Comments on: KEEP BIG BROTHER'S HANDS OFF THE INTERNET

KEEP BIG BROTHER'S HANDS OFF THE INTERNET

Postroad — Mon, 25 Nov 2002 10:32:12 -0800

KEEP BIG BROTHER'S HANDS OFF THE INTERNET Ashcroft as Senator! That was then. This is now. Does it still apply?

By: quonsar

quonsar — Mon, 25 Nov 2002 10:42:44 -0800

those words look like they'd be pretty tough to chew. but ashy will just raise the specter of 9/11, say everything has changed, and spit them unmasticated into a napkin while the public nods its sheeplike head.

By: mr_roboto

mr_roboto — Mon, 25 Nov 2002 10:50:32 -0800

That's pretty interesting; it would appear at first blush that Ashcroft was taking a position on computer privacy which is at odds, to some degree, with his current position. In fairness to Ashcroft, however, I think it's important to take note of a couple things. First, the bulk of the linked polemic discussed regulation of encryption: Ashcroft was opposed to it as a senator. As Attorney General, he seems to hold a similar view; I don't remember any instances of the current Justice Department demanding tighter regulation of encryption technology. Second, the political situation has changed a great deal since Ashcroft wrote this essay. When it was written, Clinton and Reno were in charge. Now, Ashcroft is in charge. Of course it would be natural for him to favor more governmental power when he's the individual who that power is flowing to. [/sarcasm]

By: Imocrep

Imocrep — Mon, 25 Nov 2002 10:53:38 -0800

He can do that, but it would be defeated with in the text of his own document as well as, you were wrong then, you are wrong now... "There is a concern that the internet could be used to commit crimes ..... However, we do not provide the govt with phone jacks outside our homes ... Why should we grant govt the orwellian capability to listen at will ...." " The protections of the fourth amendment are clear ...." Etc ...

By: eddydamascene

eddydamascene — Mon, 25 Nov 2002 10:58:36 -0800

The state's interest in effective crime-fighting should never vitiate the citizens' Bill of Rights. Unless someone calls that citizen an enemy combatant. Then, let the eagle soar.

By: fold_and_mutilate

fold_and_mutilate — Mon, 25 Nov 2002 11:07:26 -0800

That was then. This is now. Does it still apply? Of course it doesn't apply now. Oceania is at war with Eurasia. Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia. One might also ask about those pesky "nation building" criticisms of a few years back by a particular political ideology. Of course that was then, this is now. Or maybe ask about a particular political ideology's stance on air travel security a few years ago. Of course that was then, this is now. Or maybe even about big government and "Homeland Security"...or about oil conservation...or about the support of petty Mideast tyrants....or about supplying arms to the world.... That was then. This is now. Get it?

By: homunculus

homunculus — Mon, 25 Nov 2002 11:14:45 -0800

The 4th Amendment: RIP

By: nofundy

nofundy — Mon, 25 Nov 2002 11:41:01 -0800

Two amendments gone in one day? Wow!! Not even I thought they would move this fast!

By: wrffr

wrffr — Mon, 25 Nov 2002 11:48:52 -0800

There's a good editorial over at the Wall Street Journal that points out that "Civil liberties watchdogs are yapping over nothing" about the FISA decision at least. The 4th amendment is fine, you guys. Sheesh.

By: wrffr

wrffr — Mon, 25 Nov 2002 11:50:34 -0800

However, the Total Information Awareness proposal that's been suggested is a lot more Orwellian and is unlikely to pass constitutional scrutiny.

By: oissubke

oissubke — Mon, 25 Nov 2002 11:56:20 -0800

Two amendments gone in one day? Wow!! Not even I thought they would move this fast! Yeah, what's with the liberal armageddon rally today? Usually we get at least a few good links between the trolls about how the world is going to end because of the Republicans, but today seems to be solid lamenting. Is this some holiday I don't know about?

By: quonsar

quonsar — Mon, 25 Nov 2002 12:06:58 -0800

oval office: blowjobs, not snowjobs. i pine for the good old days.

By: RylandDotNet

RylandDotNet — Mon, 25 Nov 2002 12:15:01 -0800

quonsar, Why do you hate America so much?

By: y6y6y6

y6y6y6 — Mon, 25 Nov 2002 12:37:18 -0800

"Yeah, what's with the liberal armageddon rally today?" Yeah, don't they know it's easier to just trust the government? Why the need to question all the time? What's wrong with these idiots? Just because major government officials turn out to be two-faced liars they need to run around pointing that out? What's the point? So what if Ashcroft is a liar? He's trying to defeat the forces of evil. Give him some slack. The man is busy. With all those prayer meeting with his staff, and covering up nasty statues, and avoiding black cats it's a wonder he has time to contradict himself like this. Geez. What do people want?

By: deadcowdan

deadcowdan — Mon, 25 Nov 2002 13:26:25 -0800

Oissubke: jealously guarding the freedoms outlined in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is hardly a liberal activity (although, as always, there are a lot of Chicken Littles around).

By: rushmc

rushmc — Mon, 25 Nov 2002 18:58:52 -0800

However, the Total Information Awareness proposal that's been suggested is a lot more Orwellian and is unlikely to pass constitutional scrutiny Sure it will! All it will take is a couple more old-timers falling at home; Bush will take care of the rest.

By: hama7

hama7 — Mon, 25 Nov 2002 21:15:42 -0800

"Does it still apply?" was the question, and I think it still does, if you believe that any transaction or international transfer of information via the internet was 100% safe in the first place. I don't.