 
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD |  Punish the Snitchers
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. | |
|
 | 
Yauch
join:2005-06-24 | Re: Punish the Snitchers I would just assume that a court order would be sufficent incentive. | |
|
| |
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
| Re: Punish the Snitchers said by Yauch  :I would just assume that a court order would be sufficent incentive. It would be... but if the legal climate exists in which phone companies will be punished for cooperating with law enforcement, they will fight such orders to the hilt.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. | |
|
| | | KraziJoe
join:2006-09-08
Alexandria, VA
 ·Comcast
| Re: Punish the Snitchers said by pnh102 :said by Yauch :I would just assume that a court order would be sufficent incentive. It would be... but if the legal climate exists in which phone companies will be punished for cooperating with law enforcement, they will fight such orders to the hilt. That's just absurd. The talk of lawsuits is because the Telco's just handed over the information without a Court Order.
The FBI/NSA just showed up and said gimme information and they did. THAT is the problem and that is why the people are suing... | |
|
| | | |
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
| Re: Punish the Snitchers said by KraziJoe :The FBI/NSA just showed up and said gimme information and they did. THAT is the problem and that is why the people are suing... The government has been doing this sort of thing for years. The only time people started "having a problem" with it was when it was determined that "having a problem" could be useful for political attacks.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. | |
|
| | | | | 
CrazyFingers
join:2003-10-01
Columbia, MO
| Re: Punish the Snitchers Or when it was determined that their actions were...you know...
Illegal.
I think you'll agree that this is the main problem in America today, we have all these "laws" that just get in the way of law enforcement. If only we could remove all these so-called "laws" that provide "protection" to our citizen's "civil rights", it would be so much easier to protect the people of the United States. After all, America was founded on the ideals of "complete safety from any bad thing", and if you read your constitution, you'll see that your personal safety is guaranteed 100% of the time under every possible circumstance. I still don't understand where all these smelly hippies get this whacko idea that they have "rights", I've looked all over the constitution and I don't see that anywhere.
--
Burrow owl...burrow owl... | |
|
| | | | | | qworster
join:2001-11-25
Los Angeles, CA
 ·Brand X Internet
·RoadRunner Cable
 ·Vonage
·DSL EXTREME
·EarthLink
edit:
October 10th, @12:01PM
| Uhm HELLO??? McFly??? I see that you support the police state, where our freedoms are flushed down the toilet for 'convenience'. Despite the bu**shit you've been told (and you apparently took-hook, line and sinker!), this has nothing to do with fighting terrorism! There are plenty of ways for law enforcement to get whatever they want or need. This is simply a way for them to be able to do "fishing expeditions". See, to keep the govt. from infringing on the rights of its citizens, there are safeguards in place to protect us. Law enforcement needs to go to court and convince a judge that any intrusion into the private life of its law abiding citizens is outweighed by the public benefits of doing so. It's not a complicted thing to do, but it IS an important check. This system has served us well through the centuries, including MANY wars! Now, you and your ilk seem Hell bent on flushing our protected rights and freedoms down the toilet! Maybe you are so paranoid that you need the govt. to 'protect' you, but unlike you, I believe that the average citizen needs protection from govt. intrusions more then we need protection from terrorists.
See, the way our political system works best is when the citizens have a healthy DISTRUST of the govt. WE are the fourth branch of the government-it's up to us the citizens to keep corruption in check! Your way of blind: "yup, yup, yup" obediance puts us on a slippery slope towards fascism!
Look, if you're SO concerned about your "personal safety" then get your state and city to put more cops on the streets of our cities and towns. You're MUCH MORE LIKELY to be injured or killed by a robber, gang member or drunk driver then a terrorist. Police walking the beat in our neighborhoods are FAR MORE EFFECTIVE in preventing crime then some big computer bugging all our phone calls and emails is! | |
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | 
tc1uscg
join:2005-03-09
Saint Clair Shores, MI | He was poking fun at it all.. I got it.. so calm down and don't forget to pass..  "puff puff pass" you know.. | |
|
| | | | | | | | qworster
join:2001-11-25
Los Angeles, CA | Gotcha!  | |
|
| | | | | | disc
join:2005-12-31
Raleigh, NC
| Re: Punish the Snitchers Maybe, but if you start from the premise that terrorists hate us for our freedoms - the inverse must also be true, the terrorists love us for our laws. Obviously our founding fathers couldn't anticipate this, but fortunately our fearless leaders have recognized that by dispensing with some laws, they're removing the succor and solace they provide to the terrorists. I can only imagine how much this has put the terrorists into a shambles. Even more so since by dispensing with some laws, the Bush administration is in essence increasing freedoms, thereby taunting the terrorists with the very thing they hate. The nation terrorized becomes the provocatuer - take that you terrorists! | |
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | chuckkk
join:2001-11-10
Warner Robins, GA
·Cox HSI
| On the contrary, history shows that the US government and many others for that matter, chafe under the various laws that actually protect citizens from unwarranted intrusion into private matters and affairs.
At one time, during the cold war, mainly before satellites carried most overseas calls, EVERY overseas phone call was recorded/monitored. This became increasingly impossible (using then existing methods) when the satellites came on line and the number of calls increased by orders of magnitude. (~ 1980)
The government prefers to interpret laws and constitutional rights in favor of the government, rather than the citizen.
After all, such things complicate the ability to "govern".
I spent several years in Germany in the late 70's. The older germans had an almost slavish response/relationship with the government. Perhaps as a result of surviving both the imperial and nazi governments of the past.
| |
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | NewMariner
join:2005-06-24
| Re: Punish the Snitchers said by Cogdis :said by pnh102 :The government has been doing this sort of thing for years. The only time people started "having a problem" with it was when it was determined that "having a problem" could be useful for political attacks. Regardless of how long they've been doing it, it's still illegal. The constitution is the highest law of this country. Once we turn it into a guideline, there is no longer a basis for our government. It's called a slippery slope... I believe it is a guideline, or else we wouldnt have amendments... | |
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA
 ·Verizon FIOS
| Re: Punish the Snitchers said by Cogdis :If the constitution is amended, that amendment becomes LAW. Nobody can choose which laws they want to follow. Not even the president. Unless he chooses that option in the signing statement. | |
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
| Re: Punish the Snitchers said by Cuchulainn :Bush knows what he is doing: And you only prove that I am correct. If it was someone other than Bush doing this, then we'd not hear anything about it.
I always yawn when I hear the anti-USA left whine about civil rights. It is plainly clear that they're in the tank with the enemy in this war, and they will pull any sort of stunt they can over here to help the enemy win. Whining about this BS is just another feather in their cap.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. | |
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
| Re: Punish the Snitchers Then what are you complaining about? You should be happy the Bush administration is keeping the military in business.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
| Re: Punish the Snitchers said by Cogdis :So you're saying that if it was anybody else that violated our civil rights nobody would care  I don't believe our rights have been violated. Where are all the anti-Bush people being jailed en masse? Where are all the press restrictions? Where are all the private gun confiscations? Surely if we were not free, some government commissar would have shut this website down by now?
My main concern is that if we discourage private companies from cooperating with law enforcement, then we end up creating another means by which those who would wish us harm would be able to act out on their plans. I know we won't ever be 100% safe, but if we can cut off one means by which bad things could happen, why not do it?
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
| Re: Punish the Snitchers said by Cogdis :Did you read my post? Unrestricted access given to a group that is not checked can't be allowed. The temptation to profit, blackmail or otherwise abuse this power is too great not to be checked I'm not disputing this. I agree completely with you here.
said by Cogdis :You don't think that the fourth amendment has been violated? In what specific case? Court cases are still thrown out to this day because of 4th Amendment concerns. When I hear about these situations... my first thought is... why didn't the cops get the warrant?
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. | |
|
| 
annon666
@pacbell.net
| Wow what world do you live in? The Government cooperation by these Telcos was purely profit driven. Ever heard the saying "you wash my back and I'll wash yours". These people NEED to be sued and quit trading there customers privacy because of greed! If the government needs a wiretap they can do it the legal way. Way too much abuses by our own government against its own people. It has to stop! BTW the FCC makes me sick.
said by pnh102 :Such a bill removes any incentive for the phone companies, or any other communications company, to actively cooperate with government at any level for legitimate law enforcement purposes. | |
|
CrazyFingers
join:2003-10-01
Columbia, MO
| Quite sensible, citizen "The Responsible Electronic Surveillance That Is Overseen, Reviewed and Effective Act of 2007"
This is an addition to the "Serious Protection of Youth" act of 2005, which was an addition to the "Distributed Universal Management Bureaucracy" initiative of 2003.
As we all know, both of these laws would never be possible without the "Justice, Equality, and Safety Update System" program that was put into place in early 2001.
I for one am glad our government has the interests of its citizens at the top of its priority list. This is why I am urging my congressman to support the "Socially Conservative Reduced Employment Withholding Mission for Everyone" act of 2007.
You should too!
--
Burrow owl...burrow owl... | |
|
| 
paulhaskew
Unoffical Dominos Spokesman
join:2002-01-10
Vancouver, WA
clubs: | Re: Quite sensible, citizen LOL!!! Love the names... | |
|
| |
| |
CrazyFingers
join:2003-10-01
Columbia, MO | Re: Quite sensible, citizen Don't joke about the MILF. They are known to employ highly trained cougars to hunt down dissidents and eat them alive.
--
Burrow owl...burrow owl... | |
|
| rizzo2dial
Premium
join:2004-08-05
| And for those who didn't catch it..
said by CrazyFingers :"The Responsible Electronic Surveillance That Is Overseen, Reviewed and Effective Act of 2007" R.E.S.T.O.R.E. ???
said by CrazyFingers :This is an addition to the " Serious Protection of Youth" act of 2005 S.P.Y.
said by CrazyFingers :which was an addition to the " Distributed Universal Management Bureaucracy" initiative of 2003. D.U.M.B.
said by CrazyFingers :As we all know, both of these laws would never be possible without the " Justice, Equality, and Safety Update System" program that was put into place in early 2001. J.E.S.U.S.
said by CrazyFingers :I for one am glad our government has the interests of its citizens at the top of its priority list. This is why I am urging my congressman to support the " Socially Conservative Reduced Employment Withholding Mission for Everyone" act of 2007. You should too! S.C.R.E.W. M.E.
Thanks, CrazyFingers, for the laugh!  | |
|
| 
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | ROFL!
Love the Acronyms! | |
|
Titus Pullo
I came, I saw, I slept
join:2004-06-26 | Wow sad commentary when a story like this receives far less attention than, say, "the mac store is down" forum links. I think there's a lesson or something here . . .
-- | |
|
|
| jester121
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL | Re: retroactive immunity? They're lobbying for immunity from lawsuits, not criminal prosecution.
Coming next from broadbandreports.com "news" department -- customers complain about higher costs of internet service due to all the settlements that the telcos had to pay. | |
|
| | |
| | | jester121
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL
·ViaTalk
| Re: retroactive immunity? said by morbo :the telcos actions are on such a scale that dissolving them (or at least their responsibility, administration, and ownership of the system) is the only acceptable solution. LOL yeah, and while we're at it let's reconvene a war crimes tribunal and convict them of crimes against humanity.
(Note -- as much as it scares me to have to say this, I'm being sarcastic here. However, I fully expect some of the BBR zealots to think this is a good idea.) | |
|
| |
DHRacer
Fire Survivor
join:2000-10-10
Lake Arrowhead, CA | More goes into the name Than the language of the actual bill.
Who spends a few hours coming up with some stupid catchy name for something that sounds good until you read it? They probably put more effort into the name than the language, too. | |
|
Shoreline
Your Freedom Fries Are Stale
join:2003-09-29
Santa Clara, CA
| Not a surprise.. Both AT&T and the President/Executive branch had all the tools necessary to fight "terrorism", before, with checks and balances, and I'd even argue those checks and balances were very light-hearted at that.
Even so, they all still managed to severely break the law, somehow are immune from prosecution, and now want the laws they broke to become legal?
"I didn't break the law, but hey, I won't sign this bill until you make what I did legal".
No thanks. I'll take checks and balances, not giving an increasingly corrupt government even more tools at it's disposal to target citizens as if they were terrorists. | |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| Ah, much better. See, this is something I can get get behind because it's Constitutional.
If you have a warrant, then the turning over the data is legal. This means a law enforcement agency has a reason to suspect you, can quickly get a warrant, and the Telco can comply and not be liable because they've done nothing wrong.
The idea that everyone's personal information and data should be just turned over wholesale with no oversight is a violation of due process and of people's rights.
This is an improvement.
--
"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!) | |
|
|
| Cogdis
join:2007-03-26
Floral Park, NY | Re: Bush speaks! - (Like a Telco lackey) 
I think I hate that man. | |
|
| | |
bluedragon
join:2000-05-09
Hutchinson, KS | Telco immunity from lawsuits Even if the telcos get sued and lose, wouldn't the trial lawyers get all the money? | |
|
jester121
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL
·ViaTalk
| If anyone actually read the legislation.... Can anyone clarify if the actual text of the law says "U.S. residents" or "U.S. citizens" (or even "LEGAL U.S. residents")? There is a major distinction to be made there, and I'd hope we're not bestowing yet another slew of legal rights on individuals who are here illegally. | |
|
| 
FLengineer
Premium
join:2007-06-26 | Re: If anyone actually read the legislation.... Is it possible to get service from a telco without being legal and having a SSN? | |
|
Bill Won't Give Telcos Wiretap Suit Immunity
retroactive immunity?
