What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
108 Comments
- nailbunny, on 10/12/2007, -2/+29i think the fourth ammendment describes as much of a right to privacy as could be imagined in the time it was written
"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." - kingfelix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+19@cantaclaro: you are insane and you frighten me. read the constitution and the bill of rights; their main concern was to preserve the balance of government power and individual freedom, rights, and liberties. the government is to have no power except that which we grant it. you're clearly unaware of why and how the u.s.a. is supposed to be a nice place to live.
- mushoo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+18@Cantanclaro
You forgot my favorite amendment.
Lets say you're right and there is no precedent for privacy in the constitution or Bill of Rights, well then my friend just gargle the ninth amendment in your conscious.
* Ninth Amendment – Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
All the people who claim to love this country so much that they're willing to hand the whole of government to the executive branch would server their country best by actually reading the constitution. - Wamzlee, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17Qwest and T-Mobile are known to have refused and said "come back with a warrant".
Under current law (assuming the American law system is still functioning), its illegal for phone companies to give out phone records. - actorboy, on 10/12/2007, -5/+20Can somebody tell me why louisb is initially being dugg down for being: 1) a Canadian. 2) Proud of where he lives. 3) Smart enough to know we are being screwed?
- louisb, on 10/12/2007, -13/+27I thank God everyday that I live in Canada, don't call anyone in the US and don't have to put up with this kind of things. :)
- Lewie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14The right to privacy is a penumbra right of the 4th amendment. You can't have protection from search and seizure without a right to privacy.
For example, the Constitution doesn't specifically say we have the right to travel. However, it is a penumbra right of the 1st Amendment's right to assemble (we can't assemble if we can't travel). - dandyhighwayman, on 10/12/2007, -6/+18Here is one student's personal experience with this policy:
http://marilyncarolyn.blogspot.com/2006/05/college-student-impressed-with.html - Wamzlee, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14By your logic, the Constitution is incapable of guranteeing the Bill of Rights. the reasons why some debates arise, such as the issue of "privacy" is because some interpret the Constitution literally, while others interpret the "intended meaning".
If we were literal, then yes, the Constitution doesn't really come out and say "privacy is guranteed", but also, then the Second Amendment would be literally interpreted as only "militias" and not "individuals" have a right to bare arms.
The Supreme Court has ruled on the case of privacy in the past, and they ruled in favor of Privacy, atleast the cases I know, such as Katz vs U.S.
I actually, kinda believe that privacy is protected because piracy is invaded when someone is obviously searching something that is private...and the Fourth Amendment protects against "unreasonable searches".
The reason the law isn't on Bush's side is because he is operating without "warrants" all together. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12The Supreme Court disagrees with you. They believe that "privacy" is found in a few of our amendments under the "umbrella" of the word "liberty".
...heck... I learned that back in the 7th grade, so I can't imagine what would make you use such an invalid argument. - foobario, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8@McG2k1:
Things to add to your list:
* Read a book every once in awhile. One with more words than pictures.
* Understand at the very least the important highlights of the history that has shaped this world so you don't sound like a complete vacuous tube every time you post - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Qwest and T-Mobile
- nailbunny, on 10/12/2007, -2/+91. seems that democrats and republicans are also a bit miffed. only people i've seen who aren't angry yet are bush and you, mcg2k1
2. it's not just a tech site anymore. ha, ha.
3. i pay for it, i own it.
4. it's not illegal if companies willingly surrender ***** to the government, you're right. but this seems to me like a nasty loophole, in that the government uses the awarding of top secret contracts as leverage to buy our privacy from us. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Like ssanders said, beware of the "at least its not my problem" mentality.
Remember friend, 6 short years ago, I might have said the same. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11Most likely he is being dugg down by believing that stuff like this is limited to the US.
- actorboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Actually, sspooner, I'm a 39 year old male and former Bush supporter whose father fought this kind of stuff in World War II.
- pgm_01, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Nice, it definitely worthy of being an article in the Onion.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Yeah not only that but at the confirmation hearings for Roberts and alito both were asked if privacy was implied by the constitution. Both agreed the constitution had the right to privacy implied in the liberty clause.
- opnotic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Seriously Guys. I'm more pissed then I've been in a while. You know that when you call 911 they already know your address? How hard is it to plug that same number in??? ! I heard on the radio the other day... there was a guy on NPR called Suman.... they gave his wifes name. Just run a check against this database and find a Suman talking to a (his wife's name) over and over. ((( AGAIN THE 911 ALREADY HAS ALL THE INFO FOR THE NUMBERS!!))) Sudenly.... freedom of speech is done for because, even just given the names of the individuals .... you can find now all the info you need. I'm so pissed. ..... WHO CAN I GO TO. Apparently... even *IF* the justice deptartment *tried* to battle this... it would be stopped because the NSA simply says NO!?!?!!?
- opnotic, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8a) you think that people should give up a little freedom for a little peace.
b) You think that you are not *them* in their eyes.
c) You believe the party line has you in it's interest... and in fact you believe it *does* have you in it's interest.
d) ***** you. Seriously. =)
Ohh that feels good. - Rickler, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Long live T-Mobile, one of the few m-phone companies that don't screw you around.
- opnotic, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6OMFG... ***** THEM. I *wish* I could go to jail for this cause. Apparently....that isn't an option unless I threaten a specific person and make it credible. Well ***** *everyone* that rubber stamped this administration allowing this whole entire thing happen. I hope the LOT of you ***** rot in hell.
- nargilamonster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5"I'd be more apathetic if I wasn't so lethargic."
...just sitting back and watching the Bush reigime unfold...just hope he doesn't do something scary, like start killing Americans but making it look like it was someone else... - willcode4beer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Don't worry, the NSA has been monitoring the phones in Canada for a long time.
- nailbunny, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6at least his heart's in the right place on this
- acoot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4You know, sometimes I get paranoic just to imagine that they employ communist techniques on its own citizens. Soon their internet will be censored just like china. Yet the citizens of liberty behave like they dont see it coming! Be afraid....
note:
i have not used -americans- in the post just incase the you know who are suveilling - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7To paraphrase Dave Chapelle:
Fo-fo-fo-fo-fourth!
Can I get a "hell yeah"? - actorboy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5To do:
* Buy diary
* Make pallet in attic - nailbunny, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4whoops, i asked what phone companies didn't give in to nsa, and then un-asked it. sorry for confusion.
- nailbunny, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5he hasn't yet?
- zubi, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6good thing i speak in slang.
- Wamzlee, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5I think even Senator Lindsey Graham was upset by what USA Today revealed. I watched him during some of the hearings, and he seemed pretty quick to pass it off as another "Oh...Bush wouldn't lie to us" scenario.
- kualla, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"4. it's not illegal if companies willingly surrender ***** to the government, you're right. but this seems to me like a nasty loophole, in that the government uses the awarding of top secret contracts as leverage to buy our privacy from us."
I really do wonder about this, how come some of the telcos are providing this info. After all, it can't be cheap to provide all that information. Even just bandwidth costs for daily phone records has got to be a few hundred of dollars a day or some expensive storage devices/media that needs to be sent via mail.
Some of the telcos have got to be benefiting some how from supplying this info, after all, they aren't even following common business law practices. Government or not, no warrant, no records. I bet they have a deal worked out on the side, maybe the government gives them a huge tax-break or pays them for bandwidth but pays much more than actual costs??? It would be interesting to hear what type of offers Qwest has been offered. - efisher, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Many of these members of congress voted for the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (CALEA)
which compelled these phone companies to provide this assistance to law enforcement and install equiptment to make it possible. In addition the phone companies were to be compensated $500 Million to install equiptment by certain deadlines. Sounds like the system works except for Tmobile and Qwest. I am not sure if Tmobile and Qwest can be prosecuted under this act for not cooperating. The CALEA states that the phone companies must provide this information pursuant to court order or lawful authorization. I'm not sure what Lawful authorization means but I'm sure it is whatever the government says it is in a time of war. - reboare, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3yea it's older if you count Ca*rnivo_re or E *chelon.
Look past the obvious, why would they want this out now? To keep us from seeing the build up of ships happening now for the upcoming Ira*_ n strike.
It's called "distractor tactics". And it works. Nothing to see here folks.
http://www.rense.com/general66/scgh.htm - actorboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Actually, the point is A) A few months ago we were told the only people being tracked were those calling suspicious countries B) This week we were told that it's actually everybody in the nation being tracked, and that they have been for a long, long time. C) The original lie was admitted to only after of a leak. D) None of this was done through proper channels, i.e., FISA. E) The tracking is being instigated by an administration that lied to us more than one occasion. F) It's being instigated by an administration that imprisons people without evidence of wrongdoing. G) It's being instigated by an administration that has condoned torture. H) It's being instigated by an agency that feels it has to answer to no one, including our elected officials and Department of Justice.
On top of this, we have absolutely no proof that any terrorists have been caught through these literally warrant-less actions.
Read very carefully: There is a secret agency in the United States that has chosen to ignore the checks and balances put in place to protect our freedoms, and they are tracking our actions. Last month it was only a few of us, today it is all of us. What else are they doing that our elected officials don't know about? And what will they do tomorrow if left unchecked?
From Wikipedia:
"The law had been changed in such a way that the Gestapo's actions were not subject to judicial review. Nazi jurist Dr. Werner Best stated, "As long as the [Gestapo] ... carries out the will of the leadership, it is acting legally." The Gestapo was specifically exempted from responsibility to administrative courts, where citizens normally could sue the state to conform to laws.
The power of the Gestapo most open to misuse was "Schutzhaft" or "protective custody" — a euphemism for the power to imprison people without judicial proceedings, typically in concentration camps. The person imprisoned even had to sign his or her own Schutzhaftbefehl, the document declaring that the person desired to be imprisoned. Normally this signature was forced by beatings and torture."
source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gestapo
There were a lot of Germans who thought their leader had their best interest in mind. Are we on the same track? I don't know. But we are dangerously close enough that we should take a long hard look at what our country is doing -- and not just shrug it off. - annonimality, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Of course we don't own the numbers, privacy isn't a tangible asset we can buy and sell. Privacy is right to talk to whomever we want to, about whatever we want to, without the government spying on us.
And Echelon was developed well before the Clinton administration: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON
But since you want to turn this into a partisan debate, here's a good poll for you:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/12/bush.clinton.poll/index.html - nailbunny, on 10/12/2007, -8/+10these must be the easiest days in america's history to be a democrat.
all they have to do is take one of these scandals and run with it, perhaps we wouldn't have to wait till '08. hell, even arlen's hopping on the bush hating bandwagon.
turns out he even wants him impeached
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/01/15/specter-impeachment/
not bad for a republican. - opnotic, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I do check http://www.dailykos.com/
...
But just so you know.... You know that Democrats *and* independents... (me)... equal over 70%?? That means that the republican line is simply out of touch with the *majority*. Yea... sorry to break it to you.... but it might be *you* that is kooky. =)
Ohhh I love this spirit. - Swift2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2There was a big difference under Clinton. It was used only under the jurisdiction of the FISA court.
- willcode4beer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@p0s3r I thought he was right wing. The president is obviously a left winger.
The president has supported growing government programs and government spending. Govt spending has increased more percentage and dollar wise than any president in our history. He's even outspent LBJ. President Bush is the most successful left wing president in a long time.
He's increased medicare and medicaid spending.
Got a new drug program for the elderly
He's increased welfare spending
He's increased subsidies to business
He has actively fought states rights
All of the REAL right wing conservatives are royally pissed at Bush for pissing away so much money and growing the government. He is more of a Social Fascist than anything. He's growing social programs and handing out subsidies and power to private companies. - diggnationdevon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Hes like John McCain, he switches sides lol
- brickbat, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6If you think Canada isn't doing the same thing, you are in a dreamland. The only difference is that it's being reported in the US. Same for Australia and the UK.
- actorboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2ScarHawk: Digged up for disagreeing like an adult.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2They aren't putting names to the data they're collecting, they do that later because they have the ultimate callerID system :D
They can just say "we only got your numbers, that's it!" but the reality is they've got everything. I say someone video tape and lock themself in a one room house for a few days simply saying "Kill the president" over and over into the phone. Then let's see how long it takes for a couple of mysterious men in black to show up at his/her door. - diggnationdevon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Well I thank God everyday that I live in The USA because its the best country in the world
- nailbunny, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charges, ambush, sniping, motorcade, IRS, BATF, jtf-6, mjtf, hrt, srt, hostages, munitions, weapons, TNT, rdx, amfo, hmtd, picric acid, silver nitrite, mercury fulminate, presidential motorcade, salt peter, charcoal, sulfur, c4, composition b, amatol, petn, lead azide, lead styphante, ddnp, tetryl, nitrocellulose, nitrostarch, mines, grenades, rockets, fuses, delay mechanism, mortars, rpg7, propellants, incendiaries, incendiary device, thermite, security forces, intelligence, agencies, hrt, resistance..
- ScarHawk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Actorboy: Thanks. Dugg of for digging me.
- ScarHawk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Dang I wish I posted earlier-
First of all, let me preface this with saying I am pretty darn close to a Libertarian- which is more conservative then a constitutionalists in some aspects. I disagree in principle with all uncalled for invasions of privacy, so I am a little ticked about the NSA things sometimes. However, there are a few things we need to look at.
First, this is really nothing new. It was complained about during the Clinton Administration as well (though certainly not hyped up by the media like this). I'm trying to find a link or some way to prove this, but 60 minutes did a story on it back in 2000 I think as well, maybe earlier. Its probably been going on a lot longer.
Theres two things: I would normally care a whole lot. Right now its on the mental back burner- because, for reasons I don't have time to enumerate in this post, I actually DO think Bush is being reasonable here. Of course, you have to look with how the system can be abused by other people and I don't like the potential for wiretaps on demand.
However, on the flip side, I know that if I need to keep my memes private I can. Let's hope 08 has some reasonable candidates on the truly conservative side of things- I know that even if we elect a left wing politician who is claiming they are against surveillance when and how the government wants it, there is at least a 90% chance that is only an election issue for them- I hadn't heard liberals start becoming such personal liberty supporting people until it was politically expedient. - nailbunny, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1wow, echelon and carnivore search for emails that have the words 'redheads', 'sex', 'unix', 'w', '1997', 'whitewater', 'armani', 'froglegs', 'ram', 'bugs bunny', 'quarter', 'fax', 'elvis', and 'quiche'.
however, i can totally understand 'active x' and 'steve case' being there.
oh, and where did you hear about this buildup of ships off iran? -
Show 51 - 100 of 108 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is