Stallman: Thousands Dead, Millions Deprived of Liberties (2001)
Recorded: Sept. 17, 2026, 7:08 p.m.
| Original | Summarized |
Stallman: Thousands Dead, Millions Deprived of Liberties - Slashdot Slashdot Stories Firehose Polls Software Submit Search Slashdot Login or Sign up Topics: Follow us: Youtube Mastodon
Nickname: Password: Public Terminal Forgot your password? Close binspamdupenotthebestofftopicslownewsdaystalestupid freshfunnyinsightfulinterestingmaybe offtopicflamebaittrollredundantoverrated insightfulinterestinginformativefunnyunderrated descriptive typodupeerror 1389101 Stallman: Thousands Dead, Millions Deprived of Liberties 1632 If we are not careful, the deadly attacks on New York and Washington will lead to far worse secondary damage, if the U.S. Congress adopts "preventive measures" that take away the freedom that America stands for. I'm not talking about searches at airports here. Searches of people or baggage for weapons, as long as they check only for weapons and keep no records about you if you have no weapons, are just an inconvenience; they do not endanger civil liberties. What I am worried about is massive surveillance of all aspects of life: of our phone calls, of our email, and of our physical movements. These measures are likely to be recommended regardless of whether they would be effective for their stated purpose. An executive of a company developing face recognition software is said to be telling reporters that widespread deployment of face-recognizing computerized cameras would have prevented the attacks. The September 15 New York Times cites a congressman who is advocating this "solution." Given that the human face recognition performed by the check-in agents did not keep the hijackers out, there is no reason to think that computer face recognition would help. But that won't stop the agencies that have always wanted to do more surveillance from pushing this plan now, and many other plans like it. To stop them will require public opposition. Even more ominously, a proposal to require government back doors in encryption software has already appeared. Meanwhile, Congress hurried to pass a resolution giving Bush unlimited power to use military force in retaliation for the attacks. Retaliation may be justified, if the perpetrators can be identified and carefully targeted, but Congress has a duty to scrutinize specific measures as they are proposed. Handing the president carte blanche in a moment of anger is exactly the mistake that led the United States into the Vietnam War. Please let your elected representatives, and your unelected president, know that you don't want your civil liberties to become the terrorists' next victim. Don't wait -- the bills are already being written. Copyright 2001 Richard Stallman Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article are permitted in any medium provided the copyright notice and this notice are preserved. ← You may like to read: → Hemos On LEGO Americans Are Leaving the US in Record Numbers Handspring Releases New Visors
Stallman: Thousands Dead, Millions Deprived of Liberties Stallman: Thousands Dead, Millions Deprived of Liberties Archived Discussion Load 500 More Comments Full /Sea Score: More
Nickname: Password: Public Terminal Forgot your password? Close Close Search 1632 Comments Comments Filter: All Insightful Informative Interesting Funny The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way. I'm ashamed to say it, but I agree with RMS by bconway ( 63464 ) writes: Does it bother anyone besides me that Congress is using the terrorist attacks as a blank check to take away civil liberties? As we all know, a bill has been proposed that would require back doors in all encryption products, which is NOT okay in my book. I'm all in favor of heightened security carried out in an intelligent manner, and I'm willing to give up some liberties for security, but the way this whole thing has been blamed on the internet is completely ridiculous. Share twitter Re:I'm ashamed to say it, but I agree with RMS by Doctor_D ( 6980 ) writes: Yeah, it bothers me that lawmakers and policymakers are going bonkers with "security measures." I'm honestly questioning the motivations of these measures. I mean, the "heightened security" that we've had at the airports since the WTC bombing where at the airports asked those three stupid questions. Honestly who in their right mind would say yes? Honest citizens won't simply because it's not true. Criminals with no iq whatsoever would say yes, but if they are wanting to bring a bomb on board an aircraft, you simply wouldn't say yes to the questions. It seems to me in this hysteria people are looking for a good scapegoat, wheter it be flight training schools, MS's Flight Simulator, contruction at Logan Airport, some middle eastern terrorist (that the US supported at one time), strong encryption, Quake, or whatever. Unfortunatley many people here in the US will say "There needs to be a law for <blank>" and then go back to downing a six pack and watching TV. Parent Share twitter Re:I'm ashamed to say it, but I agree with RMS by sharkey ( 16670 ) writes: Does it bother anyone besides me that Congress is using the terrorist attacks as a blank check to take away civil liberties? Re:I'm ashamed to say it, but I agree with RMS by sharkey ( 16670 ) writes: Hmmm. Interesting interpretation. From what I've seen, it has been more like: Parent Share twitter Re:I'm ashamed to say it, but I agree with RMS by Spyffe ( 32976 ) writes: This post is a very interesting experiment with the Slashdot community. The message The whole thing HAS NOT been blamed by sulli ( 195030 ) writes: on the internet! Parent Share twitter try the New York Times by twitter ( 104583 ) writes: As another poster has noted, most news papers have been calling this a "technically sophisticated" attack. They seem to think that encrypted email made the co-ordination possible and that wholsale government postal privacy violations will be able to keep such things from happening again. It was backhanded and disturbingly stupid. An article like this in last weeks New York Times and an interview with Dan Quale finally made me realize this was more than speculation. Parent Share twitter Try the british press by epeus ( 84683 ) writes: John Keegan, defence correspondent, blames the Internet [dailytelegraph.co.uk]. "The World Trade Centre outrage was co-ordinated on the internet, without question," he writes. "If Washington is serious in its determination to eliminate terrorism, it will have to forbid internet providers to allow the transmission of encrypted messages - now encoded by public key ciphers that are unbreakable even by the National Security Agency's computers - and close down any provider that refuses to comply. "Uncompliant providers on foreign territory should expect their buildings to be destroyed by cruise missiles. Once the internet is implicated in the killing of Americans, its high-rolling days may be reckoned to be over." Try the daily telegraph by Marcus Brody ( 320463 ) writes: From the respected UK broadsheet: [dailytelegraph.co.uk] The register rip's the article [theregister.co.uk] to pieces better than i ever could. Re:Funny you should mention Uzi's... by MindStalker ( 22827 ) writes: First of all, even if the airlines wern't regulated by the government, they would have policies against allowing people to carry weapons onboard. Such policies of checking you weapon at the door was very commonplace when carrying a personal weapon used to be the norm. Also firing a weapon on an airplane is VERY stupid, you are most likly going to create a hole and decompress the air. Anyways, most likly some of the passangers were also armed with knives, it is a very common activity of people who fly freqently to carry small knives, which is the main reason the terrorist got away with getting them onboard. But before this insident, the rule was to let the terrorist have what they wanted, so that nobody got hurt. Well this rule is now out the door, and anyone who tries to highjack an american plane anytime soon will get a rude awaking by the beatdown they will recieve. Parent Share twitter Brazil legalizes airline passenger guns. by Ungrounded Lightning ( 62228 ) writes: I have seen a report that, in response to the events of last Tuesday (including the passengers who resisted and downed the fourth plane on its way to DC), Brazil has legalized gun-toting by airline passengers. The flight-attendant speech is being revised to add instructions on how to plug a hijacker with minimum risk of puncturing the pressure hull, crew, and other passengers. (This may be a bow to the inevitable. I understand that well over 60% of the Brazillian population already carries concealed pistols, often in violation of their existing gun laws.) FYI: If this is ever legalized where you fly, I recommend the Charter Arms .44 special Bulldog model. It was developed for the US Air Martial program. Fires a big, slow bullet to avoid puncturing the hull or the windows. Kicks like a mule, but a bruised hand is better than a crash. Reasonably easy to conceal. (Try Glaser Safety Slugs, too - in this or anything else. Think of pistol-round sized shotgun shells that spread out in the first thing they touch, rather than a jacketed bullet that penetrates and damages whatever is behind the target. That's also what "Black Talon" slugs were REALLY about.) Parent Share twitter Re:Funny you should mention Uzi's... by BadDoggie ( 145310 ) writes: While bullet holes in the hydraulic system would certainly be a bad thing, a few holes punched through the skin very close to each other (go look up the firing rate of an Uzi) would be a much worse thing. Airplanes are pressurised. A single hole is a very bad thing. Go look up "explosive decompression" on Google. More than one hole basically acts as a much bigger hole with a diameter approximately the distance between the two farthest-spread little holes (within a reasonable distance). A big enough hole and you get a catastrophic failure (back to Google again). Parent Share twitter We lose liberty, we lose America by Uttles ( 324447 ) writes: America is the land of the free, with liberty, and justice for all. If we take away this liberty to "prevent further terrorism," we will take away America, and we will be left with a shell of what we used to be. This country isn't perfect, we don't always do everything right, but our principles are some of the most pure in the world, and if we change those so that we can protect ourselves, we will kill ourselves, and there will be no America. Re:We lose liberty, we lose America by Uruk ( 4907 ) writes: America is the land of the free, with liberty, and justice for all Check that, it's the land of liberty and justice for all those who can afford it. I mean, does anybody really doubt that after seeing Rodney King's attackers walk, after seeing OJ walk, and after seeing mentally retarded people with no money for expensive lawyers get the chair in Texas despite obvious mental incompetence? Does anybody really think that it's "liberty and justice for all" in a place where a respected journalist [mumia.org] gets the death penalty and the courts won't even listen to an appeal WHEN SOMEONE COMES FORWARD AND COPS TO THE MURDER that the journalist was accused of? When you can get ass-raped in a police station bathroom by a racist motherfucker with a gun, is it really freedom and justice for all? What about when unarmed people get shot in the back whlie running away? America is what it is. The people are going to get EXACTLY as much as they're willing to put up with. America will be america even if we turn into a jackbooted fascist state (which I don't think is that likely). The only difference is that we'll have a few fewer assholes singing patriotic hymns that were written by rich white slaveholders. Re:We lose liberty, we lose America by Uttles ( 324447 ) writes: I said very clearly that we don't always do the right things. The principle is the important thing, the law, as it was intended, is just. The problem is how individuals carry out the law, as in the situations you describe. We're not perfect, nobody is, and terrible things happen here, but we try, we have good intentions, and we're the best thing going if you look around the world. Re:We lose liberty, we lose America by redhog ( 15207 ) writes: One of the problems with your law system, which is not about individuals, but about the principle, is that each pay his/her own bill. In most european countries, the loser pays the bill of the winner. This means that you'l get good lawyers even if you'r poor - if you have a good case. Re:We lose liberty, we lose America by kaisyain ( 15013 ) writes: Then we lost America a long time ago. Maybe it was back when they interned American citizens of Japanese decent. Or maybe it was when Lincoln suspended habeus corpus. Or maybe it was when Congress passed the Alien and Sedition Acts. You might want to rework your central thesis a little bit. Did we lose America back in 1798? If so, then what is it you are defending with your rhetoric. If America was not lost back in 1798 then perhaps you can delineate which liberties we are able to lose and maintain "America" and which we are not able to lose. Re:We lose liberty, we lose America by __aaahtg7394 ( 307602 ) writes: The key difference between those incidents and the current one is that those were "merely" temporary restrictions, while the bill in question is permanent. The constitution makes specific exceptions for temporary revocation of rights for as long as necessary, but no longer. This is not that. (suspension of habeus corpus sucks, but it tends to make logical sense, and is fair. interning japanese people is overreactive, foolhardy, and unfair. assigning survellance teams to follow around anyone who had been in recent contact with others in japan is reasonable, however.) Re:We lose liberty, we lose America by kaisyain ( 15013 ) writes: Nothing is permanent in America. Even the Constitution can be amended. None of the actions being talked about are any more permanent than the Alien and Sedition Acts were. please RMS by gol64738 ( 225528 ) writes: RMS, i respect your opinion when it comes to software, but please don't voice any other political opinions. the remark about our 'unelected president' makes your peice look stupid anyways... Re:please RMS by eAndroid ( 71215 ) writes: C'mon, we needed at least one flame-war capable Stallmanism in there! Re:please RMS by Sir_Real ( 179104 ) writes: I have to agree... I hate that Bush is in office, but this statement utterly nullifies any kind of rational argument. Re:please RMS by Fishstick ( 150821 ) writes: You make an excellent point about Powell. His presence in Bush's administration is a tremendous plus right now. I get the feeling that dubya is just window dressing and Powell and Chaney & co are the ones actually calling the shots. "So, who are the bad guys again?" "The ruling Taliban of Afghanistan and bin Laden's organization, sir." "That's too hard memorialize. Can't I just call them towel-headed freaks?" "No sir, we have to be careful not to upset friendly governments in the region." "Oh... who are they again?" *sigh* Re:please RMS by UberOogie ( 464002 ) writes: Excellent point. This is a problem inherant in OS advocacy as well: Good ideas get lost because some pedantic or childish taunt thrown into the whole to make it seem less serious. Re:please RMS by Uruk ( 4907 ) writes: Are you totally incapable of separating two personas in the same person? I'm sure you have opinions on software. Do those opinions void the value of your political opinions? Why can't the guy talk about politics if he wants to? While I don't think that he's officially speaking for the Free Software Foundation with this article, and speaking only for himself, everything that he's about has to do with wider politics and society in general, and not just whether or not 14 year olds have to pay for their w4r3z at the store, or whether they can download and compile them themselves at no cost. RMS has said over and over and over and over and over that it's all about freedom. I'm sorry, I meant that it's all about Freedom. With a capital (F). Read this article again, and see if you think it's totally inappropriate. It's about Freedom isn't it? Or did I miss something? Re:please RMS by sfe_software ( 220870 ) writes: I'll admit, he had me until that remark. Otherwise, I think he makes some good points that aren't in the typical RMS-style. That 'unelected president' remark throws the whole thing off IMO. G. W. Bush was in fact elected; not by me, perhaps not by RMS, but he is our president, and I stand behind him 100% on most of the recent issues. I personally think he's doing a great job so far, especially in his public appearances. Re:please RMS by AntiFreeze ( 31247 ) writes: RMS, i respect your opinion when it comes to software, but please don't voice any other political opinions. the remark about our 'unelected president' makes your peice look stupid anyways... Re:please RMS by Reality Master 101 ( 179095 ) writes: I agree, that was totally uncalled for, and quite frankly, exactly what the terrorists want: to divide us. Re:please RMS by Arandir ( 19206 ) writes: Yup. But the popular vote isn't what elects presidents. Go read your constitution. Then go read your history books to see that this wasn't the first time. (hint: research the naming of the California town "Wilsonia"). An eye for an Eye!! by kermyt ( 99494 ) writes: A tooth for a tooth!! sounds like we will all be blindly gumming our food soon. Face Recognition. by chinton ( 151403 ) writes: Given that the human face recognition performed by the check-in agents did not keep the hijackers out, there is no reason to think that computer face recognition would help. Because, we all know that check agents stay awake at night trying to memorize the faces of all know criminals and terrorists, and can name them on sight... Of all of the arguements against face recognition software this has to be the lamest one I have ever heard. I can't calculate PI to 1000 digits in my head, I guess my computer can't either... Facial Recognition by waldoj ( 8229 ) writes: Given that the human face recognition performed by the check-in agents did not keep the hijackers out, there is no reason to think that computer face recognition would help. Um...yeah, see, that's not true. I'm capable of remembering, what, a few thousand faces? Tens of thousands? A facial-recognition system can (reportedly) distinguish millions. -Waldo Sign the petition by claus.wilke ( 51904 ) writes: There is a petition to sign. Current count already over 85000. `In the aftermath of the ruthless attack on the World Trade Center and We demand that the President maintain the civil liberties of all U.S. We plead for a thorough investigation of the terrorist events before any We call for PEACE and JUSTICE, not revenge. LET THERE BE PEACE ALL OVER http://www.care2.com/go/redirect/2/2400 Share twitter Too much data by dimator ( 71399 ) writes: surveillance of all aspects of life: of our phone calls, of our email, and of our physical movements. The head of the CIA has already said that their ability to retrieve information has far surpassed their ability to analyse it. And that's just from "regular" information channels, spies, probes on suspected crazies, etc. Do you really think if they tapped "all aspects of life" that they have the manpower to analyse it? Does anyone realise how much information that is? Re:Too much data by geekoid ( 135745 ) writes: true but... Has RMS heard of computers? by Hairy_Potter ( 219096 ) writes: Given that the human face recognition performed by the check-in agents did not keep the hijackers out, there is no reason to think that computer face recognition would help. Re:Has RMS heard of computers? by funkman ( 13736 ) writes: The only problem is the hijackers would not have been in the database yet. I gotta say something by Ender Ryan ( 79406 ) writes: What is the big deal with face recognition? WTF is wrong with that? Personally, I am not WILLING to give up any of my liberties because of this terrible act of terrorism, but how does face recognition computers infringe on my liberties? You are already in a public place, you're in the open, people can see you, so can cameras(which are already there anyway), what difference does it make if there are cameras connected to computers doing face recognition to be sure that no known criminals/terrorists board a plane? Privacy can be important, especially for someone acting justly who has enemies, but in public there is no privacy. You are already out in the open, anyone who wants can snap a picture of you. Everyone sees you picking that monster weggie, everyone see you wipe that hanger off your nose, everyone sees you checking out that hot chick's ass while you're walking with your wife... The day someone puts a camera in my house(or in too close a proximity), forces dna sampling, forces me to turn over personal information, etc., then I'll be pissed. Personally, I'm not sure what I think about gun registration laws, and other such things that exist already, but complaining about face recognition is like complaining about putting up a website with pictures of you and people coming to download them, YOU PUT IT THERE, just like being out in public. note: I'm still open to any arguments about why it's bad, but right now I just don't see it as a threat in any way at all. Freedom & Security are always a trade-off by q2k ( 67077 ) writes: And what better time for government to propose legislation that limits freedom than right after a national tragedy that has everybody scared. A Washington Post poll this weekend found that 60% off Americans would trade freedom for security right now. I appreciate RMS's effort, but I fear this battle has already been lost. Freedom & Security are seldom a trade-off by Svartalf ( 2997 ) writes: What they're talking about wouldn't have prevented what happened last Tuesday. People are clamoring for them to do something, and about why this even happened. What the populace doesn't understand is that they (the terrorists) know that we've got abilities to track and crack this stuff- so they don't use crypto to avoid being caught as easily. And, as others point out, they're not going to honor our laws (Did they honor them last Tuesday? What makes people think that they're going to start now?) and use crypto that doesn't have the backdoors, etc. It boils down to which freedoms are you talking about- restricting many of them don't guarantee security in the slightest. Everything done up to this point has been exactly opposite to what the government has been saying- it's reacting hysterically to the problem and letting the terrorists win. He just had to say that, didn't he by Kostya ( 1146 ) writes: Please let your elected representatives, and your unelected president, ... [emphasis mine] Yeah, that was real helpful. What a dork. And he wonders why he is marginalized so often. Restraint could get him much further in this world. Out there is right by Wyatt Earp ( 1029 ) writes: 1. "Given that the human face recognition performed by the check-in agents did not keep the hijackers out, there is no reason to think that computer face recognition would help." Jeez, that's like saying that a human can't keep track of 20,000 messages at a time so computers can't either. No honestly, while I do not agree with face cams on the street or in public places, I can agree with them in airports, because it's been widely held that it isn't unconstitutional to withhold some civil liberties to protect the Public. 2. "Meanwhile, Congress hurried to pass a resolution giving Bush unlimited power to use military force in retaliation for the attacks. Retaliation may be justified, if the perpetrators can be identified and carefully targeted, but Congress has a duty to scrutinize specific measures as they are proposed. Handing the president carte blanche in a moment of anger is exactly the mistake that led the United States into the Vietnam War." That's just out and out bullshit too. That's not what led the United States into Vietnam, that's what got Marines there, but the Gulf of Tonkin resolution and Congress's recent vote are not the same. The Gulf of Tonkin was a slippery slope into war, Congress basicly voted for war, just like they did in 1812, 1846, 1861, 1898, 1917 and 1941. Not the same as the Gulf of Tonkin. 3. "But that won't stop the agencies that have always wanted to do more surveillance from pushing this plan now, and many other plans like it. To stop them will require public opposition." Stallman must have missed US Government class in high school and college. Just because Congress votes on something and the President signs it, doesn't mean it will be there forever, the Supreme Court will decide that. There are some wacky congress-critters out there, but I doubt that this long battle about crypto and people tracking will slip in under the guise of "Public Safety". That was one big FUD piece there, and yep, I think Stallman was out there. Re:Out there is right by geekoid ( 135745 ) writes: Stallman must have missed US Government class in high school and college. Just because Congress votes on something and the President signs it, doesn't mean it will be there forever, the Supreme Court will decide that. There are some wacky congress-critters out there, but I doubt that this long battle about crypto and people tracking will slip in under the guise of "Public Safety". Obvious, but not redundant by eAndroid ( 71215 ) writes: I'm glad RMS said this - and so tactfully! We are all afraid of these very things happening. As members (most of us) of the open source community our representetives, as it were, need to express how we feel. Sure, RMS, ESR and Linus were never voted in, aren't always in agreement and have as much opposition as support within the OSS community however they are the people that CNN, Cnet and the like quote as being our collective voice. Even if slashdot has modded similar posts up to 5 numerous times those posts aren't going to be read by your congressman unless they are typed out on nice paper by someone like RMS. And to RMS, thank you. When these rights are taken away atleast we can say, "told you so." Hm ... 6 days, took longer than I t hought... by johnlcallaway ( 165670 ) writes: ... for the Stallman's to strike back. "Oh no, I don't want anyone to know that I went into Kmart today". Freedom or Death: Take Your Pick by Proud Geek ( 260376 ) writes: One thing that is painfully obvious from the other countries that have to deal with the constant threat of terrorism is that some liberties do have to be surrendered. More government knowledge and control of what we do is something that we have to accept. Really, if we continue with our current system there is no doubt that this could happen again. To all the people who say, "Give me freedom or give me death," this is the time to make your choice. Stand on the side of continued complete freedom and invite the terrorists in with open arms. Or give up a few freedoms and help stop the next attack before it starts. We haven't dealt with this before, but other countries like UK and Israel have, and their experience is clear: the choice really is between death and loss of freedom. I'm firmly in the camp of living, and I hope that people like Richard Stallman realize their folley and join me before we get hit again! Re:Freedom or Death: Take Your Pick by panda ( 10044 ) writes: As for me, I say, "Give me Liberty, or give me death!" Patrick Henry This is silly by Rosco P. Coltrane ( 209368 ) writes: Okay, so the UK have CCTV cameras all over the country. Net result ? they can squelch pretty thefts in high streets and issue speeding tickets automatically. Yet the IRA still strike. Gee, I wonder why the camera didn't pick them up. Parent Share twitter Short term bad, long term maybe good? by YouAreFatMan ( 470882 ) writes: I noticed that the Chicago Tribune had an article about the tension between security and liberty [chicagotribune.com] today. IMHO, whether or not Congress will move to restrict civil liberties right now is not as important as whether or not civil liberties are even being discussed. Whether or not they are even on the radar or the average person. It is very likely civil liberties will be hedged for a short time. But now, the debate is on the front page of the newspaper rather than the techno-backwaters of Slashdot. People will notice the loss of their freedom. Up to now, freedom was being eroded and few noticed or cared. I think that the short-term consequences, sadly, will include depriving U.S. citizens of civil liberties in the name of safety. But I think the long-term consequences are a heightened awareness of the balance and tension between security and liberty. Let's be a little more careful, folks by clark625 ( 308380 ) writes: Mr. Stallman is clearly upset, and his statement regarding our president is inflammatory and disrespectful. Don't get me wrong--I can sympathize with Mr. Stallman. But if moderators on /. could moderate stories, this one might just get the old "Troll" or "Flamebait" markings. ESR on the WTC Attack by szcx ( 81006 ) writes: Boneheaded, opportunistic comment of the day [salon.com]. Last week Jerry Falwell blamed the WTC attack on the ACLU, feminists, and gays. Here's what ESR has to say about it; Raymond, the libertarian open-source guru, known for his love of firearms, suggested that if the passengers of the hijacked jets had had guns the four-plane tragedy might have been prevented: "We have learned today that trying to keep civilian weapons out of airplanes and other areas vulnerable to terrorist attack is not the answer either -- indeed, it is arguable that the lawmakers who disarmed all the non-terrorists on those four airplanes, leaving them no chance to stop the hijackers, bear part of the moral responsibility for this catastrophe." One good thing by matty ( 3385 ) writes: Many have stated the flaws in this piece by RMS. I won't repeat them. However, since RMS is always a lightning rod for discussion, we are now all continuing to talk about the possibility of the US federal government lessening the civil liberties of the citizens it represents. Please keep discussing it. Please contact your elected representatives (RMS's unnecessary anti-Bush statement notwithstanding) and tell them what you think. And RMS, please keep having opinions. If nothing else, it keeps us all talking, and that is A Good Thing (c). Is Osama "Emmanual Goldstein"? by litewoheat ( 179018 ) writes: To take this a bit further... The new enemy is practically undefined and is broadly described as "terrorist organizations and the states that support and harbor them". America, Joe Sixpack's America, cannot wage a war against this new enemy without first putting a face on it. That face is Osama Bin Laden, whether or not he had any involvement in New York and Washington. Our new war will have no victory. Soon, Americans will grow used to news reports of military actions in Middle Eastern countries more so then with the same from Kosovo and Iraq. This is because this war will be ongoing as will the state of war and its consequences on civil liberties and domestic tolerance. Getting to the point To win this war America, and its allies, need to prove a negative, that is that terrorism no longer exists. Does this mean that, eventually, the focus of this war could be "terrorists" in Montana? What about First Amendment protected Hate groups or far from center muckrakers. What comes after that? Double Plus Good Domestic Security? Telescreens? Thought Police? We're on a slippery slope here with Double Plus Crisco. Share twitter Has anyone noticed... by InfinityWpi ( 175421 ) writes: We've lost nothing yet? These are just proposals... and tons of poposals get shot down every year. Yes, these may require more fighting than most, but don't assume just because a few congressmen want them, that they're going to happen. I swear, I'm half-expecting people to get uptight about a non-existant plan to make everyone wear a homing device so they can be found if abuiling collapses on them... Please explain by artemis67 ( 93453 ) writes: Given that the human face recognition performed by the check-in agents did not keep the hijackers out, there is no reason to think that computer face recognition would help. So, we now require all check-in agents at all airports to memorize the faces of thousands of known terrorists? I must have missed that in the news... Personally, I'm all for placing face regocnition systems in airports. If it will save lives, beginning with mine and my family's, then let's get it done. Absolutely. Look, the age of technology is here, and the criminals are already using technology to the max. The use of facial scanning technology, matching against wanted or known criminals in airports is not a violation of civil liberties, IMO. The unrestricted use of facial scanning technology by government may be, but it is important that we build out our legal system to accomodate new technologies AND protect civil liberties. For example, we could make a distinction between "scanning and matching" and "tracking" (without a court order). What I'm totally against is reactionary diatribes about the loss of civil liberties that don't cast an eye towards reshaping law. We have to keep seeking out that unique balance between protecting civil liberties and protecting society. Share twitter Re: by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) writes: Comment removed based on user account deletion Re:Please explain by artemis67 ( 93453 ) writes: It might have prompted a more thorough search of the bags of the hijackers, most of whom were already known to the CIA to be involved in terrorism. In the bags, someone would have found a video about how to fly a commercial jet and some plastic knives. Comment removed by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) writes: Comment removed based on user account deletion Parent Share twitter Re:Once more ... by Augusto ( 12068 ) writes: They were on a terrorist watch list, they would have at least stopped them and been able to note both of them carrying box cutters and maybe even one of them being trained as a pilot. Parent Share twitter What's wrong with airport face recognition? by zulux ( 112259 ) writes: I understand *fully*, why face recognition systems in public places is wrong. BUT, the airlines have a right and a duty to know who their customers are, and if face recognition systems help peal off the layers of anonymity they should be allowed to use them. Airlines have the right to know with whom they are doing business with. The business transition of purchasing a ticket is done on a contractual basis, and the airlines and the customer have the right know who the other party in the contract is. Share twitter how about voluntary, opt-out options ? by beanerspace ( 443710 ) writes: Sometime last week, I suggested voluntary biometrics as must one small measure to help facilitate idendification of the average joe. The thought is that as we are routed to more automated inspections, enforcement officers are freed up to perform more thorough human inspections. I've seen facial recognition and other technologies suggested as well. Perhaps what's needed is NOT legislation as the article suggests. For as with toll bridges, once set, they are very difficult to repeal. Instead, why not voluntary programs? For example, my enrollment in the above program would automatically expire in a year's time, unless I opt out right away. No harm is done either way, as I choose to go the long route. Granted, we are temporarily suspending some of our civil liberties, in return for safety, but in a way where we control the duration and participation in the program. Share twitter Logic Error by pmc ( 40532 ) writes: Given that the human face recognition performed by the check-in agents did not keep the hijackers out, there is no reason to think that computer face recognition would help. This does not make much sense. Generalising gives "Given that humans cannot do something means that computers cannot do it either" should explain. I really don't know what is meant here. We have something that is already happening poorly. Someone has suggested that using technology would improve it, and this is an infringement of civil liberties. Sorry, I just don't buy that argument. Airlines have a right (and, de facto, an obligation, especially now) to know who is using them. Using computers can make their execution of this duty much more effective: it is counterproductive (to say the least), to demand that they forgo this because the use of this technology by some other body may infringe civil liberties. It may be that the use of the same technology, for a different end, by a different body, will be an infringement of civil liberties: by all means fight that battle then. But to try to stop a technology that has beneficial uses because it also has bad uses is luddite. And to fight the battle with the weapon "it's no better than what we've already got" is just dumb. Share twitter Identification System by nanojath ( 265940 ) writes: One thing that is clear from this is that Mr. Stallman has no particular knowledge of this photo identification system. This system applies a multi-point comparative analysis of key facial features which are very difficult to alter/disguise (distance between eyes, etc). In combination they provide a very high degree of accuracy in positive identification based on a photograph. Mr. Stallman's comparison to individual surveillance by a human is meaningless because it is impossible for a human to do what this system could do - compare an individual to a database of known criminals. Share twitter Government backdoors prevent open source by DunbarTheInept ( 764 ) writes: If there's any people out there who don't think there's anything wrong with mandating government backdoors in all encrypting software, consider this: How can they mandate that encryption software retains that backdoor unless they prevent people from seeing the source code? This would be the death of any open source software that happens to do encryption. This asinine attitude that congress has, that lerge corporate software is the only software that needs to exist, is rearing it's ugly head again here. It's the same attitude that made it so that the DMCA prevents open source DVD players. If you can't beat open source down by technical means, then beat it down with the law. Slash-dotters should help, not fight USGovt by code_rage ( 130128 ) writes: [this is a repost from another thread on the same subject] Good decisions needed! by Glock27 ( 446276 ) writes: Stallman is making a very good and important point here. It seems like every time I hear the media covering the terrorist attacks, I hear someone saying "Of course I'm ready to give up some freedom to improve security." These people don't seem to realize that if we give up civil liberties in response to these attacks, the terrorists have succeeded! Giving up those freedoms means the terrorists have forced us to change our way of life - that should be the LAST thing we want or allow. On the specific subject of flight safety, I've heard two proposals that (especially combined) would eliminate the threat of this type of attack almost completely without requiring additional airport security at all: More armed air marshals in plainclothes randomly on flights. The only other flight related measure that would impact airport/airline employess (but not the general public) would be greater security measures for them to eliminate problems like the ramp access that one terrorist team apparently had, allowing them to get a bomb on board. Instead of these relatively unobtrusive measures, we will likely get very expensive, intrusive and draconian measures like automated chemical sniffers and millimeter wave "x-ray" machines. My prediction is that the terrorists will not attempt this type of attack again, and the public will absorb the cost and inconvenience for no gain whatever. Also we will likely be faced with fairly massive domestic surveillance, which will be useless if the enemy has half a clue, and will only serve to further erode our personal liberties (see the proposed encryption backdoors, for instance). Don't forget the words of a great American (the only person to sign both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution): "Those that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety --Ben Franklin-- I hope that our current leaders can step up to the plate and make the right decisions, so that America can remain free, while eliminating the international terrorist threat to the extent possible. 186,282 mi/s...not just a good idea, its the law! unelected president? by Dr. Awktagon ( 233360 ) writes: Please let your elected representatives, and your unelected president, know that you don't want your civil liberties to become the terrorists' next victim. Fallacy by jdavidb ( 449077 ) writes: Given that the human face recognition performed by the check-in agents did not keep the hijackers out, there is no reason to think that computer face recognition would help. I'm sure I'll get flamed or worse either for disagreeing with RMS or for suggesting that "evil" face-recognition might be an effective deterrent, but the above statement is not true. Human face recognition performed by the check-in agents didn't work, but do you think it would've worked if the check-in agents were the CIA agents who'd been looking for two of the hijackers for a couple of weeks? Do you think the computer face recognition is more likely to be like the bored, underpaid check-in agents, or more like the highly trained CIA agents especially familiar with their targets? Face recognition yes, crypto backdoors no. by sulli ( 195030 ) writes: Okay, maybe it's time for a more nuanced opinion on civil liberties in wartime and afterwards. Share twitter likely consequences by GrassSnake ( 228479 ) writes: Regardless of whether you're worried about a Big Brother scenario in which the FBI arrests you for conspiring to violate the DMCA or some such, there are some obvious adverse consequences for requiring encryption back doors Problems with international porting. Do you need to publish a different version of the software for each country, with a back door usable by only that nation's law enforcement community? There's no need to invoke a nightmare scenario to see the potential problems. FUD from RMS... by cavemanf16 ( 303184 ) writes: Handing the president carte blanche in a moment of anger is exactly the mistake that led the United States into the Vietnam War. Share twitter Balance of Liberty and Security by Planesdragon ( 210349 ) writes: Something that we need to consider--in fact, the only thing worthy of public debate after Tuesday's attack--is our balance between Liberty and Security. Often in the past we have traded security for liberty--for example, when we assigned blacks and women the right to vote, or when we allowed a new state to join the union. Each of these movements--and many others like them that are by far too numerous to list here--have helped create the impression that "civil liberties" are a absolute good in and of themselves. But down that road lies anarchy, if we travel it far enough. What many liberals often forget, and their uneducated conservative oppoents are slow to mention, is that we have as often traded liberty for security. When we discarded the Articles of Confederation for the strong federal government of the Constitution, we traded liberty for security. When we joined the United Nations, we traded liberty for security. Every time we sign a new treaty, pass a new law, or apply the old law to a new thing, we are trading the liberty of Americans for the security of Americans--and not always the same Americans. In this brave new world of the 21st century, we will have choices to make as a nation. Do we trade the freedom of disposable e-mail address and anonymous soapboxes for the security of accountability? Do we trade the security of childhoods free from terrorism for the liberty of invisible travel? These choices, and many more, should be discussed in a rational, national conversation--one as free from empty rhetoric and petty politics as possible. Richard Stallman was eloquent, but the message above is neither free from empty rhetoric nor petty politics. To wit: WHY are civil liberties important? Of course they're threatened in the wake of this terrorism--but so is the security of the nation. To win the argument in favor of personal liberty over national security, it is necessary to state and defend the reasons why civil liberties are more important--not simply state their moral superiority as some assumed point. Also... unelected president? Hardly. Geroge W. Bush was just as elected as any other president we've ever had. The popular vote has NEVER mattered, only the votes of the Electoral College. This was true when George Washington was chosen more than two hundred years ago, and this was true when George W. Bush was chosen just last year. Share twitter "unelected president" by small_dick ( 127697 ) writes: during the election, i didn't like either choice, viewing both as products of nepotism. the bush and gore families are powerful political engines...not as powerful as the kennedy machine, but still powerful. to claim that President Bush is an "unelected president" takes away from what i view as a sacred document--the US Constitution. the man is legally the president of the united states, so show some respect, and do not use that wording. otherwise, i agree fully with the paper. the dotGOV will use this incident, and the emotional aftermath, to erode our freedoms. Share twitter Pardon my attitude but... by packetgeek ( 192142 ) writes: This is what I hear: piss moan whine Don't take away my freedom bitch piss moan You better not use this to take advantage of me gripe bitch whine Oh no, the guy I didn't want for President gets war time powers during war time What I do not hear: Members of congress here is a way to realize Civil Liberties AND the protection of world citizens Mr President I wish to help, here are some possible solutions to the problem I'm sorry people but if we are only going to bitch about what our government officials do and never give them workable ideas and solutions then shame on us. And remember as Abraham Lincoln told us, we have a "government OF the people, BY the people FOR the people" Share twitter One Straw Man: by rkent ( 73434 ) writes: Given that the human face recognition performed by the check-in agents did not keep the hijackers out, there is no reason to think that computer face recognition would help. Perhaps a better argument is that current face recognition technology sucks, and almost certainly would NOT have helped in this situation. Share twitter The Forth Amendment by blamanj ( 253811 ) writes: While I, too, am concerned that there will be attempts to ride roughshod The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, Note the word "unreasonable." This is a rather vague word; Share twitter Flawed Argument-There is no privacy invasion here. by Captain_Frisk ( 248297 ) writes: Given that the human face recognition performed by the check-in agents did not keep the hijackers out, there is no reason to think that computer face recognition would help. Share twitter Some restrictions may apply by dgroskind ( 198819 ) writes: It would have been helpful if Stallman had said what measures he would tolerate. It is a given than in wartime some restrictions are necessary. Share twitter Towards World Liberty Day? by harrystottle ( 522425 ) writes: Hello from the UK. It may help, with regard to what I'm about to say, that you know "where I'm coming from" I'm also a political philosopher, atheist, transhumanist and libertarian anarchist. Generally, as you might expect, therefore, I oppose a great deal of what both the US government and my own stand for. OK, so much for the bio. You may be aware that we've had a little local difficulty with our own home grown terrorists for the past 30 years. A number of points ought to be sticking out like sore thumbs as a result of our experience. First off, as I've said, I'm no supporter of the British establishment. But one thing is crystal clear. No one knows more about combating terrorism than the Brits. No one even gets close. They were the first victims of modern terrorism (Palestine, late 40s) and have since fought it actively in every corner of the world. British anti terrorist special forces have been trained in real terrorist situations ever since the second world war. The Israelis come a not very close second (their experience is too parochial). What lessons have arisen from that expertise? Well, for a start, we've learned that the only terrorism which can be defeated is that which - unlike the current threat - has a very narrow base of support. (Oman is the classic example) Other forms can be suppressed and, to some extent, controlled, but not defeated. Why not? For the simple reason that Terrorism is a response to historical and political conditions. If those remain as they were when the terrorism began, then, even if you manage by extraordinary good fortune to wipe out every member of the current generation of terrorists, more will emerge, like mushrooms, from the background environment. If you don't tackle the conditions which produced the problem, you will reap a regular harvest. Alarmingly, I do not hear, in the current debate, any mention of what needs to be done in order to reduce the political pressures which produced this attack. Unless AT LEAST as much effort goes into that political effort then the result of even a successful military campaign will be worse than you can probably imagine. Not immediately, not perhaps for 10 or 20 years. But unlike American politicians, the enemy here is patient and has time on its side. Don't lose sight of the fact that Tuesday 11 September 2001 has been in the planning stage for at least 8 and probably 10 years. If we do nothing to tackle the background causes of this cancer, then even if we succeed in excising the current tumour, it has already metastasised and will inevitably flare up again in the future. And given the developments in delivery systems for biological agents (eg anthrax) and the progress being made in genetic engineering, the attack in 2011 or 2021 can be expected to kill not a few thousand, but millions or even hundreds of millions. Having said that, terrorists, even when they carry out devastating attacks with the high degree of professionalism we saw on our TV screens, aren't very clever politically. The key breakthroughs in our Irish problem have generally come about as a result of the IRA committing atrocities which even their own supporters couldn't stomach. This has, at times, not only choked off their major source of funding (from the terrorists main supporting country, the USA) but also made it very difficult for them to justify their actions to their own grass roots. It is very clear, from the speed with which even terrorist sponsor countries like Libya and Syria have jumped on the condemnation bandwagon, that this is precisely what has happened among the vast Islamic community who, though generally hostile to the USA, have recognised the World Trade Centre as an attack too far. The Pentagon, on its own or even the White House might have been regarded as legitimate military targets and you'd have seen a lot more than a few angry Palestinian teenagers dancing in the streets. But most Moslems, even the ones who hate the US, are not so unreasonable that they would seek to justify massive civilian casualties. It is that reaction which should form the core of the political analysis and response. The world is now divided into two hostile camps. The vast majority of us are hostile to what the Hussein/Laden axis carried out last week. I'm not claiming that the figures I'm about to give are accurate, but they are in the right ballpark.. In excess of 99.9% of the human population would probably like to see bin Laden and/or Hussein quickly executed, together with all those for whom we can prove a valid connection to the attack, or preparation for the attack. There are, nevertheless possibly a million or so, who fully support the terrorists aims and methods, even including what they did in New York. Of that million, probably no more than 5000 are combatants. We need not worry about killing any of those. Their deaths will be widely seen - even amongst the usually anti American community - as completely fair game. Their deaths will, of course, rouse fierce resentment from the million, but they were already in the enemy camp in any case, so the situation will not have been made any more dangerous than it already is. However, each death outside that circle of combatants will probably: You can see this attitude most clearly in Pakistan. The military leadership will keep the lid on their generally Laden supporting population in order to ensure that they themselves do not wake up in the firing line. They are currently host to 2.5 million Afghan refugees - who are no friends of either the Taliban or Bin Laden. But if ONE of their number back home is killed by a coalition attack - you can expect a hundred recruits to the anti American cause. And the rest of the Pakistan population would go apeshit. Not that they would necessarily seek to become terrorists themselves, but they would certainly make it easier for terrorists to conduct their business. It is crucial, therefore, to have very precise targets and stick rigidly to those. The problem of precision, of course, lies in locating the 5000 combatants. As we've already learned, 12 of the 19 identified had been living in the USA on and off for most of the past few years. How many more are already there? Where are the rest? Its extremely unlikely that they are still hanging around the known training camps in Sudan, Somalia, Afghanistan etc. They will have dispersed back to their home villages, or to entirely different countries around the world. What are we going to aim at then? If the coalition sticks to the Runsfeld line, the answer to that is going to be "whatever we can find - even if there isn't a terrorist within a hundred miles - providing it hurts the host country and makes them think twice about allowing terrorists to operate freely within their borders ever again" That way lie many thousand newly motivated terrorists. There must be No blanket bombing. No non-combatant casualties - even at the cost of greater casualties for our side. The Brits have had no compunction in that direction. Its been a major factor in their relative success. Check out, for example, http://www.flamemag.dircon.co.uk/dirty_war_in_irel and.htm for a brief intro to some of the things we got up to in Ireland and elsewhere. It was the IRA's reluctant realisation that they were up against military tactics at least as effective as their own, but with much better funding, that eventually forced them to consider the peace process. And that, above all, or at least alongside the military manoeuvres, is the light that must be placed at the end of the tunnel. If there is no prospect of political reform, there is no prospect of an end to the War on Terrorism. After all, if they're already prepared to sacrifice their lives, what else have they got to lose? Primarily this means, somehow, forcing Israel and the Palestinians to share, peacefully, a territory over which both claim sovereignty. The administration has already spoken of flushing out the roots of terrorism. In fact, it has no current strategy for dealing with that ambitious project at all. There are mixed signals coming from Runsfeld. On the one hand he talks about using small units of special forces - which is encouragingly realistic. Assassination is the appropriate tool here. On the other, he talks about the terrorists not having capital targets to go after, but their harboring countries do; so we might go after those instead. Teach them not to support the terrorists in future. This is alarming nonsense. And precisely the kind of behaviour which will increase the problem by recruiting more terrorists to the cause. Indeed, most depressingly, such talk indicates that they haven't even understood what the "roots of terrorism" are. They are not spoilt arab ex-playboys with too much money (bin Laden) or egomaniacal despots who used to be on our side (Hussein) or training camps in the desert. The roots of terrorism are the political conditions which have provoked widespread anger amongst about 25% of the human population. Are we going to kill them all? Thats what you'll have to do if you wish to flush out the roots of terrorism without confronting the political issues. There are many such issues, but, without doubt, the strongest, most important root of all, is the ongoing war between Israel and the Palestinians. Find the magic formula for that one, and most of the rest will wither on the vine. Even Iraq would cease to be a problem if it was no longer able to nurture support through its unconditional succour to the Palestinians. This is the area we should be most focussed upon. One final point on the emerging shape of the Coalition policy. As touched on above, we are apparently supposed, from now on, to be going after not just the combatants themselves, but after the countries which provide support, or merely harbour them. I wonder if the author of that policy is aware that, had the UK adopted such a policy say 15 years ago, it would have necessarily needed to attack Eire for harbouring and the USA for allowing its Irish contingent to provide most of the logistical and financial support which kept the IRA going. Somehow, I can't see the USA having been so keen to support such a policy at that time. Now, of course, that they have become the target, however, we seem to get a faint whiff of double standards... Moving on... ...to the threat to our civil liberties, The naivete of some of the responses I've read here is absolutely frightening. It seems that some of you seriously believe that this war is going to be "over by Christmas". Let me make it plain. I'm a fanatical privacy advocate. Indeed I hope in the near future to be able to promote the concept of near absolute safety achieved through and dependant upon the guarantee of near absolute privacy. Despite that, if I genuinely believed that giving up my rights to privacy for, say, a couple of weeks, or even months, would guarantee success in this war, I would probably concede that it was a price worth paying. However, first, I would want the control of that situation in my own hands. In other words, at the point I decide that either my sacrifice of privacy is no longer effectively contributing to the war effort, or that the authorities are abusing my surrendered privacy, I would want to be able to switch my privacy back on - regardless of whether they approved or not. Failing that degree of personal autonomy (which is difficult, though not impossible, in today's world) I would accept no less than a democratically controlled policy where the decision was made not by elected representives but, using a national referendum, by the people themselves in a single issue vote. With a guarantee - enshrined in the wording of the referendum - that the powers being ceded would be time limited to, say, 12 months, after which the powers would lapse unless renewed by another referendum. Secondly, we are not talking about a short term policy here. I've already made it clear that until and unless you can cure the Arab-Israeli problem (at least), the roots of terrorism will continue to thrive. Those who favour anti-privacy measures will clearly expect them to be in place for as long as the terrorist problem remains. Until, in fact, the roots of terror have been eliminated. So ask yourself the question. How long is it going to take to sort out the Middle East? Its already taken more than 50 years. I see no immediate reason to believe we could achieve significant progress in less than another 10 or 15 years. Are you really prepared to lose your privacy rights for that long? And do you really believe, that if you gave them away so easily (i.e. without the annual referendum above) that you could ever easily win them back? And with the so called War on Drugs as a precedent, do you (anti-privacy lobbyists) really understand what you're suggesting. You're already widely regarded as a near police-state with the highest prison population in the western world and have already suffered massive unchallenged breaches to your sacred constitution - the authors of which must be spinning in their graves. Please, for your own sakes, and for the sake of those who died on September 11, don't sacrifice even more of your freedoms in the mistaken belief that it will protect them. What you'll end up with is a country which is no longer worth protecting. On September 11 2002 we will commemorate the first anniversary of this horrific attack on civilisation. I hope that the most appropriate name for this day in the future will reflect the fact that it will be recognised as the day the world began to turn away from intolerance, and began instead to pay more than lip service to the very freedoms which are supposed to be enshrined in and protected by - first and foremost - your very own American constitution. I hope it will be called World Liberty Day. I would like to think that our own actions, Share twitter Heh.... by DragonPup ( 302885 ) writes: I misread the headline at first. I thought it said, "Stallman Dead, Millions deprived of liberties". Maybe I need new glasses... -Henry Share twitter Re:Taking advantage of the situation? by gorgon ( 12965 ) writes: I don't think so. If he were taking advantage of the situation, he probably would have tried to push the Free Software position. Instead he stuck very close to the topic at hand and possible repercussions. Re:Taking advantage of the situation? by Sheetrock ( 152993 ) writes: Your reaction is certainly... colorful... but a reminder for the three or four of us who are going to take this opportunity to contact our representatives that when we bring up an issue we must be focused on one topic at a time. Whether or not the Florida process produced an illegitimate result may be an important subject for discussion, but it is irrelevant to the individual argument that mandatory backdoors in U.S. cryptographic software runs counter to logic even in light of the recent attacks. As your reaction points out, when Stallman brings up his opinion on a topic that a member of his audience doesn't agree with, it may color that member's reception to the more relevant opinion in Stallman's piece. In other news, Congressman Bob Barr (of Georgia) was on CNN today saying that enforcement of current laws is more important than cracking down on our civil liberties. If you are in Georgia, please give him your support and bring up how either the mandatory encryption backdoor issue or the amendment tacked on to H.R. 2500 vastly increasing [wired.com] the authority of law enforcement to wiretap with reduced oversight will impact civil liberties without any proof that they are necessary to combat terrorism. Re:Taking advantage of the situation? [not] by uqbar ( 102695 ) writes: No, he is warning us that others will take advantage of this situation. Already televangelists like Jerry Fawell are linking the attacks to "pagans, homosexual, abortionists," etc. Such claims are absurd and pathetic - and more than a little indicative of how similar religious fundamentalists like Bin Ladden and Fawell really are in their intolerance. Lots of folks will exploit this tragedy to advance their own agenda. But RMS isn't among them - his warning is truly linked with the events and he is being sincere in his fears. Parent Share twitter Re:Taking advantage of the situation? by plague3106 ( 71849 ) writes: Maybe. Or quite possibly others are using this to push through laws they would not have been able to pass before. Seems like everyone is trying to use this attack to further their own goals... Re:Taking advantage of the situation? by abe ferlman ( 205607 ) writes: I'd say its the Feds who are taking advantage of the situation, rushing to install Carnivore within hours of the plane crashes everywhere they could while people were still emotionally vulnerable. For shame. This is the moment of greatest vulnerability for civil libertarians. This is no time to be meek, quiet or accepting, it is the time when those who previously only sympathized must begin to act. And thank you for providing such a scabrous, troll-like platform of a post for me to take advantage of. I can't say I blame you for AC'ing. Bryguy Yeah but who isn't? by sterno ( 16320 ) writes: I mean, if you want to get picky about it there are a hell of a lot of organizations and people that are making use of this situation to their benefit. The Red Cross comes to mind as a good example, which, after all is said and done, will probably have far more money than it started with. Before you flame me for bashing on the Red Cross, believe me, I don't see that as being a bad thing. I think they should take advantage of the situation because what they do is really a good thing and having a little extra cash in the coffers and blood in the bank will be good for them. RMS is simply reiterating the fears of many others here, and frankly I suspect it wouldn't even get airplay here if it wasn't RMS. Does he say anything new? No. Does he say it in a way that others aren't? No. Is he using this situation to some political benefit, perhaps, but in the end, what he's seeking to promote here is good, so who cares? If one more person writes their congressman because RMS said it, aren't we all better off? RMS Totally misunderstands one of his three points by MacGabhain ( 198888 ) writes: Meanwhile, Congress hurried to pass a resolution giving Bush unlimited power to use military force in retaliation for the attacks. Retaliation may be justified, if the perpetrators can be identified and carefully targeted, but Congress has a duty to scrutinize specific measures as they are proposed. Handing the president carte blanche in a moment of anger is exactly the mistake that led the United States into the Vietnam War. Re:Taking advantage of the situation? by Anonymous Coward writes: To save our civil liberties and more, we should come to a full stop. Do not invade Afghanistan and others. Immediately pull out of Iraq, without even bothering to tell Sadaam. Over the next few years, unilaterally pull out of the rest of the middle east and eastern europe. Tell Israel we won't even try to stop them from doing whatever they think is necessary to survive. Say so long to NATO. Start weaning Japan and Taiwan. Do whatever it takes to become independent of imported oil. Tell the disappointed war-mongers in the US that they're being good Christians. Let the Palestinians crow over their "victory" - at least until they realize we aren't going to be there to stop the Israelis any more. Let the terrorists claim they they've won and are great heroes. Let Sadaam strut and probably brag that he was behind the WTC attack. Let the international media record it all. Then, about 3 years from now, after all the bragging and celebrating is over, and we know who our enemies are, strike with no warning, with deliberate and massive force. Or would you rather salve your ego, toss aside your civil liberties, and go into an impossible war on terrorists that has potential to quickly escalate into WW III? ?? by einhverfr ( 238914 ) writes: If we leave Saudi Arabia in the middle of the night like a beaten dog, I hope we at least have the courtesy to inform the Saudis and Kuwaitis of our intention. They'll be overrun by Saddam by the middle of next week, and they might appreciate the warning. I don't think that Saddam could easily invade Saudi Arabia, nor do I think that he has the intention to do so absent American involvement. Kuwait is different. Kuwait was originally part of Iraq and when the British pulled out, they created that country as a way to "keep their foot in the door" in that region. As a result Iraq has, for some time (and long before Saddam) looked for a way to reclaim that land. Don't get me wrong, even though I am highly critical of American war crimes (19 counts of which were tried in front of the international war-crimes tribunal and convictions were reached on all counts against Bush, Powell, etc), Hussein is no good guy. Anyone that would gas his own citizens with poison gas (during the Iran-Iraq war when he was our ally and probably on the payrole of groups like the CIA) certainly deserves much of the disdain he receives. The 'net is full of people who have never even unfolded a newspaper, much less opened a history book, yet who are only too happy to tell us all what we ought to do. I guess such, er, diversity of opinion is one of the benefits of living in a free society, though. Speaking of history, the last time a country really went to war over a terrorist act was Austro-Hungary, 1914. Although I can't speak for others, when I say I am afraid this would lead to WWIII, I base it on the following observations: 1: Massive tension in the Middle East which focuses around resentment towards "foreign invaders"-- mostly the Israeli's bot also the Americans. 2: The volitility of the Pakistan/India/China border. I predicted a few years ago that if WWIII broke out, that would be where. Pakistan and India have been fighting over the Cashmere for a long time and about every 20 years, China tried to invade India... 3: Russian Paranoia-- The Russians have been historically paranoid about foreign troups near their borders. We saw how they acted in WWI, at the end of WWII, and in Kosovo. The strategy is always based around a show of force and/or control of border states to prevent hostile troops from entering Russia. I think a war in Afghanistan would qualify there as well. 3: Parent Share twitter Re:Copyright?!?! by Uruk ( 4907 ) writes: The GPL uses copyright to protect creations. I think that he would rather that copyright didn't need to exist, but since it does exist, you may as well use it to enforce the distribution terms that ensure freedom for people. Ask him about the distribution license for this article. That, and read up on the FSF so you're not so grossly underinformed about what RMS actually believes about copyright. Re:Bunk by Mr. Slippery ( 47854 ) writes: If the heads of states of these countries consort with them, kill them too. After JFK - who ordered the assassination of Diem, and attempts on Castro - got his head blown off, however, U.S. leaders realized that using assassination as a political tool made it likely that others would do the same. Re:Over half? by matty ( 3385 ) writes: Word. I voted for Gore and I'm sure sick of it. Re:unelected president??? by Salsaman ( 141471 ) writes: C### ?? Is that a new language from Microsoft ;-) ? Re:unelected president??? by pheared ( 446683 ) writes: I believe RMS is referring to the fact that Bush did not win the popular vote. He only won because of the Electoral College, an aging system that was setup a long time ago, for reasons that don't seem too pertinent today. I don't think he means to refute the idea that Bush won the election. Instead he is trying to say that the majority of Americans did not in fact vote for Bush. Unfortunately, that is quite anti-democratic, but then, we don't live in a Democracy, but a Representative Democracy. Re:Not The Time For Anti-Patriotic Rhetoric by settonull ( 79047 ) writes: but I'll go further to express my view that this is an anti-patriotic, and un-American statement in this time of crisis I'd argue the opposite. At a time when everyone is agreeing it is even more important to question what is being said. Now the issue of the election is perhaps not the best example, but at times like this it becomes even more difficult, and more important, to disagree with the majority, even if it might be "un-American" -chris And why should we care about being "American"? by Improv ( 2467 ) writes: I presume you're talking about American in some Re:Not The Time For Anti-Patriotic Rhetoric by jmorse ( 90107 ) writes: To quoute a DK song: Who the hell are you to call anyone un-American? You're the one violating American ideals. Parent Share twitter Actually, Stallman is a good Writer, hehe by JSBiff ( 87824 ) writes: Hello, RMS is a very intelligent, very talented man. When he takes the time to sit down, right down his thoughts, review them and edit them, he can come up with some very persuasive, intelligent, and reasonable arguments. But if you've ever seen RMS in action at a Live event, he can sometimes be very harsh. I was at the conference called The Bazaar, in NYC in, I believe December of, hmm, 2000 I think. Anyhow I was at a session where he was speaking in the larger keynote hall, and there was a question and answer period afterword. Someone asked a question that RMS apparently didn't like, and his answer was rather nastier than I thought was appropriate. And there are many many examples of this, just ask around among people who've had the "pleasure" of meeting RMS in person. So, in summary, a lot of the RMS bashing that happens on Slashdot is, to a large degree, RMS' own fault, as it is in reaction to people's experiences with him. That said, I do agree that he is a very intelligent man who does have things to say which need to be said. Re:benjamin franklin's opinion by TheAwfulTruth ( 325623 ) writes: Of course Benjamin Franklin ALSO said (I'm paraphrasing here) "I would gladly give up my right to slander another if in turn I were to be protected of being slandered." Try reading the book "Fart Proudly" and see what old Ben REALLY said, rather than tiny out of context quotes that are shoved down your throats by a very narrow minded education system. Thruth is usually muych less black and white that most people make it out to be. Re:If now is not the time for dissent, when is? by Nonesuch ( 90847 ) writes: It does not take much to capitalize on the reaction to a major disturbing incident to revoke civil liberties. I don't have a problem with tighter airport security. What concerns me are provisions for more monitoring of all Americans, additional restrictions on the freedom to travel, and the relaxation of standards for wiretaps. Februrary 28, 1933 At a cabinet meeting held later in the morning, the Chancellor demanded an The Emergency Decree stated: "Restrictions on personal liberty, on the right of free expression of opinion, including freedom of the press; on the Does any of this sound familiar? Can you not see similarities to the proposed 'new FBI powers' and 'relaxed wiretap requirements' discussed in Congress today? Granted, perhaps the most recent terrorist bombings There may be more comments in this discussion. Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to turn on Classic Discussion System in your preferences instead. Related Links 393 comments Americans Are Leaving the US in Record Numbers 381 commentsScott Adams, Creator of the 'Dilbert' Comic Strip, Dies at 68 359 comments'America's Elite Universities Have Lost Their Way' 348 commentsCalifornia's Billionaire Tax Has the Signatures to Make the Ballot 341 commentsA Hellish 'Hothouse Earth' Getting Closer, Scientists Say next Handspring Releases New Visors previous Hemos On LEGO Slashdot Top Deals Slashdot Archived Discussion Get more comments 100 of 1632 loaded Submit Story "Pok pok pok, P'kok!" FAQ Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information Copyright © 2026 Slashdot Media. All Rights Reserved. × Close Close Working... |
The discussion revolves around Richard Stallman's assertion that the events following the terrorist attacks resulted in thousands of deaths and the deprivation of millions of civil liberties, framing a conflict between security measures and individual freedoms. The core tension explored is whether the pursuit of security justifies curtailing established civil liberties, and whether the methods proposed to achieve safety are themselves legitimate. One central point of contention is the scope of government surveillance. Stallman expressed concern over the potential for massive surveillance of all aspects of life, including communications and physical movements. Participants debated whether such measures, mandated in the name of safety, are justified, often citing historical precedents and philosophical arguments regarding the trade-off between freedom and security. Some commentators argued that invoking heightened security measures, such as implementing mandatory backdoors in encryption software, risks creating a wider erosion of liberty, drawing parallels to past governmental overreach. The debate extended to specific technological solutions related to security, most notably facial recognition systems. While some participants expressed skepticism about the efficacy of computer-based identification compared to human assessment, others argued that the potential for technology to prevent attacks, especially in high-risk environments like airports, necessitated its consideration. A nuanced view emerged, suggesting that while the technology itself presents privacy concerns, its implementation must be carefully governed to avoid becoming an instrument of mass control. Furthermore, the discussion included critiques of the political response to the attacks. Several commentators questioned the use of the tragedy as a "blank check" for lawmakers to impose restrictions, and raised concerns about executive power, such as the President's authority in wartime retaliation. This led to reflections on whether political leaders truly understood the nature of the threat, or if they were simply seeking justification for implementing restrictive policies. The exchange was also marked by an engagement with the rhetoric itself. Some participants criticized Stallman for perceived inflammatory or unhelpful political commentary, arguing that focusing on the core issues of civil liberties and security was more productive than engaging in political posturing. Conversely, others felt that the media and public discourse failed to adequately address the deep, underlying political and social conditions that foster terrorism. The discussion concluded with reflections on the long-term consequences of such rapid political reactions, cautioning against trading long-term liberties for short-term security and emphasizing the need for a rational national conversation regarding the true nature of liberty and security in a modern context. There was an acknowledgment that the true roots of terrorism lie in broader political and social conflicts, suggesting that military action alone is insufficient without addressing the underlying societal pressures. |