PDA

View Full Version : Surveillance of Internet Communications



Gerry Clinchy
07-30-2010, 08:12 AM
NY Times Editorial
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/30/opinion/30fri1.html?th&emc=th

Obama asking for expansion on "national security letters".


It is just a technical matter, the Obama administration says: We just need to make a slight change in a law to make clear that we have the right to see the names of anyone’s e-mail correspondents and their Web browsing history without the messy complication of asking a judge for permission.

It is far more than a technical change. The administration’s request, reported Thursday in The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/28/AR2010072806141.html), is an unnecessary and disappointing step backward toward more intrusive surveillance from a president who promised something very different during the 2008 campaign.



But there was an inconsistency in the writing of the 1993 law. One section said that Internet providers had to turn over this information, but the next section, which specified what the F.B.I. could request, left out electronic communication records. In 2008, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel issued an opinion (http://www.justice.gov/olc/2008/fbi-ecpa-opinion.pdf) saying this discrepancy meant the F.B.I. could no longer ask for the information. Many Internet providers stopped turning it over. Now the Obama administration has asked Congress to make clear that the F.B.I. can ask for it.


Where is the “robust oversight” that voters were promised? Earlier this year, the administration successfully pushed for crucial provisions of the Patriot Act to be renewed for another year without changing a word. Voters had every right to expect the president would roll back authority that had been clearly abused, like national security letters. But instead of implementing reasonable civil liberties protections, like taking requests for e-mail surveillance before a judge, the administration is proposing changes to the law that would allow huge numbers of new electronic communications to be examined with no judicial oversight.

Now that I've stirred the pot for the day, I will take my puppies out to a friend's pond ... and hope to find some interesting reading this evening.

road kill
07-30-2010, 08:23 AM
NY Times Editorial
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/30/opinion/30fri1.html?th&emc=th

Obama asking for expansion on "national security letters".







Now that I've stirred the pot for the day, I will take my puppies out to a friend's pond ... and hope to find some interesting reading this evening.

Remember how fired up the progressives got when Bush wanted to moniter calls with suspected terrorists??

Oh the humanity!!!!:rolleyes:


Is this that horse in the Emerald City?






rk

Roger Perry
07-30-2010, 10:37 AM
Remember how fired up the progressives got when Bush wanted to moniter calls with suspected terrorists??

Oh the humanity!!!!:rolleyes:


Is this that horse in the Emerald City?






rk

I did not see any of the right wingers complaining when Bush did it so why should it be any different now? It is just like the spending. It is difficult to cut the spending unless you stop the wars. If you let the Bush tax cuts run out there will be more income to reduce the deficit.

YardleyLabs
07-30-2010, 10:45 AM
Remember how fired up the progressives got when Bush wanted to moniter calls with suspected terrorists??

Oh the humanity!!!!:rolleyes:


Is this that horse in the Emerald City?






rk
Interesting that you appear to be criticizing liberals for inconsistency by failing to complain about the Obama administration's efforts to extend warrantless surveillance, but your source is a NY Times editorial condemning the administration's action and calling on Democrats to reject the extension. Personally,I believed the actions of this sort by the Bush administration were wrong and they are still wrong when supported by Obama.

road kill
07-30-2010, 01:23 PM
Interesting that you appear to be criticizing liberals for inconsistency by failing to complain about the Obama administration's efforts to extend warrantless surveillance, but your source is a NY Times editorial condemning the administration's action and calling on Democrats to reject the extension. Personally,I believed the actions of this sort by the Bush administration were wrong and they are still wrong when supported by Obama.

I criticized nothing, except the progressive selective outrage.

But hey, as in all things, you know more about what I posted than I do.....:rolleyes:



rk

YardleyLabs
07-30-2010, 01:47 PM
I criticized nothing, except the progressive selective outrage.

But hey, as in all things, you know more about what I posted than I do.....:rolleyes:



rk
Which is what I said you criticized. The only problem is that you are quoting evidence of progressive outrage.

Unbelievable.....:rolleyes:

road kill
07-30-2010, 01:51 PM
Which is what I said you criticized. The only problem is that you are quoting evidence of progressive outrage.

Unbelievable.....:rolleyes:

Yes you are.



"Condescension is a show of disdain and superiority in which the condescending person patronizes, or considers himself superior and "descends" to the level of, the disdained person."




I am close to posting the pm's I have received about you.
I don't think you will like them, but you are probably used to it.





RK:D

YardleyLabs
07-30-2010, 02:25 PM
Yes you are.



"Condescension is a show of disdain and superiority in which the condescending person patronizes, or considers himself superior and "descends" to the level of, the disdained person."




I am close to posting the pm's I have received about you.
I don't think you will like them, but you are probably used to it.





RK:D
You are so pleased with this post you had to make it twice????

Unbelievable......:rolleyes:

I assume, of course, that the use of that word irritates you because of your own repeated use of it as a virtual signature..

On your specifics:
1. You criticize, in you own words, progressives for being hypocrites because they attacked Bush for warrantless surveillance programs but don't criticize Obama for proposing an extension of that program to email. That would be a fair criticism, if it were true. However, you then posted direct evidence that it is not true when you referenced the editorial from the NY Times -- which most conservatives call a liberal source -- that condemns the Obama administration for its action. What is condescending about highlighting the contradiction evident in your own post?

2. You attacked me for hypocrisy for quoting the last lines of a Bible psalm that points to an irony in the way the same psalm is being used to attack Obama and, by extension, liberals in general. At no point have I misrepresented my religious beliefs or my ethical beliefs which, if you read your own post, is the basis for an allegation of hypocrisy Quoting those lines does not imply any false piety, and no one on this forum has any illusions about my religious beliefs. I have never professed any belief in god directly or by implication, and do not fit in your own definition of hypocrisy on that basis. How is my pointing out your error in your personal attack an act of condescension?

It seems that what you actually dislike is having anyone disagree with your posts with facts or arguments for which you have no response..Now, in true form, you dive into personal attacks. If you wish to publish PM's. feel free. The trust betrayed is with those who sent you those messages. I suspect that if they wanted to make those messages public or wanted them sent to me directly, they would have done so. I'm pretty sure they contain nothing I have not heard before.

road kill
07-30-2010, 02:26 PM
You are so pleased with this post you had to make it twice????

Unbelievable......:rolleyes:

I assume, of course, that the use of that word irritates you because of your own repeated use of it as a virtual signature..

On your specifics:
1. You criticize, in you own words, progressives for being hypocrites because they attacked Bush for warrantless surveillance programs but don't criticize Obama for proposing an extension of that program to email. That would be a fair criticism, if it were true. However, you then posted direct evidence that it is not true when you referenced the editorial from the NY Times -- which most conservatives call a liberal source -- that condemns the Obama administration for its action. What is condescending about highlighting the contradiction evident in your own post?

2. You attacked me for hypocrisy for quoting the last lines of a Bible psalm that points to an irony in the way the same psalm is being used to attack Obama and, by extension, liberals in general. At no point have I misrepresented my religious beliefs or my ethical beliefs which, if you read your own post, is the basis for an allegation of hypocrisy Quoting those lines does not imply any false piety, and no one on this forum has any illusions about my religious beliefs. I have never professed any belief in god directly or by implication, and do not fit in your own definition of hypocrisy on that basis. How is my pointing out your error in your personal attack an act of condescension?

It seems that what you actually dislike is having anyone disagree with your posts with facts or arguments for which you have no response..Now, in true form, you dive into personal attacks. If you wish to publish PM's. feel free. The trust betrayed is with those who sent you those messages. I suspect that if they wanted to make those messages public or wanted them sent to me directly, they would have done so. I'm pretty sure they contain nothing I have not heard before.

No just you and your condescending attitude.
Like most everyone here.:D

I am sure of that.


stan b