Lessig Predicts Cyber 9/11 Event, Restrictive Laws 479
A number of readers are sending in links to a video from the Fortune Brainstorm Tech conference last month, in which Lawrence Lessig recounts a conversation over dinner with Richard Clarke, the former government counter-terrorism czar. Remembering that the Patriot Act was dropped on Congress just 20 days after 9/11 — the Department of Justice had had it sitting in a drawer for years — Lessig asked Clarke if DoJ had a similar proposed law, an "i-Patriot Act," to drop in the event of a "cyber-9/11." Clarke responded, "Of course they do. And Vint Cerf won't like it." Lessig's anecdote begins at about 4:30 in the video.
Just wait ... (Score:4, Insightful)
And that would basically mean the death of I.T. (Score:5, Insightful)
remember what happened to u.s. tourism after that patriot act shit was dropped in the congress ? u.s. tourism sector NEVER recovered from it.
excuse me but the rest of the world cant take that kind of shit from u.s. again. if that happens, we all will just create another internet, complete with its root dnses (possibly in brussels), and get done with it. and then u.s. broadband, backbone providers can shove the fibers they laid in those senators asses. because they will be good for only doing that afterwards.
Re:Just wait ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Which will hopefully, in turn, force us to create a better network. And perhaps we can start again and this time try to avoid Eternal September.
Think so? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Would this be enough to make us move? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Just wait ... (Score:2, Insightful)
Port 443 is *already* effectively blocked for anyone who isn't centrally approved. Have you seen the error message you get in IE or Firefox when you try to visit a site with a self-signed certificate?
And that would mean the death of I.T. Outsourcing (Score:3, Insightful)
Anonymous Coward (Score:4, Insightful)
Fear makes people more likely accept restrictions on their freedoms, news at 11.
I'm a brit, born in the seventies. The IRA was part of my life.
Way, Way, Way back before 911 us brits lived with terrorism on a daily basis. Terrorism that was funded via NORAID.
My grandfather nerely died in the early 60s from an IRA bomb in the centre of London during a national exhibition.
In central London, for as long as I have known we have never had refuse bins on our underground system, the reason being 'because if we did, the IRA would put bombs in them'
wtf is going on here?
I can't believe how low we have fallen. Why is the current threat any different from the old threat from the IRA that we faced. (that our friends in the USA funded)
Fsckwits
Re:And that would mean the death of I.T. Outsourci (Score:5, Insightful)
There would be more I.T. security (contract) jobs; someone has to implement the new restrictions.
And in fascist police states, selling jackboots to jackboot-less thugs is a growth sector. The jingle in the pocket doesn't make the boot stamping on a face forever any more palatable.
And, oddly enough, we'd probably still outsource bootmaking. Cuz, you know, face-stomping has to be cost-effective to maximize shareholder value.
Lots of docs, lots of speculation (Score:5, Insightful)
One major political function of these plans is to have PR: look like you can command decisively and keep the population confident in your abilities. Another is to be able to turn these disasters into an opportunity to pass legislation/budget that the people would normally choke on. GWB played both these cards really well.
Re:Encryption (Score:2, Insightful)
Anyway, when this becomes an issue (trust me, it's a 'when'), who signed the certificate will be totally ignored, because the only way to get a certificate that isn't self-signed would be through the
Re:Just wait ... (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually, no it won't. How are we gonna organize to fight back if our phones are bugged and our email is rinsed through the NSA/ATT?
Naw, Chris, this little coup has been in the works a long time. As the article said, that execrable "Patriot Act" was on the table long before 9/11, which only made it convenient for the little pissant tyrant in the White House (may he burn in Hell).
We've got to head this BS off before it can happen. Fortunately, we have an opportunity to do that in November, this year. I was at the UofC when Barack Obama was a Constitutional scholar there. There are only a handful of people in this country who know the Constitution better than he does (read his articles from the Law Review). And from what I hear, he's a lover of freedom and a true believer in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. If we put him in the White House, we stand a fighting chance to turn this thing around.
Plus, having a young black president will make the jackoff racists' heads explode, which will make for some great entertainment for the next 4/8 years.
Cyber 9/11? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Just wait ... (Score:4, Insightful)
in a free government, that which is common is legal
On that basis (and many others) the US, UK, Canada and all other "free" nations seem to be heading down the road to tyranny.
Re:Just wait ... (Score:1, Insightful)
The only solution to that will be steganography -- sending packets that are valid HTTP, say, but have subchannels encoded into them. The ISPs can't block those, since their scanners will say its 'allowed' traffic. Usable bandwidth will suck, but there's a tat for every tit, so to speak.
The postal service in centuries past had to go so far as to refuse free postage for newspapers, as people started using them for sending free letters to each other by poking little holes above the letters in articles to encode messages. But I don't think the ISPs can afford to refuse HTTP traffic altogether.
Re:Just wait ... (Score:5, Insightful)
vote for Barack Obama, goddamn it (Score:4, Insightful)
At least then we stand a fighting chance of not losing the rest of what once made this country great.
No, I'm voting for Bob Barr [bobbarr2008.com]. Between McCain and Obama I'd vote for Obama, add Hillary to the ticket though and I'd vote for McCain if his running mate isn't too bad. If there wasn't another person running, but there is. McCain scares me but not as much as Hillary does.
We've got a lot of knuckleheads who still need it spelled out for them, thanks to our corporate media and Republican party that likes to manipulate the weakest minds with ugly racism and sexism.
On the other hand there's the Democratic Party, and the mass media that supports it, that wants to turn the country into a nanny state.
For those of us that DO live in the US, remember, nothing short of a landslide victory for Obama is going to keep the tin-pot dictators of the GOP out of the White House this time.
Yea, who needs the tin-pot, or socialist dictators, when you can have liberty instead by voting for the Libertarian candidate?
Falcon
Have you read it? (Score:2, Insightful)
I want you to read the "PATRIOT Act" before you try to discuss it with me.
It's Public Law 107-56, easy to find, and not a difficult read.
I want you to tell me, specifically, what sections you disagree with, and why.
For the record, I have a few problems with the surveillance provisions, but it is a bigger problem that people who have not even read the Act, make comments about it as if it is somehow the source of all evil in the government. Such talk only serves to complicate things for those of us who take anti-government positions on various issues. And few of the pundits on either side of the argument seem to have much of a grasp on what the PATRIOT Act does or does not contain.
Re:Cyber 9/11? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:vote for Barack Obama, goddamn it (Score:4, Insightful)
Seems like people on /. always complain about the two real political parties being the exact same, but never care about it enough to make anyone else care about it.
Voting for someone who shares your opinion on an issue not many people have an opinion on is a step in the right direction, but it's a small one. The real way to get it done is to get a canidate who has a fighting chance to endorse that position.
With stuff like this, writing letters to the editor to raise public awareness are more effective than voting for a canidate who may or may not reach the double digits in the election. There are basically three groups who are interested in restricting the internet: idiot moral nannies, people who work in national security and want you to not think outside the box, and telecoms. All of them are doing more than voting to push their political agendas. What are you doing to counter that? If you're doing nothing besides voting and complaining, you're taking the choices someone else gave you, and shouldn't be suprised when
Re:Anonymous Coward (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't believe how low we have fallen. Why is the current threat any different from the old threat from the IRA that we faced.
Simple: Marketing. Your fascist pricks in the 70s didn't go to the same cut-throat business schools as our fascist pricks in the 00's. Our modern fascists are vastly more educated in the art of enhancing and capitalizing on irrational fear.
Re:Just wait ... (Score:1, Insightful)
And how are you going to wire that "last mile" for everyone?
With shovels, if we have to. Wireless if shovels are not an option.
Re:Anonymous Coward (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, Islamic militants are more than a bit less reasonable than the IRA was. I'm not saying the IRA were/are nice people or something, but compare and contrast 1970s IRA leader Martin McGuinness [youtube.com] (that video is him being interviewed by renowned interview-asshole Jeremy Paxman...) and Bin Laden, say.
Simple test: If the USA and Britain pulled out of the Middle East tomorrow, would Islamic terrorism stop? Hell no. The very existence of western scientific rationalism is a threat to those people. If Britain pulled out of Northern Ireland, would the IRA terrorism have stopped? Yes, duh.
The IRA just wanted Northern Ireland under Irish rule rather than British. That is all. They didn't want to convert the world to extreme forms of Islam, bring down allegedly-freemason-run western capitalism (well, they tended to be left-wing, but not completely crazy), or any of that nonsense.
Re:Just wait ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Keep in mind, our Democratic Congress apparently doesn't mind rubber-stamping this shit. Even your precious Barack Obama voted for telecom immunity.
Congress is another series of elections all together.
Keep in mind, the Executive branch has relatively EQUAL power to the full Legislative branch, and judicial branch.
That means it is VERY important to care about who is president, and then who he appoints to the supreme court.
Congress, with all those people involved, are the other third of the effective powers. My point? Pointing at partisan or general flaws/concerns in congress, as a response to flaws/concerns over the presidency, is probably a moot point.
We can all make a direct effect on the Executive at the same time, collectively. But when focusing on the legislative; a guy living in northern california isn't about to change the election of congressmen in Utah, is he?
Re:Just wait ... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not sure it will happen, but can someone mod parent up at least a half point? I'm not sure Obama is much better than our other choices either, and i donated to his campaign!
Now I understand that "we need to win this one" in a sense. However, I received a call from an Obama fund raiser the other day. I listened calmly to what she had to say and answered her questions (loaded for 'yes' of course). I then proceeded to explain to her that Obama voted for the FISA bill which gives the Telcos retroactive immunity after those companies explicitly broke the law and ignored the 4th Amendment. I told her that Obama has either switched directions on his policies or extended them in a nonsensical way and with what seems like little interest for Americans. I told her that I could not in good conscience vote for Obama, and that I hoped she would research who she supports. She seemed a little crestfallen and stuttered, "Well, oh... I'm really sorry to hear that..." and I said goodbye.
When the ideas Obama starts talking about seem to make very little economic sense (he's against Nuclear power, for instance, or that he wants to release oil from the strategic reserve, or that he wants to have another economic stimulus program) then there's something wrong. It quickly starts to sound like a Democratic Dubya, with a blue hand up his ass instead of a red one. Alarm klaxons scream inside my head and it becomes very tough for me to believe the man.
I just don't know what to do. Who am I supposed to vote for? Voting for an independent does little good. Most of them have even less sense than the current candidates. It may sound ludicrous, but sometimes I get the sinking feeling that the game is already over and it could require a lot of blood and sacrifice to win back the freedoms we've already lost.
Just my two cents, though.
Re:Obama (Score:3, Insightful)
> Yes, necessary and proper and the commerce clause among others.
No. Don't even try the commerce clause. And forget necessary and proper as that is literally a unlimited license to legislate. Consider that the 9th and 10th Amendments were added after and thus superceed. And they explicitly say any power not spelled out is forbidden to the Federal Government.
> Because the constitution says that the Supreme Court gets to
> interpret the law, not you, not Obama and not some random
> congresscritter from Texas.
No, that was just a bad Star Trek episode you are thinking about. The "e plub neista" isn't just for Chiefs and Sons of Chiefs and it isn't just for Supremes to hand down from on high. The Constituition is a remarkably well written document that should be understandable by anyone with a basic compentecy in English. The Courts are indeed required to rule on corner cases, complex interractions between laws and various levels of government, etc. But any fool can see where the Socialists have been wiping their asses on the Constituition. And frankly it is about time we loudly and clearly called them on it, and if that doesn't work use our 'sporting goods' to add extra emphasis. While we still can.
> Are you one of those idiots who think the income tax isn't valid too?
Although some do make arguments that that Amendment wasn't properly ratified, questions of that nature ARE within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and we have to abide by their rulings or declare a Revolution. Not quite ready for THAT. :)
Re:Just wait ... (Score:0, Insightful)
You want to tell me that John McCain, with his hawkish militaristic background, will even blink at listening to the NSA guys when they tell him they have to shut down the internet, or more likely, turn it into network television?
You want to tell me that the little naif that things putting huge taxes on oil companies would make gasoline cheaper for the working class could even spell NSA, much less understand how it works?
You're an utter dumbass if you think US military personnel aren't fully aware of its responsibilities under the US Constitution.
I hate to break the news to you, but the biggest threat to personal liberty are do-gooders who want to give the government all kinds of money and power "for the good of the people". No government on the face of the earth cares about the "good of the people", all they care about is the "good of the government".
And Barack Obama's no fucking different. At least with McCain you know he's not going to play weathervane to the political winds like Obama does. Shouting "Change!!!" and running to the front of a bunch of lemmings streaming off a cliff isn't leadership.
PS - How's all that power and money FDR gave to the US government serving us, bright boy?
PPS - I can't wait for the campaign commercials about Barack Obama featuring Jackson Browne's songs come out - "Running on empty...."
PPPS - I am SO going to laugh my ass off at basement-dwelling sheltered twits like you when Obama's writings from, say, 1996 to 2004 in The Hyde Park Herald and the Chicago Defender finally come to light and demonstrate that Jeremiah Wright was no anomaly and Obama's winds up getting crushed.
Re:Anonymous Coward (Score:5, Insightful)
It's really simple - very few people appriciate something they've always had and never had to fight for. I've never had my civil rights violated, I've never feared the government would come and arrest me if they didn't like me. If someone started to blow up people like me, getting the choice between liberty and security (even if that was an either-or) would be a lousy option. I'd like to turn back time to when I was neither restrained or in danger so I can have my cake and eat it too.
The fall to totalitarianism is a slow one, despite a few things pointed out here and there I don't think we're quite in DDR with STASI and Gestapo just yet. Do you really understand what it means to be without your civil liberties if you haven't experienced it? The founding fathers knew what it meant. Those who fought in the american civil war too, but they are long dead and buried. Yes, I know soldiers went and died in WWII and Korea and Vietnam and Iraq and whereever, but the US people hasn't lived with occupation, war or oppression for close to 150 years now.
I don't claim to be a stellar example, I have some second-hand understanding from talking to people that lived through WWII and the nazi occupation. But I think I at least got a glimpse of what it means not to have the rights I take so for granted. Almost the entire bill of rights is about protecting the people from the government. I really do not think people understand what they do when they insist the government protect them from terrorists, which obviously hide among the people. It seems all good sense of why the government was chained in the first place has been thrown overboard.
Bob Barr? (Score:3, Insightful)
You're worried about a nanny state so you want to vote for Bob Barr? The guy wants to control your bedroom and your religion.
The Libertarian Party would not have chosen Bob Barr as it's candidate if he still wanted control. He himself said he was wrong and now opposes government control. I once opposed him but now I can support him. Of course, as with all other politicians, he needs to be monitored.
He led the fight to try and get the Army's first Wiccan Distinctive Faith Group disbanded (he lost that one).
During the 2000 campaign Bush [positiveatheism.org] went so for as to say Wicca wasn't a religion "I don't think that witchcraft is a religion. I wish the military would rethink this decision." I'm not one myself but I have studied it and have friends who are Wiccans. Several years ago I probably gave my sister a shock, she's a Christian even though she doesn't act like one all the tyme, when she asked me if I wanted to join a church and I said I was thinking of joining a Wiccan Coven.
Add tot hat the fact that the Libertarians would demolish the what little control the government still exercises on Corporate America
Corporate libertarians [pcdf.org] perhaps. However: "B7. What would libertarians do about concentrations of corporate power?" [catb.org] Libertarians oppose the power corporations wield. Many corporations got their power by monopoly and Libertarians oppose monopolies. Corporations also offer stockholders limited liability, and Libertarians would end that thus making stockholders liable for actions the corporations take. It's Democrats, and others, who spread such lies that Libertarians would allow corporations to get away with whatever they want.
Falcon
Re:Think so? (Score:3, Insightful)
what happens if ISPs are ordered to block all encrypted packets for which the DHS doesn't hold the keys in escrow?
Not gonna happen. This would be insanely computationally expensive. Real-time DPI hardware for an OC-192 link costs about $10K (IIRC), and that's just for unencrypted packets. Checking against a list of RSA, AES, etc. keys for each connection would require an astronomical amount of computing power, and that's just for one backbone.
Re:vote for Barack Obama, goddamn it (Score:2, Insightful)
You're right about Bob Barr, but the whole "what little control the government still exercises on Corporate America" comment made me laugh.
The United States government has a lot of control and regulations on corporations. If you don't think so, then you really have no idea how the system works, at all.
Anyway, quit making corporations be the great big boogeyman and take responsibility for your own damn life. Don't like what a business is offering? Don't go there. Sounds too simple, doesn't it? Essentially, that's as simple as it needs to be; all control businesses has over the lives of people is either because of government contracts or deals or the fact they mass action willingly has handed it over to them (and isn't that the most democratic thing of all?) through purchasing the services or what have you.
Re:Just wait ... (Score:2, Insightful)
No, the internet as YOU know it will be dead. Not every internet user lives in USA. Your country will likely become much like China, either you follow the rules or you find tho tolls to get around it. My guess is that if such a "iPatriot" act were to be passed much of the high tech industry would just leave USA for other countries with less restrictive laws. I personally live in Canada so what happens in the USA does have a certain effect on me, at least until we can get that idiot Harper out and fine a government with the balls to stand up for itself.
what a narrow vision (Score:3, Insightful)
i hate to break it to you but an isolated economy cant survive. u.s. i.t. sector wont be able to live only doing small time automation websites/intranet bastardizations to mid size manufacturers. because thats what you will be reduced to when cut from rest of the world.
Re:Just wait ... (Score:4, Insightful)
It isn't just people in their private lives; it's also corporations. You know, the ones that own the government? They like the freedom of the Internet and the ability to communicate securely and freely, because it helps them make money. They've already moved their taxable income to other countries. They can take their servers elsewhere easily if they want. It probably wouldn't take them too long to move the jobs, too, if they had to.
It's not just like they could let big business have exceptions or poke through with VPNs. Countless small businesses fuel the high-tech economy, too, and start up from practically nothing. Think they don't have any clout? What about the investors and banks that profit off of their growth? Some of them are pretty big, and would certainly have mouthpieces in Congress.
Re:Just wait ... (Score:5, Insightful)
In most revolutions the person or group willing and able to exert the most violence will rise to the top. Thus violent revolutions tend to lead to Dictatorships.
Only an extremely few dictators will promptly relinquish their power to the people.
This is why so many communist countries are actually dictatorships - because Marx put violence in the Communism "implementation plan".
While you have some semblance of democracy you should fix things by voting.
Most of the US people still have the vote (diebold notwithstanding, and for some strange reason many convicted felons don't get to vote).
Given Bush was _reelected_ it is clear to me that the voters do not really object to the policies of the ruling government. Do significant numbers actually vote for some 3rd party in desperation? No.
If people are dissatisfied with both parties they should "throw away" their vote on some other party, rather than keep throwing it at Twiddledum and Twiddledumber. If those votes start to add up, T & T may notice, and so those votes aren't really "thrown away".
Anyone trying to spark a revolution in a somewhat democratic country "for a good cause" is doing the wrong thing.
Re:Anonymous Coward (Score:5, Insightful)
The terror back then was aimed at you, a person. The terror of today is aimed at high finance and business.
The IRA (together with ETA and Hammas and all the other "old school terrorists") weren't interested in hitting some high profile targets. They just blew up their bombs in trash bins, in (school) busses, in pubs, all places a high profile target (i.e. some rich person) can easily avoid, since the target was the common man. The idea behind terror, you should fear it.
Today's terror has higher aims. There's a reason those planes hit the towers and not some apartment complex. The target was commerce. When a schoolbus explodes, nobody that counts cares. It hits you, your kids, but never him. His kids go to a private school and he has someone drive them there. When his buildings collapse and with them his business, it does hurt him, even if he himself doesn't get hurt, but even that's no longer out of the question since he is the target.
See the difference, and why one is important and the other one isn't?
Re:Obama (Score:3, Insightful)
> It's not *my* interpretation that matters here, nor is it yours.
You are free to think as you will, please don't presume to make you lack of self confidence binding upon me. I can read and no amount of argument will ever convince me that the Supreme Court hasn't usurped it's legitimate authority. They do not have the power to amend the Constituition. So far they have removed the 1st, 9th and 10th Amendments entirely and came within a single vote of removing the 2nd. They are outlaws.
At this point I'm still petitioning my government for a redress of grievences hoping for a miracle because revolution isn't even much of an option anymore.... a nation fit for self government wouldn't have allowed things to get this out of hand.
Re:Anonymous Coward (Score:3, Insightful)
Doesn't make general sense, though. When I look at the recent development in Poland, it's not much different from the development in other countries. Now, the Poles at least should remember the times of a lack of personal freedom, injustice and standing up against an oppressor. They should remember the times of Jaruzelski [wikipedia.org] and Solidarnosc [wikipedia.org]. It's only been about 20 years for crying out loud!
Re:And that would basically mean the death of I.T. (Score:3, Insightful)
Only if other countries don't pick up the "great idea" and run with it. If the Patriot Act told us something, they easily do.
Re:Just wait ... (Score:4, Insightful)
The Constitution disagrees with you. From Article VI, Clause 2:
The Bill of Rights are a part of the Constitution, and hence they are law. They are neither statutory nor regulatory law, and hence do not spell out all the details of what is and is not allowed, but they were never intended to perform that function. Their purpose is to provide a framework within which statutory and regulatory law may be constructed.
Re:Cyber 9/11? (Score:4, Insightful)
Around here Item #1 requires the guy who is already there 7x24 to double check - yawn
90% of traffic lights are not internet linked - they are dumb mechanical timers - kinda hard to cyber that
P25 - go to talk around mode
Overload the transformers - way easier said than done, but when that usually happens, a breaker pops, you lose a substation - OK, they find the short, away we go
Re:Richard Clarke (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not Obama fan, but, really.....are you that concerned about a terrorist attack?
I'm really not...I feel I have less a chance getting clipped by a terrorist attack, than I am about having my own continuously paranoid government infringing on my rights and privacy here in the US. I feel most of the things they have been doing, are highly misdirected....why aren't they concentrating more on shipping containers and the like where a nuke might likely come in? Stuff like that, rather than impeding my right to travel without a RealID, or strip search before getting on a plane, etc....
You have selective memory when it comes to a-holes (Score:5, Insightful)
I remember the War on Drugs (marijuana) was kicked into high gear when Clinton got a general to be his drug czar. Arrest the DOUBLED to the 750,000 a year level they are at now.
I remember then a-hole supreme Clinton haveing the gall to tell Rolling Stone when he left that we should legalize marijuana.
I remember the DMCA, COPA and the democrats giving radio to their buddies at Clearchannel.
I remember that teh democrats last time around bombed more countries than the US. The WMD lies were just as big in kosovo if not bigger since the democrats supported and trained the LARGEST and BEST ARMED terror group in the world according to you own CIA, the albanians drug lords who control the majority of the heroin trade in europe.
I remember seeing wanted criminals from INTERPOL sitting have coffee with our secretary of state. Same wanted terrorists ended up going to the democratic convention in 2004 to pay hommage to their benefactors.
I remember that Bin Laden and thousands of his muhajeddins were working on our side in Bosnia (where we vetoed the first four international peace plans that the two other groups had agreed to) and finding it amusing that no one remembered taht a few yaers later.
I remember working in europe about 10 years ago and seeing 450,000 people in the streets of Athens protesting Clintons visit. I remember a protest march in Rome that had 120,000 protesting the illegal war/bombings in the Balkans, with the news showing the same amount all over europe and the world but no reference of these in our free press.
I remember the two Clintonista women going on their tour of Saudi Arabia clutching their korans
while the Saudis were lavishing their Bosnian muslims brothers with millions for their spread of islam in europe and financing the construction of hundreds of mosques.
I remember that following that prelude to the big lie in Iraq, 3 consecutive Al Quaeda leaders in Saudi Arabia were Bosnian Holy War vets. The last one coming with his bosnian muslim wife and passport.
I remember taht the only arrest for the Madrid bombing was a morroccan traveling from Bosnia or the dozens muslims arrested after 9/11.
I remember that Wesley Clark, a career weasel who got his position through massive forced retirements telling the world that bombing a smal country the size of New Hamphsire was to terrorize the civilians population and to make their lives miserable and a living hell. I remember thinking how fitting that this definition of war criminal was a democratic contender.
I also remember British General Michael Rose biography where he claims to have refused a direct order by Clarke to attack russian troops in Kosovo and that NATO supported him by not suporting any calls for punishment.
I remember secretary of Hate Madeleine Allbright and her belief that the death of hundreds of thousands of iraqui children would have been worth it had they had been able to capture Saddam.
You of course, chose to forget all these things because it is more convenient.
Are the republicans a**holes? Yes. But the democrats are no better. They just work the PR machine a lot better. And a black candidate is great PR. Will he be different he's black?
That's as stupid as that retarded thinking from a few decades ago that women in power would somehow be more compassionate.
Uncle Tom knows where the wind blows and who pays the bills.
Re:Just wait ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Except such a law is not absolute. The fact that you believe it is does nothing more than showcase your own ignorance.
The laws against theft are every bit as absolute as the Constitution. What it says is absolute, unless amended. There can be exceptions, but they have to be made law to mean anything. I can't just steal from the local Wal-Mart, and get away with it by claiming (as you ludicrously claim about the Constitution) that it's merely a guideline, and because I found a situation where (in my view) it's reasonable to have an exception, I can just ignore the law. There may well be a need for an exception, but that exception needs to be written into the law before I can utilize it.
As I said, it's not just my word against yours that the constitution does not constitute valid law- it is the entire history of jurisprudence.
It is not impossible for a great many people to be wrong, even for a very long time. I remind you that, until a certain point in our world's history, one could have made the same exact defense for the doctrine that the world was flat.
What a shockingly ignorant grasp of political theory. The constitution does not grant the power to create law; in fact, it does exactly the opposite. It is a self-imposed limit on the exercise of sovereign power.
Sir, it is you who displays a shockingly ignorant grasp of political theory, not to mention the history of the formation of the United States. While I won't go so far as to say that you're malicious (Hanlon's razor applies here), your misinformation is precisely what we must guard against, because the malicious will use that kind of thinking against us. I only hope that more people in our nation don't subscribe to the same bullshit, because if they do, our nation is doomed to slide into tyranny. It may not be in our lifetime, or even near our lifetime, but it will happen if enough people have this false belief that the constitution of a government is not binding upon it. It's only a matter of time.
much worse than 'no spark'... (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, it's even worse than 'no spark'. It's much worse than the idea that the majority of people supported Bush.
Both in 2004 and 2000, you had almost (within a couple of percentage points of, anyway) a 50-50 split. Which as some have pointed out, that's the sorta results you'd expect if a lot of people didn't really think that either outcome would make any difference. Like, if you had an "election" of "do you want person A or person B to be president of mars?" you'd probably see a similar result.
Rightly or wrongly, it suggests that people don't think that it'd make much difference if Bush or Gore had been elected. I got no love for Bush at all, but I don't think that given 9/11 events, that the patriot act would've been vetoed by Gore or something.
Given Bush was _reelected (Score:2, Insightful)
Bush wasn't reelected, Diebold gave him the election. Diebold's CEO even bragged he was going to give Bush Ohio's vote and Bush "won" because of Ohio's results.
If people are dissatisfied with both parties they should "throw away" their vote on some other party, rather than keep throwing it at Twiddledum and Twiddledumber.
Unfortunately the mass media makes out third parties as weirdos or on the fringe. Take Libertarians, most people thing Libertarians will allow corporations to run a muck and do whatever they want. However Libertarians actually hate monopolies [tunes.org], many large corporations got big by government granted monopolies, and would end the limited liability corporations get now.
Falcon
Re:Just wait ... (Score:1, Insightful)
In what country? Maybe in pre-9/11-America, but certainly not post-9/11-America.
Re:Think so? (Score:1, Insightful)
The real loss of freedom comes when you make it illegal for people to use unescrowed encryption. You can try to be cute with stenography and onion-routing your way past ISP firewalls, but what if it becomes illegal like in China? Would you risk a prison sentence trying to circumvent government restrictions? Even if you consider the odds of getting caught on par with getting sued by the recording industry, the penalty would be a lot higher. Thank god(s) we still have free speech and can go complain about these things.
Re:Cyber 9/11? (Score:2, Insightful)
9/11 came a lot closer than a lot of people want to admit to achieving that second goal. The world economy tettered on the brink of a total collapse for several weeks.
Jesus Christ, over-dramatic much? *Total collapse*?! Even if the entire city of New York had been nuked into radioactive glass the world economy wouldn't have come close to total collapse. You think the farmer milking his cows for my breakfast tomorrow is going to just give up and shoot himself because some financial market in the USA is no more? Give me a break.
The whole continent of North America could disappear into a black hole tomorrow and the world would go on. Sure, there would be massive disruption, stockmarket crashes, years of setback, corporate bankruptcies, bank runs, etc. But the world would go on and after 10 years you wouldn't even be able to tell.
And the most important financial city in the world, for your information, isn't even NYC - it's London.
America has less than 5% of the world's population. Sure, it has the largest concentration of wealth in a single country - for now. It's still the single most important country financially, but nothing like the titan it was even 10 years ago. Geeze, look outside the window once in a while, why don't you.
Microsoft's chronic insecuity could very well end up destroying our very Civilization.
I don't know exactly what type of drugs you're on, but here's a bit of advice anyway: take less of them.
Re:Just wait ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Fear. Wait for the government to start locking people up/bringing people in for questioning just based on their Internet browsing habits, then make sure everyone knows about it.
if you get to this point it's too late, they can just send anyone found to be using the new network to the gas chambers.
Re:Given Bush was _reelected (Score:3, Insightful)
Take Libertarians, most people thing Libertarians will allow corporations to run a muck and do whatever they want.
That's because that is exactly what would happen. Libertarian philosophy's end result is corporate domination of the individual. They can claim they believe otherwise, but "pure" Libertarian principles applied to today's society means corporate fascism.
BTW, the term is "run amok," not "run a muck."
Ohio Votes (Score:3, Insightful)
"Bush wasn't reelected, Diebold gave him the election. Diebold's CEO even bragged he was going to give Bush Ohio's vote and Bush "won" because of Ohio's results."
Diebold's CEO was speaking as a Republican political activist... he clearly meant that he and other party members in Ohio would help deliver the state through activism and campaigning, not through some black conspiracy. He'd be pretty damned stupid to make public statements that he'd conspire to cheat the vote, wouldn't you think? You don't think that if the Democratic National Committee had even a hint of real vote fraud that they wouldn't be fomenting bloody rebellion? Are you kidding me?