What is Digg?Sponsored by Threadless
The Threadless Holiday Sale view!
threadless.com - Today's the day to snag a deal on t-shirts! Threadless.com. $9. Every. Single. Tee.
52 Comments
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+13No, really? What, did they think we were stupid? Oh, wait I know that one.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10Here you go. The mechanism is in place for total secret surveillance. Never trust anyone from the government that says something "will never be used for xxx purpose" they are lying. Either the current administraton will abuse it or some future one will. Of course, none of this matters to the short-sighted wingnuts.
- PATSCRU, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10Ah, so that's why my phone bills have skyrocketed in the past few years, the telecom companies had to invest in a wide-ranging spy infrastructure.
- Roadscholar, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9It's funny...the way that the interception of our private communications is described as "surgical"....just like those "surgical strikes" in Iraq, eh?
- keyboardduder, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Now take down every ***** company that did it, take down the people who approved of it, and take down that stupid ***** law
- positron, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5That's what the guns and ammo are for.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5That is what they say Nevarwinter - but no oversight and no warrants. Who guards the guards? My concern is for the future, this is really setting the stage for serious abuse. And I have a grip thank you.
- reeder, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5I love how consolidation in the Tele industry means we get to pay them to spy on us.
The only solution is to shatter AT&T again, as they did in '82 WHEN REAGAN WAS PRESIDENT. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I hope these telecomms get their asses sued to oblivion.
Smaller companies will take their places and we'll return to real competition with lower prices and better service once again. - synthpop, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4they have to spy on us over here so that the terrorists don't win over there... or something like that.. whatever, just shut the hell up and buy another SUV like a good American.
- Authustian, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4FTA - The N.S.A.’s interception of communications is “surgical,” he said, and the number of court warrants approved for interceptions involving people inside the United States totaled “100 or less.”
ok, so those were the ones that had warrants, the people's problem comes from the 'WARRANTLESS' wiretapping. So that number is absolutely meaningless.
If they had a warrant, no one could complain. It's legal to wiretap with oversight. You may not like it, but someone had to provide a reason to wire tap you, other than 'OMG he's calling Iraq! terrorist!'. - pegothejerk, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3*we have detected dissatisfaction in the tone of your vocalizations, have preemptively predicted your attempted move to another network other than AT&T. All calls will be forwarded to our re-education center until satisfaction is obtained. Thank for you letting AT&T service you, citizen!*
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Here's the facts.
Terrorists (those still breathing that is) assume telcom systems are under surveillance.
They take measures to work around or avoid this issue.
The efficacy of this spying will never be divulged but it is mostly useless.
The proof is all the undetected activity in Briton after 9/11.
Who does that really leave in the cross hairs?
Anyone they decide is included in the "OTHER USES" clause of the so called PATRIOT ACT.
So no, this activity is not harmless or acceptable for a million known reasons and a billion unknown. - grav80bong, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3FTA: “Now if you play out the suits at the value they’re claimed, it would bankrupt these companies,” he said. “So my position was we have to provide liability protection to these private sector entities.”
Hey McConnel, I'm a private sector entity...can I get full financial and legal immunity after I commit crimes against citizens of the United States? No?...then ***** you too. - orlyfactor, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4...and duct tape, can't forget the duct tape!!!
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Ok, explain it to us. How isn't this fascism?
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Hey Bush supporters! Where are you? We really, really want to hear your justifications for this *****.
- kaelyiesta, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3With the amount of money the government has thrown at the telecoms in general, which is the reason that industry is so screwed up, I'm not surprised the major players would be helping their buds in the administration.
- mikehosek, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I second that motion.
- keyboardduder, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2No, theyll just take the gold away from all of us, just like they did before the depression.
- Elderon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2@Nevarwinter
Easier said then done my friend. What exactly determines who is a terrorist and who isn't. This combined with warrantless wiretapping means that they pretty much they can spy on whoever they damn well please whenever they damn well want to. Sometimes things are not cleary defined in black and white as you seem to think. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5to stop this attack on our liberties vote Ron Paul he is the only presidential candidate talking about these issues join our revolution to restore the Constitution
- Napoleone, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Those companies deserve to go bankrupt.
1. Habeas Corpus eliminated
2. Warrant-less wiretapping of phone calls and e-mails
3. A war of aggression on an innocent country (600,000+ people DEAD... millions more wounded)
4. Torture
5. Abuse of executive privilege to circumvent congressional oversight
6. Unlawful detention of U.S. Citizens and declaring them "enemy combatants"
7. War profiteering
8. A Vice President redefining the constitutional role of his office.
9. An Attorney General who's a serial perjurer.
10. Suppressing dissident voices at protests and branding critics of policies "unpatriotic".
11. Katrina.
12. Denying the existence of plans for a NAFTA super highway (just look it up).
13. Called off search for supposed 9/11 master mind Usama Bin-Laden
14. What am I missing???
I found it very disgusting to see Bush bragging about our troops killing 1,500 "terrorists" every month in Iraq. Terrorists? Really? Considering that the CIA concluded that Al-Qaeda forces in Iraq amounted to no more than 7,000 men, we should be done by now, right?
What he doesn't say is that many of those men fighting our troops are merely defending their own country from what they see as an invading force. What he doesn't say is that many of those men fighting our troops have had their loved ones killed in this American "liberation" project and that they are merely acting out of anger. What he doesn't say is that by virtue of 1,500 deaths per month, at a close to five years period... that averages to at least a 0.7 kill per soldier. We are turning our young men and women into killers.
And who are they killing and dying for? Do you think it's for you or for me? No. It's for Bush, and the rich, and the bankers, and the war contractors, and the weapons manufacturers, and the oil big wigs, and for every cold blooded man and woman who has a stake in seeing this war last as long as possible.
I will say here and now; any member of the armed forces who objects to this war and continues to fight it is acting as a drone. You above anyone else are culpable of this madness for mindlessly helping it move forward. Your oath is to the Constitution, not to George W. Bush. Stop obeying illegal orders from a criminal and put your weapon down. Stop fighting for the rich and powerful. You are NOT fighting for freedom. We are being told to shop! Wake the ***** up. Snap out of your military indoctrination and put your weapon down.
According to our laws George W. Bush is a criminal. Why is he still in office? It is a dereliction of duty on the part of the Congress that they have yet to impeach this man. Democrats are putting politics above their oath of office. We should hold them accountable, too.
"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda." - George W. Bush
Repeat it: Impeach George W. Bush. - blorc, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I don't know why you're getting dugg down. It's true.
- OHiggins, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Take down every ***** company that did it? Say goodbye to that precious phone of yours, The people that approved it? Good luck with that one, considering it's the god damned government. Take down the law? Like, you mean all of it; the whole law? The Law? This place would erupt into chaos that'd make Darfur look like a playground. Use your head before you start spouting out Rage Against the Machine lyrics.
- Terr01, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You obviously don't think of "surgical strike" in anything but a bombing sense. Of course, I can hardly blame you, considering that most of our military involvement in Iraq involves air superiority, rather than using troo-----Oh, wait...
- GeorgeDubyaBush, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Damn IT!!!
- jron, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1No *****.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2myopic idiot
- wholly2b, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Let's stop being apathetic about all this stuff, eh?
http://digg.com/political_opinion/The_Disease_of_Apathy - Dush, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1If you read the El Paso transcript it's amazing how reasonable he sounds about the whole thing. He really lays out the circumstances and events leading up to the legislation for the 6-month "fix" in a way that you can appreciate why things were done. In his position job one is protecting the country and from that perspective he is getting done what is needed to make that happen. Bush isn't breathing down his neck and he is personally wrangling with Congress to be able to go about intelligence collection in the way he feels is proper and even moral.
But should protecting the country be top priority or should protecting the liberties of its citizens be at the very top? Can citizens live with the fact that their liberties being completely protected means that their lives may in fact be put in grave danger? - Sil369, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Sooner or later, the names of the companies involved will be leaked online. Give it time.
- wil2200, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1all these big comm companies should be permanently broken into a subset of smaller companies with full disclosure and accountability
- Bcodms, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Companies like ATT will no longer get my business where I can make an informed choice.
- OHiggins, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1They have the ability, but how do you know they are?
- shiftB, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1hahaha
- Nodaki, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Uhh that would be so ***** sweet!
- Sil369, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Ha, you're paying someone to be a peeping tom on you
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1just wait
- Nevarwinter, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0lol. All bark, no bite.
- wholly2b, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Want to start making a difference? http://digg.com/political_opinion/The_Disease_of_Apathy
- enri, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0How history repeats.
"... But the adverse Litton decision may nonetheless make it politically more difficult for the Reagan Administration to drop the case [to break up AT&T], as both the Commerce Department and the Pentagon have urged. They maintain that the nation's economy and security require a strong AT&T." -- Time Magazine, 13 July 1981
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,953034,00.html - OHiggins, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1You're gonna get dugg down from all the Orwellian spouting diggers trotting around here. But this is the only comment I've read all night that has made a totally objectively and unbiased.opinion. And I agree with what you said, he sounds very reasonable and in a sick way it makes sense. His use of the words surigical heavily implies that they're only tapping in on international calls to key areas. I'm not saying he's not lying, but consider this for a second digg; What if he's telling the truth?
- RGWX, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0You obviously know nada about JDAMS.
- lyg82, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0it's a nutritional research program to find out eating habits....where are you eating tonight?
- Dush, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Only if the current AT&T, Verizon and Qwest all remerged back to one large company would the old AT&T be back to its monopoly status.
- RGWX, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Sorry...my AF bias was showing. ;) That said, are you arguing we can fight an asymmetric war using airpower? As much as I'd LIKE that, the cliche that you can't take territory from 30,000 feet is true.
- RGWX, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Ron.
- RGWX, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0Test #1 We're Not Living In A Fascist Nation: Dickweeds like you aren't in internment camps...as appealing as you make that prospect seem.
- RGWX, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1Oh grow UP. Seriously, get out more. Have a beer. Date a girl. Get a grip.
-
Show 51 - 52 of 52 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is