FBI 'wiretapping' your (Full Version)

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



Message


egern -> FBI 'wiretapping' your (5/15/2013 9:16:13 AM)

They just do not stop, do they?


“Wiretapping” could soon refer to the FBI intercepting communications that do not use any actual wires. Both current and former U.S. officials are proposing legislation that could put pressure on Google, Facebook and other tech companies to make it possible for law enforcement to “eavesdrop” on online communications as they occur, the Washington Post reports.

The proposal would, in effect, add an enforcement provision to the 1968 Wiretap Act. Companies that failed to follow wiretap orders would face penalties starting at tens of thousands of dollars.

Up till now, federal officials have backed off when companies, wary of users’ privacy over personal data, have resisted wiretapping requests. The FBI now says that what it calls the “going dark” problem — the “curtain” pulled over suspects’ online activities — is an obstacle to fighting terrorism and tracking down criminals.

Read more: http://www.care2.com/causes/what-if-the-fbi-wiretapped-your-facebook-account.html#ixzz2TNWzh47U

Is this justified?




FunCouple5280 -> RE: FBI 'wiretapping' your (5/15/2013 10:03:00 AM)

Without a warrant........ ?




Politesub53 -> RE: FBI 'wiretapping' your (5/15/2013 5:09:42 PM)

General question: Do you want less invasion of privacy, or more terrorist attacks. You cant have both without giving the FBI leeway.




Yachtie -> RE: FBI 'wiretapping' your (5/15/2013 5:18:16 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.



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.




Politesub53 -> RE: FBI 'wiretapping' your (5/15/2013 5:26:13 PM)


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.




dcnovice -> RE: FBI 'wiretapping' your (5/15/2013 5:57:13 PM)

FR

The FBI tried wiretapping my calls, but they gave up when agents kept dying of boredom.




Yachtie -> RE: FBI 'wiretapping' your (5/15/2013 6:21:06 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.



The Israelis don't have people remove their shoes. They do it right. They know what they're looking for. Unlike us, or you in the UK, the Israelis would rather BE safe than politically correct.


Like I said, you cant have both.


[8|]


Besides, TSA does airports here, not the FBI.





MistressJude -> RE: FBI 'wiretapping' your (5/15/2013 6:22:31 PM)

I am mid-way through my Master's degree in Emergency Management and I cannot tell you the abundance of laws, arguments, counter arguments there are regarding issues like this. Most especially in the liberty vs. safety argument. After innumerable hours in research for various papers, reading through the laws, focusing on DHS, cyber law, cyber terrorism, and any number of similar subjects I have to say I still fall to the side of freedom. It's impossible not to at least stop for a brief moment to wonder "How much is too much" when it comes to relinquishing rights.

As a lesbian I'm active (somewhat, not largely so) in the LGBT fight for equal rights here in NC. I'm inundated with propaganda from friends about the struggle to maintain the right to arms. When you have such public issues of freedom like this it's easy to see how rights are so very important to us but when the disintegration of rights is done subtly through a tweak in this law here and a little change in that law here all done in documents that almost none ever reads (unless you're researching a Master's paper lol) it's easy to say "but it's all for safety" because you're not really feeling the immediate effects of those changes. You don't realize what you actually lost until you need it. Many will say "Well, I have nothing to hide anyway so they can look all they want," this is where it ultimately becomes the principle of the matter and a little prayer that you never get caught up in a situation that could result in you needing those very rights.

The alarming fact of the matter is that as much as we're "Rah, Rah, America is #1" we are, in fact, not. Many countries are well ahead of us in education and technology. China has been pounding at our door with countless cyber-attacks into all aspects of our government and utilities. North Korea (as much as we make fun of them) is "trying" to gear up for a fight. We have spread our nation thin on battle fronts and we have pissed off more than we've quelled. We are, without a doubt, at extreme risk. But what are we fighting to save if we give up who we are as a people? How can we demand other nations become democracies when we, ourselves, cannot even maintain a stable democratic - for the people - government ourselves?

This is very much a touchy issue and there will never be a "one twue answer." But the wishes of some should not become the chains of many.




Real0ne -> RE: FBI 'wiretapping' your (5/15/2013 6:23:38 PM)


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.


fr
the beauty of terrorism is that it promotes more government encroachment, everybody makes more money! well except the people but fuck them who cares.[;)]




dcnovice -> RE: FBI 'wiretapping' your (5/15/2013 6:25:06 PM)

quote:

The Israelis don't have people remove their shoes. They do it right. They know what they're looking for. Unlike us, or you in the UK, the Israelis would rather BE safe than politically correct.


Some interesting info:

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/terrorism/terror-rate.html




Yachtie -> RE: FBI 'wiretapping' your (5/15/2013 6:28:44 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

The Israelis don't have people remove their shoes. They do it right. They know what they're looking for. Unlike us, or you in the UK, the Israelis would rather BE safe than politically correct.


Some interesting info:

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/terrorism/terror-rate.html



In what way(s) is that relevant?




MistressJude -> RE: FBI 'wiretapping' your (5/15/2013 6:36:44 PM)


quote:

Besides, TSA does airports here, not the FBI.


And the TSA is like working with the mob. They're brutes and incompetent. They had to shut down an airport because they couldn't find a 90 something year old lady in a wheelchair that left and THEN they found something suspicious and still couldn't find her. There have been countless sexual harassment claims and now some airports are going with private security services over the TSA because of all the issues involved.

And perhaps the disturbing pattern here is that we're always scrambling to make a new law, act, or whatever AFTER the fact. We will here the occasional story of how something was thwarted but the changes don't come at that time. No, they wait until the public is attacked and in a tizzy over it before they go into action.

Immediately following the Boston bombing the polls went up on people opting for more police video surveillance. Why? It wasn't the police surveillance that did anything. It was Lord & Taylor and other stores. It was people on the streets. It was ATMs. It was us and business that caught them NOT Big Brother watching.




dcnovice -> RE: FBI 'wiretapping' your (5/15/2013 6:43:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

The Israelis don't have people remove their shoes. They do it right. They know what they're looking for. Unlike us, or you in the UK, the Israelis would rather BE safe than politically correct.


Some interesting info:

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/terrorism/terror-rate.html


In what way(s) is that relevant?

I found it relevant, and striking, that the folks who "do it right" have greater losses than the U.S. does.

This comparison particularly caught my eye:

Average death rate per million population from terrorism, 1985-2013:
-- 0.44 in the United States
-- 11.9 in Israel.


Do you really think our model should be a nation where one is 12 times as likely to die at the hands of terrorists?

And do you imagine that the Israelis "do it right" without some bending of civil liberties?




Politesub53 -> RE: FBI 'wiretapping' your (5/16/2013 3:56:38 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

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.



The Israelis don't have people remove their shoes. They do it right. They know what they're looking for. Unlike us, or you in the UK, the Israelis would rather BE safe than politically correct.


Like I said, you cant have both.


[8|]


Besides, TSA does airports here, not the FBI.




Well silly me for only naming one of your myriad of security aparatus.

WTF is "Politically correct" about searching pasangers for explosives during a time of crisis is beyond me. No doubt you will be able to explain.




Zonie63 -> RE: FBI 'wiretapping' your (5/16/2013 4:54:03 AM)


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.




tj444 -> RE: FBI 'wiretapping' your (5/16/2013 5:31:42 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: egern

They just do not stop, do they?

imo, the problem with the US govt is that they say its about stopping terrorism but then these measures drift into being used by the govt/IRS to catch tax evaders.. while some people might feel catching tax evaders using means meant for catching terrorists is ok, I dont... especially with a govt that likes to abuse its powers and go on fishing expeditions.. (gee,.. sorta like them auditing conservative organizations without any legit reason)

jmo




cordeliasub -> RE: FBI 'wiretapping' your (5/16/2013 7:56:22 AM)

quote:

And perhaps the disturbing pattern here is that we're always scrambling to make a new law, act, or whatever AFTER the fact. We will here the occasional story of how something was thwarted but the changes don't come at that time. No, they wait until the public is attacked and in a tizzy over it before they go into action.

Immediately following the Boston bombing the polls went up on people opting for more police video surveillance. Why? It wasn't the police surveillance that did anything. It was Lord & Taylor and other stores. It was people on the streets. It was ATMs. It was us and business that caught them NOT Big Brother watching.


QFT




Hillwilliam -> RE: FBI 'wiretapping' your (5/16/2013 12:14:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MistressJude




And the TSA is like working with the mob. They're brutes and incompetent.

You really shouldn't say that about the Mob.




MistressJude -> RE: FBI 'wiretapping' your (5/16/2013 2:15:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam


quote:

ORIGINAL: MistressJude




And the TSA is like working with the mob. They're brutes and incompetent.

You really shouldn't say that about the Mob.



Indeed I could wind up with a pair of cement shoes. Being an Italian New Yorker I actually believe working with the mob would be easier than handling the twits at the TSA




dcnovice -> RE: FBI 'wiretapping' your (5/16/2013 5:58:57 PM)

quote:

Being an Italian New Yorker I actually believe working with the mob would be easier than handling the twits at the TSA

My bleeding heart has a soft spot for underdogs, so I have to offer a different perspective on the TSA.

In the summer of 1982, after my first year in college, I worked (at minimum wage) as an airport security guy at JFK. I wore a polyester uniform and performed different tasks at the checkpoint. Most of the time, I stood at the entrance, checking boarding passes. Families of 15 would arrive, then gripe when only the one of them who was actually flying was allowed to head to the gate. Other times I loaded bags onto the conveyor. Each night as I awaited sleep, bag after bag would race through my mind. I suppose I could have counted them instead of sheep. Sometimes I would shepherd people through the metal detector, and on rare occasions I got a crack at the most coveted job (because it involved no contact with the public), looking at the x-rays on the monitor.

We weren't TSA back then, but people didn't like us any better. Folks could be blisteringly rude, and the airline employees considered us (we were subcontractors) little better than pond scum. Despite all that, we soldiered on, doing our impossible job with as much efficiency and grace as we could muster.

I confess that the latter was sorely tried the night a kid puked on my feet. Ditto for the time drunken passengers threw a trash can at the metal gate because we hadn't opened the checkpoint yet. And when a "lady" with a huge carryon demanded it be checked by hand because her precious film--three rolls at the very bottom--couldn't possibly go through the x-ray. Also can't forget the guy who showed up with a metal grille from inside his car engine, half wrapped in a sliced-up carton and dripping oil. As Dave Barry would say, I am not making this up.

Why "impossible"? Because we got maybe half a minute with each passenger. Probably less. In that sliver of time, you have to make a lightning-quick decision about whether a bag needs to be opened, a beeping passenger needs to be patted down, a dubious item allowed onto the plane, and so forth. It's pretty damn hard to promise total safety at that pace. Slow down, though, and passengers riot, whereupon the airline gets upset. I'd definitely ratify politesub's observation that we can have privacy/convenience or total security--but not both.

Back in Boy Scouts, we learned an "Indian" adage: Never criticize someone until you've walked a mile in his or her moccasins. That seems particularly fitting for folks working long hours, on sore feet for wages I'd never take now, to try and keep us safe.




Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875