RE: FBI 'wiretapping' your

RE: FBI 'wiretapping' your (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

graceadieu -> RE: FBI 'wiretapping' your (5/16/2013 9:02:53 PM)
The issue at hand isn't whether or not the FBI will "wiretap" on cell phone calls or online chats. They do that already, when the technology makes it possible. It's just that sometimes, the technology/software isn't set up in such a way that eavesdropping on communication is actually possible (e.g. peer-to-peer networks). Right now, tech companies are required to allow the FBI to try to wiretap, but they aren't obliged to really help do it. What's being proposed is to force tech companies to always build the capacity for "wiretapping" into their communications technology.

Moonlightmaddnes -> RE: FBI 'wiretapping' your (5/16/2013 9:34:44 PM)
Well they would still need a warrant and they can't get that without probable cause so unless you are engaging in conversations with terrorists I doubt the FBI would be interested in what you are emailing. They would really enjoy my email. I email myself pics of my baby so I can save it to my computer and email myself recipes I found online. Real pins and needles there.

egern -> RE: FBI 'wiretapping' your (5/17/2013 9:01:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FunCouple5280 Without a warrant........ ? Yes!

egern -> RE: FBI 'wiretapping' your (5/17/2013 9:04:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 General question: Do you want less invasion of privacy, or more terrorist attacks. You cant have both without giving the FBI leeway. That is what they keep saying, but how many terrorist attacks have the world since all these rules came into being, and are they helping any? What about Boston?? All the surveillance already have netted this result: 0 I am inclined to think that our rules are more of a threat to democracy than the terrorists are about to lives.

egern -> RE: FBI 'wiretapping' your (5/17/2013 9:05:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 General question: Do you want less invasion of privacy, or more terrorist attacks. You cant have both without giving the FBI leeway. How much invasion of privacy will it take to guarantee safety? I do not see a trade off when safety cannot be guaranteed. The only loss is to liberty. Fair enough, but then we have to stop bitching and moaning about security. Back in 2005 or 2006 when we had just had the news a liquid bomb plot had been thwarted, I flew from the UK to the States. (in the same week) Who knows how many times I had to take my shoes of or have my bags searched before leaving Gatwick. Despite the lenghty queues no one got pissy because we all realised why it was being done. for the passengers on the plane, safety was guaranteed. Like I said, you cant have both. If you cannot have both, haven't they already won?

egern -> RE: FBI 'wiretapping' your (5/17/2013 9:07:37 AM)
quote: But the wishes of some should not become the chains of many. Wow!

egern -> RE: FBI 'wiretapping' your (5/17/2013 10:21:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 quote: ORIGINAL: egern Is this justified? This sort of thing has been going on since the days of J. Edgar Hoover. Whether or not it's "justified" depends on one's point of view. Are they dealing with bona fide threats to America, or are they merely gathering information on political attitudes and dissenters? Perhaps what we need is an independent agency made up of trusted citizen volunteers with the authority to wiretap the FBI and other government agencies. That may be what's needed to keep them honest. I think the time may be past for that. Is it not true that they can arrest any US citizen without putting him before a judge, and without right to a lawyer? That they can torture him? And in fact kill him? All under the new laws. At least that is what I hear.

egern -> RE: FBI 'wiretapping' your (5/17/2013 10:25:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonlightmaddnes Well they would still need a warrant and they can't get that without probable cause so unless you are engaging in conversations with terrorists I doubt the FBI would be interested in what you are emailing. They would really enjoy my email. I email myself pics of my baby so I can save it to my computer and email myself recipes I found online. Real pins and needles there. To the best of my knowledge they do not need a warrant.

Politesub53 -> RE: FBI 'wiretapping' your (5/17/2013 12:15:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: egern quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 General question: Do you want less invasion of privacy, or more terrorist attacks. You cant have both without giving the FBI leeway. That is what they keep saying, but how many terrorist attacks have the world since all these rules came into being, and are they helping any? What about Boston?? All the surveillance already have netted this result: 0 I am inclined to think that our rules are more of a threat to democracy than the terrorists are about to lives. Do yourself a favour and do some research, then get back to me.

JeffBC -> RE: FBI 'wiretapping' your (5/17/2013 12:19:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 General question: Do you want less invasion of privacy, or more terrorist attacks. You cant have both without giving the FBI leeway. Less invasion of privacy... hands down. Living with the random, occasional nut job being nutty is WAY better than living in an Orwellian police state.

Politesub53 -> RE: FBI 'wiretapping' your (5/17/2013 12:24:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JeffBC quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 General question: Do you want less invasion of privacy, or more terrorist attacks. You cant have both without giving the FBI leeway. Less invasion of privacy... hands down. Living with the random, occasional nut job being nutty is WAY better than living in an Orwellian police state. This constant bullshit that its an Orwellian police state doesnt hold water. But for arguments sake, lets say it does. Would you be happy for another 9/11 nd all the loss of life incured during and since ?

slvemike4u -> RE: FBI 'wiretapping' your (5/17/2013 12:25:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 General question: Do you want less invasion of privacy, or more terrorist attacks. You cant have both without giving the FBI leeway. How much invasion of privacy will it take to guarantee safety? I do not see a trade off when safety cannot be guaranteed. The only loss is to liberty. Fair enough, but then we have to stop bitching and moaning about security. Back in 2005 or 2006 when we had just had the news a liquid bomb plot had been thwarted, I flew from the UK to the States. (in the same week) Who knows how many times I had to take my shoes of or have my bags searched before leaving Gatwick. Despite the lenghty queues no one got pissy because we all realised why it was being done. for the passengers on the plane, safety was guaranteed. Like I said, you cant have both. I'm not sure I can agree with you on this Polite. Taking one's shoes off does not guarantee anyone's safety...I don't care how many times one does it. All that is accomplished by having passengers take off their shoes is an illusion of safety . The flyer who is being inconvenienced by this silly act,assumes the "evil doers" ,knowing of such pesky little precautions beforehand, has decided on committing their evil acts in another venue . How fucking silly is that ? Someone intent on bringing down an airliner and thus killing himself and all aboard is unlikely to become tripped up over removing their shoes. An actual planned attack by any half assed competent group could bypass most airport security systems with ease ! For instance you could all be shot while you stand in those silly lines.

JeffBC -> RE: FBI 'wiretapping' your (5/17/2013 12:32:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 This constant bullshit that its an Orwellian police state doesnt hold water. But for arguments sake, lets say it does. The more tech savvy you are the more Orwellian it looks like. quote: Would you be happy for another 9/11 nd all the loss of life incured during and since ? You are seriously asking me if I'd be happy if thousands of people die? Of course not. The question is what price tag am I willing to pay to save those lives. "Freedom" is not on my list. I would prefer a world where the private lives of private citizens was private and the government was not allowed to keep secrets. Instead, what we have is massive monitoring of the entire internet with more and more being built as quickly as they can build them. So now I return the question to you. Are you seriously OK with the government having access to every scrap of online anything you have ever done without a warrant and in perpetuity? We're not quite there yet but we're getting there fast. quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u An actual planned attack by any half assed competent group could bypass most airport security systems with ease ! For instance you could all be shot while you stand in those silly lines. Or, you could simply haul your ass out of a river wearing a bright yellow life vest and walk across the airport grounds and into a terminal dripping wet. Personally, I'm guessing that guy didn't have any shoes on.

Politesub53 -> RE: FBI 'wiretapping' your (5/17/2013 12:33:28 PM)
Mike, the security precautions are designed to protect those getting on planes. Looking at someones shoes may sound silly to a lot of you, though I doubt that includes those on the same flight as the shoebomber (and that was the timeframe when I travelled over) If there hadnt been such strict security then what would people have said if there had been a liquid bomb plot still in progress, alongside the one foiled in the very same week ? People would be pissing and moaning about hundreds of dead bodies and the lack of security. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_transatlantic_aircraft_plot

Politesub53 -> RE: FBI 'wiretapping' your (5/17/2013 12:38:04 PM)
The so called wire tapping is nothing of the sort. A computer does a mass search of all emails and picks out "trigger" words. They also keep tabs on who visits terrorist web sites. Nothing Orwellian about that. I mentioned the liquid bomb plot, one of those involved worked at the airport, so I for one was okay with taking my shoes off and having my bag checked. What makes me laugh is none of you moaning about it can actually fly much, because if you do you would have to comply with instructions or not be allowed to travel.

TheHeretic -> RE: FBI 'wiretapping' your (5/17/2013 8:23:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JeffBC Living with the random, occasional nut job being nutty is WAY better than living in an Orwellian police state. QFT

tj444 -> RE: FBI 'wiretapping' your (5/17/2013 8:31:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 I mentioned the liquid bomb plot, one of those involved worked at the airport, so I for one was okay with taking my shoes off and having my bag checked. how does you taking your shoes off make it safer if there are terrorists already working at the airport & they can just walk in thru the side door? how much security do the workers (including subcontractors and visitors like courier services, etc) actually have to go thru? I remember seeing a show (60 minutes?) on how lax security is behind the scenes, for deliveries for transport by plane or for the baggage handlers and others.. Maybe security is different in the UK.. but here was a case last year of an airport worker that stole someones ID.. "The alleged imposter was responsible for about 30 airport security personnel who manned TSA checkpoints after gates in the airport had closed for the night. His team also inspected deliveries to the airport." http://www.jobsite.com/news/twenty-year-airport-security-worker-illegal-immigrant-fake-id-job/ Btw, there are incidents of people having to remove their private pierced jewelry to board a plane & imo that is a bit much, that serves no true security purpose.. now if you had a pierced dick and the TSA agent told you that you needed to remove it would you be ok with that? [:-]

dcnovice -> RE: FBI 'wiretapping' your (5/17/2013 8:48:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JeffBC quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 General question: Do you want less invasion of privacy, or more terrorist attacks. You cant have both without giving the FBI leeway. Less invasion of privacy... hands down. Living with the random, occasional nut job being nutty is WAY better than living in an Orwellian police state. Point taken, Jeff, but I can't help noticing your sleights of hand: (a) Polite mentioned terrorist attacks, which you downgraded to "nutty" behavior. You make it sound like the concern is drunks singing in a fountain rather than hate-filled, twisted souls aiming to kill as many as possible. Would you honestly describe Timothy McVeigh's actions as "being nutty"? (b) On the other hand, you've put "less privacy"--those irksome airport rituals that I dislike* too--on such Armstrong-size doses of steroids that it's swelled to a full-fledged "Orwellian police state." That makes me wonder how much Orwell you've actually digested. You may want to check out Politics and the English Language before misusing his name again. *A recent flight to NYC was my first time encountering the new body scanners. My main reaction was struggling to bite my tongue to avoid asking if it showed whether my tumor has shrunk.

Politesub53 -> RE: FBI 'wiretapping' your (5/18/2013 4:17:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 I mentioned the liquid bomb plot, one of those involved worked at the airport, so I for one was okay with taking my shoes off and having my bag checked. how does you taking your shoes off make it safer if there are terrorists already working at the airport & they can just walk in thru the side door? Richard Reid.......... Ring any bells ?

JeffBC -> RE: FBI 'wiretapping' your (5/18/2013 6:33:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice Point taken, Jeff, but I can't help noticing your sleights of hand: I honestly didn't mean them as debate tricks so let me try to clarify. (a) Polite mentioned terrorist attacks, which you downgraded to "nutty" behavior. You make it sound like the concern is drunks singing in a fountain rather than hate-filled, twisted souls aiming to kill as many as possible. Would you honestly describe Timothy McVeigh's actions as "being nutty"? Yes, I would. And yes, sometimes when a nut job is particularly sociopathic and violent then you get crap like McVeigh... or 9/11... or whatever. I understand that lives will be lost... sometimes lots of them. But if I asserted to you that I could keep you completely safe from these dangerous killers by putting you in prison would you go? (b) On the other hand, you've put "less privacy"--those irksome airport rituals that I dislike* too--on such Armstrong-size doses of steroids that it's swelled to a full-fledged "Orwellian police state." That makes me wonder how much Orwell you've actually digested. You may want to check out Politics and the English Language before misusing his name again. Actually, it never occurred to me to think about "irksome airport rituals". Those I simply see as a hugely expensive waste of taxpayer money more designed to line some donors pockets than protect anyone from anything. This thread is not about airport rituals. It's about surveillance. What concerns me more are things like broad-scale surveillance and, of course, the 2012 NDAA. The whole issue with DHS authority in "border zones" (you know -- where 80% of the population lives) is also fascinating. In short, I want the rule of law... law which starts with the constitution. Generally... what I know about govt. surveillance comes from some small amount of actual inside knowledge, a wealth of geek and data security knowledge, and an avid interest in same. In this particular case there is no "tinfoil hat" going on. The things I worry about are completed projects or projects that are actually funded and in motion. They are well documented in mainstream media (think PBS and the like). The points are not argued by the govt.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875