What is Digg?84 Comments
- Jovan, on 10/12/2007, -6/+39Why does your government hate freedom?
- msaleem, on 10/12/2007, -1/+25Can't say we didn't see it coming. Just like we all saw that RIM would get bailed out. Next step, a certificate of authorization from Ashcroft will miraculously appear.
- Saintlink, on 10/12/2007, -5/+26Why does your government hate freedom?
---
Stay tuned, we're trying to find out. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+25I saw a signature on /. that I loved:
"My right to walk down the street unmolested by the officials is more important than your right to not get blown up."
It was something like that, and the reason we are having such problems these days is because people believe just the opposite.
People get so attached to the "life" part, that they forget the "liberty" and "pursuit of happiness" parts, too. - Nathan07, on 10/12/2007, -3/+21What "legal" authority does the executive branch have to violate the Constitution? The most powerful person in our government is not necessarily all-powerful. There are checks and balances that are supposed to exist within our government.
- zblackeagle, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14Fourth Amendment
"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." - quaispalm, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15"If you're dead, how exactly do you have liberty and how exactly can you pursue happiness?"
Here's a great quote from an article written in 11/01:
"Your chances of dying in an automobile accident during this past 12 months were about seven times greater than being killed by terrorists. We know that we could greatly reduce the number of automobile deaths. We could make the maximum speed limit 20 miles per hour, and give driver's licenses only to adults between 30 and 55 years of age who have never had a driving violation and who have no medical disabilities. However, we as a society have made the collective judgment that we are willing to tolerate 46,000 automobile deaths per year because we believe that the time saved (and pleasure received) by driving faster is worth the cost in human lives."
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=1074 - MartinB3, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12@ Scutter:
Also, just because it isn't in the Constitution doesn't mean it isn't a right; check the 9th amendment:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." - Saintlink, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14Those are fast becoming a quaint memory of the past and will continue to do so unless we act NOW.
- gadgetuk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9"not getting blown up is a fairly serious personal threat that the President swears to protect against."
I'm sorry? Just exactly how many terrorist attacks has America had to withstand? Is it even 3 yet? I expect, as an average US resident, the chances of you being killed by a terrorist are microscopic compared to dying by being [insert any method] by a [insert any cause] . Honestly, substitute anything into those fields it's still more likely. I'll start you off "Dying by being [squashed] by a [falling zebra]". Or "Dying by being [peppered] by a [drunk VP]... etc.
If you live in Israel you are allowed to spend time worring about being terroristed, in America though..... honestly, get a grip. - Alphabet, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Qwest denied the NSA wiretapping because the NSA couldn't provide proof that it was legal or a handwritten note by the attorney general.
I highly doubt the attorney general allowed the wiretapping.
Edit: holy *****, the original article had it saying how qwest asked for the attorney general's letter. But the updated usatoday article doesn't have it(conspiracy? or better facts?). Anyway, here's the google cache.
http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:yh0-qg51zJIJ:www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa_x.htm attorney general qwest NSA&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1 - greggish, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8In the News.com article, as well as others, they actually cut off the most meaningful statement of AT&T's attorney, Bradford Berenson. In the cited News.com article it quotes Mr. Berenson as saying, "AT&T is essentially an innocent bystander."
However, in the Wired.com article...
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,70916-0.html
...they report the full quote as, "AT&T is an innocent bystander, and the fight should be between private parties and the government that started these (surveillance) programs and ran them,"
The full quote is much more potent in its implications, and I can't imagine why several news outlets, including CNet, chopped off the most damning part of the quote. - 15charmaxwtf, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Oh well a loophole. That means whatever they are doing is GOOD!!1
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9The constitution doesn't tell you what rights you have, you have all rights. The constitution tells you which rights the government recognizes.
And, I agree, the 4th should really apply here. - NJank, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6that's doubleplusgood, citizen.
- merce, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Damned liberal media. They're always protecting this crappy administration.
- brilliantshadow, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Maybe the problem these days is there really is too much of a reliance on the word of "law" under the auspices of "right" and "moral" and "correct." Everywhere around the world we see government out of control, and corporations (the left hand of government) trashing everything in the blind pursuit of profit, all of which is legal. It's legal because a small select group of people who make the laws, and therefore decide what is "right" say so. We don't live in a democracy any more than the old Soviet Union lived under Communism. What we need is a different system, or to fix the current system to make it more a real democracy. DIGG is a democracy. You can exercise your god given right to digg me into the ground if you feel I'm an idiot. But I get my say. Everybody gets their say.
When it comes to whether or not my phone gets tapped, I'm stuck living under the rules of other people. In a true and real democracy, people would not be spied on by their government, and I suspect such a nation would not be the target of terrorism either. - elnerdo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Well, if you believe that, then GET OFF YOUR LAZY ASS AND DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!
The problem isn't that people are too stupid, it's that they're too apathetic! People don't CARE enough if they're spied on, if all of their basic rights are taken away. Mail your representatives, vote for somebody different, do ANYTHING BESIDES COMPLAINING! Complaining here achieves NOTHING.
Apathy is death! - sandfish, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Keyword = "supposed"
- iith096, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Amazing what money and lobbyist can accomplish.
- wvdavis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5My wife & I have a toast... It originates from whenever we ask our kids who did this (whatever it may be). They always answer "Not Me" or "I didn't do it". So here is to 'not me' (aka AT&T), 'I didn't do it' (aka Verizon) and now the third one "I don't know" (aka the Bush Administration). Cheers
- swaxhog, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Bush believes that as president, he has the right to bypass any laws he feels he needs to. Current laws that are being passed by him, he tacks on a little rider stating he is not subject to its provisions after it's already gone through the house and been approved.
I'm no American, but I didn't think the President held absolute power in that country. However, as of yet, no one has been able to stand up to his blatent dictatorship. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6"Because I was just following orders" isn't a good enough reason for ANYTHING. Be it genocide, rape, or minor indian burns. If you disagree with the orders, DISOBEY THEM!
I really want a shirt that says "Lie to the Authorities" - damnittohell, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6The US has never been a democracy. We were at one time a representative republic. Now, I don't know what we are but it isn't good.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Look up 'plutocracy'.
I think that pretty well fits whats happening in the US at the moment. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Will America ever be able to return to a democracy based on the will of the people, rather than the will of corporations? What scares me most is the unfortunate fact that where America goes, the UK soon follows. It's long overdue for our collective "leaders" to realise who they work for, and aim for a sustainable future for the WORLD, not for themselves...
- NJank, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4editorial mistake?
- CaptainMal, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4By American media? Surely you jest.
- adml_shake, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Boy who didn't see this comming, and it makes all their previous statements true sorta true..."we never illegally provided the NSA with information about our customers" AKA, we never did it illegally because we had a get out of lawsuites card....
- wvdavis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5What does the bumper sticker say? "Frodo Failed, Bush has the ring!"
- CaptainMal, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I guess some people get a little touchy when their freedoms are eroded without legislative or judicial oversight.
Whoda thunkit? - CaptainMal, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"51% of the voting population" is less than 25% of the country, my friend.
- bennyboy371, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2You know, lately I've considered becoming a politician to try and undo some of this damage. Where the hell are the rights we're supposed to have? This country wasn't founded on law, it was founded on realistic ideals, principles, and the laws were based around that. Its the RIAA, MPAA, and Bush thinking himself as a king that truly disgust me about America. Unfair laws that let thieves spend decades in jail and child molesters get slaps on the wrist.
Now our own government feels itself above the law. In fact, they don't have to be. They decide they can write laws without our wonderful system of checks and balances that will justify everything they do. You know, if they keep this up, I can really foresee a revolution in a few decades. - LaBelette, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Ha, come on, I guess it is really hard to convice a senate your dad elected. Really...
I am soooo happy to live in Canada! The worst our governement does is fraud a little from a program to convice quebekers like me not to separate and hide some expenses on a gun registry that cost about 520 times more than expected and that is useless...
But we do not bomb inocents... And terrorists don't bomb us.... coincidence??? - 5blocksfree, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2My guess is that this more of the "crap masquerading as journalism" syndrome that occurs when you have media owned by people with political interests.
- CaptainMal, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I voted for Russ Feingold and he didn't vote for the PATRIOT Act.
You guys deal with your own Senators. We here in Wisconsin are already doing our part!!! - cohortq, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"Next step, a certificate of authorization from Ashcroft will miraculously appear."
The current Attorney General of the United States is Alberto Gonzales. John Ashcroft is currently a lobbyist and has his own lobbying company The Ashcroft Group LLC. One of their clients is Oracle. - LaBelette, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Good point.
That illustrate the thin line between LAW and ORDERS. - ericjbolt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The US Constitution trumps that "loop hole." AT&T and the US Gov't still unreasonably invaded the privacy of it's citizens. Nixon spied on a few Democrats and is forced to resign. Bush spies on the US nation and what? Let's finally impeach the President!
- NJank, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7although, last I checked, the latter two don't do much good without the former...
- there, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"I da atorknee genarl personallies grantz yous da powers to overrulez a 200 yearz olds constitusion 4ever.. Tomorrowz I'ms goinzs to sigz anoders documentz dats sayes I givez da Presidenzs power two secretzly takes awaz anotherz freedomz guranteedz by da bille of Ryghts."
Writen down using a crayon. - monolith, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Except it's a fantasy. The latest NSA thing might just turn out to be like the 'secret prisons' thing. False. Hyperbole and fiction drummed up to just throw bile at political rivals. Thanks for being pawns of the old line established CIA's war aganst reform. They really appreciate you folks swallowing the bile, hook line and sinker. Personally, I'm sick of it.
- Joe_rigby, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1George Bush broke the law because that data is private - something you made, and last time I checked, illegal search and seizure was against the constitution.
- chadkazulu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1To compare the actions taken during the Civil War to those today is shallow and unhelpful. In the past 140 years, we have come to understand the Constitution differently. Remember, we still shamed ourselves with slavery during that period. Obviously we have moved forward. To compare a terror attack, a crime committed by 19 people (and maybe only 40 people anywhere on the planet had any idea what was to happen that day) to the scale and threat of armies measured in the millions fighting pitched battles daily for years (in both the Civil War and WWII) only aids the terrorists' efforts to strip us of our hard earned democracy and perpetuates a fallacy of reason, logic, common sense, and decency.
We now assume that a warrant is a normal procedure, not an option. We assume slavery to be illegal, not a marketing tool. We assume genocide is also illegal, after this country slaughtered aboriginal Americans for decades (if not centuries).
Piss Poor behavior and violations of human rights in the past do not justify renewed efforts to implement further piss poor behavior and to erode further civil liberties both here and abroad. This country's former administrations have done some dick things, that does not, however, excuse the current dick's misdeeds. - seenthefuture, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1We're in trouble boys and boys (well this is Digg)
http://www.csll.us/PDF/PatLetter012506.pdf - brickbat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1aratika = so wrong
This is not about monitoring the threat of being blown up. They may say it's about that but they have lied to you so often by now that I'm amazed you still believe them. It's about monitoring whoever the hell they want and they don't need no stinkin warrants. If it was about terrorists, they could get a FISA warrant after the tapping took place. But they don't want anyone to know who they are monitoring....I wonder why. I don't think the FISA court would say no to monitoring a terrorist. I remember some statistic like 10 out of 3000 FISA requests were denied in they years before Bush.
What you wrote was just terribly naive. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Bush gave them permission? I didn't know the President could give you permission to break the law. I guess it's the next logical step after him not feeling that he has to follow the law himself. Can we impeach the mother ***** and get it done with already?
- OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2With all the spying Bush is doing, you'd think he'd have found who sent the Anthrax letters by now.
IMPEACH BUSH NOW, BEFORE HE KILLS AGAIN!
http://bushbumperstickers.com/images/BushCheneyPrison.gif
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v237/BrklynLiberal/RoveasCrook.jpg
http://cagle.msnbc.com/news/CorpCrooksFollies/CorporateCrooks/wassermankjh.gif - there, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"we control corporations because we are their consumers"
Don't get me wrong (I like capitalism as long as it continues within the framework of a mixed economy). However that statement is like a communist saying "we control the government because we are their consumers".
A few hundred interconnected families control virtually everything in America (in terms of actual large scale decision making. Contrary to what Presidents like to say in speeches (to make the little people feel happy) America isn't a democracy-- nor has it ever been. It's a Republic.created with Democratic principles in mind. In a Democracy the people vote on issues (i.e. let's vote for a tax raise, let's vote to go to war). In Republics, the people vote for effectively a tyrant (i.e. can even authorize assassinations) they presumably trust to make their choices for them. The judicial branch and legislative branch are there to check up that the tyrant doesn't ignore the Constitution and laws. (checks and balances)
System works pretty good at improving quality of life.
However if the legislative branch (congress) is held in the dark on an important matter and the attorney general (the judicial) is a political crony that signs secret documents that overrule existing rights he's supposedly there to protect--- then all bets are off. - Nitro2985, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1People read the Fourth Amendment over and over again, yet consistently skip over relevant words such as "unreasonable."
In fact, were one to read it properly, one would have to conclude that it tells us that unreasonable searches and seizures mustn't take place and that warrants, should they be issued, shan't be made except in the manner expressed.
No where there do we find an assertion that warrants are the ONLY means by which the government can get authority to search.
Now, there are those who might disagree with me. Rather than simply marking me down, I invite you to challenge my view. By discussing this issue, we might find that I was actually wrong, or you were wrong in your previous notions as to the Fourth Amendment. Should either of these occur, one can only say that we have both been bettered by the experience, and if no consensus has been arrived at, we will have gained a better understanding of the arguments on both sides. In either case, we are bettered far more than a simple mark down of a post. -
Show 51 - 84 of 84 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 
