Third Party & Independents Archives

We're In Trouble

With a capital T; that rhymes with P; that stands for Police State. Recently our congresscritters and president decided to beef up and update the laws regarding violence against women, including harassment and stalking. Of course, they added in a few additional riders that had little or nothing to do with the purpose of the bill (new ATF and Postal Service rules are included). However, under section 113 under the heading ‘Preventing Cyberstalking’ is an unfortunately worded new law that could get many of us on the internet thrown in jail for doing nothing more than what I am doing right now.

The text of this new section of law is:

"Whoever...utilizes any device or software that can be used to originate telecommunications or other types of communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet... without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person...who receives the communications...shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."

Note the word 'annoy'. Now, most of us can understand abuse, threaten or harass. Those are clear violations of an individual's rights. However, because I write on this blog and do not disclose my identity I am now violating this law if I write anything that might 'annoy' President Bush, PETA, Howard Dean or Jerry Falwell. If I find out some issue that I want to rail about and post a few articles on, if these articles are found to 'annoy' these people, because I have chosen not to disclose my identity I can be fined and face up to two years in prison.

The even more interesting thing is that this law originally did not have the 'annoy' phrase in it. When it first passed the house in September, the phrase was 'substantial emotional harm'. Again, that's a much more reasonable use of this law. So why was it changed? Why was it changed in such a manner to be 'sneaked in' before it was voted upon?

Now, this is a clear violation of our constitutional rights. The first amendment is clear and if it isn't the Supreme Court has been very clear that legally we can simply annoy people, and we can do so anonymously. It's not good enough to direct the Justice Department to 'simply ignore' the offending section of law, much like President Clinton did when some sections of the telecommunications law concerning abortion material was made public. The simple fact is we don't know who will come into office next and decide to revive that section of law in an attempt to silence critics.

In fact, we don't know if that wasn't the intent all along.

I'm afraid that I now have to either stand on my convictions that this law is unconstitutional and continue to post my articles anonymously as I have been doing for many years or I have to release in my bio my real name so that I will no longer be said to be 'annoying' anyone without presenting my identity.

Let's see how this drama plays itself out over the next few months together, shall we?

Posted by Rhinehold at January 10, 2006 1:08 AM
Comments
Comment #111718

I saw this too and was going to write something about it.

A prime example of why the penalty for being elected to congress (and the white house) should be that each individual representative should be required to read in full the entire text of each law they vote on, yea or ney.

Maybe if they were required to read every single page, laws would get shorter and there would be fewer idiotic laws passed.

This is a bad law, no doubt about it and it should be repealed.

Link to the story: Create an annoyance, go to jail

Posted by: esimonson at January 10, 2006 1:29 AM
Comment #111721

Its put there deliberately to give Bush the ability to imprison Bloggers “legally”. Look at how he justified spying on Americans!!! The justification is so flimsy that its nonsense. Still, semantics on the word “is” seems to be what Republicans are all about.

Welcome to A Brave New World in 1984.

Posted by: Aldous at January 10, 2006 1:52 AM
Comment #111722

Gee, Aldous, what Democrats voted against the bill or even voiced a concern over it?

It’s not just a republican problem, it’s a problem with government over the past several decades, if not more, leading us to a facist society.

The exact opposite of what this country was suppose to be about. Anyone know what ‘Personal Freedoms’ mean anymore?

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 10, 2006 1:57 AM
Comment #111726

Say!

Can we use this against spammers? They annoy the hell out of me.

I sometimes wonder if English is congress’ second language.

Posted by: womanmarine at January 10, 2006 2:39 AM
Comment #111729

Most Spammers have their Servers overseas. Too many got death threats and moved away.

FYI… This is a Republican problem. Republicans have long favored giving away Rights in favor of Security. This is just another chapter of BushCo.

Posted by: Aldous at January 10, 2006 2:53 AM
Comment #111739
what Democrats voted against the bill or even voiced a concern over it?

Perhaps this:

“To grease the rails for this idea, Sen. Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, and the section’s other sponsors slipped it into an unrelated, must-pass bill to fund the Department of Justice. The plan: to make it politically infeasible for politicians to oppose the measure.”

Will we ever get congress to stop this disgusting practice?

Posted by: womanmarine at January 10, 2006 3:46 AM
Comment #111750

Okay, I’m out. I’m not posting on any boards again. I can’t deal with the fact that I could be watched every second. This is absolute crap.

Paleocon Noel Phillips

Posted by: Paleocon (Noel Phillips) at January 10, 2006 4:30 AM
Comment #111780

This is an idiotic law. Unfortunately, congress and the executive branch are generally exempt from being required to conform to the laws they right. They annoy the hell out of me every time they open their mouths. Whether your are a Paelocon like Noel or a Paelolib like me, this should concern you. One step to take on this is to ask every congressional candidate where they stand on this nonsense. If they tell you they support it, let them know you will vote against them.

The greatest threat to anyone in this country is the loss of their ability to speak. The Internet is the great equalizer, allowing people of limited means to voice their opinion and beliefs. Will it be annoying to some people? Of course. Does this law mean that I can’t write an Op-Ed castigating and “intending” to annoy President Bush, Senator Kennedy or Justice Scalito? It seems that way.

This is troubling.

Posted by: Dennis at January 10, 2006 7:24 AM
Comment #111792

So does this mean if i somebody to get a phone number or email address and actually contact them; this is considered: stalking?

i guess prison overcrowding is going to be a large problem.

Posted by: John Trevisani at January 10, 2006 7:53 AM
Comment #111801

Can we get the same bill passed for obnoxious drivers? The annoy the hell out of everyone - and they’re pretty much anonymous…

What if I get busted for knocking on the table to make my dog think someone’s at the front door? That’s obnoxious - and I’m pretty sure that with my dog’s mental capacity, most everyone is anonymous….???

… we better start building lots more prisons…. QUICK!

Posted by: tony at January 10, 2006 8:39 AM
Comment #111804

Damn those liberal activist judges who are going to rule against this first line of defense in our battle against terrorism! If we had these rules when my lord and masterbush first ascended to power we wouldn’t have had 9/11!

Posted by: Dave at January 10, 2006 8:47 AM
Comment #111821

I just googled masterbush…

It’s a web hosting service… shoot, I thought it might be something more naughty.

Posted by: tony at January 10, 2006 9:22 AM
Comment #111826

Rhinegold, what is the source of the paragraph you quoted with the old law and the present modification merged together? I’ve been doing some reading up on this whole issue, and from what I’ve read of the actual text of the law, one of the changes that is present in your version is not actually present in the new law, and it’s a rather significant one. Specifically the part that reads “any person… who recieves the communications”. It’s not in there. The text was, and remains, “any person at the called number”. As another person pointed out here, this appears to be an attempt to broaden the language of existing telecommunication laws to cover VOIP and similar technologies, and the inclusion of the language referring to people at the called number clearly removes blogs and similar internet forums from the purview of this law.

Posted by: Jarandhel at January 10, 2006 9:57 AM
Comment #111829

Rhinegold, what is the source of the paragraph you quoted with the old law and the present modification merged together? I’ve been doing some reading up on this whole issue, and from what I’ve read of the actual text of the law, one of the changes that is present in your version is not actually present in the new law, and it’s a rather significant one. Specifically the part that reads “any person… who recieves the communications”. It’s not in there. The text was, and remains, “any person at the called number”. As another person pointed out here, this appears to be an attempt to broaden the language of existing telecommunication laws to cover VOIP and similar technologies, and the inclusion of the language referring to people at the called number clearly removes blogs and similar internet forums from the purview of this law.

Posted by: Jarandhel at January 10, 2006 10:02 AM
Comment #111857

some info that might be helpful Jarandhel.

There appears to be some confusion over this bill. In the comments it also gives this links:

US Code

Some are suggesting this is not related to internet use such as we are doing here but was designed to address Voice over Internet type communication services.

I do agree this needs to be clarified and addressed.

Posted by: Lisa Renee at January 10, 2006 11:26 AM
Comment #111860

Jarandhel,

In the recently passed law, the following is section 113.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (1) of section 223(h) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 223(h)(1)) is amended— (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end; (2) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period at the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and (3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph: ‘‘(C) in the case of subparagraph (C) of subsection (a)(1), includes any device or software that can be used to originate telecommunications or other types of communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet (as such term is defined in section 1104 of the Internet Tax Freedom Act (47 U.S.C. 151 note)).’’. (b) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—This section and the amendment made by this section may not be construed to affect the meaning given the term ‘‘telecommunications device’’ in section 223(h)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as in effect before the date of the enactment of this section.

As you can see this ammends section 223 of the 1934 Telecommunications act. Section C of the act, which this amends, reads as:

makes a telephone call or utilizes a telecommunications device, whether or not conversation or communication ensues, without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person at the called number or who receives the communications;

The quoted passage is the end result of those changes.

Yes, the main goal was to extend the laws aggainst harassing and annoying phone calls to VoIP, but by changing the law as they did, it now goes on to include ANY internet medium by stating ‘other types of communiations that are trasmitted, in whole or in part, by the internet’.

Is it too much to ask that the law be stated clearly and not be as all encompassing as it was done here?

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 10, 2006 11:30 AM
Comment #111861

Sorry, I didn’t pay close enough attention to see you were using the same source that I was.

:-)

Posted by: Lisa Renee at January 10, 2006 11:30 AM
Comment #111881

I think that paranoia is a little rampant. Am I the only one who doesn’t believe that the government is not establishing a structure to launch an assault on internet cranks?

Posted by: good king ned at January 10, 2006 12:14 PM
Comment #111883

You can’t say “police state” without “paranoia” being mentioned.
Wake up. Its not all “peachy” just because a Republican is in the White House.

Posted by: kctim at January 10, 2006 12:25 PM
Comment #111885

Good King Ned

The point is that the law was created. If it is created it will someday most likely be enforced. THIS administration may not make use of it but who are we to say the next one won’t?

It’s not ‘paranoia’. The law now exists. If we were saying that we felt that someone was going to create this law then I can see how that would be ‘paranoid’. But once the law is actually signed and in the books? Sorry, you’ll have to explain to me how I am secure that I will not be punished for breaking this law as I am possibly doing right now. (It depends on if I am annoying anyone or not)

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 10, 2006 12:26 PM
Comment #111890

I don’t think the intent of the law is too prevent disagreeable content on the internet. That’s not workable and there wouldn’t be much left if that’s the case. Most people simply aren’t significant enough to have the eye of Mordor focus on them.

I suspect that the term annoy was included to cover actions targeted repeatedly at specific sources in a persistent manner. Persistent not threatening actions would not be covered without this clause. I do think that this law could be used to prosecute people who repeatedly slam, say a judge or a journalist, with hostile e-mail.

Posted by: good king ned at January 10, 2006 12:42 PM
Comment #111914

The intent of the RICO statutes and Patriot Act doesn’t prevent them from being bad/unconstitutional. Nor does it prevent the implementation of the law once it is put into place. How simple is it to narrow the scope to only what the intent is instead of widening it to possible abuse by an administration?

There are many websites that would no longer be able to exist now under this new law. There is a constitutional right to write blogs that say things like ‘walmart sucks’ anonymously, which can be taken to be annoying, without worry that they will file a complaint to have the practice cease.

There is basically no reason, other than laziness, to write a law that is so overreaching and unconstitutional, unless you want to keep in your back pocket the ability to make that over-reach in the future.

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 10, 2006 2:45 PM
Comment #111924

Rhinehold, you’re right. This absolutely stinks.
And doesn’t it depress the hell out of you how a person posting to this blog suddenly threw up their hands and felt they had to reveal their full name because they didn’t want to go to jail or be watched every second?
Listen my fellow citizens, this law is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, so don’t go along with it!!! The First Amendment guarantees us all the right to be “annoying”!!! We should all now be as “annoying” as possible just to prove that they don’t have the power to treat OUR Constitution like a piece of paper they’re wiping their asses with!!! (Of course, I’m sure plenty of you here probably already think I’m rather annoying… :^)

To live in fear of our government is not American. Period. If we want America to stay FREE, we mustn’t be fearful of those who hold authority. Instead, we must question them, poke them, prod them, and yes — ANNOY THE HELL OUT OF THEM by saying whatever we want to.

Posted by: Adrienne at January 10, 2006 3:18 PM
Comment #111939

Doesn’t anyone think the intent of this law is to stop electronic harrassment? Because of the current technology, it is possible to bury people’s pc’s with tremendous waves of electronic garbage. Nobody is really hurt, but the victim suffers. You see this kind of campaign by activist groups all the time. Is it right to crash someone’s site because you disagree with them? Changing technology brings the opportunity for new and unexpected types of abuses. The government must adjust to changing times.

Until there is more evidence that this a backdoor way to round up dissidents, I won’t worry about the sky falling.

Posted by: good king ned at January 10, 2006 3:58 PM
Comment #111952

Good King Ned,

Harassment is listed in the law. No one is saying that someone should be able to harass anyone.

But we are not talking about harassment, we are talking about ‘annoying’ someone. The law is clear, it makes a distinction by including both harass and annoy in the same sentence.

The simple truth is now that it is illegal to annoy anyone anonymously (but it’s ok to do it if you tell them who you are!). This is plain and simple, unconstitutional, as the Supreme Court has upheld several times in the past.

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 10, 2006 4:29 PM
Comment #111964

This is just another Republican plan to limit the Rights of those who disagree with them. BushCo will soon arrest those Bloggers like Kos who tell the truth to power.

Posted by: Aldous at January 10, 2006 4:46 PM
Comment #111967

Okay, I’m out. I’m not posting on any boards again. I can’t deal with the fact that I could be watched every second. This is absolute crap.

Paleocon Noel Phillips

Posted by: Paleocon (Noel Phillips) at January 10, 2006 04:30 AM

That’s exactly what the politicians want us to do.

Posted by: Ron Brown at January 10, 2006 4:52 PM
Comment #111976

Where do I send my name and address so the Feds will know where to come to arrest me? While I use my real name, I’m not going to quit annoying Liberials. And the next bill just could very likely make it agaisnt the law to annoy anyone even if they know who you are. And in that case every boy that has a sister will be put in jail.
I sure hope the Supreme Court throws this stupid law out. It might help redeem them a little from their other rulings that are totaly stupid.
This is a good example why there needs to a Constitutional Admendment requiring one bill only one purpose.

Posted by: Ron Brown at January 10, 2006 5:07 PM
Comment #112008

Rhinehold:

We often disagree. But in this case, I agree with you 100%. The law is unconstitutional and should be tested at the first opportunity.

Why don’t you contact the ACLU and see what they plan to do about this deletion of our rights.

Ron Brown:

“While I use my real name, I’m not going to quit annoying Liberials.”

Bravo. And I’ll answer by annoying Conservatives.

Posted by: Paul Siegel at January 10, 2006 7:03 PM
Comment #112013

I agree that it was a very unfortunate way to write the law… and a really dispicable way to get it passed.

I wish a President (any party) would have the guts to use the line item veto and keep sending this garbage back until they stop attaching laws onto other laws that are in no way related.

It may not have been intended to limit Blogs… however, it can certainly be used as such.

Do a quick google on Church of Scientology if you want to see how the threat of a law suit can quiet the critics.

Ron Brown,
I would truley rue the loss of our butting heads until we usually realize that our goals are not that far apart.

I know that it drives you crazy… I used to do it to my ex father-in-law too. My ex and her brothers and sister would cringe each time we got together but we enjoyed and respected each others opinion.

I won’t speak for you and I have no idea if you respect mine, hate mine or ignore mine.

Really though, this is a not partisan concern. Their intention was good (aren’t the all on both sides) but the execution was horrible.

Did this law really go through a bipartisan committee? It sounds more like it was written in crayon on toilet paper.

I think I will check out who wrote, sponsored and voted for this turkey.

Posted by: Darren7160 at January 10, 2006 7:17 PM
Comment #112038

Bravo. And I’ll answer by annoying Conservatives.

Posted by: Paul Siegel at January 10, 2006 07:03 PM

I wouldn’t have it any other way.


Darren7160
I respect the opinions of everyone here. If I butt heads with you it because I not only respect your opinion but you.

Posted by: Ron Brown at January 10, 2006 8:54 PM
Comment #112055

Ron Brown:

You, ofcourse, know that this Law will only be used against those critical of the Bush Administration. Therefore, you’re perfectly safe.

Posted by: Aldous at January 10, 2006 10:10 PM
Comment #112084

The reason that the word “annoy” was inserted was to ensure that the statute would we thrown out on consttutional grounds. This has always been a fairly easy (if expensive) way of getting bad legislation off the books but satisfying some legislator in the short term for his\her vote on another matter.

Posted by: synecdoche at January 11, 2006 2:15 AM
Comment #112147

Ron Brown:

You, ofcourse, know that this Law will only be used against those critical of the Bush Administration. Therefore, you’re perfectly safe.

Posted by: Aldous at January 10, 2006 10:10 PM

I’ll be used against anyone critical of Government. And that’s only about 100% of us here.

Posted by: Ron Brown at January 11, 2006 8:33 AM
Comment #112207

This law would clearly run afoul of the First Amendment, if it were ever used in the way some here are envisioning.

Posted by: mattLaw at January 11, 2006 1:31 PM
Comment #112227

MattLaw,

Yes, it does. Unfortunately I don’t know too many people who trust the government enough to believe that it won’t be used against us anyways…

As someone said when defending their blasting of Apple for ‘spying’ on their music listening,

I don’t have an answer, but I know this: the more you push back now against apparently harmless invasions of privacy, the less likely Apple will be to breach your privacy substantively later.

Replace Apple with Government in this quote and you’ll see why many of us are raising a stink about it now.

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 11, 2006 2:39 PM
Comment #112238

Look, these are good policies that will help protect us all.

Our quality of life will only go up if there are less terrorists and less annoying people.

Posted by: Schwamp at January 11, 2006 3:44 PM
Comment #112242

One man’s annoying person is another man’s hyperactive, OCD best buddy….

Posted by: Vicky at January 11, 2006 4:06 PM
Comment #112268

Just imagine out quality of life if none of us had any actual though processes. Just sheep happy to work and eat and sleep and that was all.

As they say, ignorance is bliss.

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 11, 2006 5:12 PM
Comment #112313

To Good King Ned and those who think this law isn’t likely to be abused, should study the events in Nazi Germany just prior to World War II. Slowly, little by little, laws were changed, and new ones enacted, that at first seemed to just be aimed at making the economy “better”, and to eliminate waste, identify and profile so called “problem areas”. But, at some point, began to be used to redistribute power and wealth. For one example, Jews were REQUIRED to register and WEAR AT ALL TIMES, insignia (a little patch prominently displayed) identifying them as Jews, and it was illegal not to do so. This was also for Gypsies, and a few other groups not part of the Nazi “in” group. After that started, people became slowly segregated, and the rest, as they say, is history. There were concerns even before it got that far, but plenty of people just naively thought at first that it wasn’t anything to worry about. Yet, after awhile, even if someone wasn’t one of the ostracized groups, they could be targeted as a “sympathasizer”, and persecuted to extreme, whether true or not. Not only Germany, but China, Cambodia (the Killing Fields), Rwanda, and others had similar things happen.
It’s wise to guard against thinking “it could never happen to me.” That is why this is not such a little thing, on top of all the other enactments (eminent domain now being allowed to take peoples’ fully owned, decent homes to satisfy the governments desire for bigger tax revenues from a developers use of the land, for instance) chipping away at individual and constitutional rights.

Posted by: Vicky at January 11, 2006 7:44 PM
Comment #112332

Remember Barney the purple dinosaur? Talk about annoying.That Jurassic bastard should be thrown away for life.

Then again, maybe he never started a blog…

Posted by: Mister Magoo at January 11, 2006 8:53 PM
Comment #112348

How are they classifying harrassment? See here’s where nuance comes into the mix, is that provision only relevant in ongoing ‘personal’ harrassment cases or CAN it be utilized free or outside of the clause? In other words, can it act outside the framework of this bill and what are the guidelines thereof that qualify as harrassment? This is undoubtedly a strange bill, ambiguous would be a better term for it.

Just like the classic question “define what the meaning of is is?” This is “define the terms that would classify or qualify what the perameters of harrassment is”. I think it will be moderated eventually if it hasn’t been so already, but this is pretty careless and haphazzard stuff I agree.

I want there to be the ability to send out anonymous e-mails. Strangely enough the only place where you can still do that is at a public library or those Cyber cafe’s—strangely enough (don’t ask). They can never prove who used what machine at what time, even if evidenced that you were there. That’s how I usually contact congress persons as was the case with Bush’s SS reform.

Posted by: Novenge at January 11, 2006 9:38 PM
Comment #112386

Novenge,

The issue isn’t so much ‘harrassment’ as it is ‘annoyance’.

It is now illegal to simply be annoying to someone anonymously using the internet.

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 12, 2006 1:09 AM
Comment #112480

if u have nothing 2 hide dont worry about if BIG BROTHER is watching OVER US,by tha way this is AMERICA PEOPLE its better than North Korea under PORKY’s RULE. Please Support OUR TROOPS 4 the sake of FREEDOM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: peter at January 12, 2006 11:54 AM
Comment #112493

Novenge,

“See here’s where nuance comes into the mix, is that provision only relevant in ongoing ‘personal’ harrassment cases or CAN it be utilized free or outside of the clause?”

What you have to understand is that this administration has enough problems with the English language.
If you start throwing French words like nuance into the mix it just confuses them.

peter,

“if u have nothing 2 hide dont worry about if BIG BROTHER is watching OVER US”

Please, take another Zoloft, and everything will be fine.

Posted by: Rocky at January 12, 2006 12:29 PM
Comment #112630

Ummm, shouldn’t the “conservatives” be up in arms about this?

Posted by: Mental Wimp at January 12, 2006 6:26 PM
Comment #112639

if u have nothing 2 hide dont worry about if BIG BROTHER is watching OVER US,by tha way this is AMERICA PEOPLE its better than North Korea under PORKY’s RULE. Please Support OUR TROOPS 4 the sake of FREEDOM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: peter at January 12, 2006 11:54 AM

Don’t count on that. Big Brother is way over stepping his bounds here. The next step is censorship.
While I don’t have nothing to hide it’s not the place of the Government to tell me what I can or cann’t say.
The lame brained idiot that thought this one up needs to be impeached. And if Congress won’t do that, then the folks he’s supposed to be represent needs to recall him.


Ummm, shouldn’t the “conservatives” be up in arms about this?

Posted by: Mental Wimp at January 12, 2006 06:26 PM

Conservitives are, Republicans aren’t.

Posted by: Ron Brown at January 12, 2006 7:24 PM
Comment #112688

As I read Rhinehold’s excerpt of the law posted above, it seems that being an annoyance has been illegal since 1934. The change seems to expand the means of annoyance that are covered. Does anyone know what charges have been filed against people under this 1934 law for annoying people? Does an alleged victim have to bring charges, and if so what court system would handle these charges?

Posted by: good king ned at January 12, 2006 10:21 PM
Comment #112700

Do you all see yet why Clinton’s question during his deposition was important yet? Now can anyone tell me what the meaning of annoy is under this piece of legislation? What I am assuming they mean is harrassment as evidenced by the REPEATED USE OF THE WORD “HARRASSMENT”!!! Hello?!!! Right now I am harrassing you (Hey it’s fun).

The question of this going outside of cases of harrassment, such as cases involving stalkers, people making threats to one’s safety or even in blackmail cases (I’m assuming) is really ambiguous. Can that clause work independently of it’s framework? Anybody?

Posted by: Novenge at January 13, 2006 12:16 AM
Comment #113168

I am trying to determine whether I would be better off if the government looked in on my comments on the net or telephone or,

having my identity stolen, credit cards used, bank accounts emptied, etc. by people outside of government who are far better at it anyway.

Is the law for private spying more brief than the law for governmental spying. WQhich of the two is pork laden?

Posted by: steve smith at January 14, 2006 11:20 AM
Comment #114852

Here I’ll post this here too if you think what you type can be annoying how about this technology nobody is talking about and how intrusive it is and disruptive it is. Now since I’ve posted this on two of these blogs am I annoying?

With all this talk about illegal surveilance and government being sold out to big business I thought it would be an excellent time to mention that through the use of a great new (it’s really an old technology) technology called RFID we can track a persons movement just by tagging their clothing or imbedding a chip in your credit card. Who needs wire taps or even a warrant when you have a technolgy like that at your disposal. And gee who’s behind the big push for this technolgy to be widely used? Hmmm the Dept of Defense and the biggest employer in America Wal-Mart. Sounds like an easy way around any surveilance laws currently in place now. So now we have a Government that not only endorses but uses big brother technology without any public input claiming it’s needed to move goods through a supply chain with better control. And the “liberal media” has widely reported this fact? NOT! More crap perpetrated on the public. This technolgy has been called “spychips” interesting name for a tag that can be made so small it can be surgically implanted in your hand and you would never know it was there. Now if someone wants to rob your house they can simply cut off your hand and gain access. Anybody here up for losing a hand for better security?

And now you can add to this the fact that our government chooses to violate our constitutional rights everyday without conscience.

Vic

Posted by: Vic R at January 20, 2006 10:02 AM
Comment #116075

Oh my God! The next thing you know the government will issue us all numbers and track our activities through these numbers (as the bible prophesizes) … oh, they already did that.

Posted by: goodkingned at January 24, 2006 3:34 AM
Comment #119185

I try to annoy the living hell out of my elected legislators on a daily basis. I email, write, call and blog about them. I even send the blog link to them. If they should happen to screw up and do something right I tell them about that also.

If they are in a tight race and have been doing a shitty job I won’t hesitate to look for 3rd party candidates to try and split the race.

Posted by: Old Yeller at February 1, 2006 5:08 PM
Post a comment