FAQFixerPremium
join:2004-06-28
Powder Springs, GA
kudos:1
1 edit | Kommie Karl Strikes Again Kommie Karl and his opinion again...I thought it was actual news until I saw who wrote it. His ability to blur the facts is as creative as his comprehension of the facts. |
|
|
|
 DotMac4Shill H8rPremium
join:2007-10-26
Huntington Beach, CA | So since when is spending millions lobbying Congress not purchasing?
The money is going somewhere... |
|
 RobIn Deo speramus, God Bless the USAPremium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
kudos:2 | said by DotMac4:So since when is spending millions lobbying Congress not purchasing? The money is going somewhere... I think he's being sarcastic.... |
|
 ropeguruPremium
join:2001-01-25
Mechanicsville, VA | said by Rob:said by DotMac4:So since when is spending millions lobbying Congress not purchasing? The money is going somewhere... I think he's being sarcastic.... Somehow I disagree...
--
FWD#: 223611 |
|
RobIn Deo speramus, God Bless the USAPremium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
kudos:2 | said by ropeguru:said by Rob:said by DotMac4:So since when is spending millions lobbying Congress not purchasing? The money is going somewhere... I think he's being sarcastic.... Somehow I disagree... I like to think positive..  |
|
 AtlGuy
join:2000-10-17
Marietta, GA | reply to FAQFixer
Are you saying at&t and Verizon just gave millions of dollars out of the goodness of their heart, and that they didn't expect something in return? |
|
FAQFixerPremium
join:2004-06-28
Powder Springs, GA
kudos:1 | reply to AtlGuy
Re: Kommie Karl Strikes Again said by AtlGuy:Are you saying at&t and Verizon just gave millions of dollars out of the goodness of their heart, and that they didn't expect something in return? No. The telcos can and do lobby...sadly it's a fact of life. I'm saying that Kommie Karl has never had his facts straight about this subject and is simply regurgitating what the EFF tells him to say. It's his (and the EFF's) opinion disguised as news. |
|
2 edits | And yet you provide no evidence of your accusation.
Interesting |
|
 KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| reply to Rob
said by Rob:I think he's being sarcastic.... I don't think it's sarcasm, either. Stupidity? Maybe. Sarcasm? Doesn't seem like it. |
|
FAQFixerPremium
join:2004-06-28
Powder Springs, GA
kudos:1 | reply to Nightshade
said by Nightshade:And yet you provide no evidence of your accusation. Interesting Obviously everyone can ascertain Karl's opinion within the first 6 words of his post. But for this quick discussion, let's not bother with his opinion and focus on facts about his statements. His first sentence shows he does not have an overall grasp of the facts and since it is the entire premise of the editorial piece it should treated as opinion not fact. It is meant to incite, not inform.
Karl stated, "Phone giants AT&T and Verizon purchased won a major victory in Washington today, taking another step toward getting legal immunity for their participation in the government's highly controversial warrantless wiretapping program."
There is no such thing as a "warrantless wiretap". It is a buzz phrase specifically designed and chosen to invoke passion and knee-jerk reactions.
Here's what the law states:
Warrants are used to discover or obtain records or material items currently in the possession of a person or entity.
Wiretaps are interceptions of real time communications. Typically wiretaps are considered pen register/trap and traces or a Title IIIs orders for full content.
So all wiretaps are "warrantless" because warrant are not the legal process to obtain a wiretap. They are exclusive legal processes and serve different purposes.
So why would someone purposely distort the basic underpinnings of their argument? To make people jump to their point of view without having to think much.
A great example comes from our War of the States in 1860s:
Southerners referred to the war as the "War of Northern Aggression". If you were uneducated about the facts and read an article from a southern paper you would immediately think Yankees were simply imperialists trying to take land and textile production while forcing a heavy handed federal government on them.
Northerners called it the "Civil War". If you were uneducated about the facts and read an article in a northern paper you would immediately think the war was about stopping rouge states from doing whatever they felt like and ending slavery.
Same war...different titles. As long as you are educated and can distinguish the difference between facts and propaganda, you will be fine. |
|
 morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000 | said by FAQFixer:said by Nightshade:And yet you provide no evidence of your accusation. Interesting Obviously everyone can ascertain Karl's opinion within the first 6 words of his post. But for this quick discussion, let's not bother with his opinion and focus on facts about his statements. His first sentence shows he does not have an overall grasp of the facts and since it is the entire premise of the editorial piece it should treated as opinion not fact. It is meant to incite, not inform. Karl stated, "Phone giants AT&T and Verizon purchased won a major victory in Washington today, taking another step toward getting legal immunity for their participation in the government's highly controversial warrantless wiretapping program." There is no such thing as a "warrantless wiretap". It is a buzz phrase specifically designed and chosen to invoke passion and knee-jerk reactions. Here's what the law states: Warrants are used to discover or obtain records or material items currently in the possession of a person or entity. Wiretaps are interceptions of real time communications. Typically wiretaps are considered pen register/trap and traces or a Title IIIs orders for full content. So all wiretaps are "warrantless" because warrant are not the legal process to obtain a wiretap. They are exclusive legal processes and serve different purposes. man, you are REACHING with your sad attempt to discredit Karl.
you are basically saying that there is no such thing as a warrantless wiretap because wiretaps are supposed to be for real time communication and information/records/material that is in someone's possession. that is definitely a unique interpretation of the law! it is incorrect. the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) has provisions for electronic surveillance and a way to obtain search warrants for electronic surveillance.
nice try though. |
|
FAQFixerPremium
join:2004-06-28
Powder Springs, GA
kudos:1
1 edit | Wrong, wrong, wrong. FISA seperates warrants from wiretaps just like US Code Section 18. |
|
FAQFixerPremium
join:2004-06-28
Powder Springs, GA
kudos:1 | reply to morbo
said by morbo:man, you are REACHING with your sad attempt to discredit Karl. the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) has provisions for electronic surveillance and a way to obtain search warrants for electronic surveillance. I thought the whole argument was that these were "warrantless" and didn't have any judicial oversight (as stated by Karl in his 2nd sentence) but now you bring up FISA provisions. Since FISA orders are signed by Federal judges, that would mean judicial oversight. Which way do you want it?
I don't need to discredit Karl. He is an icon to many and could be considered the "Tokyo Rose of the Digital Age". |
|
morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000 | said by FAQFixer:I thought the whole argument was that these were "warrantless" and didn't have any judicial oversight (as stated by Karl in his 2nd sentence) but now you bring up FISA provisions. Since FISA orders are signed by Federal judges, that would mean judicial oversight. Which way do you want it? you are all over the place. |
|
Syian
join:2007-12-20
Gwinn, MI | reply to FAQFixer
hm. when my friend had the feds show up at his house, and confiscate his computers, it was shown that they did indeed have to obtain a warrant in order to tap his phone...interesting, a judge does need to authorize a wiretap. aka, sign a warrant to eavesdrop on someone's realtime communcations, same for your electronic information, at least in theory.
now, we add the PATRIOT act which allows provisions for eavesdropping on suspected terrorists... which makes me wonder, does the US government suspect any/all americans as possible terrorists? |
|
