dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
979
share rss forum feed


Rob
In Deo speramus.
Premium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Comcast

Freedom vs. Security

I can understand the need for law enforcement and national security agencies to have the ability to monitor the flow of e-mail communications to protect Americans (and to an extend, the world) of pending attacks.

However, I am cannot understand, nor fathom, how any politician, or any individual, feels that eroding our rights to privacy is somehow far more important than the security of this nation.

While we may "win" on the forefront of fighting terrorism, we will certainly have lost the right to freedom.
--
CheckSite.us | YourIP.us | Reverseip.us


NOCTech75
Premium
join:2009-06-29
Marietta, GA

1 recommendation

And what terrorism attacks are we stopping? We sure as hell didn't stop the one in Libya.

Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:1
reply to Rob
And if they need to get that data what was so wrong with requiring a warrant as we once did?
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports


FFH
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5
reply to Rob
The suggested law does not require warrants in many cases. But it still requires a subpoena in all cases. Getting a subpoena is less rigorous to obtain than a warrant, but it still needs an OK from the investigating department, leaving a paper trail. It is just much easier to get.

»news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57552···arrants/

Grants warrantless access to Americans' electronic correspondence to over 22 federal agencies. Only a subpoena is required, not a search warrant signed by a judge based on probable cause.

I really don't have a problem with getting info for FBI, Homeland Security, etc to investigate. But for the life of me I can't see any reason to include all these other Federal agencies in the law.
--
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury.


FFH
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5
reply to NOCTech75
said by NOCTech75:

And what terrorism attacks are we stopping? We sure as hell didn't stop the one in Libya.

That had nothing to do with getting or having the needed info. That was just the usual government political operatives failing to act on info for political reasons.
--
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury.


NOCTech75
Premium
join:2009-06-29
Marietta, GA
Reviews:
·Comcast

1 recommendation

said by FFH:

said by NOCTech75:

And what terrorism attacks are we stopping? We sure as hell didn't stop the one in Libya.

That had nothing to do with getting or having the needed info. That was just the usual government political operatives failing to act on info for political reasons.

Right, which means they need none of this information since they won't act based on the political wind blowing.


Rob
In Deo speramus.
Premium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to FFH
said by FFH:

But for the life of me I can't see any reason to include all these other Federal agencies in the law.

That is, aside from everything else, the biggest issue. When you start involving multiple agencies, you're destined to run into abuse.
--
CheckSite.us | YourIP.us | Reverseip.us


Mephisto13

join:2008-05-16
Gatineau, QC

1 recommendation

reply to Rob
said by Rob:

However, I am cannot understand, nor fathom, how any politician, or any individual, feels that eroding our rights to privacy is somehow far more important than the security of this nation.

Whoever thinks that the government is doing this for "security" purposes, tell them to contact me, I have some prime swampland to sell them.

That's the excuse they are using to induce fear and paranoia in the populace so that they don't feel bad when their privacy rights are being infringed upon, to make them feel better so they can tell themselves "It will make me safer!" to this blatant invasion of privacy. In reality it has nothing to do with "security", but control.

And once you give it up, it's hard as hell to get it back. That's even if you will ever get it back. Whoever doesn't fight this tooth and nail doesn't understand the future repercussions that this will cause.

Can you say dystopia?

That is, unless you trust your government to use these powers justly without oversight. In which case, ever think about buying some prime swampland?
--
"With your shield or on it!" - spartan code

"No matter where you go, there you are." - Buckaroo Bonzai


Dominokat
"Hi"
Premium
join:2002-08-06
Boothbay, ME
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable

1 recommendation

reply to NOCTech75
They are using "terrorism" as a cover up for the excuse to take away our freedoms and spy on us. Heaven forbid we use the wrong combination of words and then BANG! Have the NSA or Secret Service on your door.

Welcome to America, land of the (kind of) free.

I never felt this way before, but the more I keep reading about what is going on with our online information being more and more hand delivered to the NSA, etc... I can't help but feel this way.

We ARE free (for now) as long as we don't post anything on the internet, email, Facebook, Twitter..... all the stuff people are now using.


pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
reply to FFH
said by FFH:

That had nothing to do with getting or having the needed info. That was just the usual government political operatives failing to act on info for political reasons.

If government cannot even be bothered to do its expected job correctly with the powers that it has then it should absolutely not be entrusted with expanded powers.

The government can do what anyone else must if they wish to read someone's private correspondence, go to a judge and make the case for needing to do so.
--
USA 2012 - the mooches won.


pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
reply to Dominokat
said by Dominokat:

They are using "terrorism" as a cover up for the excuse to take away our freedoms and spy on us. Heaven forbid we use the wrong combination of words and then BANG! Have the NSA or Secret Service on your door.

Exactly.

There will be absolutely no good that comes out of this bill.

How many terrorists you think will use email in the open as a means of communications once this gets in? Zero. There are plenty of far more secure ways to communicate.

Like with nearly every other tactic used in homefront on the War on Terror, only the innocent people are the ones inconvenienced by these things.
--
USA 2012 - the mooches won.

Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:1
reply to pnh102
The government would have to actually present a case then. I get the feeling that letter agencies like to work behind closed doors with maximum privacy and freedom erosion in place.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports

Os

join:2011-01-26
US
reply to pnh102
While I agree, your Republicans started this mess.

The only way you start fixing the problem is voting against both of the entrenched parties.


pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
said by Os:

While I agree, your Republicans started this mess.

If you are talking about the USA PATRIOT Act, then please consider that the core of it was proposed by Joe Biden after the OKC Bombing in 1995.

»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_···security

I agree that neither party is a saint on personal freedom issues, but to blame one and ignore the other is wrong to do.
--
USA 2012 - the mooches won.

Os

join:2011-01-26
US
Reviews:
·Comcast
And the Patriot Act received 1 vote against it in the Senate (from Russ Feingold of Wisconsin). Vote them all out.

I'm saying it's inconsistent to support personal freedom and vote for either of them. You had a line about Mitt Romney in your signature. I'm proud to say I voted for neither of the major candidates, and this was a major reason.


NOCTech75
Premium
join:2009-06-29
Marietta, GA
Reviews:
·Comcast

1 recommendation

reply to Os
said by Os:

While I agree, your Republicans started this mess.

And your Democrats have done nothing to change this mess and in fact have made it increase in scope just as much.


pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
reply to Os
said by Os:

I'm saying it's inconsistent to support personal freedom and vote for either of them. You had a line about Mitt Romney in your signature. I'm proud to say I voted for neither of the major candidates, and this was a major reason.

The reason of course was because voting for an idealistic third party candidate who agrees 100% with my views but who has absolutely no chance of winning has the same net effect as voting for the candidate with whom I disagree with on 99.9999999% of the issues.

If you find my argument specious, then please ask all the people who voted for Ross Perot in 1992 and 1996 how they felt about Bill Clinton winning in those elections. Or look at Florida in 2000. 98k people in that election voted for Ralph Nader. How do you think they felt about Bush winning that state and the Presidency by 537 votes? Even if you blame that on fraud, had all (or even half of) 98k of those people voted for Al Gore, he would have won that state by a comfortable margin.

I'm not going to blame people who voted for third party candidates for Romney losing (3 million or so fewer GOP voters showed up in 2012 than in 2008). But I am simply presenting to you the mathematical reasoning behind my consistently voting the way I do. Perhaps we should change things to allow for instant run-off voting and requiring that the winner of such a contest receive a majority of the votes. But until that happens, I have to accept voting for third party candidates for what it is, a vote for the guy i disagree with the most.
--
USA 2012 - the mooches won.


pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
reply to NOCTech75
said by NOCTech75:

said by Os:

While I agree, your Republicans started this mess.

And your Democrats have done nothing to change this mess and in fact have made it increase in scope just as much.

And not only that... this is another Democrat proposing this.

Where's the freedom?
--
USA 2012 - the mooches won.


dib22

join:2002-01-27
Kansas City, MO
reply to Kearnstd
said by Kearnstd:

And if they need to get that data what was so wrong with requiring a warrant as we once did?

How dare you want the law enforcers to follow the law

They keep trying to eliminate over-site so they can do whatever they want.


fatness
subtle
Premium,ex-mod 01-13
join:2000-11-17
fishing
kudos:14

1 recommendation

reply to pnh102
said by pnh102:

If government cannot even be bothered to do its expected job correctly with the powers that it has then it should absolutely not be entrusted with expanded powers.

The government can do what anyone else must if they wish to read someone's private correspondence, go to a judge and make the case for needing to do so.

I can't figure out why, for the last 10 years, the federal government has decided that judges, warrants, due process, etc. are an enemy to be circumvented. And I can't figure out why people support it, or put up with it without whimper.

If some foreign leaders began making speeches in the US saying they rejected the US system of justice as an inconvenient hindrance to the exercise of benevolent government power, there would be howls all over the country about it. If our own government does it though, well, it must be OK because terrorism, you know, and why bother, you know, and piracy and the children and oh yeah, terrorism.

You can't uphold the rule of law and a way of life by taking it apart, but that's what's happening. Through 2 administrations now, and the next one will be doing it too.


Hagar

join:2004-10-31
Sunnyvale, CA
Reviews:
·T-Mobile US
·AT&T U-Verse
reply to pnh102
pnh102 do you live in one of the swing states?

Your signature says Maryland which is a solid blue state. I think your vote did not matter, Obama was going to win the state no matter what. You could safely vote for the candidate you agree most with.

I am in California also a solid blue state, I did safely vote for the 3rd party candidate I agreed most with. I would not have done so if I lived in Florida, to close to call.

A vote for a candidate is never wasted in my book, a vote against a candidate is only valid if there is a close election otherwise it is just a empty gesture (assumption winner get all electoral votes).

/edit added assumption


meeeeeeeeee

join:2003-07-13
Newburgh, NY
reply to Dominokat
said by Dominokat:

Welcome to America, land of the (kind of) free.

It's Amerika. AmeriCa hasn't existed for several decades. You live in a country whose government is run by self serving bureaucrats whose only objective is to enrich themselves and protect all the schemes they've developed for parting the rest of us from our money. I guess most sheeple still don't get it. The "Terrorists" they are worried about are YOU.
--
Isn't it sad that those that raise their right hand and swear "to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America" are usually the ones most likely to trash it.