lol I do occasionally. This is why you'll see me post in bursts. I'll take ten minutes or so to see what's going on, and then back to boring award packages...I hope your not getting on this forum while your doing your chair force duties, even if you are a comm weenie.
Wow. Interesting to hear people put it that way.
So you'd be fine with this legislation as long as you don't find out your email has been turned in?
And the Patriot Act can not separate 'overseas' communications from 'conus' communications when it comes to things like internet traffic, because packets don't take one specific route.
The government uses deep packet inspection, searching for combinations of key words.
Sure there has been. Even parts of it were struck down as uncons utional. Part of the amendments in 2005 and 2006 addressed exactly those problems: abuse of NSL and the uncons utional gag orders tied to them.
The good news is that the roving wiretap provisions should sunset at the end of this year, although this administration will most likely extend them.
Basically, as things stand, they don't need people to email them to know who is sending those phony emails. They're most likely compiling info to counterpunch in the $50 million dollar TV ad campaign that you know it's coming...
They've done this since the cold war days. The difference, besides of the massive volume you can process with today's tech, is that prior to the Patriot Act they had to do it from Echelon in the UK, which kinda limited the amount of data they could process.
1984 was right, there's nothing like spying home from home...
In the former Soviet Union, psikhushkas — mental hospitals — were used by the state as prisons in order to isolate political prisoners, discredit their ideas, and break them physically and mentally. The Soviet state began using mental hospitals to punish dissidents in 1939 under Stalin. The Psychiatric Prison Hospital in the city of Kazan was transferred to NKVD (the secret police organization for the People’s Commissariat for Internal Affairs) control and in 1969 Yuri Andropov, the head of KGB, submitted to the Central Committee of Communist Party of the Soviet Union a plan for creating a network of psikhushkas.
According to official Soviet psychiatry and the Moscow Serbsky Ins ute at the time, “ideas about a struggle for truth and justice are formed by personalities with a paranoid structure.” Treatment for this special political schizophrenia included various forms of restraint, electric shocks, electromagnetic torture, radiation torture, lumbar punctures, various drugs — such as narcotics, tranquilizers, and insulin — and beatings. Anne Applebaum, author of Gulag: A History, indicates that at least 365 sane people were treated for “politically defined madness,” although she surmises there were many more.
Hey You think Obamas toying with the idea of putting this in his health care bill
I think micca has lost his mind.
whoa just a minute comrade...I don't know how that post got up there...I mean....I just.....look there's no need to email the whitehouse over this is there....I mean......look my nieghbor listens to that talk radio and his window was open last night I think.... that while I was sleeping he brainwashed me yeah... that's it.
Look you don't want me I'm just a small fish. My nieghbor you want him....he's pro-life and a vetran, you want him.....I'll give you names, he has these pro-life vetran friends......I tell you I'll give you names...I'm loyal to the leader....I tell you I'm loyal....I get the chills running down my legs too..I love his pecs.....please there's no need to email the whitehouse.
stop lying about the healthcare bill proposals and you have nothing to worry about.
Magik Negro wants to murder your grandmother, and wants to deny health care for Ted Kennedy's brain cancer.
nice. people should do that with their myspace and facebook accounts.
I was wondering why my computer was running slower. Better check for that CHUMP virus...
......................
ok...deal
How would you know anyway?
For all of theses last few decades of modern communications, someone could easily spy on you. Making it legal for law enforcement under certain cir stances does not man someone with access didn't abuse the system before. If someone has unethical intent, do you think the law matters to them?
That like declaring a "Gun Free Zone" so criminals will put away their guns. They do it anyway.
In the late 80's, the AT&T DACS frame I worked on could monitor any conversation anywhere on the digital system, if you knew the right access codes. Now, everything is on digital switching frames. Legal or not, it can be done. I'm more worried about the ethics of people who have access. Not the legality of it.
When the government actually hands you a do ent containing your tapped phone conversations, then says oops, takes it away from you and claims such do ent can't be used against them?
Nobody is claiming it can't be done. There are legitimate uses for wiretapping, including law enforcement. However, those require judicial overview (that little pesky thing called probable cause) in order for them to be legal. Ethics has nothing to do with it.
?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????
?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????
?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????
?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????
?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????
?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????
?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????
?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????
?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????
?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????
i think i may be infected too
I disagree with you. Ethics has everything to do with it at this point. We are trusting the information without or without the protection of law. Under the stated means that a warrentless intrusion can occur, we are relying on the ethics of the people making the decision. If they lack the needed ethics, they will just do it anyway if they want.
Speak for yourself. PGP is MY friend.
Plus, I would like the law to be respected... imagine that!
PGP?
That is my point. If the law isn't respected, the law doesn't matter.
It's more like saying we shouldn't say murder is illegal, because people still do it anyways.
being a wise latino/latino would fix that.
Commercial name of a Public Key crypto product
Exactly. My contention is that ethics have nothing to do with it if the law is applied.
.
Pretty Good Privacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy
An encryption algorithym.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
