Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy United States Your Rights Online

Bush Wants Right to ISP Customer Data 565

Posted by samzenpus from the big-brother dept.
bryan8m writes "Wired is reporting that the Bush administration wants back the ability to make ISPs turn over information on their customers. The U.S. Court of Appeals is handling the case and of course the feds want to hide details of it from the public. The law giving the government the power to seize communications records from 1986 was strengthened in 2001 by the Patriot Act and struck down after the ACLU challenged it."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Bush Wants Right to ISP Customer Data More

Bush Wants Right to ISP Customer Data

Comments Filter:

  • Why Bother with the Courts? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by geomon ( 78680 ) on Monday May 30, 2005 @06:33PM (#12679051) Homepage Journal
    When did the Bush administration become concerned about legality? Their previous stances on issues including torture, sovereign right of nations, and the role of Article 2 power has been done without discussing it with anyone.

    Now all of the sudden they are getting a read from the courts?

    Fucking facists.

    • Re:Why Bother with the Courts? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Ryvar ( 122400 ) on Monday May 30, 2005 @06:37PM (#12679086) Homepage
      The reason the Bush administration is concerned about legality in this matter is because they aren't going after individuals or impoverished nations filled with people the average idiot American distrusts and blames for gas prices.

      They're stepping on the toes of large, multi-national corporations many of whom have major media holdings and could make life very, very painful for the US government. Translation: they ARE being watched on this one, so they have to cross the 't's and dot the 'i's.

      --Ryv

      • Shaddup! (Score:5, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 30, 2005 @06:44PM (#12679148)
        Yer all a bunch of commie pinko liberal America-haters. Our President is doing the BEST HE CAN to protect us from terrorism, and he NEEDS these powers.

        • Re:Shaddup! (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward
          Bullshit, he's not even coming close to "the best". Maybe the best "he can" but when he ignores everyone telling him that none of his airline regulations are working and he ignores us, it's time to accept that his best just doesn't cut it.

          We're still sitting ducks for someone sneaking shit onto an airplane while screeners profile for british shoe bombers (oh wait, they're not, they're profiling for "people who look like they might be muslim", ignoring the fact that muslims are in just about every country

        • Re:Shaddup! (Score:5, Insightful)

          by falconwolf ( 725481 ) <falconsoaring_2000.yahoo@com> on Monday May 30, 2005 @07:15PM (#12679362)

          Yer all a bunch of commie pinko liberal America-haters. Our President is doing the BEST HE CAN to protect us from terrorism, and he NEEDS these powers.

          While I am a liberal, classical liberal, just as Thomas Jefferson was, I am not a "commie", I very much am a capitalist just as Adam Smith wrote about in "On the Wealth of Nations" [online-literature.com]. Others here seem to be fascists.

          Falcon

        • Re:Shaddup! (Score:5, Insightful)

          by tyler_larson ( 558763 ) on Tuesday May 31, 2005 @12:41AM (#12681393) Homepage
          Our President...NEEDS these powers.

          It's interesting how the current president always gets put on the face of any government operation, as if it were all his idea.

          The president doesn't want the names of ISP customers. The Lawyers want those names. The police want those names. The people who want additional power are the people who can actually use it. The president supports it because the idea sounded reasonable when it was presented to him. The only thing he's been personally campaigning about is social security. The rest is just side notes.

          Fifty to one says he's got no idea what this whole argument is about. Do you really thing George W. Bush understands this debate?

        • Re:Shaddup! (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Jackie_Chan_Fan ( 730745 )
          It has nothign to do with terrorism. If we chip away at our civil rights in the name of terrorism... we will be left without a single right.

          Terrorism is a buzz word being used to change our entire country from a free society to a corperate police state.

          Those in power with money have the say, and you are forced by law to comply.

          Vote wisely... Vote for a 3rd party... ANY 3rd party....

      • They're stepping on the toes of large, multi-national corporations many of whom have major media holdings and could make life very, very painful for the US government.

        Your comment reminded me of a thought I had regarding the fines that everyone wanted Microsoft to pay for using its monopoly to crush competition. Before the USDOJ action, Microsoft was one of those rare companies that made no significant political contributions to either party. I'm sure this had more to do with their wanting to stay out of s
        • 'Paying tribute to the boys in Washington' has been and is the entire crux of the DOJ vs. Microsoft case. People like Larry Ellison and the Apple folks have always had well-heeled lobbyists and close connections to the 'men in Washington.' Microsoft had the arrogance to thumb their nose at the whole scene.
    • Wow first post out and already Facist is being used. Not that I disagre but.. Wow!

      • Re:Why Bother with the Courts? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by geomon ( 78680 ) on Monday May 30, 2005 @06:58PM (#12679251) Homepage Journal
        Wow first post out and already Facist is being used. Not that I disagre but.. Wow!

        Apparently eveyone objected to my use of the word "socialist", so I changed it to keep everyone's panties smooth and not bunchy.

      • Call it by name (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Doc Ruby ( 173196 )
        Once the fascists are recognized beneath their lying masks (like NaZis - National Socialists), people are quick to call them what they are. After all the Bush abuse of the people for the benefit of his corporate government, there's no going back to his "man of the people" scam.
      • The Wikipedia article for Fascism [wikipedia.org] is a really interesting read. If that definition is undisputed*, then it's scary how well it's starting to fit. The discussion page makes for insightful reading as well.

        * The discussion page seems to signal an overall agreement, but the neutrality/factual accuracy warning banner has yet to be removed.

    • Re:Why Bother with the Courts? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by MrLint ( 519792 ) on Monday May 30, 2005 @06:45PM (#12679160) Journal
      I agree. This is merely a blatant attempt at the US govt (under the control of the power mad) to sidestep the courts.

      If there is an actual case with actual charges all that has to be done is *file the supoena*. This administration is doing just about everything in its power to 'legalize' the ability to exercise power above the law.

      There was once when the 'republican" party and the 'conservatives' meant smaller govt, less spending, and less intrusiveness.

      I cant imagine that we need secret laws and skulduggery against our own people to fight the phantom menace

      • That is so true (Score:5, Interesting)

        by HangingChad ( 677530 ) on Monday May 30, 2005 @07:26PM (#12679437) Homepage
        There was once when the 'republican" party and the 'conservatives' meant smaller govt, less spending, and less intrusiveness.

        That is so true. It points up the obvious that Bush people are neocons and an insult to true conservatives. Bush backers are more fascist than conservative but fascist is a tough label to sell in Oklahoma. So they call themselves conservative.

      • Re:Why Bother with the Courts? (Score:4, Informative)

        by falconwolf ( 725481 ) <falconsoaring_2000.yahoo@com> on Monday May 30, 2005 @07:49PM (#12679589)

        There was once when the 'republican" party and the 'conservatives' meant smaller govt, less spending, and less intrusiveness.

        A small limited government was the platform for the Democrat party and liberals to begin with. Thomas Jefferson was a liberal democrat who wanted a small and limited government. That I am aware of the only tyme the Republican party said they wanted small government was from Nixon onward. Well also Eisenhower who came up with the term "military industrial complex". He started the Viet Nam War though strengthening said complex. Nixon when his presidental committee released a report saying hemp, marijuana, should be legalized he said he didn't care what the recommendation was, there was no way he would allow it to be legalized. It was because of the Nixon Republicans that the Libertarian Party was started. Reagan increased the size of the federal government, increased federal police powers, and pushed for maximizing minimum sentencing for drugs. This is what conservatives wanted back in TJ's tyme, a strong federal government.

        Falcon

    • It's worse than you say: (Score:5, Informative)

      by Futurepower(R) ( 558542 ) on Monday May 30, 2005 @06:50PM (#12679196) Homepage

      In my opinion it is worse than you say.

      Here are reviews of 35 books and 3 movies that discuss how bad it really is: Unprecedented Corruption: A guide to conflict of interest in the U.S. government [futurepower.org].

      Background information: History surrounding the U.S. war with Iraq: Four short stories [futurepower.org]. The U.S. government declared war on Arabs long before there was Arab terrorism against the U.S.: New York Governor Pataki's statements are equivalent to a declaration of war. [futurepower.org]

      The U.S. government is bankrupt. The value of the U.S. dollar is dropping fast because the Bush administration is rapidly borrowing money [futurepower.org]. Who is doing the borrowing? These people: U.S. Federal Deficit by Political Party [futurepower.org]. If you are a U.S. citizen, you owe: $26,289.01 [brillig.com], even if you are only 1 year old.

    • Re:Why Bother with the Courts? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by JenovaSynthesis ( 528503 ) on Monday May 30, 2005 @06:57PM (#12679245)
      Well you know how Bush loves hypocrisy. Like bitching about "activist judges" and then continuously trying to appoint a judge (and finally succeeding) his won attorney general has called an "activist judge" on several occassions and actually worked with the conving conservative whore.

      And we all love Republican's love of ethics. Like how Clinton gets head and it involves an impeachment and Senate trial. But god forbid someone even mention the shit Tom DeLay does. Or Bill Frist's violation of medical ethics with his famous diagnosis via heavily edited video tapes.
    • It's not just "homeland security" where they have locked us out of the decision making, environmental laws are being trashed without any input.

      Any lawmaker that wants government to be more like business prefers dictatorship over democracy.

  • Sounds bad but... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Sheetrock ( 152993 ) on Monday May 30, 2005 @06:35PM (#12679063) Homepage Journal
    This just brings things in parity with requesting library records. Except that ISP accounts can be used for more nefarious purposes than library books.

    The most important thing is to make sure that with any additional powers granted there is enough oversight from a disinterested third party to insure said powers are used only within their intended scope for their intended purpose.

    • Re:Sounds bad but... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by SillyNickName4me ( 760022 ) <dotslash@bartsplace.net> on Monday May 30, 2005 @06:40PM (#12679115) Homepage
      The most important thing is to make sure that with any additional powers granted there is enough oversight from a disinterested third party to insure said powers are used only within their intended scope for their intended purpose.

      While I agree with the importsance of this, I'd like to point at the importance of questioning if a power is needed at all, and not granting it if such a need cannot be proven. Checks and balances can only work when they are not bogged down in burocracy and procedure to be effective. Too much power with a too big counterweight (oversight by 'uninterested' 3rd parties) easily results in a substational amount of burocracy.
      • Where do you find a disinterested third party in this connected world? Better yet, who decides what disinterested is? If we can't figure that out, someone interested will decide who is disinterested, and you can see the problems that could arise....

        FISA (oh man, I think that's the acronym) warrants were an enlargement of executive power in that they were granted in a blanket fashion, and arguably caused great damage to checks and balances..... this could be an even greater blow to checks and balances, an

    • Re:Sounds bad but... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by pashdown ( 124942 ) <pashdown@xmission.com> on Monday May 30, 2005 @06:44PM (#12679150) Homepage
      The bad part: "To expand the FBI's power to seek records without the approval of a judge or grand jury."

      This means no oversight, and opens the door for all kinds of abuse. Giving the government a little grief? No problem, they'll just have to make life hard for you.
    • Doesn't work. Look at what this administration has done to the concept of oversight when it comes to environmental protection, use people from affected industries to 'guard the henhouse'. The most important thing is to make sure they don't get their way.
    • You've already accepted that the government has a legitimate interest in obtaining that information, and have not reached that point yet. I would submit that such need has not been proven to any reasonable degree, and "matter of national security" and "terrorism" just don't cut it anymore. They've cried wolf way too many times.

      Besides, even if the Feds could give us a viable excuse for conscripting ISPs to serve as national wiretappers, are there any truly "disinterested" third parties anymore? Everyone
  • ...when he gives our country his data about why our men and women in uniform are *still* dying in Iraq while Bin Laden is still at large.
    • I'm sorry mods, but I can't see how that's insightful.

      What does one thing have to do with the other?
      It seems many of us are simply predisposed to attack anyone whose ideology is different from ours. Without thought.

      Sadly, I think this is what our political leaders have taught us: shrill reponses to just about anything proposed by our enemies (those who don't align with our politics.) It is a scary, scary practice and one that is getting worse.

      Disclaimer: I'm not saying I advocate the war or the topic. In
      • What happens when these are not explained away as unthoughtout attacks.. since it's been 5 years that we've lived with Shrub and his adminstration. What would you call it when someone thinks it out very carefully? Then they come to the conclusion that a good part of the States and the World has been bent over and they didn't even buy them dinner first? It's not shrill to state the truth.. some can be shrill about it but the truth is the truth.
      • It's just quite contradictory that the Bush administration uses lies and subterfuge [google.com] for things as important as war (putting thousands of people's lives on the line), while at the same time, wanting to have greater oversight into citizen's conduct, for things as small as making copies of intellectual property.

        If you want transparency for all, then that could be argued to be fit within democractic ideals [google.com]. If you want more transparency only for people under you, while wanting less transparency for you and y

    • Send it in then: (Score:2, Informative)

      by GQuon ( 643387 )
      The data you're looking for is allready available on line. Have a look here [globalsecurity.org] and here [centcom.mil] for example

      Here's the address that you can send your ISP info to: president@whitehouse.gov

  • Hiding the law from the people who it is directed (Score:5, Interesting)

    by haluness ( 219661 ) on Monday May 30, 2005 @06:36PM (#12679072)
    and of course the feds want to hide details of it from the public

    I have read of this before, but it is very strange that in a democracy (?) laws for the popluation can be discussed/made by not letting the population know about them.

    Does'nt this seem *too* close to a dictatorship - not that the US is one, but it increasingly is seeming that certain aspects are going in that direction
    • Even worse are the laws about what a person can bring on a flight that can't even be discussed.
    • Does'nt this seem *too* close to a dictatorship

      Hell yeah, it does.

      not that the US is one, b

      Give it a little more time... These things don't happen overnight.

    • Re:Hiding the law from the people who it is direct (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      The USA is far from its original ideals.

      It looks more like a plutocracy with the wealth and power being concentrated in the top few percent of the population. The only direction now is down into despotism.

    • Re:Hiding the law from the people who it is direct (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Ryvar ( 122400 ) on Monday May 30, 2005 @06:49PM (#12679186) Homepage
      In some ways it's worse than a dictatorship, if you think about it. Most people in nasty dictatorships have an all-to-clear a picture of exactly what kind of behaviors will get them 'disappeared.' It's not a guarantee or anything (you may be a government-critic's brother, for instance), but at least you have a sense of your position on the terrain.

      In the United States the law is so hopelessly complex, the enforcement so arbitrary, and adherence to the concept of checks and balances is such a farce that very few people are entirely sure of the legality of all their actions. Or what the consequences would be. We have developed a culture of lawyers for precisely this purpose - we walk on pins and needles hoping to God we aren't crossing some local, state, or federal ordinance without realizing it.

      To live in the United States without having a law degree or the money to employ someone with one full-time is to be a second-class citizen.
      --Ryv

      • Re:Hiding the law from the people who it is direct (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Maestro4k ( 707634 ) on Monday May 30, 2005 @07:05PM (#12679293) Journal
        In the United States the law is so hopelessly complex, the enforcement so arbitrary, and adherence to the concept of checks and balances is such a farce that very few people are entirely sure of the legality of all their actions. Or what the consequences would be.
        Actually it's getting easier to figure it out, all you have to ask is "Will this make some corporation mad?" if the answer is yes then it's probably against the law or soon will be. Also the consequences will be quite dire, you'd be better off murdering someone.
        To live in the United States without having a law degree or the money to employ someone with one full-time is to be a second-class citizen.
        Frankly I think we're below second-class, we're tolerated as necessary only because we buy the products the corporations make. If it wasn't for that we'd probably be in deep shit.

    • Re:Hiding the law from the people who it is direct (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Decameron81 ( 628548 ) on Monday May 30, 2005 @06:54PM (#12679228)
      I have read of this before, but it is very strange that in a democracy (?) laws for the popluation can be discussed/made by not letting the population know about them.


      In Argentina we've recently had a similar law proposal. Fortunately there was enough people who cared to at least stop it for a while. One of the many rumours we had flying around at that time was that the Bush administration was behind all that as part of a deal to relieve some of the pressure regarding our current economical problems.

      I personally believe that these are just rumors... but I can't stop to notice that we were in exactly the same situation just two months ago.

      What the hell is going on with our so called democracies? Do they really deserve that name?

    • Re:Hiding the law from the people who it is direct (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Maestro4k ( 707634 ) on Monday May 30, 2005 @07:00PM (#12679265) Journal
      I have read of this before, but it is very strange that in a democracy (?) laws for the popluation can be discussed/made by not letting the population know about them.
      Welcome to the US of the 21st century where controversial bills are passed as riders to defense spending bills and passed by voice vote (so there's no record of who voted for or against). This has been going on for some time, but it has increased dramtically under Bush's administration, and not all of it after 9/11/2001. After 9/11 almost anything goes of course. Torture's been determined legal, secret searches are fine, but hey at least we caught Bin Laden right? Oh wait we didn't...
      Does'nt this seem *too* close to a dictatorship - not that the US is one, but it increasingly is seeming that certain aspects are going in that direction
      It's not just certain aspects, our entire government seems to be happily heading towards either dictatorship or fascism controlled by the corporations. Many feel that the latter has already occurred and it's just a matter of time before the whole semblance of government by the people is dropped.

      What do I think? All I know is that it certainly feels like whatever any corporation wants they get, but whatever I want (and others like me want), even when it's constitutional freedoms, I don't get it because it would inconvenience some corporation. So I'd have to say we're well down that road to control by corporations and I wouldn't be surprised to see congress and the courts dissolved and the presidency turned into a dictatorship in my lifetime.

  • For the confused (Score:4, Interesting)

    by HillaryWBush ( 882804 ) on Monday May 30, 2005 @06:38PM (#12679095)
    It's not about getting information on terrorists when they email each other.

    It's about getting blackmail data on government officials to force them to do what the Administration wants.
    • It's about getting blackmail data on government officials to force them to do what the Administration wants.
      I doubt it, most of the incriminating stuff probably occurs on the networks of the house & senate offices so the administration could come by it quite easy. Remember the controversy over an aide accessing data they weren't supposed to?

  • They will defend the US to the point (Score:5, Insightful)

    by cyber_rigger ( 527103 ) on Monday May 30, 2005 @06:39PM (#12679101) Homepage Journal
    ...that no one will want to live here anymore.

    • Re:They will defend the US to the point (Score:5, Interesting)

      by linguae ( 763922 ) on Monday May 30, 2005 @06:52PM (#12679211)

      Well, where do you suggest that we move to? Many of the other country's policies are going south as well. The megacorporations are controlling Europe's and Australia's policies as well, and the majority of the rest of the world is third-world and has many of its own issues. People say lots of good things about Canada, but it's only a matter of time until it succumbs to US pressure. I've also thought about Japan, but I don't know how the situation of liberties is in that country.

      Are there any free places left, or am I forgetting a few places?

    • ...that no one will want to live here anymore.
      Not to be fatalistic but given the way things have been going the last 10 years or so does anyone really feel totally happy living here now? There's not really anywhere to go to escape much of the crap unfortunately (corporations are everywhere). This will all run its course, eventually someday the corporations will end up fighting each other because there's nothing left to milk out of the people. That's probably what WWIII will be -- megacorporations fie

    • Re:They will defend the US to the point (Score:4, Insightful)

      by demachina ( 71715 ) on Tuesday May 31, 2005 @02:26AM (#12681868)
      Well thats not exactly true. I'm pretty sure about half of the people that voted in the last election think everything the Bush administration is doing is GREAT and really want to live in the new America and really WANT Patriot Act III to make them SAFE. Though maybe its less than half now based on recent polls, since a bunch of people who were totally snowed by Republican manipulation during the campaign, have since come to their senses and realized the current Republican domination of the U.S. is both bad and dangerous (of course the Democrats are bad and dangerous too). All I can say to those people is .... to late ..... dumbasses, you already scewed the pooch.

      The remaining Bush faithful DO want to abandon their civil liberties in the name of security and morality and they want to dicatate the same course to the rest of the world if possible. They had enough of all the liberation that started in the 60's and they want to go back to America's glory days, the 50's, McCarthyism, rigid morality, sex is taboo, homosexuals are safely locked in the closet, censorship, etc. They especially want to strip other people of their civil liberties to get them in to line with what they consider proper behavior and to eliminate any chance that they might pose any threat, real or imagined to, to there comfy ignorant little lives.

      There is unfortunately a pretty close correlation between this set of people and the fundementalist Christians in the U.S. who are of the opinion they put Bush in office so they now own the U.S., its government and all the people in it and its their prerogative to dictate to everyone else how to live and if the Constitution gets in the way then the Constitution needs to be ignored or amended. A few weeks ago I saw the scary sign of the times on the news. A church that decided no good Christain could possible vote Democrat, that it was practicly voting for the devil, and that they were now on going to be a political church and anyone who didn't support Bush and Republicans was no longer welcome in the house of God and Jesus. I wonder isolated incident or is it happening all over the country in varying degrees.

      And of course as others have said in other posts the second part of the one two punch is there are a bunch of corporations who also own the government in general and the Bush administration in particular. They want two things, docile cowed workers and if they cant get them in the U.S they will get them in China, and they want docile cowed consumers who buy their products and can't complain it they are defective, unhealty dangerous or overpriced (cigarettes and asbestors being classic examples, predatory gas prices another).

      Star Wars earned him all the money but the most prescient and important work from George Lucas was THX-1138 which was released on DVD recently and is really worth seeing. It makes you think what might happen if we let government, corporations and control freaks sieze control of our lives. Probably to late to stop it now, but at least you will recognize it as its happening.
  • Combine the fact that EVERYTHING is terrorism--copyright violations, every hacker etc. with this wonderful bit of super surveillance and how long before GNU/Linux is defined as an instrument of terrorism? Or until all of our tools become illegal in the name of the Fatherland? Begun the Clone Wars have.

  • Diabloical (Score:5, Insightful)

    by 101percent ( 589072 ) on Monday May 30, 2005 @06:41PM (#12679122)
    I'm not a bush basher generally. I'm not totally against the RIAA and MPAA.

    But I must say, that this initiative is truely diabolical. My freedoms to surf the internet privately is clearly being breached here.

    Are we going to see them applying the same interpretationist polcies that they use on television to the internet. I mean whos to say what constituits a "terrorist" website?

    Goodbye my friends. I think 1984 has truely, and finally come alive, and its time for some of us to go underground.

    • Terrorism (Score:5, Informative)

      by GQuon ( 643387 ) on Monday May 30, 2005 @07:33PM (#12679489) Journal
      I mean whos to say what constituits a "terrorist" website?

      The secretary of state, I think.

      Sec. 219. (a) Designation.- [uscis.gov](1) In general.-The Secretary is authorized to designate an organization as a terrorist organization in accordance with this subsection if the Secretary finds that-

      (A) the organization is a foreign organization;

      (B) the organization engages in terrorist activity (as defined in section 212(a)(3)(B) 1a/ or terrorism (as defined in section 140(d)(2) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989 (22 U.S.C. 2656f(d)(2)), or retains the capability and intent to engage in terrorist activity or terrorism); and

      (C) the terrorist activity 1a/ or terrorism of the organization threatens the security of United States nationals or the national security of the United States.


      And here's the definition of terrorism. Think "direct action activism".

      INA Act 212(a)(3)(B) [uscis.gov]4/ (iii) TERRORIST ACTIVITY DEFINED.-As used in this Act, the term "terrorist activity" means any activity which is unlawful under the laws of the place where it is committed (or which, if 4/ it had been committed in the United States, would be unlawful under the laws of the United States or any State) and which involves any of the following:

      (I) The highjacking or sabotage of

      any conveyance (including an aircraft, vessel, or vehicle).

      (II) The seizing or detaining, and threatening to kill, injure, or continue to detain, another individual in order to compel a third person (including a governmental organization) to do or abstain from doing any act as an explicit or implicit condition for the release of the individual seized or detained.

      (III) A violent attack upon an internationally protected person (as defined in section 1116(b)(4) of title 18, United States Code) or upon the liberty of such a person.

      (IV) An assassination.

      (V) The use of any-

      (a) biological agent, chemical agent, or nuclear weapon or device, or

      (b) explosive, 4/ firearm, or other weapon or dangerous device (other than for mere personal monetary gain), with intent to endanger, directly or indirectly, the safety of one or more individuals or to cause substantial damage to property.

      (VI) A threat, attempt, or conspiracy to do any of the foregoing.

  • Time to (Score:5, Funny)

    by FidelCatsro ( 861135 ) <fidelcatsro&gmail,com> on Monday May 30, 2005 @06:41PM (#12679123) Journal
    Execute order 66

  • It figures... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by flag burning ( 837301 )
    A man who can barely hold his own while giving a speech is now telling ISP's to turn information over. That makes a lot of sense.

  • Unfortunately... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sumday ( 888112 ) on Monday May 30, 2005 @06:43PM (#12679144)
    the, "if you've got nothing to hide, why worry?" argument will probably win this one. but guys, c'mon. This descision will quash terrorism... don't you see...?
    • if you've got nothing to hide, why worry?
      My answer to that one always is "then why do you want to see my information?" It's a good question and can't be answered. If there's no reason to suspect me there's no reason to want to see my data.

      Of course the feds conveniently ignore little annoying things like facts.

      • No ... facts are exactly what they aren't ignoring. They want plenty of facts, all the facts they can gather about us. What they are ignoring are annoying little things like logic and reason.

  • I'm so glad... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by calstraycat ( 320736 ) on Monday May 30, 2005 @06:44PM (#12679152)
    I'm so glad that the "keep-the-government-out-of-people's-lives" party is in power.

    • Re:I'm so glad... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by 77Punker ( 673758 )
      Well, you see, the only people REALLY interested in being in power are the ones who, well, want to weild the power. I want to mind my own business so I don't run for office, they want to run everybody's lives so they put themselves in that sort of position.

      It's really that simple.
      • No, it isn't that simple.

        The least you could do is research, vote and be a part of your community.

        If you don't do any of that then you simply don't care and i believe that is a sad state of mind to be in.
    • I'm so glad that the "keep-the-government-out-of-people's-lives" party is in power.

      It could be worse.

      • It could be worse.
        Well, yes, it certainly could. We could be under attack from 500ft tall firebreathing clowns from Saturn, and we're not - and I'm glad for that and all, don't get me wrong - but that doesn't make me feel any better about the federal government continually wanting more ways to pry into my life.

    • Re:I'm so glad... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Maestro4k ( 707634 ) on Monday May 30, 2005 @07:22PM (#12679408) Journal
      I'm so glad that the "keep-the-government-out-of-people's-lives" party is in power.
      This is why I always hope for at least a divided congress (one house controlled by each party) or a congress controlled by the party opposite of the president's. It's a lot harder to railroad legislation through when everyone's determined to fight each other. Granted they still run some horrid stuff through but it takes them longer and they're distracted by petty political squabbles a lot.

      • Re:I'm so glad... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by StevenMaurer ( 115071 ) on Monday May 30, 2005 @09:44PM (#12680315) Homepage
        Don't be silly. The two major parties are not interchangable. We briefly had 2 years of all Democratic party rule back during Clinton's first term. What horrible legislation did the Democrats "railroad"? The family Medical Leave Act? Big whoop. With the Republians we've gotten a war of choice that they're managing to loose, a budget busting tax cut targeted at the leisure class, a dramatic reduction of our civil liberties, an anti-bankrupcy bill that pointedly allows CEO con-men off the hook, etc, etc, etc, etc.

        In fact, we need 12 years of solid Democratic rule to even start erasing the damage the unfettered right has done to this nation. Only when the GOP shows some willingness to control it's whacked-out wing should it be allowed veto over anything.

  • They could get all your hacker information! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 30, 2005 @06:45PM (#12679161)
    After a quick browsing of the ISP records they could know a lot about us... It seems that you have been living two lives. In one life, you are Thomas A. Anderson, program writer for a respectable software company. You have a social security number, you pay your taxes and you help your land lady carry out her garbage. In the other you are an annoying slashdot troll under the alias "Anonymous Coward" and are guilty of virtually every computer crime we have a law for, including extreme comparisons of the Bush administration to fictional works such as The Matrix or 1984. One of these lives has a future... In all seriousness, though, I can't see how giving the government access to ISP records is going to beneficial to the people. Guess the Department of Homeland Security is getting bored and needs something to do.

  • I can see more personals like this in the future (Score:5, Funny)

    by Valacosa ( 863657 ) on Monday May 30, 2005 @06:48PM (#12679181)
    Seriously, if things keep on going on the way they are, I can see a lot of personals like this popping up:

    "Single, white 22-year old Canadian male willing to `marry' American female fleeing fascist regime. Must be intelligent and conversational. Preferably aged 19-25, ethnicity unimportant."

  • Title is mis-leading. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by nberardi ( 199555 ) * on Monday May 30, 2005 @06:48PM (#12679184) Homepage
    Wow talk about a mis-leading head line. If you read the article in Wired it says congress is debating this. This article just starts off biased and just gets worse fromt here. It is obviouse where the writer stands on this issue and what side of the political fense the writer stands on, but last time I checked the Patiot Act didn't pass with a narrow margin and it doesn't look like it is going to pass with a narrow margin again this time.

    So for all you liberal's out there that say my guy would never vote for this, and Bush is evil because he did. Check the vote records for this back in 2001. It's all posted on the Library of Congress website.
    • Yes, itiz inded obvius that dis is al a leftie-comunist-terorist plot againstz our great nation and our great leder. The artikel was so biasd und comunist it is obviuse were the writter standz on the politikel fense the writter stand on. The Patiot Akt is teh shite and yu infidelz will burninate in hel!

      </sarcasm>

    • Re:Title is mis-leading. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by e40 ( 448424 ) on Monday May 30, 2005 @07:25PM (#12679427) Journal
      but last time I checked the Patiot Act didn't pass with a narrow margin... So for all you liberal's out there...

      Well now. If you're gonna bash people for being liberal and stupid... perhaps you shouldn't be conservative and stupid.

      Fact: it was impossible for anyone other than the authors of the Patriot Act to read it. There was no time. It was rammed through Congress at a time when questioning the content, even if there was time to read it, would have been considered unamerican. Perhaps you'd like to forget that little detail.

      As for it passing again without much debate: we'll see. I can see it going both ways, and if it goes down without much debate, I will not be surprised. It's human nature for most people not to get too upset at slow erosion of rights--that's what this is, bit by bit dismantling of our rights. The people standing up (eg, Feingold) are cally "nuts". Go figure.

      • Re:Title is mis-leading. (Score:4, Interesting)

        by SillyNickName4me ( 760022 ) <dotslash@bartsplace.net> on Monday May 30, 2005 @08:24PM (#12679793) Homepage
        Fact: it was impossible for anyone other than the authors of the Patriot Act to read it. There was no time. It was rammed through Congress at a time when questioning the content, even if there was time to read it, would have been considered unamerican. Perhaps you'd like to forget that little detail.

        And that is how democracy really got lost.. repeatedly.

        With the risk of invoking Godwin's law here, I'll quote Adolf Hitler on this since he was quite good at it:

        'Make people feel so they do not think'.

    • Re:Title is mis-leading. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Maestro4k ( 707634 ) on Monday May 30, 2005 @07:37PM (#12679519) Journal
      but last time I checked the Patiot Act didn't pass with a narrow margin
      No it didn't, but many congressmen (and women) have said afterward, repeatedly, that they were pressured into voting for it and given almost no time at all to review it. Many voted for it without having read more than a few pages. The pressure of 9/11 was used to force congress to pass the PATRIOT act without allowing them time to debate it. So yeah it was voted for near unaminously but even congress wasn't terribly happy about it. Try including all the facts instead of only the ones that paint the viewpoint you're shooting for.
      and it doesn't look like it is going to pass with a narrow margin again this time.
      Only portions of the act are up for renewal, very few in fact. The bulk of it is still intact and would take new legislation to remove it. Also it's by no means certain those portions up for renewal will pass, and even if they do it won't be so quick and easy. Numerous congresscritters have publically stated that they will _NOT_ be put in the same situation again and will be invesigating this fully before deciding this time. Multiple hearings have already been scheduled and many already completed.
      So for all you liberal's out there that say my guy would never vote for this, and Bush is evil because he did. Check the vote records for this back in 2001. It's all posted on the Library of Congress website.
      Exactly why do you assume it's only liberals who oppose the PATRIOT act? There's at least a couple of republican congresscritters who do. It's by no means a straight party line as to who supports and opposes it. When it's actually explained to someone, they generally don't support many of its provisions. Even idiots realize secret searchs without any oversight are dangerous.

      You may say the article is biased, but frankly you're showing far more bias than it does. Also everything is biased, you have to realize this and learn to read the bias as well so you can make up your own mind. Personally I support some sections of the PATRIOT act and not others. If I had to chose between the whole thing going to get rid of the worst sections I'd err on the side of caution and say yes, it should be removed. As Benjamin Franklin said "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

      And frankly, do you really feel more secure now than you did before the PATRIOT act was passed? I don't, at best I feel I have the same level of security, at worst I have a new enemy -- my own government who treats me like a criminal in the name of "fighting terrorism".

      • See, that first thing you said "they were pressured into voting for it" means the motherfuckers weren't doing their jobs. If you can be pressured into voting for something you have not read, you should ALAWAYS SAY NO. Pisses me off to no end.

  • Ahem [gets on soapbox] (Score:5, Insightful)

    by 64nDh1 ( 872430 ) <my/.Username@gmail.com> on Monday May 30, 2005 @06:51PM (#12679203)
    The way I see it, your IP is becoming more and more like your phone number. It's part of who you are and we're fast approaching the day that the two will be essentials for anyone living anywhere in the world. You'll need your digits so people can call you, and your IPv4 or IPv6 digits for other reasons, and it'll become the norm.

    How would people react if the Bush, or any, administration claimed the right to be able to tap anyone's phone for any reason?

    From the article:
    The legal filing with the 2nd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in New York comes amid a debate in Congress over renewal of the Patriot Act and whether to expand the FBI's power to seek records without the approval of a judge or grand jury.

    And will they also seek the entitlement to search domestic residences without a warrant approved by an authority figure? Would I be far off in this seeming to be about the same? For those who lost their short term memory, and those who like repetition:

    without the approval or a judge or grand jury

    How do you respect a law like that?

    • Your IP address is not your "digits", in fact most of us get a new one every time we connect ot the network. Also, many of us have several. You're thinking about e-mail addresses, and if you think ECHELON [wikipedia.org] or one of its successors aren't "reading" every e-mail you send right now, you aren't paranoid enough. Of course it's for "national security reasons" and thus has no civilian oversight.

  • There's plenty of blame to go around ... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Fookin ( 652988 ) <fookin AT gmail DOT com> on Monday May 30, 2005 @06:53PM (#12679216)
    Let us not forget a key point:

    Congress creates the bills, the President merely signs them into law.

    Where is all the uproar about the Congressmen who voted for these laws? I see plenty of anti-Bush sentiment here, but where's the outrage towards *your* representatives who approve of this?

    Get angry all you want at the occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, but don't give a free pass to the occupants of both the Hart and Russell Senate Office Buildings, they typically stick around a lot longer than a President.

  • Just start monitoring everything, by everyone.

    Declare the entire population is under investigation, and just get rid of those pesky constitutional rules that protect our rights.

    And this country isnt the only one heading this direction.. Moon base anyone?
    • And this country isnt the only one heading this direction.. Moon base anyone?
      Do you think there's any chance anybody will be moving there any time soon? Even if government or private industry goes there to stay within the next decade, it's going to be either government-funded or government-approved, if not both. If you're too "suspicious," because of library books you read and websites you visit, I'm sure you won't be getting a ticket.
  • It will be so much fun to be all in this together now! [imdb.com]

    If people refuse to give information they will be probably taken to information retrieval.

    It seems like Saddam has taken a consultant job for the Bush administration. Since we suck at fighting the revolution in the Middle East Saddam could be a great resource there also.
  • An Israeli website about the websites of designated terrorist organizations, and how their ISPs react: Internet Haganah [haganah.org.il]

  • When you wrongfully do others harm... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by 3seas ( 184403 ) on Monday May 30, 2005 @07:29PM (#12679464) Homepage Journal
    ... you then have reason to be concerned about retailation....

    So the more you know about those you screwed, the safer you feel in control...

  • This Memorial Day -- Remember America (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bratwiz ( 635601 ) on Monday May 30, 2005 @10:06PM (#12680466)
    An open letter on this memorial day. A time to remember our countrymen and the sacrifices they made for our freedom. Consider the price of freedom, and how fleeting it is. What must be taken with mighty armies can be given away with the stroke of the pen...

    I've read that congress is considering revisions to the Patriot Act, and that President Bush is pushing for more powers to intrude in secret into lives of Americans. Please don't let our nation go down this road. I am asking people to discuss this issue and contact your congress person [house.gov] and senator [senate.gov] to let them know how you feel. Freedom is not free, it must fought for and held close dearly, in the statehouse and on the battlefield.

    In America a battle is raging that is threatening our freedom in the name of terrorism. It used to be "drugs", then it was "the children", and now its "terrorists". The government doesn't care who the bogeyman is, it simply wants more power, and it will use any excuse possible to get it.

    When the events of 9/11 occurred, everyone-- the politicians, the President, the newscasters, and the people everywhere-- said "We must go on with our lives, if we change who we are as a result of the trajedy then the terrorists have won..." I hate to say it then, because that's exactly what we did. We allowed our government to put in all these draconian measures that would have scared the pants off us if we had seen it in a hollywood movie on September 10th. We have fundamentally altered our country in response to what the terrorists did, and our freedom and liberty is at stake.

    We are no longer as free as we were. We are no longer as kind to each other as before. We run around the world acting like the bully, and we've even lost the respect for ourselves-- our own moral compass and lamp of righteousness. We used to be the shining beacon of freedom and liberty for all the world to see. Now we're reviled and hated in many parts of the world and shunned by our friends and allies.

    We've changed a lot since 9/11. Government agents can search your home and seize your property without anybody ever knowing what happened. They have even made talking about it a "national security" crime. These are things are supposed to happen in Cuba. These are things that happen in China. These are things that are supposed to happen only in the farthest, darkest, most oppressive corners of the world-- not in America, "the land of the free".

    It has been said that people who give up their liberty for safety have neither. It would seem that since 9/11, Americans have looked away while lawmakers stripped away fundamental freedoms that are guaranteed to us under our constitution. Since the birth of this nation we have championed against tyranny, oppression, and the subjugation of humanity all around the world. What an irony that we must now remind ourselves of these very principles and warn our politicians to step lightly to avoid leading us into the abyss.

    Step away from that edge! Guide us back into the light and liberty. America was great before, and shall be great again. All that is required is the wisdom and the courage to stand up and speak against what we all know is wrong. America has a mighty weapon, and its not our tanks, its not our ships, its not our weapons of mass destruction-- America's mightiest weaspon is ourselves. Our love for humanity, our reaching out to stop the oppressors of the world, our zest for life and our yearning to be free.

    The terrorists who aim to defeat us can never win because they simply can't understand our spirit. But the politicians who govern us can defeat us. They are charged with protecting our spirit and keeping the beacon of liberty lit for all the generations that come. It is not the terrorists I fear. We have mighty armies and very smart people that will eventually defeat them, of this I am ce

Slashdot Top Deals

It is easier to write an incorrect program than understand a correct one.

Close