Land of the surveilled, home of the scared

[AKIron]

Originally posted by MJHerman
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".

The war against Iraq was about defense, not freedom. Freedom for the Iraqis is a coincidental benefit. Frankly I'm getting tired of hearing the policies of the US government slandered by foreigners that haven't had large and growing terrorist organizations declare war upon them.

[gofaster]

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.

This sort of thing comes up quite often in customer negotiations regarding how IBM and AT&T (I've worked for both) handle transmitted and/or stored customer data.  The usual request is for IBM/ATT to not release anything until the customer is notified and given a minimum of 30 days advance notice of the request.  The IBM/ATT response is always along the lines of "it is not IBM/ATT's policy to interfere with a valid governmental, regulatory, or law enforcement investigation.  If the investigating body requests immediate surrender of information and non-disclosure to customer of such data's release, then IBM/ATT will comply with that request."

If the customer balks, I usually respond with some street-level examples, like:

"Police rely on an element of surprise when obtaining evidence.  Otherwise the perp will be in the bathroom flushing the stuff down the toilet.  We won't stall the cops so you can flush the stuff down the toilet because we don't want to go downtown anymore than you do."

So, really, this supposed requirement of this new law is already in effect.  I suspect the article's writer either was too ignorant to know this, or is simply trying to embellish his story (sounds like something Rush Limbaugh would do).

[GtoRA2]

I hate to say this but Bush is really starting to look like a train wreck... I heard on the radio yesterday that his over spending is going to force way higher taxed somewhere in the future...

This more power thing to the FBI is a bit over the top.

His stance on ilegals is a joke.

He is no friend to gun owners.

Frankly he sucks.

Whats worse is Dean is such a tool I can not vote for him either. Will the Dems nominate someone who is not destined to lose?

[MJHerman]

Originally posted by gofaster
This sort of thing comes up quite often in customer negotiations regarding how IBM and AT&T (I've worked for both) handle transmitted and/or stored customer data.  The usual request is for IBM/ATT to not release anything until the customer is notified and given a minimum of 30 days advance notice of the request.  The IBM/ATT response is always along the lines of "it is not IBM/ATT's policy to interfere with a valid governmental, regulatory, or law enforcement investigation.  If the investigating body requests immediate surrender of information and non-disclosure to customer of such data's release, then IBM/ATT will comply with that request."

If the customer balks, I usually respond with some street-level examples, like:

"Police rely on an element of surprise when obtaining evidence.  Otherwise the perp will be in the bathroom flushing the stuff down the toilet.  We won't stall the cops so you to flush the stuff down the toilet because we don't want to go downtown anymore than you do."

I have no issue with something like your example being used as a tactic to ensure that the bad guys aren't tipped off.  But I assume that within the negotiations you referred to (and I draft a lot of confidentiality agreements which have similar provisions), the position that is ultimately settled on is something to the effect of:

"We will not interefere with or delay a government request  for information, but we will advise you within a reasonable period of time that the government has made that request."

Also bear in mind that the police drug bust example is a bit different...in that case, the police have either a search/arrest warrant or probable cause before proceeding.  The issue here is:

a) No prior judicial authorization for what is essentially a search; and

b) Such search remain secret, perhaps indefinately.

[AKS\/\/ulfe]

The fact that they have the power/authority to acquire things illegally is what I have a problem with.

When you go to work for the Federal government, or for the US Military (in a way, the US federal government too), you have to sign papers to allow for a background check. Although you can't be employed without freeing those up, its still in your power to deny them access to it.

With this bill(?) it appears that, for example, if you run a small business and are making a large amount of money signing over quite a bit to a not for profit organization (I think there was a problem with those last year donating to terrorists), you could come under investigation without any real reason other than its speculated you could potentially be supporting terrorists because in the past not for profit orgs were supporting terrorists.

Besides, the terrorists aren't the ones that are going to destroy us - they are banking on us, the citizens, to become leary enough that we start giving up our freedoms and let us destroy ourselves.
-SW

[Eagler]

WOW!

something else I'm going to lose sleep over ... LOL

put down the lefties and you won't be so paraniod.

[MJHerman]

Originally posted by AKIron
The war against Iraq was about defense, not freedom. Freedom for the Iraqis is a coincidental benefit. Frankly I'm getting tired of hearing the policies of the US government slandered by foreigners that haven't had large and growing terrorist organizations declare war upon them.

These "foreigners" have contributed an awful lot, given the relative size of our nation, to the defence of North America, including having our troops in Afghanistan, having our Navy patrol the Indian Ocean and the Persian Gulf on anti-terrorist patrols, and having our intelligence services co-ordinate with those of the United States.

Maybe in your country being critical of your Government's legislative initiatives is "slander".... in mine it's freedom of expression and thought.  And what's amusing is that you seem to think that only us "foreigners" are critical of these things.

Keep towing that party line.

[gofaster]

Originally posted by MJHerman
"We will not interefere with or delay a government request  for information, but we will advise you within a reasonable period of time that the government has made that request."

A company that agrees to that (notification that the government has made a request) is gambling that either (a) the government won't require that the release of the material not be disclosed; or (b) that the violation of the contract by the company in not notifying the customer (if the investigating entity requests that the release not be disclosed) won't be declared a breach of the contract by the judge/arbiter since compliance of the requirement of notification would have required an illegal act by the company, and therefore the customer would have no claim to damages from the company.  A condition requiring an illegal act is not enforceable in a contract.

But it makes the purchasing agent feel more comfortable and gives him something he can go back and show his boss as a concession.  

[Creamo]

Originally posted by Eagler
WOW!

something else I'm going to lose sleep over ... LOL

put down the lefties and you won't be so paraniod.

No you won't and then sometime your going to wake up when it's too late and affects YOU, you'll be all up in arms. Or not, no pun intended.

they are banking on us, the citizens, to become leary enough that we start giving up our freedoms and let us destroy ourselves.
-SW

No, it's a much bigger, more fluffied up cause, but I bet they sure are laughing their tulips off as they watch us regulate and sneak in laws that take our freedoms.

[Nakhui]

Originally posted by gofaster
The Man wants access to everybody's p0rn.

Hey! I'm all with this... as long as he shares what he finds with the rest of us.

Some of you pervs are too stingy with your good stuff!!!


make porn movies not war movies.

Give porn a chance!

[AKIron]

Lack of privacy in your financial records in situations of national security does not equal loss of freedom.

I'm all for privacy and I swore to defend the constitution. However, even privacy in every degree does not equal freedom. Don't get me wrong, I want to keep my privacy but let's not become irrational and swell our fears.

[Munkii]

Originally posted by Eagler
WOW!

something else I'm going to lose sleep over ... LOL

put down the lefties and you won't be so paraniod.

All I have to ask is, what the hell happened to the right being about less government, and the left for more government?  This all change when a psycho in a towel blew up the WTC?

[Dnil]

after the latest thing on illegals.  This hardcore republican is voting for someone else in the next election, unless its Dean.


Bush has lost it. Not only am I pissed, every hardcore repub I know is fuming mad over the illegal thing.

[AKIron]

Originally posted by Dnil
after the latest thing on illegals.  This hardcore republican is voting for someone else in the next election, unless its Dean.


Bush has lost it. Not only am I pissed, every hardcore repub I know is fuming mad over the illegal thing.

As I've said before, I'd consider voting for Lieberman. No way in hell I'll vote for Dean and it looks like he'll take his party.

[Saurdaukar]

Originally posted by Munkii
 This all change when a psycho in a towel blew up the WTC?

In some ways, yes.  Why am I getting the impression that 4,000 dead civilians and two of the worlds tallest buildings destroyed isnt that big of a deal to you?