Privacy Issues II

Discussion in 'Miscellaneous' started by pettyfog, Sep 25, 2007.

  1. pettyfog

    pettyfog Well-Known Member

    Jan 4, 2005
    I JUST stumbled across an excellent essay on the issue:
    {I was reading another essay on 'the hindsight of security' and it was linked there...heh, think PDB!}
    I cant find too much fault in it. It would fit my proposal to allow the hounds to pursue the hare without paperworks restrictions, while providing double-oversight safeguards.
    This issue is not, no matter how much we dream, absolutist. it cannot be absolutist.
  2. pettyfog

    pettyfog Well-Known Member

    Jan 4, 2005
    NOW this is a continuation of the discussion on "Dubya took my privacy"

    What do you all think of THAT proposal? Believe it or not, if we take away the politicking, I trust Democrats.

    Even Murtha... well, maybe not. But I would probably trust Kennedy on this, as long as there's no bashing points he can use.
  3. andypalmer

    andypalmer Active Member

    Jun 4, 2007
    Baltimore, MD
    I don't like it. An Auditing oversight is insufficient, IMO. It should be a judge. That judge can sit in the office next door with nothing else to do but review those cases, but it should be a Judge.

    As for rights that didn't exist in the 40s and many homes HAD telephones in the 40s and 50s? One of the reasons the Constitution is still around is that it allows for flexibility with the times, due to SCOTUS rulings, etc.

    As for your other posts, yes, I would rather die than live without my freedoms and liberties. I for one would rather see American fall through destruction than become a nation without the freedoms and liberties that make us what we are. I understand that you feel otherwise; luckily for you, I am willing to fight to protect your right to want to give up your rights. I will do my part to see that political leaders, of whatever party, who strive to take away my freedoms and liberties face stiff, stiff opposition.
  4. pettyfog

    pettyfog Well-Known Member

    Jan 4, 2005
    You ...and I say this affectionately... are a knucklehead!

    READ UP! IT AINT ABOUT TELEPHONES, it was about what you might say in a bar, or write in a letter overseas... or to ANY person suspected of subversion, like someone who belonged to a German Social Club. Yeah THAT little!

    Where does it say I am fighting for you to give up your rights? Freedoms taken away by Us can be regained by us.. freedoms taken away by those who seek to destroy us, will not be regained if we are vanquished. There are simply too many who will think only of their own well-being and try to 'get along' to allow for it. look at what happens in places like Iran and Iraq?

    There WAS no right to communication privacy... and for you to act as though telephones were rarities in WWII is the height of numptyism. I am talking to you as an adult. Use your head and think like an adult.

    And who said a 'JUDGE' is always correct? Remember how this discussion started? It was about dumbass Judge's decisions. JUDGES DO NOT ALWAYS USE COMMON SENSE!!

    This is ONE place I'd rather have oversight by committee.
  5. andypalmer

    andypalmer Active Member

    Jun 4, 2007
    Baltimore, MD
    pettyfog. So you run out of arguments with little logic and fewer facts and now dip to personal insults!?!?

    Are you aware that during WWII they still had many areas 3-4 households sharing a single phone line, with distinctive rings indicating to which house the call was for? Of course telephone privacy wasn't an issue then; your neighbor could hear your call just by picking up their phone.

    What you say in a public area is not protected; what is said in your home, on a telephone, is protected.

    You also might want to check your history. Count for me the number of times a nation has taken away liberties and later restored them?

    Those that fail to learn from history, are doomed to repeat it.
    - Winston Churchill

    As for the not trusting the Judge. Chuckle. No, the Judge won't be perfect and yes, as with our current legal system, I expect some oversight, but I want a Federal Judge, someone who has been appointed as such per Constitutional Law, to make the call, NOT some government administrator.
  6. pettyfog

    pettyfog Well-Known Member

    Jan 4, 2005
    NOT a personal insult, I SAID it was with affection.. so whaddya want a Smiley.. or a cookie?
    You dont get the point obfuscate.. you ARENT impressing me. Mail to sensitive areas was routinely opened.. yes or no?

    Dont EVEN DARE quote Churchill! Because you're the one repeating, Neville baby!
  7. pettyfog

    pettyfog Well-Known Member

    Jan 4, 2005
    Look HERE is a very well reasoned dissertation on the Patriot Act. It takes your side.

    On the face of it... all your points are made.

    The author:

    Has a problem with the change from FISA wording "..of a foreign power" to persons desiring to do harm.
    - exactly right in my opinion. We cannot PROVE those are agents of a foreign power.. financing notwithstanding.

    The open ended nature of the 'war on terror'.
    - He does not mention whether or not we should just give up since there is no logical end point in which to declare 'victory'. Obviously a very few, even 5 or 10 could wreak more havoc with the US economy than was done on 9/11.

    Nature of investigation may now include 'Criminal Activity'
    - In cases where there is no known terror connection, illegal acquisition and possession of large amounts of Ammonium Nitrate and diesel fuel would constitute ''criminal activity'. Bank robbery by certain groups might fall under 'criminal activity'

    Nature of investigation even might include 'Political Activity'
    - Since Terror Aim is to secure a political end... whether you accede to it or not... a Caliphate is a political body. Not only that, what would you classify actual planning 'the violent overthrow of the United States Government'?

    Notes Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus and that was unconstitutional.
    - And.. THEN what happened?

    Yeah.. you're right; it DOES look pretty bleak. Not sure whether I am ready to sign up for those 'Islam as second religion' classes, though.
  8. andypalmer

    andypalmer Active Member

    Jun 4, 2007
    Baltimore, MD
    pettyfog. It wasn't the first line, it was the personal insults in the rest of your post I was referring to; i.e., the implication and in somecase outright statements that daring to disagree with you indicated I wasn't an adult and was instead an idiot. Poor form and even poorer discussion technique.

    re: Neville. LOL! Do you get all of your "history" off FoxNews? Neville Chamberlain's mistake was not wanting a repeat of the war that all but wiped out an entire generation of Britons and thinking that appeasing Hitler would avoid it.

    YOU are the one that wants to appease our enemy. Our enemy wants the personal freedoms of the United States to be curtailed by the government; they want to show the world that our way of life is a failure. You somehow think that by turning the USA into the exact type of country the Islamic Terrorist WANT us to be, one without personal freedoms and liberties, that you will somehow defeat them. It didn't work for Neville Chamberlain and it didn't work now.

    This "war on terror" is not about protecting our buildings from being blown up and our people killed, it is about protecting our way of life. The terrorists believe that threatening our lives and our property will get us to change our way of life; and Americans like you, despite the best of intentions, are helping to fight their war for them.

    "...we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender..." - Winston Churchill

    The beaches and fields we must protect our the freedoms and liberties which make America a beacon of light in the world. Bombs didn't make England give up their beaches and fields and bombs won't make America give up its freedoms and liberties, as long as we're all willing to fight for them.
  9. HatterDon

    HatterDon Moderator

    Mar 18, 2006
    Peoples Republic of South Texas
    Multi-part question for Pettyfog. The easy part is that you only have to answer "yes" or "no." Please be honest, and please don't bleat. I'm just trying to get a sense of YOUR sense of perspective.

    Do you think that the United States is in more danger now than it was during

    1. the War of 1812 when the British sacked Washington DC and burned the White House?

    2. the American Civil War when Americans were killing each other every day?

    3. the Great Depression of the 1930s when capitalism itself seemed on the verge of collapse?

    4. the first 6 months of World War II when our coasts were pretty much undefended?

    5. the Korean War once Red China became involved?

    6. the 30+ years of Cold War mutually assured destruction when each of us knew that hundreds of nukes were aimed at us every day?

    I'm interested in hearing your YES/NO on each of these answers. Thanks for your time.
  10. pettyfog

    pettyfog Well-Known Member

    Jan 4, 2005
  11. pettyfog

    pettyfog Well-Known Member

    Jan 4, 2005
    That was a very good exposition.

    Have you read bin Laden's writings? He doesnt think much of our freedoms BUT he has said he will use them to defeat us.

    Now PLEASE go back to the origin of this series. What I complained about was the slow loss of Freedom of action and freedom of speech. As long as you are able to criticize and demonstrate you have not lost those freedoms.
    Got any examples of folks here jailed or fined for exercising those within the ordinary bounds of the law?

    Now answer this... the shining beacon of liberty has allowed 'the enemy' to gather within our shores and among us.

    Yes or No?

    When Muslim clerics make a display in an airport and make strange requests, they are just either REALLY religious.... or they are trying to shatter our confidence. Which?

    I understand your points absolutely... what I dont understand is how the loss of the abstract right... and 'privacy' is, at this point... is the immediate danger when the evidence is all around us that they are trying to wear down our sense of well being and security in our daily lives.

    If you will not accept that, then I guess we've run the course.
  12. HatterDon

    HatterDon Moderator

    Mar 18, 2006
    Peoples Republic of South Texas
    Well, that explains a lot. Bin Laden [who you've already said on this site is "irrelevant"] is more of a danger to the United States and our way of life than Tojo, Stalin, Mao, 5 years of armed internal combat, and the greatest global economic crisis ALL ROLLED INTO ONE.

    I understand now why you don't listen to counter arguments. Thanks for your time.

    Carry on.
  13. pettyfog

    pettyfog Well-Known Member

    Jan 4, 2005
    I explained WHY in the next post. I've BEEN saying why. You just wont listen.

    Just to refresh that... the aim is to cause Us ... I mean the west... to get so fed up that at some time we have a 9/11 event, we react in such revulsion that we take to the streets and kill and abuse anyone of the Muslim faith... or who even looks Middle-Eastern

    In THAT regard, 9/11 was a dismal failure. It REALLY hurt the economy which is one of the aims, but it did not serve to unite Muslims against us in this country.

    The nature of terror acts is to make us feel unsafe and the future seem hopeless as we wouldnt know when the next outrage will occur.

    By the way.. in light of the above, which I have said before. I find it amusing that you recall me saying 'binLaden' is irrelevant .. yet I suppose you dont remember WHY.

    He IS irrelevant! He laid the eggs and shuffled off to a cave. It's NO LONGER a matter of 'cutting off the head'. Whether he lives or dies wont change things a lot.

    UNLESS he is found and killed at which time he gets a boost in prestige as a martyr. So..assuming you agree with that, and I'd think you would.. then if it were your decision how much emphasis would you place on destroying him, opposed to just decimating his ranks and making him miserable as possible.
  14. andypalmer

    andypalmer Active Member

    Jun 4, 2007
    Baltimore, MD
    pettyfog. The terrorists don't care about our military threat to Islamic Fundamentalism - by their nature, their culture takes the long view on things. What they do care about is that America's freedom's are creating an impression of "greener on our side of the fence" which is the anethema to their desire to create a giant Islamic Fundamentalist Theocracy. Yes, Bin Laden is going to say he will use our freedom's against us - from a "PR" perspective, he has to take efforts to put down our way of life as inferior. Yes, he wants us to take away the freedoms and liberties of American Muslims because then, its a much easier sell to Muslims in their neck of the woods that their twisted brand of Islamic Fundamentalism is the way to go.

    Bin Laden is important now because of the psychological impact on Terrorist leadership. If it becomes established fact that if you lead and/or mastermind a major terrorist attack, you will be caught and killed, then fewer and fewer quality leaders will step up to the plate. Yes, its easy for them to find "worker-level" membership who are willing to give up their life for the cause, but the intelligent, creative-thinkers who can really plan the major attacks are formed of a different cloth.

    One other note: the purpose of terrorism is to cause political change; focus on Joe Public's reaction and the economic impact and you lose sight of the primary goal.
  15. pettyfog

    pettyfog Well-Known Member

    Jan 4, 2005
    And by the way... if you guys want to debate Chamberlain/Hitler and the events leading up to the worldwide conflagration then do it on Anything Goes and we'll have some fun.

    Some of the younger guys might learn something that was left out of their formal indoctrination.
  16. pettyfog

    pettyfog Well-Known Member

    Jan 4, 2005
    I'm sorry.... but you are dead wrong. {yes I changed that to avoid hurting your feelings, You are STILL twitsing things to support some fear of loss in the abstract while downplaying the REAL losses}

    look at ANY of the terror activity in ANY location around the world, ESPECIALLY in the Middle East and you cannot say that those events are intimidating the populace by taking away their 'right to privacy'.

    They are intimidating by fear in the populace that they will lose their right to BREATHE!

    When things get chaotic ENOUGH they figure that 'Joe Public' will accept ANY regime that promises order.
    Joe Public MIGHT be concerned that if his criticizes his government, he might get a midnight visit, but he hasnt seen that happen.

    What he HAS seen happen is now he wonders if his attendance of next weeks football game will be his last.

    Now, be truthful and tell me that every time you fly .. or when you go to a ball game, you dont think about it just a little.
  17. Spencer

    Spencer Active Member

    Jul 1, 2005
    quite amazing

    Your right 9/11 didn't unite Muslims against us, it did the opposite. But the invasion of Iraq helped make tremendous steps towards that which you claim is their primary goal, particularly in the UK.

    So this war that you vigorously support and defend is playing right into their hands? Seeing your words it appears that you believe their goal is for us to turn in mass and engage in all out conflict with the Muslim world on every level. By this logic the remedy would be to be pacificist and turn the other check, so as the Muslim world would never unite against us. That is not something I would support and I know that is certainly not something you'd support.

    Your using petty speak, I apologize but you'll have to connect the dots for me.
  18. pettyfog

    pettyfog Well-Known Member

    Jan 4, 2005
    1. I wouldnt say it did the OPPOSITE, I would only say it didnt have the desired effect of instant street chaos.

    2. WHY is it amazing. It's ONLY amazing if you DONT connect the dots. I dont know why most of you guys dont seem to understand the nature of subversion. It is anything that sows the seed of distrust.

    Is it that you just dont want to think about it? What is the prime motivator for Emigration from the Middle EAst to the west? Besides the economy and freedom to prosper, it is the LACK of personal security.

    It's not helpful to think of what the US has done in the past, if I read "Mossadegh, Pahlevi" meme one more time I'm gonna puke.
    If I proposed that the UN show that Lebanon WASNT a strange phenom and Middle Easterners COULD govern themselves, but only in the abstract, then would I be pilloried? Why did I use the UN as an example? Look how IT is run and how much they are trusted.

    Even the stupid mistakes the US made in the war shouldnt matter if things are finally getting through. I can point ot all of them with my take on 'em... and what's happening NOW in the 'surge areas' was happening early on, but the administration lost their way and they forgot the meanings and effects of our betrayal of the Shia in the early nineties.

    It's important to always shift your view from 'here forward' That's all that matters isnt it?

    And I am sorry but I have a dim view of those who tacitly support the 'global village' concept but isolationism at the same time. I consider them tantamount to racist.
  19. Smokin'

    Smokin' Administrator

    Jan 3, 2005
    Machu Picchu
    You can not and never will be able to fight terrorism by taking FREEDOM away from the FREE. Its fundamentally absurd. That part of the agrument shouldnt be up for debate.

    This is dumb.... is our country now, and will it forever stay free?

    Petty... every post now, and is getting worse unless you restrain yourself from being completely condescending... you're a know it all... and in certain cirlces that damages your credibility to the point that I wont read any of your "post grandslam" posts, because you often boast in a ever more lopsided rant.

    You seem to operate in a NeoCon fashion... thats fine. You're well read and bright... also fine... (and congrats, cuz {affectionately} i think 85 year old men don't usually have that mental accuity)... I'm just wondering how with years of terrible CERTAIN conflict and bloodshed of the past... including OVERT threats to our soveignty such as WWII, you can truly believe (READ UP I SAID YOU WERE SMART) that some how this threat of terror even registers in the realm of so many.

    You unwavering support of this war is curious. Your support and regergitation of the empty proof free rhethoric, NeoCon style, is suprising. You actually sound like Bill Kristol when you answered Don's YES/NO post.

    I wish somehow that through all the discussions we've all participated in, having to do with the war, civil rights, etc, thats some how one of us or history itself could have swayed your position just a bit. I know it hasn't, I even figured that out being a dead wrong, numpty, knuckleheaded, liberal.

    Sure, if you're benchmark of danger is how well and how often the danger of terrorism is shoved up my ass in and my ears, than yeah... I think about it TOO much... and not because I am scared to die... NO NO NO... its because i'll be reminded just before I forget that everything is so dangerous.... what will I do.

    The idea on which this countries bill of rights functions is not one of retrospect.... its one of prevention.

    Its obvious that your loyalties reside in the yard of your party and not of your people.

    Excuse me.
  20. pettyfog

    pettyfog Well-Known Member

    Jan 4, 2005
    I currently HAVE no party!

    To accuse me of unwavering support of the war is the same as if I accused you of unwavering opposition to any of its objectives. I cannot do that because I dont know it for a fact.
    My support of going in wasnt unwavering; in any posts on it, I merely attempted to produce what the thinking might be on it.

    OR to, frankly, make fun of those who would claim that 'all diplomatic means had not been exhausted' beforehand.
    Or make fun of those screaming 'blood for oil' when it was 'French Oil' contracts that caused the split.

    ONE MORE TIME..please go back to what I originallly posted on... that is the REAL LOSSES of freedom that we are experiencing, as opposed to your abstract losses that could result in the same.

    One is conceptual in nature.. REAL to be sure but conceptual in both its origin, nature, and probabilities. The OTHER IS HAPPENING NOW!

    PS: at my age I even accept 'faint and damning praise' so thanks.
Similar Threads: Privacy Issues
Forum Title Date
Miscellaneous Dubya took away my privacy Sep 24, 2007
Miscellaneous Personal Privacy Dilemma: YouTube 'Hot for Teacher' Aug 27, 2007
Miscellaneous Imagine that... NSA DOES take privacy seriously! Nov 29, 2006
Miscellaneous ISSUES Nov 8, 2006

Share This Page