Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: ghi on January 21, 2006, 10:18:19 PM
-
Though Google has refused to comply with the government's request for search data, AOL, MSN and Yahoo admitted that they did comply and gave some data to the Justice Department, reports Red Herring. A Yahoo spokesperson said it provided data that company executives believed did not violate Yahoo's privacy guidelines. An AOL spokesperson said it provided a "generic list of aggregate and anonymous search terms." A Microsoft representative, too, said it gave search-term data but not information about the customers doing the searches.>
Google has refused to do so, saying it would violate the privacy rights of users and reveal trade secrets. "Google is not a party to this lawsuit, and the demand for the information is overreaching," said Nicole Wong, an associate general counsel for Google.
"The government can't even claim that it's for national security," according to one privacy advocate "They're just using it to get the search engines to do their research for them in a way that compromises the civil liberties of other people.">
(http://www.aclu-sc.org/img/shared/9001/900100.jpg)
:O
-
you liberal terrorist lover!
-
The thought police are next.:noid
-
glad I search for my porn on ask Jeeves :)
-
Uncle Sam doesn't want your search records.
The request was for google to provide overall search field data over a one week period. No personal information was to be included in any way....only search phrases overall.
The purpose was to verify the amount of child porn searches being conducted.
-
That looks like Richard Nixon in the picture
-
freedom means what exactly? freedom to break the law in private?
In other words I can break whatever law I want and as long as no one else knows about my illegal behavior I am protected by privacy?
-
freedom means they need to have probable cause that a crime has been/is being committed in order to violate your right to privacy.
-
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. [/B]
-
Who cares about this?
How embarrassed can I be being hauled into court for my numerous 'P38 Lightning' searches?
-
against unreasonable searches and seizures
====
who gets to define unreasonable?
What happens if an unreasonable search results in the discovery of a murdered child?
freedom means they need to have probable cause
====
If 80% of the crimes commited in my neighborhood are done between 1am and 3am, by a narrow age group of males 18-23 yrs old of a latino ethnicity......
Does that mean that a lawman can stop a carload full of 20 yr old male latinos driving around at 2 am while doing nothing obviously illegal based on probable cause demonstrated by the statistics?
-
Originally posted by Yeager
against unreasonable searches and seizures
====
who gets to define unreasonable?
What happens if an unreasonable search results in the discovery of a murdered child?
freedom means they need to have probable cause
====
If 80% of the crimes commited in my neighborhood are done between 1am and 3am, by a narrow age group of males 18-23 yrs old of a latino ethnicity......
Does that mean that a lawman can stop a carload full of 20 yr old male latinos driving around at 2 am while doing nothing obviously illegal based on probable cause demonstrated by the statistics?
Yeager.
At what point do you think we should start worrying about or freedoms slowly being chipped away? How many more little bits will you let the government take from us before you decide it has gone to far?
I am with hang, in my opinion they have already gone to far.
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
you liberal terrorist lover!
Liberal ?! I don't live in your country, i don"t care about your politic,
I was born and lived under the comunist dictator Ceausescu /Security and high censorship, i had enough
Now here comes Bush to spy me from thousands of miles away !
IMOP the Internet , is best creation of the last century, should stay free,
-
I frequently look up the steps in procuring an automatic firearms liscense, I'm doing this all legally and I want to do it by the books, no matter how long it takes. As an American citizen, I am able to do this if I file the proper paperwork.
I'd rather some desk gopher in Washington doesn't see some of my searches and read too far into things. Potentially dangerous.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
freedom means what exactly? freedom to break the law in private?
In other words I can break whatever law I want and as long as no one else knows about my illegal behavior I am protected by privacy?
Thats exactly right Yeager. The laws of this country were forged by our founding fathers to protect the innocent, even if it means allowing 100 guilty to go free. Thats the downside of freedom, a high crime rate. If youve been watching the news, you have surely noticed the an alarming number of criminals in our own govt. Thats why we need to protect our constitution, just in case criminals take over, we can organize a civilian defense without having a microscope up our butt.
-
Originally posted by ghi
Liberal ?! I don't live in your country, i don"t care about your politic,
I was born and lived under the comunist dictator Ceausescu /Security and high censorship, i had enough
Now here comes Bush to spy me from thousands of miles away !
IMOP the Internet , is best creation of the last century, should stay free,
We are stupid ghi. We assume that the horrors of a ceausescu could never happen here.
-
Americans are famously stupid. We need stupid people to make mistakes to learn from. If you're smart all the time you never progress.
-
ghi,
From what I have read the records will not include any information that would link the search histories to individual users. If that is indeed the case then I don't see how this is any different than the type of information that Google and the other search engines already publish to the web. For example, I have seen lists of the top search terms, and real-time lists of the last search terms used on a search engine.
How can they be worried about privacy regarding information they already publish that does not identify users?
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
ghi,
From what I have read the records will not include any information that would link the search histories to individual users. If that is indeed the case then I don't see how this is any different than the type of information that Google and the other search engines already publish to the web. For example, I have seen lists of the top search terms, and real-time lists of the last search terms used on a search engine.
How can they be worried about privacy regarding information they already publish that does not identify users?
Then why doesn't the government just get the information off the web if thats all they are asking for?
shamus
-
Didn't yahoo give user information to China?
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Yeager.
At what point do you think we should start worrying about or freedoms slowly being chipped away? How many more little bits will you let the government take from us before you decide it has gone to far?
.
Was same here, they take your freedom slowly, step by step,you don't feel until is to late, first they take your finger, slowly your arms and after your defenceless heads.
By 1989 we had 2 hours of TV program /day, only 1 national TV program, all the newspapers under goverment control, we were not alowed to walk on the streets in groups of more than 2 persons.
The internet is maybe the most ussed product of globalization, unfortunatly all the eficient serch engines are in US and getting ganged now. Maybe the rest of the world sould build their own,
-
the rights we enjoy, whatever they may be.....are extended and revised, amended and restricted, argued about and begged for, cursed and vilified, fought for and died for.....they are also used against us by our enemies to attack and destroy us.
Also, with regards to the internet, the worlds military powers are learning to use the internet to conduct war. The internet will soon be integrated into the worlds battlefields, it is human nature.
If you think the internet is some happy little place where everybody is free to surf for kittie praun you are in a hurting pain. The last place you want to be free is the internet.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
freedom means what exactly? freedom to break the law in private?
In other words I can break whatever law I want and as long as no one else knows about my illegal behavior I am protected by privacy?
Exactly how is doing a websearch, on any subject. breaking the law?
-
They are not asking google to provide information on searches, they are asking them to supply information they posess on "Illegal" searches. You cannot refuse to hand over evidence of illegal activity under some wierd idea of privacy. They don't have a legal leg to stand on.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
against unreasonable searches and seizures
====
who gets to define unreasonable?
What happens if an unreasonable search results in the discovery of a murdered child?
Then the defendant would unfortunately go free. Or the evidence would be ruled as inadmissable
there have been alot of cases where exactly this has happened because the search conducted was ruled as being unreasonable
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Exactly how is doing a websearch, on any subject. breaking the law?
It is against the law to view child pornography in the USA, the Swedes don't have to worry we can't touch them.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Exactly how is doing a websearch, on any subject. breaking the law?
they probaly wanna know how many people search for
[list=1]
- Statue Of Liberty
- Golden Gate Bridge
- How to fly a Boeing 767
- How to fly a Boeing 757
- hijack
- ways to bypass airport security
[/list=1]
-
Originally posted by Shamus
Then why doesn't the government just get the information off the web if thats all they are asking for?
shamus
Thats what they want to do, from Google. John Public or Uncle Sam does not have access to the information that Google has on you. You have to ask for it, or pass a law to get it.
-
That Seahawks helmet isn't gonna help tonite Rip.
-
Originally posted by weaselsan
It is against the law to view child pornography in the USA, the Swedes don't have to worry we can't touch them.
Agreed. But doing a search on something, including child porn is not the same as viewing it.
Suppose you wanted to write some kind of report on the amount of child porn sites there are outthere. Or on how many people were arrested for possession or viewing child porn.
Obviously most of the keywords used in the search would be child porn, or child porn related.
And who gets to decide what child porn is?
About a year ago someone sent me a humourous Email where someone was talking about their kid at the bottom of the page was a obviously photoshoped pic of an infant with a full sized man noodle attached to it with teh caption "thats my boy" It was obviously a joke.
I thought it was hillarious and sent it along to another friend of mine who proceeded to chastise me for sending her "vile child porn"
Me,being me and never to just let things lie
Out of curiousity then sent her a picture of nude boy and asked her if she were offered that particular picture what would she do.
Again she chastised me calling me all sorts of nasty things.
the pic I had sent her was an oil painting done by a famous artist (whos name I have since forgotten)several hundred years old from a museum that had recently sold for like $200,000
Now let me say I think child porn is the most vile and dispicable thing on the planet.
but there is a line between art,humour and porn.
Now some is obvious and some is not.
And one persons art can be viewed as anothers porn.
Who gets to decide?
-
Originally posted by weaselsan
That Seahawks helmet isn't gonna help tonite Rip.
I must have missed your committment to who is going to win in this thread (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=168855&referrerid=3203
):huh
-
doing a search on something, including child porn is not the same as viewing it.
====
Obviously, but knowing that you have done a google on a illegal subject is reason enough to justify further investigation.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
The request was for google to provide overall search field data over a one week period. No personal information was to be included in any way....only search phrases overall. The purpose was to verify the amount of child porn searches being conducted.
The problem is, in the Bush/Blair era, that measures are taken ostensibly to combat a particular form of crime, but law enforcement is then free to use those powers in any way they see fit.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Thats what they want to do, from Google. John Public or Uncle Sam does not have access to the information that Google has on you. You have to ask for it, or pass a law to get it.
I must have misunderstood where you said Google publishes that info to the web already :)
shamus
-
Originally posted by Yeager
doing a search on something, including child porn is not the same as viewing it.
====
Obviously, but knowing that you have done a google on a illegal subject is reason enough to justify further investigation.
Just as asking how a bank was robbed make me a potential bank robber and as such is reason enough to justify further investigation(http://www.madbull4.net/imgs/smileys/rolleyes.gif)
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Agreed. But doing a search on something, including child porn is not the same as viewing it.
On top of these these groups of perverts, terrorists, etc use their own 'language' which we don't necessarily understand BUT might use for legit purposes. For example if I do a search on twinky bars, am I doing research on a food item or pickup places for underage gay boys? I'm sure theres lotsa other terms like that too.
-
Just as asking how a bank was robbed make me a potential bank robber
====
well of course that depends on lots of things.
I wouldn't think that asking a generic question would lead to any particular suspician unless you were asking about a specific bank being robbed on a specific day and further, I would think you might already need to be a suspect to attract that sort of attention to yourself.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
I must have missed your committment to who is going to win in this thread (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=168855&referrerid=3203
):huh
Broncos
Panthers
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Just as asking how a bank was robbed make me a potential bank robber
====
well of course that depends on lots of things.
I wouldn't think that asking a generic question would lead to any particular suspician unless you were asking about a specific bank being robbed on a specific day and further, I would think you might already need to be a suspect to attract that sort of attention to yourself.
Actually I think its more about what the government. or law enforcement feels like being paranoid about.
Just because you do a search on something and it could be anything. Inand of itself shouldnt make you a suspect. Even if not generic.
I may have an interest in bank roberies and the details how they are carried out merely as a subject I find interesting.
That doesnt make me a bank robber or anymore a bankrobber then someone who hasnt run a search on it.
Now bank robberies dont particularly interest me
but I have done searches on and read things based on nothing more then a passing interest such as "The Anarchists Cookbook " (in fact I juust did again to make sure I had the title right)
As have alot of other people I know.
And neither I. nor any of the people I know are any threat to carry out anything we've read in it. In fact I think it would probably be safe to say that the overwhelmingly large majority of people who either have it. or have ready it are no threat whatsoever to actually do the things listed in it.
Just because you may have an interest in soemthing or done a search on it should not be a determining factor inand of itself as to if you are a suspect in any given activity.
-
As long as you are prepared to prove that you wouldnt do any of the things learned in the Anarchists Cookbook you should be fine.
shamus
-
Originally posted by Delirium
Who cares about this?
How embarrassed can I be being hauled into court for my numerous 'P38 Lightning' searches?
What about your *cough* barnyard livestock *cough* searches? :lol
-
Originally posted by Shamus
As long as you are prepared to prove that you wouldnt do any of the things learned in the Anarchists Cookbook you should be fine.
shamus
Dont have to prove I wouldnt and couldnt even if I were so obliged
Anymore then you could prove you wouldnt do any of those things even not haveng read it
-
Originally posted by Shamus
As long as you are prepared to prove that you wouldnt do any of the things learned in the Anarchists Cookbook you should be fine.
shamus
My favorite recipie was the one to make homemade napalm hand-greanades .............. umm not that I've read it of course. And not that I'd ever make such a thing. Dang oven timer going off, nitro .............. errr, cookies are done. :)
-
Originally posted by StarOfAfrica2
My favorite recipie was the one to make homemade napalm hand-greanades .............. umm not that I've read it of course. And not that I'd ever make such a thing. Dang oven timer going off, nitro .............. errr, cookies are done. :)
I have had a copy of the book since I was about 12, I even read it then. Frankly even at 12 making the stuff in it seemed pretty stupid and a good way to get blown up.
Not sure why my old man bought it. I think he was was curious and had a selection he had to make from the military book club. He was not an anti government nutter in any way. He loved this country.
It is pretty silly to think that terrorist would need to search for this stuff on the internet.
Hell the book I have is a direct copy of an army field manual.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
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. [/FONT] [/B]
Can I get an "AMEN"?
-
Originally posted by RAIDER14
they probaly wanna know how many people search for
[list=1]
- Statue Of Liberty
- Golden Gate Bridge
- How to fly a Boeing 767
- How to fly a Boeing 757
- hijack
- ways to bypass airport security
[/list=1] [/B]
Ya know... it's never too late to try and prevent the last terrorist attack. ;)
-
The big question is this what are they looking for, child porn or terrorists, because you all know good and well their looking for something, someone, or some group in particular.
You never know maybe Iran Googled stuff on nuclear power
-
Deleted.
7- Members should remember this board is aimed at a general audience. Posting pornographic or generally offensive text, images, links, etc. will not be tolerated. This includes attempts to bypass the profanity filter.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
freedom means what exactly? freedom to break the law in private?
In other words I can break whatever law I want and as long as no one else knows about my illegal behavior I am protected by privacy?
So I guess you won't mind having that computer chip in your car that gives all your info. So if you drive w/o your seatbelt, they know, when you make a turn w/o your signal, they know. If you drive with one hand, they know. Long live king george
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Dont have to prove I wouldnt and couldnt even if I were so obliged
Anymore then you could prove you wouldnt do any of those things even not haveng read it
Are you sure? :)
shamus
-
ghi understands incramentalism...
I don't like any gun laws... enough is enough
I don't like any media of mine monitired... enough is enough
I don't like seatbelt laws... enough is enough
I don't like helmet laws... enough is enough
I don't like socialism... it is just the first stages of communism and the nanny state. Beet actualy made a good point.... You may be giving powers to a government you personaly like and trust but.... the next guy who get's in will probly be someone you hate and distrust and..
He will have all those powers you stupidly gave government.
We need to be taking power away from government not giving them more.
lazs
-
Amen, Reverend Laz.
-
Originally posted by joowenn
Better edit this link....not safe for work and minors.
This kind of post will get you banned.
-
Okay everyone at the same time Google "Nuclear Triggering Devices"
:D
Mac
-
they won't be setting off any of them expensive nukes in the red areas...
lazs
-
I am with Laz and Hang!
We just need to say NO. Bad government. No more power for you!
-
While I applaud Google's decision to defy the DOJ, I have to wonder why they have the information in the first place.
-
For starters lets just talk basic web tech...
every single packet you send on the internet goes thru central hubs across the US and beyond. these hubs (run by telco companies) already have agreements with the govt to allow wiretap... (much like the same agreements to put invisible dots on printed documents for identification with the printer companies)
Every single packet you send has a mac address in the protocol to get your information from point A to point B .. this same mac address info will most likely be logged at one of the main points that gets info from point A to B.. (capture some packets and youll see every packet has a mac..)
By timestamping and switch logs... when combined now with query information (time stamped or not). you have a accurate and active way to conduct web verification of the end user and his / her queries (matching Ip to mac address and hence their identity..)
this is not rocket science nor fiction...
Considering the use of such information in the past has been used to spy on terrorist quakers (right here in florida too..."never trusted them anyways..") and other evil doers .. do you really feel comfortable sharing this info with the govt no strings attached.. ever heard of the privacy act of 1974.. that wasn't made on a whim, or without reason..
Ill pass... you want the info... you sign a warrant.. that way no he said, she said crap (pass the buck BS our govt is famous for) when there is misuse.. its called checks and balances..
Praise to google ... Ill take mathmaticians (I bet they spotted this right away.) advice over govt any day of the week..
DoctorYo
PS: and remember this is all for the childrens welfare.. or by deductive reasoning a dragnet.. jetblue anyone.. Nasa, deep rabbit hole.. ill take the blue pill..
-
Originally posted by DoctorYO
PS: and remember this is all for the childrens welfare..
I have no desire to live in a world that is safe for children.
-
Originally posted by Shamus
Are you sure? :)
shamus
LOL Can you prove you "wouldnt" do something?
-
Keep your fingers outta my soup ... Its my Fly and I'm gonna eat it !
My feelings about all this in a nutshell.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
LOL Can you prove you "wouldnt" do something?
By George..I think he's got it!!!!
shamus
-
Originally posted by Shamus
By George..I think he's got it!!!!
shamus
I dont have to prove it though. thats the point.
Its called "innocent until proven guilty" not the other way around.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
I dont have to prove it though. thats the point.
Its called "innocent until proven guilty" not the other way around.
Well that sounds nice, ever been through a tax audit?
Innocent until proven guilty is the way it should be, however we are getting further and further from that...thats my point.
shamus
-
If you aren't doing anything illegal then what is everyone worried about? Do you really think the government gives two chits as to what you may be looking up if it's legal? If your constantly looking into things that are blatantly illegal or extremely suspicious then you deserve it. If it's harmless curiousity then who really cares.
P.S.
I'm pretty sure they aren't going to raise the prices of your tin foil hats either. Worse case scenario just use a pot or pan.
-
Originally posted by Cobra412
If you aren't doing anything illegal then what is everyone worried about? Do you really think the government gives two chits as to what you may be looking up if it's legal? If your constantly looking into things that are blatantly illegal or extremely suspicious then you deserve it. If it's harmless curiousity then who really cares.
P.S.
I'm pretty sure they aren't going to raise the prices of your tin foil hats either. Worse case scenario just use a pot or pan.
Thats not the point. I care because what I do albeit legal isnt anyones buisness.
Its called privacy
Taking a crap is legal too but I dont want anyone watching how I wipe my butt.
Its none of their buisness
-
Your on a computer connected to the internet and you want and expect privacy? Well you've come to the wrong place. Do you have a totally encrypted pc?
You may want to go to your local library and start looking up your interests there. Even that doesn't mean your interests aren't being watched by someone.
-
Originally posted by Cobra412
Your on a computer connected to the internet and you want and expect privacy? Well you've come to the wrong place. Do you have a totally encrypted pc?
You may want to go to your local library and start looking up your interests there. Even that doesn't mean your interests aren't being watched by someone.
You want the feds or the state or the security service they contract to watch your every move and record arecord of those doings, you go ahead and sign a release and invite 'em to eyeball you to their hearts content.
I on the other hand regard intrusions of any type on my person, house, papers, and effects to be an insult and affront; the government has no reason to distrust it's citizens unless it is itself involved in illegal doings.
mayhaps we need to look at this from a different perspective. Government is in service to us, the citizens. It is OUR instrument, answerable to US, it's creators. And I refuse to accept that the government, which we; the people created has any legal authority to in effect become my keeper. It is the other way around.. and they need to be brought to account in this regard, as it and it's executive have obviously violated the laws that were written to control it.
edit: I would like the citizens of this nation to demand however that all public officals at all levels be subjected to the kind of scutinity that they demand for us. We the People, have the right to know without doubt that our public officals are honest. By accepting a public office, every financial tansaction, every fact of their lives, public and private should be available 24/7 via webcam to every single one of their constitutents.
There would be no need for such scutinity of private citizens.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
freedom means what exactly? freedom to break the law in private?
In other words I can break whatever law I want and as long as no one else knows about my illegal behavior I am protected by privacy?
It's another balance in power... comeing from a society that had such travesties of justice such as witch burnings.
If it's a 'crime' that harms noone, heance noone knows about it, is it really a 'crime'? or just aginst the law?.....
I'll bet 70% of the people on this board have broken a law already today.... I went a bit over the speed limit a few minutes ago ... oops hill.... is there a 'jay-walking' ordenace in your city? did you cross the street today at the corner?
The law isn't to be enforced at any cost ... I consider this a check aginst undue burdens of law..... if it's so small noone noticed... is it a crime?.... lots of things are agisnt the law, and commonly broken.... but i don't really consider it a crime or immoral... its just silly laws like 'jay-walking'
So privacy is a needed check to the govements power-and your right.
-
Yup.
Damn right.. I understand the governments need to monitor foriegn national caller/called strings.. however there is in place a system where they can do so legally with a 'secret warrant' issued by a 'secret court'. The President simply ignored the 'check' and would never have completed any of the disclosure to the secret FISA court at all if the press hadn't nailed him for it.
That's gotta be stopped. They need intel, kewl. Follow the law. He's not above it, our government can NEVER be allowed hold itself to be above the law, EVER.
The war on terror is a 'forever war'.. it'll never be finished. I'm absolutely NOT willing to see citizens rights usurped via the nebulous 'war powers act' to prosecute it; for doing so would necessarily mean our rights are subordinate to the presidents will FOREVER.
-
Privacy?
My understanding is that the toilets in prison are out in the great wide open. Just imagine,everyone within view will know your wiping technique.
Hang, why do you suppose the admin has passed over the warrent process? What benifit is there to bypassing a judicial nod and a wink?
-
Precedent.
-
lol you guys are so paranoid it's not even funny.
We'll just have to see who are the folks that piss and moan if another Twin Towers attack occurs. It's rather amazing how many folks whine and complain about our government not doing enough to protect us (911 for example). Yet in the same breath they are same ones who will bind the hands of our first line of defense folks because they are selfish. They don't want the government to know just what style of panties they are wearing whenever the coast is clear. It's good on ya to choose which has more priority, your shopping list or your fellow countrymen/women and the nations security overall. Way to be a true player.
As they say here at my base, "In god we trust . All others we monitor".
-
Originally posted by Eagler
glad I search for my porn on ask Jeeves :)
LOL read through that line too fast, thought you said you look for porn by asking Jesus :O
-
Cobra412 glad you have the esprit that you seem to have.
Keep in mind that you have given up many of your rights as you are covered under the military code of justice while you are attached.
I dare say that most of us out here that dont like the government taking care of every little adverse possibility are not going to be the ones whining if another bomb goes off.
Its gonna be all these so called tough folk who want to secure everything that are going to go nuts.
A bunch of CHCIKEN LITTLES we have running things now..OH please I cant take any risk..protect me government from all risk.
At the same time they send you guys out to do thier bidding while they puff up.
shamus
-
Smallpox + Islamic Suicial Jihadist in America = Bad day for alot of people
Nerve Gas + Islamic Suicial Jihadist in America = Bad day for alot of people
Improvised Radiological Explosive Device (Dirty Bomb) + Islamic Suicial Jihadist in America = Bad day for alot of people
Nuclear Warhead + Islamic Suicial Jihadist in America = Bad day for hell of alot of people
Im certainly not paranoid...when its time to die we will die as surely as the day ends, but I admit freely that any of the above formulas should be prevented from ocurring within the borders of the United States, and Im indeed quite certain that so called "american citizens" will no doubt be involved in the next attack.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Privacy?
Hang, why do you suppose the admin has passed over the warrent process? What benifit is there to bypassing a judicial nod and a wink?
The only benifit is it then allows them to look at who they want for whatever reason they want bar none or no reason at all.
Abuses of power like this only tend to get worse, not better
by bypassing the judicial nod and wink they dont have to show any cause whatsoever to look at someone. They can do so for any reason they feel like it with nobody to tell them "no"
-
Close the borders, stop selling visas to saudi's and actually ATTACK those regimes that sponsor and finance terror. Follow the money; seize it. We've got Mexican Army personell trucking people and weed across the borders.. you see the government doing jack **** about that?
Hell, NO!
WTF is wrong with you Yeag? Gonna sign off on your rights for a little extra security? To the butt lunch monkeys and corrupt congress that currently call the shots?
Hey, I'd have no issue with bending the rules if the benders were even 1/2 honest, half the time. They ain't, and there no damn better in my eyes than any other bent cop or federal agent taking cash to look the other way.
Wake up. Our governemnt is corrupt to the core.. and you wanna let THOSE bozo's just keep tramping our rights into the dust? I wouldn't give those ****s the keys to the laundry room let alone the keys to our security and defense.
-
Originally posted by Cobra412
lol you guys are so paranoid it's not even funny.
We'll just have to see who are the folks that piss and moan if another Twin Towers attack occurs. It's rather amazing how many folks whine and complain about our government not doing enough to protect us (911 for example). Yet in the same breath they are same ones who will bind the hands of our first line of defense folks because they are selfish. They don't want the government to know just what style of panties they are wearing whenever the coast is clear. It's good on ya to choose which has more priority, your shopping list or your fellow countrymen/women and the nations security overall. Way to be a true player.
As they say here at my base, "In god we trust . All others we monitor".
The twin towers did NOT have to happen. Nor did the rest of 9/11
The only thing that needed to be done to prevent the events of 9/11 was for the various government agencies to simply ENFORCE the laws that were already on the books.
Did some changes need to be made? Yes particularly with communication between government agencies. but certainly not to the knee jerk overkill extent it has happened
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
The twin towers did NOT have to happen. Nor did the rest of 9/11
The only thing that needed to be done to prevent the events of 9/11 was for the various government agencies to simply ENFORCE the laws that were already on the books.
Did some changes need to be made? Yes particularly with communication between government agencies. but certainly not to the knee jerk overkill extent it has happened
Amen. A voice of reason. My apologies for my infuriated diatribe. Dred, yah nailed it on the head.
Hey.. that rhymes. ;)
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Smallpox + Islamic Suicial Jihadist in America = Bad day for alot of people
Nerve Gas + Islamic Suicial Jihadist in America = Bad day for alot of people
Improvised Radiological Explosive Device (Dirty Bomb) + Islamic Suicial Jihadist in America = Bad day for alot of people
Nuclear Warhead + Islamic Suicial Jihadist in America = Bad day for hell of alot of people
Im certainly not paranoid...when its time to die we will die as surely as the day ends, but I admit freely that any of the above formulas should be prevented from ocurring within the borders of the United States, and Im indeed quite certain that so called "american citizens" will no doubt be involved in the next attack.
and that possibility exists no matter how many laws are in place. No matter how invasive the government is, how much power they have
And how many websearches they do.
Fact is no matter what steps they try to take in the name of our "security"
If some group wants to do something bad enough they can do it.
It is a false sense on security they offer. At our expence
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Amen. A voice of reason. My apologies for my infuriated diatribe. Dred, yah nailed it on the head.
Hey.. that rhymes. ;)
no need for any apologies here.
You got it pretty damn accurate also
-
it is a false sense on security they offer. At our expence
====
I think you are wrong. But hey, I could be mistaken
:aok
-
I'd feel a lot safer knowing that the government could protect me better without that pesky bill of rights being in the way. Do away with it I say.
-
One thing I wonder about is what the data gatherers are doing with that odd bit of wiretapped info that suggests some other type of crime is/has taken place. Stuff not related to islamoterror.....I wonder if they are acting on that stuff? Send that dime bag dealer of crank down to the Gitmo and make em disappear lol
And by all means, suspend the bill of rights! I dont need all these guns anyway
:cry
-
google our heros...
:noid
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4645596.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4645596.stm)
-
No one is saying that this bill will protect us from every attack that could possibly be done. Anyone who thinks that is an idiot. What it can do is allow the government to work freely on gathering intelligence from known terrorist groups and some previously unknown groups without the hinderance of filing for a warrant for every last tap or having to wait for one when they get last minute info on a meeting of some type. These groups work very fast and time is critical. A 15 minute meeting that could have considerable amount of information is here and gone in an instant.
Simple fact is the government doesn't give a watermelon about joe blow surfing the internet or making a call to the local pizza pub. They aren't going to waste money on that. If your afraid or overly concerned about the government monitoring you then you have some issues. Your either committing illegal acts that could be damaging to our national security or to our way of life. If that's the case then maybe your neighbor should take you outside and remind you of just what was lost in order for you to gain so many freedoms that you currently have and currently complain about the government trying to "take away from you". Sometimes you have to sacrifice a little to gain alot.
What they do care about is those who consistantly make threats against the US, our President and/or threaten to change our way of life through violent acts or espionage.
I'm thinking now that our neighbor is more of a threat than the real enemy. Forget about the WWII days when the nation as a whole came together to fight a common battle. In todays society we are too selfish to realise what "United We Stand" actually stands for... It's all about me me me.
-
The part missing from your rather quaint, "Stars and Stripes" image of the world, Cobra, is the utter incompetence of people and organizations.
-
Originally posted by Cobra412
If that's the case then maybe your neighbor should take you outside and remind you of just what was lost in order for you to gain so many freedoms that you currently have and currently complain about the government trying to "take away from you". Sometimes you have to sacrifice a little to gain alot.
That makes perfect sense. Let's remind ourselves of all those who gave their lives to obtain and secure our freedoms. And then let's blindly forfeit those freedoms that they spilled their blood for just so we can lull ourselves into a sense of security that our government can now stop the bad peoples from blowing us up. :aok
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Uncle Sam doesn't want your search records.
The request was for google to provide overall search field data over a one week period. No personal information was to be included in any way....only search phrases overall.
The purpose was to verify the amount of child porn searches being conducted.
Could there be some confusion when someone googles the word Bush?
-
Originally posted by Cobra412
No one is saying that this bill will protect us from every attack that could possibly be done. Anyone who thinks that is an idiot. What it can do is allow the government to work freely on gathering intelligence from known terrorist groups and some previously unknown groups without the hinderance of filing for a warrant for every last tap or having to wait for one when they get last minute info on a meeting of some type.
Yea like the quaker group they have been watching.. Or the antiwar groups. Or those pesky flight sim dweebs.
-
Originally posted by Cobra412
No one is saying that this bill will protect us from every attack that could possibly be done. Anyone who thinks that is an idiot. What it can do is allow the government to work freely on gathering intelligence from known terrorist groups and some previously unknown groups without the hinderance of filing for a warrant for every last tap or having to wait for one when they get last minute info on a meeting of some type. These groups work very fast and time is critical. A 15 minute meeting that could have considerable amount of information is here and gone in an instant.
Several facts you seem to be ignorant of.....
the FISA court allows wiretapping without a warrant.... Bush etc. are simply required to submit the affidavit for the warrant within three days.
The FISA court was created in response to Nixon, who claimed to need wiretapping for national secuirty.... sound familar?
Nixon used wiretapping etc. aginst political opposition.... and we all know Bush is above that :lol
Originally posted by DoctorYO Every single packet you send has a mac address in the protocol to get your information from point A to point B .. this same mac address info will most likely be logged at one of the main points that gets info from point A to B.. (capture some packets and youll see every packet has a mac..)
MAC's can be spoofed(faked).... and you almost seem to be implying that MAC's are routed? .. which they arn't, after the LAN.... it's all IP..... Look up ARP if you don't know what I mean.
So most people use DHCP, and a given MAC can be log'd when an IP is passed out, however... the forensicly correct way to do this would be to log the customer data from a point they 'cannot' affect....which most major ISPs do.
so in otherwords you can't be anonymous from home .... but not for the reasons you are saying :)
Go 'wardriving' or goto a coffe shop hotspot or something and spoof your MAC..... then your anonymous. Last 2600 I saw,(autumn)....it had a nice article on how to build 'belivable' MAC addresses... like Intels WiFi MAC's always start with 00 etc etc.....
-
Then if it is as you say BluKitty then why ask for this bill in the first place? Also why aren't all the paranoid freaks screaming and whinning about this law? I mean from what your saying it's easy to do and half of our tinfoil hat wearers could be under the governments eye already. You guys might want to add a few layers tinfoil.
It really doesn't matter much anyway. Considering the folks on here who are paranoid are only a small percentage of the millions who think and act just like them. Wait until they are affected directly and have family members or close friends die to an attack (no matter how small it may be). Then they'll scream that the government failed to do its job and protect them.
By the way I have already given up all my rights to unwarranted search and seizures and monitoring voluntarily.
-
It's actually HARDER than it used to be .... do you know your recent history?.... do you know of a person named Hoover? What about Nixon....?
The FISA court was created in response to Nixon's abuse of executive power. It is supposed to be a judical supervision, implemented by congress, to check excutive power. Nixon used the excuse of 'National Security' to spy on political opponents.... This is fundmently wrong and pervasive to a democracy, so after Nixon the FISA court was created. This keeps the excutive branch from useing wiretaps for such political ends. The FISA court, in nearly 30 years of service has only ruled aginst 4 wire-tap requests...... But the point is ... with FISA in place the unfounded wire-taps won't be approved(hopefully). It keeps them honest, it keeps them from spying on political opposition like Nixon did.
The claim that FISA slows down wiretapping is absurd. They have THREE DAYS too supply the court with an affidavit, AFTER a wiretap has been put in place. The court will then decide if wiretap warrent is judicaly logical, Not the executive branch......
It's all about checks and balances...
Speaking on Google & Yahoo .... that is not a law or bill or anything.... It was simply a request from the govement that Yahoo complied with, while Google did not. Take that up with the corperation, not the goverment. Just like Verizon wouldn't release customer data to the RIAA.
I fail to see how it's paraniod to worry about the goverment following the law. You really should stop makeing such ill-informed personal attacks. You make a huge assumption thinking I don't know people that used to work at the WTC......We thought one family freind was dead for like a week, turned out he was on an unplaned vacation that he won/earned from a company bonus or something.
To me what Bush is doing seems like a systematic attack on the judical systems power and independance. The excutive branch DOES NOT interpret the law.
Here's another intresting read on the path of our judical system.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0125-04.htm
When they went after the muslims, I didn't speak up because I wasn't a muslim?
-
There is a solution: TOR (http://tor.eff.org/).
-
Originally posted by BluKitty
When they went after the muslims, I didn't speak up because I wasn't a muslim?
I didnt speak up because I never plan on strapping a bomb to myself.