but, george, i thought nothing changed!?!?

farfromglorified

jlew24asu wrote:

sure they can be stopped without this program but if it helps then i'm all for it. and I really think it can. I dont see this power being abused more than it has too. nobody wants to trust that the government is realy using this as a tool to catch terrorists instead of listening to joe smith talking to his mistress.

whatever it takes from a dirty bomb going off in downtown chicago, i support. the sacrafices are worth it. even if i have to give up some freedoms, albeit small freedoms, i dont ever see it getting out of control. the government is after terrorsits, not me.

Lots of acts by the government would prevent a dirty bomb going off in downtown Chicago. But that doesn't necessarily make them right. This nation was founded on the concept of people being free from undue government influence, not slaves to it. I realize it has been a long time since the government has operated in the following manner, but I always first hold up any proposed government program to the following standard:

The government exists to protect the rights of its citizens, rather than limit them

Sacrificing a right to your privacy and a right to check the behavior of the executive branch cannot be justified by a slight theoretical decrease in your chances of dying at the hands of a terrorist. If you want your government to protect your life, I suggest you encourage them to do so without abdicating your freedom. Such a request is not only reasonable, it is a moral imperative to yourself and your fellow citizens.

jlew24asu

farfromglorified wrote:

Lots of acts by the government would prevent a dirty bomb going off in downtown Chicago. But that doesn't necessarily make them right. This nation was founded on the concept of people being free from undue government influence, not slaves to it. I realize it has been a long time since the government has operated in the following manner, but I always first hold up any proposed government program to the following standard:

The government exists to protect the rights of its citizens, rather than limit them

Sacrificing a right to your privacy and a right to check the behavior of the executive branch cannot be justified by a slight theoretical decrease in your chances of dying at the hands of a terrorist. If you want your government to protect your life, I suggest you encourage them to do so without abdicating your freedom. Such a request is not only reasonable, it is a moral imperative to yourself and your fellow citizens.

I understand what your saying. and agree with most if not all of it. I would like to meet in the middle, for example the 3 day grace period that was mentioned. I'm not sure of the exact law.

RockinInCanada

Benjamin Franklin:

They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security

hailhailkc

El_Kabong wrote:

whatever you wish it be...it can even be a thread about a politician who lied <who has several supporters here who refuse to believe he ever told a single lie>

Who are these "supporters" that think Bush has never lied?

jlew24asu

Rockin'InCanada wrote:

Benjamin Franklin:

They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security

easy on the benjy quotes. i dont think the government listening in on a few calls that they deem "suspected terrorists" is an essential liberty.

If they said I had to have a picture of our president up in my house at all times, then yes I break out the quotes from the founding fathers. and tell the government to go fuck themselves

acutejam

When the whole wiretapping thing came out, I think I recall seeing some stat that like 80% of the country already assummed the government was listening to all their calls anyways.

In concrete, immediate terms, I could care less if the government listens in on my calls. Absolutely nothing I discuss on the phone could be in any way embarrassing, incriminating or detrimental to my pursuit of life and liberty. I am an honest and law-abbiding citizen and while I've read any number of scenarios where I should be scared if my phone was tapped, it just doesn't float.

I just don't think it's a basic human right to expect privacy on our telephone system. I do think you should be entirely freaked out if you want to discuss illegeal activities on the phone. If in the zeal to catch terrorists, they catch a few corrupt business folks, some drug dealers, some gangs and mafia, some insider trading tips -- bonus!

Now I see the whole larger "privacy" considerations and the checks and balances on government in theoretical and abstract connections to this wire-tapping of phones. It's a great issue in the abstract, but in concrete terms what the heck do you have to hide?

Further -- in William Gibson's analogy: Cyberspace is where you are when you're talking on the phone. Your not standing next to the person on the other end, their not in your house. You may both be in private places with expectations of privacy -- but your voices are not. Your voices are out in an electronic environment owned by huge corporations.

So you're expecting privacy why?

jlew24asu

acutejam wrote:

When the whole wiretapping thing came out, I think I recall seeing some stat that like 80% of the country already assummed the government was listening to all their calls anyways.

In concrete, immediate terms, I could care less if the government listens in on my calls. Absolutely nothing I discuss on the phone could be in any way embarrassing, incriminating or detrimental to my pursuit of life and liberty. I am an honest and law-abbiding citizen and while I've read any number of scenarios where I should be scared if my phone was tapped, it just doesn't float.

I just don't think it's a basic human right to expect privacy on our telephone system. I do think you should be entirely freaked out if you want to discuss illegeal activities on the phone. If in the zeal to catch terrorists, they catch a few corrupt business folks, some drug dealers, some gangs and mafia, some insider trading tips -- bonus!

Now I see the whole larger "privacy" considerations and the checks and balances on government in theoretical and abstract connections to this wire-tapping of phones. It's a great issue in the abstract, but in concrete terms what the heck do you have to hide?

Further -- in William Gibson's analogy: Cyberspace is where you are when you're talking on the phone. Your not standing next to the person on the other end, their not in your house. You may both be in private places with expectations of privacy -- but your voices are not. Your voices are out in an electronic environment owned by huge corporations.

So you're expecting privacy why?

I agree. well said

Vedderlution_Baby

Well, let's say you're not expected to have privacy over the telephone. Let's say that this system stops a terrorist attack. The government could then very easily say something along the lines of

"Our wiretapping proved to be a success. Although this system worked, it is becoming more difficult to effectively catch the terrorist using this method. We have to put forth more extreme methods of this in the name of protecting america..."

It would be hard to determine what the next line would be. The point is that if the government is given this, then they are going to ask for more. Considering all things, it would more than likely that acheiving this would be quite simple. They could scare the people into doing it.

jlew24asu

Vedderlution_Baby! wrote:

Well, let's say you're not expected to have privacy over the telephone. Let's say that this system stops a terrorist attack. The government could then very easily say something along the lines of

"Our wiretapping proved to be a success. Although this system worked, it is becoming more difficult to effectively catch the terrorist using this method. We have to put forth more extreme methods of this in the name of protecting america..."

It would be hard to determine what the next line would be. The point is that if the government is given this, then they are going to ask for more. Considering all things, it would more than likely that acheiving this would be quite simple. They could scare the people into doing it.

completely hypothatical. you have no idea if it would happen that way.

farfromglorified

acutejam wrote:

Now I see the whole larger "privacy" considerations and the checks and balances on government in theoretical and abstract connections to this wire-tapping of phones. It's a great issue in the abstract, but in concrete terms what the heck do you have to hide?

The better question is: what do I have to show?

Further -- in William Gibson's analogy: Cyberspace is where you are when you're talking on the phone. Your not standing next to the person on the other end, their not in your house. You may both be in private places with expectations of privacy -- but your voices are not. Your voices are out in an electronic environment owned by huge corporations.

So you're expecting privacy why?

I'm expecting privacy because the government has no right to act on non-substantiated suspicions. And since there's no system of verification or checks and balances to dictate that such qualifications will be met, I'll sleep well rejecting such a program.

Why do you harp on the "low probability" that the government will listen to my phone calls but then act like being killed by a terrorist is almost a guarantee if they don't?

jlew24asu

farfromglorified wrote:

The better question is: what do I have to show?



I'm expecting privacy because the government has no right to act on non-substantiated suspicions. And since there's no system of verification or checks and balances to dictate that such qualifications will be met, I'll sleep well rejecting such a program.

Why do you harp on the "low probability" that the government will listen to my phone calls but then act like being killed by a terrorist is almost a guarantee if they don't?

I agree, let there be some sort of verification or checks and balances, but let the program happen and help prevent a terrorist attack.

im open to all suggestions on how this gets accomplished

farfromglorified

jlew24asu wrote:

im open to all suggestions on how this gets accomplished

It gets accomplished by the executive branch going to the judicial branch to receive a warrant, and then tapping the phone. Does that take some time? Yes. Need it take days or weeks? No.

Vedderlution_Baby

jlew24asu wrote:

completely hypothatical. you have no idea if it would happen that way.

Of course it is. When deciding or debating things about the future all you have are hypothetical. Look at Vietnam. That was hypothetical but yet it was still acted upon. You can't simply ignore it.

jlew24asu

farfromglorified wrote:

It gets accomplished by the executive branch going to the judicial branch to receive a warrant, and then tapping the phone. Does that take some time? Yes. Need it take days or weeks? No.

I know but in the most critical situations when conversations need to be heard, time is a huge factor. terrorsits arent gracious enough to give us "time needed" to get a warrant. its a fine line.

acutejam

Good point Vedderlution -- and exactly what I was thinking, that yes give them an inch and they'll take a mile. The slippery slope of eroding privileges -- not rights, privileges in my opinion, we have no right to demand that a private company form an electronic network for our use to talk privately on, they may grant us that, and then take it away at their whim, you vote with your pocketbook. The private companies may then interact with the govt in the manner of their choosing, providing they disclose this to their customers. (Which is a problematic point at this time...)

Still, knowing I will unleash my sound and fury on the next issue the govt bring forth, I can still let wire-tapping go....

We have no substaintiated suspicions that crime will happen, yet we put officers on patrol, on streets, on highways -- and if they catch someone, awesome. I kinda look at wire-tapping as patrolling with the established pattern that criminals discuss crimes on the phones.

But then, I feel good when I see a cop on patrol, I imagine others do not.

farfromglorified

jlew24asu wrote:

I know but in the most critical situations when conversations need to be heard, time is a huge factor. terrorsits arent gracious enough to give us "time needed" to get a warrant. its a fine line.

I certainly understand where you're coming from. But I'll take my chances with Al Qaeda before I start handing my freedoms over to the government. I thought the whole purpose of fighting terrorists was to maintain freedoms? What kind of victory are we talking about here? Saving ourselves from terrorists is not worth living in a police state, and slightly lowering the already low risk of being killed by terrorists is not worth walking down that path.

This issue is not complicated. Put a better procedure in place where these issues can be vetted and get the oversight they deserve in a timely manner.

farfromglorified

acutejam wrote:

We have no substaintiated suspicions that crime will happen, yet we put officers on patrol, on streets, on highways -- and if they catch someone, awesome.

Then should we just let those cops nose their way into your conversations at the park? How about setting up listening posts on every streetcorner to record all of our conversations?

jlew24asu

acutejam wrote:

Good point Vedderlution -- and exactly what I was thinking, that yes give them an inch and they'll take a mile. The slippery slope of eroding privileges -- not rights, privileges in my opinion, we have no right to demand that a private company form an electronic network for our use to talk privately on, they may grant us that, and then take it away at their whim, you vote with your pocketbook. The private companies may then interact with the govt in the manner of their choosing, providing they disclose this to their customers. (Which is a problematic point at this time...)

Still, knowing I will unleash my sound and fury on the next issue the govt bring forth, I can still let wire-tapping go....

We have no substaintiated suspicions that crime will happen, yet we put officers on patrol, on streets, on highways -- and if they catch someone, awesome. I kinda look at wire-tapping as patrolling with the established pattern that criminals discuss crimes on the phones.

But then, I feel good when I see a cop on patrol, I imagine others do not.

very good analogy of cops patrolling. i agree.

i have a little more faith, however, in our government and constitution that they will not take 12 inches when given 1.

acutejam

farfromglorified wrote:

Then should we just let those cops nose their way into your conversations at the park? How about setting up listening posts on every streetcorner to record all of our conversations?

Completely legal and happens every day. Traffic camera's for instance as an anology to the listening posts.... While perhaps rude, I have no problem with a police officer walking up to eavesdrop because I'm in a park and have no expectation of privacy.

farfromglorified

acutejam wrote:

Completely legal and happens every day. Traffic camera's for instance as an anology to the listening posts.... While perhaps rude, I have no problem with a police officer walking up to eavesdrop because I'm in a park and have no expectation of privacy.

Can't argue with your expectations....

Suffice to say I don't share them.