Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > The Academy > Tilted Politics


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 12-28-2003, 08:02 PM   #1 (permalink)
Crazy
 
The Frog Experiment

Well, as any family get-together goes over the holidays, several political discussions came to pass. Several of them were big and rowdy, a couple more discreet and well-pointed. Anyway, the one which I'd like to bring your attention to is a certain small one between my aunt and myself. My aunt is conservative/independant, while I am liberal/independant, and we both have a great deal of respect for the other so our discussions are always relevant to the point and we never press too far (we both know that sometimes you're just preaching to the choir or talking to yourself).

Basically the argument was over the Patriot Act and the reductions of civil liberties. I stated that any reduction of liberty was a bad thing, and she stated that it wasn't necessarily bad if it could be used against our enemies. At length, it was her statement, "well, if you don't do anything criminal, than you don't have anything to fear, do you?" that got me. Oh, I immediately came back with all the Orwellian misgivings about, "what if someone starts using the information gained for their own ends, etc." and she said that the government had failsafes so that would never happen, etc. But it was that statement about only criminals having to fear the new private information laws that had me deep in thought for the next few days.

I used to be a criminal (ie, used to smoke the pot, drink underage, etc.), and had an appropriate amount of respect (fear) of authority... I since have become clean, but was it my residual fear of authority that made me so uncomfortable with allowing the government an unreserved eye into my life?

Then I was over at a friend's house recently and his daughter was watching some science show on TV and they had the Frog Experiment on and something clicked.

For those of you unfamiliar with the frog experiement, it goes something like this: Put a frog in a pot of boiling water, frog jumps out, put a frog in a cool pot of water and slowly warm it up to boiling, the frog will boil to death.

I don't think it's my previous criminal background giving me these misgivings, rather I think I (like many others) am just a sensitive frog, and I don't like my water getting ANY warmer at all.

Anyway, your thoughts: Is the reduction of civil liberty like the frog experiment, or is it a necessity that will only happen now, and will protect and save many lives?


MB
m0ntyblack is offline  
Old 12-28-2003, 08:03 PM   #2 (permalink)
Pissing in the cornflakes
 
Ustwo's Avatar
 
I have the same feeling but with socialist taxes.

Go figure eh?
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.
Ustwo is offline  
Old 12-28-2003, 09:06 PM   #3 (permalink)
This vexes me. I am terribly vexed.
 
Superbelt's Avatar
 
Location: Grantville, Pa
I agree with the Frog experiment.
But, the failsafes, aren't that failsafe. The Patriot Act has already been abused.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in564189.shtml

Government report documenting patriot act abuses
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/21/po...c62c48&ei=5070
http://chblue.com/artman/publish/article_2638.shtml

Etc.

Hit her with this quote

Quote:
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
--Benjamin Franklin
Superbelt is offline  
Old 12-28-2003, 09:13 PM   #4 (permalink)
Psycho
 
MuadDib's Avatar
 
I can't believe they show people boiling frogs on television for children.
__________________
"The courts that first rode the warhorse of virtual representation into battle on the res judicata front invested their steed with near-magical properties." ~27 F.3d 751
MuadDib is offline  
Old 12-28-2003, 09:15 PM   #5 (permalink)
The Northern Ward
 
Location: Columbus, Ohio
We wrestled in my moms living room, it's much more efficient/fun/objective then debate is. Course, we're all conservatives or non-political so we were wrestling just because.

My eldest brother brought up the point that he punched me in the kidney, to which I pointed out that I had him in a headlock on the floor. All in all, I'd say we got more done in 10 minutes then congress did all year.
__________________
"I went shopping last night at like 1am. The place was empty and this old woman just making polite conversation said to me, 'where is everyone??' I replied, 'In bed, same place you and I should be!' Took me ten minutes to figure out why she gave me a dirty look." --Some guy
Phaenx is offline  
Old 12-28-2003, 10:55 PM   #6 (permalink)
Crazy
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Superbelt
Government report documenting patriot act abuses
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/21/po...c62c48&ei=5070
http://chblue.com/artman/publish/article_2638.shtml

Etc.
Just as an addendum, http://www.weeklystandard.com/conten...2/935whnpm.asp

Quick quotes as summary:

Quote:

"REPORT ON U.S. Antiterrorism Law Alleges Violations of Civil Rights"--so read the headline on the July 21 front page of the New York Times...
Quote:

For example: Three-quarters of the way down Toni Locy's USA Today dispatch ("Report Outlines Rights Violations in Sept. 11 Act"), we learned that . . . well, actually, "The report does not cite any examples of alleged abuse of the powers provided by the Patriot Act." Moreover, three-quarters of the way down Susan Schmidt's Washington Post story, the best of the bunch, we saw quoted the inspector general's principal deputy, a man named Paul Martin, explaining that the report wasn't really "about" the Patriot Act at all. "This report is not an assessment of the Patriot Act as a piece of legislation," Martin said. And "[i]t doesn't examine the department's use of Patriot Act authorities," either.
Quote:

Indeed, the inspector general's office has since made clear that only a "tiny fraction" of the complaints at issue in his latest report have even the remotest connection to the exercise of law enforcement powers granted by the Patriot Act. And none of this tiny fraction is among the 34 allegations the report deems "credible...on their face." In other words: The only thing "Patriot Act-related" about the vast majority of the complaints discussed in the IG's report is the fact that it's the Patriot Act which obliges him to discuss them in the first place.
Abuse of the Patriot Act will happen. Abuse of any law happens. It does not mean that thus, we cannot have said law because of the possibility of abuse. That is why corrective safeguards are in place. Sadly, there are a great deal (1,073 - 34, at least) of uninformed people out there who would rather blanketly blame the Patriot Act rather than actually read it and think for themselves.

By the way, m0ntyblack, one of the better retorts I have heard to , "If you didn't do anything wrong, what are you afraid of?" is "Why don't you trust me?"

-- Alvin
rgr22j is offline  
Old 12-29-2003, 12:21 AM   #7 (permalink)
Tilted
 
Location: Somewhere between Arborea and Bytopia
The reduction of civil liberty is very much like the frog experiment. For me the issue is ethical, not situational (which rules out objections like whether it's only temporary, or whether there are already safeguards in place). The government exists to serve the people, not vice versa. It shouldn't be given a questionable amount of power and then be trusted not to abuse it unless "necessary" to combat terrorism... that's such a vague and arbitrary line to draw.

Take the part of the Patriot Act that deals with online communication. (Sec. 217, Interception of Computer Trespasser Communications, http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html .) If I'm understanding it correctly, the government can legally intercept any online communication if a) the owner of the computer consents, and b) the user does not have a contractual agreement with the owner to be using the computer. Note the government does *not* need to get objective judicial oversight, which is not the case with similar laws in the past. Also note that if the information is never used in a prosecution, the user never even finds out they were being tapped, let alone has the chance to contest it in court.

Now this is something I'm not comfortable with even though my email and IM conversations wouldn't have evidence I've broken any laws. The Constitution does in fact include the right to privacy. (A good article naming some court cases where it's come up: http://www.inq7.net/opi/2003/sep/20/...mentary1-1.htm .) If we're lucky, there'll be enough opposition to things like the Patriot Act that they'll never go very far. But the fact is that big changes come in degrees, and there've been countries that went in some pretty awful directions starting with small steps like this one. So it's a good idea to watch what you're really agreeing to.
__________________
"Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind." -Emerson
pyraxis is offline  
Old 12-29-2003, 04:20 AM   #8 (permalink)
この印篭が目に入らぬか
 
Location: College
Besides the documentation of Patriot Act abuse described above, there's another fundamental flaw with your aunt's logic.

She believes it is all right to curtail the freedom of criminals.

How does one determine who is a "criminal" or a "terrorist" for whom the rules do not apply?

In the past, when innocence was presumed until guilt was proved, a court of law would apply the "criminal" label.

Today, the Executive Branch does this without a trial and without giving the accused a chance to make a fair defense of their case.

So someone like Jose Padilla can be held indefinitely because he is a "terrorist," and because he is a "terrorist" he does not have the right to a trial.

Ask your aunt how she would like to be erroneously designated a "terrorist" and then denied the chance to disprove those charges because of that label.
lordjeebus is offline  
Old 12-29-2003, 09:37 AM   #9 (permalink)
Crazy
 
Quote:
Originally posted by pyraxis
Take the part of the Patriot Act that deals with online communication. (Sec. 217, Interception of Computer Trespasser Communications, http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html .) If I'm understanding it correctly, the government can legally intercept any online communication if a) the owner of the computer consents, and b) the user does not have a contractual agreement with the owner to be using the computer. Note the government does *not* need to get objective judicial oversight, which is not the case with similar laws in the past. Also note that if the information is never used in a prosecution, the user never even finds out they were being tapped, let alone has the chance to contest it in court.
What 217 means is that if I believe someone hacked my computer, I have the ability to request law enforcement to monitor my computer, as long as 1) I own the computer, and 2) the "user" isn't legally allowed to be using my computer. If I don't consent, the government can do nothing. Before, even with my consent the government was not allowed to assist.

From http://www.nunes.house.gov/PatriotAct.htm

Quote:
Prior to the enactment of the USA PATRIOT Act, the law prohibited computer service providers from sharing with law enforcement that hackers had broken into their systems.
Regarding reading your e-mail/IM,

Quote:
Section 217 preserves the privacy of law-abiding computer users. Officers cannot agree to help a computer owner unless (1) they are engaged in a lawful investigation; (2) there is reason to believe that the communications will be relevant to that investigation; and (3) their activities will not acquire the communications of nonhackers.
217 is relevant only to the owner of the computer. If the government wanted to read your e-mail, for example, by "wire-tapping" your computer (and not the computers belonging to people you e-mail), this falls under section 216, which does require judicial consent. As an example, let us say I am a hacker and I have broken into your system. 217 allows you to ask the government to investigate your computer, and your computer only. If you don't ask, they can't do anything. In order for the government to investigate my computer (without my consent), they would have to use 216.

However, under 216 the government can only read the headers -- they are prohibited from reading the content. You can imagine it like requesting a suspect's phone records from the phone company -- you can tell who he called, but not what he said. Doesn't seem so unreasonable, now, does it? Prior to the Patriot Act, the government could not touch e-mail in any way. This resolves that loophole (and is why it has no sunset provision).

-- Alvin
rgr22j is offline  
 

Tags
experiment, frog

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:44 PM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360