It's "1984" in Europe, What About Your Country? 1208
An anonymous reader asks: "A few hours ago, the European parliament accepted a proposal '...on the retention of data processed in connection with the provision of public electronic communication services...'. Summarized: any data (internet connections, traffic, email, file sharing, SMS, phone calls) of 450 million people of Europe has to be collected by telcos, to be used by governments in their fight against 'crime and terrorism' ... oh, and child porn, of course. In Germany, over-the-sea reports are limited and usually do not include the latest developments in law and order, but since Slashdot has readers all over the world, I would like to ask: how is the status of YOUR country in terms of anti-terrorism-laws, observations and such? Any recommendations where one can still live free and unobserved in a non-nanny state?"
Privacy != Freedom && Freedom != Privacy (Score:5, Insightful)
But just recently the right of privacy seems to be implicit to your freedom of speech. With freedom of speech (At least the American ideal) you should be able to state your views without getting arrested for it. But it doesn't state that you can say it without anyone knowing that you said it.
I am not saying you shouldn't fight to keep your privacy, but it is not taking away a right, it is taking away a luxury, that we enjoy. In many ways I want to keep privacy, because then we are able to say our views that can shake things up without breaking social norms of living in the real world. But on the down side as with any luxury, if we over use it we get comfortable and abuse it. Saying things that should not say and shake things up that if a person had a chance to think twice about it wouldn't shake up. Pushing society too fast is as dangerous as letting it become stagnate, and Luxuries like privacy should be treated well or could be forced to be removed.
there are relationships though (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:there are relationships though (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:there are relationships though (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:there are relationships though (Score:4, Informative)
This is a false distinction. A Republic is a kind of democracy in that the power is ultimately in the hands of the people. What you mean is that the U.S. is not a direct democracy because the people who immediately wield power are elected representatives. Direct democracies are very rare and probably are only workable in small societies.
Re:there are relationships though (Score:5, Informative)
The inferred difference as if republic means a representative system and democracy a direct system is not something I ever heard before.
In ancient greece they did have direct democracies in some states for some time. At other times they had elected officials and still called it a democracy.
In Europe the difference between a republic and a not-republic is whether you have a president or a monarch. In
These monarchies are still governed by democratically elected officials, and we still call them democracies, as we do republics like france and germany.
Regards,
Tob
Re:US citizens not interested in Freedom (Score:4, Interesting)
Because the Libertarians have an aura of wingnut whackjob in general. Not a flame, but the truth. One Libertarian can make a point, two can make an arguement but for crying outloud if you have a bunch of them around it's like Trekkies. I just looked over the platform of the National Libertarian Party, on the surface it seems...alright, but you know about those folks out there that'd have the sidewalks sold off to the private sector.
It's like some of the"Paleo-Conservative" organizations and sites, on the surface it's you can see thier point, but it's not long till someone writes a piece on how Slavery was on it's way out and the Slaves in the South were better off slaves than free.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance61.html [lewrockwell.com]
http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo29.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo37.
I own firearms and support the 2nd Amendment however statements like "I don't believe in gun control" seem broad, I mean if Timmy is a Meth-head who won't go to jail for Meth now that theres no Drug Laws, can he go buy a full auto M-4 with an M-203 underslung? Thats the issue I have with the Libertarian Party's platform, it's mighty scarce on details and refinement.
Re:US citizens not interested in Freedom (Score:5, Insightful)
Sounds like by "refinement" you mean "special ways to stick it to people I don't like."
Under the Libertarian system, Timmy the Meth Head has every right to arm and protect himself -- as you mentioned he hasn't commited a felony deserving of having his rights stripped. So in the event of a National Emergency, Timmy the Meth Head could defend himself as well as any of the rest of us.
That's about the only situation Timmy could USE such a weapon though. The guns you named aren't hunting weapons, so that's out. They're a little overkill for private defense, so Timmy *might* (IANAL) be liable in certain cituations there, but he gets a fair day in court like anyone else. As for the homicide that you're implying Timmy the Meth Head would commit with that weapon -- that is already illegal, and already carries some of the harshest penalties we still allow in our society. Also, any accidental killings that occured while he was under the influence would face stricter penalties and in many cases be treated as pre-meditated (willingly took the chemicals, willingly operated the device impaired). That is also, already a regular part of law.
The trouble with true freedom is that you have to give it to people you don't like.
~Rebecca
Re:US citizens not interested in Freedom (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:US citizens not interested in Freedom (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:US citizens not interested in Freedom (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree. I have friends who are Libertarian, including one who ran for State Legislature on the LP ticket. I don't know every detail about the official LP platform, but this person who got his parties nod, has views that seem kind of extreme. Such as "There should be no public education. Children should get the education that their families can afford." "There should be no laws preventing the dumping of toxic waste in rivers. Every square foot of every river should be privately owned, and the owners can sue polluters in civil court for damages." I sleep better at night by assuming that the Libertarians will never be a serious player in US government.
Are you a Libertarian? Here's a test; finish this phrase: An ounce of prevention is...
1) worth a pound of cure.
2) government tyranny and an assault on human dignity.
Re:US citizens not interested in Freedom (Score:4, Insightful)
I say "worth a pound of cure".
So in following with that belief, we should immediately detain all undesirables to "work camps" as a preventative measure against crime.
What, that's not reasonable? The problem with the "preventative measure" is that it strips a person of the right to be presumed innocent. Sure, it might be effective, but it disregards the rights that should be afforded to people. Every bit of freedom that is allotted to a person enables him/her to commit a crime against another person, but those freedoms do not ensure that the person will commit a crime. By speaking I could rally a group to form a coup. With a car I could drive over dozens of pedestrians. Walking down the street after stores have closed, I could break into one and steal things. Owning a photocopier I could make counterfeit money and attempt to use it. But just as easily, I could use these liberties for my lawful daily life - conversing with coworkers, driving to work, walking after dark, making photocopies of my documents - and never do anything unlawful. But should I be stripped of these liberties simply because that's the easiest way to prevent my being capable of committing crime?
The answer is no. In America, at least at some point in time, the idea was to allow the citizenry the freedom to choose if they would follow the law of the land, instead of being chained to it. If a person commits a crime, the courts and law enforcement exact the penalty after the person's trial. The people are not stripped to a state of serfdom to protect the ruling class.
This ideology may not prevent crime, but more importantly it does not inhibit lawful people, who by their lawful nature diserve to have their liberties protected by their government. You could irradicate crime by simply killing all people, but having depreived them of their rights you have not reached a solution in congruence with a free society. You have acheived totalitarianism.
Re:US citizens not interested in Freedom (Score:3, Insightful)
Lots of people like to point fingers
THat is how far I got reading before getting a laughing fit.
At any rate, looks like you are just another one to point fingers, and no, your party is not going to be the savior of the USA either. The political system needs a change to make it more dynamic so that new ideas and new movements actually get a chance, without destabikizing it completely. What is there now is b
Re:there are relationships though (Score:5, Informative)
They not strikingly similar, but you are right that they are not eachothers opposites.
They were eachothers opposites one day in the far past, when Athens was fighting Sparta.
The Roman republic already 'married' the 2 and ended up with something that is a republic in the sense of having an 'appointed' leadership, but it also had a form of representive democracy through the senate.
Ever since, a republic is a form of state, and primarily an alternative for a monarchy. Democracy is not a form of state and it can exist in both republic and monarchy (and other alternative forms of state), and a few countries even managed the combination of monarchy and forms of direct democracy (tho that usually doesn't work well, see Italy untill Mussolini came to power)
In short, originally both were a form of state, but for the last 2000+ years, a republic has been a form of state while democracy has been a process that can be used to decide on specific things. Obviously those 2 are not mutually exclusive, and actually make a good combination. To say they are very similar is however not true.
Re:there are relationships though (Score:5, Interesting)
We've got a government which was elected to power by 22% of the electorate, and even a large proportion of that 22% seem to hate them, and felt that to vote for them was the least worst option, faced with the alternative of a Tory party fixated on petty-minded immigration and taxation policies, or the opportunist Liberal Democrats, whose sole guiding principle seems to be "we disagree with any contentious policy anybody else announces".
But worse than that, all the main political parties focused their election campaigns on a small number of seats which they expected to decide the election, assuming that it wasn't worth fighting tooth and nail for areas which could be expected to conform to type. Within those constituencies, they were interested only in wooing a small number of swing voters, meaning that they all had broadly similar manifestos, differing only in fairly minor details. The total number of votes they were chasing was estimated by one respectable source which I can't remember right now to be in the region of 7,000. Yes, that's right, the 2005 UK General Election was all about getting 7,000 people to vote the right way, and to hell with everybody else. Political ideologies? Old hat nowadays. It's all about the acquisition and retention of power and absolutely nothing else.
The parliamentary majority secured by Labour through this hollow victory has until very recently been sufficient for them to do force through just about any legislation they want, very little of which seems to be in the public interest. Endless "anti-terror" legislation is forced through without many people noticing, under the cover of smokesceens like the foxhunting "debate" which they kept rolling for years because it was emotive and contentious enough to distract people without actually mattering a damn in the grand scheme of things.
So we're fucked on three counts: Most people's votes don't matter in terms of deciding who gets into power, all the main parties are essentially the same anyway, and the Government does whatever the hell it pleases once it gets in through weight of numbers and a spineless opposition.
As Gil Scott-Heron said, "Mandate my ass".
Re:there are relationships though (Score:3, Interesting)
In the UK we have a 2 (maybe 3 if you laugh long shots) party system. All the other parties get no TV time and voring for any of them is a waste of a vote. I personally threw my vote away on one of these parties because I refused to vote for either of the main two (one was run by a slimy asshole and the other is the current government who are also slimy assholes).
Honestly in the world we live in, 1 vote is worthless. People cannot compete with TV and any who try usually end up on the wrong end
Re:Privacy != Freedom && Freedom != Privac (Score:5, Insightful)
If I call my friend up to chat about the old college days I absolutely have a right to privacy. What I talk to an old friend is ABSOLUTELY none of the governments business.
I'm astonished at how some people in the United States act. NYC recently implemented random bag searches in the subway- only they can only search your bags and only before you get on the subway- if you don't want to be searched you can walk away (exactly what kind of terrorist this is supposed to catch is beyond me and a subject for another debate). What astounds me about this, however, is just how many people go out of their way to be searched. If the cops don't call you over to be searched you don't have to stop- I've walked past every time without being stopped. Some people, however, walk over to the cops, open their bags and show them the contents without being asked. I have no idea what society I am living in but I would love to find some place in this world where people actually have self respect and care about their rights.
-sirket
Re:Privacy != Freedom && Freedom != Privac (Score:5, Interesting)
You know... if you were a terrorist, isn't that exactly what you'd do? Get your buddy to distract the cops by showing them his bag while you walk on to the subway with the bomb in your bag.
Re:Privacy != Freedom && Freedom != Privac (Score:5, Insightful)
Not even if you two are seriouly planning on flying planes into buildings or releasing sarin gas in a subway?
Re:Privacy != Freedom && Freedom != Privac (Score:5, Insightful)
-sirket
Re:Privacy != Freedom && Freedom != Privac (Score:4, Informative)
What I said was: "If I call my friend up to chat about the old college days I absolutely have a right to privacy. What I talk to an old friend is ABSOLUTELY none of the governments business."
Let me restate this in a way that will make you happy- "The government has ABSOLUTELY no right to UNILATERALLY log or monitor the calls of it's citizens."
Thomas Jefferson once wrote: "As revolutionary instruments (when nothing but revolution will cure the evils of the State) [secret societies] are necessary and indispensable, and the right to use them is inalienable by the people." --Letter to William Duane, 1803.
How can one work to keep the government in check, or overthrow it if necessary if the government can keep complete track of a persons communications?
Re:Privacy != Freedom && Freedom != Privac (Score:5, Insightful)
The more and more we limit people's freedoms, the more similar we become to the sick visions of people like Osama bin Laden. They want a world in which people have few if any freedoms, and where no one may dare diagree with Islam. We are moving in the direction of the first, and if you replace 'Islam' with 'our government', we might be headed towards that one as well.
What I'm saying is that, while terrorist attacks are horrible and despicable, having a "few" people die from terrorist attacks is far better IMHO than giving in to those terrorists who love to murder innocent civilians in cold blood and volunteering to give away our freedoms. Granted, this may be easy for me to say, as I have not been directly, personally affected(no one I know has been killed/injured/involved) by terrorism, but I would really like to think that I would still believe this even if I had been directly affected. I'm sure that probably wouldn't be the case though.
Re:Privacy != Freedom && Freedom != Privac (Score:4, Informative)
See, judging from what I've heard of their material, what they're wanting is pretty much what most slashdotters seem to be wanting - the US government to get it's nose out of their business. What they want is the US to stop interfering in middle-eastern politics, and letting them get back to killing/getting killed by the Israelis. I'm the first to condemn terrorist methodology, but really, let's not get into demonizing our opponents. It's stupid, irrational, deceitful, and it clouds the real issues.
(Note to any outraged future posters: I am not endorsing terrorism, I am simply asking we look at their motivations analytically rather than emotionally)
Spot on! (Score:5, Insightful)
Quite so. What this all boils down to is a single question that our societies must answer: 'is freedom worth dying for?'
We certainly used to believe that the answer was 'yes'. Many of our ancestors died fighting various oppressors, be they warlike dictators or exploitative bosses or selfish aristocrats or slavers... They believed in freedom, and fought for it, and often died for it. Millions and millions of them.
Now, however, we're cowards. We aren't prepared to die for freedom. We're prepared to give up every last precious liberty in order to slightly reduce the risk of a few hundred or thousand people getting blown up every few years.
This is pathetic, and a horrible betrayal of what was fought for in the past. We're no longer prepared to die for freedom; we're prepared to give it all up to marginally reduce an already minor risk to our own precious lives. We suck.
Re:Spot on! (Score:5, Insightful)
Even that question isn't quite right, as non-free societies usually are just as dangerous as free ones, if not more so. Look at China, where the government performs mass killing every year and the murder rate is still high. The question could equally be put, "is non-freedom worth dying for?", which shows just how much of an obvious decision this should be.
Re:Privacy != Freedom && Freedom != Privac (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem with this choice is that it is fundamentally different to the choice that is actually being offered. With this question you are offering a sure fire cast iron guarantee that you can stop a terrorist attack by using limited (time and scope) infringements of a limited number of peoples freedoms and privacy. If this was the case then everyone would vote to stop the attack.
The real choice being offered, however, is this: wide spread infringement of liberty for a (possibly) reduced risk of a future
Re:Privacy != Freedom && Freedom != Privac (Score:5, Insightful)
But lets change this situation to something closer to reality:
Let's imagine that the FBI comes to you one fine day and says: "Sir, we suspect that a terrorist attack will destroy a flight at some point. Incidentally, your entire family is going to be flying on a plane at some point. In order to possibly try to prevent it we need to stomp on the freedom and the rights of everybody in this country, including you and your family. Also it is almost a given that your family will be directly negatively affected by this - your daughters ex-boyfriend has made a call to the terrorist burning hotline in a fit of jealous rage, so she'll be vanishing soon. We'd like you to decide whether we should give you the illusion of security. And make it quick, you never know when they could strike again"
Even if you give up every right you ever have and become a slave to your government, you will not have made terrorism impossible, it will still be able to happen, and the side effect is that you will be living in fear like you wouldn't believe every damned day of your life, because that guy you just cut up? Might call the 'Witch / Terrorist buring hotline' with your license plate. You run a sucessful business? Your competitor can get the competative edge, whilst you are in solitary for planning to blow up a turnpike.
You need to ask yourself, IF these actions are taken will it solve the problem? Could you think of a way of doing it anyway? The answer is almost invariably NO, it wouldn't solve anything, but it would harm you. Remember the old saw: Cutting off your nose to spite your face.
How would ANY new laws bring back your dead loved ones? How would fewer rights bring them back either? How would living in a constant state of fear honor their memory? And most importantly, how would surrendering everything stop it happening again? Sure you can stop / make much harder a particular attack vector, but there are always new ways to do something... If you are alive, you are at risk, the only way to be safe is to die.
One last thing, how would you like to know that your innocent wife was locked up on death row about to die as an innocent casualty of the war on terror. That your new laws to protect your wife actually killed her? Because all this 'so some innocents will be caught in the net, its worth it to protect the rest of us' is fine, until you or those you love are the innocents lost for the cause....
Re:Privacy != Freedom && Freedom != Privac (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's say you knew ahead of time that a drunk driver will kill your family. Would you outlaw alcohol? Would you outlaw cars? We accept risky devices and behaviors that we know will kill people. It's part of being free.
This example is much better than yours, seeing as how drunk drivers kill about 20,000 Americans every year. Terrorists in the US killed about 3,000 people 4 years ago. Where is the $21B "War on Drunk Driving"?
Re:Privacy != Freedom && Freedom != Privac (Score:5, Insightful)
Where are the billions spend to fight those?
Re:Privacy != Freedom && Freedom != Privac (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, if the government had just cause to think that those two friends were plotting to crash a plane into a building, then they should go to a court, state for the record what they think, and why, and with a judge's permission tap the phone for a certain amount of time. If it turns out they were wrong, they should tell the person and destroy all evidence. They shouldn't be able to get a secret warrant and never disclose what/why the did to anyone.
The whole idea is that there's supposed to be a balance. The balance is getting out of whack.
Re:Privacy != Freedom && Freedom != Privac (Score:3, Insightful)
A well encrypted ham signal should sound like static, but with it you can co-ordinate attacks just as easily as on the internet. Encrypted letters have been used to wage wars since the greeks. A well designed script can see the transmission of a childs christmas list turned into a plan for a bomb by encoding the white space. There arn't the resources to monitor every human /
Re:Privacy != Freedom && Freedom != Privac (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Privacy != Freedom && Freedom != Privac (Score:3, Informative)
Amen (Score:5, Interesting)
I have been looking for just such a place in which to retire, but without much success. It's ironic that the people of the Russia now have more personal liberty than we do here in the USA from what I've read. It's almost as though we're slowly reversing roles with them.
Grand Cayman island is probably the place with the least governmental interference in people's lives that I've found thus far, but the cost of living is pretty high there judging from the cost of real estate.
Re:Amen (Score:4, Informative)
Russia -- where most press and all TV-stations are state-controlled.
Russia -- where courts are in the President's pocket.
Russia -- which uses air-bombers and heavy artillery against the very people, it claims are its citizens (although they disagree).
Russia -- where regional governors are appointed by the President.
Russia -- where the Communist Party is among the strongest.
You complain about random searches in NYC subways? In Russia you are obligated to carry identification with you at all times and present it to any law enforcer upon request.
Unhappy about racial profiling here? If you are dark-skinned (thus looking like a Chechen), you will be harassed and periodically searched on the streets in Russia. And not in some red-neck backwater, but in the shiny newly-rich capital of Moscow.
If you are non-white looking -- don't go to St. Petersburgh (Russia's other capital -- the "sophisticated" one). Russian skin-heads have been attacking non-whites (Asian students primarily) there recently, with police looking the other way.
Stop reading "Pravda".Re:Privacy != Freedom && Freedom != Privac (Score:5, Informative)
You are absolutely right there.
With regards to this new EU rule, the slashdot blurb of course doesn't mention this, but what they are going to store is the fact that you chatted to your friend between this and this time, but not the content of this conversation. While this is bad and stupid, it is not by far as bad as the blurb is trying to make it look.
Supposedly this is usefull to get an insight into the conenctions between individuals who might be involved in terrorist or criminal activities.
Of course, about all investigations resulting from attacks in the last half decade point at a lack of cooperation and not of information (usually the information was actually there), but who cares.
Re:Privacy != Freedom && Freedom != Privac (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Privacy != Freedom && Freedom != Privac (Score:5, Insightful)
And of course, without privacy, everything the citizen does is clear to the government, but the government can act without the same level of transparency.
The government stops working under the whims of the people, and the people start working under the control of the government.
We
PRIVACY == FREEDOM (Score:5, Insightful)
Lack of privacy is the single greatest threat to freedom we now face.
Re:PRIVACY == FREEDOM (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:PRIVACY == FREEDOM (Score:3, Informative)
What would be an example of an idea that perpetuated itself into law as the result of it's proponents remaining anonymous?
The constitution. Google on the federalist papaers.
&Privacy = &Freedom (Score:5, Insightful)
Privacy allows one the right to think what one wants without a coersive government locking one up.
When a government monitors emails, and builds networks of who knows whom, I find it extremely intrusive.
Europe has history. If any of the evil governments that existed in it's past existed today, they would need about fifteen minutes to get a long list of everyone they did not like, (and those that communicated with them) and lock them up or worse.
The "luxury" you speak of was in existance previous to the information age when governments could not track your thoughts, personal networks, banking information, health information and all the other info that they keep in large databases. Today, fridges and toasters are networked and will betray you, not simply a disgruntled family member or the neibour's kid. Did you know they keep track of what food you buy via your safeway card? That is "total information awareness" and it is not to protect you, but to protect your government from you. What did Echelon do to prevent Sept 11? Nothing. Terrorists used countermeasures and will continue to do so. They may be deranged fanatics but they're not stupid.
Look at Iraq. They have government goon squads that execute thousands a month. (Morgues are filled.) Thanks to the information age, not are actions considered treasonous but thoughts also. An email. A phone call. It's OK until it's your ass. (Or knee cap or skull.) Your slashdot posting of 2002 may seal your fate.
Don't be so foolish to assume that all future governments will be benign.
In the mean time it is our responsiblity to build networks resistant to these policies.
-b
Re:&Privacy = &Freedom (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree with what you say and would like to further this arguement about a group of alleged terrorists, known in the UK as the Birmingham Six [bbc.co.uk]. There was a terrorist bomb and the police knew of some Irish guys going home to the funeral of a known terrorist. So they arrested those guys, as they must be terrorists if they know a terrorist, and made the evidence fit the guys they held. One of them died in prison before the rest managed to prove that the evidence was wrong. They lost several years of their lives and the real bomber went unpunished. In their minds all they were doing was going to the funeral of a guy that they grew up with in the village where they lived. They were not supporting or engaged in terrorism.
With laws like this there will be far more of this sort of miscarriage of justice. You may not even know (I accept that the Birmingham Six knew) that your friend is a bad person but you will get arrested for association rather than crime.
Re:&Privacy = &Freedom (Score:3, Insightful)
Just as a slight disagreement, terrorists actually are pretty stupid. Captured PDAs, laptops, etc., rarely have their data encrypted, so are treasure troves for the military in Iraq.
How do you know they didn't? How do you know your government isn't lying to you?
SealBeater
Re:Privacy != Freedom && Freedom != Privac (Score:5, Insightful)
I suggest you read about Griswold v. Connecticut [wikipedia.org] for more information about the U.S. Supreme Court's take on the right to privacy.
Re:Privacy != Freedom && Freedom != Privac (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Privacy != Freedom && Freedom != Privac (Score:5, Insightful)
Looks like the Federalists were right.The argument that privacy is not a right is based on the fallacious idea that our rights are limited to those listed in the Bill of Rights. The 9th Amendment is pretty straightforward: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. (Emphasis mine).
There are only two possible rational interpretations: First, that all actions are rights unless that action is explicitly prohibited, or Second, that there is a mystical list of "other rights" floating around somewhere that nobody knows about, except obviously you, and maybe some other people in government.
The federalists were wrong (Score:5, Informative)
Here in Australia our constitution was based on the very principle you refer to and includes no individual rights other than freedom of religion and the right to a trial in relation to certain types of offence. To this day a bill of rights is opposed, mainly be conservative politicians, because "we couldn't list all of our freedoms" and "it would be unneccessary" and so on.
Sadly, we have recently seen wave after wave of terrible, terrible legislation encroaching on the lives and freedoms of ordinary, innocent people. Refugees are treated like criminals rather than people who are likely to be seeking shelter and are detained in appalling conditions in the desert or on remote islands, potentially indefinitely [abc.net.au]. The original inhabitants of this country are marginalised and ignored [abc.net.au]. More fundamentally, every Australian is now subject to arbitrary and relatively unchecked laws relating to 'terrorism' which allow for extended periods of detention without trial and without a warrant. These laws are enthusiastically promoted by the police [abc.net.au] and security agencies. Australia has one of the highest rates of phone-tapping in the world, and also retains ridiculous sedition laws [news.com.au] essentially making it illegal to criticise the government too strongly.
We have it worse than the US - at least you have SOME protected rights. We have none, and in times like these that means we are gradually losing them all. A bill of rights is essential in protecting basic freedoms [newmatilda.com], which are not inherent characteristics but human constructions and therefore must be protected by humans.
Re:Privacy != Freedom && Freedom != Privac (Score:5, Insightful)
No?
Hmmm. How about the name, address, phone number and an accurate physical description of your current "significant other" and, while you're at it, please tell us how he or she is in bed, in as much elaborate detail as you can recall.
Also no?
Fine, Just take some digital pictures of your adorable children (or other pre-teen family members) in the shower and put them on a publicly accessible web page along with their names and the address of the school they go to.
Still no?
You know what, forget it. I'll just contact the establishments that have your personal info and ask them for it. Maybe install a tap on your phone line and a key logger on your computer as well and, just to be thorough, ask your cell phone company for some triangulation data.
What? I can't?
Bummer.
Hey, not a problem. There's this individual, Joe something-or-other, who's desperate to get a date with my cousin. She says he's not very bright but still sort of fun to see him go out of his way to impress her. Lately he's been telling her about his job in some law enforcement agency and how they're tracking suspected terrorists and that they can do all those things I talked about without needing a warrant or "probable cause" or anything because, let's face it, those pesky accountability issues just made their job harder so they got a couple of laws passed to get rid of them.
Anyway, I spoke to cuz and she believes Joe will do it if she's nice to him and pretends to be really interested in his boring stories. So you see, chum, not a problem!
Clarification (Score:5, Insightful)
> would the OP be obligated to release any details of his personal life to a private
> entity such as yourself?
Just in case you haven't noticed, that was exactly the point of my post, specifically the last part.
However, I'll try to state it in more clear terms:
Governments (federal and otherwise) are comprised of people. the same goes for law enforcement, intelligence, "secret service" and other governmental agencies.
Individual people, in general, have their own agendas. They can be dishonest, deceitful, jealous, vengeful, prone to criminal activity or just under pressure to perform wrongful acts.
Therefore implicitly trusting a group of individuals that you have never met is not a very good idea.
And the logical conclusion is that implicitly trusting a government or its agencies is not a very good idea.
The question that you need to ask yourself is: is there a chance that my private information will be abused?
Most of the SlashDot tinfoil-hat crowd fear governmental abuse but I believe that abuse by individuals is at least as likely.
Now, I can live with some loss of privacy, provided I trust the safeguards against abuse but, unfortunately, given the incidents of policemen planting evidence and getting off with "a note in their permanent record", I do not have this trust.
If the constitution (or the equivalent) of a country said something to the effect of "any person in a position of power or authority who is found guilty of abusing their power or authority shall have their genitals publicly mauled by a pack of rabid rats" and there were significant safeguards implemented to ensure that a large number of violators are caught, convicted, and punished accordingly, then I would be satisfied that the risk of abuse is low enough for me to trust a government.
The motto of the Spider-man movie was "with great power comes great responsibility". I believe in a different motto "with great power there should come a great fear". Because responsibility is just an empty word, easily brushed aside unless backed by a real fear of the consequences of abusing this responsibility.
Until that day comes, I don't want their prying hands anywhere near my information.
Any private information that has the potential of being misused must remain private unless there is a *really* good cause for the government to peek at it, and then there should be a rigorous process of examining the cause, approving the *limited* invasion of privacy and safeguarding the data, with lots of people involved and each one *accountable* for their decisions and actions.
Freedom is not when the people fear the government, it's the other way around.
Re:The term "chilling effect" mean anything? (Score:5, Insightful)
It is much like how the Bush administration made the general US population believe there were WMD in Iraq when they used the term "A Slam Dunk" or in a commercial when they say choosing their products is a "No Brainer", it is a way of proving a point to a person emotionally and allowing them to bypass rational thinking.
Congratulations you have been scammed by using pop-culture wording. I was just listing to NPR this morning about it. Insightful is being able to see past these pop words meant to make us feel in the way the author wants us to.
450 Billion? (Score:3, Funny)
s/billion/million/ (Score:5, Insightful)
(On a related note - why do they have a "mail us if you see something wrong" when it doesnt do anything to email them)
Re:s/billion/million/ (Score:5, Funny)
Re:s/billion/million/ (Score:3, Informative)
After a little research [mathforum.org] I realize I had it backwards:
Huh, I learned something new today.
Re:s/billion/million/ (Score:4, Informative)
10^06 = million
10^09 = milliard
10^12 = billion
10^15 = billiard
10^18 = trillion
10^21 = trilliard
and so on...
Re:s/billion/million/ (Score:3, Informative)
Recommendations? (Score:5, Insightful)
The answer is directly proportional to how much money you have and how willing you are to spread it around.
Funny? Yes. True? Sadly yes as well in most of the world.
Well... (Score:5, Interesting)
The moon, I guess (assuming that nobody else owns it). Let's face it, liberty is dying. Unless some libertarians, Goldwater conservatives, Ron Paul, socially liberal Democrats and Republicans (in the true sense of the word liberal; somebody who advocates freedom), and other liberty-minded people band together to take control from our power-hungry authoritarian leaders, the USA is going to turn into "1984" as well.
Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
A great example of this are so-called "hate crimes". I mean, holy crap, crimes against anyone are "hate crimes". Are the "thought police" going to divine what's in someone's brain when they commit these crimes? It's that way today.
Having to "not offend" someone by not using the politically correct term for something they might say is another example of this. I'm not talking about using derogatory terms against someone...that IS offensive.
There are many more examples. "1984" didn't happen in 1984, but it happened shortly afterwards. It's a shame that more people haven't realized this already.
Re:Well... (Score:3, Insightful)
On the other hand, tying a random innocent black person to the back of your pickup truck and dragging him until he is decapitated is far more heinous than your average crime of passion. Such crimes should be dealt with more harshly, the perpetrators are an especially dangerous type of psychopath.
Yeah (Score:3, Insightful)
Storage (Score:4, Insightful)
Sponsored (Score:3, Funny)
Probably not, but right now I do suspect those three will be partying hard.
Want to live without a Nanny State? (Score:3, Informative)
Obscurity is the only true path to privacy.
Re:Want to live without a Nanny State? (Score:5, Insightful)
I live in one of those places and in some ways it's worse than a data rich urban area. If I go to the store they know me and will mention that they saw my wife in there this am, she had the pot roast for lunch and said she was going to her hair appointment.
Sooner or later you have to go to the co-op for something. After that someone will know you. The mail carrier knows where you live and what magazines you subscribe to. The police don't need to pry into your business because everyone already knows.
It's really not any different, just lower tech.
Re:Want to live without a Nanny State? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Want to live without a Nanny State? (Score:3, Interesting)
If you lived in the country, where everyone knows everyone, there is a symmetry of non-privacy. Gus the storeowner knows you, knows your dirt. You know him and know his dirt. When your purchases are recorded on a supermarket scanner, you have no idea who sees this data, and you certainly aren't entitled to see the records of *their* shopping habits.
In the country, everyone knows everyone, and you have at least a m
Re:Want to live without a Nanny State? (Score:3, Insightful)
Except that, unlike a generation or two ago, the technology makes it possible for governments and businesses (and criminals) to dig through a lot of information rapidly, without having to bother to travel to your home town to talk to Joe at the market. It lets them "connect the dots" in a way that hasn't ever been possible before. Making up sets of dots that one might not want to have connected is left as an exercise for the re
Waste of Resources (Score:4, Insightful)
It's all about the banks. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Even by "1984" standards... (Score:3, Insightful)
New Zealand =) (Score:5, Interesting)
One of the last attempts at privacy invasion that hit the media was a case of the postal service (which is an SOE) was gathering data on house conditions. This information was deemed to assist with targeted advertising, for a price. There was a large public backlash.
On TV news, there were some quick queries put forward to members of the public. I'll never forget the American dude was simply said, "I moved to here from America to get away from this kind of stuff."
The one thing worrying me is possibility of NZ signing a Free Trade agreement with the US. You get dicked when you do that. But we're quite anti-American here due to the Iraq war, so we may be safe for now =)
Re:New Zealand =) (Score:3, Interesting)
Just keep the Nuclear arms out of our waters, let us feel like that's significant, and we'll probably cave on anything else
Clearly not the US (Score:3, Informative)
EU=3mil sq km / 450 billion pipples (Score:3, Funny)
I've heard that Europeans are skinnier than Americans, but I think that's a bit extreme, don't you?
RS
Not quite (Score:3, Informative)
8.836382222 x 10^-6 square km = 8,836,382.22 square mm = 13,696.4198 square inches = 95.114 square feet.
Still not a lot of land, but more than 1/4 inch.
exposure (Score:3, Insightful)
Today, thanks to the internet, we all know it was bull shit... that people of one country are just like the people of another... all having their daily living concerns.
This whole terrorism blow up was not without a cause. You screw someone enough and they will retaliate or someone else will use it as an excuse to.
So it is with the WTC..... and the trillion dollar bet... a stock market gamble that drain south east asia of their economy. and then the totally disconnected but some how magically connected via bush adminastration and threated media helping to bang war drums.....
The point is simple... of the over 6 billion people on this planet, it is a small fraction of a percent that is totally responsible for the excuse of terrorism.
Search the web for trillion dollar bet and "what the world wants"....
And see what the few are doing to keep a much better world from us all.
They are the real terrorist and as the deceptive do, they clain its someone else.
Re:exposure (Score:3, Informative)
The Holocaust (Score:3, Insightful)
The real lie about the holocaust that is perpetuated nowadays is that anti-semitimism and eugenics were common only in NAZI Germany, when they were actually a world wide social trend. Countries in Europe and America turned down boatloads of Jewish refugees, and many nations were considering their own laws on how to remove them from society. The nations invaded by Germany during WWII like to claim
Ministry of Love (Score:5, Funny)
This whole thing reminds me of ACDC's song "We're on a highway to hell", because... - oh hello there uniformed men - I was just posting on Slashdot, nothing to worry.. - aah let me go - neeed to keeep posting...
How do you collect this information? (Score:5, Insightful)
The largest EMC DMX (DMX-3) can handle approximately 251TB of storage. You'd fill up the array in ~70hrs (3days!) using ONLY a single 10Gb/s link. Remember that large disk arrays out there have interfaces that are 2Gb/s FibreChannel. So you'd need atleast 5 interfaces (in a perfect world once again), that were capable of 2Gb/s. So you can forget about SATA arrays, as those couldn't dream of this bandwidth.
Oh yeah... how do you back this thing up... Fastest tape drives out there run 150MB/s (LTO-3) application throughput with compression.
Good Luck...
Your local SAN Administrator.
Re:How do you collect this information? (Score:5, Insightful)
In your scenario where they had some big-ass protocol analysers (no mention of who's paying for this) it'd be able to log who sent email/msn/skype etc. to whom.. of course that'd be a shitload of data too... not to mention they couldn't log VPN traffic (so I could happily setup my VPN to sealand and send any message I wanted unlogged).
Still completely unworkable IMO, but not as bad as your analysis suggests.
Re:How do you collect this information? (Score:3, Insightful)
EN 16 EN
a) Data necessary to trace and identify the source of a communication:
[...]
(3) Concerning Internet Access, Internet e-mail and Internet telephony:
(a) The Internet Protocol (IP) address, whether dynamic or static,
allocated by the Internet access provider to a communication;
(b) The User ID of the source of a communication;
(c) The Connection Label or telephone number allocated to any
communication enterin
Not here in Washington state (Score:3, Insightful)
It doesn't get much freerer than... (Score:5, Insightful)
Use encryption! (Score:3, Interesting)
But hopefully this will spur the use of encryption in all communications, with temporary key pairs. If you don't have your secret key anymore, they can't subpoena it.
HTTPS by default is better than HTTP by default. (Though we'll have to deal with millions of self-signed certificates...)
I can imagine the protesting now, by the way: cat
Clueless! (Score:3, Informative)
Cry me a river (Score:3, Insightful)
War is peace.
Ignorance is strength.
That's 1984. Not your laws.
What exactly are we crying about here? Oh no, you can't download kiddy porn, wage war against the infidels and generally do stuff you're not supposed to in Europe any more. Who cares about privacy?
Hiding nothing is nothing to hide
The government doesn't really care what you're doing in your personal life, what you're doing with your friend tomorrow, and they're not going to bother following along with it.
Don't do the wrong thing,
Don't get arrested,
Don't cry about it.
1984?? (Score:3, Funny)
Sincerely,
The National Security Agency
Solutions ? (Score:3, Interesting)
I used to feel all idealistic and outraged about this, but by now I'm ready to face reality. Governments and media corporations are big and powerful; privacy-conscious individuals are tiny and weak. Most people don't care about privacy, because they simply do not understand it (and because they don't exercise their free speech rights anyway). After all, if you're not a terrorist, then you have nothing to hide -- right ?
So, I am pretty sure that the erosion of privacy is inevitable. It will happen sooner rather than later. Question is, how can a tiny, weak individual protect himself from the Homeland RIAA anti-terrorist piracy-fighting taskforce ? I can think of a few solutions, but all of them are sub-par.
So... any other bright ideas ?
US beats Europe for 1984 (Score:4, Funny)
mark "I am not a number, I am a free radical!"
* draft dodger
smoked dope (ignore Bush & cocaine)
lied to Congress
sent troops in without proper equipment
sent too few troops in
no exit strategy
nation building
etc, etc, etc...
Re:Do editors even read this site? (Score:5, Funny)
My, that's a big population you have there, Europe! How did you get so big?
Re:Do editors even read this site? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Do editors even read this site? (Score:3, Interesting)
Fate of the British billion (Score:3, Informative)
Re:ROFL (Score:3, Interesting)
You feel good now that you've got that off your chest, don't you?!
if nothing else to prove that things are fucked up everywhere
Considering that the US House of Representatives just passed the Patriot[sic] Act today, your timing is impeccable.
"Fascism could better be called 'corporatism', for it is merely the merging of state power with corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini, the Italian dictator who "invented" fascism
Re:Oh ... Europe ... Europe ... Europe ... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Canada is safe (Score:3, Insightful)
Well called.
Bill C-74 [parl.gc.ca]
Long term, no, it doesn't look as though Canada is 'safe' when it comes to privacy. Short term, if federal elections become annual as minority gov'ts are successively defeated, perhaps they'll have a hard time passing much of anything. Any Canadians thinking about voting Liberal in January should consider this bill before doing so.
Re:Correction (Score:4, Funny)