Satans Mark/Cashless
See other Satans Mark/Cashless Articles
Title: With Facebook and GPS “they” know everything about you
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.fivedoves.com/letters/june2011/stevens611-2.htm
Published: Sep 1, 2011
Author: IVAR
Post Date: 2011-09-02 00:03:15 by A K A Stone
Keywords: None
Views: 55163
Comments: 67
Someone took your photo on the street. In a minute they will know everything about you. Also where you will sleep in the night.
Facebook is a perfect tool for all totalitarian regime builders. - Facebook has 600 million members. - Each day, Facebook’s members upload over 200 million photos, and Facebook currently hosts over 90 billion photos. The new facial recognition technology, which was announced in December but only introduced to a small test group, is basically Facebook’s way of creating a huge, photo-searchable database of its users. And yes, it’s terrifying. Facial recognition technology will ultimately culminate in the ability to search for people using just a picture. And that will be the end of privacy as we know it–imagine, a world in which someone can simply take a photo of you on the street, in a crowd, or with a telephoto lens, and discover everything about you on the internet. Obviously, we can’t stop the world of technology from moving toward the development of accurate facial recognition software. But so far, no facial recognition software has really been a threat to our privacy, because nobody has that huge database of people and photos required. Oh wait, except Facebook totally does. Source: PCworld. My comment: You can not ban technology. After the nuclear bomb was invented, we had to live with it. We also have to live with Facebook. When this social media have 90 billion pictures in its databases, they have more knowledge about the human race than any other totalitarian leader could ever dream of. The last anti-Christ will find you with the help of GPS and Facebook. There is nothing worth mentioned about you, that He will not be able to use. Written by Ivar
Steven Jesus is coming soon! (1 image)
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-22) not displayed.
.
.
.
I for one never supported the Patriot act. It is unconstitutional on its face. Glaringly so.
I don't agree with that, Stone. There are a lot of misconceptions about who and what it applies to. In my view, it doesn't violate the Constitution at all.
I just know it doesn't work as advertised.
Proxy IP's are amusing.....lmao
#24. To: A K A Stone (#22)
btw...waaaay off topic lmao.
Did you see the report today about Jane Fonda's 'only regret'?
She says her only regret was not sleeping with Che....(eyes rolling)
Basically, she's upset she wasn't more of a leftwingnut slut in the 60's then previously documented and admitted.
You can't make this stuff up. My only regret is she wasn't executed WITH Che rotflmao.
Proxy IP's are amusing.....lmao
#25. To: Badeye, A K A Stone (#24)
She says her only regret was not sleeping with Che....(eyes rolling)
I'm sure Che had certain standards even he wouldn't compromise....
#26. To: Badeye (#20) (Edited)
Its actually not more 'pervasive' however.Its just much easier.
Move pervasive too.
20 years ago, people weren't walking around with cell phones that double as cameras and video recorders. There also weren't any systems that automatically snapped a picture of your license plate and mailed you a ticket when you ran a red light.
10 years ago, I used the term -- "pervasive computing" -- which described an environment where everything around us is going to get smart as the result of networked sensors, actuators, microprocessors, motion tracking, facial recognition, etc. We are just at the very beginning of that now with smart phones.
I just bought my middle daughter a Kinect for her 10th birthday. The thing is amazing. Now apply that motion tracking technology to other things in our environment and think about the possibilities.
There is technology on the market right now that can track the muscles in your face and determine if you are about to fall asleep and play a load noise to wake you up. There is another technology that can parallel park a car by itself.
In 10 years, everything is going to be online -- not just your computer and phone, but your car, house, traffic lights, shoes, cloths, toilet seat, you name it. All of these things will be collecting data about your behaviors. That data will be used to make life easier for you, sell you more things, and by government for nefarious purposes as well.
The hippies wanted peace and love. We wanted Ferraris, blondes and switchblades. -- Alice Cooper
#27. To: Badeye (#24)
Have you seen the Google car that drives itself?
The hippies wanted peace and love. We wanted Ferraris, blondes and switchblades. -- Alice Cooper
#28. To: Badeye (#24)
I don't even know who Che is.
#29. To: jwpegler (#26)
I have a wii, ps3 and a 360. For the kids. I heard the Kinect is supposed to be integrated into windows.
#30. To: Badeye, nolu chan (#23)
I for one never supported the Patriot act. It is unconstitutional on its face. Glaringly so.I don't agree with that, Stone. There are a lot of misconceptions about who and what it applies to. In my view, it doesn't violate the Constitution at all.
I just know it doesn't work as advertised.
Doesn't the patriot act let the government do stuff bypassing the normal procedures used to obtain a warrant?
Doesn't it violate habeus corups? Just off the top of my head. I bet chan can add much more to this discussion then I can if he willing.
#31. To: A K A Stone (#29)
I heard the Kinect is supposed to be integrated into windows.
Windows 8 will also have facial recognition that will log you into your computer when you sit in front of it. When you get up and leave, it will automatically hibernate. Microsoft has been working on this for years. It's finally ready for prime time.
Windows 8 is going to be all about multi-touch and tablets as well.
The hippies wanted peace and love. We wanted Ferraris, blondes and switchblades. -- Alice Cooper
#32. To: A K A Stone, Badeye (#30)
It does not bypass procedures but the Constitution. The search cannot be authorized without a warrant, and a warrant requires probable cause.
It directly contravenes the 4th Amendment.
Amendment IVThe right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
#33. To: A K A Stone, Badeye (#30)
Here's an old article from 2005 by Judge Napolitano.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/napolitano2.html
How Congress Has Assaulted Our Freedoms in the Patriot Actby Andrew P. Napolitano
December 16, 2005The compromise version of the Patriot Act to which House and Senate conferees agreed last week and for which the House voted yesterday is an unforgivable assault on basic American values and core constitutional liberties. Unless amended in response to the courageous efforts of a few dozen senators from both parties, the new Patriot Act will continue to give federal agents the power to write their own search warrants – the statute’s newspeak terminology calls them "national security letters" – and serve them on a host of persons and entities that regularly gather and store sensitive, private information on virtually every American.
Congress once respected the Fourth Amendment until it began cutting holes in it. Before Congress enacted the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) in 1977, Americans and even non-citizens physically present here enjoyed the right to privacy guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment. That Amendment, which was written out of a revulsion to warrants that let British soldiers look for any tangible thing anywhere they chose, specifically requires that the government demonstrate to a judge and the judge specifically find the existence of probable cause of criminal activity on the part of the person whose property the government wishes to search. The Fourth Amendment commands that only a judge can authorize a search warrant.
FISA unconstitutionally changed the probable cause of criminality requirement to probable cause of employment by a foreign government, hostile or friendly. Under FISA, if the government can demonstrate the foreign agency or employment status of the person whose things it wishes to search, the secret FISA court will issue the search warrant.
But even FISA respects constitutional liberty, since it prohibits prosecutions based on evidence obtained from these warrants. Thus, if a FISA warrant reveals that the embassy janitor is really a spy who beats his wife, he would not and could not be prosecuted for either crime because the evidence of his crimes was obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment’s requirement of a judicial finding of probable cause of criminal activity. Instead of being prosecuted, he would be deported.
A year later in 1978, cutting yet another hole in the Fourth Amendment, Congress revealed its distaste for fidelity to the Constitution and its ignorance of the British government’s abuse of the colonists by enacting the Orwellian–named, Right to Financial Privacy Act. This statute, for the first time in American history, let federal agents write their own search warrants, but limited the subjects of those warrants to financial institutions. Just like FISA, it recognized the unconstitutional nature of evidence obtained by a self-written search warrant, and banned the use of such evidence in criminal prosecutions.
In 1986, Congress continued to cut. It disregarded yet again the Fourth Amendment’s protection of privacy when it enacted the Electronic Communications Privacy Act which allowed federal agents to serve self-written search warrants on collectors of digital financial data, but continued to recognize that evidence thus obtained was constitutionally incompetent for criminal prosecution purposes.
The deepest cut came on October 15, 2001 when Congress enacted the Patriot Act. With minimal floor debate in the Senate and no floor debate in the House (House members were given only 30 minutes to read the 315 page bill), Congress enacted this most unpatriotic rejection of privacy and constitutional guarantees. Together with its offspring the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal 2004 and the Intelligence Reform Act of 2004, the Patriot Act not only permits the execution of self-written search warrants on a host of new subjects, it rejects the no-criminal-prosecution protections of its predecessors by requiring evidence obtained contrary to the Fourth Amendment to be turned over to prosecutors and mandating that such evidence is constitutionally competent in criminal prosecutions.
The new version of the Patriot Act which the Senate will debate this weekend purports to make all of this congressional rejection of our history, our values, and our Constitution the law of the land.
So, if your representative in the House has voted, or your Senators do vote, for the House/Senate conference approved version, they will be authorizing federal agents on their own, in violation of the Constitution, and without you knowing it, to obtain records about you from your accountant, bank, boat dealer, bodega, book store, car dealer, casino, computer server, credit union, dentist, HMO, hospital, hotel manager, insurance company, jewelry store, lawyer, library, pawn broker, pharmacist, physician, postman, real estate agent, supermarket, tax collectors, telephone company, travel agency, and trust company, and use the evidence thus obtained in any criminal prosecution against you.
Why would Congress, whose members swore to uphold the Constitution, authorize such a massive evasion of it by the federal agents we have come to rely upon to protect our freedoms? Why would Congress nullify the Fourth Amendment–guaranteed right to privacy for which we and our forbearers have fought and paid dearly? How could the men and women we elect to fortify our freedoms and write our laws so naïvely embrace the less-freedom-equals-more-security canard? Why have we fought for 230 years to keep foreign governments from eviscerating our freedoms if we will voluntarily let our own government do so?
The unfortunate answer to these questions is the inescapable historical truth that those in government – from both parties and with a few courageous exceptions – do not feel constrained by the Constitution. They think they can do whatever they want. They have hired vast teams of government lawyers to twist and torture the plain meaning of the Fourth Amendment to justify their aggrandizement of power to themselves. They vote for legislation they have not read and do not understand. Their only fear is being overruled by judges. In the case of the Patriot Act, they should be afraid. The federal judges who have published opinions on the challenges to it have all found it constitutionally flawed.
The Fourth Amendment worked for 200 years to facilitate law enforcement and protect constitutional freedoms before Congress began to cut holes in it. Judges sit in every state in the Union 24/7 to hear probable cause applications for search warrants. There is simply no real demonstrable evidence that our American-value-driven-constitutional-privacy-protection-system is in need of such a radical change.
A self-written search warrant, even one called a national security letter, is the ultimate constitutional farce. What federal agents would not authorize themselves to seize whatever they wished? Why even bother with such a meaningless requirement? We might as well let the feds rummage through any office, basement, computer, or bedroom they choose. Who would trust government agents with this unfettered unreviewable power? The Framers did not. Why would government agents bother going to a judge with probable cause seeking a search warrant if they can simply write their own? Big Brother must have caught on because federal agents have written and executed self-written search warrants on over 120,000 unsuspecting Americans since October 2001.
Is this the society we want? Have we ultimately elected a government to spy on all of us? The Fourth Amendment is the lynchpin of our personal privacy and individual dignity. Without the Fourth Amendment’s protections, we will become another East Germany. The Congress must recognize this before it is too late.
December 16, 2005
Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel, and the author of Constitutional Chaos: What Happens When the Government Breaks Its Own Laws.
#34. To: nolu chan, Badeys (#33)
the new Patriot Act will continue to give federal agents the power to write their own search warrants – the statute’s newspeak terminology calls them "national security letters" – and serve them on a host of persons and entities that regularly gather and store sensitive, private information on virtually every American.
This seems like a big problem constitutinally speaking Badeye. Wouldn't you agree on further reflection?
#35. To: A K A Stone, Badeye (#30)
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/03/how-would-patriot-act_20.html
Unclaimed Territory - by Glenn GreenwaldMarch 20, 2006
[excerpt]
The principal reason I am so excited by this book is because, as I have said from the time this scandal first emerged, what will determine the outcome of this law-breaking scandal specifically, and the crisis of lawlessness which we have in our government generally, is whether the public realizes how radical and dangerous this Administration has become and demands that it be held accountable. I have always emphatically believed and have repeatedly said that if Americans are truly informed about how radical and extreme this President has become with regard to the powers he claims he possesses, most Americans will find it intolerable.
At its core, this scandal is not and has never been about the scope of eavesdropping powers which the Government ought to have. It is much more significant than that. We face a genuine and profound crisis as a country because we have a President who has continuously exploited the threat of terrorism and engaged in rank fear-mongering in order to expressly claim the power to act without any checks or limits at all -- including, literally, the power to break the law. And he has been exercising that law-breaking power aggressively and enthusiastically in numerous ways, all of which are radically changing our national political character and the system of government that we have had since our founding.
It is that belief in his own monarchical power that led the President to eavesdrop on Americans in precisely the way that our country, thirty years ago, made it a criminal offense to engage in. And the President's illegal warrantless eavesdropping is but one example which arises out of these truly radical and decisively un-American theories of power which this Administration has adopted and put into practice. The Administration's ideology of lawlessness, in every respect, is contrary to the most basic and fundamental values on which our country was founded and which have defined who we are as a nation for the last 225 years.
#36. To: A K A Stone, Badeye (#30)
http://www.aclu.org/national-security/surveillance-under-usa-patriot-act
Copyright 2010 American Civil Liberties Union
Reprinted with permission of the
American Civil Liberties Union http://www.aclu.org
Surveillance Under the USA PATRIOT Act
December 10, 2010
What is the USA PATRIOT Act?
Just six weeks after the September 11 attacks, a panicked Congress passed the "USA/Patriot Act," an overnight revision of the nation's surveillance laws that vastly expanded the government's authority to spy on its own citizens, while simultaneously reducing checks and balances on those powers like judicial oversight, public accountability, and the ability to challenge government searches in court.
Why Congress passed the Patriot Act
Most of the changes to surveillance law made by the Patriot Act were part of a longstanding law enforcement wish list that had been previously rejected by Congress, in some cases repeatedly. Congress reversed course because it was bullied into it by the Bush Administration in the frightening weeks after the September 11 attack.
The Senate version of the Patriot Act, which closely resembled the legislation requested by Attorney General John Ashcroft, was sent straight to the floor with no discussion, debate, or hearings. Many Senators complained that they had little chance to read it, much less analyze it, before having to vote. In the House, hearings were held, and a carefully constructed compromise bill emerged from the Judiciary Committee. But then, with no debate or consultation with rank-and-file members, the House leadership threw out the compromise bill and replaced it with legislation that mirrored the Senate version. Neither discussion nor amendments were permitted, and once again members barely had time to read the thick bill before they were forced to cast an up-or-down vote on it. The Bush Administration implied that members who voted against it would be blamed for any further attacks - a powerful threat at a time when the nation was expecting a second attack to come any moment and when reports of new anthrax letters were appearing daily.
Congress and the Administration acted without any careful or systematic effort to determine whether weaknesses in our surveillance laws had contributed to the attacks, or whether the changes they were making would help prevent further attacks. Indeed, many of the act's provisions have nothing at all to do with terrorism.
The Patriot Act increases the government's surveillance powers in four areas
The Patriot Act increases the government's surveillance powers in four areas:
- Records searches. It expands the government's ability to look at records on an individual's activity being held by third parties. (Section 215)
- Secret searches. It expands the government's ability to search private property without notice to the owner. (Section 213)
- Intelligence searches. It expands a narrow exception to the Fourth Amendment that had been created for the collection of foreign intelligence information (Section 218).
- "Trap and trace" searches. It expands another Fourth Amendment exception for spying that collects "addressing" information about the origin and destination of communications, as opposed to the content (Section 214).
1. Expanded access to personal records held by third parties
One of the most significant provisions of the Patriot Act makes it far easier for the authorities to gain access to records of citizens' activities being held by a third party. At a time when computerization is leading to the creation of more and more such records, Section 215 of the Patriot Act allows the FBI to force anyone at all - including doctors, libraries, bookstores, universities, and Internet service providers - to turn over records on their clients or customers.
Unchecked power
The result is unchecked government power to rifle through individuals' financial records, medical histories, Internet usage, bookstore purchases, library usage, travel patterns, or any other activity that leaves a record. Making matters worse:
- The government no longer has to show evidence that the subjects of search orders are an "agent of a foreign power," a requirement that previously protected Americans against abuse of this authority.
- The FBI does not even have to show a reasonable suspicion that the records are related to criminal activity, much less the requirement for "probable cause" that is listed in the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. All the government needs to do is make the broad assertion that the request is related to an ongoing terrorism or foreign intelligence investigation.
- Judicial oversight of these new powers is essentially non-existent. The government must only certify to a judge - with no need for evidence or proof - that such a search meets the statute's broad criteria, and the judge does not even have the authority to reject the application.
- Surveillance orders can be based in part on a person's First Amendment activities, such as the books they read, the Web sites they visit, or a letter to the editor they have written.
- A person or organization forced to turn over records is prohibited from disclosing the search to anyone. As a result of this gag order, the subjects of surveillance never even find out that their personal records have been examined by the government. That undercuts an important check and balance on this power: the ability of individuals to challenge illegitimate searches.
Why the Patriot Act's expansion of records searches is unconstitutional
Section 215 of the Patriot Act violates the Constitution in several ways. It:
- Violates the Fourth Amendment, which says the government cannot conduct a search without obtaining a warrant and showing probable cause to believe that the person has committed or will commit a crime.
- Violates the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech by prohibiting the recipients of search orders from telling others about those orders, even where there is no real need for secrecy.
- Violates the First Amendment by effectively authorizing the FBI to launch investigations of American citizens in part for exercising their freedom of speech.
- Violates the Fourth Amendmentby failing to provide notice - even after the fact - to persons whose privacy has been compromised. Notice is also a key element of due process, which is guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment.
2. More secret searches
For centuries, common law has required that the government can't go into your property without telling you, and must therefore give you notice before it executes a search. That "knock and announce" principle has long been recognized as a part of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution.
The Patriot Act, however, unconstitutionally amends the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to allow the government to conduct searches without notifying the subjects, at least until long after the search has been executed. This means that the government can enter a house, apartment or office with a search warrant when the occupants are away, search through their property, take photographs, and in some cases even seize property - and not tell them until later.
Notice is a crucial check on the government's power because it forces the authorities to operate in the open, and allows the subject of searches to protect their Fourth Amendment rights. For example, it allows them to point out irregularities in a warrant, such as the fact that the police are at the wrong address, or that the scope of the warrant is being exceeded (for example, by rifling through dresser drawers in a search for a stolen car). Search warrants often contain limits on what may be searched, but when the searching officers have complete and unsupervised discretion over a search, a property owner cannot defend his or her rights.
Finally, this new "sneak and peek" power can be applied as part of normal criminal investigations; it has nothing to do with fighting terrorism or collecting foreign intelligence.
3. Expansion of the intelligence exception in wiretap law
Under the Patriot Act, the FBI can secretly conduct a physical search or wiretap on American citizens to obtain evidence of crime without proving probable cause, as the Fourth Amendment explicitly requires.
A 1978 law called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) created an exception to the Fourth Amendment's requirement for probable cause when the purpose of a wiretap or search was to gather foreign intelligence. The rationale was that since the search was not conducted for the purpose of gathering evidence to put someone on trial, the standards could be loosened. In a stark demonstration of why it can be dangerous to create exceptions to fundamental rights, however, the Patriot Act expanded this once-narrow exception to cover wiretaps and searches that DO collect evidence for regular domestic criminal cases. FISA previously allowed searches only if the primary purpose was to gather foreign intelligence. But the Patriot Act changes the law to allow searches when "a significant purpose" is intelligence. That lets the government circumvent the Constitution's probable cause requirement even when its main goal is ordinary law enforcement.
The eagerness of many in law enforcement to dispense with the requirements of the Fourth Amendment was revealed in August 2002 by the secret court that oversees domestic intelligence spying (the "FISA Court"). Making public one of its opinions for the first time in history, the court revealed that it had rejected an attempt by the Bush Administration to allow criminal prosecutors to use intelligence warrants to evade the Fourth Amendment entirely. The court also noted that agents applying for warrants had regularly filed false and misleading information. That opinion is now on appeal.
4. Expansion of the "pen register" exception in wiretap law
Another exception to the normal requirement for probable cause in wiretap law is also expanded by the Patriot Act. Years ago, when the law governing telephone wiretaps was written, a distinction was created between two types of surveillance. The first allows surveillance of the content or meaning of a communication, and the second only allows monitoring of the transactional or addressing information attached to a communication. It is like the difference between reading the address printed on the outside of a letter, and reading the letter inside, or listening to a phone conversation and merely recording the phone numbers dialed and received.
Wiretaps limited to transactional or addressing information are known as "Pen register/trap and trace" searches (for the devices that were used on telephones to collect telephone numbers). The requirements for getting a PR/TT warrant are essentially non-existent: the FBI need not show probable cause or even reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. It must only certify to a judge - without having to prove it - that such a warrant would be "relevant" to an ongoing criminal investigation. And the judge does not even have the authority to reject the application.
The Patriot Act broadens the pen register exception in two ways:
"Nationwide" pen register warrants
Under the Patriot Act PR/TT orders issued by a judge are no longer valid only in that judge's jurisdiction, but can be made valid anywhere in the United States. This "nationwide service" further marginalizes the role of the judiciary, because a judge cannot meaningfully monitor the extent to which his or her order is being used. In addition, this provision authorizes the equivalent of a blank warrant: the court issues the order, and the law enforcement agent fills in the places to be searched. That is a direct violation of the Fourth Amendment's explicit requirement that warrants be written "particularly describing the place to be searched."
Pen register searches applied to the Internet
The Patriot Act applies the distinction between transactional and content-oriented wiretaps to the Internet. The problem is that it takes the weak standards for access to transactional data and applies them to communications that are far more than addresses. On an e-mail message, for example, law enforcement has interpreted the "header" of a message to be transactional information accessible with a PR/TT warrant. But in addition to routing information, e-mail headers include the subject line, which is part of the substance of a communication - on a letter, for example, it would clearly be inside the envelope.
The government also argues that the transactional data for Web surfing is a list of the URLs or Web site addresses that a person visits. For example, it might record the fact that they visited "www.aclu.org" at 1:15 in the afternoon, and then skipped over to "www.fbi.gov" at 1:30. This claim that URLs are just addressing data breaks down in two different ways:
- Web addresses are rich and revealing content. The URLs or "addresses" of the Web pages we read are not really addresses, they are the titles of documents that we download from the Internet. When we "visit" a Web page what we are really doing is downloading that page from the Internet onto our computer, where it is displayed. Therefore, the list of URLs that we visit during a Web session is really a list of the documents we have downloaded - no different from a list of electronic books we might have purchased online. That is much richer information than a simple list of the people we have communicated with; it is intimate information that reveals who we are and what we are thinking about - much more like the content of a phone call than the number dialed. After all, it is often said that reading is a "conversation" with the author.
- Web addresses contain communications sent by a surfer. URLs themselves often have content embedded within them. A search on the Google search engine, for example, creates a page with a custom-generated URL that contains material that is clearly private content, such as: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=sexual+orient...
Similarly, if I fill out an online form - to purchase goods or register my preferences, for example - those products and preferences will often be identified in the resulting URL.
#37. To: nolu chan (#36)
Just six weeks after the September 11 attacks, a panicked Congress passed the "USA/Patriot Act," an overnight revision of the nation's surveillance laws that vastly expanded the government's authority to spy on its own citizens, while simultaneously reducing checks and balances on those powers like judicial oversight, public accountability, and the ability to challenge government searches in court.
Nancy Pelosi's infamous quote from 2010 about 0bama's HealthKare comes to mind: “We have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it". And just think for a moment, that same thinking started GWBush's War on Terror.
And today, are we any better off?
#38. To: buckeroo (#37)
And of course you Remember Ron Paul saying the didn't have time to even read the bill.
#39. To: buckeroo, A K A Stone (#37)
Nancy Pelosi's infamous quote from 2010 about 0bama's HealthKare comes to mind: “We have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it". And just think for a moment, that same thinking started GWBush's War on Terror.
It was really much worse than the Health Care bill. The USA PATRIOT Act was largely assorted amendments to other Acts.
I will provide an example:
Section 203 of the International Emergency Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1702) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(1)--
(A) at the end of subparagraph (A) (flush to that subparagraph), by striking '; and' and inserting a comma and the following:'by any person, or with respect to any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States;';
Without having the other Act to read, it is practically meaningless.
It amended:
8 USC §1105, 8 USC §1182g, 8 USC §1189, 8 USC §1202, 12 USC §248, 12 USC §1828, 12 USC §3414, 15 USC §1681a, 15 USC §6102, 15 USC §6106, 18 USC §7, 18 USC §81, 18 USC §175, 18 USC §470, 18 USC §471, 18 USC §472, 18 USC §473, 18 USC §474, 18 USC §476, 18 USC §477, 18 USC §478, 18 USC §479, 18 USC §480, 18 USC §481, 18 USC §484, 18 USC §493, 18 USC §917, 18 USC §930, 18 USC §981, 18 USC §1029, 18 USC §1030, 18 USC §1362, 18 USC §1363, 18 USC §1366, 18 USC §1956, 18 USC §1960, 18 USC §1961, 18 USC §1992, 18 USC §2155, 18 USC §2325, 18 USC §2331, 18 USC §2332e, 18 USC §2339A, 18 USC §2339B, 18 USC §2340A, 18 USC §2510, 18 USC §2511, 18 USC §2516, 18 USC §2517, 18 USC §2520, 18 USC §2702, 18 USC §2703, 18 USC §2707, 18 USC §2709, 18 USC §2711, 18 USC §3056, 18 USC §3077, 18 USC §3103, 18 USC §3121, 18 USC §3123, 18 USC §3124, 18 USC §3127, 18 USC §3286, 18 USC §3583, 20 USC §1232g, 20 USC §9007, 31 USC §310 (redesignated), 31 USC §5311, 31 USC §5312, 31 USC §5317, 31 USC §5318, 31 USC §5319, 31 USC §5321, 31 USC §5322, 31 USC §5324, 31 USC §5330, 31 USC §5331, 31 USC §5332, 31 USC §5341, 42 USC §2284, 42 USC §2284, 42 USC §3796, 42 USC §3796h, 42 USC §10601, 42 USC §10602, 42 USC §10603, 42 USC §10603b, 42 USC §14601, 42 USC §14135A, 47 USC §551, 49 USC §31305, 49 USC §46504, 49 USC §46505, 49 USC §60123, 50 USC §403-3c, 50 USC §401a, 50 USC §1702, 50 USC §1801, 50 USC §1803, 50 USC §1804, 50 USC §1805, 50 USC §1806, 50 USC §1823, 50 USC §1824, 50 USC §1842, 50 USC §1861, 50 USC §1862, 50 USC §1863.
#40. To: Murron (#25)
(chuckle)
Proxy IP's are amusing.....lmao
#41. To: jwpegler (#26)
JW,
While I don't dispute your assertions here, most of em aren't what we are actually talking about. Civilians with cell phone camera's isn' the government intruding on your life.
Proxy IP's are amusing.....lmao
#42. To: jwpegler (#27)
Yes, I have seen the google navigated vehicle.
Proxy IP's are amusing.....lmao
#43. To: A K A Stone (#28)
I don't even know who Che is.
A dead homicidal maniac that used politics as cover for his tendencies, kinda like homicide bombers using Islam to cover their homicidal tendencies.
Proxy IP's are amusing.....lmao
#44. To: A K A Stone (#30)
Doesn't the patriot act let the government do stuff bypassing the normal procedures used to obtain a warrant?Doesn't it violate habeus corups?
Nope. It doesn't. IMHO.
Proxy IP's are amusing.....lmao
#45. To: nolu chan (#32)
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,
An incoming call from overseas doesn't meet this criteria.
Proxy IP's are amusing.....lmao
#46. To: Badeye (#24)
Eventually, Jane split from Sutherland, saying she was moving into a different phase of her life and she couldn’t share it with one man. There were soon rumours that she was having liaisons with various activists.
She supposedly confided during a feminist consciousness-raising session, ‘My biggest regret is I never got to f*** Che Guevara.’
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2033795/Jane-Fonda-said- biggest-regret-sleeping-Che-Guevara.html#ixzz1XBnudoTD
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Remarkable how reality and you stand at odds...
America...My Kind Of Place...
"I truly am not that concerned about [bin Laden]..."
--GW Bush
"THE MILITIA IS COMING!!! THE MILITIA IS COMING!!!"
--Sarah Palin's version of "The Midnight Ride of Paul revere"
I lurk to see if someone other than Myst or Pookie posts anything...
#47. To: nolu chan (#36)
Congress reversed course because it was bullied into it by the Bush Administration in the frightening weeks after the September 11 attack.
Emmm, you need to go back and review those 'frightening weeks after the September 11 attack' nolu chan.
The Bush administration WAS AGAINST THIS initially, just as it was against the formation of the Department of Homeland Security.
This is the problem quoting the ACLU on any topic. The Bush administration in fact was 'bullied' not the other way around.
Proxy IP's are amusing.....lmao
#48. To: Badeye (#45)
An incoming call from overseas doesn't meet this criteria.
The government's powers are fixed. It's people like you who allow these shades of gray to appear that are more likely to destroy freedom.
America...My Kind Of Place...
"I truly am not that concerned about [bin Laden]..."
--GW Bush
"THE MILITIA IS COMING!!! THE MILITIA IS COMING!!!"
--Sarah Palin's version of "The Midnight Ride of Paul revere"
I lurk to see if someone other than Myst or Pookie posts anything...
#49. To: Badeye (#47)
The Bush administration WAS AGAINST [THE PATRIOT ACT] initially...
Bullshit. HIs regime was part of the negotiations of USAPA from Day 0ne.
...just as it was against the formation of the Department of Homeland Security.
They weren't bullied into the formation. They opposed it because it was a Clinton Era proposal. Supporting it would have been a tacit admission what everyone knew to be true...they had dropped the ball...
America...My Kind Of Place...
"I truly am not that concerned about [bin Laden]..."
--GW Bush
"THE MILITIA IS COMING!!! THE MILITIA IS COMING!!!"
--Sarah Palin's version of "The Midnight Ride of Paul revere"
I lurk to see if someone other than Myst or Pookie posts anything...
#50. To: Badeye (#41) (Edited)
Civilians with cell phone camera's isn' the government intruding on your life.
What this thread is really about is fear of change.
Over the 25 years, mainframe computers, bar codes, RFID, and now people with cellphone cameras posting on Facebook were going to destroy privacy and therefore society. Each in their own time were feared by some as the Revelations "Mark of the Beast".
That's what we are talking about.
My points are: A.) yes, privacy is dead and we need to just get over it, B.) all of technologies enhance freedom more than they enable the government to destroy it.
The hippies wanted peace and love. We wanted Ferraris, blondes and switchblades. -- Alice Cooper
#51. To: jwpegler (#50)
What this thread is really about is fear of change.
We do agree on this aspect.
But the truth is people have a weird illusion about what is 'private' and what is public. You'd be stunned how many people are shocked, literally SHOCKED, to learn the divorce proceeding they went through is 'public record'.
Seriously, they simply can't believe it when I tell them this.
My 'privacy' is in my home, and only if we close the blinds (laughing). Anything else? You've been kidding yourself.
btw, the other thing this thread is about is the kooks believing they are important, sooooo important, the Federal Government is watching THEM 24/7/365.
Cracks me up every time they unintentionally suggest its about 'them'.
Proxy IP's are amusing.....lmao
#52. To: Badeye (#51)
You'd be stunned how many people are shocked, literally SHOCKED, to learn the divorce proceeding they went through is 'public record'.
I've been through a divorce, so I know this.
Your will / inheritance proceedings are public as well. But, you can prevent this by creating a trust. Contrary to popular belief, the trust doesn't save you on taxes. It just keeps the distribution of assets out of probate (the public process of distributing your assets when you die).
I created a trust 12 years ago for privacy reasons.
The hippies wanted peace and love. We wanted Ferraris, blondes and switchblades. -- Alice Cooper
#53. To: jwpegler (#52)
Quite true.
Proxy IP's are amusing.....lmao
#54. To: Badeye (#47)
Emmm, you need to go back and review those 'frightening weeks after the September 11 attack' nolu chan.The Bush administration WAS AGAINST THIS initially, just as it was against the formation of the Department of Homeland Security.
This is the problem quoting the ACLU on any topic. The Bush administration in fact was 'bullied' not the other way around.
Actually I sourced to a Conservative Andrew Napolitano, to Glenn Greenwald, and to an ACLU article, as opposed to your sourcing to nothing at all. Sourcing to memory is fraught with problems all its own.
By October 11, 2011 the Senate passed the forerunner to the USA PATRIOT Act — Uniting and Strengthening America Act, 96-1, 3 NV. (Record vote 302). The House passed it the next day, 337-79, 1 Present, 14 NV (Roll No. 386).
The one (1) Senate Nay vote was by Feingold. In the House, the GOP vote was 207-3. The Dem vote was 129-75. Dem Obey voted Present.
The votes on the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT) Act occurred on October 24, 2001 in the House and October 25, 2001 in the Senate, and President Bush signed the bill into law on October 26, 2001.
The House vote was 357-66, 9 NV. The GOP vote was 211-3. The Dem vote was 145-62. The Independent vote was 1-1.
The Senate Vote was 98-1, 1 NV. The Nay vote was Feingold.
Who was the Republican leader of the opposition to this bill? What did they do to oppose it?
- - - - -
- - -
USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, HR 3162, 107 Cong, October 2001 (All Actions and Recorded Votes)
- - -
#55. To: Badeye (#45)
An incoming call from overseas doesn't meet this criteria.
Where the wiretapping is performed seems relevant, moreso than where a phone call originated.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/billofrights#amendmentiv
Amendment IVThe right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
I can't find the provision that exempted American citizens within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, from the constitutional protection against wiretapping of their phone calls within the United States.
I see where there is a necessity for a warrant and that no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause.
#56. To: nolu chan (#54)
Conservative Andrew Napolitano
Napolitano is a libertarian like me, not a neo-con like badeye.
The hippies wanted peace and love. We wanted Ferraris, blondes and switchblades. -- Alice Cooper
#57. To: nolu chan, Badeye (#55)
I can't find the provision that exempted American citizens within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, from the constitutional protection against wiretapping of their phone calls within the United States.I see where there is a necessity for a warrant and that no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause.
If you give it an honest reading you'd have to admit that nolu chan gave an honest no spin interpretation of the fourth amendment.
#58. To: nolu chan (#54)
Emmm, you need to go back and review those 'frightening weeks after the September 11 attack' nolu chan. The Bush administration WAS AGAINST THIS initially, just as it was against the formation of the Department of Homeland Security.This is the problem quoting the ACLU on any topic. The Bush administration in fact was 'bullied' not the other way around.
I figure if you look it up yourself, it will 'stick' nolu.
I don't require the source, I remember the Democrats bashing Bush over it, with a willing media.
Check it out, or don't, doesn't matter to me.
Proxy IP's are amusing.....lmao
#59. To: nolu chan (#55)
An incoming call from overseas doesn't meet this criteria. Where the wiretapping is performed seems relevant, moreso than where a phone call originated.
From what I understand, most of it is 'intercepted' at the communication satellites. As such, we agree, 'where' is in fact 'relevant'. Given its not within our borders as defined....where's the 'beef' as it relates to a constitutional argument?
Furthermore...its not 'wiretapping'. And that causes further ambiguity on the topic, in a legal debate.
Signal intercept is actually whats happening. And there is no definitive court ruling I'm aware of regarding it that applies to this specific argument.
Proxy IP's are amusing.....lmao
#60. To: A K A Stone (#57)
If you give it an honest reading you'd have to admit that nolu chan gave an honest no spin interpretation of the fourth amendment.
No denying he did.
The problem is its not 'wiretapping'. And thats what the entire legal debate/argument is based upon. As such, its not being struck down by any court, as we all know.
And its been pretty clearly showns the intercepts - not wiretaps, are occuring OUTSIDE of our borders, which makes the case to strike it down virtually impossible without the USSC going absolutely totally 'activist', expanding the definitions and court precedents so far as to be frightening on a whole other level, which I think you both would agree about.
All of this has been tried. All of it failed. I don't have to produce links for THAT, do I? (laughing). Nope, we all know thats 100% fact.
Anyway, I've said my view, stated why I view it this way. As I noted, I would allow the PA to sunset just because it simply doesn't work as advertised.
Proxy IP's are amusing.....lmao
#61. To: Badeye, nolu chan (#60)
The problem is its not 'wiretapping'.
The constitution doesn't mention wiretapping. It mentions being secure in your person and effects and requires a search warrant to get that information.
I would argue that having them require you to fill out a tax form is unconstitutional unless they have a warrant.
#62. To: Badeye (#58)
I don't require the source, I remember the Democrats bashing Bush over it, with a willing media.
I accept that you either cannot or will not provide any link, cite, or documentation to support what you claim to remember being done by some unidentified person or persons. As such, you have provided nothing and identified nobody to check out.
#63. To: Badeye (#59)
From what I understand, most of it is 'intercepted' at the communication satellites. As such, we agree, 'where' is in fact 'relevant'. Given its not within our borders as defined....where's the 'beef' as it relates to a constitutional argument?
Furthermore...its not 'wiretapping'. And that causes further ambiguity on the topic, in a legal debate.
Signal intercept is actually whats happening. And there is no definitive court ruling I'm aware of regarding it that applies to this specific argument.
I recommended that you read the provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act, or a court document to see where and how the intercepts have taken place.
While various sections authorize intercept wire, oral or electronic communications, the method of performing the intercept of phone communications is a wiretap, whether it is performed by an electronic communication service, landlord, custodian, or other person, including any officer, employee or agent thereof. Landlords and custodians are unlikely to be performing intercepts at a satellite. The primarily relevant interception of communications took place at a routing station of the service provider.
If it were not unlawful, a grant of immunity would not be sought or required. If it be unlawful in violation of the Constitution, Congress cannot make it lawful with legal pixie dust. What they can do is remove the appellate authority of the Federal courts to hear an action — any action they choose to remove from the court's jurisdiction.
USA PATRIOT Act of October 26, 2001, § 225.
SEC. 225. IMMUNITY FOR COMPLIANCE WITH FISA WIRE TAP.Section 105 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1805) is amended by inserting after subsection (g) the following:
‘‘(h) No cause of action shall lie in any court against any provider of a wire or electronic communication service, landlord, custodian, or other person (including any officer, employee, agent, or other specified person thereof) that furnishes any information, facilities, or technical assistance in accordance with a court order or request for emergency assistance under this Act.’’.
USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 (Text), HR 3162, 107 Cong, October 2001
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/16/us/16nsa.html
Officials Say U.S. Wiretaps Exceeded LawBy ERIC LICHTBLAU and JAMES RISEN
Published: April 15, 2009WASHINGTON — The National Security Agency intercepted private e-mail messages and phone calls of Americans in recent months on a scale that went beyond the broad legal limits established by Congress last year, government officials said in recent interviews.
Several intelligence officials, as well as lawyers briefed about the matter, said the N.S.A. had been engaged in “overcollection” of domestic communications of Americans. They described the practice as significant and systemic, although one official said it was believed to have been unintentional.
[snip]
In re NSA Telecommunications Records Litigation, CAND 3-07-cv-00109-VRW, Doc 57, 05jan2009, ORDER, at pp. 7-8.
To allege that the above-referenced telecommunications between al-Buthi and plaintiffs Belew and Ghafoor were wire communications and were intercepted by defendants within the United States, plaintiffs cite in their FAC several public statements by government officials, including: July 26, 2006 testimony by defendant Alexander and CIA Director Michael Hayden that telecommunications between the United States and abroad pass through routing stations located within the United States from which the NSA intercepts such telecommunications; May 1, 2007 testimony by Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell that interception of surveilled electronic communications between the United States and abroad occurs within the United States and thus requires a warrant under FISA; September 20, 2007 testimony by McConnell testified before the House Select Intelligence Committee that “[t]oday * * * [m]ost international communications are on a wire, fiber optical cable,” and “on a wire, in the United States, equals a warrant requirement [under FISA] even if it was against a foreign person located overseas.” ¶ 48a-c.
In re NSA Telecommunications Records Litigation, CAND 3-07-cv-00109-VRW Doc 57, 05jan2009, ORDER
.
.
.
Comments (64 - 67) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]