New law changes U.S. eavesdropping rules

[Mythos]

Re: New law changes U.S. eavesdropping rules

How is it necessary? I know plenty of people who do just fine without owning a car, and it would only be EASIER to live without cars if they were outlawed.

No. Our nation is huge. There isn't enough public transport out there to support all the people who need to get around if there weren't cars to do it with. Even in my city, which is a fairly large one, there isn't adequate public transportation to handle even the relative few who do want to use it. Besides, a lot of that transport is busses, which is driving, which would be outlawed.

It's a stupid suggestion. The US would grind to a halt if driving were outlawed.

Not true at all. How many drivers have a "Will never happen to me" complex concerning car crashes? You do realize that something like 80% of drivers think that they are above average, right? Drivers are mostly idiots.

That's beside the point. The fact of the matter is, they have to become licensed, get insured, and are subject to the rules and laws related to driving. It doesn't matter how they feel about it. They are still subject to those rules, and if they break them, then they have to pay with money, the loss of their ability to drive, their freedom, or in some cases their lives.

Arguments are all about logic. You fail.

Way to miss the point entirely. But yes, on paper, they are. But then you introduce humans to the mix, and it all gets screwed up.

No. I used the same STATISTIC. Huge difference. You need to learn more about arguments.

Statistic, argument, same difference. You still said that people can't get up in arms about one thing if something else is going on, which is a stupid point to attempt to make. The world doesn't work like that.

I wasn't barking up that tree, but it's a pretty take on it too

No, it's a stupid (and once again, unrealistic) take. People assume risks every single day. If everyone sat around and worried about everything that was out of their hands going on in the world every day, then we would be a society of hermits. These arguments have no place in a discussion about the real world, because they don't make any fucking sense.

[Ziero]

Re: New law changes U.S. eavesdropping rules

How is it necessary? I know plenty of people who do just fine without owning a car, and it would only be EASIER to live without cars if they were outlawed.

Seriously, no. Transportation, whether it be commercial or personal, for business or pleasure, is something that will always be needed. And driving stuff is more often the most cost effective way to travel.

And again, driving is not a right. We have to *earn* our ability to own and opperate a motor vehicle through government regulated programs. We also have to keep within the set rules provided by said government to maintain that right. These rules were put in place to minimize risks, accidents and death and injuries. But are people still hurt and killed in car crashes each year? You bet. And more often then not, the cause of these crashes was due to somebody doing something illegal. So it's not the people *following* the rules who cause all the problems, it's those who ignore it. And when that happens, they have their privleges revoked...assuming they're still alive.

Not true at all. How many drivers have a "Will never happen to me" complex concerning car crashes? You do realize that something like 80% of drivers think that they are above average, right? Drivers are mostly idiots.

*PEOPLE* are mostly idiots. They get complacent, start ignoring the rules and bad things happen. This has nothing to do with driving. At all. Horrible anology.

Arguments are all about logic. You fail.

What argument about logic? Someone posted something about a 'logical idea' and the answer to that was 'people aren't always logical'. Which is something you state yourself in a manner of speaking.

Seriously, the Government knows way more then *any* of us about what is really going on in this world. And I can damn sure bet that there is more then enough probable cause that people from other countries want to kill as many of us as possible, regardless of where we're from, what color, race, religon, age or gender we are, or whether we even agree with our own government. And I can gauren-damn-tee you that there *have* been attempts to attack and destroy our way of life that we have never even heard about because it was stopped before it ever came close to fruition. When our Military special agents achieve a victory, you will never know, they *have* to keep those things at the toppest top secret level. And if tapping my phone while I talk about video games with my friend in Canada can help keep bad things from happening here, without me ever knowing they're there, then I don't give a rats ass about it.

To pretend that there has been no degradation of our liberties in the past few years is even more ignorant. And I'm not sure how you can say we've been gaining "more and more" rights over the last 200 years, given that the government has only grown larger since 1789. Governments grow -> liberties shrink.

The very fact that this discussion is happening, the very fact that people can go outside the whitehouse and protest the war, the very fact people can speak their minds to the ENTIRE WORLD free of charge proves your statement wrong. Our individual freedoms have *not* been majorly hindered in any severe way in the past 200 years and in fact have only grown stronger. The Constituion has gained more amendments protecting us then it has lost to keep us in check. There *are* countries in the world today that *do* persist in police states where you can not speak your mind, or go against the government and we are no where near close to reaching that mark.

With a governmental system that changes those in power *constantly* it can never happen. Every year there is a new election for some governmental position and every year new people are put into power. With this constant change and shift of those in control, no one man or group will ever be dominate for long and our freedoms will still prevail. And then there's the fact that we as people have the power to directly influence these decisions, but as a majority choose not to, shows where the real problem is.

[Feba]

Re: New law changes U.S. eavesdropping rules

At best, it's as necessary evil.

How is it necessary? I know plenty of people who do just fine without owning a car, and it would only be EASIER to live without cars if they were outlawed.

Drivers are fully grown adults who accept the risks of being on the road in a vehicle,

Not true at all. How many drivers have a "Will never happen to me" complex concerning car crashes? You do realize that something like 80% of drivers think that they are above average, right? Drivers are mostly idiots.

It makes sense logically, but humans aren't wholly logical creatures, so as an argument, it fails.

Arguments are all about logic. You fail.

You used that same argument last week to suggest that

No. I used the same STATISTIC. Huge difference. You need to learn more about arguments.

Your response that adults drive cars knowing the risks is, I assume, just the point he is making. I know going outside to the store means I could be mugged, run over, hit by lightning, or blown up by a terrorist, but I accept the risks as they are.

I wasn't barking up that tree, but it's a pretty take on it too

[Mythos]

Re: New law changes U.S. eavesdropping rules

Since the topic is on the ability to tap the lines when calling outside of the country to a terrorist suspect who is not a US citizen the question hinges on is this a reasonable or unreasonable search. If it's just a random foreigner I see no interest in monitoring the call, but if it is someone the government has information connecting them to a terror cell wouldn't that be probable cause?

I'm of much the same mind, personally.

[Theyaden]

Re: New law changes U.S. eavesdropping rules

Another issue with countries disliking us is we present ideas that some governments don't like. The middle east is not exactly keen on our belief you can worship as you please, women having rights, Isrial having the right to exist.
China is not a fan of being able to speak out against your government or as was mentioned support for Taiwan.
Another major sticking point is we are very prosperious as a nation and seeing someone with an advantage you don't possess will always stir resentment. There are some governments that have encouraged this anger to distract from failings of the existing regime. (Iran for example)

Since the topic is on the ability to tap the lines when calling outside of the country to a terrorist suspect who is not a US citizen the question hinges on is this a reasonable or unreasonable search. If it's just a random foreigner I see no interest in monitoring the call, but if it is someone the government has information connecting them to a terror cell wouldn't that be probable cause?

[DieselBoy09]

Re: New law changes U.S. eavesdropping rules

If our country didn't have an imperialist agenda, we wouldn't be hated by other countries.

Other countries hate us for many reasons, imperialistic attitudes are one, but there are many more than that. There isn't a nation in existence that does not pursue furthering its own ventures, and in a world with nonrenewable resources, this in part equates to imperialism, the problem is that we rose to prominence. I would like to divert that statement back to capitalism, but I'm sure its just in my head, a remnant of a political fervor I once had.

(by the way, countries hate us typically for as you mentioned, imperialistic notions but also include things such as tampering and regulating of their foreign policies be it good or bad, for supporting nations they might not be friendly with (see Israel and Taiwan), different political systems that conflict with the political systems they operate under (see the USSR and China), for interfering in disputes and sometimes for not rendering aid (see Africa and the Middle East)). There are a plethora of reasons that add up to why America is hated, just as is the reason every other country is hated for some reason or another. If you want to look at the reasons we're hated now specifically, well flat out--> Iraq, Bush's appointment of John Bolton to the UN, aid to Israel, abuse that is carried out with relations to Mexico, support of South Korea, pressure on countries developing nuclear material whether it be for energy or weapons, hypocrisy with regard to weapons, support of Taiwan, a non-Muslim nation (yes, this is a hatred despite that actually in a political sense is very minute, most Middle Eastern countries don't care for us for far more important reasons rather than religion, but it is still none the less a part), imperialistic nature, control of resources, consumption of resources, etc.... it goes on and on and on and it will never change, but what needs to be taken from this is that it was not imperialism that alienated us from the rest of the world, unless you care to argue that the alienation was a result of rather those countries being angry that we decided to go for it before things got dire, because I can promise you that eventually things are going to go ape and we won't be the only ones reaching with force, unless you think those countries are so righteous that they would rather bare the full brunt of lacking oil rather than throwing shells around to obtain it.

This feels like going at someone with a nerf bat.

[Mythos]

Re: New law changes U.S. eavesdropping rules

I know political discussions almost always lead to flame wars, but I don't understand how this one started. It's like you two are trying to get into a petty shouting match.

I'm not really trying to do anything in particular. I'm just providing a differing POV from the OP.

Feba's example is acceptable, I think.

It really isn't. Driving isn't a right. At best, it's as necessary evil.

Your response that adults drive cars knowing the risks is, I assume, just the point he is making. I know going outside to the store means I could be mugged, run over, hit by lightning, or blown up by a terrorist, but I accept the risks as they are.

The difference is that you don't have to get a license to leave your house. If people are going to not do anything for fear that they may die, or because other people who have done it have died, then no one is going to be able to do anything. And that's ridiculous.

I leave my front door unlocked during the day, even though it means someone could walk in and shoot me. A bureaucrat watching me in my house could deter criminals and increase my safety, but I don't want the government watching me in my own house.

Then write a letter to your congressman, vote, enter politics, etc. No one is suggesting you take this lying down.

Essentially, as Ben Franklin said, those who give up liberty for a little security deserve neither, and will lose both.

Yes, it's a great quote, but Ben Franklin could hardly foresee the issues that we face today. We don't live in a perfect world that is easily described with pithy quotes. We live in the real world.

[Mythos]

Re: New law changes U.S. eavesdropping rules

You're a piece of work. He just gave a parallel example that contradicts your argument. If giving up our right to privacy supposedly saves lives, then why not give up our right to drive and save even more lives?

Driving isn't a right. It's a privilege. Hence the licensing, purchasing of a vehicle, and so forth. It's not a parallel example at all.

Didn't I just get finished saying that I'm not a politician? You're just calling me a whiner because you can't prove me wrong.

No, I'm calling you a whiner because you're being a whiner.

Last I checked, my politicians don't support Bush.

So write to the ones who do?

I'm 16.

Well, that explains a lot.

No, but it's enjoyable knowing that you can't prove me wrong. Perhaps you should get off your ass and do something for once.

What is this "prove you wrong" business? You have an opinion. It's a stupid one, but it's still just an opinion. You can't prove opinions wrong, genius.

[Cometgreen]

Re: New law changes U.S. eavesdropping rules

I know political discussions almost always lead to flame wars, but I don't understand how this one started. It's like you two are trying to get into a petty shouting match.

Feba's example is acceptable, I think. Your response that adults drive cars knowing the risks is, I assume, just the point he is making. I know going outside to the store means I could be mugged, run over, hit by lightning, or blown up by a terrorist, but I accept the risks as they are. I leave my front door unlocked during the day, even though it means someone could walk in and shoot me. A bureaucrat watching me in my house could deter criminals and increase my safety, but I don't want the government watching me in my own house.

Essentially, as Ben Franklin said, those who give up liberty for a little security deserve neither, and will lose both.

[PhiberOpticks]

Re: New law changes U.S. eavesdropping rules

Talk about a ridiculous argument (that has nothing to do with the discussion at hand). Drivers are fully grown adults who accept the risks of being on the road in a vehicle, and are subject to the necessary costs, laws, and other applicable rules for that. Yes, there are a lot of accidents, but just because a lot of people die in auto accidents doesn't mean that the government shouldn't be doing what it can in order to prevent further acts of terrorism, or other problems in our country (disasters, epidemics, etc.) That's their job.

You're a piece of work. He just gave a parallel example that contradicts your argument. If giving up our right to privacy supposedly saves lives, then why not give up our right to drive and save even more lives?

Exactly. You're an armchair politician. You want the right to bitch freely, but you don't want to have to do anything about it, or apparently, even come up with a theoretical solution.

Didn't I just get finished saying that I'm not a politician? You're just calling me a whiner because you can't prove me wrong.

If it matters to you that much, then write a letter to your congressman.

Last I checked, my politicians don't support Bush.

Vote in your local and national elections, etc.

I'm 16.

I can tell you one thing with absolute certainty. Bitching about it on a Final Fantasy forum isn't going to do anything at all.

No, but it's enjoyable knowing that you can't prove me wrong. Perhaps you should get off your ass and do something for once.

[Mythos]

Re: New law changes U.S. eavesdropping rules

I'm a critic. Not a politician. Not my call.

Exactly. You're an armchair politician. You want the right to bitch freely, but you don't want to have to do anything about it, or apparently, even come up with a theoretical solution.

If our country didn't have an imperialist agenda, we wouldn't be hated by other countries. Besides, we don't even know if our government is doing what is necessary, because they aren't disclosing anything about the process and they are pulling out the stops to make sure no one finds out. And frankly, I don't have a doubt in my mind that Bush isn't doing much, as he has yielded no results from the suspension of our right to privacy and habeas corpus.

If it matters to you that much, then write a letter to your congressman. Vote in your local and national elections, etc. I can tell you one thing with absolute certainty. Bitching about it on a Final Fantasy forum isn't going to do anything at all.

[Mythos]

Re: New law changes U.S. eavesdropping rules

Then why the fuck do you have no problem with the government allowing and even licensing people to drive cars? Nearly fifty thousand people die every year in the United States from traffic accidents, that's FAR more than would be killed in most typical terrorist attacks.

I know disallowing nongovernment use of motor vehicles would do a HELLUVA lot more good than unchecked spying on anyone who happens to talk to someone outside the country.

Talk about a ridiculous argument (that has nothing to do with the discussion at hand). Drivers are fully grown adults who accept the risks of being on the road in a vehicle, and are subject to the necessary costs, laws, and other applicable rules for that. Yes, there are a lot of accidents, but just because a lot of people die in auto accidents doesn't mean that the government shouldn't be doing what it can in order to prevent further acts of terrorism, or other problems in our country (disasters, epidemics, etc.) That's their job.

You used that same argument last week to suggest that because a bunch of people die one way, people shouldn't be upset when less people die another way. It makes sense logically, but humans aren't wholly logical creatures, so as an argument, it fails.

[Feba]

Re: New law changes U.S. eavesdropping rules

I'd kind of like the government to do what is necessary in order to ensure the safety of myself and my fellow citizens

Then why the fuck do you have no problem with the government allowing and even licensing people to drive cars? Nearly fifty thousand people die every year in the United States from traffic accidents, that's FAR more than would be killed in most typical terrorist attacks.

I know disallowing nongovernment use of motor vehicles would do a HELLUVA lot more good than unchecked spying on anyone who happens to talk to someone outside the country.

[PhiberOpticks]

Re: New law changes U.S. eavesdropping rules

I am paying attention. You said it didn't matter, but then got in one final jab about how only stupid people wouldn't notice a fire in the same room. Which - not the point, but it does show a little bit of your character in that you simply must have the last word.

You got the times mixed up. I said it didn't matter after I was debating it.

So what would you have the government do instead?

I'm a critic. Not a politician. Not my call.

I mean, yes, I get that there is a danger of slowly chipping away at our freedoms, but on the other hand, I'd kind of like the government to do what is necessary in order to ensure the safety of myself and my fellow citizens. It's a difficult call to make.

If our country didn't have an imperialist agenda, we wouldn't be hated by other countries. Besides, we don't even know if our government is doing what is necessary, because they aren't disclosing anything about the process and they are pulling out the stops to make sure no one finds out. And frankly, I don't have a doubt in my mind that Bush isn't doing much, as he has yielded no results from the suspension of our right to privacy and habeas corpus.

[Cometgreen]

Re: New law changes U.S. eavesdropping rules

To say that it might be a 'miracle' that this country will have any personal rights left in 20 years, when we've only been gaining more and more over the past two centuries is an ignorant thing to think.

To pretend that there has been no degradation of our liberties in the past few years is even more ignorant. And I'm not sure how you can say we've been gaining "more and more" rights over the last 200 years, given that the government has only grown larger since 1789. Governments grow -> liberties shrink.

Oh, and about SCOTUS making a decision. Right or wrong doesn't matter, what they say is law.

Though it's always fun to remember that Supreme Court decisions can be completely ignored. They could suddenly rule that the Congressional pension plan is unconstitutional, but that doesn't mean Congress has to stop the program.

The big danger of this legislation is that it's such a slippery slope. The Executive Branch was recently given the power to confiscate your property if they decide you're damaging the political or economic reconstruction in Iraq. Will this eavesdropping program mean they'll now listen in when you're discussing the war in Iraq with your Swedish friend? What if you mention you think the troops should come home, regardless if it means chaos in Iraq? What if I simply say I hate Bush and can't wait for a new President? They could decide that I'm a potential threat to the Iraqi government, and given the extraordinary powers they now have to search and confiscate my property, this could mean more than listening in on a personal conversation. It seems like, in every piece of legislation these days, it's left up to the President to decide what constitutes a terrorist.

There's also the issue that the Democrats have yet again caved into the Administration. I wonder if things will actually change in 2008.