Great minds think alike

[kellinator]

Inigo Montoya to the six-fingered man: I want my father back, you son of a bitch.

The Kellinator to John Ashcroft: I want my civil liberties back, you son of a bitch.

Comments

tell me

[drunkmuppet.livejournal.com]

What has really been taken away from you so far?

Re: tell me

[kellinator.livejournal.com]

Specifically? I don't know. I'm a native-born grad student who doesn't, realistically, lead a very suspicious life.

But... I can read the writing on the wall, and I can see how people are being affected. I'd have to be a fool to wait until it impacts me personally to get concerned.

Though what I can do now is beyond me. Any ideas, anyone?

Re: tell me

[darkwolf69.livejournal.com]

http://www.eff.org/

This organization is highly active in privacy concerns- at least from an online/electronic perspective...

Re: tell me

[drunkmuppet.livejournal.com]

You really do not want me to start in on you, do you?

What writing on the wall?
Tell me that you are willing to give up your life and peace of mind over security?
Personally, Being in an airport once a week and seeing the way people live in other countries, the risk of losing some(read some) of my civil liberties is ok with me.

AMEN

[nativeatlantan.livejournal.com]

We have it pretty good over here. However, I WILL NOT HAVE SOME IMPLANT PUT IN ME SO THAT THE GOVERNMENT CAN KEEP UP WITH ME. Just a personal preference.

Re: AMEN

[drunkmuppet.livejournal.com]

that is very different than the point being argued here!

Re: AMEN

[nativeatlantan.livejournal.com]

no, no, no, it's not. darkwolf69 was talking about privacy, and they want to keep tabs on you, your whereabouts, etc.

Re: AMEN

[kellinator.livejournal.com]

I'm so with you!!

Keep your probes out of my ass!!

Re: AMEN

[nativeatlantan.livejournal.com]

Bingo. IRS has already been up my ass, so to speak.

Re: tell me

[kellinator.livejournal.com]

And which things are you willing to lose?

I'm not talking about piddly stuff like curb-side checking at the airport. I'm talking about things like the White House announcing that questioning the government is tantamount to treason. This country is supposed to be built on free speech! I don't want the government reading my email, putting me on some list because of the books I buy, or searching me without probable cause because someone thinks I look funny.

It's not that I have anything to hide. But I was raised with the right to privacy.

(And frankly, I find it ironic that the former proponents of less-government are the ones behind so much of this new stuff.)

Re: tell me

[drunkmuppet.livejournal.com]

I agree but you did not state your point clearly. Nobody is going to take away your inalienable rights. To keep me safe and my family safe I agree with certain constraints, just like all power it needs to be used, not abused. I do not know where you have lived but we are watched every day. I have been searched for no apparant reason(read airport) this is very different than being stopped on the street and being searched because you just walked out of a middle eastern store. People pass judgement on each other all the time (hell, i do, i don't like anyone) but I am willing to give up certain things to keep myself safe. It is not a more/less situation. It is a matter of security.
Everything in our society is public in one way shape or form. Maybe if you want to keep those things private with one person there needs to be more face to face interaction!

Re: tell me

[(Anonymous)]

Sounds more like the writing on the NYT editorial pages...keep saying "Ashcroft is BAD" over and over again, like a mantra, and people believe it...but don't know why. That no one can actually articulate what is bad about him underscores the point.

It's because

[nativeatlantan.livejournal.com]

He is a self-proclaimed conservative Christian. Can't have those in politics, otherwise everything they do is picked apart in order to sell papers.

Re: tell me

[drunkmuppet.livejournal.com]

tell me how he is being bad and why

You can start in on me. (was Re: tell me) - pt 1

[jonnyx.livejournal.com]

Hi.

Let me tell you what I've lost.

I've run a non-profit hacker convention for five years, and participated in the organization of a couple of others. My convention, PhreakNIC, was free and open to the public. The intent was to teach anyone interested basic (and sometimes advanced) computer security, provide a LAN to practice attacks (to understand how they worked) and defenses (to make sure you were really keeping your digital assets secure), expose folks to Microsoft alternatives like Linux and BSD, and generally learn in a safe, laboratory-type environment. Other hacker/geek panels consisted of discussions (and demos) on everything from LPFM to SETI work to DSS security flaws to free and open-source software PBXs to embedded microcontrollers to robot wars to etc.

Attendees consisted of the usual geek crowd, but we also had mommies & daddies who were there with their kids, folks who just wanted to game, reporters, law enforcement folks who wanted to learn more (they were quite welcome, and even solicited to speak occasionally), curious hobbyists. Ages ranged from early teens (and younger when parents brought newborns) to people in their 60's and 70's. People traveled from all over the country, and in a few cases, from outside the US to attend.

When Bush signed the USA-PATRIOT Act at the end of October 2001, my convention technically became a terrorist event and I became a terrorist ringleader. Under the new laws, I can face life in a federal pen (ie - no parole) for organizing this event. For some of my immigrant friends, it's even worse: they can be held without any charges, for an indefinite time, without being allowed to speak to a lawyer, and they can be tried and executed by a military tribunal. Finally, anyone who has ever attended one of these conventions could be held as a terrorist participating in a conspiracy.

Re: You can start in on me. (was Re: tell me) - pt 1

[drunkmuppet.livejournal.com]

Understood. The law was created to be a broad stroke(maybe as a panic reaction to the events of Sept 11). If something like this were to ever come to trial and evidence exposed showing the true intent of your convention, do you think it would still be considered a terrorist act? Probably not. What shapes the laws of this country are the cases brought against it. (Ex. Prohibition) Things can be repealed, . I understand and sympathize with your plight and this is why we are allowed to speak out against the government. The generation that grew up with computers have a very large following, the question is how far are you willing to push the issue to make things correct for you?

Re: You can start in on me. (was Re: tell me) - pt 1

[jonnyx.livejournal.com]

"Probably not"? You have a lot more faith in the government, law enforcement and the mainstream media than I do. The laws are in the books now, and they can (and are being used to) silence dissent, criticism, free speech or anything else that threatens the status quo (or the bottom line of large corporations who contribute soft money to their favorite politicians). None of this has anything to do with "justice".

Vast portions of the USA-PATRIOT Act (and the DMCA; and the ECPA; and the UCITA; and the pending SSSCA, but I digress) should never have been enacted. Most likely, many of these new laws will be overturned, but at what cost? How many people get to have their lives destroyed fighting this crap? Years of court appearances and financial ruin for those victimized by these laws and who dare to fight back don't count for much when the same group of idiots in DC can simply introduce more bs legislation every time Congress is in session and never have to deal with the consequences.

As for how far I'm willing to push the issue, well, if I quote the Declaration of Independence, specifically the part about "...whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive..., it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it...", and state the (peaceful, nonviolent) alteration of the current US government is my goal (ie - the immediate expulsion and possible trial for treason of any elected lawmaker who introduces or votes into law a bill later found to be Unconstitutional, and the barring of that official from ever holding public office again for violating their oath to uphold and protect the Constitution), I could still technically be accused of committing treason and organizing a conspiracy under the current laws, just as those involved in the Civil rights movement were.

How many more of your rights are you going to let be taken away while you sit by and watch?

You can start in on me. (was Re: tell me) - pt 2

[jonnyx.livejournal.com]

But hey, you don't have to take my word for it! Look here - Discussion and the full text of the USA-PATRIOT Act! Look here too - this is what is being amended. Try here (wrt sec814) and here (wrt to sec805 and sec811) and here (wrt sec809) first; you'll have to have the two browser windows open side-by-side since the Act updates haven't been incorporated into the Code yet.

Getting a headache? What all this means, simply, is that under the current laws I and anyone else who attends or organizes "hacker" cons are terrorists engaged in a conspiracy if any single person who attends (or claims to have attended) any of these conventions violates the laws. And the laws are so broadly written wrt computer access that practically any use of a computer transcending state or national boundaries (internet, anyone?) constitutes misuse. And since the new amendments are retroactive and have no statute of limitations in some cases, I can be held accountable for *any* claims of misuse by any of the thousands of con attendees for the rest of my life (or until the laws are overturned). I'd better hope I don't piss off anyone in a position of authority, or look like a good career-enhancing target for someone. I can't afford to defend myself in a federal court, even if the accusations hold no water; can you?

So it seems that I (and a lot of my friends and associates) have lost the right to free speech and to peaceably assemble (1st Amendment), the right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure (4th Amendment), and the right to a swift trial by a public jury (Amendments 5-8).

And as for your final statement, "Personally, Being in an airport once a week and seeing the way people live in other countries, the risk of losing some(read some) of my civil liberties is ok with me", allow me to respond with a rather famous quote: "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.

You might wish to read the following:

Is security worth sacrificing liberty?

Here's some pre-Sept11/USA-PATRIOT madness, in which a visiting Russian programmer is detained for violating a corporate-sponsored US anti-freespeech law and held in an undisclosed location for weeks while being denied council and contact with Russian diplomats:

http://www.freesklyarov.org/
http://www.boycottadobe.org/

My, how times have changed.

Re: You can start in on me. (was Re: tell me) - pt 2

[drunkmuppet.livejournal.com]

First off I am not talking about "essential liberties"(this is a very sticky area) I am talking about things we take for granted every day. You mean to tell me that getting on a flight or going to a crowded sports arena with no protection sounds sensible to you? I certainly hope not.
During the last two World Wars things were changed for the duration of those conflicts. Do I agree with your loss of the first and fourth amendment right, absolutely not. Laws are designed to be changed and are almost always broadly written with the ideas that they will have to be further clarified. The government in this country is designed to work for the masses. I understand your anger, but this is how things are changed. People come together as a group to change something. It sounds to me like you have plenty of reprsentation, why not use this infulence to change things. If everything you say is true to the letter(I have not read the articles as I do not have time at work) then you have a case, The liberties you have involuntary given up have crippled your lifestyle, that is when people make changes. My

Re: You can start in on me. (was Re: tell me) - pt 2

[drunkmuppet.livejournal.com]

First off I am not talking about "essential liberties"(this is a very sticky area) I am talking about things we take for granted every day. You mean to tell me that getting on a flight or going to a crowded sports arena with no protection sounds sensible to you? I certainly hope not.
During the last two World Wars things were changed for the duration of those conflicts. Do I agree with your loss of the first and fourth amendment right, absolutely not. Laws are designed to be changed and are almost always broadly written with the ideas that they will have to be further clarified. The government in this country is designed to work for the masses. I understand your anger, but this is how things are changed. People come together as a group to change something. It sounds to me like you have plenty of reprsentation, why not use this infulence to change things. If everything you say is true to the letter(I have not read the articles as I do not have time at work) then you have a case, The liberties you have involuntary given up have crippled your lifestyle, this is when people make changes.

Re: You can start in on me. (was Re: tell me) - pt 3.1

[jonnyx.livejournal.com]

I'm going to reply point-by-point, since the anti-cold drugs are kicking in and they are of the sleep-inducing type. I'm also replying to my own comment, since you have two identical ones here & I'm not sure which one will be deleted.

First off I am not talking about "essential liberties"(this is a very sticky area) I am talking about things we take for granted every day.

OK, I AM talking about essential liberties here, since Kellinator implied that with her initial comment ("I want my civil liberties back") and you asked "what has really been taken away [from you] so far?", then later stated that you would be willing to lose some liberties for security. Essential civil liberties ARE something I take for granted every day, mainly because I never imagined our own government would seem so hell-bent on taking them away; too much brainwashing in Boy Scouts and elementary-school citizenship classes, I suppose.

You mean to tell me that getting on a flight or going to a crowded sports arena with no protection sounds sensible to you? I certainly hope not.

I never said nor did I imply such things. It is quite possible to move from place to place and to have large crowds assemble without requiring everyone to give up their rights. Such rights include not being removed from a plane or sports arena based on one's ethnicity (check out the phrases "racial profiling" and "driving while black"). At the same time, following the premise that your rights end where mine begin, the airlines and airports have the right to refuse access to their facilities and services to any person who will not submit to a scan by a metal detector, in order to safeguard their employees, their equipment and their passengers/customers.

FWIW, unless you are a civilian and/or military pilot, I can guarantee you I've logged more flight hours and spent more time in various US airports than you have (ATL, BNA and BOS in particular). Flight marshals and actual law-enforcement onsite (as opposed to minimum-wage security guards) are a step in the right direction, but simply installing stronger doors on the cockpit and allowing the flight crew to carry non-lethal, non-penetrating weapons (ie - pepper spray, tasers, cattle prods, guns firing rubber bullets) would go a long way to ending domestic hijackings. Allowing military personnel to travel in plain-clothes as opposed to in uniform when on civilian flights would help, too. Commercial airline pilots have been saying this for decades.

Re: You can start in on me. (was Re: tell me) - pt 3.2

[jonnyx.livejournal.com]

During the last two World Wars things were changed for the duration of those conflicts.

As for WWI and WWII in particular, I'm well aware of the laws that were changed (and not changed back, though they were supposed to be temporary measures - income tax, anyone?), and those that were simply wrong, no matter how you define them (ie - detainment of US citizens of Asian ethnicity in US concentration camps, which I had never heard of until my Korean-American fiancee told me about it.)

Do I agree with your loss of the first and fourth amendment right, absolutely not.

It's not just my loss, it's every American's loss.

Laws are designed to be changed and are almost always broadly written with the ideas that they will have to be further clarified.

...which is ass-backwards in what is (supposedly) a free and open society where one is (supposedly) innocent until proven guilty. Vague, broad laws can be abused and perverted. This is part of the reason for jury nullification of bad laws (see the FIJA homepage for more info).

The government in this country is designed to work for the masses.

The government of this country has increasing only worked for the masses when the needs and desires of the general populace has happened to coincide with the interests of the largest corporations and wealthiest citizens of this country (hint - read some Chomsky, check out the Independent Media Center).

I understand your anger, but

...you're willing to give up my rights for your sense of security.

this is how things are changed. People come together as a group to change something. It sounds to me like you have plenty of reprsentation, why not use this infulence to change things.

You'll have to clarify the above before I can accurately reply to it.

If everything you say is true to the letter(I have not read the articles as I do not have time at work)

...so, you are essentially saying that you are OK with the contents of the USA-PATRIOT Act, even though you don't know it specifies? The two links I gave, Cornell and Politechbot, contain the text of the bill that was passed as well as the pre-USA-PATRIOT Act Code, straight from the House. Maybe you should actually read the text of the laws you now live under and consider the implications. If the legalese is too daunting, there are plenty of sites online that summarize how bad these new laws are. Do a Google search and learn what you are defending.

then you have a case, The liberties you have involuntary given up have crippled your lifestyle, that is when people make changes.

Not, not necessarily. The high courts, oddly enough, don't have to hear a case. There are many corrupt and politically connected judges, too, and many otherwise valid cases are refused that might result in the interests of the wealthy and powerful not being served.

Re: You can start in on me. (was Re: tell me) - pt 3.2

[not-hothead-yet.livejournal.com]

Consider:

making a law, even a constitutional amendment does not mean that life immediately goes to hell in a handbasket. Many laws were passed that stayed long enough to get immediately struck down by every court in a line. Checks and balances people. Our legal climate is NOT just laws. There is application (prosecuters, police, attorneys general) there is refinement (hearings, precedents, judges) and there is societal approval (various previous people NOT being reelected)

AND

Like it or not, this country is in an anxious state. Whether or not you agree with the emotional climate, understand that everything is NOT the same. Compromises are expected. How many wars have you lived through? hmm.. so you are unfamiliar with what is expected of you AND you expect that we respond as a nation in some proscribed manner.

You run an organization of "potentially dangerous" proportions and all your declarations of security and peaceable intent will not change the fact that what you are on about is perceived as a potential threat because it has been so before.

And now your activities are scrutinized? Whoa, BFSurprise. You weren't before???

I apologize to all the muslims and east-indo-africans and whosis who are having to put up with suspicions and some antipathy. I admire the patience my fellows americans who descend from a duskier skinned lineage have expressed in these times.

But you?
Keep crying ya big baby. Nobody's beating you up for looking wrong... count yer blessings.

My name is...

[elizabethf.livejournal.com]

Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die!

I just might pop that in the dvd player today!

Hyperbole, biases and thinking for oneself...

[polychromatic22.livejournal.com]

Okay, so I don't think John Ashcroft is evil. I do think the media is insanely biased. I do think that there is a great tendency for people to take what they hear being discussed on NPR, or Talk Radio (whichever brand of politics) or Politically Incorrect, or CNN, or what*ever* at face value. They do not follow up. They don't find out what the actual facts behind things are for themselves. Even when you like somebody else's opinion, it doesn't mean they can't be wrong, or have their facts messed up.


Now, saying all of that, don't forget that laws that are passed in wartime have a serious tendency to never be rolled back... think income taxes...
If that means nothing to you, maybe you should go do some research on how that stuff started...

Frightening truths: if you are pulled over, or walking down the street, or whatever, and you have over $1000 in cash, it can be confiscated *without* warrent. Without being taken to court, without legal recourse on your behalf. All part of the beautiful "war on drugs" people.

Also, never forget that old adage about those who would trade freedom for security....