Librarians Defy the PATRIOT Act

[Armin]

Where does it say it's being used on millions? I doubt it, even so they wouldn't do it withought having some suspicion.

The entire United States, excluding Quest users, had their liberty breached when the government started tapping into our phone lines. Sure, they're only monitoring logs, but one thing leads into another. It can and will continue building up unless the American people wake up and do something about it. Just like Franklin said.

Only time you should worry about your phone being tapped imho is if you've got something to hide. I really think this is more of people complaining than it being an actual problem. US has monitored things like radio transmissions before for wars, what if I was on one of those frequencies? Could I complain? Or would you rather the US gain valuable information?

You are missing the entire point, and I'm not going to re-explain myself.

[iago]

We have that too, its our judicial system.  They aren't just one office, but in general the courts arae there to check the Constitutionality of laws.

We also have a judicial system, but the Privacy Commissioner is a separate entity.  Although she has no real power, she does have a say in all laws and decisions which affect privacy. 

Only time you should worry about your phone being tapped imho is if you've got something to hide. I really think this is more of people complaining than it being an actual problem. US has monitored things like radio transmissions before for wars, what if I was on one of those frequencies? Could I complain? Or would you rather the US gain valuable information?

You are missing the entire point, and I'm not going to re-explain myself.

He's quite good at that

[Warrior]

Where does it say it's being used on millions? I doubt it, even so they wouldn't do it withought having some suspicion.

The entire United States, excluding Quest users, had their liberty breached when the government started tapping into our phone lines. Sure, they're only monitoring logs, but one thing leads into another. It can and will continue building up unless the American people wake up and do something about it. Just like Franklin said.

Only time you should worry about your phone being tapped imho is if you've got something to hide. I really think this is more of people complaining than it being an actual problem. US has monitored things like radio transmissions before for wars, what if I was on one of those frequencies? Could I complain? Or would you rather the US gain valuable information?

You are missing the entire point, and I'm not going to re-explain myself.

No, your point is stupid. It's plain and simple that phone tapping shouldn't be an issue unless there is something to hide. This may give way to bigger problems but like I've stated, we have checks in place to counter those measures if/when they happen.

[Sidoh]

I think you did miss the point, warrior.  This is denying one of the basic freedoms that the US Constitution and its amendments have bestowed on the citizens of the USA.

Whether or not removing it serves practical use to the government, there is no denying that it has been ignored.  As metal said, it's much easier to move to an originally more drastic step when progress has already been made on the said subject.

For example, now that they are monitoring logs, who knows that they won't see use in taking it to another step?  What if they start monitoring other things, such as entire arbitrary conversations?

I'm totally against this.

[Eric]

I think you did miss the point, warrior.  This is denying one of the basic freedoms that the US Constitution and its amendments have bestowed on the citizens of the USA.

Whether or not removing it serves practical use to the government, there is no denying that it has been ignored.  As metal said, it's much easier to move to an originally more drastic step when progress has already been made on the said subject.

For example, now that they are monitoring logs, who knows that they won't see use in taking it to another step?  What if they start monitoring other things, such as entire arbitrary conversations?

I'm totally against this.

Weren't you for it just several weeks ago?

[Sidoh]

Haha, maybe.  I don't think so, though.  I remember arguing with Newby when he said something like "If you've got nothing to hide, what's the big deal?"

I'm pretty sure I was against it, but I guess I could be wrong.  I usually pick the side that sounds the funnest to argue, but in this case, I think this is absolutely wrong.

[Warrior]

I know the point, I just disagree with it. I think if it can save lives then someone listening in on my conversation won't hurt me. I see your point in how they are "just suddenly doing this" and how it may lead to other things but I think it's a risk I'm willing to take. Remember this, politicians are not politicians forever, eventually they have to come under the same harsh rule they may/may not put upon us. This is why I think it's impractical for them to do that. If it gets too drastic, I'm sure we will do something about it. It's a bridge to cross when we get to it

[iago]

What's so hard about finding evidence and presenting it to a judge?

[Sidoh]

I think I would rather never confront that brlidge.

Who knows if it will save lives?  It might save none at all.  It could be a false reason for a greater cause in the governments eyes (they want more control over the people).

I think taking away said "rights" should require a vote from the people, since they are their rights.  A "right" implies that it can never be taken away.

[Warrior]

What's so hard about finding evidence and presenting it to a judge?

It can't be found if we can't look. Unless the US gets an overflow of anonymous tips I doubt this will happen.

[Eric]

What's so hard about finding evidence and presenting it to a judge?

Unless the US gets an overflow of anonymous tips I doubt this will happen.

Well, such a system has worked sufficiently in catching criminals for the past two-hundred years...

[iago]

What's so hard about finding evidence and presenting it to a judge?

It can't be found if we can't look. Unless the US gets an overflow of anonymous tips I doubt this will happen.

Why don't they take guns away from everybody because everybody is potentially the person who murdered OJ's wife?  Because there's no evidence to support that theory.  If they get any kind of reasonable evidence (can be circumstantial), and take it to a judge, they could probably get a wiretap warrant or a search warrant.  Then they can legally do what they're doing. 

If, on the other hand, they don't have any evidence, then they're invading the freedom of a person who is probably innocent.  Innocent people shouldn't be losing their rights and freedoms because they're a certain color or they've travelled to a certain place, that's not fair to the many, many innocent people. 

The court system is in place to prevent the government or police from overstepping their power.  Some evidence must be obtained before you start invading a person's life.  Our countries are set up like that for a reason: because they're designed to protect the people from losing their freedom, not designed to take away their freedom to protect them. 

[CrAz3D]

What's so hard about finding evidence and presenting it to a judge?

Unless the US gets an overflow of anonymous tips I doubt this will happen.

Well, such a system has worked sufficiently in catching criminals for the past two-hundred years...

Different times, different crimes, different criminals, different circumstances...200 years ago there weren't air planes & giant buildings that thousands of people work in

[Eric]

What's so hard about finding evidence and presenting it to a judge?

Unless the US gets an overflow of anonymous tips I doubt this will happen.

Well, such a system has worked sufficiently in catching criminals for the past two-hundred years...

200 years ago there weren't air planes & giant buildings that thousands of people work in

Of course not, but there were ten years ago; there were twenty years ago; and there were fifty, sixty and seventy years ago.

[Super_X]

[1]Why don't they take guns away from everybody because everybody is potentially the person [2]who murdered OJ's wife?  Because there's no evidence to support that theory.  If they get any kind of reasonable evidence (can be circumstantial), and take it to a judge, they could probably get a wiretap warrant or a search warrant.  Then they can legally do what they're doing. 

I don't want to ruin your post, so I'll just point out a few things.

First of all: I, too, feel it's completely wrong to look in and watch like the U.S. is doing.

[1] -- "The right to bear arms"; they would have to place annother amendment to nul that one. Also, take away our guns and we're a bunch on ignorant, insestual peices of capitalist shit.  Also, violence is necessary, it prooves we're free.  How many Dictators allow violence? The chance to take arms up in what you belive?  I understand the idea that removing wepons will be good for getting rid of terrorists, but if some one is desperiate, anything's possible. 
Also, if you where to remove wepons, that could just be one step closer to a totalitarian police state.  There would be no way to fight back and prevent the facist regime from taking over.

[2] -- O.J.'s wife was stabbed, I belive. That's proof that if some one feels it's necessary enough, they can make due. You can't expect every one to give up everything that's potentially deadly, too.