|
|
| Author |
Message |
khrath
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 8750
|
 Posted: 12/24/05 - 10:53 Post subject: Opinion on the Wiretapping etc
|
|
|
Seriously, is anyone honestly offended by this?
I mean does anyone have a legitimate complaint about it?
I'm all for protecting peoples privacy, and peoples ability to exist as a private citizen, but no matter how you slice it, you're still a U.S. citizen, your taxes help fund things you may not agree with at all, because you are a piece of the pie, and it's your obligation to do so as such.
IMO, when it comes to protecting the homeland, indavidual rights mean jack shit compared to saving the lives of thousands of people.
I'm just curious, if anyone out there honestly had a valid argument against all that.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
 |
Zuldane
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 4057
Location: At sea.
|
|
Posted: 12/24/05 - 10:56 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
I don't really mind it, since I don't do anything illegal anyway.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
khrath
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 8750
|
|
Posted: 12/24/05 - 10:58 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Zuldane wrote: | | I don't really mind it, since I don't do anything illegal anyway. |
I do, but I still don't mind it, because I know if for some reason the CIA is tapping my phone looking for terrorist info, they won't even give a shit if they hear me talking about some petty crimes I pulled off.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
kireol
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 02 Aug 2003
Posts: 9517
Location: Royal Oak, MI
|
|
Posted: 12/24/05 - 11:01 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
my only problem with it is the whole: give a n****r an inch, thing
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
khrath
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 8750
|
|
Posted: 12/24/05 - 11:05 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
They don't let n*****s work for the CIA do they?
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Zuldane
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 4057
Location: At sea.
|
|
Posted: 12/24/05 - 11:09 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
I am about to murder UPS if they don't deliver my package already.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
kireol
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 02 Aug 2003
Posts: 9517
Location: Royal Oak, MI
|
|
Posted: 12/24/05 - 11:10 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
what you getting?!
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
shinja mayoke
Luke Warm
Joined: 04 Jan 2003
Posts: 434
|
|
Posted: 12/24/05 - 11:10 Post subject:
|
|
|
I am not one to give up freedom for security by any means...however...
the patriot act (which I am not crazy about) has many checks and balances built in...and so far there are no reports of it being abused.
Many laws can be abused, when this happens, well see I guess.
As far as all the 'omg bush admits to spying' shit, he has yet to do anything illegal there, and he has followed protocol on all of it.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Zuldane
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 4057
Location: At sea.
|
|
Posted: 12/24/05 - 11:10 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
<img src="http://www.inthepants.net/misc/kh2box.jpg">
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
motherface
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 12 Mar 2003
Posts: 3407
|
|
Posted: 12/24/05 - 11:12 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
Back in the day America was all about being willing to die for your rights. We fought a war about it. Sounds like if you were in charge back then you would have said, "Yeah we should have a revolution, but people might die."
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
quotison
RealPoor Sensei
Joined: 13 Oct 2002
Posts: 1594
|
|
Posted: 12/24/05 - 11:14 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
I don't see this as a security vs. individual freedoms issue, I mean, had they decided to get warrents they would have gotten them and there would be no controversy. If the Bush administration broke the law, I think that's a problem. Yeah, homeland security is important, but if you can wave that flag to justify breaking the law, then there is no real limit on the President's power.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
motherface
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 12 Mar 2003
Posts: 3407
|
|
Posted: 12/24/05 - 11:19 Post subject:
|
|
|
| shinja mayoke wrote: | I am not one to give up freedom for security by any means...however...
the patriot act (which I am not crazy about) has many checks and balances built in...and so far there are no reports of it being abused.
Many laws can be abused, when this happens, well see I guess.
As far as all the 'omg bush admits to spying' shit, he has yet to do anything illegal there, and he has followed protocol on all of it. |
So basically you think it's fine to give up freedom for the illusion of security, despite what you said in the first sentence.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
khrath
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 8750
|
|
Posted: 12/24/05 - 11:25 Post subject:
|
|
|
Uh, i'd rather push my thumb against a fingerprint reader to get toilet paper to wipe my ass with, than have to worry about getting blown the f**k up into millions of pieces just trying to ride a bus to get to work.
You guys aren't arguing for freedom, you're arguing for privacy.
Big difference.
Nobody is saying you cant do anything, or taking away your rights to do anything, they are just listening in on tryn talking to osama bin laden about how she planted the c4 at the dallas cowboys game last week.
btw wtf was up with that cowboys vs redskins game, that would have been a f*****g awesome game to watch on thanksgiving, but nobody listens to me, we had to watch some s****y games instead.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
motherface
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 12 Mar 2003
Posts: 3407
|
|
Posted: 12/24/05 - 11:26 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Quote: | US Constitution, Article II, Section 1
Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." |
| Quote: | Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. |
And now an article about the biggest violation of the Constitution possibly ever, by the man whose job it is to protect it:
| Quote: | December 24, 2005
Spy Agency Mined Vast Data Trove, Officials Report
By ERIC LICHTBLAU and JAMES RISEN
WASHINGTON, Dec. 23 - The National Security Agency has traced and analyzed large volumes of telephone and Internet communications flowing into and out of the United States as part of the eavesdropping program that President Bush approved after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to hunt for evidence of terrorist activity, according to current and former government officials.
The volume of information harvested from telecommunication data and voice networks, without court-approved warrants, is much larger than the White House has acknowledged, the officials said. It was collected by tapping directly into some of the American telecommunication system's main arteries, they said.
As part of the program approved by President Bush for domestic surveillance without warrants, the N.S.A. has gained the cooperation of American telecommunications companies to obtain backdoor access to streams of domestic and international communications, the officials said.
The government's collection and analysis of phone and Internet traffic have raised questions among some law enforcement and judicial officials familiar with the program. One issue of concern to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which has reviewed some separate warrant applications growing out of the N.S.A.'s surveillance program, is whether the court has legal authority over calls outside the United States that happen to pass through American-based telephonic "switches," according to officials familiar with the matter.
"There was a lot of discussion about the switches" in conversations with the court, a Justice Department official said, referring to the gateways through which much of the communications traffic flows. "You're talking about access to such a vast amount of communications, and the question was, How do you minimize something that's on a switch that's carrying such large volumes of traffic? The court was very, very concerned about that."
Since the disclosure last week of the N.S.A.'s domestic surveillance program, President Bush and his senior aides have stressed that his executive order allowing eavesdropping without warrants was limited to the monitoring of international phone and e-mail communications involving people with known links to Al Qaeda.
What has not been publicly acknowledged is that N.S.A. technicians, besides actually eavesdropping on specific conversations, have combed through large volumes of phone and Internet traffic in search of patterns that might point to terrorism suspects. Some officials describe the program as a large data-mining operation.
The current and former government officials who discussed the program were granted anonymity because it remains classified.
Bush administration officials declined to comment on Friday on the technical aspects of the operation and the N.S.A.'s use of broad searches to look for clues on terrorists. Because the program is highly classified, many details of how the N.S.A. is conducting it remain unknown, and members of Congress who have pressed for a full Congressional inquiry say they are eager to learn more about the program's operational details, as well as its legality.
Officials in the government and the telecommunications industry who have knowledge of parts of the program say the N.S.A. has sought to analyze communications patterns to glean clues from details like who is calling whom, how long a phone call lasts and what time of day it is made, and the origins and destinations of phone calls and e-mail messages. Calls to and from Afghanistan, for instance, are known to have been of particular interest to the N.S.A. since the Sept. 11 attacks, the officials said.
This so-called "pattern analysis" on calls within the United States would, in many circumstances, require a court warrant if the government wanted to trace who calls whom.
The use of similar data-mining operations by the Bush administration in other contexts has raised strong objections, most notably in connection with the Total Information Awareness system, developed by the Pentagon for tracking terror suspects, and the Department of Homeland Security's Capps program for screening airline passengers. Both programs were ultimately scrapped after public outcries over possible threats to privacy and civil liberties.
But the Bush administration regards the N.S.A.'s ability to trace and analyze large volumes of data as critical to its expanded mission to detect terrorist plots before they can be carried out, officials familiar with the program say. Administration officials maintain that the system set up by Congress in 1978 under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act does not give them the speed and flexibility to respond fully to terrorist threats at home.
A former technology manager at a major telecommunications company said that since the Sept. 11 attacks, the leading companies in the industry have been storing information on calling patterns and giving it to the federal government to aid in tracking possible terrorists.
"All that data is mined with the cooperation of the government and shared with them, and since 9/11, there's been much more active involvement in that area," said the former manager, a telecommunications expert who did not want his name or that of his former company used because of concern about revealing trade secrets.
Such information often proves just as valuable to the government as eavesdropping on the calls themselves, the former manager said.
"If they get content, that's useful to them too, but the real plum is going to be the transaction data and the traffic analysis," he said. "Massive amounts of traffic analysis information - who is calling whom, who is in Osama Bin Laden's circle of family and friends - is used to identify lines of communication that are then given closer scrutiny."
Several officials said that after President Bush's order authorizing the N.S.A. program, senior government officials arranged with officials of some of the nation's largest telecommunications companies to gain access to switches that act as gateways at the borders between the United States' communications networks and international networks. The identities of the corporations involved could not be determined.
The switches are some of the main arteries for moving voice and some Internet traffic into and out of the United States, and, with the globalization of the telecommunications industry in recent years, many international-to-international calls are also routed through such American switches.
One outside expert on communications privacy who previously worked at the N.S.A. said that to exploit its technological capabilities, the American government had in the last few years been quietly encouraging the telecommunications industry to increase the amount of international traffic that is routed through American-based switches.
The growth of that transit traffic had become a major issue for the intelligence community, officials say, because it had not been fully addressed by 1970's-era laws and regulations governing the N.S.A. Now that foreign calls were being routed through switches on American soil, some judges and law enforcement officials regarded eavesdropping on those calls as a possible violation of those decades-old restrictions, including the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which requires court-approved warrants for domestic surveillance.
Historically, the American intelligence community has had close relationships with many communications and computer firms and related technical industries. But the N.S.A.'s backdoor access to major telecommunications switches on American soil with the cooperation of major corporations represents a significant expansion of the agency's operational capability, according to current and former government officials.
Phil Karn, a computer engineer and technology expert at a major West Coast telecommunications company, said access to such switches would be significant. "If the government is gaining access to the switches like this, what you're really talking about is the capability of an enormous vacuum operation to sweep up data," he said.
|
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
motherface
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 12 Mar 2003
Posts: 3407
|
|
Posted: 12/24/05 - 11:30 Post subject:
|
|
|
| khrath wrote: |
You guys aren't arguing for freedom, you're arguing for privacy.
|
Privacy is a freedom. There's no difference.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
khrath
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 8750
|
|
Posted: 12/24/05 - 11:33 Post subject:
|
|
|
that's stupid
you're arguing for a terrorist trying to kill peoples, freedom to privacy
f**k that
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
motherface
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 12 Mar 2003
Posts: 3407
|
|
Posted: 12/24/05 - 11:37 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
So you don't agree with the Constitution, that's fine. But the president isn't allowed to disagree with the Constitution, as his entire job is to protect it.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
sinrakin
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 7044
|
|
Posted: 12/24/05 - 11:51 Post subject:
|
|
|
The problem is that everything has two sides. I don't have a huge problem with the government listening in to my phone conversations if it's just to make sure I'm not hatching terrorist plots. Few people would. But history shows that inevitably, anything that can be abused, will be abused.
Look back to the Nixon era. It was the same situation, we were at war, and Nixon authorized domestic spying for national security. But that spying were used to collect information on political rivals and to blackmail private citizens who had nothing to do with national security. They spied on Martin Luther King and threatened to turn over information that he was having an affair to his wife. They tried to blackmail him into killing himself.
So yeah, you might say if it's a choice between having your conversations listened to and not being blown up by a terrorist, you'd just as soon let people listen to your conversations. But very soon it turns out that you can't trust anyone anymore: your congressman, the police, your boss, your doctor or lawyer, your newspaper editor, because the FBI or CIA have files and blackmail information on all of them, and suddenly they aren't necessarily representing your interest, or the public's interest anymore.
It's not like this probably wouldn't happen. It definitely would. It definitely did start to happen with Nixon, and was well on the way to becoming the permanent state of affairs. We dodged a bullet, and that's why our laws are so strict.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
goatface
Sir Postalot
Joined: 12 Oct 2002
Posts: 1354
|
|
Posted: 12/24/05 - 12:08 Post subject:
|
|
|
i never think that phone and internet are part of my personal stuff
but it is funny
few years ago,
libs were saying the Constitution was outdated
cons were saying the goverment is spying on us
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
khrath
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 8750
|
|
Posted: 12/24/05 - 12:14 Post subject:
|
|
|
I really don't know where people get off thinking their phone calls or internet use is private to begin with.
You are paying for the ability to use a network that belongs to a company.
You are sending data or voice over that companies network.
It isn't private to begin with, and never has been.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
motherface
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 12 Mar 2003
Posts: 3407
|
|
Posted: 12/24/05 - 12:23 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
That argument has nothing to do with the government making it illegal to encrypt your traffic so they can't see it. Where's the line for you? If Bush said tomorrow that all US citizens must have GPS transceivers embedded in their scalps "or the terrorists win," are you going to do it? If not, why not? If the government was able to track the movements of everyone in the country 24/7 then it would be easier to track down criminals, and not just terrorists. If they want to see who turned over the 7-11 down the block they can just check the GPS logs and see who was in there. If they came up with a way to scan your thoughts and arrest people for crimes before they commit them, would you support that as well? I'm being serious here, where's the line? I think we crossed it a long time ago but there are so many f*****g morons in this country willing to believe whatever the government tells them that it doesn't matter because the people are so pussified.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
khrath
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 8750
|
|
Posted: 12/24/05 - 12:34 Post subject:
|
|
|
| motherface wrote: | | That argument has nothing to do with the government making it illegal to encrypt your traffic so they can't see it. Where's the line for you? If Bush said tomorrow that all US citizens must have GPS transceivers embedded in their scalps "or the terrorists win," are you going to do it? If not, why not? If the government was able to track the movements of everyone in the country 24/7 then it would be easier to track down criminals, and not just terrorists. If they want to see who turned over the 7-11 down the block they can just check the GPS logs and see who was in there. If they came up with a way to scan your thoughts and arrest people for crimes before they commit them, would you support that as well? I'm being serious here, where's the line? I think we crossed it a long time ago but there are so many f*****g morons in this country willing to believe whatever the government tells them that it doesn't matter because the people are so pussified. |
First off, Bush wont try to tag people with gps recievers.
They already have alot of cars with gps systems for tracking, only it's a luxury, people pay extra for it for that added security.
People want extra security, they want the shit they work hard for to be protected.
They don't care if systems are able to track their movements, because it isnt there to watch if they sneak off to the girlfriends place for a quickie, it's there to protect them and their belongings.
Reality kind of trumps what if's, as far as i'm concerned.
As far as mind reading, I'd be all for supporting a way to stop criminals before they act.
We do that now anyway minus the mind reading, otherwise there'd be no such thing as conspiracy to commit 'insert crime here'
Imagine a world where you find out your mom would have just been murdered, only she didn't because they were able to stop it before it happened......thats a god thing if you ask me.
Didn't they make a movie about that? =p
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
motherface
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 12 Mar 2003
Posts: 3407
|
|
Posted: 12/24/05 - 12:53 Post subject:
|
|
|
| khrath wrote: | | First off, Bush wont try to tag people with gps recievers. |
Ah, so you're ok with it because you think it will never happen.
| khrath wrote: | | People want extra security, they want the shit they work hard for to be protected. |
So material possessions are all more important than the principles on which the country was founded. If you explained to the average car buyer just what they're buying with those stupid OnStar plans they'd probably shit. They're just too ignorant to care as it is... GM isn't pitching it as a way to track you that can be subpoenaed by the FBI if you get in trouble.
| khrath wrote: | | Reality kind of trumps what if's, as far as i'm concerned. |
The reality is that you can't trust the government, only dumb sheep do that. There are checks and balances in place to prevent this type of shit, Bush just decided to ignore them all and our faggoty Congress doesn't have the balls to do anything about it. They impeached Clinton for getting blown, yet Bush violates the Constitution on a daily basis and nobody cares.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
goatface
Sir Postalot
Joined: 12 Oct 2002
Posts: 1354
|
|
Posted: 12/24/05 - 12:57 Post subject:
|
|
|
no need for implants, with Surveillance Cameras going up everywhere
i dislike gov watching us, today just as much as i did 10+ years ago
but i hate even more all the people ranting and raving like
bloodly murder about it now like it is a brand new thing going on
even when they are against my personally beliefs, i thought it was
bad when supposed "white separatists" and other groups like that
were saying they were being illegaly targeted and stuff
and the papers just labeled them nut jobs.
while even the thought spying on muslins and peta is a high crime
i still believe legal systems and goverments will be the downfall of
the planet. just hope i am not too old to enjoy the armageddon
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
sinrakin
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 7044
|
|
Posted: 12/24/05 - 12:58 Post subject:
|
|
|
| khrath wrote: | I really don't know where people get off thinking their phone calls or internet use is private to begin with.
You are paying for the ability to use a network that belongs to a company.
You are sending data or voice over that companies network.
It isn't private to begin with, and never has been. |
The fact that the data is going over a company's network doesn't stop it from being private. Unless you think any employee of the phone company is perfectly entitled to listen in to all your phone calls and act on anything they hear, because it's their network.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
khrath
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 8750
|
|
Posted: 12/24/05 - 13:03 Post subject:
|
|
|
| motherface wrote: | | They impeached Clinton for getting blown |
they didn't
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Domination
Can't Stop Posting
Joined: 13 Oct 2002
Posts: 565
Location: Atlanta, GA
|
|
Posted: 12/24/05 - 13:17 Post subject:
|
|
|
| sinrakin wrote: | | khrath wrote: | I really don't know where people get off thinking their phone calls or internet use is private to begin with.
You are paying for the ability to use a network that belongs to a company.
You are sending data or voice over that companies network.
It isn't private to begin with, and never has been. |
The fact that the data is going over a company's network doesn't stop it from being private. Unless you think any employee of the phone company is perfectly entitled to listen in to all your phone calls and act on anything they hear, because it's their network. |
Thats not what he's saying. He is saying its not private from the get go as in other people could listen to it(view it), you are taking this to the extreme adding an additional step into the equation that Khrath hasn't talked about - listening AND taking additional steps with the gathered information they listened to, to blackmail etc..
Also you say phone company isn't entitled to listen in to all your phone calls and act on anything they hear - you add the additional step into it, which takes it to the extreme, which would be blackmail not a simple invasion of privacy which happens all of the time.
I am here to tell you, yes the phone company IS entitled to listen to anything they want on their lines, and the phone company has to comply with the law and let them have access to be able to listen to anything they want as well. You talked about an HLR once so you know the telecom industry and should be familar with CALEA type setups. This is 24-7-365 access to all telecom networks by the DEA/CIA/FBI/NSA.
This is the definition of privacy that i agree with;
pri·va·cy Audio pronunciation of "privacy" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (prv-s)
n.
1.
1. The quality or condition of being secluded from the presence or view of others.
2. The state of being free from unsanctioned intrusion: a person's right to privacy.
2. The state of being concealed; secrecy.
In this definition it doesn't mention anything about an additional step of using any obtained information against anyone, that would be another word that is called Blackmail that you are talking about here.
black·mail Audio pronunciation of "blackmail" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (blkml)
n.
1.
1. Extortion of money or something else of value from a person by the threat of exposing a criminal act or discreditable information.
2. Something of value extorted in this manner.
2. Tribute formerly paid to freebooters along the Scottish border for protection from pillage.
So.... Yes the fact that data is flowing thru a company's network doesn't mean its private at all, because it isn't at all.
Also you say this like its proven fact;
Look back to the Nixon era. It was the same situation, we were at war, and Nixon authorized domestic spying for national security. But that spying were used to collect information on political rivals and to blackmail private citizens who had nothing to do with national security. They spied on Martin Luther King and threatened to turn over information that he was having an affair to his wife. They tried to blackmail him into killing himself.
Quite an observation of a governments motivations, where was the documents that detail this plot? Can you point me to credible evidence that it was done.. Maybe i'm not old enough to remember any big trials about this but i don't seem to recall anything. I could be wrong!
Now, like liberals generally do i'm sure you'll take this to the extreme and be like "OH YOU DONT THINK USA DID ANYTHING AGAINST MLK?!" thats not what i'm saying here - I am saying where is some proof that this was the intentions of OUR government (a diabolocal plot for MLK to commit suicide). Now if you put up some internet links, please be sure to include some official coverage of any trial where this is actually proven.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Akronn
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 8752
|
|
Posted: 12/24/05 - 13:20 Post subject:
|
|
|
Khrath bought the whole 'to protect ourselves from terrorism' bull hook, line, and sinker and there isn't any point in arguing with him.
When it comes down to it, almost any action by the government can be justified by this reason. They can storm your home looking for 'terrorist activities' and you'll like it. And don't think it won't eventually happen.
Those in control stay in control via fear and paranoia. If there's one thing the Bush administration can do well, it's scaring simpletons into surrendering their rights for protection. Just vote for us and we'll keep you safe, honest!
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
khrath
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 8750
|
|
Posted: 12/24/05 - 13:36 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Akronn wrote: | Khrath bought the whole 'to protect ourselves from terrorism' bull hook, line, and sinker and there isn't any point in arguing with him.
When it comes down to it, almost any action by the government can be justified by this reason. They can storm your home looking for 'terrorist activities' and you'll like it. And don't think it won't eventually happen.
Those in control stay in control via fear and paranoia. If there's one thing the Bush administration can do well, it's scaring simpletons into surrendering their rights for protection. Just vote for us and we'll keep you safe, honest! |
The thing about that is, you're exagerating things and making up fake situations that just simply won't ever happen.
Terrorism is just the flavor of the month, fact is, if someones planning a bank robbery, raid their f****n house, I don't care what crime it is, if it hurts innocent people, then f**k them.
When you choose not to live by the laws that are in place to protect people, then you give up your right to your privacy and that's a simple fact.
Ask Johnny the skinny guy who got sent to prison last week how much privacy he has, when Big John bends him over and ruptures his a*****e with a 2 foot c**k.
If taking away a criminals privacy is what it takes to protect people, then by all means, take it away.
Damn your terrorism shock factor argument, because the crime really doesn't matter, it's the governments duty to protect the people in this country, and thats really all I care about.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
sinrakin
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 7044
|
|
Posted: 12/24/05 - 13:42 Post subject:
|
|
|
There are thousands of records of the FBI's surveillance of King and many others which any web search will show. He's just one of the most dramatic, but there were vast numbers. It's routinely taught in history classes. Why there were no trials and prosecutions I don't know - maybe because people wanted to put everything behind them once Nixon resigned, maybe some of the details didn't come out until J. Edgar Hoover's death.
Here's one account from the biography by Taylor Branch. It's not an original document, but I assume that a biography by a Pulitzer Prize winning author involves detailed research rather than made up facts: http://www.slate.com/id/3043
| Quote: | Unknown to the public, King was also hemmed in by blackmail threats from the FBI. J. Edgar Hoover despised King, whom he genuinely believed to be a Communist and further resented for assailing the bureau's sometimes laggard enforcement of justice in the lawless South. Hoover's agents received special commendations for such petty deeds as getting Marquette University to withdraw an honorary doctorate it had planned to award King. Worse, the bureau tapped King's phones and shadowed his every move, hunting for any damaging secrets.
On Jan. 6, 1964, FBI men installed microphones in King's Washington, D.C., hotel room and turned on the tape recorder. According to officials who heard the tapes, King that night betrayed his wife, Coretta--not for the first or the last time--shouting, amid his most private activities, "I'm f*****g for God!" and "I'm not a Negro tonight!" Later that year, agents anonymously shipped King "a 'highlight' recording of bugged **** groans and party jokes" along with a letter warning him: "You are done. There is but one way out for you. You better take it before your filthy, abnormal fraudulent self is bared to the nation." They called it the "suicide package." |
As for telecom's, I'm not sure of the precise limits of eavesdropping ability. But data is either private or it isn't. CALEA requires a court order, because the data is private. If the data were not private, then they could listen to it and make use of that information. I added in using it, but you added in using it for blackmail, which is illegal because blackmail is illegal. But they could use it in other ways. If the data were truly not private, the phone company could sell records of your conversations with you lawyer, to your ex-wife's lawyer, for example. That's not illegal blackmail, it's illegal because that conversation is private.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 
|
|
