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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Comments
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.