| already there ISPs are already monitoring you and keeping a log of your activities, just in case they get sued. Sounds like all this proposed law is doing is asking them not to delete the stuff.
To me, no big deal. There is no privacy on the net. |
|
| No, they're not. They usually only keep enough records so they can do billing at the end of each month. I don't think you understand what this entails, so I'll tell you. Under this scheme, ISPs would be required to keep:
The URL of every Web page you visit
The address of every e-mail you send
Every other TCP/IP connection your computer makes
This is a _massive_ amount of data, and it'll take a massive amount of storage. It'll allow anyone with it to reconstruct almost every activity you conducted in a given period of time.
What gets me in all this is the defeatist attitude I see in response to all this. Go over and read Slashdot to see what I mean. There are people willing to stand up and die for what they believe in in countries far more repressive than ours, yet most people here won't even lift a finger to stop something they don't agree with. In just over a year, we've seen governments in Georgia, Ukraine, Kyrryzstan, and Bolivia toppled by people hitting the streets, yet all we do is sit and moan. What's wrong with us? |
|
 pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | reply to footballdude
said by footballdude:To me, no big deal. There is no privacy on the net. You're right. Doing illegal activity on the Internet and getting busted months after the fact due to log retention is no different than doing illegal activity in a public place and getting busted because a camera recorded the activity. There is no legal right to privacy when you are in a public place.
--
Hey Fast Eddie... you're next! |
|
| Um, no. This would be something the government could trawl through if they suspect that you did something suspicious. Remember, they want to be able to see library records without a warrant, so there's no reason to think this is any different. Do you really want them to know what Web sites you've been looking at, who you've been e-mailing, etc.? Suppose they wanted to know the names of every person who visited Indymedia during a period of time. Easy. First, get Indymedia's Web logs. That gives a list of times and IP addresses. Next, check the logs of those ISPs at those times, and you have a complete list of subscribers who visited that site and the pages they viewed. And this can all be done more or less automatically by using search tools.
If this doesn't scare you, it should. |
|
|
|
baj475
join:2004-11-02
Chico, CA Reviews:
 ·Comcast
 ·Future Nine Corp..
| reply to pnh102
said by footballdude:There is no legal right to privacy when you are in a public place. Not entirely true. See Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) |
|
ricep5Premium
join:2000-08-07
Jacksonville, FL | reply to Unregistered User
You assume that there alot of people interested in what you do online. The Feds are only interested in illegal activities and they still have to get permission from a judge to get the info.
While you moan about the lack of finger lifting in the US, I also think you place too much self importance on your internet activities.
No one person, corporation or government has the resources to go out collect, analyze and report on individual internet behavior for a whole country. (Only China thinks they can)
They would find a wasteland of benign chat, emails full of personal drivel and site logs full of bid updates from eBay. Hardly profound stuff.
Paranoia can be healthy when kept in perspective. When you assume everyone wants to know everything about you personally, then it has begun to reach something less healthy. |
|
| No, I don't think anyone necessarily wants to know what I do online. I think IT'S NONE OF THEIR DAMN BUSINESS WHAT I DO ONLINE! The government has no business whatsoever even asking that this data be collected, period. They also have no business being able to secretly trawl through library book and Internet records, but they can. That's what the House is trying to overturn in the last few days. Well, the book part, at least. The Internet snooping is apparently OK, so that activity wasn't barred in the House bill. Of course, Bush has threatened to veto it. I guess he feels that what you read at the library is the Feds' business. I mean, we need to know when someone reads something controversial. And no, you don't have to be under a criminal investigation of having committed a crime, you just have to be a suspected terrorist.
This isn't the kind of country I want to live in. It reminds me too much of the old USSR. |
|
| said by Unregisterd User:
This isn't the kind of country I want to live in. It reminds me too much of the old USSR. OMG, it's Dick Durbin! |
|
| reply to ricep5
Wrong! The Patriot Act allows them to get whatever info or snoop (bypassing Constitutional Rights) by bypassing the middle man, the Judge without a warrant any time they wish. Because all of the sheep and sleepers in this country that think you will keep your hard earned freedoms by sitting on your asses, this has now ready to become a permanent thing. Now they are trying to make it permanent and make it stronger. Sheep and cattle to slaughter.
"Those who have long enjoyed such privileges as we enjoy, forget in time that men have died to win them."
-Franklin D. Roosevelt |
|
 9143930615,000 Watts of Bass Power
join:2002-10-16
New Milford, CT | reply to Unregistered User
said by Unregistered User:
What gets me in all this is the defeatist attitude I see in response to all this. Go over and read Slashdot to see what I mean. There are people willing to stand up and die for what they believe in in countries far more repressive than ours, yet most people here won't even lift a finger to stop something they don't agree with. In just over a year, we've seen governments in Georgia, Ukraine, Kyrryzstan, and Bolivia toppled by people hitting the streets, yet all we do is sit and moan. What's wrong with us?
Part of the problem is that the biggest government tax dollars can buy is too powerful to overthrow. All our government would have to do to quell any resistance is use a few tactical nukes and that'd be the end of the resistance.
--
Take care,
Mark & Mary Ann Weiss
Hear my Kurzweil Creations at: »www.dv-clips.com/theater.htm
'»www.mwcomms.com/auctions.htm
'»www.mwcomms.com
'»www.adventuresinanimemusic.com
|
|
| reply to ricep5
Even if they did have to get permission from a judge, which they don't, the appointment process for judges in most areas of the US is so corrupt, that it really doesn't matter. The government just has to slip the judge a few bills and voila! there's your warrant.
You people should really consider moving north  We have a lot more freedoms up here. |
|
| reply to 91439306
So, you're saying that if there were massive street protests on the Washington Mall (say 50,000 people), they'd drop a nuke? Do you realize the political implications of doing something so stupid? Sure, you can do it, but the country would quickly come apart at the seams. And what would the rest of the world do if the U.S. government started nuking its own cities?
I wasn't really speaking of armed revolt here, but organized political protest and/or civil disobediance, but as far as overthrowing the most powerful government in the world, it's been done before. It started in 1776. |
|
9143930615,000 Watts of Bass Power
join:2002-10-16
New Milford, CT | Not likely to happen. In 1776, the resistance had the same weapons and firepower as the British. Today, we have these puny pea-shooters and the government has tanks, nukes, crowd control devices--riot control is down to a science. The People don't have a chance.
Change has to come from philosophical movement. That's just not happening. And it looks like things are going to get much worse. A new Dark Age is probably in our future.
--
Take care,
Mark & Mary Ann Weiss
Hear my Kurzweil Creations at: »www.dv-clips.com/theater.htm
'»www.mwcomms.com/auctions.htm
'»www.mwcomms.com
'»www.adventuresinanimemusic.com
|
|
| reply to Unregistered user
said by Unregistered user:
And what would the rest of the world do if the U.S. government started nuking its own cities? hehe... I'm not sure you'd like the answer to that question. |
|
| reply to Unregistered User
its crazy stuff like this that makes me glad i dont live in the states =) |
|
| reply to orangelemon
www.johntitor.com |
|
| reply to orangelemon
said by orangelemon:You people should really consider moving north We have a lot more freedoms up here. How many handguns,What make,What model do you own?
How many rifles are in your home? Again I ask what make,What model? How many so called "assault weapons do you have and are aloud to purchase and keep? |
|
fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | said by guitarzan:said by orangelemon:You people should really consider moving north We have a lot more freedoms up here. How many handguns,What make,What model do you own? How many rifles are in your home? Again I ask what make,What model? How many so called "assault weapons do you have and are aloud to purchase and keep? Gun laws? Is that all you can compare? That's hardly a come back to his post. Canada IS a free country, thus they are part of the free world. There are differences between what we have and what they have... However, I do believe that Canada is becoming more favorable to people as far as Civil Liberties are concerned. I can say one thing for sure, Canada is treating people more equal that the U.S. How long ago did black people here get their so-called rights? Are gay people still fighting for equality here? How about Canada? I would rather have the U.S. treat it's people equally first before I would concern myself with guns. I do enjoy owning guns myself, but freedoms come before hand guns.
The U.S. is quickly, and I mean in the last 5 years, steering into an era of church driven laws - and if anyone knows anything about the Church, they are FAR from diverse and FAR from free thinking.
This is why I never understood how we have survived so long with the so-called separation of church and state, better known as the establishment cluase, without having problems sooner. The U.S. stands for freedoms, and the church is not so free - with the church, it's usually one way or you go to hell. |
|
| said by fiberguy:said by guitarzan:said by orangelemon:You people should really consider moving north We have a lot more freedoms up here. How many handguns,What make,What model do you own? How many rifles are in your home? Again I ask what make,What model? How many so called "assault weapons do you have and are aloud to purchase and keep? said by fiberguy  Gun laws? Is that all you can compare? That's hardly a come back to his post. Canada IS a free country, thus they are part of the free world.[/BQUOTE: Hardly a come back.? Pretty much all I'm concerned about.Then answer my question.Gun laws.? Yes thats a major point.If it is so free.That has everything to do with freedom.When we declared our independence.It sure as hell was not done with words alone.Why do you think they are trying so desperately to outlaw guns in this country.? Once that right is taken away.All others will soon follow.As an example.Look what happened when Hitler came to power.That is the very first thing he outlawed.Thats right gun ownership banned. History proved to the world the outcome of that tragedy. said by fiberguy There are differences between what we have and what they have...[/BQUOTE: Sure there is a difference.Compare the healthcare systems between these countries.I am not slamming them for anything.However I prefer our system here. said by fiberguy:However, I do believe that Canada is becoming more favorable to people as far as Civil Liberties are concerned. What exactly do you mean.? Please explain further.Do
you mean they are trying to catch up.? Please explain.
said by fiberguy:I can say one thing for sure, Canada is treating people more equal that the U.S. How long ago did black people here get their so-called rights? I totally agree with,The mistreatment of black people.That's an unfortunate event that did happen.In The Past.However today is different.Were it not so, Clarence Thomas would not have been affirmed to a high seat on the bench.Look at our sports stars,our actors,members of congress.J.C Watts comes to mind off hand.I do not buy into your whole point of view on this issue.
said by fiberguy Are gay people still fighting for equality here?[/BQUOTE: WTF you mean??? Since you threw something like this into the mix,let me explain something.Because I see where you're headed with a statement like that.
ALL citizens of the U.S.Have a Constitution and a bill of rights.As such we can exercise our rights.What YOUR talking about is SPECIAL rights,for gay people.So that special rights can allow them to hold hands,kiss and make out in our public parks and places.As human beings they are afforded the same bill of rights.As we all are.
Equal to everyone regardless of sexual preference.NO NO special rights.Animals have right to you know.I love that statement.NO THEY don't have rights.It's an animal for crying out loud.They do not deserve neglect and abuse from the hands of its owner. said by fiberguy How about Canada?[/BQUOTE: I don't know I never lived there.The U.S. is home to me and as such.It's the only place I will ever call home.It's not my business to know the policies Canada has in place.The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence till you get there.
said by fiberguy I would rather have the U.S. treat it's people equally first before I would concern myself with guns.[/BQUOTE: I DO worry about my personal freedoms first.Without them I can't help anyone.You know that will never happen.Not in a million,billion years.Life has a way of dealing bad cards to everyone.Your welcome to believe in utopia though.
said by fiberguy: I do enjoy owning guns myself, but freedoms come before hand guns. I think you're confused on how that actually works.We would not have the freedom we do today,were it not for guns.A man with a gun is a citizen.A man without a gun is a slave.Our fore fathers did not shed blood with sticks to ensure equality in our Country.But with arms taken up to guarantee our freedom.said by fiberguy: The U.S. is quickly, and I mean in the last 5 years, steering into an era of church driven laws - and if anyone knows anything about the Church, they are FAR from diverse and FAR from free thinking. Yea right.I could have sworn Politicians were being bought off at a rapid pace by corporations.
Have you ever been to Church.?Don't sound like it.I doubt it.Its not about diversity or free thinking.Its basing your faith and religion on God.Now I know you proudly carry the liberal banner.
Church has nothing to do with limiting freedom.However one is free to worship as one see's fit.Today sadly it's greed.Who's odor is emmaniting directly from Politicians and corporate whores.Not from Church.
Lets set the record straight on the issue.Damn athesists.One may prove a lot of things wrong.One thing that man never can prove wrong is the Bible.Has not been done in the
past 2000 years,nor will it be done in the next 2000 years.
BTW: Bible means Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth.
said by fiberguy:This is why I never understood how we have survived so long with the so-called separation of church and state, better known as the establishment cluase, without having problems sooner Your grasping at straws now.That never caused any problems before.Why would it all of a sudden now.? What that really means is that the STATE can't tell you which religion to to worship.Get your facts straight.Not by your misgiuded beliefs.Russia didn't have seperation of Church and state.What happened.? Militant asthesism.Do you home work first.Instead of repeating nitwittery drivel pushed by liberals as truth.
said by fiberguy:The U.S. stands for freedoms, and the church is not so free - with the church, it's usually one way or you go to hell.
Wait a minute here pal.I want to see proof of what you claim against the Church.Where it limits freedoms.It's one way or you go to hell.No problem there.
No freedom is limited.Your free will has not been taken away.
Oh I see now.You want the Church to conform and bend its beliefs to yours.For example you may find it perfectly acceptable.To have sex with other men.
People want to do that go head.From a practice that was afraid to come out of the closet.Now it won't shut its damn mouth.
Thats the most absurd thing I ever heard.Just because it can be tolerated.Does not meant it is acceptable. |
|
fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | guitarzan,
You really need a hobby.
Additionally, if you read any of my posts, I have, many times, stated I am neither democrap, or a repuke-again. Believe it or not, there are more political affiliations in this country.
So I find it hard to see how since I don't believe in how organized religion twists the minds of people makes me a "liberal".. you should not confuse the lack of religion with a political party. I know Rove likes to hijack religion for the Repuke-again party, but not everyone follows his ways.
As to the rest of your post, you really make no sense for me to even attempt to respond.
Respond if you'd like, but I won't be reading it. |
|
