Home› A Moving Train

Obama administration wants to take over the internet

unsungunsung I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
edited September 2010 in A Moving Train
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/27/us/27 ... .html?_r=1
Post edited by Unknown User on

Comments

  • catefrancescatefrances Posts: 29,003
    are you all feeling that grip tighten around your neck???
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
  • DriftingByTheStormDriftingByTheStorm Posts: 8,684
    Lol.
    To be honest, i actually DON'T have a problem with this.
    It is marginally bothersome that that are encumbering business with the cost of compliance (so it seems), but I don' think this is totally warrantless (no pun, har har).

    Actually, I'd almost PREFER that business go ahead and do this, allowing for the US government to engage in TRACKABLE surveilance, given that -- more than likely -- they currently have the power to do what they are asking for anyway, but via much more subvert chanels. I mean, if they are already logging ALL internet traffic to super secret computers and clandestinely scanning that traffic, I find that to be MUCH more bothersome than getting a court warrant, and then engaging properly designed software protocols (which they are here requesting) to JUSTIFIABLY monitor criminal suspects.
    If I was to smile and I held out my hand
    If I opened it now would you not understand?
  • OutOfBreathOutOfBreath Posts: 1,804
    Be fair now.
    This isn't the Obama administration, this is the police that is understandably worried that they won't be able to do their job if the criminals use internet gadgets. It's not about taking over, but rather ensure that when they have reasonable suspicion about a person, they can wiretap him like they do today with phones. They still have to obtain warrants to be able to do so.

    So, this is not about taking over the net, and it really isn't Obama "behind it". I'm suspecting rather bipartisan support for this thing, just like other similar laws in the near past. I sense that some people tend to attribute anything and everything happening to the current president, when frankly a lot of everyday politics happens without the president being much involved.

    As for if this is a good move, I dont have that much of a problem with it. As drifting points out, the murky shit is probably possible already. This is about enabling the police to gather evidence to fight organized crime and to use it in a court of law. Sounds good. Law enforcement must move with the times.

    Peace
    Dan
    "YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death

    "Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
  • __ Posts: 6,651
    That's not a sensationalist, misleading thread title at all! :roll:
  • unsungunsung I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
    We all know that if this was happening six years ago people would be up in arms screaming about the Bush Administration.

    I know because I would have been the one posting about it.
Sign In or Register to comment.