Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 by leadb

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007

POSTED BY: LEADB
UPDATED: Monday, October 29, 2007 14:30
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 3464
PAGE 1 of 1

Saturday, October 27, 2007 3:47 AM

Or more exactly called:
H.R. 1955: Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007

Rue posted about it here:
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=31166&m=552865#552823
and there's very limited discussion; I believe it needs its own thread, its getting lost in that one.

The bill is here:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1955

While it seems to have several referenced safegaurds built in regarding 'constitutional rights', I have two concerns that leave me against the bill.

1) It appears to create a very powerful and vast entity under the US Fed. government, with no elimination of other possibly redundant agency. Always a bad move.
2) As Hero constantly reminds us, it is not the constitutional rights as a lay person would understand them, but as a constitutional expert interprets them. Thus, I do not believe there is sufficient protection in the Bill. Protections beyond simple 'interpreted' constitutional rights need to be enumerated.

.... So, comments?

Edit to summarize as we go along (note: these items may or may not support my original posting):
`(1) FINAL REPORT- Not later than 18 months after the date on which the Commission first meets, the Commission shall submit to the President and Congress a final report ...
`(s) Termination of Commission- The Commission shall terminate 30 days after the date on which the Commission submits its final report.

Edit 2:
Specifically, I'd like to see extensions to the protections enumerated in this bill to include:
1) Respecting the privacy of US Citizens; including, but not limited to, health care records.
2) Excepting as necessitated and justified by due process proceedings, not participating in any attempt to tie real names to internet postings.

Edit 3 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
If you think you'd like to send a note to your senator against this bill, feel free to take this as a start point:

Regarding this bill:

Subject: Please vote against HR 1955, or at least ammend.

Dear Senator
Regarding:
H.R. 1955: Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1955

I'd prefer to see the bill rejected on the following grounds:
We can collect the relevant information by giving a university a grant on the topic, please take this direction instead.

It specifically exempts itself from the Federal Advisory Commissions Act (FACA). This raises concerns that the commission will restrict access excessively to concerned citizens than would otherwise be permitted. We don't need more 'big brother' government.

If we 'must' keep this bill around, then I'd ask for some ammendments. If you check with constitutional experts, I believe you will find some key protections are effectively missing from the bill.

If this bill is retained, I'd specifically like to see extensions to the protections enumerated in this bill to include:
1) Respecting the privacy of US Citizens; including, but not limited to, health care records.
2) Excepting as necessitated and justified by due process proceedings, not participating in any attempt to tie real names / people to internet postings.
3) Provide -external- oversite: "The Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Officer of the Department of Homeland Security shall develop and implement an auditing mechanism to ensure that compliance with this subtitle does not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, or civil liberties of any racial, ethnic, or religious group" is not a task to be given to an entirely governmental body. A requirement should be added to ensure a civilian or elected representative participation in this process.

If these protections cannot be added to the bill, I must request in the strongest terms that you simply vote against the bill.
Sincerely,
A Voter in The Great State of

++++

To locate a way to contact your senator:
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

House rep (re-cast to ask for changes in any final version of the bill)
http://www.house.gov/htbin/wrep_findrep?HIP28510343510.12467.9164

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 27, 2007 5:39 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

This bill creeps me out for several reasons:

1) It's unnecessary. We really don't need yet another Commission of politicos. I'm sure there are lots of universities and international commissions that are already working on this question. You can collect the relevant information by giving a university a grant on the topic.

2) If we haven't figured out the causes of foreign terrorism by now, what makes us think that a Commission can do any better on the topic of "homegrown" terrorism? And the reason WHY they will fail is because they refuse to look at USA actions as factors in radicalization. It is a forgone conclusion that the government is right, and the only thing we all need is more TV, more valium, and more propaganda.

3) It specifically mentions the internet in its preamble. Great. The one place that we can get uncensored information is under the eye of Sauron.

4) It's self-policing. The Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Officer of the Department of Homeland Security shall develop and implement an auditing mechanism to ensure that compliance with this subtitle does not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, or civil liberties of any racial, ethnic, or religious group How do we know they didn't violate anyone's civil right? Because they told us so!

AND 5) It specifically exempts itself from the Federal Advisory Commissions Act (FACA). Comparing the text of this Bill to the FACA, my conclusion is that the exemption is merely to keep more information private than would otherwise be permitted.

And being self-policing, there is no way for any outside auditor to determine how well- or badly-the Commission has behaved.

So

to Jane Harmon (D)

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 27, 2007 5:40 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
1) It appears to create a very powerful and vast entity under the US Fed. government, with no elimination of other possibly redundant agency. Always a bad move.

I don't see that. Per the legislation, the Commission it creates is sunsetted 30 days after it issues its final report, which is required to be issued within 18 months of the Commission's first meeting.

The Center For Excellence is a university-based (not government agency) entity which has no enforcement powers, only research and educational ones.

Quote:
2) As Hero constantly reminds us, it is not the constitutional rights as a lay person would understand them, but as a constitutional expert interprets them. Thus, I do not believe there is sufficient protection in the Bill. Protections beyond simple 'interpreted' constitutional rights need to be enumerated.

Quote:
(a) In General- The Department of Homeland Security's efforts to prevent ideologically based violence and homegrown terrorism as described herein shall not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, or civil liberties of United States citizens or lawful permanent residents.

(b) Commitment to Racial Neutrality- The Secretary shall ensure that the activities and operations of the entities created by this subtitle are in compliance with the Department of Homeland Security's commitment to racial neutrality.

(c) Auditing Mechanism- The Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Officer of the Department of Homeland Security shall develop and implement an auditing mechanism to ensure that compliance with this subtitle does not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, or civil liberties of any racial, ethnic, or religious group, and shall include the results of audits under such mechanism in its annual report to Congress required under section 705.'.

Seems reasonably comprehensive to me. I'd be interested in where you think this fails to provide constitutional protections. Of course, if you don't trust the government to do this, then would any guarantee be satisfactory?

Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA) is listed as a 'mainstream democrat' on GovTrack, and has supported the closure of Gitmo and limiting the issuance of National Security letters. HR1955 passed the House 404 to 6, so it's got bi-partisan support.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 27, 2007 5:53 AM

FREMDFIRMA

"if you don't trust the government to do this, then would any guarantee be satisfactory?"

None whatsoever.

As for sunsetting, the Patriot Act was supposed to be automatically sunset, and a lot of damned fools who don't understand history actually believed that shit.

No, this bill is in essence, unconstitutional, a usurpation of authority and a downright danger to the very people it is supposed to protect.

Not to mention utterly redundant and unnecessary.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 27, 2007 6:02 AM

LEADB

Actually, I managed to miss the supposed lifetime of the commission. I will say it makes me feel -slightly- better about it; however, as Frem points out it is often easy to get extensions. At this point, I don't trust either party to reign this in at a later date or not to extend it indefinitely.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 27, 2007 6:05 AM

LEADB

'I'd be interested in where you think this fails to provide constitutional protections.'

Problem is, do we have constitutional right to the privacy of, say, our medical files? Unfortunately, I'd have to look to Hero or someone who understands how the constitution is currently being interpreted to have any confidence in that. If the answer is yes, I'd have to go down a checklist of items I'm concerned about. If the answer is no, then I'd want some additional items enumerated as being 'off limits' to the commission.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 27, 2007 6:39 AM

SERGEANTX

I found it somewhat creepy that they specifically mentioned the internet as a target.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 27, 2007 6:52 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
Problem is, do we have constitutional right to the privacy of, say, our medical files? ...If the answer is yes, I'd have to go down a checklist of items I'm concerned about. If the answer is no, then I'd want some additional items enumerated as being 'off limits' to the commission.

But you could apply this same reasoning to every piece of legislation, no matter how seemingly innocuous, that gets submitted.

Rep. Harmon's HR1547, for example, wants to prohibit the sale of inefficient light bulbs.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1547

It provides no specific guarantees that enforcement of this prohibition would be constitutional. Should we expect the Energy Police to show up at the Quikee Mart and torture the clerk until he reveals the old-stock stash of illegal bulbs?

If every piece of legislation offered had to answer within itself every constitutional question and objection anyone could possibly bring, the printed copies of each bill needed for submission would be massive enough to cause black holes.

Your Constitutional Rights are guaranteed by the Constitution and the precedents relating to it established over the years, not a paragraph in some piece of legislation. If you think a law or an act of the government relating to that law is unconstitutional, it's your right to challenge it. That's your protection.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 27, 2007 7:29 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
I found it somewhat creepy that they specifically mentioned the internet as a target.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

I agree, Sergeant. It is the single most repulsive part of this. Especially since this is a finding that Congress has apparently already made:

"3) The Internet has aided in facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process in the United States by providing access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda to United States citizens."

That is a fucked up statement to make, and it is highly suggestive of the sorts of conclusions this commission is already primed to reach.

I mean, just for example, pretend the statement was phrased thusly:

"3) Free Press and Freedom of Speech have aided in facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process in the United States by providing access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda to United States citizens."

And it might as well say that, because there has not been another invention that so powerfully enables freedom of speech and expression since the invention of the Printing Press. If Congress sees the Internet as a source of Problems, as they apparently do already, this commission is the tool for them to suggest solutions to that problem.

I am not in favor of this commission at all.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 27, 2007 9:31 AM

LEADB

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
...

Your Constitutional Rights are guaranteed by the Constitution and the precedents relating to it established over the years, not a paragraph in some piece of legislation. If you think a law or an act of the government relating to that law is unconstitutional, it's your right to challenge it. That's your protection.

Exactly. And, if you happen to know, do I have a constitutional right to have my medical files exempted from analysis to further the cause of prevention of terrorism? You might think this 'outrageous', but what if they decide that anyone who has been told they only have a year or less to live is a high risk of becoming a suicide bomber? So, unless you can answer the question "Is my right to keep my medical files private constitutionally guaranteed?", you are missing the core point.

Besides, I'm a let less worried about someone ferreting out the last incandescent light bulb violating my rights than I am some vague 'fact finding' commission doing the same.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 27, 2007 10:50 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
And, if you happen to know, do I have a constitutional right to have my medical files exempted from analysis to further the cause of prevention of terrorism?

Based on Privacyrights.Org's interpretation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, I'd have to say no.

http://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs8a-hipaa.htm#2

"The flow of your medical information is beyond your control when the disclosure is made by a covered entity to or in connection with:

-Any disclosure required by federal, state, or local regulation, regardless of the scope of the disclosure or the purpose of the disclosure.

-Federal government national security and intelligence officials."

Quote:
Besides, I'm a let less worried about someone ferreting out the last incandescent light bulb violating my rights than I am some vague 'fact finding' commission doing the same.

Why? Re-read HR 1947 and then list all the ways that applications of the 'Lightbulb Law' might possibly violate your civil rights, and the civil rights of others. Besides, HR1955 has no clauses relating to enforcement, where as HR 1947 specifically requires effective penalties.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 27, 2007 10:56 AM

FREMDFIRMA

The real question is...

At this point, do we really trust this pack of shitheels to do *anything* without fucking it up ?

To that, my answer would be...

Nope.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 27, 2007 11:26 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
The real question is...

At this point, do we really trust this pack of shitheels to do *anything* without fucking it up ?

To that, my answer would be...

Nope.

-Frem

So at this point, do you consider that you have any options aside from leaving or violent revolution?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 27, 2007 11:40 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
The real question is...

At this point, do we really trust this pack of shitheels to do *anything* without fucking it up ?

To that, my answer would be...

Nope.

-Frem

So at this point, do you consider that you have any options aside from leaving or violent revolution?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

Beware, answering that may mark you as a 'Homegrown Terrorist.'

Never mind the administration providing the miracle-grow.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 27, 2007 12:03 PM

LEADB

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
So at this point, do you consider that you have any options aside from leaving or violent revolution?

I don't believe the senate has yet passed the legislation; write your senators.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 27, 2007 12:12 PM

SERGEANTX

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
So at this point, do you consider that you have any options aside from leaving or violent revolution?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

"We're taking no options off the table."

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 27, 2007 5:24 PM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

The first act of this commission will be repeal of the Declaration of Independence.

Hanoi Hannity: "Outsourcing your job is good for me."
"US ports owned by Commie China is good for me."
"Iraq War is good for me and Commie China."
"Sir Rupert dines with Hillary every week."
"Ron Paul does not exist in my 'Verse."

"As far as Chinese goes, I resented it."
-Adam Tudyk, The Making of Firefly

FOX, MYSPACE & FIREFLY OWNED BY COMMUNIST CHINA!
www.piratenews.org/pntv-schedule.html

Does that seem right to you?
Firefly Music Video: Tangerine dream - Confrontation, Thief soundtrack
www.megavideo.com/?v=JVT35GR8
www.scifi.com/onair/

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 27, 2007 7:19 PM

FLETCH2

Quote:
Originally posted by piratenews:
The first act of this commission will be repeal of the Declaration of Independence.

We don't want you back... really... while you were away we gave your place in the Commonwealth to that nice Indian couple....

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 28, 2007 3:48 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
So at this point, do you consider that you have any options aside from leaving or violent revolution?
I don't believe the senate has yet passed the legislation; write your senators.

Doesn't matter. If you've already decided that the government won't respect or protect your rights - will in fact violate them just on a whim, how can you expect the defeat of this one piece of legislation to affect anything?

That was the purpose of my "Run or Rebel" question to Fremd. If you don't believe that what you think is wrong with the government can be fixed by working within the system, leaving or revolution are your only two active choices.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 28, 2007 4:26 AM

LEADB

Geezer,
There are folks who are trying to work 'within the system' even as we are realizing there are significant problems with the system. If you wish to give up, feel free. I would -hope- that even as folks start to 'opt out' as you say, they continue to voice their concerns to their elected representatives. Unlike some folks, I don't see the world in black and white; it's not even shades of grey. It's full color. I'm a firm advocate in pursuing parallel corrective actions.

Ok, you addressed the question to Frem; and I believe he has made it pretty clear, he's ready for things to fall apart pretty bad pretty soon. I won't disagree with him, our currency is perhaps at the edge of dissolution. However, I don't think he intends to leave; but rather to be prepared to put things back together at least to the extent possible to work for him 'after the crash.' In the mean time, I'd welcome him writing letters to his Senator expressing displeasure with this bill. This takes very little away from his preparations for 'problems' and may in some way prevent, reduce, or mitigate the problems. 'parallel corrective actions'

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 28, 2007 5:05 AM

LEADB

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Why? Re-read HR 1947 and then list all the ways that applications of the 'Lightbulb Law' might possibly violate your civil rights, and the civil rights of others. Besides, HR1955 has no clauses relating to enforcement, where as HR 1947 specifically requires effective penalties.

Just in the remote case you are serious, here's where I believe your position breaks down:

The 'Lightbulb Law' as you put it states it will use fines to enforce the requirement. I'm hard pressed to see how this is going to violate rights. If -you- can come up with something, feel free to express your concerns to your peers and representatives.

The Anti-terrorist commission, on the other hand, might decide it doesn't like Geezer's posts on the FF forums and decides that it should determine who you are (because they want to, not because they have a court order or any judicial oversight or otherwise follow due process), make the determination then to publish said information so that anyone can see it. Will that violate your constitutional rights? I suspect not. Do you want them doing that? Perhaps you don't mind that. If you don't mind, would you please post your name and address here for folks who would like that information?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 28, 2007 5:33 AM

LEADB

Open to suggestions; here's what I'm currently planning to send to my congress folk (though for my senator, I may try to dig up some references (if any) to the senate version.)

Regarding this bill:

H.R. 1955: Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1955

I'd prefer to see the bill repealed on the following grounds:
We can collect the relevant information by giving a university a grant on the topic, please take this direction instead.

It specifically exempts itself from the Federal Advisory Commissions Act (FACA). This raises concerns that the commission will restrict access excessively to concerned citizens than would otherwise be permitted. We don't need more 'big brother' government.

If we 'must' keep this bill around, then I'd ask for some ammendments. If you check with constitutional experts, I believe you will find some key protections are effectively missing from the bill.

If this bill is retained, I'd specifically like to see extensions to the protections enumerated in this bill to include:
1) Respecting the privacy of US Citizens; including, but not limited to, health care records.
2) Excepting as necessitated and justified by due process proceedings, not participating in any attempt to tie real names / people to internet postings.
3) Provide -external- oversite; "The Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Officer of the Department of Homeland Security shall develop and implement an auditing mechanism to ensure that compliance with this subtitle does not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, or civil liberties of any racial, ethnic, or religious group" is not a task to be given to an entirely governmental body. A requirement should be added to ensure a civilian or elected representative participation in this process.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 28, 2007 6:38 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

LeadB, not much to add to your well-reasoned and solidly-grounded posts. Ditto Frem about your passion.

Aside from the specific reference to the internet as a medium of terrorism (!) which troubles me greatly, what I find worrisome about this bill is that it panders to Americans' fear.

This nation is now all about fear- how to stoke it, how to respond to it, how to allay it. Look at people like Hero and Auraptor. They're fixated on the image of being in a room with a committed jihadist. (AS IF!) There seems to be a national malaise... nobody feels we can do anything right anymore, whether it's responding to disasters or balancing the budget or creating a better energy policy. Discussions about hope, progress, and choice have all been driven off the table.

And then there's this bill. Instead of presenting a message of hope and progress, the Dems seem to be committed to wringing the American people with yet more fear! Trying to be the bigger daddy than the Repugs. But somewhere between unreasonable fear and sedation lies a pragmatic view of the future that our politicians have yet to find.

One of the problems that I have with this bill is the very notion that popular anger is unjustified and needs to be "controlled". That we've lost a lot of manufacturing jobs, that Bush has got us stuck in a tarry mess in Iraq, that he has fucked us over every step of the way and shoveled money upwards as fast as possible, that lobbyists are writing legislation, that he has defined carrying an opposing sign as "dangerous", that ANY action can be defined as "terrorism", that anyone can be disappeared into Gitmo, that he bobbled New Orleans, that votes were rigged in 2000 and 2004, that it looks like he wants to bomb Iran... Anyone who's pissed off enough to block a sidewalk or post a negative comment about a company can be deemed an economic terrorist, and anyone who refuses to leave with their irate question or their dissenting sign is a danger and must be arrested.

Nah, none of this justifies popular anger. What we all need is MORE ORDER!

Thanks Rue for pointing out this bill. It has yet to be passed by the Senate, far as I can tell. Call or write your Senators.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 28, 2007 6:59 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
as you put it states it will use fines to enforce the requirement. I'm hard pressed to see how this is going to violate rights.

Easy. Using your "if they don't say they won't do it, they will." viewpoint, the Secretary of Energy could very well want to review your medical records to see if you had a condition, say SAD, which required use of a light source which didn't meet efficiency standards. Further, he could require that you have a prescription to purchase such bulbs so that vendors could legally sell them to you. In fact, since the 'lightbulb law' is actually enforced against individual businesses and persons, such abuse might be more likely than a general survey of statistics and trends, like HR1955.

Do I think this scenario is likely? Hell no! Although the Secretary of Energy might do something like this, it strains credulity to think he actually would.

I tend to feel the same way about HR1955. There's no logical reason to think that a commission looking at trends, statistics, best practices, prior research, etc. would want - or need - to look at any individual person's medical records (or shoe size, or color preference, or Ginger/MaryAnn preference...).

Quote:
The Anti-terrorist commission, on the other hand, might decide it doesn't like Geezer's posts on the FF forums and decides that it should determine who you are.

Yes, they might. I might get hit by an ocean liner tomorrow. I suspect that one is about as likely as the other, and will spend about as much time (none) worrying about both.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 28, 2007 7:28 AM

LEADB

Geezer,
Looks like we actually agree about the lightbulb law, and disagree about HR1955. I am concerned that the folks implementing HR1955 are going to go trolling through a lot of material I think the fed. gov. has no business trolling through. You obviously feel other wise. Rational folks will disagree at times.

Edit to note: Actually, the lighbulb law looks like poor legislation, but for reasons completely outside the privacy and rights concerns which is the focus of concerns being expressed regarding HR1955. If anyone wishes to discuss, I'd be happy to in a different thread.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 28, 2007 7:33 AM

LEADB

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
... the Dems seem to be committed to wringing the American people with yet more fear! Trying to be the bigger daddy than the Repugs. But somewhere between unreasonable fear and sedation lies a pragmatic view of the future that our politicians have yet to find.
...

Amen.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 28, 2007 9:38 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
Geezer,
Looks like we actually agree about the lightbulb law, and disagree about HR1955. I am concerned that the folks implementing HR1955 are going to go trolling through a lot of material I think the fed. gov. has no business trolling through. You obviously feel other wise. Rational folks will disagree at times.

I'm really curious as to what language in HR1955 makes you think that either the Commission or the university-based Center of Excellence are going to be looking at individual's medical records or any other records, or would even be interested in such records.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 28, 2007 10:13 AM

LEADB

Actually, I'm much more concerned about them deciding to arbitrarily start making connections between real people and posters on the internet; while I appreciate that using due process, the FedGov can probably have someone on my doorstep next week Sunday asking why I post such nasty things on discussion boards (after probably spending 3 or 4 days bored witless watching my house and following my car), it requires due process; and that's fine. I have no (all right, only a few, but I don't see any way to stop it without breaking things) qualms that this is the case. Believe it or not, its one of our fellow posters who has made me quite so jumpy. Why, you ask? It more than slightly unnerves me that a prosecutor believes that being critical of Bush's interjection of us into a war with Iraq puts me on the side of the terrorists. Now lets say the commission decides to do a cross reference of critical remarks against Bush's intrusion into Iraq against real names, then decides to feed this into a list of folks who, under legislation they intend to propose, would need to be monitored for traveling outside the United States. Of course, to do so, they need to require folks like those running this site to provide email addresses. I believe the provisions of this bill would permit it. Then they contact the email support folk, and they have my name (in my case, it's an email associated to my billing for internet services). Of course, they won't actually -do- the monitoring, since they are only checking to see how big such a list would be, etc; but in the mean time, they will have, IMHO, trolled through a bunch of data that they should not be.

Medical records, I already gave an example. They decide they want to see 'what sort of people show up' if they do a search against folks with maladies that typically only leave them a year left to live. This is because, after all, such folks are 'obviously' (in the commissions' eye) likely recruits for suicide bombing. This means going through -everyone's- records to see if they have such. Again, covered by legal precedent that they might do so.

You might think it completely unlikely that they would consider such things. You may be right. The point is, I believe this bill would permit them to do it. The other thing is, even if you trust this will be managed 'properly' under the current administration, are you confident it will appropriately managed under the next? I don't trust the current administration, and the there's only one or two candidates I might consider trusting with this, and neither has very good prospects at the moment.

I will also concede that some legal scholar might be able to tell me that both of my suggested items above would be stopped by this, that, or the other provisions; that would be welcome information. Unfortunately, both the Democrats and Republicans seem to be looking for boogey men under the bed, kinda reminds me of the McCarthy era communist scares.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 28, 2007 11:16 AM

OLDENGLANDDRY

Quote:
Originally posted by piratenews:
The first act of this commission will be repeal of the Declaration of Independence.

And which nonsensicle stance will you be taking when it is'nt?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 28, 2007 12:28 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
Now lets say the commission decides to do a cross reference of critical remarks against Bush's intrusion into Iraq against real names, then decides to feed this into a list of folks who, under legislation they intend to propose, would need to be monitored for traveling outside the United States. Of course, to do so, they need to require folks like those running this site to provide email addresses. I believe the provisions of this bill would permit it.

Once again, please give specific cites in the legislation which would support this belief.

For example, I can quote SEC. 899B (8) as an indication that your rights are being considered.

"Any measure taken to prevent violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence and homegrown terrorism in the United States should not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, or civil liberties of United States citizens or lawful permanent residents."

Quote:
Medical records, I already gave an example. They decide they want to see 'what sort of people show up' if they do a search against folks with maladies that typically only leave them a year left to live. This is because, after all, such folks are 'obviously' (in the commissions' eye) likely recruits for suicide bombing. This means going through -everyone's- records to see if they have such.

-Stop and think for a moment how long it would take to go through 'everyone's' medical records.
-Consider that many (perhaps most) are still in paper format only.
-Consider that you're talking at least 200 million records.
-Realize that the Commission has 18 months from start to finish.
-Note that the 'fatal illness = suicide bomber' scenario is probably one of the least likely to show up on their radar screen.
-Understand that even if they were interested in the FI=SB scenario, they'd look for existing research; not start a massively expensive, severely time-limited, sure to be politically explosive project.
-See that a commission consisting mostly of people appointed by members of Congress (8 of 10) is going to be real sure not to do anything politically explosive.
-Know that even if they tried to do anything untoward in secret - since members of Congress are involved, it'd be leaked.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 28, 2007 3:40 PM

LEADB

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:specific cites in the legislation which would support this belief.

`(3) The Internet has aided in facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process in the United States by providing access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda to United States citizens.

From this, anyone who believes that 'those who question the President's wisdom of invading Iraq stand with the terrorists' can conclude that that such people who post such questioning are, clearly, high risk individuals and must be identified. My point is, there are people who believe such things; as I have no idea who will be on the commission, I have no way of protecting against such approaches unless such protections are explicitly prohibited by the bill. Unless you can convince that such measures I've described would in fact "violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, or civil liberties of United States citizens or lawful permanent residents," then I believe such additional protections must be added to the bill explicitly. Now, can you tell me how the scenario I've outlined would violate a constitutional right, civil right, or civil liberty, I will withdraw that particular concern, but you will need to support it with more than a 'I think'. In point, you provided information that, if anything, supports at least the medical information item would -not- be a constitutional violation; hence so far you have confirmed not reduced my concern.

Keep in mind Moore's law. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore's_law
While -old- records are are still on paper, almost all current medical records are going computerized, even if not at the doctor's office, then as processed by the insurance companies. You may not be aware of it, but the company I work for offers certain medical review functions; in order for those functions to work, it is clear that key elements of my medical profile are being loaded and analyzed by these systems. They come back with wonderful advice about getting more exercise and reducing my cholesterol and all that good rot. My lab results from my blood test are there. I've looked around, and I don't see a way to opt out. I suppose I could make a fuss, but I'm -sure- that they are taking all the legal precautions to make sure no one can get to it who isn't supposed to... key word being 'supposed to'. Searching the records will take huge amounts of time? Right. Have you heard of a thing called google? I know there's computer manufacturers who would love to drop a super computer or two on the US gov. You are aware that document scanning with OCR is coming along very nicely. It is projected that within two years a decent voice recognition and interpretation to text will be more accurate than a human doing the same work? So...

-Stop and think for a moment how long it would take to go through 'everyone's' medical records.
**If organized into a searchable database, looking for key elements, perhaps 5 minutes?

-Consider that many (perhaps most) are still in paper format only.
** For this instance, we only need recent records, anything within the past year. Honestly, I have no idea if this is in the 5% range or the 95% range. Feel feel to research this. Keep in mind that for the commission, they only need to do 'prototyping' and 'assessment'.

-Consider that you're talking at least 200 million records.
** That few? Perhaps 2 minutes. Any guess as to how many webpages google has? In september of 2005, it had 8,168,684,336. I'm sure there's a few more now.

-Realize that the Commission has 18 months from start to finish.
** Yes, that is promising; unless it gets extended. But the point is, they may feel free to rummage through what they have now for assessment and prototyping purposes. I see nothing to suggest they cannot or should not (unless, again, you can document wherein it would be prohibited).

-Note that the 'fatal illness = suicide bomber' scenario is probably one of the least likely to show up on their radar screen.
** I do so hate when folks ask for an example; I give two, you discount both. Ok. Feel free to suggest your own concerns (I know, you haven't any).

-Understand that even if they were interested in the FI=SB scenario, they'd look for existing research; not start a massively expensive, severely time-limited, sure to be politically explosive project.
** Your conjecture is interesting and comforting. Are you on the commission?

-See that a commission consisting mostly of people appointed by members of Congress (8 of 10) is going to be real sure not to do anything politically explosive.
** Your conjecture is interesting and comforting. Are you amongst those selecting members?

-Know that even if they tried to do anything untoward in secret - since members of Congress are involved, it'd be leaked.
** Then is it interesting they make such a point of excluding The Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.). Frankly, that sets off my 'alarm bells.'

Geezer, this is a question of trust. And of late, the government has violated my trust. It's nice there are still folks who do not feel so violated and are still trusting. In the mean time, I'm simply asking for a few provisions to be added to keep them out of what I feel they have no business being in. Interestingly, if you are so confident that they 'won't be' mussing through such data, why are you so concerned about having such restrictions added?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 29, 2007 3:39 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
Geezer, this is a question of trust. And of late, the government has violated my trust. It's nice there are still folks who do not feel so violated and are still trusting. In the mean time, I'm simply asking for a few provisions to be added to keep them out of what I feel they have no business being in.

But if you don't trust 'them', why would you believe they'd keep any promises they made to stay out of what you feel they have no business being in?

Quote:
Interestingly, if you are so confident that they 'won't be' mussing through such data, why are you so concerned about having such restrictions added?

Because I want to save the trees.

Okay, you want protection against review of your medical records. Bob wants his financial records shielded. Fred wants his student loan file kept private. Hugh doesn't care about financial records, but thinks his past criminal record should be off limits. Mary thinks her marital status is no ones business. Sue thinks her age is not germaine. Helen thinks her religion is between her and her god. Color of eyes, color of hair, size of feet, type of car, land owned, books read, etc., etc., etc.

If every piece of legislation has to list positive assurances that it will not interfere with every specific thing any of 300 million individuals is concerned about, there aren't enough gigs of storage to hold it all, let alone enough trees to make the paper needed to print the copies required by statute.

Imagine you're going to the store. You tell your Significant Other, "I'm going to the store". Your SO replies, "Are you coming back? You didn't say you were."

"Yes. I'm coming back."

"Are you stopping at the bar on the way? You didn't say you weren't."

"I'm going straight there and straight back"

"Are you meeting someone else at the store? You didn't reassure me you aren't."

"Not meeting anyone else"

"But are you going to call them on your cellphone? "

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 29, 2007 5:38 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by piratenews:
The first act of this commission will be repeal of the Declaration of Independence.

That would be a fancy trick. I mean how do you repeal something that's not a law? And I'm not sure England would take us back anyway. Sure, they'd want Ohio and Texas...but who the hell would want New Jersey and Lousiana?

Edited to add: If your right PN, then I'll have to wear one of those pansy powdered wigs to practice law and I aint doing that so if they do repeal the Declaration, then I'm grabbing my musket and headin to Valley Forge. If your wrong, then I'm just going to visit my parents...who live near Valley Forge. Either way I have to drive the PA turnpike...and thats just a damn shame.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 29, 2007 8:13 AM

LEADB

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Because I want to save the trees. ...

Read it. Still not convinced. I have nothing new to add. It was an interesting exchange.

Edit: Upon further pondering... What would convince me is if you could show how/where this information is protected by some right or law. Otherwise, this is a matter of opinion or trust.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 29, 2007 11:28 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
Upon further pondering... What would convince me is if you could show how/where this information is protected by some right or law. Otherwise, this is a matter of opinion or trust.

Well, we've already determined that your medical records probably aren't protected by law. Criminal records are usually publicly available unless they're juvenile records or sealed by the court. Your financial records are for sale to just about anyone through the credit rating bureaus. If you ever got a driver's license somewhere there is a record of your height, weight, hair and eye color. Your tax records are probably less available to the government than you think, barring a subpoena. The history of your interactions with private and public entities probably isn't near as legally secure as you seem to think it is.

But what exactly do you think your "Right to Privacy" is? Can you provide a legal definition? Is it enumerated in the Constitution, or in legislation anywhere? How far does it go? If you tell a friend you feel fine today, and they later tell someone else "LeadB feels fine today", is that violating your privacy?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 29, 2007 1:37 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Historical Fact - if you give a government the power TO do something, eventually they WILL do it, even if just as an excuse to allocate more budget money to "friendly" corporations in their constituency.

As for trust, how bout that Tenth Amendment, huh - one more idiocy from the "but no one would ever dare stoop so low!" mindset of not carving protections specifically in stone, and add judicial re-interpretation on top, yeah right.

It doesn't help to say "But you can't do that to me!" *while* they are doing it, does it now ?

I am not a min-maxer, and I do not believe in either/or solutions - I love what this country was meant to be, hate what it has become, and am not really inclined to leave but would (on a boat, quietly and discreetly) if necessary.

As for working within the system, I have no faith in the system, only in people - the system would tell you that making gun possession unlawful would utterly prevent criminals from possessing one, but people know better.

I am fast losing faith in american people however, watching them salivate in eager anticipation of licking the jackboots as long as the kicking is not directed at THEM (yet, cause we all know it will be) really discourages me from even wanting to help.

No, I am not gonna write my senator, Leadb - cause at this point, I've begun to wonder if the people, en masse, do not rightfully *deserve* what's coming, having watched them rabidly rah-rah their way right into it, howling for more speed as the train of our nation approaches that brick wall at the end of the line.

Not to mention I am pissed cause the damn fools are diggin my grave right next to theirs and cussing me for a fool for trying to save my (and by default, their) ass from it.

So, up till the crisis point imma just live my life, throwing sand in the gears when I can get away with it, and to be blunt, that's all imma tell anyone - you wanna talk about lack of trust, look to all the folk cheerleading as our leaders drop trou and shit all over the Constitution and ask yourself why I would trust the people as a whole anymore having watched this day in and day out ?

I will do, what I will do - and live my life in the meantime, and live it without the fear that everyone so desperately wants me to feel so they can control me.

Fuck em.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 29, 2007 2:30 PM

LEADB

Fair 'nough Frem. Thanks for the comments.

Geezer, what Frem said, I'm just not quite yet to the point of giving up writing my duly elected representatives.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER

POST DATE