Land of the surveilled, home of the scared

[Sandman]

http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,61792,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_1

[mora]

It is all for the good of the people. Why do you need to be scared if you got nothing to hide?

[Tarmac]

Originally posted by mora
It is all for the good of the people. Why do you need to be scared if you got nothing to hide?

Why does the administration need to be sneaky about passing it if it's something we all agree that we need?

[Sandman]

http://www.louisville.edu/library/law/brandeis/privacy.html

[mora]

Originally posted by Tarmac
Why does the administration need to be sneaky about passing it if it's something we all agree that we need?

I'm sure the date of the signing was purely coincidental. On a serious note, it's more scarier if the people actually agree to this type of things and there is no need to be sneaky, like in here. The excuses are also different, you have terror and we have drugs.

[Nefarious]

Hopefully people will come to their senses and realize that this way too extreme and borderline illegal.

I've been following this since it's conception, Its dangerous when we give people that much power.

[mora]

Originally posted by Nefarious
Hopefully people will come to their senses and realize that this way too extreme and borderline illegal.

I've been following this since it's conception, Its dangerous when we give people that much power.

Not happening according to the latest polls. Btw, wasn't Bush support rate somewhere around 45% a while ago, and now it's up to 66% after they "got him".

[AKIron]

Don't get me wrong here. I hate government intervention as much as the next guy but the way I read this is that an FBI agent must sign a document declaring the need to obtain these financial records to be a matter of national security.

Seems to me, that if any information discovered as a result is used to prosecute for any other purpose than that, any judge in the land will throw them out of court on their ear. I could be wrong, if and when I am proven wrong I suspect that there will be such a public outcry so as to end this law.

[mora]

Originally posted by AKIron
Don't get me wrong here. I hate government intervention as much as the next guy but the way I read this is that an FBI agent must sign a document declaring the need to obtain these financial records to be a matter of national security.

Seems to me, that if any information discovered as a result is used to prosecute for any other purpose than that, any judge in the land will throw them out of court on their ear. I could be wrong, if and when I am proven wrong I suspect that there will be such a public outcry so as to end this law.

Doesn't it still allow authorities to spy on people and companies if not actually prosecute them?

[AKS\/\/ulfe]

The way that I read it, without just cause - monetary records can still be seized by the government.

What does it matter if its used in a matter other than national security and gets thrown out of court? By last year's standards - that information was obtained illegally.
-SW

[Rude]

Sandy just like to stir the fire and then sit and warm his cold and clammy hands by it.

I agree with the left....let's continue to tie the hands of our officials so that the terrorist organizations can remain one step ahead of us at all times....sheesh.

[AKIron]

Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
The way that I read it, without just cause - monetary records can still be seized by the government.

What does it matter if its used in a matter other than national security and gets thrown out of court? By last year's standards - that information was obtained illegally.
-SW

What does it matter if they obtain these financial records illegally if they can't use them against you?

There is a reason to give the FBI this power. We have been infiltrated and attacked by those who would destroy us. If we do nothing they will destroy us.

[gofaster]

The Man wants access to everybody's p0rn.

[MJHerman]

"The law also prohibits subpoenaed businesses from revealing to anyone, including customers who may be under investigation, that the government has requested records of their transactions."

I couldn't find the actual section in the law which says this (the quote if from the article itself), but if "anyone" does in fact include anyone, you could end up with a situation where government agents can have access to a wide variety of information without having to show "traditional" just cause to a judicial body, and no one will ever have any recourse for an abuse of that power since no one is allowed to tell "anyone" that the information has been obtained.

Frankly, I'm not an American so I really couldn't care less, but I get a little bit tired of constantly hearing about how the War on Terrorism and the invasion of Iraq is all about "freedom" when the blowback result is that your Government keeps diminishing that freedom.  The somewhat surprising thing, in my mind, is that you may be slowly losing what you cherish so much, and you are willingly and blindly following along and parrotting "It's a good thing".

[kappa]

Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
The way that I read it, without just cause - monetary records can still be seized by the government.

It was already like that since Pat. 1... If you fly your monetary records can and will be 'inspected' by the Fed....