Where is the outrage?

[bushwacked]

Hope and change.

[SEC=UGA]

Hope and change.

 

Funny

[matt770]

I'm thinking if they observe all that they won't need to tap your phone or read your email.

 

"The al qaeda guy is my cousin. I've been trying to tell him to quit the terrorism and join my fantasy league, but he doesn't listen."

 

"The explosives are for my homemade fireworks business."

 

"Chicks dig pilots."

[Azazello1313]

so matt770 likes people probing his backdoor

[evil_gop_liars]

If the FBI observes you meeting with al qaeda operatives and buying large quantities of explosives and taking flight training courses and they go a judge to get a warrant to tap your phone and read your email, this allows them to defeat any encryption software you may be running. So, yes.

 

I agree, but I don't do any of that and they still want to break my computer.

 

How will I ever feel safe when buying trinkets from Overstocked?

[untateve]

I don't like it, but also believe if you ain't doing anything wrong, you've got nothing to worry about. The state is more than welcome to have a look at my fantasy trades, concert plans and Ebay purchases, if it also means they can monitor plans for the next 9/11.

 

Not that long ago, wasn't it discovered that warantless wire taps were taking place?

 

I always find it amazing that people will so blindly trust their government to consistently have their best interests at heart and not abuse power.

 

During the post–World War II era of McCarthyism, many thousands of Americans were accused of being Communists or communist sympathizers and became the subject of aggressive investigations and questioning before government or private-industry panels, committees and agencies. The primary targets of such suspicions were government employees, those in the entertainment industry, educators and union activists. Suspicions were often given credence despite inconclusive or questionable evidence, and the level of threat posed by a person's real or supposed leftist associations or beliefs was often greatly exaggerated. Many people suffered loss of employment, destruction of their careers, and even imprisonment. Most of these punishments came about through trial verdicts later overturned,[1] laws that would be declared unconstitutional,[2] dismissals for reasons later declared illegal[3] or actionable,[4] or extra-legal procedures that would come into general disrepute.

 

Of course, nothing like this could happen in today's world.

 

All wiretapping of American citizens by the National Security Agency requires a warrant from a three judge court set up under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. After the 9/11 attacks, Congress passed the Patriot Act which granted the President broad powers to fight a war against terrorism. The George W. Bush administration used these powers to bypass the FISA court and directed the National Security Agency to spy directly on al Qaeda by initiating the NSA electronic surveillance program. Reports at the time indicate that an "apparently accidental" glitch resulted in the interception of communications that were purely domestic in nature.[2] This action was challenged by a number of groups including the United States Congress as unconstitutional.

 

The exact scope of the program is not known, but the NSA is or was provided total, unsupervised access to all fiber-optic communications going between some of the nation's major telecommunication companies' major interconnect locations, including phone conversations, email, web browsing, and corporate private network traffic. [3]. Critics stated that such "domestic" intercepts required FISC authorization under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.[3] The Bush administration maintained that the authorized intercepts are not domestic but rather foreign intelligence integral to the conduct of war and that the warrant requirements of FISA were implicitly superseded by the subsequent passage of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF).[4] FISA makes it illegal to intentionally engage in electronic surveillance under appearance of an official act or to disclose or use information obtained by electronic surveillance under appearance of an official act knowing that it was not authorized by statute; this is punishable with a fine of up to $10,000 or up to five years in prison, or both.[5] In addition, the Wiretap Act prohibits any person from illegally intercepting, disclosing, using or divulging phone calls or electronic communications; this is punishable with a fine or up to five years in prison, or both.[6]

 

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales confirmed the existence of the program, first reported in a December 16, 2005 article in The New York Times.[7][8] The Times had posted the exclusive story on their website the night before, after learning that the Bush administration was considering seeking a Pentagon-Papers-style court injunction to block its publication.[9] Critics of The Times have openly alleged that executive editor Bill Keller had knowingly withheld the story from publication since before the 2004 Presidential election, and that the story that was ultimately first published by The Times was essentially the same one that reporters James Risen and Eric Lichtblau had first submitted at that time.[10] In a December 2008 interview with Newsweek, former Justice Department employee Thomas Tamm revealed himself to be the initial whistle-blower to The Times.[11]

Gonzales stated that the program authorizes warrantless intercepts where the government "has a reasonable basis to conclude that one party to the communication is a member of al Qaeda, affiliated with al Qaeda, or a member of an organization affiliated with al Qaeda, or working in support of al Qaeda." and that one party to the conversation is "outside of the United States".[12] The revelation raised immediate concern among elected officials, civil right activists, legal scholars and the public at large about the legality and constitutionality of the program and the potential for abuse. Since then, the controversy[13] has expanded to include the press's role in exposing a classified program, the role and responsibility of Congress in its executive oversight function and the scope and extent of Presidential powers under Article II of the Constitution.

[matt770]

I always find it amazing that people will so blindly trust their government to consistently have their best interests at heart and not abuse power.

 

I don't blindly trust anyone. This story is talking about the technology used to eavesdrop on suspects when law enforcement already has a warrant to do so. It does not suggest that we should give up any of our civil liberties. The laws are already on the books to take away some of your right to privacy when there is probable cause to believe you are engaged in illegal activities. This is so the cops/feds can gather evidence to convict you.

 

It's amazing, any story that touches on this subject, suddenly you people break out the McCarthyism rhetoric whether it has any relevance or not.

[evil_gop_liars]

I don't blindly trust anyone. This story is talking about the technology used to eavesdrop on suspects when law enforcement already has a warrant to do so. It does not suggest that we should give up any of our civil liberties. The laws are already on the books to take away some of your right to privacy when there is probable cause to believe you are engaged in illegal activities. This is so the cops/feds can gather evidence to convict you.

 

It's amazing, any story that touches on this subject, suddenly you people break out the McCarthyism rhetoric whether it has any relevance or not.

 

I don't like them telling technology developers to dumb down the technology so "they" can catch the next bad guy. That is all.

[untateve]

I don't blindly trust anyone. This story is talking about the technology used to eavesdrop on suspects when law enforcement already has a warrant to do so. It does not suggest that we should give up any of our civil liberties. The laws are already on the books to take away some of your right to privacy when there is probable cause to believe you are engaged in illegal activities. This is so the cops/feds can gather evidence to convict you.

 

It's amazing, any story that touches on this subject, suddenly you people break out the McCarthyism rhetoric whether it has any relevance or not.

 

Weren't there laws in place regarding warantless wiretaps?

[westvirginia]

I don't blindly trust anyone. This story is talking about the technology used to eavesdrop on suspects when law enforcement already has a warrant to do so. It does not suggest that we should give up any of our civil liberties. The laws are already on the books to take away some of your right to privacy when there is probable cause to believe you are engaged in illegal activities. This is so the cops/feds can gather evidence to convict you.

 

It's amazing, any story that touches on this subject, suddenly you people break out the McCarthyism rhetoric whether it has any relevance or not.

 

Oh but it's absolutely relevant - it goes to the ridiculous "If you aren't doing anything illegal, you have nothing to worry about" argument. During that era, person A accused a rival/enemy/whatever of being a commie, just to get that person anally probed. The bottom line is, suspicious doe not equal illegal, and I DO NOT HAVE TO JUSTIFY MY ACTIONS TO YOU OR ANY FEDGOV GOON, NO MATTER WHAT THEY "LOOK LIKE".

[i_am_the_swammi]

Either I am getting further and further away from reality, or this board appears to be more and more paranoid with each and every day.

[TimC]

Either I am getting further and further away from reality, or this board appears to be more and more paranoid with each and every day.

 

Well, you still think the Eagles are going to do anything this year, so I'm going with #1.

[bpwallace49]

This is a stupid idea . . and an extension of the same crap that was forced on us in the Patriot Act under Bush, that was re-affirmed under Obama.

 

There shouldnt be a call for this . . . ever. Not really sure how this can be defended at all . . .

[Azazello1313]

I don't like them telling technology developers to dumb down the technology so "they" can catch the next bad guy. That is all.

 

this is the issue for me.

[Yukon Cornelius]

if you are not with us you must be a traitor.