 Gogo1
join:2004-05-27
Brooklyn, NY
1 edit | The children We must think of them. | |
|
 | 
tomkb
Premium
join:2000-11-15
Avon, OH
clubs: | Re: The children Why does anyone need this info? What value does it have? Terrorists aren't about to send their emails un-encrypted right? | |
|
| | 
swhx7
Premium
join:2006-07-23
Elbonia
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: The children said by tomkb  :Why does anyone need this info? What value does it have? Terrorists aren't about to send their emails un-encrypted right?
Well, some of them probably do. And it's fine with me if law enforcement looks at emails of people suspected of being terrorists - if the police get a warrant, and the warrant is based on real evidence that the person has committed a crime. This is what the 4th Amendment requires, and parts of the Bush administration should be prosecuted for violating it (among other things).
Interception of email is analogous to conventional wiretapping - email is person-to-person communication and is good evidence of what they're up to.
The Web is different. The appropriate analogy in the pre-internet world is records of what books a person has checked out at the library or bought at a bookstore. And this is not appropriate for use as evidence.
Does looking at a pro-jihad website tend to show the person is a terrorist? Of course not. By that reasoning, I would be a communist because I read Marx, and a capitalist because I read Mises, and a doctor if I read JAMA, and an fool if I read supermarket tabloids - yeah, what a sensible form of reasoning (not).
So what is the point, then? It should be obvious what mass internet surveillance is good for. The purposes it can serve include:
•government harrassment of dissenters
•embarrassment of critics
•discouragement of reading "alternative" news sources
•snooping on political candidates
•data-mining for popular opinion to better tailor propaganda
•etc.
| |
|
| Techie714
join:2005-08-02
Anaheim, CA
 ·ViaTalk
| said by Gogo1 :We must think of them. Something else I'm getting tired of in this country is all this stupid talk
I have to listen to about children. That's all you hear about anymore,
children: "Help the children, save the children, protect the children." You
know what I say? Fuck the children! -George Carlin | |
|
| | 
RR206
join:2001-12-11
Renton, WA
clubs: | Re: The children "You think I give a fuck how dumb your children are?" -GC
I have children and stand by the above statement. | |
|
gatorkram
Spelling and Grammer impared
Premium
join:2002-07-22
Winterville, NC
clubs: | USA? Home of the brave, land of the free?
Sure doesn't seem like it anymore. | |
|
gaforces
United We Stand, Divided We Fall
join:2002-04-07
Santa Cruz, CA | I thought they had govt interdepartmental cooperation now? Can't they just get the info from the NSA? I already know they watch everything already.
I like my illusion of privacy, leave it alone! | |
|
| 
JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA
 ·DSL EXTREME
| Re: I thought they had govt interdepartmental cooperation now? said by gaforces :Can't they just get the info from the NSA? I already know they watch everything already. I like my illusion of privacy, leave it alone! Sharing data-mined information between departments is apparently against the law. Yet as soon as the NSA started casting their large wiretapping nets, the DOJ, FBI, even the DOD, wanted copies. | |
|
backness
join:2005-07-08
K2P OW2
·Rogers Hi-Speed
| Why don't they just buy the data? The goverment sets up shell companies all the time to bypass consumer laws. Why is this so different? why not hire an independant body to buy up a copy of all the data every 90 days then they can keep the data as long as the want instead of putting the burden on each isp? | |
|
ender7074
join:2006-11-21
Saint Louis, MO | No I'm all for national security and catching criminals but this is getting a bit out of hand. Do they have any idea how much infrastructure it would take to keep that much info for 2 years? I think the FBI is overreaching it's power here. | |
|
| amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| Re: No said by ender7074 :I'm all for national security and catching criminals but this is getting a bit out of hand. Do they have any idea how much infrastructure it would take to keep that much info for 2 years? I think the FBI is overreaching it's power here. It's a conundrum, isn't it? I mentioned this in previous topics critical of the NSA's wholesale reception of internet traffic. If law enforcement is supposed to have access to historic "call records" (like we've established they do with phone records) then the Internet has created a huge gap. I said that those who don't want the government maintaining that historic information would probably complain if ISPs were required to do it. And, now here we are. 
Mark | |
|
| | |
| | | Done_Posting
Shoot to kill
Premium
join:2003-08-22
Toledo, OH
·buckeye cable
| Re: No I agree with you 100%. This is just wrong, and it needs to be stopped. I can understand real-time surveillance on a subject when the proper warrants are obtained, but to insist on blanket surveillance of everything your users do and then to demand the information be stored for two years on top of that is just insane.
Every time I read an article like this it makes me want to renounce my citizenship and leave.
- Tate
--
Happiness is an OC-768 in your basement... | |
|
| | | | 
Thespis
I'm not an actor, but I play one on TV.
Premium
join:2004-08-03
Keller, TX | Re: No Where would you go?
What country does less surveillance on its own citizens?
I'm not being argumentative, I honestly can't think of one... | |
|
| SilverSurfer
join:2007-08-19
| said by ender7074 :I think the FBI is overreaching it's power here. ROFLMAO. Ya think? | |
|
ATMW
| George Orwell - 1984 - Are we there yet???? Are we there yet????
************
1984 is possibly the definitive dystopian novel, set in a world beyond our imagining. A world where totalitarianism really is total, all power split into three roughly equal groups--Eastasia, Eurasia, and Oceania. 1984 is set in Oceania, which includes the United Kingdom, where the story is set, known as Airstrip One.
Winston Smith is a middle-aged, unhealthy character, based loosely on Orwell's own frail body, an underling of the ruling oligarchy, The Party. The Party has taken early 20th century totalitarianism to new depths, with each person subjected to 24 hour surveillance, where people's very thoughts are controlled to ensure purity of the oligarchical system in place. Figurehead of the system is the omnipresent and omnipotent Big Brother.
1984 joins Winston as he sets about another day, where his job is to change history by changing old newspaper records to match with the new truth as decided by the Party.
"He who controls the past, controls the future" is a Party slogan to live by and it gives Winston his job, but Winston cannot see it like that. Barely old enough to recall a time when things were different, he sets out to expose the Party for the cynically fraudulent organisation that it is. He is joined by Julia, a beautiful young woman much in contrast with Winston physically, but equally sickened by the excesses of her rulers.
You will meet many recognisable characters, themes, and words which have become part of our everyday life as you read 1984. Where did Big Brother first appear? Certainly not on Australian TV! Written in Orwell's inimitable journalistic style, 1984 is a tribute to a man who saw the true dangers of historian Lord Acton's (1834-1902) statement: "Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely." | |
|
| 
WiseOldNerd
De gustibus non est disputandum
Premium
join:2001-11-25
Newport, OR | Re: George Orwell - 1984 - Are we there yet???? A George Orwell Bush legacy attempt brought to you by the Department of Justice is what we decide it is-forget the Constitution unless we need it to wrap ourselves in to hide from reality and truth.
--
My perception is REALITY | |
|
| | 
S_engineer
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL
·Comcast
| Re: George Orwell - 1984 - Are we there yet???? This would have happened with or without our current President. And this is hardly his fault; the inception of the Internet gave every idiot a voice without any censorship. This has proven to be a detriment to our own security. This is a natural reaction!
--
"Anything worth having is worth cheating for." WC Fields | |
|
| | | ross
join:2000-08-16
·Digizip
| Re: George Orwell - 1984 - Are we there yet???? said by S_engineer :This would have happened with or without our current President. And this is hardly his fault; the inception of the Internet gave every idiot a voice without any censorship. This has proven to be a detriment to our own security. This is a natural reaction! ARE YOU F**KING SERIOUS!!!! | |
|
| | | | 
digitalfreak
join:2005-12-09
49533 | Re: George Orwell - 1984 - Are we there yet???? In a way it's true. The Attorney General under Clinton, she-male Janet Reno, started the ball rolling on a lot of this stuff. It's gotten much worse under the rule of King George though. | |
|
| | | | | 
FiL
Premium
join:2005-08-16
Silver Spring, MD
| Re: George Orwell - 1984 - Are we there yet???? Nah K, I think he was dumbfounded, as was I, by this:
"the inception of the Internet gave every idiot a voice without any censorship. This has proven to be a detriment to our own security. This is a natural reaction!"
I think he needs to clarify if he meant the geeks are a detriment to our security, or he's gone on a tangent and is still talking about 'turrists... | |
|
| | | 
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| said by S_engineer :the inception of the Internet gave every idiot a voice without any censorship. This has proven to be a detriment to our own security. This is a natural reaction! Uh, I'd argue that before the only people who had a voice were certain people with power and agendas, while one thing the internet has actually done is empower everyone else's free speech. Anyone can make a webpage, a blog, or write an article for online sites these days. It's actually been very beneficial in this regard.
--
"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!) | |
|
| | | |
FiL
Premium
join:2005-08-16
Silver Spring, MD | Re: George Orwell - 1984 - Are we there yet???? My thoughts exactly. | |
|
| | | 
Cuchulainn
The Roar of the Masses Could be Farts
join:2000-11-09
Chevy Chase, MD
 ·Verizon FIOS
| said by S_engineer :This would have happened with or without our current President. And this is hardly his fault; the inception of the Internet gave every idiot a voice without any censorship. This has proven to be a detriment to our own security. This is a natural reaction! As for idiot, voice and no censorship - you need only look inward for proof.
As for the rest of it, I agree with the other poster. You cannot be serious. You must be either Bush or Kim Jong Il.
--
Getting your news from Bill O'Reilly is like getting your nutrition from deep-fried Ding Dongs.
| |
|
| | | |
S_engineer
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL
·Comcast
| Re: George Orwell - 1984 - Are we there yet???? said by Cuchulainn :said by S_engineer :This would have happened with or without our current President. And this is hardly his fault; the inception of the Internet gave every idiot a voice without any censorship. This has proven to be a detriment to our own security. This is a natural reaction! As for idiot, voice and no censorship - you need only look inward for proof. As for the rest of it, I agree with the other poster. You cannot be serious. You must be either Bush or Kim Jong Il. No, the real idiot here is you...the clown who called all Floridians in-bred trailor trash in this brilliant piece ...»I'll Take MD over FL or VA Any Damn Day that preach against ignorance should look in the mirror!
Funny how the people in these forums are surprised when the high-technology that they supposedly know about actually gets used. And its even more striking to know that many Americans actually believe that this is only the current President pushing this...how naive! | |
|
Cuchulainn
The Roar of the Masses Could be Farts
join:2000-11-09
Chevy Chase, MD
·Verizon FIOS
| Cue the Predictable Responses Here come the "arguments" from the right
1. "If you have nothing to hide, why are you whining?"
2. "It's all the fault of the &*^%$@!!! EFF!"
3. "If we don't eavesdrop on everyone then the terrorists win"
4. "More Snooping = More Security. You're not opposing SECURITY, are you?"
5. "We was attacked on 9-11 so anything goes."
Either we're free or we're not.
--
Getting your news from Bill O'Reilly is like getting your nutrition from deep-fried Ding Dongs.
| |
|
| 
Matt
Quitting Caffeine - Argh
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
| Re: Cue the Predictable Responses said by Cuchulainn :Here come the "arguments" from the right 1. "If you have nothing to hide, why are you whining?" 2. "It's all the fault of the &*^%$@!!! EFF!" 3. "If we don't eavesdrop on everyone then the terrorists win" 4. "More Snooping = More Security. You're not opposing SECURITY, are you?" 5. "We was attacked on 9-11 so anything goes." Either we're free or we're not. I definitely lean to the left but I agree with sentiment #1. If you've got nothing to hide, why worry? I'm more concerned with the costs the ISPs will incur and how they will be passed along to me.
I have absolutely no problem with this law as long as there is proper oversight and the information is turned over after a warrant has been issued. | |
|
| | MrShag
join:2006-07-09
Hamilton, ON | Re: Cue the Predictable Responses But if I have done nothing, or havr nothing to hide, why do feel the need to search/monitor me?? | |
|
| | 
rcdailey
Dragoonfly
Premium
join:2005-03-29
Rialto, CA | If you have nothing to hide, call the IRS and request that they audit your tax returns for the past five years. | |
|
| | | Gogo1
join:2004-05-27
Brooklyn, NY
| Re: Cue the Predictable Responses said by rcdailey :If you have nothing to hide, call the IRS and request that they audit your tax returns for the past five years. lol. err, what? | |
|
| | | |
| | | | amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| Re: Cue the Predictable Responses said by knightmb : they don't know if "IT Bob" really bought that copy of Winblows 2004 server No one in IT is named Bob anymore. Try Padma and Rajesh.
Mark | |
|
| | | | | vicorjh
Premium
join:2007-06-24
Arlington, MA | Re: Cue the Predictable Responses | |
|
| | 
woody7
Premium
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA | "I have absolutely no problem with this law as long as there is proper oversight and the information is turned over after a warrant has been issued"
And this has happened in the past? yea right......
--
BlooMe | |
|
| | 
Frank
is chilling
Premium
join:2000-11-03
somewhere
·Verizon FIOS
| said by Matt :said by Cuchulainn :Here come the "arguments" from the right 1. "If you have nothing to hide, why are you whining?" 2. "It's all the fault of the &*^%$@!!! EFF!" 3. "If we don't eavesdrop on everyone then the terrorists win" 4. "More Snooping = More Security. You're not opposing SECURITY, are you?" 5. "We was attacked on 9-11 so anything goes." Either we're free or we're not. I definitely lean to the left but I agree with sentiment #1. If you've got nothing to hide, why worry? privacy.....
no offense, but, unless you live in a transparent glass house...... i'm pretty sure you dont really believe in what you're saying or you may think that the implications of what you're saying have another meaning..
--
At first I thought everyone on the highway was drunk but then I realized I was driving in Florida  | |
|
| | |
Cuchulainn
The Roar of the Masses Could be Farts
join:2000-11-09
Chevy Chase, MD
·Verizon FIOS
| Re: Cue the Predictable Responses said by Frank :said by Matt :said by Cuchulainn :Here come the "arguments" from the right 1. "If you have nothing to hide, why are you whining?" 2. "It's all the fault of the &*^%$@!!! EFF!" 3. "If we don't eavesdrop on everyone then the terrorists win" 4. "More Snooping = More Security. You're not opposing SECURITY, are you?" 5. "We was attacked on 9-11 so anything goes." Either we're free or we're not. I definitely lean to the left but I agree with sentiment #1. If you've got nothing to hide, why worry? privacy..... no offense, but, unless you live in a transparent glass house...... i'm pretty sure you dont really believe in what you're saying or you may think that the implications of what you're saying have another meaning.. That was extremely well said.
--
Getting your news from Bill O'Reilly is like getting your nutrition from deep-fried Ding Dongs.
| |
|
| |
digitalfreak
join:2005-12-09
49533
1 edit | said by Matt :said by Cuchulainn :Here come the "arguments" from the right 1. "If you have nothing to hide, why are you whining?" I definitely lean to the left but I agree with sentiment #1. If you've got nothing to hide, why worry? I'm more concerned with the costs the ISPs will incur and how they will be passed along to me. I have absolutely no problem with this law as long as there is proper oversight and the information is turned over after a warrant has been issued. Wow. If you're the type of person voting for Obama, I might have to switch parties. | |
|
| | |
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| Re: Cue the Predictable Responses said by digitalfreak :Wow. If you're the type of person voting for Obama, I might have to switch parties. I suspect when someone tries to qualify their statements by saying they lean to the left (like it's a left issue only) that all that really means is that they feel they aren't quite as far out in right field as others are...
/sigh I really wish we could get our minds past this two party thinking of Conservative/Liberal or Republican/Democrat and realize that BS is BS no matter which way you slice it.
--
"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!) | |
|
| | | | 
Rogue Wolf
Drank Your Milkshake- He Drank It Up
join:2003-08-12
Troy, NY
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: Cue the Predictable Responses said by KrK :/sigh I really wish we could get our minds past this two party thinking of Conservative/Liberal or Republican/Democrat and realize that BS is BS no matter which way you slice it. Can I get an AMEN, brother?!
--
I have learned to ignore such naysayers, when... quelling... them... hm?... was out of the question. | |
|
| | 
Woody79_00
join:2004-07-08
| said by Matt :said by Cuchulainn :Here come the "arguments" from the right 1. "If you have nothing to hide, why are you whining?" 2. "It's all the fault of the &*^%$@!!! EFF!" 3. "If we don't eavesdrop on everyone then the terrorists win" 4. "More Snooping = More Security. You're not opposing SECURITY, are you?" 5. "We was attacked on 9-11 so anything goes." Either we're free or we're not. I definitely lean to the left but I agree with sentiment #1. If you've got nothing to hide, why worry? I'm more concerned with the costs the ISPs will incur and how they will be passed along to me. I have absolutely no problem with this law as long as there is proper oversight and the information is turned over after a warrant has been issued. This is funny, the famous "I have nothing to hide, why worry" Statement
I'll tell you why to worry, "they are Violating our Civil Liberties" that is why...any liberties they take away you will not get back, don't be so quick to give them up
This entire idea is "Unconstitutional" and is in direct Violation of the 4th Amendment which is as follows:
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
A law of this scope is Unconstitutional, The REcords from your ISP's concering your activities are "Technically" owned by 2 people. 1. Your records from your ISP are "owned by you", 2. Your ISP also has what is called a "protectorate" ownership of your records.(This the reason for Privacy polices you must sign to agree them to do what they need to do with your information)
Technically, to monitor just "one" person's Internet, you would need a warrant from a judge describing "exactly" what you are looking for and how long the action will last(most warrants of this type will not extend beyond 6 months without formal judicial review for extension if merited)
The Ammendment cleary states that all papers, effects, etc are protected from unlawful searches and seizures without a warrant(that includes eletronic documents today) even if they are not "located in your house" per se, they are still your papers, owned by you, and afford the same protections. It is no different if someone steals your car, be it in your yard(on your property) or at the mall(off your property) your car is still afford the same protections.
also, ISP's are protected under this same Amendment from such "unreasonable" searches and seizures of proprietary information of such a broad scope
If i owned an ISP, I would file a motion in Court to stop this, stating that "Such a practice would expose us to civil lawsuits, AND it would reveal proprietary trade secrets and technologies that are vital to our business"
just to note, Google used the same argument a few years ago, and Won in the United States supreme Court concering search traffic records..
All ISP should follow suit, the Precedant has been set, this can be stopped
This not about wrong doing, Its about Civil Liberties that everyone has rights to, just because you don't value them doesn't mean others(80% of the population) don't
Its because of folks that think like you that our country is falling apart, Adolph hitler said and did the same things, "oh just give this up so we can protect you" look how that turned out.
Ron Paul was the only one to vote against and challenge the Constitutionaly of the Patriot ACT
Ron Paul was the only one to vote against the Real ID Act
He fights for Liberty and freedom everyday, he has been viciously fighting the north American Union, which plans to scap our Constitution, merge the USA, Mexcio, and Canada into 1 country
THe complete and total loss of our Sovereignty as a nation and as a people, the North American Union's Constitution will be modeled after the Russian Constitution, your rights won't be unalienable, they will be "allowed" by government and able to be taken away at will, Only Ron Paul, and that one other Libertian Congresman has had the guts to stand up and tell the American people what is going on, and the News Media is suppressing this hard. Go to Youtube, search for North American Union, only 1 reporter, Lou dobbs has had the courage to stand up in the American Media and tell us what is going on, and they are trying to shut him up too
Wake up people!
THe future of the liberties we hold dear, the very existence of the United States as a sovereign nation rest with Ron Paul....he is our last hope, if he doesn't get in, be prepared for the Real ID, the NAU, the Amero(The NEw currency for the NAU) and the complete and total loss of all our civil liberties... | |
|
| |
Rogue Wolf
Drank Your Milkshake- He Drank It Up
join:2003-08-12
Troy, NY
·RoadRunner Cable
| said by Matt :I definitely lean to the left but I agree with sentiment #1. If you've got nothing to hide, why worry? This argument is flawed on the grounds that it perceives the government as a faceless, monolithic entity that has no prejudices or personal feelings. Do you honestly believe that there are no government employees who would use this information to persecute those whom they disliked in some way, or to force citizens into doing things for that employee's personal gain?
ANY governmental intrusion into the lives of its citizens should be carefully monitored and restricted to make sure it is ONLY for the good of the nation as a whole. "Trust us, we're the government" is the absolute worst advice you can follow.
--
I have learned to ignore such naysayers, when... quelling... them... hm?... was out of the question. | |
|
| |
JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA
·DSL EXTREME
| said by Matt :said by Cuchulainn :Here come the "arguments" from the right 1. "If you have nothing to hide, why are you whining?" 2. "It's all the fault of the &*^%$@!!! EFF!" 3. "If we don't eavesdrop on everyone then the terrorists win" 4. "More Snooping = More Security. You're not opposing SECURITY, are you?" 5. "We was attacked on 9-11 so anything goes." Either we're free or we're not. I definitely lean to the left but I agree with sentiment #1. If you've got nothing to hide, why worry? I'm more concerned with the costs the ISPs will incur and how they will be passed along to me. I have absolutely no problem with this law as long as there is proper oversight and the information is turned over after a warrant has been issued. Using this logic, the telcos should not be given immunity. Funny how that works. | |
|
| Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
| the costs will be passed to you no matter what, even if the government paid for it, you would somehow see a raise in some tax and the ISP would makeup an "unfee" under the guise of it paying for the monitoring.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
|
| |
| |
| companyman
join:2000-11-08
Washington, DC
·RCN CABLE
| It's not a "left" or "right" issue. Us subjects of the People's Republic of Montgomery County MD are under surveillance with a proliferation of speed/red light cameras in the name of "safety".
It's just downright bureaucratic intrusion of rights from both sides. | |
|
kfw
join:2001-11-20
Norman, OK |  Why not force the FBI to keep Data Forever?
| |
|
|
Hehe
@ssa.gov
| Re: Why not force the FBI to keep Data Forever? You only do a few credit related transactions per day.
You open 1 web page and you hit about 30 files on more than 1 server. A 5 minute web session could collect the same amount of data as 1 year worth of credit info.
I assume the ISP would not be saving the data downloaded, just the URLs. Does anyone know what data would need to be saved by the ISP? | |
|
| | amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| Re: Why not force the FBI to keep Data Forever? said by Hehe :
I assume the ISP would not be saving the data downloaded, just the URLs. Does anyone know what data would need to be saved by the ISP?
If it's to create the same historic data available from telephone use, it would just be the from/to information (http, smtp, ftp, etc.). Not content. That would still be a lot of data.
If a moderate solution isn't legislated, this could turn out like all the other privacy issues: commercialized and with virtually no legal controls. Look at all the private businesses that aggregate personal information. Like Lexus-Nexus. Their largest customer is the government. This came about due to strong public opposition to the government maintaining a database. So, it's commercialized. The government has access. But, we have almost no protection concerning the privacy of our data. Companies like Nexus sell it to almost anyone. They lose it because they aren't required to adhere to security standards.
I'm not too fond of the government keeping a database. But, the alternative seems to be worse. At least if the government kept it, it would be subject to congressional oversight and legal controls.
My point is, is it better for ISPs to hold this historic information? Everyone knows it will be a matter of time until they sell it as targeted-advertising information. The same people who complain about the government will complain about that.
Mark | |
|
| Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | i bet the ISPs already are keeping records of DNS requests for targeted ads.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
|
|
|
See 6 replies to this post |
|
phantasm11b
Premium
join:2007-11-02
Winter Park, FL | Benjamin Franklin said it best... "Those who would trade freedom for security deserve neither."
Too bad no one listens anymore. | |
|
|
See 10 replies to this post |
|
hoyleysox
join:2003-11-07
Long Beach, CA | rural broadband deployment Data retention laws will not help | |
|
|
|
S_engineer
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL
·Comcast
| Re: Nothing to hide.. said by gatorkram :To those of you who say, you have nothing to hide, then hey, lets install gps transmitters in your cars, and on your persons, and make all that data public information. You won't need them, with all of the cameras going up now and in the future, you'll be tracked regardless. Know it...stay in front of it! | |
|
| Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Pittsburgh, PA | They are already in many cars and there are those considering them on persons. | |
|
DragonMaster
join:2008-04-24
Bronx, NY
|  FBI doesn't need to know Jack
I used to run a small ISP out of my old home in NJ about 4 years ago. I ran it with equipment I had already had and even used a tree as a tower for the placement of the 6 wireless antennas I had. I had over 100 users on the network only after 2 months and I ran the ISP for over 2 years. I saw state marshals at over 10 times a year for illegal activity that was going on in my network. They always asked for my logs and I always gave it to them, but never are they satisfied. Then again all logs on the system were for bandwidth usage. That's why after the second year I had to let it go because they took all my drives from the server and never found anything. I got slapped with a $150 fine and went on my marry way started another. Then when I moved shut her down and sent my users to my friend for their wireless needs. Every bodies happy now and that's the way it should be. | |
|
TechieZero
Tools Are Using Me
Premium
join:2002-01-25
Wesley Chapel, FL
|  So?
| |
|
| |
|
DragonMaster
join:2008-04-24
Bronx, NY
| This is why people who make a lot know how to avoid this system with depositing the cash in a certain way without making an alarm go off. Right now there is a law that just came up this year saying that if you deposit over a certain amount in a certain amount of time they have the right to pull up all transaction history, and for most people out there the bank charges you a fee for them doing that. Truly they should charge the government. | |
|
| SilverSurfer
join:2007-08-19
1 edit | said by TechieZero :I don't know what everyone is moaning about. This no worse what banks or financial institutions have to do. A cop can go to a judge and request to crawl up your arse with a pair of tweezers to do a proper search if they need to. Its what they do to investigate crime. It is without question a burden to the police that they may not freely seize evidence, intercept phone calls or detain people without probable cause, but this is a "burden" that every constitutional democracy must accept as a fundamental requirement to safeguard the rights of its citizens. If we give up civil liberties, then tell me, what exactly is there left to fight for? We may as well be China. | |
|
JohhnyJ
@telus.net
| Dumb Idea as Usual No thank you... Where can I go to opt out of this plan? Im sorry, but I don't think the world safety / wellbeing depends on logging everyone for the past two years. The FBI or who ever just wants an easy way to do there job. Make all the ISP do the work while they sit in there nice cozy leather chair. | |
|
fuziwuzi
Not born yesterday
Premium
join:2005-07-01
Atlanta, GA | Does it work both ways? How about the Justice Department and the White House turning over all of their records. I can't find anywhere in the Constitution where it says the only people who can expect privacy are Dick Cheney and George W. Bush. | |
|
|
digitalfreak
join:2005-12-09
49533
| Re: Does it work both ways? said by fuziwuzi :How about the Justice Department and the White House turning over all of their records. I can't find anywhere in the Constitution where it says the only people who can expect privacy are Dick Cheney and George W. Bush. Haven't you heard? Everything they say on the phone, send via e-mail, or otherwise communicate are covered by Executive Privilege or State Secrets. | |
|
texans20
Weapons of Masturbation
Premium
join:2002-09-28
Texas!
clubs:
| Internet = Phone Calls What I do on the internet is my business. Imagine if the US Government required phone companies to record all telephone calls and store them for two years, that would be unacceptable to all. Why should we treat our internet use any different?
Should the FBI have the ability to see everything you do on the internet? Of course, but only after they obtain a warrant by proving to a judge you are up to no good.
Treat monitoring internet usage just like wiretaps, and we're good to go.
--
"I sincerely believe the banking institutions having the issuing power of money are more dangerous to liberty than standing armies." Thomas Jefferson | |
|
| amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| Re: Internet = Phone Calls said by texans20 :Imagine if the US Government required phone companies to record all telephone calls and store them for two years, If you read the article you'd see they argued for retention of records, not content. This sounds like they're requesting the same historic information banks and telephone companies retain.
It seems like a legitimate issue. After a criminal act, law enforcement has access to historic records from various services. But, not ISPs.
Mark | |
|
| |
digitalfreak
join:2005-12-09
49533
| Re: Internet = Phone Calls said by amigo_boy :said by texans20 :Imagine if the US Government required phone companies to record all telephone calls and store them for two years, If you read the article you'd see they argued for retention of records, not content. This sounds like they're requesting the same historic information banks and telephone companies retain. It seems like a legitimate issue. After a criminal act, law enforcement has access to historic records from various services. But, not ISPs. Mark It only begins there. This administration, and the federal government in general, have proven time and time again that they cannot be trusted to use the information they have access to in an appropriate manner. | |
|
| |
texans20
Weapons of Masturbation
Premium
join:2002-09-28
Texas!
clubs:
| said by amigo_boy :said by texans20 :Imagine if the US Government required phone companies to record all telephone calls and store them for two years, If you read the article you'd see they argued for retention of records, not content. This sounds like they're requesting the same historic information banks and telephone companies retain. It seems like a legitimate issue. After a criminal act, law enforcement has access to historic records from various services. But, not ISPs. Mark It's been proven the US DOJ has pursued complete data retention, including e-mails, IM conversations, and websites visited.
--
"I sincerely believe the banking institutions having the issuing power of money are more dangerous to liberty than standing armies." Thomas Jefferson | |
|
| | | amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| Re: Internet = Phone Calls said by texans20 :It's been proven the US DOJ has pursued complete data retention, including e-mails, IM conversations, and websites visited. The FBI and NSA would like telephone conversations recorded too. That doesn't stop us from recognizing the legitimacy of telcos keeping call records available for access by warrant.
The slippery-slope argument could be used to oppose anything.
Mark | |
|
Done_Posting
Shoot to kill
Premium
join:2003-08-22
Toledo, OH | Who in the US government... ...owns stock in Seagate, Hitachi, Western Digital, Cavalier, Maxtor, etc., etc...???
- Tate
--
Happiness is an OC-768 in your basement... | |
|
wahoospa
join:2006-03-23
Charleston, SC
| Why doesn't the FBI monitor traffic... Why doesn't the FBI monitor every vehicle that travels I-95 from Florida to New York? There is plenty of "illegal activity" on it. Thousands of these vehicles are carrying drugs, weapons, etc. every day from Florida to New York. I know this is silly, so is their internet concerns. | |
|
| |
parinoid
@greatlakes.net |  ISPs to retain customer records for a minimum of two years
| |
|
|
|
|
FBI: ISPs Should Retain User Data For 2 Years
·