Computer System That Would Peek At Personal Data

[wig]

This is the type of ends justify the means menailty that is a big risk to all Americans.

Here's an excerpt...

"As the director of the effort, Vice Adm. John M. Poindexter, has described the system in Pentagon documents and in speeches, it will provide intelligence analysts and law enforcement officials with instant access to information from Internet mail and calling records to credit card and banking transactions and travel documents, without a search warrant."

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/09/politics...&partner=GOOGLE (http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/09/politics/09COMP.html?ex=1037509200&en=873ff5626a3c666e&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE)

[sextoyking]

Wig,

Big brother is alive and well in this country, or it seems it will be soon enough if this republican admin. get's it's way.

this is bad news for all.

I thought carnivore was bad new, but this...

[T-Rav]

scary...very scary...

Does this not make anyone nervous? If something like this is not stopped immediately we will be forced to live with this mistake indefinitely. This administration may or may not abuse this information, but some future administration will abuse it.

[Edd]

If you guys like that, you'll LOVE this....

Heard about Palladium yet? (http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html)

:matey:

[wig]

Like all Gov't programs... it will be abused. :cryin:

[EricP]

I agree it's fucked and can be abused, but...

What would they really want with me? I mean, what are they going to find if my internet connection were tapped?

I work on, and look at porn sites? I do research, I send email to people etc.

So What.

The way I look at it is, if you don't want someone else to know about it, don't do it over the internet.

I find it very hard to believe that the government is not already using a Super Packet Sniffer, or worse.

[Mike AI]

Wig, I totally understand. However if the gov;t would put controls on it - which would be easy. Say only thigns admissible in court from those taps woudl be for issues of national defense and terrorism. So anythign else gotten would be inadmissible in court....

[wig]

For me it falls under the category of unlawful search and seizure. Personally, I would be very skeptical of any controls. Once they skirt the constitution, there will be abuses no matter how they "control" it.

It has nothing to do with being right or wrong or doing something right or wrong.

To me, it is simply the principle of it.

[Dianna Vesta]

You're right, it will be abused and all proceedures get caught in red tape. Every month it seems like another police officer is caught abusing the system and those are only the ones that got caught. My son is sitting in prison, a bright, intelligent man all because of his word against an asshole and the goverment trying to make a point.

I've been over this system since I was a teenager and didn't know any better. Now that I know better it's worse. What's the solution? There really isn't any unless I leave and that has so much red tape.

Someone once told me to avoid the system is to not do anything to get caught up in it but everytime you turn around it's something else.

I'm building a commune. Doesn't mean I can escape the goverment tho.

[T-Rav]

Originally posted by EricP@Nov 11 2002, 10:47 PM
I agree it's fucked and can be abused, but...

What would they really want with me? I mean, what are they going to find if my internet connection were tapped?

I work on, and look at porn sites? I do research, I send email to people etc.

So What.

The way I look at it is, if you don't want someone else to know about it, don't do it over the internet.

I find it very hard to believe that the government is not already using a Super Packet Sniffer, or worse.
EricP, along that line of reasoning, I guess you would be fine if they set up cameras in our houses just "to make sure" we weren't doing anything wrong. And as long as you aren't breaking any laws...what's the harm?

Also, Eric let's say you are innocently surfing porn as you say, then you accidentally click on a kiddie porn link. It is documented, saved, and recorded. Then everyone you business with is a suspect, your property is seized during the investigation, etc, etc. Do you not think the likes of Ashcroft and his cronies would love the opportunity to prosecute legitimate porn business people with this type of technology?

MikeAI, the "controls" you speak of could easily be overturned at any time to suit whatever purposes they had in mind. Like I said before...it may or may not be abused by this administration, but it will be abused.

What do they really have to gain besides spying on citizens? Do you think if this technology was in place 2 years ago it would have prevented the 9-11 tragedy? I seriously doubt it. If I remember correctly there were FBI reports requesting certain people and scenarios be investigated prior to 9-11, and that wasn't even enough to prevent it. So, how could a huge database of Internet traffic protect us in any way shape or form?

This outrages me, and what scares me even more is when people defend this type of thing.

[EricP]

I guess you would be fine if they set up cameras in our houses just "to make sure" we weren't doing anything wrong. And as long as you aren't breaking any laws...what's the harm?



T-Rav -- Do you also hear voices? :) This is taking it a little extreme.
The internet is just like a phone, and they are tapped every day.
I have nothing to hide.





Also, Eric let's say you are innocently surfing porn as you say, then you accidentally click on a kiddie porn link. It is documented, saved, and recorded. Then everyone you business with is a suspect, your property is seized during the investigation, etc, etc. Do you not think the likes of Ashcroft and his cronies would love the opportunity to prosecute legitimate porn business people with this type of technology?


T-Rav -- Think -- if my connection were tapped -- they would know I only saw the front page and them immediately reported the site. I do not sit and browse KP.

You are taking my words and turning them in to extreme examples.

Lets get back to reality. :D

[Ironhorse]

Unfortunately this has been prophecized too many times and we are most likely walking right along the Neuromancer scenario by Willliam Gibson one of many books on the subject. Intrusion, counter-intrusion, this is the stuff technology and progress is made of.

I'm not worried about FBI special agent Jerkoff though. The truly scary part is when they develop some AI system capable of processing all this data at light speed, Terminator style. Then we are truly fucked..or could this be the new Messiah? Time will tell.

What's kind of messy too is the paragraph below:


"Before taking the position at the Pentagon, Admiral Poindexter, who was convicted in 1990 for his role in the Iran-contra affair, had worked as a contractor on one of the projects he now controls. Admiral Poindexter's conviction was reversed in 1991 by a federal appeals court because he had been granted immunity for his testimony before Congress about the case."


I seem to recall that Pointdexter actually got off by presidential pardon, namely Bush Sr. #41..hmm.. :blink:



Last edited by Ironhorse at Dec 16 2002, 02:44 AM

[Torone]

Hell, ECHELON has been around for something like 4-5 years...and it monitors ALL Electronic Communications.

[Ironhorse]

My guess is anything we have now is like copper tools compared to iron. What's scary is this new technology is obviously being researched but it's the military that has all the financing to plow ahead.

Anyone see how the Navy's been using dolphins for different missions? Their use is bound to increase in the Gulf, keep the Suicidos at bay :yowsa:

[-= JR =-]

i hate to be the one to point out the obvious, but how will government locate, surveil, pursue, arrest and/or detain bad guys before they do bad things in a world where the bad guys are increasingly getting the upper hand? technology evolves exponentially as compared to legislation. The bad guys ability to do bad things will always grow exponentially compared to law enforcements ability to arrest and convict them.

the "Big Brother" scenario is old news. So is the New World Order, One World Government, one world currency, cashless society and every thing else. However, information at the speed of light, unbreakable encryption, disposable and untraceable mobile phones and so on is not. This is new and its all right now.

everyone is against Homeland Security
against anything that may considered to possibly infringe on personal freedoms, rights or privacy.... but what are the solutions?

who here is qualified to comment on behalf of INTERPOL, FBI, CIA, Domestic Law Enforcement, Congress about all the obstacles they face in preventing 9/11 scenarios?

9/11 was nothing compared to what the next real attack will be. 3000 dead was simply a logistical, tactical and technological limitation.

the intent is "everyone dead".

remember that when you look at your family tonight. when you kiss your wife and hold your child. thousands of people are trying to kill them right now... and thats a fact no one can dispute.

i for one am not ready to watch millions die in a small pox out break because i was worried that "maybe... possibly... conceptually... someone could listen to my phone call"

why live in the US if you are afraid of your own government?



Last edited by -= JR =- at Dec 16 2002, 09:04 AM

[Winetalk.com]

why live in the US if you are afraid of your own government?
*************************************************

yeah, I wonder what Todd has to say about that
;-)))

[-= JR =-]

let me also spare everyone the need to mangle Ben Franklins quote:

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

i dont feel that i am giving up any "essential liberties". just as i dont feel like a jay walking law is infringing on my right to walk across the street... or feel threatened by the fact that a cop has the right to stand on the street and watch me cross it to see if i break that law.

we live in a civil society that depends on laws to maintain that order, security and safety for all. when the laws become innefective as the world around them evolves, they need to be changed, amended or new laws need to be created to adapt to the reality of that time.

people express concern that is born out of fear. i think that to some extent that is reasonable, but those fears unfortuneately do not address the real problems that the laws are created to deal with.



Last edited by -= JR =- at Dec 16 2002, 09:03 AM

[Ironhorse]

All good points JR, these are tough times and it's hard to see who's who, what's what, but as a historian I have to tell you that EVERYTHING is under dispute. As it should be.

I always thought this country was founded on principles of people controlling the government not the other way around. By its very nature, power corrupts and there is no way to change this. It's only human nature.



Last edited by Ironhorse at Dec 16 2002, 09:24 AM

[-= JR =-]

Originally posted by Ironhorse@Dec 16 2002, 09:23 AM
All good points JR, these are tough times and it's hard to see who's who, what's what, but as a historian I have to tell you that EVERYTHING is under dispute. As it should be.

I always thought this country was founded on principles of people controlling the government not the other way around. By its very nature, power corrupts and there is no way to change this. It's only human nature.
i agree that everything should be disputed. thats democracy.

but how are the powers of government unchecked?

as a historian... when was the last time that the powers of the government of the United States was unchecked?

how is the government today, "controlling the people" in a way that it did not 10 years ago, or 20 years ago or 50? (in general, i am not talking about specific technology)

there is an election every 4 years.

how are the people not "controlling the government"?

[Ironhorse]

Originally posted by -= JR =-+Dec 16 2002, 08:29 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (-= JR =- @ Dec 16 2002, 08:29 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Ironhorse@Dec 16 2002, 09:23 AM
All good points JR, these are tough times and it's hard to see who's who, what's what, but as a historian I have to tell you that EVERYTHING is under dispute. As it should be.

I always thought this country was founded on principles of people controlling the government not the other way around. By its very nature, power corrupts and there is no way to change this. It's only human nature.
i agree that everything should be disputed. thats democracy.

but how are the powers of government unchecked?

as a historian... when was the last time that the powers of the government of the United States was unchecked?

how is the government today, "controlling the people" in a way that it did not 10 years ago, or 20 years ago or 50? (in general, i am not talking about specific technology)

there is an election every 4 years.

how are the people not "controlling the government"?[/b][/quote]
It's a very delicate balancing act, this is why conversations like these are important. But they only happen because people feel somewhat safe about opening their mouth. If they felt that everything said was being recorded and analyzed I guarantee that communication would be severed. I have seen it in my birth country Romania. Do not underestimate evil, it has many faces, some are friendly.

[EricP]

...remember that when you look at your family tonight...when you kiss your wife and hold your child...thousands of people are trying to kill them right now... and thats a fact no one can dispute.



Crap man...Its Christmas time!

Leave the depressing shit alone for a bit!

:D

[Ironhorse]

:awinky: Have a jolly one!



Last edited by Ironhorse at Dec 16 2002, 09:50 AM

[-= JR =-]

Originally posted by Ironhorse@Dec 16 2002, 10:28 AM
It's a very delicate balancing act, this is why conversations like these are important. But they only happen because people feel somewhat safe about opening their mouth. If they felt that everything said was being recorded and analyzed I guarantee that communication would be severed. I have seen it in my birth country Romania. Do not underestimate evil, it has many faces, some are friendly.
But people in Eastern Block countries also had to worry very much about being dragged away kicking and screaming in the middle of the night, never to be seen again. I have also spent the better part of the last 7 years in Eastern Europe. I dont think its fair to compare the history of Stasi, KGB or the other security organs of repressive regimes to todays America. Just as i dont think it is fair to suggest that it is a real possibility that the President of the US will be tried in a 5 minute trial and then executed on the street along with his wife, as happened in Romania.

i think the exact opposite is usually true in the US. A one time abuse of power can cause the it all those powers to be taken away as well.

the government still represents the will of the people. people keep ignoring this fact in these types of discussions about "what horrors may come".

[Ironhorse]

Heh, I was not comparing the eastern bloc to current conditions I was just trying to illustrate what CAN BE, if anything 911 should teach us is that our status quo can very quickly change.

The US system was setup precisely to prevent the natural tendency of megalomaniacs to assume permanent power. The Franklin quote you posted earlier says it all I think :awinky:

[PornoDoggy]

JR, if I understand you correctly, you are arguing that there is no need to worry about this because it's not as bad as it could be (or as bad as it would be someplace else), and even if/when they DO something bad, people will make them stop it.

Ain't buying the "Don't Worry, Be Happy" theory.

First you've got an Administration that regards such things as the Freedom of Information Act as a threat - and regarded it as such BEFORE 9/11. You've got a Reverend General who has already stated that those who opposed the Administration's Homeland Security policies were aiding the enemy. You've got an Administration arrogant enough to appoint/hire this family lackey of a criminal - Poindexter - who has already demonstrated his contempt for the Constitution and the law. And even if you don't fear the Republicans for Jezuz running things now, they won't hold office forever - so someday soon, the liberal Democrats will hold this power. And you don't think there is anything to be bothered by?

Given the opportunity, I will stop rodents from coming onto my property. If that cannot be done, I'll definitely try and stop them from entering my house. You seem to be advocating letting them in and seeing how they behave, and I am not willing to do that, at least not quietly.

[PornoDoggy]

And please spare me the "you wouldn't care if it was a Democrat doing all this" horseshit, please. That's just not true. This isn't a partisan issue, or at least it shouldn't be.

[-= JR =-]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Dec 16 2002, 11:23 AM
And please spare me the "you wouldn't care if it was a Democrat doing all this" horseshit, please. That's just not true. This isn't a partisan issue, or at least it shouldn't be.
PD... i am not afraid of Democrats. i am not afraid of Republicans, i am not afraid of the government of the United States. Thats DEFINATELY not the same thing as saying "Don't Worry, Be Happy" as you put it. Thats your characterization of my words, not my own. i did not say "dont worry, be happy".

my position on this issue is the same as it has been from day 1. i dont live in fear of my own government or of any current political party. the government itself works very well and continues to do so. the government, by design also has its own systems of checks and balances to prevent abuse of power which have also been tested over time.

so lets see PD... the President cant get away with getting a blowjob in his office without a massive scandal that almost got him impeached... but you worry that he may decide to arbtrarily kidnap innocent people in the middle of the night and have them shot and thats what we should worry about?

i am not sure what you are saying. So you dont like the current administration... why is your voice in the minority if it is such a massive problem and we are bordering on some kind of Constitutional meltdown? i am trusting the system of 300 years and the opinions of 100,000,000 plus people.

i trust in the political process. i dont always agree with it. i dont expect those who make up our government to be perfect. i certainly dont expect to agree with them always. i do however believe that the government represents the will of the people. if that were not true... the entire country would be up in arms right now once they realized that things are as bad as you think they are. maybe you are just failing to get your "doom and gloom" message to the masses... or maybe that is why Democrats lost the White House, Senate and House and why for only the third time in history, the Presidents party pulled that off.

The fact is PD, the majority of people in the United States do not think things are as bad as you do.

[-= JR =-]

what i dont understand is why live in the US, if you cant trust the government and system of government?

why wake up every morning either feeling that you are gonna be the victem of some Republican anal sneak attack... or if you are going to be happy to have a Democratic President but then continue to worry about the next elections and how they will tear down the foundation of the perfect Utopia the other party was creating

i dont wake up and worry about anything. lifes not worth it. i live.

My wife said to me the other day that she was really worried about finding a job in a law firm, worried about this, worried about that...and worried about the other thing. i looked her and said ...

"honey, you are going to die in 50 years or less. how you spend that time is up to you. my suggestion is that you focus on being happy... not on being stressed and upset. You will thank me in the end."

[PornoDoggy]

Damn ... for someone who seems a little sensitive about my phrasing your views as "don't worry, be happy", you don't hesitate to skew the hell out of mine.

I didn't say we are in a Constitutional crisis. I never suggested that the Administration has plans to kidnap people in the middle of the night and shoot them. I sure as hell never talked about a constitutional meltdown. Expressing of my concerns in such extreme terms is a very, very cheap rhetorical trick, and nothing more. What I said was that I try to stop rodents before I find them in my living room. I do not like the way things are going ... and I would prefer to stop it before it gets too far out of hand.

I don't fear the government today that much more than I ALWAYS fear government. It is, after all, government - a necessary evil. While I have faith in the system, it is by no means blind faith, because the system does not run itself - people run it. The President who got the blowjob was an interesting choice of an analogy ... because the fact that he served out his term showed the system can withstand an assult by a well financed, well orchastrated campaign designed to bring him down (admittedly, more than aided by his own stupidity). But any system will wear down over time without vigilant monitoring. A system can be corrupted, it can be assulted, or it can be destroyed by safety features that prevent it from working. I believe in preventative maintenance ... I don't want to fix it if it ain't broke, but I don't want to wait for it to break before I maintain it, either.

Just remember that on December 1, 1941, the MAJORITY of Americans felt that isolationism was an appropriate response to the world crisis. In November, 1964, the MAJORITY of American people believed that Lyndon Johnson would keep their boys out of a land war in Asia. In November, 1972, the MAJORITY of American people totally rejected the idea that their President was a crook. So the fact that "the majority of people in the United States do not think things are as bad as you do" doesn't mean a lot to me.

I don't spend my days looking over my shoulder for Big Brother - another board member does that enough for all of us. You seem to want to lump my concerns into that sort of paranoia, and I don't quite understand that. I have as much faith in the system as you do ... I guess I just have less faith in the ones that run it.

So, perhaps our characterizations of each other are appropriate. To someone who just doesn't have a care in the world, I must seem as doom and gloom as you paint me. To someone who loves the system and his personal privacy and liberty, your attitude seems very much "don't worry, be happy."

[Almighty Colin]

If I am suspected of breaking a specific law, the police can get permission to spy on me - and sit outside my house taking pictures, etc. Is this an abridgement of my freedoms? I accept that as necessary.

For the FBI to actively use "Carnivore" they must demonstrate probable cause, they must state the telecommunications facility that communications will be intercepted from and they must identify the people that are suspected of the offense.

I have no problem with this system or any such system being used in this manner. I don't see it as any different than the police going into surveillance of my house.

Why aren't people afraid of wire-tapping anymore? Why hasn't anyone wire-tapped my house and arrested me for all the laws I've broken? They can? Why isn't it being massively abused? Why am I still free to break laws in the privacy of my own? (You know what I mean ;-) )



Last edited by Colin at Dec 16 2002, 12:52 PM

[-= JR =-]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Dec 16 2002, 12:26 PM


I don't fear the government today that much more than I ALWAYS fear government. It is, after all, government - a necessary evil. While I have faith in the system, it is by no means blind faith, because the system does not run itself - people run it.

A system can be corrupted, it can be assulted, or it can be destroyed by safety features that prevent it from working. I believe in preventative maintenance ... I don't want to fix it if it ain't broke, but I don't want to wait for it to break before I maintain it, either.

but PD... no one is talking about specifics. people are talking about fears. that is what i think is the shortsighted part of this particular discussion.

i mean, no one is saying "here is where this could go really wrong" and presenting a really believable argument. instead there is a constant theme of "those guys are taking away are rights"

Colin is pointing out the same thing i am. No one is taking your rights. they are only infringing on your rights if they are acting outside the law and outside of the guarantees of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. the discussions are not about what needs to be done or what should be done. the discussions are nothing than criticising what IS being done.

The Government has withstood the test of time. it has been through many trials and even a civil war and division of the nation. My point is that the "system" itself has always prevailed and has remained unchanged.

if people wanted to argue about the Constitutionality of todays topic... thats great. but no one is doing that. If people want to challenge the legality of Homeland Security and subsequent bills, i think thats perfect. people should. But people for the most part are just making reactionary and paranoid remarks about a man and his government that "wants to take away your rights". Maybe that is what he "wants". But if he is able to do it legally, then it would seem to me that we need to take a long hard look at the system itself that made that possible. If he is doing it illeagally, then we should be looking at that.

instead there is just rhetoric about fantasies.

[Ironhorse]

No Jr, this is pretty specific. Go back to the original post, read the article. These are current events, no fantasy this is coming soon to a theatre near you!

[-= JR =-]

The Pentagon is constructing a computer system that COULD create a vast electronic dragnet, searching for personal information as part of the hunt for terrorists around the globe — including the United States.

In order to deploy such a system, known as Total Information Awareness,new legislation would be needed, some of which has been proposed by the Bush administration in the Homeland Security Act that is now before Congress.

The new system will rely on a set of computer-based pattern recognition techniques known as "data mining," a set of statistical techniques used by scientists as well as by marketers searching for potential customers.

The system would permit a team of intelligence analysts to gather and view information from databases, pursue links between individuals and groups, respond to automatic alerts, and share information efficiently, all from their individual computers.

============================

what is specific?

this is all i can see in that article that somewhat describes what they want to do.

doesnt Visa do this same thing?

i dont see specific details and descriptions, nor to i see specific arguements against it. it seems to me to be a lot of the same paranoia and rhetoric... which makes good headlines and lousy debates.

basically there is a proposal and a project and a prototype being built by the military to run on "test data". the House and Senate must approve of it to make it happen. Not Bush. Not John Ashcroft. That means that the entire government of the United States of America is at work here... not just a few zealots who want to steal your brain.




Last edited by -= JR =- at Dec 16 2002, 01:49 PM

[TheEnforcer]

Bush has quite a penchant for putting known liars and criminals in powerful positions doesn't he? :ph34r:

Funny thing is, Republicans constantly praise these guys as "heros" for the country. :headwall:

[TheEnforcer]

Originally posted by -= JR =-@Dec 16 2002, 11:43 AM
The fact is PD, the majority of people in the United States do not think things are as bad as you do.
It's amazing how easily people can make this arguement. Majority opinion doesn't necessarily have to be the correct position JR. And I would think you, of all people here, would be the least likely to lean so heavily on such a shallow arguement to support your views.

[-= JR =-]

Originally posted by TheEnforcer+Dec 16 2002, 02:08 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (TheEnforcer @ Dec 16 2002, 02:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin---= JR =-@Dec 16 2002, 11:43 AM
The fact is PD, the majority of people in the United States do not think things are as bad as you do.
It's amazing how easily people can make this arguement. Majority opinion doesn't necessarily have to be the correct position JR. And I would think you, of all people here, would be the least likely to lean so heavily on such a shallow arguement to support your views.[/b][/quote]

where did i say that "majority opinion is always correct"?
its amazing that you can tie your shoes.

so here we both are.. amazing each other. what a great way to begin the day!

either

1) the entire system of government does not work

or

2) the current administration is acting outside the law

which is it?



Last edited by -= JR =- at Dec 16 2002, 02:27 PM

[PornoDoggy]

No, JR, you didn't say specifically that majority opinion is always right. You did, however, use that as "evidence" that I (and by extension, those who think like me are) am wrong, or that I'm being an extremist/alarmist/upsetting the apple cart - that I am worried and not happy. It is an unusually shallow arguement coming from you.

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by TheEnforcer@Dec 16 2002, 02:08 PM
Majority opinion doesn't necessarily have to be the correct position.
What could be better than making the majority of people happy? Making everyone kinda happy? Making a few people very happy and the rest miserable? What is the correct equation?

[sarettah]

Originally posted by -= JR =-@Dec 16 2002, 01:42 PM
The Pentagon is constructing a computer system that COULD create a vast electronic dragnet, searching for personal information as part of the hunt for terrorists around the globe — including the United States.

In order to deploy such a system, known as Total Information Awareness,new legislation would be needed, some of which has been proposed by the Bush administration in the Homeland Security Act that is now before Congress.

The new system will rely on a set of computer-based pattern recognition techniques known as "data mining," a set of statistical techniques used by scientists as well as by marketers searching for potential customers.

The system would permit a team of intelligence analysts to gather and view information from databases, pursue links between individuals and groups, respond to automatic alerts, and share information efficiently, all from their individual computers.

============================

what is specific?

this is all i can see in that article that somewhat describes what they want to do.

doesnt Visa do this same thing?

i dont see specific details and descriptions, nor to i see specific arguements against it. it seems to me to be a lot of the same paranoia and rhetoric... which makes good headlines and lousy debates.

basically there is a proposal and a project and a prototype being built by the military to run on "test data". the House and Senate must approve of it to make it happen. Not Bush. Not John Ashcroft. That means that the entire government of the United States of America is at work here... not just a few zealots who want to steal your brain.
ummm.. It was already approved, as part of the Homeland Security Act that Bush signed a couple of weeks ago....

It was part of the additional couple of thousand pages that were tacked on by our faitful servants in Congress.....

[sarettah]

Damn...

How come every time I see "Homeland Security AcT' written out as words, my brain keeps turning it into "Fatherland Security Act"

[TheEnforcer]

Originally posted by -= JR =-+Dec 16 2002, 02:20 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (-= JR =- @ Dec 16 2002, 02:20 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -TheEnforcer@Dec 16 2002, 02:08 PM
<!--QuoteBegin---= JR =-@Dec 16 2002, 11:43 AM
The fact is PD, the majority of people in the United States do not think things are as bad as you do.
It's amazing how easily people can make this arguement. Majority opinion doesn't necessarily have to be the correct position JR. And I would think you, of all people here, would be the least likely to lean so heavily on such a shallow arguement to support your views.

where did i say that "majority opinion is always correct"?
its amazing that you can tie your shoes.

so here we both are.. amazing each other. what a great way to begin the day!

either

1) the entire system of government does not work

or

2) the current administration is acting outside the law

which is it?[/b][/quote]
And where in my post did I say that you were saying it is always correct? I only said that is a VERY WEAK arguement to use, period. Especially as your closing say-so on the matter.

You made your arguement and then basically say it's "right" because the majority of the people agree with you. No matter whether you are right or wrong on something using that as a method of convincing people is a very weak tactic.

Also, please show me where I said ANYTHING on your actual position itself in this thread. I only commented on Bush having a penchant for appointing known criminals to important posts and the repubs call these criminals heroes. And then I commentated on your arguements TACTICS and not the arguement itself.

[Almighty Colin]

Just curious. Who has read Orwell's "1984"? .. and who hasn't?



Last edited by Colin at Dec 16 2002, 03:10 PM

[TheEnforcer]

Originally posted by Colin+Dec 16 2002, 02:54 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Colin @ Dec 16 2002, 02:54 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--TheEnforcer@Dec 16 2002, 02:08 PM
Majority opinion doesn't necessarily have to be the correct position.
What could be better than making the majority of people happy? Making everyone kinda happy? Making a few people very happy and the rest miserable? What is the correct equation?[/b][/quote]
There isn't an equation for that Colin, otherwise you might be president!!! :blink:

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by TheEnforcer+Dec 16 2002, 03:10 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (TheEnforcer @ Dec 16 2002, 03:10 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -Colin@Dec 16 2002, 02:54 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--TheEnforcer@Dec 16 2002, 02:08 PM
Majority opinion doesn't necessarily have to be the correct position.
What could be better than making the majority of people happy? Making everyone kinda happy? Making a few people very happy and the rest miserable? What is the correct equation?
There isn't an equation for that Colin, otherwise you might be president!!! :blink:[/b][/quote]
Laugh. I think I used the wrong word.

"What could be better than making the majority of people happy? Making everyone kinda happy? Making a few people very happy and the rest miserable? What is the goal?"

[TheEnforcer]

Originally posted by sarettah@Dec 16 2002, 03:08 PM
Damn...

How come every time I see "Homeland Security AcT' written out as words, my brain keeps turning it into "Fatherland Security Act"
If I remember correctly isn't that something from Russias past? Or do i have the wrong country?

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by sarettah@Dec 16 2002, 03:08 PM
Damn...

How come every time I see "Homeland Security AcT' written out as words, my brain keeps turning it into "Fatherland Security Act"
Apparently because you follow the same websites that Alex does:

Remember http://www.presidentmoron.com/arch0211.html ? You can read that phrase there.





Last edited by Colin at Dec 16 2002, 03:17 PM

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by TheEnforcer+Dec 16 2002, 03:12 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (TheEnforcer @ Dec 16 2002, 03:12 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--sarettah@Dec 16 2002, 03:08 PM
Damn...

How come every time I see "Homeland Security AcT' written out as words, my brain keeps turning it into "Fatherland Security Act"
If I remember correctly isn't that something from Russias past? Or do i have the wrong country?[/b][/quote]
It has much more of a Germanic ring to it, I think ....

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy+Dec 16 2002, 03:30 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (PornoDoggy @ Dec 16 2002, 03:30 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -TheEnforcer@Dec 16 2002, 03:12 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--sarettah@Dec 16 2002, 03:08 PM
Damn...

How come every time I see "Homeland Security AcT' written out as words, my brain keeps turning it into "Fatherland Security Act"
If I remember correctly isn't that something from Russias past? Or do i have the wrong country?
It has much more of a Germanic ring to it, I think ....[/b][/quote]
Der Vaterland :heil:

[Almighty Colin]

I really do think the division of power that exists in the legislative, executive, democratic, and judiciary branches of government does an amazing job of keeping such concerns in check. By democratic, I mean the voice of the people as far as their ability to elect such officials and vote on referendums. I include that too.

I think there are some inherent weaknesses in the system too. For example, no one is responsible for the US budget deficit because the executive and legislative branches both decide on budget items. No responsibility in financial concerns is bad business. If no one is to blame, no one has to do the right thing. Each administration runs a deficit budget and then blames it on the other branch of the government. On the other hand, would you want the president to be solely responsible? Too much power in one-hand. How about Congress? Division of reponsibility among too many people. Conundrum.

[GreyLurk]

Originally posted by Edd@Nov 11 2002, 08:38 AM
Heard about Palladium yet? (http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html)

Wow... I don't think I've ever seen a single more convincing argument to switch to Linux on the Desktop, ever....

Microsoft will be able delete things from my hard drive remotely if they don't like the content of them? And of course, Microsoft will have access to read all of the material on all of the computers using their OS.

[-= JR =-]

Originally posted by TheEnforcer+Dec 16 2002, 03:08 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (TheEnforcer @ Dec 16 2002, 03:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by --= JR =-@Dec 16 2002, 02:20 PM
Originally posted by -TheEnforcer@Dec 16 2002, 02:08 PM
<!--QuoteBegin---= JR =-@Dec 16 2002, 11:43 AM
The fact is PD, the majority of people in the United States do not think things are as bad as you do.
It's amazing how easily people can make this arguement. Majority opinion doesn't necessarily have to be the correct position JR. And I would think you, of all people here, would be the least likely to lean so heavily on such a shallow arguement to support your views.

where did i say that "majority opinion is always correct"?
its amazing that you can tie your shoes.

so here we both are.. amazing each other. what a great way to begin the day!

either

1) the entire system of government does not work

or

2) the current administration is acting outside the law

which is it?
And where in my post did I say that you were saying it is always correct? I only said that is a VERY WEAK arguement to use, period. Especially as your closing say-so on the matter.

You made your arguement and then basically say it's "right" because the majority of the people agree with you. No matter whether you are right or wrong on something using that as a method of convincing people is a very weak tactic.

Also, please show me where I said ANYTHING on your actual position itself in this thread. I only commented on Bush having a penchant for appointing known criminals to important posts and the repubs call these criminals heroes. And then I commentated on your arguements TACTICS and not the arguement itself.[/b][/quote]
i said the system itself works quite well and in spite of all the rhetoric, no one has proven otherwise. no one has proven that anyones rights are being violated or that the Constitution is being ignored.

why would i need to convince people of that TE? i dont care to convince people of anything because it wont change anything.

you guys are missunderstanding me or i am doing a poor job in making my point.

let me say it another way.

First, we have a Constitution and laws and a system of government in place

Second, we have a democracy that allows people to choose those who will represent them in government

third, those people in government make laws and those laws also represent the will of the majority of people or they get repealed.

fourth, LISTEN CAREFULLY... there will always be a Bush, Ashcroft or Freddy Kruger. We have a system of government that recognizes this fact and puts considerable constraints as well as a massively redundant system of checks and balances to keep them under control.

so let me say it like this....

Why would anyone reasonably expect that John Ashcroft, Bush or anyone else will be the last persons in the History of the United States of America to try to infringe upon your rights in some way?

They are not rogue generals coming to work everyday in a BlackHawk. They are people, who represent others and work within the framework of the Constitution and democratic process. If there is a problem.. then it seems to me that the problem must be with the very system of government itself and not the individuals.

... but, aside from rhetoric, no one can talk specifics about how the Administration is doing anything that the system itself does not allow. If they are, then they are breaking the law. If they are not, then it seems that people would be more concerned with changing the laws that allow a government to take away your rights as citizens.

[Ironhorse]

There's a Let Them Eat Apple Pie in there somewhere lol :heil:

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by GreyLurk@Dec 16 2002, 03:40 PM

Wow... I don't think I've ever seen a single more convincing argument to switch to Linux on the Desktop, ever....

Microsoft will be able delete things from my hard drive remotely if they don't like the content of them? And of course, Microsoft will have access to read all of the material on all of the computers using their OS.
Convert? What's Windoze ... ?

[TheEnforcer]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy+Dec 16 2002, 03:30 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (PornoDoggy @ Dec 16 2002, 03:30 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -TheEnforcer@Dec 16 2002, 03:12 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--sarettah@Dec 16 2002, 03:08 PM
Damn...

How come every time I see "Homeland Security AcT' written out as words, my brain keeps turning it into "Fatherland Security Act"
If I remember correctly isn't that something from Russias past? Or do i have the wrong country?
It has much more of a Germanic ring to it, I think ....[/b][/quote]
That's right.. my bad

Russia is often referred to as "mother russia"

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by TheEnforcer+Dec 16 2002, 03:48 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (TheEnforcer @ Dec 16 2002, 03:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -PornoDoggy@Dec 16 2002, 03:30 PM
Originally posted by -TheEnforcer@Dec 16 2002, 03:12 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--sarettah@Dec 16 2002, 03:08 PM
Damn...

How come every time I see "Homeland Security AcT' written out as words, my brain keeps turning it into "Fatherland Security Act"
If I remember correctly isn't that something from Russias past? Or do i have the wrong country?
It has much more of a Germanic ring to it, I think ....
That's right.. my bad

Russia is often referred to as "mother russia"[/b][/quote]
And Japan was the "Empire of the Son"

:bjump:

[sarettah]

Why would anyone reasonably expect that John Ashcroft, Bush or anyone else will be the last persons in the History of the United States of America to try to infringe upon your rights in some way?

They are not rogue generals coming to work everyday in a BlackHawk. They are people, who represent others and work within the framework of the Constitution and democratic process. If there is a problem.. then it seems to me that the problem must be with the very system of government itself and not the individuals.

... but, aside from rhetoric, no one can talk specifics about how the Administration is doing anything that the system itself does not allow. If they are, then they are breaking the law. If they are not, then it seems that people would be more concerned with changing the laws that allow a government to take away your rights as citizens.
************************************************** *******
Specifics...

The portions of the act that allow the eavesdropping on your personal communications across the net are in direct opposition to both the spirit and the letter of the fourth amendment and parts of the fifth amendment of our constitution. That people aren't jumping up and shouting about it is because people are scared. People want the security that was grabbed out from under their feet on 9/11. They think, well, it's a good thing because thety (the government) will only use it to find terrorists and terrorist supporters, they aren't going to watch little old me. Well, DEFINE terrorist. I saw a commercial last night that basically said that if you smoke pot, you are supporting terrorists. Hmm.. wonder how many folks would be investigated under that definition. Ashcroft has made numerous remarks that basically state that if you don't agree with George W, then you are unpatriotic... How far is it from UNPATRIOTIC to TERRORIST or TERRORISM SUPPORTER. Want to know, ask some of the folks who had to go before Joe McCarthy's committee back in the fifties. Many are still alive and many still are fighting the communist label, although it was in no way illegal to be a member of the communist party or to preach communist ideas. These folks were ruined because they spoke their mind or more often then not, someone ACCUSED them of speaking their mind.

As far as working within the constitution, history proves you wrong... In addition to McCarthyism, there is the Internment of the Japansese at the beginning of WWII and the one I will elaborate on a bit which is COINTELPRO.

COINTELPRO was a program by the FBI in the 60's and 70's that allowed the FBI to "investigate terrorist organizations". It was used to spy on the Black Panthers, AIM, The Chicago seven and various other "DOMESTIC" groups. Most of whom it was later found were in violation of NOTHING. The simple fact that they were in opposition to the current administration's viewpoint made them "dangerous" and therefore under the program's guidelines, the FBI was allowed to harass the members, infiltrate, CREATE evidence, all sorts of good stuff.... They even murdered U.S. citizens within the U.S. borders. Look up COINTELPRO, read about it, you will see what I mean.

Many of the administrations in the executive office (both republican and democrats) have used various domestic organizations to harass and intimidate their political opponents. They have used the IRS, FBI, INS, basically, any department they can to investigate folks just to get political dirt on them and destroy their careers.

Do I think that Ashcroft, Bush, et al will be the last to try... No Way... Do I think that we should give them THE RIGHT to investigate anyone freely, without reasonable cause, without any form of due process... again.. No FUCKING WAY....

Power corrupts.. and absolute power corrupts absolutely... Those powers must be kept in check and it is a much more reasonable proposition that "if you do not want them to have the power, don't give it to them" rather than "Well, they won't abuse it, they said so".

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by sarettah@Dec 16 2002, 05:37 PM
The portions of the act that allow the eavesdropping on your personal communications across the net are in direct opposition to both the spirit and the letter of the fourth amendment and parts of the fifth amendment of our constitution.
They ARE .. or you think they are?

What about wire-tapping? How about surveillance outside a suspected drug dealer's house? What is the difference?

[heqdvd]

Originally posted by Edd@Nov 11 2002, 11:38 AM
If you guys like that, you'll LOVE this....

Heard about Palladium yet? (http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html)

:matey:
Yeah its like a PGP media Player, with government rights.

But hey, this has been coming for years now...

[sarettah]

Originally posted by Colin+Dec 16 2002, 05:43 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Colin @ Dec 16 2002, 05:43 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--sarettah@Dec 16 2002, 05:37 PM
The portions of the act that allow the eavesdropping on your personal communications across the net are in direct opposition to both the spirit and the letter of the fourth amendment and parts of the fifth amendment of our constitution.
They ARE .. or you think they are?

What about wire-tapping? How about surveillance outside a suspected drug dealer's house? What is the difference?[/b][/quote]
Wire tapping is legal (supposedly) only when it has been run past a judge that authorizes a warrant allowing it. The judge is SUPPOSED to require some kind of probable cause. This is to stop it from being abused by the agencies that have shown a great eagerness to abuse it.

As far as eavesdropping, outside the drug dealers house. Depends on if it is electronic eavesdropping or not. If they just park out front and listen without any electronic aide, then they are totally legal. Being in a public place and overhearing stuff is totally legal... If what they hear is enough to establish probable cause then they are free to enter. BUT... If they needed to use electronic aids to overhear the conversation, then they need the warrant once again, otherwise, nothing they get can be used in court to either prosecute or establish probable cause.

The fourth amendment does not say that you cannot be searched. It says that you are free from unreasonable searches. Legislation and interpretation has established that a search is reasonable if it is backed up by reasonable cause. It has also been established in many cases that electronic eavesdropping is a form of search.

Editing because I forgot to address the fifth anmendment issues...

The fifth amendment says that you may not be forced to incriminate yourself.... Once again, if you make a statement willingly to an authority, that statement can be used against you... If they (they being the authorities) overhear a statement that incriminates, at that point it depends once again on whether they had their propers in order before listening in.





Last edited by sarettah at Dec 16 2002, 06:13 PM

[T-Rav]

I agree with Saretta...

[-= JR =-]

They are not rogue generals coming to work everyday in a BlackHawk. They are people, who represent others and work within the framework of the Constitution and democratic process. If there is a problem.. then it seems to me that the problem must be with the very system of government itself and not the individuals.

... but, aside from rhetoric, no one can talk specifics about how the Administration is doing anything that the system itself does not allow. If they are, then they are breaking the law. If they are not, then it seems that people would be more concerned with changing the laws that allow a government to take away your rights as citizens.
==============================================
Sarettah,
Hatteras spelled backwards - i always meant to ask if that was that coincidence or do you own one?
i love boats.


again is what i posted above. being are expressing a big concern about being afraid of their government of government powers and so on.

but two things exactly are not happening in these conversations throughout the United States

first, the issue (or "excuse" if you want to call it that) is fighting terrorism
no one is suggesting solutions... just expressing fear, paranoia and opposition to the solutions that are being realized.

second, i understand the Joe McCarthey did one thing, that the FBI did another and that Japanese were held in internment camps etc.
AND THATS BEEN MY POINT!

if what we are discussing is illegal, lets discuss the legal or Constitutional issues.

- if Bush is acting within the law, then Homeland Security and a massive infringement of your personal rights is a SYMPTOM of the greater problem that Federal Law and Constitution made it possible.

you mentioned "specifics" and still said nothing about the topic... just made the typical vague arguement with historical referrences. i am talking about the topic at hand. not why the Titanic sunk or how fire was invented. We are talking specifically about a pilot program being developed by the Pentagon to store and analyze data. People have no trouble stating that they are against it.... but dont feel the need to explain if it is legal, illegal, Constitutional, UnConstitutional etc etc etc. Those are the issues that allow these things to happen.

That is where the focus should be if people are so deathly afraid of government storm troopers kicking in their doors at night to steal the liver of their youngest daughter.

Otherwise, people are just criticising the President and his spiritual advisor or the Republicans for being out to get them... but keep forgetting to acknoweledge that they are acting within the law. If i was really worried about it, i would be more worried about changing the system that makes it possible for them to arbitrarily stop you on the freeway one day and suck your brain from your skull.

everything passes through the House and Senate before it comes law. the entire government is participating in the creation of these programs




Last edited by -= JR =- at Dec 17 2002, 04:52 AM

[sarettah]

Sarettah,
Hatteras spelled backwards - i always meant to ask if that was that coincidence or do you own one?
i love boats.
************************************************** *

Not coincidence :) But not boats either...(althought they are fine boats...would love to have one).. I lived in Cape Hatteras for about 4 years back when... Wish I had never left :) When I needed a unique nick for the net back ion n94-95, I typed it in backwards, saw I could still pronounce it and said "what the hack"...used it since :)

Now, on to the ongoing topic....

JR you ignorant slut......... :) Just kidding (used to love when Dan Akroyd and Jane Curtin did their point-counterpoint..lol)

************************************************** ****
Specifics...

The portions of the act that allow the eavesdropping on your personal communications across the net are in direct opposition to both the spirit and the letter of the fourth amendment and parts of the fifth amendment of our constitution.

************************************************** ******

Ok, so that wasn't specific enough ?? I don't know what to tell you then..lol.. I can detail how it is in violation , but I did that in a subsequent post answering that...

anyway, I was not tryiingo to "raise the alarm" so to speak... I don't know how to convey what is wrong with giving the government this kind of authority without citing past abuses... It is what has been done in the past with these types of powers that should keep us wary of giving them in the present.. We need to learn from history and history says that if you give the government (or any other "Authority") far reaching powers, they will abuse them....

The old screw me once, shame on you, screw me twice, shame on me attitude in a nutshell actually....

The federal government exists first and foremost to perpetuate itself... It's first priority is the survival of the government, as it should be... Because of this, any administration will seek far-reaching power to accomplish this goal. Clinton and FBIgate for example, Nixon and Watergate, the list goes on. These were all abuses of power with the ultimate goal being perpetuity of the administration and it's goals... If we afford the government the right to to eavesdrop on whatever they want, whenever they want, it will eventually come back and bite us on the ass........

Now, is the government going to do it anyway...probably.. But for the most part it will be worthless information because it won't stand up in a courtroom... Does the government actually have to right to do these things without it being run be a unique department? Probably... That is where grey areas come in... Because of the nature of the internet, transactions can go through any number of servers before they get to their destination.. Many of these will be government owned servers.. Does ANY organization have the right (responsibility too) to monitor what goes across their servers.... by all means.......

So, the case could be made that whether we put it into actual legislation or not that the government already has the right to look at certain transactions, those that go across their servers....... Do they have the right to watch what goes across other servers? If the owners of those servers allow them too, then by all means they have that right.......


lol... I have now lost my entire train of thought on this and I have a big ass database project yelling in my ear that my deadline is less than 14 days... so I need to get to work....

Later