McConnell - All your internet are belong to us - Page 2

McConnell - All your internet are belong to us

This is a discussion on McConnell - All your internet are belong to us within the Off Topic & Humor Discussion forums, part of the The Back Porch category; Well-said, farronwolf. Pete...

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 62
  1. #16
    Ex Member Array spy1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    36
    Well-said, farronwolf. Pete


  2. #17
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by farronwolf View Post
    Just curious, but what are you afraid of? Do you think terrorists should be able to operate and communicate freely?

    If they were doing it via the USPS, the governement would not be able to do it unchecked, why should the email be made available unchecked.

    It is a simple matter of law. Anti-Federalists often try to project their views of privacy and freedom and overlook the legislation and rule of law that guides our society.

    Jere is the postal regulations of the US Code. I will highlight the relevant clause.

    TITLE 39 > PART IV > CHAPTER 36 > SUBCHAPTER II > §*3623
    (d) The Postal Service shall maintain one or more classes of mail for the transmission of letters sealed against inspection. The rate for each such class shall be uniform throughout the United States, its territories, and possessions. One such class shall provide for the most expeditious handling and transportation afforded mail matter by the Postal Service. No letter of such a class of domestic origin shall be opened except under authority of a search warrant authorized by law, or by an officer or employee of the Postal Service for the sole purpose of determining an address at which the letter can be delivered, or pursuant to the authorization of the addressee.

    Contrast that with the telecommunications part of the US Code. Again, I will highlight the relevant clause.

    TITLE 47 > CHAPTER 9 > SUBCHAPTER I > §*1004 §*1004. Systems security and integrity

    A telecommunications carrier shall ensure that any interception of communications or access to call-identifying information effected within its switching premises can be activated only in accordance with a court order or other lawful authorization and with the affirmative intervention of an individual officer or employee of the carrier acting in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Commission.
    ------------------------------------------------------

    Notice the important difference. or other lawful authorization That means that the Executive can mandate the intercept.

    You may disagree, but that is the law.

    The 4th ammendment doesn't say anything about an automobile, are they able to be searched without some probable cause or a warrant?
    The Fourth Amendment clearly says 'papers and effects.' Why would you think the autmobile requires a special comment?

    Does the 4th ammendment say anything about telephone conversations? No, are they protected?
    No, the Fourth doesn;t address telephone calls and so, no, they are not protected. How is your telephone call different than someone standing by you listening? Although telephone/email is clearly not protected by the Fourth Amendment (plain English is easy to understand) there is legislation that cover the issue. I provided the relevant passages above.

    I don't think that anyone here is afraid of anything other than a goverment that has and will continue to do things that are against the authority given to them by the law and the constitution. If anyone doesn't think they have or will continue to do this, your head has been under a rock someplace.
    I don't understand your point here. We the people pass the legislation as guided by the blueprint outlined in the Constitution. If you prefer that we cease intercepting enemy communications or tracking their whereabouts then you need to sway representative to agree with your views. But don't interpret the Constitution to your liking and consider it a living document. If you think it should be changed, the process for Amendment is outlined in Artile V.

    The arguement that, if your not doing anything illegal so you don't have anything to worry about is simply ignorant. If your willing to let certain areas of the government do warrantless wiretaps, searches, or email mining, why don't you just go ahead and turn in all your guns too. One right isn't any better than the next, give them all up.
    Your slippery slope argument is emotional, not based on fact. The fact is that email is not protected by the Constitution. The right to keep and bear arms is protected.

  3. #18
    VIP Member Array farronwolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,788
    Notice the important difference. or other lawful authorization That means that the Executive can mandate the intercept.

    I believe this is still a point on contention and that the courts have not fully ruled on this issue. I also believe that the courts will not come down on the side of the Executive branch and what they feel is authorized with out court approval in the end. I believe that email will eventually get the same protection as telephone communication as well. The laws are historically behind the technology, that doesn't mean that what people do in the absense of law or precidence is right.
    Just remember that shot placement is much more important with what you carry than how big a bang you get with each trigger pull.
    www.ddchl.com
    Texas CHL Instructor
    Texas Hunter Education Instructor
    NRA Instructor

  4. #19
    Member Array biasedbulldog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    317
    SelfDefense, I know original intent is a more iffy proposition than conservatives tend to recognize, but nonetheless, what do you think the 4th Amendment is about?

    1. Why would your *papers* be secured against unreasonable search? Setting aside the seizure issue, why would they declare the right against searching your papers?

    There is nothing unreasonable about searching communications for evidence of terrorist activity.

    2. Reasonable requires probable cause. "Terrorists use the Internet" does not constitute reasonable cause anymore than "Terrorists live in houses" would excuse checking every home.

    3. Your entire argument shows the wisdom of some in fighting the Bill of Rights. The Federal government was intended to be a delegated power, not a police power. In other words, you grant the government limited powers... as opposed to reserving rights against unlimited power. That is, you don't take away power from the federal government, because it has none to begin with. You *grant* power to an impotent body. Your argument implies that if it isn't specifically restricted by the amendment, the federal government can do whatever it wants.

    4. Let's put the argument where it belongs. Rather than us trying to show that we have a right to private emails, *you* show how reading my emails falls under a power delegated to the federal government by the Constitution and its amendments.

    The old liberty and security conundrum. Never easy.
    "War necessarily brings with it some virtues, and great and heroic virtues too. What horrid creatures we men are, that we cannot be virtuous without murdering one another?" -John Adams

  5. #20
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by farronwolf View Post
    Notice the important difference. or other lawful authorization That means that the Executive can mandate the intercept.

    I believe this is still a point on contention and that the courts have not fully ruled on this issue. I also believe that the courts will not come down on the side of the Executive branch and what they feel is authorized with out court approval in the end.
    The Court is not the final authority. It is just one of three co-equal branches of government. In fact, it was designed to be the weakest branch and we absolutely would be better off if nine men in robes did not even have the appearance of supreme power over the Republic, no less real power.

    I believe that email will eventually get the same protection as telephone communication as well. The laws are historically behind the technology, that doesn't mean that what people do in the absense of law or precidence is right.
    I tend to lean towards the Constitution, which is really easy to read and understand. Currently, email does have the same protection as telephone as I explained in my previous post. The fact is that neither protected by the Fourth Amendment by a simple reading. Which part of those concise words is not completely clear? Your 'interpretation' pd the Fourth is not too different than those who read meanings into the Second Amendment.

    You are correct. Laws sometimes do trail technology. In this case, the technology has been addressed and simply doesn't fall where you want it. I ask again in the spirit of understanding your position, what are you afaid of in the tracking and surveillance of terrorists? I know you realize the threats in thi tme of war. We as a nation demand that our government fulfill their obligation to protect us against foreign enemies. Why do you want to take important tools away?
    Last edited by SelfDefense; January 17th, 2008 at 09:33 PM. Reason: fix quote

  6. #21
    Member Array biasedbulldog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    317
    I tend to lean towards the Constitution, which is really easy to read and understand.
    I used to think that till I actually listened to some differing positions. Some of the arguments are silly, but some of them do address serious ambiguities that we ignore by assuming definitions of words and phrases that are by no means clear-cut.

    I am no Jefferson. I'm a recovering libertarian who no longer looks upon the government with the same antipathy as I would look on Satan himself. Nonetheless, I do believe in a limited, delegated federal power precisely because of the corruptibility of power that Acton spoke to, and I fear the flexibility of that delegated power in times of crisis and war.
    "War necessarily brings with it some virtues, and great and heroic virtues too. What horrid creatures we men are, that we cannot be virtuous without murdering one another?" -John Adams

  7. #22
    Member Array biasedbulldog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    317
    And again, the burden for proving a delegated Constitutional power allowing the federal government to read my emails is in your court.
    "War necessarily brings with it some virtues, and great and heroic virtues too. What horrid creatures we men are, that we cannot be virtuous without murdering one another?" -John Adams

  8. #23
    VIP Member Array farronwolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,788
    Selfdefense,

    We are not at war. Has congress declared some war that we are all unaware of? Last war I know of that was declared was during WWII.

    I am not against the tracking and surveillance of terroists, I don't think I ever said that. I am however against governmental agencies circumventing laws as they have, and will continue to do because they feel they are above laws. I am against the Executive branch, ie one person) exceeding their authority and claiming Executive privilage, and using an undeclared war as an excuse to cover its activities.

    You don't think that 9 men or women in robes should be the acting as they have supreme power over the republic, do you feel that the Executive branch should be acting in that manner?

    If the constitution was so easy to understand, why has there been and continues to be so much debate over what it implies or says, and court cases that test such things as the constitutionallity of this or that.

    Oh and if the Executive branch put more focus on getting the people out of our country that are here illegally, like they are supposed to be doing, they wouldn't have to worry about nearly as many incoming or outgoing calls or emails or whatever from these people they fail to remove from our soil.

    And as far as the laws not falling where I want them to, well since I spend most days in my office with CSpan 1 or 2 on and did happen to listen to the hearings on the FISA courts and cell phone tapping ect. The laws have not been updated to address all the newer technology. Even our not so fine Senators, and Congressmen agree that the laws are not particularly clear on these issues.
    Just remember that shot placement is much more important with what you carry than how big a bang you get with each trigger pull.
    www.ddchl.com
    Texas CHL Instructor
    Texas Hunter Education Instructor
    NRA Instructor

  9. #24
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by biasedbulldog View Post
    SelfDefense, I know original intent is a more iffy proposition than conservatives tend to recognize, but nonetheless, what do you think the 4th Amendment is about?

    1. Why would your *papers* be secured against unreasonable search? Setting aside the seizure issue, why would they declare the right against searching your papers?

    There is nothing unreasonable about searching communications for evidence of terrorist activity.

    2. Reasonable requires probable cause. "Terrorists use the Internet" does not constitute reasonable cause anymore than "Terrorists live in houses" would excuse checking every home.

    3. Your entire argument shows the wisdom of some in fighting the Bill of Rights. The Federal government was intended to be a delegated power, not a police power. In other words, you grant the government limited powers... as opposed to reserving rights against unlimited power. That is, you don't take away power from the federal government, because it has none to begin with. You *grant* power to an impotent body. Your argument implies that if it isn't specifically restricted by the amendment, the federal government can do whatever it wants.

    4. Let's put the argument where it belongs. Rather than us trying to show that we have a right to private emails, *you* show how reading my emails falls under a power delegated to the federal government by the Constitution and its amendments.

    The old liberty and security conundrum. Never easy.
    I definitely agree with your last statement. It is not easy and there is a tradeoff. I hope we err on the side of security. In fact, I can't think of a single objection to intercepting enemy communications as it imposes absolutely no hardship on law abiding citizens. Roosevelt interned innocent Americans just because they were of Japanese descent. That could be considered a hardship, mining email data is laughable in contrast.

    The history of the Fourth was not born from a concept of privacy, but rather that English citizens had their locks broken and their homes overrun. Extrapolating that to telephone and email is nonsense.

    As to your last point, no one is reading you emails. Computers are looking for patterns of to/from addresses and keywords and phrases within emails. Your privacy is not even at isse. The goal is to track, infiltrate and thwart terrorists. I am surpised that so many have an objecion to that goal at the expense of...well...nothing.

  10. #25
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by biasedbulldog View Post
    I used to think that till I actually listened to some differing positions. Some of the arguments are silly, but some of them do address serious ambiguities that we ignore by assuming definitions of words and phrases that are by no means clear-cut.

    I am no Jefferson. I'm a recovering libertarian who no longer looks upon the government with the same antipathy as I would look on Satan himself. Nonetheless, I do believe in a limited, delegated federal power precisely because of the corruptibility of power that Acton spoke to, and I fear the flexibility of that delegated power in times of crisis and war.
    Congratualtions on your continued recovery. I hope my opinions and your further research will bring you aroud to the Federalis view. Yes, limited government, states sovereignty and enumerated powers.

    I do not share your fears. We are completely in control of the government. We are the government. In this election cycle we are electing a new Executive and all that entails. But we cannot forget the very important Senate and House elections. They will be overlooked as we are inundated with Obama and Giuiliani and Romney issues but they are no less important.

    I keep hearing that we need the Second to preserve our other rights. The most important point is that if we do not preserve national security then we will not have any rights at all.

  11. #26
    Member Array phaed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Fort Huachuca, AZ
    Posts
    453
    defense from terrorists is not debatable. what is debatable, if given this power, is that it will inevitably be abused for other purposes.

    he who would sacrifice liberty...
    War is not the ugliest of things. Worse is the decayed state of moral feeling which thinks nothing is worth a war. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which he cares for more than his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free. -J.S. Mill

  12. #27
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by biasedbulldog View Post
    And again, the burden for proving a delegated Constitutional power allowing the federal government to read my emails is in your court.
    The Constitutional power is the mandate that the Executive is responsible for national security and tracking of terrorists is of paramount importance. No one is reading your emails and even if they were no law is being violated.

  13. #28
    Member Array phaed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Fort Huachuca, AZ
    Posts
    453
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    Congratualtions on your continued recovery. I hope my opinions and your further research will bring you aroud to the Federalis view. Yes, limited government, states sovereignty and enumerated powers.

    I do not share your fears. We are completely in control of the government. We are the government. In this election cycle we are electing a new Executive and all that entails. But we cannot forget the very important Senate and House elections. They will be overlooked as we are inundated with Obama and Giuiliani and Romney issues but they are no less important.

    I keep hearing that we need the Second to preserve our other rights. The most important point is that if we do not preserve national security then we will not have any rights at all.
    guess you've never seen "hacking democracy". oh, and you most definitely have fears far greater than the ones you accuse others of.
    War is not the ugliest of things. Worse is the decayed state of moral feeling which thinks nothing is worth a war. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which he cares for more than his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free. -J.S. Mill

  14. #29
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by farronwolf View Post
    Selfdefense,

    We are not at war. Has congress declared some war that we are all unaware of? Last war I know of that was declared was during WWII.
    We are not at war? We're not going there, are we? The Congress did not declare war but the enemy certainly declared war against the United States.

    I am not against the tracking and surveillance of terroists, I don't think I ever said that. I am however against governmental agencies circumventing laws as they have, and will continue to do because they feel they are above laws. I am against the Executive branch, ie one person) exceeding their authority and claiming Executive privilage, and using an undeclared war as an excuse to cover its activities.
    Can you show a governmental agency has circumvented the law? I provided the relevant statutes and there is nothng that could be considered a violation. War is not the issue, national security is the issue.

    You don't think that 9 men or women in robes should be the acting as they have supreme power over the republic, do you feel that the Executive branch should be acting in that manner?
    It has nothing to do with what I think. It has everything to do with the Constitution and the powers of the Executive. And certainly the nine men in robes do not have supreme power They should not even have a significant power. After all, certainly you agree that elected officials should have at least as much power as unelected officals.

    If the constitution was so easy to understand, why has there been and continues to be so much debate over what it implies or says, and court cases that test such things as the constitutionallity of this or that.
    It is nonsense. Anyone with limited reading ability can understand the Constitution and the Federalist Papers provide the intent. In my opinion, the Bill of Rights should not even be part of the Constituion. Virtually every dispute is based on the idiotic notion that the government should control our rights by fiat. There are very few disputes over the body of the Constitution. (Although the phrase, 'general welfare' has been quite a problem.)


    Oh and if the Executive branch put more focus on getting the people out of our country that are here illegally, like they are supposed to be doing, they wouldn't have to worry about nearly as many incoming or outgoing calls or emails or whatever from these people they fail to remove from our soil.
    We have found a point in which we are in complete agreement. I cannot express the level of my dissatisfaction with the handling of the illegal alien issue. I guess it is too late to support a Hunter/Tancredo ticket.

    And as far as the laws not falling where I want them to, well since I spend most days in my office with CSpan 1 or 2 on and did happen to listen to the hearings on the FISA courts and cell phone tapping ect. The laws have not been updated to address all the newer technology. Even our not so fine Senators, and Congressmen agree that the laws are not particularly clear on these issues.
    I don't know about that. I read the law and it is very clear. What the Congressmen object to is that the Executive is using its Constitutional powers. Nothing new here. It's been that way for over two hundred years. By design.

  15. #30
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by phaed View Post
    defense from terrorists is not debatable. what is debatable, if given this power, is that it will inevitably be abused for other purposes.

    he who would sacrifice liberty...
    And when it is abused we should take action. But not before...

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Do you belong to a Gun Rights Association?
    By Timmy Jimmy in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 61
    Last Post: May 10th, 2012, 06:30 PM
  2. LTE: Guns don't belong on campuses
    By DaveH in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: April 4th, 2009, 12:39 PM
  3. What Gun "Rights"Organizations Does Everyone Belong To?
    By ArmedAviator in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: February 13th, 2008, 10:26 AM
  4. Florida Update: Your cars belong to the company for another year.
    By Miggy in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: April 23rd, 2007, 07:54 PM
  5. To which race of Middle Earth do you belong?
    By JT in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: April 17th, 2006, 04:43 PM

Search tags for this page

%22us+code+title+18+section 1701%22

Click on a term to search for related topics.

» Log in

User Name:

Password:

Not a member yet?
Register Now!

» DefensiveCarry Sponsors