Hello Antiterrorism act... good-bye freedom...

do you guys realize the implications of what the anti-terrorisn (which passed in senate) are? well say good-bye to american freedom. Basically, this bill allows the government to do what they want... it's a bill that has so many generalities that can be altered to fit specific instances. so basically it allows them to do what they want, and then justify it by saying, "it falls under the anti-terrorism act" it will allow the gov't to read emails, allow the FBI to run carnivore legally, monitor all messaging services, the list goes on and on. plus there are so many things that can be added because of the vagueness of the bill. the reason they did it that way is so that they wouldn't have to vote on bills everytime a new security issue comes up.... nice thought in theory, but it makes the bill way to powerful and possibly unconstitution... sadly, the supreme court will never block it... cause most of america supports it, due solely to lack of understanding.

I completely agree with you.

I can understand the reason for passing such a bill though.
If the folks on Capitol Hill had to gather and vote everytime, it'd take weeks for them to react to such a thing as september 11th.

It is sad, that there is no non-government organisation (say maybe a church or such) to monitor, what the govt does.

That would help to make me feel better even with such a law in place...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by NHBoehm
I completely agree with you.

I can understand the reason for passing such a bill though.
If the folks on Capitol Hill had to gather and vote everytime, it'd take weeks for them to react to such a thing as september 11th.

It is sad, that there is no non-government organisation (say maybe a church or such) to monitor, what the govt does.

That would help to make me feel better even with such a law in place...

---

Good idea, an organisation that watches over the gov.

there are many non-profit organizations that act as government watchdogs. the biggest one relating to privacy is the EFF. A government appointed watchdog would be undemocratic. The fact that people would want such an organization devalidates the entire electoral system ie) let's elect a government for the government we have already elected to represent us.

I agree one hundred percent with the opening remark. Just passing this act is unconstitutional. Putting it into order would vialate or freedom. Must people are to stuppid, or decide about the artical by reading the news paper, that they don't know about the fine print. In my opion our government needs abolished. We have the right in our constitution to abolish our government if it gets too strong. I think the time is right. Did you know that the gov. wants us to the think our rights our somthing great that they give us instead of God given? In this way they can take them a way, because people will think that the gov. gave them the rights. I agree with the last qoute to some degree, but the government is so unconstitutional that this is hardly relivant. I think we the people need to do the watching of our government AND CHECK IT IF IT GETS OUT OF HAND!!!!!!!!!

The way i see it is the gov. is basicly going to do whatever the hell they want to regardless of what we want. No matter what we try to do to stop them they will ALWAYS find a way to pass what they want to pass, to our faces or behind our backs. This is a world where busniess and gov. have all the power, not us the people. The gov and busniess are not people as you and I but they are creatures like Bin Laden , When they feel they are right, they will do ANYTHING to get thier way

:mad:

Well, I can understand the comments that have been made. To be blunt, I think a lot of the problem here is that the US has gone from a position of having no perceived terrorist threat, to one that is very real, which is understandable given what happened on september 11th. But laws that are passed without proper scrutiny tend to end up being bad pieces of legislation.

It may be of interest to note that the UK is currently trying to extend its "anti terrorist" legislation, but has suffered a series of defeats in the upper house (the House of Lords). The main reason for this is that the consequences have not been thought through - most of the measures (e.g. access to all private financial information, detention without trial, copies kept of everyones email for 7 years) do not require a judge to rule on whether or not it is appropriate - i.e. they can be used by the government if they think it is the right thing to do.

While the government can do pretty much what they want, regardless of what the "people" want, when it comes to software and such, I think they're going to find that a lot of people aren't up to the idea of the government "spying" on them. I've already switched AV's from NAV to Sophos because Sophos open stated that their AV will detect the FBI's programs (of which I need to study about more). Major companies like Norton will suffer loss from people who really know what's going on because they're not putting up with it at all. I myself, am one of those people.

#1- i want to start a protest against this, please everyone who livess in the u.s. write your house representitive an email or a letter.

#2- can you post a link to the sophos site... i want to check this bad boy out.

that which they are imposing upon us is unconstitutional... the time to react is now. let's stand strong and do something about it.

In democracy change occurs when the people demand change in force. This is accomplished during the elections. This is the foundation of democracy. Governments can make, change or erase a law, it is what we as the citizens give them power to do. The US constitution outlines this very clearly. You also cannot possibly blame Bush as the Senate has a democrat majority. The US government is really on a fine line here between invasion and public safety, this is obvious, but you have provided no evidence that they have crossed a line which violates the clauses of the US constitution, and even if they have, the will of the people will always surpass that of the individual in the free world. It is scary but true. Therefore, based on your constitution, the United States will condone murder, invasions, theft, torture, slavery, etc. So don't go around waving your arms in the air claiming this law to be unconstitutional, it is the will of the people.

I'm afraid I cannot help but step into this constitutional mess of a debate. I have to most politely disagree with debris, as it seems his understanding of the constitution and what it represents is slightly flawed.

Quote:

---

...which violates the clauses of the US constitution, and even if they have, the will of the people will always surpass that of the individual in the free world.

---

The US constitution is a document that states inalienable rights of every US citizen. It is a scripture that stands as the foundation of the principles by which the US government abides by. To say that the "will of the people" will always surpass that of the individual (and of the constitution, by implication) is wrong. Removing "inalienable" rights left and right as it so pleases the majority is not something to be taken lightly, and not something to be strived for. The constitution is there for a reason, it is the very backbone that the United States of America stands on, without it, there can be no United States of America. It would just not be the same.

Even when the majority is against a certain thing, this does not mean that they are in the right. Remember segregation? The US government gave the rights to black students to study in previously white-only schools. Some states were angered and were totally against this. They invoked the NATIONAL GUARD(!) to bar these black students from their studies. The federal government had to bring in the army to counteract these rogue state troops. They then nationalized the national guard troops, so as to prevent this from ever happening again. The point is, that the majority do not always agree with the laws written, it is naive to believe such.

You speak as though "majority-rules" is the only type of governance to be had in the free world. What of anarchist-like systems of government?

I said majority rules, within confines of democracy. Claiming the majority to not be in agreement with laws passed is what is truly naive. The fact remains, we elect people to represent us. By electing them, we validate whatever laws are passed or to be passed. The nationalization of the National Guard gives support to my argument; No longer can states have such power for federal laws are the will and they are the way. If you do not like it, do not legitamize said process.

i have a constitutional right to my privacy. this privacy can and will been comprimised if the anti-terrorism act is passed. as for this being the will of the people, this is not the will of the people. As a representitive, the members of congress are obligated to act on behalf of the people, but they do not always do so. first, if people understood this law, they would stand against it. secondly, the congress is doing what they think is *right* for the people, not what the people persay *want*. finally, things can be changed in times other then election. if people stand up and protest for what they believe in, if they share what they think is right, this can change the way things go. because, if this government stands for the will of the people, then the law shouldn't be passed if people don't support it

Which ammendment guarantees that your email remains free of inspection?

Who are you to say what the majority would support?

Congress does not come up with laws based on what they *think* represents the people, based on the electoral system, you essentially wave your right to decide for yourself.

I would like to say that these are appropriate for the situation we have gone through. In WW2 and the Vietnam war many of or civil liberties were taken away from us. Because in a Time of war the president and government officals are walking on egg-shells.
After the war was over we got or rights back, This is what my 76 year old grandpa was telling me.

Anyway I would assume that we will get or rights back but we had them taken away because of a few ****ed up people who wanted to fly planes into buildings. Which is resonable to me, there are increasing security to protect people. You may ask what this has to do with reading e-mail and watching users. Well most of you know the Internet is the best way to connect to anyone anywhere at anytime. Thus if you monitor people then you might get some better inteligence of supposed terroists. As long as you are not doing anything illegal then what do have to hide. If the government really wants to monitor my computer then let them whatever, I really don't care. Why because I"m not doing anything illegal, I don't talk to terrorists, and I'm not a computer craker who breaks into peoples machines.

first... there is no ammendment that specifies 'email'... but there are statutes and limitations against wiretapping and searching with out a warrant, two things that will be able to happen based upon this new law. and as a member of this country, people do not wave their rights when they elect officials. these officials are supposed to do what the people want, but do not always. they are human just as we are and when people disagree with the laws that they want to pass, they have a right to say.

besides, what is your point? are you saying it's o/k for them to monitor everything that the american public does? they will know everything we say, everything we buy, places we go on the internet. by being at this site, they could determine that a person is a computer hacker and decide that that said person is a terrorist and a threat to our government. therefore they could arrest them based on solely that information under the new law. when this said person may just be someone asking a security question. this law is taking away freedoms that the american people have. it takes away privacy. hell, they might as well just follow me around after they pass this law, cause they'll know just as much as if they did. and this is just the beginning point of the law. this law is vague, allowing it to be tweaked to fit a particular situation. they can decide to come crashing into your house, take all your stuff and arrest you, then claim that you *may* be a terrorist and a potential threat based on the new Anti-terrorist law. and you will not have a leg to stand on, because the law is so vague, they could make things fit through creative articulation. nice law to set up. congress is really trying to help out with the will of the people huh?

Your argument is a huge double-standard. The majority rules on a national level, but the majority does not rule on the state-level? Why is it do you think states exist? It's the people living in various states have various ways going about things, various beliefs and various priorities. The very existence of these states within a nation-state prove that your "majority rules" mantra is far over extended. The irony is that the people often times don't even want the majority to rule, and this is why the majority of people would not support the abolition of states as recognizable boundries and the movement towards one big majority rules national policy.

Also, as long as we're talking political theory, how democratic is a system where the majority elect a handful of people to represent them, when these said people do NOT have to account for the laws they pass? How representative is that? The only thing keeping them from passing the laws they do is being re-elected for another term, that's all. It is far more politically difficult to pass laws than to remove them. If this was truly a democratic system, then everyone would personally vote themselves on every single issue. Indeed, this is currently not terribly practical, but I think a good compromise (for now) would be to enact a stockwell-dayish law that would allow 1) people with enough signatures to make referendums about certain issues, 2) the ability to REMOVE a politician from office if the majority who elected him believe he is no longer representing them or doing a bad job of doing so. Costly, yes, but how much is your freedom worth to you?

(I do realize this is not hacking or computer related, but it's worthwhile to pull your head out of the sand every once in a while, take a few steps back from your all night programming sessions, and take a peak at what is going on in the big place with the high blue ceilling.)

- freeon, i know that this has happened before. but this is much more extreme then anything we have ever seen. potentially, what if they decide they like the control? then they won't back off. the FBI has been looking for a way to legally impliment carnivore. now they can... do you think that they will stop when the problem has passed? i think not. they will want to continue to watch, and they will be allowed to. all they have to say is "we are waching for potential terrorists" the biggest problem with this overly extreme law is that through creative articulation, there may be no limit to what this law will allow. (that was brought out by a group of political analysts discussing the law)

-autumn, that is exactly my point. how democratic is a system that uses representatives. i realize a government with every single person voting would be rather difficult, but at the same time, it would be much more fair (assuming that the people voting would be educated on the issue.)

This topic has been a repeated source of debate-

Here are some of the earlier threads- here and here and another privacy thread here and even another one here!


I personally am strongly against any laws magically passed in the name of "fighting terrorism" that take away from personal freedom and the right to privacy....

ok lets think about this a moment.hacking or any other form of invasion of privacy is illegal,and you will be arrested for it (if caught).does that mean we have the right to make a citizens arrest on an FBIagent if they are found snooping around in our private matters? hmm now there's a thought. my point is this:they want the constitutional right to do the very thing that they deem illegal!!!!!

of course they want to be hypocritical... that appears to be the nature of the us government. it is just disturbing that a government built upon freedom now wishes to take it away

"This is our world now...the world of the electron and the switch, the beauty of the baud. We make use of a service already existing without paying for what could be dirt cheep if it wasn't run by profiteering gluttons, and you call us criminals. We explore...and you call us criminals. We exist without skin color, without nationality, without religious bias...and you call us criminals. You build atomic bombs, wage wars, murder, cheat, and lie to us and try to make us believe it is for our own good, yet we're the criminals.

Yes, I am a criminal. My crime is that of curiosity. My crime is that of judging people by what they say and think, not what they look like. My crime is that of outsmarting you, something that you will never forgive me for. I am a hacker and this is my manifesto. You may stop this individual, but you can't stop us all...after all, we're all alike." – The Mentor (from The Hacker’s Manifesto, January 8, 1986)


Is it all happening again?

good point sonic.... but what will become of us. will we be forced even further into the underground just to exist? this is not right. will this be the return of the righteous hacks? i thought those days were finally over... i guess it all comes full circle...

HTP
Hack the Planet

Quote:

---

Originally posted by freeOn
I would like to say that these are appropriate for the situation we have gone through. In WW2 and the Vietnam war many of or civil liberties were taken away from us. Because in a Time of war the president and government officals are walking on egg-shells.
After the war was over we got or rights back, This is what my 76 year old grandpa was telling me.

Anyway I would assume that we will get or rights back but we had them taken away because of a few ****ed up people who wanted to fly planes into buildings. Which is resonable to me, there are increasing security to protect people. You may ask what this has to do with reading e-mail and watching users. Well most of you know the Internet is the best way to connect to anyone anywhere at anytime. Thus if you monitor people then you might get some better inteligence of supposed terroists. As long as you are not doing anything illegal then what do have to hide. If the government really wants to monitor my computer then let them whatever, I really don't care. Why because I"m not doing anything illegal, I don't talk to terrorists, and I'm not a computer craker who breaks into peoples machines.

---

freeOn,
I think you should read the book Unintended Consueqences you might find some very intersing things, I did, stuff like the Bonus Army, do a search on it you'll be suprised....This book will tell you alot about the rights we have given up and haven't gotten back. Don't give up your freedom for securtiy, protect yourself... People install all kinds of stuff to protect there computers from attack on there own without asking the Gov to do it.
Hey it's just my opinion
:):)

wanna hear some really messed up stuff about the u.s. government? learn about FEMA....

Let me begin by saying that using the current electoral system to somehow defend the idea that the will of the people is represented is what is "truly naive." We the people of the United States of America were given two choices for the presidential election. Ok, there were more, but name one person who wasn't 100% sure it was going to be either Gore or Bush. So I have to choose which candidate of TWO, best matches my beliefs. Obviously the winner, whoever it would be, isn't going to agree completely with what I, or anyone else, believes. And in the presidents eyes, there is no one whole American public. There is the individuals and corporations who bought him his presidency, and there is everyone else. Who do you think he's most worried about supporting. And this goes for other offices not just the president. Before anyone goes trying to validate the fact we live in a true democracy by saying the electoral system represents the will of the people, they need to open their eyes. Believe it or not, it's the way things are, the sooner you see this the sooner you can help make change for the better.

The problems we face today are the very thing the founders of this country were fighting against. I'd love if they could see how things turned out...

btw, I'm not anti-american, the only reason I feel so strongly about these problems is because I care, and Iwant to see things get better.

Check out the book(Unintended Consueqences):)

nice post... how true real:zero...

as chomsky says: “It is the responsibility of intellectuals to speak the truth and expose lies." this is what we need to do.

but honestly something needs to be done. the state of affairs in our country is becomong more and more ridiculous. there is a moral obligation on the citizen's of this country to make the country work for them. This is what the constitution is all about, if the said government violeates those rights or becomes ineffective, it can be abolished....

now i am not calling for the abolishment of the american government. it can be salvaged, at least at this point... but something should be done before we lose that which we hold so dear, our freedom

"There is no reason to accept the doctrines crafted to sustain power and privilege, or to believe that we are constrained by mysterious and unknown social laws. These are simply decisions made within institutions that are subject to human will and that must face the test of legitimacy. And if they do not meet the test, they can be replaced by other institutions that are more free and more just, as has happened often in the past." Noam Chomsky

After world war 2 people didn't just get there freedoms back like a switch on a key board. It took many many years. There were many scandels and upsets. And eventualy groups formed and protested and fought and fought and eventually gave you and I more freedom than what they had in there time. Until now that is...........................

:(

Has anyone read the article on the WTO in cyberarmy's Ezines? that’s all my fears made manifest.

Freedom is not god given. the seed may have been implanted in the minds of men, but the human race TOOK freedom and not that long ago. a lot of people fought and died for it.

All the people in this country didn't have the right to vote until the 1960's

Around 1900 people where fighting in the streets to give their children the right to work "only a 16 hour day" if they were under 16. and the only reason they won those rights was they were armed.

The norm is oppression.

Its true we must make some concession in time of national emergency. But where and when does it stop. Id feel a lot better if this was some kind of 'war powers act lite'. when the situation ended so do the restrictions.

I heard on a news station, on the way home from work that the supreme court has given their ok for searching the home of people on parole without search warrants. what direction is that a step in?

imho a temporary lose of freedom is the same as a temporary tax increase. it takes something major to get rid of it.

These things don't go away by themselves.

You can find Email addresses for your representives by following the links at whitehouse.gov.

I would like very much to take an active part in any non-violent protest, so if any one has any ideas... [email protected]NOSPAM

our country is starting to turn away from the original foundation that our forefathers had intended. it has degenerated to a point where freedom is no longer important. when and if this act passes, we will be moving towards what many would consider communism.... sad but true....

"those who sacrifice freedom for security; will not have, nor deserve, either."
-Thomas Jefferson

on a side note.... i do very much realize that when people regained there freedom after world war 2, it was a hard fought battle.... but the point is, they got them back. it still ended positively. and my point is/was that we may also need to fight for our rights. i also wanted to point out that this time it may be even harder to regain our rights because so many more rights are being lost and so many underlying gov't desires will be fulfilled by this new act (such as the FBI's use of carnivore). so whoever gave me negative points because i was misled.... i wasn't misled, i just didn't feel i needed to clarify. in the end i was right.... they did regain rights. my point was not how.... but that they did... and that it is possible. and that i hope it is possible this time.

The govt is just taking advantage of the civilain people by disguising their "power greed" laws and intigrating it into a bill that would surely get a lot of votes because its called "Anti-Terrorism Act"

I mean like.. the word "Terrorism" has now become a cliche or a buzzword in politics these days.. and not to mention President George's over use of the word "evil".

Personally i see the Anti-Terrorism Act as a wolf under sheep's clothing..

and that's not just the first time the govt has done that...

One of the reasons that the current legislation in the UK is being opposed by the upper house (effectively the Senate), is that there is no legal definition of what a terrorist is. And recently the UK goverment suggested that someone suspected of smuggling cigarettes into the UK should be classed as a terrorist suspect, on the grounds that the money might be used to fund terrorirst groups. So effectively it means that the new powers they are proposing could be used against almost anyone.

I suspect the same thing applies to the legislation passed in the US. Which means that you need to have some independent authority to verify that the legislation is being used appropriately.

or you need to have no such legislation... i understand we are all upset and such.... but reading american citizen's emails and monitoring there internet activity is not going to stop terrorism. busting into places without a warrant is not going to keep people from blowing up buildings. even if they had read the alledged emails of the people involved this time... they would have found nothing. all the messages were encrypted in images. and the fbi would not have looked there. i think that this may be the most ridiculous idea to stop terrorism. i agree something needs to be done.... but i don't think that this will help. that includes FBI carnivore.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by -=solarismka=-
After world war 2 people didn't just get there freedoms back like a switch on a key board. It took many many years. There were many scandels and upsets. And eventualy groups formed and protested and fought and fought and eventually gave you and I more freedom than what they had in there time. Until now that is...........................

:(

---

solarismka, I have never thought about the rights the people of Canada gave up in WWII my mother and grandmother are English so I tend to just think about US/UK thank's you made me think...:rolleyes:

I take Aristotle's view of "democracy" if there is such a thing. The last real democracy died in Athens. This REPUBLIC that we have now has followed the path EXACTLY as Aristotle said it would. When you let everyone vote ..regardless of intelligence...social standing... you end up with a state that will legislate funds to itself until it folds ,giving way as did in Germany to DICTATORSHIP.

its the "fallacy of ad populace" all over(the majority is always RIGHT). Our elections are nothing but popularity contests. If you have the money and the image you win .You don't DARE stand on your own convictions for fear of "offending" someone.. so you have none ... or you adopt the most popular opinion as foretold by the oracle of modern politics ....THE POLL

Quote:

---

Originally posted by larryjs
The last real democracy died in Athens. Our elections are nothing but popularity contests. If you have the money and the image you win .You don't DARE stand on your own convictions for fear of "offending" someone.. so you have none ... or you adopt the most popular opinion as foretold by the oracle of modern politics ....THE POLL

---

I always though of you as a bit of a jerk, larry. Actually, I thought you were a right dickhead. But after this post my opinion of you is slowly changing. Polotics appears to be something we agree on..;)

sadly.... all government seems to decay over time. which is why it must continue to change. change is what will sustain the freedoms we have. i just hope that there are people willing to help and try to change things instead of sitting back and letting it go.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by lord_darkside_x
sadly.... all government seems to decay over time. which is why it must continue to change. change is what will sustain the freedoms we have. i just hope that there are people willing to help and try to change things instead of sitting back and letting it go.

---

EXACTLY..... our founding fathers never meant to let goverment get as powerful as it is now..as a matter of fact Thomas Jefferson went so far as to say "We need to have a revolution every 10 years so the goverment doesn't lose touch with the poeple" This wasn't reflected in his legislature..then again the "separation of church and state" isn't ANYWHERE in the constitution. It says that congress shall pass a state religion . In a PRIVATE LETTER TJ coined the phrase separation of church and state. I am saying this only to show how ideas and phrases decay over time to mean something totally diffirent than the original intention.