 MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | Chief Privacy Officer? That Chief Privacy Officer looks like she needs to grow up and let the whole Anne Rice goth thing go. I don't care if that's how she wants to dress and her personal style, it just doesn't install much confidence in me that I could be one bad mood away from her doing something to harm AT&T and thus, me.
I do feel better though, they all "assure" me they take privacy VERY seriously. Whew, thank god for words rather than actions. I was starting to doubt their sincerity. |
|
 badtripI heart the East BayPremium
join:2004-03-20
Albany, CA | Because of the fact that AT&T was "funneling data wholesale to the government " they will never see another penny from me, ever. |
|
MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | said by badtrip:Because of the fact that AT&T was "funneling data wholesale to the government " they will never see another penny from me, ever. I admire your willingness to stand by your principles. Me? I don't care so much about that because in this day and age, Law Enforcement needs every advantage they can get. |
|
djeremy
join:2004-07-12
San Francisco, CA | reply to badtrip
I'm right there with you. I even moved our business T1 circuits and long distance service off of AT&T back when this whole thing leaked out. Every couple months I get a sales call from them offering some amazing deal to come back. Guess they miss the $12k a month we used to pay them. |
|
 81399672Premium
join:2006-05-17
Los Angeles, CA
kudos:2 | reply to Matt
said by Matt:said by badtrip:Because of the fact that AT&T was "funneling data wholesale to the government " they will never see another penny from me, ever. I admire your willingness to stand by your principles. Me? I don't care so much about that because in this day and age, Law Enforcement needs every advantage they can get. Even if it violates the law?
--
i am not a lawyer but I do play one on the internet |
|
 SLDPremium
join:2002-04-17
San Francisco, CA
1 edit | reply to Matt
Even if it lead to losing other important Constitutionally protected rights? I mean, if you're willing to give up privacy, why not freedom of speech while you're at it? |
|
MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | said by SLD:Even if it lead to losing other important Constitutionally protected rights? I mean, if you're willing to give up privacy, why not freedom of speech while you're at it? I have a problem with statements that start with "even if it leads to... " When it starts leading down that path, we can address the problem. I don't see how any "constitutional rights" were violated and think linking it to the 4th amendment is a bit of a stretch.
Right now, we need to get out of the way of law enforcement and let them do their job. Whether people want to believe it or not -- and the last days bear out my point -- we have US Citizens who want to harm this country and its citizens. You can't ask our governmental agencies to protect us, but tie one hand behind their back and blindfold them. |
|
SLDPremium
join:2002-04-17
San Francisco, CA
2 edits | You've obviously never studied Constitutional Law, or truly understand the concept of the "slippery slope".
And no one is tying hands behind the back or blinding law enforcement. Just asking the to do their jobs while abiding to the Constitution. The primary document that protects *you* from tyranny. |
|
badtripI heart the East BayPremium
join:2004-03-20
Albany, CA | reply to Matt
said by Matt:I admire your willingness to stand by your principles. Me? I don't care so much about that because in this day and age, Law Enforcement needs every advantage they can get. While I do agree that law enforcement needs to exploit advantages so that they can do their job as fairly and efficiently as possible.
I do not think said advantages should be gained by pursuing measures that are against the law. Further, I do not trust US law enforcement agencies in their current state to do anything fairly or efficiently. |
|
|
|
badtripI heart the East BayPremium
join:2004-03-20
Albany, CA | reply to Matt
said by Matt: You can't ask our governmental agencies to protect us, but tie one hand behind their back and blindfold them. The police's function is not to insulate the citizenry from harm (physical or otherwise); their function is social control and protection of private property. |
|
MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12
1 edit | reply to SLD
said by SLD:You've obviously never studied Constitutional Law, or truly understand the concept of the "slippery slope". Your assumption is wrong. I simply don't care. For all the noise that was made about this, not one single person can point to a case where anything bad was done with the information gleaned, yet this supposedly went on for a decade or more.
On my "things to worry about meter," this ranks pretty low. It sits between whether I should have chicken or fish for lunch today and my post-shower decision of boxers or briefs. |
|
MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | reply to badtrip
said by badtrip:said by Matt: You can't ask our governmental agencies to protect us, but tie one hand behind their back and blindfold them. The police's function is not to insulate the citizenry from harm (physical or otherwise); their function is social control and protection of private property. Who said anything about the police? |
|
badtripI heart the East BayPremium
join:2004-03-20
Albany, CA | reply to Matt
said by Matt:For all the noise that was made about this, not one single person can point to a case where anything bad was done with the information gleaned, yet this supposedly went on for a decade or more. On my "things to worry about meter," this ranks pretty low. It's sits between whether I should have chicken or fish for lunch today and my post-shower decision of boxers or briefs. Wow.
No one can point to anything that has been done wrong with the data because the Bush/Obama administrations would/will not let any case regarding this matter go to court.
You have to go to court ***before*** you can determine that any laws were broken. The very fact that they do not allow this issue into the courts is very damning IMO. |
|
badtripI heart the East BayPremium
join:2004-03-20
Albany, CA | reply to Matt
said by Matt:said by badtrip:said by Matt: You can't ask our governmental agencies to protect us, but tie one hand behind their back and blindfold them. The police's function is not to insulate the citizenry from harm (physical or otherwise); their function is social control and protection of private property. Who said anything about the police? You did. Or have they changed police depts from being govt agencies? |
|
MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | reply to badtrip
said by badtrip:Wow. No one can point to anything that has been done wrong with the data because the Bush/Obama administrations would/will not let any case regarding this matter go to court. You have to go to court ***before*** you can determine that any laws were broken. The very fact that they do not allow this issue into the courts is very damning IMO. You would hold up the constitution as a shield with one hand a seek to supplant ... oh wait, let me start over. You hold up the constitution in one hand yet are willing to discard other basic rights such as the right of "innocent until proven guilty." If the government deems this a critical to national security, too critical to be publicly disclosed, then I trust them.
What I think drives people nuts about things like this is the same basic human trait that many children display. If you can't have (or in this case know) it, you want it even more. |
|
MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | reply to badtrip
said by badtrip:You did. Or have they changed police depts from being govt agencies? Then by your logic all governmental agencies are the police? Interesting. |
|
badtripI heart the East BayPremium
join:2004-03-20
Albany, CA | said by Matt:said by badtrip:You did. Or have they changed police depts from being govt agencies? Then by your logic all governmental agencies are the police? Interesting. Sorry no. I studied set theory. By my logic all police departments are government agencies. |
|
badtripI heart the East BayPremium
join:2004-03-20
Albany, CA | reply to Matt
said by Matt:said by badtrip:Wow. No one can point to anything that has been done wrong with the data because the Bush/Obama administrations would/will not let any case regarding this matter go to court. You have to go to court ***before*** you can determine that any laws were broken. The very fact that they do not allow this issue into the courts is very damning IMO. You would hold up the constitution as a shield with one hand a seek to supplant ... oh wait, let me start over. You hold up the constitution in one hand yet are willing to discard other basic rights such as the right of "innocent until proven guilty." If the government deems this a critical to national security, too critical to be publicly disclosed, then I trust them. What I think drives people nuts about things like this is the same basic human trait that many children display. If you can't have (or in this case know) it, you want it even more. If you mean I want this to be argued in court but Bush/Obama says no and that answer in turn makes me want the issue to be argued in court even more, then I'd agree with you.
Innocent until proven guilty only works when one can actually GO TO COURT. |
|
badtripI heart the East BayPremium
join:2004-03-20
Albany, CA | reply to Matt
said by Matt:If you can't have (or in this case know) it, you want it even more. ...and "knowing" things is horrible, isn't it? Oh wait "knowing" things is actually the opposite of horrible. |
|
