Read and Respond :: If we give up our civil liberties, have we already lost?

[Y2J]

http://www.wired.com/news/conflict/0,2100,47522,00.html

Read and Respond

[pennypinch]

USA Act my ass. I have not had the time to keep up to date on what sort of legislation is going down.

This is a clearly a reactionary move by a bunch of spooked politicians. Worse, we'll probably look back on this as one of the landmark events that encroached our civil liberties, and no-one's going to even raise a flag about it.

I'll be damned if a "secret search" goes on in my house. Good job, Washington. Now you've not only got the Middle East pissed at us, the militia men in Montana are going to ****ing lose it, too!

[attgig]

like they're not already doing that.....whatever..
now it's legal.....doesn't change how the law enforcement works...

[chrissy]

If you have nothing to hide, and are Mr. and Ms. Average Joe, you have nothing to worry about.

[pennypinch]

Originally posted by chrissy
If you have nothing to hide, and are Mr. and Ms. Average Joe, you have nothing to worry about.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. Because this is how it starts. First, they start spying on you without any sort of restrictions. There is a reason the CIA can't spy on our own citizens.

Then maybe they bring you in and imprison you for "suspicious behavior". What's next? Let's not be naive, EVERYONE has something to hide.

If anything, Mr. And Mrs. Average Joe have the most to worry about. now, you'll never know what they're collecting on you. Who knows what the next "untouchable" class is going to be. Right now it's Arab-looking people.

This country is great precisely because of its unfettered freedom, specifically the freedom from unwarrented suspicion and persecution. This USA Act gnaws aggressively at the fabric of that freedom.

[Nanotech9]

"Barred police from obtaining a court order, sneaking into a suspect's home, and not notifiying that person they had been there. The "secret search" section currently is part of the USA Act -- and is something the Justice Department has wanted at least since 1999, when they unsuccessfully asked Congress for that power at the time. The amendment was not introduced. "


so, can they ****ing do secret searches now?... damn, i can hear the ATF just going nuts w/ that law....

damn, were all gonna have to start living behind barrs like they do in spain and europe, not to keep out thieves, but to keep out the police.

[Y2J]

http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200110/100401a.html

Some parts of this Act are scary
"allow an owner/operator of any computer connected to the Internet to consent to FBI wiretapping of any user who violated a workplace computer use policy or online term of service."
Who doesnt violate their TOS?

The feds are gonna go crazy on the wiretapping, its going to be like the cold war, where they would harrass suspected communists

[Anck Su Namun]

Argh that's just not right. What are they going to do? Wire tap everyone's phones? Sheesh. Seems a bit extreme.

[pennypinch]

That's what I'm saying.

Did we learn nothing from McCarthyism?

[Burzhui]

You know all your phone conversations are recorded by the phone company anyway right? Every 7 days the recordings are delted and replaced with new ones... and so on.

[Grimm]

Originally posted by chrissy
If you have nothing to hide, and are Mr. and Ms. Average Joe, you have nothing to worry about.

I believe that is a direct translation of something that the Nazis said.

[Burzhui]

Originally posted by Grimm


I believe that is a direct translation of something that the Nazis said.

yep, where Mr. and Mrs. Regular Joe is a common german last name

[Grimm]

Originally posted by Burzhui


yep, where Mr. and Mrs. Regular Joe is a common german last name

It was Average Joe. And I was making the point that that kind of thing is how totalitarian governments achieve unreasonable amounts of power.
Basicaly the terrorists just won. The American people just lost a huge chunk of their freedom.

If anyone needs me I will be out hiding my guns from the government.

[Burzhui]

Originally posted by Grimm


It was Average Joe. And I was making the point that that kind of thing is how totalitarian governments achieve unreasonable amounts of power.
Basicaly the terrorists just won. The American people just lost a huge chunk of their freedom.

If anyone needs me I will be out hiding my guns from the government.

i was agreeing, the Natzis started out like that

[southernbelle]

A month ago I would have said unequivocally that the government was too much in our business. Now we know differently...... I don't know where to draw the line now - I just feel that it is not here.

Hindsight is 20/20 - but what if law enforcement had been monitoring phone conversations? It is well publicized that warnings and rumors were passed around beyond the terrorists to stay out of downtown. Or monitored the web with snooping capability beyond what they have now? What if they had been monitoring money flows, and blocked funds reportedly used by the terrorists? What if our government, in fact, ourselves, had solicited and facilitated political assignation? All of the "what-ifs?", and maybe September 11 would not have happened.

Am I willing to give up personal freedom for the sake of national security? Absolutely. I don't think our founding fathers intended that "unfettered freedom" aid and abet terrorist activity.

It's a interesting topic - thanks for bringing it up for discussion

[Nija]

ok here are my feelings... on just that one (the orginial article):

Preseved the privacy of sensitive records -- such as medical or educational data -- by requiring police to convince a judge that viewing them is necessary. Without that amendment, the USA Act expands police's ability to access any type of stored or "tangible" information. The amendment was rejected, 89-8.

Ok i think this is BS. Giving the government the power to exaime confidentail information without having to prove a reason for it.. is totally bogus.

Barred police from obtaining a court order, sneaking into a suspect's home, and not notifiying that person they had been there. The "secret search" section currently is part of the USA Act -- and is something the Justice Department has wanted at least since 1999, when they unsuccessfully asked Congress for that power at the time. The amendment was not introduced.

this is the biggest load of ****e that i have ever seen. so.. the governemt can break into my house search for crap that may or may not be there, and what happens when i get home? i think that i've been robbed.. great, i report the government to the local authorities? ok.. that makes no sense

I know i break EULA's all the time, same with Terms of service etc. etc.

Now they can search any computer connected to the internet? great.. wonderful... so they search my computer and find some pr0n. she looks young. i am now a suspected child molester. great. what if it's my girlfriend who is young looking, but is of legal age? i'm still a child molester...

ugh... brain hurts...

nija

[johnnymk]

And guess who's going to enforce this mess? The so called NATO forces, (make than UN forces).... foreigners who won't give a #### about you or your civil rights. While our soldiers are half way round the world, these will be the gangsters who will be left. The New World Order is right around the corner and it's not going to be pretty!!
Just remember who used the term New World Order first.........George Bush's father in 1990 during the Gulf War.

[Nanotech9]

Originally posted by southernbelle
Am I willing to give up personal freedom for the sake of national security? Absolutely. I don't think our founding fathers intended that "unfettered freedom" aid and abet terrorist activity.

It's a interesting topic - thanks for bringing it up for discussion



OMG i cant believe you just said that.

heres my feelings: I would rather live in "fear" of terrorism, and keep my freedoms, than live under a "safe" government, but not have all my freedoms.

The people in government are USING the terrorists attacks as a LEVERAGE point to get more control over the people of the united states. Do you really think the government can protect the citizens of the US? Hell no. Only the Citizens (i.e. We the People) care about us and whats in our best interest. Relying on the money-hungry government (politicians etc) to "take care of our needs" is fukin socalism, and you end up turning into a country like spain or england or australia.

Whats wrong with them you say? I laugh. I lived in spain 10 years, and saw ***** that you never know goes on there. People in these contries have lost many of their individual freedoms, are taxed to death, unemployment is up to 25% (yes, Twenty-Five percent!), have poor economies, rely on the government for EVERYTHING. You know how people get jobs over there? They wait on some company to hire them for 3 months, cause the company gets Government incentives (i.e. MONEY) for hiring a person for 3 months. Then they fire that guy, and hire someone else, EVEN if hes doing the job better than ANYONE ever could.

Government control is the begenning of the end. I even think Penny will agree w/ me on that (even if he is like WAY more liberal(?) than i am.)

THOSE who would trade freedom for safety, DESERVE NEITHER!

[Grimm]

Originally posted by southernbelle
Am I willing to give up personal freedom for the sake of national security? Absolutely. I don't think our founding fathers intended that "unfettered freedom" aid and abet terrorist activity.



Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!

If the Keystone cops we have for the CIA, FBI, NSA, etc... would have just done there job in the first place it would never had happened!
They were complacent and conducting neverending turf wars instead of doing their jobs. Instead of owning up to their mistakes they said that they need new powers to do their jobs.
It's like me saying that I need 20 new servers to do my job when I already have enough sitting around doing nothing. I just need to get off my lazy ass and turn them on!!! (I really don't have any extra servers, I was just using that as an example) BTW, I am not talking about individual agents, who I am sure are hard working people, but the administration of these agencys.
The additional powers are a farce. They would not have stopped the terrorists because they would not have been used to detect them in the first place. The agencys in question would have been using the powers to invade the privacy of US citizens to stop them from being able to express themselves freely.

Giving up the values that we represent to defeat an enemy who is our enemy for having those same values is the same as surrendering. Should we surrender to a third world nation just because they were able to sucker punch us once?

The Federal law enforcement agencys already have all the athority and tools they need. They might need some additional funding, but they do not need Geshtapo[sp] powers.


Good call nano,

THOSE who would trade freedom for safety, DESERVE NEITHER!

[Leon]

I think my sig tells you my position on the matter.

[BrewMaster]

I say the gov't should get there hands off my fukin' civil liberties. This country was founded by people fleeing a tyranical gov't, we can't go back to that out of fear. When they say on the news that "some civil liberties will have to be sacrificed in the name of safety," they're just asking to target Arabs and other people of color instead of doing their jobs.

The already do this anyway with racial profiling. Biggest offense in LA is a DWB (Driving While Brown). I have friends here at UCLA raised all over LA who have been pulled over AT LEAST 10 times EACH by cops saying "you fit the description of a suspect in the area." Such bullsht.