- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
FBI: We need wiretap-ready Web sites - now
|
|
|
Comments (51)
It will be interesting to see what comes of this
I cannot see this law coming into effect, as IMHO, it would be blatantly unconstitutional. First and Fifth Amendment issues are all over it.
JaseP, take a look at events since 9/11. The US Constitution hasn't been doing very well.
We got GPS tagging licked...
> I cannot see this law coming into effect, as IMHO, it would be blatantly unconstitutional.
How many laws have been overturned at the Supreme Court level just in the past 20 years?
The fact that a law is unconstitutional has seldom stopped our government from passing it before.
How many laws have been overturned at the Supreme Court level just in the past 20 years?
The fact that a law is unconstitutional has seldom stopped our government from passing it before.
@tuxchick: Your memory is much too short. The US Constitution hasn't been doing well for quite some time; the whole "war on drugs" has made the 4th Amendment null and void for instance (see what happens if cops find you carrying $100k in cash), and that's been going on for a little bit longer than I've been alive. I won't even get into the 9th and 10th.
Good points, Khamul.
Quoting:The US Constitution hasn't been doing well for quite some time; the whole "war on drugs" has made the 4th Amendment null and void for instance (see what happens if cops find you carrying $100k in cash), and that's been going on for a little bit longer than I've been alive. I won't even get into the 9th and 10th.
Very, very good points. Just look at the 18th Amendment, later nullified by the 21st Amendment. Clause 1 of the 18th states:
Quoting:After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.
It takes a Constitutional Amendment to legally abolish a substance.
Statement on FBI backdoors, privacy, and civil disobedience
23 earlier comments in the full thread.
On the other hand, I do quite regularly stumble over comments and articles by Americans, pointing out the steady decline in practical adherence to the classic American ideals and USA constitutional principles, often specifically identifying/going back to the "War On Drugs".
And as a Canadian, I can say with some concrete justification that in fact some Americans (not political extremists) do actually move north of the border (and others at least explore options) at least partly (but explicitly and consciously) because of that clear decline.
And as a Canadian, I can say with some concrete justification that in fact some Americans (not political extremists) do actually move north of the border (and others at least explore options) at least partly (but explicitly and consciously) because of that clear decline.
Bernard, I think from time to time about seeing if Canada will have me. But TA's right-- I can't in good conscience jump ship, and anyway the "ship" will likely mow me down wherever I go. Might as well stay and try to do something about it.
Carla, I'm not sure how effective moving to Canada would be as a long-term strategy to avoid the consequences of the aforementioned trend. And in any case, the current Canadian "administration" appears committed to following the US example.
> Huge numbers of Americans haven't left this country.
Is 3 million people a year "huge numbers", Caitlyn? Or are you merely speaking in terms of percentages?
"If the data collected in the seven polls conducted between 2005 and 2007 are fairly representative of the current decade, then, by a modest estimate, at least 3 million U.S. citizens a year are venturing abroad."
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2008/07/28/a-growing-tre...
This was as of 2008. All indications are that the numbers are increasing, not dropping.
Is 3 million people a year "huge numbers", Caitlyn? Or are you merely speaking in terms of percentages?
"If the data collected in the seven polls conducted between 2005 and 2007 are fairly representative of the current decade, then, by a modest estimate, at least 3 million U.S. citizens a year are venturing abroad."
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2008/07/28/a-growing-tre...
This was as of 2008. All indications are that the numbers are increasing, not dropping.
@caitlyn:
If you don't like commentary on a story that is intrinsically political and specifically about the American administration, then I really don't know what you expected.
This is a hugely important story and deserves proper and full discussion.
So far, I've not read any overtly anti-American commentary. We may well be getting a little off the topic but these are highly charged issues.
For others looking to Canada for sanity, I have to say that the legislation here, in terms of privacy, does tend to follow US (and indeed UK) fashions albeit a few years behind. It seems that the flavour of the day is privacy bashing and intrusive legislation of the type that the article is discussing.
If you don't like commentary on a story that is intrinsically political and specifically about the American administration, then I really don't know what you expected.
This is a hugely important story and deserves proper and full discussion.
So far, I've not read any overtly anti-American commentary. We may well be getting a little off the topic but these are highly charged issues.
For others looking to Canada for sanity, I have to say that the legislation here, in terms of privacy, does tend to follow US (and indeed UK) fashions albeit a few years behind. It seems that the flavour of the day is privacy bashing and intrusive legislation of the type that the article is discussing.
Tomorrow, the law mandating F/OSS and Open file formats takes effect in New Hampshire. It was sponsored by Seth Cohn, a member of the Free State Project.
It rather surprises me that I only heard about it yesterday. Either Microsoft's efforts are slipping, or it was kept deliberately quiet so as not to attract the Ire of Bill.
I'm glad to say that Oklahoma is following that example and working on their own F/OSS law. Maybe the martyrdom of Peter Quinn will have some small silver lining even now, so many years after his efforts in the People's Republic of Massachusetts.
If I get a solid lead on the Oklahoma bill, I'll suggest it as an article.
@TC, Canada, last I looked, has an immigration policy such that you can buy citizenship, by moving at least $500,000(CN) into the country with you. But that data is very dated, they may have changed the requirement by now.
It rather surprises me that I only heard about it yesterday. Either Microsoft's efforts are slipping, or it was kept deliberately quiet so as not to attract the Ire of Bill.
I'm glad to say that Oklahoma is following that example and working on their own F/OSS law. Maybe the martyrdom of Peter Quinn will have some small silver lining even now, so many years after his efforts in the People's Republic of Massachusetts.
If I get a solid lead on the Oklahoma bill, I'll suggest it as an article.
@TC, Canada, last I looked, has an immigration policy such that you can buy citizenship, by moving at least $500,000(CN) into the country with you. But that data is very dated, they may have changed the requirement by now.
@Bob_R: Last I looked, you only needed about $300k (CAD or USD, they're about the same) to buy your way in, or if you had a job offer in specific areas it's pretty easy. Software engineers have a very easy time, and are on their list of in-demand professions. There's a lot of software work in the Vancouver area.
Finally, does Caitlyn think it's "America-bashing" if we don't cheer FBI backdoors and intrusion? :-/ What did she expect?
Finally, does Caitlyn think it's "America-bashing" if we don't cheer FBI backdoors and intrusion? :-/ What did she expect?
Quoting:Finally, does Caitlyn think it's "America-bashing" if we don't cheer FBI backdoors and intrusion? :-/No, I don't. You went way, way, way beyond that and you know it. Don't treat my like I'm an idiot who can't read what you write.
> If you don't like commentary on a story that is intrinsically political and specifically about the American administration, then I really don't know what you expected.
Sigh. As Caitlyn will be more than happy to tell you, she and I seldom agree about anything political. But in this case she's already answered your question.
She's already apologized for submitting the story; effectively admitting that she was waving a red flag at a bull. What more do you expect her to say or do?
For their part, Caitlyn, please remember that Khamul and a few others haven't been around as long as some of us, and haven't been through this process before.
Oh, and if you would prefer to answer my question above in direct mail rather than post, that would be fine. I'm just curious as to the standard you were using for your comment. I can see where both positions could be considered valid.
Sigh. As Caitlyn will be more than happy to tell you, she and I seldom agree about anything political. But in this case she's already answered your question.
She's already apologized for submitting the story; effectively admitting that she was waving a red flag at a bull. What more do you expect her to say or do?
For their part, Caitlyn, please remember that Khamul and a few others haven't been around as long as some of us, and haven't been through this process before.
Oh, and if you would prefer to answer my question above in direct mail rather than post, that would be fine. I'm just curious as to the standard you were using for your comment. I can see where both positions could be considered valid.
@jdixon and @caitlyn:
I can see why we have TOS restrictions on purely political debate. That's really not what Linux and Free Software is about. People argue endlessly about political issues and those arguments are so loaded with opinion and bias it is quite pointless. People do it because it is human nature, not because they seriously think that they will end up with agreement.
The problem is this:
Free Software and the Free Software Movement is a political movement. It is about "us" vs "them". Us being the users, them being those that wish to restrict and control us. "Them" used to be proprietary software companies. More and more though, "them" happen to be governments. It just isn't possible to talk about free software news issues like this without being in danger of crossing the line between free software and purely political debate. I think Scott does a pretty good job of policing the forums and I think that certain individuals walk (nay leap) over that line and intervention is required.
Now I know that caitlyn has a bit of an itchy trigger finger over this issue. I don't really know why but perhaps there is some bitter history prior to my coming to this site. Sometimes, I think she is right and we do cross the line. Other times, less so, but of course that is opinion.
In my personal view, as long as the topic being discussed is related to free software directly, and there is no finger pointing then I really don't see the problem. When we stray off the topic into irrelevent issues, then I think Scott needs to take action.
I can see why we have TOS restrictions on purely political debate. That's really not what Linux and Free Software is about. People argue endlessly about political issues and those arguments are so loaded with opinion and bias it is quite pointless. People do it because it is human nature, not because they seriously think that they will end up with agreement.
The problem is this:
Free Software and the Free Software Movement is a political movement. It is about "us" vs "them". Us being the users, them being those that wish to restrict and control us. "Them" used to be proprietary software companies. More and more though, "them" happen to be governments. It just isn't possible to talk about free software news issues like this without being in danger of crossing the line between free software and purely political debate. I think Scott does a pretty good job of policing the forums and I think that certain individuals walk (nay leap) over that line and intervention is required.
Now I know that caitlyn has a bit of an itchy trigger finger over this issue. I don't really know why but perhaps there is some bitter history prior to my coming to this site. Sometimes, I think she is right and we do cross the line. Other times, less so, but of course that is opinion.
In my personal view, as long as the topic being discussed is related to free software directly, and there is no finger pointing then I really don't see the problem. When we stray off the topic into irrelevent issues, then I think Scott needs to take action.
@ Skelband
Seconded
Seconded
Quoting:there is some bitter historyNo "perhaps" about it.
> Free Software and the Free Software Movement is a political movement,
I'd say it can be, rather than is, but that's the crux of the problem, yes.
I'd say it can be, rather than is, but that's the crux of the problem, yes.
Ok, this has gotten rather annoying; this makes at least 3 or 4 times someone has alluded to this "bitter history" in just the past couple days. Can someone please write up an extremely condensed, unbiased, in-a-nutshell version of this "bitter history" for those of us who haven't been here for years, so we can understand why some people are so jumpy about some topics?
In a word, no, not without rehashing old battles and creating more problems. Also, nobody is going to be unbiased on this one. Your best bet would be to e-mail Scott privately.
Khamul,
I agree with Caitlyn that it would be impossible to describe it without describing it from one's own point of view, which means that I would disagree with her characterization of events, and she with mine, etc. Trying to correct each other's characterizations would lead, quickly, to the very animosity which the TOS is there to avoid.
That's funny, because I just realized it would be easy to honestly disagree with the last 10 words I just wrote, spurring even more incendiary verbiage.
Sadly, threads which would have been exceedingly good to have available to reference, one particularly good one on copyright springs instantly to mind (weren't they all about copyright?), were deleted rather than just closed. So they're gone, like Aristotle's Second Book of Poetics, and all but a hint of the poetry of Sapho.
I agree with Caitlyn that it would be impossible to describe it without describing it from one's own point of view, which means that I would disagree with her characterization of events, and she with mine, etc. Trying to correct each other's characterizations would lead, quickly, to the very animosity which the TOS is there to avoid.
That's funny, because I just realized it would be easy to honestly disagree with the last 10 words I just wrote, spurring even more incendiary verbiage.
Sadly, threads which would have been exceedingly good to have available to reference, one particularly good one on copyright springs instantly to mind (weren't they all about copyright?), were deleted rather than just closed. So they're gone, like Aristotle's Second Book of Poetics, and all but a hint of the poetry of Sapho.
> Can someone please write up an extremely condensed, unbiased, in-a-nutshell version of this "bitter history" for those of us who haven't been here for years,
No. But you know all the major characters involved, and from our various expressed viewpoints and recent posts you should have no trouble figuring things out.
No. But you know all the major characters involved, and from our various expressed viewpoints and recent posts you should have no trouble figuring things out.
Do you think it's time for someone on this thread to say
Good night, John Boy?
Good night, John Boy?
OMG! Please no!
<cue *all* the responses from the Waltons end-credits> :D
<cue *all* the responses from the Waltons end-credits> :D
On the subject of big, well known online services _and_ the topic of over-reach,
http://tinyurl.com/cf634ty
Eduardo Saverin, the billionaire co- founder of Facebook Inc. (FB) (FB), renounced his U.S. citizenship before an initial public offering that values the social network at as much as $96 billion, a move that may reduce his tax bill.
http://tinyurl.com/cf634ty
Eduardo Saverin, the billionaire co- founder of Facebook Inc. (FB) (FB), renounced his U.S. citizenship before an initial public offering that values the social network at as much as $96 billion, a move that may reduce his tax bill.
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post
The PGP experience in the early 90s was an excellent example of a mild response to software that violated an esoteric law never actually enforced.
Living in interesting times, indeed.