Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

As of October, FBI To Allow Warrantless Investigations

timothy posted about 6 years ago | from the oh-that-pesky-4th-amendment dept.

Privacy 574

I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "Attorney General Michael Mukasey has agreed to allow Congressional hearings, but not to delay, the implementation of new FBI regulations that would allow them to spy on American citizens who are not suspected of any crime. As an editorial in the New York Times points out, this is a power that has a history of abuse. In times past, it was used to wiretap Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. and to spy on other civil rights and anti-war protesters." As Dekortage points out, "Several senators have formally complained that citizens could be investigated 'without any basis for suspicion,' which the Justice Department denies."

cancel ×

574 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

That sucks D: (5, Insightful)

B4light (1144317) | about 6 years ago | (#24712323)

That sucks D:

Re:That sucks D: (4, Insightful)

Daimanta (1140543) | about 6 years ago | (#24712909)

Bush was right: The consitution is just a damn piece of paper. Don't count on it to protect you. Don't count on the ammo box too, guns are useless against an army with tanks, snipers and airplanes. Keep voting Dems, Reps or the lot like it and you will sink deeper and deeper in shit untill you are stuck and can't get out. Because then you are fucked. And it won't be pretty.

We should start encrypting everything (5, Insightful)

ksd1337 (1029386) | about 6 years ago | (#24712325)

We should start encrypting all our data, no matter how "unsuspicious" or "ordinary" it may be. Everything from conversations between family and friends to financial records (though you should be already encrypting the latter anyway.)

Re:We should start encrypting everything (5, Insightful)

Linux_ho (205887) | about 6 years ago | (#24712535)

Oh, you say you're not a criminal? Why are you using encryption if you have nothing to hide, citizen? Prepare to be boarded.

Re:We should start encrypting everything (5, Funny)

furball (2853) | about 6 years ago | (#24712619)

I am a criminal. That's why I use encryption. Same reason I have a gun.

Re:We should start encrypting everything (5, Funny)

Ortega-Starfire (930563) | about 6 years ago | (#24712725)

Criminals of the USA unite! All we have to lose are our freedoms. Wait, we lost those already. Unite!

Guns, check
Knives, check
Crypto, check
Copy of constitution and laminated ten command- er amendments, check
Internet connection, check

Go! Go! Go!

Am I missing anything?

Oh yes:

Law abiding citizens of the USA unite! All we have to lose are our freedoms. Wait, we lost those already. Unite!

Guns, check
Knives, check
Crypto, check
Copy of constitution and laminated ten command- er amendments, check
Internet connection, check

Go! Go! Go!

Am I missing anything?

Re:We should start encrypting everything (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24712965)

This shouldn't be rated funny but rather insightfull. Any lawyer or cop can tell you that you are almost certainly guilty of something.

Re:We should start encrypting everything (4, Insightful)

lymond01 (314120) | about 6 years ago | (#24712711)

Oh, you say you're not a criminal? Why are you using encryption if you have nothing to hide, citizen? Prepare to be boarded.

You do not chase me because I run. I run because you chase me.

Re:We should start encrypting everything (5, Informative)

samcan (1349105) | about 6 years ago | (#24712771)

Oooh, do we get to have a discussion about the formation of the Constitution and how this totally violates the Bill of Rights and how scared the citizens were of a big national government and that's why we first had the Articles of Confederation which were weak like a bad cup of coffee and now we have the Constitution which is sooooooooo being violated?!

Phew. That many 'ands' in a sentence is annoying.

IMHO (which, by the way, is never humble :-) ), our government was not intended to be a large overreaching government. Control was supposed to be retained by the people. Under the original Articles of Confederation, the U.S. government was more like an informal gathering, a club, per se. This didn't work out totally, as it was seen that a few uprisings, such as the Shays' Rebellion, could destroy the confederation.

The States sent delegates to fix the Articles, which the delegates ended up scrapping and instead creating the Constitution. However, I believe that some of this animosity towards large behemoths carried over. Look at the Bill of Rights, which were added after the Constitution was ratified. They in many instances reserve power to the people, and to the States. The federal government is thus limited in what it can do.

Even though the Bill of Rights was ratified after the Constitution was ratified, from what I understand, some States made the implied passage of the Bill of Rights a condition to their ratification of the Constitution.

Re:We should start encrypting everything (1)

Wandering Wombat (531833) | about 6 years ago | (#24712861)

I say that for EVERY citizen investigated in this manner, that citizen should be able to name ONE other person to be investigated, including but not limited to: politicians, CEOs, military officers, and FBI investigators.

Re:We should start encrypting everything (5, Insightful)

oldspewey (1303305) | about 6 years ago | (#24712551)

How do I encrypt a conversation with my family? Use pig latin?

"iHay oneyHay! owHay asWay ourYay ayDay?"

When the FBI talks about spying they mean spying. They aren't going to stop at snooping your email. They're going to bug your phone. They're going to snoop your physical mail. They're going to go through your banking records. If you raise sufficient attention (say by encrypting your trivial email) they may even park a black van down the street with a bunch of electronic equipment in the back.

Re:We should start encrypting everything (3, Insightful)

KovaaK (1347019) | about 6 years ago | (#24712625)

If you raise sufficient attention (say by encrypting your trivial email) they may even park a black van down the street with a bunch of electronic equipment in the back.

That's the goal, I'd imagine. If we get them to waste enough resources on spying on ordinary citizens, we hope they will realize that it is hopeless.

In reality, they would probably come to the conclusion that they need to profile people better before they decide to spend such resources.

Re:We should start encrypting everything (2, Insightful)

Goblez (928516) | about 6 years ago | (#24712865)

Or we'll end up paying for more pointless Government bureaucracy while more hard-to-fire government employees laugh at how easy their job is spying on Joe Schmoe and their own personal soap opera of his life.

Not the best plan (2, Insightful)

davec727 (1263298) | about 6 years ago | (#24712627)

They want to sit in a black vehicle for hours at a time on a sunny street in August? Just so they can decrypt my midget porn? Joke's on them.

Re:Not the best plan (2, Insightful)

blueg3 (192743) | about 6 years ago | (#24712855)

It's relevant to remember that they're going to be allowed to conduct warrantless investigations. This doesn't automatically mean they're going to go about investigating anyone and everyone on a whim.

Re:We should start encrypting everything (1)

samcan (1349105) | about 6 years ago | (#24712807)

I've always wanted to star in a spy movie. :-)

So, if you're walking down the block, and happen to see a big black van, go ask the driver if /.ers can see the equipment in the back. :-)

Re:We should start encrypting everything (2, Funny)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about 6 years ago | (#24712733)

We should start encrypting all our data, no matter how "unsuspicious" or "ordinary" it may be.

|Y8N oxLk- K7)m91= EVq:P !8/| yYS#O tue|# 7EmO pH=V kh8c
7m(C PP}Q| ;j1b 6`@| $|{HolY -#v[1
=q`ltEO ~%srt HGW1S

And what are us Americans going to do about it? (4, Insightful)

Drakin020 (980931) | about 6 years ago | (#24712333)

Nothing.

That's right, nothing.

No one will do a single thing about it as long as they can watch their TV shows.

People need to stand up and defend their rights, but unless it derails their daily lives, nothing will change. ....I hate being so negative...But you know it's true. :-/

Re:And what are us Americans going to do about it? (5, Insightful)

The Moof (859402) | about 6 years ago | (#24712435)

That's becuase everyone I talk to thinks "I don't do anything illegal, why should I care."

Which, as anyone here will tell you, is a terrible argument.

Re:And what are us Americans going to do about it? (0, Troll)

jawtheshark (198669) | about 6 years ago | (#24712597)

And(*) "becuase" most people can't even spell, indicating that their thoughts don't go further than what's for dinner in the evening and if their favourite character in a soap opera gets laid.
(*) I know that starting a sentence with "and" is bad form, but I was just completing the parent post.

Re:And what are us Americans going to do about it? (5, Insightful)

moderatorrater (1095745) | about 6 years ago | (#24712473)

No one will do a single thing about it as long as they can watch their TV shows.

He said, posting on slashdot.

But seriously, what do you want to happen? Would you like everyone to rise up in an armed revolt? The last time something like that happened, we were left with the bloodiest war in US history, and that was before the advent of a lot of the modern weapons of war. Write to their congressmen? I wrote to Harry Reid while I lived in Nevada, and what I got back was a form letter that looked like it could have been written by a white house aide!

Get involved in your local party politics; grassroots efforts are the only peaceful way to pull this off, and changing from within the system seems to be the best method. Or get involved and try to grow a third party to where they can take a seat in congress.

Re:And what are us Americans going to do about it? (2, Interesting)

Drakin020 (980931) | about 6 years ago | (#24712679)

But seriously, what do you want to happen? Would you like everyone to rise up in an armed revolt?

If a mass protest couldn't pull it off, then yeah...I wouldn't mind seeing that. Heaven forbid we take back what is ours right?

armed result == bloodbath (5, Insightful)

moderatorrater (1095745) | about 6 years ago | (#24712789)

Seriously, there is no good way for an armed revolt to be pulled off right now. It took over 100 years for the Civil War to be recovered from, and those guys thought 100 / minute was pretty sweet. We've got van mounted miniguns that can shoot thousands of bullets per minute and are completely mobile. Terrorist actions could win the fight in theory, but in reality it's much harder to fight as a terrorist because the collateral damage turns the population against you. I just don't see any way an armed revolt could work given the realities of today's military.

Sure, I'm up for it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24712799)

Um, it's probably more fun than going to work every day and getting kicked in the nuts for it.

Re:And what are us Americans going to do about it? (2, Funny)

samcan (1349105) | about 6 years ago | (#24712831)

A secession would be fun.

Re:And what are us Americans going to do about it? (5, Insightful)

nomadic (141991) | about 6 years ago | (#24712481)

People need to stand up and defend their rights, but unless it derails their daily lives, nothing will change. ....I hate being so negative...But you know it's true. :-/

Just so you all know, posting indignant posts on slashdot doesn't count as defending your rights. Preaching to the converted != protest.

Trends shape history (5, Interesting)

Brain-Fu (1274756) | about 6 years ago | (#24712573)

History is not made by individuals. History is made by trends. Specific individuals who are surfing at the leading edge of a trend may get the spotlight, and hence the credit, but really it was the trend that made the change, not the person.

The net effect of current trends is a lot of corruption in our government, plainly visible to the public, with a large collective yawn in response.

Sitting around shouting that people need to stand up and do something will not, in and of itself, create a trend of people standing up and doing something.

For that we will need something bigger. And more painful.

18 USC 371 and 18 USC 1001, FBI Agents... (1)

mikelieman (35628) | about 6 years ago | (#24712603)

FBI Agents have to be aware that Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Powell et. al. are guilty of violating the Law for years, and haven't done squat ( as in arresting the alleged felons... ) so who would expect them to be obedient to their oaths in any other way?

Re:And what are us Americans going to do about it? (2, Insightful)

Hoi Polloi (522990) | about 6 years ago | (#24712685)

In the Soviet Union they...oh wait, it is happening here.

Don't Ask What Your Country Can Do For You (2, Insightful)

EgoWumpus (638704) | about 6 years ago | (#24712895)

Worrying about what other people are doing about it will only go so far. What are you doing about it? Posting on Slashdot - or preaching to the choir - doesn't count as an affirmative action.

Re:And what are us Americans going to do about it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24712931)

Fuck 'rights'. The more people stand about screaming about their rights, the easier it is for government to ignore you on the grounds that the rights of the 'law abiding' citizen will be comprimised if these laws don't get passed.
Playing the 'these are my rights' game is a loosing battle. It always has been.

Start screaming about the fact that the laws are just /fucking insane/ instead.

Fuck it. Use these insideous laws to annoy/impeach/imprison the very people who enacted them. SHOW everyone how ridiculous they are. Cause some damage to the lives of the idiots who didn't read the bills, but who voted for them because there was a fucking rider that gave a tax cut to puppy dogs and kittens and all things that tug the public heart strings.

Sort it the fuck out, because I'm sick of hearing about it on /.

you say nothing but I'm willing to go. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24712939)

Do you have the capital to secure weapons? The manpower? The staff?

To change the system would require those of us who "disagree" to become the "enemy".

If you want to protect the Constitution, it won't be without bloodshed. People will die. MANY people.

If you want to fight enemies, both foreign and domestic, you will have to take lives.

Most people here on slashdot will not take life. The days of men taking lives were in the past and in the future.

At the moment, we post on websites.

Re:And what are us Americans going to do about it? (2, Funny)

linhares (1241614) | about 6 years ago | (#24712999)

Nothing.

That's right, nothing.

No one will do a single thing about it as long as they can watch their TV shows.

I have 8 things I would like to bring up:

FIRST and FOREMOST, this is highly against both the letter and the spirit of the Constitution. Second,

Oh shit Ugly betty is on!

Regs don't trump the constitution. (3, Insightful)

jcr (53032) | about 6 years ago | (#24712335)

The FBI can decide whatever they want as far as their regulations are concerned, but if it gets to court, any evidence they gather illegally is useless.

It's not that hard to get a warrant, and if they're too fucking lazy to call up a judge and explain why they think a warrant is needed, they're endangering the public.

-jcr

COINTELPRO (4, Insightful)

spun (1352) | about 6 years ago | (#24712453)

Who says they need to take anything before a judge? Look at what they did with COINTELPRO. [wikipedia.org] Infiltration, psychological warfare, legal harassment, and extralegal violence were all considered acceptable tactics.

Re:Regs don't trump the constitution. (1)

lgw (121541) | about 6 years ago | (#24712479)

And, really, the FBI should be free to "investigate" anyone they feel like by using public informations, observing them is public spaces, etc. Just as any citizen could "investigate" another. Fine, knock yourself out.

The important protection we have from over-eager police forces are the rules of evidence. Any private data collected without a warrant should be not just inadmissible, but prejudice the case.

Re:Regs don't trump the constitution. (4, Insightful)

pixelpusher220 (529617) | about 6 years ago | (#24712599)

remember that rule that evidence obtained via torture wasn't admissable? ooops, they just created an *entire* separate legal system to handle those cases...

not legal, certainly not just, but sadly it is our current reality

Re:Regs don't trump the constitution. (1)

Kelson (129150) | about 6 years ago | (#24712499)

The FBI can decide whatever they want as far as their regulations are concerned, but if it gets to court, any evidence they gather illegally is useless.

Cynical response: What makes you so certain they'll bother with a trial?

Practical response: There's an awful lot that can be done to harass people without actually arresting, charging or prosecuting them.

Re:Regs don't trump the constitution. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24712503)

they're endangering the public

I think you've just hit upon what government doesn't ever want you to realize:

It is government itself that is the biggest threat to you, your family, and your freedom.

this is a power that has a history of abuse (from the summary)

Correction: The power itself is the abuse. How can a special "right" to bypass justice itself NOT be abuse? The concept of guilty before proven innocent -- in whatever slimy manifestation it appears -- is an attack on human rights before the discussion even started.

Re:Regs don't trump the constitution. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24712885)

Read carefully. From TFA (emphasis added):

Attorney General Michael Mukasey intends to let Congress have its say before signing controversial new guidelines that reportedly broaden the FBI's authority to conduct investigations. But he will not delay their implementation.

Sounds like he'll tell his agents to go ahead in October, and then when the agents are caught in a civil suite by some citizen who didn't like being spied on, Mr. Mukasey can deny responsibility because he hadn't signed the papers yet. Big Brother gets his illegal intel and a scape goat.

Blame Canada (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24712347)

Blame Canada! :)

Re:Blame Canada (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24712847)

Curse you Canada, for being less crappy and making move to you when my current country could not control itself.

WWJD (4, Insightful)

colmore (56499) | about 6 years ago | (#24712355)

I think if you told Thomas Jefferson that the United States would be up to this sort of thing, someone would have gotten a musket ball to the chest.

Re:WWJD (5, Funny)

jollyreaper (513215) | about 6 years ago | (#24712423)

I think if you told Thomas Jefferson that the United States would be up to this sort of thing, someone would have gotten a musket ball to the chest.

I think his reaction would have been more along the lines of "Goodness, what is that peculiar blue box you stepped out of?"

Re:WWJD (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24712547)

Retardis.

Re:WWJD (5, Funny)

Palshife (60519) | about 6 years ago | (#24712823)

He's an American. He'd ask about the DeLorean ;)

Re:WWJD (1)

Underfoot (1344699) | about 6 years ago | (#24712517)

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
--Benjamin Franklin http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin [wikiquote.org]

Re:WWJD (1)

raymansean (1115689) | about 6 years ago | (#24712561)

No I think he knew a large out of control Federal gov it was comming, he even warned the states against letting it happen,he just did not have a means to prevent the problem from happening. Now 225+ yrs later the problem is real and a solution still does not exist. We can reboot, recompile, and recode, but until we drastically change the code the end results will always be the same.

Re:WWTJD (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24712737)

Thomas Jefferson had skills. Certainly, he would aim for the face. "Boom, headshot, good sir!"

Then he would proceed to place the blasphemer face down on the pavers with his teeth on a sharp edge, and proceed to cobble-check their shit like a redcoat on the 4th.

Finally he would urinate on the corpse while whistling the national anthem, with a triumphant shake at each note of "home of the brave" as he finished up.

A tip of his hat and a wink, and he was off to battle Chuck Norris for the freedoms we hold dear.

God Blasph America.

Re:WWJD (1)

pak9rabid (1011935) | about 6 years ago | (#24712827)

More importantly, WWUJD [wwujd.com] ?

Re:WWJD (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24712889)

I think if you told Thomas Jefferson that the United States would be up to this thing he would be saying back to you, "So, you've finally come around."

Jefferson et al knew that tyranny was inevitable. Hence one of the reasons why they explicitly reserved the people's right to bear arms.

Re:WWJD (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about 6 years ago | (#24712975)

I think if you told Thomas Jefferson that the United States would be up to this sort of thing, someone would have gotten a musket ball to the chest.

Well, he had to give Aaron Burr something to do.

Shoe Fits... (1)

thestudio_bob (894258) | about 6 years ago | (#24712369)

"If we don't speak up, we are cowards and accomplices."

I think this was originally said about Tibet and China, but it seems somewhat fitting here.

This is getting scary (1)

ThanatosMinor (1046978) | about 6 years ago | (#24712377)

It really looks like the gov't is boldly marching down the road to hell. I would even feel a little better if it was one of those roads paved with good intentions instead of pure control and corruption.

I call shotgun in the handbasket.

whoopie (5, Insightful)

jollyreaper (513215) | about 6 years ago | (#24712385)

How is this any different from how they're operating now? What does it matter that they're no longer going to breaking a law they never paid any attention to in the first place? Karl Rove tells Congress to take their subpoena, shine it up real nice, turn it sideways and shove it right up their collective asses. Consequences? So far, none. Will there ever be? Doubtful. Will it be any different for the FBI? Doubtful.

Re:whoopie (1)

jawtheshark (198669) | about 6 years ago | (#24712459)

What does it matter that they're no longer going to breaking a law they never paid any attention to in the first place?

The difference is that before they could have been reprimanded because they didn't follow the law. The keyword here is "could". Now, they have "carte blanche". There is no more law to protect you. Before you had at least a small chance.

Re:whoopie (2, Informative)

ScrewMaster (602015) | about 6 years ago | (#24712541)

Consequences? So far, none. Will there ever be? Doubtful. Will it be any different for the FBI? Doubtful.

Actually, yes, there will be. Remember the FBI under Hoover? It got pretty bad (the fucker had dirt on everyone.) Eventually Congress had to reign in the FBI ... many of those wisely-placed restrictions were eventually removed. This is a pendulum, but it's gonna get worse before it gets better.

Re:whoopie (1)

dpilot (134227) | about 6 years ago | (#24712763)

Congress??

That's what signing statements are for.

Re:whoopie (3, Insightful)

Rob the Bold (788862) | about 6 years ago | (#24712589)

How is this any different from how they're operating now? What does it matter that they're no longer going to breaking a law they never paid any attention to in the first place?

So it works like this:

Step 1: Do whatever you want to do.

Step 2: When Congress or the people complain, ignore or deny Step 1.

Step 3: Announce that you will do whatever it is you started in Step 1.

Step 4: What's the point in complaining, they're already doing it?

I'm sure there's profit in there somewhere.

by Neruos (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24712391)

They also do not have to inform you of the information that they are building against you until it goes to trial.

Suspicion? (1)

Stanislav_J (947290) | about 6 years ago | (#24712397)

"Several senators have formally complained that citizens could be investigated 'without any basis for suspicion...'"

I believe, in the current climate, that we are all pretty much considered "suspicious" anyway...

Fascist America, in 10 easy steps (5, Interesting)

jawtheshark (198669) | about 6 years ago | (#24712403)

Fascist America, in 10 easy steps [guardian.co.uk]

My history teacher pointed those out in 1997 and he wasn't thinking of the USA back then. I thought: come on, it can't be that easy! However, seeing what happens in the USA, I humbly have to retract that opinion.

  1. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy: 9/11 Terrorists, enemy combatants and unspoken Islam
  2. Create a gulag: Two words... Guantanamo Bay
  3. Develop a thug caste: Not yet, I think so at least.
  4. Set up an internal surveillance system: See article
  5. Harass citizens' groups: Again, see article and peaceful oriented groups have already been infiltrated. Okay, my source is Roger Moore so a grain of salt the size of Canada is needed.
  6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release: This goes along with Guantanamo. However, non-fly lists are in those lines....
  7. Target key individuals: Is most certainly happening....
  8. Control the press: Conglomerates do this... Don't even bother. Real historic dictatorships couldn't do this as well as capitalistic US.
  9. Dissent equals treason: If you're not with us, you're against us.... I have to say no more.
  10. Suspend the rule of law: Habeas corpus is gone, more laws have followed and more will follow.

Re:Fascist America, in 10 easy steps (3, Funny)

commandlinegamer (1046764) | about 6 years ago | (#24712445)

[quote]my source is Roger Moore[/quote] You've got the inside scoop from James Bond ?!

Re:Fascist America, in 10 easy steps (3, Informative)

jawtheshark (198669) | about 6 years ago | (#24712483)

Fuck... That's what happens if you watch Moonraker on DVD... I meant Michael Moore. Sorry about that!

Re:Fascist America, in 10 easy steps (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24712493)

Roger Moore? The 007 guy?

Grain of salt - probably needed more for Michael Moore.

Re:Fascist America, in 10 easy steps (1)

jawtheshark (198669) | about 6 years ago | (#24712511)

Already pointed out the reason to another commenter [slashdot.org] ... Yes, I feel stupid... Happy now?

Re:Fascist America, in 10 easy steps (1)

clgoh (106162) | about 6 years ago | (#24712553)

Michael Moore, perhaps?

Re:Fascist America, in 10 easy steps (1)

jawtheshark (198669) | about 6 years ago | (#24712621)

For the third time, I know I made a mistake.... Stop it already!

Re:Fascist America, in 10 easy steps MOD UP (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24712569)

It's an excellent article everybody should read. Land of the free my ass.

Re:Fascist America, in 10 easy steps (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24712607)

Thug Caste? Protected from prosecution despite murder & mayhem? Among the only Americans allowed to be armed in New Orleans after Katrina?

Blackwater, anyone?

Re:Fascist America, in 10 easy steps (2, Informative)

corsec67 (627446) | about 6 years ago | (#24712701)

Police officers.

Re:Fascist America, in 10 easy steps (1)

quonsar (61695) | about 6 years ago | (#24712971)

TSA.

Re:Fascist America, in 10 easy steps (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24712813)

Develop a thug caste: Not yet, I think so at least.

Blackwater?

Re:Fascist America, in 10 easy steps (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24712977)

"Develop a thug caste: Not yet, I think so at least."

NSA.

Re:Fascist America, in 10 easy steps (1)

BlueStrat (756137) | about 6 years ago | (#24712983)

3. Develop a thug caste: Not yet, I think so at least.

I thought that "MTV Raps" was a recruiting show for this caste. Seriously though, I think the growing gang phenomenon would qualify here.

Cheers!

Strat

What.The.FUCK (3, Insightful)

maynard (3337) | about 6 years ago | (#24712417)

You can partially thank Obama's FISA vote for this. While this is not - specifically - a function of FISA, the loosening of surveillance regulations it implied.

And they said, "We don't spy on Americans."

Right.

This is how it's supposed to work:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution [wikipedia.org]

Looks like we won't get that back without a bit of organized political action. I still recommend General Strikes. Shut the economy down and let the elites twist. Talk about a class war. Yeah, and they fucking won.

Big Deal? (1, Funny)

EmbeddedJanitor (597831) | about 6 years ago | (#24712419)

Is investigation without a warrant such a big deal? All it does is save some paperwork which is pretty much a rubber stamping exercise anyway. For the FBI to put manpower into investigating someone means they must suspect something and they'd pretty easily get a warrant anyway.

Re:Big Deal? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24712497)

Yes, it matters. It means that it's much harder for one person (or a small group) to hide their nefarious activities.

Re:Big Deal? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24712917)

Yes, it's a big deal. It says there is some outside oversight of the actions of the FBI. With the new rules the FBI can do whatever it wants and no one will know about it. Most agents don't want to abuse their powers but with this new ruling anyone can abuse it. If the people in charge decide to investigate someone there is no organization that can say no since there's no oversight.

In other news (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24712433)

George W. Bush has announced the US constitution has been fed into a paper shredder. More at 11. Seriously though, why doesn't your president just officially declare himself dictator, and wipe his ass with the constitution on public TV? It would make it a lot easier for the government to adopt these laws. They wouldn't have to try and keep it secret.

Nice guy (5, Insightful)

ScrewMaster (602015) | about 6 years ago | (#24712487)

Attorney General Michael Mukasey has agreed to allow Congressional hearings

That's big of him. He'll "allow" Congress to hold hearings? Who wears the pants in this family, anyways?

Investigate This Person of Interest (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24712491)

Suspect Number One [whitehouse.org]

Investigate is one thing, prosecute is another (2, Insightful)

You Don't Know Me (265497) | about 6 years ago | (#24712539)

It will be interesting to see how this holds up at trial - just because the FBI does it doesn't make it legal. If anything, this may hinder prosecution if the "evidence" found in these activities is found to be inadmissible.

On the other hand, if the courts turn a blind eye to that whole "due process" bit it may well be time to move to a country that makes to pretense of "freedom".

Of course, I have nothing to hide (well, except the full bookshelf of banned Paladin Press books, a few chemicals, some explosives and a few other odds and ends).

Re:Investigate is one thing, prosecute is another (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | about 6 years ago | (#24712957)

And if the investigation happens to turn up something embarrassing but not necessarily illegal about, say, a senator or two who are voting on the FBI's budget next month, then that information certainly wouldn't make it into the public domain by accident.

Sigh... (5, Insightful)

KovaaK (1347019) | about 6 years ago | (#24712571)

From the last link about senators complaining:

Among their fears: Americans could be targeted in part based on their race, ethnicity or religion

and

Citing remarks earlier by Mukasey about the new rules, the spokesman said an investigation would not be opened based solely on a person's race, ethnicity or religion.

That isn't the problem. I'm glad that they are attempting to slow it down and stop it, but why does it have to boil down to racism for them to stop it? Why can't they just say "this is completely against what the founders of our country intended"...?

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (5, Insightful)

Alain Williams (2972) | about 6 years ago | (#24712575)

All of these new police powers never seem to come with more accountability or independent oversight.

Thanks! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24712617)

Ooooooooooh! Thanks! Great news! Why don't I link my bottom to your fist and my paychecks to your bank account government?

fiscally conservative (0, Troll)

fermion (181285) | about 6 years ago | (#24712651)

Once again, what happened to the fiscal conservative arm of the republican party. Have they been totally consumed by the socially conservatives types who want the government to pay for all their pet faith based projects, like eliminating muslims, no matter what the cost.

It is insane to think that any lackey who hates his neighbor or gets cut off in traffic can open a case file and waste tax money and other opportunities cost. Those Army of God fanatics who are going to kill doctors, don't worry about them, we don't have the resources, all the agents are busy harassing this guy who whistled at my girlfriend.

I think that too many people just see this as a privacy issue. It is a chain of command issue, where we the people of the United states, grant certain powers to our federal government, and through the first amendment make sure that there is due process before the government can restrict our actions. This was an explicit effort to prevent King George from stealing all our money by spending it willy nilly on his prince. Unfortunately the new King George does not respect those restrictions, and like the Prince, feels that the purpose of the peasants to fund his and his friends extravagant lifestyle.

which the Justice Department denies (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | about 6 years ago | (#24712653)

I'm going to quote an old post [slashdot.org] from the "DMCA Abuse Widespread" [slashdot.org] article:

Whenever a controversial law is proposed, and its supporters, when confronted with an egregious abuse it would permit, use a phrase along the lines of 'Perhaps in theory, but the law would never be applied in that way' - they're lying . They intend to use the law that way as early and as often as possible.

This is how Bush is going to finish out his Administration:
Administrative guidelines and Executive Orders that are not subject to debate or review.

And here I though Mukasey was supposed to be a breath of fresh air after the trainwrecks that were Ashcroft and Gonzalez. Whatever happened to reasonable suspicion?

Re:which the Justice Department denies (3, Informative)

delong (125205) | about 6 years ago | (#24712893)

Whatever happened to reasonable suspicion?

What about it? Government does not need reasonable suspicion to investigate you. It needs reasonable suspicion to justify an investigatory detention, and probable cause for an arrest or seizure. Some searches and seizures are investigations, but not all investigations are searches or seizures.

The Fourth Amendment, Article V, and the Fourteenth Amendment do not prevent the government from conducting investigations for any rational purpose it darn well pleases.

We need the USSR back. (5, Insightful)

smellsofbikes (890263) | about 6 years ago | (#24712727)

Raise your hands, everyone who is surprised by this...

yeah, that's what I thought.

We need the old USSR back. As odd as this seems, there was actually a sense of competition going on back then -- competition for goodness. I remember mocking the USSR for having secret courts, secret laws, secret prisons. Now WE have those things. I think that at least in part it's because we no longer have competition to compare and contrast our government's behavior to, so people are less apt to associate this kind of totalitarian behavior with The Evil Empire. As a result, we become The Evil Empire.

I'm not cheering for Russia as it stomps around in Georgia, mind you, but an odd side-effect of it might be that we start acting like the USA, rather than Trashcanistan.

This is a big win for public security! (1)

NoobixCube (1133473) | about 6 years ago | (#24712747)

How will we know who the terrorists are if we can't find out who's buying a chemistry set for his 7 year old son's birthday?

There is still hope (1)

tuxgeek (872962) | about 6 years ago | (#24712755)

After reading the posts previous, it looks like most individuals here don't support a facist nazi evolution to democracy in America.

GWB and the rest of the gestapo cartel will not be around much longer and all the damage these crack pots have done, can be undone.

The next election will decide this. One prospect proposes hope and change, while the other guy thinks the path we are on today is good enough and no reason to change our direction.

People just need to care enough to get out and vote this November.

Cyberwar? (1)

TheDarkener (198348) | about 6 years ago | (#24712773)

/me doesn't really care if this comment flags him by the FBI, as he probably already is anyway. We are all terrorists in the eyes of our federal government.

If technology is used to monitor we, the people, we can break into that technology and stop/slow/break/expose said monitoring.

I see a new bumper sticker in my head...

"HACK THE FBI"

How rude (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24712785)

I am an FBI agent, you insensitive clod!

nightmare (1)

drDugan (219551) | about 6 years ago | (#24712805)

Will this nightmare end?

Will the US go back to where Constitutional basic civil liberties are respected?

I'm not sure why Americans would want to stay in the US any more: on top of the overt repeal of historical rights, they have a declining dollar, poor education, poor and very expensive healthcare, and a culture of people that would attack and vilify those that stand up and point out these points.

For all the high brow talk about the Constitution and what the rights mean that it grants - any basic 4th grader can look at the situation, understand what the document intended, and observe that is no longer why US citizens have.

The financial system in the US is in active meltdown, right now. People are walking around with "debt" notes in their pocket and guess what, IT'S ALL DEBT - there are no resources to back it up. Boy that hangover is going to hurt when people realize how worthless their money is. The US has been on a 100-year bender, all the time mortgaging our resources to central bankers who whip up notes of debt for the people to carry around.

Education in the US is so much worse than it once was. Gates has given speeches on it. In international competitions, Chinese students kick the US students' asses. Higher and higher percentages of college students are non-native US.

I don't understand why more people are not acting in the US, why more people are not literally walking into every local government meeting and screaming long and loud for accountability from their leaders, pushing upward on the system every place they can.

Who has the time? (1)

Efialtis (777851) | about 6 years ago | (#24712867)

I think one of the biggest things we should complain about is that if someone is NOT a suspect in a crime, or is NOT suspected of violating any law, or is NOT a "person of interest" then WHERE IS ALL THE TIME going to come from that the FBI will use to spy on all the Americans?
Where is all the MONEY going to come from for the FBI to spend on surveillance that isn't attached to any crime?

These are important questions that should be asked.

I hope ... (4, Insightful)

PPH (736903) | about 6 years ago | (#24712869)

... any of you that get the chance ask Obama/McCain what they intend to do about this if elected.

If any of you ignorant, fat, bible-thumping... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24712887)

...Yanks describe yourselves as being from "The land of the free and the home of the brave" ever again, I will kill you. Seriously, I'm not joking.

Ob. Bash (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24712907)

Stormrider: I should bomb something
Stormrider: ...and it's off the cuff remarks like that that are the reason I don't log chats
Stormrider: Just in case the FBI ever needs anything on me
Elzie_Ann: I'm sure they can just get it from someone who DOES log chats.
*** FBI has joined #gamecubecafe
FBI: We saw it anyway.
*** FBI has quit IRC (Quit: )
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>