Appeals Court Backs Bush on Wiretaps

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The fact is the Bush adminstration has ignored the laws that you are required to have permission from a judge to perform a wiretap.

Actually, that is not the "fact" in this case.  The case deals if the FCC can require manufactures to make it technically possible to wiretap a new device.

It a commonsense approach that has nothing to with authorizing wiretaps.

Well, you might be right, but I don't support anything that gives the adminstration more power until they start following the damn law.

It doesn't even give them more power.  It's about requirements for the hardware.  This is basically saying that I can't buy a telephone that cannot physically be tapped.

Well, gosh, that'd be a pity if the Kerry campaign could then communicate without Karl Rove listening in.

[dazzleman]

Is this the fascist orgy thread?

I don't know, but am I the only one thinking there's no reason for the government to spy on its own people?

If there's probable cause to believe that people are plotting crimes, then there is a good reason for spying.  People's rights to be free of government interference end when they start harming other people.  An extreme approach against any type of spying on citizens would simply rob the vast majority of people of their right to live in relative safety.  Descent into anarchy is one of the risks of a society that doesn't have the proper safeguards in place to protect against those among us who are predatory, and when this happens, all freedom ends up being lost.  The closest we have come to this is the situation in crime-ridden inner cities, and it's not pretty.  But even there, the number of people being killed is very small compared to what an organized terrorist attack could pull off.

[Richard]

Dazzleman, these days it is damn easy to get probable cause.  And you're not harming other people (from the government's perspective) until it is proven in court.  The government abuses ALL of its priviledges and I believe it is time to start revoking what we've given them.  There will be no anarchy if the government can't listen in on what I say.

While we're at it, perhaps we must pass laws that since government has a right to hear what we say over electronic devices, perhaps all mail must be intercepted and stored in a database as well?  For ... security purposes.  Thats right.  And lets move on... All public buildings must have sound recorders in addition to video cameras.  For ... security purposes.  The government will only request those tapes if there is a "need" (deemed by them) for it.

Um, no.

[J. J.]

The fact is the Bush adminstration has ignored the laws that you are required to have permission from a judge to perform a wiretap.

Actually, that is not the "fact" in this case.  The case deals if the FCC can require manufactures to make it technically possible to wiretap a new device.

It a commonsense approach that has nothing to with authorizing wiretaps.

Well, you might be right, but I don't support anything that gives the adminstration more power until they start following the damn law.

It doesn't even give them more power.  It's about requirements for the hardware.  This is basically saying that I can't buy a telephone that cannot physically be tapped.

Well, gosh, that'd be a pity if the Kerry campaign could then communicate without Karl Rove listening in.

So terrorist, drug dealers, child molestors, mobsters, and corrupt business people chould be able to to buy equipment that is impossible for the government to tap?  That is what you are saying, in effect.

[Richard]

Yes, that is what I am saying too.  I simply trust them more than I trust the current government, or any government, to do what is good for the people.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

You know, if jfern and Richius can find something that they agree on, that ought to tell you something.

[J. J.]

You know, if jfern and Richius can find something that they agree on, that ought to tell you something.

IQ's are dropping rapidly? 

Seriously, I do not think the police should be able to search my house or tap my phone (in the US) without a warrant.  I certainly don't have a constitutional right to privacy, in face of a warrant.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Seriously, I do not think the police should be able to search my house or tap my phone (in the US) without a warrant. 

Then you do not agree with Bush.

[J. J.]

Seriously, I do not think the police should be able to search my house or tap my phone (in the US) without a warrant. 

Then you do not agree with Bush.

I'm unaware of any tap on a US citizen on the phone to another US citizen where are both are in the US.