Obama Wants To Wiretap Internet, Your Cell Phone

Submitted by: tridirk 6 years ago in
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/27/us/27wiretap.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1285614101-kOdayVEvYVmZnBB1eVHNUg

It"s all here from the New York Times. Thanks, Barry--this is AWESOME! When do we get implanted microchips in our heads?
There are 191 comments:
Female 1,101
@Mindless then you really are mindless! Just because you don`t have anything to hide in your house doesn`t mean you want the police barging in without a warrent! Same with your e-mail, your text messages, etc. It`s about a right to privacy. Not to mention it opens up backdoors for other people to access our private information.
0
Reply
Male 499
Considering I`m not a terrorist, I don`t really care.

I can see why you would be upset if you were a terrorist and you`re sharing top secret intel over the internet or your cellphone, but normal people won`t have to worry about it at all.
0
Reply
Male 1,455
On a second thought, I don`t think it would work for you guys in the US. It works for us because we`re a socialist country where the people and the government actually trust each other.

You guys wouldn`t last a year.
0
Reply
Female 850
one more step to a world government
0
Reply
Male 5,413
Oh well, I don`t live in the US SO YAY!
Back to phone sex with E.T
0
Reply
Female 7,983
They are indeed grabbing all they can- hopefully there is so much stuff they can`t go through it all. But a wire-tap law would make it much easier. It is however the principle- as always- if you allow this to go unchallenged then you are permitting the erosion of your liberties. One should never, ever permit anyone, government, police, army to exceed their lawful rights. If you feel a new law is being passed which will further erode your rights then object. See your MP, write to everyone you can think of. Go out on the streets and use your right to peaceful protest- you may well not have that freedom next year.
0
Reply
Male 3,915
You just lost one of your best supporters Obama....

...and to think i would have voted for you...
0
Reply
Male 136
my issue with this is that the internet is an internationally operated system that isn`t even `hubbed` in the US. Tapping into your phone lines, and your cells in fine as far as i`m concerned. i just don`t feel that a foreign country has any right to be tapping into my countries communications. It`s not their right.

I know they would do it anyways, its the fact they are trying to justify it as if it was perfectly ok to look into another counties affairs for them.

It`s wrong. the US needs to stop thinking it runs the world. it is less then 5% of the world population, and no matter how powerful they may be they have no right to regulate or monitor things in other countries
0
Reply
Male 167
This is all just slight of hand, they already intercept all comm`s. Look to see what is slipping by unnoticed.
0
Reply
Male 1,231
George Orwell told us so.
If this is what the American government want, then the wire tapping should be limited to traffic within their country. They are not the world police, and, hopefully never will be.
0
Reply
Male 17,512

0
Reply
Male 2,841
How long until we go to war with Eastasia?
0
Reply
Male 812
I`m so disappointed in your pooty government, America.
0
Reply
Male 928
The point of this type of this is to adapt current wiretap laws to that of a modern world. There would still need to be a reason for them to tap your computer or smart phone and intercept IMs and emails etc. It would essentially be no different than the old phone tap laws. A warrant signed by a judge must be present before a tap can be used.

But on a side note how many freelance programmers will write tap protection software to combat this type of tap? I can see a whole new digital battle raging between hackers and government much like game hackers creating cheats and game developers creating counter measures.
0
Reply
Male 604
In this thread: people who have never read 1984.

Also, people who couldn`t possibly imagine that the "doing nothing wrong" today may punishable by labor camps tomorrow

(yes I`m drawing to an extreme but the point is things change. see how you have a right to assembly, but groups such as Food Not Bombs and Iraq Veteran Against The War, among others, are on the "Terrorist Watchlist". Intimidating to fight for what you believe in when the government paints you as a potential enemy of the state.

See how you have "right to protest" but that right is often today limited to certain approved areas of the city at certain approved times and dates, where you may not ever enter the street, crowd a sidewalk, stand by a business.

You think the politicians you`re protesting against will allow you a free pass at besmirching them? Lol, see the DNC and RNC protest intimidation. Heh, see kent state.)

It goes beyond "HURR DURR
0
Reply
Male 218
they say they want to spy on us to protect us from terrorists but i just dont believe them
0
Reply
Female 7,983
I notice how many people buy the line that the innocent have nothing to fear. They are the ones who have most to fear, if you are criminal then your actions are already placing you in danger, but innocent people are putting themselves into a position where they could be treated as a wrong doer. Safety does not always trump freedom. Every time it should be balanced, this is( as other similar laws) too sweeping. If I put you in a cage, feed you, exercise you and medicate you, then you are safe. You are also a zoo animal.
0
Reply
Female 4,086
i`m glad i`m an aging slut and won`t have to put up with this governmental BS for too many more years.
0
Reply
Male 975
Well the reason I`m willing to `give up my liberty` to search for unlawful material is because my parents work in NYC. I want whatever technology we have to keep them safe. Maybe being so far removed from a likely terrorist strike location makes this less about your safety and more about being robbed of liberties.
0
Reply
Male 587
Drunk driver get what they deserve. You could of killed someones dad or mom or worse baby. This invasion of privacy will make you think twice before your dumba$$ does it again.
0
Reply
Male 2,868
@keith2-
They go way too far when it comes to drunk driving. I DO think that it`s reasonable to suspend a person`s licence- and revoke it entirely for repeat offences. Driving a car isn`t a right, and if you can`t do it safely, you shouldn`t be able to maintain a licence to do it. Though last I checked, you can get your licence suspended much quicker for drunk driving- which is illegal because it makes you statistically more likely to cause an accident- than you can for actually causing accidents while sober. Ridiculous.

However- I agree that this business of making people go to AA, and monitoring their blood alcohol at home is fcuking absurd.
0
Reply
Male 2,868
OldOllie is right- if you criticized Bush for this poo, and you voted for Obama, and you`re trying to make excuses for him now, then you`re a hypocrite. Obama is the chief executive, and he has veto power- as well as influence over his own party- he bears responsibility here.

In a way, I hate Obama`s presidency even more than I hated Bush`s- because I REALLY wanted to believe Obama`s bullpoo about change. I never had any doubt that Bush was going to do horrible things.
0
Reply
Male 2,591
plus i had to sign a waiver giving up my 4th amendment rights.
0
Reply
Male 2,591
We`re already phukked.. they`ve put a breathalyzer machine in my freakin bedroom hows that for invasion of privacy? so what if i had 3 beers n drove home. big deal. its so up-played just so they can infringe on our rights and rape our wallets. yea i`m out $6K right now. and don`t give me that dont do the crime if you cant blah blah blah I aint do nothin that your daddy and your daddy`s daddy have done for ages. end rant.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
C`mon, admit it; if this story were about Bush, you libs would be screaming bloody murder.
0
Reply
Male 113
Oh yeah. Obama himself wants to see your n00dz.
0
Reply
Male 25,417
Wow, imagine all the boring conversations, or if they like goss freaks, imaging what would happen if they were talking about someone they knew like, i heard "jimmy" slept with "Sally" while dating Julie and married to "Sally2" imagine if sally2 was the tapper, o the lolz that would progress!
0
Reply
Male 5,189
I do all my evil plans in person anyways.
0
Reply
Male 25
hmm misleading title as I`m pretty sure Obama had nothing to do with this bill.
0
Reply
Male 1,452
and Gorgack2000 don`t compare Benjamin Franklin to Adolf Hitler... ever, even if that wasn`t your intent
0
Reply
Male 1,452
"Goodbye, Fancylad.
Goodbye, IAB.

I`m going the way of Buddy."

how dare IAB posts factual info that goes against your political views, dude leave the willful ignorance to the republicans. Plus you haven`t submitted any links so please... get the fu*k out
0
Reply
Female 1,101
@SmilinSam "haha i love the title of this link, Obama wants to... seriously? OBAMA did it! he`s the devil!! dude, he`s a face, he`s a scapegoat for the the larger evil just like every president before him..."

Well... He does have to sign the bill, so yes if this gets passed he will in fact have done it. Unless he says no and 2/3 of the senate overide him, but I`m betting he`ll sign.
0
Reply
Male 2,868
@splurbyburbl
As it is, only about half the country votes anyway. Elected officials know that Americans are extremely dissatisfied, yet they continue politics as usual. The only way I see any real change coming about in this country is for people of low to middle income- the vast majority of Americans- to break through the divide and conquer scheme that the Republicans and Democrats use to stay in power. By setting aside issues like immigration, homosexuality, global warming, and prayer in schools, people of moderate means might actually be able to find some common ground- and might actually challenge the stranglehold that the corporate sector has on political power.

That being said, I have absolutely no hope of that actually happening.
0
Reply
Male 2,868
You know, I didn`t buy the idea that Obama was going to bring RADICAL change to the White House- but I thought at least he`d reverse some of Bush`s worst policies. Instead, he`s upping the ante. Another case in point.
0
Reply
Male 2,796
"@splurbyburbl Well for one, there will always be a dickhead who would vote anyways.

And two, it wouldn`t matter, since the Electoral College would then choose the president."

I know all this and my point is moot really, but I was speaking hypothetically, because I know it isn`t possible to get every single voter to not vote no matter what. But electoral college or not... the message would be massive and profound, Government would then know it cannot rule roughly 300 million pissed off citizens the way they have. Instead Government would know it is dropping the ball and therefore make stuff happen in favor of its citizens.

Just a thought.
0
Reply
Male 2,160
meh, politics, and the only real difference here is hes the first face to have it openly pinned to it instead of it all being under the table and the people who know it being counted in with the tinfoil hat brigade
0
Reply
Male 310
@splurbyburbl Well for one, there will always be a dickhead who would vote anyways.

And two, it wouldn`t matter, since the Electoral College would then choose the president.
0
Reply
Male 587
@Kougaiji I know that was my point. I would rather have the government watching me then some corporation but you never hear people complain about that.
0
Reply
Male 313
LOL... Libs/Dems/Progressives and their opponents say whatever it takes to put them in power. Then they do what they want, which is usually what the other guys did and they ran against.

Oh... and anyone that disagrees is evil, stupid, not educated, etc.
0
Reply
Male 351
@splurbyburbl: No. The ones who want to screw the country over (progressives) would vote anyway.
0
Reply
Male 2,796
"@Amurika: Yeah, lets just give up. Stop voting. A lot will be accomplished that way."

Actually that is not a bad idea. Can you imagine what would happen if absolutely zero people voted in a presidential election? I think that would send a clear message: Every voting American is sick of `business as usual` politics!

It would be epic and the changes in Government would be drastic. Not only that but it would be the most profound and country altering peaceful protest any country has ever seen. And while there are plenty of reasons to vote... there are equally good reasons for both major party voters to not vote.
0
Reply
Male 5,624
"LOLcats, LOLcats and viruses.
Oh and porn."
That is the wrong order.
It`s:
Porn 60% of legitimate traffic
Virus/worm or spam 95% of e-mail
then "can I has cheeseburger?"

The internet is for porn. This can only lead to one thing:
*Miami Vice "Bug Van" rockin` and squeakin` while Zeto smokes on the sidewalk...*
0
Reply
Male 774
Why is everyone so much on the up and up about internet security? Why? It`s not going to stop anything if they do put this into action. Shouldn`t the government be focused on more pressing matters?
Like:
The economy
E.Coli in food
Getting homeless in a house
Finding a REAL solution to crime and poverty.

Is it because this is too hard that they just decide that they`re going to focus on the internet? You want to know what`s on the internet Mr. Government? LOLcats, LOLcats and viruses.
Oh and porn.

That`s it, get a grip.
0
Reply
Male 351
@Amurika: Yeah, lets just give up. Stop voting. A lot will be accomplished that way.
0
Reply
Male 282
And those who shout rhetoric like "those damn Dems or those damn Liberals" or whatever name you need to fulfill your ego`s can kiss that $hit goodbye. The days of honest voting have been tossed out long ago. We now live in a fascist regime whether you like it or not. It does not matter one iota what you believe in, if the crazy politicians believe in something then you are SO screwed you will need to learn Braille just to live the rest of your life.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
almightybob1: Obama makes Nixon look like a kid that stole a candy bar.
0
Reply
Male 40,277
Y`all know that Obama re-signed the Patriot Act when he entered office? Y`all know that he personally OK`d it?

6 pages of "Blame Bush" and "Bush was Worse" and "It`s not Obama`s fault!"
*sigh*
liberal = denial...
0
Reply
Male 351
@CodeJockey: You act as if Obama got rid of the Patriot Act. Last time I checked, he EXTENDED it.
0
Reply
Male 5,624
"So, How do you liberals like your `Change` Now ?"

Look, you hyper critical right-winger:
" to be technically capable of complying if served with a >>>>>wiretap order.<<<<<"

Do you know how hard it is to get a wire tap warrent? They damn near have to already prove you did something and need to know where you did it. It`s not the least bit as fast as TV.

Compare that to your "actually used against college professors and political rivals" "We can tap your sh%t WITHOUT A WARRENT" Pariot Act.

Crybabies.
0
Reply
Male 351
@SchrdngrsCat: If anything he is worse than bush. He is threatening even more of our liberties AND he passed health care and many more bail outs.
0
Reply
Male 282
This falls under the same thing as if you could, possibly somehow, get everyone in America to turn their cable TV off the Orwellian govnernment would induce marshal law, simply because it would make the government paranoid.
0
Reply
Female 23
If Obama truly wanted to change this country he would`ve pushed hard for Senate term limits. Career politicians are killing this country. However, seeing as Obama himself is a career politician, he wouldn`t do anything this suicidal.
I`m especially disappointed in how Obama is treating gays and lesbians. He hasn`t gone through with one promise he made towards GLBT. While not as bad as Bush, Obama`s right above him.
0
Reply
Male 725
It is the duty of every patriot to protect his country from its government.
0
Reply
Male 351
@@gorgack2000: There is also a difference between "famous" and "infamous"
0
Reply
Male 351
@gorgack2000: Adolf Hitler: Led his country to start the largest and deadliest war in history. Murdered millions of jews.

Benjamin Franklin: Was a scientist, committed much of his time improving the lives of American Citizens through the post office, volunteer fire company, etc.

Fair comparison, thank you for that insightful comment.
0
Reply
Male 4,290
[quote]So, How do you liberals like your `Change` Now ?[/quote]
Yeah, because you`d never catch a Republican at this kind of thing.
What was Nixon again?
0
Reply
Female 1,963
CrakrJak, I love it. Thanks for asking. This particular change obviously hasn`t happened yet, and I`m not well enough informed to feel very strongly about it, but I`m pretty confident that it isn`t some evil scheme to "steal our libuhrties and freedums".
0
Reply
Male 2,796
"haha i love the title of this link, Obama wants to... seriously? OBAMA did it! he`s the devil!! dude, he`s a face, he`s a scapegoat for the the larger evil just like every president before him..."

"So is there anyone here who was opposed to both Bush and Obama doing it, or for Bush and Obama doing it?"

I have deep reservations about both doing it. Not saying *some of it is not necessary, but the implications are scary.

Oh, and for the record... I do think Obama is a useless president, but I don`t blame him for this necessarily. I do, however, blame him for many more things. Ashamed he is my commander in chief...
0
Reply
Male 1,378
We the people, probably can`t do squat about these corrupt punks` ideas
0
Reply
Female 3,598
haha i love the title of this link, Obama wants to... seriously? OBAMA did it! he`s the devil!! dude, he`s a face, he`s a scapegoat for the the larger evil just like every president before him...
0
Reply
Male 17,512
So, How do you liberals like your `Change` Now ?
0
Reply
Male 10,338
@ElMustache I am a "conservative" and I have a huge problem with it. I also thought it was wrong when Bush did it. Thank you.
0
Reply
Female 1,101
@ElMustache I am a "liberal" and I have a huge problem with it. I also thought it was wrong when Bush did it. Thank you.
0
Reply
Male 4,680
@ZNaught- "Humanitarianism is the expression of stupidity and cowardice."
Adolf Hitler.

^Another quote by a very famous person. Does that make it true? No.
0
Reply
Female 1,101
Also I agree with Maddest there are other ways to fight terrorism, and in my opinion even if this was enacted, they would still find new ways of getting around it.
0
Reply
Male 351
@ElMustache: No, the progressive republicans didn`t. Not anymore than the progressive democrats don`t have a problem with this despite them having a fit over Bush doing it.

Does this make either of them right?
0
Reply
Male 1,625
You didnt have any problem with it when bush was illegally wiretapping you.
0
Reply
Female 1,101
Anyone who thinks that this ok is an idiot. You can`t just say that this is ok because you have nothing to hide. I have nothing to hide in my house, is it ok for the police to just come in and search it without a reason? Heck no! This is invasive and people have a right to privacy. Besides why should I trust my personal information with a government that is less than transparent itself?
0
Reply
Male 1,452
soon the definition for terrorist would be: anyone that disagrees with our government, then that definition would change to every American citizen
0
Reply
Female 1,963
I think that this is a huge overreaction to what seems to me like an extension of existing laws that are just being adapted to work with new(ish) technology.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
Methinks the right and left leaning libertarians finally have something to agree on.

Awesome Znaught.

Agreed Madest.
0
Reply
Male 351
@premierwondr: "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." ~ Benjamin Franklin
0
Reply
Male 7,378
This is a legitimate concern for all Americans, at least it should be. Every time we allow our government to chip away at our constitutional rights we lose a piece of what being American is about. We can fight terrorism without tapping anyones communication. Imagine the manpower needed to sift through all this information. Our taxes are wasted on these secret cabals of information gathering that don`t protect us one iota.
0
Reply
Male 351
@Spider_sol: That is quite sad. Why don`t we get rid of all our personal liberties away? Your attitude is just facilitating this sort of thing. "HURR DURR, IF YOU ARE WORRIED ABOUT THEM SPYING ON YOU, DONT DO ANYTHING BAD LOLOLOL."

"They came first for the Communists,
and I didn`t speak up because I wasn`t a Communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn`t speak up because I wasn`t a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn`t speak up because I wasn`t a Jew.

Then they came for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up."
0
Reply
Male 511
Uh oh, he`s reported it to the cyber police! CONSEQUENCES WILL NEVER BE THE SAME!
0
Reply
Male 975
Alright auburn can you give a more legitimate example then?

On one hand I love my freedom, on the other hand I love my safety. I don`t know how I feel about the act to be honest.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
HAHAHA! I knew it!

No Moe. Just an example.
0
Reply
Female 1,963
auburnjunky... this is a legitimate concern for you?
0
Reply
Male 10,338
@spider sol:

What if I want to talk dirty to my sweetheart across country? maybe I won`t want to do that when I think someone is listening?

What if someone`s kinky sex dream is to be called bin Laden while they have cyber sex? Wouldn`t that throw up some red flags?

Kinky bitch: Put your bomb in there bin Laden! Do it now!

Cyber police: Sir, we got one! Move in!
0
Reply
Male 1,451
I`m sorry, I`m with the Google`s Eric Schmidt on this one. If you don`t want your phone lines/internet posts or chats tapped maybe you shouldn`t be doing what you are doing.

The people who hate the cops are the ones who get in trouble for breaking the law. I`m all for this.

Of course this is all "in theory" crap. The problems arise when corrupt people get a hold of this information. Then you have insider stock info, crooked "internet police" knowing your passwords and account info, etc.
0
Reply
Male 491
The way most douchebags talk loudly on their phones what would be the difference?
0
Reply
Male 10,338
@baal:

I am opposed to both.
0
Reply
Female 1,963
Baalthazaq, agreed.
0
Reply
Male 4,546
Wait wait wait.

So is there anyone here who was opposed to both Bush and Obama doing it, or for Bush and Obama doing it?

I personally am fine with the government tapping whichever mediums are out there (Skype should not be legally different to phones), provided spurious reasoning to tap (ala the Patriot Act) are removed.
0
Reply
Male 127
Cellular Telephone... Cell Phone, like Cordless Phone?! WHOA. Rufus did NOT tell us the Future was THIS friendly.. EXCELLENT!!! *air guitar*
I`d like to think that I am entitled to privacy on my own cellphone, the last thing I need is for Uncle Sam to be listening in on my late night freaky phone calls to Miss Cleo!
0
Reply
Female 2,120
I don`t really, mind. I`m not going to be discussing my terrorist plans over the phone or internet anyways.

I`m using telepathy.
0
Reply
Female 89
How does that song go.... "I`m proud to be an American, where at least I know I`m free"

You people will eventually have soldiers breaking down your doors and shooting your family, and you`ll STILL claim you`re free.
0
Reply
Female 322
ohhh I`ve got a headache now
0
Reply
Male 7,378
[quote]Well madest that seems to be a matter of paranoid opinion. Show me some proof that they listen to every call.[/quote]
--------
Were you born just yesterday? The Patriot Act gives the government the ability to search w/o a warrant. In order to tap a phone before the patriot act they needed to get a judges approval. They threw that out the door. They said it took too long. So this is what you got. Pay attention. Just because it sounds new to you, doesn`t mean the people saying it are paranoid. Look up the Partiot Act on Wikipedia, I`m sure it`ll support the "paranoid" view. Not only can they tap phones, they can search your home and never telly you they were there.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
"not that i care about American politics, but you know what they say, if you`ve got nothing to hide then what`s the problem?"

Totally not the point.

See. Here in America, some of us embrace the concept of something called "Liberty" and "Born Free."

Some of us, sadly, have given up on it.
0
Reply
Male 808
I, for one, welcome our new overlord.
0
Reply
Male 591
"Barry supporters, please defend this."

Come on, fancylad. I would have given you much more credit for intelligence than the above comment of yours suggests. It is entirely possible to support Obama and to also know that this attempted overreach of surveillance posers is completely detestable. Don`t be such a schmuck.
0
Reply
Female 3,001
not that i care about American politics, but you know what they say, if you`ve got nothing to hide then what`s the problem?
0
Reply
Male 4,793
Who cares? It`s not like we fought to save the constitution (which is dead thanks to the patriot act, ironic naming haha). Why should we fight to save the interwebs or cell phones?
0
Reply
Male 2,419
Well unlike what the title of this post implies, my cellphone (not cell phone) is not named `Internet`.
0
Reply
Male 604
@Luniz, lol, what do you think all those cookies are doing on your computer? Of course corporations spy on you. All the time in every way possible.
0
Reply
Male 604
I think what madest means is that the government CAN, thanks to the patriot act, listen to any call based on any reason whatsoever-- ranging from spying on people with disagreeable policial views, to political opponents, protest organisers, court members/defendants, people who speak a different language, your average joe, or an actual terrorist (albeit unlikely considering that every joe schmoe terrorist knows about US domestic spying).

Also people are unnecessary. Programs can and do handle most of the work in mass eavesdropping. If nothing else, computers can store all the important bits of conversation so that they can be looked up later if necessary.
0
Reply
Male 587
I guess the big corporations could be monitoring us instead. They don`t need a law to do it. They just do it. I would be more worried about that then the government doing it. Especially since I have nothing to hide I have done nothing wrong and will no be doing anything illegal anytime soon. Not like that are going to not like your conversation and frame you to get you out of the way. It would be cool cause that is what happens in the movies but highly unlikely. Paranoia
0
Reply
Female 4,039
I`m not done being pissed about everything I buy being recorded by those stupid key tag things.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
Well if you account for working illegals, it`s more like 17% LOL!

Let`s stay on topic. Sorry.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
Um, yea...not how it`s done...but thanks for playing we have some great parting gifts for you.




-------------------------

Um, yea...not how it`s done...but thanks for playing we have some great parting gifts for you.

It`s easy to say that right? Judges have ultimate power, and can be used.
0
Reply
Male 587
that just further proves my point that unemployment is even higher.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
"People can already be monitoring everything you do."

Doesn`t make it right.

Liberty is at stake here. It is sad you don`t see that.
0
Reply
Male 15,510
This proves it! Obama is the Antichrist!! Nah not really, cmon people get real
0
Reply
Male 587
they should of never said anything and nothing would of ever changed. Ignorance=bliss especially when the ignorant are not capable of intelligent thought.
0
Reply
Male 662
Officer: We saw this person talk about how weed should be legal. We think he may have marijuana. We need a warrant.

Judge: Granted. Tear his house up and terrorize him for using his right to free speech.

-----------


Um, yea...not how it`s done...but thanks for playing we have some great parting gifts for you.
0
Reply
Male 587
So your mad cause a computer might have monitored your call? You use computers for everything these days they keep record of history and you leave your IP everywhere you go. How is that any different? Cell phone just another computer you talk into and then send your conversation over open airways to towers where it continues to travel in open airways. Satellite open airways also.. People can already be monitoring everything you do.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
"and here we are 10% of our population unemployed."

21%

10% just still claim checks for unemployment.
0
Reply
Male 292
I`m proud to see that people are outraged at the invasion of privacy being imposed upon us. However it is cloaked a turd is still a turd.

@madduck bravo!
0
Reply
Female 1,963
"Do you know that after 9/11, nearly 99% phone call in the US is tapped and search for terrorism-related terms, all by computer?", really though? Where are you getting this information?
0
Reply
Male 10,338
Here`s the thing Luniz:

He is a far left liberal, and very informed.

It should seem strange that we agree so wholeheartedly on this, as I am a far right conservative.

Or maybe it means that it`s WRONG!
0
Reply
Male 587
and here we are 10% of our population unemployed. The government must be shipping those jobs over seas. The wars we are fighting have nothing to do with the increase in government employees.
0
Reply
Male 9
Well madest that seems to be a matter of paranoid opinion. Show me some proof that they listen to every call. Could you imagine the people they would have to employ for that. Our economy would be way better off then it is now.

They doesn`t have to monitor every one, every where. Imagine they only monitor 1% population, and change the subject every other week. That would be fun, isn`t it?

Besides, since when do we need human for a random job like monitoring others? Do you know that after 9/11, nearly 99% phone call in the US is tapped and search for terrorism-related terms, all by computer?
0
Reply
Male 10,338
@luniz:

Why do you think so many government employees have been hired over the last 6 years? CONTROL in one way or another.

That`s a totally different discussion though.
0
Reply
Male 587
Of course you have to agree with him on that one. He is the only other extremely paranoid person in this forum. Why not show up to his house and give him a BJ for agreeing with you.
0
Reply
Male 587
Well madest that seems to be a matter of paranoid opinion. Show me some proof that they listen to every call. Could you imagine the people they would have to employ for that. Our economy would be way better off then it is now.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]ancy, its misleading because it gives the impression they`re gonna be monitoring everybody no matter what they`re doing. They can only get information on suspeced criminals after they get lawful authorization. They`re basically just updating the law that was already in place to include newer technologies.[/quote]

That`s exactly what was said about RIPA in the UK.

It`s not true. Such laws are meant to be used for routine monitoring and they are used for that. The restrictions on their use are far looser than they`re stated to be and they become increasingly looser over time once the law is in place.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
@luniz:

Just an example of how it could be used against us.

Also, search and seize warrants usually result in property destruction, even if nothing incriminating is found.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
Once again. Well said Madest.

Gotta agree with ya on that one.
0
Reply
Male 7,378
What Luniz seems to be discounting is they`re listening into all calls right now. No warrant needed, it`s called the patriot act. When anybody complains they claim they`re just listening in on calls that originate outside the US. I say they`re lying.
0
Reply
Male 587
an extreme example where everyone involved would have to be corrupt. You use it to incite fear into people and it ends up making you look ignorant.
0
Reply
Male 312
Next week Obama will want us to all get chip implanted or a barcode tatoo. Oh crap! I might have just given Obama an idea `cause he probably just read this.
0
Reply
Female 1,963
I`m willing to admit that I don`t exactly understand what they are talking about here. My grasp on some of these technological terms is lacking. I would also be willing to bet that a lot of this outrage is a little bit unwarranted, since many others may not fully understand what they are talking about here.

I guess I`m going to wait for some more information before I get upset about it.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
@drworm:

"You really think that they can tap millions and millions of phones?"

Yep. They use a computer to listen for keywords. Then if one is tripped, they listen to a recording of the call.
0
Reply
Male 587
@auburn So that is how it works in your world huh? Man you house must have been raided thousands of times
0
Reply
Male 590
I`m no Barry fan but these headlines are a tad dramatic. Although I thought Obama was supposed to have the MOST OPEN AND HONEST ADMINSTRATION EVAH
0
Reply
Male 10,338
@drworm:

Officer: We saw this person talk about how weed should be legal. We think he may have marijuana. We need a warrant.

Judge: Granted. Tear his house up and terrorize him for using his right to free speech.
0
Reply
Male 587
I guess I am not a communist then. Weird how that works.
0
Reply
Male 587
So paranoid these days. You have nothing to worry about if you do not break the law. If you do break they law I say they should be able to do WHATEVER is necessary to catch your a$$. The people with the biggest problem are those that are breaking the law or those that just love to stir up problems.
0
Reply
Male 2,440
I`m not so much worried about this as I am the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act.
0
Reply
Male 662
@auburnjunky You really think that they can tap millions and millions of phones? I love how they think that the government has that kind of power.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
Touche luniz. I didn`t realize.

Fell free to speak your mind then.

Wait a sec, your chosen form of government requires your silence and obedience.

0
Reply
Male 662
@auburnjunky right and right now people can use it for the drug trade, human trafficking and terrorism. A judge would still have to give them a warrant to do anything.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
@paddy:

A drated up, stupid law that should be repealed.

A drated up stupid law that Bush`s stupid ass started, and Obama supports, who is now expanding it to ALL of our speech.
0
Reply
Male 587
Yes auburn that is what I am saying
0
Reply
Male 10,338
Bravo Madduck. Voice of reason.

@drworm:

"They are not going to tap everyone`s phone."

Too bad they already do.
0
Reply
Male 1,678
"that`s how they do it on land lines now, so this will be no different."

My point exactly, nothings really changing, they`re just updating a law to make it still relevant.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
If the shoe fits?

So you are saying you`re a communist?
0
Reply
Female 7,983
It is the gradual erosion of privacy and rights. Doesn`t matter what it is, finger print, DNA, email. It has crept up on us because we buy the line that we have nothing to fear unless we are wrongdoers, but once they have the right to these things they can decide to move the law- because they can. It really does matter, because you lose eventually. This is not a matter of left versus right.
0
Reply
Male 662
Oh and Bush wanted to wire tap with no warrant. This is if you are doing something wrong and they get a warrant, just like if they were going to search your house or tap your phones. They can tap your phones now. They are not going to tap everyone`s phone. You people that have a problem with this are not really reading it. Those of you who are saying it`s the same as Bush are not reading it. You make me weep for this country. Too many people talking poo about something they don`t know about.
0
Reply
Male 953
LOL... Like they don`t all ready do this now... They just want it to be "Legal"
0
Reply
2,767
all you people bashing the government, just remember one thing. they can hear you now.....
0
Reply
Male 587
Hey Auburn if the shoe fits.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
Come back to us luniz. You are floating away.
0
Reply
Male 587
@auburn and what do you sounds like? With your OMG they are going to be watching everything I do. HOW DARE THEY EVOLVE WITH THE CRIMINAL WORLD!
0
Reply
Male 10,338
@luniz:

Fancylad is pissed. Is he a pedo?

Banhammer?
0
Reply
Male 10,338
I did drworm.

That`s why I`m pissed, and you should be too.

The internet is a WORLDWIDE medium?

What the drat are we? China?
0
Reply
Male 587
So dramatic over something that just gives them the right to tap peoples internet with a warrant like they have been doing forever to peoples phone and house WITH WARRANTS. Paranoid people make me laugh. LOL look at all the pedo`s rage over this.
0
Reply
Male 662
People will you read it. People talking out of their a$$es and not reading it.
0
Reply
Male 149
Big Brother is watching. Ya know what? I`m really sick of Comrade Obama`s crap. That commie needs a foot up his arse.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
Luniz:

You sound like a stupid republican defending Bush when he signed the wiretapping bill.

Also, 2300
0
Reply
Female 1,593
Pretty sure it`s to bust all the people who lie and said they read and agree with the ToS.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
"If it never happens or does happen then gets undone you can write the lefties a thank you note."

Dude. When are you gonna look up and face the fact that this administration wants total control over the people?

Republicans have been crying out against net neutrality for 4 years now. (Since they lost majority).

It`s cool though. Soon we will all be silenced.
0
Reply
Male 587
“We’re talking about lawfully authorized intercepts,” Meaning they will not use the ability to do so unless they have a wiretap warrant with reasonable cause.
0
Reply
Male 7,378
[quote]Yet where are all the lefties who called GW names for doing this kind of crap?! Hmmmmmmm.[/quote]
---------------
We`re right here. We`re more angry this time because the person doing this is supposed to be educated. We already know republicans don`t care about liberty or civil rights so you can count on us "lefties" to fight this for your complaining asses. If it never happens or does happen then gets undone you can write the lefties a thank you note.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
Sorry guys, but this is my #1 pet peeve of the government.

I hated it when Bush did it, and I hate this.

Jefferson said we should never have to give up ANY liberty for defense.

This is bullpoo.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
@edena:

"Isn`t this what the dems had a fit over Bush doing?"

Yes, but when Barry came out in support of it after he was elected, they changed their tune.

Net neutrality here we come!
0
Reply
Male 10,338
Paddy, ever hear of a floating IP?

They can`t possibly hope to lock down 1 person`s actions on the net, so they will monitor all connection and look for incriminating activity.

Believe it or not, that`s how they do it on land lines now, so this will be no different.
0
Reply
Male 587
I remember when Bush wanted to do this. And when Clinton wanted to do this.. I am sure Bush senior wanted to do this also.
0
Reply
Female 2,509
Isn`t this what the dems had a fit over Bush doing?
0
Reply
Male 292
please, Nothing you do anymore is private. Nothing. every text you send, every picture you send, every site you visit, every file you think is deleteted. slowly all of our rights to privacy are slipping away. total complete control. whether we know it or not. Its happening
0
Reply
Male 1,678
fancy, its misleading because it gives the impression they`re gonna be monitoring everybody no matter what they`re doing. They can only get information on suspeced criminals after they get lawful authorization. They`re basically just updating the law that was already in place to include newer technologies.

Oh, and coming out with "Barry supporters, please defend this." Is more proof that what used to be a fun site is now just looking to start arguments.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
They probably don`t care, because you play Wii.

They think you are 8, and not a threat.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
Doesn`t matter elHadji.

No matter how slight, or inconspicuous it is, it is still wrong and should not be allowed.
0
Reply
Male 1,455
I can also add that I`m downloading 5 different Wii-games right now. It`s really not much of a big deal, nothing to go mental about like some people tend to do.
0
Reply
Male 1,455
Yes it is infringement. Yes it is wrong. Yes they should stop. But holy crap dude, you won`t notice anything.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
I wonder how 4chan is taking this?
0
Reply
Male 10,338
Vote them OUT this November.

This is about the 5,000th last straw!
0
Reply
Male 795
The internet is the last bit of sacred anonymity we have. Allowing ungoverned wiretapping will only be the beginning. They try to play it off like it will only be used for criminals, but remember the phone tapping on residential citizens that was suppose to only be used for "criminals" too? They might as well shove a camera up my ass and monitor me 24/7. This is AMERICA (for me anyway). We, the people, are suppose to make the rules, not just shrug it off as another homeland security expense.
0
Reply
Male 20,825
OK, it`s been about 15 minutes since i finished this article.

i`m still not cool with it and i`m not going to accept it as elHadji suggests.

This just is completely [email protected]#d out.
0
Reply
Male 2,893
Yeah, f*ck that.
0
Reply
Male 1,598
Uh oh, better watch what I write on Facebook... They`re going to see that "My dog is experiencing severe emotional trauma at the moment" and wonder if it`s terrorist code.
0
Reply
Male 193
Yes, because this will totally work against law abiding, average citizens.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
How did that not make sense elHadji?

I don`t want to "have to get used to it".

It`s infringement on my liberty.

The internet is the last true place where freedom of speech is recognized, and now they want to make us scared to use it.

Liberals have been talking about this for ages. Now it`s actually going to happen unless of course, we do the smart thing this November.
0
Reply
Male 358
great, now only install some camera`s at my home and we will really be in a free country
0
Reply
Male 761
Like it or not, it will happen. If not Obama, then someone else.
Just a matter of time...
0
Reply
Male 1,455
@auburnjunky
That made no sense whatsoever.

Thousands and thousands of people protested all the time, even I did it. But as time went, there wasn`t really much to be angry about since it didn`t make a lot of difference.
0
Reply
Male 731
Goodbye, Fancylad.
Goodbye, IAB.

I`m going the way of Buddy.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
"Meh, much ado about nothing."

The people from Europe, who this article does not apply to, are out in FORCE!
0
Reply
Male 6,737
Meh, much ado about nothing.

Awaiting right wing fury to be unleashed upon this thread in 5... 4... 3...
0
Reply
Male 795
Over my dead internet connection.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
@elhadji:

Some of us don`t live in Sweden, so we aren`t okay with it.
0
Reply
Male 1,455
It isn`t really much of a big deal. We have it here in Sweden, but life goes on as normal.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
@paddy:

Obama saw that.
0
Reply
Male 20,825
Paddy, no. No it`s not. Jump to the third paragraph of the article.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
They are taking time to spin this. They will show up when they think of something.
0
Reply
Male 1,678
Very misleading title.
0
Reply
Male 339
Yet where are all the lefties who called GW names for doing this kind of crap?! Hmmmmmmm.
0
Reply
Male 10,338

0
Reply
Male 20,825
Barry supporters, please defend this.

And don`t use the qualifier of, "If you`re not a terrorists, you have nothing to worry about." Because we can all see beyond that.
0
Reply
Male 313
Link: Obama Wants To Wiretap Internet, Your Cell Phone [Rate Link] - It`s all here from the New York Times. Thanks, Barry--this is AWESOME! When do we get implanted microchips in our heads?
0
Reply