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

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".

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?

said by Skippy25 :

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.

said by amigo_boy :

All they have to do is look.

said by Skippy25 :

I'm sorry this is the same attorney general that was appointed by who? Oh that's right.... the same guy he was "serving" when he made those "interpretations".

said by Skippy25 :

Correct me if I am wrong as it has been a while since i have read up on this.... but didnt the law that allowed them to start it without a warrant also require them to still get one in a reasonable time.

said by KrK :

All possible, however, just because you don't believe in expectation of privacy, that doesn't mean everyone else agrees with you.

said by Skippy25 :

So warrants really have no place in your world?

said by amigo_boy :

I have no expectation of privacy with the US mail. It could be delivered to the wrong address. Dropped on the ground by the carrier. Torn open by the automated sorting machines.

said by MyDogHsFleas :

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?

said by amigo_boy :

Intentionally obtuse seems like an appropriate term when it's not my responsibility to research and prove your position.

If you disagree with those sources, it's your responsibility to provide precedent, judicial and scholarly interpretation, etc. Knock yourself out.

said by NetAdmin :

Intentionally obtuse ? Who has been asked for precedent, judicial interpretation and scholarly interpretation of a law and refuses to post it ?

said by amigo_boy :

I think you're being intentionally obtuse. It doesn't take a high-school graduate to read 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(a)(ii)(B) or 18 U.S.C. 2702(a)(3) & (c) [1].

said by MyDogHsFleas :

The EFF is squarely in the corner of the Judicial branch -- they think the best way to decide issues like this is via lawsuits and court proceedings. Personally, I think this is by far the least effective way to proceed -- by a long shot. [...] their way will drag us into a quagmire of class action lawsuits and cripple our ability as a country to make progress. [...]

said by KrK :

So the EFF is just about memberships....

said by KrK :

The same could be said for mail. You didn't write it in code, it passes through several people's hands, therefore you need to assume anyone is reading it. Not so. It's protected by LAW.

said by fatness :

You won't find anything that supports his interpretation. But he'll keep posting it.

said by KrK :

Oh man. So the EFF is just about memberships.... So we should just trust the corporations etc because they are only in it for the Public trust..... Yeah, right.... :uhh:

said by amigo_boy :

Beware EFF and it's "customers." They have a vested interest in increasing paid memberships.

said by amigo_boy :

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.

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.

said by NetAdmin :

Curious. Do you have some sort of legal precedent, court decision or another source from something like a law journal that shows that the law is read that way?

You've post the link to the law three times in this discussion, but without other sources that concur with YOUR interpretation, especially from courts or legal scholars, you interpretation is nothing more than armchair lawyering.

said by amigo_boy :

How else do you read it? 1) The AG (or others) can certify that no warrant is necessary. 2) The so-called amnesty deal cited this law as the basis for amnesty.

said by NetAdmin :

Curious. Do you have some sort of legal precedent, court decision or another source from something like a law journal that shows that the law is read that way?

said by amigo_boy :

Did you read the so-called amnesty law? Its reference to 18 U.S.C. 2511?

said by MyDogHsFleas :

You are completely owned by the spin meisters, who frame this as a question of "big companies breaking the law and bribing Congress to set them free" vs. "the people and the Constitution".

This is not at all what this is about.

said by MyDogHsFleas :

The EFF says they are fighting for "the people", but in fact they are fighting AGAINST government and corporations.

said by MyDogHsFleas :

The EFF says they are fighting for "the people", but in fact they are fighting AGAINST government and corporations.

said by fatness :

Here you go, posting a law again you don't understand like it's some trump card.

said by Steve :

Get a warrant

said by MyDogHsFleas :

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?

said by funchords :

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.

said by hottboiinnc :

The only company that had the balls to stand up to the Feds was Qwest. Why? they knew it was wrong.

said by hottboiinnc :

Even though I disagree with you on many points on this site, I actually agree with you on this one.

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.

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.

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.