| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 7/9 |
| 2004/1/7-8 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:11710 Activity:very high |
1/7 More rights removed:
http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,61792,00.html
\_ Happy New Year!
\_ Whiner. What's wrong with this? It just makes official what has
always go on anyway.
\_ Why do you hate America? Oh, yes, it says here in your file
that you're a fifth column saboteur working for the terrorists.
\_ I don't hate America. What a stupid waste of bits. Here's
my genius quality counter punch: Why do you hate America? Oh,
yes, it says here in your file that you're a fifth column
saboteur working for the terrorists. How cool is that? I've
just repeated what you said and it applies equally well! That
is to say, it doesn't apply at all to either of us.
\_ So basically what you're saying is, its okay that our
privacy is being violated, since we're law abiding citizens,
what do we have to fear, etc. etc. etc.? I thought the
motd was teeming with libertarians, not authoritarians.
\_ I never said any such thing. I said they're already
doing it and have been for years. This just makes it
official and publicly known. You invented the rest of
that and put it in my mouth. I'm neither libertarian
or authoritarian. I'm pragmatic.
\_ They've been doing this for years, so its okay?
First of all, I don't see how that justifies it,
and second of all, how the hell do you know about
it? I consider myself a reasonably informed
person and this is the first I've heard of the FBI
having carte blanche to investigate your every
financial move without any warrant or justification.
So either you've got a tinfoil hat on, and are
convinced the government is always out to get us,
or you're just pulling something out of your
ass to try to justify something inexcusable.
\_ The motd is really good at telling me what it
thinks I believe lately. I suspect this is the
same person each time. I'll explain again. I
do not believe the anyone is out to get me or most
of the rest of us. I do not own a tinfoil hat. I
do believe that the government has been able to
acquire almost any information it wants about
most of us for a very long time. It is just a
case of "why bother?". I'm not the tinfoil hat
guy here. I don't think anyone would waste even
a moment of cpu time checking my financial
records (or yours either) because we're both
complete and total nobodies. I've met real life
active duty federal agents. The kind that shoot
people and then check the corpse for ID. They're
not like us. They don't care about us. I'm not
at all concerned these people are prying into my
(or your) financial or any other records. My
only concern is if they confuse me for someone
else on the street that that'll check the ID on
my corpse instead of asking for it at gun point.
These people have existed long before Bush was
even born so don't even go there. You're totally
naive if you think all government evil started
when GWB was inaugurated.
\_ thinking that all the people on the motd with
similar opinions are the same person is a sign
of paranoia. watch the motd for a couple hours
if you care. there are lots of people from
all corners of the political spectrum here,
many of whom probably respond to your posts in
similar ways. for instance, I have posted
nothing on today's motd other than this, but
agree with everything the guy arguing with
you has said so far, and also think you're
a paranoid idiot.
\_ You're right, this is not just a GWB thing.
Your comment about this not being new, and
that we shouldn't get bothered about it is
fallacious-- it is _new_ in that it is now
no longer covert, and we should be bothered
about it because this makes it so much easier
for the innocent (like you) to get mistakenly
dragged into the fray based solely on any
given FBI Agent's suspicion. I know FBI agents,
too, and I know that most are not bad. There
are some, however, whose bad side I never want
to get on. The potential for abuse is so great
that the power does not need to exist. |
| 7/9 |
|
| www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,61792,00.html Bush quietly signed into law a new bill that gives the FBI increased surveillance powers and dramatically expands the reach of the USA Patriot Act. The Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 grants the FBI unprecedented power to obtain records from financial institutions without requiring permission from a judge. Under the law, the FBI does not need to seek a court order to access such records, nor does it need to prove just cause. Previously, under the Patriot Act, the FBI had to submit subpoena requests to a federal judge. Intelligence agencies and the Treasury Department, however, could obtain some financial data from banks, credit unions and other financial institutions without a court order or grand jury subpoena if they had the approval of a senior government official. The new law see Section 374 of the act, however, lets the FBI acquire these records through an administrative procedure whereby an FBI field agent simply drafts a so-called national security letter stating the information is relevant to a national security investigation. And the law broadens the definition of financial institution to include such businesses as insurance companies, travel agencies, real estate agents, stockbrokers, the United States Postal Service and even jewelry stores, casinos and car dealerships. The law also prohibits subpoenaed businesses from revealing to anyone, including customers who may be under investigation, that the government has requested records of their transactions. He said there was pressure to pass the legislation to free up intelligence spending. However, Dempsey called the inclusion of the financial provision an intentional end-run by the administration to expand the administrations power without proper review. Critics like Dempsey say the government is trying to pass legislation that was shot down prior to the United States invasion of Iraq, when the Bush administration drafted plans to expand the powers of the Patriot Act. The so-called Patriot Act II, as the press dubbed it, was written by the Justice Department. The Center for Public Integrity discovered it last year and exposed the document, initiating a public outcry that forced the government to back down on its plans. But critics say the government didnt abandon its goals after the uproar; |