Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United States

Feature: US Govt & Invasion of Privacy 319

Posted by CmdrTaco from the stuff-to-think-about dept.
Dave Gudeman has submitted a feature on the subject of Invasion of Privacy. Specifically its talking about the recent govt plans to allow the govt permission to have backdoors into encryption applications, and in general just do all sorts of stuff that will make your blood boil (or maybe its just me because I'm halfway through Cryptonomicon:Neal you Rock)
The following was written by Slashdot reader Dave Gudeman

The US Government and Invasion of Privacy

by Dave Gudeman Have you read about the recent US Justice Dept. proposal for Congress to give law enforcement permission to sneak into people's homes and businesses to sabotage their encryption programs? If not at take a look. I hope that you will be as frightened and infuriated as I was. And that you will also write your congress people to tell them how you feel about it. I think turning down this proposal is not enough. The justice deptartment people who proposed it and who presented it to Congress should be fired and should never be allowed to work in law enforcement again. Letting people like that work in law enforcement is like letting pedophiles work in nursery schools. It's criminally irresponsible.

Maybe you are not concerned about this because you never expect to come under investigation. I don't either. I've never engaged in any network activity that is even on the fringes of legality. But I probably have and will correspond with people who are possible investigation targets. And the proposed legislation allows the government to sneak into _my_ home and sabotage _my_ encryption programs if the person I'm corresponding with is too hard to get to.

But that's not really the main point. The main point is that there are people in the US government who are worried about the fact that Americans are learning how to better protect their privacy using computer technology. They want to make sure they (the government) always have the ability, with a court order of course, to find out what you are up to. Is this such a bad thing? Shouldn't the government have broad investigative powers to help fight crime?

Yes. I think they should. I'm not a privacy nut or an anarchist. I'm not generally opposed to law enforcement or to legal searches or wire taps. I'm even toward the conservative side on some issues. For example I think court decisions that prevent the prosecution from presenting evidence against dangerous criminals just because of the way it was obtained are heinous. But, I'm completely opposed to any laws that limit the right of people to seek privacy in any way they want.

Let me ask what you think of the following scenarios: A lock company invents a new non-pickable lock. If you lose the key, the only way to get through the door is by removing the lock. The federal justice department is concerned that drug dealers and child molesters will use these locks to prevent law enforcement from sneaking in and bugging their homes. So they get Congress to pass a law that if you use one of these new locks, you have to keep a key on file at your local police station, to be used by court order whenever the government needs to sneak into your home.

Not chilling enough? How about a law that requires you to keep video cameras constantly running in your home with a feed to the local police station. The police are only allowed to monitor the camera with a court order. Maybe they want to find out if you are smoking funny-looking cigarettes or if you are reading _The Anarchist's Cookbook_ (which, by the way, isn't very good) or if you are planning anti-abortion demonstrations.

Is that outrageous? But that is essentially what the justice department wants to do with encryption. They want to make sure that they can read anyone's email without that person's knowledge, by requiring all strong encryption to come with a special key that is kept in the possession of a law enforcement agency. Anything you tell someone else in private, encrypted email could be used against you in court. Don't tell Grandma "I had to spank Johnie today because he won't quit biting his little sister" because someone may arrest you for child abuse.

The government tells us this is to stop "drug dealers" and "child molesters". What they don't mention is that it can also be used against drug users (who may themselves be more victim than criminal), harmless collectors of erotica (you don't always know what you are getting until it is downloaded, and even if you delete it immediately, you will never be able to prove that), tax protesters (the US government has a long and sordid history of violating the civil rights of tax protesters), drug legalization advocates (who are often also drug users), second amendment advocates (who might own illegal stuff), and anyone else who is involved activities the government wants to stamp out.

You think it's OK for the government to go after those people with whatever means possible? Congratulations, you are a part of the majority. People in the solid majority don't have to worry too much about government persecution. Are you sure it will always be that way? Fifteen years ago, cigarette smokers never dreamed that one day they would be social pariahs, that their suppliers would be under massive attack and that they would be forced to constantly struggle with legal barriers to engage in their habit. Are you a drinker? You think that prohibition could never make a come-back in this country? Are you religious? You think the constitution will protect you from the growing anti-religious sentiment in this country? It didn't protect blacks in the early part of this century, and it doesn't protect gun owners and tax protesters today. Do you like to drive fast? Have you heard the growing noises about "road rage" and noticed that all these new police being funded by the federal government to "fight crime" are out in patrol cars with radar guns? You never know when the majority will suddenly turn into rabid haters of _you_ and the government will suddenly be after _you_.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Feature: US Govt & Invasion of Privacy More

Feature: US Govt & Invasion of Privacy

Comments Filter:

  • This author hits many relevant points.

    At ompages.com [ompages.com] a group of volunteers is growing. We aim to make and implement policies and procedures to make all internet activity secure.

    We've moved passed the discussion stage and into the action stage. We seek to make internet technology secure, free of charge and advertisement. We are ae not-for-profit unincorporated association of hackers, admins, webmasters, and internet users dedicated to making all internet activity as secure as possible. We intend to proliferate computers and software at-cost and/or free-of-charge. If the government is moving now to control our technology, then the time to counteract their efforts is now. We must act now before laws are enacted that change the networking landscape. If enough of us use services like this, we will have enough of a voice with which to speak out against the adversarial governmental agencies at work to control our computers.

    Participate [ompages.com], do you need proof [ompages.com]?

    Take control of your network! Participating in ompages.com [ompages.com] may just change the world.

  • First they came for the Communists, and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a Communist.
    Then they came for the Jews,and I didn't speak up,
    because I wasn't a Jew.
    Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up, because I was a Protestant.
    Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me.
    -- Rev. Martin Niemoller (1945)

    Again (or is it still), we find ourselves in a society which demonizes unpopular segments of the population. Law enforcement demands the tools to deal with these demons, because they claim we won't be safe unless they can do whatever they want to fight "for our safety". If we give them what they ask for, and they are successful at wiping out the demons, they will pick a new group to be demons, maybe even a group you are a part of.

    Law Enforcement is supposed to be there to serve and protect. By supplying them with the right to spy and invade, they will feel they have the obligation to, and no longer serve or protect. This has been true throughout history, I see no sign that this is any different. They need to be limited.

    He who surrenders liberty for security deserves
    neither.
    -- Ben Franklin

    [Note, both quotes are found in many different forms, there is no authoritative version, please don't bother correcting me because the quote I gave doesn't match the way you heard it]

    ----

  • The Constitution only affords sufficient protection of individual rights when the insitutional framework it established operates as intended. When the courts and legislature are corrupt, as they are now, it falls upon the citizenry to resist government infringements on their rights individually and peacefully, then and only then, by the use of defensive force, if need be. Many Americans are already resisting by refusing to file federal income tax forms and/or caching "illegal" firearms (which are arbitrarily selected for prohibition based on their appearance or ammo capacity). Whether or not things escelate beyond that is up to the folks who gassed and burned the children in Waco, Texas. We kicked an empire square in the arse over taxes once before, we can do it again, if we have to.

    I still hope for peaceful change from the bottom up, and I think the Internet is playing a role in that change, that's why the government and their media machine fear it. I'd guess that they fear the Internet more than our firearms--it's difficult for them to get away with their shenanigans in the light of day. I just hope the Timothy McVeighs don't muck things up and start a war that no one can win.

    FWIW, what I find interesting is that the federales are using the same arguments against encryption that they've been using against the right to own and carry weapons since the Kennedy assasination--that all must suffer a diminution of their rights because of the infractions of a few. The same argument, that if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns, holds true for encryption, just as it does for all proscriptive laws. When a law prohibits a certain behavior, outlaws (who are by definition, law breakers) will continue the behavior while those who wish to abide by the law won't.

  • A nice, reasonable response. Thanks.

    There's no doubt things seem to be a little "calmer" up north. I don't imagine I'd be too worried about the bad guys if I lived in Canada. However, I live in a country where the cops are hamstrung by courts that routinely give murderers a slap on the wrist but slam people found guilty of the latest high-profile political crime de jur. Instead of going after dangerous criminals, our police departments spend their time going after easy money, like speeding tickets. People caught abusing weapons, like children taking guns to school or armed robbers, are rarely prosecuted to the full extent of the law, while the BATF stage no-knock raids on harmless weapons collectors and confiscate their weapons, often ruining them financially as a result and netting no improvement in public safety.

    What am I to do if I come face to face with an armed criminal who wants to harm me or my family and steal our property? Call the police so they can clean up my childrens' remains and take pictures? No, thanks. Blame whomever or whatever you want for the problem, but until things change, my little Glock 19 is going to stay right where I can use when need be, ready to rock n roll.

    There is an arms war, but it is not citizen against citizen. It is the citizen against those who should by all rights no longer enjoy the status of "citizen"--criminals, who should be imprisoned, yet are allowed to continue to enjoy the rights they take from others with impunity.

  • Try using the cc: or bcc: fields on your email client.

    (Free clue: most /. posters aren't even using *Microsoft* products, much less Office)

    Not flaming, just informing.

  • The things you attribute to Christianity are actually effects of Monotheism vs Polytheism *in general*, and are not specific to Christianity. Monotheism means only one god, and we humans have a hard time imagining that this one single god could be *that* involved in every single dinky little activity there is. We therefore start to picture a god that only gets involved in the really big things on a daily basis. For the smaller things, like how objects fall and how boats float, he makes up rules for them and then lets them run on their own most of the time. This attitude is an improvement over inventing a god for every dinky little thing, but that's not really saying much.

    Saying Chrisitianity is good for science because polytheism is worse is a bit like saying navy blue is a light color because it's not black.

  • Take the following miniature Mad Lib

    If ___________ are outlawed, only outlaws will have _________________. .plural noun . .&nbspsame plural noun

    There, you have just made a magical phrase that can be used to argue against every single law ever made at any time in any place.

    The gun advocates need to be more careful. Stop using such shoddy logic if you want to win people to your cause. This won't work. (Yes I know this wasn't about gun control, but you are borrowing their phraseology.)

  • It looks like it's time to write to your Congress(persons) and your Senators.

    I am going to take a little time to compose a well thought out and rational letter to my representatives (sp?).

    I think that all of us who choose to write in owe it to ourselves to stay as rational and composed as possible. What we (I) want is to be taken seriously. Coming off half-cocked and pissed off is only going to detract from the message and make us (oe "me" if I should act this way) look like a nut (or a criminal).

    It is sad how so many Americans have just gone along and allow the Federal Government (both Republican and Democrat) turn this country into a Police State.

    (Don't blame me, I voted for Alice Cooper.)
  • Well the idea of not allowing evidence in court
    is to make the search futile...so theoretically it
    protetcs a person from the search happening.

    Hows this. Give the prosecutor discretion on using
    the illegal evidence. If he does use it, then
    he and the officer who obtained it illegaly
    should be charged with "Conspiracy to violate
    the rights of a citizen" with a mandatory
    minimum sentance of 4 years. They should be
    charged whather the evidence wins the case or
    looses.

  • >I've never engaged in any network activity that
    >is even on the fringes of legality.

    Wow, you must be one bad mofo. ;)

    Yes, I know it was a typo. But I still found
    it amusing.

  • I have no desire to force everyone else to live according to my religion. However, I oppose efforts by those of other religions, including humanism, naturalism, and atheism, to force me to live by theirs.

    If atheism is a religion, then bald is a hair color.

  • Not only prosecuted, but condemmed to hell until 1994 when the Pope accepted that the Earth did in fact revolve around the sun and issued Galileo an official pardon.

    Well, at least they're quick to admit their errors. It took them only, what, 350 years to admit that the earth revolves around the sun. Can you understand why I don't want people like that having any control over my life whatsoever?

  • This suffers from the logical flaw that only things in favor of God are religious. If I say, "There is no God," surely it is as religious a statement as if I say, "There is a God." And surely the separation of church and state should prevent the state from requiring both the teaching of the former and the teaching of things which assume the former.

    My disbelief of your God is founded in lack of scientific evidence of same. If you want me to believe, then pony up the proof. I don't believe in anything that doesn't have some scientific basis. Sorry, but using that criterion, your God falls into the same category as Thor, Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, Zeus, and The Invisible Pink Unicorn.

    If you are going to claim that application of science in this manner is religious, then I'm thinking one of us doesn't know what "religious" means.

  • Points that need to be repeated over and over again until the unthinking majority realise why it affects them and start complaining too.

    But I think your lack of objection to the use of illegally obtained evidence is odd. Where the law is broken in regard to the rights of the person later found guilty some justify that on the grounds that they sacrificed their rights by breaking the law. This ignores the fact that at the time the police broke the law obtaining evidence the criminal was innocent.

    But what about when that evidence is obtained by infringing the rights of others? The cops need some tape of the drug dealers doing a deal, so they break into someone's house to set up a camera (no time to get a warrant). Don't know about you but I don't want police tramping around my house uninivted, thanks.

    And what if the police decide to just find the drug dealer's girlfriend and torture her until she produces incriminating photgraphs? Would you be happy to convict on evidence obtained like that?
  • "The government that was instated in 1776 has died long ago. "

    Well, yeah, I mean they'd be around 245 years old otherwise.

    Boy, these /. guys kinda state the obvious sometimes :_)

  • Would Canada even admit a barbarian like me who doesn't speak French?

    "The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
    -jafac's law
  • The problem with this "cure for the epidemic of sin" is that it needs to be applied to individuals, not governments.

    Giving people a reason to voluntarily obey God's laws is the job of the church, not the job of a police-state.

    If you read the Bible, somewhere in there, around Judges, Kings, Samuel, etc. is described a culture, God's chosen people, in their heyday of greatness, under the greatest leaders of their time, and even then, there was not 100% compliance to God's laws.
    Individuals sin, individuals are saved. Not entire nations.
    I think this is what most people resent, having a code of morality imposed on them that they may or may not agree with (how do you want to interpret scripture today?), and they know damn well that those in power and privilege will place themselves above the law anyway.

    If you want to save someone, you need to talk to their heart. Not put a gun to their head.

    "The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
    -jafac's law
  • hm. I guess that everything you need in your life is produced in your local area.

    You've never bought something that is either from, or made from parts that came from other parts of the country or of the world? How do you think your local stores get stuff to sell, or local factories (=local employment, =local economy) gets parts to assemble into finished products?

    I think you need roads, and you need to fund them. Otherwise, grab an innertube, and hop into the ocean and don't come back.

    "The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
    -jafac's law
  • The US has a de facto ID card system that goes beyond the flagrent abuse of Social Security numbers by private companies: try buying a pack of cigarettes, a six pack, getting into a bar, getting into an R-rated movie, without showing a driving licence or passport. In Massachusetts you can't even use a passport to buy a keg. For some reason the state thinks it's easier to fake a passport than a crappy laminated piece of plastic. The fact that we have the most expensive driving licences in the US might have something to do with it...

    Nick

  • Well I have heard that the US is a country founded on the lofty ideals of land theft, ethnic cleansing and slavery but I've always thought this a little harsh...

    Nick

  • I agree about the roads - why should I massively subsidise the interstate highway system when I don't even own a car? Let the people and companies who actually use the roads pay for them. That way I just pay for my indirect use of roads (transportation of goods that I consume). But I definitely object to paying for roads to allow suburbanite assholes to drive their SUVs full of their horrible, fat, spoilt offspring around Boston. If you want to come into the city, get off your fat, overgrown rear and WALK (or cycle, take the T etc).

    God, I hate suburbanites...

    Nick

  • Read my initial post, moron. Specifically the bit about indirect payment for road costs through the price of goods I consume.
  • This is so stupid - it's OK because they're all your friends, is it? Well they're not MY friends, now are they? I'm sorry, but while the majority of police and other court officers no doubt are Fine People it's really not unknown for ambitious cops, FBI agents or DA's to go too far in an investigation. A few cops were caught snooping into the database of a local drug-testing firm because hey, if they test positive we're going to stake out the house and bust 'em, right? It didn't matter to them that the data was supposed to be confidential medical information. When I was a kid people were routinely framed for drugs - they'd just palm some evidence from the last guy and drop it in your back seat. I've had cops come to my car door with their guns out supposedly because I had a taillight out. Did they need to have the guns out to tell me that? Or did my ratty old Honda and the long hair indicate terrorist leanings?

    Just wait and see how you feel when they cart away all your machines and shut down your bank accounts because you unknowingly correspond and exchange files with a pedophile they're watching.

    As far as the Founding Fathers go, the philosophy holds, even now. They were used to having British soldiers come to the door and take them away, so I don't think they'd be too quick to toss their beliefs (and our rights) over drug-dealers and pedophiles. Oh, and are we trying to stop people from making nukes in their garage? Is that a *real* risk?

    What percentage of the population do you think drug kingpins and pedophiles are that the govt should be able to bug everyone's house to catch them? What difference does it make if we're a "superpower"? It's OK to treat your citizens like residents of a gulag if you're a superpower? If we were the size of China, I'm sure we'd be taking Falun Gong members out for re-education too, all in the name of social stability.

    It's people like you that frighten me most.
  • They are doing this to protect us from terrorists and molestors. Its all to protect our children. Now the government is becoming the terrorist and they are going to rape and pillage our minds and property. We are the little children and government has a responsibility to police us, because there were a few criminals in the adult population. Something had to be done and laws were passed. Welcome to hell...

  • Power (Score:1)

    by Hacksaw ( 3678 )
    Washington is all about power. The Law Enforcement Establishment wants the power to do it's job. Their idea of the right amount of power is total control. If they can see every bit of communications between anyone, anywhere, they can control crime to a greater degree than they ever have before.

    The key-escrow encryption bill and the sealed warrant secret break-in bill are point of the infrastructure they need to achieve this power.

    They have other planks, as well. Read Title 18 of the federal statutes. There's some reading. It's possible to obtain a warrant for general seizure of assets on the suspicion (not any evidence) of Child Pornography. There is no requirement in the law for due process in getting seized goods returned. There is no requirement to even press charges.

    At some point you can expect the police to start conducting random identity checks. Those without proper ID would be immediately arrested, supposedly until their identity could be correctly established.

    Next we will have to swipe out ID through a scanner to purchase any of the currently legal vices, such as cigarettes and alcohol. Later you'll need to have your ID to get gas or ride interstate mass transit.

    These planks will give them Law enforcement agency the means to enforce the law more efficiently.

    Over time their power will grow, partly from "needed" additions to combat new crimes.

    Their power will grow to be close to absolute.

    And of course, power corrupts.
  • Hey, don't be bagging out the Invisible Pink Unicorn! It's been a great source of comfort whenever I start to think there could be a God, and TIPU pops into my head and I suddenly realise what a load of bullshit it all is. (Religions in general)
    Comics:
    Sluggy.com [sluggy.com] - Poing!
  • #1 overwhelming culprit is guns?

    *laff*

    It's TV you fool. Look at that thing. Idiot box is a nice way to put it. Country of fat lazy fuxs who jack in and are fed babble like what you just spit out.

    "The most overweight country on Earth." A CLUE maybe?

    Semiauto handguns have been around a long time. Longer than since the 1960s when the whole thing started going to hell. Which is right around the time TVs per household reached about 0.5.

    Just wake up for a minute, eh?

    -kabloie
  • I don't know how much you, personally, know about Southern Baptists, or just which churches and people you think are Southern Baptists, but I suspect most here may know very little and quite possibly be greatly misinformed. Practically any kind of Baptist church you can name is an independent institution, governed only by the local congregation. No state, national, or world level entity tells them what to do, picks their preachers for them, et cetera. Many of the traditionally black Baptist churchs are affiliated with the American Baptist Convention, and that's pretty much all that I know about them. Many of the traditionally white Baptist churches are voluntarily affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention, which traces its philosophical and spiritual roots back to early "Priesthood of the Believer" (decide for yourself what message God's word, i.e., The Bible, has for you instead of being told by Rome or London or whoever) advocates such as Roger Williams of Rhode Island or Delaware or thereabouts back in the Puritan Days. Although the Southern Baptist Convention came about as a result of the rift with Northern churches over slavery, by the 1950's the SBC and the average of the churches affiliated with it were far more "liberal" than most of the other Baptist churches in the South, which were often referred to as Freewill, hardshell, or Primitive. It is these latter churches that persons outside the South are usually thinking of when they say or hear "Southern Baptist". Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson were not Southern Baptists. In recent years the Southern Baptist Convention has been the object of a power struggle as Conservatives of the Falwell-Robertson "God wants a Republican Congress and Presidency" stripe have organized and gotten themselves into many of the more important and influential offices of the Convention, but for the most part the Convention and its affiliates have been strongly behind separation of church and state, continuing a tradition that stretches back well before the Revolutionary War. I will admit that this affinity for church-state separation is based a trifle more on the desire to keep government from controlling religion than the other way around.

  • Religious people aren't "banning the teaching of evolution." They are simply not requiring that it be a part of the curriculum; there's a radical difference. It is true and good that Christianity is not the state religion of the United States, but it is also true and good that naturalism isn't either. Evolution is only the best naturalistic explanation for the origins of human and other life. There are fundamental problems with evolutionary theory, such as the fossil record and the information content of single cells. The only reason evolution survives as a thory is that there are no better naturalistic explanations. That is, there are no better explanations that assume there are only natural causes. Assuming that there is no God involved is not the same as proving it. And requiring the teaching of a theory based on the assumption that there is no God is substantially equivalent to an establishment of naturalism and/or atheism as a state religion. As for the anti-religious sentiment; I'd say your post demonstrates that well enough. Christians and other religious people merely muster enough power to oppose the un-Constituional establishment of atheism/naturalism as the state religion, and you're worried about "anti-anti-religious persecution."

    In case you're worried that our children won't be learning enough science, I'd like to de-bunk the argument that Christianity is anti-science. Christianity is pro-science, where that menas natural science, and not naturalistic science. What follows is taken from a BreakPoint commentary I received by email:

    Many of the early scientists--Copernicus, Isaac Newton, Carl Linnaeus--were Christians. In fact, historians tell us that Christianity actually helped inspire the scientific revolution.

    Consider a few examples. Pagan cultures saw the world as alive with river goddesses, sun gods, astral deities. But Genesis 1 stands in stark contrast to all that. Nature is not divine; it is God's handiwork. The sun and moon are not gods; they are merely lights placed in the sky to serve God's purposes.

    This teaching provided a crucial assumption for science, for when nature commanded religious worship, then digging too closely into her secrets was deemed irreverent. But in Christianity, nature was no longer an object of fear and worship. Then--and only then--could it become an object of scientific study.

    Another crucial assumption for science is that nature is orderly. This, too, was provided by Christianity. The belief that God is rational and trustworthy implies that His creation is rational and ordered.

    The early scientists described that order as "natural law." Today this phrase is so common, we may not realize how unique it once was. Yet as historian A. R. Hall points out, no other culture has ever used the word law in relation to nature. The idea of laws in nature came from one source: the biblical teaching that God is both Creator and Law-Giver.

    Even the experimental method of science has roots in Christianity. Since it is God's rationality that orders nature, and not our own, we cannot sit in an ivory tower and do science by sheer rational deduction. Instead, we must do experiments and see what happens.

    For example, when Galileo wanted to find out whether a 10-pound weight falls to the ground more quickly than a one-pound weight, he did not argue about the concept of weight, as was typical among the philosophers of his day. Instead, he dropped cannonballs off the Leaning Tower of Pisa and watched what happened.

    The article was excellent. We need privacy for all the reasons Dave described, and you've provided a demonstration of how some of the sentiments can be so engrained in our society that people don't even realize when they hold those ideas or why people should be allowed to hold opposing ones.

    If you're a US citizen, please call or write your congressional representatives and ask them to oppose this legislation.

    Sincerely,
    Xandy Johnson

  • I disagree with the stance that the Catholic Church took toward Galileo. Persecution is bad, whether it is being perpetrated by individuals, governments, or religious institutions. That's why we need the protection of our privacy that Dave's article supports.

    As for the insinuation that Galileo's treatment is evidence that Christianity is anti-science, I thoroughly disagree. Galileo was also opposed by the scientific establishment of the day. Fear of change is common, and not limted to religious people. When Louis Pasteur began to champion changes in hospital practices to minimize the spread of disease by microbes, he was opposed by the medical community and branded a lunatic. But Pasteur has been shown to be right. Does this mean the medical community is also anti-science and anti-hygiene? Rubbish. The fact that some people from a particular community, at some times in history, oppose a particular idea is not evidence, for all time, that all people of that community are similarly disposed. The naturalists have no monopoly on science nor any right to the state establishment of their religion.

    Sincerely,
    Xandy Johnson

  • I have no desire to force everyone else to live according to my religion. However, I oppose efforts by those of other religions, including humanism, naturalism, and atheism, to force me to live by theirs.

    A lot of people think that when Christians evangelize they are trying to force others to their views. Sometimes this is true, and for that I apologize. However, many Christians are simply interested in sharing what they believe is the cure for the devasting epidemic of sin. If I were a doctor with the cure for AIDS and I didn't share it, I would be labeled as cruel. If I am a Christian and I don't share my faith, I'm guilty of the same thing. If people dismissed the claims of the doctor, it would be appropriate for him to deliver an empassioned plea, with evidence, in the hopes of saving their lives. In the end, for both the doctor and the Christian, the decision has to be left to the individual. When that doesn't happen, it is a bad thing, but please have some tolerance for the empassioned plea of someone who loves you enough to face your wrath because they believe they are vying for your life.

    Sincerely,
    Xandy Johnson

  • I find it interesting that in this "Age of Tolerance," bashing religious people is still acceptable. I don't believe non-religious people are (necessarily) stupid. Who's the tolerant one now?

    Sincerely,
    Xandy Johnson

  • > > Christians and other religious people merely
    > > muster enough power to oppose the
    > > un-Constituional establishment of
    > > atheism/naturalism as the state religion

    > It is impossible to establish a system of belief
    > which denies the existence of the beings that
    > form the basis of a religion as a religion
    > itself much less as a state religion!

    This suffers from the logical flaw that only things in favor of God are religious. If I say, "There is no God," surely it is as religious a statement as if I say, "There is a God." And surely the separation of church and state should prevent the state from requiring both the teaching of the former and the teaching of things which assume the former.

    Sincerely,
    Xandy Johnson

  • > What I jibe at is what seems to be an underlying
    > assumption: If I teach a theory that does not
    > require the existence of God, then I am teaching
    > that God does not exist. I have to say that
    > IMHO, that does not follow.

    I agree with your logic as you have stated it. I disagree that it is an acurate representation of my underlying assumption.

    I believe that evolution only holds up as a theory in the presence of the assumption that there are only natural causes, i.e. that there is no God. I realize that there are neo-Darwinists, but they're still holding to the conclusions drawn by Darwin, long after the assumptions and scientfic bases for his conclusion have been surpassed and overturned. For instance:

    • Darwin didn't have the benefit of electron microsocpes, so he and his contemporaries could only see things down to the level of about the cell, rather than to molecular or atomic levels. So, to him, a single celled animal seemed very simple, and thus it was believable that such a thing could be the basis for the beginnings of life. Similarly, at the level of gross anatomy that was available to him, it was reasonable to believe that advances could accumulate over time. However, we now know that information content of a single-celled organism is about as much as in a volume of the Encyclopeda Britannica (or maybe the whole set, but you get the point). If you just saw a white puffy formation in the sky that said, "Drink Coke," you'd say it was the intelligent design of a skywriter rather than a natural cloud formation, but neo-Darwinists want me to believe that an entire volume of the Encyclopeda Britannica just happened by random chance. I'd sooner believe that a tornado going through a junk yard could produce a 747.
    • Darwin believed in the inheritance of acquired characteristics, which modern genetics has disproven.
    • Darwin claimed the fossil record would bear him out, but on the contrary, rather than showing the gradual development of species that evolution would seem to predict, the fossil record shows both the sudden appearance of species (as in the Cabrian explosion), and stasis, rather than gradual change.

    The list of problems with Darwinian theory and neo-Darwinist synthesis goes on and on and on. But, it's hard to get scientific paper published if you say things like, "Genesis was right," and nobody has another naturalistic explanation, so the theory stands. A theory that only exists because supernatural explanations have been declared to be outside the rules can be said to oppose the existence of the supernatural even if for political correctness its proponents say that it does not.

    Neo-Darwinists say, "If you don't believe in evolution what's your alternative?" If I say, "Creation," I'm mocked mercilessly. While mocking may win the argument in front of a crowd, when those neo-Darwinists are intellectually honest with themselves, they'll realize that their belief in evolution and disdain for creationism arise in large part due to their underlying assumption that there are only natural causes. When that assumption is removed, another theory is capable of explaining more of the evidence.

    Sincerely,
    Xandy Johnson

  • I agree 100%! It's hard to tell, sometimes, in a post, but it sounds like you're saying this in disagreement with me. If anything I said contradicts what you've said in the above, I hereby retract it!

    However, I do disagree with some of what I believe you might be implying in the above. Are you implying that I or a significant number of Christians want a "police-state" or to "put a gun to your/their head" or to "impose a code of morality on you/them that you/they may or may not agree with"? In what ways do you see these kinds of behavior and attitudes? For the record, I want to state that I am categorically opposed to such things.

    Sincerely,
    Xandy Johnson

  • When someone insists on trying to convince me, they are being somewhat arrogant in assuming I haven't already thought the issue out for myself.

    Perhaps they're just excited about their faith, or perhaps they're merely hoping that you'll change your mind. Perhaps they're well intentioned, but have poor execution. Please make allowance for such things, and please don't make decisions about such important matters based on them. After all, from their perspective, there's a lot on the line.

    Have you ever tried to convince someone of the benefits of Linux and/or Open Source Software? Did you ever continue trying to convince them when they resisted, perhaps over several conversations? I have. I believe there are significant advantages to Linux and Open Source Software, and I believe the question of faith is far more important. I don't want to offend people, but I'm willing to risk that I might.

    Sincerely,
    Xandy Johnson

  • Perhaps it is a misuse of the word "religion" to say that atheism, humanism, or naturalism are "religions." However, I do believe that to say, "There is no God," is a religious statement. My point is that just as it is inappropriate for Christians to force their views on others through a state establishment of Christianity, so it is inappropriate for non-Christians to force their views on others.

  • I know someone who was investigated by the FBI (wiretapped and his neighbors questioned) for several reasons (mid 60s):

    1. He questioned the federal policy of continuing to work in a building which the state had condemned as unsafe in an earthquake.

    2. He started a union.

    3. He raised so much flack over LBJ's proposed "volunary" $100/month war bonds that it was withdrawn.

    It makes my blood boil to think of the sheer arrogance that someone has to have to think this activity makes you fair game for a full blooded investigation. As a human being, a relative, and even as a taxpayer, I resent this.

    Then there; sthe forged Martin Luther King Jr. tapes or letters (I've forgotten now). This government simply has a track record which makes them unfit for snooping, yet they are so focused on more and more big brother power. I imagine psychiatrists must have a name for their disease.

    --
  • We do have a lot of public cameras. They're in the city center of most major towns and cities now. I hate to put words in the mouth of the majority, but I don't think people here see this as a civil liberties issue. The cameras are actually quite popular because they make city centers safer, especially in places where there were a lot of fights at night.

    Personally I actually don't see the strong link most American libertarians make between privacy (especially in public places) and liberty.

    Yes the UK is as directly involved in Echelon as the USA. This is a Bad Thing. Our secret intelligence services are just as much a rule unto themselves as anyone else's.

    We also have a voluntary (but doubtless eventually essential) photo driver's license in the pipe. Once again I'm not sure this is a problem.

    Britain is a hard country to rate when it comes to things like this. I'm reluctant to hold it up as an exemplar of civil libertarianism, because we lack any written gaurantee of anything at all. OTOH we seem to have maintained a generally better record than almost any other large or medium sized power when it comes to domestic affairs. A puzzle. Possibly the fact that executive power technically lies with the legislature, and is therefore subject to public debate, has had something to do with it. If so, the fact this has been eroded over the last twenty (or two hundred) years is a Very Bad Thing.
  • The problem with arguing religion (as well as politics most of the time) is that someone has to be wrong. Not everyone can be right...the belief systems contradict that.

    Both parties can even be wrong. Both cannot be right, but will believe to the death that they are. Such is the nature of faith.

    It's a tender subject, and I've found that while many agnostics and atheists and even Buddhists/Taoists can adopt a "Live and let live" policy for their beliefs, most western (and some eastern) have a hard time with this, because, by nature of their theology, non-belief is heresy and punished by eternal burning, damnation, and wedgies in the gym-class of the afterlife.

    In short, it's an attempt in futility. Once someone has made up their mind on their belief system, it's a rare event that they change. It's like admitting to being sucked into a really bad scam.

  • I highly doubt that this country would drop a nuke on one of it's own cities. There are some fucked up politicians, but what soldier is going to follow THAT order? No way.



  • I just cant understand that you Amercans can take this 'Big Brother thing' without hitting back in some way! Just dont vote for those stupid politicians that are pushing for these no-crypto-and-total-control-over-the-people stuff!
    US and China is almost on the same level in controling the people.

    I thought they called USA the 'A free country' but i've must have heard wrong...

    It's feels great livning in Sweden times like this! ;-)
  • There are many organizations that want to save us from the epidemic of drugs, non-whites, or responsibility (yes it cuts both ways). I personally see these organizations as an epidemic that I sincerely wish to save others from. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

  • One thing I do find remarkable is that I've met a reasonably large number of people who describe themselves as "against religion" but are fascinated by religions such as Buddhism or Taoism. Does anyone have any insight as to why this is (it seems inconsistent to me)?


    They're not so much anti-religion as anti-theist. Taoism is totally non-theistic, being little more than a nature-oriented metaphysics. Buddhism is only quasi-theistic in that it does not worship Buddha, pays homage to several historical (as well as mystical) Buddhas, and believes any can attain Buddha status (Buddha is a title meaning "enlightened one"). This doesn't quite apply to the Therevada branch which is a bit closer to its Hindu origins, but that's going even further off-track...

    Atheism and Buddhism are quite compatible. But yes, there's also the poseurs who just like to be into something "eastern" because it's exotic and isn't so "western" (this division being a distinctly "western" view of the world, ironically enough).
  • > I can certainly envision a future where every packet you send must first be routed through the Fed's computer system before it's sent off to it's destination.


    Actually this was mandated years ago by a voice vote called the Digital Telephony Act. Requires phone companies to install enough ports for the FBI to tap from a central location as many phones as they want. Currently they want enough capacity to tap one home on every single residental block in America.

    Got any more fears I can assuage by showing you how they already happened?
  • You'd be neither the first nor last pro-choice advocate (assuming you are) who believes Roe.v.Wade was decided on a rather shaky interpretation of privacy rather than a firmer grounding in equal protection under the law. This is relevant to the privacy issue here, as it's the basis of civil rights cases against "profiling". The dragnet process of gathering evidence against a certain class of criminal (terrorists, drug dealers, etc) wherein suspicion (and thus monitoring) of every single contact is its own sort of profiling. Witness how open-ended investigations tend to creep (can we say "Monica Lewinsky"?)

    The 21st century will be marked by the word "privacy" entering the lexicon of newspeak, joining the ranks of "family values".
  • This isn't a reasonable hypothetical situation. After all, David Goodman would be shot twice in the back when he "attacked" the officers in his sleep. =)

    It's unfortunate that this holds enough ring of truth to be disturbing. :-( Let's not forget that if the ATF was involved several officers would lose their lives to friendly fire.

    Ethan

  • The only reason evolution survives as a thory is that there are no better naturalistic explanations.

    No, it's because scientists cannot find empirical, verifiable evidence that better supports an alternative theory. Scientists are empiricists, and results that are not repeatedly verifiable are not good enough to be accepted as "science".

    Many of the early scientists--Copernicus, Isaac Newton, Carl Linnaeus--were Christians.

    Many of the earlier ones weren't. And several scientists were considered heretical for their beliefs by the Christian institutions of their time ( including Copernicus ) The Christian states were firm believers *against* questioning the "official" beliefs , in stark conrast to the (Athenian) Greeks ( who were by and large atheistic relativists ).

    The idea of laws in nature came from one source: the biblical teaching that God is both Creator and Law-Giver.

    Plato conceptualised similar things around 400 BC. Aristotle went on and fixed a lot of the things that Plato screwed up. For example, Aristotle moved from the idea that the universe is based on an "ideal" form to the idea that one can model the physical universe based on ones observations ( ie Aristotle was more an empiricist, while Plato was something of a theorist. ) Other Athenians conceptualised things such as the "law of particles" ( ie existence of atoms ) even earlier.

    For example, when Galileo wanted to find out whether a 10-pound weight falls to the ground more quickly than a one-pound weight, he did not argue about the concept of weight, as was typical among the philosophers of his day. Instead, he dropped cannonballs off the Leaning Tower of Pisa and watched what happened.

    And boy, did that piss off the church of his day. Galileo was summoned before the inquisition and sentenced to life imprisonment ( after a lot of recanting and begging )

  • Neo-Darwinists say, "If you don't believe in evolution what's your alternative?" If I say, "Creation," I'm mocked mercilessly.

    Perhaps this is because the theory of creation is not backed up by enough scientific evidence to hold water. The imperfections that you point to in Darwain's theory pale in comparison to the flaws in the theory that creationists propose ( moreover, the limitations of Darwins observations and accuracy are not astounding when you compare him with other scientists of the same era, whose theories were also imperfect )

    It's not good enough for you guys to find flaws in the theory of evolution - because that theory being wrong doesn't make you right.

    For example, the fact that Newton's laws left a lot ( ie reletavistic phenomena ) unexplained would not mean that another scientist proposing that heavier objects fall faster is correct. Your theory of creation needs to stand on it's own merits, not in slight demerits of an alternative theory

  • That's indeed an interesting point: Theory and Real Life seem to be further apart in the US than elsewhere.

    You all love "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of H." (soken with a Reaganesque accent), but how does reality look like?

    Insane Legal system combined with love for death penalty mean that you can be sure of your life unless you have enough money to afford a real good lawyer. Faking evidence to make you look guilty is always possible, as long as enough money is involved.

    Liberty is cool, as long as you do what the majority does and what's Politically Correct.
    If you dress/behave differently as a teenager (->thrown out of school), or drink beer at your marriage when below 21 (->thrown into jail), have a non-capitalist/nationalist attitude (->McCarthy-style persecution->no job), then bad luck to you...
    At least you can drive buy a machine gun at 16...

    Happiness is a great goal, but don't you ask for help when your not happy, say your lungs collapsed (->no health insurance), your neigbor doesn't like you (-> can't affort lawyer) or you've served coffee too hot (->$2 million fine), or, heavens, lose your job or get a child without being happily married.
    Don't you ask for help then! Life and happiness are your own business.


    The main difference to China is that
    a) Chinese convicts have to pay for their capital punishment themselves,
    b) the communist party conveniantly defines more clearly what 'politically correct' means and
    c) disputes are handled by paying bribes directly instead to the lawyers...

    OK, enough of that rant.

  • Excluding evidence obtained by illegal means is often the only way of "punishing" such constitutional violations. Unless the violation is exceedingly flagrant or notorious, it's damn hard to get a civil judgement against law enforcement for such violations, much less a criminal judgement.

    Since the media will generally only report the most spectacular cases, both of excluded evidence and of constitutional abuse, it's easy to get a distorted view. The fact is that very few serious criminals "get off on technicalities," and that petty (and occasionally not-so-petty) violations of constitutionality are pretty common in some jurisdictions. You'll only hear about the cases that sell newspapers or raise ratings, of course...

    -Ed
  • > Would Canada even admit a barbarian like me who doesn't speak French?
    Just don't come to Québec. Elsewhere, they'll be glad to have another bloke...
    -- ----------------------------------------------
    Vive le logiciel... Libre!!!
  • If I'm not mistaken, it's the U.K., with its unparalled number of public cameras that is thrusting the entire civilized world into the paradigm of the surveylance society. I'd be real surprised if a national ID system and DNA cataloguing aren't just around the corner. And wasn't the U.K DIRECTLY involved with Echelon? As far as government invasiveness is concerend, the U.S. is no picnic, but I'd be at least as worried if I lived in the U.K.
  • Ugh. What rock did you crawl out from under?
  • Why don't you go form your own country then? The Federation of Aristocratic Assholes

  • I've spent most of my life in Canada, and I was pretty shocked to come down to the US and find out how much harder it is to protect privacy here than in Canada. So much for the `land of the free'; I find I prefer `socialist' Canada.

    cjs

  • This is a really good point. Another thing to note is that the UK is one of the few European countries (well, it's not really European--I guess that's part of the point :-)) that has managed to avoid a national ID system, and this is a achievement that they're proud of. The US, on the other hand, practically has one right now due to the number of institutions that demand your social security number, despite having nothing to do with your taxes at all.

    cjs

  • What, and you didn't think that the US has an amazing number of cameras on the streets? I saw a fascinating page from Harper's Magazine that showed all of the cameras (public and private) in four square blocks of New York. There were hundreds.

    As far as government invasiveness is concerned, I don't think the US is much, if any, worse than the UK. The same is true for Canada. It's the unparalleled liberties that the US gives corportations to collect, retain and disseminate information, and the degree to which corporations take advantage of it, that really worries me. (Levis, the brand of jeans, is now even collecting fingerprints from its customers dumb enough to give them to them!)

    cjs

  • >You can carry a shotgun to church, but you cannot export strong encryption.

    Aside from work, I carry a firearm most places that I go. So what? I also used to keep my entire HD encrypted way back when. So what?

    Even though I think that it's stupid, I understand the reasoning for restricting crypto exports. The rules are made up by a bunch of fat old white guys who still believe that "EVERYTHING GOOD" comes from this country. According to that logic, if we stop strong crypto from getting out then, it won't exist outside of this country.

    >The government has let the red herring of the gun debate captivate the public while it destroys all personal privacy.

    Red herring?

    Ask the Indians and white people in Angola if it's a red herring. Ask the Christians and educated people of Cambodia if it's a red herring. Ask the Jews, Gypsies and homosexuals of Nazi occupied europe if it's a red herring.

    Oh, I forgot, you can't ask them, their governments took their guns away and killed or expatriated them.
  • >How can you bypass blowfish encryption on the passwords, PGP for emails etc?

    Keyboard sniffers. A device that records or broadcasts every keystroke you make can be used to gather all of your passwords. When they feel that they have enough of them, they can go get a "proper" warrant, take your machine and have access to all of your goodies.

    A rather low-tech solution to all of the high-tech encryption out there.

    LK
  • >Right - because a few more handguns and they would have certainly defeated the German army.

    The Jews in thw Warsaw ghetto kept the German army at bay with 10 cheap handguns. The Nazis had to burn it to the ground to get them out. If Afghanistan the soviets were kept at bay by people on horseback who had AKs and a few shoulder mounted missiles.

    >This is the largest fallacy of the gun nuts - that guns can protect you against your goverment.

    Anti-gun nuts seem to think that it's better to roll over and die rather than fight the good fight.

    Didn't work at Waco. Wouldn't have worked in any of the instances you mentioned.

    The FBI didn't murder EVERYONE at Waco, so yes it did work.

    >Ask Randy Weaver how well guns protected his family against the government.

    I've corresponded with the Weavers before. Randy, Rachel, Sarah, Elisheba and Kevin Harris are alive, and the Weavers are millionaires.

    When Kevin put a bullet through Bill Degan's chest he was legally justified. Hence his aquittal.

    It's dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.

    LK
  • >Yes, and the #1 overwhelming culprit is guns. Anarchy in the US isn't working...and yes, when any moron can walk around carrying a semi-automatic handgun, that's anarchy.

    This statement is only true if...

    You mean someone who is physically capable of carrying one. Because not all states permit people to carry firearms. Fortunately my state does, and it has a rather low violent crime rate as a consequence of that.

    But, by your reasoning anyone in the world can carry a semi-automatic handgun. After all, even if it's illegal it's still physically possible.

    So according to you the entire world is plunged into anarchy.

    LK
  • >I highly doubt that this country would drop a nuke on one of it's own cities.

    What if that city is in a state in rebellion against the US Federal Government? Do you think that they'd hesitate then? If New York decided that they were not going to be a part of the USA anymore. Just to make it interesting, let's say a few states containing military bases rebelled as well. The US Government would be fighting a force with similar military might, do you think that any president would hesitate to use nuclear weapons if he thought that it would save his political ass? Manhattan would become a parking lot.

    >There are some fucked up politicians, but what soldier is going to follow THAT order? No way.

    The military trains people to become mind numbed robots. If you get an order, you follow it. Back to Waco for a moment, the US Army Special Forces didn't have a problem at all with helping the FBI and BATF murder civillians because the orders came through the proper chain of command.

    LK
  • I read this off of a teacher's wall. It was written by a Protestant minister about WWII. It's been a while so it's not perfect:

    "In Germany, first the Nazis came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then, when they came for me, no one was left to speak up."

    Basically you can't just say, "Well I don't use drugs or collect kiddie porn, so it's ok." Someday you just might be the one who is subject to persecution.
  • As an atheist I have to say I've never felt any persecution for my beliefs (or lack there of). Maybe that's because I am very quiet about my beliefs because I normally think that they really aren't anyone else's business and that no one else gives a crap. I have met my share of athiest-supremisists who feel all things religious are inheirently dumb. These people, imho, are no better than the christian-supremists who feel that it's their mission to save the world or destroy it trying.

    Being an athiest wasn't a choice I came to easily, I actually thought about it, and in my mind there is no such thing as any type of god. Could I be wrong? Definately, but I also happen to believe that if there is a god, he's not going to damn someone an eternity of suffering just because that person didn't believe in him. I prefer to think that he would look at the person's character and how he lived his life.

    Maybe there is a god, maybe there isn't, but in the end does it really matter what I believe or what you believe? Maybe if people spent a little less time praying for the homeless and went out and made sandwiches for the poor, or donated clothing to the salvation army, the world would be a better place. I once heard a catholic preist say something along the lines of "prayer is only the begining" meaning that, yes you should pray for people, but god isn't going to help them for you, you have to do that yourself. I also once heard a catholic priest say that if you help the homeless because it makes you feel good then you are doing it for the wrong reason, and that you should only help the homeless because god wants you to. Now if you ask me, if helping the homeless makes you feel good, you are a generally good person.

    I think there was a point somewhere in there...
  • It's people like you who give the religious-supremists reasons to yell. Maybe in your opinion religion is stupid. I personally am an athiest too, but I don't think religious types are stupid. They just have a different belief set than I do, I hope most religious feel the same way about me. Live and let live.
  • Ok, christianity helped science by persecuting people who said anything that disagreed with the catholic church? I'm sorry but that makes no sense. Also, evolution in no way denies the existance of god. It does deny the accuracy of genesis, however, which IMHO was never meant to be taken litterally in the first place. Evolution (and science in generally) do not deny the existance of god, they just assume that god doesn't interfere in the way things work. Besides, do you really think that if god created man and all and it was such a huge party for him, that he would have put us on the 3rd planet from an insignificant star, in the arm of a rather unimpressive galaxy?

    Evolution may not be fact, but it's the closest thing we have to fact.

    P.S. the gaps in the fossil record are do to the fact that fossilization only occurs in very specific and rather rare circumstances.
  • Hmm... the control of information is a key factor in the definition of a Totalitarian State.

    It seems that US citizens just can't seem to escape from their Gov't wanting to keep control of their information.

    In a modern sense by definition, the US is part Totalitarian State. Scary huh? Do you American's remember fighting a few wars against the "evil communists" - who were also examples of Totalitarian States. I'm confused ... you've fought so hard for the "freedom" of other countries - yet you haven't concerned yourselves with the freedom of your own people!!

    I don't live in the US, but the thought of such intrusive Gov't powers frightens me. I'm actually quite glad that I'm not an American citizen and subject to such blatent invasions of privacy by my own Gov't.

    I wish all of you US citizens good luck with opposing further constraints of your freedom by your Gov't.

  • Micro$oft are an evil company who want to hurt computer users everywhere and Linux Tolvards. The Department of Justice are now fighting to save all of us from evil M$, so I'm not surprised to see all this FUD from you MicroShaft supporters. Face it, the Department of Justice are right and when we have World Domination they will make sure that all software are Open Source and GPLed.

    Go Linux!

    Cheers,
    ZicoKnows@hotmail.com

  • It shoulda at least been a Score 2: Funny! Damn moderators are always screwin' me! :P

    Cheers,
    ZicoKnows@hotmail.com

  • Well said. The issue, of course, is that of verifiability , the notion that a scientific hypothesis can be disproved. Something the overly religious tend to conveniently ignore.

    And when will these people actually read a bloody text on Genetics or Evolutionary Biology, instead of getting their information second-hand and sullied by the nearest tireless enemy of Reason?

    Sorry, I guess I'm just tired of hearing so many half-truths coming from the mouths of these pontificates of credulity. When the story of creation as outlined by Biblical fantasy is put forward as a hypothesis testable by weight of impartial evidence, I'll take notice, rest assured. But I do not expect this to happen any time soon---religious people have far too much to lose. More importantly, those who maintain the culture of credulity which permeates our nation would have a lot of explaining to do...

    This, of course, is the error the original author makes---the onus of proof is on the person proclaiming the existence of a fanciful (and literal) deus ex machina to explain away our current level of biodiversity. And attacking Darwinism (which no one teaches anymore to begin with---biologists have been doing a lot of work in the past century!) by no means serves as evidence of divine intervention. I wish more people would realise that...

    Ultimately, you must take the chance of being demonstrably wrong to have any chance at all of glimpsing the Truth. Ask any scientist :-)

    Respectfully,

    Michael

  • Amen, brother. I always though this was the best way.

    Dirty Harry sees punk, and gets an uneasy feeling. "That punk is up to no good," he says, "and I aim to find out what." So he breaks into the punk's apartment. There, under the bed, is a box of stolen guns, which the punk sells to pay for his heroin habit.

    Later, in court, Dirty Harry testifies that he found the stolen guns under the defendant's bed. Maybe Dirty Harry's partner corroborates. The jury believes that Harry is telling the truth. They are convinced that the event really happened, and the punk really was in possession of stolen guns. The punk is convicted and goes to the big house.

    Later, the DA looks over the testimony, and see that Dirty Harry admitted under oath that he found the guns under the punk's bed. Harry didn't have a warrant. What was Harry doing in the punk's apartment?

    It looks like a confession to Breaking and Entering. Either that or perjury. Either way, Harry is screwed, and it's a direct result of his disregard for due process. He's a criminal. Let him be the punk's cellmate for a few years, and justice will have been served.


    ---

  • These aren't some crazy hacker computer criminals that are getting free access to your computer, it's the government.

    I fear the government more than I fear "crazy hacker computer criminals".

    Just imagine how it would feel to bust some drug dealers and get their computer hardware and browse through their files and see that all the files are encrypted.

    Well, since the drug dealer has not done anything wrong I don't see the problem. In this hypothetical situation, I'd feel like the good guys won a battle -- the evil nasty feds have been stopped by the underdog hero.

    Stop the drug war! [stopthedrugwar.org]

    (And no, I'm not a drug dealer or even an "illegal" drug user. Hell, I don't even smoke nicotine or drink alcohol. But the war on drugs and the war on privacy are just two of the abuses of power that the US government has taken upon itself. These things have to stop.)

  • The cops where I live are fairly nice anyway. It is rare to see someone get pulled over going 10 mph over the posted limit.

    Unjust laws cannot be tolerated. Just because they're not enforced doesn't mean that they should be left intact! Years later, someone may actually be prosecuted (or persecuted, depending on your point of view) under an unjust law that's been on the books for a very long time.

    The most egregious offenders in this category are laws governing sexual conduct between consenting adults. In many states, oral sex is illegal. In many other, anal sex is illegal. The list goes on and on and on....

    I also feel that many of the speed limit laws are unjust. The speed limits are set too low and don't take into account important factors such as time of day, density of traffic, etc. While 25 MPH may be a reasonable upper bound on speed on a given street at 11:00 AM, when all of the businesses are open, it may be completely unrealistic at, say, 7:00 AM when there are no local businesses open and one is simply driving along this numbered state route in order to get to the highway to get to work in another city. (I don't drive along that road any more. Now I go a different way, even though it's longer.)

    The police use these low speed limits in order to maintain their power over individuals. Everyone who drives speeds -- the speed limits are so low that you can't not speed! That makes everyone who drives a criminal. Now that everyone is a criminal, the police can selectively choose which "criminals" (read: helpless citizens) they will terrorize today. And you've heard about "driving while black", I hope. What will we have next -- "driving while atheist"? "driving while carrying a gun"? "driving while being a nerd"? "driving while smoking"? You can see how our rights are eroded, slowly but viciously, over time.

    Cryptography has the same power. The US government is trying is damnedest to make crypto illegal. That way, you will have to be a criminal in order to have any privacy in your communications. In the near future, the majority of communications channels will be encrypted (I can't see cleartext transmissions continuing as the standard for more than 10-20 years from now -- there's just too much that can go wrong, especially when considering e-commerce), and so once again (if the USA succeeds in outlawing encryption) everyone will be a criminal and thus subject to the terrorism of the government.

    If anyone can think of any way to stop this nightmare, please let me know. I write letters to Congress, etc., but I don't think it will be enough.

  • yours is the sort of point I was wondering about as I read the threads from this article. As we have recently seen, the American law enforcement community, particularly at the federal level, seems woefully behind the curve where internet/information control is concerned. Part of the problem is public perception, since all will agree that the relevant technology is evolving faster than the lawmaking process allows for, so that the law enforcement community ends up looking silly when they have standards in place that are outdated when the are adopted. But a greater part of the problem really is a stupidity problem, but not stupidity at the technical level (as posters noted here recently, everyone believes that certain branches of the govt are waaaaay out front on REAL strong encryption) but on a political level, cause the right hand not only does not know what the left hand is doing, it is patently uninterested until it becomes politically profitable to become interested....and by then it is, by default, too late. I would suggest that the specter of required 'breakability' in encryption/privacy technology has roughly the same chance of actually affecting society as the current 'anti-evolution' movement....the respective genies having long ago left the bottle.
  • Probably be easier to screw the LEAF (Law Enforcement Access Field) so the key-recovery doesn't work. Nobody would know unless they tried to decrypt...
  • Just stop and think for a moment. These aren't some crazy hacker computer criminals that are getting free access to your computer, it's the government. With A LOT of revision to this, it may be a good idea. Such as, for NO REASON whatsoever would they be allowed to access it through the internet, thats just asking for trouble. Maybe some type of key built into any encryption programs that would allow the goverment, while on the premises and with a search warrant or something, to recover keys for encrypted files. Just imagine how it would feel to bust some drug dealers and get their computer hardware and browse through their files and see that all the files are encrypted. Those could be the names and addresses of thousands of drug dealers and users, not to mention other very bad things. This is only as much of an invasion of privacy as when the police get a search warrant and come into your home and look through your sock drawers. Nobody ever whined about that. Just take a moment and think about that before you flame the life out of me.

    ---------------------------
  • I believe the reasons most religion-haters don't have anything against Eastern Philosophies (Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism, etc) are thus:

    1. Although this is easily argued against, these are philosophies, not religions.
    2. There aren't as many people who follow these belief systems as there are the other major religions in the US.
    3. I've never had a Buddhist tell me I'm going to hell for what I don't believe or how I live my life. I've never had a Hindu try to convert me or tell me I'm evil for eating a cheeseburger. If Hindu's had the same mindset as christians, eating meat would be punishable by death.

    At least, that's my personal take on it... I'm probally wrong. I usually am.

    Oh, and if you think religious people are persecuted, try being an Atheist sometime.

  • You said:
    Everytime you take libertarians to task over privacy issues, they call you a Nazi. Fact is they probably never carried a M-16 in defense of the country; so go figure....

    Sounds odd.....
    Wasn't Jesse Ventura a former Navy seal? I am pretty sure he carried a few M-16's in his time...and I am not a fan of controls on crypto, but no one's ever called me a Nazi for it either.
  • Don't tell me that's all there is! I WANT MORE!!
    This guy writes good stuff, don't stop now!

  • No kidding!
    And what about the persecution of, well... different individuals...


    I'm starting to wonder where I should move to! (as in, another country.. or preferably, my own island in international waters, but I'm willing to bet even the smallest have been claimed)
  • Sure, a revolution...
    But this will likely mean bloodshed, even if its only people freaking out and killing others because they think they need to defend themselves to the death because there is no longer a government...

    More likely, we'd end up something like Snow Crash (which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but.. hell, Uncle Enzo for President!!!)
  • The Constitution is both symbolicly and physically the soul of the US of A, or at least, what the forefathers wanted it to be. Also, many beleive the Constitution will protect them, no matter what - especially those who don't even know what and how many amendments there are. It is true that the whole system of government is set up around the Constitution and the ammendments, but this has in reality lost meaning.

    Today it is more a symbol that we like to look to and say, that is what will take care of us, even though it does not specify that it should do so in most ways it is assumed to do so.

    For instance, many take the phrase about the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to mean that nothing can stop us from being happy, and if it does, big brother government will fix it for us. This is of course not the case - it just says that everyone is given a chance, however slim.

    In a way the Constitution has no more real value than the local (american) football team to most people. They may root for the team, and they may brag about them, but most don't really care. As long as no one beats the team... then we get mad.

    But, I digress.. I've written quite a bit more than I intended and I really need some sleep :D

    I've had about 4 hours of sleep in the past day, does that mean I'm addicted ? (Doh! Wrong article!)

    Anyways, I hope you get my point(s), if I have/had any.. at this point I can't even remember all I've said.. :)
  • "The more you tighten your grasp, the more star systems slip through your fingers!" - We all know who, from we know what movie :)
  • Your operating under the assumption that the vast public is not swayed by petty acting and mudslinging - note the huge popularity of such shows as Jerring Springer.

    At least in the US we don't farm rice. :/

    Personally, If I had the money, I'd move to another country.. dunno where for sure tho. :)
  • Uh... Reality check.. Many great scientists may have been christian, but if you check the history books you'll find that most of the time the religious establishment(s) completely stood against many of the early discoveries/acheivments/inventions...
    i.e., the idea that the earth was NOT the center of the universe, and that the starts were not big chandaleirs or somesuch but actually more suns like our own..
  • Software authoring is like authoring a book - it is a form of free speach. If anyone argues against that, take their asses to the supreme court and get a lot of TV coverage in your favor.
  • Even worse:
    Look at the percentage of voter turnout: Lowest ever!
    Make your vote count!
    Sorry, off on a rant in the Fascist State of Harrisland, oops, I mean "Ontario"

    Pope
  • > but the secret panel of FBI judges still exists

    Man, I'm gonna have to get around to watching my copy of "The Star Chamber" tonight.
    Pope
  • in the novel _1984_, the government redefined words to mean exactly what they wanted them to mean. this was called newspeak.

    since 1973, privacy has meant that the government may not protect the life of a fetus, skirting the issue of just what sort of non-person a fetus is.

    soon, privacy shall mean that the government can snoop into one's records or communications whenever it wants.

    a government that can redefine words' meaning to give to one group can later redefine words' meaning to take from others. (please don't take this as an anti-abortion polemic as much as an observation of the downside of legal positivism.)
  • ...Yes, governments worldwide are scared of the web, and cracking down. But it's like nailing jelly: the tighter you try to grip it, the more of it will slip through your fingers.

    Their desire to keep the vast syrupy organism of government alive will only hasten its demise. Yes, many of us will be hurt in the process; many martyrs will be created. But in the end, the net will win and government will die, irrelevant, unneeded, and unloved. Give it ten years.

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Read The Microsoft Matrix [chrisworth.com] at chrisworth.com [chrisworth.com]
  • Ask the Christians and educated people of Cambodia if it's a red herring.

    FWIW, the US government happened to wage a bombing campaign on a lot of Cambodia and then proceeded to support the Khmer Rouge. In the eighties, I believe the Khmer Rouge got something like 50 million a year from the US.

    In any case, guns even something like an assualt rifle does little against a laser guided bomb or artillery fire.

  • Perhaps a more intelligent example would be the Viet Cong against the US military...

    The Viet Cong had the support of virtually all of the population in rural areas. The US had to "relocate" the people in villages to hamlets in order to "protect" the populace. Of course, the villages then had to be bombed to prevent the Viet Cong from using them (nevermind the fact that some of the villagers were still living there).

    Vietnam isn't really a good example since in that case most of the populace supported the Viet Cong (in an UN sponsored election the Viet Cong recieved 80-90 percent of the vote,of course the US managed to ignore this). It's a little hard to wage war in a country when no one really supports your side.

  • Man, this is really off-topic, but this kind of slippery rhetoric really irks me.

    By your logic, all science, not simply evolutionary theory, is "atheistic".
    That contradicts the fact that you attribute the success of science on it's Christian influence.

    Science makes no assumption the existence of the supernatural, but it does assume is that the laws of the universe do not change. It does not make any claims against the existence of God, but it does assume that God does not fiddle with the universe. Otherwise, no scientific measurement or observation could be trusted because there would be no way of determining if the result was affected by "outside" influence.

    A theory that suggests things that contradict your religion is not itself a religion. Otherwise, most all of science is a religion, because I'm sure there are elements in every religion that contradict some well established theory of science.

    Now, are you suggesting we stop teaching science completely? You can't pick and choose which theories fit your worldview which ones don't. The fundamental principle of science is that nothing is assumed with 100% certainty. That means you can't entirely discount theories with little evidence, but you'd be downright foolish to ignore those with compelling evidence, even if you have reasons to disagree with them. For this reason it is disingenuous to deny children knowledge of evolutionary theory because it inadvertently steps on the toes of a few religions.
  • I'm not so sure that it is a punitive measure as a deterrant one. By making illegally obtained evidence inadmissable in court, you remove the motive for collecting evidence illegally. This has proved very useful for keeping police officers on their toes when it comes to search warrants and the like.

    If this regulation was not in place, there would often be police officers, driven by the need to get the felon in prison, willing to "take a fall" and get a fine slapped on them for illegal evidence-gathering for the sake of getting a conviction. Making illegal evidence gathering put the conviction itself in jeopardy gives cops good reason to follow the letter of the law themselves.

  • 1600's Calvinist totalitarians (Pilgrims on a journey my ass) escape the wrath of Catholic totalitarians

    Salem. Nuff said.

    1770's Unpopular Declaration of Independence discussed behind closed doors. All who wanted to be in had to sign. This meant if they were found or the war lost they would be shot.

    Big debate on women voting too.

    'Course it wasn't too long before we pulled a Columbus on Indians, Mexico.

    So don't be surprised. We need a more direct response to this.

    When Germany ordered Jews to wear yellow markers, all of Denmark wore them without even thinking twice. It was obvious what they had to do.

    So start encrypting long repetitititions of "Mom, I'm at the store. I'll bring my commie friends home tonight."

    Check out

    Freenet [openprojects.net]

    Ompages [ompages.com]

    Link Farm [utexas.edu]

    They're trying to reinvent the Earth and conquer it before people get their rightful share. If you really don't want to see pedophiles on the net, your best bet is to claim some part of the net and get over your fears. Otherwise we're guaranteed to see the net auctioned off to superpowers and rampant with crime. There's too much power in it for the assholes to pass up.


    Go see Senate on the net [senate.gov] and House on th net [house.gov]


  • Why do you feel it necessary to be an AC? I will say right here, with identity and email address easily traceable back to me IRL, that the American "democracy" has gone so far from any ideals of such a system that the more I learn about it the more it scares me.

    Like what, a quarter of you bother to vote at all? You have two political parties, always using the same rhetoric against one another, never arguing any real issues (the US is a one party state - one politic, two policies), and in the end people vote for the guy with the most air time and the biggest bullshit smile. The real power to do anything falls in the hands of professional lobbyists, lawyers, and a fantastically ingenious system of institutionalized corruption (campaign contributions etc).

    You have leaders who will sit above you and say straight out that because cryptography is the ONLY way you have a chance gain true privacy, they will fight it at any cost. You have a press and a people willing to advocate in infringement on the most basic freedoms as long as it is under the guise of "save our children".

    You don't need a revolution. You need a fucking nihilism. You need to tear the whole thing down and start right from the beginning. Democracy may have served the braindead masses of the Industrial age - but only one kind of state can hold the networks of the information age. The individual is all.

    wow... I feel better now :-)
  • Unfortunately, excluding evidence illegally obtained often has the effect of punishing society rather than the perpetraters. Perhaps what is needed is some form of direct punishment for officials who overstep the bounds of their authority and infringe the rights of people -- while not excluding the evidence in cases where the violation didn't directly lead to the discovery of the evidence.
  • There should be a 200 question written test before anyone is allowed to run for office or vote! It should cover basic history of the state/country and office you are running/voting for, general knowledge and literacy, basic problem solving.
    And it then becomes a simple matter to bias the tests so that people who agree with your views score higher, and to deny certain racial/ethnic/religious groups the educational background that would allow them to pass.

    Even without deliberate tampering, there's no way to create a culturally unbiased test - there's already enough of a problem with the SATs.

    It may be true that there are people too stupid to be allowed to particpate in government. The problem is, who gets to make that determination? As soon as you let the government decide who can vote and who can't, you've given them too much power to perpetuate their own rule.

  • If the government wants the ability to break into my box, why aren't they giving me the ability to break into their boxes? Are they all criminals?

Slashdot Top Deals

"Your stupidity, Allen, is simply not up to par." -- Dave Mack (mack@inco.UUCP) "Yours is." -- Allen Gwinn (allen@sulaco.sigma.com), in alt.flame

Close