mjah Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 If we become a fascist police state with no civil liberties then the terrorists have won without another attack. :applause: :applause: :applause: I'd take it a step further. If we become an increasingly fascist police state with reduced civil liberties then the terrorists have won without another attack. There's no need to lose all of our civil liberties before we have lost this war. ...And not to foreign fundamentalists, but to domestic fundamentalists! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 I am not sure how or why people complain when there hasn't been a single attack on our soil since 9-11. gimme terrorism over fascism any day. as Patrick Henry put it, "Give me liberty, or give me death" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUSkinsFan Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 I didn't see in the article where it talked about what the government is going to do in policing the internet. Is it as simple as a bunch of people in a room looking at websites? OR, is it going to be the government putting something like a worm or spyware in cyber space that tells them what specific websites Americans are going too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_cavalierman Posted January 30, 2008 Author Share Posted January 30, 2008 Living with reduced or no freedom is un-American I'd rather have my rights and live with the risk of another attack than to lose rights the constitution guarantees every American. Life is full of danger and risks but something has got to be worth dying for and for me it is my freedom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 I didn't see in the article where it talked about what the government is going to do in policing the internet. Is it as simple as a bunch of people in a room looking at websites? OR, is it going to be the government putting something like a worm or spyware in cyber space that tells them what specific websites Americans are going too? Internet is essentially of a bunch of messages ("packets") hopping from place to place until they get to where they are going. There are tools (for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Packet_sniffer) that can look at each individual packet to see where it is going, where it is coming from, its type, payload, etc. Monitoring Internet traffic would most likely entail deploying these tools at various locations to look at every packet and pick out packets that seem suspicious for further analysis. Packets can be picked out on a wide range of criteria. Source, destination, type of request, etc. For example, pretty ".com" names are just masks - real Internet addresses are numbers (IP address). When you type in www.extremeskins.com you computer sends a request to obtain an IP address that corresponds to name "extremeskins.com." This request can easily be intercepted and logged - "user at address A is trying to pull up extremeskins.com." Abusing something like this is extremely easy once it is in place. edit: I do not have first-hand knowledge about this, but let me reassure you that this is already going on to a degree... I think we are talking about modifications to process for monitoring and scope of monitoring at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 Fine by me then again I am cool with racial profiling when it comes to terrorism. Therein lies the problem. Muslim is not a race. Islamic terrorism isn't tied to a particular geography. Padilla, Richard Reid, and others such as the Bali bombers and some of the London bombers would slip thorugh your dragnet without difficulty. Worse still, because law enforcement would be swamped profiling the 1 billion plus Muslims in the world, the tiny percentage of actual terrorists could operate almost entirely unhindered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 Internet is essentially of a bunch of messages ("packets") hopping from place to place until they get to where they are going.There are tools (for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Packet_sniffer) that can look at each individual packet to see where it is going, where it is coming from, its type, payload, etc. Monitoring Internet traffic would most likely entail deploying these tools at various locations to look at every packet and pick out packets that seem suspicious for further analysis. Packets can be picked out on a wide range of criteria. Source, destination, type of request, etc. For example, pretty ".com" names are just masks - real Internet addresses are numbers (IP address). When you type in www.extremeskins.com you computer sends a request to obtain an IP address that corresponds to name "extremeskins.com." This request can easily be intercepted and logged - "user at address A is trying to pull up extremeskins.com." Abusing something like this is extremely easy once it is in place. edit: I do not have first-hand knowledge about this, but let me reassure you that this is already going on to a degree... I think we are talking about modifications to process for monitoring and scope of monitoring at this point. It's no coincidence that the hub of the Intertnets is located right here in Government Contract heaven. :2cents: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ax Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 Well, since my first experience with the telephone, which was a party line out in the country, I've always felt like there was little "private" about it. Today, with communications traveling through the airwaves, common sense would seem to show that these are even less private than then. And pulling out onto the information super highway, which is a public place, certainly shouldn't be considered private. You may WANT it to be, but that doesn't make it so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 Well, since my first experience with the telephone, which was a party line out in the country, I've always felt like there was little "private" about it. Today, with communications traveling through the airwaves, common sense would seem to show that these are even less private than then.And pulling out onto the information super highway, which is a public place, certainly shouldn't be considered private. You may WANT it to be, but that doesn't make it so. Can anybody clarify legal aspects of collection and storage of publicly available information? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimmyConway Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 “Those that sacrifice liberty for safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety”. :applause: :applause: :applause: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoSkins561 Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 Worse still, because law enforcement would be swamped profiling the 1 billion plus Muslims in the world, the tiny percentage of actual terrorists could operate almost entirely unhindered. Not worried about the muslims in the world, just worried about the ones that are not standing up against terrorism in our country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 All you Godless commies are going to Gitmo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sticksboi05 Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 I agree with most people here. There are other ways to secure the country without taking away civil liberties. Now I mean to say we are fascist is a bit much when looking at other countries in the world we should be grateful we can do all the things that we can but no, temporary safety is not worth removing liberties. So how exactly "in depth" is this policing going to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 I am not sure how or why people complain when there hasn't been a single attack on our soil since 9-11. 1) Because some people think the Constitution is important? 2) Because everybody who isn't a nutjob knows that monitoring all communications, worldwide is in no way related to terrorosm, that's only an excuse? 3) Because some people recognize that there have been terrorist actions since 9/11, but they've been foiled because of Constitutional law enforcement? Just some possible explanations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Punani Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 I am sorry to hear you are completely comfortable in a fascist police state but I am not. Like I said before, the government could do absolutely everything in their power to protect us (as the FBI Director has said) and we can still get hit.Since that is our reality I prefer the country not become a fascist police state because the terrorists will no longer need to attack us. We have a Constitution and it guarantees every American a right to privacy. If we lose our way of life and our freedoms then what exactly are you protecting? By the way....their is already proof that these agencies have over stepped the boundaries 1. NSA taps Americans phone lines http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1009_22-6035637.html 2. NSA wire tapping wider than expected Link I read the article in your first link and the rules for when the NSA starts "monitoring" someone is much more liberal then what was told in the article. Basically, if someone from the US communicates with anyone from a country considered to have anti-US terroristy activity, China, Russia, or Eastern Europe the NSA starts monitoring you. This includes not only internet monitoring but phone taps, financial information, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 Can anybody clarify legal aspects of collection and storage of publicly available information? 1) Well, here's a place to start: 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. Now, me, I have trouble seeing how that statement is compatible with "I want all the records of every telephone call ever made, anywhere, so that I can decide which people I want to get more information on", or "I want all the e-mail sent in the world, so I can scan the mail and then decide which ones are important enough for further attention." 2) Records on all traffic on the Internet aren't "publicly available information". Right now, the status of a lot of the information that people are talking about is that it's information which companies are collecting without the customer's knowledge, for use by the company itself. (For purposes ranging from monitoring quality of service to telemarketing.) The government, having passed legislation that pretty much says that all businesses have the legal right to collect any piece of information they want to collect, and once they have it, to do whatever they want with it, is now trying to claim that "well, if companies are allowed to do whatever they want, then the government should be allowed to, too." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 Not worried about the muslims in the world, just worried about the ones that are not standing up against terrorism in our country. Right. Obviously, what we need is for the Committee for State Security to be keeping records on any political statements that citizens are making, so that the ones that aren't agreeing with the government can be more effectively kept track of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 Right. Obviously, what we need is for the Committee for State Security to be keeping records on any political statements that citizens are making, so that the ones that aren't agreeing with the government can be more effectively kept track of. But why stop there? Let's get universal health care and start tracking people's web habits and online ordering. Let's see how often that guy buys the double meat lovers pizza and then tell him he needs to stop ordering so much pizza because it's harming his health. I could go on forever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 Isn't this simply placing the NSA in control of the pre-existing programs? Centralizing what has been going on for quite awhile,even before Bush? added Some of ya'll are gonna love this http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2008/01/30/bush_asserts_authority_to_bypass_defense_act/ Bush asserts authority to bypass defense act Calls restrictions unconstitutional Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Punani Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 But why stop there? Let's get universal health care and start tracking people's web habits and online ordering. Let's see how often that guy buys the double meat lovers pizza and then tell him he needs to stop ordering so much pizza because it's harming his health. I could go on forever. What do you think the government idea/proposal for embedded chips in people are for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 What do you think the government idea/proposal for embedded chips in people are for? As I said, I could go on forever. It's all speculative but there's no denying the possibility. Hell, even the discover channel is telling us it's the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pskins Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 Can anyone say 1984? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 Not worried about the muslims in the world, just worried about the ones that are not standing up against terrorism in our country. You have a list of those people? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 What do you think the government idea/proposal for embedded chips in people are for? Did you read about that in the Bible or do you have more recent documentation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACW Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 Isn't this simply placing the NSA in control of the pre-existing programs?Centralizing what has been going on for quite awhile,even before Bush? added Some of ya'll are gonna love this http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2008/01/30/bush_asserts_authority_to_bypass_defense_act/ Bush asserts authority to bypass defense act Calls restrictions unconstitutional NOW BUSH IS WORRIED ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION??? :tantrum: :tantrum: :cuss: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.