What is Digg?77 Comments
- Jenadae, on 01/30/2008, -1/+26Why is this a debate? It's illegal. STOP IT.
- fyngyrz, on 01/30/2008, -1/+19It IS illegal. The ruling is illegal. The basis is the constitution; and the constitution cannot be overruled, it can only be amended. Any other procedure is illegal *by definition*. What you are seeing here is the niche - timewise - that congress and the rest of the traitors that regularly break ironclad constitutional prohibitions have carved out that exists until someone who is "harmed" can contest the law and bring it before the supreme court; and then if the supreme court rules against it, the supreme court had better have ironclad constitutional backup or THEY are breaking the law.
As to the specifics, the 4th amendment is very specific - you need a warrant and probable cause. Legitimate telecomm law derived from the 4th is ALSO very specific.
What you are doing is confusing criminal activity WITHIN the justice system for legitimate government authority; that's not the case at all. The only legitimate authority the government has is derived FROM the constitution; any time they go around it, over it, or through it, they have lost all authority and are operating as an overwhelming power, nothing any different from any dictatorship or monarchy does.
What makes (ok, made) the USA different is that the government derived its legitimate authority from the consent of the people in the form of the constitution. There's nowhere else for them to get such consent. They certainly don't have mine. As far as I am concerned, when they violate the constitution, as they do all too regularly, they are nothing more than traitors to the oath of office and the trust put in them. Look at the inversion of the commerce clause; the ex post facto laws; the infringement of the right to keep and bear arms; the laws abridging peaceable assembly; warrentless incursions on people's homes, funds, property, papers and communications; imprisonment of citizens without access to representation or a timely hearing; deprivation of property and monies without due process; implementation of torture (cruel and unusual punishment); incursion into state's rights (see commerce clause inversion), theft of property for commercial gain...
So when you say that something is "not illegal" because "they're doing it and they (some court) say they can", let me assure you that you are merely a victim of their propaganda. What they are doing is illegal, period, end of story. The problem here is that we - as citizens - have no mechanism whatsoever that is effective at bringing them into compliance with their oaths and the constitution.
And if it never changes, that's the fault of people like you, people who do not study history, have not the faintest clue as to the rights, responsibilities, liberties, duties and freedoms described in the founding documents and in *particular* the constitution. You call it "crying"; and you're closer than you think. But these are legitimate tears spilled over the loss of amazing freedoms and liberties fought for with people's blood and treasure that you are pissing away. No one is whining or crying about silly things here. - Ne007, on 01/30/2008, -0/+18^^^^
I was sure that there were going to be retards out there that say "SPY ON ME! SPY ON ME!"
Do you NOT realize that you could be giving away your trade secrets to the government? How about an invention idea? How about confidential information with your lawyer? How about have them snoop around in your computer and steal your hard earned work?
Stupid people do not realize the REASON that those laws are there in the first place. They are there NOT to protect against the government spying on ordinary citizens for their grocery list, but to protect the oridinary citizen from being ripped off by a corrupt government! - smashingmonkey, on 01/30/2008, -0/+14Uncle Sam has to keep a watchful eye on his middle class tax slaves.
- Jenadae, on 01/30/2008, -1/+13And you're the problem with our country.
- blast_flame, on 01/30/2008, -1/+13Everyone has stuff to hide. They might just not necessarily be illegal.
- luchid, on 01/30/2008, -2/+14mal1964: Your Founding Fathers are squirming in their graves for what you just said. People like you re the problem.
- inactive, on 01/30/2008, -2/+13American citizens can now be arrested with no case, no trial, no nothing, labeled as an "enemy" combatant. It usually doesnt get reported on because its hidden from the corporate owned media. If you're willing to overlook tryannical gov't abuses against those you disagree with, I've got a newsflash for you: You're a fascist pig who's contributing to the downfall of the American Way.
Go crawl in a hole and die, fvcking *****!.
America's enemy is the idiot who IGNORED that Bush lied to us about Iraq, IGNORED that Bush defends treason, IGNORED that Bush was asleep at the wheel on 9/11, IGNORED that Bush had already blundered our war effort in Iraq, IGNORED that Bush was going to run amok with our Constitution...
...and still voted to re-elect the bastard.
The enemy from within has perpetuated this death and devastation. Don't forget it. - bowens44, on 01/30/2008, -2/+11That makes it ok? How pathetic.
- ccheath, on 01/30/2008, -0/+9NOT IF IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL
- moontime, on 01/30/2008, -0/+9You are watched in many more ways than you realize.
- chingy1788, on 01/30/2008, -2/+10The enemy has taken our intelligence
- Jenadae, on 01/30/2008, -1/+8Thank you for explaining that more elegantly then i would've taken the time to.
- VitriolAndAngst, on 01/30/2008, -0/+7No. AT&T did an illegal act. The government cannot compel you to break the law. Troops, however, are not responsible for their acts and get immunity from prosecution, because THEY are breaking the laws of the countries they are in and THEY are compelled to do these acts. There is no support for this supposed right from prosecution that you are alluding to, because in a Democracy, the government cannot compel laws to be broken. It would have to change the law first.
This is also a bad precedent.
"The site also miss-characterizes the way surveillance is conducted by calling it a 'dragnet'. " -- I'd say, that is a NICE way of putting it. Everything that went over AT&T's wires was cloned and poured into another building, where government agents could track anything they wanted to. NO oversight, no court order, no records of what they found interesting. They could be getting patents that someone emailed, they could be getting bank numbers to your account, they could be finding out that you are a closet glue sniffer, just in case you ever start protesting the government.
If you allow a government to spy domestically, you cannot have a Democracy. That was proven with J Edgar Hoover, who all but ran our country with his spying. The Bush family learned well from him. - Eivo, on 01/30/2008, -0/+6So it isn't a problem, but you're telling us to fix it?
If you can't tell, diggers are mad at your submissive mentality, becuase in this case your inaction is in direct opposition to the goal. Understand that.
And in case you have wondered what I have done so far to try to help is personally write my Senators and Representative... SEVERAL times on this specific issue (not to mention several others). So lets not assume that since I can use a computer that I am someone that "sits in my moms basement" doing nothing. - Sle3per, on 01/30/2008, -1/+7cared?
- MarkKezner, on 01/30/2008, -0/+5"it's never going to change"
Not with that attitude.
I'd rather try to stand up for myself than let the government walk all over my rights. - Eivo, on 01/30/2008, -0/+5Well, it's not your problem yet.
- sizzzzlerz, on 01/30/2008, -0/+4Go ahead and post your SSN, phone numbers, driver's license no., bank accounts, and passwords. If you've got nothing to hide then there shouldn't be a problem with that, right? Oh, and what schools do your kids attend?
- EarlOfLade, on 01/30/2008, -0/+4"Hey, NSA-guys! I can't find my phone, can one of you call my wife and tell her I'll be late? Thank you, guys, know you are listening!"
- makkaveli19, on 01/30/2008, -0/+3next they'll be putting camera's in peoples housed. but you have nothing to hide right?
- inactive, on 01/30/2008, -0/+3"You have nothing to hide"- TODAY. But that could always change. Do you like guns, porn, your Bible? What if some day down the line, public opinion swings against THOSE and THEY become illegal? Will your "good American" feelings change then? You probably think it could never happen. Well, I never thought that our government would start reading my mail and taping my phone calls or correspondence, but, if they want to they can- without a warrant. THAT is anti-American, AS IS YOUR POST, sir.
- lamech, on 01/30/2008, -1/+4http://stopthespying.org/
- Terr01, on 01/30/2008, -0/+3I would consider any intrusion on my privacy to be a negative impact.
If you're asking for a way the information was actively abused and it came to light, that's setting the bar a bit too high, don't you think? - DavidYeah, on 01/30/2008, -0/+3"It only makes sense to grant immunity to the telecoms for negligent tort liability because they are compelled to cooperate with the government."
Quest wasn't. They refused to spy.
"To hold them liable for complying with a government order under these circumstances is like suing GM for putting government mandated airbags in their cars."
You're a horrible human being. There were laws that were designed to force GM to put airbags in their cars. Laws created by and voted on by the congress and senate. Where do you see a law that allows private companies to spy on citizens for governments? Conflating airbag laws with this situation is probably the most horrible characterization I've ever seen.
"My final point is that non-US intelligence agencies are not bound by US law, so guess what? If big brother really wants to listen in on you, the just go to the French, or the British or Israelis and ask them to help out."
So write laws against it, and prosecute anyone who does it. Why is the notion of creating and following laws so difficult for you, someone who is clearly pretty well spoken? - itux1985, on 01/30/2008, -0/+3No, we should support these corporations and our government because that's what I heard on Fox News.
/sarcasm - sremick, on 01/30/2008, -0/+3"Your"
http://vtbsd.net/english/ - EarlOfLade, on 01/30/2008, -1/+4The same way they call it "The land of the free" when it is not.
- PeteyNice, on 01/30/2008, -0/+3The Telecom's couldn't say no? Tell that to Qwest. They had the option to say no and chose to break the law. Throw the book at them. Your car analogy is not apt. It is like if GM put a tracking device in your car that constantly beamed your position back to the government and didn't tell you about it.
- jnorris441, on 01/30/2008, -0/+3But how can they pass a law saying it's OK to break the law????
- VitriolAndAngst, on 01/30/2008, -1/+3Remember when we used to argue about Domestic spying? All the talk about; "What a tin-foil-hat theory --- nobody is spying, it's only on Bin Laden..." Well, now that the protestations are over. We have the new chorus saying; "What's wrong with it?" Well, why keep it secret then?
The Bad Guys running things in Washington, only need to trip up once, and get called to court -- well, that's if they accidentally go into a court not already packed with cronies and Federalists Society members. And IF we were getting a real Democrat as President. And IF the Telcos aren't going to get immunity.
Well, if BushCo can get their "Every American a tracked Suspect Bill" through --- that's the name I like to use for the National ID card -- then there really is a phony opposition to him. We need to get rid of a lot of incumbent Democrats (not including Kucinich and Feingold), because they are pretending to oppose the Republicans and their moves towards fascism. That's what this is all about. If you can spy on your population, you can build a case and blackmail any leader of a resistance movement. And in a Democracy, a resistance gets out and makes noise and tries to get people to vote for their cause. In a Fascism, they are called whatever the outlaw of the moment is, and some crime is found.
It was no accident that the Evangelical church was run by a crack-smoking homosexual who preached against drugs, homosexuality, and Democracy. They control these "leaders" and they make criminal the things that they do, so that they can better control them.
AT&T will get immunity. And I'm wondering what their executives did beyond that, to make the NeoCons trust them. Everyone who works with them is compromised. - sremick, on 01/30/2008, -0/+2It happened recently here in Vermont, with a lawyers office. Made the Burlington Free Press.
- VitriolAndAngst, on 01/30/2008, -0/+2The OTHER big reason, is that maybe you didn't break the law, but perhaps their might be an affair, or an embarrassing thing that could be used against a leader that opposes some government policy.
Blackmail can control the leaders in power, more effectively than Democratic voting. - inactive, on 01/30/2008, -1/+3Don't be such a jerk
- Soyea, on 01/30/2008, -0/+1it's not legal stop it, it that like crossing over into this country is not legal stop it. oh sorry he have to give them all our rights cause they demand it.
- WhiteRaven, on 02/02/2008, -0/+1My defense is simple... your assertion is simply wrong. The security offered by the postal service only existed because it was a governmental entity and hence was restricted by the bill of rights. Neither you nor I nor any of the telcos is so encumbered. We are limited by other considerations... we may not trespass and we may not break-and-enter and we may not steal... but if a Telco chooses to monitor communication and/or make it available to law enforcement agencies, they aren't doing any of those things. The only laws they are breaking are those that deal specifically with wire-tapping... and we can change those laws and are doing so. This is NOT a constitutional issue.
A telco is not an arm of the government and the property affected is theirs... in fact, it makes more sense to argue that prohibiting them from conducting "wire tapping" is unacceptable limit on property rights than it does to suggest it has anything to do with your or my fourth amendment rights. There is a distinction between being "secure" in what we seek to secure and some kind of presumption of privacy over communications we are flinging out into the hands of multiple third parties. The later is just nonsense. If nothing else, remember this... private entities are not bound by the same considerations as the government. The 4th amendment has no bearing on a telco. And any access a telco *elects* to give the government is just fine once we fix the wire tap laws. - elementop, on 01/30/2008, -0/+1If you are opposed to the domestic wiretapping fiasco, then stop by the EFF's web site and join their campaign to tell our senators *not* to pass the bill granting immunity to the telcos.
- fr0mundacheese, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1Thanks "DOUCHE BAG" spell check that one.
- inactive, on 01/30/2008, -1/+2lol and Obama is in favour of this.
- elementop, on 01/30/2008, -0/+1Wow. Just...wow. Very eloquent and exactly on point. I wish there were more people like you in this country -- if there were, maybe we wouldn't be in the sorry shape we are in.
- lamech, on 01/30/2008, -0/+1According to my Business Law book, the second act that qualifies as an invasion of privacy is:
"Intrusion in an individual's affairs or seclusion. For example invading someone's home or illegally searching someone's briefcase is an invasion of privacy. The tort has been held to extend to EAVESDROPPING BY WIRETAP, the unauthorized scanning of a bank account, compulsory blood testing, and window peeping." (Page 85)
-Fundamentals of Business Law, by Roger LeRoy Miller and Gaylord A. Jentz - inactive, on 01/30/2008, -2/+3How did you get out? Where are your handlers? Did you take your meds?
- fyngyrz, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1What you have to deal with is the fact that the constitution's 4th amendment says citizens are to be "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects." This includes the post, because -- at the time -- that's what communications were. Now the difference is that the "carrier" is a wire, not a person; but wait, the telecomm laws said that was the same as the post and you did have an expectation of privacy. Now the information is in packets, not ink or analog soundwaves... that's really the final difference. But wait -- your phone conversations have been carried on packets for years now. including TDD communications - keyboard-driven - by the blind. Still, they were covered.
So -- why is your email not covered, etc.?
I await your defense of your position. - inactive, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1>>THAT WAS BEFORE THE LAW THAT WAS BROKEN WAS PASSED!
No, but since you're digging a hole for yourself, go ahead and tell me what law was passed. - Terr01, on 01/30/2008, -0/+1Saying "There was some ruling in 1982" is not very helpful.
Please explain.
If you mean what I think you do... THAT WAS BEFORE THE LAW THAT WAS BROKEN WAS PASSED! - LeandroMan, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1Debate my ass! WTF. Since when does our government really debate anything. They just talk about their opposing opinions. Anyone watch presidential debates. Those aren't debates. Stop the media brainwash!
- neocognitism, on 01/30/2008, -0/+1I think it's just fascinating to see people defend the telecoms and push for additional rights to spy on Americans, which means reducing our rights. I wish that all the newspapers from 1930-1945 in Italy and Germany were fully available in text-based electronic form, so we could see the similarities. I mean, how DOES one become a supporter of fascism when one isn't in the ruling party elite? An excellent opportunity to do sociological research on brainwashing.
- Terr01, on 01/30/2008, -0/+1Yes, but Bush's actions are contrary to existing law--that part was illegal at the time they did it, and is still illegal.
- americanforest, on 01/30/2008, -0/+1The Senate will probably approve this but if the House knows the people don't approve, maybe it will force some restrictions on the bill. Get the message out!
- dude187, on 01/30/2008, -0/+1You idiots sound like you WANT to be spied on.
-
Show 51 - 77 of 77 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is