Judge nixes warrantless surveillance

Damn right.

It's time something like this happened in Europe as well. They're tapping all the internet traffic over here, and giving all the data to the US. It's gone too far. Damn bunch of monkeys.

It used to be that you needed to be suspect before they could tap your stuff. Nowadays it seems everybody is suspect by default.

woo civil libertarianism

About damn time.

Cool! We have our fingers stuck in the proverbial European pies.

Sadly, this is just the beginning.

It'll get overturned in the appeal. Kind of sad, isn't it?

Those with nothing to hide have nothing to fear.

[QUOTE=Vincent Valentine]Those with nothing to hide have nothing to fear.[/QUOTE]
Now, who was it that said that originally? Was it Stalin? No... no, it was earlier than that.
Orwell, right? No, no, someone else...
could it be... HITLE-*godwin`d*

-ooff

[QUOTE=Vincent Valentine]Those with nothing to hide have nothing to fear.[/QUOTE]

Ouch. I couldn't disagree more.

Vinny's right. Forget privacy. As long as you're good and play nice with the other children, you'll be fine.

-If there are dissenters, Big Brother will protect you from them. He is double-plus good.

[QUOTE=Vincent Valentine]Those with nothing to hide have nothing to fear.[/QUOTE]This would be true if there were no corrupt government employees. You think some faceless NSA agent with a gambling problem isn't tempted to play internet blackjack with all of those credit card numbers he overhears? They are not elected. They are not accountable. They would probably never even be prosecuted for something like that because if people found out it would be political suicide for the Republican Party.

I know that remark was tongue-in-cheek but I needed to post this anyway.

It's a trade, though. Yes, there is a chance that it could happen. But then again, it isn't much safer to hand a cashier a credit card at a store and pray they don't have a knack for memorizing numbers for a few minutes, waiting until you leave, and then writing them down on a piece of paper for later abuse. TEEHEE LOL FEEL SAFE NOW?

...except that Jon's point was about accountability. A cashier could easily be held responsible.

I'm not about to get all 'let's stick up for Jon'C booyeah' in your face, but the situation you described isn't what he was talking about.

I can memorize a string of 15 numbers instantly (I also never forget anyones full name or phone numbers). Don't hand me a credit card.

Which is why:

1. Credit card companies always side with the customer,
2. Smart people use debit,
3. Cashiers that commit credit card fraud are prosecuted severely,
4. Cashiers don't work for a semi-unconstitutional evil organization that is kept absolutely secret - employees and techniques alike. If a NSA employee is through some miracle found to be using his job to commit credit card fraud, his identity will be protected because it is a state secret.

But you're close.

What about all those times you have to give out you social to clerks. You can't even see their screens, they could be taking it down to a notepad.

I prefer to take my chances of this "card fraud" thing you fear of, instead of having another terrorist attack, just like the one that was prevented. Imagine if it hadn't.




What makes you think they don't have people watching their own people?
Do you think the government would hire people with those type of background history and problems?
Don't you think they'll get enough money as is?
I could go on and on... but in short, this program is to prevent crimes and terrorist attacks, not to create more terror and crime.

no

Ah the naievity (I know I misspelled that). I am firmly convinced that the American government gives two ****s about its citizens. Congress is just an ends to grab many dollars from business people. Either we weed out EVERYBODY or we start really changing the way the government works.

And in other news today, as expected, the ruling is being fought.

Absolutely. I mean, it's not like the government is exactly getting their pick of employees when they're hiring people to wade through all this data. Competent people almost always end up in the private sector, and the government gets to choose from what's left.

"To clerks"? Which clerks are you talking about? In Canada it is not legal to ask someone for their SSN as a form of identification. You can legally offer it as one but a DL# will get you every bit as much information as a SSN. Seriously, if you're handing out your SSN to "clerks" you're just asking for it.

Credit card fraud was just an example. There are many other ways you can abuse this kind of power.

What makes you think those people are trustworthy, too? Look at the police for an example. How often do you think an honest cop will rat out a crooked one? Hint: The answer is one word that begins with the letter 'n' and ends with 'ever'.
Yes, because they do hire people with that kind of background history and problems.
No, because government employees don't get paid a lot of money.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions, smarty boy.

I could not help but notice that that article failed to quote the judges actual ruling. When a judge writes out an 'opinion', it's not really written by the judge. It's a tabulation of facts and precedent put together by aides. Only a little bit is actually written by the judge. In this case, the judge wrote 'There are no hereditary rulers in America'. Ah, now, I have to wonder, what does that have to do with the constitutionality of the NSA survelliance? Could this judge be biased? No, of course not.

In all regards, I disagree with this ruling, and your reactions to it and the 'problem' it 'corrects' shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what happened in the first place.

The NSA eavesdropped on people calling known terrorists. No, not people calling 'afghanistan', but people calling SPECIFIC PEOPLE at the NSA already knew were terrorists. Furthermore, the people making the calls were not Americans; they were foreign nationals on American soil. They have no constitutional rights anyway. The calls were international, and were tapped while routing outside America. And, finally, the thousands of miles of wire used to transmit the calls were not the property of the callers, and thus tapping them cannot fall under the 'unlawful search and seizure' clause, which is the ONLY clause in the constitution that gives you any sort of right to privacy.

Finally, the decision does not say it is unconstitutional to eavesdrop. It merely says the president must get a FISA warrant first.

Of course, if the NSA wasn't doing this, a whole bunch of people flying between Britian and the US would have died. I know what you are going to say; something like "Those who are willing to give up their freedom for security deserve niether", and I will reply with "Without security, there can be no freedom."

If you are making international calls to known terrorists and using words like 'bomb', 'hijack' and 'jihad', I want the NSA spying on you. The thing that makes people object to that is the same crazyness that makes them want airport security to pay as much attention to elderly women as they do to young muslim males.

God Damnit.

Jon'C, all your post are assumption of possible scenarios which I very much doubt the government will allow. People will be too busy catching criminals and terrorists to worry about credit card numbers, sex scandals, etc etc.

That's like saying the police are too busy stopping crime to do something against the law.

And all of your posts are horrible.

Government employees are people, they are not machines. They do not know you. They do not care about you. They have their own problems to deal with, and if betraying you will improve their lives they will not hesitate to do it. Believing otherwise is the height of stupidity.
Crooked cops prove my point. Soldiers raping women and abusing prisoners of war prove my point. A president taking advantage of his interns proves my point. A vice-president using his position to give his company government contracts proves my point. The fact that the current president seems poised to ignore the decision of the judiciary in spite of the constitution proves my point.

Even if 99% of government workers are only interested in doing what is right, that 1% means the government is not trustworthy. This is why the Consitution exists, people! It is there to protect you. Don't let moon-man retarded-as-**** people like SF_GoldG_01 who live in a delusional paradise of prancing fairies and unicorns convince you otherwise. If people were infallable there would be no need for a constitution, or elections, or any government at all.

Let me just make it clear that I can be against the decision and still think sf_gold is an idiot.

Thank you.

I'm totally with Jon'C. It is the opportunity that makes the thief. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.