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.
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)
Our fault..... (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
there are relationships though (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah (Score:3, Insightful)
Storage (Score:4, Insightful)
That's not true (Score:2, Insightful)
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:there are relationships though (Score:5, Insightful)
Waste of Resources (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Trolling or ignorance? (Score:1, Insightful)
The big thing about 1984 was that the telescreens were in everybody's house, making private conversations impossible. Anybody remotely in touch with reality can see that 1984 is a long way off. So is the submitter trolling, or are they genuinely that out of touch?
Also, Europe is a continent. The EU is a group of countries. It is not a country itself. So well done for getting under the skin of a whole continent full of people by implying that the EU is just another country. Again, trolling or ignorance?
Re:Privacy != Freedom && Freedom != Privac (Score:1, Insightful)
And equally so is it that only in modern times has the capability to log every single activity and statement made by individuals become possible. The idea of privacy being synonymous with freedom has evolved directly in proportion to the capabilities of governments to compile dossiers on their citizens' movements and activities. The reason that there is no prohibition of this activity in the American Constitution is because it wasn't even imagined to be possible. We don't have any legal protections against cerebral implants that send what we see, think, and feel to a centralized server because such things do not exist, not because we believe such devices to be a reasonable exercise of state surveillance power.
People who support, or even fail to oppose such Orwellian surveillance are the larger threat to our freedom than the terrorists themselves in my opinion. As we inch towards the very type of state that would have Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin turning over in their graves, the terrorists are laughing all the way to the bank. Mission accomplished.
&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: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: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.
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: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:Want to live without a Nanny State? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Canada is safe (Score:2, Insightful)
The government of Canada already affirms its right to use so called security certificates to detain people without charging them or giving them full access to the evidence against them.
The government of Canada is moving to require ISPs and telecommunications companies to retain and provide information about the private communications of its citizens.
Canada is no better than any place else.
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.
Not here in Washington state (Score:3, Insightful)
It doesn't get much freerer than... (Score:5, Insightful)
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: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.
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.
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: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: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.
Re:there are relationships though (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:ROFL (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Privacy != Freedom && Freedom != Privac (Score:1, Insightful)
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 reader.
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.
Re:Privacy != Freedom && Freedom != Privac (Score:2, Insightful)
I'd recommend you read about Peter McWilliams [petermcwilliams.org], specifically the circumstances of his death [petermcwilliams.org]. Then you can start reading some of his books. You might want to start with Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do [petermcwilliams.org]. It's very light and engaging, despite its length. I know I devoured my hardcover edition (now out of print, but available via special order from your local Borders, if you have one) in a week.
This is not an indictment, but a suggestion based on the assumption you would care to expand your knowledge. If you're just trolling, then pay me no mind.
Re:PRIVACY == FREEDOM (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not here in Washington state (Score:2, Insightful)
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!
Re:Well... (Score:2, Insightful)
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:Even by "1984" standards... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Privacy != Freedom && Freedom != Privac (Score:5, Insightful)
-sirket
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:The term "chilling effect" mean anything? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Privacy != Freedom && Freedom != Privac (Score:5, Insightful)
Where are the billions spend to fight those?
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: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 basicly a 2 party dictatorship (when a substantial minority of the people can vote for a party and end up not having any representation, something is seriously broken)
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 that it was the Germans doing, but something that big doesn't happen without popular support. Eugenics was the next big thing, and many believed it would be a cure to all disease, and all of societies societies social ills. They believed we would breed our way to a better society, by making people better.
Re:US citizens not interested in Freedom (Score:2, Insightful)
All your points are valid, and I agree with them - the one issue which had been brought to my attention in the past is that if such a transition were to be made, how could it be made without the flood of idiots rushing out to do what was once prohibited, likely taking some of the more intelligent folks out on the way to their Darwin Awards?
My unspoken answer was "revert it all at once while I hide in my bunker for a year or three"...
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 && 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: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 entering the public telephone network;
(d) Name and address of the subscriber or registered user to whom the IP
address, Connection Label or User ID was allocated at the time of the
communication.
b) Data necessary to trace and identify the destination of a communication:
[...]
(3) Concerning Internet Access , Internet e-mail and Internet telephony:
(a) The Connection Label or User ID of the intended recipient(s) of a
communication;
(b) Name(s) and address(es) of the subscriber(s) or registered user(s) who
are the intended recipient(s) of the communication.
c) Data necessary to identify the date, time and duration of a communication:
[...]
(2) Concerning Internet Access, Internet e-mail and Internet telephony:
(a) The date and time of the log-in and log-off of the Internet sessions
based on a certain time zone.
d) Data necessary to identify the type of communication:
[... nothing relevant to Internet connections...]
e) Data necessary to identify the communication device or what purports to be the
communication device:
[...]
(2) Concerning Internet Access, Internet e-mail and Internet telephony:
(a) The calling telephone number for dial-up access;
(b) The digital subscriber line (DSL) or other end point identifier of the
originator of the communication;
(c) The media access control (MAC) address or other machine identifier
of the originator of the communication.
f) Data necessary to identify the location of mobile communication equipment:
[... nothing relevant to Internet connections
So, all they're requiring people to keep is:
* Details of registered users
* IP address -> user mappings, including CLID of telephone line if appropriate, or similar identifiers for other technologies
* Source IP address for e-mails and VOIP calls, E-mail addresses messages are sent to, destination ID for VOIP calls
* Log on & log off times for connections to e-mail servers and VOIP servers with identity of the user.
The requirements for logging connections only seem to apply to operators of e-mail servers and VOIP services. I don't think there's a requirement for ISPs to sniff traffic to other people's services.
This is a long way from the paranoid list of things that's described in the summary, I know. Read the legislation. It ain't complicated.
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 / human interaction and a list of visited websites and voip calls isn't going to stop the next terroist attack.
You want to stop terrorism? Stop spreading the terror. 24 hour news does more for terrorism than the internet ever did. What's more valuble to a company: it's phone line or it's advertising? (Hint: phone lines weren't invented until the 20th century) But I would no more sanction the removal of the press, than I would the logging of the internet.
Every year 40,000 people are killed by traffic accidents in the USA alone. Thats a Madrid bombing every two days, or a London bombing every 5 hours, or a 9/11 every month. Its a tragedy, but your not going to stop it by bombing the hell out of Detroit and monitoring the sale of cars, you'll rust 'radicalise' those that you are trying to protect - isn't that what the right to arms is all about?
So is it the governments business if your planning an attact? Sure it is. But the result of a terrosist attack is never going to be as bad as the sanctions imposed trying to stop it from happening.
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: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 unknown terrorist attack. If this choice was offered to you would you opt for it? We don't know that there is even going to be another terrorist attack (although I think it's likely). We don't know where a future attack would take place. We don't know when a future attack would take place. There are so many variables that it is absurd to even think we can stop a terrorist if they really wanted to blow something up. It might be possible to lock down the airports and the subways but is it possible to lock down all the shopping centers, petrol stations, football stadiums, rock concerts, churches, theaters, etc, etc. There are just too many places to blow people up. Even if you did manage to secure all of those what about the roads. A terrorist willing to die for his cause could case havoc simply by deliberately crashing his car on a motorway.
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: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....
You didn't bother to read TFDirective. (Score:2, Insightful)
A few years ago, in Europe... (Score:2, Insightful)
A few years ago in Europe, several countries which did not have totalitarian governments where invaded and conquered by countries that had them, and the same thing happened. Other "voluntarily" gave up a part of their soverignty to join as "allies". To pay for that "privilege", they put millions of their citizens at the mercy of those countries peacefully.
Those citizens weren't always jews.
In a few years we have NO guarantee of which kind of government we are going to have in our country. It may even be a government from a foreign power, or our country may be forced to join an "alliance".
Do you know what Hitler would do with this kind of information about you?
This is not only another salvo in the war for freedom, it means the ante just went up thousand-fold. It means there is no turning back, because everything is at stake.
People who have commited no crime will die because of this, and other, collected and stored information.
Democracy is no guarantee against the future.
Emmanuel Goldstein
DISCLAIMER: If you are a dictator of my country sometime in the future, this message is designed only to catch people likely of commiting thought-crimes.
Please mod this up doubleplusgood.
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:3, Insightful)
I guess you missed the part where he is a meth head?
That it's illegal won't stop Timmy from wreaking havoc with his arsenal (since he is a meth head), and his sentence won't bring back to life the ones he killed. So what you are saying is that in this libertarian world there exists no system for preventing mentally unstable people like Timmy the Meth Head from slaughtering innocent people. That's a problem.
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:US citizens not interested in Freedom (Score:3, Insightful)
Except if he sneaks up on them from behind, or they are children or very old people, or his gun has greater range than theirs... It amazes me that this even passes for a "plan" in libertarian circles, it's so pathetic. But yeah, that's exactly the kind of world where I want my children to grow up, ha ha!
Where I live Timmy would have some serious problems getting an assault weapon from his shady friends, because we control access to these weapons tightly. No civilian ever has a right to own one under any circumstances. Ever. It means the police don't need them because their antagonists don't have them, so the only source for assault weapons is the military, which usually manages to keep them locked up. It's not 100%, but it still means that it's hard to get one. This of course means that the citizens can't defeat the military if necessary, but neither can they in any possible world, unless the citizens have tanks, gunships, and attack jets with airports, fuel, ammo, personel, etc. Which of course just becomes another military organization that can be turned against the people.
Just face it, if your military wants to conquer its own population, it's going to. Unless of course France steps in and saves your asses again, he he!
Re:US citizens not interested in Freedom (Score:1, Insightful)
What about when deranged Timmy gets a knife and terrorizes the neighborhood, killing several old people and children? Did gun control save them? Do we need knife control?
What about Gina, who lives in a bad neighborhood because she's poor. When a criminal breaks into her house to rob or rape her she cannot defend herself because you put into place gun laws to protect you from Timmy.
What about all the invasions of your privacy that Slashdot people bitch about all the time whose enactment can be directly traced to the 'War on Drugs' which was put into place to protect you from Timmy.
The Libertarians say that the government should do what the Constitution requires. Nothing more and nothing less. If you want a change in the way the government works...change the Constitution (federal or state, as appropriate.) The Libertarians say grow the hell up and think for yourselves...care for yourselves...decide for yourselves...and leave me the hell alone. I want neither control over you nor for you to have control over me.
There are plenty of issues you can find with the Libertarian platform...and any number of Libertarians are exactly the nutjobs you call them, but the core principle of the movement is sound.
Re:there are relationships though (Score:2, Insightful)
Nowadays, as you state correctly, both terms are used as synonyms.
Res publica = matters of the people
Demos kratein = rule through the people
So, in a "res publica", the state has to do what 's best for most of the people. This is easily done via ( democratically
In "demos kratein", the collective people decide themselves what the state will do. This means that no representatives are used in a democracy. Switzerland for example has a system of public referenda that would fit in the definition of "democracies". Everybody can vote in those referenda and the outcome is decisive.
=> I don't think there are any real democracies in the world right now... Correct me if I'm wrong.
With the present state of the art (in IT), I guess it would be possible to achieve a 100% democratic govt. But, as our elected representatives are probably not quite willing to have their jobs replaced by a couple of computers, I guess we will never get to that stage
Re:Privacy != Freedom && Freedom != Privac (Score:3, Insightful)
We don't outlaw alcohol, but we do restrict its sale and consumption. We also restrict the licensing for cars and revoke that licensing for drunk driving.
We accept risky devices and behaviors that we know will kill people. It's part of being free.
There is an inherent risk in using these things, but we don't accept the behavior you speak of. We give people the opportunity to use these things responsibly and take away those opportunities when they clearly demonstrate that they are incapable of using them responsibly.
Where is the $21B "War on Drunk Driving"?
It's not labeled "War on Drunk Driving" but if I had to guess how much money and time was spent on finding, arresting, processing, trying, convicting, and jailing just the drunk drivers in our country, I would not be surprised if we hit that amount every few years. Ask your local police officers how many drunk drivers they pick up every week and then multiply that by every other city, county, and state officer across the country. Factor in the time spent by the clerks, judges, guards, DMV workers, and all the other people that come into contact with these idiots and you're looking at a huge sum of money.
Re:US citizens not interested in Freedom (Score:3, Insightful)
The Iraqis don't seem to be having much of a problem with it, and there are more armed US citizens than Iraqis. Anyway, I think the fact that the populous is armed acts as a deterrent in itself. To avoid a military-vs-citizens conflict, the population would have to have their weapons confiscated, which would imply some looming unpopular government action and provoke a military-vs-citizen conflict in itself.
If you consider the number of military personnel in the US military (even not counting those who would desert faced with the prospect of fighting US citizens)) compared to the US population (spread out over the whole country) in a truly guerrilla conflict, you get an even more hopeless situation than Iraq or Vietnam.
I don't think it's unreasonable to think that the armed US population (even with a whole lot of .22s) could take the US military on quite easily. And you think this war is unpopular... Imagine the recruiting numbers in a war waged by the military against the population.
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.
The big difference... (Score:3, Insightful)
However, we don't have traffic cameras, or tollroads, or grocery store cards, or neighborhood policemen (or even much of a police presence at all).
In other words, my friends and neighbors know what I'm doing, but the government has no idea at all (except where "the government" is my friends and neighbors, like the IRS guy I go to lodge with). That's a fundamental difference, in my opinion.
This Is Nothing New (Score:2, Insightful)
The truth is that society hasnt changed that much over the last few thousand years.. it is just getting easier to persecute folks for their "sins".
Sure sure. . . crime and terrorism and child porn. Certainly most people in their right mind are against child porn. I certainly would consider taking justice into my own hands if someone were to put my children in such a situation. And, yes, terrorism is terrorism. Whether you are a CIA contractor torturing prisoners, a soldier killing innocent civilians 'accidentally', or even the real deal Jihad warrior with your holy cruise missile buried deep in sand, terrorism is terrorism.
However, this is just a big scam for governments to launder more money. Child porn will not be reduced but they will certainly say that they reduced it by 25% as soon as they get a few more scapegoats for the new 'program'. Agencies will claim that it has helped decrease crime and terrorism by some arbitrary percentage. The only real solution is the Muslim extremist approach. It will save all countries extreme amounts of money. Hang child porn sickos in the middle of town and broadcast it on TV nationally. If you think this would be inhumane, then obviously you have never been molested or had gangs kidnap your little sister and threaten to kill her if you testify. You want to stop crime? feed the poor and hungry! Maybe the world needs a new Marie Antoinette to hang as well. Want to stop terrorism? Its simple. Stop creating it. Quit financing wars and switching sides every 20 years to hedge your bets. It has nothing to do with the internet. Say bye bye to all those tax dollars - they wont be used to help you or anyone you know!
Storage (Score:2, Insightful)
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:It doesn't get much freerer than... (Score:2, Insightful)
Recommendation: recall your elected representative (Score:1, Insightful)
I think you should stay where you are. Instead of finding some miracle spot in the universe, you should focus on organizing how to send a clear message to your elected political representative that thank you, you don't want this. If your elected political representatives don't agree what that, THEY can resign, or be recalled.
The beauty of these laws is that your elected politicians play your fears for your family, for yourself. It's been pointed out, that countless other causes (from car safety failures, outrageously unhealthy food products to medical malpractice) claims way more lifes than terror attacks.
But it's much easier to mobilize the freightened public against some foreign terrorists than against faulty safety laws, faulty regulations that create loopholes that corporations or crooks will exploit without hesitation to make a dime. Especially if these corporations are supporting the re-election of your elected political representatives.
The only hope is that governments will allow themselves - without the consultation and approval of the public - so much intrusive powers that citizens will start to feel the burdon of it personally. As long as breach of privacy is a theoretical question, politicians can count on the "laziness" of their electorate to keep them under control.
If you are a concerned citizen, the best you can do is to plan preparations for that time and put everything in place for a sweeping campaing against your elected political representatives - in case if they forget that they are there to represent your interest.