Constant Surveillance (a la 1984)?
 

I'll throw this one out for comment:
http://wire.jacksonville.com/pstories/technology/20040427/2105792.shtml

Summary: In a town in Florida, they've funded the placement of security cameras over the entire town. Facial recognition, fugitive hunting, tracking of arbitrary people -- it's all available.

So the freedoms go down one at a time...

Old experiment...try putting a frog in boiling water and the frog will fight you. Put the same frog in a pan of cold water and slowly heat it. The frog will be cooked with little or no struggle.

Any change, if instituted slowly enough, will be acceptable.

What is accepted today as routine, would have, in the past probably been considered insanity.

I have no problem with public monitoring. I would gladly give up this kind of personal freedom if resulted in even one less kid getting abducted/abused/killed. Sh** outfit the cameras up with a sniper rifle too. Mandatory GPS chips embedded in every citizen - cool. "Ah look there's David stuck in traffic on the I15 again". Heck as long as I can BBQ my tri-tip in January with a couple Sierra Nevada's I couldn't give a rats a** who was watching.

Uh oh. BBQ bad for the environment with all of that unscrubbed smoke going into the atmosphere. Hmmm... Drinking while operating potentially dangerous BBQ 'equipment'. Definately cause for concern.

Not me. Not in America.

I agree that it's an abomination. They cite a court decision stating that you have no expectation of privacy in public places, but I don't think that necessarily means that you can be surveilled and have your personal and legal histories investigated without probable cause.

JP

I think, given the times, this kind of thing is probably necessary. My problem with it is how much further will it go in the future?

The greater question, I think, is what has collectively been done to world society to make this necessary?

Maybe, the world is getting too crowded and. like the Lemmings, a large portion of humankind will have to march off the cliff to restore order and reduce the need to fight for territory and resources.

What's all fuss? They've had satellites up in space for years that can do that. So the cameras on light poles are closer...

"I have no problem with public monitoring. I would gladly give up this kind of personal freedom if resulted in even one less kid getting abducted/abused/killed."

Yes. Until the day comes when people begin to disappear for "thought crime"

Between the Patriot Act and other 'anti-terrrorist' legislation, they can pick you up off the street and hold you without cause as an 'enemy combatant'. It's trivial to manufacture and plant evidence against you, and given the nature of the 'crime' you would be guilty until proven innocent. If you think otherwise, it's only because you think these laws only apply to other people.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/aug2002/bush-a16.shtml
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/27/national/27BOIS.html?pagewanted=all&position=

They're even using it to go after the webmaster of http://www.blackboxvoting.org for anti-Bush, anti-Diebold writings.

Yet people laugh at the prospect of GW declaring
martial law.

Anybody remember the "First they came for the ..." business? Slowly, the personal freedoms that make this country what it is are being taken away, mostly in the name of anti-terrorism. The ironic thing is that in taking away those freedoms to protect us from terrorists, the terrorists win.


Dan

OK, look. Before you go off on the Patriot Act, do all of us a favor and read it. It's obvious from comments here and elsewhere that most of those with such dramatic opinions of it haven't. But it's an easy target for the we-know-you're-lazy-and/or-gullible-so-we'll-make-this-the-focus-of-our-soundbite-campaign-against-government crowd to dupe you.

The USA Patriot Act is not what you've been told it its, does not empower government in the way you've been spooked to believe, and is not the threat you might really really want it to be. To equate this provincial bull***** with the USA Patriot Act is either deliberate conflation of two entirely different things, or sheer, rapturous ignorance.

JP

If someone can sort out the voices in my head for me, I will gladly welcome that!!! :D


Uh, Wayne does purge these messages ever couple of years..right?

If someone can sort out the voices in my head for me, I will gladly welcome that!!! :D


Uh, Wayne does purge these messages ever couple of years..right?

"The USA Patriot Act is not what you've been told it its, does not empower government in the way you've been spooked to believe, and is not the threat you might really really want it to be. To equate this provincial bull***** with the USA Patriot Act is either deliberate conflation of two entirely different things, or sheer, rapturous ignorance."

Ok, then, since you've read it (yeah right), please explain it to us.

Have you read it?

Here's a link: http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/Terrorism/hr3162.php

And a link to Patriot II
http://www.publicintegrity.org/dtaweb/downloads/Story_01_020703_Doc_1.pdf

And a page full of links to analysis of the Patriot Act by various groups:
http://www.cdt.org/security/usapatriot/analysis.shtml

And another:
http://civilliberty.about.com/cs/patriotact/

I've even read some of the pieces defending it. The general line of defense is "it's all stuff they do already" - yes, but the patriot act removes large portions of due process with the excuse that we're at war. It's defenders assume that it will only be used against people with bath towels wrapped around their heads, and they assume wrong.

Sorry, JP, you're right, I've overstepped and made a childish logic error. USAPA is some scary $#!*, this is some scary $#!*, jump to "watch out for anti-terror laws." Too caught up in the excitement of the whole thing ...

Dan

PS -- Widebody, good links. It'll take me all day to get through all those. :)

Thom and CJ --
Not the entire thing, including every statutory cross reference (it says "Slacker" right in my handle...) but I have read the salient points -- Title II, Title VIII and Title IX b/c these seem to engender the most hystrionics. The legislative history on the USA Patriot Act is not particularly revealing, IMHO, b/c of the timeframe in which it was adopted -- but I'll confess I haven't read that history encyclopedically either. Reading the document (like most any legislation) really helps you to ask the questions you never would've known existed.

Example: Bernie Sanders (D-VT) makes the following scurrilous characterization: The USA PATRIOT ACT gives the government sweeping authority to monitor what books we read and buy." This falsehood is swallowed whole, and bookstores and libraries are in apoplectic fits about rescuing our basic freedoms.

The ACLU cliams the Act "set[s] the FBI loose on the American public -- a quote from their "analysis" of Section 215 : "For example, the FBI could spy on a person because they don't like the books she reads, or because they don't like the websites she visits. They could spy on her because she wrote a letter to the editor that criticized public policy."

This is like saying that giving cops nightsticks authorizes them to beat old guys in the park. An FBI agent could run amok, but he could do so before the Act. He can run amok now, after the Act, not by doing what the Act authorizes, but by breaking the law.

An investigation under Section 215 to "protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities" must be authorized by the FISA court -- a federal court established in 1978 (read: Democratic President and Democratic Congress) specializing in intelligence matters. FISA judges are normal federal judges appointed to the court.

215 stipulates that an FBI application for a court order must "specify the records concerned are sought for an authorized investigation ... to obtain foreign intelligence information not concerning a United States person or to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities." In case neither the FBI nor the FISA does its job, there's an oversight measure in Section 215. Every six months, the AG must report to Congress how many request for court orders have been made and how many granted.

Can you guess the number of searches of library and bookstore records reported under the Act thus far? It's less than one.

Is the Act perfect? No. It's subject to review/improvement like any other piece of legislation. But to rabidly mischaracterize it to a public that will not read the Act itself is anti-government demagoguery.

I'm a conservative. I'm about as anti-government intrusion as you'll find. IMHO, the USA Patriot Act is not some overreaching extension of what came before. Not that you'd "know" that by simply reading the Act, of course. It does develop certain ideas more fully (see esp. Titles VIII and IX, as I mentioned) but it's not nefarious. It is being used as a bugaboo to scare Americans (who haven't and won't read it or much about it) into being herded for political purposes. "The Government is out to get you and you need ME to protect you! Send your money/vote for me/sign this petition!"

Thom - I agree that most of the USA Patriot Act codifies what was the law/situation/best practice before. Where it extends the law beyond what it was before, I believe there are sufficient checks (like the Section 215 record check requirements, FISA approval and AG report to Congress). Who can argue with the utility of Title III? Even where due process is trimmed or suspended, those practices are fully precedented in prior times of emergency.

I'm one of its defenders, and I do not assume it will be used only against "people with bath towels wrapped around their heads". That generalization, like the ACLU's, is spurious.

At the end of the day, what I'm saying is you're being deceived by demagogues who are preying on your ignorance and/or laziness. These people pander to basic government distrust (which is a healthy thing, if informed) and not a little paranoia. You can read the hotbutton parts of the Act and believe it goes too far, but it is simply not the privacy apocalypse the agendists make it out to be.

I don't make the least claim to be an expert on this piece of legislation, but I have done my diligence to express an opinion about it. Too often I hear people malign the Act w/o a particular lament -- they're just convinced, for no other reason than that they've been told, that the Act is Eeeeevvil. Don't expect the ACLU to tell you, for example, about the Section 215 protections or that there have been no requests made thereunder. That's not scary enough.

JP

I guess I'll say it again. George Orwell was an optimist.

so can someone explain to me the whole "enemy combatants" thing? Are any of them US citizens?