(walks into the PCApex lounge, sees a bunch of bored faces)

(walks outside, grabs a few pieces of wood)

(comes back inside and tosses them on top of the old stained couch, then douses it with lighter fluid)

*cough* *cough* *ha-rumph* *ha-rumph*

Can I have your attention please?

(drops lighted match on the couch)

(walks over to the notice board and posts an article he just read online)

__________________________________________________ __________________

Quote: Intel Official: Say Goodbye to Privacy Email this Story Nov 11, 11:39 AM (ET) By PAMELA HESS (AP) Donald Kerr testifies before a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington... Full Image WASHINGTON (AP) - A top intelligence official says it is time people in the United States changed their definition of privacy. Privacy no longer can mean anonymity, says Donald Kerr, the principal deputy director of national intelligence. Instead, it should mean that government and businesses properly safeguards people's private communications and financial information. Kerr's comments come as Congress is taking a second look at the Foreign Surveillance Intelligence Act. Lawmakers hastily changed the 1978 law last summer to allow the government to eavesdrop inside the United States without court permission, so long as one end of the conversation was reasonably believed to be located outside the U.S. The original law required a court order for any surveillance conducted on U.S. soil, to protect Americans' privacy. The White House argued that the law was obstructing intelligence gathering. The most contentious issue in the new legislation is whether to shield telecommunications companies from civil lawsuits for allegedly giving the government access to people's private e-mails and phone calls without a court order between 2001 and 2007. Some lawmakers, including members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, appear reluctant to grant immunity. Suits might be the only way to determine how far the government has burrowed into people's privacy without court permission. The committee is expected to decide this week whether its version of the bill will protect telecommunications companies. The central witness in a California lawsuit against AT&T says the government is vacuuming up billions of e-mails and phone calls as they pass through an AT&T switching station in San Francisco. Mark Klein, a retired AT&T technician, helped connect a device in 2003 that he says diverted and copied onto a government supercomputer every call, e-mail, and Internet site access on AT&T lines. (This version CORRECTS Kerr's title to 'the principal deputy director' instead of 'a deputy director.')

__________________________________________________ ________________________

LINK

I heard the Mark Klein on NPR Friday. He also said Big Brother has been running contextual data miners on the copied data stream... not just checking where it's going.

This is a bunch of unmitigated pig crap... not to mention in DIRECT conflict with every intention/precedencial understaning of the 4th amendment to the FREAKING CONSTITUTION!

If you haven't already, I STRONGLY urge all US members to write their congressperson and senator to tell them where they can shove the immunity Bush is asking for.

Why is the executive branch so strongly pushing for immunity? Cause they know what they did was ILLEGAL. In effect, what the Bush administration is asking for is a Writ of Assistance (a geneneral, limitless, and unexpiring search warrant). The Writ of Assistance was one of the main beefs the colonists had with the rule of Britain and a cause of the revolution.

Just because I'm a helpfull type of guy, here's a nice link for you to review: Link

Of particular note:

Quote: Now one of the most essential branches of English liberty is the freedom of one's house. A man's house is his castle; and while he is quiet, he is as well guarded as a prince in his castle. This writ, if it should be declared legal, would totally annihilate this privilege. Custom-house officers may enter our houses when they please; we are commanded to permit their entry. Their menial servants may enter, may break locks, bars, and everything in their way; and whether they break through malice or revenge, no man, no court can inquire. Bare suspicion without oath is sufficient. This wanton exercise of this power is not a chimerical suggestion of a heated brain.

Not really that different than what they want to do (are currently doing) with our internet communications, is it?



Dammit Rob, now you've got me all worked up.

Hey, that couch needed burning anyway. It turned into a biological hazard after the last birthday party that we threw for Iateronmly.

Folks, it worries me in an age where so much can be taken from a person just by moving a few electrons around on some wires. Some people feel that this is over-reactionary on my part but then that begs the question that needs to be asked...where does it stop? When is enough enough?

How about this argument? The argument of firearms being in the wrong hands could lead to the government requiring that you not only register all of your firearms, but that you submit to psychological counseling AND must have a government official come to your home to inspect where and how you lock your firearms up.

O.K., so now it's alright for the government to monitor anything anyone goes on the internet and over the telephone. Hum, I do believe that is what is called spying, isn't it? Sure, they say that they are only collecting information on terrorism but what about other information?

Say you are on a telephone call to a buddy and you happen to mention that you're going to give him $50,000. Next year, the IRS comes knocking on his door with an audit team and charges him with falsifying his tax return because he didn't list the $50K as income received. Oh, and yes, it is considered income received.

You're in a car accident where one person is killed. At the scene of the crime, you call your family, obviously shaken up. You admit that you might have fallen asleep and lost control of your car on the slippery road. Next week, the local State's Attorney shows up at your door with a warrant for your arrest because of a "taped confession" of your phone call to your family.

Better yet, you send an e-mail to a buddy of your asking if he could get you a copy of a certain song or of the latest hacked software out there that you'd like to have. After the government reads that, you're now going to be charged for attempting to violate the DMCA.

There's always been a question that advocates for more government control love to ask and I'm going to answer that question today.

If the government can prevent another terrorist attack by listening to phone calls, reading people's e-mails, studying their travel habits, and getting a copy of all their financial data, wouldn't that be worth it?

My answer?

No.

I'd rather live in a free and just society where the government doesn't spy on it's own people. Better yet, I'd rather be the victim of a terrorist attack than to allow that to happen.

Since when did we forfeit our freedoms for an extra bit of security?

Wow just wow. A little off topic but a very popular talk show host and leader of the savage nation, Michael Savage, recently stated that the current status of America can be very closely compared to Germany when Hitler came to power. Yes i admit that this talk show host is very outrageous and at times violent. But hey, he does make some good and often scary points some times.

Hey, I got an idea. While we are changing definitions, why don't we change the definition of "murder" to mean something else? I like changing it to "killing someone who didn't need killing", this way when someone does something really stupid, you can kill them because everyone will agree that they needed killing and it wouldn't be murder.

Sound good? Cool.

I don't see how anyone can seriously think that the government or businesses can keep out private info safe. I mean how many times have financial institutions and businesses lost information already? I already accept that any information I put up on the Internet, whether it be phone numbers in e-mail of credit card info saved at an online store is pretty much out there to anyone who wants it bad enough the second I type it in and hit submit. But this is pushing it. I am all for keeping this country safe, and I understand that there are some compromises (like airport security, random searches on bridges and in the subway, etc) but this is pushing it to far.

Quote: Originally Posted by Im_gumby If you haven't already, I STRONGLY urge all US members to write their congressperson and senator to tell them where they can shove the immunity Bush is asking for.

The question is, Will They Listen? Or will our letters go into the garbage? How many people will it take for a congress man/women to vote against it?

The other problem is, Will the American Public care? Or will they listen to the Media Mass Giant and have them think its a lie? Sure, Everyone in our little group is probably against it, But how many of us will actually write?

But really, Wow....

Quote: Originally Posted by Rob I'd rather live in a free and just society where the government doesn't spy on it's own people. Better yet, I'd rather be the victim of a terrorist attack than to allow that to happen. Since when did we forfeit our freedoms for an extra bit of security?

Ever since 9/11, when the public was in a "downed" mood. The Gov. seen it as a Opportunity, and enacted the patriot act in the name of terrorist. Now Im betting if you mention any other theory about 9/11 other than terrorism, People will start thinking your Looney...

/cough Hopefully, This thread wont get too Out of Hand /cough

You can't control the internet because the internet controls you.


If i go up the street and find that a wireless network is open and take some personal data then i am breaking the law and can go to jail. So why can the government do it, If they can't follow the laws and get the job done they shouldn't make them.

Encryted passwords. We just need self made encryption for all our emails.

Anonymous cell phones, get a calling card and make all your calls(important at least) without your name on the info.

Use more cash, if you haven't noticed, CC and digital banks are pretty damn big. Say you send a money order, and buy everything with cash, bam no uber amounts of information travling accross the net.

I think I'm going to start spoofing my IP while I'm at it....

{rant}
It BS, true BS. We do have rights, the internet is quite big and open, and hackers have been around for years grabbing our info, so why should we worry?

I like your examples rob, but I gotta say, if i was to gve someone 50k, i don't think i'd be doing it in america, or over the phone.

If you don't tell a cop you think you fell asleep and got into a car accident, thats insurance fraud, and murder, not just a lie.

Illegal downloading is too wide to be a goverment issue. If the goverment was really worried about it, it wouldn't be so easy.{/rant}

Quantum processors exist. You can be damned sure the US government will have one or more of them.

Why does this matter?

They can crack the strongest encryption lickity split.

Combined with your government stripping your rights, say goodbye to privacy.

Please don't confuse what I'm trying to say by mentioning conspiracy theories. 99.9% of all conspiracy theories are nothing more than the creative interpretation of the facts or lack thereof.

Here is a quote from the Nuremberg Diary, written by Gustave Gilbert, and attributed to Hermann Goering...

Quote: Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. ...Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.

Now you have to ask yourself...how many times has a politician promised to pull our troops out of Iraq only to be attacked that they are refusing to support the troops? How many times has a person attacked the Patriot Act only to be said to be siding with the terrorist?

Politics of all flavors have rolled the public on a variety of issues, using buzz words with high indexes to provoke our judgment.

In this article, we the promise...

"Let the government snoop in your personal lives and you'll be safe. If not, then hey, some terrorist is going to run into your living room and set off a bomb vest!"

NOTE: Before the bashing begins, my intentions in posting this thread is not anti-American, but rather anti-political wrangling for power. This country was set up with a system of checks and balances. Congress makes the law, the Executive branch enforces the law, and the courts decide if those laws violate the Constitution. This hasn't been happening in our country as of late because of our political leaders "performing" for the public, using a 21st century version of McCarthyism. For you folks too young to know what I'm talking about or are from a different country than America, you can read about McCarthyism HERE.

Well, it's not really a conspiracy theory(more properly, conspiracy hypothesis), just a coincidence that doesn't bode well for a free nation or world.


A theory is a hypothesis whose predictions stand up to repeatable, rigorous testing. Unfortunately, anti-science organizations use the theory word as a weapon of doubt. There is a movement under way to start using the word 'Law' instead.

Well, as the great Benjamin Franklin once said,

"Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Hey, that's my favorite triple oxymoron: Senate Intelligence Committee

Privacy ...

As I recall, the word does not actually exist in the Bill of Rights but is 'derived' from the due process clause of the 14th [and some parts of the 9th].

And the question before us [as most philosphical questions can be framed] is:

Where do you draw the line?

Completely private financial system? Drug dealers would love that.

Completely anonymous internet? Pedophiles playground.

And so on. If you can't make a well-reasoned argument for BOTH the disclosure and the nondisclosure of a piece of information to the government-corporation, then you probably haven't exercised your brain enough. Take two conundrums and call me in the mourning.

I have been wrestling hard with the concept [as part of my presidental platform] of a national ID system. Helps round up illegals. Helps stop voter fraud. Helps identify tax cheats. Finds deadbeat dads. Identity fraud becomes much harder. Being a fugitive from justice much harder.

But you can be sure that such a system will be abused by the federal government. *ANY* system put in place by the federal governemnt will be abused [Funkibut's corollary on politcal power]. *EVERY* system ever put in place by the government has been abused given enough warm bodies and time.

So how much is reasonable? How much is enough? Almost everyone one of you here has submitted a picture of yourself to the government - its on your driver's license. And trust me - NSA has a copy [an illegal copy yes] in its basement. And since they have a picture, you wouldn't mind a fingerprint would you? Or a little DNA? Just a little?

I'm such a heavy credit card user the government usually knows where I am and can predict my movements [If its Thursday lunch, he's at KC Pit in Roswell]. Add to that my Internet traffic and they can drop a bomb and be sure to get me with 95% accuracy 24x7. I try to make myself not worth bombing.

I find the current administration egregious in its abuse of American privacy. I find the current administration ineffective in providing any additional security that would warrant such abuse. The Republicans love to point out we haven't been *hit* since 9/11. Well, I haven't been eaten by a lion either - do I send a check to the zoo or Tarzan?

If Kerr if looking for a debate on privacy, fine. I would welcome such a debate. Bruce Schneider should be included. Robert Ellis Smith. A few ex-KGB folk - since they got a real feel for what governments can do with information.

But if Kerr thinks I would let the neo-con fascists who currently run this country define privacy, then he is sadly mistaken. Some animals are more equal than others indeed.

Next they'll be wanting to redefine some really simple concept like 'torture'........

-MF

EDITED: See my post below, J-Dogg.

Whats next are they going to implant a device w/ all my personal information in my arm..... Oh wait they already do that.

Quote: Originally Posted by musclecars&computers Whats next are they going to implant a device w/ all my personal information in my arm..... Oh wait they already do that.

Didn't that prove to be dangerous? Doesn't Bill gates have something like that too?


I dunno, it's not like people have GPS devices in the laptops, cellphones, and cars? I think if the goverment really needed to, they could track down a kill anyone they wanted, just because, they could.

How much money ould it take, and manpower, to literally watch and read every bit of data transfered on every line and email out there though?

I mean, if you do own a life, you have at least a home phone, and if not you have a credit card. There is a really hard way to be unknown to the gov. You would have to be homeless, and have never gone to a hospital, homeless shelter, or anything, in you're whole life.

Anyone seen the movie twelve monkeys........

Sorry, J-Dogg, but I'm not going to allow that kind of post here.

This thread is meant to be a discussion directed at the policy that the extreme majority of politicians have not only endorsed, but fed off of through the use of blatant tactics designed to sway the American public to a specific view point.

More tomorrow as I have to do something right now.

Rob

Quote: Originally Posted by s1ugh34d Didn't that prove to be dangerous? Doesn't Bill gates have something like that too?

Don't know if he does or not, But here's a link w/ more about it, at the end they talk about gps in it. RFID tags may be implanted in patients' arms - ZDNet UK

My hope is the country gets significantly worse very quickly.

Why?

Because once there is a draft, martial law, or no civil liberties, the true state of America will become as obvious and unavoidable as ever, and we will only be left with the truth that we must do something radical and change, or submit to the fact that we are living in a once great nation, now in it's down fall...

Run-on sentence, my closest friend....