What Kind Of America Is This?

[Ramo]

This piece of legislation fits in nicely with the USA PATRIOT Act.

You people need to calm down- this if for non-citizens only. If you are a US citizen, you are guaranteed the right to a fair trial before a jury of your peers.

See, I have a lot of family and friends that are not citizens...

Even if I didn't, I have this annoying tendency to actually care about the liberties of others.

[faded glory]

Che is in an idiot

Protection from religon? I cant believe that boof-head would actually try and slip that one it

I can just here Che in the future using this warped intrepretation on the amendment..."I dont want the Church down the road its offensive to me Its against the consitiution for it to be there. Take it down now. I dont like it"

Im loaded with brew mannnnn

[Victor Galis]

Ok, time to hop back in.

"You all are *****ing about somthing that will never happen. Bush could never become an authoritarian. In fact nobody could...there are too much Civilian arms."

-And he's got what sort of approval ratings?

"resistance groups would take up the fight immediately and America would probably look alot like civil war."

-Don't worry, by the time they realize what's really happening they will have already been arrested for "terrorism."

"Theres nothing wrong with this. We used it in WW2 for spys."

-Is this WW2?

"Unless your not a terrorist ; you have nothing to worry about. It will cause a few inconveniances..oh wow bag searched, car checked big deal. Unless your hiding somthing there shouldnt be a problem? Should there???"

-I'm kinda worried about the being detained indefinatly part of all this.

"And if they actually do catch a terrorist. It was well worth the inconvience to the non-terrorists.

Its not an infringment upon any civil libertys. And stop throwin that Holocaust Bullsh!t in there. Theres nothing like that going on.."

-Aren't you the sort of person that complains when China does this sort of stuff?

"You people need to calm down- this if for non-citizens only."

-Ah, so I do live in a zenophobic fascist police state

[Roland]

Stunning how many people have their nose so far up the ass that they don't smell the rat. You don't know how those "security" people think and get their way, I assume.

Lessee...

"These are extraordinary times", they say. So instead of checking what went wrong, what their shortcomings are, it's the simple "give us more power". Pretty much like other government agencies, who are usually limited to "give us more money", though.

The extraordinary measure is introduced with some limits. Maybe temporary, only terrorists, only foreigners... but apart from them being used as a model for the next "extraordinary" event (like domestic terrorism, anthrax scare maybe), they have this nice tendency of being far open to abuse.

Secrecy, good. Always nice to avoid control. Why do you think trials are (in various form) public ? Foreigner.. well, citizenship might be hard to establish. Terrorist... well, there's something crying for a faaaar reaching definition. But there's still a jury! Yeah great, who controls jury selection etc ?

If some other quotes are correct, this is nothing like the modern version of the bastille. "A military trial could also be held overseas... trial in the United States would be unsafe" - oh please, you can't establish safety in the US for a trial ? "Safe" is such a nice fuzzy word... "you have unfettered discretion'' - yeah great. "Do as we please".

And whoever touts the stupid "this is for terrorists" line should get caught up in the mills of the justice system. EVERYTHING there affects the guilty, but also the accused, and also the suspected. Now there's a fitting smiley....

[Roland]

Lefty: Agree with the international tribunal idea, but...

"lower burnden of proof that USA courst"

Hardly (unless you're OJ)

"less procedural protections for defendants."

Nope (unless you're OJ)

"Much of what goes on in the current Hague war crimes tribunal could not occur under USA jurisdiction."

Don't think so (unless you're OJ)

For a comparison we'd need to figure out which US trial system we should take. That for the crack ****** from the slums, or that for the privileged.

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by DinoDoc

I think your a little late on this point MOBIUS:

1) Prevention of Terrorism Act of 1974, 1976

2) Criminal Justice Act of 1998

They seem oddly similar to the Patriot Act. I wonder where we got the idea from.

You're absolutely right Doc, The prevention of terrorism act was brought in in '74 and was supposed to have a 'sunset clause' built in for May '75... Well, guess what - we've still got it!

Also, since Blair has been in office we've had the Criminal Justice Act of 1998, the Football (Disorder) Act 2000 - which is perfectly usable against anyone, not just football fans! And finally, RIPA which I hadn't even heard about till I read the paper the other day to discover that it had already been enacted just last month!!!

I heard the government was thinking about doing stuff with the internet that broke civil liberties in a big way - but now it's out with barely any publicity, I doubt most of the population even knows it exists!

I don't like Blair - never have done! He's too much of a control freak and an authoritarian. He also has too much power because of our antiquated and undemocratic electoral system - he has a landslide majority from only picking up barely half of this countries' vote! Unfortunately he can get away with anything and there's nothing the opposition parties can do about it!

Anyway, enough of my ramblings - here's RIPA in all it's gory glory...

The long arm of the net

by Richard Longhurst
Ever had this feeling you're being watched? that's because you are. On 24 October, the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) became law, giving the Government the power to snoop on all electronic communications - your e-mail, websites, on-line shopping, banking, newsgroups, everything.

Home Secretary David Blunkett has also introduced the Emergency Anti-Terrorism Bill, which would require internet service providers to record the e-mail addresses of everyone you communicate with for 12 months.

And it gets worse. The Home Office says the powers will not be restricted to dealing with national security issues, so the data could be used to investigate everything from parking fines to TV licence dodgers.

But if I've done nothing wrong, surely I have nothing to worry about?

Unfortunately, you have. The RIPA also includes powers to combat the use of encryption by criminals, the theory being that if the police can unscramble evildoers' messages, we won't get another 11 September. Under the Act, the police can demand any message is decrypted, regardless of whether the sender is suspected of a crime. So if you've scrambled a message and forgotten or lost the decryption key, you could face up to two years in jail.

Is there no defence?

There's no way of telling what's in an encrypted message without opening it, so the court will not know whether you're a villain or just plain dumb.

How will they intercept all these messages?

ISPs will have to install electronic eavesdropping equipment at their own expense - AOL Europe reckons it will have to store about 25 billion internet addresses every year. Some ISPs may have to shut down, while others will pass the cost to their customers in the form of higher prices.

So it's bad for business?

Yes. The British Chambers of Commerce say RIPA could costs British business £46 billion in the first five years.

Will the RIPA help stop terrorism?

The Government seems to think so, but no one else does. Terrorists are hardly going to take part in any Governmentapproved encryption scheme and would not surrender decryption keys that would reveal crucial evidence. The biggest losers are law-abiding net users - the RIPA compromises security and privacy.

Are the lawmakers doing anything good for us?

You could soon be getting less spam. The European Commission has proposed a ban on unsolicited commercial e-mail after figuring that it costs net users 10,000 million euros (about £6,200m) a year in wasted time and resources. The E-Privacy Directive Proposal was to have made it illegal to send junk mail without the recipient's prior consent - users would have to "opt in" to receive spam. As if anyone would do that. (yay!)

What do you mean "was"?

In the Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs report, an amendment favouring an "opt-out" was passed, allowing firms to send spam unless consumers asked not to receive it. Clearly, this contradicted the earlier decision.

How can I stop spam in the meantime?

Join the European Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-Mail (EuroCAUCE), which wants to wrest control of your mailbox back from the spammers. And install an anti-spam program on your computer (details below).

What about cookies?

MEPs say cookies violate the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights. They want websites to make users give "explicit, prior consent" every time a cookie is used. Companies therefore wouldn't be able to use cookies to track every on-line move without you knowing, but you'd have to remember passwords and usernames for all the sites you visit.

Is that really necessary?

No. Cookies make it easier to shop on-line and get person-alised content. Consumers are protected by the 1998 Data Protection Act, which gives them the right to prevent their data being processed for direct marketing. If the data controllers don't comply with the Act, you can claim compensation for damages and distress.

Well, as far as I'm concerned, the jury is out on cookies - but there's some pretty draconian stuff there!!! I'm will to bet the US has already/is about to spirit through the same kind of laws...

When you couple those with the Patriot Act - joe public could find him/herself in some deep doo-doo!

Suppose: A suspicious act occurs in your neighbourhood. The authorities need some leads so they cross reference all the local addresses with their web activity and e-mails, and start knocking on the doors of 'suspicious' people - people who may have innocently clicked on a dodgy or suspicious website once (Like Apolyton - crawling with 'Eurocoms' )... Next thing you know your ass is hauled over the coals of the 'Patriot' act and your entire life gets turned upside down and stuck under a very uncomfortable microscope while you're held indefinitely with your civil rights compromised...

I'm not gloating over the predicament the US finds herself in, because we're in the same boat here - all I'm saying is open your eyes to what is going on here!

Moral of the story: Never forget your passwords!

[drake]

You guys amuse me

With your and mighty attitudes

You talk of law abiding citizens who enjoy their life and have no qualms with the government as sheep. What a f*ckin joke. The government has treated me just fine, and most of you as well, even the ones who love to cry foul about each and every little thing. Because I agree with Bush does not make me part of the "herd". Actually, judging from the responses here, I would say I am in the minority, so maybe it is you guys who are part of the herd?

You guys put yourself on a pedastal because you "think out of the box" (I'm so impressed ), but meanwhile you do jack sh1t about it. All you do is rant and rave on online forums. It's actually rather pathetic.

Go sit on you hands and continue to do nothing as usual...but make sure to rant to me about how you disagree with it on poly k?

[Roland]

You'd amuse me, too... if my sense of humour were sick enough for that.

[drake]

Just so many preachers here roland......very discouraging.

[Lefty Scaevola]

The biggest prosecutorial advatage in an international court like the Hauge would be in the area of command resposiblity. It US couts the commander of forces that commited atracities would have to be directly link to the crime by some act or ommision proved by the psosecution. An order, a plaing memo, a policy, neglecting a spicific madatory duty, etc. In the international tribunal, the prosecution need only show his command or similar authority over the actors in a chain of authority under him. Then the defendant would have to affirmatively proof that he had taken all resonable measure to have prevented the atrocities. This is a tremendous advatage to the the prosecution.

[Lefty Scaevola]

Originally posted by Roland
Lefty: Agree with the international tribunal idea, but...
For a comparison we'd need to figure out which US trial system we should take. That for the crack ****** from the slums, or that for the privileged.

The one for the media celebrity with finacial backing, of course.

[Roland]

"In the international tribunal, the prosecution need only show his command or similar authority over the actors in a chain of authority under him."

I doubt it. Where do you get the idea ?

"The one for the media celebrity with finacial backing, of course."

Then you're right, of course.

[DinoDoc]

Hey MOBIUS! Is part III of the PTA still in effect? The part that gives police the power to arrest anyone they please as long as they suspect them of having info about terroristic acts. That seems like it would be a prime recruitment tool for the IRA.

P.S. Does the act still require being renewed on a yearly basis? If so, why does it still keep getting approval?

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by DinoDoc


I think your a little late on this point MOBIUS:

1) Prevention of Terrorism Act of 1974, 1976

2) Criminal Justice Act of 1998

They seem oddly similar to the Patriot Act. I wonder where we got the idea from.

The difference of course is that the British posters here don't give knee-jerk support to whatever crap their government pulls...

[Chris 62]

Scotland forever!

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
The difference of course is that the British posters here don't give knee-jerk support to whatever crap their government pulls...

Neither do American posters, dear Rogan.

Please don't launch such generalizations, they only lead to difficulties.

Che isn't British, and I was born in the USA.

These statutes seem incredibly dangerous to me, terrorists or not.