Stallman: Thousands Dead, Millions Deprived of Liberties

Hobart noted that Richard Stallman has written a very well said piece on the civil liberties that we will no doubt be deprived of following the recent terrorist attacks on the US. I know RMS takes a lot of heat for being out there sometimes, but this is a really well said bit and worth a read.

Thousands dead, millions deprived of civil liberties?

By Richard Stallman

The worst damage from many nerve injuries is secondary -- it happens in the hours after the initial trauma, as the body's reaction to the damage kills more nerve cells. Researchers are beginning to discover ways to prevent this secondary damage and reduce the eventual harm.

If we are not careful, the deadly attacks on New York and Washington will lead to far worse secondary damage, if the U.S. Congress adopts "preventive measures" that take away the freedom that America stands for.

I'm not talking about searches at airports here. Searches of people or baggage for weapons, as long as they check only for weapons and keep no records about you if you have no weapons, are just an inconvenience; they do not endanger civil liberties. What I am worried about is massive surveillance of all aspects of life: of our phone calls, of our email, and of our physical movements.

These measures are likely to be recommended regardless of whether they would be effective for their stated purpose. An executive of a company developing face recognition software is said to be telling reporters that widespread deployment of face-recognizing computerized cameras would have prevented the attacks. The September 15 New York Times cites a congressman who is advocating this "solution." Given that the human face recognition performed by the check-in agents did not keep the hijackers out, there is no reason to think that computer face recognition would help. But that won't stop the agencies that have always wanted to do more surveillance from pushing this plan now, and many other plans like it. To stop them will require public opposition.

Even more ominously, a proposal to require government back doors in encryption software has already appeared.

Meanwhile, Congress hurried to pass a resolution giving Bush unlimited power to use military force in retaliation for the attacks. Retaliation may be justified, if the perpetrators can be identified and carefully targeted, but Congress has a duty to scrutinize specific measures as they are proposed. Handing the president carte blanche in a moment of anger is exactly the mistake that led the United States into the Vietnam War.

Please let your elected representatives, and your unelected president, know that you don't want your civil liberties to become the terrorists' next victim. Don't wait -- the bills are already being written.

---

Copyright 2001 Richard Stallman

Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article are permitted in any medium provided the copyright notice and this notice are preserved.

Sign the petition

[claus.wilke]

There is a petition to sign. Current count already over 85000.

`In the aftermath of the ruthless attack on the World Trade Center and
Pentagon, we implore the leaders of the United States to ensure that
justice be served by protecting the innocent citizens of all nations all
over the world.

We demand that the President maintain the civil liberties of all U.S.
residents, protect the human rights of all people at home and abroad, and
guarantee that this attempted attack on the principles and freedoms of the
United States will not succeed.

We plead for a thorough investigation of the terrorist events before any
retaliation.

We call for PEACE and JUSTICE, not revenge. LET THERE BE PEACE ALL OVER
THE WORLD!`

http://www.care2.com/go/redirect/2/2400

Re:We lose liberty, we lose America

[Uruk]

America is the land of the free, with liberty, and justice for all

Check that, it's the land of liberty and justice for all those who can afford it. I mean, does anybody really doubt that after seeing Rodney King's attackers walk, after seeing OJ walk, and after seeing mentally retarded people with no money for expensive lawyers get the chair in Texas despite obvious mental incompetence? Does anybody really think that it's "liberty and justice for all" in a place where a respected journalist [mumia.org] gets the death penalty and the courts won't even listen to an appeal WHEN SOMEONE COMES FORWARD AND COPS TO THE MURDER that the journalist was accused of?

When you can get ass-raped in a police station bathroom by a racist motherfucker with a gun, is it really freedom and justice for all? What about when unarmed people get shot in the back whlie running away?
One of my biggest problems with all of this WtC stuff is the UGLY NATIONALISM that it has bred. People who knew that the US government didn't have their best interests in mind on Monday now slap flags on their cars and sing patriotic hymns as if just because we were attacked we're suddenly in the right about everything. Well I've got news for you. Just because Lee Harvey Oswald was killed doesn't mean that he was a great guy that deserved our support.

America is what it is. The people are going to get EXACTLY as much as they're willing to put up with. America will be america even if we turn into a jackbooted fascist state (which I don't think is that likely). The only difference is that we'll have a few fewer assholes singing patriotic hymns that were written by rich white slaveholders.

Re:please RMS

[Anonymous Coward]

In total agreement. RMS should be informed that the current President was elected (by the Electorial College). He just did not win the popular vote. Must ink has been spilled (and wind blown) over the causes, implications, and reasons for this. But none of that changes the fact that Bush is the President of the United States. Gore conceded (and last I heard, was not hiding out in the mountains of Hollywood with a small force of freedom fighters).

The jibe makes him appear as immature and out of touch as Peter Jennings throwing a tantrum when Bush didn't fly directly to the White House and paint a red and white target on his head.

Anonymous Kev
proudly posting as Anonymous Coward since 1997

Re:benjamin franklin's opinion

[TheAwfulTruth]

Of course Benjamin Franklin ALSO said (I'm paraphrasing here) "I would gladly give up my right to slander another if in turn I were to be protected of being slandered." Try reading the book "Fart Proudly" and see what old Ben REALLY said, rather than tiny out of context quotes that are shoved down your throats by a very narrow minded education system. Thruth is usually muych less black and white that most people make it out to be.

Re:We lose liberty, we lose America

[redhog]

One of the problems with your law system, which is not about individuals, but about the principle, is that each pay his/her own bill. In most european countries, the loser pays the bill of the winner. This means that you'l get good lawyers even if you'r poor - if you have a good case.

RMS Totally misunderstands one of his three points

[MacGabhain]

Meanwhile, Congress hurried to pass a resolution giving Bush unlimited power to use military force in retaliation for the attacks. Retaliation may be justified, if the perpetrators can be identified and carefully targeted, but Congress has a duty to scrutinize specific measures as they are proposed. Handing the president carte blanche in a moment of anger is exactly the mistake that led the United States into the Vietnam War.

Congress worked very hard to pass a resolution that wasn't the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. Indeed, the thing that most impressed me about Congress during this whole thing was that vote. They said, in effect, "We support our President and the leadership he is giving, but we will not abandon our duty to the American people or to the Constitution by handing off our responsibilities to him."

I haven't been following the actions of the supposed control conspiracy too closely in the last week, but if Stallman can't even get it right on a major, out in the open, published and discussed on every major news outlet in the world Congressional resolution, I dare say I feel rather safe assuming for the time being that he's got no clue about anything else that's happened in the last week either.

Re:I'm ashamed to say it, but I agree with RMS

[tanpiover2]

Yes, it bothers me, and I'll tell you to do what I did.

Instead of (or in addition to) bitching about it here on /., write your elected officials. And do it soon. Let them know that you stand against terrorism but not at the expense of your civil liberties.

try the New York Times

[twitter]

As another poster has noted, most news papers have been calling this a "technically sophisticated" attack. They seem to think that encrypted email made the co-ordination possible and that wholsale government postal privacy violations will be able to keep such things from happening again. It was backhanded and disturbingly stupid. An article like this in last weeks New York Times and an interview with Dan Quale finally made me realize this was more than speculation.

This week the papers are getting down to business. Check out these two articles from today's New York Times:

This one recomends ISP censorship. [nytimes.com] with the lame excuse for corporate control of the public network as, "But the community standards that most Internet service providers apply can be more restrictive." Today it's hate speach, tomorow it will be embarasing or unpopular speach.

This one detailing the FBI making it easier for an ISP to turn over email. [nytimes.com] Try this thrilling quote that got their attention, "The online posting on Aug. 30 sounded like the rantings of a crank: The subject was "911," and it warned "Something is going to happen tomorrow . . . REPENT!" On Sept. 4, the author of the first message, "Xinoehpoel," was back: "Wait 7 days," he wrote." At least the article goes on to worry about improper collection making such priceless quotes inadmissable. So what's the solution, hint hint? Monitoring? Geee, to bad that it won't work as the above quote really could contain a message and is indiscerable from pure garbage.

There you go. Reputable, non speculative reporting for you advocating government and corporate controls on the internet. Why would big publishers like that? Other news sources have not even bothered to mention privacy.

how about the Daily Telegraph?

[Anonymous Coward]

"America in a war mood will have no truck with tender concern for constitutional safeguards of the liberty of its enemies. [And]... ordinary Americans will have to learn to bear...interference with their liberty of instant electronic access to friends and services.

The World Trade Centre outrage was co-ordinated on the internet, without question. If Washington is serious in its determination to eliminate terrorism, it will have to forbid internet providers to allow the transmission of encrypted messages - now encoded by public key ciphers that are unbreakable even by the National Security Agency's computers - and close down any provider that refuses to comply.

Uncompliant providers on foreign territory should expect their buildings to be destroyed by cruise missiles.

Once the internet is implicated in the killing of Americans, its high-rolling days may be reckoned to be over." --The Daily Telegraph (UK) 14 September 2001 (Emphasis added.)

That good enough for you?

URL for this leader is:
http://www.dailytelegraph.co.uk/dt?ac=006026230637 643&rtmo=k7CAx7ep&atmo=rrrrrrrq&pg=/01/9/14/do01.h tml [dailytelegraph.co.uk]

Re: Freedom vs. legal freedom

[KrinnDNZ]

Quoth greenrd: "That's not the kind of freedom we're talking about. We're talking about freedom in a legal sense - what you are legally allowed to do."

You bring up a problematic point, though, by casting this as "freedom in a legal sense." Freedom in a legal sense is not currently freedom as most of us would think of it. Look at any book of silly laws for some evidence. The Hoboken Chicken Ordinance comes to mind. The problem of creating legislation in such a way as to address changing times while preserving freedom is probably one of the better reasons to have a legislative body.
As long as we're quoting Founding Fathers, let's take Jefferson's definition:

"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it it violates the right of the individual."

I think it's clear what Jefferson's opinion of freedom was.

Regards, Krinn

So how many of you have gotten off your butts...

[Noxxus]

and written Congress about this? I wrote my rep and 2 senators today....act fast people. Congress reconvenes on the 21st and you can bet crypto will rear its head on the agenda pretty quick!

Re:Is Osama "Emmanual Goldstein"?

[Chris Y Taylor]

No, WE are "Emmanual Goldstein."

We are the convenient enemy that the Taliban and their ilk uses to justify their atrocities.

They cannot keep their stations with an educated and economically strong populace, which modernization will surely bring. They know this, and so to prevent the development of a modern Afghanistan they ruthlessly oppress their people. In order to justify this, they need an enemy. Someone that is seemingly close enough to be a threat but also far enough away so that it can remain vague. Someone who is strong enough not to ever go away, but also someone who still will not likely show up and take over. We are the perfect enemy; the Taliban's Emanuel Goldstein. Or we were. The Taliban and Al Qaeda miscalculated what they could get away with and now we are their worst nightmare.

1984 was great dystopian science fiction, but you don't need telescreens to have oppression. You want to see a dystopian society? Go to www.rawa.org and you can see video of one that works just as well with Stone Age technology.

We will not become Oceania. I have faith in the politicians, and the intelligence personnel, and the police, and the military that while they would tolerate some restrictions during a temporary crisis most all of them would not tolerate major permanent restrictions. But even if my faith in them is misplaced, it doesn't matter. We do, after all, have the 2nd Amendment along with the more popular ones like the 1st and 4th. A government is only stable in the long run, if its political and military power is distributed in similar fashions*. There are enough firearms in the United States for every adult in the nation to have one. This individual ownership of small arms no doubt leads to lethal accidents, and some argue that it leads to more violent crime... but it also insures that the ONLY form of government that will be stable (over the long term) in the United States is one that is supported by the general population. This does not protect against racism or religious oppression or any of the other evils that democracies can exhibit... but it does protect against totalitarianism.

If your argument is meant to suggest that we need a clearly defined victory condition for this war, then I do agree with that.

*Which is probably why the platform the Taliban espoused when gaining power was peace and security through disarmament. Except that they sought to disarm all the OTHER tribes, but not their own followers. If our gov't starts to spout similar ideas, then we should start to worry; but fortunately our current administration is very unlikely to do that considering the pivotal role the NRA and the rest of the "gun lobby" played in getting them in office.

Re:Pardon my attitude but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Just to clarify, after hearing an interview with the ex-chief of security at El Al,

* After booking, passengers are background checked for visa, terrorist associations, etc.
* Marshalls are dressed plain-clothes, and are seated near each suspected terrorist.
* There is 1 marshall for every suspected terrorists. Sometimes more are added.

I would suspect they use nylon bullets. There is a _much_ lower chance of blowing a hole in the plane. Plus, the ranges are so close, there is no need to use high power loads.

(posting anonymous due to suspension of liberty.)

Bush not given the same powers as during Nam

[angkor]

This is completely wrong-> "Handing the president carte blanche in a moment of anger is exactly the mistake that led the United States into the Vietnam War."

The President was NOT handed an open-ended resolution to handle the situation. Congress rejected the White House request for a "carte blanche" resolution like the one that followed the Tonkin Gulf incident. The toned-down version is specifically written so that a repeat of the Vietnam experience, where Congress was powerless to limit the President's actions because of a previous resolution, would be impossible.

Re:I'm ashamed to say it, but I agree with RMS

[moebius_4d]

Semi-automatics have as many "legitimate" uses as any other firearm. You might be surprised how fast you can accurately fire a lever action or even a bolt action rifle, with only a few sessions of practice. You do have to come off sight a bit, or at least I do, but then if you're just shooting at a crowd of people that makes essentially no difference.

The question of how sporting it is to use a semi-auto while hunting is only raised by people who don't know what the hell they are talking about. This is not an "automatic" rifle, whre rounds are discharged until the trigger is released, it is a semi-auto, meaning one trigger pull gets you one round discharged. Respectful hunters like the semi-auto because it gives them the ability to make a quick second shot, in the cases that they have wounded the animal but not killed it at once. This is an ethical and humane practice. Once the wounded animal is allowed out of sight, you may never find it, and its suffering will be increased.

The notion that semi-autos "most of the time" will be used to kill one's self or a member of one's family is pretty goddamn ludicrous, the more so coming from someone who later wishes to charge the NRA with "inventing bad statistics." Consider the longevity of firearm rights organizations if "most of the time" their own guns were killing their members and their member's families. You may also wish to consider the fact that nearly the entire male population of Switzerland keep an automatic rifle in their homes, and their homicide rate is not substantially different from that of Japan.

If you want to kill lots of people quickly, the most available weapon I know of is an automobile. A quick run down a sidewalk in a Ford Expedition ought to easily outdo some jerk with an AK, not least because the SUV doesn't look all that suspicious until it does something unexpected.

Maybe if you got your facts from someplace besides the performances of tranvestite comedians you would be able to appear more coherent.

Re:Taking advantage of the situation? [not]

[budgenator]

"pagans, homosexual, abortionists," while not add infidels, capitalist, Western whoremongers to the list?
I protest your using similar in the post, just change the words in the first line with the words in the second and you get pretty much the standard fundamentalist Islamic rethoric; they are for all practical purposes the same.
Why is this? Because they both want a return to a religon based fuedal society, that why. The only real difference is whose religion is used.

What these people don't understand is the society as it exists today will not allow this to happen no matter how much they pick and chose verse from their Holy books to support their fantasies. Personaly I don't like the idea of big government period, whether that government is elected, installed by force, or religon based.

The societies of the world are evolving to a point where the majority of peoples are becoming pretty tollerant of others, this incites people who are unconvertable bigots to act in increasingly extreme ways. I hope who ever was behind the attack on the US realises that many nations who only last month we would have concidered enemies, are now standing beside us. The world has just said "no more."