In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.

Feds to expand internet wiretapping...

KSUmarksmanKSUmarksman Member Posts: 10,705 ✭✭✭
edited September 2010 in General Discussion

Comments

  • Night StalkerNight Stalker Member Posts: 11,967
    edited November -1
    So..... what would you have them do if that is where the threat is "hiding out"? Should we let them plan and coordinate their efforts to destroy us simply because John Adam's did not foresee the arrival of al gore's internet?

    Have you ever used "Skype"? I can't think of a better manner to coordinate a determined man's efforts.

    It's a brave new world batman.... what are we to do?

    NS
  • KSUmarksmanKSUmarksman Member Posts: 10,705 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    the stupid buzzards don't have any business looking at ANYTHING we do online without a warrant to spy on a specific person...the Constitution did not change just because technology did, contrary to the government belief that freedom of speech only covers newspapers and the 2nd amendment only covers muskets [xx(]

    you always made sense in the past, please don't tell me you became a "security nut" (ie. a spineless individual who is willing to sacrifice liberty for temporary safety)
  • Night StalkerNight Stalker Member Posts: 11,967
    edited November -1
    KSU,

    I'm not a security nut, I assure you of that. However, I know that our adversaries are exploiting current technologies in order to coordinate and finalize plans against us..... so, if granting access to LEO's in order to prevent American's from being killed is what I need to do, I am willing to give them a bit of leash.

    However, I am but one man and I have but one vote.

    The world has changed my friend. I love EVERY SINGLE FREEDOM we enjoy as American's, but I know the threat we face is real and wants nothing more than to use our very strength as a nation against us.

    We have to find a suitable middle-ground IMHO.

    NS
  • wittynbearwittynbear Member Posts: 4,518
    edited November -1
    If one person in the conversation is an American citizen, or is in the US they should need to have a warrant before tapping the phone line internet use or whatever. Otherwise that violates the constitution.

    Now if they want to spy on foreigners in asscrackistan I don't give a poop, they have no constitutional protections.
  • Night StalkerNight Stalker Member Posts: 11,967
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by wittynbear
    If one person in the conversation is an American citizen, or is in the US they should need to have a warrant before tapping the phone line internet use or whatever. Otherwise that violates the constitution.

    Now if they want to spy on foreigners in asscrackistan I don't give a poop, they have no constitutional protections.
    So if KSM or UBL calls me from the FATA area of Pakistan, US LEOs are SOL?

    Reminds me of the old maxim of cutting a fella's nose off in spite of his face.

    Hopefully, the savages who want to kill American's here at home will be nursing a hangover after a hard night of hitting the strip clubs, while the FBI is trying to get their warrants throught the FISA Court.

    If not, hopefully they only kill a dozen or two innocent men, women and children (of course I pray none of them are related to you, in fact I hope they are all orphans).

    Good call, cool beans.

    NS
  • wittynbearwittynbear Member Posts: 4,518
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Night Stalker
    quote:Originally posted by wittynbear
    If one person in the conversation is an American citizen, or is in the US they should need to have a warrant before tapping the phone line internet use or whatever. Otherwise that violates the constitution.

    Now if they want to spy on foreigners in asscrackistan I don't give a poop, they have no constitutional protections.
    So if KSM or UBL calls me from the FATA area of Pakistan, US LEOs are SOL?

    Reminds me of the old maxim of cutting a fella's nose off in spite of his face.

    Hopefully, the savages who want to kill American's here at home will be nursing a hangover after a hard night of hitting the strip clubs, while the FBI is trying to get their warrants throught the FISA Court.

    If not, hopefully they only kill a dozen or two innocent men, women and children (of course I pray none of them are related to you, in fact I hope they are all orphans).

    Good call, cool beans.

    NS
    So we just give up our God given rights for a little security, I don't think so.

    We know the people on UBL's phone list probably better than he does, and should have warrants already to listen in on their phone calls. If we don't then we have allies that could have listened in and can fill us in on all all the details, granted it can't be used in criminal prosecution but it gives us the details we need to prevent an attack, while we get a warrant and listen in. Getting a warrant is not too time consuming it can be done in about an hour. I'm sure that will not be the only call he makes either.
  • iwannausernameiwannausername Member Posts: 7,131
    edited November -1
    If you are paranoid about what you do online, then start using SSL encryption, perhaps renting a server *out* of the US jurisdiction and using VPN or SSH tunnels to get to it and then browse the web from there. Or look at using an onion router service like TOR.
  • jpwolfjpwolf Member Posts: 9,164
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Night Stalker
    So..... what would you have them do if that is where the threat is "hiding out"? Should we let them plan and coordinate their efforts to destroy us simply because John Adam's did not foresee the arrival of al gore's internet?

    Have you ever used "Skype"? I can't think of a better manner to coordinate a determined man's efforts.

    It's a brave new world batman.... what are we to do?

    NS


    Unfortunately, we CAN"T trust the government. So, once again, I vote for freedom over security.

    I think a better route is "fix our screwed up interventionist foreign policy" which would eliminate 90% of these "bogeymen" anyway.
  • MobuckMobuck Member Posts: 14,163 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I'm not "afraid" of what I do online, BUT I don't think giving the Gestapo more under-the-covers advantages will help prevent terrorists from doing damage. I don't spend much (any) time around large cities, but anyone determined to damage resources/population in more rural areas will not be deterred by the foolish security attempts I've seen in practice. The government agencies already know who is and isn't a terrorist in many places and won't/can't do anything about it. So what is the point of getting more info to do nothing with?
  • KSUmarksmanKSUmarksman Member Posts: 10,705 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    my problem with this is that it is a bad precedent, today they claim they are only doing it to stop terrorists, tomorrow they may be trawling for every little piece of incriminating information about some little chickenpoop law YOU broke.

    There are so many bad laws and outright ridiculous laws on the books, you are probably breaking one today and don't even know it. The only reason nothing happens is because there is no cop present who both knows the dumb law and is willing to make the arrest. But with broad-spectrum internet monitoring, you can bet that eventually some idiot will decide to enforce all the little chickenpoop laws too.

    go to a website that tells you how to modify a "lo-flo" government showerhead...oooh now you broke an environmental law.
    go to a porn site in Alabama or Florida? you just violated state law (I only know because being an observant scientific type I noticed the little disclaimer on the card direct TV sends out with a list of all available channels)
  • SGSG Member Posts: 7,548
    edited November -1
    Well,if we would just go over there and eliminate the threat with extreme prejudice instead of trying to be PC and not hurt the bad guys feelings we wouldn't have to resort to this un-costitutional BS! If our gov. was so concerned with terrorism the FREAKIN BORDERS WOULD NOT BE WIDE FRICKEN OPEN!! Wake up people...
  • spasmcreekspasmcreek Member Posts: 37,717 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    foreigners have more "rights" than any citizen...open your eyes to your corrupt govt
  • jpwolfjpwolf Member Posts: 9,164
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Mobuck
    The government agencies already know who is and isn't a terrorist in many places and won't/can't do anything about it. So what is the point of getting more info to do nothing with?


    Because control of you and me is the real aim.
  • jpwolfjpwolf Member Posts: 9,164
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by SG
    Well,if we would just go over there and eliminate the threat with extreme prejudice instead of trying to be PC and not hurt the bad guys feelings we wouldn't have to resort to this un-costitutional BS! If our gov. was so concerned with terrorism the FREAKIN BORDERS WOULD NOT BE WIDE FRICKEN OPEN!! Wake up people...


    True, but the war itself is un-constitutional. CONgress declared war on nobody. Though they should have. Saudi Arabia.
Sign In or Register to comment.