not adequate for teaching these kinds of criminals. Existing wiretap laws require warrants for each telephone, even though criminals and terrorists might use dozens of phones or a variety of communications systems.
If terrorists are proven to be using encrypted files, aren't government agents entitled -- even obligated, on behalf of the thousands of innocent victims and many more future victims -- to get warrants to intercept them? Would we really rather that our water systems be poisoned, or our cities choked with gas, or planes flown into schools and City Halls? This would have seemed silly hyperbole to me a month ago, but all of these things are now plausible in the post-World Trade Center world.
Many of us have already happily and willingly surrendered some privacy to Napster, Amazon, gaming sites, EZ-Pass toll systems, online retailers and other Web tracking services which have lists of our shopping, reading, entertainment habits and preferences. Corporations have abolished many conventional notions of privacy, while most Americans shrug it off as a new convenience. Is it really our position that Wal-Mart can own the details of our lives, but that government agents tracking those people who murdered 5,000 of our fellow citizens can't?
Nobody in his right mind would support a blank check for government authorities. Any new laws to fight this new kind of war ought to be temporary, and self-expiring, perhaps subject to annual review. There ought to be clear civil and criminal penalties for wanton violations of privacy and excessive monitoring.
But when something like the World Trade Center attacks occur, the challenge, it seems to me, isn't to retreat into our knee-jerk positions, but to pause and carefully consider the new reality. Any government's primary obligation is to protect and defend its citizens. The failure to do that last week occurred primarily, many terrorism experts say, because our existing intelligence institutions don't have the human resources, the technology or the laws to keep up with a sophisticated, well-funded, technologically-savvy network of murderous enemies. We might want to ponder what rights we owe the living and owed the dead -- the right to live, to be and have parents, to work or fly without being torn to bits or crushed in a collapsing inferno.
| |
|
< The Physics of Information Technology
| Gall Bladder Removed In France By Doctor In New York >
|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
Civil Liberties And The New Reality
|
Login/Create an Account
| Top
| 797 comments
|
Search Discussion
|
|
The Fine Print:
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them.
We are not responsible for them in any way.
|
(1)
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
(Slashdot Overload: CommentLimit 50)
|
Katz (Score:1, Troll)
by CS_Snapple (plotedr@cs.rose-hulman.edu) on Wednesday September 19, @10:31AM (#2319840)
(User #469132 Info)
|
I liked his previous comment that the media is full of rhetoric. I think his articles prove it.
|
[ Parent
]
|
| |
Is Katz an unregistered telepath? (Score:2)
by wiredog on Wednesday September 19, @10:35AM (#2319853)
(User #43288 Info | Last Journal: Monday October 01, @06:53PM)
|
I swear that sumbitch has been reading my mind these past few days.
|
[ Parent
]
|
| |
Handing them a victory (Score:5, Insightful)
by dreamchaser (tellis@lm.donotspam.com) on Wednesday September 19, @10:35AM (#2319855)
(User #49529 Info)
|
If we allow our rights to become significantly abridged, then we have let the terrorists win. I do not claim to have the answers, but we are treading on a slipperly slope that could lead to the loss of more than just a little privacy.
Certainly, we would all be physically safer if we lived in a totalitarian regime with no privacy protection. Would that be worth the cost? No, Katz does not advocate this, but the very subject of the erosion of our civil liberties is a dangerous one. Yes, we need a national debate on this. Hopefully cool heads will prevail.
|
[ Parent
]
|
| - Re:Handing them a victory by FortKnox (Score:3) Wednesday September 19, @10:59AM
- Re:Handing them a victory by egburr (Score:1) Wednesday September 19, @12:26PM
- Re:Handing them a victory by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Wednesday September 19, @12:26PM
Re:Handing them a victory (Score:4, Interesting)
by DaveHowe on Wednesday September 19, @12:32PM (#2320689)
(User #51510 Info)
|
I would agree with this, but for one point - There is no reason to assume that increasing LEA and "spook" rights to intercept communications, decode private information and break into your machine remotely will in any way increase their ability to locate terrorists.
Think about this - the FBI rushed Carnivore into service at the "freemail" providers like yahoo, when there was no evidence that the terrorists even knew freemail existed - why would they? the internet is banned for the afgan people; the phone service barely exists there, never mind ISPs. If any communications took place outside of the original mission briefing, they were almost certainly by way of "innocent sounding" telephone conversations and/or letters with hidden text. consider the following conversation:
- Hi John! have you booked your tickets yet?
- Yes, I am flying out of boston at 8am; Hoping to meet up with Clive at the WTC around 9
- I am sure you two will make an impression there; I would come too, but I have to attend a meeting at the government place about that time..
Ok, a little contrived - but you see my point. there is *no* way someone, even suspious of one or more of the parties involved, could have guessed at their real plans from that conversation - and they would have to monitor *every* phone call in america, no matter how innocent, to pick it up at all.
Similar statements could be made about almost any of the measures proposed - for each one you should be asking yourself "what will this achieve? will the cost of giving this up be matched by a equal gain in the protection I will get from my government? In this case, the answer is no. it is an attempt to exploit the grief and suffering of the american people to push though "reforms" that the american courts and people have been rejecting for years now. Would you really want the US to be the only country in the world where online banking is insecure, because you have to make sure the police can decode it, and almost any private eye can bribe his way into a couple of juicy keys?
|
[ Parent
]
|
| - Re:Handing them a victory by Major Grubert (Score:1) Thursday September 20, @04:45AM
- Re:Handing them a victory - Rights by ackthpt (Score:2) Wednesday September 19, @10:59AM
- Re:Handing them a victory by TGK (Score:3) Wednesday September 19, @11:06AM
- 1 reply
beneath your current threshold.
Re:Handing them a victory (Score:5, Insightful)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 19, @11:06AM (#2320113)
|
If we allow our rights to become significantly abridged, then we have let the terrorists win.
I often see comments like this. I think they are inaccurate.
The terrorists' primary goal, I think, is to stop our interference in Muslim countries and the Mid-East region. They consider it sacred ground and don't want us there with our decadent Western morals. The message is "you can't interfere in our part of the world without your lives being affected."
Eventually, of course, they'd like to convert the rest of the world to their brand of radical Islam (or, presumeably, kill us). But I don't think that was the purpose of these terrorist attacks. So I don't think they care about whether our privacy is affected. Curtailing our liberties in ways which have no bearing on their radical Muslim beliefs won't affect their thinking of us as the "Great Satan."
"Letting the terrorists win" would involve lifting the sanctions of Iraq, stopping interference is Mid-East wars and politics, or halting support of Israel. Of course, since the view is "we can't give in to terrorists", it may curtain us from doing the right thing... for example, reconsidering the sanctions of Iraq (which hurt the people of Iraq far more than Saddam) or political interference (Saddam Hussien and bin Ladan were once on "our side"). There are no easy answers.
I think changing our views on foreign policy might encourage more terrorism as the terrorists will see their attack was successfull. But changing our views on privacy issues, from the terrorist's perspective, just makes their "job" harder. It may or may not discourage them, but I don't think it will encourage them.
So I think discussions of the privacy issues should be strictly based on the merits of protection vs. the merits of protecting our rights, without worrying about whether the terrorists consider them victories or not.
In any case, the overall issues are too important to let pride enter into it.
|
[ Parent
]
|
| - Totalitarian "safer"? by mikosullivan (Score:2) Wednesday September 19, @11:17AM
Re:Handing them a victory (Score:5, Insightful)
by zpengo on Wednesday September 19, @11:18AM (#2320197)
(User #99887 Info | http://james.archerweb.org/)
|
I heard it stated very concisely on the radio yesterday. Someone said, "We must not only protect American citizens, but the idea of America itself."
The ideal of "freedom and justice for all" is more important than any number of American lives. That's what turned me around on the civil liberties debate; I got tired of hearing all the people whining about invasion of privacy, etc., but when it comes down to it, the ideals of this nation are what made it great, even if it meant a lack of security in some areas, as well as loss of life.
This is a great country. It's worth our blood to keep it that way.
|
[ Parent
]
|
| - Re:Handing them a victory by Boone^ (Score:2) Wednesday September 19, @11:25AM
- Re:Handing them a victory by tius (Score:1) Wednesday September 19, @11:28AM
Perspective, please (Score:4, Insightful)
by MacGabhain on Wednesday September 19, @11:49AM (#2320369)
(User #198888 Info)
|
The abridgment of our rights is in no way a "win" for terrorists. Yes, it is a loss for us, but I have trouble with the idea that a bunch of l33t h4x0rs not being able to sit around chatting about their latest music swaps in total anonymity is anywhere near the loss of, say, containment around the Monticello Nuclear Power plant, just NW of Minneapolis (leading to 7 figure death tolls in the Minneapolis area and the forced evacuation of everything between here and around South Bend). A light plane loaded down with fuel could break through quite easily, with a clean hit. That, however, requires organization and planning. They need schematics of the plant, they need access to a plane (which will either be registered or suspiciously unregistered), they need to make use of a legitimate airport to avoid blowing up on take-off with all the bouncing barrels of gas, etc. The FBI has had remarkable success preventing this sort of thing by knowing what to look for. But over the last few years, they've increasingly lost the ability to look.
And there's the big hole in the "Oh no! We're losing our freedoms!" position. Let's say that we give every single government emplyee the right to read everyone's email and access everyone's web habits and everything else. We STILL haven't lost any "privacy" that we had 20 years ago. Human's have never had anything like the ability for anonymous, private communications that we've developed in the last 3-5 years. It's NOT something inherant in the human condition. It's something we allot to ourselves, and, as such, needs to be alloted reasonably. Now, when you've aquired a controling interested in every internet backbone in the country, you can make everything private and anonymous. Until then, you have NO RIGHTS not allocated you by contract or law. You're using an artificial communications system owned and maintained by other people, for which you're not even playing close to enough to cover the costs incurred by your usage.
|
[ Parent
]
|
| - Re:Perspective, please by Anonymous Coward (Score:2) Wednesday September 19, @12:01PM
- Re:Perspective, please by DCheesi (Score:1) Wednesday September 19, @12:31PM
- Re:Perspective, please by HiredMan (Score:3) Wednesday September 19, @12:43PM
- Re:Perspective, please by revery (Score:1) Wednesday September 19, @12:52PM
- Re:Perspective, please by Boiled Frog (Score:1) Wednesday September 19, @01:10PM
- Re:Perspective, please by Paolomania (Score:2) Wednesday September 19, @01:23PM
- Re:Perspective, please by lamontg (Score:1) Wednesday September 19, @04:50PM
- Re:Perspective, please by erc (Score:1) Wednesday September 19, @05:49PM
- Snail Mail by Vegan Pagan (Score:2) Wednesday September 19, @07:55PM
- Re:Perspective, please by vsavatar (Score:1) Wednesday September 19, @09:23PM
- Privacy not inherent?! by HydroPhonic (Score:1) Wednesday September 26, @04:59AM
- Re:Perspective, please by MacGabhain (Score:2) Wednesday September 19, @04:28PM
- 3 replies
beneath your current threshold.
- The solution is MORE freedom. by Ungrounded Lightning (Score:2) Wednesday September 19, @12:11PM
- 2 replies
beneath your current threshold.
|
Franklin (Score:1, Informative)
by WrongWay on Wednesday September 19, @10:35AM (#2319858)
(User #26772 Info)
|
Ben Franklin said it best.
When you give up your freedom for security, you can have neither...
|
[ Parent
]
|
| - Re:Franklin by rajivvarma (Score:1) Wednesday September 19, @10:38AM
- Re:Franklin by FortKnox (Score:1) Wednesday September 19, @10:38AM
- Re:Franklin by jazman_777 (Score:1) Wednesday September 19, @11:00AM
- Re:Franklin by pyramid termite (Score:1) Wednesday September 19, @05:07PM
- Re:Franklin by weslocke (Score:2) Wednesday September 19, @10:52AM
- Re:Franklin by Spud Zeppelin (Score:2) Wednesday September 19, @11:05AM
- Re:Franklin by weslocke (Score:1) Wednesday September 19, @11:10AM
- 1 reply
beneath your current threshold.
- Re:Franklin by NineNine (Score:1) Wednesday September 19, @10:55AM
- 1 reply
beneath your current threshold.
- Re:Franklin by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Wednesday September 19, @11:04AM
- Yea, I like this quote too, but... by kid_wonder (Score:1) Wednesday September 19, @11:27AM
- Re:Franklin - what are you giving up? by Farfletch (Score:1) Wednesday September 19, @12:45PM
- Re:Franklin by maxpublic (Score:1) Wednesday September 19, @03:30PM
- 5 replies
beneath your current threshold.
|
speaking of liberty (Score:1, Insightful)
by dario_moreno on Wednesday September 19, @10:38AM (#2319867)
(User #263767 Info)
|
I wonder if all the people who failed
in the chain of events of last week will
lose theirs. Will there by a trial for
something like criminal negligence against
the federal government, NSA, CIA, FBI, FAA,
USAAF, canadian border patrol and the Massport authority ?
I am not speaking of course of the 5$/hour
security staff at the airport, who did what
they could and where motivated to do.
|
[ Parent
]
|
| |
It's an Old Reality (Score:2, Insightful)
by jazman_777 on Wednesday September 19, @10:38AM (#2319871)
(User #44742 Info | http://slashdot.org/)
|
But there is a new reality in the post-World Trade Center world
The State will always use a crisis to increase its power, size, interference, control. This is old hat.
|
[ Parent
]
|
| |
don't create more terrorists... (Score:2, Interesting)
by giantsquidmarks on Wednesday September 19, @10:38AM (#2319873)
(User #179758 Info)
|
Every measure restricting freedom taken to ferret out mid-eastern terrorist will create MIDDLE AMERICAN terrorists. Don't be a fool. It would be easier for an American to get a weapon of mass destruction or hijack a plane over American airspace than a foreigner.
|
[ Parent
]
|
| |
Its very simple really... (Score:5, Insightful)
by Nos. on Wednesday September 19, @10:38AM (#2319874)
(User #179609 Info | http://slashdot.org/)
|
Security and freedom are inversely related. If you have a very secure safe environment, you've more than likely given up a lot of personal freedom. On the other hand, if you have complete personal freedom, chances are you are vulnerable to these (and other) kinds of attacks.
The question then becomes, where is the balance. What amount of freedom are you willing to give up to feel safe?
|
[ Parent
]
|
| - No by Bistronaut (Score:1) Wednesday September 19, @10:44AM
- Re:No by cybrthng (Score:2) Wednesday September 19, @11:04AM
- Re:Its very simple really... by Velex (Score:1) Wednesday September 19, @10:54AM
- Lack of self-defense rights produced 6000 deaths by rlglende (Score:1) Wednesday September 19, @10:56AM
No no no (Score:4, Insightful)
by TomatoMan on Wednesday September 19, @11:05AM (#2320100)
(User #93630 Info | Last Journal: Friday October 26, @10:05AM)
|
Security and freedom are inversely related.
No, this could not be more wrong. Security and convenience are inversely related. Security and freedom are not. This is a very important distinction.
|
[ Parent
]
|
|
Nope, it's not (Score:4, Insightful)
by YIAAL (ghreynolds@yahoo.com) on Wednesday September 19, @11:08AM (#2320123)
(User #129110 Info | http://instapundit.blogspot.com)
|
There's no automatic relationship between freedom and security. Many times in American history, when we have suppressed freedom in wartime we have gained no additional security at all. For example, the interning of Japanese Americans didn't increase our security. Banning the teaching of German during World War I didn't increase our security. Hoover's FBI blackmailing didn't increase our security.
It is a serious error to assume that because sometimes increased security reduces freedom, anything that reduces freedom increases security. Things don't work that way.
|
[ Parent
]
|
| - Re:Its very simple really... by Junks Jerzey (Score:2) Wednesday September 19, @11:08AM
- Re:Its very simple really... by bwt (Score:2) Wednesday September 19, @11:20AM
- Reality check... by Gorimek (Score:2) Wednesday September 19, @11:50AM
- Re:Its very simple really... by omnirealm (Score:1) Wednesday September 19, @07:16PM
- Re:Its very simple really... by 0-9a-f (Score:1) Wednesday September 19, @10:44PM
- Re:Its very simple really... by Jebediah21 (Score:1) Wednesday September 19, @11:26PM
- It won't work. by TheRevenant (Score:1) Thursday September 20, @05:07AM
- Re:Ban all carry on's by bluGill (Score:2) Wednesday September 19, @11:09AM
- Even better, we must fly naked by Hairy_Potter (Score:1) Wednesday September 19, @11:21AM
- 3 replies
beneath your current threshold.
|
We eff types knee-jerk too (Score:1)
by Vic Metcalfe on Wednesday September 19, @10:38AM (#2319879)
(User #355 Info | http://www.zymsys.com/)
|
I have to agree... I am a member of the eff, and feel it is very important to defend our eroding civil liberties. When I see any attack on privacy, I automatically feel my temper flare and want to fight it. Katz is right. It is time to step back and think about the trade off between safety and our civil rights. I'm not saying that the trade off will always be worth it, but we should take the time to understand it before condemning it.
|
[ Parent
]
|
| |
This is a War (Score:2, Interesting)
by danablankenhorn on Wednesday September 19, @10:39AM (#2319881)
(User #415290 Info)
|
Certain rights we consider sacrosanct are amended and even jettisoned during war time.
This was true in the Civil War, certainly. It was also true in World War I and World War II.
I have no objections to temporary measures designed to prosecute this war against medieval extremism.
What I fear, and I think what most people fear, is "mission creep." The "temporary changes" made during the war would become permanent.
We saw that in the aftermath of WWII. No one objected to the measures of that time (although there was, later, guilt over what happened to Japanese-Americans). But the attitudes of us vs. them, of absolute war, were carried over for political reasons into the horror we now call McCarthyism.
Any suspension of any of our rights, then, must be a war-time measure, part of the government's war-time efforts, aimed solely at prosecuting this war the President has declared. (Personally I'd like a Congresssionally-approved declaration, but they're having difficult defining the enemy.)
I have no objections to measures enacted with the aim of winning this war. I do object, strongly, and will lay down my life, against their being made permanent.
|
[ Parent
]
|
| |
Primary argument I see around (Score:5, Insightful)
by weslocke (someone@funny.name.org) on Wednesday September 19, @10:39AM (#2319888)
(User #240386 Info)
|
The primary rationale I see bandied about is that during wartime every populace has to give up certain rights or to allow the governement the ability to infringe on those rights if need be. Be it the ability to free movement during World War II (what with gas rationing and etc) or freedom of the press (to not relay possibly sensitive information). But most of the civil liberties that have been infringed upon in the past have seemed to be ones that are very apparent.
The problem I have with the current batch of liberties to be thrown away is that they aren't that apparent. Sure wiretapping laws are making news right now, but 4 or 5 years from now they won't be slapping you in the face in the same manner that gas rationing would. (Does that make sense?)
Past liberties given up have been so apparent that as soon as the crisis/rationale was over, people would've clamored for those rights back. However with wiretapping/backdoor encryption/etc the process is so transparent that I can't see enough people even realizing that they're still in place to create enough of an outcry to get them back. (whew... thank god for runon sentences)
But all that being said, if that's what it actually takes then I'm for it. If it's just the FBI using the current crisis as a free ticket to push the same agenda that they've been pushing for the past few years... well...
|
[ Parent
]
|
| |
more are loosing their lives (Score:1)
by drfrog on Wednesday September 19, @10:40AM (#2319889)
(User #145882 Info | http://www.hyperbomb.com/)
|
afghanistan is a wasteland of people dying
please stop the violence
im pleading for a humane approach
the 5.5 million afghans under the usa supported taliban regime are as innocent as the people trapped in the wtc
no one can be free while they oppress others
and that includes the new restrictions to the civil liberties as well
|
[ Parent
]
|
| |
More insanity from people who do not understand (Score:5, Interesting)
by Friendly on Wednesday September 19, @10:41AM (#2319901)
(User #160067 Info)
|
These new rules WILL NOT prevent future disasters. These rules will not only be used to spied on suspected terrorists (read every group that disagrees with our government or those in power.) We need to get out from under this rock that GW has put our country. We need to participate in the world, we need to cooperate with foriegn countries and work together to stop this stuff. We need to stop pretending that the USA is the end all and be all of the world and that we can go it alone. I will not give upmy freedoms because some a-holes decide they are going to blow stuff up.
How far behind are ID cards and strip searches to get in the mall. Screw that, I say we actually enforce the laws we already have and cooperate with other countries. That is the best way, not trampling the rights of everyone.
Friendly
|
[ Parent
]
|
| |
Sense of security (Score:2, Interesting)
by cvd6262 on Wednesday September 19, @10:41AM (#2319902)
(User #180823 Info)
|
What I have found odd is that most of the people I've spoken to don't want the US infringe our rights or become a "Police State", by which they mean they don't think we should have machine gun-carrying guards in airports, train stations, etc.
They would rather restrict certain rights (because they aren't terrorists, so they have nothing to fear).
What's wrong with this idea is that in countries where there are armed guards in airports, malls, etc., the people do not consider that to be infringing on their rights, or to be evidence of a police state.
Most of the people I've talked with would definately give up their liberties (privacy, etc.) for a sense of security (not having armed guards). I guess WE, collectively, deserve neither.
P.S. One woman in my PhD program is a former judge, she was one of the people I've spoken with who see this propblem, so, hopefully, the cheques and balances may actually prevent this.
|
[ Parent
]
|
| |
Giving up freedoms for more security is one thing- (Score:1)
by Bistronaut ([moc.oohay] [ta] [56xohc]) on Wednesday September 19, @10:41AM (#2319904)
(User #267467 Info | http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Thursday February 21, @11:19PM)
|
But giving up freedoms in exchange for less security is another. Restricting cryptography will not keep tech-savy criminals from using it - they'll just use it in combination with stenography. Meanwhile, all of our legal communications will become less secure - poking holes in the security of law-abiding citizens. There is no good way to police anti-encryption laws - they will do little (if any) good.
|
[ Parent
]
|
| - Semantics by AirLace (Score:1) Wednesday September 19, @12:38PM
- 1 reply
beneath your current threshold.
|
Walmart vs. the U.S. (Score:1, Funny)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 19, @10:42AM (#2319905)
|
Last time I checked, Walmart was unable to put me in prison based on the information it has on me. The point of checks on the government's powers over us is that it is inherently coercieve, whereas we'd at least like to believe that corporations operate under a system of free choice within a market. But that's another debate.
|
[ Parent
]
|
| |
One example. (Score:1)
by jotaeleemeese on Wednesday September 19, @10:42AM (#2319906)
(User #303437 Info | http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Tuesday January 22, @05:54AM)
|
Lets assume cryptography laws are passed.
How would you know this message is not encrypted some how?
Maybe I just passed a phone number of somebody,
or an address,
or the name of a person that
somebody should
contact.
To put limits into encryption is silly because
ther is
no way that
you can police it...
&@^%@$!@& YUYUUWBWQM
|
[ Parent
]
|
| |
Separate the issues... (Score:3, Interesting)
by dachshund on Wednesday September 19, @10:42AM (#2319909)
(User #300733 Info)
|
Yes, we're going to lose certain civil liberties, especially if there are more attacks. And we probably have no choice but to accept that, in the name of security.
But it's important that we think about each liberty, each law that goes through Congress, instead of writing a blank check for the gov't to cash. Some things make sense; wiretap procedure could be cleaned up slightly. On the other hand, there are issues like the potential ban on strong (un-backdoored) crypto. How does a single country banning this tech hurt the terrorists, and is it anything more than a knee-jerk reaction?
I'm not worried about compromising on a few areas, especially when they make sense. I am concerned that we're going to give the green light to every sort of incursion on our freedoms, even if it does little to stop terrorism.
|
[ Parent
]
|
| |
It's a Basic Failure (Score:2, Insightful)
by jazman_777 on Wednesday September 19, @10:43AM (#2319913)
(User #44742 Info | http://slashdot.org/)
|
The failure to do that last week occurred primarily, many terrorism experts say, because our existing intelligence institutions don't have the human resources, the technology or the laws to keep up with a sophisticated, well-funded, technologically-savvy network of murderous enemies.
You'd think that the CIA could track the enemies that it created itself, such as bin Laden.
I can't believe that people are beating the drum to increase funding for the CIA, or to cut the CIA loose. Heh, they set bin Laden up to start with, and encouraged Islamic fundamentalism in the anti-Soviet cause. Now he's Blowback. And what about that fundamentalist terrorist group, the KLA, that we've funded and supported? And we want the CIA to get _more_? To do _more_? Of what? The same old thing? No, thanks. No people who truly love liberty would tolerate such a vile organization like the CIA on its own shores.
|
[ Parent
]
|
| |
Rationally and openly considered (Score:1)
by fordede (r_forde@yahoo.com) on Wednesday September 19, @10:43AM (#2319920)
(User #18922 Info | http://slashdot.org/)
|
I don't think that I would be nearly as concered about this discussion if I believed that all of the proposals from the FBI and CIA would be openly considered. If these discussions take place in the open where citizens like the people here can have some input then I think everything will work out fine. If the discussions are closed then we can expect mostly "knee-jerk" overreactions.
|
[ Parent
]
|
|
Losing Privacy OK, Within Reason (Score:3, Insightful)
by waldoj (waldo.waldo@net) on Wednesday September 19, @10:44AM (#2319923)
(User #8229 Info | http://www.waldo.net/ | Last Journal: Wednesday January 16, @01:20AM)
|
I'm not sure I'm ready to tell those kids whose parents didn't come home last week that they and others down the road just have to suck it up because people may be unwilling -- even temporarily -- to lose any measure of privacy.
I'm totally with you here. Absolutely.
If terrorists are proven to be using encrypted files, aren't government agents entitled -- even obligated, on behalf of the thousands of innocent victims and many more future victims -- to get warrants to intercept them?
Yup. And you used the magic words: "to get warrants." This warrantless-wiretap stuff is scary. It would be one thing if it were windowed (a sunset date, say, 90 days from now), which I think we could tolerate for the purpose of the immediate crisis. But to forever and ever have wiretaps without a court order? That's no good.
But here's the part about your statement that makes me uncomfortable. I assume that by "intercepting" "encrypted files," what you mean is not merely for federal officials to possess the encrypted data, but to be able to decrypt that data. And I can't say that I agree with that. Firstly because of the technical problems: any encryption with a backdoor is much, much easier to crack. (IANAC [I Am Not A Cypherpunk], but this is what I gather to be the case.) Secondly because what that really is, is a law against secrets. "There can be no secrets." And a law against encryption is as worthless as a missle defense shield. If people want to tell secrets, they'll meet in person in a dark alley. But to fatally weaken electronic secrecy for this purpose, I think, is going too far.
I'm willing to give up a lot of privacy on a temporary basis (and some on a long-term basis) to prevent this from happening again. But to permanently surrender electronic secrecy? I think that's asking too much.
JM2C,
Waldo
|
[ Parent
]
|
| |
RMS (Score:1)
by bigdavex (bigdavex@barf^H^H^H^Hyahoo.com) on Wednesday September 19, @10:44AM (#2319924)
(User #155746 Info)
|
It's been suggested that while thousands have lost their lives, millions more are in danger of losing certain rights because of the new wiretapping and surveillance authority the Justice Department is seeking.
Richard Stallman, noting the industry's lack of recognition, immediately called for the public to refer to Jon Katz as GNU/Jon Katz.
|
[ Parent
]
|
|
This is ridiculous (Score:1)
by Uttles (`ude.nosmelc.inmula' `ta' `yeltu.mot') on Wednesday September 19, @10:44AM (#2319927)
(User #324447 Info | http://tigerslash.com/ | Last Journal: Thursday February 07, @04:41PM)
|
Blaming the WTC attacks on the privacy of the internet is ridiculous. There were plenty of opportunities for intelligence agencies to learn of these attacks, and having everyone's email to read would not have helped. If they do enact these laws, from now on I will put a signature on every internet communication with all the keywords listed over and over, something like: ------------------
John Doe
kiss@my.ass
bomb fertilizer chemical nuke terror kill america die capitalist pig biological innocent civilian fire attack etc etc
|
[ Parent
]
|
| |
Anyone notice this? (Score:2, Informative)
by Tviokh (tviokh@ubergotSLA ... .net minus distro) on Wednesday September 19, @10:44AM (#2319929)
(User #315844 Info | http://pebkac.net/)
|
"WASHINGTON, Sept. 19 ? The Justice Department has drafted legislation allowing the U.S. attorney general to lock up foreigners deemed to be terrorist suspects and order them deported without presenting any evidence."
http://msnbc.com/news/631008.asp
That makes me just a tad uneasy.
|
[ Parent
]
|
| |
Fallacy Alert (Score:2, Insightful)
by pointym5 on Wednesday September 19, @10:45AM (#2319933)
(User #128908 Info)
|
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.
If the government were dropping buildings on people, then clearly that would be as criminal as if a terrorist were to do it, and I would expect some consequences. But in much the same sense, I do not have a right to be free from disease. I do not have a right to be ensured that my car will not be stolen. I do not have a right to not be robbed by a criminal.
Think of it this way: a particular sort of crime -- that is, an act defined societally as a crime -- does not imply that potential victims have a right not to be victimized. Society condemns and punishes perpetrators of crimes, and on popular agreement puts in place systems and mechanisms to make perpetration of crime more difficul. None of that implies that citizens have unlimited rights to safety.
|
[ Parent
]
|
| |
Wal-Mart? (Score:2)
by firewort on Wednesday September 19, @10:45AM (#2319937)
(User #180062 Info)
|
Is it really our position that Wal-Mart can own the details of our lives, but that government agents tracking those people who murdered 5,000 of our fellow citizens can't?
As Jon knows, but ignores, the difference is, we willingly give our details to Wal-Mart, or they illegally bought them after we opted-out. The government should be in the same position: they can ask me to give up my details, or they can buy them from someone violating my having opted out, same as anyone else. The government is not a knight in shining armor, and they don't deserve any extra priveliges over me. Don't tread on me.
|
[ Parent
]
|
| - 1 reply
beneath your current threshold.
|
Polarization (Score:2)
by Blue Aardvark House on Wednesday September 19, @10:46AM (#2319941)
(User #452974 Info | http://travtalk.org/ | Last Journal: Friday March 01, @01:19PM)
|
Politically, America is an intensely polarized country, where discussion of issues quickly tends to bog down in notions of what is "left" or "right," thus ideologically pure
This is most true, as seen on many arguments here on /. However, it's important that we might have to let go of certain rights, even permanently to preserve the safety of the nation.
It's a mixed bag. even though we lose certain rights to privacy especially through wiretapping, hopefully it will only be used when there is probable cause to wiretap. Therefore, most "personal" conversations will likely go unmonitored. Not a total loss of the right to privacy by any means.
The root of this matter is, how much privacy do we forego to reduce the chances of this tragedy occurring again?
|
[ Parent
]
|
|
A "Wall of China" to call our own (Score:1)
by sjonke on Wednesday September 19, @10:46AM (#2319942)
(User #457707 Info)
|
All we Americans can think to do is blow some people up, batten down the hatches (and in the process attack america by taking away basic freedoms that are the very heart of our country and for which we have allegedly fought and died for) and hope for the best. It's time to look up from your shoes, folks. Building our own Wall Of China is not the solution.
|
[ Parent
]
|
|
One problem... (Score:2, Insightful)
by shaolind on Wednesday September 19, @10:46AM (#2319944)
(User #323111 Info)
|
Is that it's rare to "temporarily" give up any privacy rights.
|
[ Parent
]
|
|
Don't give up any of my rights! (Score:1, Insightful)
by Angry White Guy on Wednesday September 19, @10:46AM (#2319945)
(User #521337 Info)
|
Global, sweeping legislation is going to do about as much as your commentary to protect human lives. Terrorists don't care about laws, and to prove this to you, Check the FAA regulations about hijacking planes. If terrorists are willing to commit murder, they are certainly going to break the laws which make it more difficult to plan to commit murder.
I am not saying that my personal rights outweigh the rights of the 5,000+ dead, but I think that the rights of the entire country, and the world as a whole, do. This may seem cold and callous, but I am not ready to submit to unwarranted search and seizures, or trial without due process for any reason.
There is no guarantee that by having my rights revoked I will help even one life be saved, and the potential for abuse when civil liberties and rights are revoked escalates to a plane which I do not want to go.
I would rather let a thousand criminals go free than hang one innocent man, and if we allow ANY of our rights to be revoked, we will hang more than just one man. Angry White Guy
|
[ Parent
]
|
|
I never thought I'd see the day... (Score:2)
by Gruneun on Wednesday September 19, @10:47AM (#2319955)
(User #261463 Info)
|
I'm not sure I'm ready to tell those kids whose parents didn't come home last week that they and others down the road just have to suck it up because people may be unwilling -- even temporarily -- to lose any measure of privacy.
It just sucks it had to be somthing like this to wake people like JonKatz up. I was surprised (though, not offended) at the level of security in customs when my family would fly back and forth to Europe during my father's assignment in Italy. Since then, I was always amazed at the lack of true security at most US airports. When's the last time you saw a team of dogs searching every suitcase?
Let someone have their suitcase sniff-free and remain zippered to agents, but please don't put him on my plane.
|
[ Parent
]
|
| |
Remember J Edgar Hoover (Score:5, Interesting)
by Gorimek on Wednesday September 19, @10:48AM (#2319963)
(User #61128 Info | http://lar5.com/)
|
J Edgar Hoover ran the FBI for 48 years, and became the most powerful man in US history (including all the presidents) by spying on it's citizens and using that information.
I think this shows that the dangers are very real and that the government can not be trusted to only use spying powers for good. They'll use it however they please.
Of course, spying technology has advanced immensly since then.
|
[ Parent
]
|
| |
Civil Liberties (Score:1)
by Jasin Natael (jyopp@pobox.com) on Wednesday September 19, @10:48AM (#2319965)
(User #14968 Info)
|
I think that what is driving Americans' fear of wiretapping, eMail privacy revocation, public surveillance, and airport bag-sifting stems from our incredibly litigious nature. It's very true that criminals no longer adequately suffer for their crimes, but it's also true that legal cases can be the ruination of anyone, regardless of whether they are truly in the wrong or not, as long as someone cares enough to make a case out of it.
How would any of you feel if your personal activities, which may now be perfectly legal if not savoury, were recorded, tracked, and filed? Furthermore, what would happen should these activities be made illegal in the future? While I'm certain no one would be prosecuted for such actions, such records would provide perfect opportunity for one's enemies to cast aspersions and defame one's character.
While it may be necessary to give up certain conveniences in order to regain our former safety, it is certainly not wise to give up our freedom and privacy for such comfort.
The deaths in the WTC and Pentagon crashes were not the attack. As confusing as this may be to some, American deaths were only symbolic. The true damage the attack is producing could very well have been done without large loss of human life. We have been emotionally crushed, and made to feel afraid. Economic damage was the target of the terrorists' actions, and it is now quite apparent that the terrorists intended to profit from the damage dealt to our national economy.
Surrendering our civil rights and the privacy afforded us by our lawmakers and constitution is only able to cause more damage -- not anything as grand as the loss of life, but most certainly the lessening thereof.
|
[ Parent
]
|
|
abuses (Score:2)
by www.sorehands.com on Wednesday September 19, @10:48AM (#2319966)
(User #142825 Info | http://www.barbieslapp.com/)
|
NY is where a Hatian immigrant was raped, with a plunger, by the police in the police station. Look at the Police in the Rodney King incident. On the Prairielaw.com cyberlaw board [prairielaw.com], a person questioned the the legality of the searching a private website and individuals' computers [prairielaw.com]. This is/was a board that apparently critisized the police department/managers as their employers.
Though these abuses are rare, they are not as rare as a hijacking. I do admit on a wiretap order a person versus a phone makes sense.
|
[ Parent
]
|
| - 1 reply
beneath your current threshold.
|
If these things change appreciably (Score:2)
by Omnifarious on Wednesday September 19, @10:48AM (#2319967)
(User #11933 Info | http://www.omnifarious.org/~hopper | Last Journal: Wednesday December 19, @12:47PM)
|
I will leave the country and not look back. It will stop being the America I believe in.
I guess what I'm really saying is that I do not have the right to go to work without a building falling on me.
To me, rights are inviolate principles of interaction that are firmly based in ideas of what it is and is not possible to do. The constitution doesn't outline a right not to be murdered because that right is not a reasonable consequence of being alive.
I think the rights the constitution outlines are as much to protect the government from doing stupid things in an attempt to achieve the impossible as they are an attempt to protect people from government.
I need to read John Locke, and a few of the other philosophers from around the time the constitution was crafted. I don't think I have the intellectual tools to articulate my argument effectively without their words.
Perhaps it's just that I shall always be a freelance bacterium instead of a cell of a body. But, I think the organism of a state can exist without every little manufacture of a signalling chemical being noted by the brain.
|
[ Parent
]
|
| |
Never more wrong (Score:1)
by Moorlock on Wednesday September 19, @10:49AM (#2319970)
(User #128824 Info | http://www.syntac.net/hoax/)
|
Terrorists are nowhere more of a danger to anyone's life, body, dignity or liberty than are governments.
In the 20th Century, governments literally decimated the world population - murdering the equivalent of one out of every ten people alive at the beginning of the century. That doesn't count soldiers killed on the field of war: just murder - terrorism by government - civilians killed in concentration camps and carpet bombings and starvation-by-policy and the like. (ref. [hawaii.edu])
Avoid the temptation to respond to this comparatively amateurish terrorism and murder by demanding more power for governments.
|
[ Parent
]
|
| |
Encryption back doors, in particular (Score:1)
by jackjumper on Wednesday September 19, @10:49AM (#2319973)
(User #307961 Info)
|
With regard to mandatory back doors in encryptions products, it just won't work. There's already plenty of knowledge on how to securely encrypt transmissions and plenty of products out there. Even if key-escrow becomes mandatory, there's nothing to prevent people from just not upgrading to the key-escrow version of the product.
A particularly silly idea, I think
|
[ Parent
]
|
|
Minimum necessary (Score:2)
by Phillip2 on Wednesday September 19, @10:49AM (#2319975)
(User #203612 Info)
|
I think that the key is to ensure that the curbs on freedom are always the minimum necessary.
Take for instance the old example of identity cards, which have always been viewed with suspicion in the UK, where I am from.
What harm would it do to have them I have heard ask? Well of course it depends on what is on them and when you have to carry them.
For instance we already have identity cards whilst flying on commercial flights anyway. They are called passports. I don't think that anyone has any real problems with this. This is follows the idea of the mimimum requirement. On a plane there is an overridingly good reason why ID is required. This is different from saying we should have to carry ID all the time.
What should be on them? We could just have names for instance. Okay that's probably reasonable. But what if they had addresses? Okay you say whats the problem. Well if you live in a region where you are likely to be mugged you probably would not want to carry something with your address on it. What about religion? In the light of recent attacks on Mosques in Manchester where I live, I can see many people who would have great worries about this.
The danger at the moment is that every time some one criticises official policy, suggests that they might be wrong, they get accused of being supportive of terrorism. Its a very dangerous state of affairs. We need criticism more now, and not less. We need to ensure that any curbs on freedoms are necessary, that they are likely to effective in what they are supposed to achieve, and that they are proportionate to the threat.
News that Bush has decided to launch a crusade on a terrorist jihad do not fill me with hope that this will be the case.
Phil
|
[ Parent
]
|
| |
A question of Balance and Trust. (Score:2)
by EasyTarget (slashdot@owen.sto ... stop.nl.spam.stop) on Wednesday September 19, @10:50AM (#2319978)
(User #43516 Info | http://www.owen.demon.nl/)
|
Many people, myself included, have no problem with authorities having powers so long as there is proper oversight (warrents, involvement of judiciary, eventual reporting of activity, etc..). But you -cannot- trust paranoid services like the NSA/MI5/Mossad to do this volanterraly, they always seem to have to have it forced on them (and often appeat to ignore it anyway).
Those who are currently pushing for massive secret surveilance are wrong, those who are pushing for no survelkiance ever.. are also wrong.
A balance must be struck, and one we can trust.
At present I do not trust the branches of government that want to erod my freedom and I'll fight them all the way. By taking an extreme position myself, I help balance the scales a bit.
This is despite the fact that I'd actually accept some erosion of specific liberties if rights were given -back- in some other areas, and accountability and trust became something other than a NSA spin campaign.
|
[ Parent
]
|
| |
It just doesn't work (Score:1)
by epsalon (slashdot@alon.wox.org) on Wednesday September 19, @10:50AM (#2319979)
(User #518482 Info)
|
The article assumes that we give up our rights to privacy in order to have more effectiveness againt terrorists. Well, this doesn't work! If the government is monitoring the net, terroists won't use it. If the government requires backdoors in security software, the terrorists won't use the backdoored software. What we get is that the power-thirsty authorities control all our rights with no change in the terrorists abilities.
Also, monitoring cannot help because terrorists can apply stegnography and hide thier messages in innocent pr0n images. The government can't intercept all this data and could never be able to catch the terrorists.
There is no need to surrender our rights for absolutely nothing.
|
[ Parent
]
|
| |
would it even help? (Score:2)
by beme (bemeateberhardtdotnet) on Wednesday September 19, @10:50AM (#2319982)
(User #85862 Info)
|
I've yet to hear any good arguments that opening backdoors in cryptography or increased surveillance would do anything to actually help prevent future terrorist attacks. Is there anything that makes you believe the current attack wouldn't have happened if the govt. could snoop on all encrypted communications traffic? It's one of those things that sounds almost obvious, but when I start to think about it further, I wonder if it really would do any good. Wouldn't terrorists just work outside the areas of communication these laws cover? I'm betting the terrorists didn't use encryption this last time. Weren't some of these guys wanted by the feds anyway? Why weren't they just picked up? Cracking encryption isn't likely to help you find someone is it? Just watch for encrypted traffic and set up surveillance on the sources... ?
|
[ Parent
]
|
| |
I think that all sounds reasonable, ex the crypto (Score:1)
by SQL31337 (SQL31337@yahoo dot com) on Wednesday September 19, @10:51AM (#2319988)
(User #255397 Info)
|
That seemed like a well thought out piece that takes a very reasonable stance. The only thing I would strongly disagree with is the implied need for mandatory Governmental back doors in encryption software. If those back doors are there, they will be found and exploited by entities other than the US govermnent. Currently "trusted" crytographic systems will no longer be able to be trusted to secure information from those engaged in industrial espionage or other criminal activities.
|
[ Parent
]
|
|
Finally (Score:1)
by IdIoTt on Wednesday September 19, @10:51AM (#2319989)
(User #130358 Info)
|
a rational article by Katz.
Who would have thought?
Hopefully more people will begin to take this mentality as the initial shock of the attack wears off. Rarely are we as Americans forced to choose between what we view as definite rights and the safety of our families. Many people say we must balance safety and our rights. Well, in my opinion, safety is a right in and of itself, at least in a society such as ours.
When adopting certain types of governments, you automatically give up rights in exchange for new rights you did not have before. Such as the right to protection by the government in power. We give up the right to keep all of our money (taxes) in exchange for protection and aid from the national government (military, social security, etc.)
The bombings recently have not completely changed this, they have merely begun to tip the scales in a direction we are not used to.
To what extent does personal privacy outweigh the safety of the nation? I do not envy our elected officials the decisions they must make on this topic. But keep in mind that this freedom does not need to be given up for increased surveillance on our communications. Warrants and court orders would still be needed, it would just be easier to get them. I realize this is a slippery slope, as some have said, which is why now more than ever, we need to become involved in what our government is doing. We must take an active role in watching our elected officials and keep a close eye on what they do and what they ask for. Strong public involvement will help us all to take what steps are necessary, and those steps only, towards making our nation stronger and safer than ever before.
"There can be only one... I am not the one!"
|
[ Parent
]
|
|
Criminals (Score:1)
by Kallahar (kallahar@quickwired.com) on Wednesday September 19, @10:52AM (#2319998)
(User #227430 Info | http://quickwired.com/)
|
The biggest problem with what America is trying to do is to make more things illegal. To make more people into criminals. However, if someone is willing to commit suicide to kill a lot of people then does anyone really believe that they are going to balk at breaking a law about encryption? The only people that the government will be able to catch through these new laws are going to be the very minor criminals who don't know better.
Intelligent people like these terrorist leaders will simply use another method such as the Spam encryption technique or what they've already done by hiding information in web sites.
We have to protect our freedoms. We want to be safe, but let's be realistic and realize that making privacy illegal is not the right way to go about it.
Travis
|
[ Parent
]
|
|
The US government caused the 6000 deaths (Score:1)
by rlglende (rlglende@alink.net) on Wednesday September 19, @10:52AM (#2319999)
(User #70123 Info)
|
80 years of playing at empire created the injustices that caused the hatreds.
50 years of victim disarmament laws created yet another weapons-free killing zone that the terrorists used to their advantage.
Increasing freedom is the answer: Put the US government back inside the Constitution. Get out of all of the foreign entanglements.
This is in the US interest: Empires don't last very long in the modern world, and the parent state often disappears along with the empire.
Lew Glendenning
|
[ Parent
]
|
| |
What would new laws change? (Score:1)
by RevDobbs (devslashnull@[ ]ail.com ['hotm' in gap]) on Wednesday September 19, @10:52AM (#2320002)
(User #313888 Info | http://slashdot.org/)
|
Cringely [pbs.org] has an excellent piece on hastily carried-out laws. Everyone screams, "something must be done," so they start doing what they can with very little fore thought.
Quoting Jefferson on this would just be hella redundant... but let's hope some actual thinking goes into any new legislation: if it was in place before the WTC tragedy, would the attack have been prevented? At what cost are we making these new laws?
|
[ Parent
]
|
|
I'm Sorry (Score:1)
by Alvin_Maker on Wednesday September 19, @10:53AM (#2320007)
(User #316828 Info)
|
I understand Jon doesn't want to have to tell some kid that their mommy or daddy isn't going to come home again. I don't want to have to do that either.
But in the process, let's not forget hundreds of thousands of people have died to give us these rights. In the rush to prevent having to tell little Johnny his father isn't coming home, let us not have to tell those hundreds of thousands that they died for something we're just going to give up.
|
[ Parent
]
|
|
Thought Provoking Questions (Score:1)
by ChromDome on Wednesday September 19, @10:55AM (#2320017)
(User #323252 Info)
|
I agree that reasoned thought needs to be given to how we can defend both our nation and our rights.
I haven't heard ANYONE in the government ask for a blank check to combat these terrorists. If we give them that power along with a series of checks and balances to make sure that power isn't abused, then how could anyone reasonably protest.
Obviously, I don't think anyone wants to see a repeat of last weeks events.
If the government says we can't protect you if you don't let us change our methods, then we need to listen to what they want to do and help determine a way to accomplish this while protecting our rights.
Unfortuneatly, I think you've posed these questions to the wrong crowd. While I have no doubt that many of the slashdot readers could help come up with a reasoned recommendation, I think their anti establishment leanings will prevent it.
|
[ Parent
]
|
| - 1 reply
beneath your current threshold.
|
Bad laws are inevitable... (Score:3, Insightful)
by mttlg (mttlg&writeme,com) on Wednesday September 19, @10:55AM (#2320021)
(User #174815 Info | http://alum.wpi.edu/~mttlg/)
|
The US government is demonstrating an unprecedented amount of unity. Which of course is a very bad thing. The main reason why our government is often unable to screw people over effectively is the automatic opposition across republican/democrat lines. Without that, and with the full support of other important officials, just about anything can become law if it can be called "antiterrorism." Add in the fact that congressmen don't listen to engineers, and even good ideas could result in bad implementations. Our government has the capability right now to make some very big mistakes that could take years to correct, so there is no such thing as overreacting. We must substitute our voices for the usual voices of opposition that have gone silent, so that our nation's delicate emotional state does not give the terrorists yet another victory to celebrate.
|
[ Parent
]
|
|
Sigh (Score:2)
by bartle on Wednesday September 19, @10:56AM (#2320027)
(User #447377 Info | http://slashdot.org/)
|
These terrorists are technologically skilled, government authorities say. They use the Net to e-mail one another, and to send encrypted files, sometimes online, at other times via Zip disks or other media. They move money online, make plans there, thus avoiding possible interception by traditional intelligence monitors listening to phone and cell calls.
I have yet to see any proof of this; there is no evidence so far that any of the terrorists involved in the WTC disaster relied on anything more technological than a telephone to plan and execute their plans. The idea that the Internet is a terrorist medium seems to be mostly played up by a bored media.
I actually find the idea that someone like Bin Laden (who is probably living in a cave right now) would jump aboard the Internet as the ultimate terrorism organizational tool highly questionable. The concept of encryption is familiar to us on Slashdot, but to most other people it's really voodoo. The Internet is primarly an American invention, it would be prudent for someone to be wary of placing so much faith in the device of his enemy.
|
[ Parent
]
|
| | 20 replies
beneath your current threshold. |
(1)
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
(Slashdot Overload: CommentLimit 50)
|
 |
|
|
Tcl tends to get ported to weird places like routers.
-- Larry Wall in <199710071721.KAA19014@wall.org>
|
All trademarks and copyrights on this
page are owned by their respective owners. Comments
are owned by the Poster.
The Rest © 1997-2002 OSDN.
|
[
home |
awards |
contribute story |
older articles |
OSDN |
advertise |
self serve ad system |
about |
terms of service |
privacy |
faq ]
|
|