Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
How to install the app on iOS

Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.

Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.

napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply
puritysourcelabs
Research Chemical SciencesUGFREAKeudomestic
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplypuritysourcelabsResearch Chemical SciencesUGFREAKeudomestic

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

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.

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.

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...)

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).
 
Top Bottom