how-to block ads
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
 ·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| reply to amigo_boy
Re: They have my full support
said by amigo_boy  :All they have to do is look. If they want to break the law. They need to capture and read the data. They're not supposed to by law. Just because they CAN do so does not make it legal to do so.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) | |
MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
 ·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Southwest
| reply to Skippy25
said by Skippy25 :said by MyDogHsFleas :said by person300 :
This damn attitude that corporations and government employees(high positions obviously, not the garbage man) have that their above the law is ridiculous. I seriously hope they win.
This is not at all what this is about. This is about, should the Government ever be allowed under any circumstance to search and use as evidence data on a computer or on the network? Maybe you should do a little research. This has nothing to with the government not being allowed to obtain evidence. It has 100% to do with them obtaining it legally using the system that is already in place and had been in place for a looooong time to receive the proper permissions to do so. There was absolutely no reason why they couldnt seek warrants for the people they wanted to track. Happens multiple times virtually every day throughout this nation. If they already had the ability to cast the net they cast and to start secretly gathering this information, than there was no need for this corrupt government of ours to make laws protecting them. They did not follow the already established laws, violated the rights of millions of people, and got caught. The corporations and every person that made that happen needs to be punished just as you would if you did the same thing. This is not about warrants. That is simply the cover story. This is a power struggle. The EFF does not want the Government to be able, under any circumstances, ever, to use information from the Internet or from people's computers. They perceive the best way to achieve their goals is to insist that the court system be 100% in control of these decisions, and that the Executive branch be completely submissive to the Courts. That way, they can file lawsuit after lawsuit, effectively stopping action by the Executive branch via "death by 1000 cuts".
Open your eyes and see. Has the EFF ever been on the side of making any electronic information available to the Justice Department, the Intelligence Community, or the Military? Has the EFF ever not filed a lawsuit or helped others file lawsuits as their primary way of asserting their views? | |
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
 ·Skype
| said by MyDogHsFleas :The EFF does not want the Government to be able, under any circumstances, ever, to use information from the Internet or from people's computers. [...] Open your eyes and see. Has the EFF ever been on the side of making any electronic information available to the Justice Department, the Intelligence Community, or the Military? Has the EFF ever not filed a lawsuit or helped others file lawsuits as their primary way of asserting their views? Can you give me an example of the EFF opposing the customary power of the court to empower the government to perform electronically surveillance on a specific individual? I can't think of one.
What I can find [click here for funky Google search] is hundreds of pages of documents submitted to non-judicial policy-makers -- such as the House Energy and Commerce committee (telecom is within their perview), the House Judiciary Committee, the US Copyright office, Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR), the Federal Trade Commission, the Federal Communications Commission, and so on.
When the EFF files in such examples, it is prior to a matter reaching the court. So your contention that the EFF perceives that, "the best way to achieve their goals is to insist that the court system be 100% in control of these decisions, and that the Executive branch be completely submissive to the Courts," is not supported as the EFF gets involved well before a controversy reaches the court.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
| |
wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK
·Future Nine Corpor..
·Teliax VOIP
| reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy :said by Skippy25 :So warrants really have no place in your world? I'm only saying what the laws are today. You can't ignore the existing law, claiming it's something different. That's just a recipe for more of what you say is wrong. The solution is to amend the law. No, you're ignoring the laws that exist (like ECPA, which was mentioned above), which expressly create legislatively an expectation of privacy, and in fact, penalties for interception of communications.
The ECPA was passed, in part, because of the ambiguity of other wiretap laws to electronic store and forward communications.
--
It's wierdo, not weirdo. Yes, I know that's not the 'proper' spelling of the similar english language word.  | |
fatness
subtle
Janitor
join:2000-11-17
fishing
·EarthLink
Host:
Earthlink DSL
TekSavvy
Forum Feature Requ..
Need Site Help?
Rants, Raves, and ..
| reply to MyDogHsFleas
said by MyDogHsFleas :This is not about warrants. That is simply the cover story. This is a power struggle. The EFF does not want the Government to be able, under any circumstances, ever, to use information from the Internet or from people's computers. They perceive the best way to achieve their goals is to insist that the court system be 100% in control of these decisions, and that the Executive branch be completely submissive to the Courts. That way, they can file lawsuit after lawsuit, effectively stopping action by the Executive branch via "death by 1000 cuts". Now that's quite creative but pretty silly. That's like saying that some defense lawyers might be successful in getting defendants acquitted, so we should do away with defense lawyers and court proceedings because after all, the prosecutors are doing the will of the executive.
--
Female monkeys often utter loud, distinctive calls before, during or after sex.. | |
ross
join:2000-08-16
·Digizip
1 edit | reply to toobad
said by toobad :
too bad we all know you won't do anything about it ross accept keep paying at&t for there services
you stated before you had other options available to you but that your too lazy to go for them
so you will whine and complain but in the end you will not stand up and put your money where your keyboard is
Once again, for your edification, the choices I have are AT&T and Comcast, and a number of third party providers of VOIP that would require a DSL circuit, or a cable connection. As it happens, I have ADSL service through COVAD over AT&T copper. That means I can just get a VOIP provider, use Skype, Magicjack, etc.. EXCEPT, if I cancel my AT&T landlines, I believe I will lose my ADSL with COVAD, or I will have to convert it to dryline service. I don't think, but haven't investigated the issue fully as yet, I can get a dryline DSL service without going directly with AT&T. I think there may also be a few remaining CLECs in my area, and I will find out more in the next few days.
My AT&T services have been reliable, though unimproved, for the 30+ years I've lived here. The service is reasonable, but not as cheap as it could or should be. There is so much noise on my lines I can't get over 3Mbps/520Kbps ADSL. That pisses me off. So does the prospect of having to subscribe to Comcast HSI, unbundled. I like having a hard-wired telephone service, especially with 911 service that is reliable and accurate.
I don't understand why I can't get Verizon service in my AT&T area. After all, isn't this the post Bell monopoly era 30 years on? Fuck, where is all that competition that was supposed improve technology and lower costs, and allow me to choose among multiple vendors for service?
Lastly, I do have some choices, though they are far from ideal. However, why am I being forced to accept such a major change in terms, and such a lopsided position in a contract that has lasted for so long? Christ, I have excellent credit, and an on-time payment history for the entire length of my service with AT&T. Why should I have to agree with the onerous terms in AT&T's new Residential Service Agreement? Why am I forced to surrender my legal rights to privacy, and indemnify everybody under AT&T umbrella for illegal acts AT&T has, or may, undertake?
I have to change telephone company providers, DSL providers, and potentially lose telephone numbers I have had for 30+ years. It is a major PITA, but I will not accept the terms of the new AT&T RSA. Why should my life be disrupted without benefit to me?
FUCK AT&T! | |
-
|
