Stallman: Thousands Dead, Millions Deprived of Liberties

Hobart noted that Richard Stallman has written a very well said piece on the civil liberties that we will no doubt be deprived of following the recent terrorist attacks on the US. I know RMS takes a lot of heat for being out there sometimes, but this is a really well said bit and worth a read.

Thousands dead, millions deprived of civil liberties?

By Richard Stallman

The worst damage from many nerve injuries is secondary -- it happens in the hours after the initial trauma, as the body's reaction to the damage kills more nerve cells. Researchers are beginning to discover ways to prevent this secondary damage and reduce the eventual harm.

If we are not careful, the deadly attacks on New York and Washington will lead to far worse secondary damage, if the U.S. Congress adopts "preventive measures" that take away the freedom that America stands for.

I'm not talking about searches at airports here. Searches of people or baggage for weapons, as long as they check only for weapons and keep no records about you if you have no weapons, are just an inconvenience; they do not endanger civil liberties. What I am worried about is massive surveillance of all aspects of life: of our phone calls, of our email, and of our physical movements.

These measures are likely to be recommended regardless of whether they would be effective for their stated purpose. An executive of a company developing face recognition software is said to be telling reporters that widespread deployment of face-recognizing computerized cameras would have prevented the attacks. The September 15 New York Times cites a congressman who is advocating this "solution." Given that the human face recognition performed by the check-in agents did not keep the hijackers out, there is no reason to think that computer face recognition would help. But that won't stop the agencies that have always wanted to do more surveillance from pushing this plan now, and many other plans like it. To stop them will require public opposition.

Even more ominously, a proposal to require government back doors in encryption software has already appeared.

Meanwhile, Congress hurried to pass a resolution giving Bush unlimited power to use military force in retaliation for the attacks. Retaliation may be justified, if the perpetrators can be identified and carefully targeted, but Congress has a duty to scrutinize specific measures as they are proposed. Handing the president carte blanche in a moment of anger is exactly the mistake that led the United States into the Vietnam War.

Please let your elected representatives, and your unelected president, know that you don't want your civil liberties to become the terrorists' next victim. Don't wait -- the bills are already being written.

---

Copyright 2001 Richard Stallman

Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article are permitted in any medium provided the copyright notice and this notice are preserved.

I'm ashamed to say it, but I agree with RMS

Does it bother anyone besides me that Congress is using the terrorist attacks as a blank check to take away civil liberties? As we all know, a bill has been proposed that would require back doors in all encryption products, which is NOT okay in my book. I'm all in favor of heightened security carried out in an intelligent manner, and I'm willing to give up some liberties for security, but the way this whole thing has been blamed on the internet is completely ridiculous.

Re:I'm ashamed to say it, but I agree with RMS

Yeah, it bothers me that lawmakers and policymakers are going bonkers with "security measures." I'm honestly questioning the motivations of these measures. I mean, the "heightened security" that we've had at the airports since the WTC bombing where at the airports asked those three stupid questions. Honestly who in their right mind would say yes? Honest citizens won't simply because it's not true. Criminals with no iq whatsoever would say yes, but if they are wanting to bring a bomb on board an aircraft, you simply wouldn't say yes to the questions.

It seems to me in this hysteria people are looking for a good scapegoat, wheter it be flight training schools, MS's Flight Simulator, contruction at Logan Airport, some middle eastern terrorist (that the US supported at one time), strong encryption, Quake, or whatever. Unfortunatley many people here in the US will say "There needs to be a law for <blank>" and then go back to downing a six pack and watching TV.

Re:I'm ashamed to say it, but I agree with RMS

Hmmm. Interesting interpretation. From what I've seen, it has been more like:
Congress: We need more power. Trade us some of your freedom for a facade of security.
Benjamin Franklin: They that can give up liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Congress: The FBI needs to be able to read any and all digitised correspondance whenever they take it into their heads to do so.
The 4th Amendment to the Constitution: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
FAA: The passengers of Flight 53 are heroes for fighting the attackers. We obviously need more security. Make yourself as helpless as possible while flying.
The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Thomas Jefferson: The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.

The "security" measures currently under proposal have only one effect: Reduction of the freedoms of the people of America.

Re:Funny you should mention Uzi's...

First of all, even if the airlines wern't regulated by the government, they would have policies against allowing people to carry weapons onboard. Such policies of checking you weapon at the door was very commonplace when carrying a personal weapon used to be the norm. Also firing a weapon on an airplane is VERY stupid, you are most likly going to create a hole and decompress the air. Anyways, most likly some of the passangers were also armed with knives, it is a very common activity of people who fly freqently to carry small knives, which is the main reason the terrorist got away with getting them onboard. But before this insident, the rule was to let the terrorist have what they wanted, so that nobody got hurt. Well this rule is now out the door, and anyone who tries to highjack an american plane anytime soon will get a rude awaking by the beatdown they will recieve.
Aways in general I agree with you, but you have to remember we trade some liberties, just by having a government, but you should always be careful and fully conceder all consequences of giving up any liberties, instead of the kneejerk reactions of many who are too concerned about personal security, of which they will never recieve.

Brazil legalizes airline passenger guns.

I have seen a report that, in response to the events of last Tuesday (including the passengers who resisted and downed the fourth plane on its way to DC), Brazil has legalized gun-toting by airline passengers.

The flight-attendant speech is being revised to add instructions on how to plug a hijacker with minimum risk of puncturing the pressure hull, crew, and other passengers.

(This may be a bow to the inevitable. I understand that well over 60% of the Brazillian population already carries concealed pistols, often in violation of their existing gun laws.)

FYI: If this is ever legalized where you fly, I recommend the Charter Arms .44 special Bulldog model. It was developed for the US Air Martial program. Fires a big, slow bullet to avoid puncturing the hull or the windows. Kicks like a mule, but a bruised hand is better than a crash. Reasonably easy to conceal.

(Try Glaser Safety Slugs, too - in this or anything else. Think of pistol-round sized shotgun shells that spread out in the first thing they touch, rather than a jacketed bullet that penetrates and damages whatever is behind the target. That's also what "Black Talon" slugs were REALLY about.)

Re:Funny you should mention Uzi's...

While bullet holes in the hydraulic system would certainly be a bad thing, a few holes punched through the skin very close to each other (go look up the firing rate of an Uzi) would be a much worse thing. Airplanes are pressurised. A single hole is a very bad thing. Go look up "explosive decompression" on Google. More than one hole basically acts as a much bigger hole with a diameter approximately the distance between the two farthest-spread little holes (within a reasonable distance). A big enough hole and you get a catastrophic failure (back to Google again).

Yes, I'm a pilot.

How many times do you have to point out that Franklin never said the quotation contstantly mangled here (the one about security and liberty)? Ludwig Thoma. Ludwig Thoma. Ludwig Thoma.

And so I don't get shot down for being off-topic, not a single one of the suggested and/or planned "security measures" would have made the slightest difference last Tuesday. I can make a weapon with a plastic spoon and an emory board or with a shoelace and the in-flight magsazine. The only way to have truly safe flights is to strap all passengers down like in slave ships, not that we're that far removed already. Lose your rights and gain NO security.

The false sense of security people are getting from all these knee-jerk actions is actually more dangerous than being scared and therefore attentive. People in the US are too busy waving their flags right now to remember the hundreds of thousands who fought and died for the rights they're now ready to simply give up. THAT is shitting on the memory of far more people.

woof.

perspective: 5,000 dead is the monthly toll on US highways.

The whole thing HAS NOT been blamed

on the internet!

Please, tell me where it has? Last time I checked, most informed (not speculative) news analysis in mainstream papers (not Wired News) has discussed $6/hr rent-a-cop airport security, unpreparedness of the Pentagon, the years of flight training taken by the bad guys, and Osama bin Laden's ability to finance all of this and create terrorist cells around the world. Where's this clamor against the net that I haven't seen on the 10+ websites I read daily on the subject?

try the New York Times

As another poster has noted, most news papers have been calling this a "technically sophisticated" attack. They seem to think that encrypted email made the co-ordination possible and that wholsale government postal privacy violations will be able to keep such things from happening again. It was backhanded and disturbingly stupid. An article like this in last weeks New York Times and an interview with Dan Quale finally made me realize this was more than speculation.

This week the papers are getting down to business. Check out these two articles from today's New York Times:

This one recomends ISP censorship. [nytimes.com] with the lame excuse for corporate control of the public network as, "But the community standards that most Internet service providers apply can be more restrictive." Today it's hate speach, tomorow it will be embarasing or unpopular speach.

This one detailing the FBI making it easier for an ISP to turn over email. [nytimes.com] Try this thrilling quote that got their attention, "The online posting on Aug. 30 sounded like the rantings of a crank: The subject was "911," and it warned "Something is going to happen tomorrow . . . REPENT!" On Sept. 4, the author of the first message, "Xinoehpoel," was back: "Wait 7 days," he wrote." At least the article goes on to worry about improper collection making such priceless quotes inadmissable. So what's the solution, hint hint? Monitoring? Geee, to bad that it won't work as the above quote really could contain a message and is indiscerable from pure garbage.

There you go. Reputable, non speculative reporting for you advocating government and corporate controls on the internet. Why would big publishers like that? Other news sources have not even bothered to mention privacy.