It’s beginning to sound like something out of George Orwell: The U.S. government is keeping far more extensive records than previously thought on millions of Americans who travel abroad, including where they stay and what personal items they’re carrying, according to the Washington Post.
John Gilmore, a civil liberties activist who found that his own file contained notes about books he was carrying, argues that the government’s effort to build a “surveillance society” is happening “largely without our awareness and without our consent.”
It’s not just the government that should concern us. Google and many other online companies monitor the e-mail in-boxes of users to target ads to them, and a new Internet phone company service plans to listen in on the calls of its users to pitch ads to them.
Where does the creeping intrusion into the private lives of Americans end? It’s time for Congress to ask some questions.
Posted by Randy Scholfield
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
- ProudMan on Too many exemptions
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
78 Comments
Shhhhhhhhh, their reading this.
Congrats, John, you hardcore Libertarian bastard!
You’ve earned your keep again!
Is anyone who’s been paying attention the past 2 years even mildly surprised by this?
Fascism–coming to a society near you!
The time to ask questions was about six years ago, when the Bush Administration stole the Presidency. By not throwing them out of office immediately, we have gotten what we deserved.
Although, of course, the fascist / capitalist state has been a long time coming. And everybody just lies down and dies. “Can’t happen here,” indeed.
As soon as the Weblog fascists start crowing that “if you aren’t doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about,” their victory is all but assured.
The ones who yell loudest about “freedom” are always the biggest fascists. Every time.
What was ridiculous was that clip featuring Hillary as the Orwellian leader, when it clearly has been bush and his party. But I guess that is the way things work in the bizarro world of 1984.
If there’s only 7 degrees of separation, we’re all at risk.
The Phantom,
Indeed. As Giuliani says, “freedom is submitting to authority.”
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A01E2D9173CF933A15750C0A962958260
That’s Republicans for you. “The party of Lincoln” and all.
The Phantom,
Indeed. As Giuliani says, “freedom is submitting to authority.”
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A01E2D9173CF933A15750C0A962958260
That’s Republicans for you. “The party of Lincoln” and all.
DOH! The dreaded “double-post!”
Ask Congress to stop the government spying? Congress is the government.Oh, and Giuliani’s not smart enought to know that freedom is just another word for nothing else to loose.
thinkfirst,
CF2K involuntarily pictures Rudy in drag singing those immortal lines from Kris Kristofferson. For those who can’t picture it, here’s some help:
http://www.allreaders.com/pictures/rudy_giuliani_drag.jpg
If this is what we have to put up with to keep 3,000+ being killed again the I am all for it. The terrorists will inflitrate and kill us from the inside if they can. We as a country, have become so concerned about being politically correct that we are selling ourselves to the muslims for an easy penny. We need to wake up and stop trying to always be the nice one, it’s time for us to get angry.
Give an inch, they’ll take a mile. It just amazes me the number of people more than willing to turn over their freedom out of fear of “terrorists”.
While “Big Brother” may be a problem, it’s the thousands of corporate “Little Brothers” that do most of the following us around. Give them a quarter and send them to the movies and most of “Big Brother’s” sources will dry up.
Puts on “Twilight Zone” theme for the scared rabbit liberals.
BEHAVE YOURSELVES AND YOU HAVE NOTHING TO FEAR!!!
The concern is real. This creeping extension of the security state reflects, more than anything else, the nature of bureaucracy. The potential for abuse is real, and indeed we should be concerned.
I’m amused, however, at this expression of concern by many who had little worry about the proliferation of cameras in this society. Explain to me the difference?
I do not question the motives of those who support this kind of enhanced monitoring; they believe they are doing what must be done for public safety. And no, I don’t believe there is a secret cabal seeking to impose a fascist dictatorship; that’s left-wing hyperbole, the usual Godwin BS (or CF’s lame attempt to be cute); it’s become so predictable anymore that I simply consider the source and ignore it.
That does not mean this kind of creeping extension of the security state should be tolerated, however, and the law/regulations which permit same, and/or any abuse of that law, must be curtailed. Immediately.
And Rage – no, I’m not particularly surprised. Anyone with any understanding of human nature and the nature of the State, period, should not be surprised.
BTW, CF, just what do you think should have happened six years ago to “throw them out of office,” as you say “we” should have?
Here are the same Libs crying about our privacy rights who are:
*So quick to give control of our health to a Government that promises to always take care of us and a Government that will choose what is best for us
*So quick to trash the 2nd Amendment and surrendor our right to protect our own lives to the Government
*So quick to give control over their Social Security to the point where Government takes every last penny we earn in order to keep us from getting poor
Health, Life, and Property, give it up to the Government.
But by God, don’t let the Government listen in to our phone calls or read our emails.
hey, if you carry your papers and truthfully answer officer’s questions at all the checkpoints there shouldn’t be a problem
Word of the Day:
Warrant
This shit has to stop now. Right wingers, if you truly love this country, you’ll stand up to this.
Healthcare, yes. Monitoring my every move, what I smoke, what I drink, what I eat NO.
PMom, you either defend all of the US Constitution or it crumbles apart and we lose all of our rights.
Max,Oh I’d love to be there when you go up against a gunship or tank with your AR-15. I hate to tell you, but if it comes down to armed insurrection here, your only hope would be to read Al Qaida’s manuals and acquire a lot of fertilizer, neither of which is covered under your precious 2nd.
Max, national healthcare ISN’T against the constitution, no matter how you try to spin it.
100 Million gun owners in America. You gonna kill em all Jed?
Forcing me into a National Health care plan is not a right granted to the Government by the Constitution.
Ask Ron Paul.
The terrorists will inflitrate and kill us from the inside if they can.
Posted by: Jack Crossman | September 24, 2007 at 03:12 PM
And they call liberals paranoid?
Max,Me? I have no desire to kill anyone. I was just pointing out the absurdity of your merry little militia (what- a couple dozen at most?) going up abainst serious firepower.
Iraqis had one thing we don’t, a local ammo dump, and an occupier that was so intent on breezing through to liberation, they didn’t secure them.
Clowns, the scum in DC from both parties assume that they can rely on the military in the event of any domestic unrest. That will be a fatal mistake as our military and law enforcement will fracture along racial lines just as happened in the former USSR, the former Yugoslavia and presnet day Iraq!
PS: National Guard armmories and depots are not very well gaurded at all! :)
gnosticliberationfront.com
A couple of dozen in the militia fighting for 2nd Amendment rights?
That’s laughable Jed.
There will be millions, if it comes to that.
Max is right about the gun law issue. They will literally have to pry the guns from the cold, dead fingers of gun owners in America if they try to change the second Amendment.
Kansass,Let me get this straight; You’re going to go to war and kill people to prove you have the right to go to war and kill people? Look up the word “Tautology.”
When cops and soldiers break down my door with or without warrants to confiscate my property, my guns that I legally possess, there will be armed resistance.
100 million gun owners won’t start the war, but we will finish it.
You’re such a bad ass, Max!
Just remember, it was Bush 1 who ordered the killing of Randy Weaver’s wife.
Oh geez, the Ruby Ridge incident. Yes, guns you will stand up to fight for, but not anything else in our constitution. Nice.
Max–
A small army couldn’t even take down David Koresh in Wacko, Texas.
You honestly believe that our own government is going to “break down our doors” to get our guns?
Put down the “Soldier of Fortune” magazine, take off the Army surplus camoflague, and try to find your lost sanity.
Good point, Patriot.
Don’t you know guns are God given, PMom? What are you thinking?
“So quick to give control of our health to a Government that promises to always take care of us and a Government that will choose what is best for us
*So quick to trash the 2nd Amendment and surrendor our right to protect our own lives to the Government
*So quick to give control over their Social Security to the point where Government takes every last penny we earn in order to keep us from getting poor
Health, Life, and Property, give it up to the Government.
But by God, don’t let the Government listen in to our phone calls or read our emails.”
Try to stay on topic — your talking apples and oranges
You are forgetting millions of veterans with ID cards that have access to military bases. It wouldn’t be pretty. :)
You guys live in a f**king fantasy world.
Max,Me? I have no desire to kill anyone. I was just pointing out the absurdity of your merry little militia (what- a couple dozen at most?) going up abainst serious firepower.
Posted by: Jed
Teel it to them american colonists which were havily outnumered by the eleet redcoats.
You guys live in a f**king fantasy world. Posted by: Mary Caruso | September 24, 2007 at 09:46 PM
Such language!
We’re just pulling chains Mary, you Libs are just too easy.
The colonials had equal weaponry as the redcoats. Plus they knew the land, unlike the redcoats.
How many helicpoters could King George mobilize? How many tanks? How many jets?
I wouldn’t call Mary a Lib, Kansas.
She might be on your side if you hadn’t gone out of your way to alienate her.
But thanks to Republics and their obsession to crush the “enemy,” we’ve got another Democratic voter in the making . . .
You have me confused Capn.
Confused with someone that cares. :)
Close.
I have you confused with someone who thinks.
So Brad, I mean Capn, what is it you do for a living. I understand you have close contacts with the media. :)
Hollywood stunt man.
Thanks for asking.
Hollywood stunt man.
Thanks for asking.
Posted by: CapnAmerica | September 24, 2007 at 10:24 PM
Ah, I see.
That would explain the placement of your head on occasion. :)
Classic Kansas. Save that one.
Try to stay on topic — your talking apples and oranges
Posted by: ken | September 24, 2007 at 09:30 PM
Right Ken, your concern about privacy isn’t about Constitutional rights at all, or at least not the parts of the Constitution that you care about.
It’s ok though, to just pick and choose what is relevent in the Constitution today.
Just throw away whatever parts you don’t need.
Carry on, just complain about the Relevent parts…..
Anything and anytime you go outside the 4 walls of your home- whether electronically or actually- you should act as though you are being watched because you probably are.
Are you always so paranoid or is it just the full moon?Believe me, I’m not worth watching…anybody who would try would literally get bored to death.
GMC70,
Regarding the rise of the surveilance state, you wrote:
“The concern is real. This creeping extension of the security state reflects, more than anything else, the nature of bureaucracy. The potential for abuse is real, and indeed we should be concerned.”
The boilerplate diagnosis of “creeping bureaucracy” goes looking for a symptom, but misidentifies the disease. The ramping up of the security hasn’t been the work of bureucrats: it’s been the work of elected officials in both parties, led by the Bush Administration, and funded by the mushrooming security/intelligence industry.
The ones in the drivers’ seat are the contractors who make large campaign donations to get laws written that favor their interests. And the source of their wealth? Federal contracts. The taxpayer’s own money is being used to strip them of privacy and freedom.
Or do you think that corporate money doesn’t exercise this sort of power over our legislators?
As for your other question, I think Ukraine’s Orange Revolution and Georgia’s Rose Revolution showed precisely how to popularly remove an illegimate and despotic government from power.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange_Revolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rose_Revolution
Would that the citizens of the United States had done likewise when the Supreme Court installed George Bush, against the expressed preference of the voting majority.
against the expressed preference of the voting majority.
Posted by: CF2K | September 25, 2007 at 12:51 PM
The Muppet poster still whining about the electoral college process.
“The Muppet poster still whining about the electoral college process.”
Are these the same folks who whine because Kansas doesn’t have a Primary?
If you want New York and California to elect the president, abolish the electoral college.
fleetwood,
Fine by me. The majority SHOULD decide who gets to be President.
As it is, what we have is a system that gives Republican voters in Kansas much more voting power than Democratic voters in California or New York.
To say that the Electoral College is undemocratic is a huge understatement. Same for the Senate. Both institutions resulted from a noxious compromise to get smaller states to buy into the Constitution. Their time has LONG since passed; relics of a less-than-democratic age. The Electoral College ought to be scrapped, and the Senate revamped.
Delaware, Rhode Island and other small states would disagree with what is broken.
What really is broken is Democratic Party when the first candidate in 2000 couldn’t win his home state.
The second election was that the Democrats got out campaigned and knew that Kerry was a born again hypocrite.
And then there’s the matter of D.C., which has a larger population than Wyoming, and NO representation in the Senate.
Democracy, my ass. “Taxation without representation” is only acceptable when the population at issue is majority African-American.
Larger population in D.C. by a few thousand which does not qualify for more electoral votes.
D.C. has 3 electoral votes, just like Wyoming.
Another weak, uninformed argument by the Muppet poster.
Well done, CF. I really didn’t want to jump on GMC, as he was ultimately taking a position I AGREE with, but having worked both in and with bureaucracies in the past, blaming it on bureacracy seemed an absurdistic claim to me. Bureaucrats follow rules, and if anything are more often stuck following conflicting directives with too little time or resources. The notion that this is somehow the result of overzealous bureaucrats is laughable.
When the INS approved visa extensions for the 9-11 hijackers, 6 months after the event, THAT was (the worst of) bureaucracy in action!
Other administrations have done unnerving things, certainly, but this one has taken it to a high art. And, absent even reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing, it’s tough to justify, say, spying on an average American citizen’s foreign flying habits when neither the departure or destination airport is even in the U.S. (see the article).
One suspects these “fishing expeditions” MUST go beyond any concern over terrorism.
And also from the article:”He said that he is not familiar with the file that mentions Gilmore’s book about drug rights, but that generally ‘front-line officers have a duty to enforce all laws within our authority, for example, the counter-narcotics mission.’ Officers making a decision to admit someone at a port of entry have a duty to apply extra scrutiny if there is some indication of a violation of the law, he said.”
After claiming that they’re NOT interested in reading habits, this turkey proceeds to defend their interest in John Gilmore’s book, based on some convoluted drug-enforcement rationale! Can you say “mission creep,” kiddies? Or how about a different, more expansive mission than was stated in the first place?
Welcome to the War on Terrorism®.
GMC: Your observations on human nature are noted, but, even if this administration WASN’T a bunch of power-hungry, corrupt, greedy, lying criminals, I would remind you that Hitler thought he was acting in the best interests of Germany, too.
You may invoke Godwin’s law if you wish, but the “men of zeal” argument applies to non-Nazis as well.
CF
The Federal Union was never intended to be a union of persons, it was, and is, a union of states. The Senate, and to a lesser extent the electoral college, was designed to prevent the smaller states from being swallowed up by the larger. That was true in 1789, it’s true today. I’ll keep the Senate as it is, thanks. And yes, the EC does not work as intended, but it has other advantages. Yes, it overvalues small states, but again, the large states still have enormous advantages. I’m hardly crying over poor, poor California. As to DC, it’s a federal district, not a state. It is exactly what it was created to be. You want it to have a congressional vote because it will be a safe democratic district; were that not so, you would not be pushing for “democracy” for DC.
As I noted before, those who wish electoral “reform” almost always want to do so not out of principle, but electoral advantage. I have no doubt the same is true here.
As to the other . . .
Gore lost because he could not win his home state. Period. I won’t get into the merits of Bush v. Gore here, that has been hashed ad infinitum. Suffice it to say that, whether one agreed with the result or not, the result was the result of the process, both democratic and legal. The rule of law was supreme, as it should be. We all have to live with rulings we disagree with. You appear, however, to advocate disregarding that process in favor of rule via street demonstrations. THAT is troubling. I’d have expected something more rational from you.
And if you think the present administration, whatever your (often valid) criticisms of it, qualifies as “illegimate and despotic,” well, I suggest you travel abroad to see the real thing. I’d suggest starting in N. Korea and down through China, for a start. You don’t actually believe it, of course, because your actions belie your belief. You routinely claim that we are now in the “fascist state” (eye roll here . . . ) yet your free pontificating on this forum is clear and telling evidence otherwise. I neither see you, nor any other (and often quite harsh) critic of the current regime being shipped off to any camps. And many of your ilk (and no, you are not of these, and on this issue we largely agree) are amazingly happy to surrender to a state they proclaim to be “despotic” the very means to remove that despotism, should it come to that.
Question: If you really believe this government is everything you say it is, why indeed are you, and those who believe as you do, NOT in the streets?
Answer: You don’t really believe it. No, this is posturing, preening, disembling for political advantage. Same verse, second, third, fourth verse.
There is nothing really new under the sun.
You’re a reasonable and smart guy, CF. Occasionally, however, you tend to don the tin-foil hat.
So GMC I would assume that your not an advocate of open warfare on the government the way that Max and others have argued? Personally the way our government is set up offers ways to change the government without resorting to violence.
Tom:
No, I’m not, not at this point. There is a way to change without violence. It’s called the rule of law, and sometimes that means that the side I passionately and deeply believe in loses. As disappointing as that may be, that is better than the alternative; however I may disagree with the current government, the rule of law must be supreme.
That said, there is such a tipping point where the “reset button,” as some call it, must be hit. And it is for that point that the 2nd amendment exists. We are not remotely close to that point, but I do not discount the possibility of getting there. If human history teaches us anything, it is that at some point freedom must be fought for.
Whatever its faults, the current system provides the means to fix itself. When it winds out of control, as it periodically has, it tends to right itself too. If that ever ceases to be, if the checks are unable to check, if the rule of law no longer functions, then yes, we’re there.
It is for that point that 100 million+ Americans are armed. Again, I want to emphasize, we’re not there; not even close, though there are legitimate criticisms of the gov’t.
And no, I’m not anxious to get there.
For all its faults, do I think a modern constitutional convention, even assuming we could hold one out of the chaos that would inevitably result from hitting that reset button, would do better than the Founders did?
No, I don’t.
Likely, we’d do much worse. The founding era was a special time, in a special place, with a special group of men. I don’t think we could approach their wisdom.
What we are seeing is gradualism, not coup d’etat (2000 election notwithstanding), but the signs are unmistakeable. America has been getting less free by the year, and one can HOPE that the 2006 elections were to some extent a rebuff of this–though enough Dems SUPPORT this trend to make the election result equivocal at best.What to do?
“The four boxes of democracy:1) Soap2) Ballot3) Jury
4) Ammo
Please use them in that order.”
(Origin undetermined)
GMC70,
What Rage said.
A slow-moving coup, that whittles down liberty and expectations, is no less effective or any more constitutional than an overt one.
Ever heard of the frog in the pot? The temperature keeps going up, and we just keep adjusting. Our media keeps throwing us bread and holding the circus, and anyone who isn’t enthralled by the spectacle is denounced by folks like you as a ‘tinfoil hat’ or a ‘conspiracy theorist.’
CF2K doesn’t think it’s a fait accompli just yet. But if Rudy is elected, we can kiss it all goodbye, and sooner than later. He’s Il Duce, and he doesn’t even try to hide it.
Fascism is for p*ssies, which is what Americans seem intent on proving themselves to be.
Kansas writes: What really is broken is Democratic Party when the first candidate in 2000 couldn’t win his home state.
Backed up by GMC who writes: Gore lost because he could not win his home state. Period.
And that’s question begging.
Because the question is exactly why people in some states should count more than others.
Gore won by approximately 550,000 votes in the general-popular election but lost Tennessee because of 80,229 votes in Bush’s favor.
In other words, those 80 thousand votes from Tennessee trumped half a million votes by other Americans.
Where somebody lives should make no difference as to how much their vote should count.
WORK!CONSUME!!SPEND!!!OBEY!!!!!!
THAT IS ALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
More tearful confessions from the Capn after eating the sour grapes of the Electoral College process.
Only if those huge states go in Capn’s favor is he joyful and he gathers in those huge numbers of electoral college counts.
Otherwise, the cumulative effect of all those electoral college counts from all the 50 states is not representative in his mind, because he thinks the Presidential race is a popularity contest and not to see who will qualify for the most important office in the World.
To Dems, it’s all about popularity.
Qualifications, vision and the ability to separate fact from fiction is beyond their venue.
I provide facts.
Kansas provides slander, insult, arrogance, and non sequitors.
Yup, same as always.
Capn can’t handle the truth about the nation’s electoral college system. :D
“The four boxes of democracy:1) Soap2) Ballot3) Jury
4) Ammo
Please use them in that order.”
Exactly, Rage. And if we surrender the fourth, we WILL lose the other three, sooner or later. And don’t open the fourth until the first three are exhausted because the outcome, once you go there, is uncertain at best.
And CF, I do understand your concerns which is why, like you, I want to make sure that this “security state” is firmly reigned in. I do, however, think the current fashion of screaming “impending fascism” has more to do with demonizing the opposition for political advantage than any real oppression. Ya want real oppression, there are plenty of places which will oblige. Hearing crap like “Bushitler” or “Reichwing” etc. just rolls off the back anymore. Frankly, as soon as I see those types of pejoratives, I generally write off the writer as anyone with any substance.
Chicken Little can only scream the sky is falling for so long before the cries of wolf are ignored (to blatently mix metaphors!!)
And Capn – perhaps. But the question answered is the proper question, because it’s the system we have. Politicians compete in the system that is, not what they wish it was. Want to change the system we have? Go for it; there is a process to do exactly that. I wish you luck; part of me thinks you’re right, it should be pure popular vote. On the other hand, that postulates that more “democracy” equals “better” government. I’m not so convinced that’s true. Part of the beauty of our system is that government is, at least in part, separated from the whims and currents of popular opinion. In the same sense, legislative gridlock is not a design flaw, it’s a design FEATURE. I WANT government to be slow, to encourage, even force, compromise, and to remember that in many cases, the best thing government can do is nothing at all.
The Electorial College is an assinine way to elect a President. All it does is ensure that the Executive Branch will ignore all but a few “swing” states. President Bush visited Ohio 22 times in his first term. How many times did he visit Kansas? Scrap it and go to the popular vote. All candidates run in a primary. If any one candidate gets 50% of the vote plus 1, he wins the Presidency. If no candidate gets 50 plus 1, we have a general election that is a run off between the top 2 candidates.
BTW right now the Repukes are trying to figure out a way to steal the election again and one idea is to try and FOOL California into changing its “winner take all” electorial college to one that would allot the votes based on who won each Congressional district plus the winner would get the 2 Senate EC votes. Only 2 states use this system now. On the face of it, it sounds like a fair way to do things but only if it were done in each state the same way. So if the Republicans want to go down that alley, do they want to do the same in places like Texas, Georgia and North Carolina which all have a number of Democratic districts?