hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
 ·Time Warner Cable
·buckeye cable
| reply to MyDogHsFleas
Re: They have my full support
so you see if it for the Gov't to call ATT and tell them they want your phone records, your convos recorded in audio and not a transcript and they want access to your email, and web history too?
You want them to have access to that without knowing anything about it?
I don't see where its okay for Bush or anyone else to tell the Telco's they have to turn that information over illegally.
We have laws in this country for a reason. If regular citizens have to follow them then so does the Government and ATT, VZ, and Sprint. |
|
keyboard5684
join:2001-08-01
Youngsville, PA
 ·Teliax VOIP
 ·WestPAnet Inc.
·WestPAnet Inc. CA..
| I think once your data leaves your home and passes onto ATTs network, or anyone else's network, they can do with the data what they wish. This is the nature of the internet.
If the majority of the people do not like this, then peers will start to be dropped with ATT and data will simply stop flowing through them. Nature of the internet.
There are other carriers and even though you may not have chosen for your data to pass through them you did chose to use a company that uses a company that passes through them in some way.
Same with phone calls and records. You use ATT, your records are free to be passed to whomever. Ever get a new line with Verizon, phone rings off the hook with telemarketers, they sell your number.
If your phone call in any way passes through a network that shares that call its up to them because you paid a company that pays another company to pass calls over that network.
Funny how that works.
Want a secure line, it is possible. |
|
SLD
Premium
join:2002-04-17
·Comcast
| LOL...you people spouting this nonsense always forget that these are government sponsored monopolies. They should NOT have the right to use your information as they wish since there is no free choice of carriers in many situations. Free market principals (which are mostly bunk in the real world anyway) do not apply here. |
|
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
 ·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
| reply to keyboard5684
said by keyboard5684  :I think once your data leaves your home and passes onto ATTs network, or anyone else's network, they can do with the data what they wish. This is the nature of the internet. Where did you get that idea? The Internet never worked that way, it's not the nature of the Internet. In fact, you have to do things that are unusual and unnatural in order to do what AT&T did.
Internet Standards explain what they must and should and should not do, they can't just do "what they wish."
Ever hear of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act? They can't just do "what they wish."
As for the government's role, the Fourth Amendment restricts them from doing their part in this conspiracy.
Not to mention other laws, regulations, and private agreements regulating AT&T's conduct.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
|
|
hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
·Time Warner Cable
·buckeye cable
| Even though I disagree with you on many points on this site, I actually agree with you on this one.
Nothing gives ATT or the Gov't the right to do what they have done.
Also AT$T should not be the size it is. That is one reason why they did it most likely- to pretty much have control over the entire USA.
The Feds say "we'll give you BS if you'll do this for you since you have the most customers and can keep better track of everything" ATT says OKAY! Not a problem! In goes their NSA Computer rooms.
And with Obama it doesn't look like this is going to improve anytime soon either. |
|
keyboard5684
join:2001-08-01
Youngsville, PA
·Teliax VOIP
·WestPAnet Inc.
·WestPAnet Inc. CA..
| reply to funchords
If your data or telephone calls (really the same thing anymore) never passes through a way for ATT to "grab" it, then it would never have happened, correct?
Yes, the internet has always been a bunch of networks connected together. If no one want to play with ATT they go away hence the problem goes away.
Hope that clarifies, if not I can think of no other way to explain my opinion/view. |
|
SLD
Premium
join:2002-04-17
·Comcast
1 edit | reply to keyboard5684
Yeah, and the phone company should be able to steal secrets they gleen while monitoring you calls. And they should be able to disconnect any call that happens to disparage them.
Your free market philosophy has only two potential outcomes:
1. An eventual monopoly/duopoly which abuses its power.
2. Walmart.
Take your pick - neither is pretty.
The only people who really believe in free market principals are Macro-Economics professors trying the get their students horny about capitalism, and their freshmen students. Those who live in the real world know that without consumer protections, quality of life is all downhill. |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| reply to funchords
said by funchords :As for the government's role, the Fourth Amendment restricts them from doing their part in this conspiracy. Not to mention other laws, regulations, and private agreements regulating AT&T's conduct. That's not true. The 4th amendment prohibits "unreasonable" searches and seizures. If someone voluntarily chooses to communicate over the internet, unencrypted, knowing their data is visible to anyone along 10-20 hops through companies with which they have no contractual relationship, that may be equivalent to standing on the street corner discussing personal matters, expecting privacy.
Also, 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(a)(ii)(B) and 18 U.S.C. 2702(a)(3) & (c) [1] allow telcos to provide the government with data without a warrant.
Finally, 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(a)(ii)(B) was referenced in the so-called "immunity" deal.[2] What kind of immunity is that, when they repeat an existing law?
[1] »www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html···00-.html
»www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html···00-.html
[2] »www.eff.org/files/filenode/att/F···_xml.pdf (page 88)
Mark |
|
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
| reply to hottboiinnc
said by hottboiinnc :Even though I disagree with you on many points on this site, I actually agree with you on this one. I think you'll find me very libertarian, anti-government interference, and pro-business.
The reason you and I disagree is because I am calling for minimal government intervention to fix problems that are rooted in the lack of healthy market competition.
While there are some things that the government can get right, most of the time it cannot compare (and shouldn't interfere) with the inherent economic efficiency of the free market.
But when that free market disappears, then the people are left with two choices, neither which are desireable --
•Deal with the powerful regulation by a government by, of, and for the people; or
•Deal with the powerful regulation by a for-profit company acting in a monopolistic fashion.
-- and I haven't decided one way or another across the board, some things that a powerful company or a powerful government may do with its power are good for freedom and our future, and some things are not. Unless the market forces improve, we have no other choices.
The EFF is in a tight spot, because now we have the Executive, Legislature, and the Telcos (who are monopolies in their regions) in collusion. The courts are the check and balance, and our last hope.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
|
|
hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
·Time Warner Cable
·buckeye cable
| reply to keyboard5684
No it doesnt go away.
Telephone companies were interconnected way before the Internet.
How do you think telephones became what they are? They're all interconnected. If they weren't you would never be able to call anyone outside of your phone company.
Your view gives the Gov't and ATT, VZ, Sprint/Embarq the right to do what ever they want.
The only company that had the balls to stand up to the Feds was Qwest. Why? they knew it was wrong. They didn't want a backlash from the public nor their customers.
This is most likely a good reason on why ATT's landline and internet business is in the shit hole right now. They're not trusted like others are. |
|
hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH | reply to funchords
very very true. |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| reply to hottboiinnc
said by hottboiinnc :The only company that had the balls to stand up to the Feds was Qwest. Why? they knew it was wrong. Or, maybe the Qwest CEO couldn't get the deal he wanted to escape criminal prosecution?
Mark |
|
hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
·Time Warner Cable
·buckeye cable
| I doubt that. If that was the case they would have just done the same thing all of the rest of them did. Went and cried that they're being sued for breaking the law and committing felonies and they need to be protected.
The CEO and the legal team knew this was wrong. |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
3 edits | reply to funchords
Libertarianism is a joke
said by funchords :-- and I haven't decided one way or another across the board, some things that a powerful company or a powerful government may do with its power are good for freedom and our future, and some things are not. (Chuckle). The libertarian's convenient "out."
There is always government intervention. From health-care standards, to food and drug quality standards. From the SEC (moderating a "market"), to banking regulations (eliminating a huge swath of willing buyers and sellers). From building codes to zoning laws (restricting how an individual may exercise her property rights).
Libertarianism could only exist in a pure anarchy. But, anarchy has never existed for more than 20 minutes. Why? Because when three people join together to take the property of one, that one person joins together with four to protect themselves from the three. The three join with 12. And the five join with 20.
Within about 2 hours you have the "social contract."
And as soon as you have people joining together for "mutual" benefit, there will always be winners and losers. Those who use the "will of society" to benefit more than others. Those who are criminalized (for example, lessor health-care choices) in ways they wouldn't if they had remained in a Lockean "state of nature," unaffiliated with a "group."
In a group, it always boils down to "the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few." Mutual benefit is an inexact science.
Most rational people understand this. Libertarians, on the other hand, employ self-serving and high-principled rhetoric to make it sound like they're different. Everyone else is for "big government." Libertarians stand for "free markets" and "individual rights."
But, when confronted with being irrelevant (if they follow their ideology to its natural conclusions), they admit that "government can do some things better than the market place."
Which usually translates into, "those things that are 'better' are the things what *I* think are beneficial, or that benefit me."
Which means, libertarians are no different than anyone else. They engage in the game of "who's ox is being gored." It's just that everyone else doesn't feel inclined to employ high-sounding rhetoric about "principles" and "coercion". As if everyone *else* is using government for impure purposes.
Mark |
|
ross
join:2000-08-16
·Digizip
1 edit | reply to funchords
Re: They have my full support
said by funchords :said by hottboiinnc :Even though I disagree with you on many points on this site, I actually agree with you on this one. I think you'll find me very libertarian, anti-government interference, and pro-business. The reason you and I disagree is because I am calling for minimal government intervention to fix problems that are rooted in the lack of healthy market competition. While there are some things that the government can get right, most of the time it cannot compare (and shouldn't interfere) with the inherent economic efficiency of the free market. But when that free market disappears, then the people are left with two choices, neither which are desireable -- •Deal with the powerful regulation by a government by, of, and for the people; or
•Deal with the powerful regulation by a for-profit company acting in a monopolistic fashion. -- and I haven't decided one way or another across the board, some things that a powerful company or a powerful government may do with its power are good for freedom and our future, and some things are not. Unless the market forces improve, we have no other choices. The EFF is in a tight spot, because now we have the Executive, Legislature, and the Telcos (who are monopolies in their regions) in collusion. The courts are the check and balance, and our last hope. I agree with your assessment of illegal blanket warrantless wiretapping by the NSA and AT&T, Verizon, et al.
Here is AT&T's Residential Service Agreement counterstrike at standing for the EFF class action lawsuit. I'd suggest reading it carefully, if you have AT&T/SW Bell telecommunication services. The immunity, indemnity, mandatory arbitration, and prohibition of class actions and participation in class action lawsuit provisions are very interesting. The agreement becomes effective on October 1, 2008, or at payment in advance for September services, whichever is sooner. |
|
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
1 edit | reply to amigo_boy
Re: Libertarianism is a joke
WARNING TO READERS -- THIS POST AND EVERYTHING THAT FOLLOWS IS OFF TOPIC, TROLLING, FLAMING, AND BAITING -- Robb
said by amigo_boy :said by funchords :-- and I haven't decided one way or another across the board, some things that a powerful company or a powerful government may do with its power are good for freedom and our future, and some things are not. (Chuckle). The libertarian's convenient "out."... ...Libertarianism could only exist in a pure anarchy... ...Most rational people understand this. Libertarians, on the other hand... ...if they follow their ideology to its natural conclusions... Other than childish name calling, the only thing you've accomplished here is to demonstrate that you can take any political model to an absurdly extreme conclusion and discover absurdity. You have persuaded nobody and have contributed nothing.
If you have anything to say about the topic at hand, which is either the NSA wiretapping, or hotboiinnc and my rare agreement on any issue, feel free to contribute.
Making pot-shots at general political purviews is just trolling.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
|
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
3 edits | said by funchords :the only thing you've accomplished here is to demonstrate that you can take any political model to an absurdly extreme conclusion and discover absurdity. But, that's the problem with "libertarianism." It uses high-sounding, principled rhetoric as if it's on a moral high ground compared to everyone else who is supposedly using government (coercion) to impede perfect liberty.
If taken seriously, and followed to its logical conclusion, "libertarianism" is irrelevant. If relevancy matters, and adherents make pragmatic choices about *when* government intervention is useful, they're no different than everyone else participating in the social contract (goring oxes). It's just that everyone else doesn't pretty themselves up with high-minded rhetoric, false claims to "liberty," etc.
said by funchords :If you have anything to say about the topic at hand, which is either the NSA wiretapping, ... You're the one who invoked libertarianism as some kind of standard to follow.
Mark |
|
GOLFnSUN
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
1 edit | reply to funchords
said by funchords :said by amigo_boy :said by funchords :-- and I haven't decided one way or another across the board, some things that a powerful company or a powerful government may do with its power are good for freedom and our future, and some things are not. (Chuckle). The libertarian's convenient "out."... ...Libertarianism could only exist in a pure anarchy... ...Most rational people understand this. Libertarians, on the other hand... ...if they follow their ideology to its natural conclusions... Other than childish name calling, the only thing you've accomplished here is to demonstrate that you can take any political model to an absurdly extreme conclusion and discover absurdity. You have persuaded nobody and have contributed nothing. If you have anything to say about the topic at hand, which is either the NSA wiretapping, or hotboiinnc and my rare agreement on any issue, feel free to contribute. Making pot-shots at general political purviews is just trolling. His post laid out his ideas and there wasn't any name calling or trolling. And taking potshots(as you call it) at political groupings isn't trolling either. But accusing others of trolling is trolling.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk? |
|
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
| reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy :(...a bunch of repeated stuff, deleted...)You're the one who invoked libertarianism as some kind of standard to follow. No, I said no such thing. I said that it was my point of view and it was possibly an explanation of why hotboiinnc were in some rare agreement here.
Every single political persuasion has its "high-sounding, principled rhetoric as if it's on a moral high ground compared to everyone else."
Again, you are contributing nothing and making pot-shots at general political purviews is just trolling and its off-topic. Have you noticed that I haven't refuted anything that you've said? Yet you continue to argue back.
My next step is to hit "hey mods" and let them delete the whole thread, including this message, if they so desire.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
|
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
3 edits | said by funchords :Every single political persuasion has its "high-sounding, principled rhetoric as if it's on a moral high ground compared to everyone else." I've never seen the Right or Left refer to the "non-coercion" principle. Only libertarians (and so-called Ayn Rand "objectivsts") do.
The obvious problem is if you take "non-coercion" to its natural conclusion. At that point you're in a Lockean "state of nature." No social contract. Perfect rights -- that are *only* as perfect as you, as an individual has the power to assert/protect.
As I said in a previous post, such a state of nature only lasts a few minutes. A few bad people join together in a "society" to overpower the "principled" individuals. The "principled" individuals join together to protect themselves from the bad people. And, in about 19 minutes, you have social contracts. An emphasis on the "common good." Where "common" always leaves some people better or worse than they would have been in a Lockean state of nature.
Rs and Ds argue for more or less government in different areas (banning weed, or same-sex marriages, or abortion, etc.). But, you never see them refer to some kind of so-called absolute standard of Libertarian "consentualism." Neither argue for "less government" (as if those who call for more government are anti-American, or anti-Liberty). They simply call for different kinds of government (throwing Cheech and Chong Fans in prison, or defining marriage differently).
It's only the libertarians who toss around high-sounding terms like "consent" (or lack of consent). But, the odd thing is, they're perfectly happy with using government in an unconsensual manner -- while depicting themselves as focused on non-coercion. They're no different than anyone else. They just feel they can pretty themselves up with high-sounding, idelogical rhetoric.
Mark |
|
