I think that the electorate chose to use a system, the legal system, to deal with these overwhelmingly(imho) unconstitutional intrusions. If that system is failing us then, reasonably, that failure falls squarely on the lawyers. It is when complete failure is realized that the electorate must face the question of whether or not they are willing to "back them up" - when the legal system fails (the real one and not this hokey-shit made up secret one) then "we", those that believe our liberties are dear, have no choice other than to fight or succumb to a New World Order, on that has been freed from the shackles designed by the Founders.
erhm, how about we count the number of active federal terrorism sting operations that were taking place at the time of the Boston event and then sit and continue to wonder how previously flagged individuals did not merit active observations and investigations?
Oh, and an investigation is not really a sting, is it? where the latter is a much more comfortable and controllable situation for those involved.. i.e. a setup, thus making your seemingly fear based comment somewhat irrelevant and fuddy in my eyes.
*I* would rather see the feds slip anonymous tips to these "vulnerable" folks tipping them off to the fact that they're being "watched" thereby helping to filter the fuckers from the idiots - but I like daydreaming too. I always think we're too hell-bent on catching a perp than protecting people, potential perp or not, fabricated or not, but I'm aware the entire structure is formed around "the crime" so it is what it is. Besides, a life free from risk sounds a lot like death so fuck any natsec that successfully drives a stake through the middle of why we have a nation in the first place.
And Feinstein..? just. wow. - time's well past up for that resident rep I'd have to say
Indeed. I'm going to investigate and see what's up because, to me, this sounds very attractive.
I wholeheartedly disagree with the premise that "they don't know what the internet is" because, well, internet. It doesn't take a genius to pop a tab and research along side what has piqued your interest.
I try to maintain a "verify thrice" approach to most things especially anything internet and just because one site doesn't attempt to lead me through my world on their leash for the rest of the hour or day doesn't make their position one of denial, it makes it refreshing, sort of like headphones when my mom is talking at me.
The internet, like the earth, is built with everything required to support everyone. Funny that, also like the earth, there are groups of people hell-bent on containing, controlling or otherwise destroying the very thing that supports all of us without prejudice.
China's had a good run. I can appreciate the efforts.
The Internet is free speech for the planet, one way or another. We're all going to have to step it up a notch to protect these things.
Weird. If it's an armed and dangerous three letter agency it's the citizen that needs to be concerned and if it's an unarmed agency then it's a corporation that heavily lobbies (read: sponsors) *our* government representatives so they can be a little less concerned. How fucked is that? And now this agency can tell *us* not only what news is relevant but who's allowed to report on it when they "permit" relevancy? Check.
Not too mention every XYZ bunch runs on our taxes and most of their existence is spent in justifying their existence - via any means necessary. What's the condition of the state e of education in this country again? Right.
Fuck you, ICE, answer the request. It's high time you over-armed and over-equipped fascists start abiding by the law of the land. Look it up.
The public needs to know whether or not these systems, among others, are being used legally and pass constitutional muster. Mass surveillance (a.k.a. "bulk collections") is a pretty bold concept to press (nay, insist) legality.
Or perhaps you would like to submit that we are kept man that can be tapped and tracked at will by a government that has twisted your best interests to serve its own?
Our new Technological Tools of Tyranny are not under the proper lock and key. Trust no one.
A killing? You mean like the type of killing audio and visual arts folks stand to make if fair use actually is allowed to thrive and prosper without the constant barrage of mind-numbingly greed and control based assertions and attacks?
I'm reminded of a good quote I heard the voices in my head say one day: "With nothing but a vote in one hand and a gun in the other how much longer do you think it'll be until you force the other hand?"
.. but I seem to maybe distinctly remember looking around and not having any guns to hold so I started sharpening my chopsticks. .. if you can't get hold of any guns then save your takeout sticks. That's all I have to say.
I came across similar big-government vitriol where I'd read Wheeler's remarks. Your fear of a huge boogey-man government is already here. Ever heard of the list of undeclared wars? Are you aware of the prison population? Those are things your taxes pay for. Are you aware of the large tax money awards that these large providers have taken? Do you know what a utility even is? Common carrier? Broadcast Service? Now if you folks would kindly be so vociferous about the very real, very large and very powerful entities within the already too big government then I'd be obliged. Perhaps stop being afraid that someone is going to take something from you that they haven't earned because it's already happening and you seem to have nary a clue. I do admire the collective enthusiasm though but do hope that future focus groups can better evaluate their respective positions with regards to reality.
let's make drugs illegal because drug use is known to cause some criminal behaviors. brilliant. that would definitely solve the problem of crime. we should've thought of this four decades ago, imagine where we'd all be to be free of drug induced crimes. if only we had more crime we could blame on things instead of the people committing them.
Encryption is the ONLY solution and the public should adopt it at every possible opportunity. Your protect your "goods" from the casual AND targeted hack. Guaranteed government keys are not acceptable, in any way or form. The rule of law is not predicated on government or law enforcement access to communications and content. "Accessorizing" for enforcement purposes stands in direct opposition to the social contract that is law. Military espionage tools have gone too far and the burden on law, the real law, is fracturing the premise.
I think the door was always open. Wasn't that OBL's objective? "Watch me light a huge bag of shit on fire on their doorstep." ... Hook, line and sinker. The free world can't get out of its own way. Budding fascists on one side and some sort of religious doomsday "our way or the highway" head chopping mother fuckers on the other. Who is stuck in-between? Everyone else. Fuck terrorism and fuck the police and fuck content control.
France.. really? What the actual fuck? We can be a smarter world without being constantly tossed by fringe elements. Speech is not one of those elements. Fuck.
I don't know about everyone else but I'm growing pretty tired of the "needs of law enforcement" mantra. We choose to be governed by the rule of law and not by and for the ease of law enforcement. Those are the wrong rules. If you can not fight crime without further elevating the already disproportionately elevated "police powers" because "hard" then we have a problem and people are going to start choosing .. differently.
There should be no allowable evidence where the ways & means to acquire it are not open to the court.
It would seem that any gun charges need to go and any information acquired via these searches needs to go along with it. He gets to be arrested and charged with whatever justified the warrant for his arrest prior to his arrest.
You can't break the law in order to enforce the law. That makes no sense.