Here come the thought police (again)

[abs0lutionCFH]

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/14/opinion/14SAFI.html?ex=1037854800&en=3778829e1bec3dc2&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE



Whered that link to email your congressman go again? :|

[gone away]

...

:eek:

:eek:

:eek:

:eek:

:eek:

:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

bullshit

how can someone who has been 'disgraced' even have the power to weild the budget, let alone propose a law

seriously

[SimpleSimon]

It's quite simple, Billyman, he has no criminal record - none. The ruling of the appeals court threw out the evidence used to indict him and subsequently convict him, thus no final conviction was had.

He's a retired admiral in a civilian position - he has as much power as the law permits him, which is an enormous amount.

[Asmodeus]

Does make you nervous.

But, in no way, shape, form, or utterance do I trust what the NY Times says.

Just me.

[Billyman]

Originally posted by SimpleSimon
It's quite simple, Billyman, he has no criminal record - none. The ruling of the appeals court threw out the evidence used to indict him and subsequently convict him, thus no final conviction was had.

He's a retired admiral in a civilian position - he has as much power as the law permits him, which is an enormous amount.

How'd I get into this?

[Pianomahnn]

Originally posted by Billyman
How'd I get into this?

Ditto.

[MAC]

what if I said it didn't matter
[condescending & arrogant]
the mass of ppl will fix it when its a problem

the unarmed, overtaxed, debt ridden, centrally controled, media fixated, questionably educated mass of ppl who believe their neighbor is their biggest and most prevalent danger
[/condescending & arrogant]

honestly guys, there is so much that could be improved in our lives with proper data following us around at our disposal...but I cannot think of one scenario under our current regime that I would trust it to.

guys like poindexter just reinforce that.....


"Scientia Est Potentia" — "knowledge is power."

"first you get the money, then you get the power"

[MAC]

:o

[Torque]

Here's a overview from CNET.


WHAT CSEA DOES
If approved by the Senate and signed by the president, who has called for a Department of Homeland Security, the law would:
CSEA expands the ability of police to conduct Internet or telephone eavesdropping without first obtaining a court order, and offers Internet providers more latitude to disclose information to police.


Promise life terms for computer intrusions that “recklessly” put others’ lives at risk. A committee report accompanying the legislation predicts: “A terrorist or criminal cyberattack could further harm our economy and critical infrastructure. It is imperative that the penalties and law enforcement capabilities are adequate to prevent and deter such attacks.”
Permit limited surveillance without a court order when there is an “ongoing attack” on an Internet-connected computer or “an immediate threat to a national security interest.” That kind of surveillance would, however, be limited to obtaining a suspect’s telephone number, IP address, URLs or e-mail header information—not the contents of online communications or telephone calls. Under federal law, such taps can take place when there’s a threat of “serious bodily injury to any person” or activity involving organized crime.
Change current law, which says it’s illegal for an Internet provider to “knowingly divulge” what users do except in some specific circumstances, such as when it’s troubleshooting glitches, receiving a court order or tipping off police that a crime is in progress. CSEA expands that list to include when “an emergency involving danger of death or serious physical injury to any person requires disclosure of the information without delay.”
Specify that an existing ban on the “advertisement” of any device that is used primarily for surreptitious electronic surveillance applies to online ads. The prohibition now covers only a “newspaper, magazine, handbill or other publication.”

Copyright © 1995-2002 CNET Networks, Inc. All rights reserved

[Venus]

I can see where this guy is coming from. If they can know and track anything about anyone at anytime without this person's knowledge, they can do alot of good with it. But there's a certain point where it become too much. If they feel this is the only way to do things fine whatever. The government can watch me take a piss. However, keep it to limits on who else can do it. The article says it'll be a public database. This is what bothers me. I have nothing to hide from the government so if they wanna watch fine whatever. My internet activity is not exactlly private anyway. Hell I don't even have a problem with the public being able to see what sites I visit, what I say at which forum. Who really cares? I realize it's all a matter of privacy, but as long as the general public still can't get my social security number I'm not worried.

Hell I totally forgot where I was going with this. I had a point where I was gonna turn it around and say it's too much but damnit if I remember where.

[Koliedrus]

Originally posted by Venus
*snip*

The government can watch me take a piss.

/me salutes.

Ah, dammit! The Freedom of Information files are backlogged.

That's a good thing. I'm not associated with government and I'm not particularly interested in seeing you take a piss.

Carry on. I'm just a distraction.

Sleeeeeep....