Robert S. Mueller III, the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, traveled to Silicon Valley on Tuesday to meet with top executives of several technology firms about a proposal to make it easier to wiretap Internet users.
Mr. Mueller and the F.B.I.’s general counsel, Valerie Caproni, were scheduled to meet with senior managers of several major companies, including Google and Facebook, according to several people familiar with the discussions.
...
Mr. Mueller wants to expand a 1994 law, the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, to impose regulations on Internet companies.
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Obama Wants Wider Wiretap Law for Web
Fascism continues its ugly rise in the former "Land of the Free". Welcome to the American Police State. And of course they want all the power over the freest medium in history that they can get their filthy hands on, because the Internet is threatening to topple the old order and the control of the ruling class.
Wider Wiretap Law for Web
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I'm sure I'll regret this, because asking questions seem to mean I'm a fascist... but what exactly are people worried about when it comes to wiretapping? Paint me the worst-case scenario.
ReplyDeleteNot saying I support wiretapping, but what are people fearing from their "invasion of privacy," when in fact the private companies can (and do) invade our privacy on a constant basis.
It's the same sort of thing with cameras: stores can put them everywhere and Americans don't bat an eye, but if the government puts a camera somewhere, we're suddenly snowballing down a slippery slope towards everyone living in cages.
Just asking. Cue the over-reaction and complete dismissal of my question.
," when in fact the private companies can (and do) invade our privacy on a constant basis.
ReplyDeleteA private company doesn't have the monopoly police powers that the state does, now does it?
But I have a question for you. How can someone who paints himself as some kind of a liberal even ask the question. It's like asking "if you've got nothing to hide, why do you want the cops to get a search warrant before going through your stuff?"
And it's not that I'm unconcerned about what corporations do, just that there remains a big difference between the Federal government and one single company. The power disparity (and "legal" authority to come after someone) between the two shouldn't even have to be explained.
I knew you couldn't answer me.
ReplyDeleteHow could I ask a question? How could you not?
Bret, do you love Big Brother?
ReplyDeleteI also hope you haven't forgotten that we have something called the Bill of Rights which includes amendment number four. It was ratified specifically to restrict goverment power and protect the basic rights of the people.
I'm a supporter of the ACLU, but frankly, I don't think you'd fit in with that crowd. They worry all the time about the erosion of civil liberties. I can see you at a meeting. "Gee, people, get a grip with this protesting the PATRIOT Act thing, will you."
Paint me the worst-case scenario.
ReplyDeleteYour "question" isn't very focused, is it? Can't say I'm suprised. Do you mean the worst case now, or in the future when the powers that have been put in place can be used for whatever purpose the state decides?
You think I'm going to trip you up on not coming up with the worst possible outcome? Is that honestly your stall tactic?
ReplyDeleteI knew better than to ask a question...
ReplyDeleteAll hail our Anarchist Overlords, who know what is best for all! Question them not, or invoke their ire!
Anarchist Overlords Oxymoron.
ReplyDeleteHow about this, Bret. You submit voluntarily to the government's wiretaps and allow me and anyone else who wants to, to opt out.
See, I don't want to impose my views on you at all. Now, wasn't that easy?
A company can't come and destroy your life on a mistake. It doesn't have that kind of power.
ReplyDeleteThe government can. And to me, it's inconsenquential the frequency of it; that it happens at all is frightening in of itself.
So can I opt out of the murder law so I can shoot you in the face for not answering a simple question?
ReplyDeleteHow can wiretapping be abused? It's not a trick question, guys, and anyone is free to answer.
So can I opt out of the murder law
ReplyDeleteNo, you can't "opt" yourself the right to kill me. There is a difference between positive and negative acts. It does no harm to you to if I keep my personal conversations, emails, etc, private. It of course does great harm if I shoot you. But as a "might makes right" junkie, I don't expect you to see the difference.
How can wiretapping be abused?
What is your definition of abused? Abused in the sense of going beyond the original "intent" of the law? That happens all the time with nearly all government measures, so, it could surely be abused in that way.
If you mean what harm could it do someone, what's the worst that could happen if you're forced to submit to a full body cavity search every time you board a plane? That's a ridiculous question, of course, but not so much different than yours.
The harm comes from the mere existance of such "laws". The state has no right to infringe on my freedom or privacy. But, they not only do that limited damage to personal liberty, they at the same time widen and increase the powers that the government grants itself. Each step in that totalitarian direction leads to greater state control over private individuals and society in general, until you find yourself unable to even speak your mind openly (as has already happened in Europe and Canada with "hate speech" laws) without facing possible fines and prison time.
As to wiretapping, you could simply have an innocent communication with a peace or anti-war group that is later ruled as supporting terrorists and then find yourself hauled away without trial as an "enemy combatant" (though the Obama administration no longer wants to use that term). The harm also comes in stifling freedom and openness through intimidation and fear and creating an atmosphere of suspicion around otherwise normal activities and actions, so that people become afraid that they could be called a traitor or worse, and therefore put self-imposed limits on what they say and do, or who they befriend. The state is very good at that, but it's inimical to a free and truly open scoiety.
But if you don't believe you have the basic right to just be left alone, come out and say so.
A company can't come and destroy your life on a mistake. It doesn't have that kind of power.
ReplyDeleteBa-dum-BUM.
Clearly, denials of health care coverage for various whimsical reasons, mistaken or not... they just can't destroy your life. One's health is directly related to one's monetary power and one's monetary power is directly related to one's insurance coverage. So yeah, there's really NO WAY an insurance company (for example) ever could render a decision that kills you. No way at all. None.
Sorry, typo:
ReplyDeleteThe state is very good at that, but it's inimical to a free and truly open society.
what's the worst that could happen if you're forced to submit to a full body cavity search every time you board a plane?
ReplyDeleteThe reason this is wrong is not because of privacy issues, but because people ought to be secure in their person and belongs. I don't even like them searching your things in airports, let alone rubbing you down and causing who knows what kind of psychological trauma to rape victims or deeply religious individuals. Where this differs from wiretapping is that they aren't touching you or even interrupting you in any fashion. The act of wiretapping itself is not invasive, what I wanted was something like this:
As to wiretapping, you could simply have an innocent communication with a peace or anti-war group that is later ruled as supporting terrorists and then find yourself hauled away without trial as an "enemy combatant"
I might argue this is largely a factor of the totalitarian Bush regime and could have happened wiretaps or not (or that a fascist regime need not have the means already in place, but that's another issue entirely, about whether to constitutionally ban such action, thus creating another road block).
But at least I see how unimposing this is. In point of fact, I would have gone with something more like, "They could track drug users and dealers," and thereby argue it's wrong. But in both cases, anti-war protesters and drug users face a more tangible problem in the threat of war mongers wishing to silence the former and standing drug laws that are unfair and unjust.
What I suggest is this, as an hypothesized scenario we are not where near achieving: in a world where laws are truly just, there should be no harm in literally every person's actions and words being recorded for posterity. While you see this as an invasion of privacy, I think the scientific ramifications in fields like sociology would be unbelievably. In this hypothetical world where no one does anything secretly out of embarrassment because everyone is open and accepting, is there anything to hide?
Again, I'm not saying I think that increasing a government's ability to spy on its citizens is a good thing, I'm just trying to be a little skeptical.
Charles,
ReplyDeleteWell, I can't speak to that (insurance rationing) seeing I'm not American. I'm Canadian. Mind you, the EXACT same thing happens in reverse here. The government can decide what surgery you can and can't have.
However, I took for granted the spirit of what I meant. The government can come knock your door down and throw you in jail while a corporation can't do that - lawfully anyway.
Hope that clears it up a little.
Eh?
Don't forget banks kicking you out of your home, sometimes even based on a filing error.
ReplyDeleteThe banks are criminal organizations, but they're not free market enterprises. Banking in particular relies on the Federal Reserve's counterfeiting system, special privledges, and fractional reserve banking to create money out of thin air. The big banksters are a creation of the state.
ReplyDeleteAnd in the absence of government, we all know these organizations would all play nice... obviously...
ReplyDeletebut because people ought to be secure in their person and belongs.
ReplyDeleteAs they ought to be secure in knowing their private communications are truly private, and no third party is listening in. I don't see the distinction here that you do, it's more one of degree than kind. We're not talking cameras at Walmart, it's about personal interactions that are meant and assumed to be secure, like an email or text message or phone call. One is more offensive on a visceral level, but both violate your personal security and are invasive. In fact, wiretapping could be considered even more invasive in many respects (unless you think it wouldn't be invasive if I secretly listened in to your phone calls to your wife--I'm sure a Ginx joke will follow).
The act of wiretapping itself is not invasive
ReplyDeleteA ridiculous statement. It's one of the most invasive things any government (or anyone else) can do to someone.
A ridiculous statement. It's one of the most invasive things any government (or anyone else) can do to someone.
ReplyDeleteIn what way?
You're talking about a population that is obsessed with facebook and talking so loud that people across the room can hear... I'm just curious if you could expound of this, rather than using emotional arguments.
*expound on
ReplyDeleteIn what way?
ReplyDeleteYou're talking about a population that is obsessed with facebook and talking so loud that people across the room can hear..
You're talking apples and oranges. You can't see any difference between things you know others will see and overhear (or that you really want them to) and things you assume are (and want to remain) private, like an email to your lover?
And what is emotional in what I said?
If you're trying to prove yourself an intellectually dishonest fool, Ginx, you're succeeding.
What is there to expound on, Fool? By definition it is invasive to invade someone's private communications.
ReplyDeleteIf you listened to phone calls between me and my wife, you would be very bored. But it has nothing to do with my personal experience, I'm asking what problems can arise and how it's the "most invasive" thing one can have happen to them?
ReplyDeleteAnd again, you don't have to insult me, but it's nice to see you're willing to go above (quesitoning) and beyond (civility).
So let me get something clear: exposing something that someone thought was private is a crime, or is it only a crime if the government listens?
Bret isn’t this a bit ridiculous coming from you?
ReplyDelete"And again, you don't have to insult me, but it's nice to see you're willing to go above (quesitoning) and beyond (civility).”
A bit of the pot kettle black don’t you think...
The issue comes down to the very basic reason you have the arguments you have here with anarchists, (and others like myself) in the end you do not consider the “person” the individual as “owning themselves” or any of the products or work that individual would produce.
Multiple times you have made statements that can only be taken as the right of the “government” to take, control, and direct the individual “for the greater good” - this is at it’s base incompatible with individualists, anti-statists, and even supporters of a constitutionally controlled government (including the flawed mercantilist version of the USA).
You are in effect saying “if you got nothing to hide, what are you worried about” - if you cannot see the basic problem with that then you will only continue to be abrasive to the above listed individuals and end up the perpetual “see the excellent example from Bret the resident purveyor of what is wrong in our view” comic relief position.
The above listed simple have to say “it is none of any other’s damned business” and that is simply the end, I find it strange that you complain about Bush the stupid’s anti-freedom fascism but then turn out this contradictory position (among other anti-vollunteerist positions).
A bit of the pot kettle black don’t you think...
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't make the pot or kettle any less black.
you do not consider the “person” the individual as “owning themselves” or any of the products or work that individual would produce.
I disagree entirely on this point. But I'll just move along in your comment.
You are in effect saying “if you got nothing to hide, what are you worried about”
Um... no, because that is a statement (which I don't even agree with) and I asked a question.
it is none of any other’s damned business
Well, that could be true, unless it is someone else's business. I think it would be foolish to say everything that happens in private is totally ethical, what I'm asking is: is it ethical to eavesdrop, specifically in this case, should the government be legally allowed to eavesdrop.
And you are also an anti-volunteerist, and that's okay. From the time we are born (unless you chose your parents), we don't volunteer for a great many things, but what is important is that individuals be given as much freedom as is possible, and just compensation in the event of not being given a choice.
I'll do a post on this, where hopefully we can reset this discussion and simply get down to the heart of it.
I'll do a post on this, where hopefully we can reset this discussion and simply get down to the heart of it.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Bret.
is it ethical to eavesdrop, specifically in this case, should the government be legally allowed to eavesdrop
In what context?
I think the "heart of it" is simple. No, the goverment should not be allowed to listen, or at the very least, not without probable cause (which means they'll have to provide actual evidence to a judge, not mere suspicion ) and a warrant (though most warrants are just rubber stamped anyway).
The issue shouldn't be too hard to figure out, unless you're an anti-civil-libertarian. Does the goverment have a general right to know whatever it wants to about you, including having open access to all of your calls, etc. at any time and for any reason (or no reason), or does the individual have the right to privacy in such matters.
It's pretty black and white, so I don't understand what appears to be your deliberate obfuscation on this issue.
I'll just say this: there are people who say the elimination of government is insane, and they often act emotionally and provide insufficient evidence to convince the anarchist that government is preferable.
ReplyDelete