So, there are a lot of news stories going on about how the PATRIOT ACT forces us to sacrifice our privacy and freedom in exchange for a higher degree of safety. I'm still not convinced that we're any more safe today from terrorists than we were 4 years ago but that's a different discussion.

I am starting this topic because today I went to have new tires put on my boat trailer. They charged me $250.00 for 3 tires and a used wheel for my spare (I didn't previously have a spare). As I was paying, they asked me for my name and address. I told them I'd rather not give out my name and address. The guy told me that they were required by FEDERAL LAW to report to the Department of Transporation every single tire they sell along with the personal information (name, address, and telephone number) of each person they sell said tires to. They even showed me the form they were required to fill out and mail to the DOT.

They said that the feds passed this law after the Bridgestone/Firestone recalls. Apparently, about 148 people died because their firestone tires disintigrated as they were driving down the street. I asked them (BIG O TIRE) whether their trailer tires have ever been recalled due to safety problems (nope).

So, this really pisses me off. I told them I didn't want to give my name and address, and the guy handed me the form and asked me nicely to fill it out with whatever information I wanted to share with the government. So I put 123 Happy St. and called it good. However, this is a serious issue. How many times are we going to have to sacrifice our freedom and privacy for the sake of safety? I mean come on, it took over a hundred people dying before there was even a freaking recall, so the entire reason there is now this huge database of people and tires is because they had a hard time contacting some people who had purchased the tires.

I long for the days when I could just walk in a place, pay cash, give no personal information, and get out of there. Hell, when I go to Big 5 sports they wanted my zip code and telephone number (DIE hell no, I'll shop elsewhere).

They used the corruption of ONE CORPORATION (Firestone) as an excuse to implement a federal database of people and their tires. They say it's just for safety, but I guarantee you they will use it for other stuff, too. They will probably tie it to the national ID card, driver licenses, crime databases, etc.

The whole idea is STUPID, too. If they really want to track tires (instead of people), they should tie it to the LICENSE PLATE NUMBER, that way, if ownership of your vehicle changes, they will just be able to look up the address of the new owner using STATE RECORDS as opposed to having yet another huge database of people for them to manage. UGH.

Things like this make me wonder if this is the kind of thing the founding fathers ment when they said that if the government fails to do a good job, the citizens can overthrow it and create a new government.

Not that they're doing a bad job, they have good ideas, just s****y ways of implementing those good ideas.

I must be missing something. What is the importance of the information about the customer to the safety of the tires? To make sure the tires are going to real people?

Are you lsited in the phone book?

Nope.

They say they want people's information so they can notify them in case of a safety recall. If they are doing this with tires, they will start with other things too: toys for kids, strollers, food, etc. If anything, it should be freaking voluntary.

I just never will understand the arguments against these "invasions of privacy." If you're not doing anything wrong, why do you care what the government knows about you. And what's with all this national ID card business? How is this any different than a driver's license, and how is it such a big, scary invasion of privacy?

Now, if John Ashcroft wanted to install cameras in my house and personally watch my every move for no reason, that might freak me out a bit. But monitoring what books I read, or putting my name and address in a database, doesn't bother me at all. Who the hell cares, since I'm not doing anything wrong.

Wow, this is just stupid. They're passing laws like this everyday without the public getting a chance to know about it. Gah, I hate this regime. Hurry up 2008.

Let's say the year is 2016. After the double-whammy of 2 consecutive terms of George W. "Double-You" "President" "George" W. Bush followed immediately by 2 consecutive terms of Hillary Clinton, the government is now a sprawling, monolithic organization riddled with lots of gritty policies geared toward "protecting the American people" by storing their vital statistics in a SQL database.

Let's say a certain person wins the 2016 presidency. He's mean and cruel, and bent on world domination. Let's call him "Hitler 3000". First to cement his power and minimize the amount of resistance he has he'll want to get rid of all of the guns that are floating around. So he'll flip open his fancy-pants gun control registry and send his goons to loot and kill. Okay, that's out of the way.

Next he'll build a pariah, so he'll send his goons to arrest everybody who filled out the census but forgot to check 'caucasian' and 'Christian'. And then he'll want to guarantee his victory in the next election, so he'll open up his super-cool database of Who Everybody Voted For, because in 2006 George W. "W." Walker Bush decided that people who don't vote Republican are terrorists and possibly communists too, and wanted the NSA to keep extra special super secret track of everybody who voted for the Democrats and what brand of diapers she buys.

So you can see how privacy is important. It's not what you're doing that's the problem, it's what the government will be doing with the information that is. Brian's right - it would make much more sense to attach a tire purchase to a VIN.

There can be consequences even if you aren't doing anything "wrong." Say you want to run for office, and some lowly clerk in the library card monitoring center notices that you had checked out a book on adolf hitler. They could spin that any way they wanted. And what about books on abortions? Do you want your medical records scrutinized? That's what's coming next. It's not about doing anything wrong, it's about the fact that they have no right to invade my privacy in the first place.

They have "roving wiretaps" legal now, which means they can wiretap anyone whenever they want for any reason without the approval of a judge. If some lowly FBI agent heard you discussing your next big business idea, he could steal that no problem. The issue here is that I don't trust the government itself, and I certainly don't trust the people working for the government. And that's what it would take for me to have no problem with people invading my privacy: complete trust of everyone who works there. Hell, even THAT's not enough in reality, because even if everyone was 100% trustworthy, computers get hacked and information gets stolen.

You have to stop thinking of the government as being like your "parents" who are looking out for your best interests. That is not the government. The government is comprised of people looking out for THEIR OWN best interests, not yours. Please show for me the amount of terrorists that have been caught with the PATRIOT ACT and show me the number of people that have been saved by tracking their tire purchases. You are coming from the perspective that the government should be allowed to do whatever it wants - have you ever taken a history class?

Jon`C and Brian win.

Obviously tracking tire purchases doesn't help national security...that's just an offshoot of the Patriot Act or some other law, that, for whatever reason, requires you to register the tires, or whatever you had to do with them.

As for catching terrorists with the Patriot Act, I don't have any idea how many have been caught because of it. But if even just one attack can be prevented, then I'd rather lose some privacy then let that attack happen.

I don't think you're seeing the point here. They have been keeping people in prison for YEARS without charging them with a crime, without giving them access to a lawyer, and without setting a trial date. IN AMERICA.

I would not trade even one drop of my freedom in exchange for this abstract idea of "security."

Brian, you were in the military. The government already knows everything about you. They have your fingerprints. They have your medical history. They have dozens of your contacts, your education history, employment history, and a lot of other things. So who cares?

He does!, DUH

That's not entirely true. Of course I don't keep them updated with things after I left the military. Also, they have no idea what I buy on a regular basis, what brand of tires I like to buy, what time of day I go shopping, etc. And even if they did know all of that stuff, it still doesn't make it their business! And it still doesn't mean I can't be pissed about it. It's like you guys, I trust all of you more than the government and I'd gladly give out my personal info to most of you but the point is that it would be my CHOICE to do it. Not forced upon me by some government in which I have absolutely no representation.

I tried sending a letter to my senators and I got one form-letter in return. It listed all the reasons why she thought the patriot act was good

A) The constitution does not give you the right to privacy.
B) Noone has been effected by the patriot act except terrorists. Find one person who has, and Bill Orielly has offered to pay you $1,000,000.
C) No american citizen is being held without being charged anywhere in the US or it's territories. Several people found armed, fighting against americans, without a uniform or ties to a government - that is, TERRORISTS - are being held without being charged in gitmo. Despite thousands of jurnalists claiming the opposite, the worst any have seen was a female soldier 'acting provocativly'. The worst thing reported was someone flushing the khoran down a toilet - but of course they failed to mention that it was the prisoner who did the flushing.
D) The constitution does not give you the right to privacy. Repeated for emphasis. If you don't like it, stop whining and go into politics.

E) Your tire problem has nothing at all to do with the patriot act.
F) I'd estimate 98% of the people on the internet fall left of the middle line, so I'm expecting to get my conservative *** flamed.

I'm sure many of us are familiar with Ben Franklin's assertation, "He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither". That's how I feel.

JM, people may not have a right to privacy, but they have a right to a fair and expedient trial, the right to not be searched or have their property seized without a warrant, the right to a lawyer, etc. These things HAVE been denied to AMERICAN CITIZENS as a result of the Patriot Act. Just do a quick google and you'll come up with stories about Arab Americans being held and questioned indefinitely without access to counsel for the mere crime of have darker skin. American citizens have been declared "enemy combatants" and held indefinitely. Our Attorney General Al Gonzales "justified" torture in certain incidents.

On another note, I find it ironic that the National Archives website has a 404 for the Bill of Rights. (http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/help/constRedir.html)

Um, since the PATRIOT ACT specifically says that agencies can use roving wiretaps, can hold people w/out charging them and without access to lawyers, how would we even know who is affected? There is NO JUDICIAL OVERSIGHT WHATSOEVER. Also, you are saying people haven't been affected except terrorists - without a freaking trial, how can you say people are terrorists?

There are tons of documented cases of patriot act abuses. Try google, it is your friend.




http://www.capitolhillblue.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi?archive=19&num=2638&printer=1
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/21/attack/main564189.shtml
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A29796-2003Dec2.html
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2005/010405withouttrial.htm
http://www.thebishop.net/geodog/archives/2002/08/13/more_american_citizens_to_be_held_without_charges.html

And here's one where they used the patriot act to catch someone for child pornography:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act#Using_the_Act_against_child_pornography

According to the same wikipedia article, The USA PATRIOT Act is not limited to "terrorist crimes."

And screw mr. oreilly, he's yet another political bozo who is rich and isn't held to the same standards as other citizens.

You're an idiot for a few simple reasons. Number one, being that you assume since the Constitution doesn't give us the right to privacy, the opposite is true--it gives the government the right to invade our privacy. They do this under the guise of protecting our freedoms when it's really just something that makes them able to prosecute us that much more easily. Number two, we have the right to private property--PRIVATE. Meaning the government should not be able to take it for the greater good, invade in that property's privacy, or any such thing like that unless they have JUST CAUSE. These rights have already been infringed on. Thirdly, conservatives believe in lack of government and government power. It's actually the 'neoconservatives' and liberals that all want the Patriot Act passed. The only conservatives that agree with Bush are people that aren't really conservative, and don't know the meaning of conservative, or are 'neoconservatives'. See--Sine_Nomen.

Fourthly--you're wrong, and you don't know what you're talking about. Good day, sir.

The Supreme Court says the Constitution provides a limited right to privacy.



Bradon Mayfield.



Jose Padilla.

Dude, are you even familiar with conservative values? One of the largest things was the reduction in government, NOT the expansion. Bush has gone against conservative values from 9/11 onward. He is the worst example of a "conservative" that anyone could bring forth. He's not a conservative.

Simply put, you have to take a side.

The democrats want socialism; the republicans want a police state. Even if I'm good, I lose with socialism. You people need to open your eyes. The media isn't giving you the whole story; the far left controls it.

I don't think we're the ones who need to open our eyes, buddy.

No. I don't have to take a side. I can say socialism is wrong and I can say a police state is wrong. Yes, the entire political system is messed up, there is no candidate that actually represents ME or the people I know. But that doesn't mean I can't speak out when things are obviously FUBAR.

Okay, so now that he's proved himself an idiot, let's continue with this thread.

the "media" is owned by various numbers of stakeholders.

Rupert Murdoch for example, is an exceptionally powerful right wing kinda guy.

I don't know where you get the idea that the entire media industry is monopolised by the left.

Go libertarians! 5% of the vote! WOOOO!

I keed.

No I don't. In fact, I can choose to spitefully put down my so-called "representatives" for being wrongly partisan when they should be voting how the people they represent want them to. The notion of taking a side is a kick in the crotch to constituency. Representatives, ideally, should have no power to betray their constituents in favor of partisan politics. But alas, every last damn one of them forgot that they are supposed to be representing their people back home.



Okay, I'll bite; what's the whole story?

God, how I hate that quip. It just doesn't make any sense at all. I despise the patriot act as much as the next guy, but the notion that people deserve neither freedom nor security because of a decision they make in their own best interest is intensely stupid.

It's not in their best interest if they're giving up freedom. But the point is, the people that are willing to give up freedom are making the decision for people who aren't. The congressmen that wrote the Patriot Act deserve neither the freedoms that they spit in the face of, freedoms that our forefathers DIED fighting for, freedoms they're willing to give up to be "safe" from "terrorists", nor the "security" they sacrificed freedom to get.

I'll agree with you that that quote is overused, but it's definitely appropriate in this thread.

You say that like it's an indisputable fact. Is it unfathomable to you that someone out there might feel it best for self-preservation to increase security at the expense of freedom?



Agreed. But what can you do? America is becoming less of a democratic republic all the time. The politicians we vote into office vote how they want to vote instead of how we want them to vote.



I disagree. I think all people inherently deserve freedom and security. The point is, I'm pretty sure the patriot act was drafted with good intentions. You obviously feel that the P act is the means to someone's hidden agenda.

The Patriot Act is something like 400 pages long. Who wouldn't suspect that it's part of a hidden agenda?




I think rather than say everyone deserves freedom and security, it is more accurate to instead say that everyone deserves freedom, and freedom from fear.

Toys R Us has been doing this for YEARS, like decade+ even. I'm not real sure if it's mandatory, but one time they explained it was to track what regions of the state people come from to buy at the store and such.

It may just be me, but it's sound like the paranoia is a bit high. Like it's more based for marketing research... I fail to see how it's giving up your freedoms?

If they're forcing you to give some personal information in case of a recall, it sounds like more for your safety than taking away your freedom. It's not like you're signing a waiver to put a microchip in your head.

I must be missing some point though, I have no clue how the connection is made between recall notices and the patriot act.

One thing I don't understand is, if everybody is so in agreement with how crappy the government is...why not rise up against them in petitions and such? Ya know...go public, get support. They -have- to listen when you reach a group of certain size, but keeping it all on a message board isn't going to do anything.

I'd rather be free and have the possibility of being blown up tomorrow than be guaranteed 80 years of people watching everything I do.

I agree with Brian (I swear, you may SAY you're a conservative, but I seem to agree with basically everything you say. That's how bad the situation is, today. People on opposite sides of the political spectrum agree with one another about a lot of issues because the people in power are so flagrantly wrong.)

JM is a psychopath who fails at grasping reality.

"There was an incident where people died because they were not informed their tires were faulty. So, in response to the public out cry a law was made where people had to give their basic contact information so if a model of tires is faulty they can contact you to let you know. But they may use that information to invade my privacy!" Uh....jump in logic?

Then if you are anything less than an anarchist, you deserve neither?

That "roving wiretap" is just so cops can get a single warrant to tap all the phones a suspect uses instead of having to get a warrant for each individual wiretap, which is very cumbersome. They still need the same level of probable cause that all warrants need.

Yoshi and Pate: do you honestly think outright insults makes you look anymore intelligent/better than him?

I'm the biggest proponent for privacy you will ever find. But I can also tell the difference between things that really effect my privacy and those things that don't.

[QUOTE=Matthew Pate]I'd rather be free and have the possibility of being blown up tomorrow than be guaranteed 80 years of people watching everything I do.

I agree with Brian (I swear, you may SAY you're a conservative, but I seem to agree with basically everything you say. That's how bad the situation is, today. People on opposite sides of the political spectrum agree with one another about a lot of issues because the people in power are so flagrantly wrong.)

JM is a psychopath who fails at grasping reality.[/QUOTE]

He IS a conservative. This is a conservative value--the lessening of government interference with everyday life. It's what conservatives strive for. It's neoconservatives, or basically fancily named liberals who strive the opposite way.

I don't think it'll make me look smarter than him--hopefully he'll take the insult to heart and think about it.

And I hope you take to heart that you stooping to personal insults can only hurt your argument. It makes it seem your argument is so shallow that insults are the only thing you are capable of using to back up your argument. It also does not make the person it is directed at rethink their position. It just reaffirms them that they are right, even if they aren't, as they are even less likely to consider your position. Insults are not a persuasive argument.