And here I am doing what I said I wouldn't.
Is it going to take the US government using subpoenas and outright purchases of commercial data (which they legally cannot collect themselves) to finally convince people that maybe, just maybe, our civil liberties aren't what they once were? If the government is not allowed to collect this information directly, why is it okay if they allow private corporations to do this for them?
Yeah, I've heard the arguments before: "our government would never do (insert bad thing here)." Of course, when the government gets around to doing that, people say "it was for our own good and if you haven't done anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about," and yet another civil liberty falls.
The PATRIOT act was passed one and a half years ago, but since the average person sitting in McDonalds eating his clown meat hasn't noticed; he doesn't care. ("hey, they're after terrorists, not me!").
They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. (I suspect most people American's wouldn't recognize the origin of that statement).
Yup, fortune confirms it, which is probably where I saw it first. I love fortune.
-Dom (in the UK)
Re:I guess you deserve neither so quit complaining
Ovid on 2003-04-03T01:26:53
I agree that I give up certain liberties for safety. In short, I specifically give up the freedom to harm others. However, where do we draw the line between our freedom and our safety? Where do we draw the line with the government's need to invade our privacy? While the constitution does not explicitly guarantee us a right to privacy (here are some interesting comments regarding the "right" to privacy), this has been inferred from the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and the courts have often upheld this right.
In reading through the links that I presented, one might reasonably question why the government has a right to know what brand of toothpaste I purchase. Further, I don't care for the FBI checking out my reading material at the libraries.
Recently, the Justice Deparment exempted the NCIC computer from accuracy requirements. (You can read the original Federal Register publication, if you wish). Reading through the Privacy Act which the NCIC is now exempted from, not only can the government stuff anything about you in the NCIC computer that they might happen to overhear, you're not allowed to know about it! Further, this change isn't even subject to public debate because it's a publication in the Federal Register, giving it the same force as law, but without the inconvenience of getting Congress to rubber-stamp it. (oh, and they can now share this potentially inaccurate information with anyone and not bother to note with whom it has been shared).
In the context of the things happening in this country, otherwise silly comments such as Ari Fleischer's "Americans
... need to watch what they say, watch what they do" take on an ominous tone. As such, I don't think it's unrealistic for people to question the wisdom of those who are making these decisions, so I will confess to being puzzled by your title stating that I deserve neither freedom nor safety. Re:I guess you deserve neither so quit complaining
Sifmole on 2003-04-03T12:48:40
It was a bitcy day and I probably wasn't clear....
I take issue with people who trot out pithy little sound bites but ignore the full implications of them; In this case Ben's quote regarding liberties, freedom, and safety. We all give up liberties ( and I know he refers to "essential" ) in order to become part of a civilized society.
So, is retaining your privacy regarding what toothpaste you use an "essential" liberty -- probably not, what books you read may well be. The tough question is, as you said, "where do you draw the line?". The FBI has kept tabs on certain books for years; for many people this is only coming to their conciousness now.
The tough question for me is -- given the possibility, and not remote, that there are many someones out there with the desire and will to strap a "backpack" nuke to their back and wander into NYC which is altogether too few miles from my son, my wife, my family, and myself. What am I willing to give up to decrease the chances of that coming to reality?
Remembering breathing the smoke laced with the blood of 2000 people on 9/11 and thinking that possibly, and only possibly, it could have been prevented if the FBI/CIA had been empowered to question why Muslim extremists only wanted to learn how to fly straight and didn't care about landing. The people who lost loved ones when Timothy McVeigh blew up the building in Oklahoma City must wonder, what if the FBI/CIA had been more empowered to wonder why a non-farmer needed a load of fertilizer that big.
I have always been one to talk about the "slippery slope" of giving up freedoms -- and I have spent a great deal of time vascilating over this very issue, to no conclusion.
Perhaps the only answer is to stop all likely, even remotely, such individuals at the border: "Sorry America is Closed, please return to where you came from." -- is that the nation we should become? Or do we preserve our need to keep private what toothpaste we are using to brush our teeth while we watch the 5th suicide bombing in an American mall in a month?
I truly don't know....Re:I guess you deserve neither so quit complaining
nicholas on 2003-04-07T15:20:25
Perhaps the only answer is to stop all likely, even remotely, such individuals at the border: "Sorry America is Closed, please return to where you came from." -- is that the nation we should become?But Timothy McVeigh was born inside America, so that wouldn't have stopped him.
Or do we preserve our need to keep private what toothpaste we are using to brush our teeth while we watch the 5th suicide bombing in an American mall in a month?Presumably turning people away at the border is somewhat akin to firewalling network packets - the only way to be sure is to disable the network. And I don't think that that is practical. What motivates people to kill themselves for a cause? Maybe it is more effective long term to attempt to defuse those motivations sufficiently that people no longer feel so strongly about them that they are prepared to die for them.
Re:I guess you deserve neither so quit complaining
chaoticset on 2003-07-11T20:32:48
It could be argued that this is essentially a "last 5%" kind of problem -- that there's a great bulk of things handled by the imperfect system, and that making the system perfect requires a huge amount of expenditure of some form.Witness: There are problems, of course, and random violence and whatnot in many places. But on the whole, people are (forgive me) benevolent, if not necessarily all that bright. Most people walk around not knowing any better and not being able enough to exact vengeances against anybody past throwing dog turds in their neighbor's mulch.
Instead of allowing a large section of the population to carry on, the government is desperate to stop the small minority, and is willing to sacrifice much of the abilities of the large section to do so. Whether or not the large section is truly willing to let it happen remains to be seen.
Keep in mind what happened to Caesar. The populace and the power structures involved generally prevent your garden-variety dictators from getting so far that the system becomes completely unhinged.Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor...it both emboldens the blood and narrows the mind. And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch, when the blood boils with hate, and the mind is closed...the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar.Politics will continue. The economy will continue. Life will continue. Technology, most of all, will continue. These things may change in quality/speed of progress/etc., but they cannot be stopped by a few jerks in high official positions, or even a small-scale totalitarian regime.
Re:What was will be again
chaoticset on 2003-07-11T19:59:36
True -- but there was a time when government officials could be trusted to attempt to let people have their privacy.This assumes facts not in evidence, that we have always had a significant amount of privacy from the government.Not in my lifetime, sure, but still...
Re:What was will be again
pudge on 2003-07-11T21:25:22
True -- but there was a time when government officials could be trusted to attempt to let people have their privacy.
When was this? I think you have us confused with some other country...
