Login:
Password:

Court Rules Net Wiretapping Legal

By Ed Oswald, BetaNews

June 9, 2006, 2:15 PM

A U.S. appeals court upheld the government's authority to force ISPs to give access to their networks for surveillance purposes, rejecting on Friday a petition to overturn a decision that mandated their compliance with federal wiretapping laws.

Such compliance was mandated by the FCC, who said companies had until May 14, 2007 to make the necessary changes.

Opponents objected to the policy as needless surveillance, especially in light of the recent revelations of the Bush administration's warrantless domestic wiretapping program. The law was appealed by a group of universities and libraries.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit disagreed, saying that the requirement was a "reasonable policy choice." Supporters of the law point out that giving criminals a loophole could allow them to use the Internet in an attempt to avoid being tracked. The law would apply to public networks only.

Furthermore, the court ruled that even though information services are to be exempt from wiretapping, and the FCC considers the Internet such a service, the agency had the authority to apply the rules differently to the Internet.

The ruling was not unanimous, however, as one of the judges called the decision "convoluted." In his dissent, Judge Harry Edwards said that the FCC had abandoned the definition of an information service without leaving a new one in its place.

Add a Comment (100 Comments)

BetaNews reserves the right to remove any comment at any time for any reason. Please keep your responses appropriate and on topic. Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Name (required):

E-mail (required):

Enter Your Comment:

By Reap_r

edited Jun 12, 2006 - 9:33 AM

Many folks here are missing the point. As far as I can see here, this decision does not give the government any warrantless wiretap rights whether they be voip or landline. It is troubling however because the cost burden of providing access is put onto the carriers and thus the customers, so we therefore are going to pay to allow ourselves to be monitored.

I will not get sucked into the rights discussion yet, as we have gone round and round with that one...also this article really does not touch on that too much.

Now the paranoid part of me sees some potential for abuse, after all it is just as easy to tap 1 line as it is to tap 100 if the technology is applied in certain ways, then they can just throw some IVR software on there and listen for keywords. Of course they will have a warrant, but I would bet that within a year they are exceeding the mandate of the warrants and doing far more monitoring than the judge that approved it realizes.

I think that this was a bad decision, but I believe that because it places the cost burden on private companies not the government where it belongs. I also think that instead of just writing new law these judges should have left well enough alone (and resisted legislating from the bench) so that congress can pass an updated law for monitoring voip calls as well as landline calls but with some provisions to prevent abuse.

Score: 0

By dwaterman

posted Jun 12, 2006 - 6:41 PM

The cost of implimentation is a huge factor here for sure... I understand that providers are able to petition for an limitless number of two year extentions for compliance.

Score: 0

By 9i08

posted Jun 12, 2006 - 3:35 AM

" If you dont have anything to hide then it shouldn't be an issue" and therefore, theres no reason why you should need to spy on somebody in the first place

Score: 0

By rla0001

edited Jun 12, 2006 - 2:17 PM

It isn't a question of what anyone has to hide.

It is more a matter of what business is it of the governments to place it's citizens in a position to second guess everything they do just in case something will be misconstrued or become a target of a bunch of self proclaimed experts who get to decide what appears right or wrong.

Perhaps tha National Guard should surround every community with tanks on the chance that someday they will need to quel a disturbance? The government is pushing the limits of what this free society is about and it is past time to yank them in.

Liberty is not about subjecting citizens to constant scrutiny because there may be a few instances when a police officer might have gotten things doen a little faster.

It isn't about what you or I have to hide. It is about a government that has lost the concept of being accountable to the citizens who, in theory, comprise it.

Score: 0

By nsamaster

edited Jun 12, 2006 - 2:41 AM

This is a joke. "The law would apply to public networks only." Well, what happens to all internet traffic? It all ends up accross a public network. This is a joke. As has been quoted many times before, "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security" Ben Franklin hits it again, and this shall never be forgotten.
I agree with BIL and his statement about the NSA and internet control. I am glad it was not a unanimuous decision, and at least one of our justices sees problems with this.

Score: 0

By metekamil

posted Jun 12, 2006 - 2:33 AM

Get over it! It stinks no worse than the security camera's at walmart, watching you do your groceries. If you dont have anything to hide then it shouldn't be an issue. And what is so evil about helping the law look out for you? Why make other peoples job more difficult for the sake of stupid reasons.

If I worked for construction and I wasn't given the tools I needed, would you feel safe living in a home that I built? Same principle. I think I'd sacrifice the pleasure of a little privacy for the pleasure of being safe!

Later!

Score: 0

By The.Frozen.One

posted Jun 12, 2006 - 4:17 AM

This is a joke, right? You can't possibly be serious? There's a book you should read, called 1984, there's amovie based upon it to, but not as good, also check out another movie called Minority Report. Do you not get the picture yet why there IS somrthing wrong with spying on you 24/7?

This nation is about liberty and freedom. Liberty isn't about saftey, I don't get where you got the idea it was. America was built upon not being safe, about taking chances to build a better society, one that works for ALL people and protects the minority from the tyranny of the majority. I don't get where you have this notion that democracy is supposed to be "safe". I'd gladly risk my own life to protect my freedoms, I don't know why people like you are so cowardly as to not to want to do the same.

Oh, and if you got nothing to hide, then please, by all means, post YOUR real name and address and telephone number here.

Score: 0

By new_jamie

posted Jun 10, 2006 - 5:09 PM

I'm sick of people claiming the only reason people moan is paranoia or they have something to hide. Why should a big, powerful, organisation who do not have to answer to anyone on their underhand activities be allowed to spy on their own citizens?

I feel sorry for the people who lap up this crap in the name of "National Security" and feel they are doing their bit to help root out "evil-doers" in their society. Grow a spine and stop letting the government p*ss all over your privacy rights and continue to invade your right to a life of your own in a free and democratic country.

The US has existed without the need for un-warranted snooping previously so why now? Bush and his cronies in the WH must not believe their own audacity has paid off.

It stinks, it's wrong, it's undemocratic and it shows the stupidity of those that bend over and take it. Get some principles and stick up for your rights people!

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

edited Jun 10, 2006 - 5:57 PM

Again I must ask--what specific right does this violate? Why is it the Court of Appeals ruled it was legal? Are they evildoers too?

"he US has existed without the need for un-warranted snooping previously so why now?"

Oh my! If you truly think that the US Govenment has not been monitoring the Internet when the US military INVENTED IT, you would be sadley mistaken. Check up on President Clinton and what he has said and done regarding the Internet.

Monitoring the Internet is perfectly legal--it isn't yours. Cell Phone towers and radio (FM/AM) towers aren't yours either, hence the Government has the right to monitor them, and in the case of radio and cell phones, the FCC can regulate them.

Sorry you disagree with the law, why not try to have it changed rather than "feeling sorry" for those of us who actually go to school and learn about this stuff?

Score: 0

By The.Frozen.One

posted Jun 11, 2006 - 11:23 PM

What rights does it violate? 4th amendment, the most prominate. Also could include violations of the 5th and 9th, and possibly more.

Score: 0

By dwaterman

posted Jun 11, 2006 - 11:33 PM

...they still need a warrant.

Score: 0

By rla0001

edited Jun 12, 2006 - 3:25 PM

and if they can't get a warrant then what? They shove it under the title of Homeland Security and the Patriot Act which applies to an entire spectrum of law enforcement activities not related to terrorists? Where wiretaps and intrusion may be ordered without court scrutiny? Where government agents can not be prosecuted if the activity is illegal? Where even if the informatin is collected illegally it may be shared? Where the doctrine relating to "Fruit of the Poisonous Tree" is non existant? This erosion of liberties is exactly what it is all about.

Score: 0

By The.Frozen.One

posted Jun 11, 2006 - 11:47 PM

Not in Bush's America. There has to be this thing called "probable cause", but according to the newly appointed head of the CIA, Mike Hayden, that doesn't even exist in the constitution. Sorry, but we're all being spied on right now by our phone companies without a warrant. This won't be any different.

Score: 0

By BIL

edited Jun 10, 2006 - 6:54 PM

Let's be a little more honest. The U.S. controls the internet and has been asked by other international groups to at least share control of it. They refuse to do so. The U.S. doesn't own the internet either, but our government sure acts like it. One reason the reason the Court of Appeals might have supported this decision is because the NSA refuses to give out any details as to the widespread use and actual facts of all the information being captured. They can not make an informed decision when this information is being withheld. The Court of Appeals actually ignored previous interpretations to allow this. And the military had a hand in the internet, but did not invent it. I used to use Data-Pac and other forms of the internet before it was even called the internet. Does this remind anyone of the cold war and the Soviets spying on their own people? Or how the Soviets used to claim that they invented everything? This is the very reason checks and balances were an integral part of the Constitution. So that no single branch could control everything. The current and last few administrations have been slowing erroding these protections and circumventing the will of the people. If it were up for a vote by the people very few of these activities would be allowed and even then they would require a court order.

Score: 0

By dwaterman

posted Jun 10, 2006 - 6:24 PM

It is very clear that most of posts here come from people who don't understand what this is about. This about the need to be able to wiretap viop phone users. I have read a bit about this including emails and possibly other Internet communications. There is a big loophole because didn't exactly foresee voip when Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act was passed.

Score: 0

By FubarJeb

edited Jun 9, 2006 - 10:46 PM

"Give a mouse a cookie, he's gonna want a glass of milk"

-Harrision Ford from the movie Air Force One

Score: 0

By cory1492

posted Jun 9, 2006 - 8:21 PM

Its some kind of insane balance between giving the hidden powers that be in gov't too much authority and opportunity for abuse and letting criminal activity go entirely unhindered...

Kudos on never having used a teeter-totter.

Score: 0

By crashoverride

posted Jun 9, 2006 - 7:49 PM

Geez, pretty soon I'm not gonna be able to take a dump without a camera stuck up my a**.

Score: 0

By homer cornstalk

edited Jun 10, 2006 - 10:51 AM

We're already there, my brother! Nazi America!

Score: 0

By clanky

posted Jun 9, 2006 - 6:58 PM

Politics aside, this should concern everyone. Any of you every heard of a "peeping Tom"? This is fundamentally no different. We have the right *not* to be monitored. Whether it's in our homes, on the streets, or online. What we are doing at any given time is no ones business. It's really that simple. And it's not just a matter of what harm it may do *today*, but what harm it may cause in the *future*. Learn to think beyond the end of *your* own noses...please!!!

Score: 0

By dwaterman

edited Jun 10, 2006 - 12:05 PM

You are not being monitored nor will you be without a warrant. This is about expanding the CALEA to cover Voip. The objection should be and is whether or not the CALEA rules properly fit the new technology.

Score: 0

By The.Frozen.One

posted Jun 11, 2006 - 11:08 PM

Where have you been? Warrants mean nothing in this administration. Or did you ignore the scandal about AT&T, Verrizon and Bell South spying on their customers without warrants? Sorry, but this agruement holds no weight.

Score: 0

By dwaterman

posted Jun 11, 2006 - 11:46 PM

You will never be convicted of a crime based on evidence obtained through an illegal wiretap.

Score: 0

By rla0001

posted Jun 13, 2006 - 2:40 PM

and the idea that your information is shared and permeates the databases of many agencies in the government is not serious enough?

Score: 0

By Grazer

posted Jun 12, 2006 - 12:16 PM

Well, they could just claim you are a terrorist for not agreeing with the current administration, and send you off to one of the "double super secret prisons for people we don't think have a right to due process" prisons.

Score: 0

By The.Frozen.One

posted Jun 11, 2006 - 11:49 PM

Then why is Bush commiting these illegal wiretaps?

Score: 0

By eunichman

posted Jun 10, 2006 - 2:12 AM

when people are arrested they are read their rights, the right to remain silent, the right to an attorney etc. somewhere between there and the final law of the land is the saying "innocent until proven guilty". I have long maintained that if that saying were true, there would be no pre-trial incarcerations as that assumes guilt in itself. this is no different. everyone is assumed to be guilty and if they wait long enough and gather enough information about you they WILL proove it lol

Score: 0

By rla0001

edited Jun 12, 2006 - 3:02 PM

Yes....and if you read the Patriot Act and the laws it modifies you will see that you may have no right to consult an attorney.

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

posted Jun 9, 2006 - 7:35 PM

Court of Appeals ruled about it, and they are smarter than you and I on the matter. Word of the day is still "paranoid".

Score: 0

By The.Frozen.One

posted Jun 11, 2006 - 11:06 PM

Wow, what a high and mighty opinion to position other humans that you agree with as being more intelligent than those who disagree with the ruling. And for your info, this was a decision made by two mere humans, who are as faliable as any other, and one judge did dissent, so, is Edwards then less intelligent than the other two?

Score: 0

By tirpider

posted Jun 10, 2006 - 12:07 PM

Paranoid....

or something to hide, perhaps?

Score: 0

By ingram091

posted Jun 9, 2006 - 6:53 PM

as long as they have a warrant its constitutional... and I can agree with it. but when they start doing this randomly, which we all know they will, just in the off chance of catching someone doing something they don't like... well. that's a violation of the 4th amendment if I ever heard it. Wheres the probable cause? wheres the sworn eye witness statement declaring an illegal act? Wheres the justification for the search? Without those you have nothing in court and any Judge worth their cloth would not sign off on a warrant without it.

The 4th Amendment is not a minor inconvenience for "Big Brother". It's A Basic Civil Right. And this too falls under such protections at the very least for US citizens on US services. To be safe and secure in your personal effects and papers. This in modern times would include Electronic papers and effects.

Score: 0

By rla0001

edited Jun 12, 2006 - 3:50 PM

The problem is that our present law (Patriot Act) does not require a warrant or court scrutiny. It simply requires that a high ranking official order the seizure or wiretap. There is no court required and warrantless authorization may take place outside the scrutiny of the judicial branch (and in secret). With literally hundreds of vaguely related laws being sucked under the provisions of the Patriot Act these warrantless seizures easily circumvent a range of practices (legally mandated) which should fall under traditional law enforcement restrictions.

What makes things worse is that government agents can not be prosecuted for engaging in these (non court) ordered activities, even if they are found to be illegal and even if they shared the collected information with other agencies. So unless you are willing to trust that every federal law enforcement officer can operate without court scrutiny or judicial oversight on these issues you may toss your rights in the shredder.

This is not just a facilitator of efficiency, but a circumvention of constitutional protections by using symantics to redefine plain old crime into National Security and/or terrorist related issues.

...sort of like the game of calling a suspect a "person of interest" so out go the rights.

Score: 0

By dwaterman

posted Jun 10, 2006 - 12:27 PM

I agree with your first sentence completely... after that there is nothing but paranoia. The system works here folks... If the government obtains information or evidence against you illegally it is inadmissible.

Score: 0

By The.Frozen.One

posted Jun 11, 2006 - 11:14 PM

Paranoia... riiiiighhhhtttt....

You mean like the paranoia the US government keeps over it's citizens like unless if we change all our the laws and the constitution around to accomodate for the terrorists, we'll be killed by the terrorists? You mean the paranoia and fear spread by repeated orange alerts leading up to the 2004 elections, and the paranoia spread that was the reason for the Patriot Act to get renwed with provisions even worse? You mean like that kind of paranoia?

Score: 0

By dwaterman

edited Jun 11, 2006 - 11:32 PM

No. I mean the paranoia that this leads to monitoring. Wiretapping still requires a warrant.

Score: 0

By rla0001

edited Jun 13, 2006 - 2:50 PM

Wiretapping under the Patriot Act does not require a warrant. The PA specifically allows those conducting warrantless wiretaps to share the fruits of these intrustions with other agencies. So, in effect, data, records, information, etc., may be collected (seized) in the name of National Security and passed right to an agency that would normally need a warrant. To add to this dilema some of the same agencies that have and do conduct traditional law enforcement activities also assign agents who switch hats and become part of the Homeland Security team. So, it is entirely possible that one day an agent is door knocking and announces himself as an agent of Homeland Security and the next day he annouhnces himself as an FBI agent. This totally circumvents constitutional protections and is a total suterfuge.

Score: 0

By The.Frozen.One

posted Jun 11, 2006 - 11:52 PM

Ah, so if it's done by the government, then it's not paranoia, or not importnant enough to warrant concern in your eyes, but if citizens should actually show grave concern over the issue, we're the ones "spreading paranoia"...

Riiihggghhhttt...ooookkkkkaayyy...

Hang out in that "no spin zone" much?

Score: 0

By dwaterman

posted Jun 12, 2006 - 12:16 AM

Speculation that adding new technologies to an existing law means we will be monitored is paranoia.

Score: 0

By The.Frozen.One

posted Jun 12, 2006 - 12:49 AM

Speculation that we NEED this kind of monitoring to protect us from all those "boogeymen" out there like terrorists is paranoia. The FCC would have never created this rule if it weren't for the paranoia they're feeding you. Notice how former FCC chairman Michael Powell didn't see fit for this to be expanded during his tenure when 9/11 happened. And, yes, VoIP AND broadband, which this effects BOTh, not just one, were around then.

Score: 0

By dwaterman

edited Jun 12, 2006 - 12:56 AM

I never mentioned terrorist boogeymen, but there are plenty criminals here that had a big loophole. Both technologies have exploded since then and again, the scope has not changed just the technologies.

Score: 0

By rla0001

posted Jun 12, 2006 - 3:51 PM

and now we give government agents an even bigger loophole.

Score: 0

By The.Frozen.One

posted Jun 12, 2006 - 1:12 AM

Uh... I believe what you just posted is specualtion. You're specualting that criminals had a big loophole, and using that paranoia to justify the FCC's decision on these regs. Really, thou doth protest too much. Criminals now have no more or less of a "loophole" whatever that means, now, than they did five or ten years ago, or even just over a year ago, BEFORE the FCC came up with these regs, and while YOU didn't use the classic terrorist boogetmen, it is what Kevin Martin and the two other GOP memebers of the FCC and what Gonzales has been saying they need this power for... this and the other "boogeyman" chil predators... sorry, but our justice system has been doing just fine without this expnase of power to a portion of government that is acting like the fourth branch, the FCC.

Score: 0

By zridling

posted Jun 9, 2006 - 6:11 PM

What is the republican fascination with snooping into American citizens' business? Aren't they supposed to be chasing the bad guys and not the geek in the basement?

When the republicans finally kill off the internet and replace the whole thing with AOL/MSN/YAHOO ads, don't say I didn't tell you so.

Score: 0

By dwaterman

posted Jun 10, 2006 - 12:06 PM

Cleary you have no idea what the issue is here...

Score: 0

By TC17

posted Jun 9, 2006 - 4:18 PM

I'd also like to add our entire congress is the most corrupt congress we have ever had. And it goes all the way up to Mr. Bush.

Score: 0

By TC17

posted Jun 9, 2006 - 4:16 PM

We can all thank Bush for all this BS. This is what happens when you have an idiot(literally) running the country. He has taken away ALL our rights.

America is no longer the land of the free. Not even close.

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

edited Jun 9, 2006 - 5:48 PM

(sigh) --Just read the word of the day below, and stop listening to that moronic talk show host.

" U.S. appeals court upheld the government's authority to force ISPs to give access to their networks for surveillance purposes, rejecting on Friday a petition to overturn a decision that mandated their compliance with federal wiretapping laws.

Such compliance was mandated by the FCC, who said companies had until May 14, 2007 to make the necessary changes."

Is Bush listed in there? Nope.

Score: 0

By The.Frozen.One

posted Jun 11, 2006 - 11:19 PM

What moronic talk show host would that be, there is so many of them, like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reily, etc.

It was at Bush's request that FCC Chairman Kevin Martin created these regs, after Gonzales went directly to the FCC to get for these powers if he was unsuccessful in erecting data retention laws. The DoJ and FBI have come out late on Friday night and Saturday applauding the decision. Also, Janice Rogers Brown was the key vote in this, and she just put on the ciruit court last year when the GOP senaotrs tried to use the nuclear option.

Score: 0

By dwaterman

edited Jun 10, 2006 - 12:09 PM

Have you noticed that those tinfoil hats block reality too.

Score: 0

By rla0001

edited Jun 9, 2006 - 4:35 PM

Gee I don't get why anyone objects to someone monitoring everything you do..the KGB did it for years and things turned out just fine *laughs.

I think the government should make every corporation in America an arm of the Justice Department or intelligence community. Lets swear in all corporate officers as Junior FBI agents and spies to make it all legit. Better yet lets swear in everyone and then we can use all our resources to monitor each other. Since we will then be unable to enjoy those precious freedoms we read about in history books (for fear that something we do will be collected as future evidence) we can just spend our time snitching each other off and spying for the almighty Homeland. That will make us all better Americans won't it?

Gosh, they could even hand out gold stars to the people or entities that snitch the best....even offer rewards... It really wouldn't matter if the information was legit or relevant as long as it gives some paranoid faction the feeling of security. This program would not require that a crime be comitted. We could just develop profiles in our massive databases and anyone who slips into the profile parameters could just be shunned out of society....no sense in wasting tax money with silly things like Due Process.

My God all we have to do to stop terrorism, child porn, crime or that nasty thing called Liberty, is make everyone feel like they are in one big happy concentration camp. I can't believe how simple the solution is.

Better yet, lets either ban the internet as a public nuisance or have the FCC issue licenses to anyone who uses it. We need to clamp down on this den of sin and criminal activity. We also need to insure that each computer has a globally unique identifier. All systems should have a back door so the government, or one of their hired corporations, can check to make sure all licensees are following the rules...of course this back door will be a compulsory part of your internet license...thus it is all legal and tidy.

It is critically important that we clamp down on American citizens as an example to the 25 million illegal aliens we seem to neglect as a factor in this game.

We also need to look at technology for televisions, radios and home appliances. We can do this in steps. First we require manufactures to build in technologies that are useless to anyone but the spies. Then the government can require companies to share their warranty, work order and service databases. Then in the next wave the government provides questions for warranty cards and online service registrations. That way the government gets all the info without a warrant and the companies just hand the data over to Uncle Sam in what appears to be a seamless, unintrusive manner. The great part is that the costs of all this is passed on to the comsumer by raising the selling price of the device. You actually have created an invisible tax without it even appearing in the national budget. By God, we will get a handle on things.

We should conduct a complete background investigation on anyone getting into a taxi cab, a bus, a train or renting a U-Haul. The government should also pass a regulation so that any passenger in public transportation or using a moving van should be subject to a strip search. We have got to clamp down on these perpetrators.

And what will we be giving up? Just the right to FEEL free. The right to live without the perception of being monitored (pursuit of happiness). The ability to live a free life without wondering of the tide might change someday and some government agent (while reviewing years of history in my databade information) decides something I have done is wrong, imoral or illegal. The right to have a business and not be forced to spy for the government...just a slew of silly unimportant things like these.

So will the do-gooders be happy when we all wake up and it is a government that is no longer by the people, of the people or FOR the people?

Score: 0

By Reap_r

posted Jun 12, 2006 - 9:27 AM

I see some truth here but it is hidden within your exaggeration and hyperbole. You would be making a better case for your thoughts if you stuck to the issues a bit more and toned down the irony and sarcasm.

Score: 0

By rla0001

posted Jun 12, 2006 - 11:56 PM

Sorry ... I didn't know it was a graded exercise!

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

posted Jun 9, 2006 - 7:33 PM

I don't feel violated at all--the Court of Appeals ruled it was constitutional, the FCC has its own checks and balances...I can't see the problem. I'm more worried about the fools that carry personal data around like it's a toy, then when someone steals it, they blame the theif. Yup he is the theif, but the trend for businesses today is allowing less and less accountability for employees who screw up.

Score: 0

By The.Frozen.One

posted Jun 11, 2006 - 11:29 PM

Oh, well, if YOU don't feel violated, then it must be okay, because, everyone knows, the barometer of what is right and what is wrong is whatever bourgeoisdude "feels". Come on, get serious. Just because you don't feel like your rights are being violated, doesn't mean that others don't and that they are infact, are being violated.Just because you don't regard your civil liberties as others do, doesn't mean you can force the others to give up what is most valuable to them.

Oh, and you're worried about personal data being treated like "toys"... oh, you mean like when the US government let millions of vets private identies and info get stolen, and many are now suing? You mean like that, where the government is not to be trusted with our private info, for it might let it get in the wrong hands? You mean like that?

Score: 0

By drummerboy627

posted Jun 9, 2006 - 4:00 PM

sounds like 1984... are you george orwell?

Score: 0

By rijp

posted Jun 9, 2006 - 2:53 PM

Contrary to other morons that think this is another way to strip your rights, they haven't done anything to you.

Its a way to monitor (not SPY) on who is doing what. If parents are responsible for their kids, why not Government responsible for their citizens, huh?

Just because you have rights, liberties and freedoms, doesn't mean you don't follow protocols.

I am *STILL* waiting for the umpteenth time for someone to tell me EXACTLY what rights, freedoms, liberty's or justice you have lost. I keep hearing whining, but I don't see any specifics.

C'mon, you can make opinions on everything else, why so quiet now?

Tell me, what *YOU* have given up, because I *KNOW* nothing has changed, I just want to have foder so I can call you out on this too.

Score: 0

By The.Frozen.One

posted Jun 11, 2006 - 11:45 PM

That has got to be the STUPIEST anaolgy I've ever heard, and is such aa grasp for straws. See, funny thing is, what the old time conservatives use to tout as keeping governemnt out of the lifes of it's citizens, the new age conservatives, ie, neo-cons, have somehow adopted this belief. I have never been for big government, as I'm for all civil liberites, but here, you want the government to treat it's adult citizens as childreN? Uh... that's not the purpose of government. Infact, that almost sounds simular to Hilary's "it takes a village to raise a child", except she don't not advocate for government to superceed and start raising children for the parents. Sorry, but when we become adults, we're adults.

Oh, and what rights have we lost? Well, there's really too many to go into, and some we've never had, but I'll post some exmaples...

Haebeus Corpus, for one, being lost by those who are being "disappeared" into GITMO and other places we don't even know, without attourneys and without even being charged, which pushed atleast three people over the edge this weekend by committing suicide.

"Fair Use" under ever-expanding copyright law is being eroded, being pushed by the MPAA and the RIAA.

Gay rights have been a struggle for years, right along with other civil rights for other groups of people like those who are not white.

The senate just this week tried to restrict the rights that gays and bis already don't even have yet into the constitution, making discrimination into the constitution. Even though it failed, gays and bis still do not have the same equal rights as heterosexual couples do, when it atlest comes to marriage, except in Massachusettes.

Also, in this or the next upcoming week, the senate will try and might be successful in taking first amnedment rights away from the citizens where it concerns the flag.

There has been a long standing of violations of first amendment rights in this nation for decades. THe list would be enourmous to go into now, but since the FCC is part of this story, that is one aspect of that.

Also, the second amnedment rights were violated during last year during Hurricane Katrina, when memebers of Black Water, Haliburton's private milita, under Bush's orders, confiscated legally owned fire arms from citizens.

I could go on with this all day...

Score: 0

By BIL

edited Jun 9, 2006 - 5:38 PM

RIJP, you are an arrogant fool. Many people have replied to what freedoms have been lost and you keep denying their responses. There is nothing that anyone can say that would ever convince you because you don't have an open mind. You are always right. I'll bet you have always wanted to be a lawyer and you always have to win every argument (at least in your own mind). You don't care about true justice all you care about is winning. You are pathetic.

Score: 0

By pgravelle

posted Jun 9, 2006 - 4:50 PM

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

As well, no one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

This crosses the line into "arbitrary interference with his privacy" in regards to "correspondence".

Score: 0

By MarcFou

posted Jun 9, 2006 - 3:46 PM

By rijp
"Its a way to monitor (not SPY) on who is doing what. If parents are responsible for their kids, why not Government responsible for their citizens, huh?"

When parents monitor their kids we are talking about grounding little Johny for viewing a porn site. When you compare that to the government monitoring citizens it translates to the FBI\NSA breaking down my door because I wanted to lean about terrorism and atomic *****.

Yes. A huge difference between sending a kid to their room and a citizen sent to a federal prison.

Score: 0

By AaronDobbins

posted Jun 9, 2006 - 3:51 PM

Plus I thought republicans were all about LESS government and letting people do what they want. That is clearly their economic policy anyway, pro-business and anti-taxes. Seems like if they don't want to take your money they should be all for personal freedom and privacy...I guess privacy only applies when you are a congressman/senator and you have committed wrong-doing. No raids on the offices there since that is a supposed violation of the separation of powers :)

Score: 0

By Bogunch

posted Jun 9, 2006 - 4:01 PM

The republicans are not about pro-business as you state. Many Democrats vote pro-business. Look at Dianne Feinstein. She always votes in favor of increased H-1B visa expansion - a very pro-business issue. The real definitions of Republicans and Democrats is as follows:

Republicans - believe the people are empowered to rule the government.

Democrats - believe the government is empowered to rule the people.

Score: 0

By The.Frozen.One

posted Jun 11, 2006 - 11:58 PM

Not an accurate definition at all. Well, yes, some of the dmes like DiFi believe this way, becuase, yes, she is corprate shill and war profiteer, but so is the whole GOP body of people in office these days. The democrat party these days is NOT the democrat party of the past, it isn't the party of JFK or FDR, these days, most of the dems vote lockstep with the GOP. ALOT of democratic citizens hate Dianne Feinstein, Joe Lieberman, etc. they vote mostly with the GOP on issues. So don't take those people as true representives of the party, I think what most people of that party strive for is to be like Russ Feingold, the only US senaotr to originally vote against the Patriot Act. Republicans are the party hawking the Patriot actm and as such, your statement that they beileve the people are empowered is false.

Score: 0

By AaronDobbins

posted Jun 9, 2006 - 4:08 PM

If democrats believe the government is empowered to rule the people then clearly Bush is a democrat. His administration has been increasing the governments rules as to what we can and cannot do freely since he took office.

Score: 0

By itanshi

edited Jun 9, 2006 - 4:57 PM

a neo con (which he may very well be) is a democrat who takes power into his own hands, the similarities are evident, you could almost say a neo con is a radical democrat

which is funny what with all this retarded evil liberal crap

Score: 0

By AaronDobbins

edited Jun 9, 2006 - 3:45 PM

The point, which obviously you do not see, is NOT that it HAS BEEN DONE YET, but that IT COULD BE DONE. It's like asking why a police officer who has never been shot wears a bullet-proof vest. They have no reason to because they have never been shot right? What about wearing a seatbelt in the car even though you have never been in an accident?

This whole argument of nothing has been violated yet so who cares is ludacrous. I'm sure when Hitler rose to power no one worried about him committing genocide on an entire group of people but eventually it happened right?

The reason people don't like the idea of phone databases and ISP network *monitoring* as you call it is because they do not want to be wrongfully accused and have their reputations destroyed. It is not that it HASN'T happened, but preventing these programs from being set up ensures that it WON'T HAPPEN.

Personally you are correct, I have never had my rights violated. But that is because programs like this haven't been around that long (or so we think anyway). What if it is used incorrectly and someone is falsely accused? The whole point is to not turn over the power so that we don't have to worry about getting ourselves into trouble accidentally.

Look at the Duke rape case, it is looking every day more like the whole thing is made up, but three kids were arrested, KICKED OUT OF SCHOOL, and have been smeared all over the news. Even if it turns out it was made up, they are forever stamped with the case and its negativity.

Who is to say the government won't come over to your house if you were cruising the Internet one day and stumbled onto some disagreeable content in their eyes for a paper on terrorism or something of the like? I am free to browse information as I please, and I shouldn't have to worry about who is watching.

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

posted Jun 9, 2006 - 5:39 PM

I have a simple solution: Vote a true Conservative into office. Conservatives believe the government should have less power over the people.

Seriously though, who's to stop hackers from stealing your data from the databases that store your credit card number, SS#, etc.? Just because it hasn't happened doesn't mean it can't, right? BURN ALL CREDIT CARDS! DESTROY VISA! CHILDREN OF DARKNESS UNITE AGAINST ALL DATABASES!!! Bill must be executed for having Microsoft Access!

The word of the day is paranoid.

Score: 0

By The.Frozen.One

posted Jun 12, 2006 - 12:07 AM

Better solution - vote in a TRUE civil libertarian into office, like Russ Feingold. If only both parties had more people like him in their ranks.

Score: 0

By clanky

edited Jun 9, 2006 - 3:23 PM

to rijp:
Have any rights *yet* been violated? Perhaps not. The key here, my little narrow minded friend, is infringement. This type of *monitoring* infringes on our rights to privacy and security. Is it really the US Governments business what transaction I'm making online? Who I'm emailing or chatting with? What games I play? Or what I materials I research? Is it?! Let me help you out on this one. The answer is a resounding NO.
Wake up and smell the fascism.

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

posted Jun 9, 2006 - 5:44 PM

"Have any rights *yet* been violated? Perhaps not. The key here, my little narrow minded friend, is infringement. This type of *monitoring* infringes on our rights..." (emph. added)

I need not comment further on that "narrow" inconsistency...

Score: 0

By clanky

posted Jun 9, 2006 - 6:44 PM

I fail to see what point you are trying to make. Care to explain in more than one trivial sentence?

Score: 0

By GCoder

posted Jun 9, 2006 - 2:29 PM

I'm about ready to move to the Netherlands. Fu*k you government for stripping all of my rights.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Jun 9, 2006 - 4:12 PM

Name a right, Jiminy. Just one.

Score: 0

By The.Frozen.One

posted Jun 12, 2006 - 12:01 AM

Oh, and what rights have we lost? Well, there's really too many to go into, and some we've never had, but I'll post some exmaples...

Haebeus Corpus, for one, being lost by those who are being "disappeared" into GITMO and other places we don't even know, without attourneys and without even being charged, which pushed atleast three people over the edge this weekend by committing suicide.

"Fair Use" under ever-expanding copyright law is being eroded, being pushed by the MPAA and the RIAA.

Gay rights have been a struggle for years, right along with other civil rights for other groups of people like those who are not white.

The senate just this week tried to restrict the rights that gays and bis already don't even have yet into the constitution, making discrimination into the constitution. Even though it failed, gays and bis still do not have the same equal rights as heterosexual couples do, when it atlest comes to marriage, except in Massachusettes.

Also, in this or the next upcoming week, the senate will try and might be successful in taking first amnedment rights away from the citizens where it concerns the flag.

There has been a long standing of violations of first amendment rights in this nation for decades. THe list would be enourmous to go into now, but since the FCC is part of this story, that is one aspect of that.

Also, the second amnedment rights were violated during last year during Hurricane Katrina, when memebers of Black Water, Haliburton's private milita, under Bush's orders, confiscated legally owned fire arms from citizens.

I could go on with this all day...

Score: 0

By computershack

posted Jun 9, 2006 - 4:31 PM

The right to privacy. For example, the US Govt want THIRTY FOUR items of data on EVERY SINGLE PERSON flying into the US from the EU. And that data has to include such items as credit card numbers and phone numbers. Quite how they'd come up with 34 individual items for me I don't know.

Then there is "Due Process" and "Innocent until Proven Guilty" which the Dept of Homeland Stazi bypass on a regular basis.

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

posted Jun 9, 2006 - 5:33 PM

What right specifically? Is there a direct law that states "US citizens will have a right to privacy"? Nope. It is a little more specific.

Don't believe the airheads you hear on the box known as a television. They are not special just because they are on TV. They can say anything. They might say Bush personally oversee's the Taliban. He is really the leader and Osama should be President. That doesn't make it right.

Read the law, tell me what law this breaks.

Score: 0

By The.Frozen.One

posted Jun 12, 2006 - 12:05 AM

Don't believe the airheads you hear on the box known as a television? Like that's any different than believing "airheads" on message boards or Appealette courts? Sorry, but people are people, and there is a certain air of arrogance about you as you try your hardest to be an apologist for this decision.

And the SCOTUS has upheld that we have a universal right to privacy as derived from the 9th amendmnet I believe (I could be wroing about the number) in which the Roe v Wade case gets it's underpinnings from.

Score: 0

By snoecks

posted Jun 9, 2006 - 3:28 PM

I wouldn't buy that plane ticket just yet if I were you, The Netherlands also has laws where ISP's have to save data, so that the govenment can monitor it.

Score: 0

By rijp

posted Jun 9, 2006 - 2:50 PM

Hey, planes leaving every hour, I will even volunteer to pay your stupid a** out of this country.

See ya! jack ass!

LOL@loserleaving

Score: 0

By The.Frozen.One

posted Jun 12, 2006 - 12:08 AM

Wow... that was real intelligent.

Score: 0

By GCoder

posted Jun 9, 2006 - 3:41 PM

Exactly.

That is exactly how stupid you really are.
ROTFLMAO

Score: 0

By GCoder

posted Jun 9, 2006 - 3:23 PM

I think you forget that I have a "RIJP fanboy flamer suit on"

Your one brain cell is working overtime. Give it a rest before you lose it.

Don't forget that you always dance for me monkey.

DANCE MONKEY DANCE

Score: 0

By MMPD

edited Jun 9, 2006 - 2:45 PM

thing is no matter when you go theres always goona be something stripping your rights.

Lose Lose situation no mattter where you go IMO.

well... unless you buy your own deserted island country..

Score: 0

By fibreiv

posted Jun 9, 2006 - 2:48 PM

You'd prob. have a hard time getting internet there and if you did get it you would just be connection through a country that was watching you. :-P

Score: 0

By AaronDobbins

posted Jun 9, 2006 - 3:48 PM

eh, what would you need internet for? just get regular shipments of rum, beer, and peanuts, find yourself a girl to bring, and you can run around nekked all day not worrying about the mind boggling world around you...starting it all off with the classic Corona-style chucking of the laptop, pager, and cellphone into the deep blue...

Score: 0

By MountainMike

posted Jun 9, 2006 - 11:56 PM

@PC_TOOL

4th Amendment (you know..in the Bill of Rights)

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Seems to me like this is in direct contradiction to exactly what our forefathers envisioned

Score: 0

By rla0001

edited Jun 11, 2006 - 4:15 PM

EXACTLY!

It seems to me that many of these folks, who blindly defend these government actions, have no clue of the real issues. There are volumes in our history clearly showing that when the government is mandated power, someone will abuse it. Throughout our history these abuses have required the need to pull in the reigns over and over again, but the restrictions have only been implemented after multiple instances of abuse and years of court battles.

The idea that there are those who would advocate that protective walls be torn down and replaced with what amounts to plastic wrap is a concept that has never worked in a free society. The fact is there will be abuses, intrusions and improper use of information. In the absence of adequate protections in the legislation that allows for checks and balances, citizens become victims of their own government. As we continue to pass potentially intrusive legislation Americans will feel less and less free and more and more as if they are living in a police state.

There will always be those who advocate the erosion of the fundamental beliefs that your personal business, your chattle, your property, effects, records and perception of freedom should be protected with vigor. There will always be a rationalization for pushing the limits of liberty to support some cause. The idea that we must compromise our freedoms (or our perceptions of freedoms) to fight for freedom makes as much sense as burning down the barn to eliminate tha rats.

The idea that we enter dangerous waters, when we set out to change these perceptions, is fully justified based on a rich history of government abuses. The difference that exists in the present environment is that we are now rewriting laws in an attempt to manipulate Americans into believeing that they never had any right to feel secure from governmental intrusion in their personal activities, documents, records, etc. If you chose to store your information on a server or share it with someone it should not mean that you should become fair game. The idea that your VOIP phone traffic (or any personal electronic records) should be easy for the government to access (by law) simply supports a misguided concept that all should be scrutinized just in case a single individual may someday be actually suspect of something that has not yet been defined. This is not what America is about.

It is ludicrous to embrace the concept that if you do business with a company then your information is open to the government...even if it is "skimmed over". As coy and brilliant as these schemes seem, this is the equivelent of the Silver Platter Doctrine only this time we are making corporations and businesses agents of the government.

It has nothing to do with someone having something to hide or the masses being ignorant. It is simply that the government has decided that they can envelope your personal information by manipulating concepts of liberty and redefining what your personal business is. This is more like the government wanting to park their ears at your door and expecting people to accept that this conduct is acceptable in the name of fighting crime or addressing the popular subject of the week (child porn, terrorist, etc.).

It is a shame that there are so many who do not understand the concepts of freedom and liberty. A read of the federalist papers provides a pretty fair assesment of what the forefathers had in mind when they we framing the foundation of this society. Sadly the fundamental values and considerations made 200 years ago seem to be increasingly less relevant to many.

Score: 0

By dwaterman

edited Jun 11, 2006 - 8:47 PM

This is about ISP's cooperating with law enforcement and their systems being accessible in cases of court ordered wiretapping... nothing more. It does not broaden the scope of what is already being done.

Score: 0

By The.Frozen.One

posted Jun 12, 2006 - 12:11 AM

The ISPs HAVEbeen co-operating for law enforcement for a VERY LONG time... there isno need for this expanse in power, other then for the nefarious purposes that people are speculating on. The FBI already has Carnivore, and the TIA, it doesn't need anything more than that, and there are people like me who feel that evens goes to far. But there is NO REASON to broadedn any scope, except for power grab reasons.

Score: 0

By dwaterman

edited Jun 12, 2006 - 12:51 AM

Yes they have been cooperating, but they were not required to.

*edit*

They don't use Carnivore anymore and that did nothing for voip.

Score: 0

By The.Frozen.One

posted Jun 12, 2006 - 12:51 AM

And? I don't then see why this would be then enacted. This is more like a soultion looking fro a problem, where there is no problem. You just made my case of why there is no call for expanding the powers, especially unconstitutionally.

Score: 0

By dwaterman

posted Jun 12, 2006 - 1:08 AM

...and if the ISP's decide to not cooperate, then what? We should just leave voip and broadband users out of the scope of existing laws?

Score: 0

By The.Frozen.One

posted Jun 12, 2006 - 1:15 AM

Uh... hello? That's the way it's been? And they do have the technology, whether legal or not, to use to do exactly what you described, Carnivore and the TIA program. THEY DON'T NEED ANY EXTRA POWER, and should be made to give up some that they do have. What puzzles me most is why NOW? Why, even after 5 years after 9/11, and not immediately after, do they try to claim this power? VoIP and broadband has been around and popular for many years now.