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

[autumn regret]

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.

...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?

[oblio]

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.

[lord_darkside_x]

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

[oblio]

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.

[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.

[lord_darkside_x]

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?

[autumn regret]

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.)

[lord_darkside_x]

- 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.)

[Conf1rm3d_K1ll]

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....

[WARLOCK_GREED]

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!!!!!