Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (8792)	1/12/2006 9:36:45 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541461

When you listen in to phone calls, which have an expectation of privacy Sure, when you tap someone's line and listen to what that person is saying. But if you listen in on some big pipe and catch snippets of what bunches of anonymous people are saying, that's not quite the same. If you come down the pipe saying "daughter's flute lesson" followed by me saying "too hot to exercise" followed by someone else saying "scored two goals" and someone else saying "$@^%!," how is your privacy compromised? It's not until they attribute that snippet to you that your privacy comes into play. While you may feel you have an expectation of privacy for your anonymous snippet, I can't see how your privacy is invaded by some computer registering that someone out there in the ether said "daughter's flute lesson."

To: epicure who wrote (8792)	1/12/2006 4:14:52 PM
From: KLP	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541461

We had a rep from the FBI talk to us yesterday, who had been a former Naval Officer, and one of the first women FBI agents in Intel. Beautiful in person, and very well spoken. Her intelligence shown through her conversation with us.... First thing she said was" How many of you have read the Patriot Act?" NOT one of about 50 some of us raised our hands... Some had read parts of it, but NO one had read the whole 125 pages. She speaks to groups our size, and some MUCH larger. And yet, she said, that was very typical of audiences. She, and the audiences, are well aware that there are some who are very critical of it. BUT NOT ONE had cared enough to read it to understand all the ramifications, and checks and balances that are included in the document. Rather, to me, it would appear that people who are critical, don't have a leg to stand on, unless they have read the whole document, and know what each process entails. There are links on the DoJ website, and people you can find who will answer your questions.