Page 2 of 16 FirstFirst 123456712 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 315
  1. #21  
    This is GREAT news. There has been no attck in almost 5 years. At the one thing the Government is really supposed to do, this admnistraion is on target.
  2. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #22  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    The difference with this is it affects all US citizen phone based activity.
    Which was being questioned in 1999.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  3. #23  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    Which was being questioned in 1999.
    No it did not affect domestic land line use, only " terrestrial-based data communications" or internet use and voip which was not much used then.
  4. #24  
    Quote Originally Posted by dutchtrumpet
    This is GREAT news. There has been no attck in almost 5 years. At the one thing the Government is really supposed to do, this admnistraion is on target.
    Can't be stated enough;
    "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
    Ben Franklin
  5. #25  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger
    i could care less about the whole thing. If I say or do something wrong, then I pay the price. Pure and simple. I take responsiblity for my actions. Paint me conservative. Ben

    "The Hollerith was used to tabulate and alphabetize census data. Black says the Hollerith and its punch card data ("hole 3 signified homosexual ... hole 8 designated a Jew") was indispensable in rounding up prisoners, keeping the trains fully packed and on time, tallying the deaths, and organizing the entire war effort. Hitler's regime was fantastically, suicidally chaotic; could IBM have been the cause of its sole competence: mass-murdering civilians? "


    "The government should fear it's people. The people should never fear their government."
  6. #26  
    Quote Originally Posted by dutchtrumpet
    This is GREAT news. There has been no attck in almost 5 years. At the one thing the Government is really supposed to do, this admnistraion is on target.
    and you really believe it is because of NSA domestic survelliance efforts???
    Palm m505 -> Treo600 (GSM ATT) -> Treo650 (Cingular) -> BB8700g -> BB Pearl
    "The point of living and of being an optimist, is to be foolish enough to believe the best is yet to come."
  7. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #27  
    Quote Originally Posted by chillig35
    and you really believe it is because of NSA domestic survelliance efforts???
    I think the international wiretaps played a key role.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  8. #28  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Can't be stated enough;
    "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
    Ben Franklin
    Franklin would vomit if he heard someone of your ilk using his words in such a way. I have given up no liberty.

    A police officer can observe which street you take. The government can and should observe patterns in telecommunication traffic.

    where were the communists like your self when prior administrations were engaging in the same practices?
  9. #29  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    I think the international wiretaps played a key role.
    INDEED.

    So very foolish.

    It's fine to dislike the Pres...but let's be honest.

    If there was an attack that could have been prevented by actions such as these and there was no such program, the same that criticize him now would devour him then.
  10. #30  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger
    What rights have you lost? Has anyone knocked on your door? Anyone kicked your door in? Heck no. If you say your are going to xxxx the xxxxxxxxx, then you will proably have a problem, regardless of who is running the show. More whining and no loss of civil rights. No innocents in jail from it. Ben
    There are innocents in jail as a result of abuse of police power which includes the detention and search of citizens, not to mention the abuses which can come from the power to eavesdrop on private conversations. Ironically, it those who are conservatives who should be most outraged at the loss of individual liberties, i.e., the actions by the gov to assume power and insert itself into areas which have been recognized since the founding of this country as being outside gov intrusion. We should not give up our rights to be free from unreasonable search and seizure simply because we have not committed a crime. Just like any profession or occupation, there are "good" and "bad" people. The problem is that also applies to law enforcement. The difference is that those bad apples we encounter in our jobs and most other aspects of living are not armed and do not have an "end justifies the means" mentality. I want to be clear that the clear majority of law enforcement officers are honorable and just, but unfortunately there are enough bad apples to demonstrate the wisdom of the founding fathers in restricting gov intrusions into private lives.
    Legalbeagle
  11. #31  
    I tend to think that in this day and age of pay-as-you-go cell phones and black market cell phones, laptops, etc, the only people affected by such actions are those of us who are on the grid and, mostly, obeying the law. In the same way that I believe new gun ownership regulations only affect those who care about regulations.

    Now, one might say, if I'm obeying the law, why do I have to worry. But for a lot of people its not a question of legal or illegal acts so much as embarassing acts. If I have a "youthful indiscretion" with a young lady not my wife, does the gov't have a right to get involved? If a young woman calls the free clinic, does she want those numbers to be in some database for the rest of her lifetime?

    In a country like ours where we mostly have a level of trust in the government, we can feel safe that such information is relatively private. But how sure are we that our gov't won't change? How sure are we that some day, after the slow creeping in of new laws and regulations, our employers won't have access to such a database? Isn't it better for such things to not exist at all?
  12. #32  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    I tend to think that in this day and age of pay-as-you-go cell phones and black market cell phones, laptops, etc, the only people affected by such actions are those of us who are on the grid and, mostly, obeying the law. In the same way that I believe new gun ownership regulations only affect those who care about regulations.

    Now, one might say, if I'm obeying the law, why do I have to worry. But for a lot of people its not a question of legal or illegal acts so much as embarassing acts. If I have a "youthful indiscretion" with a young lady not my wife, does the gov't have a right to get involved? If a young woman calls the free clinic, does she want those numbers to be in some database for the rest of her lifetime?

    In a country like ours where we mostly have a level of trust in the government, we can feel safe that such information is relatively private. But how sure are we that our gov't won't change? How sure are we that some day, after the slow creeping in of new laws and regulations, our employers won't have access to such a database? Isn't it better for such things to not exist at all?
    exactly my point - hoovs - we have examples of Hoover (no pun intended!), Watergate and numerous others where gov't gets overzealous, however well intentioned.
    Plus if we don't trust the gov't with our money (i.e we all like ro reduce big gov't) why would we want to trust them with our private information?
    Last edited by chillig35; 05/11/2006 at 05:21 PM.
    Palm m505 -> Treo600 (GSM ATT) -> Treo650 (Cingular) -> BB8700g -> BB Pearl
    "The point of living and of being an optimist, is to be foolish enough to believe the best is yet to come."
  13. #33  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    No it did not affect domestic land line use, only " terrestrial-based data communications" or internet use and voip which was not much used then.
    I was in the VOIP business from 1997-2001. Sure there is a lot more now, with Vonage, Skype, etc.... But there were still thousands upon thousands that used dial up VOIP via a regular phone to a regular phone.

    One of the companies I worked for during this time offered a small box that you put somewhere in line between your phone and the junction box on your house. Each time you dialed, it would dial the VOIP access number, enter in your code and dial the number you want to call. We had probably somewhere around 15,000 customers with that one company alone...and there was a lot of competition then too with other small to large VOIP companies.
  14. #34  
    Quote Originally Posted by chillig35
    exactly my point - hoovs - we have examples of Hoover (no pun intended!), Watergate and numerous others where gov't gets overzealous, however well intentioned.
    Plus if we don't trust the gov't with our money (i.e we all like ro reduce big gov't) why would we want to trust them with our private information?
    Good points.

    Actually, I wouldn't have so much of a problem if there was some sort of coded scheme that the phone companies handed over to the gov't and then, if intelligence saw a suspicious pattern they would subpoena the phone company for the customer data.
  15. #35  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    Now, one might say, if I'm obeying the law, why do I have to worry. But for a lot of people its not a question of legal or illegal acts so much as embarassing acts. If I have a "youthful indiscretion" with a young lady not my wife, does the gov't have a right to get involved? If a young woman calls the free clinic, does she want those numbers to be in some database for the rest of her lifetime?
    I think Hoovs hit the nail on the head, mostly. I'd just add that I don't even really worry about the "government" having the info for me.

    I do worry about the disgrunted "government employee" who decides he/she needs to post/sell/give away this information; or the private investigator, attorney general, or forgetful employee who subpoenas the data or "loses the laptop" containing the data and identifying information.

    I'm entitled to youthful indiscretions (even at 45), I hope that privacy laws allow me to decide when/if that information should be shared (vs. some faceless bureaucrat), and I'm man enough to take it if the privacy laws fail.
    Brent
    T650 on Sprint's Wireless Wonder
  16.    #36  
    Quote Originally Posted by dutchtrumpet
    Franklin would vomit if he heard someone of your ilk using his words in such a way. I have given up no liberty.

    A police officer can observe which street you take. The government can and should observe patterns in telecommunication traffic.

    where were the communists like your self when prior administrations were engaging in the same practices?
    your insults make you look silly

    Franklin's words and intent are clear.
  17.    #37  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    I think the international wiretaps played a key role.
    We're talking about spying on americans here. Nobody is concerned about spying on Pakistan or Iran.
  18.    #38  
    Quote Originally Posted by dutchtrumpet
    INDEED.

    So very foolish.

    It's fine to dislike the Pres...but let's be honest.

    If there was an attack that could have been prevented by actions such as these and there was no such program, the same that criticize him now would devour him then.
    lol, there was, there wasnt, we are
  19.    #39  
    Quote Originally Posted by dutchtrumpet
    This is GREAT news. There has been no attck in almost 5 years. At the one thing the Government is really supposed to do, this admnistraion is on target.
    This argument is truly silly.

    This president literally called up the supreme allied commander in the middle of the fight to find and destroy osama, and ordered him to move most of his troops over to iraq.

    The argument that he must have been doing something right in spying on Americans because we havent had another atack is utterly silly.

    We have only had one international terrorist attack here EVER!

    This means that your chances of getting killed in an international terrorist attack in every year other than 2001 were exactly none, null, nill, not any, zero percent chance.

    And this certainly does not mean that we can spy on whomever we like, completely ignore Osama, round up and detain and or torture anyone and everyone we like indefinietly without due process, and without any oversight whatsoever, and generally thumb our nose at the international community.
  20. #40  
    Quote Originally Posted by dutchtrumpet
    Franklin would vomit if he heard someone of your ilk using his words in such a way. I have given up no liberty.

    A police officer can observe which street you take. The government can and should observe patterns in telecommunication traffic.

    where were the communists like your self when prior administrations were engaging in the same practices?
    No administration has monitored every private citizens telephone use to this extent. The police are not allowed to listen to my car conversation electronically as i drive down that street without court approval. The fact that you defend this spying of a citizenry by it's gov't makes your use of the label "communist" all the more telling.

    I doubt you know spit about Franklin given your position. (BTW if you like Franklin I suggest Infamous Scribblers by Eric Burns about our press at the birth of our Nation)
Page 2 of 16 FirstFirst 123456712 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions