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: Lane3 who wrote (8960)	1/13/2006 8:45:42 AM
From: Mary Cluney	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 541376

When I said they had better things to do than to snoop on the innocent, I mean the innocent like E and me. As for snooping on people they don't like, if they want to do that, they will do it regardless. They already have the power and nothing we can do in the way of warrant mechanisms can take it away. "Give" is not the same as "have" and "authority" is not the same as "power." That is a silly argument. 1. Why pass a law if most people are going to do it anyway? 2. How can you be sure they are not going to target you and/or E? Both of you write a lot. Both of you use email. Both of you post a lot of messages on the internet. What is the likelihood that keywords or subject matters that you write about are different than keywords and subject matter terrorists use? How can a computer program tell that your use of the keywords have different meaning?

To: Lane3 who wrote (8960)	1/13/2006 9:31:06 AM
From: thames_sider	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541376

If they have the power but not the authority, then if it comes out (as it eventually will) that this is happening then hopefully heads will roll, probably at a lower level but maybe penetrating to the rotten brainstem. At least there's a check, an impediment to unfettered rule by secret and unelected bodies. Hence also the need for warrants, IMO. If the law is broken, there's a chance of catching the breakers, punishing them, and cleaning house. Murderers will kill when they have the power, whatever the law. It doesn't mean you make it legal, it means the law gives agreed authority to stop them. Give your secret snoopers and unopposed abductors the authority to act as they wish, or even sufficient shadow of authority that a lawyer can persuade a complaisant (or complacent) court predisposed by its political appointees to believe their pleas of justifiable suspicion, and there is no recourse. (Apologies for the alliteration, I'm stressed...)

To: Lane3 who wrote (8960)	1/13/2006 1:10:53 PM
From: Suma	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 541376

Kay who was the president who had J.Edgar snooping on all of his paranoid so called enemies (Nixon?). He wanted a dossier on them ? Who was it that had J. Edgar snooping on the sexual proclivities of those he had for some reason a dislike.. Irony being too that J. Edgar was probably a closeted homosexual... .. If you go back to the McCarthy era there was all kinds of wire taps snooping as it were. Martin L. King was a victim of wire taps.. The Hollywood crew who were brought before the House of UnAmerican Activities... were.. Friends of mine who had been part of the fringe Communist front parties... in good faith but not to overthrow the government lost jobs.. They had spied on them and all of the above was without the knowledge of the persons who later were denied jobs.. promotions or lost their status as a American Citizen.. including passports.. IT was an ugly time. These are the violations that I oppose. The enemy sometimes is not the enemy we think but our own government..