Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

[Tanner Lovelace <lovelace AT wayfarer.org>]

James Dasher said the following on 3/9/04 8:17 PM:
> On Tuesday, Mar 9, 2004, at 16:34 US/Eastern, Christian Stalberg wrote:
>
> > see http://www.bordc.org
> >
> > To date seven local governments in North Carolina have passed USA PATRIOT
> > Act resolutions, including Carrboro, Chapel Hill, Davidson, Durham, 
> > Durham
> > County, Greensboro, and Orange County.
>
>
> Why did they pass these resolutions?
>
> Yes, yes, the PATRIOT Act reduces our freedoms and consigns us all to 
> miserable servitude under the auspices of the Great Leader and his 
> Revolutionary Cadre.
>
> Neo-commie sarcasm aside, what does the Act do besides allow the things 
> the FBI and others have been doing legally for decades - wiretaps, etc. 
> - to take place in a post-AT&T-break-up world?  (That would be 1984, the 
> year communications fragmentation and proliferation got the chance to 
> take root and blossom.)
>
> Library records?  Though the power to search them is there, I am not 
> aware of a single instance in which the power has been used.  Similarly 
> with other provisions that heralded the demise of the republic (though 
> the roving wiretaps and other things have, I understand, been used).
>
> I don't like wiretaps or other infringements on my privacy, either.  But 
> we don't really have a right to privacy - else things like environmental 
> regulations, civil rights legislation, income redistribution programs, 
> etc., couldn't take place or be enforced.
>
> Anyone?  Anyone?  Bueller?  (To revisit a recent joke....)

Take a look at this piece by Bruce Schneier:
http://news.com.com/2010-1028-5150325.html

And, to wet your appetite a bit, let me quote one paragraph:

  Security is a trade-off. It makes no sense to ask whether a particular
  security system is effective or not--otherwise you'd all be wearing
  bulletproof vests and staying immured in your home. The proper question
  to ask is whether the trade-off is worth it. Is the level of security
  gained worth the costs, whether in money, in liberties, in privacy or in
  convenience?

When the police (in this case the FBI, etc...) think of security,
they obviously think about it from a police standpoint.  This is
a narrow perspective.  If followed to it's logical conclusion, it
will end up with a police state where the police have all the power
and the people have none.  I personally don't want this so I think
it should be stopped now.  At the very least, there should be an
informed debate about security measures.  For the PAT-RIOT Act
(it is an acronym after all, let's call it for what it really is),
there was no debate at all.  The justice department basically went
to congress and said "the sky is falling, you have to vote this
into law.  If you don't you're a traitor and will let the terrorists
win."  There was no debate at all besides a cursorary one.  This
deserves a hard look at it, one taken with sober reflection, not
under panic situations.

Oh, and btw, one of the reasons why you haven't heard about any
library searches is that under the PAT-RIOT Act it's illegal for
the librarian involved to tell anyone.  Even their boss.  With
no judicial oversight involved in this, those "searches", at the
very least, should run afoul of the "unreasonable search and seizure"
amendment.  But, no one can test it because if they do they'll be
arrested and charged with violating the PAT-RIOT Act. Why do you think
librarians are shredding lending records?  That should be a clue that
something isn't right there.

I could go on, but it's late.  I highly recommend reading more
stuff by Bruce Schneier.  He's got a unique perspective on
security, knows it well, and isn't caught up in the political
rhetoric flying around these days.

Cheers,
Tanner
--
Tanner Lovelace       | Don't move! Or I'll fill ya full of... little
lovelace AT wayfarer.org | yellow bolts of light! - Commander John Crichton