Third Party & Independents: Archives

Ethan,
It’a a hoax.

Ethan, then we will have to start purchasing our Laptops from foreign manufacturers who choose not to install these devices. If Congress outlaws foreign non-compliant laptop sales in the U.S., then we will need yet another black market to accomodate for both terrorists and American citizens who just refuse to allow the government to snoop on their private converstations with granny or sister and brother living in another state.

That of couse would mean more bureacracy and enforcement officials, and of course, raising taxes to pay for all this. But, hey, what is one to do with an authoritarian regime that insists that it alone has the right to secrecy and privacy from prying eyes?

I checked a few hoax websites before I posted this, but I didn’t find anything. The link that you posted, phx8, doesn’t appear to be working? I could potentially see this being a hoax, as often many things are.

The point I really wanted to make was that some privacy-infringing laws (such as the Patriot Act) clearly give the government the ‘right’ to do this. In many countries the government already checks the emails and browsing habits of users, and I can clearly see the US government doing this.

I recall an interview with an organization on Radio GoDaddy (a podcast/radio show). This organization produced software that parol officers would install on parolees’ computers to track everything that they do.

Even if this is a hoax, I don’t think people would flinch if they did this. The message is to show that the government has the power to do this, and really shouldn’t.

Ethan,
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/h/homeland%20security%20logger.htm

No question, most people underestimate the vulnerability of information technology. Worse, most people are blissfully incapable of projecting the implications of today’s vulnerabilities into tomorrow.

The point I really wanted to make was that some privacy-infringing laws (such as the Patriot Act) clearly give the government the ‘right’ to do this.

Um, I may be missing something and I’m no slouch on making sure this type of thing doesn’t happen, but what laws exactly give the federal or state governments the right to do this?

What is reported in this hoax is clearly illegal. When I first read your post I was incensed. However, hoaxes like this server only to cause those who are concerned about individual rights infringements to be ‘crying wolf’ and will not listen when real abuses are provided. So does the ‘demonization’ of the Patriot Act without context. Not all of the Patriot Act is bad or infringing and other statues, like RICO, are more of a threat to personal rights than the patriot act, but by constantly using it as a symbol some dilute the parts of the Patriot Act that are concerns.

But, in the time of the 30 second sound bite, what’s to expect?

Actually one of the extended sections of the Patriot Act allowed for wiretapping basically where the government fells hat it was necessary. Wiretapping from what I understand would include something like keyloggers.

I apologize for my post being based upon a hoax. Even though I checked my sources, I guess I did not check enough, and that is my fault. I plan in the future to look deeper into sources and get information from more reliable soruces.

This hoax though does show what our near future could become. With the privacy infringement that we already have, will it take it coming to this before people actually do something about it.

Again I apologize for the faulty source, I feel bad about it.

If they dont have the power to do it already, they could very easily give themselves the power to do something like that. Anything goes in the name of national security; If they can suspend all civil rights, they most certainly can implant tracking devises into consumer products. What about random / road-block searches? No one thought they could get away with that type of “illegal” search and seizure back when they first started doing it, until the Supreme Court said it was Ok. Again, national security (or safety) all one in the same to them.

I applaud the quick correction here, but you’re close to making the same error twice when you say the “hoax though does show what our new future become. With the privacy infringement that we already have, will it take coming to this before people actually do something about it.”

You shouldn’t be overly-blamed for being taken in by a false story. Such are the dangers of the internet, and this story is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the consipracy conspiracies and hoaxes currently being tossed around.

And at least you show honesty and integrity in quickly clearing it up. In fact, you show a great deal more honesty and integrity that many of the big media outlets. Remember Bush’s “plans” for a draft, a big story widely broadcast right before the last election? Not to mention the infamous forged TANG documents, which CBS has fully yet to acknowledge depsite overwhelming evidence of fraud? Not to mention this NSA story, where the president’s use of consititutional authorities to fight terrorism have been spun as a crime, although numberous other presidents have recently done the same thing—and entirely domestically, unlike Bush’s order.

When you’re taken in by one story which is a hoax, perhaps you should backtrack and look at some of the stories as well that have made you believe that we really are living in an environoment where our privacy is being infringed upon. A great many of these stories are just as shaky, and speak of an environment where political partisanship is creating an atmosphere where hoaxes, lies and paranoia are becoming routine.

Sanger, I was gratified to see your forgiving attitude toward the writer of this article and your praise for his willingness to acknowledge the error.

Pray, tell, however, show me where in the Constitution it says our government may spy on the personal and private lives of our citizens. You said it was Constitutional, so I must have missed it those hundred times or so I read it. Your assistance in pointing this out would be greatly appreciated.

David, what a shock. I think that we’re on the same page. At least ideologically, though we clearly disagree about the facts.

Nowhere does the Constitution give the government carte blanche authority to spy, as you put it, “on the personal and private lives of our citizens.”

So where, to turn the tables, has Bush authorized spying on anyone’s personal or private life?

But that’s not even close to what I said. “To fight terrorism” were my exact words.

And fighting terrorism is actually one instance when the goverment can and does routinely and properly get involved in our “personal and private lives.” And this is true even if a terrorist, or terrorist associate may wish to be left alone, when he’d like us to believe that what he’s up to is just his own business.

A known child molester may consider it his “personal private life” to buy, sell and broadcast child porn and to solicit minors over the internet.

But society has an interest in preventing him from doing so, and just doesn’t agree that it’s just his “personal private right” to do whatever he pleases.

If it’s true for a child molestor, it should certainly be true for someone with known ties to terrorists, the ONLY people who any of Bush’s orders have authorized monitoring.

READ THIS, THIS WILL EXPLAIN BUSH 2002-2005!!

And at least you show honesty and integrity in quickly clearing it up. In fact, you show a great deal more honesty and integrity that many of the big media outlets.

Ah, yes, they always think that they’re right about everything. I know when to admit I’m wrong, lol.

From what I understand the Constitution doesn’t give any power of the government to intrude on our personal lives. It also does not mention privacy. Privacy was “interpretted” from the Constitution by a Supreme Court case. Yet I think it was implied that we have this right without the Court telling us.

The issue I think comes with how much privacy we have to forfeit. For example, the Census requires us to basically tell our lives on a sheet of paper. Of course you do not have to send in the census. In many aspects we are almost handing our privacy away to the government.

I am a number. Any type of required personal identification is an infringment on my personal privacy. Having SSN is an example of this.

From a technological standpoint (I’m a web developer) the government would not need to actually tap our computers. They could easily look at logs from ICANN, the government funded organization that maintains the domain name system. They could easily pinpoint which IP addresses viewed which websites and did what.

From what I understand they can easily tap a phone line, so what is stopping them from tapping our Internet connection?

Eathan-

I would think a draft would be much more of an intrusion into our personal lives than a wire tap, and yet the government has had the power to conscript since the Civil War.

The left even asked that a draft be enacted recently to support the ongoing war effort.

I cannot even begin to think of how many people/organizations may be in direct violation of constitutional law regarding this laptop situation.

Why limit the secret device to laptops? Why not all computers period.

the Census requires us to basically tell our lives on a sheet of paper

Um, no, the census does not require you to tell anything other than how many people live at your household. I have never answered any more than that single question on any Census form.

True, Rhinehold, really you don’t have to fill out the entire census, but it asks for tons of information. Most people feel too intimidated to not fill out all of that information. I recall at one point the Libertarian Party website having a post card you could print out to replace the census.

The census is not the best example.

Yes, the draft is an infringment of privacy, and many other rights I believe that we have. Luckily we won’t be having a draft anytime soon, as I think it would really look bad for the government.

I think the SSN is the best example really. Just like PETA’s “I am not a nugget.” I am not a number. ;)

Sanger, that is a wholly illogical argument. We lose far more American citizens to domestic crime violence and negligent homicide with our vehicles than in one year, than we ever have to foreign terrorists.

If that is your justification for the government spying on our personal and private lives, then we should be putting government monitors in every new car sold in America as well as phone taps on every home phone in America.

Just doesn’t wash as a justification, not logically anyway.

Sanger one other logical hole big enough to drive a truck through. There have been 19,000 FISA approvals for surveillance of Americans, and only 5 refusals by the courts.

Now of those 19,000 surveillances, how many convictions or actual crimes were discovered? Answer: The government won’t tell us. And for good reason. The ratio of aborted crimes and prosecutions due to FISA surveillance would be somewhere on the order of 1/10th of 1%.

So, what we have is a situation in which to stop 1 criminal or terrorist, our government violates the privacy and personal rights of 1000 other Americans with no cause of action. This kind of trade off of security for Big Brother Spying is what authoritarian regimes are made of.

Hell, we can stop 90% of the crime in America if we would just surveil all Americans everywhere but in the bathroom. The Constition would of course be an obstacle, as it should be for now for the NSA and FISA courts which are in need of a complete reform more in keeping with our Bill of Rights and evidenciary rules of due process.

If it would be wrong to for the gov.’t to surveil all 294 Americans to stop a million from committing a crime, then it is just as wrong for the government to surveil 1000 Americans to stop 1 crime. The logic is inescapable.

George, The Left asked for the Draft AFTER the Right Honorable Republican Chuck Hagel called for consideration of the reinstatement of the draft.

There are a number on the right who agreed with Hagel. This was not a partisan debate on the draft. Let’s stick to some facts, shall we?

Very good points David. I was just watching the news a few minutes ago and they’re actually debating on whether or not to put cameras on the streets of major cities.

Of course they had that whole “it will help protect against crime” argument, which you clearly disproved. Sure you get criminals, but to do so you have to infringe on the rights of many others. It always starts out innocent, and then turns into a disaster.

Why are surveilance cameras used in most retail stores, service stations and about all public and government buildings.

At some point they may be used by police or FBI to identify a thief or murderer or even a person
of interest.

What makes this legal. The camera observes far more “innocent/unsuspecting” people than “bad guys”.

The Supreme Court has ruled that is NOT unconstitutional for the government to surveil public places. So, that is a dead issue.

But, they have not ruled that phone and digital communications over common carriers are equal to occupying a public space. And that is precisely what we must fight against, lest all human to human transactions become fair game for the government and and a dead legal issue.

It does not good to agree or disagree here folks. Get off your duff and call or email or writer you CongressPersons. There are still a few willing to listen and fairly consider the opinions of their consitutuents. The moreso as we are just days away from a new election cycle.

Make your opinion know to those for whom it may count and mean something in the way of change or preservation of the status quo.

Unless of course you live in Ohio where both Democrats and Republicans had no problem passing the Ohio version of it’s own “Patriot Act” that even surpasses the federal one.

It’s never a fun moment to hear your state mentioned on CNN as having “Gestapo” tactics.

Lisa, I know. Texas has had that reputation for a very, very long time. Since Bush was governor in fact, at the very least. And folks thought the Sugarland Express and The Gauntlet were just enterainment movies. NO! They were classic cases of art imitating real life.