US Internet users beware...

[LordJerle]

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/07/doj-pushing-expand-warrantless-access-internet

As if the FBI didn't abuse their power enough...

[Lorde]

Is it a sad state of affairs that I am no longer shocked by things like this?

[coldheartzero]

Sadly, they'll pass it and allow more abuse.


He who gives up liberty for security, will get neither, and deserves neither.  -Benjamin Franklin.

[Atrun]

The quote is actually this:
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Of course, since I regard privacy as an essential liberty then it is safe to say that anyone who supports that expansion of power, or even the original does not deserve their liberty.

As much as it concerns me though, what concerns me more is how much they'll push before we(the US populace) push back violently.

[coldheartzero]

The quote is actually this:
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Of course, since I regard privacy as an essential liberty then it is safe to say that anyone who supports that expansion of power, or even the original does not deserve their liberty.

As much as it concerns me though, what concerns me more is how much they'll push before we(the US populace) push back violently.

Actually nobody honestly knows if that's the real quote or not. When I looked it up to get the wording right, as I first read/heard it from Civ 4, the biography I read said, and quoted about 20 different sources that nobody knows how the original quote was worded. Even Franklin's own writings have it several different ways. (according to one source anyway, I erased my search history otherwise I'd link the biography I skimmed)

I appreciate it when people try to make corrections that aren't correct.

[ShiningRadiance]

Sad thing is, Glenn Beck's kinda been going on about how this sort of thing would happen for quite a while now. :/

[dalmedya]

Gee, I sure am glad I live in Australia, and not a country with laws that impinge upon my privacy.
... wait. I think I did that wrong.

[Kaito]

Basically the FBI is asking to be able to request to see who you contact over the internet with this, like your telephone records, but with email addresses. It's not like they're hacking the internet to spy on your face-book account. Frankly all this alarmist, shock appeal media coverage is probably scarier. You should always read the sources and look up your own information before getting up in arms. Yes this has to potential to be abused, but pretty much every law ever made has the potential to be abused.

[Kenki]

@Kaito


Our Founding fathers understood that extremely well, which is why they stressed Limited Government. They knew all to well that if you give an inch, they will take a mile. Following the "If you give a mouse a cookie, he will want a glass of milk" logic, I would not be surprised to see that law re-interpreted to allow for more invasive  infringements on our liberties in the not too distant future. The intentions may be good, but government has grown to big and I can't keep giving them any more free passes.

[ShiningRadiance]

Basically the FBI is asking to be able to request to see who you contact over the internet with this, like your telephone records, but with email addresses. It's not like they're hacking the internet to spy on your face-book account. Frankly all this alarmist, shock appeal media coverage is probably scarier. You should always read the sources and look up your own information before getting up in arms. Yes this has to potential to be abused, but pretty much every law ever made has the potential to be abused.

And government is in its nature, evil. It comes down to who is upholding this law. It's the FBI, a direct part of the federal government, as opposed to local law enforcement agencies. While better than bureaucrats, it still has a sense of uncertainty, because it seems harder to fire abusive FBI agents than everyday abusive cops.

[Starry]

The freedom argument always amuses me, as the voices in my head are always laughing about how the people arguing it are the same people that steal 90% of their shit and are afraid they won't be able to get away with it anymore.

News flash: you never were free to break the law, you just do it anyway

And now, I'm going to go back to being invisible.  See y'all

[Amoeba]

The freedom argument always amuses me, as the voices in my head are always laughing about how the people arguing it are the same people that steal 90% of their shit and are afraid they won't be able to get away with it anymore.

News flash: you never were free to break the law, you just do it anyway

And now, I'm going to go back to being invisible.  See y'all

That's a pretty big generalization. Claiming that everyone from Group A doesn't like something because of B is, well, kind of ignorant. It fails to take into account varying viewpoints, and simply lumps everyone opposed to something as strawmen.

I suppose I'll just put forth this; to say one isn't free to break the law is sort of the point. The law inhibits freedom, so citizens in any country that allows for it should be ever watchful of the actions of those in power. Something being a law does not inherently make it just, so even if the current laws are based upon justice, an arguable case, giving those in power the ability to secretly, and thus unquestionably, enforce laws as a whole is foolish. And this is without taking into account the ability of the individual enforcers to abuse an expanded power.

This grab for more power isn't scary so much because of what it immediately allows, but because of what it may one day allow. Well, that and the fact that it might work despite the horrible record preceding it. Actually, that part might be scarier...

[LordJerle]

I might point out, interesting fact, kind of based on the discussion, in the state of Oklahoma, the only legal sexual position is the missionary position.  A law that's been on the books since the mid 1800's.  Some laws are created simply to present an illusion of control, without actually being really enforce-able without infringing on basic rights.

[Kenki]

It shows how unlikely it is to remove a law once on the books. Seriously, has no one ever thought of repealing it? And have you  ever noticed how politicians are always maneuvering to talk about what laws they passed as justification to elect them but never the laws the removed?

[TF]

I might point out, interesting fact, kind of based on the discussion, in the state of Oklahoma, the only legal sexual position is the missionary position.  A law that's been on the books since the mid 1800's.  Some laws are created simply to present an illusion of control, without actually being really enforce-able without infringing on basic rights.

The problem with enacting new so-called "unenforceable" laws is that if people have already accepted the law itself, the government might accept that they are given the right to take whatever action is necessary to make those laws enforceable. Allowing a law that dictates what people can do in their private lives is just begging for laws that invade that privacy. That aside, the government being allowed to snoop on people when they have probable cause is absolutely fine by me, but this goes well beyond that.

And I only steal like 50% of my shit. ~_^