DOJ to drop bomb on EFF vs. AT&T Options

[JRockTTU]

and you are a fag. but we accept you anyway

First rule of the internet: Don't call someone else a fag when you represent yourself with a fruity as emo picture such as this:





And I know you've been clean for a while Zetec, but I was here when we had to hear about it every time you rolled a joint.

[zetec]

First rule of the internet: Don't call someone else a fag when you represent yourself with a fruity as emo picture such as this:





And I know you've been clean for a while Zetec, but I was here when we had to hear about it every time you rolled a joint.

i never rolled joints. Always used pipes or bongs. more efficient.

and if you honestly think that someone doesn't change when they stop doing drugs, well, that would kinda negate the whole point of stopping, wouldn't it?

[pebkac]

Just out of curiosity, what does zetec smoking marijuana have to do with wiretappings?

[Spectatrix]

Just out of curiosity, what does zetec smoking marijuana have to do with wiretappings?

Apparently because he has partaken in illegal activities, he has no business protesting government activities that are in a "legally gray area".

[pebkac]

Apparently because he has partaken in illegal activities, he has no business protesting government activities that are in a "legally gray area".

Yeah, that's what I thought I read, but wanted to make sure. I guess that whole "hope for mankind" thing must have made me not think right.

[zetec]

Yeah, that's what I thought I read, but wanted to make sure. I guess that whole "hope for mankind" thing must have made me not think right.

this is techsans. you've got, on average, maybe a 35% chance of getting a logical argument out of someone when they know that they've already lost the argument.

(impala would be the prime example, but he's not the only one.)

[JRockTTU]

this is techsans. you've got, on average, maybe a 35% chance of getting a logical argument out of someone when they know that they've already lost the argument.

(impala would be the prime example, but he's not the only one.)

Everybody on the internet thinks they are the smartest mother fucker alive and are never wrong. I swear, every post I read has nothing but ego behind it. And every person thinks that when they read a statement like that, it means everybody BUT them. We are all dumbasses and wrong more times than not.


And my point about the weed smoking/hacking/illegal downloading related to wiretaps is that it's ironic whenever you have people who openly disregard the law criticize the government for breaking the law. The government is a bunch of people, and they are human afterall, so they are going to have the same tendencies to stretch the legality of their actions. If you (not zetec, people in general) aren't willing to adhere to federal laws, then why should you expect that of your government officials?

And I see the whole 1984-like society that some of you think this will lead to, and I know that if you give an inch in liberties then the government will take a mile, but why would we want to handcuff our government's ability to catch potential mass murderers? I bet half of you wouldn't care if Bill Clinton was the one who did this.

[Spectatrix]

but why would we want to handcuff our government's ability to catch potential mass murderers?

So... we should allow the government to freely wiretap everyone? Because if they don't have enough evidence to get a warrant from the FISA court, then they might as well just be wiretapping citizens at random.

I bet half of you wouldn't care if Bill Clinton was the one who did this.

I can't speak for zetec and pebkac, but Zach and I are both fairly Libertarian. I think that most Republicans AND most Democrats are full of shit.

[woody]

Everybody on the internet thinks they are the smartest mother fucker alive and are never wrong.  I swear, every post I read has nothing but ego behind it.  And every person thinks that when they read a statement like that, it means everybody BUT them.  We are all dumbasses and wrong more times than not.


And my point about the weed smoking/hacking/illegal downloading related to wiretaps is that it's ironic whenever you have people who openly disregard the law criticize the government for breaking the law.  The government is a bunch of people, and they are human afterall, so they are going to have the same tendencies to stretch the legality of their actions.  If you (not zetec, people in general) aren't willing to adhere to federal laws, then why should you expect that of your government officials?

And I see the whole 1984-like society that some of you think this will lead to, and I know that if you give an inch in liberties then the government will take a mile, but why would we want to handcuff our government's ability to catch potential mass murderers?  I bet half of you wouldn't care if Bill Clinton was the one who did this.

your post still has it

This post has been edited by woody: May 4 2006, 09:19 AM

[impala454]

no, we're upset about the ILLEGAL wiretappings. There's already a secret court for them to go to to make this legal, there's absolutely no reason they should need to circumvent it unless they're having to cover other shady activities.

ok... but how does the "secret court" prevent the illegal wiretapping from happening in the first place if it doesn't deem the tap illegal until after the fact?

and as far as "govt scare tactic" not being legitimate... I wouldn't exactly call it that, but like I said before melodrama isn't something lacking on these boards.

Personally, I'd rather have a small group of people wrongfully have their regular boring conversations tapped than have a possible 911 style terrorist attack go off without a hitch because of some pointless legal red tape.

I guess my question to you guys upset about it should be, How would you have it work that would satisfy you?

[impala454]

So... we should allow the government to freely wiretap everyone? Because if they don't have enough evidence to get a warrant from the FISA court, then they might as well just be wiretapping citizens at random.

not only would this be physically impossible, it would also be impractical.

[Spectatrix]

ok... but how does the "secret court" prevent the illegal wiretapping from happening in the first place if it doesn't deem the tap illegal until after the fact?

It prevents it in that the NSA (or other government agency) will need to make sure that they have enough evidence to support wiretapping. Yeah, they might occasionally wiretap and not be granted a retroactive warrant, but don't you think there would be some repurcusions if they made a habit of wiretapping w/o sufficient evidence?

I guess my question to you guys upset about it should be, How would you have it work that would satisfy you?

How about the way its legally set up? With the retroactive warrants, time isn't an issue. As somebody else pointed out, there's always a FISA court judge on-call, so again, time really isn't an issue. There is no reason for them to not get a warrant, unless they're choosing to wiretap based on REALLY flimsy evidence, in which case I'd rather they gather more evidence and try getting a warrant again. Terrorist attacks aren't planned overnight, you know...

[JRockTTU]

your post still has it

Hence the "we" in my statement.

[pebkac]

Everybody on the internet thinks they are the smartest mother fucker alive and are never wrong. I swear, every post I read has nothing but ego behind it. And every person thinks that when they read a statement like that, it means everybody BUT them. We are all dumbasses and wrong more times than not.


And my point about the weed smoking/hacking/illegal downloading related to wiretaps is that it's ironic whenever you have people who openly disregard the law criticize the government for breaking the law. The government is a bunch of people, and they are human afterall, so they are going to have the same tendencies to stretch the legality of their actions. If you (not zetec, people in general) aren't willing to adhere to federal laws, then why should you expect that of your government officials?

And I see the whole 1984-like society that some of you think this will lead to, and I know that if you give an inch in liberties then the government will take a mile, but why would we want to handcuff our government's ability to catch potential mass murderers? I bet half of you wouldn't care if Bill Clinton was the one who did this.

You know, I would probably agree with the first part of your post if what you're saying wasn't so fucking stupid. Not only are you making pointless ad hominems against the people you disagree with, but you're making overbroad generalizations too. Regardless, none of what you've said is a valid argument for or against anything, so I don't see any reason to argue against it. But just for your information, I voted for Nader.

ok... but how does the "secret court" prevent the illegal wiretapping from happening in the first place if it doesn't deem the tap illegal until after the fact?

and as far as "govt scare tactic" not being legitimate... I wouldn't exactly call it that, but like I said before melodrama isn't something lacking on these boards.

Personally, I'd rather have a small group of people wrongfully have their regular boring conversations tapped than have a possible 911 style terrorist attack go off without a hitch because of some pointless legal red tape.

I guess my question to you guys upset about it should be, How would you have it work that would satisfy you?

Personally, I think the status quo works. I'm not saying that it's wrong for the government to listen to people; I'm saying it's wrong for the government to have absolute power to listen to people whenever they want to. While I would grant you that the current system isn't perfect, it's still better than the government being able to listen to whoever they want whenever they want.

[JRockTTU]

You know, I would probably agree with the first part of your post if what you're saying wasn't so fucking stupid. Not only are you making pointless ad hominems against the people you disagree with, but you're making overbroad generalizations too. Regardless, none of what you've said is a valid argument for or against anything, so I don't see any reason to argue against it. But just for your information, I voted for Nader.



Personally, I think the status quo works. I'm not saying that it's wrong for the government to listen to people; I'm saying it's wrong for the government to have absolute power to listen to people whenever they want to. While I would grant you that the current system isn't perfect, it's still better than the government being able to listen to whoever they want whenever they want.

How did this post disprove the first part of mine? It didn't, but it helped support it.