House approves overhaul of wiretap laws

Jitka · **Posted:** Sat Jun 21, 2008 12:22 am

HHFOV wrote:

Jitka wrote:

That's for things like "unreasonable searches and seizures." I don't want the government spying on its people, but I don't think the Constitution specifically provides for a situation like this.

A situation like what?

We're not in a state of emergency like Faux News would like to have you believe.

A situation like whether or not to use wiretapping. The Founding Fathers didn't have that kind of thing in mind when they wrote the Constitution or they would have used more specific language, I'm sure.

The Noid · **Posted:** Sat Jun 21, 2008 12:23 am

A situation like THE TERRORISTS WILL COME TO YOUR HOUSE, SPRAY-PAINT IMAGES OF THEIR CARTOON CHARACTERS ON YOUR WALLS, TELL YOUR KIDS IT'S OKAY TO DO DRUGS, TOUCH YOUR STUFF, USE YOUR CREDIT CARDS TO BUY BLOW-UP POOLS, GIVE YOUR DOG A HAIRCUT, TAPE YOUR GRANDMOTHER TO A POLE, AND DEFILE YOUR WIFE AND/OR COLLECTION OF STAR WARS FIGURINES FROM THE 1990'S

Jitka · **Posted:** Sat Jun 21, 2008 12:24 am

In a world where ANYONE can put up mysterious devices made of wires and batteries on WALLS OUTDOORS, I think we need to entrust all our safety to the benevolent forces of the Government.

HHFOV · **Posted:** Sat Jun 21, 2008 12:27 am

Jitka wrote:

HHFOV wrote:

Jitka wrote:

That's for things like "unreasonable searches and seizures." I don't want the government spying on its people, but I don't think the Constitution specifically provides for a situation like this.

A situation like what?

We're not in a state of emergency like Faux News would like to have you believe.

A situation like whether or not to use wiretapping. The Founding Fathers didn't have that kind of thing in mind when they wrote the Constitution or they would have used more specific language, I'm sure.

It's still an "unreasonable search" because you typically don't want people searching through a call when it's only directed at one specific individual you're trying to reach, no matter who you are.

Benjamin Franklin wrote:

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

TheFacelessEvil · **Posted:** Sat Jun 21, 2008 12:28 am

Jitka wrote:

In a world where ANYONE can put up mysterious devices made of wires and batteries on WALLS OUTDOORS, I think we need to entrust all our safety to the benevolent forces of the Government.

That's it. Tomorrow I'm voting you for most clueless user.

HHFOV · **Posted:** Sat Jun 21, 2008 12:33 am

RON PAWL

TheFacelessEvil · **Posted:** Sat Jun 21, 2008 12:35 am

HHFOV wrote:

RON PAWL

fjdkslfds...

Can I cuddle you? Just a little?

HHFOV · **Posted:** Sat Jun 21, 2008 12:42 am

...

: D *cuddle*

TheFacelessEvil · **Posted:** Sat Jun 21, 2008 12:44 am

HHFOV wrote:

...

: D *cuddle*

... yay~

*many liberty-cuddles*

StrongRad · **Posted:** Sat Jun 21, 2008 3:04 am

HHFOV wrote:

RON PAWL

This man's environmental policies make the Bush administration look like the Sierra Club.

HHFOV · **Posted:** Sat Jun 21, 2008 3:06 am

yep cool story bro too bad that's not what we're talking about

BakeSaleRevenge · **Joined:** Fri Jun 20, 2008 2:23 am **Posts:** 8

Benjamin Franklin wrote:

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

I love Benjamin Franklin and everything, but this quote is stupid. Do you pay taxes to support things like the police department and road construction? You just gave up a little liberty! You don't deserve security OR liberty! And you're on the fast-track to Nazi Germany! Ha!

HHFOV · **Posted:** Sat Jun 21, 2008 3:08 am

yep cool story bro too bad money and taxes used for public funding and services aren't the same thing as liberty and so that's an invalid and unacceptable comparison by anyone's standards other than your own

TheGlitchmaster · **Posted:** Sat Jun 21, 2008 3:09 am

I think wiretaps are a bad idea. I personally used to randomly put "Bush Sucks" in my conversations for kicks.

BakeSaleRevenge · **Joined:** Fri Jun 20, 2008 2:23 am **Posts:** 8

HHFOV wrote:

yep cool story bro too bad money and taxes used for public funding and services aren't the same thing as liberty and so that's an invalid and unacceptable comparison by anyone's standards other than your own

Who made you arbitrator of all that is valid? By the very definition of liberty, having the gov't take your money away is an infringement on your liberty.

Wait until you're a little older and actually pay taxes. Then you'll understand, bro.

StrongRad · **Posted:** Sat Jun 21, 2008 3:15 am

HHFOV wrote:

yep cool story bro too bad that's not what we're talking about

With a post that only said "RON PAWL", I didn't think "staying on topic" meant much.

BakeSaleRevenge · **Joined:** Fri Jun 20, 2008 2:23 am **Posts:** 8

And liberty cuddles?

StrongRad · **Posted:** Sat Jun 21, 2008 3:19 am

HHFOV wrote:

yep cool story bro too bad money and taxes used for public funding and services aren't the same thing as liberty and so that's an invalid and unacceptable comparison by anyone's standards other than your own

He's right HHFOV.
If you're paying taxes, you're letting the government tell you how to spend the money YOU earned.
Technically, you're giving up your freedom to spend ALL of your money the way you want it.

HHFOV · **Posted:** Sat Jun 21, 2008 3:20 am

BakeSaleRevenge wrote:

HHFOV wrote:

yep cool story bro too bad money and taxes used for public funding and services aren't the same thing as liberty and so that's an invalid and unacceptable comparison by anyone's standards other than your own

Who made you arbitrator of all that is valid? By the very definition of liberty, having the gov't take your money away is an infringement on your liberty.

It's what we libertarians like to call a necessary evil, since, though forcibly removing wealth from people, it's the only way a people can function and flourish with benefits like roads and such available for public use. We do all that we can to minimize it, as voters, but still realize and maintain, with robust realism and precise action, that it must exist as a backbone for society.

And I'm not the arbitrator of all that is valid, but I think that you have to wait a sec before you try and reevaluate a significant founding father's words here, like say oh I don't know Ben Franklin.

StrongRad · **Posted:** Sat Jun 21, 2008 3:37 am

HHFOV wrote:

BakeSaleRevenge wrote:

HHFOV wrote:

yep cool story bro too bad money and taxes used for public funding and services aren't the same thing as liberty and so that's an invalid and unacceptable comparison by anyone's standards other than your own

Who made you arbitrator of all that is valid? By the very definition of liberty, having the gov't take your money away is an infringement on your liberty.

It's what we libertarians like to call a necessary evil, since, though forcibly removing wealth from people, it's the only way a people can function and flourish with benefits like roads and such available for public use. We do all that we can to minimize it, as voters, but still realize and maintain, with robust realism and precise action, that it must exist as a backbone for society.

And I'm not the arbitrator of all that is valid, but I think that you have to wait a sec before you try and reevaluate a significant founding father's words here, like say oh I don't know Ben Franklin.

People throw that quote around quite a bit. I don't think it's ever been questioned. That's what we're doing.
Franklin might have looked at our current situation and felt that capturing bad guys is more important than the CIA possibly listening in to your phone call and finding out you're having a surprise party for your mom.
I can't say he would, but then again, you can't say he wouldn't.

TheFacelessEvil · **Posted:** Sat Jun 21, 2008 3:57 am

BakeSaleRevenge wrote:

And liberty cuddles?

You wanna take this outside?

HHFOV · **Posted:** Sat Jun 21, 2008 4:13 am

Yeah Sree to tell you the truth you DO have a good point, and I'm glad you brought that up actually.

I don't think, though, that it would benefit more than it would intrude on innocent citizens. Because the best "bad guys" or whatever you want to call them would have already encoded their messages after hearing about this. Heck, even FDR and Churchill back in their heyday had their telephone receivers all jacked up with doohickeys to talk to each other without getting intercepted. It's not new technology to bypass the wiretap and I don't think it would be of more use and wouldn't, thus, justify the liberty it seemingly revokes.

Mikes! · **Joined:** Thu Mar 10, 2005 12:53 am **Posts:** 350

StrongRad wrote:

HHFOV wrote:

The "I don't have anything to worry about so ok take all my civil liberties away to protect me from witches mr. government" mentality is exactly what leads to Orwellian society.

Exactly what civil liberties are "they" taking from us? The right to talk about planting bombs and killing civilians?
Seriously, what do you lose?

You're assuming that the government only will spy upon those who will definitely plant bombs and kill civilians. If you're merely suspected of planting bombs of killing civilians, some jerk in a black suit is recording your phone calls. All it really takes these days to be suspected is to be named "Reswan Abdulsalam," and have a family in back in Yemen who you talk to on a normal basis. Here, I'll pose a question to you; what does the FBI gain by having the power to monitor millions of people? I mean, other than power? :rolleyes:

Hell though, the FBI doesn't even really care about "Islamic terrorism" anymore. It's not profitable. They're too busy trying to prosecute some dumb arsonist hippies as terrorists.

Potates · **Posted:** Sat Jun 21, 2008 2:12 pm

It's these kinds of things that make me glad I live in Canada. :mrgreen:

ed 'lim' smilde · **Posted:** Sat Jun 21, 2008 2:47 pm

HHFOV wrote:

Because the best "bad guys" or whatever you want to call them would have already encoded their messages after hearing about this. Heck, even FDR and Churchill back in their heyday had their telephone receivers all jacked up with doohickeys to talk to each other without getting intercepted. It's not new technology to bypass the wiretap and I don't think it would be of more use and wouldn't, thus, justify the liberty it seemingly revokes.

Isn't that what the entire NSA is for? Decoding seems hopeless to the average person, but they're pretty good at it.

The Noid · **Posted:** Sat Jun 21, 2008 3:16 pm

hey guys I guess monitoring suspects actually does something

HHFOV · **Posted:** Sat Jun 21, 2008 3:19 pm

Well Mikes!' post up there should have been a /thread

edit:post 2000

StrongRad · **Posted:** Sat Jun 21, 2008 4:13 pm

Mikes! wrote:

StrongRad wrote:

HHFOV wrote:

The "I don't have anything to worry about so ok take all my civil liberties away to protect me from witches mr. government" mentality is exactly what leads to Orwellian society.

Exactly what civil liberties are "they" taking from us? The right to talk about planting bombs and killing civilians?
Seriously, what do you lose?

You're assuming that the government only will spy upon those who will definitely plant bombs and kill civilians. If you're merely suspected of planting bombs of killing civilians, some jerk in a black suit is recording your phone calls. All it really takes these days to be suspected is to be named "Reswan Abdulsalam," and have a family in back in Yemen who you talk to on a normal basis. Here, I'll pose a question to you; what does the FBI gain by having the power to monitor millions of people? I mean, other than power? :rolleyes:

Hell though, the FBI doesn't even really care about "Islamic terrorism" anymore. It's not profitable. They're too busy trying to prosecute some dumb arsonist hippies as terrorists.

I could be naive in thinking this, but I'm fairly certain that they can still catch someone who is not "innocent".
To me, the government monitoring the communications of millions of people who are completely innocent is not a violation of civil liberties (unless they directly interfere with the communication). It IS, however a tremendous waste of resources and time. I'm fairly certain that most "innocent" people "screen out" after "they" decide that the person is completely innocuous.

The waste of resources this represents is a bigger problem than any violation of civil liberties.
Now, if they were to interfere in communications...
Yeah, I'd be angry and holding signs and stuff, but as it is, eh, they waste money on dumber things.

HHFOV · **Posted:** Sat Jun 21, 2008 7:39 pm

Like military troops stationed in 130 countries around the globe amirite

IantheGecko · **Posted:** Sat Jun 21, 2008 8:47 pm

Not really.

Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

House approves overhaul of wiretap laws

Who is online