Pink Petal Games
Game Discussion => General Discussion & Download => Topic started by: LordJerle on July 29, 2010, 11:14:15 PM
-
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/07/doj-pushing-expand-warrantless-access-internet
As if the FBI didn't abuse their power enough...
-
Is it a sad state of affairs that I am no longer shocked by things like this?
-
Sadly, they'll pass it and allow more abuse.
He who gives up liberty for security, will get neither, and deserves neither. -Benjamin Franklin.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Sad thing is, Glenn Beck's kinda been going on about how this sort of thing would happen for quite a while now. :/
-
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.
-
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.
-
@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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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...
-
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.
-
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?
-
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. ~_^
-
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 that's the whole point of this. It's fine that the FBI is going to snoop on people on the internet. (Really? A bureaucracy at the federal level in charge of investigations might actually... investigate? You don't say.) But get a god damn Warrant first. Thats basic 4th amendment rights there. And that's what (I hope) most people here are pissed about.
-
I'm thinking more than than a few people arguing this (not here, but in general) are more concerned about their lolis and/or cp, than anything else
as for me, the fbi holds no authority here, so meh
-
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...
I'm sure I'll be scared when I have good reason to. And yes, it was a pretty big generalization. I wasn't claiming what you said I was.
Just doing all in my power to mock our theft happy world.
-
I'm thinking more than than a few people arguing this (not here, but in general) are more concerned about their lolis and/or cp, than anything else
as for me, the fbi holds no authority here, so meh
The point of arguing against this isn't that "Oh my god, I hope they don't see my loli's!", it's that people's computers are a lot like the home. By allowing the FBI free access, you're pretty much opening all your info for them to see, which is unconstitutional. Part of the reason of the revolutionary war was that English troops would walk in somebody's home unannounced and wreak havoc just because they didn't like the way you parted your hair.
-
actually it would be more like the english making the clerk at the grocery store tell them what you bought every day of the past month, because they don't like the way you parted your hair
they don't see the actual content of your computer unless they access it, for which they would still need a warrant
-
Agree with the clerk analogy. However, this is a "slippery slope". Today they don't need warrants for your search history, tomorrow they don't need warrants to check your bank info. etc. etc. It's not that it's the FBI's ultimate goal is to keep tabs on every American citizens computer. But that's the outcome you reach eventually when you go down the slope.
Also agree on both caveats for people Bawwing about loli censorship and people here not necessarily conforming to that mold. (Thank god) This is a real 4th amendment issue. Not just a "I demand the right to masturbate to bug eyed titless midgets" issue.
-
Hey, I liek my bug-eyed titless midgets, thank you very much. And I'm getting tired of seeing this slippery slope argument. It's basically saying, we shouldn't ever do anything, even move, because it MIGHT cause an avalanche, so just stand still, and never ever move. The internet is a relatively new entity, and the laws concerning it are going to need a lot of adjustment and changes. Not to mention new laws entirely. The law is constantly being changed and revised, according to the whims of who WE vote into office. If you don't like how its going, vote for someone who agrees with you. As for the law, with new innovations, inventions, and the shifting of culture, it needs to be constantly changed and added to. And there will be old forgotten laws that never get repealed because it would take too much time and effort. I'm not saying all laws or good, or whats happening is good, neither am I saying its bad, but if you don't like it, try to change it, and if you get the majority, well you win, and if you don't, well then people must like where its going.
tl;dr vote Libertarian http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism
-
You might be tired of the slippery slope arguments but the bill of rights is there for a reason. And people defend it with "slippery slope" and "Give an inch, they will take a mile" for a reason as well. People with power tend to abuse it. As such, you need safety nets in place.
I have no problem with the gag orders or the FBI actually investigating suspects search records. The lack of warrants is my issue. If you want to expedite a search for time sensitive reasons (Trying to pin down what a terrorist cell is up to for example) create a special bureau of the government that handles handing out warrants like this. The time it would take to get a warrant with the American judicial systems current backlog would admittedly be rather slow. So have a few judges on call to review and grant or deny warrants as the need arises in an expedient manner. At least there will be public record after the fact. And somebody to hold accountable if there is abuse of power. You don't circumvent the Bill of Rights just because it would be easier or cheaper to do so.
-
I'm sure I'll be scared when I have good reason to. And yes, it was a pretty big generalization. I wasn't claiming what you said I was.
Just doing all in my power to mock our theft happy world.
Ah, sorry about that then. Rereading it I see a few different ways to interpret that.
"I demand the right to masturbate to bug eyed titless midgets"
That's one of the funniest things I've read in awhile.
-
That's one of the funniest things I've read in awhile.
The Ubiquitous "5000 hours in MS paint."
(http://img267.imagevenue.com/loc581/th_71747_PoleMidget_123_581lo.jpg) (http://img267.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=71747_PoleMidget_123_581lo.jpg)
-
Damn that's hot.
-
The Ubiquitous "5000 hours in MS paint."
(http://img267.imagevenue.com/loc581/th_71747_PoleMidget_123_581lo.jpg) (http://img267.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=71747_PoleMidget_123_581lo.jpg)
OH MY GOD! IT'S DOC'S SECRET GIRLFRIEND!
-
Hey, I liek my bug-eyed titless midgets, thank you very much. And I'm getting tired of seeing this slippery slope argument. It's basically saying, we shouldn't ever do anything, even move, because it MIGHT cause an avalanche, so just stand still, and never ever move. The internet is a relatively new entity, and the laws concerning it are going to need a lot of adjustment and changes. Not to mention new laws entirely. The law is constantly being changed and revised, according to the whims of who WE vote into office. If you don't like how its going, vote for someone who agrees with you. As for the law, with new innovations, inventions, and the shifting of culture, it needs to be constantly changed and added to. And there will be old forgotten laws that never get repealed because it would take too much time and effort. I'm not saying all laws or good, or whats happening is good, neither am I saying its bad, but if you don't like it, try to change it, and if you get the majority, well you win, and if you don't, well then people must like where its going.
tl;dr vote Libertarian http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism)
Bull.
People who get in office generally lie to get in office.
-
I thought they got in office by shaking babies and kissing hands
-
And I thought it was by appealing to the largest amount of people who actually vote.
-
And I thought it was by appealing to the largest amount of people who actually vote.
That's not quite true. The presidential election is actually decided by the electoral college (don't let them lie to you) and not by the people. The electoral college swings towards popular vote most of the time, but in certain cases, like the 2000 election, it has gone against.