Zipp0 1
Recommended Posts
QuoteQuoteNot everyone needs or wants a gun.
Well, not everyone wants a gun, but everyone needs one. They just don't all realize it.
Too many people realize AFTER something happens, rather than before when they could've done something to help themselves.
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteChanges nothing. If you aren't calling terrorists, you have nothing to fear
Ahhh, the eulogy of freedom.
That's what the gun owners said, when they used that excuse about the background checks, too.... "If you're law-abiding, why are you so scared about a background check?"
Same principle....
So why are you (and the other pro-gun pro-giving phone records to the government posters) OK with the government having access to our phone records but against having background checks on gun purchases?
The argument of having nothing to fear applies to both.
The argument about the constitution is the same (2&4)
The only difference I can see is that one is a right wing and and the other a left wing initiative.
One argument against gun registration is the government using the information for the wrong reason, i.e. to know who has the guns so they can be disarmed, if you do not trust the government with registration info why do you trust them with all the records of everyone phone calls? Sounds like partisan hypocrisy to me.
What would you do if Bush signed an executive order forcing gun registration, in fact I bet they already keep track of who is buying guns, they just havn't leaked it yet.
First, I never said I was 'ok with it'. I'm merely asking "why is this SUDDENLY such a big deal, when it's been going on for years?"
Is it because the general public never got up off their asses and read about it until now, or is it a "OMG look at what the evil Conservatives are doing NOW!!!!" situation?
There's already a de facto registration of gun owners, since ATF(e) and FBI aren't destroying the purchase records like they're supposed to.
And again, as I said earlier - it's equally hypocritical to say "it's fine for the gov't to keep tabs on you and investigate you because you're a gun owner" and then turn around and say "Oh, totalitarian state, fascism, see the violence inherent in the system (extra points for providing the quote), the phone company gave the gov't a list of who I called!"
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
sundevil777 102
Quotesee the violence inherent in the system
Monty Python and the Holy Grail.
People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuotesee the violence inherent in the system
Monty Python and the Holy Grail.
+++ brownie points
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
sundevil777 102
That was easy.
Woman: Well 'ow'd you become king then?
(holy music up)
Arthur: The Lady of the Lake-- her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite,
held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by
divine providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. THAT is why
I am your king!
Man: (laughingly) Listen: Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords
is no basis for a system of government! Supreme executive power
derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some... farcical
aquatic ceremony!
Arthur: (yelling) BE QUIET!
Man: You can't expect to wield supreme executive power just 'cause some
watery tart threw a sword at you!!
Arthur: (coming forward and grabbing the man) Shut *UP*!
Man: I mean, if I went 'round, saying I was an emperor, just because some
moistened bink had lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away!
Arthur: (throwing the man around) Shut up, will you, SHUT UP!
Man: Aha! Now we see the violence inherent in the system!
Arthur: SHUT UP!
Man: (yelling to all the other workers) Come and see the violence inherent
in the system! HELP, HELP, I'M BEING REPRESSED!
Arthur: (letting go and walking away) Bloody PEASANT!
Man: Oh, what a giveaway! Did'j'hear that, did'j'hear that, eh? That's
what I'm all about! Did you see 'im repressing me? You saw it,
didn't you?!
Woman: Well 'ow'd you become king then?
(holy music up)
Arthur: The Lady of the Lake-- her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite,
held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by
divine providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. THAT is why
I am your king!
Man: (laughingly) Listen: Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords
is no basis for a system of government! Supreme executive power
derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some... farcical
aquatic ceremony!
Arthur: (yelling) BE QUIET!
Man: You can't expect to wield supreme executive power just 'cause some
watery tart threw a sword at you!!
Arthur: (coming forward and grabbing the man) Shut *UP*!
Man: I mean, if I went 'round, saying I was an emperor, just because some
moistened bink had lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away!
Arthur: (throwing the man around) Shut up, will you, SHUT UP!
Man: Aha! Now we see the violence inherent in the system!
Arthur: SHUT UP!
Man: (yelling to all the other workers) Come and see the violence inherent
in the system! HELP, HELP, I'M BEING REPRESSED!
Arthur: (letting go and walking away) Bloody PEASANT!
Man: Oh, what a giveaway! Did'j'hear that, did'j'hear that, eh? That's
what I'm all about! Did you see 'im repressing me? You saw it,
didn't you?!
People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am
mnealtx 0
QuoteThat was easy
Yeah, I know... still a great movie, though!!
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
jenfly00 0
QuoteQuoteQuoteChanges nothing. If you aren't calling terrorists, you have nothing to fear
Ahhh, the eulogy of freedom.
That's what the gun owners said, when they used that excuse about the background checks, too.... "If you're law-abiding, why are you so scared about a background check?"
Same principle....
I'll give you that. It is the same principle in a broad sense. There certainly are valid reason for the incursion of the govt into our lives. Where do we draw the lines? Ahh, there lies the rub.
As I said above, too many lines are being moved. The gestalt of the individual movements poses some degree of threat to individual freedoms and due process (do you disagree?). I believe the degree of threat is unacceptable for a free nation. I believe the tide of govt incursion threatens what we, as a free people, profess to believe. I believe our country is changing and, indeed, threatening to extinguish the beacon of freedom once viewed round the world.
Political loyalities and ideologies cloud the judgment of good men and women. It's time to open our eyes. It's time to speak up against those who attack good citizens (and invite them leave our country) who's only 'crime' is to defend the Bill of Rights. It's time to wake up and act ...while we can.
-----------------------
"O brave new world that has such people in it".
"O brave new world that has such people in it".
QuoteIt's time to wake up and act ...while we can.
Why do you think it's not already far too late?
First Class Citizen Twice Over
Dear Paranoid Solipsists.
The data you are so freaked out about was stripped of all personal identifying information. Yup, that's right, the only data given to the NSA was just phone numbers with no names or addresses attached.
Memo to privacy nuts: The computer does not have a clue that you exist; it does not know what it is churning through; your phone number is meaningless to it. The press loves to stress the astounding volume of data that data mining can consume--the Washington Post's lead on May 12 warned that the administration had been "secretly . . . assembling gargantuan databases." But it is precisely the size of that data store that renders the image of individualized snooping so absurd.
True, the government can de-anonymize the data if connections to terror suspects emerge, and it is not known what threshold of proof the government uses to put a name to critical phone numbers. But until that point is reached, your privacy is at greater risk from the Goodyear blimp at a Stones concert than from the NSA's supercomputers churning through trillions of zeros and ones representing disembodied phone numbers.
And even after that point is reached, the notion that 280 million Americans who have not been communicating with al Qaeda are at risk from this quadrillion-bit program is absurd. What exactly are the privacy advocates worried about? That an NSA agent will search the phone records of his ex-wife or of themselves? This quaint scenario completely misunderstands the scale of, and bureaucratic checks on, such data analysis programs.
Data mining looks for mathematical patterns in computerized information; it is not a real-time spying operation. The government didn't need to go to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court for a wiretap or pen register order (which governs the collection of phone numbers in real time from a single phone) because
it is not listening to or recording any individual's calls.
Now I know this is no consulation to your paranoid delusions, but I just thought I'd inteject a ray of reality into your freaky little world. Carry on. That is all.
-
The data you are so freaked out about was stripped of all personal identifying information. Yup, that's right, the only data given to the NSA was just phone numbers with no names or addresses attached.
Memo to privacy nuts: The computer does not have a clue that you exist; it does not know what it is churning through; your phone number is meaningless to it. The press loves to stress the astounding volume of data that data mining can consume--the Washington Post's lead on May 12 warned that the administration had been "secretly . . . assembling gargantuan databases." But it is precisely the size of that data store that renders the image of individualized snooping so absurd.
True, the government can de-anonymize the data if connections to terror suspects emerge, and it is not known what threshold of proof the government uses to put a name to critical phone numbers. But until that point is reached, your privacy is at greater risk from the Goodyear blimp at a Stones concert than from the NSA's supercomputers churning through trillions of zeros and ones representing disembodied phone numbers.
And even after that point is reached, the notion that 280 million Americans who have not been communicating with al Qaeda are at risk from this quadrillion-bit program is absurd. What exactly are the privacy advocates worried about? That an NSA agent will search the phone records of his ex-wife or of themselves? This quaint scenario completely misunderstands the scale of, and bureaucratic checks on, such data analysis programs.
Data mining looks for mathematical patterns in computerized information; it is not a real-time spying operation. The government didn't need to go to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court for a wiretap or pen register order (which governs the collection of phone numbers in real time from a single phone) because
it is not listening to or recording any individual's calls.
Now I know this is no consulation to your paranoid delusions, but I just thought I'd inteject a ray of reality into your freaky little world. Carry on. That is all.
-
Michele 1
I was thinking about all of this, and wondering if the contract we signed when we signed up with the cell phones was the same sort of contract we have when we use regular telephones...
I recall signing a contract that said my server could give my information to the government in an instance of national security. Could this conceivably be how the government is justifying the turn over? And does the same sort of contract apply to a land-line? It's been years since I had a land line...so I don't recall.
Anyway, it may turn out that we gave our permission to the phone companies to give data to the government...the only issue we'd have to determine, in that instance, is what definition "national security" would carry in this realm.
Any of the local legal eagles care to comment? Or even anyone more completely informed than I?
Ciels-
Michele
~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~
I recall signing a contract that said my server could give my information to the government in an instance of national security. Could this conceivably be how the government is justifying the turn over? And does the same sort of contract apply to a land-line? It's been years since I had a land line...so I don't recall.
Anyway, it may turn out that we gave our permission to the phone companies to give data to the government...the only issue we'd have to determine, in that instance, is what definition "national security" would carry in this realm.
Any of the local legal eagles care to comment? Or even anyone more completely informed than I?
Ciels-
Michele
~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~
Not sure about that. Who reads all that stuff anyway? Just gimme the phone and tell me how much it costs per month. 
I believe that conversations on wireless phones and cell phones have "no expectation of privacy."
I'm not a lawyer, so I don't want to go too far out on a limb here, but I believe the only violation of the law would be disclosure of information contained in a phone call or mail envelope. As an example, the disclosure of who you sent a letter to by the Postal Service is not protected iirc.
Here's some reading if you are interested.
http://www.rbs2.com/privacy.htm
-
I believe that conversations on wireless phones and cell phones have "no expectation of privacy."
I'm not a lawyer, so I don't want to go too far out on a limb here, but I believe the only violation of the law would be disclosure of information contained in a phone call or mail envelope. As an example, the disclosure of who you sent a letter to by the Postal Service is not protected iirc.
Here's some reading if you are interested.
http://www.rbs2.com/privacy.htm
-
I did find some caselaw on this.
U.S. Supreme Court
SMITH v. MARYLAND, 442 U.S. 735 (1979)
442 U.S. 735
SMITH v. MARYLAND.
CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND.
No. 78-5374.
Argued March 28, 1979.
Decided June 20, 1979.
The telephone company, at police request, installed at its central offices a pen register to record the numbers dialed from the telephone at petitioner's home. Prior to his robbery trial, petitioner moved to suppress "all fruits derived from" the pen register. The Maryland trial court denied this motion, holding that the warrantless installation of the pen register did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Petitioner was convicted, and the Maryland Court of Appeals affirmed.
Held:
The installation and use of the pen register was not a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, and hence no warrant was required. Pp. 739-746.
(a) Application of the Fourth Amendment depends on whether the person invoking its protection can claim a "legitimate expectation of privacy" that has been invaded by government action. This inquiry normally embraces two questions: first, whether the individual has exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy; and second, whether his expectation is one that society is prepared to recognize as "reasonable." Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 . Pp. 739-741.
(b) Petitioner in all probability entertained no actual expectation of privacy in the phone numbers he dialed, and even if he did, his expectation was not "legitimate." First, it is doubtful that telephone users in general have any expectation of privacy regarding the numbers they dial, since they typically know that they must convey phone numbers to the telephone company and that the company has facilities for recording this information and does in fact record it for various legitimate business purposes. And petitioner did not demonstrate an expectation of privacy merely by using his home phone rather than some other phone, since his conduct, although perhaps calculated to keep the contents of his conversation private, was not calculated to preserve the privacy of the number he dialed. Second, even if petitioner did harbor some subjective expectation of privacy, this expectation was not one that society is prepared to recognize as "reasonable." When petitioner voluntarily conveyed numerical information to the phone company and "exposed" that information to its equipment in the normal course of business, he assumed the risk that the company would reveal the information [442 U.S. 735, 736] to the police, cf. United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 . Pp. 741-746.
-
U.S. Supreme Court
SMITH v. MARYLAND, 442 U.S. 735 (1979)
442 U.S. 735
SMITH v. MARYLAND.
CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND.
No. 78-5374.
Argued March 28, 1979.
Decided June 20, 1979.
The telephone company, at police request, installed at its central offices a pen register to record the numbers dialed from the telephone at petitioner's home. Prior to his robbery trial, petitioner moved to suppress "all fruits derived from" the pen register. The Maryland trial court denied this motion, holding that the warrantless installation of the pen register did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Petitioner was convicted, and the Maryland Court of Appeals affirmed.
Held:
The installation and use of the pen register was not a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, and hence no warrant was required. Pp. 739-746.
(a) Application of the Fourth Amendment depends on whether the person invoking its protection can claim a "legitimate expectation of privacy" that has been invaded by government action. This inquiry normally embraces two questions: first, whether the individual has exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy; and second, whether his expectation is one that society is prepared to recognize as "reasonable." Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 . Pp. 739-741.
(b) Petitioner in all probability entertained no actual expectation of privacy in the phone numbers he dialed, and even if he did, his expectation was not "legitimate." First, it is doubtful that telephone users in general have any expectation of privacy regarding the numbers they dial, since they typically know that they must convey phone numbers to the telephone company and that the company has facilities for recording this information and does in fact record it for various legitimate business purposes. And petitioner did not demonstrate an expectation of privacy merely by using his home phone rather than some other phone, since his conduct, although perhaps calculated to keep the contents of his conversation private, was not calculated to preserve the privacy of the number he dialed. Second, even if petitioner did harbor some subjective expectation of privacy, this expectation was not one that society is prepared to recognize as "reasonable." When petitioner voluntarily conveyed numerical information to the phone company and "exposed" that information to its equipment in the normal course of business, he assumed the risk that the company would reveal the information [442 U.S. 735, 736] to the police, cf. United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 . Pp. 741-746.
-
sfc 1
QuoteDear Paranoid Solipsists.
The data you are so freaked out about was stripped of all personal identifying information. Yup, that's right, the only data given to the NSA was just phone numbers with no names or addresses attached.
Are you so naive as to believe that they cannot do not have access to a reverse directory phonebook?
QuoteQuoteDear Paranoid Solipsists.
The data you are so freaked out about was stripped of all personal identifying information. Yup, that's right, the only data given to the NSA was just phone numbers with no names or addresses attached.
Are you so naive as to believe that they cannot do not have access to a reverse directory phonebook?
And why exactly would they want to look you up? Are you so naive as to believe the govt. has the time, money or inclination to look up tens of million of phone calls made every day? Do you think they are interested in someone who calls their Aunt Martha to discuss Uncle Barts Birthday. Get a grip, man!
-
QuoteAre you so naive as to believe the govt. has the time, money or inclination to look up tens of million of phone calls made every day?
Are you fucking kidding??? A two-table lookup would take me an hour to program. A talented programmer could do it in 5 minutes.
A rack of $500 PCs is probably enough computing power to handle all reverse number lookups for all the phone traffic in the country.
First Class Citizen Twice Over
sfc 1
QuoteQuoteQuoteDear Paranoid Solipsists.
The data you are so freaked out about was stripped of all personal identifying information. Yup, that's right, the only data given to the NSA was just phone numbers with no names or addresses attached.
Are you so naive as to believe that they cannot do not have access to a reverse directory phonebook?
And why exactly would they want to look you up? Are you so naive as to believe the govt. has the time, money or inclination to look up tens of million of phone calls made every day? Do you think they are interested in someone who calls their Aunt Martha to discuss Uncle Barts Birthday. Get a grip, man!
-
Linking a phone directory to this database would be trivial, and would cost very little. It is a simple cross reference between two database tables.
The government can now, at the click of a button, get a list of everyone you have talked to on the phone, how offen you talked, when and for how long, are you really OK with that?
QuoteThe government can now, at the click of a button, get a list of everyone you have talked to on the phone, how offen you talked, when and for how long, are you really OK with that?
He's ok with that as long as the chief crook is HIS chief crook.
First Class Citizen Twice Over
rushmc 23
QuoteQuoteThe government can now, at the click of a button, get a list of everyone you have talked to on the phone, how offen you talked, when and for how long, are you really OK with that?
He's ok with that as long as the chief crook is HIS chief crook.
Thanks for admitting the real reason for your anger!
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
Excellent point. Why are they OK with the phone snooping, but NOT the gun snooping?
Hmmmmmmmm?
Zipp0
--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites