Slashdot Log In
Preserve Your Rights Online - Act Now
from the call-to-action dept.
Let's start with one simple and rather sad truth: You are going to be less free next week than you were last week.
We are already seeing what several newspapers have called "the biggest criminal investigation in history." Sure, a lot of this investigation's energy is being focused on Islamic countries, but it is also going on in Europe and, more than anywhere else, the United States itself. Landlords who have rented to young men with Arab-sounding names are being interrogated. Topless-bar patrons are being asked about conversations they allegedly heard, boasting about upcoming mass destruction.
And then there's email and the World Wide Web. Imagine a technically unhip Senator or Member of Congress who has read about Osama bin Laden allegedly using encrypted email and secret messages hidden in online porn to communicate with his followers and allies. Put the words "Osama bin Laden" in the same sentence as "pornography" and "the Internet," and you had better get out of the way of the avalanche of anti-online privacy laws coming your way -- or get crushed by them, even if people like bin Laden can switch to other means of communication at the drop of a hat.
Worse, disagreeing with the U.S. government right now may almost be viewed as treason in some quarters. "My Country, Right or Wrong" was a popular bumper sticker among the gunrack-and-confederate-flag pickup truck crowd in the late 60s, and this attitude, if not yet the bumper sticker itself, has been making a major comeback
But Dissent We Must
The problem with the "My Country, Right or Wrong" attitude is that it allows our government to go terribly wrong in many ways that may not be made right again for a long time, if ever. As Rep. Rivers pointed out Saturday, once laws are made that are supposed to help law enforcement in some way, they are almost never repealed because Members of Congress don't want to be seen as "soft on terrorism, soft on crime, soft on drugs."
Carry this a little farther. What about treason charges? At what point does it become illegal to speak out against a planned US government action that, on its face, is being taken to fight against the Terrorist Enemy, whoever he or she may be, even though that action may have very bad, long-term consequences for ordinary American citizens who want nothing more that to live their own lives quietly without being afraid of their own government?
Rep. Rivers said half the people in her district's gut reaction to the idea of legislation allowing government to read their email without getting a warrant first was along the lines of, "So what? I don't break any laws, so I have nothing to hide."
Long-time EPIC activist Kathleen Ellis told Rep. Rivers she believed questions about privacy should not be asked in the context of email. "Ask people if they should have the right to keep a secret and almost all of them will answer 'Of course,'" she said. Ellis also mentioned that cryptography is the email equivalent of an envelope on a letter sent by postal mail. "Unencrypted email is like a postcard," she said, "open for anyone to read. Ask people if they want all mail to be as open as a postcard and they're going to say no."
From that point on, the meeting focused on tactics. The question in the room wasn't, "Are privacy and freedom of speech good?" but "What can we do to protect our privacy and freedom of speech?"
Background on the Meeting Itself
The forum in which all this discussion took place was decidedly unofficial. It was an informal meeting thrown together hastily by local Linux user and ham radio afficianado Rob Carlson. Carlson sent a meeting notice to several email lists and posted it at cluebot.com. 13 people showed up at Saturday's gathering, most of whom were Baltimore and Washington D.C. area privacy advocates and/or Linux users. I was there myself for that reason. Wired News reporter Declan McCullagh is another "local" who hangs in the same circles, which explained his presence.
Rep. Rivers was there because her husband, William Simpson, is a computer consultant involved with the Internet Engineering Task Force [IETF] who spotted Carlson's notice on one of the cryptography-oriented email lists he's on. He had driven Rivers' chief of staff, who needed to get back to Washington but was marooned in Michigan by the airlines shutdown, to D.C., and was taking his Congresswoman wife back to her district for a little rest and some scheduled meetings (Congress had adjourned until Friday, Sept. 21), and they noticed that UMBC was on their way. So there they were, not dressed in "mover and shaker" clothing but looking like anyone else taking a 1000+ mile car trip.
One doesn't usually think of a Member of Congress fitting in with a group of downdressed geeks, but this one sure did. We only knew what she did for a living because Carlson asked everyone in the little circle to identify themselves by name and job, and when it was her turn Rep. Rivers gave her name as "Lynn," then added "Rivers," and softly, sort of as an aside, mentioned that she was "in Congress." Her husband had already mentioned that they were "from Michigan," which was curious enough in itself for a meeting with a decidedly local orientation. But Linux folks are friendly, and Rep. Rivers was as welcome as anyone else even though she was from out of town -- and freely admitted she used Mac OS, not Linux, both at home and in her office.
When he organized the meeting, Carlson said, "I didn't know whether no one or 100 people would show up." 13 did. And revolutions have started with as few as 13 people, so why shouldn't a strong pro-Constitution lobbying movement? The next step is to get 13 more, and another 13, and so on. This means calling and emailing friends until there are 13X13X13X13.... people talking to their elected representatives about privacy issues in terms they can understand, that will help them change their minds.
How You Can Lobby Against Anti-Privacy Laws
Start with this line Rep. Rivers laid on us, which is not new but needs to be said over and over: "Democracy is not a spectator sport."
Those Americans who don't vote, no matter how they excuse this failure, have no right to criticize their government. And those who don't bother to tell their elected representatives what they want and don't want their government to do should not act shocked when the government passes laws they don't like. It gets sickening, going to hearing after hearing about proposed laws like UCITA, DMCA, and SSSCA and always seeing a whole bunch of industry lobbyists wearing expensive suits, but hardly ever anyone who could be classified as an "ordinary citizen."
You need to make some noise instead of letting "them" talk while you sit around and let "them" get their way. Pump up the volume. Take some of the time you spend posting on Slashdot and register to vote. Write email and snail mail letters, send faxes, and make phone calls to Congresspeople and Senators and other representatives, and tell other people (13X13X13X13.... voices, remember) to do the same. This, not just complaining, is what this whole representative government thing is all about.
Rep. Rivers says phone calls "...have a sense of personal contact to them," and this makes them the most effective grassroots lobbying tool. "Stick to one issue," she advises. "Don't come up with a laundry list."
Also send email and write letters, even though they probably won't have as much impact as calls. And don't forget the fax machine; reps who are too technically unhip to read email read faxes. The ACLU and NRA have both famously used fax as a means of rapid communication with legislators for many years.
Now comes the matter of what to say. A letter, call or email that starts with something like, "I has nevir voted for you I am not registered to vote but you got to lisen to me," will go nowhere, says Rivers, pointing out that many pro-Napster messages she got were along those lines -- and got ignored. Better, she says, is something that tells your representative you are a computer professional (or manager or student or business owner or whatever) whose business, occupation or future will be hurt by whatever legislation you are working against. In this case (this week), privacy and online crypto are under attack. Next week, who knows?
So you're not a business owner? Know any? Know anyone who depends on privacy to transact their business? How about your doctor? Doesn't he or she want to keep patient records confidential? Ditto any lawyer you know. If a lawyer is serious about maintaining client trust, he or she certainly doesn't want the government snooping on email through Carnivore or a similar system with a less aggressive name. Other businesses have client information they want to private, along with trade secrets and other information they would rather not share with competitors. These are all points to bring up rationally, in an orderly debate format, when communicating with an elected rep, and they are ones you should ask others to bring up, too.
Stay calm, in other words. Assume your representative is sane and really wants to do what's right and what most people want, based on the input he or she gets. Your trick is to become part of that input, and right now the input you need to give must be strong and focused because Congress is caught up in post-attack hysteria and, like the rest of us, is saying, "We need to do something to help those poor victims and their families and make sure nothing this awful ever happens again."
The only problem here is that what Congress does is make laws, not post on Slashdot, and a law made in the same emotional heat as a flame post on Slashdot can't be moderated down to -1 after it is passed. Once that law is on the books, if you break it you can be arrested, tried, and fined or sent to jail. You've heard the saying, "If [guns/crypto/brains] are outlawed, only outlaws will have [guns/crypto/brains]." It's true, you know.
Right now, legitimate Americans are in danger of having many of their Constitutional freedoms revoked by a government that is doing its best, possibly in a misguided way, to protect its citizens. This is not about Disney's copyrights or the freedom to play DVDs on computers running Linux. The current debate is about much more basic issues than those, issues I will not repeat here because they have been written about so extensively elsewhere.
An Aside: How Congress Works
Rep. Rivers said it this way: "The House [of Representatives] is ruled by brute force."
Since she was talking to geeks who follow such things, she used the DMCA as an example. She told us that the "unanimous" vote that got DMCA through the House was not really unanimous at all; that the bill got through a committee dominated by a powerful chairman (which is how bills generally get to the floor for a vote) and that the Speaker called for a voice vote. "Most yelled 'Aye,'" Rivers said, and some yelled 'Nay.'"
The voices yelling "Aye" were the loudest, so DMCA passed by acclamation. Brute Force. People yelling at the top of their lungs. If 50 loud voices had yelled "Nay" instead of "Aye," perhaps we wouldn't have the DMCA as law today, and the EFF wouldn't be begging for money to get it overturned in the courts.
Now think about a Member of Congress who is hearing, right now, from all the "Kill-the-Arab-bastards-and-stamp-out-Internet-porn" crowd loudly and repeatedly by phone, fax, mail and email, but isn't hearing from you. Who is shouting the loudest? Which wheel is so squeaky that it is going to get the grease? So far, it's not the voices of reason and Constitutionality. They are getting drowned out. Heck, they are hardly there at all. At least Rep. Rivers isn't hearing them, and if she isn't hearing them -- with her ear attuned to Internet privacy matters and a totally Net-hip husband at her side -- you can bet the rest of Congress don't even know those voices (yours) exist.
Don't Delay! Do It Today!
Congress reconvenes Friday, September 21. The anti-privacy bills and anti-privacy amendments to various anti-terrorist bills are being written now, not someday. This means you must act immediately. If you put off those calls and emails to friends asking them to help support their right to communicate with each other in private, and to live without fear of police breaking down their doors or seizing their computer hard drives without warrants for even a few days, it is going to be too late. We are in the grip of national hysteria. A $40 billion appropriations bill to support the war on terrorism was passed a few days ago, with bipartisan support, almost without debate.
I'm going to admit that I am as ready to kick terrorist butt as anyone else, so I can't really blame Congress for being so gung-ho that it will pass all kinds of measures that will make America a less free country for decades to come in response to the current emergency. All I'm really asking Congress to do -- and asking you to join me in asking Congress to do, and to convince 13X13X13.... others to ask your Representative and your Senator to do -- is remember that the freedoms that make this country great must not be forgotten in our rush to avenge our fallen fellow Americans and our attempts to keep ourselves safe from future terrorist attacks.
Specifically (concentrate on one issue, remember), as a Net user I am concerned about watching our online privacy and freedoms evaporate if the government makes strong cryptography illegal or tries to have it controlled by agencies like the NSA, CIA, and FBI, or starts reading all of our private email without due cause and legitimate judicial warrants.
The deadline is Friday. That's when the legislative fur will start to fly. So let's get to work now!
Should other countries have self-determination? (Score:5, Insightful)
"The United States government has so far shown a great deal of restraint..."
I don't agree with this. There have been many, many calls for action. Bomb someone! I think the U.S. government would have bombed already, but no one knows who to bomb.
I think for most people in the U.S., bombing other countries is like an adult video game. They don't have any feeling for the pain that bombing causes.
Citizens of Saudi Arabia want to be able to try to change the political structure of their country. They want to do this without U.S. interference. This is not an unreasonable request. Certainly if the Saudi government tried to involve itself in a political dispute in the U.S., the U.S. would put forward whatever resistance was necessary to stop the interference.
For years there have been Arabs who have said that if the U.S. continued interfering, there would be attempts to bring the conflict to the U.S. After years of warning, that's what happened.
It seems self-destructive that there is never any serious consideration of their complaints. People in the U.S. expect to have self-determination. Should the U.S. deny that to other countries?
See http://www.hevanet.com/peace/ [hevanet.com] for more on this subject.
Re:over-reacting. (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't argue for a second that we need to improve our security, but lets figure out the best way to do that. Maybe there are better ways than trampling the Constitution and racial profiling.
Point one -- our airport security has been greatly degraded by deregulation. Security guards get minimum wage and minimal training. Now that keeps airfares down sure enough, but it is not without a price, is it?
Point two -- Customs stopped racial profiling recently and their "hit rate" in fact went up. In conjunction with probable cause racial background is just another piece of information. Without probable cause it is a red herring.
Point three -- Jets at Andrews were not on ready status even though the Mossad and NSA both had strong indications of a major attack coming. Are Washington and NY not considered targets anymore? Let's rethink our air defense, even though the next attack will likely be different.
Point four -- banning strong encryption will not stop secure terrorist communications, but it will certainly and definitely weaken our personal, banking, and e-commerce security. This aids the terrorists, we shouldn't do it.
Point five -- the adminstration isn't even telling Congress what is happening. Giving all of us real information might allow us to participate meaningfully instead of just randomly lashing out at any Arab-looking Americans. An Indian was shot to death today because someone thought him an Arab.
Point six -- don't for a minute think that any loss of liberty will be temporary. When the "War on Terrorism" is done (if it ever is) the focus will simply shift to the "War on Drugs" and if we abandon that too, there is the "War on Crime" that will certainly never be over. (We gave $40M to the Taleban this year for "anti-drug" efforts, so there is obviously some priortization to work on here, as well.)
Since there are ways to combat terrorism without giving up our rights I really think we should consider carefully rather than rushing to adopt hasty measures, some of which may actually be counterproductive to our cause.
I feel I have to point out that a very large number of people in this country have been living without any real security for years. If you suddenly feel threatened now, consider what that says about abandoned duties to our own citizens. Is security a right for everyone? Civil liberties are.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Re:Before you jump on this bandwagon... (Score:4, Redundant)
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Re:Before you jump on this bandwagon... (Score:5, Informative)
I wonder how long it would have taken Hitler to conquer the world if Slashdot editors were in charge.
Re:FUD (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm disappointed as well. These are rights not privileges. We are going to sacrifice very real freedom for very unreal security.
Re:FUD (Score:5, Insightful)
Once they're gone, they're a little tough to get back. This "war", if you can even call it that, will never be over. You can't "defeat" terrorism, like you defeat a world government -- it will always exist. People keep citing WWII as a time when we lost rights and got them back. Real wars have a definite beginning and end. At this point our "war" is as ephemeral as the "War on Drugs". Don't expect this new "war" to be any shorter or more successful than the latter.
Re:I've read enough... (Score:5, Insightful)
The Constitution doesn't have anything to say about how "hard" something has to be before it is protected. Sheesh. Try reading it. Start with the 4th Amendment.
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 particu larly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Did you see that bit about "papers?" They could not have conceived of a computer, but I bet the Founding Fathers would consider your computer files and communications to be your "papers" if they could be asked about it today. A machine for writing, and sending written messages to people with the same kind of machine... not a hard concept. Not something so alien that the Constitution should't apply to it.
If we sacrifice our freedoms, they are not coming back. Everyone just assumes that bad laws will evaporate, which is stupid wishful thinking. Don't let them turn us into a police state. We can win the coming conflict without doing that.
Re:My Country, Right or Wrong (Score:5, Informative)
These quotations are about self defense. Let me address each one:
[2.190] And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limits, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits.
This one says that you should fight as Allah wants you to fight, with your fellow soldiers, but only as much as necessary. There are certain rules in the Koran that say how and how not to fight (for instance, you can't kill any camels).
[2.191] And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers.
This one is taken a bit out of context. Basically, it's saying to fight to take back what the invaders have taken from you, but whatever you do, don't attack anyone in a Mosque, unless you were there first and they charged in to attack you.
[2.192] But if they desist, then surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
This says that you should stop fighting as soon as they stop.
[2.193] And fight with them until there is no persecution, and religion should be only for Allah, but if they desist, then there should be no hostility except against the oppressors.
This basically says the same thing. Fighting should be in self-defense, to rid your homeland of invaders and oppressors, but you should never "counter-invade" once you've driven them out.
Granted, technically Islam does allow killing, but only in the most restricted instance of self-defense. Perhaps you expect Islam to say that it's much better to have your entire family slaughtered by invaders than to kill the invader?
Also, one thing that many people don't realize is that the words "Holy War" do not exist in the Koran. Jihad means "to struggle and to improve yourself". It's just another example of people twisting the truth and making Islam look bad.
No right to criticize their government? (Score:5, Insightful)
Voting is a good idea, but I'm not aware of any elections in the next few weeks that will have any effects on all these new legislation being proposed. To fight this, we need to be far more proactive than merely voting.
All in all, good article.
Astounding (Score:5, Insightful)
A simple question: should it be ok for the government to open any letter in the US Mail without court order? My guess is that you wouldn't want that. So why should they be able to read our email? It's simple: they shouldn't.
One of the things that makes this country great is our freedom from government interference in our daily lives. One of the terrorists' primary goals is to make us less free. Giving up our free speech and privacy helps them attain that goal.
And no, this article isn't spitting on anyone's graves. How can telling folks to get involved in government and to call or write your representative and tell them what you think be a bad thing? If you're willing to give up your privacy, then contact your rep. and tell them! I'm not willing to give up any of my rights, no matter how terrible this tragedy is, and I do intend to contact my local rep.'s.
Also, someone above said that the people who died don't care about personal privacy. I strongly disagree. I'm sure if there were some way to contact them and ask, "Should we give up our rights to fight terrorism?", very few would say yes.
Look, with a court order, the government can read mail, tap phone lines and confiscate computer equipment. We don't need any more laws giving the government more power over our daily lives.
Don't let the horror of this tragedy blind you. We must maintain our freedoms. Is this article a bit paranoid and perhaps over-reacting a bit to these possibilities? Maybe, but there is nothing wrong with being vigilant against the intrusions of an over-zealous government, and there is certainly nothing wrong with getting involved, deciding what you really want from government, and telling them.
Re:Astounding (Score:4, Insightful)
The United States government has so far shown a great deal of restraint, considering the situation. Whenever issues such as airport security, surveillance, search warrants, etc., have come up on the countless interviews with government officials lately, in almost each instance they have willingly brought up the delicate balance between protecting the nation's sense of security and protecting their sense of privacy.
The United States hasn't jumped the gun, and we should be careful not to either. So far all I've seen on sites like Slashdot is rambling about how the tyrannical U.S. government is trying to strip us of our rights. It's good that we're being vigilant (that's one of the requirements of a good citizenry), but we must take care not to make quick judgements based on preconceived notions.
It is absolutely logical that the United States would be looking into increased security measures. We are going to war (which should be so clear by this point that I hope I don't need to justify that statement), and it is necessary for our own well being that some kind of security measures be put in place.
I'm suprised at how well the government has been handling this, and I hope that, somewhere among all our vigilance and criticism, we can secretly give them a hand for actually taking pretty good care of our personal freedoms.
Wake up, people (Score:5, Insightful)
I heard that as "70% of Americans are willing to let terrorists tell us how to run our country". It's all well and good to talk about how the government is doing what's best for us, and that giving up some "minor" freedoms (clue: there is no such thing) is worth it to prevent this sort of thing; I'm sure it makes the people who say it feel better. It's also hopelessly naive.
Few, if any, of the airport restrictions put in place in the last week would have had any effect on this attack. None of them would have prevented it. There is already a movement afoot in Congress to outlaw crypto which doesn't have a back door installed for government use. Are you really so naive as to believe that backdoor won't be used improperly, or be compromised by people outside the government? And if you are that naive, you can't possibly be so naive as to believe that the people who carried out Tuesday's attacks are somehow incapable of writing (or having written) their own crypto software which contains no such back doors.
The fact is that there are people all over America who are unscrupulously using these events to further their own agendas, whether it be gas station owners hiking prices through the roof or Falwell and Robertson spouting their hatred. Some of these people are in Congress, and they will take advantage of your complacency and ignorance. It's always been true, but especially so now; be very, very careful what you ask for, because you will get it.
This works, try it sometime. (Score:3, Interesting)
A few weeks ago (probably closer to a month, I don't remember) I dashed off a note to US Rep. Sander M. Levin, 12th District, Michigan. My note concerned Dmitry Sklyarov, and his imprisonment for presenting some research which should've been protected speech. I ranted as intelligently as I could about the DMCA and how it hurt all of us. I clicked the Submit button and promptly forgot all about it.
A few days ago, I went through my snailmail inbox. I don't do this very often, so I have no idea how long Rep. Levin's letter had been sitting there. In any case, the letter indicates a clear understanding of the Sklyarov case and at least a few of the issues surrounding it. The letter ends "I will continue to follow this case closely. Thank you again for contacting me on this matter. Sincerely, [signature and closing] SML:ch"
Neat. My understanding of the SML:ch part would seem to suggest that while someone else typed it, this letter was at least personally dictated or composed in part by Rep. Levin himself. Form letter? Possibly. But the existence of such a form letter would indicate the demand for one, which means he must be hearing about this issue a lot.
WRITE YOUR REPRESENTATIVES! They DO listen. They even understand sometimes, and it's your job to help them. My task this evening, after the daylight fades and cleaning my car becomes moot, is to fill Rep. Levin in on some of the subtler details of Sklyarov's case, and point out exactly why we all need to oppose Carnivore. Making it clear why such opposition is justified, even in times of crisis, will be the tough part. Wish me luck, then try your own hand at it. Please?
-Myself-
Voter, Concerned Citizen
12th District, Michigan.
Sheep says I. (Score:3, Insightful)
Bull, my right to free speech is not regulated by whether or not I voted. Now or ever.
The right not to have to do something is just as important as the right to do it.
Having said that, I can't believe the number of people I've seen that are willing to GIVE their rights away, for the LIE that they will be safer by doing so.
Two or three days ago I sent a letter and en email to both senators and my congressman asking them to tell Americans the TRUTH. And that is that nothing short of 24th century Star Trek type technology can save us from this sort of thing.
They passed an "anti-terrorism" bill after Oklahoma City and THAT didn't stop it, what makes you think a few more draconian words written on paper will stop it now?
We live in (perhaps) the country with the most freedom in the world, and we have thousands of miles of water and land border. There simply aren't enough cops, or military to police every inch of them to keep the bad guys out.
Our war on drugs has failed miserably, and this attempt will too, BECAUSE we are free.
Perhaps all of you are willing to give your rights away, but I'm going down kicking and screaming.
Rich...
Sigh... (Score:3)
Folks, liberty is an intrinsic human right. It is not something the government grants you; it is something that you already have, and the purpose of having a government, at least in the US, is supposed to be to guarantee that nobody takes it away from you. Liberty is not something you should have to register for. It is not something that you should have to go out and vote for. It is not contingent on any demonstration of civic virtue.
Now, it's true that you can't trust the government to do its duty, and that it's therefore wise to do things like voting and writing letters to your representatives and calling them on the phone and all that. I do that stuff myself.
However, if I burn down your house and you're too shocked to say anything, or too afraid of me to say anything, or even too busy dealing with something more important (and, yes, there could be something more important) to say anything, nobody is going to tell you you have no right to complain. They may tell you you were foolish for not stopping me, but they're not going to tell you you weren't wronged.
This "vote or don't complain" crap is just plain buck passing.
Maybe, just maybe, that's because the lobbyists get paid to spend their entire lives on this crap, whereas the "ordinary citizens" have other concerns? Maybe, just maybe, there's a problem with a system that requires people to spend half their lives sitting in hearings fighting back idiocy (which idiocy will be repeatedly reproposed until it passes), rather than rejecting that idiocy automatically and out of hand? Maybe, just maybe, legislators, who are elected to consider legislation, should get off their asses and do that, find out what the implications are, maybe actively find out what their constituents' informed opinion would be, maybe refuse to vote on things they haven't personally studied, rather than just favoring whatever special interest makes the most noise, or whatever position gives the best sound bites? Maybe we could stop measuring the performance of a legislature by the number of stupid laws it manages to inflict on the populace?Conformity of the 50's (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyone notice that we are expected more and more to conform to popular viewpoints? Usually, disagreement is permissable, but now, if you disagree, you're called a terrorist.
Look for internment camps. Like during WW2, they'll say, "We're doing this to protect them from our society."
Think the Constitution & the Courts are going to save us? Tell that to the sons and daughters of Japanese-Americans that were interned. The 14th Amendment was blatently ignored.
Think your rights are going to come right back? Yah right! When our rights did come back, it was only through the intense efforts of the 60's, and even then they didn't all come back. The 50's parents had a stick up their ass because they had just given up their rights and bent them selves into conformity during WW2. Did you know it's illegal to be a communist in Washington state? It's considered subversion, and still forbidden by law..!
Why do we have to go to war? To save ourselves from Terrorists?!?
What, after World War 3, the world will be safe from terroritsts forever? Nobody will ever think of being a Terrorist? What a crock of Shit!
You can't stop people from being Terrorists. There's nothing you can do about it. The world is an unsafe people.
So 5,000 people died and you want to do something about it. Want to do something about it? Drive safely! 40,000 people die every year through traffic accidents.
Want to save lives? Look where you're going. 10,000 people die every year because they fell down.
This country's nuts. I'm going to be called a "terrorist sympathiser" because I think the USA is full of Shit right now. I'm not going to fight for your war against terrorists (oops, there went hundreds of thousands of innocent people's lives- well, it's a "necessary" tradeoff to keep the world "safe").
What about New Yorkers? (Score:3, Interesting)
New York (and New Jersey, D.C., etc.) congressmen are probably bogged down with an incredible amount of correspondence concerning the incidents, and to me it seems like there is a high chance that a message about preserving your rights in America will get lost within the massive bulk of other correspondences.
Contacting my members of Congress -- getting them to read or hear my thoughts -- is next to impossible to do by Friday the 21st. They're too understandably busy right now. This does not mean I will not write them: I will.
So my question is this: what else can I do? Since contacting my representatives will not do as much as if I were a registered voter in Michigan, what other organizations or people should I try and contact? Is the EFF collecting donations to lobby for exactly this cause? Is someone else?
I've got a hectic week (my office is five blocks north of the Trade Center) and tons to deal with. Who can I talk to that will be able to listen, if only for a minute?
privacy is good, why? (Score:3, Insightful)
The question isn't, "Is privacy good?" but "What can we do to protect our privacy?"
The problem I found when I started to think about presenting an intelligent argument to friends, let alone to elected representatives, was that in order to make a strong argument in favor of protecting our privacy, especially wrt strong encryption, was that I couldn't simply take as given, "privacy is good" when the opposing arguments may in fact agree with that position, yet simply add the ostensibly reasonable condition that we need to balance the need for a "reasonable" assurance of privacy against the need for ______ (e.g. public safety, etc.).
The case for (and gaining public support for) protecting our privacy would be much simpler if the other side of the argument was pushing for an all-out Orwellian state with Thought Police and the like. That's not the case. The arguments in favor of limiting strong encryption and expanding government monitoring of communications are made in the context of protecting innocent people, by limiting the ability of criminal activity to escape detection. A sympathetic listener might foreseeably see the reasonableness of the argument.
I believe we need to have realistic examples that people can relate to to understand why we need to protect our privacy. For example, I don't find Ellis' analogy of encrypted email to enclosing letters in an envelope compelling. If we're settling for PEEP (Paper Envelope Equivalent Privacy)
"The right to be left alone -- the most comprehensive of rights, and the right most valued by a free people."
- Justice Louis Brandeis, Olmstead v. U.S. (1928)
"Those who are willing to trade freedom for security deserve neither freedom nor security."
-Benjamin Franklin
Great for 10-second spots, a little lacking otherwise.
The other tack may be to demonstrate that the proposed curtailings of our civil liberties doesn't in fact curtail the resources available to (mildly) sophisticated criminals. (Incidentally, I think such arguments need to address the objection that while limiting the general public's legal access to strong encryption may not hinder a criminal's access to such encryption, it would raise a red flag when strong encryption is detected in passing traffic).
I understand that one point of the original editorial could be taken as a call to simply be loud and try to match the other, not terribly well-reasoned side of the debate--basically, just get your viewpoint heard. But we ought to be able to back it up with rational argument if the need arises. So, maybe we could get a list/discussion here going about sound arguments for why privacy is good, even against other, "self-evident goods".
Re:Shameful (Score:5, Insightful)
This may sound callous, but the only reasons that this incident seems like that big a deal are 1. the way that media replay this incident over and over - funny how the million-odd who die of AIDS in Africa this year won't get 24/7 commercial-free coverage of their deaths, nor did the people who were bombed in Panama or Lebanon or anywhere else for that matter - consider that the subconscious doesn't really distinguish replays as being the same event; people's emotions get fortified to respond as if it were a new event, so that the death of 5000 people replayed 50 times has a far greater emotional impact than the statistic of 100,000 deaths (like in Rwanda's recent massacre) if the latter has no media coverage, and 2. the economic impact of the attack.
What's really dangerous about curtailing civil liberties in this situation is that, unlike World War 2, there is no specific enemy whose defeat would spell an end to the conflict. Bush has said that this will be an ongoing effort with no conclusion in the foreseeable future. That scares the hell out of me.
Re:Shameful (Score:3, Interesting)
Privacy and civil liberties are incredible important to a citizenry that wishes to remain free. The ability of US citizens to openly criticize their elected government is a Right that should not be tossed aside because of a tragedy, no matter the magnitude.
Did you read the news summary? The DMCA passed with a friggin VOICE VOTE. That alone should send chills down you spine. It does mine, and I don't even live there!
Oh, and in case you hadn't noticed, the people who DID this are dead. The USA can only hope to go after their associates and comrades.
Did you expect the world to come to a halt?