Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply
puritysourcelabs
UGL OZ
UGFREAK
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplypuritysourcelabsUGL OZUGFREAK

Discussion - The Government is spying on your email and web surfing habits

George Spellwin

George Spellwin

The Architect
Staff member
Administrator
Elite Moderator
Moderator
The Government is spying on your email and web surfing habits - Discussion

In January of this year, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (the EFF), a group dedicated to defending your liberties and privacy on the Internet, filed a Freedom of Information Act inquiry with the FBI and other Justice Department offices to ascertain if the U.S. government is spying on your email and web surfing habits.

The answer is almost a certain yes, and the EFF is seeking documents to learn if the government is using the provisions of the USA Patriot Act to collect information about the contents of your email and your online activities without a search warrant.

It would seem reasonable to expect that your online habits are private. Yet, the Justice Department refuses to confirm whether it collects or believes it is authorized to collect information about what you're doing online.

The USA Patriot Act was hastily passed by Congress shortly after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. It pretty much tramples the bill of rights and curtails many of the civil liberties we are supposed to enjoy as part of the "war on terror."

As part of the act, the government can monitor your Web surfing records, use roving wiretaps to monitor phone calls you make if you are "proximate" to a primary person being tapped, access your ISP's records about you, and monitor the private records of people involved in legitimate protests.

The Justice Department already claims the new definitions allow them to collect email and Internet Protocol (IP) addresses. But, the agency has not been forthcoming about Web surveillance. It will not say whether it believes URLs (a web address like http://www.elitefitness.com) can be collected about you, despite the fact that URLs clearly reveal exactly what you're looking at on the Web.

The Patriot Act was passed to fight terrorism, but, it is not limited to terrorism. For example, government spying on suspected "computer trespassers" requires no court order. Wiretaps are now allowed for any suspected violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, opening the door to government spying on any computer user.

The Patriot Act also gives ISPs the authority to release private data if a person's life is in danger without a court order. The Justice Department does not publish statistics on the number of times it has accessed such information, according to its report to the congressional committee.

Further, the Patriot Act requires domestic ISPs to comply with secret "National Security Letters" from the FBI. These letters can request information about you including your home address, the telephone calls that you have made, your email subject lines and the logs of the websites that you visited. And even the privacy statements of the three major ISPs, AOL, MSN, and Earthlink, give them permission to intercept your email and monitor what you're looking at online.

In this week's EliteFitness.com News, I'll share with you some new and startling developments in the multiple attacks against your privacy. And I'll tell you more about how to get a free secure, encrypted, offshore, web-based email account and file storage and why you need it now more than ever.

To read more, please go to:

http://www.elitefitness.com/articledata/efn/031405.html

And please discuss Internet privacy and free secure, encrypted, offshore, web-based EliteFitness.com email in this thread. Who here uses it?
 
Last edited:
I have always known this



due to my political views I am sure I am on some list

and it makes me happy

hopefully they will learn from me

and change there ways
 
Last edited:
Encryption?


Their supercomputers can figure out encrypted messages muy pronto.


Actually....encryption probably heightens their level of interest.


Make a game out of it.

Bitch about the gov while flying American flags.

Bitch about Iraq while supporting the troops.

Make them scratch their heads.
 
Mr. Spellwin--

What you are doing is quite irresponsible. Obviously you are not familiar with the exact language of the Patriot Act. You say that it tramples the Bill of Rights. Where, exactly? For that matter, do you agree with the Bill of Rights? Are you even familiar with that particular piece of literature? Please show me the passage in the Patriot Act that tramples any part of any of the first ten ammendments to the Constitution of the United States.

I agree that we, as citizens of a free country, have the right to be left alone. We have the right to think freely, and to express our thoughts freely in a peaceful manner.

Nowhere in the Bill of Rights or anywhere else is there a legislative promise to the privacy of such utterances, and with regard to private property (probably the most important right we have), the fifth ammendment states: "...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Without just compensation. Some would consider a certain amount of security just compensation. While I realize that it is very en vogue to quote Benjamin Franklin's opinion on thematter of sacrificing liberty for security, the fact is, he is simply wrong in his analysis of what comprises a society to begin with.

I will say that I think that the Patriot Act has been wrongly applied in two instances. This is a result of voting ignorant elitists into office (and no, I'm not talking about Bush). But I will be very interested to hear what you have to say about what particular right of yours is currently being violated by the Patriot Act.

The fact that we can sit here, in this public forum, and dissent to our own government without punishment or even infringement, suggests to me that things are not as bad as everyone on these boards likes to think and act out about.

I notice that it is primarily the ones who are involved in criminal actrivity that are in opposition to this legislation, which to me, says it is effective, if somwhat invasive and imposing.

But again, Mr. Spellwin...what right of yours is being violated as you sit and read this post? What changed when the Patriot Act was signed that actually violates your rights more than they already have been? Show me the passages, and I will be glad to learn.
 
Hi Fukkenshredded. The Patriot Act in it's original form is unconstitutional. So say two Federal Court judges, LA and NY and the US Supreme court in three seperate decisions since last January. So you may not think it's unconstitutional as written but your wrong according to courts. And as I remember they're not done dismantling it yet.
 
Last edited:
Kind of sucks, but I think most of all of us will be alright as long as we keep to the small time stuff.
 
Fukkenshredded said:
Mr. Spellwin--

What you are doing is quite irresponsible. Obviously you are not familiar with the exact language of the Patriot Act. You say that it tramples the Bill of Rights. Where, exactly? For that matter, do you agree with the Bill of Rights? Are you even familiar with that particular piece of literature? Please show me the passage in the Patriot Act that tramples any part of any of the first ten ammendments to the Constitution of the United States.

I agree that we, as citizens of a free country, have the right to be left alone. We have the right to think freely, and to express our thoughts freely in a peaceful manner.

Nowhere in the Bill of Rights or anywhere else is there a legislative promise to the privacy of such utterances, and with regard to private property (probably the most important right we have), the fifth ammendment states: "...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Without just compensation. Some would consider a certain amount of security just compensation. While I realize that it is very en vogue to quote Benjamin Franklin's opinion on thematter of sacrificing liberty for security, the fact is, he is simply wrong in his analysis of what comprises a society to begin with.

I will say that I think that the Patriot Act has been wrongly applied in two instances. This is a result of voting ignorant elitists into office (and no, I'm not talking about Bush). But I will be very interested to hear what you have to say about what particular right of yours is currently being violated by the Patriot Act.

The fact that we can sit here, in this public forum, and dissent to our own government without punishment or even infringement, suggests to me that things are not as bad as everyone on these boards likes to think and act out about.

I notice that it is primarily the ones who are involved in criminal actrivity that are in opposition to this legislation, which to me, says it is effective, if somwhat invasive and imposing.

But again, Mr. Spellwin...what right of yours is being violated as you sit and read this post? What changed when the Patriot Act was signed that actually violates your rights more than they already have been? Show me the passages, and I will be glad to learn.
Click to expand...

That's a good post - I appreciate your sharing your opinions. Did you have a chance to read all of this weeks EliteFitness.com News? I would appreciate your taking a look at the announcement at the top of the page and sharing your comments.

Here's more from this week's EFN.

On Tuesday February 5, 2005, the ChoicePoint corporation admitted that thousands of sensitive personal records of thousands of individuals had been stolen by a hacker. In 2003, another consumer data company, Axciom, suffered a hacking incident as well. On behalf of federal, state, and local government agencies, both ChoicePoint and Axciom maintain various records about you. Some of this data includes social security numbers, driving records, sex-offender lists, and FBI lists of wanted criminals and suspected terrorists.

The fact that the records were stolen by criminals posing as legitimate businesses is bad enough. But to make matters worse, according to Reuters, U.S. investigators told ChoicePoint that their databases had been compromised and that tens of thousands of consumers were vulnerable to identity theft back in October of 2004. But CheckPoint waited until February of 2005 to let anyone know what had happened. If you're one of the unlucky ones who's identity was stolen, your credit rating should be in the toilet about now.

All this data is being gathered to fight the "war on terror." If I was the Director of the Department of Homeland Security, I would be extremely pissed off that the companies the government hired to do its data mining are so vulnerable to hackers. I'm sure that the terrorist cells active in the United States would benefit from knowing that they are on the government's watch lists. And given the careless manner that ChoicePoint, Axiom, and other companies do the government's dirty work of sifting through yours and my personal information, that conclusion may not be such a remote possibility.

Currently, firms such as ChoicePoint and Axciom, along with other data gathering firms (e.g. credit bureaus) are not obligated to accept responsibility for the errors in your personal records that they maintain. And, they are not held responsible for damage done to you in the aftermath of incidents such as what occurred at ChoicePoint and Axciom.

Personally, I do not buy the argument that it's ok for all this data to be amassed against us if you don't have something to hide - tell that to those with identities stolen because of the ChoicePoint hacking incident.
 
there are no or little "SUNSET CLAUSES" in the act thus the act is PERMAMENT for all intent and purpose
 
Last edited:
I didn't say I think the Patriot Act is or isn't unconstitutional. For the record, I think it is clearly unconstitutional.

What I was wondering is why all of a sudden we are concerned with a high profile legislation that does not undermine any of our rights that have not already been taken from us in the form of legislation.

People's main siren song with the Patriot Act seems ot focus on the idea of being "monitored". This, in and of itself, is not unconstitutional. There must be some form of monitoring if there is to be a government at all.

Ulter, I know you're pointing out the rulings to me to play Devil's advocate -- I am certain that you know that I cannot endorse the Patrioit Act as drafted (I think I've alluded to why on AF some time ago). I will allow you to yank my chain because you are so old...

Here's the point: The rights to privacy that George has implied are being taken from us by the Patriot Act were already gone. Simple as that. And when we start talking about what is and isn't Constitutional...whew. The vast VAST majority of legislation on the books is clearly unconstitutional. After all, Congress was never granted the authority to govern what we put in our bodies to begin with, as defined by the initial limits and bounds of power of Congress and legislation.

Interestingly, those who call themselves liberal, or Democrats, don't realize that they are actually touting a conservative philosophy. If you believe in a right to privacy, a small government that leaves you alone, and the right to keep the money you earn as well as the right to decide how to spend that money, well...guess what? You are a conservative.

The term conservative does not apply, as many people seem to think, to the difinition of rules of behavior (strictly governed = conservative and loosely governed = liberal). It merely reflects one's attitude toward how strictly the Constitution must be adhered to. If you are crying out for the Patriot Act to adhere strictly tot the Constitution, then why is Roe vs. Wade allowed under the radar screen in the same so called philosophy of freedom and equality? Both are violations of the same thing: Sovereignty of the individual human.

Roe vs. Wade is such a good example because it represents government sleight of hand at its finest. Social engineering is easily accomplished when everyone is angry, scared, or hungry. And war is the mechanism that ensures those conditions in perpetuity.

So yes, the Patriot Act is unconstitutional. I know that, but more importantly, I understand EXACTLY why it is. I see people knocking the decisions made by others who have to protect this society, this nation, etc. This is a great, if not the greatest, aspect of a free country -- the right to dissent. It yields discussions of alternatives and ulimately gives rise to the better way.

But let us not forget what the Patriot Act is:

It is an amalgamation of so called Democratic principles, supported primarily by the left side of the political fence many years prior to now, and finally bookended and put under a microscope while a "Republican" is in office. Bush is a Democrat. He calls himself something else, but his choices are democratic in tradition, with the few military exceptions.

Mr. Spellwin --

As to the identity/credit theft issue...yes, this is an incident that is a result of gross mismanagement of power. But not in the way generally believed. Think of it this way:

We (government, that is) can either monitor online data or we cannot. If we cannot, then we have given complete sovereignty to an entire society, without any governing whatsoever. Is this bad? Maybe.

I think the question is not whether or not we should be monitored. The question is whether or not we should be punished for how we behave in private. Ulimately, this is the essential dividing political question. After all, the radical right is trying to legislate morality all the time. This is the WORST decision engine to utilize, because moraltiy is subjective.

What do I think the solution is? Simply enforce the constitution in its present form and see where that gets us for starters. Is it a perfect document? No. But the entire POINT o f a two party system is...surprise, GRIDLOCK. Of what? Government. Why? To prevent the government from ever becoming more powerful than the nation that it governs. Thomas Jefferson understood this. He was, in my way of thinking, the greatest political mind in history. Other good studies include Marx's writings, (yes, we must study communism in order to understand why it won't work) and Communism, by the way, has NEVER been tried on this globe as Marx described it...to the studies of Bastiat, who had a remarkable grasp on the intrinsic flaws of socialist philosophy. Julious Huxley wrote a book that practically predicted what is happening now. So did Buckminster Fuller. They knew that the legislation of morality, be it in the form of patriotism, religion, or any other collective moral imperative, is ALWAYS bad. What we should watch out for now is the sluggish inertia toward socialism that will render this country absolutely powerless to defend itself, not only because its citizens are divided, but because they are uneducated, lazy, feel a sense of entitlement, and do not recognize that money is not wealth, but rather, productivity is. And the right to produce is what is being taken away, piece by piece, by boths sides of the government, because both party philosophies, taken to their respective extremes, result in the same thing: A Dictatorship. And this, people, is why there are two parties. Arguing beats subjugation. I suppose that I could be called an objectivist, but I don;t really try to label my political stance any more. Suffice it to say that I understand political theory, practice, and some history.

I am not a genius, though.

I'm just a lean guy who can do a lot of pull ups or a lot of talking, depending on the situation.
 
Fukkenshredded said:
I'm just a lean guy who can do a lot of pull ups or a lot of talking, depending on the situation.
Click to expand...

You can't have it both ways, Shredhed.....

It's not believeable when you try to come off as the intelligent devil's advocate one post and then try to blend in as the meathead on the pullup bar the next.

Doesn't jibe with me, holmes.

Be who you are, do what you do......stay true.




DIV

:chomp:
 
Okay okay. Jubei once pointed out that my posts tended to be a bit too verbose. It was in one of those Nelson Montana debates wherein I pulled a punch or two...that thread about morning cardio I think.

So this time, I didn't speak to the quality of the blather...only that I can talk a lot.

Do you realize that I even irritate myself? My mind won't quiet down, but perhaps I can quiet my fingers for a while.

Thanks for the gentle reminder to not be that which I claim to detest.

(Off to lick his wounds...)
 
Fukkenshredded said:
Okay okay. Jubei once pointed out that my posts tended to be a bit too verbose. It was in one of those Nelson Montana debates wherein I pulled a punch or two...that thread about morning cardio I think.

So this time, I didn't speak to the quality of the blather...only that I can talk a lot.

Do you realize that I even irritate myself? My mind won't quiet down, but perhaps I can quiet my fingers for a while.

Thanks for the gentle reminder to not be that which I claim to detest.

(Off to lick his wounds...)
Click to expand...

I'm just commenting on what I observe, ShredHed.......nothing more.

I analyze people at the drop of a hat. With you I get the sense that you like to extrapolate for the sake of showing off, wherein you could be more precise and succinct. In that same fashion, you'd garner more respect by stating your points cleanly without the airy touchyfeely talk.

Feel me?



DIV

:chomp:
 
Well, I can say this much. The government has enough of a problem hiring people to staff our borders, for army enrollment, and other various duties to help fight the war(s).
 
I worked in the US Senate in Washington DC. This is nothing new. Library records have been analyzed for years. Certain books are flagged. You check out a certain number of them and you are on the list.
Cell phones are tapped daily without warrents. Ask your friends that work at carriers. They will see the Fed's there daily.
Emails are stored in a bank for two years at a time.
Your ss#, name, adress etc are SOLD by the DMV to private companies.
If you withdraw $10k or more from a bank they have to fill out a special form which alerts the gov to your money movement.
All of the above has been going on since well before the Patriot Act.
In the past I have gone through four FBI background checks. Came out clean. Yet a private detective dug up information on me that the FBI couldn't. SCARY! I would rather have it be reversed myself.
I also have had the Patriot Act used against me within the last year do to an offshore client I had. Knowing that the Government was monitoring my calls, emails and IM's really didn't change what I did on a daily basis. As far as I'm concerned I am being watched every day. Its a fact of life to guarentee a certain amount of security. The world has changed. We must change with it...
*Life was much simpler when I just looked at porn all day...
 
Testosterone boy said:
Actually....encryption probably heightens their level of interest.
Click to expand...


This is infact the case. Say 6 years ago you could make an 8k key pair (PKI). PGP didn't work all that well back then but The longer the key the longer it will take to break and the less likely it will be broken. Anyway all you can do is 4k keys now and if you want heightened security , the gov't will ask why you need such security.
 
Fukkenshredded said:
Okay okay. Jubei once pointed out that my posts tended to be a bit too verbose. It was in one of those Nelson Montana debates wherein I pulled a punch or two...that thread about morning cardio I think.

So this time, I didn't speak to the quality of the blather...only that I can talk a lot.

Do you realize that I even irritate myself? My mind won't quiet down, but perhaps I can quiet my fingers for a while.

Thanks for the gentle reminder to not be that which I claim to detest.

(Off to lick his wounds...)
Click to expand...

All respecte due to Jubei , but Jubei is like a 20 year old kid...
Anyway say what you want , but as my bro Division said , "stay true"
 
Ulter said:
If you're going to try to analyze Fukkenshredded you've taken a bigger bite than you can swollow. He's the most complex man I have ever met. Absolutely facinating in so many respects.
Click to expand...



absolutly....FKKSD knows what he is saying and he is damn ripped too...some of you guys never had the pleasure of having him around, as he took some time off...but its good to see him back
 
gjohnson5 said:
All respecte due to Jubei , but Jubei is like a 20 year old kid...
Anyway say what you want , but as my bro Division said , "stay true"
Click to expand...

:lmao:

You cripped on babyJubei..........You're off the chain, Johnson.....

Off the chain........you basically told the kid to sit down and STFU.....

Funny shit!





DIV

:chomp:
 
hell sometimes if i forget to shut off my computer.... i catch em watching ...
me fuck my wife... basterds!!!
 
When I was a "20 year old kid" I graduated Navy Nuclear School with honors.

Yeah, those kids sure are stupid...

I looked back at your insult, Div. And that IS what it was. It was basically a claim that I try to show an erudition that I don't actually possess. That I show off. I chose to take the advice part -- "stay true"-- to heart. That's good advice. As I recognize that there are members who take my advice fairly seriously, I try to make certain that it is grounded in knowledge and personal experience. If I get verbose, perhaps it is to be crystal clear. Sometimes there are several layers to a concept. It takes a certain amount of words to establish the proper context in which to analyze certain data. When I am offering an opinion, I choose to highlight that fact in a number of ways. But to suggest that I front, or show off...

You've talked over ten thousand times.

You feel me now?

Stay true.
 
Fukkenshredded said:
I didn't say I think the Patriot Act is or isn't unconstitutional. For the record, I think it is clearly unconstitutional.

What I was wondering is why all of a sudden we are concerned with a high profile legislation that does not undermine any of our rights that have not already been taken from us in the form of legislation.

People's main siren song with the Patriot Act seems ot focus on the idea of being "monitored". This, in and of itself, is not unconstitutional. There must be some form of monitoring if there is to be a government at all.

Ulter, I know you're pointing out the rulings to me to play Devil's advocate -- I am certain that you know that I cannot endorse the Patrioit Act as drafted (I think I've alluded to why on AF some time ago). I will allow you to yank my chain because you are so old...

Here's the point: The rights to privacy that George has implied are being taken from us by the Patriot Act were already gone. Simple as that. And when we start talking about what is and isn't Constitutional...whew. The vast VAST majority of legislation on the books is clearly unconstitutional. After all, Congress was never granted the authority to govern what we put in our bodies to begin with, as defined by the initial limits and bounds of power of Congress and legislation.

Interestingly, those who call themselves liberal, or Democrats, don't realize that they are actually touting a conservative philosophy. If you believe in a right to privacy, a small government that leaves you alone, and the right to keep the money you earn as well as the right to decide how to spend that money, well...guess what? You are a conservative.

The term conservative does not apply, as many people seem to think, to the difinition of rules of behavior (strictly governed = conservative and loosely governed = liberal). It merely reflects one's attitude toward how strictly the Constitution must be adhered to. If you are crying out for the Patriot Act to adhere strictly tot the Constitution, then why is Roe vs. Wade allowed under the radar screen in the same so called philosophy of freedom and equality? Both are violations of the same thing: Sovereignty of the individual human.

Roe vs. Wade is such a good example because it represents government sleight of hand at its finest. Social engineering is easily accomplished when everyone is angry, scared, or hungry. And war is the mechanism that ensures those conditions in perpetuity.

So yes, the Patriot Act is unconstitutional. I know that, but more importantly, I understand EXACTLY why it is. I see people knocking the decisions made by others who have to protect this society, this nation, etc. This is a great, if not the greatest, aspect of a free country -- the right to dissent. It yields discussions of alternatives and ulimately gives rise to the better way.

But let us not forget what the Patriot Act is:

It is an amalgamation of so called Democratic principles, supported primarily by the left side of the political fence many years prior to now, and finally bookended and put under a microscope while a "Republican" is in office. Bush is a Democrat. He calls himself something else, but his choices are democratic in tradition, with the few military exceptions.

Mr. Spellwin --

As to the identity/credit theft issue...yes, this is an incident that is a result of gross mismanagement of power. But not in the way generally believed. Think of it this way:

We (government, that is) can either monitor online data or we cannot. If we cannot, then we have given complete sovereignty to an entire society, without any governing whatsoever. Is this bad? Maybe.

I think the question is not whether or not we should be monitored. The question is whether or not we should be punished for how we behave in private. Ulimately, this is the essential dividing political question. After all, the radical right is trying to legislate morality all the time. This is the WORST decision engine to utilize, because moraltiy is subjective.

What do I think the solution is? Simply enforce the constitution in its present form and see where that gets us for starters. Is it a perfect document? No. But the entire POINT o f a two party system is...surprise, GRIDLOCK. Of what? Government. Why? To prevent the government from ever becoming more powerful than the nation that it governs. Thomas Jefferson understood this. He was, in my way of thinking, the greatest political mind in history. Other good studies include Marx's writings, (yes, we must study communism in order to understand why it won't work) and Communism, by the way, has NEVER been tried on this globe as Marx described it...to the studies of Bastiat, who had a remarkable grasp on the intrinsic flaws of socialist philosophy. Julious Huxley wrote a book that practically predicted what is happening now. So did Buckminster Fuller. They knew that the legislation of morality, be it in the form of patriotism, religion, or any other collective moral imperative, is ALWAYS bad. What we should watch out for now is the sluggish inertia toward socialism that will render this country absolutely powerless to defend itself, not only because its citizens are divided, but because they are uneducated, lazy, feel a sense of entitlement, and do not recognize that money is not wealth, but rather, productivity is. And the right to produce is what is being taken away, piece by piece, by boths sides of the government, because both party philosophies, taken to their respective extremes, result in the same thing: A Dictatorship. And this, people, is why there are two parties. Arguing beats subjugation. I suppose that I could be called an objectivist, but I don;t really try to label my political stance any more. Suffice it to say that I understand political theory, practice, and some history.

I am not a genius, though.

I'm just a lean guy who can do a lot of pull ups or a lot of talking, depending on the situation.
Click to expand...
That was awful lot of bullshit to not take a position
 
Tell ya what, Pudding. Feel free to delineate the bullshit aspect for us. My position is clear. I think the act is unconstitutional, but I think that the majority of legislation is also unconstitutional. I am an objectivist, for the most part, but try not to pigeonhole myself with a LABEL. Now. I said that in the above bullshit. Was it not clear? Or did you simply not comprehend it...

The Patriot Act is a collection of errors already committed in the legislative branch of our government. The intent is based on a misconsception; namely, that we are all equal. It is the fatal flaw of this county's siren song. We are NOT all equal. We have equal rights. That is a different thing than being equal. Our differences are our strength as a nation, but since we are currently involved in the effort to eradicate all differences and utterances thereof, we are overlooking our greatest asset -- diversity.

I appreciate your opinion that my words are bullshit. I'll put that right under Div's opinion (as I think you are jumping on an imaginary bandwagon here), but at least Div offered up some good advice with his observations.
 
Ulter --

Perhaps section 213, (Authority for Delaying Notice for Execution of a Warrant), could be considered a new form of legislation. But I still think this is simply an extention of earlier attempts to legislate mitigating circumstances for the issuances of warrants. I tend to agree with any strict constructionist here. Take Ron Paul from Texas, for example. He makes a very good point about the so called "sneak and peek" provision.

His primary worry is, in his own words:

"I don't like the sneak-and-peek provision because you have to ask yourself what happens if the person is home, doesn't know that law enforcement is coming to search his home, hasn't a clue as to who's coming in unannounced … and he shoots them. This law clearly authorizes illegal search and seizure, and anyone who thinks of this as antiterrorism needs to consider its application to every American citizen." This is an irrefutable point of logic and common sense. Obviously it will be overturned in the Supreme court by the strict conservatives as well as the liberals, probably unanimpously, based on the following simple argument: By not notifying a person of a search, that person is robbed of his constitutional right to challenge said search. Simple.

Section 215 will also be challenged, as it should. It authorizes the FBI to acquire ANY business records by order of U.S. secret court. That's not the problem, though. The problem part is that the recipient of such an order is FORBIDDEN TO TELL ANOTHER THAT HE HAS RECEIVED THE ORDER. An obvious violation of the first ammendment. But again, this is not the first attempt to legislate silence. Any censorship legislation is exactly the same thing. EXACTLY THE SAME. For example, the attempt to force a girl to tell her parents about an abortion. The legislation that says certain words were not allowed to be spoken on public airwaves. All violations of the first ammendment.

So, what I am doing in this post is what I asked others to do. Show me the actual words and section that violate the constitution. Nobody has, as of yet. But I can. I read the act, studied it. I know the constitution. I understand conservatism and liberalism, socialism, totalitarianism, communism, oligarchies and what supports them, and other forms of government. I studied it. Not in school. I started studying it in the military.

What is my point? My point is that I can do what I ask others to do when they are discussing an issue that they feel so "passionate" about, and yet very often they cannot even cite a single line of text from the very piece of legislation the claim to so detest. That is not "staying true", as Div would say.

I can put my money where my mouth is. If you would like, I will find prior legislation that addresses each of the issues that are under the microscope with the Patriot Act. All I am saying about the Patriot Act is that it is a collection of violations that have already been tried separately in various forms and various venues, most of which the people right here and in colleges and offices and wherever else they are arguing cannot even cite, much less discuss intelligently.

I suppose, Ulter, one could argue that there is a unique form of violation as a result of the clumping...the language is obscene to me, to be honest. I hate the Act, because I loathe the concept of living in a police state or a dictatorship. Both Bill Clinton and George Bush have exhibited tendencies that show a desire to be a dictator. Bush even make a reference to being a king. I don't like that at all.

But I like to hear why others are "so upset". I get a bit miffed about these things because I am so proactive with my communications to Congress. I am involved in the support of cognitive liberties from several standpoints, including financial. I write letters to my senator. I almost got to appear to speak about the GHB bill. Barely missed that one because I didn't have the backing. Just me by myself and about a hundred letters to everyone from Kennedy to Hatch to the FDA to the head of the DEA.

I am ACTIVE in the defense of our rights. So those of you (Div) who want to call me out on the floor and see what I am made of, feel free. I can back my position with years of research and study and most importantly --ACTION.

Oh, BTW Ulter, could you email me a shopping code for your store? I need to get a few things for summer.

FS
 
Last edited:
Fukkenshredded said:
When I was a "20 year old kid" I graduated Navy Nuclear School with honors.

Yeah, those kids sure are stupid...
Click to expand...

Alright......

You took what I said as an insult and for that I apologize. I didn't mean to make it seem so harsh, just that I wanted you to understand what I saw in your words. That you were "verbose" when you clearly didn't need to be, you can make your ideas more succinct and relevent without the excess. Just an observation, Shred.......that's all. I had no idea you were a navy grad "with honors" and I respect that, truly. Don't take what I said in one post and try to apply that to anything else, it's not logical or fair.



DIV

:chomp:
 
You have a point, Div. Sorry for the blanket statement response. I get windy, and sometimes even when I'm wrong I take a long time to get it. But I get it here.

No hard feelings.

FS
 
fuck the constitution...burn it...big government is the way to go

let them control our lives
let them take away our rights

theirs nothing we can do anyway

give it time...before you know it we will being hurding thousands of people into camps

let them walk into our homes, take our childern, seize our assets

welcome to america

how far we have come!!! :) :) :) :)
 
Fukkenshredded said:
Mr. Spellwin--



I notice that it is primarily the ones who are involved in criminal actrivity that are in opposition to this legislation, which to me, says it is effective, if somwhat invasive and imposing.

QUOTE]

you should rent the movie "Enemy of the State"
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

~Vision~
PSL Article If you are NOT receiving emails or updates about your orders PLEASE READ!
Replies
0
Views
566
~Vision~
~Vision~
A
Think Encrypted email is Safe???? Read this..
Replies
2
Views
2K
sterolizer
S
superqt4u2nv
Mrplunkey please tell me you don't agree with this bull shit
Replies
44
Views
7K
mrplunkey
mrplunkey
hanselthecaretaker
What would you make of this (Israeli agent predicted several terrorist attacks)?
Replies
2
Views
1K
jeremyng25
jeremyng25
R
Staying Private (Facebook and Internet Surfing).....
Replies
22
Views
3K
redshirt27se
redshirt27se
Top Bottom