George Orwell, here we come

CNET ^

[Stew Padasso]

fyi

[Stew Padasso]

ping

[marktwain]

The problem is that most people don't care if their lives are totally on record. They don't realize that most of their freedom depends on the government's inability to track everyone, everywhere.

Imagine a Clinton administration that could track all of its critics each minute, that could easily identify each critic on FreeRepublic, and easily place small glitches in their everyday life... or send child pornography email to each one hours before the raid. Dissent could be so much more easily tracked and disrupted than it can now. How could we ever get rid of such a regime once it was in power?

[Stew Padasso]

German faces jail for 'ironic' remark

BBC 01/08/03

Original Link: http://politics.guardian.co.uk/foreignaffairs/story/0,11538,870312,00.html

A German man could be jailed for three years over a comment posted on the internet, in which prosecutors say he belittled the events of 11 September.

In a case which critics say has major implications for freedom of speech on the internet, Holger Voss stands accused of "glorification of a criminal act".

Mr Voss, who will appear in court in the western German town of Muenster on Wednesday, insists his comments were meant to be sarcastic.

He had written a final sentence at the foot of his remarks - posted last summer on the Telepolis message board - which he says indicates that the sentiments expressed were not to be taken seriously.

"The court will decide whether he did indeed mean them ironically, and if so, whether or not that makes any difference," court spokesman Juergen Wrobel told BBC News Online.

Anonymous tip-off

The apparently offending remarks were made in response to a message posted by another internet user - Engine_of_Aggression - who appeared to be pleased about the alleged murders of thousands of Taleban fighters by local militias during the downfall of the Afghan regime in 2001.

"Congratulations to the people, who in this over-critical time, dare to grab evil at its root and eradicate it from the face of the earth!" wrote Engine_of_Aggression.

Mr Voss, who describes himself as an anti-militarist, responded:

"Yes, Congratulations to the murderers of 11.09.01.... Good, that on 11.09 a couple of real men (!) found the courage to show the evil ones, the USA how it really is!"

An anonymous complaint to the police led to the prosecution under a German law which forbids the glorification of a criminal act.

In a statement posted on the anti-censorship site Stop1984, Mr Voss insists he was attempting to display the hypocrisy in valuing American lives over others.

The suit has also sparked controversy as the prosecution forced the owner of the discussion board to hand over details about Mr Voss.

[dirtboy]

Glad to see someone has finally written a coherent article on the big picture here. While a ton of information and hysteria is being generated about TIA, that IMO is a relatively minor problem, as the laws that prohibit the data gathering envisioned by Poindexter will be very difficult to change, and the entire project would require re-engineering every point of sale system operated by businesses in the country - that would cost billions of dollars and would be an IT project on the scale of the Y2K preparations. Plus, the system would be so complex that it could never work in real-time.

IMO the bigger opportunities for governmental snooping are mentioned here - mandating GPS tracking for vehicles and implantible ID requirements for individuals, along with using drones over the United States as a somewhat less significant threat. These would be easy to implement compared to TIA and would probably face less resistance from elected officials and many citizens, especially since the use of GPS tracking could be tied to taxation, as Oregon wishes to do.

[Publius6961]

BUMP!
For later read.

[That Subliminal Kid]

Let us assume for a moment that as of right now, the Government has the ability to track anyone, anywhere, at any time. In what ways is your freedom inhibited, limited, or in any way infringed? I would like to hear a good explaination since you assert that "most of their freedom depends on the Government's inability to track everyone, everywhere." Looking forward to your response.

[dirtboy]

Let us assume for a moment that as of right now, the Government has the ability to track anyone, anywhere, at any time. In what ways is your freedom inhibited, limited, or in any way infringed?

It is the control that the likes of Hillary could assume with those powers in place. Want to concoct a conspiracy to arrest folks with. For example, the FBI could trace the movements of people opposed to Hillary, and when they meet, arrest them.

[Romulus]

In what ways is your freedom inhibited, limited, or in any way infringed?

Because databases dedicated to identifying terrorists are looking to flag unusual behavior, TIA will have to define what's "normal". The price of not living a government-determined "normal" life is about to go sky-high.

[dirtboy]

Because databases dedicated to identifying terrorists are looking to flag unusual behavior, TIA will have to define what's "normal".

Actually, considering that a direct response firm turns cartwheels if they get a response rate of 2 percent (or, in other words, a 98 percent failure rate), TIA will never work as envisioned - but it would work dandy as a lookup database on specific individuals...

[martian_22]

What's the problem?

As long as you're not thinking, writing, speaking, reading, travelling, possessing, ingesting, behaving, buying or selling anything illegal, you have nothing to worry about.

BTW, is it a crime to refuse to identify one's self yet?

[Freedom2specul8]

This is out of our hands..isn't it. Val, cyn and red I wasn't sure if you would be interested...so I pinged you anyway.

[OXENinFLA]

http://www.darpa.mil/iao/index.htm

TIA web site be prepared to run and hide in the hills.

[Rifleman]

If every elected official and every functionary above GS7 is required to wear a webcam 24/7 that any citizen can access, I MIGHT put up with this survellance stuff. Otherwise, if they impliment it, I start shooting.

[OXENinFLA]

http://www.darpa.mil/iao/index.htm

TIA web site , be prepared to run and hide in the hills

[serinde]

"In what ways is your freedom inhibited, limited, or in any way infringed? "

You just think you're free.

Assuming that everything you do right now is legal, there's no problem. However, what happens in the future if the govt. decides that something you do isn't legal anymore?

Take just one example. Christianity is under attack right now. What if it becomes illegal to be a Christian or attend a Christian church? If everyone is under constant surveillance, the govt. could VERY easily determine if this law was being broken. Or any other law they may decide to come up with.

Also, what happens if someone decides that too much of something currently legal should be stopped? Another post today mentions police going into bars, pulling customers outside, and giving them breath tests. No crime has been committed, people aren't necessarily impared - just being in the bar is reason to test them. This happens NOW. Just think what could happen if the govt. knows where everyone is all the time.

And you can't say "it won't happen here." It already is. Giving the govt. more power will NOT encourage it to use it less.

[Liberal Classic]

Take just one example. Christianity is under attack right now. What if it becomes illegal to be a Christian or attend a Christian church? If everyone is under constant surveillance, the govt. could VERY easily determine if this law was being broken. Or any other law they may decide to come up with.

Also, what happens if someone decides that too much of something currently legal should be stopped? Another post today mentions police going into bars, pulling customers outside, and giving them breath tests. No crime has been committed, people aren't necessarily impared - just being in the bar is reason to test them. This happens NOW. Just think what could happen if the govt. knows where everyone is all the time.

Those two things are unlikely to happen by themselves anytime soon. Speaking in highly abstract terms, because those who would advocate the outlaw of religion are generally in favor of alcohol consumption, and those that advocate the outlaw of alcohol consumption are generally in favor of religion. What one should be concerned about is when the goals of these disparate groups intersect, and they suddenly find they are in the majority and have the numbers to make the law match their desires. When this happens, they will put aside their differences in order to see their similar goals realized.

This is a hypothetical post. I don't foresee enemies of legal alcohol suddenly aligning themselves with the enemies of public religion in order to see their own agendas passed. The point I am trying to make is that if we lose the guarantee of a republican form of government we find outselfs subject to the whims of the majority, whatever unlikely group finds itself in the majorty at that time. The constitution cannot, however, protect us from outselves. If we allow ourselves to lose the guarantee of a democratic republic in favor of a general democracy, then words on the vellum in the Smithsonian won't be worth the sheepskin they're written on.

[serinde]

"Those two things are unlikely to happen by themselves anytime soon. "

Actually, I meant them to be two separate examples, not happening at the same time. Sorry for the confusion.

And yes, the post was a little hypothetical. But just a little. My point was that even if what a person does NOW is perfectly legal, the future of its legality is not guaranteed. Thus, unless people maintain their rights NOW, they will have no chance at all to regain them once they are gone.

[Liberal Classic]

My point was that even if what a person does NOW is perfectly legal, the future of its legality is not guaranteed. Thus, unless people maintain their rights NOW, they will have no chance at all to regain them once they are gone.

Hypothetics get kind of confusing, but don't get me wrong, I am in strong agreement with you on this.

[weikel]

Bump