backtop


Print 170 comment(s) - last by PrezWeezy.. on Oct 4 at 1:20 PM


The U.S. government is looking to make it easier to spy on its citizens online. It argues that increased police is needed to combat terrorism, even if it comes at the cost of its citizens' freedoms.  (Source: Warner Brothers)

The Obama administration, like its Republican predecessors, claim that sacrificing citizens' freedoms is necessary in the "war on terror".  (Source: Cyprus Now)
Big brother will soon have an easy window to watch you online, so don't step out of line

These days there's plenty of signs of slipping privacy and freedoms in the U.S.  Citizens in many areas are no longer allowed to photograph police officers on duty, to help prevent law enforcement officials from being exposed perpetrating malfeasance.  And a recent federal court ruling concluded that if you weren't wealthy enough to afford a fence, a gate, and other trappings, police can invade your property without warrant.

Unfortunately, under the Bush and Obama administrations, this trend has shown little signs of reversing.  The New York Times reported on Monday that officials in the administration of U.S. President Barack Obama are preparing a bill to be presented to the House next year, which is geared towards making it easier for the government to legally spy on U.S. citizens.

Under the bill all online communication services -- including video chat services (like Skype), social network services (like Facebook), and data/encrypted email service (like RIM's Blackberry packages) -- would be forced to comply with warrantless requests for information from the U.S. government -- similar to the warrantless wiretaps that recent legislation made legal in the U.S.

FBI lawyer Valerie E. Caproni insists that there's no harm in the provisions.  She states, "We're talking about lawfully authorized intercepts.  We're not talking about expanding authority. We're talking about preserving our ability to execute our existing authority in order to protect the public safety and national security."

Despite Ms. Caproni's insistence to the contrary, the proposal seems clearly designed to give the U.S. government expanded powers of surveillance.  In essence, it would provide easy access to monitoring certain channels which the government currently doesn't have easy access to.  This monitoring could make it easier to combat terrorism -- but it also opens the door for loss of privacy, suppression of dissent, and other evils, as depicted in popular works of fiction such as George Orwell's 1984 or Alan Moore's V is for Vendetta.

Further, the proposal could force companies like AOL and RIM to foot the bill for extensive logging, interception, and decrypting tools, which they don't currently have built into their networks.  Foreign businesses which operate within the U.S. (e.g. Nokia, Siemens, Nintendo, Sony, etc.) would also be forced to comply with information requests.  Thus the proposal could not only interfere with the free market in the U.S., but it could also impose a trade barrier.

And last of all the proposal is being used to provide another tool to combat peer-to-peer networks.  Peer-to-peer networks are often used to transfer pirated media, but they are also frequent used by universities and other organizations for legal file transfers.

Under the plan, all peer-to-peer networks would have to have to be redesigned to allow interception.  This would make most applications of P2P -- including legal ones -- prohibitively expensive.  Thus most peer-to-peer networks would be be rendered effectively illegal, a great victory for the entertainment industry's copyright watchdogs which the U.S. government has bowed to in recent years (with the help of millions in lobbyist spending).

Additionally, experts say that incorporating back doors and loopholes into secure services could open the door to privacy by malicious private sector entities, such as hackers.  This could make it easier to blackmail or steal private information from U.S. citizens.

The planned legislation is indicative of how the U.S. government is increasingly looking to follow the lead of nations like China and Saudi Arabia in controlling its nation's networks and performing surveillance on the users of those networks.

When facing the threat of terrorism, the U.S. and other nations are struggling to figure out how far to go to combat it.  The Bush administration and the Obama administration appear to believe that no sacrifice is to great in the "war on terror" even if that sacrifice is citizens' freedoms and privacies.  Thus the U.S., and others worldwide seem headed towards a future which would be viewed as strange and alarming by the more liberty-endowed citizens from decades prior.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Under Obama....
By tng on 9/27/2010 2:45:20 PM , Rating: 5
This really is getting almost no press, yet when Bush was intercepting phone calls coming into and out of the country, it was major news....

Double standard? They are just letting this stuff slide by under this admin.




RE: Under Obama....
By Reclaimer77 on 9/27/2010 3:05:20 PM , Rating: 4
Yup. Just like when Obama expanded the NSA wiretap program in '09 it got ZERO press.

Democrats are, by definition, hypocritical. And of course this is reflected by the media that they control.


RE: Under Obama....
By quiksilvr on 9/27/10, Rating: 0
RE: Under Obama....
By Nfarce on 9/27/2010 5:03:10 PM , Rating: 5
I find it funny how the only time we ever hear "both parties are the same" is when Democrats get caught with shenanigans. I never heard people say "both parties are the same" when Republicans did this. Then it was just Republicans trampling the Constitution, acting like Nazis, pissing on the American people for personal power gain, etc.


RE: Under Obama....
By Reclaimer77 on 9/27/2010 5:56:35 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
I find it funny how the only time we ever hear "both parties are the same" is when Democrats get caught with shenanigans. I never heard people say "both parties are the same" when Republicans did this. Then it was just Republicans trampling the Constitution, acting like Nazis, pissing on the American people for personal power gain, etc.


An interesting observation I have made to myself many times.

I've noticed just on Daily Tech that when Bush was in office you NEVER heard this "both parties are the same" chant. It was only said after Obama got elected and started showing his true colors and those of the Democrats in Congress.

Coincidence? Me thinks not.


RE: Under Obama....
By jhb116 on 9/27/2010 7:14:10 PM , Rating: 5
I have always believed that - the problem I think most on this path have is there was constant comparison of Bush to Hilter by the media when these types of things happen (most of which were far less freedom restricting than this). Now under the Obama and Demo majority regime - this type of stuff flies well under the radar so it gets no public debate which is the primary purpose of a multi-party system and freedom of the press. If the press doesn't soon segregate itself from the liberal left - we could soon find ourselves in the situation the Germans were under the Nazi regime....

That said - I believe this is a perfect, though likely wasted, opportunity to get a strong third party into play.


RE: Under Obama....
By quiksilvr on 9/28/10, Rating: -1
RE: Under Obama....
By cruisin3style on 9/27/2010 10:55:24 PM , Rating: 2
I can't really speak to politics before W. Bush because I was too young and didn't care, but the world and the U.S. truly did change after 9/11 as far as I know. I certainly remember the stories of the NSA wiretapping (illegally?) among others.

Bush was in office during 9/11 and until early 2009 right? Then when Obama took office, he started instituting similar policies, right? Obama is our first post-9/11 Democrat president. So maybe they are the same NOW, or maybe it is more obvious that they are the same (if they were before.. again, can't speak to it) but either way maybe people are just realizing it and that's why you're just starting to see people say it. If the Democrats weren't in office to do these types of things before Bush, how could they be the same?

At some point two things that appear different but are actually the same will be recognized as such. It doesn't mean that it is a conspiracy against the republican party, or hypocracy by Democratic supporters. It could just be that people are just realizing, coming up on halfway through our first post-9/11 Democrat presdient, that these policies are going to continue whether they are Democrat or Republican...and hence people saying "both parties are the same".

Instead of whining in some "but he did it too" children's fight, why don't we work on getting both parties to both work together and get our country on a reasonable path again.


RE: Under Obama....
By Nfarce on 9/27/2010 11:22:49 PM , Rating: 3
Okay the short version: 9/11 happened nine years ago and some small change. For seven of those nine years up to the 2008 presidential campaign, all we heard about was how Bush trampled the Constitution on inalienable rights among other things. And for the record, I'm FAR from defending the Bush administration on this issue.

So are you going to now validate that it's okay to trample the Constitution and invade privacy rights just two years into a new administration because that's the new world order? Why wasn't this mentality realized prior throughout all those years?

It's amazing how so many have become stoic philosophers with a different (read: Democrat in charge) president. That's the point.


RE: Under Obama....
By Targon on 9/28/2010 6:50:38 AM , Rating: 4
It wasn't acceptable under George W, and it isn't acceptable under the Obama administration. It has nothing to do with the political affiliation of the president.

You have to look at how Obama APPEARED to be prior to being elected compared to how things have turned out. The number who still support him after all of this crap is shrinking, and continues to shrink because he(Obama) is NOT making this country a better place. The bailouts and such can still be debated as far as if they were a good idea, but foreign policy, and this stuff about monitoring the public is NOT good.

If they are so worried about terrorists and spies, why not just shut down Internet access through the middle east and China? Is there any benefit to the rest of the world to give these people a connection into the USA? An inbound firewall to block connections FROM these countries, not to them might be a positive thing(since it would cut down on SPAM). In the same way that most home routers will automatically bounce incoming connections, the same thing could be done for blacklisted countries or regions. The military already has methods for connection and communication to bypass the public methods, so it wouldn't cause problems on that front.


RE: Under Obama....
By tastyratz on 9/28/2010 9:13:22 AM , Rating: 1
yes maybe we should just lock the doors and sit at home watching obama movies, maybe kill a jew or 2?
Because controlling all outside communication is working so well for china. We are going to find outselves being the next tibet.

The government is overstepping and the reality is BOTH major political parties are completely corrupt. The party system has ougrown its purpose and is now far too large. Both parties are corrupt and "lobbied" to corporate agenda. I would love to see disbandment personally.

To say now is a strong time for a third party however seems to be a fools hope. The reality is its been that time again and again but alternative parties never get taken serious enough to last any reasonable time in elections. We need serious change but whats really going to happen is everyone will just sit around and bitch.


RE: Under Obama....
By cruisin3style on 9/28/2010 1:17:17 PM , Rating: 2
I'm confused. Is it "some small change" after 9/11, or is it trampling of the constitution and invading privacy? Somehow I don't see it as a "small change" if 9/11 resulted in the war on terror which resulted in these policies on which we're discussing.

I'm admitting it though, I understand the frustration if this isn't being brought up by the media (I don't watch tv). That definitely gives the impression that the media is "shutting up" so as not to fan any flames anti-Democrat/-Obama sentiment.

But MY point is there has to be a point in time where people realize "oh Christ, this stuff isn't going to stop even with a Democrat for president that ran under hope, change, and warm fuzzy hugs" and 1.75 years into our first Democrat post-9/11 (and therefore after the start of the war on terror, the whole reason for this article on which we're discussing) is as reasonable a time as any for that point in time to be...in my opinion.


RE: Under Obama....
By Reclaimer77 on 9/28/2010 12:43:06 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I can't really speak to politics before W. Bush because I was too young and didn't care


It wasn't THAT long ago. No offense, but you're probably still 'too young' for this discussion.

quote:
Instead of whining in some "but he did it too" children's fight, why don't we work on getting both parties to both work together and get our country on a reasonable path again.


Both parties working together would be BAD, very bad! Depending on what agenda they agreed upon, of course. The reason we HAVE two parties is because their a natural check on power, a limiting opposing force in how much the Federal Government can get done.


RE: Under Obama....
By Targon on 9/28/2010 7:03:35 AM , Rating: 4
It has nothing about how much can get done, and more about differing philosophies in some areas. The problem is that the Republican Party is sick right now. Republicans in general tend to think of themselves as more conservative, but you have two sides to that, on the social policy side, and then on the fiscal side. A small minority are fanatics on BOTH of those two conservative sides, and that small minority is currently dominating their party. Then you have the insane liberals who are dominating the Democratic Party.

These two extremes being in charge of the two parties is why people feel there is a need for a third party right now. There are PLENTY of people from both parties who are more rational and acceptable, but the lawyers who dominate have found ways to keep them from rising to power in their parties.

It is far easier to find someone who supports more fiscally conservative policies but also supports liberal social policies than it is to find someone who believes that spending without having any money is acceptable in the private sector. This is why we need to clear out ALL of the current politicians and get all new people in there. Block lawyers and only elect those who have to live WITHIN a budget from office, and you won't have runaway spending as well.


RE: Under Obama....
By Reclaimer77 on 9/28/2010 8:41:50 AM , Rating: 5
Well the easiest way to do that in my opinion would be to eliminate the career politician. Every position should have term limits, from city council on up. Some of these bloodsucking Congressmen have been "serving" longer than I've been alive! If the President has term limits then Congress, which has just as much if not more power, should as well.

You make a lot of sense Targon. Where have you been all my DT life? :)


RE: Under Obama....
By FITCamaro on 9/28/2010 2:39:44 PM , Rating: 2
Also need the ability for Congress to overrule the Supreme Court. Activist judges should not be allowed to create laws by judicial mandate as is the case so often to day.


RE: Under Obama....
By Reclaimer77 on 9/28/2010 9:43:05 PM , Rating: 2
Oh man great point. How we've allowed the Courts to usurp the power of the Executive branch is just abhorrent.


RE: Under Obama....
By cruisin3style on 9/28/2010 12:38:54 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah well when bush took office I was 15, so yeah I was pretty young. If there is anything I've learned in life it is that age only goes so far in maturity and intelligence, certainly circumstances like little children and love in your life affect them. But if you're saying I'm too young as in too little time paying attention to politics, I can perhaps agree with you.

And as far as parties working together being bad, if you say so... I don't mean for some nefarious agenda, but it'd be nice if one party wasn't ramming legislation through no matter the consequences while the other refused to agree to any legislation even if they championed the same ideas in the past.


RE: Under Obama....
By nolisi on 9/27/2010 5:57:05 PM , Rating: 4
That's because when a Democrat screws up, democrat supporters begrudgingly admit it by saying the other party is the same (which I maintain is generally true).

Republican supporters generally don't like to admit when a Republican screws up, even begrudgingly. They'd rather point the finger at Democrats even if it's a bald faced lie. Case in point- when Obama took office, all of a sudden he's at fault for the bailouts provided to banks and auto companies. Many Republicans still place the responsibility of the bailouts on him primarily because they see him as the "communist candidate." Truth is, Republicans have the same communist spirit and Bush proved it with bailouts...


RE: Under Obama....
By KCjoker on 9/27/2010 7:21:26 PM , Rating: 1
Wrong, Bush gave GM a LOAN not a bailout. Then when Obama became POTUS GM not only didn't pay the loan back but got more money and it wasn't a loan.


RE: Under Obama....
By PrezWeezy on 9/27/10, Rating: 0
RE: Under Obama....
By Nfarce on 9/27/2010 11:32:33 PM , Rating: 3
Wrong. The TAXPAYERS will be paying that back for years. And that is irrespective of the fact that the debt holders - investors - have taken a back seat to control of the company to unions. Just the way the Obama administration planned it.

http://www.autoblog.com/2010/09/16/report-gms-aker...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100916/bs_nm/us_gm

Don't believe everything you read and hear under the current White House and its lapdog main stream media.


RE: Under Obama....
By Samus on 9/27/10, Rating: -1
RE: Under Obama....
By Nfarce on 9/28/2010 12:05:21 AM , Rating: 5
OH God.

quote:
GM is completely free of debt to taxpayers as the current debt they have is privately held by banks or escrowed by TARP funds (left over from the Bush administration.) GM paid off the last of their debt to the tax payers in April.


Oh sure, banks and TARP are free from taxpayer obligations under this administration, aren't they? Good GOD.

quote:
If you are wondering where your tax dollars are really going, why don't you ask George Bush Jr. why he gave banks a cool 800 billion dollars in interest free loans?


VS. what, a cool 800 billion in a "stimulus" bill (that nobody read in Congress) that was supposed to help the economy and especially unemployment?

quote:
TO DATE, Obama has spent aproximately HALF of what Bush spent on Iraq and TARP.


Yeah we know. Bush had eight years in Iraq and Obama has had a hair under two. That's a no brainer. But watching Democrats take credit for the US force withdrawal in Iraq is priceless.

quote:
What in the hell is wrong with you people? Turn off the Fox and Friends and read a f*cking newspaper, hopefully one not owned by Rupert Murdock.


As opposed to who, George Soros the gazillionaire who spends all his money trashing "Faux News?" Man please.


RE: Under Obama....
By Lerianis on 9/28/10, Rating: 0
RE: Under Obama....
By FITCamaro on 9/28/2010 10:38:30 AM , Rating: 3
You realize we still have 30,000 troops there dumbass?

Christ you people are stupid.

And if you read the newspapers, Obama blatantly ignored the his own military advisors on both Iraq and Afghanistan. Why? Because he didn't like the truth of the situation. e cared more about losing Democrat support than what was best for the two countries and our troops. So what did he do? He came up with his own plan. You know, the great military planner and strategist that he is.


RE: Under Obama....
By Reclaimer77 on 9/28/2010 11:59:53 AM , Rating: 2
Lol yeah, he's no Patton. He approved an counter-insurgency plan without understanding that it meant another troop "surge". So he very well couldn't go through with that, seeing as how he and all the Democrats rallied against the first Surge and made it out to be an abomination.

So here are his generals and advisers expecting and calling for the new troops that his own plan called for, and he tells them they have to just make due with what they have...

Who ever thought this man would make a Commander in Chief is beyond me. He couldn't organize and run a hot dog stand. In fact, you have to go pretty far back to find a Democrat President who hasn't spit in the eye of the military and mismanaged them.


RE: Under Obama....
By Nfarce on 9/28/2010 4:11:16 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Nfarce, the Democrats are responsible for the withdraw from Iraq. If the Repukians...blah blah drool drool spit piss panties...


Name calling. Cool!

Hey libtard: I know facts and all aren't you people's bright spots, so I'll keep it short and simple for a simpleton.

"WASHINGTON — Amid complaints from has own party that he's moving too slowly to end the war in Iraq, President Barack Obama will announce Friday that U.S. combat troops will be withdrawn by Aug. 31, 2010, but that as many as 50,000 Marines and soldiers would remain until the end of 2011.

Under Obama's plan, a force of between 35,000 and 50,000 U.S. troops would remain in Iraq after Aug. 31, 2010, to train, equip and advise Iraqi forces, help protect withdrawing forces and work on counterterrorism. They'd remain until Dec. 31, 2011, the date on which the Bush administration agreed to withdraw all troops under a pact with Iraq."


See that? The pact was driven by demands by IRAQ, not your heroic Democrats.

And I won't even go into the SURGE that you libtards and your Democrat heroes were against (including Obama himself) which essentially FINALLY got things in Iraq under some sort of control to ALLOW a withdrawal in the first place.


RE: Under Obama....
By Targon on 9/28/2010 7:12:08 AM , Rating: 2
One thing that you may notice, there is no threat of major corporations going under right now, even if the economy is still in the toilet. This is what the bailouts were about, trying to stop the BIG employers from going under, which would put millions more people out of work beyond what has already been lost.

I don't support the waste in the so-called infrastructure spending projects from the stimulus plans though. Since when have road construction jobs(which are controlled by unions) really provided a widespread boost to any economy?


RE: Under Obama....
By FITCamaro on 9/28/2010 10:34:05 AM , Rating: 2
ACTUALLY, they didn't.

All the money loaned to them in the first bailout was not repaid and written off as part of their bankruptcy. The money loaned after the government took them over still has not been repaid. Regardless of whatever ad you saw on TV said.

They paid off government debt with a government loan. They are far from "free and clear". Go educate yourself.

So even once they repay the loans they currently have, the American people will never get back all the money that was given to them. Because much of it was just written off and does not have to be repaid.


RE: Under Obama....
By PrezWeezy on 10/4/2010 1:20:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Troubled U.S. automaker giant General Motors paid back the remainder of the debt it owed the government. In an announcement today, the U.S. Treasury said that it repaid the final $4.7 billion it owed out of the original $6.7 billion the government had lent the company. GM was expected to pay back its debt early, but not this soon.


What you are talking about is the ammount of stock the government has in GM. Which does sum a good total of the entire company (60 some percent). It's a slightly different animal. I am educated, thank you muchly.


RE: Under Obama....
By knutjb on 9/28/2010 12:49:54 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
That's because when a Democrat screws up, democrat supporters begrudgingly admit it by saying the other party is the same (which I maintain is generally true).
So two wrongs make a right? If all you can argue is they are alike why did you vote for them? Throw out the incumbents and they all begin to listen and follow. However, it requires constant baby sitting of those you vote for; they aren't set and forget. All the Dems could complain about Bush was there wasn't enough money being spent in the first place or it didn't go their way. Bush let the spending go unchecked so trying to spend even more is a good idea?

Obama DID vote for all of the spending while in the Senate. We do argue the Bush was wrong and culpable for his part. But Bush's entire 8 years cost less than 2 of Obama's. The Stimulus has cost MORE than both wars. I have seen greater job creation from the wars than the stimulus.


RE: Under Obama....
By FITCamaro on 9/28/2010 10:19:50 AM , Rating: 2
So because Bush (admittedly) abandoned conservative principles (granted the GM bailout wasn't the first time. No Child Left Behind and Prescription Drug Program anyone?), that means all conservatives have a "communist spirit"?

The problem is too many Republicans are nothing but liberals who ran as a Republican because they're less liberal than the other guy and/or wouldn't win as a Democrat.

Hopefully the coming election will start to address that problem. I can't wait to kick Lindsey Graham out of office.


RE: Under Obama....
By Bonesdad on 9/27/2010 7:23:55 PM , Rating: 2
didn't hear Reds bitching about it when Bush did it either...where was the wailing and teeth gnashing then?


RE: Under Obama....
By Samus on 9/27/2010 11:24:01 PM , Rating: 1
I love how people take sides too, because all of these programs were implemented during the FIRST term of that last douchbag we had.

If you'd really read the article and its sources, you'd see these programs are being expanded. They've already existed for almost 10 years.


RE: Under Obama....
By PrezWeezy on 9/27/2010 5:08:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Democrats are, by definition, hypocritical


Now see, why would you say that? It is not constructive, it does nothing to make things better. What about the conservative republicans expanding Federal Government powers under the previous president. Does that make all republican's, by definition, hypocrites? No. I don't have a problem with constructive criticism, but that was a moronic comment. I'm not saying moron based on politics, but the fact that your comment was completely pointless. It only served as a rant from you because you have a disagreement with the current president.


RE: Under Obama....
By Reclaimer77 on 9/27/2010 6:04:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Now see, why would you say that?


Because it's the truth?

quote:
What about the conservative republicans expanding Federal Government powers under the previous president.


What Conservative Republicans? Certainly can't put Bush in that category, sadly. Also if it was just one party expanding the government, you might have a point. But the Patriot Act, the TSA, the war in Iraq etc etc were all virtually unanimously approved by both parties when voted on.

Democrats have historically been hypocrites. That's why I said what I said. Do you really need examples?


RE: Under Obama....
By PrezWeezy on 9/27/2010 7:48:17 PM , Rating: 2
He was touted as being conservative. He obviously wasn't, which is my point. Both parties are hypocritical at times. Democrats are no more so than republicans. For every single example you can give me on democrats I can counter with an example of hypocracy from republicans.


RE: Under Obama....
By Reclaimer77 on 9/27/10, Rating: 0
RE: Under Obama....
By YashBudini on 9/28/2010 11:06:34 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Sorry but you're wasting your time.

That's the case when arguing with any cult follower.


RE: Under Obama....
By YashBudini on 9/28/2010 11:20:33 AM , Rating: 1
That would be you.


RE: Under Obama....
By YashBudini on 9/28/2010 11:14:37 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Democrats are, by definition, hypocritical.


quote:
I'm a uniter, not a divider.


quote:
I will fire the person who leaked the name Valerie Plame.


And then he made Christie Todd Whitman the head of the EPA. She was the govenor of the most polluted state in the US, and she then made NJ the second most polluted state in the US, good job Christie, you had nowhere to go but up.


RE: Under Obama....
By mikeyD95125 on 9/27/2010 3:20:42 PM , Rating: 3
The criticism of the Bush administration's spying came several years after the patroit act was passed through congress with only 1 no vote. So far this is receiving far more criticism than the patriot act did. Maybe people will realize that giving up privacy and freedom to 'fight terrorism' is pointless and only furthers the motivations of terrorists.

The reality is that you have a far greater chance of being harmed by another american than any terrorist.


RE: Under Obama....
By Reclaimer77 on 9/27/2010 3:21:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So far this is receiving far more criticism than the patriot act did.


It is!??!?


RE: Under Obama....
By twhittet on 9/27/2010 3:50:50 PM , Rating: 5
It is receiving more criticism BEFORE being enacted. The patriot act was passed easily THEN criticized.


RE: Under Obama....
By KCjoker on 9/27/2010 7:25:03 PM , Rating: 2
Another little Dem secret Obama then a senator voted FOR the patriot act.


RE: Under Obama....
By YashBudini on 9/28/2010 11:10:27 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Another little Dem secret Obama then a senator voted FOR the patriot act.

How can it be a secret when recycle-my-message keeps repeating it repeating it?

But that simply proves both parties are different sides of the same coin, anybody who sticks with them and calls themselves right is just kidding themselves.


RE: Under Obama....
By tng on 9/29/2010 4:49:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But that simply proves both parties are different sides of the same coin, anybody who sticks with them and calls themselves right is just kidding themselves.
While you may be correct there, there is no way to reverse it, even with a strong third party.

I visited DC last year for the first time in my life and realized that even if we completely replaced every Democrat and Republican there for a completely new third party, very little progress would ever get made.

For every one senator or congressman there are thousands of people that work in DC whose sole purpose for being there is to keep the current system in place. Thousands of unelected employees that work at hundred of government agencies that for the most part don't want to see any changes that may put them out on the street looking for a job or endanger their salary or benefits. Add to that hundreds of lobbing firms who are there for the same thing, getting money and favors from the US taxpayer.

Without getting rid of all of these people the government will never change.


RE: Under Obama....
By Reclaimer77 on 9/28/2010 12:36:41 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The reality is that you have a far greater chance of being harmed by another american than any terrorist.


Sure we know that NOW. Which makes this new proposal all the more stupid and suspicious in its motivations.

But the Bush administration had NO WAY of knowing absolutely at the time that 9/11 wasn't a prelude to a whole rash of planned and coordinated terrorist attacks on American soil. They had to act and act quickly. Did they get everything right? No. But given the circumstances, and by removing hindsight, I can at least understand their motivations. Doing nothing would have been reckless endangerment, not to mention politically suicidal.

But this? No, there's not even an excuse by this administration to try passing something like this.


RE: Under Obama....
By FITCamaro on 9/28/2010 10:31:38 AM , Rating: 2
I fully agreed with the Patriot Act's main premise of allowing wiretaps and email interceptions without a warrant. In today's age, you might not have time to get the warrant because the call might be happening then and there. If you had to get a warrant, you might miss the call. Potentially losing vital intelligence. And after you monitored the call, you had to report it.

Monitoring facebook, skype, etc? P2P networks? First I don't see how they don't have some of this ability already. US ISPs already keep all internet traffic and must turn it over if requested. To me this falls one step short of allowing internet websites and services must be government approved in order to exist.

The P2P portion in particular is concerning. I started playing FFXIV and it uses a P2P based update client. Would this get shut down, thus making the game unpatchable until Square Enix redesigns it, if this law went into effect? There are plenty of legal uses of P2P and its not like they can write the law that only legal uses of P2P don't have to comply with the monitoring. There's no way to enforce that.

Luckily since it mostly likely won't be taken up until next year, the Republicans will hopefully have many new conservative voices in the House and Senate to fight this with.


RE: Under Obama....
RE: Under Obama....
By Nfarce on 9/27/2010 4:59:25 PM , Rating: 2
Yes it has been news. But nobody has been frothing at the mouth with Obama about it. When Bush was president, as the point was driven home above by someone else, he was fit to be hanged.

And I recently read somewhere that Homeland Security (Big Sis Napolitano) is setting up street roving vans with X-ray scanners. They could scan cars and even into buildings (and homes) from the street. Nary a peep in the main stream media about that either.

Then again, there has been nary a peep with the current administration's out of control deficit spending with a Democrat run congress either. People were sure upset with the previous administration and Congress doing that. Go figure.


RE: Under Obama....
By Reclaimer77 on 9/27/2010 6:11:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Then again, there has been nary a peep with the current administration's out of control deficit spending with a Democrat run congress either. People were sure upset with the previous administration and Congress doing that. Go figure.


That's because Democrats don't really care about spending. They care what it's being spent ON. Nothing, and I mean NOTHING get's a Liberal more flummoxed than spending money on the military. Behind that at #2 is tax cuts.

Bush did both. He cut taxes AND was a wartime President. These are cardinal sins to Liberals.


RE: Under Obama....
By nafhan on 9/27/2010 4:06:21 PM , Rating: 5
It's amazing how two parties who allege to have such different goals end up doing so many of the same things on a pretty regular basis.


RE: Under Obama....
By fic2 on 9/27/2010 4:17:09 PM , Rating: 4
I think The Who said it best in Want Get Fooled Again:
Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss

Actually all the lyrics to the song apply, but I felt these were the most pertinent.


RE: Under Obama....
By Camikazi on 9/27/2010 4:33:30 PM , Rating: 2
They both want the same things just word it differently :P there really is just one party under 2 names.


RE: Under Obama....
By TSS on 9/28/2010 6:56:28 AM , Rating: 2
It's even more amazing that the people keep voting for those 2 parties.

Aren't there more political parties in america? I know there are liberals but all i hear about them is their even worse then both republicans and democrats put together.

But there must be some other party ya can vote for, even if it's just out of protest....


RE: Under Obama....
By Murloc on 9/27/2010 4:50:14 PM , Rating: 2
it's not a democrat or republican thing.
Everyone does this. The government as a whole, look further than the president you got.


RE: Under Obama....
By Lerianis on 9/28/2010 12:07:31 AM , Rating: 1
I agree that there is a double standard here. Hell, I voted for Obama and would vote for him again, and even I say that there is something wrong when major news networks and papers are not running this as a front-page story.

Yes, in some cases, things are being 'let slid by'. Up until now, I just thought it was things that were unimportant. This shakes my belief.


RE: Under Obama....
By Reclaimer77 on 9/28/10, Rating: 0
RE: Under Obama....
By Lerianis on 9/28/2010 12:32:52 AM , Rating: 1
Need I remind you?

Two wars based on lies.
A stock market crash.
A housing market crash.
DE RE GULATION!

Need I keep on going on how the Repukians destroyed our country?

Frankly, the Democrats are NOT destroying our country. If anything, they are fixed the mess that the Republicans left after their boy was told "Get out and don't let the door hit you!" when Obama moved into the White House.


RE: Under Obama....
By TSS on 9/28/2010 7:00:29 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
Frankly, the Democrats are NOT destroying our country


So what do you call a >1 trillion dollar yearly deficit then? Healthy?


RE: Under Obama....
By Lerianis on 9/30/2010 12:37:49 AM , Rating: 2
Need I remind you how much of a deficit once you take into account the wars that were left off the books that Bushie Boy left!

The fact is that yes, the Democrats ARE running big deficits and they WILL have to raise personal and business taxes... but taxes for that latter group, in my estimation and my COUSIN WHO WORKS AT A BANK were way too low.


RE: Under Obama....
By Reclaimer77 on 9/28/2010 8:59:38 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Two wars based on lies.


Personally I don't consider Afghanistan and Iraq separate wars. They were different fronts. But for arguments sake I'll go along with your statement. Anyway, how was Afghanistan based on a lie? I know you Liberals feel that way about Iraq, but Afghanistan?

quote:
A stock market crash.


The stock market lost 3 trillion dollars on the day of 9-11. I don't care what party was in charge, that crash was going to happen sooner or later as a result.

quote:
A housing market crash.


Fannie and Freddie, thank you very much. Stop drinking the Koolaid, you can't put that one on the Republicans.

quote:
DE RE GULATION!


Deregulation was a cover story for sponge-headed morons like you to believe was at fault. The financial, housing, and banking industries in this country are the most highly regulated things you've ever seen. Hundreds of thousands of pages of them. Deregulation? HA!

You're an idiot. Bush wasn't "kicked out", his term ran out. Because, you see, he was re-elected. Something Obama most likely won't be. Spending insane amounts of money is not "fixing" anything. Racking up debt to dizzying figures is going to cause a much bigger problem than anything he's supposedly "fixing" it with.

I'll tell you something the Republicans DID do. In the 12 years where they mostly held a majority of Congress, the GDP of the United States was doubled. DOUBLED. GDP which your Golden Boy is now burning through at an alarming rate.

Since you like little buzz words, here is one for you. Obama has caused the biggest single year increase in the poverty level of this country since the statistic started being tracked. Something he ran on actually improving, how ironic.


RE: Under Obama....
By YashBudini on 9/28/2010 11:23:11 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
On behalf of America, thank you for helping destroy our country. Keep up the good work.

Said the pot after voting for W twice.


RE: Under Obama....
By Reclaimer77 on 9/28/2010 11:44:01 AM , Rating: 2
I didn't vote for W twice. Maybe if you're going to have a comeback you should actually know the person you're trying to snipe.


RE: Under Obama....
By YashBudini on 9/28/2010 11:54:21 AM , Rating: 2
You don't, why should I?


RE: Under Obama....
By Reclaimer77 on 9/28/2010 12:04:51 PM , Rating: 2
I know that you didn't vote for Obama, because you told me so. Which makes it all the more ironic that you chose to respond to what I said. If you didn't think he was vote worthy, why would you have a problem with my statement?

As usual you were just looking to sling another trolling one liner in there, as always. Your motivation doesn't even make sense.


RE: Under Obama....
By YashBudini on 9/28/2010 12:42:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Your motivation doesn't even make sense

When that happens you'll be deprogrammed and cured.


RE: Under Obama....
By Reclaimer77 on 9/28/2010 3:04:51 PM , Rating: 3
No if you started making sense to me that would mean I became a programed Liberal minion.


RE: Under Obama....
By YashBudini on 9/28/2010 5:58:33 PM , Rating: 2
Somehow for some reason I find your statements always quite comical, but do make an effort to make them seem like some sort of synaptic involvement occurred.


RE: Under Obama....
By stimudent on 9/28/2010 8:14:15 AM , Rating: 2
Why is this new news?
A lot worse has probably been going on these past nine years but most of us don't know about it.


RE: Under Obama....
By FITCamaro on 9/28/2010 9:17:46 AM , Rating: 2
Beat me to it.

If this was a Republican administration they'd be all over this.

Even the Patriot Act didn't go this far by mandate.

But I guess all us "domestic terrorists" are in trouble.


RE: Under Obama....
By foolsgambit11 on 9/28/2010 5:13:34 PM , Rating: 2
Well, there is a difference. The Bush Administration decided to flaunt FISA and go ahead and tap calls that should have required a warrant. The Obama Administration is drafting legislation to allow them to monitor various technologies. As far as we know, they aren't currently engaged in this warrantless surveillance, and before they are allowed to, this issue will have to go before Congress (still at least a few months away) for what I hope will be full debate with major media coverage, followed by a total failure to get the bill passed.


V
By headbox on 9/27/2010 2:53:14 PM , Rating: 5
Americans don't lift a finger to kick out our 2-party system of crooks because they're too obese to lift a finger, and too distracted by sports & entertainment. Republicans fail, so we vote in Democrats, and when they fail, we vote back in the Republicans... but why risk a comfortable lifestyle to demand a better system of government? Well that's changing- when enough people are unemployed and feel they aren't represented anymore, that is when revolution happens.




RE: V
By Ammohunt on 9/27/2010 3:05:14 PM , Rating: 1
so wait a minute you are saying all the skinny Americans will revolt?


RE: V
By The Raven on 9/27/2010 3:34:10 PM , Rating: 1
Yes, I think he is. I do too. But in America, we don't have to be violent about it. We just have to vote Libertarian.


RE: V
By Ammohunt on 9/27/2010 3:38:27 PM , Rating: 2
Just personal preference i would rather have an Obese bubba on my side then a skinny tofu eating Yoga instructor any day. Firearms win out over protesting every time.


RE: V
By CowKing on 9/27/2010 4:57:34 PM , Rating: 2
What about Gandhi? I am sure he won that one. Firearms win every time? Not to start a new topic, but that's a fallacy.


RE: V
By Ammohunt on 9/27/2010 5:20:13 PM , Rating: 2
Ok ok! before fireams swords won everytime the point being;
quote:
You can get much farther with a kind word and a gun than you can with a kind word alone - Al capone


RE: V
By Hyperion1400 on 9/28/2010 3:20:19 AM , Rating: 2
"It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of nonviolence to cover impotence." -Gandhi

Sometimes violence works, sometimes non-violence works. You need to use them as the situation requires.


RE: V
By The Raven on 9/28/2010 12:04:19 PM , Rating: 2
It sounds like you don't know anything about libertarians.

quote:
1.6 Self-Defense The only legitimate use of force is in defense of individual rights — life, liberty, and justly acquired property — against aggression. This right inheres in the individual, who may agree to be aided by any other individual or group. We affirm the individual right recognized by the Second Amendment to keep and bear arms, and oppose the prosecution of individuals for exercising their rights of self-defense. We oppose all laws at any level of government requiring registration of, or restricting, the ownership, manufacture, or transfer or sale of firearms or ammunition.

http://www.lp.org/platform

I was speaking to the fact that we have a constitution that gives us the opportunity to revolt in non-violent ways. Free speech, peaceful assembly, etc. And yes, when that doesn't work, firearms.


RE: V
By Reclaimer77 on 9/28/2010 12:18:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I was speaking to the fact that we have a constitution that gives us the opportunity to revolt in non-violent ways.


No we don't. The question of do we have an elected government of our choosing, or one forced on us at gunpoint, was answered back in the Civil War when Lincoln declared war on a legal group of states succeeding in peaceful, legal, protest.

The Federal Government is NOT the limited subservient government of our Forefathers. If you threaten their power, they will do anything to keep it. Including murdering their own.


RE: V
By Ammohunt on 9/28/2010 2:20:50 PM , Rating: 3
Excellent point lost on so many these days! Ultimately as a country and a people we lost the Civil War. Slavery was not the most important issue fo that war its abolishment was well underway at the time.


RE: V
By Skywalker123 on 9/29/2010 6:45:30 PM , Rating: 2
America has never had a Civil War.


RE: V
By The Raven on 9/30/2010 2:52:51 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah and how did that work out for those who chose to revolt?
Are guns the answer there? Turns out it wasn't.

What the civil war illustrates that if the gov't was too big then, what do you think about the size of the federal gov't now?

We do have a gov't of our choosing. Unfortunately most people don't value their freedom as our forefathers did, and they support the gov't as it is.

MLK lead a peaceful revolt against the law of the land and succeeded. Personally I believe that the violent efforts of Malcolm X accelerated the civil rights movement, but I think it left lasting scars as well. And that is usually the tradeoff with violence. A choice that has to be made.


RE: V
By Ammohunt on 9/28/2010 2:17:35 PM , Rating: 2
I understand of libertarians just fine; and long ago tossed them on to the nutter pile with all the other kooky fringe groups like Anarchists, Fascists, Marxists, pacifists etc..


RE: V
By The Raven on 9/30/2010 3:05:30 PM , Rating: 2
By "fringe" you mean "not like everyone else?"
Look around you. Do you really want to be like the majority of Americans (politically speaking)?

And the fringe is only the fringe until it is popular.
Don't worry about being popular and focus on supporting what is right.

If you want the gov't to grow - vote in the 2-party system.
If you want less gov't and more freedom - vote libertarian.

And again, from your comments it still sounds like you don't understand what libertarianism is about. Its not as wacky as you seem to think it is.


RE: V
By YashBudini on 9/27/2010 11:42:08 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
so wait a minute you are saying all the skinny Americans will revolt?

They're too busy texting.


RE: V
By Dr of crap on 9/27/2010 3:46:40 PM , Rating: 2
Yea, like ANY politican is worth anything.

The idea that you think voting in one party over another, neither Rep or Dem, means you still have a long ways to go.

What happened to REPRESENTING the people that voted you in? That means NOT voting with party lines!

When ploiticians STOP accepting money for their vote - I might vote again!


RE: V
By Camikazi on 9/27/2010 4:34:35 PM , Rating: 4
Sad to say it, but you will never vote again :(


RE: V
By YashBudini on 9/27/2010 11:46:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What happened to REPRESENTING the people that voted you in?

You contribute nothing, money gets the representation.

Then corporations became people so even if you contribute it's still nothing.

This brings back the original question - Why pay taxes?
No taxation without representation.


RE: V
By knutjb on 9/28/2010 12:36:03 AM , Rating: 2
You forgot to mention the Unions and their money.


RE: V
By YashBudini on 9/28/2010 11:03:23 AM , Rating: 2
Because lobbyists of all kinds have much more.


RE: V
By FITCamaro on 9/28/2010 2:36:58 PM , Rating: 2
You really are in denial aren't you?

Because the UAW, SEIU, teachers unions, etc. don't have lobbyists right? And powerful ones at that. Hell the president of the SEIU is the number one visitor to the White House right now.


RE: V
By YashBudini on 9/28/2010 6:02:01 PM , Rating: 2
Union and non-unions have have lobbyists, you're simply splitting hairs, and only when you when it's in your favor.

I never expect anything less from you, and certainly not more.

Who you running down this week?
Why ask, I should just check my milk cartons.


RE: V
By FITCamaro on 9/28/2010 10:42:26 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
What happened to REPRESENTING the people that voted you in?


If all the people who voted you in want you to vote for a bill that gives them free healthcare, should you vote for it? No. Why? Because its unconstitutional.

What you vote for as part of the federal government should be determined by what that little document says you can do. Not necessarily what your voters want you to do.


RE: V
By YashBudini on 9/28/2010 11:25:43 AM , Rating: 2
And you better vote pro-corporate all the time if you want a future as a high paying lobbyist.


RE: V
By Reclaimer77 on 9/28/2010 12:19:31 PM , Rating: 2
Right, because we all know only the big evil corporations have lobbyists. *rolls eyes*


RE: V
By YashBudini on 9/28/2010 12:44:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
*rolls eyes*

As have all the K St whores.


Bush=/=Obama?
By Reclaimer77 on 9/27/2010 2:54:03 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
The Bush administration and the Obama administration appear to believe that no sacrifice is to great in the "war on terror" even if that sacrifice is citizens' freedoms and privacies.


Despite media misinformation, which you are only too happy to regurgitate Mick, the Bush administration wiretaps were directed to foreign calls which COULD be speaking to a citizen at the time. Foreign parties are, obviously, not granted citizen Constitutional rights. So most of the media frenzy over the "illegal wiretaps" were just partisan attacks. Bush did not "spy" on citizens. And can you please name me freedoms and privacies we lost? By the way, "privacies" isn't a real word.

We're now, what, 3 years post-Bush? How is it relevant to keep mentioning it when this administration is seeking FAR more power over the individual? At least the attacks happened on his watch. What excuse does Obama really have for instituting such an insidious and far reaching scheme such as this so long after we've been attacked domestically? It's outrageous! Not to mention hypocritical. Where in your article does it mention that this is the exact kind of thing Obama spoke out against and accused Bush of doing when he was in Congress and campaigning for president?

You also didn't mention that quietly in 2009 the Obama administration not only expanded the wiretapping program, but for the first time in our nations history made it ILLEGAL for the federal government to be sued if someone was wronged.

If Obama believes the Federal Government can force an individual to buy Health Care from said Government, then he pretty much believes they can do whatever they want. As much as you're trying to make a case that Bush and Obama were both fascists, the differences between the two are simply too great to go along with that premise. I don't agree with every thing that happened, but I could at least see why they would do it. I can't for the life of me see the need for Obama to do this at this juncture. Just more power and control for the sake of it, with no greater good being served.

You're trying to make this seem like more of the same, but it's not. It's worse, much much worse.




RE: Bush=/=Obama?
By wiz220 on 9/27/2010 3:19:07 PM , Rating: 4
I think that you demonstrate the problem. You really don't understand that both parties are culpable. You absolved one and demonized the other, even though they are both 2 sides of the same coin. The Bush administration overstepped bounds and helped open up the doors further for this sort of thing. There have been many whistle blowers who came out and said that the government IS and WAS listening to domestic phone calls without warrants. To believe that power would not be abused just because you're party of choice is in power is naive. I will say however that Obama is just as guilty for abusing and expanding these powers.

Believe it or not, I DO remember the story about the Obama administration making it illegal to sue the federal government under certain circumstances. Guess who covered that story most? MSNBC, and they weren't nice about it either, just because Obama is a Democrat did not buy him a free pass. I agree though that it was pretty egregious and should have been covered much more widely by the rest of the media, if it had been, it might have been stopped.


RE: Bush=/=Obama?
By Reclaimer77 on 9/27/10, Rating: -1
RE: Bush=/=Obama?
By supermitsuba on 9/27/2010 4:17:46 PM , Rating: 2
Trying to justify one party is less evil over the other doesnt make the former any better.

Im tired of hearing these excuse for one or the other. All of them are corrupt and the US needs a new way of thinking that is not Demo/Repub.


RE: Bush=/=Obama?
By Reclaimer77 on 9/27/2010 5:52:00 PM , Rating: 1
I don't believe any party is evil first off. I believe Democrats have honest intentions most of the time, it's just that the way they go about implementing their solutions is the problem. Radical Liberalism is, of course, evil. However I'm sure they would say the same about "radical" Conservatism.

quote:
Trying to justify one party is less evil over the other doesnt make the former any better.


And trying to lump them both together when one is clearly worse isn't making things better either. The article, while perhaps factually correct, is leaving out the important context and time line of the events.

quote:
the US needs a new way of thinking that is not Demo/Repub.


I agree. It's time to get back to good solid Conservatism. Come November I'm confident we'll start seeing the first signs that it's making a comeback.


RE: Bush=/=Obama?
By rdawise on 9/27/2010 9:06:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I agree. It's time to get back to good solid Conservatism. Come November I'm confident we'll start seeing the first signs that it's making a comeback.


How is this any different than what we have now? You have Demos (libs) and Repubs (Conserv). Cry all you want about "RINOs" but just because they are not "fiscally conservative" does not mean they are not conservative in other areas. Until you have no political affiliations, poeple like you will still exist and have a 1 way view of things.

You can never move forward if you're constantly moving right or left.


RE: Bush=/=Obama?
By knutjb on 9/28/2010 12:01:28 AM , Rating: 2
You are confused. Repubs and conservatives are two different things. Conservatives want less federal government so the states can determine what they want.

The Repubs were much the same when Reagan received enough conservatives and conservative democrats (the JFK Dems) to reel in Carter's insanity. But Reagan had a solid Dem controlled Senate and House. He got the tax cuts through but he wasn't able to cut the spending. Spending IS the money problem.

The problem you have failed to note is the Progressive influence in both party's membership. That is where the biggest hurdle lies. If you don't know they brought you segregation, eugenics, prohibition, the income tax, removed Senatorial elections from State legislators, modern propaganda, ... and so on. The modern bureaucratic nanny state of dependence based on the Prussian government system. They are the self appointed elitist who think they know what's best for you. And I forgot Heath care, stimulus, financial reform to track every electronic transaction you make...

Go scare the crap out of your selves and read their ideas.

To whoever talked about revolution above. You got it backwards the politicians are revolting against the people and their will.

Right now I don't think we need to move any further forward if this is the direction we are headed.


RE: Bush=/=Obama?
By FITCamaro on 9/28/2010 12:21:24 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly. We don't want to just spend the same on different things. We want to spend less entirely. Yes we want a well funded military, yes we want well funded border enforcement, yes we want well funded interstate highways. All these things are in the constitution. It's all the things that aren't which are the problem. We aren't trillions of dollars in unfunded debt because of building F35s. You can argue the military pension system needs to be reformed if you'd like though and I'd agree.

But its the massive social programs that are breaking our backs. They have no business being at the federal level because it is unconstitutional. Let the states decide if they want these things and, if so, to what level they'll be funded. I can leave a state fairly easily. I can't leave the US as easily. More importantly, state governments are far more responsive to the people's wishes and desires. If we don't like what they're doing, its quite easy to replace them. Most importantly, they have the authority to do it whereas the federal government does not.

Liberals though are afraid of states rights. Because they know its a lot harder to push these kinds of things at the state level where people more easily see it going on and it affects them more directly. The only time you hear states rights from a liberal is when they want to violate federal laws.


RE: Bush=/=Obama?
By rdawise on 9/28/2010 8:41:32 PM , Rating: 2
So you advocate mass spending on some things, yet not on others. No you don't sound hypocritical at all.... /sarcasm

Yes I am over-simplifying your argue....

Here is where you and other "Conservatives" problem lies (you are libertarian if you like it or not)Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. Please define "general welfare" and then you can make an argue for Constitutionality. Until then, you are honestly just whining.

Don't like the politics? Campaign for your candidate. Did you go door to door for McCain? Seriously doubt it.


RE: Bush=/=Obama?
By rdawise on 9/28/2010 8:20:22 PM , Rating: 2
No sir, you are splitting hairs....
quote:
You are confused. Repubs and conservatives are two different things. Conservatives want less federal government so the states can determine what they want.


I think I have had this conversation with Fit before, but being conservative at the fedeal level does not make you a conservative. It makes you a Libertarian. Please learn the difference.

quote:
The Repubs were much the same when Reagan received enough conservatives and conservative democrats (the JFK Dems) to reel in Carter's insanity. But Reagan had a solid Dem controlled Senate and House. He got the tax cuts through but he wasn't able to cut the spending. Spending IS the money problem.


Nice try at a history lesson, but I like facts. Under Reagan the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibilty Act of 1982 was one of the greatest tax hikes in recent memory. This is when the Senate was Repub controlled. I am not sure where you got "solid Dem controlled Senate and House". In order to pay for Reagan's tax cuts, we head to borrow heavily not spend. Again I am not sure where you get your info. The money borrowed paid for the tax cuts, not spending.

quote:
The problem you have failed to note is the Progressive influence in both party's membership. That is where the biggest hurdle lies. If you don't know they brought you segregation, eugenics, prohibition, the income tax, removed Senatorial elections from State legislators, modern propaganda, ... and so on. The modern bureaucratic nanny state of dependence based on the Prussian government system. They are the self appointed elitist who think they know what's best for you. And I forgot Heath care, stimulus, financial reform to track every electronic transaction you make.


To state that pure Progressivism is a problem is correct, just like pure Conservatism. Again you need balance. Pure tax cuts create deficits but may create jobs. Pure spending increases GDP, but increases the tax burden. Without balance you will not counteract the pit falls of both philosophies. Progressivism brought about positive things like minimum wage, Child Labor laws, trust busting (one of the pitfalls of a free market), regulation (we can argue how much but some is needed), and Civil Rights.

Again your fear is balance. I liken your thoughts to a child who cries when though don't get their way. A wise man once said if everyone at the negotiation table is unhappy, then you have done your job.


RE: Bush=/=Obama?
By YashBudini on 9/27/2010 11:49:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Bush was obviously trying to protect us

Why didn't he try from Jan xx to September 10th 2001?

Action and reaction are 2 different things. One takes brains, the other is knee-jerk, like SOX.


RE: Bush=/=Obama?
By Reclaimer77 on 9/28/2010 12:27:15 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why didn't he try from Jan xx to September 10th 2001?


Because that would have been impossible?

Yash why does it not surprise me that you're a tin foil hat wearing Bush conspiracy peddler?


RE: Bush=/=Obama?
By YashBudini on 9/28/2010 11:00:58 AM , Rating: 2
Right, terrorism started on 9/11.

Duh!

I've seen so many like you blame Clinton for 9/11, all the more reason W had more than enough to address.


RE: Bush=/=Obama?
By Reclaimer77 on 9/28/2010 12:10:52 PM , Rating: 2
So let me understand here. What you're saying is that without any provocation, W should have launched a preemptive War on Terror because we knew there was a threat? Or send in CIA assassin teams? Or bomb a few training camps? Or.. or what? I want you to tell me in crisp clear language, step by step, what should have been done.

Hindsight is 20/20 my friend.

p.s. where have you seen me "blame Clinton"? You haven't.


RE: Bush=/=Obama?
By YashBudini on 9/28/2010 12:31:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So let me understand here.

I doubt any firsts will start here.

quote:
What you're saying is that without any provocation, W should have launched a preemptive War on Terror because we knew there was a threat?


Gee, that's starting to sound a little McCain-ish.

Well your so well informed why don't you tell us what, if anything, he did to shore up defenses. I see a list of nothing.

And please, about provocation, you hardly take the back seat to Faux or anybody else. Your last name Murdoch by chance?


RE: Bush=/=Obama?
By Reclaimer77 on 9/28/2010 3:11:30 PM , Rating: 2
"Shore up" defenses in 8 months? It takes this government 8 months to install a toilet. First there is an economic feasibility committee formed for said toilet. Then there are environmental impact studies done on said toilet. 12 months and 5 million dollars later, said toilet is installed by a team of 400 workers, contractors, and union bosses.

And yet Bush, with no specifics on this "threat", was going to "shore up" defenses right after being elected with a time frame of 8 months. Right.


RE: Bush=/=Obama?
By YashBudini on 9/28/2010 6:10:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
p.s. where have you seen me "blame Clinton"? You haven't

Why not? He was in office 8 years, terrorism was not a new thing.
quote:
It takes this government 8 months to install a toilet.

All the more reason to get started. Did he or was he too busy dismissing Clinton?
quote:
Then there are environmental impact studies done on said toilet. 12 months and 5 million dollars later, said toilet is installed by a team of 400 workers, contractors, and union bosses.

OT ramblings for your personal agenda.
quote:
And yet Bush, with no specifics on this "threat", was going to "shore up" defenses right after being elected with a time frame of 8 months. Right.

No specifics? Nobody outside the US believes that batch of manure. Funny how W knows what's he's doing when it suits the pubs, and he doesn't know what he's doing when it doesn't. As the church lady would say, "How convenient."


RE: Bush=/=Obama?
By FITCamaro on 9/28/2010 12:23:07 PM , Rating: 2
So you're making the case that Bush didn't care about national security for the first 10 months of his term?

Wow...


RE: Bush=/=Obama?
By YashBudini on 9/28/2010 12:25:28 PM , Rating: 2
Either that or total incompetence, take your pick.


RE: Bush=/=Obama?
By FITCamaro on 9/28/2010 2:29:37 PM , Rating: 2
Or maybe, and get this, Bush was the president and it wasn't his job to monitor and try to intercept enemy communications. We currently were not at war so he left national security matters to those whose job it was to handle them. The president doesn't, and shouldn't, get involved in every decision.

The CIA had some inkling there was some planning for a large operation going on, but they didn't know where or when. And back then, the idea of terrorists flying planes into the World Trade Center wasn't something they thought about.

But I guess you're just so much smarter than everyone else right?


RE: Bush=/=Obama?
By YashBudini on 9/28/2010 6:13:14 PM , Rating: 2
Oh I read the sign on his desk wrong. I thought it said, "The buck stops here."

It really says:

"The buck stops here:"
<------------------------>


RE: Bush=/=Obama?
By sweatshopking on 9/27/2010 3:25:31 PM , Rating: 1
retard, please see following link: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/privacie...

you make legitimate points, and I also believe that the western governments are all on some other planet. However, reclaimer, you layer it with you normal stupidity. please tone it down.


RE: Bush=/=Obama?
By CowKing on 9/27/2010 5:00:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
the Bush administration wiretaps were directed to foreign calls which COULD be speaking to a citizen at the time


so.....your saying they were spying on 1 foreign individual and 1 American? That's still spying on the American public


RE: Bush=/=Obama?
By stilltrying on 9/27/2010 6:55:32 PM , Rating: 2
They have been doing the same crap since the technology was invented. J Edgar Hoover was doing it and so has everyone else. I despise it personally but now they are just letting the public know and they dont care what you or I think about it. Bush/Obama same thing. Power seekers always do the same thing they just name it differently. I dont guess the American public will ever wake up to the dialectics that have been played on them for a long time. Spin this, propoganda that. Only now they feed the sheep/cattle a new highlight word TERRORISM to scare everyone into hiding and believing them. Go read some Joseph Goebbels quotes, it works the same in all countries. Land of the free and we all bought it.


If you've done nothing wrong
By ogrefather on 9/27/2010 6:03:21 PM , Rating: 2
you have nothing to worry about. It is impossible to monitor everything from everyone - so they only go after those that deserve it. I willingly would give up my privacy from the lunatics they are after to protect my family.




By stilltrying on 9/27/2010 6:59:07 PM , Rating: 2
FOOOOOOLLLLL. Dont go to sleep at night the boogie man may getcha.


RE: If you've done nothing wrong
By YashBudini on 9/27/2010 11:53:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Ben Franklin


RE: If you've done nothing wrong
By Schrag4 on 9/28/2010 12:10:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I willingly would give up my privacy from the lunatics they are after to protect my family.


No offense, but how about you grow a pair and protect your own family? That's what's wrong with so many societies today - people think that giving up their rights will make them safer. When the rubber meets the road, the only person who can keep your family safe is YOU! The local/federal "police" may do a darn good job of catching whoever murdered you and your family, heck they may even clean up the blood, but they won't keep your family safe, sorry. Take some responsibility for your own safety, while you still can!

Sadly, in some countries, you're not allowed to even defend yourself or your property. I believe that in the UK, if someone breaks into your house, you have a legal obligation to flee the house. If you stay and end up fighting with the perp, you'll be charged with assaulting the guy that broke in! If someone is familiar with UK law, please correct me if I'm wrong...


RE: If you've done nothing wrong
By Reclaimer77 on 9/28/2010 12:25:15 PM , Rating: 2
How can you defend yourself from someone who's willing to die to kill you and everyone around you?

I have a firearm and a CnC, but give me a break, if some guy walks into a Starbucks and sets a bomb off, I probably won't be able to do anything about it. I probably won't even realize I'm about to die. Once you hear "ALLAH ACKBAAAAAAA!!!!!" it's too late.

Home defense, yes. I completely agree with you. But maybe you haven't noticed that home invasions aren't exactly high on the terrorists target list?


RE: If you've done nothing wrong
By YashBudini on 9/28/2010 12:34:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
home invasions aren't exactly high on the terrorists target list?

Neither are hicks.


RE: If you've done nothing wrong
By Schrag4 on 9/28/2010 1:49:35 PM , Rating: 2
While I agree that my post was a HUGE stretch, do you not also agree that an armed society could potentially thwart at least some attacks IN PROGRESS? I understand the OP was talking about giving up privacy so that the govt can stop attacks while they're being planned. But is one ever really safe? Less likely to be attacked, sure. Guaranteed to be free from danger? I think not.

Now don't get me wrong. I was on board with the wiretapping of calls from suspected terrorists that ORIGINATED OUTSIDE THE US. I still don't get what the big deal was about that. If I'm standing next to a suspected terrorist that's not from the US, should the CIA look away because I'm a US citizen? No. Why would listening to phone conversations be any different? But let me put on my tin foil hat as I say I don't think our founding fathers would agree that the govt listenting to potentially all calls is good for the people.


RE: If you've done nothing wrong
By Lerianis on 9/30/2010 12:40:06 AM , Rating: 2
Maybe because that American citizen has the right to not be wiretapped without a little thing called a WARRANT!?

The fact is that they shouldn't listen to ANY calls made by Americans unless they have ANOTHER reason to think that the person in question is a criminal or terrorist. Such as connections exposed by someone in their family or friends, or an intelligence organization overseas.


Makes total sense
By IcePickFreak on 9/27/2010 3:04:01 PM , Rating: 5
So the US government supplies Iraq, the Taliban, Iran, etc with weapons over the years and US citizens are the big terrorist threat.

Makes sense since they figured it was the working class that's to blame for the bad economy and not the six-figure incomes of non-production salesmen, CEOs, or government officials getting kick backs and sending the working class jobs overseas so they could get a bonus on top of it.




RE: Makes total sense
By goku on 9/27/2010 3:48:47 PM , Rating: 2
hate to say it but they'd send them overseas regardless since even an illegal alien is "too expensive" compared to hiring those in a third world country. If they got rid of welfare and removed the minimum wage, you wouldn't have so many unemployed persons collecting a paycheck.

The problem a lot of politicians have is that they don't realize by making a laundry list of "minimum standards", what you end up doing is creating too much inertia so that nothing can get done. It used to be like taking a color photo and converting it to grayscale.. Now it's becoming more like taking a color photo and converting it into a bi-level bitmapped image (only black or white pixels with nothing in between) with most of those pixels just getting "wiped out".


RE: Makes total sense
By Lerianis on 9/28/2010 12:26:29 AM , Rating: 2
This is the big reason why we need PUNITIVE TARIFFS! That is how we made it so that companies were willing to keep jobs in America.... by making it JUST as expensive to import something made overseas as to make it here in the United States.

Unfortunately, those Republican asshats we have in Congress today were STUPID enough to ratify treaties that made it illegal to use those, while not having methods to punish countries that artificially keep their money and workforce wages low.


RE: Makes total sense
By Reclaimer77 on 9/28/2010 9:16:58 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Unfortunately, those Republican asshats we have in Congress today were STUPID enough to ratify treaties that made it illegal to use those, while not having methods to punish countries that artificially keep their money and workforce wages low.


I thought we shouldn't be policing the world? But now you want Republicans to "punish" a country because they pay people less. What business is that of ours, who are we to "punish" some one for keeping their money and deciding what their workers should make?


RE: Makes total sense
By Lerianis on 9/30/2010 12:45:17 AM , Rating: 2
I don't want them to punish a country because they pay people less. I want them to punish a country for not adhering to the STANDARDS OF LIVING that in this industrial age, all people around the entire world should be able to have.

As well as not adhering to their RESPONSIBILITIES under those treaties, which specifically mentioned that those foreign countries were NOT to allow businesses to underpay and take advantage of workers overseas AND were supposed to value their currency at the TRUE level it should be at, as deemed by other foreign countries, allies and not!


Partisan Divide?
By adhan24 on 9/27/2010 5:12:36 PM , Rating: 2
Oh yeah... it's all Obama's fault. Well it is, but this still would have happened under Republican control. On certain things both parties have the same ultimate goals and a "Big Brother" government is one of them. Sure the Republicans say they want a small government but they also say they want to be tougher on policing and terrorism. You can't have it both ways friends. This WAS bound to happen, it HAS been under-reported, and it IS a tragedy for civil liberties. I wonder what we should do next? Perhaps we need to take back our government.




RE: Partisan Divide?
By adhan24 on 9/27/2010 5:36:18 PM , Rating: 2
I should tell you that I'm a left leaning libertarian and I am not impressed with our current President.


RE: Partisan Divide?
By Fritzr on 9/28/2010 3:30:35 AM , Rating: 2
Actually based on the history of the last administration and the entire history of the FBI. The members of the previous administration would never have stood for this. The requirement of warrants before placing a tap is just too restrictive :P


RE: Partisan Divide?
By adhan24 on 9/28/2010 1:21:20 PM , Rating: 2
Uhhh... that is not necessarily true if you believe the allegations laid out in the case Hepting v. AT&T. First, the government invoked the State Secrets Privilege to block the case. Then, the Bush Administration passed the FISA Amendments Act to retroactively grant immunity to AT&T. This case, brought by the EFF, included allegations of spying on internet traffic.


uh....
By sprockkets on 9/27/2010 4:20:41 PM , Rating: 5
What Jason Mick said:

quote:
Under the bill all online communication services -- including video chat services (like Skype), social network services (like Facebook), and data/encrypted email service (like RIM's Blackberry packages) -- would be forced to comply with warrantless requests for information from the U.S. government -- similar to the warrantless wiretaps that recent legislation made legal in the U.S.


What the article REALLY said:

quote:
Essentially, officials want Congress to require all services that enable communications — including encrypted e-mail transmitters like BlackBerry, social networking Web sites like Facebook and software that allows direct “peer to peer” messaging like Skype — to be technically capable of complying if served with a wiretap order.




RE: uh....
By rdawise on 9/27/2010 9:00:25 PM , Rating: 2
@sprockets this really deserves a +6 for actually reading the article.

You are 100% correct in concluding that Mick took some "journalistic" liberties with this article. In no form did it that source article say anything about warrantless. In fact, if I am not mistaken you have to be served with a wiretap order before anything occurs. Before that however, this bill seems to only cover the technical capability not that enforcement. The same thing that happened in 1994.

Mick you trying out for Fox News? You seem to be heading right up their alley!


I'm all for fighting terrorism
By Beenthere on 9/27/2010 11:26:22 PM , Rating: 4
Let's start with removal of the terrorists in the Oval office.




By YashBudini on 9/28/2010 12:14:06 AM , Rating: 2
You found Cheney?


Wow. Does ANYONE remember that pesky Constitution?
By Wolfpup on 9/27/2010 2:43:31 PM , Rating: 2
Obama supported garbage like this just like the Republican's while he was still running...which is why I voted for Nader. And no, I don't regret it.

The terrorists! They are everywhere! RUUUUUUN!




By vcolon on 10/2/2010 2:12:01 AM , Rating: 2
Better off just staying home dude. seriously.


Good luck with that
By Devilpapaya on 9/27/2010 2:43:54 PM , Rating: 1
1) economically infeasible for communications companies to implement. Good luck bailing out the suddenly not-profitable companies.

2) Last time a checked back-doors where the first sign of an insecure encryption algorithm. Good luck hiding these exploits from hackers for any length of time. Also good luck writing brand new algorithms, because every security firm in the last 50 years has been working towards the exact opposite.

3) Good luck dealing with security experts and privacy concerned people.

4) Good luck convincing people this is a good use of money.

This shit isn't gonna pass, no amount of screaming about tururism is going to make this a plausible idea. so yea, good luck.




RE: Good luck with that
By redbone75 on 9/27/2010 4:46:18 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
This shit isn't gonna pass, no amount of screaming about tururism is going to make this a plausible idea. so yea, good luck.


Tururism? WTF?!


RE: Good luck with that
By Lerianis on 9/28/2010 12:11:23 AM , Rating: 2
I agree. This is economically unfeasible, having a back-door is an invitation to malefactors to use it, and security experts and privacy concerned people like myself would never go for this.

Terrorism is BEST TAKEN CARE OF WITH POLICE METHODS! I.E. infiltrating terrorist organizations and monitoring EVERYONE who has even the most ephemeral connections with terrorists, unless they have a very good explanation why they are connected with those people.

Such as they are family members who they don't agree with, but whom they still keep in contact with.

As to the 'tururism' thing...... that is classic. That is how some Southern people say terrorism.


2012
By Ard on 9/27/2010 4:55:25 PM , Rating: 2
This administration is really making my decision easy come 2012. I gave Obama a chance and it's the last one he'll get.




RE: 2012
By YashBudini on 9/28/2010 12:00:26 AM , Rating: 2
But what will you do? Will you simply vote for the other side of the same coin? Like that's been any better?

When voting for the lesser of 2 evils you still vote for an evil. That's what the numbnuts of society just don't get, and they don't get it intentionally, mind you.


If Served
By PrezWeezy on 9/27/2010 4:59:35 PM , Rating: 2
If you look at the source article, one of the big differences that was left out here is the "If served with a wiretap order." That means it does not change the process of how they retrieve information. This law simply means that RIM and AOL and the rest have to be able to provide the information in some way (a technical issue, not a legal one).

Don't get me wrong, I'm against this law, but it's not quite so bad as it seems. I see the problem they are facing, and I understand their reasons for trying to pass this law. However, I do not believe this is the correct way to do it.




RE: If Served
By knutjb on 9/28/2010 12:34:23 AM , Rating: 2
If you mean forcing software developers to place back doors in their encryption systems so, conceivably, just the gov can spy on you. If people know there is a venerability they will find it and exploit it. Another good intent doomed to fail.


What?!
By sinzen on 9/27/2010 5:23:41 PM , Rating: 2
The old, "If you have nothing to hide why worry" doesn't cut it anymore. What does though is, "If it ain't broken then why fix it" certainly comes to mine though! What would happen if foreign companies that operate services in the USA pull out of that market and abandon it?




RE: What?!
By Lerianis on 9/28/2010 12:18:22 AM , Rating: 2
Everyone has something to hide. Either they don't want their mommy and daddy to know that they are looking at naked women online, don't want someone to know that they are attracted to people of a different race, etc. etc. etc.

The people who use that "If you have nothing to hide, why worry?" forget that some people have problems with those things and will try to punish you for perfectly normal things that they disagree with.

That is the reason why the Founding Fathers made it ILLEGAL to search someone's private property without a warrant. In the digital age? That still holds true for online stuff as well.


Tyranny
By JonnyDough on 9/28/2010 5:55:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." ~Thomas Jefferson


He also said:

quote:
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."


I guess modern day government has changed the word "tyrants" to "terrorists". It is very hard to tell who the patriots are, just as it was during the war for independence from the "tyrant" Great Britain.

It is impossible to assemble a mass large enough today to take on the military without the help of the military itself. Even if you were to march on the state capitol and overthrow it, it would just be replaced. Nobody can really march on D.C.

I would rather change be brought along peacefully, but it would seem that even if we were to elect independents rather than republicans or democrats, that we would still not have control of the government back. For one, the wealthy class that actually controls the government would soon have it back by getting rid of leaders, or placing "fake candidates" in the polls as independents. You can already see how the censored media is trashing the independents. (i.e. one candidate attended a devil worshipping thing in college one time... Come on. Who cares? Who is she NOW?)

We need to return power to the states...and the states must return power back to the counties. Follow the money trail. The fed taxes us how much?

The county should be taxing us the most, and then give to the state what it can afford to give. The state in turn would give its left over to the Federal Government. If the Federal Government gets us into a war which we cannot afford, the states (and the people) can then be asked to give more than what they can rightfully afford to give. (Remember WWII? Yeah. Americans will work and take a stand)

If a county is misrepresenting itself (lying about its income to the state), then a state judicial review of finances should be in order. That is the check and balance that should be in place. Nobody is auditing the federal reserve...yet the Fed is taking the biggest cut of the pie.

We are LONG overdue for system reform. How long will American's allow their liberties to be taken before they take a stand? At what point is it "too late?" The military is starting to be replaced by robots. Robots do as they are programmed and told to do...I'm concerned, are you?




RE: Tyranny
By wsc on 9/29/2010 1:19:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
At what point is it "too late?"


Exactly at point where the people will let one to grab two crucial powers:

1. power to always know who and where is dissenting (aka surveilance)

2. power to silence anyone who dissents (aka censorship)

Then it will be too late to even tell felow citizen that something's rotten in Denmark.


Is this news?
By GreenEuropean on 9/27/2010 2:47:59 PM , Rating: 1
Its already done after 9/11 and all the antiterror laws. Nothing new. Freedom was lost long ago.

Al Quada basicly won. We got scared, we sold out our freedom and we split the world.




RE: Is this news?
By YashBudini on 9/28/2010 12:04:08 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
We got scared, we sold out our freedom and we split the world.

And nobody's going to stop playing the fear card, it works too well.

And who will win in the end besides the MIC, just like Ike warned us of.


obama
By goneone on 9/28/2010 2:08:52 AM , Rating: 3
it's true, they are both sides of the same coin.
i for one do not believe in the party system, rather a minor form of govrnmt, therein which a volutarist system would be adopted, at least not frowned upon :P
i just think that theyll fool us all the same, no matter if it is obama, bush, clinton, woodrow wilson, etc.
it really doesnt take much brain power to see that private, central banks rule the roost.
look for names that Dont grab your attention like "big name politicians" lol
look for people who insure the federal reserve instead!
cheers!
gone.




In the name of ______!
By solarrocker on 9/27/2010 2:35:22 PM , Rating: 2
a: Freedom

b: Terrorists

c: WMDs

d: Durbdydurb




WOW
By rocky12345 on 9/27/2010 2:45:31 PM , Rating: 2
So because they feel insecure we as the people have to put up with them looking over our shoulders all the time to make sure we do not do anything wrong. I can see them wanting to fight the bad guys but it is at our personal freedom to have privacy. Some will fire back well if you are not doing anything wrong then don't worry about it. Well it is not the point of most people trying to hide something it is again about personal freedom & to have privacy.

I am glad I am not in the US but it is only a matter og time my own country follows & does this as well. It seems the GOVs take to many liberties in the name of terrorism these days.




.....
By hypocrisyforever on 9/27/2010 2:52:59 PM , Rating: 2
Durka durka DUR. They turk er jerbs!

That being said, yeah, good luck with this. I feel like we are on the steep, down part of the parabola in regards to the position of "rise and fall of society". Not in the conventional, this society will end and be absorbed by another, but more the, we are definitely no longer on top.

I doubt this would go through, but weirder things have in the past 10 years.




By Pneumothorax on 9/27/2010 3:44:52 PM , Rating: 2
Looks like not only are we importing their cadmium/lead toys, we're also importing their Internet surveillance schemes!




"Terror?"
By CZroe on 9/27/2010 6:32:11 PM , Rating: 2
Wait, I see "terror" in quotes. I thought this administration decided to call it "threat of man-caused disaster." No more "terrorist" or "Was on Terror" ("overseas contingency op").




sweet
By gescom on 9/27/2010 9:06:45 PM , Rating: 2
Obama says Good Night ... Sweet Dreams.....

...Muuhahahahahhahahaha




Just like Bubba
By rika13 on 9/28/2010 1:17:11 AM , Rating: 2
Clinton tried this crap too, with the Clipper chips. Considering that Hitlary is his Sec. of State, and he has appointed other Clinton-era people, it should be no surprise. Thankfully we have some non-lackey press to get this out as his propaganda arms have fought to cover up any Democrat evilness.

The real kicker is SSL gets neutered. This would allow rogue ISP employees to datamine name/address/CC#/CVC2. He can then find a local victim and intercept the UPS dude and sign your name to his new laptop. This is not unlike RL card number theft where they write down the number if you tell them over phone or swipe it in a hidden reader when you give it to her.

One thing mentioned in the New York Times article (at the end) was, back in 2005, the Greek PM and other top officials got hacked and data about them revealed due to their similar requirements. This would also work for corporate espionage (iPhone 5 schematics leaked a year before release, allowing Chinese knock-offs before Steve gets his toy to market). Because of that, it WILL cost US jobs, as companies move R&D over the border to Canada or Mexico or invest in nations where such laws are unlikely due to cultural or legal reasons.

This law will not protect a single American from terrorists. It will protect us from employment, online security, and the belief that the Constitution is actually good for something.




By wsc on 9/28/2010 10:45:47 AM , Rating: 2
Looks like we on our side of the pond are better informed than US citizens who soon will find that both piratebay and teaparty sites will vanish from their browsers.

quote: "This act would allow the Attorney General to censor sites"

details: https://eff.org/coica




By vcolon on 10/2/2010 2:09:17 AM , Rating: 2
Like what's going on with our country lately? Like the transformation Obama is undertaking?
Then stay home and refrain from voting in November. Let the college kids come out in droves and re-elect the democrats in congress.




“So far we have not seen a single Android device that does not infringe on our patents." -- Microsoft General Counsel Brad Smith














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki