 |  | MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
 ·AT&T U-Verse
 ·AT&T Southwest
| Re: They have my full support said by person300 :
This damn attitude that corporations and government employees(high positions obviously, not the garbage man) have that their above the law is ridiculous. I seriously hope they win.
You are completely owned by the spin meisters, who frame this as a question of "big companies breaking the law and bribing Congress to set them free" vs. "the people and the Constitution".
This is not at all what this is about. This is about, should the Government ever be allowed under any circumstance to search and use as evidence data on a computer or on the network?
The EFF says no. And the way they fight against the government is to sue, sue, sue, and then sue some more.
They will never, ever stop. Even when Congress passes a law specifically saying that AT&T cannot be sued, they still sue, this time going after the government.
This argument is about power. Should the Internet and electronic communications and data storage be completely shielded from any Government access ever, and the power of the Internet and computers be given completely over to the public? Or.... are there limits to this power?
The EFF says they are fighting for "the people", but in fact they are fighting AGAINST government and corporations. | |
| | | hottboiinnc
Kyle
join:2003-10-15
Toledo, OH
 ·buckeye cable
| Re: They have my full support so you see if it for the Gov't to call ATT and tell them they want your phone records, your convos recorded in audio and not a transcript and they want access to your email, and web history too?
You want them to have access to that without knowing anything about it?
I don't see where its okay for Bush or anyone else to tell the Telco's they have to turn that information over illegally.
We have laws in this country for a reason. If regular citizens have to follow them then so does the Government and ATT, VZ, and Sprint. | |
| | | | | | | | | 
CarterStClai
X-Out The W
join:2002-04-17
Sugar Land, TX
·Comcast
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: They have my full support LOL...you people spouting this nonsense always forget that these are government sponsored monopolies. They should NOT have the right to use your information as they wish since there is no free choice of carriers in many situations. Free market principals (which are mostly bunk in the real world anyway) do not apply here. | |
| | | | | 
funchords
Robb
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Hillsboro, OR
·Verizon Online DSL
 ·Skype
·Comcast
| said by keyboard5684  :I think once your data leaves your home and passes onto ATTs network, or anyone else's network, they can do with the data what they wish. This is the nature of the internet. Where did you get that idea? The Internet never worked that way, it's not the nature of the Internet. In fact, you have to do things that are unusual and unnatural in order to do what AT&T did.
Internet Standards explain what they must and should and should not do, they can't just do "what they wish."
Ever hear of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act? They can't just do "what they wish."
As for the government's role, the Fourth Amendment restricts them from doing their part in this conspiracy.
Not to mention other laws, regulations, and private agreements regulating AT&T's conduct.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
| |
| | | | | | hottboiinnc
Kyle
join:2003-10-15
Toledo, OH
·buckeye cable
| Re: They have my full support Even though I disagree with you on many points on this site, I actually agree with you on this one.
Nothing gives ATT or the Gov't the right to do what they have done.
Also AT$T should not be the size it is. That is one reason why they did it most likely- to pretty much have control over the entire USA.
The Feds say "we'll give you BS if you'll do this for you since you have the most customers and can keep better track of everything" ATT says OKAY! Not a problem! In goes their NSA Computer rooms.
And with Obama it doesn't look like this is going to improve anytime soon either. | |
| | | | | | |
funchords
Robb
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Hillsboro, OR
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
·Comcast
| Re: They have my full support said by hottboiinnc :Even though I disagree with you on many points on this site, I actually agree with you on this one. I think you'll find me very libertarian, anti-government interference, and pro-business.
The reason you and I disagree is because I am calling for minimal government intervention to fix problems that are rooted in the lack of healthy market competition.
While there are some things that the government can get right, most of the time it cannot compare (and shouldn't interfere) with the inherent economic efficiency of the free market.
But when that free market disappears, then the people are left with two choices, neither which are desireable --
•Deal with the powerful regulation by a government by, of, and for the people; or
•Deal with the powerful regulation by a for-profit company acting in a monopolistic fashion.
-- and I haven't decided one way or another across the board, some things that a powerful company or a powerful government may do with its power are good for freedom and our future, and some things are not. Unless the market forces improve, we have no other choices.
The EFF is in a tight spot, because now we have the Executive, Legislature, and the Telcos (who are monopolies in their regions) in collusion. The courts are the check and balance, and our last hope.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
| |
| | | | | | | | hottboiinnc
Kyle
join:2003-10-15
Toledo, OH | Re: They have my full support very very true. | |
| | | | | | | | amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
·EarthLink
edit:
August 23rd, @07:44PM
| Libertarianism is a joke said by funchords :-- and I haven't decided one way or another across the board, some things that a powerful company or a powerful government may do with its power are good for freedom and our future, and some things are not. (Chuckle). The libertarian's convenient "out."
There is always government intervention. From health-care standards, to food and drug quality standards. From the SEC (moderating a "market"), to banking regulations (eliminating a huge swath of willing buyers and sellers). From building codes to zoning laws (restricting how an individual may exercise her property rights).
Libertarianism could only exist in a pure anarchy. But, anarchy has never existed for more than 20 minutes. Why? Because when three people join together to take the property of one, that one person joins together with four to protect themselves from the three. The three join with 12. And the five join with 20.
Within about 2 hours you have the "social contract."
And as soon as you have people joining together for "mutual" benefit, there will always be winners and losers. Those who use the "will of society" to benefit more than others. Those who are criminalized (for example, lessor health-care choices) in ways they wouldn't if they had remained in a Lockean "state of nature," unaffiliated with a "group."
In a group, it always boils down to "the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few." Mutual benefit is an inexact science.
Most rational people understand this. Libertarians, on the other hand, employ self-serving and high-principled rhetoric to make it sound like they're different. Everyone else is for "big government." Libertarians stand for "free markets" and "individual rights."
But, when confronted with being irrelevant (if they follow their ideology to its natural conclusions), they admit that "government can do some things better than the market place."
Which usually translates into, "those things that are 'better' are the things what *I* think are beneficial, or that benefit me."
Which means, libertarians are no different than anyone else. They engage in the game of "who's ox is being gored." It's just that everyone else doesn't feel inclined to employ high-sounding rhetoric about "principles" and "coercion". As if everyone *else* is using government for impure purposes.
Mark | |
| | | | | | | | |
funchords
Robb
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Hillsboro, OR
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
·Comcast
edit:
August 23rd, @08:32PM
| Re: Libertarianism is a joke WARNING TO READERS -- THIS POST AND EVERYTHING THAT FOLLOWS IS OFF TOPIC, TROLLING, FLAMING, AND BAITING -- Robb
said by amigo_boy :said by funchords :-- and I haven't decided one way or another across the board, some things that a powerful company or a powerful government may do with its power are good for freedom and our future, and some things are not. (Chuckle). The libertarian's convenient "out."... ...Libertarianism could only exist in a pure anarchy... ...Most rational people understand this. Libertarians, on the other hand... ...if they follow their ideology to its natural conclusions... Other than childish name calling, the only thing you've accomplished here is to demonstrate that you can take any political model to an absurdly extreme conclusion and discover absurdity. You have persuaded nobody and have contributed nothing.
If you have anything to say about the topic at hand, which is either the NSA wiretapping, or hotboiinnc and my rare agreement on any issue, feel free to contribute.
Making pot-shots at general political purviews is just trolling.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
| |
| | | | | | | | | | amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
·EarthLink
edit:
August 23rd, @07:38PM
| Re: Libertarianism is a joke said by funchords :the only thing you've accomplished here is to demonstrate that you can take any political model to an absurdly extreme conclusion and discover absurdity. But, that's the problem with "libertarianism." It uses high-sounding, principled rhetoric as if it's on a moral high ground compared to everyone else who is supposedly using government (coercion) to impede perfect liberty.
If taken seriously, and followed to its logical conclusion, "libertarianism" is irrelevant. If relevancy matters, and adherents make pragmatic choices about *when* government intervention is useful, they're no different than everyone else participating in the social contract (goring oxes). It's just that everyone else doesn't pretty themselves up with high-minded rhetoric, false claims to "liberty," etc.
said by funchords :If you have anything to say about the topic at hand, which is either the NSA wiretapping, ... You're the one who invoked libertarianism as some kind of standard to follow.
Mark | |
| | | | | | | | | |
funchords
Robb
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Hillsboro, OR
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
·Comcast
| Re: Libertarianism is a joke said by amigo_boy :(...a bunch of repeated stuff, deleted...)You're the one who invoked libertarianism as some kind of standard to follow. No, I said no such thing. I said that it was my point of view and it was possibly an explanation of why hotboiinnc were in some rare agreement here.
Every single political persuasion has its "high-sounding, principled rhetoric as if it's on a moral high ground compared to everyone else."
Again, you are contributing nothing and making pot-shots at general political purviews is just trolling and its off-topic. Have you noticed that I haven't refuted anything that you've said? Yet you continue to argue back.
My next step is to hit "hey mods" and let them delete the whole thread, including this message, if they so desire.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
| |
| | | | | | | | | | amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
·EarthLink
edit:
August 23rd, @08:02PM
| Re: Libertarianism is a joke said by funchords :Every single political persuasion has its "high-sounding, principled rhetoric as if it's on a moral high ground compared to everyone else." I've never seen the Right or Left refer to the "non-coercion" principle. Only libertarians (and so-called Ayn Rand "objectivsts") do.
The obvious problem is if you take "non-coercion" to its natural conclusion. At that point you're in a Lockean "state of nature." No social contract. Perfect rights -- that are *only* as perfect as you, as an individual has the power to assert/protect.
As I said in a previous post, such a state of nature only lasts a few minutes. A few bad people join together in a "society" to overpower the "principled" individuals. The "principled" individuals join together to protect themselves from the bad people. And, in about 19 minutes, you have social contracts. An emphasis on the "common good." Where "common" always leaves some people better or worse than they would have been in a Lockean state of nature.
Rs and Ds argue for more or less government in different areas (banning weed, or same-sex marriages, or abortion, etc.). But, you never see them refer to some kind of so-called absolute standard of Libertarian "consentualism." Neither argue for "less government" (as if those who call for more government are anti-American, or anti-Liberty). They simply call for different kinds of government (throwing Cheech and Chong Fans in prison, or defining marriage differently).
It's only the libertarians who toss around high-sounding terms like "consent" (or lack of consent). But, the odd thing is, they're perfectly happy with using government in an unconsensual manner -- while depicting themselves as focused on non-coercion. They're no different than anyone else. They just feel they can pretty themselves up with high-sounding, idelogical rhetoric.
Mark | |
| | | | | | | | | |
funchords
Robb
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Hillsboro, OR
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
·Comcast
edit:
August 23rd, @08:15PM
| Re: Libertarianism is a joke Mark,
That is not resonating with me at all. If that's your view of libertarianism or Libertarians, then you and I are have different definitions, and before you help me figure out that you're right and I'm wrong, let me tell you now that I don't care. I used the word to describe my point of view, and if I used it wrong I'll still have the same basic point of view -- just one with the wrong name. Perhaps it's best that you forget I used the word or just assume that I don't know what it is.
That said, my position remains -- with residential telecom, we have a choice between private regulation by the company or companies that serve our address, or public regulation by the government. Private regulation by companies is usually not a major problem because people can often switch to a company that suits their wants and needs. But when the situation doesn't allow that choice, then I am not opposed to limited government involvement.
That's all.
Whether that's right, left, up, or down -- I don't care. It's how I feel on the matter.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
| |
| | | | | | | | | | amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
·EarthLink
| Re: Libertarianism is a joke said by funchords :you and I are have different definitions I'm just going by what is official Libertarian dogma from the Libertarian party. And, from Ayn Rand's "objectivism." The premise is the "non-coercion" principle.
If you've found a "pragmatic" position that accepts "coercion" sometimes, that's fine with me. That's what Libertarians do. They either follow the dogma to its natural conclusion (irrelevancy and anarchy). Or, they do the same thing everyone else does: be pragmatic.
As I said before, everyone else is pragmatic without claiming to be defenders of individual liberty, according to a perfect standard.
Libertarianism is essentially self-deceit.
said by funchords :with residential telecom, we have a choice between private regulation by the company or companies that serve our address, or public regulation by the government. Again, simplistic libertarian world views. Telcos are corporations, a fictional, yet legal entity created by state legislatures. To serve as the "fall guy" if officers and investors make the wrong "free market" choices.
That's the problem I have with libertarianism. It redefines reality. Ignore all the social moderation of capital markets, and then claim that some isolated, narrow activity is anti-liberty.
Like I've said a few times. For libertarianism to have any significant meaning, it would have to oppose things like state-creation of corporate charters (a social interference in consentual relationships). Or, libertarians have to be pragmatic and say "that's ok, but something else is wrong." Which makes them no different than any other political idelogy. I.e., it's not about liberty, it's about pragmatism and "the common good."
Mark | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
·EarthLink
| Re: Libertarianism is a joke said by funchords :Fine, but DSLReports is about Broadband, Telecom, DSL, and the like. Libertarinism is about taking so-called personal responsibility. Maybe you need to take responsibility for
IMO, this is sounding like typical libertarianism. "Let me spout off about my high-sounding principles. But, if anyone challenges me, I want to 'hey mod' them, or claim they're off topic."
Mark | |
| | | | | | | | | | 
TK Junk Mail
Go ahead, make my day
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Margate City, NJ
clubs:
·Comcast
edit:
August 23rd, @08:19PM
| said by funchords :said by amigo_boy :said by funchords :-- and I haven't decided one way or another across the board, some things that a powerful company or a powerful government may do with its power are good for freedom and our future, and some things are not. (Chuckle). The libertarian's convenient "out."... ...Libertarianism could only exist in a pure anarchy... ...Most rational people understand this. Libertarians, on the other hand... ...if they follow their ideology to its natural conclusions... Other than childish name calling, the only thing you've accomplished here is to demonstrate that you can take any political model to an absurdly extreme conclusion and discover absurdity. You have persuaded nobody and have contributed nothing. If you have anything to say about the topic at hand, which is either the NSA wiretapping, or hotboiinnc and my rare agreement on any issue, feel free to contribute. Making pot-shots at general political purviews is just trolling. His post laid out his ideas and there wasn't any name calling or trolling. And taking potshots(as you call it) at political groupings isn't trolling either. But accusing others of trolling is trolling.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk? | |
| | | | | | | | ross
join:2000-08-16
·Digizip
edit:
August 23rd, @05:47PM
| Re: They have my full support said by funchords :said by hottboiinnc :Even though I disagree with you on many points on this site, I actually agree with you on this one. I think you'll find me very libertarian, anti-government interference, and pro-business. The reason you and I disagree is because I am calling for minimal government intervention to fix problems that are rooted in the lack of healthy market competition. While there are some things that the government can get right, most of the time it cannot compare (and shouldn't interfere) with the inherent economic efficiency of the free market. But when that free market disappears, then the people are left with two choices, neither which are desireable -- •Deal with the powerful regulation by a government by, of, and for the people; or
•Deal with the powerful regulation by a for-profit company acting in a monopolistic fashion. -- and I haven't decided one way or another across the board, some things that a powerful company or a powerful government may do with its power are good for freedom and our future, and some things are not. Unless the market forces improve, we have no other choices. The EFF is in a tight spot, because now we have the Executive, Legislature, and the Telcos (who are monopolies in their regions) in collusion. The courts are the check and balance, and our last hope. I agree with your assessment of illegal blanket warrantless wiretapping by the NSA and AT&T, Verizon, et al.
Here is AT&T's Residential Service Agreement counterstrike at standing for the EFF class action lawsuit. I'd suggest reading it carefully, if you have AT&T/SW Bell telecommunication services. The immunity, indemnity, mandatory arbitration, and prohibition of class actions and participation in class action lawsuit provisions are very interesting. The agreement becomes effective on October 1, 2008, or at payment in advance for September services, whichever is sooner. | |
| | | | | | | | | 
toobad
@swbell.net
 from:
amigo_boy
| Re: They have my full support too bad we all know you won't do anything about it ross accept keep paying at&t for there services
you stated before you had other options available to you but that your too lazy to go for them
so you will whine and complain but in the end you will not stand up and put your money where your keyboard is | |
| | | | | | | | | | ross
join:2000-08-16
·Digizip
moderated:
August 26th, @11:05PM
| Re: They have my full support said by toobad :
too bad we all know you won't do anything about it ross accept keep paying at&t for there services
you stated before you had other options available to you but that your too lazy to go for them
so you will whine and complain but in the end you will not stand up and put your money where your keyboard is
Once again, for your edification, the choices I have are AT&T and Comcast, and a number of third party providers of VOIP that would require a DSL circuit, or a cable connection. As it happens, I have ADSL service through COVAD over AT&T copper. That means I can just get a VOIP provider, use Skype, Magicjack, etc.. EXCEPT, if I cancel my AT&T landlines, I believe I will lose my ADSL with COVAD, or I will have to convert it to dryline service. I don't think, but haven't investigated the issue fully as yet, I can get a dryline DSL service without going directly with AT&T. I think there may also be a few remaining CLECs in my area, and I will find out more in the next few days.
My AT&T services have been reliable, though unimproved, for the 30+ years I've lived here. The service is reasonable, but not as cheap as it could or should be. There is so much noise on my lines I can't get over 3Mbps/520Kbps ADSL. That pisses me off. So does the prospect of having to subscribe to Comcast HSI, unbundled. I like having a hard-wired telephone service, especially with 911 service that is reliable and accurate.
I don't understand why I can't get Verizon service in my AT&T area. After all, isn't this the post Bell monopoly era 30 years on? Fuck, where is all that competition that was supposed improve technology and lower costs, and allow me to choose among multiple vendors for service?
Lastly, I do have some choices, though they are far from ideal. However, why am I being forced to accept such a major change in terms, and such a lopsided position in a contract that has lasted for so long? Christ, I have excellent credit, and an on-time payment history for the entire length of my service with AT&T. Why should I have to agree with the onerous terms in AT&T's new Residential Service Agreement? Why am I forced to surrender my legal rights to privacy, and indemnify everybody under AT&T umbrella for illegal acts AT&T has, or may, undertake?
I have to change telephone company providers, DSL providers, and potentially lose telephone numbers I have had for 30+ years. It is a major PITA, but I will not accept the terms of the new AT&T RSA. Why should my life be disrupted without benefit to me?
FUCK AT&T! | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | hottboiinnc
Kyle
join:2003-10-15
Toledo, OH
·buckeye cable
| Re: They have my full support No it doesnt go away.
Telephone companies were interconnected way before the Internet.
How do you think telephones became what they are? They're all interconnected. If they weren't you would never be able to call anyone outside of your phone company.
Your view gives the Gov't and ATT, VZ, Sprint/Embarq the right to do what ever they want.
The only company that had the balls to stand up to the Feds was Qwest. Why? they knew it was wrong. They didn't want a backlash from the public nor their customers.
This is most likely a good reason on why ATT's landline and internet business is in the shit hole right now. They're not trusted like others are. | |
| | | | | | | | amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
·EarthLink
| Re: They have my full support said by hottboiinnc :The only company that had the balls to stand up to the Feds was Qwest. Why? they knew it was wrong. Or, maybe the Qwest CEO couldn't get the deal he wanted to escape criminal prosecution?
Mark | |
| | | | | | | | | hottboiinnc
Kyle
join:2003-10-15
Toledo, OH
·buckeye cable
| Re: They have my full support I doubt that. If that was the case they would have just done the same thing all of the rest of them did. Went and cried that they're being sued for breaking the law and committing felonies and they need to be protected.
The CEO and the legal team knew this was wrong. | |
| | | | | | amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
·EarthLink
| said by funchords :As for the government's role, the Fourth Amendment restricts them from doing their part in this conspiracy. Not to mention other laws, regulations, and private agreements regulating AT&T's conduct. That's not true. The 4th amendment prohibits "unreasonable" searches and seizures. If someone voluntarily chooses to communicate over the internet, unencrypted, knowing their data is visible to anyone along 10-20 hops through companies with which they have no contractual relationship, that may be equivalent to standing on the street corner discussing personal matters, expecting privacy.
Also, 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(a)(ii)(B) and 18 U.S.C. 2702(a)(3) & (c) [1] allow telcos to provide the government with data without a warrant.
Finally, 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(a)(ii)(B) was referenced in the so-called "immunity" deal.[2] What kind of immunity is that, when they repeat an existing law?
[1] »www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html···00-.html
»www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html···00-.html
[2] »www.eff.org/files/filenode/att/F···_xml.pdf (page 88)
Mark | |
| | | | | | | 
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| Re: They have my full support said by amigo_boy :That's not true. The 4th amendment prohibits "unreasonable" searches and seizures. If someone voluntarily chooses to communicate over the internet, unencrypted, knowing their data is visible to anyone along 10-20 hops through companies with which they have no contractual relationship, that may be equivalent to standing on the street corner discussing personal matters, expecting privacy. No way. The same could be said for mail. You didn't write it in code, it passes through several people's hands, therefore you need to assume anyone is reading it. Not so. It's protected by LAW. See that's the point.... they could read it.... but they are prohibited from doing so by LAW without warrants.
Same with internet information. Sure, people could read it... but they aren't supposed to. Your privacy is supposed to be protected, unless you are the topic of a criminal investigation and a warrant is in place.
--
"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!) | |
| | | | | | | | amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
·EarthLink
| Re: They have my full support said by KrK :The same could be said for mail. You didn't write it in code, it passes through several people's hands, therefore you need to assume anyone is reading it. Not so. It's protected by LAW. I have no expectation of privacy with the US mail. It could be delivered to the wrong address. Dropped on the ground by the carrier. Torn open by the automated sorting machines.
What you're really saying is that you have an expectation of privacy when it doesn't really matter to you. It wouldn't be a big problem if a neighbor read the letter. It wouldn't be a big problem if employees read it when it's torn open (or stolen) at the post office. Sure, you'd huff and puff about how that's not supposed to happen. But, it wouldn't matter because you weren't really expecting privacy *when it counts*.
On the other hand, if you were plotting a biological attack, or sharing how to build a dirty bomb, you wouldn't expect privacy through the postal mail. You wouldn't expect it on the internet.
It's very hard to take people seriously that they expect internet privacy, but they don't encrypt their emails, or use https when communicating on forums, etc. They don't expect privacy. If they did, they'd encrypt. We know that's true.
Mark | |
| | | | | | | | | Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO | Re: They have my full support So warrants really have no place in your world? | |
| | | | | | | | | | amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
·EarthLink
| Re: They have my full support said by Skippy25 :So warrants really have no place in your world? I'm only saying what the laws are today. You can't ignore the existing law, claiming it's something different. That's just a recipe for more of what you say is wrong. The solution is to amend the law.
Mark | |
| | | | | | | | | | wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK
·Future Nine Corpor..
·Teliax VOIP
·Cox HSI
| Re: They have my full support said by amigo_boy :said by Skippy25 :So warrants really have no place in your world? I'm only saying what the laws are today. You can't ignore the existing law, claiming it's something different. That's just a recipe for more of what you say is wrong. The solution is to amend the law. No, you're ignoring the laws that exist (like ECPA, which was mentioned above), which expressly create legislatively an expectation of privacy, and in fact, penalties for interception of communications.
The ECPA was passed, in part, because of the ambiguity of other wiretap laws to electronic store and forward communications.
--
It's wierdo, not weirdo. Yes, I know that's not the 'proper' spelling of the similar english language word.  | |
| | | | | | | | |
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| said by amigo_boy :I have no expectation of privacy with the US mail. It could be delivered to the wrong address. Dropped on the ground by the carrier. Torn open by the automated sorting machines. All possible, however, just because you don't believe in expectation of privacy, that doesn't mean everyone else agrees with you. It's less about someone writing a letter encouraging a terrorist attack or so on (because these people most likely would communicate in secret and use codes) but more about more mundane things such as bank account numbers, payments, friends and family, medical records, and so on. The type of stuff that if it fell into the hands of an honest person accidently wouldn't be a big deal--- but could be a major problem if dishonest crooks deliberately sought such information to commit fraud or scam you.
--
"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!) | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
|
|
EFF To Sue Government For Warrantless Wiretapping
·