What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Join the Dragon Age: Origins development team on Facebook view!
facebook.com/DragonAgeOrigins - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
135 Comments
- ajb2015, on 10/12/2007, -7/+35It's good to see some companies still care about their customers.
Go T-Mobile! - marksven, on 10/12/2007, -5/+33Direct link to story, instead of some blog:
http://www.newsobserver.com/114/story/438542.html - SoCalChris, on 10/12/2007, -3/+27"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Ben Franklin
That being said, the 9/11 attacks killed approximately 3,000 people, almost 5 years ago. I'm not trying to be insensitive, but that's a relatively low number, especially when you consider the amount of deaths that occur in other ways that aren't being used as a scapegoat to increase government power.
According to MADD's website, about 17,000 people die each year from drunk driving related incidents. That's about 75,000 people dead from drunk driving since the 9/11 attacks. Why haven't we spent hundreds of millions of dollars fighting drunk driving instead? It would make a much bigger impact on our safety.
Obesity is believed to cause about 26,000 deaths per year. Why not put the money & energy that is being put into spying on us, being put into helping us to get into shape? Again, that would do far more to protect us than recording who calls who.
Besides, if the government really feels like they need to keep track of someone, there are legal channels that they can go through to do it legally, instead of blindly recording everything that the US citizens do. There are checks and balances in place for a reason.
http://www.madd.org/stats/1298
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,153944,00.html - samdu, on 10/12/2007, -1/+21"Please tell me why you should care if you have done nothing wrong."
Cool. Then you won't have a problem when the government comes to install the cameras in your house. - p9s50W5k4GUD2c6, on 10/12/2007, -3/+22I suspect that the majority of Americans appear not to care, in large part, because they make no connection between ALL of the rights issues.
Wiretapping - suck it up (as you say).
Violation of fed wiretapping statues - no biggie.
Warrant-less search and seizure - what do I have to hide?
Forfeiture of judicial due process for non-citizens
Quickly followed by Forfeiture of judicial due process for American citizens
Imprisonment without the benefit of legal counsel
National Letters that you cannot even tell your lawyer about
Documented incidents of torture
The VP defending the need for torture.
AND THIS IS ONLY JUST A PORTION OF WHAT WE ARE SEEING.
I remember what that bastard Osama did to America on 9/11. But what are WE doing to America now? What are we LETTING our politicians do to America now - IN OUR NAME?
I thought, for the FIRST time today: who is damaging America more - Al Queda? Or Us?
This is not the America I have grown to love.
And with all due respect, be I the minority of ONE - I intend to fight the growth of this police state with every legal and political means at my disposal. - p9s50W5k4GUD2c6, on 10/12/2007, -0/+18For those of us that DO mind micro-surveillance, I sorely hope these telcos ~dearly~ pay for betraying the trust of their customers (and violating the law).
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18Do you not realise that if there's no check on government's power eventually someone will come along that chooses to abuse that power?
- lysdexic, on 10/12/2007, -5/+22"Can you please tell me which part of my original statement was false"
The part where you misunderstood the fourth ammendment maybe? - SparQy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17I'm Canadian, but surprisingly affected by the politics of our friends to the south.
I think the point here is that the laws are in place for a reason. Sure, there may be no real harm in having your conversations taped... but if you take the courts out of the equation, then you really have a police state. The glory of America isn't really democracy/capitalism, but the constitution and the independant courts to support it (discounting that fact the supreme court judges are appointed by the Administration). - Pile, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16
"Please tell me why you should care if you have done nothing wrong."
prin·ci·pal, adj
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French, from Latin principalis, from princip-, princeps
1 : most important, consequential, or influential : CHIEF
2 : of, relating to, or constituting principal or a principal - stmiller, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15Wasn't Nixon impeached for wiretapping? Did America forget about that?
- thebanmagi, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15It is not a question of being afraid, but of legality.
- SparQy, on 10/12/2007, -7/+18@Geterix:
Courts? Checks and balances? Government oversight? Transparency?
Don't think these are partisan ideas, they protect democrats and republicans alike. - ANorton, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13"which are not private if needed by law enforcement"
This is a false statement because these documents have to be subpoenaed through the normal legal process. What is going on is in no way "needed by law enforcement". This is an obvious abuse of government control on people's lives. - demonicume, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11good PR move by Tmobile "WE RESPECT YOUR PRIVACY, UNLIKE THOSE BIG MEAN LANDLINE COMPANIES. SWITCH TO US!"
now if only Tmobile or Cingular would promise keep my location a secret, then i'll be convinced of their good intentions. After robbing a bank, the last thing i need is to have my cell triangulated to within miles and pinned on google earth (thanks web 2.0!). i should be able to talk on my phone during my get-away with security. j/k
all joking aside. i'm glad SOMEONE stood up and refused to roll over.
its crazy: tell some kid he cant wear his latest grudge shirt and nose ring to class, people are up in arms - time to sue for freedom of speech. the US government violates the constitution, suddenly we're all liberal pricks. huh. go figure.
maybe you could give us all your crdit card number. that way if someone were to use it, we'd know right away cuz its yours. - samdu, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12"Let's say a terrorist is calling a fellow terrorist in another country in order to set an attack on Washington D.C. The government finds information about this call, and they want to hear what it is about. However, they have to wait for a warrant to go through before they can do anything about it."
The government, by law, can start surveilance 72 hours before getting a warrant. The problem is that the Bush administration hasn't been bothering to get the warrants. Your scenario doesn't work because legally, there's nothing keeping the NSA from eavesdropping on that phone call AND getting a warrant without having to wait. - sporktek, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10The government has tanks. Google does not.
- Sell, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Noelsusman - It's about principle, rights, and privacy.
- traviswalters, on 10/12/2007, -1/+910+ million Americans have ties to terrorism? Really. I doubt it.
- quasipalm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8"What good is liberty if you are dead?"
You have a one-in-six-million chance of dying in a terrorist attack but you have a one-in-three-million chance of dying from a Coke machine falling on top of you. (Source: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0506/S00025.htm) - panique, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Personally, I shut down my Verizon home service this week. I'm now using SpeakEasy One-Link for my ISP and SpeakEasy VoIP phone service. Too bad SpeakEasy has to pay about $6/mo. to Verizon to use the pair back to the CO.
- actionscripted, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Don't soften the blow. What they're doing goes against every system devised by our founding fathers and needs to stop.
There's no point in arguing this -- a lot of people actually support this bullsh*t. At this point in the debate, everyone is stuck on one side or the other and is NOT going to budge.
To those that think this is fair/appropriate/necessary: your attitude is going to leave America as we know it six-feet-under. You are clearly not seeing the bigger picture -- one that a clear-minded Canadian pointed out above. We do NOT want a police state. If we want to make everyone perfectly safe, let's build a bubble around America, setup curfews, 24/7 civilian monitoring, and harsher laws. Then we'd be safe. Is that what you idiots want?
To those that think this is horrific: thank you.I appreciate your concern about everyone's civil rights and freedoms.
TRY ASKING SOMEONE OVER 60 WHAT THEY THINK ABOUT THIS. I'll bet you $100 they'll be quick to slap you in the face for suggesting something as absurd and nation-wide wire taps. And I'll be there to laugh at you, after you get slapped in the face. Assuming the Bush administration doesn't impose so new anti-slapping law designed to keep people safe from the mental anguish a good cuffing can cause. - Scopitone, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9So shines a good deed in a weary world.
- quasipalm, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8"Please tell me why you should care if you have done nothing wrong."
Let's just take a hint from Soviet Russia and put up checkpoints on every major road and make random searches on street corners legal too. Hey, if you're not a terroist, you've got nothing to hide, right? - Zzone, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Thank you T-Mobile, I will continue to be a customer!
- sporktek, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8This doesn't come down to partisan politics. As a registered republican who voted for GWB back in 2000, I can say that the kind of liberties that are being taken with the privacy of our people should be raising more eyebrows of small-government conservatives such as myself. Why is it that those who got indignant over Clinton's abuses of power and his invasions of privacy regarding FBI files are either conspicuously silent now, or are vocally defending these warrant-less, unconstitutional probes?
Or are we as a people *just that* partisan and spineless? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Do you have any idea how unlikely that scenario is? Anyway there is a mechanism in the US to get retroactive wiretap warrants and they couldn't even be bothered to do that. It's true that just after september 11 your country was willing to do almost anything to "stop the terrorists". But almost everything isn;t working.
- mddleNameIsEarl, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7> "The government is not going to waste their time tapping random phones. They don't have the time or money for that."
They don't need to. They just need enough processing power to examine phone logs and determine what they want to fish for today. This whole "don't do anything wrong and it doesn't affect you" thing doesn't fly. What happens when a terrorists calls you by accident? Far-fetched, but I'm sure terrorist mis-dial like anyone else. Besides, we're in a "where there's smoke there's fire" environment now. I might agree with you that I'd give them an inch if I thought it would afford me better protection if I trusted they would do that and only that. Except each time we give this administration an inch, they take a mile. Enough is enough. - quasipalm, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10"How much you want to bet that if there is a Dem president in 2009, they will magically no longer care about this like they did from 1993 to 2001?"
This is also inaccurate. See: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5187738 This program started in 2002, so you can't blame it on Clinton.
"When did the NSA start this wiretapping program? [...] President Bush authorized the program through a secret executive order signed in 2002." - sporktek, on 11/05/2007, -0/+6Absolutely. I'm amazed at the warm reception warrant-less data-mining is apparently receiving from our people. Ours is supposed to be a nation of individualists who prefer privacy to the illusion of security and freedom to subjugation. Our country was founded on principals which are now being actively violated. We can't change the past and fix the violations of our rights that have taken place before, but what is wrong with declaring war on government oppression now? The slippery slope argument seems like it's been used and refuted by everyone on every side of an argument, but it has some merit. Rights fall in sequence, not all at once. I myself have always been a small-government conservative at heart and believe fiercely in protecting my constitutional rights. A staple talking point of those who argue on behalf of the second amendment right of all Americans to "keep and bear arms" is that of the slippery slope. It's argued that in countries where the most atrocious human rights violations have taken place in recent history, the stories of those oppressive regimes began with the revocation of some of the rights we take for granted, specifically from the standpoint of that argument, a ban on firearms preceded most of the atrocities that occurred under Nazi rule of Germany prior to World War II. The same people who were once willing to make THAT very argument and who clung fervently to their 2nd amendment right, now balk at the notion of a move like this causing a "slippery-slope" situation and apparently place no value on their 4th amendment rights.
The blinding truth of the situation is that there is such a thing as a "slippery slope" and that our rights and freedom can (and must if it is to be) be slowly chipped away from many different angles by many different people from many different ideologies. Regardless of the political party, religion, social or economic philosophy, politicians have always craved one thing above all others, and that's power. Why we are so apt to give an administration a pass just because they brand themselves with an elephant is beyond me. - LoungeActx, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6@tarzan99
When we find terrorists we don't give them a trial. We send them to Guatanomo Bay and hold them indefinitely without even charging them. Oh yeah, and sometimes we hook electrodes to their nipples and shock them using a 12v battery..............or maybe we don't......... - Dribblemaker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5"None of us know what the NSA does with these wire taps."
Now including the court system it would seem... and that's the point. There are laws that need to be followed as well as checks and balances in the government that are meant to stop the abuse of power. As the old saying goes... absolute power corrupts absolutely... - 3adkied, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6@Geterix-
Actually, I think that's exactly what Ben Franklin had in mind when he said that, although the only evidence either of us have to back that up is the quote he left us with. That said, I agree with your point that 'The preservation of freedom takes sacrifice,' but I disagree with the conclusion you seem to have drawn from that. You can't preserve freedom by taking some freedom away. Terrorists involved with Al Qaeda threatened our security, not our freedom. Our government is the only one ignoring our freedoms whether they were in the Bill of Rights, legislated, or settled by the judicial system long ago. Without that freedom, the security doesn't matter nearly as much. The sacrifices that we have to make for freedom are wars. Wars lessen security because people will die. Sacrificing security to keep freedom is sometimes necessary, sacrificing freedom for security is not. - Athyrius, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Never Forget
Within a few years, Himmler became Chief of the German Police in addition to his duties as SS leader. Heydrich, his number two man, proved to be something of a genius in creating a hugely efficient national intelligence system that kept tabs on everyone. No one was exempt from Gestapo snooping, no matter how high up in the Nazi hierarchy.
On February 10, 1936, the Nazi Reichstag passed the 'Gestapo Law' which included the following paragraph: "Neither the instructions nor the affairs of the Gestapo will be open to review by the administrative courts." This meant the Gestapo was now above the law and there could be no legal appeal regarding anything it did.
Indeed, the Gestapo became a law unto itself. It was entirely possible for someone to be arrested, interrogated and sent to a concentration camp for incarceration or summary execution, without any outside legal procedure.
Justice in Hitler's Germany was completely arbitrary, depending on the whim of the man in power, the man who had you in his grip. The legal policy as proclaimed by Hitler in 1938 was: "All means, even if they are not in conformity with existing laws and precedents, are legal if they subserve the will of the Führer." - RCourtney, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9With all these people saying this is a liberal or lefty issue:
How will you feel if/when the Congress and/or Presidency are controlled by Democrats? Will this be an issue of concern for you then?
This is a bipartisan issue about privacy and the constitution. Please stop thinking about the guys in office now and for once start thinking a little ways down the road and the overall implications to our future in general.
Neither side should be able to ignore the constitution, disassociate themselves with laws, or wield this much just-asking-to-be-abused power over the people of this country.
We've been down that road... we KNOW where it leads. - actionscripted, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Go here, take some action:
https://secure.eff.org/site/Advocacy?alertId=212&pg=makeACall - Nation, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10There really need to have a "This title/description is inaccurate" option.
- sporktek, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6"Our constitutional rights have been violated before, so it's ok now."
Dead wrong. If Carter's administration ordered illegal (yes, illegal, since it violates the US Constitution, and the Constitution trumps even case law and precedent) wiretaps and data mining, then they *should have* been taken to task for it. If Regan's administration ordered illegal wiretaps and data mining, then they *should have* been taken to task. If George (H. W.) Bush's administration ordered illegal wiretaps and data mining, then they *should have* been taken to task. Clinton's administration DID advantage of the situation and they DID violate the privacy of some political and private figures, and they WERE taken to task for it (not nearly enough, IMHO). George W. Bush's administration IS CURRENTLY ordering illegal wiretaps and data mining, then they *should be* been taken to task.
The old line "everyone else did it" should never have been a good enough excuse, when the constitutional rights of the entire populace are at stake. Too many good men and women died to secure those rights.
Terrorists hate us for our freedom. They failed to take that away by knocking down our buildings and blowing up our people, fortunately, however, we have our politicians to help them with their mission. - xst4t1kx, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6He was obviously refering to the 1 year anniversary of the Mt. St. Helens eruption.
- millerm277, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Thank you T-mobile, for standing up to illegal wiretapping........i wish that the Bush administration had some respect for our own countries laws
- Amaruca, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7That's it! I'm switching to AT&T! I'll be damned if I'm going to support those terrorist sympathizers at QWEST or T-MOBILE! BTW, I'm signing up for one of those fancy RFID chips to be stuck in my a$$ to help find those bloody terrorists!!!
- sporktek, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9WTF is wrong with people? Ten years ago when Clinton was scurrying around with FBI files of political opponents and THE SAME EXACT people who were up in arms about that are the ones saying "Oh, well, I've got nothing to hide so it's OK!".
Why, all of the sudden, are all the privacy advocates of the 90s rolling over? It was wrong then, and it's 10x wrong now, because instead of just a few opposing senators, etc, having their files pulled, it's the bulk of the populace. Saying this makes me no less of a patriot, no less of an American. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7While T-Mobile service sucks badly in my area, I'll stay with them as long as they stand up for individual privacy.
- EricTheGrey, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6TheRonald: "It's legal since the supreme court last year said it was."
True, but only in certain circumstances, such as from this article:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5187738 :
"The NSA conducts wiretapping worldwide all the time. A special court grants permission to tap communications within the United States when one of the parties involved is suspected of being an "agent of a foreign power."
So yes, they CAN wiretap if they have a reasonable reason to do so, but they cannot justify tapping, or even just data mining every single cell phone call made, which is what they are trying to do.
Without a court order, this organization has no right to have access to this data.
EtG - JC4P, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Lol, the only two phyone companies I have are T-Mobile and Qwest. woot go me!
- Travelsonic, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5
"Please tell me why you should care if you have done nothing wrong."
Well, how do you determine wrong, considering morals are a matter of opinion? Even if what you ment was illegal, you are still making the same backless, naive, ignorant stick-your-head-in-the-sand comment other apathetics have made already, and the reason it is ignorant stick-your-head-in-the-sand can be answered with a look back at history - Sacco and Vanzetti, the Red Scare, people of Japanese DESCENT (not just direct immigrants) for christ's sake being sent to camps - even internationally things like the Jewish concentration camps in Germany tell you that this is not true all the time, and can not be treated that way safely.
"As long as you don't call any terrorists or go shopping at buildabomb.com, then the government is not going to waste their time and money tracking you."
Sure.... how can you explain/justify 10s of millions of people having the data collected and not just those who are suspects? You can't HONESTLY think al of them are suspected of being asociated with terrorists/terror groups?
" Besides, I would rather have the slight possibility that the government is tracking me then have terrorists running rampant throughout the country. Yeah, that is exaggerated, but it is the point that matters."
Well I'd rather have my privacy secure and the government actually having a method of terrorist tracking that yields non-secretive or speculative "results" without the blind ignorance displayed here.
"Just suck it up and don't connect yourselves to terrorist. End of story. "
You know - "end of story" is suck a ***** cop out to any further debate it makes me puke (you vacuous, toffee-nosed malodorous pervert! - Monty Pythong quote - too tempting ^_^) - honestly, simply because it is not the end of story when there is so much more than is to be debated, discussed, and much much more that can and will go on. - 3adkied, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Don't worry. I'm sure T-Mobile will still honor all legal, warranted, requests.
- volcompimp, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5My Cingular contract is almost up and I've been considering going to Tmobile. This will probably seal the deal.
- Wamzlee, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I see that alot of people are not seeing the big picture. When I show you a picture of a circle on it, and I ask you 'what do you see?' and you tell me 'a circle'. And I will tell you why you are wrong.
There is a huge issue with this entire NSA program. Many of you who are defending it are saying that "their intent are to stop terrorists" and "if you haven't done anything wrong, then you have nothing to hide." These are absurd claims. What's "wrong" is a matter of opinion and one's own view of morals. What we say, who we call, and how we act is very very incriminating. Have you ever been misunderstood by someone? Have you ever had a girlfrined who always questions if you are even loyal to her?
A bigger point can be made that, we cannot trust our government, and we must hold our government accountable. Take for instance, a drunk driver. Let's say he is driving 50 mph in a 55mph zone, yet he hits a pedestrian. Now, by the logic of many people defending this program, the drunk driver should get off the hook because he was obeying the speed limit.
What really irks me is how you exaggerate the threat of terrorism. The true terror that we face are AIDS, disease, poverty, etc. Those terrors have taken far more lives. You have something to learn from these things; just because a person is blind doesn't stop them from seeing, so a terrorist threat shouldn't stop the American system from functioning lawfully.
so its not 'a circle' you just see...you see the circle and the open canvas of the paper, maybe even a frame...or possible the wall behind the picture...maybe even my hand holding the picture. - allthewhile, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4don't you mean 1984?
-
Show 51 - 100 of 135 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is