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; Originally Posted by simon "all your internet belongs to us"...this was on "40oz. Warriors" site...off some pics that were sent in that said"all your beer ...

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 62

Thread: McConnell - All your internet are belong to us

  1. #46
    Member Array biasedbulldog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    317
    Quote Originally Posted by simon View Post
    "all your internet belongs to us"...this was on "40oz. Warriors" site...off some pics that were sent in that said"all your beer belongs to us"....came from AU i think....
    just my .02.......
    It's originally a classic mistranslation from a computer game back in the day: "all your base are belong to us."
    "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

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #47
    BAC
    BAC is offline
    VIP Member Array BAC's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    2,292
    Quote Originally Posted by biasedbulldog View Post
    I'm still waiting for Constitutional justification for reading email based on a delegated power ;)
    Marbury v. Madison. They gave themselves that power. I long for the day when a politician will even mention it, much less make a stand to repeal it.


    -B

  4. #48
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by BAC View Post
    Marbury v. Madison. They gave themselves that power. I long for the day when a politician will even mention it, much less make a stand to repeal it.


    -B
    Before I reply to the other posts I want to give BAC a hearty

    I am disappointed that so many rely on the Court, or the subordinate courts, to support their argument. I prefer to look at legislation and Constitutional powers.

    There is no foundation for Court to have usurped so much power or moral authority of the people of the United States.

  5. #49
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by biasedbulldog View Post
    I'm still waiting for Constitutional justification for reading email based on a delegated power ;)
    I'm still waiting for ANY reason whyyou think the Federal government cannot read your email. I posted the applicable US Code that specifically allows for the Executive authority and contrasted that with the prohibition against search postal mail.

    Further, no one is reading your email. It is being mined to evidence of terrorist activity. Is tracking down terrorists a problem for you?

  6. #50
    BAC
    BAC is offline
    VIP Member Array BAC's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    2,292
    I appreciate the sentiments. A topic for another day (my way of avoiding myself from derailing this thread entirely).


    -B

  7. #51
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by farronwolf View Post
    Here is something interesting that I ran across.

    Apparrantly at least the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals thinks that email is covered by the 4th ammendment. It has not been decided as to whether the government will appeal it to the Supreme Court. So, it appears that this is not so clear cut as some my want us to believe.

    http://w2.eff.org/legal/cases/warsha...injunction.pdf

    the district court deemed it unnecessary to examine his likelihood of success on the SCA claim. It also found that Warshak would suffer
    irreparable harm based on any additional constitutional violations, that such harm was imminent inlight of the government’s past violations and its refusal to agree not to conduct similar seizures in
    the future, that Warshak lacked an adequate remedy at law to protect his Fourth Amendment rights, and that the public interest in preventing constitutional violations weighed in favor of the injunction.
    I cannot read pdf files. Can you post relevant portions?

    One comment, though, is that email is not mentioned in the Fourth Amendment. It is clearly no an 'effect. It is not protected from search unless you choose to make the Constitution a living document to suit your whim of the day.

    Moreover, data mining is absolutely not reading anyone's email. And finally, I have challenged anyone to show this irreparable harm to which the previous paragraph alludes. Not a single person has been able to show how they would be harmed. They are secure in the homes, papers, and effects. That is what is protected by the Constitution. You want email to be protected from it being used to track and catch terrorists then you should change THE LAW not hope some court makes some activist ruling.

  8. #52
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by spy1 View Post
    Yes, I should familiarize myself with those websites but I have a feeling I know what is there.

    The truth is that I do not get my information nor form my opinio based on websites. I prefer to review US Code and the Constitution as well as my particular Federalist belief that government is mandated to protect its citizens by every means possible nder the rule of law. I see a lot of 'my rights are violated' but no one provides a shred of substance, only that they are afraid of government [lega] intrusion. Since government is the people I would suggest some are afraid of their own reflection.

    [QUOTE]And I'm still waiting for you to stop using such a pitiful argument to "support" your position.[QUOTE]

    Sure... I won't refer to US Code or the Constitution since that is 'pitiful' support. I'll resort to an argument based on emotion and numbers of people in agreement with my view.

    Again - I've stated time and again that there's no possible way to prove an impact on an individual if the government itself absolutely REFUSES to release the names of the individuals they've already monitored.
    So your argument is that you can't show anyone is harmed because...well the government won't tell you? Do you think the people who are harmed might identify themselves? I'm sure there are thousands. Maybe hundreds? Tens? Is there even one or two? No, because there is no harm!

    Let me make sure I understand your position. Despite no evidence you are alleging that someone is harmed.

    Employers won't tell you if you've been put under the microscope by the feds (didn't get that last promotion or raise? Will you ever know why?), businesses won't tell you if your records have been requested - both on pain of fines.
    Now you think an employer should be required to divulge information to an employee? Can you show me a statute that supports that interesting idea?

    They can't even fight an NSL or a section 215 without waiting a year to start the process after being served - and then they would have to do so at their own expense (which pretty much guarantees they won't do it at all, which is exactly why it was set up like that by the government).
    So you are saying that there is a law, simply a law you do not like. I don't like many laws, too. I find it annoying I cannot drive as fast as I want.

    About the only thing that could tip someone off is if they were selected for further "processing" when they attempted to board a plane - and even that wouldn't be proof-positive, as it could very well be government stupidity instead of proof of actual "filing/listing".
    So you think terrorists should be able to operate with little scrutiny because you will not be inconvenienced? That is a weird argument. Email mining does not inconvenience you in the slightest. In fact, you have no idea whether it is done or not. That is an inconvenience? You have been harmed?

    You seem to keep assuming that people are stupid, and that they can't reason this stuff out for themselves - they can and have and will continue to do so.
    I am assuming people are intelligent enough to understand the neccessity of national security measures that neither inconvenience nor cause any hardship to anyone but the enemy.

    The only question is - when are you going to figure it out for yourself? pete
    I would certainly be willing to change my mind if anyone could come up with a persuasive argument. You know, if you are so against email mining feel free to use the US postal service. Your 'privacy' is then protected by current US Code. Of course, if a warrant is issued by a court...

  9. #53
    VIP Member Array farronwolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,766
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    I cannot read pdf files. Can you post relevant portions?

    One comment, though, is that email is not mentioned in the Fourth Amendment. It is clearly no an 'effect. It is not protected from search unless you choose to make the Constitution a living document to suit your whim of the day.

    Moreover, data mining is absolutely not reading anyone's email. And finally, I have challenged anyone to show this irreparable harm to which the previous paragraph alludes. Not a single person has been able to show how they would be harmed. They are secure in the homes, papers, and effects. That is what is protected by the Constitution. You want email to be protected from it being used to track and catch terrorists then you should change THE LAW not hope some court makes some activist ruling.
    Adobe reader is a free download for anyone who wishes.

    Just because something is not specifically mentioned, especially because it didn't exist when the constituion was written, does not mean it isn't protected, there are plenty of court cases and precident to support this. You don't feel that papers and effects covers email, that is your choice, the courts disagree with both you and the government agencies that are taking your side. Can you show me where in the constitution it says the executive branch is authorized to mine email?

    Just because a citizen isn't having irreparable harm done to them does not make it legal. Can you give any documentation to support this? I gave you a appelate court ruling that specifically address this issue and you choose to ignore it. Again, the government has not choosen to appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court.

    I am pretty well done with this, since the basis for one side of the arguement is the government wants to do it, you can't show it harms anyone, and the courts be damned.
    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

  10. #54
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by farronwolf View Post
    Adobe reader is a free download for anyone who wishes.
    Yes, I know. But my internet appliance doesn't support it.

    Just because something is not specifically mentioned, especially because it didn't exist when the constituion was written, does not mean it isn't protected,
    Well, that is an area we will have to agree to disagree. Just because it wasn't invented does not make it probable that the Founders would have included it in the Fourth Amendment protection. We simply don't know. I prefer to read the text. It is succinct, concise, and easily understood. There is a process for amending the Constitution to include things that are not there but empowering a Court to actively change the words of the Constitution on a whim is unacceptable.

    there are plenty of court cases and precident to support this. You don't feel that papers and effects covers email, that is your choice, the courts disagree with both you and the government agencies that are taking your side. Can you show me where in the constitution it says the executive branch is authorized to mine email?
    Yes, the Execuive branch is mandated to protect our national security. That is all the authorization reuired until and unless the Congress passes a law to prohibit that important anti-terrorist tool. As to the Court and courts, my position is pretty well known. Let's just say I am less than impressed with their usurped power and their perceived moral authority. They are not the final authority. I support ridding the Federal judiciary of EVERY subordinate court, firing all the activist judges, and rebuilding (if we the people think they are in any way necessary,) with Federal judges that will perform their duties in line with the intent of the Founders.

    Just because a citizen isn't having irreparable harm done to them does not make it legal. Can you give any documentation to support this? I gave you a appelate court ruling that specifically address this issue and you choose to ignore it. Again, the government has not choosen to appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court.
    Perhaps the Executive did not appeal because they don't care what the court says. The court does not make law or policy and they certainly have no influence on the Executive. They rendered their opinion if the Executive chooses to ignore it...they are not breaking THE LAW. Perhaps the Executive might care if the Supreme Court rendered a decision as the current Administration readily kowtows to the Court.

    I am pretty well done with this, since the basis for one side of the arguement is the government wants to do it, you can't show it harms anyone, and the courts be damned.
    I have certainly enjoyed the debate and I think a lot of good points were raised (especially by me .) It is a good discussion.
    Last edited by SelfDefense; January 19th, 2008 at 07:50 PM. Reason: fix it up

  11. #55
    Member Array biasedbulldog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    317
    Quote Originally Posted by BAC View Post
    Marbury v. Madison. They gave themselves that power. I long for the day when a politician will even mention it, much less make a stand to repeal it.

    -B
    Again, BAC, please show me Constitutional text for your argument.


    SelfDefense, US law code is not the Constitution, and as we all know, a federal statute is not a reliable sign of constitutionality.

    Again, the burden of proof for a federal power is on proving that is DELEGATED, not that it is restricted. If this were a state action (since states are police powers), I would have to show you proof that it is restricted. But since the federal government only possesses the powers specifically delegated to it by the Constitution, the burden of proof rests entirely on you. I don't have to show that its restricted, because it automatically IS unless the Constitution allows it.
    "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

  12. #56
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by biasedbulldog View Post
    SelfDefense, US law code is not the Constitution, and as we all know, a federal statute is not a reliable sign of constitutionality.

    Again, the burden of proof for a federal power is on proving that is DELEGATED, not that it is restricted. If this were a state action (since states are police powers), I would have to show you proof that it is restricted. But since the federal government only possesses the powers specifically delegated to it by the Constitution, the burden of proof rests entirely on you. I don't have to show that its restricted, because it automatically IS unless the Constitution allows it.
    I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the Constitution and the intent of the Founders as outlined in the Declaration of Independence and the Federalist Papers. To properly understand the role of the Federal government all three documents must be considered in concert.

    The fact is that our government operates by the rule of law. The checks and balances provided by the Founders prevent any of the branches from a tyrannical rule. The actions of the President are provided by US Code, which the President is mandated to enforce. You attempt to minimize the US Code but that is the overarching authority. The Constitution provides a blueprint, the US Code is the law of the land. It is legislation approved by the people (Congress) and approved by the President.

    If you think email should be treated as postal mail then you need to contact your representatives and have the LAW changed. Your opinion as to whether it is Constitutional is mere opinion. And the Court was never designed to usurp the power of the people or the Executive. We are a nation of laws.

    The burden is on you to demonstrate that mining email is illegal. I showed you the law. The law spells out specifically under what circumstances email can be searched; they are well considered and easily understood.

  13. #57
    Member Array biasedbulldog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    317
    The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, actually. More than a blueprint, it stands above the law code. And laws are limited to an exercise of those powers delegated to the federal government in the Constitution and its amendments.

    The only thing I have to do to show unconstitutionality is to point out that the law has no foundation in the Constitution. I merely show absence of support.

    So, here is my Constitutional argument. The United States has no Constitutional power to search my emails. For support I point to nothing, because "nothing" proves my point. Keep dancing around the lack of foundation, though.
    "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

  14. #58
    BAC
    BAC is offline
    VIP Member Array BAC's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    2,292
    Quote Originally Posted by biasedbulldog View Post
    Again, BAC, please show me Constitutional text for your argument.
    Constitutional text for a COURT case specifically stating it's the job of the courts to interpret instead of judge by? Are you joking?

    "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each." (Chief Justice John Marshall)

    The point of the case is that regardless of the specific text of the Constitution, it's the Court's job/duty to interpret as they see fit or necessary.


    -B

  15. #59
    Member Array biasedbulldog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    317
    So, BAC, you're saying judicial review means that the Constitution says they can read email because the justices say the Constitution says they can read email. Circular anyone?

    Again, the point is that I'd like to see a Constitutional basis established outside of law code and "the Court says so." But it's a phantom power so far as I can tell, similar to much of the federal government's oversteps...
    "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

  16. #60
    Senior Member Array bobcat35's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    664
    SD i recomend looking into the steve jackson server issue from the 1980's. secret service got in big trouble because they were trying to read e-mails and misread one of them or the E911 scandal not e-mail tapping but a related issue secret service got hemmed up for that one too.

    IIRC only the secret service and FBI would have the authority to deal with computer related crimes anyway but then i haven't read phrack in forever.
    "Nothing in life is so exhilarating as to be shot at without result."
    -Winston Churchill
    Every well-bred petty crook knows: the small concealable weapons always go to the far left of the place setting.
    -Inara, firefly

Page 4 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.