Cuchulainn
The Roar of the Masses Could be Farts
join:2000-11-09
Chevy Chase, MD
 ·Verizon FIOS
 ·ntlworld
| Cue the Predictable Responses
Here come the "arguments" from the right
1. "If you have nothing to hide, why are you whining?"
2. "It's all the fault of the &*^%$@!!! EFF!"
3. "If we don't eavesdrop on everyone then the terrorists win"
4. "More Snooping = More Security. You're not opposing SECURITY, are you?"
5. "We was attacked on 9-11 so anything goes."
Either we're free or we're not.
--
Getting your news from Bill O'Reilly is like getting your nutrition from deep-fried Ding Dongs.
|
|
Matt
Running Free
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
 ·North State Commun..
 ·Corporate Colocation
| said by Cuchulainn  :Here come the "arguments" from the right 1. "If you have nothing to hide, why are you whining?" 2. "It's all the fault of the &*^%$@!!! EFF!" 3. "If we don't eavesdrop on everyone then the terrorists win" 4. "More Snooping = More Security. You're not opposing SECURITY, are you?" 5. "We was attacked on 9-11 so anything goes." Either we're free or we're not. I definitely lean to the left but I agree with sentiment #1. If you've got nothing to hide, why worry? I'm more concerned with the costs the ISPs will incur and how they will be passed along to me.
I have absolutely no problem with this law as long as there is proper oversight and the information is turned over after a warrant has been issued. |
|
Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
| reply to Cuchulainn
the costs will be passed to you no matter what, even if the government paid for it, you would somehow see a raise in some tax and the ISP would makeup an "unfee" under the guise of it paying for the monitoring.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports |
|
MrShag
join:2006-07-09
Hamilton, ON | reply to Matt
But if I have done nothing, or havr nothing to hide, why do feel the need to search/monitor me?? |
|
rcdailey
Dragoonfly
Premium
join:2005-03-29
Rialto, CA | reply to Matt
If you have nothing to hide, call the IRS and request that they audit your tax returns for the past five years. |
|
woody7
Premium
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA | reply to Matt
"I have absolutely no problem with this law as long as there is proper oversight and the information is turned over after a warrant has been issued"
And this has happened in the past? yea right......
--
BlooMe |
|
Gogo1
join:2004-05-27
Brooklyn, NY
| reply to rcdailey
said by rcdailey :If you have nothing to hide, call the IRS and request that they audit your tax returns for the past five years. lol. err, what? |
|
knightmb
join:2003-12-01
Franklin, TN
·Comcast
 ·Vonage
·Speakeasy
| reply to rcdailey
said by rcdailey :If you have nothing to hide, call the IRS and request that they audit your tax returns for the past five years. Already tried that, they won't do it. Even though a business may fear the audit, the individual usually doesn't. Basically it's a free tax service for you in which everything all of sudden can become an expense and then they end up owing you more money provided you haven't been doing anything illegal of course.
It's different for a business because they can't read the minds of all the employees so they don't know if "IT Bob" really bought that copy of Winblows 2004 server for the company or not. |
|
Doctor Four
My other vehicle is a TARDIS
Premium
join:2000-09-05
Dallas, TX
·AT&T U-Verse
·RoadRunner Cable
·AT&T Yahoo
| reply to Cuchulainn
Curiously enough, there is very little of that so far in
the replies to this story.
I wonder if they too are beginning to see this for what
it is, and have nothing to say on the matter.
--
"The trouble with computers, of course, is that they are very sophisticated idiots." - Doctor Who (from Robot)
|
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
·EarthLink
| reply to knightmb
said by knightmb : they don't know if "IT Bob" really bought that copy of Winblows 2004 server No one in IT is named Bob anymore. Try Padma and Rajesh.
Mark |
|
Frank
is chilling
Premium
join:2000-11-03
somewhere
·Verizon FIOS
| reply to Matt
said by Matt :said by Cuchulainn :Here come the "arguments" from the right 1. "If you have nothing to hide, why are you whining?" 2. "It's all the fault of the &*^%$@!!! EFF!" 3. "If we don't eavesdrop on everyone then the terrorists win" 4. "More Snooping = More Security. You're not opposing SECURITY, are you?" 5. "We was attacked on 9-11 so anything goes." Either we're free or we're not. I definitely lean to the left but I agree with sentiment #1. If you've got nothing to hide, why worry? privacy.....
no offense, but, unless you live in a transparent glass house...... i'm pretty sure you dont really believe in what you're saying or you may think that the implications of what you're saying have another meaning..
--
At first I thought everyone on the highway was drunk but then I realized I was driving in Florida  |
|
digitalfreak
Frodo failed. Bush has the ring
join:2005-12-09
49533
edit:
April 24th, @02:14PM
| reply to Matt
said by Matt :said by Cuchulainn :Here come the "arguments" from the right 1. "If you have nothing to hide, why are you whining?" I definitely lean to the left but I agree with sentiment #1. If you've got nothing to hide, why worry? I'm more concerned with the costs the ISPs will incur and how they will be passed along to me. I have absolutely no problem with this law as long as there is proper oversight and the information is turned over after a warrant has been issued. Wow. If you're the type of person voting for Obama, I might have to switch parties. |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| reply to Cuchulainn
said by Cuchulainn :we're not. In the modern age it's getting more on the "We're not" side of the equation. |
|
Cuchulainn
The Roar of the Masses Could be Farts
join:2000-11-09
Chevy Chase, MD
·Verizon FIOS
·ntlworld
| reply to Frank
said by Frank :said by Matt :said by Cuchulainn :Here come the "arguments" from the right 1. "If you have nothing to hide, why are you whining?" 2. "It's all the fault of the &*^%$@!!! EFF!" 3. "If we don't eavesdrop on everyone then the terrorists win" 4. "More Snooping = More Security. You're not opposing SECURITY, are you?" 5. "We was attacked on 9-11 so anything goes." Either we're free or we're not. I definitely lean to the left but I agree with sentiment #1. If you've got nothing to hide, why worry? privacy..... no offense, but, unless you live in a transparent glass house...... i'm pretty sure you dont really believe in what you're saying or you may think that the implications of what you're saying have another meaning.. That was extremely well said.
--
Getting your news from Bill O'Reilly is like getting your nutrition from deep-fried Ding Dongs.
|
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| reply to digitalfreak
said by digitalfreak :Wow. If you're the type of person voting for Obama, I might have to switch parties. I suspect when someone tries to qualify their statements by saying they lean to the left (like it's a left issue only) that all that really means is that they feel they aren't quite as far out in right field as others are...
/sigh I really wish we could get our minds past this two party thinking of Conservative/Liberal or Republican/Democrat and realize that BS is BS no matter which way you slice it.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) |
|
Woody79_00
join:2004-07-08
| reply to Matt
said by Matt :said by Cuchulainn :Here come the "arguments" from the right 1. "If you have nothing to hide, why are you whining?" 2. "It's all the fault of the &*^%$@!!! EFF!" 3. "If we don't eavesdrop on everyone then the terrorists win" 4. "More Snooping = More Security. You're not opposing SECURITY, are you?" 5. "We was attacked on 9-11 so anything goes." Either we're free or we're not. I definitely lean to the left but I agree with sentiment #1. If you've got nothing to hide, why worry? I'm more concerned with the costs the ISPs will incur and how they will be passed along to me. I have absolutely no problem with this law as long as there is proper oversight and the information is turned over after a warrant has been issued. This is funny, the famous "I have nothing to hide, why worry" Statement
I'll tell you why to worry, "they are Violating our Civil Liberties" that is why...any liberties they take away you will not get back, don't be so quick to give them up
This entire idea is "Unconstitutional" and is in direct Violation of the 4th Amendment which is as follows:
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
A law of this scope is Unconstitutional, The REcords from your ISP's concering your activities are "Technically" owned by 2 people. 1. Your records from your ISP are "owned by you", 2. Your ISP also has what is called a "protectorate" ownership of your records.(This the reason for Privacy polices you must sign to agree them to do what they need to do with your information)
Technically, to monitor just "one" person's Internet, you would need a warrant from a judge describing "exactly" what you are looking for and how long the action will last(most warrants of this type will not extend beyond 6 months without formal judicial review for extension if merited)
The Ammendment cleary states that all papers, effects, etc are protected from unlawful searches and seizures without a warrant(that includes eletronic documents today) even if they are not "located in your house" per se, they are still your papers, owned by you, and afford the same protections. It is no different if someone steals your car, be it in your yard(on your property) or at the mall(off your property) your car is still afford the same protections.
also, ISP's are protected under this same Amendment from such "unreasonable" searches and seizures of proprietary information of such a broad scope
If i owned an ISP, I would file a motion in Court to stop this, stating that "Such a practice would expose us to civil lawsuits, AND it would reveal proprietary trade secrets and technologies that are vital to our business"
just to note, Google used the same argument a few years ago, and Won in the United States supreme Court concering search traffic records..
All ISP should follow suit, the Precedant has been set, this can be stopped
This not about wrong doing, Its about Civil Liberties that everyone has rights to, just because you don't value them doesn't mean others(80% of the population) don't
Its because of folks that think like you that our country is falling apart, Adolph hitler said and did the same things, "oh just give this up so we can protect you" look how that turned out.
Ron Paul was the only one to vote against and challenge the Constitutionaly of the Patriot ACT
Ron Paul was the only one to vote against the Real ID Act
He fights for Liberty and freedom everyday, he has been viciously fighting the north American Union, which plans to scap our Constitution, merge the USA, Mexcio, and Canada into 1 country
THe complete and total loss of our Sovereignty as a nation and as a people, the North American Union's Constitution will be modeled after the Russian Constitution, your rights won't be unalienable, they will be "allowed" by government and able to be taken away at will, Only Ron Paul, and that one other Libertian Congresman has had the guts to stand up and tell the American people what is going on, and the News Media is suppressing this hard. Go to Youtube, search for North American Union, only 1 reporter, Lou dobbs has had the courage to stand up in the American Media and tell us what is going on, and they are trying to shut him up too
Wake up people!
THe future of the liberties we hold dear, the very existence of the United States as a sovereign nation rest with Ron Paul....he is our last hope, if he doesn't get in, be prepared for the Real ID, the NAU, the Amero(The NEw currency for the NAU) and the complete and total loss of all our civil liberties... |
|
vicorjh
Premium
join:2007-06-24
Arlington, MA | reply to amigo_boy
 |
|
companyman
join:2000-11-08
Washington, DC
·RCN CABLE
| reply to Cuchulainn
It's not a "left" or "right" issue. Us subjects of the People's Republic of Montgomery County MD are under surveillance with a proliferation of speed/red light cameras in the name of "safety".
It's just downright bureaucratic intrusion of rights from both sides. |
|
Rogue Wolf
Came To Bury Caesar, Not To Praise Him
join:2003-08-12
Saratoga Springs, NY
| reply to KrK
said by KrK :/sigh I really wish we could get our minds past this two party thinking of Conservative/Liberal or Republican/Democrat and realize that BS is BS no matter which way you slice it. Can I get an AMEN, brother?!
--
I have learned to ignore such naysayers, when... quelling... them... hm?... was out of the question. |
|
Rogue Wolf
Came To Bury Caesar, Not To Praise Him
join:2003-08-12
Saratoga Springs, NY
| reply to Matt
said by Matt :I definitely lean to the left but I agree with sentiment #1. If you've got nothing to hide, why worry? This argument is flawed on the grounds that it perceives the government as a faceless, monolithic entity that has no prejudices or personal feelings. Do you honestly believe that there are no government employees who would use this information to persecute those whom they disliked in some way, or to force citizens into doing things for that employee's personal gain?
ANY governmental intrusion into the lives of its citizens should be carefully monitored and restricted to make sure it is ONLY for the good of the nation as a whole. "Trust us, we're the government" is the absolute worst advice you can follow.
--
I have learned to ignore such naysayers, when... quelling... them... hm?... was out of the question. |
|
