] "Ruling for the first time in its history, the
] ultra-secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of
] Review today gave the green light to a Justice Department
] bid to broadly expand its powers to spy on U.S. citizens."

American Civil Liberties Union : In First-Ever Ruling, Secret Appeals Court Allows Expanded Government Spying on U.S. Citizens

] "Britain is considering a controversial scheme to implant
] surgically electronic tags in convicted paedophiles amid
] fears that the extent of the abuse of children has been
] massively underestimated."

This story is so sensationalistic I don't even know where to begin. I'm sure its bound to make the rounds on the net because its right up the net's alley and it is SO over the top. There is a kernel of truth in here somewhere, but it takes a good bit of critical thinking to remove the fluff.

First: You can rest assured that no one has developed implantable devices that can be tracked by satellite.

The reality here is that a victims group has proposed that every "sex offender" in England be "chipped" and monitored. The vast majority of the people who are classified as "sex offenders" are apparently people who've downloaded pictures of minors having sex off the internet. The organization which is responsible for dealing with sex offenders has responded that they are open to considering the idea.

This doesn't really mean anything. Being open to considering ideas doesn't mean you are going to implement them, and to be sure, there are reasons why victims groups do not write legislation.

However, this IS the first instance that I am aware of that a group has actually advocated the involuntary "chipping" of people. Its interesting in that light. This won't be the last of this.

Guardian Unlimited Observer | Politics | Surgical tags plan for sex offenders

] "Smaller Internet music broadcasters will be allowed to
] pay lower copyright royalty fees than they do now under
] legislation Congress passed on Friday.
]
] The bill, which has been sent to President Bush to be
] signed into law, mirrors an agreement worked out earlier
] by webcasters and the recording industry, which wants
] royalties for songs broadcast over the Internet."

Small Webcaster's law FINALLY makes it out of Congress.

Wired News: Congress Gives Webcasters a Break

The FBI maintains a list of people who are basically not allowed to fly. There have been complaints that this list is politically motivated. Thus far, most of the people that I've seen complaining about being on this list actually ARE commiting serious crimes for political purposes. Whether or not its reasonable to be afraid of flying with someone who is burning university research farms because they oppose genetic engineering is certainly questionable, but the people in question are far from innocent. Either way, I agree with the ACLU that such a list should be a matter of public scrutiny, and there should be clear public guidelines on what it takes to get on the list. The potential for abuse is extremely high. I don't execpt that anyone on this site has been barred from flight, but its a reasonable idea to keep a note of this link in the back of your mind in case you run into someone who is.

ACLU of Washington Take Action [No Fly List Complaint Form]

Lots of comment and links about the IAO effort...

politechbot.com: Pentagon wants a Big Brother Super Computer

] "Urge Your Representative to Co-Sponsor the DMCRA! "

There is a law on your side... You ought to support it.

Electronic Frontier Foundation Action Center

] "If the Homeland Security Act is not amended before
] passage, here is what will happen to you:
]
] Every purchase you make with a credit card, every
] magazine subscription you buy and medical prescription
] you fill, every Web site you visit and e-mail you send or
] receive, every academic grade you receive, every bank
] deposit you make, every trip you book and every event you
] attend all these transactions and communications will go into
] what the Defense Department describes as "a virtual, centralized
] grand database." "

This is a little more juicy...

You Are a Suspect

Reknamorken wrote:
] w1ld wrote:
] ] ] "
] ] ] WASHINGTON--A last-minute addition to a proposal for a
] ] ] Department of Homeland Security bill would punish
] ] ] malicious computer hackers with life in prison.
] ] ]
] ] ] The U.S. House of Representatives on Wednesday evening
] ] ] voted 299 to 121 to approve the bill, which would reshape
] ] ] large portions of the federal bureaucracy into new a
] ] ] department combining parts of 22 existing federal
] ] ] agencies, including the Secret Service, the Coast Guard,
] ] ] and the FBI's National Infrastructure Protection Center."
] ]
] ]
] ] This better not even make it to a vote.
]
] The U.S. Congress is clearly made up of ignorant luddites.

Hrm... I'm not too worried about this one. Its mostly that they don't have to talk to a court when they are dealing with a situation where there is an immediate risk of death or serious injury. I'd prefer that they focused on using digital signature capabilities to get "instant warrants," but serious battles in this space are hard to fight in this day and age.

Whats important is that we document real abuses of these new powers. When a serious case of actual abuse comes to light they will loose the leeway they are getting, as they did in the 70s. However, as long as they appear to be acting responsibly they can keep racking up small powers.

There WILL be a backlash against all this stuff, but it will only come when this stuff walks right to edge of seriously, permanently breaking things. The backlash will be too restrictive, and the cycle will repeat, until someone gets the clue that laws should not be passed based on reactionary response to stimuli, but rather based on thoughful foresight.

One other note. There is a question about the standard of knowledge required to determine that life risk is eminent. If the standard is that the police must have reason to suspect that the event will happen immediately, then this is fine. (Put yourself in the shoes of a cop who is in the position to stop an eminent terrorist attack if he can only run TCPdump on the LAN. (I know this sounds stupid, and it is, but thats what this law is about.) Now imagine being told that there is all this paper work that you have to do first and its going to take about 72 hours.

Now, if the standard is that there MIGHT be an eminent risk but the police really don't KNOW when its going to happen (take the recent sniper investigation) then this is a loophole big enough to drive a transport truck through. However if that IS the standard, then it is likely to be tossed by the courts for obvious reasons.

RE: Proposed bill could jail hackers for life - Tech News - CNET.com

This flyer was found in Baltimore...

How to convince poor people not to vote...

] "The Supreme Court struggled Tuesday over the
] constitutionality of a California sentencing law that put
] a man who shoplifted children's videocassettes in
] prison until 2046 and gave another man a life sentence
] for taking three golf clubs. Their sentences are due to
] California's three-strikes-you're-out law,
] which has been challenged as cruel and unusual
] punishment. The law requires tough sentences for repeat
] offenders."

Justices debate three-strikes law