First Amendment and your Privacy at Risk
- Thread starter ZackDaniels
- Start date
Help Support VMAX Forum:
dannymax
Well-Known Member
Redbone
Well-Known Member
Why do you think we have to shut up about guns to talk about this other important issue? You have started a new thread so why cannot this stand on it's own merit? Do others discussing the 2nd Amendment rights make you feel you can tell them to "shut up", especially when you want to discuss the first amendment. Interesting tact!
Tex85
Well-Known Member
^ exactly.
As for this issue everyone will simply need to band together again like last year. I imagine Google will lead the charge again with other big names.
Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2
Maxine
Well-Known Member
Yes this is an important issue, and it will need to be stopped again. However if/when the second amendment falls the rest will follow. We can as a people defend the entire bill of rights as long as #2 remains in the hearts of our people.
Those whom do not remember their history are doomed to repeat it. Dis-arming the people is always one of the first big steps.
Regards,
R
Those whom do not remember their history are doomed to repeat it. Dis-arming the people is always one of the first big steps.
Regards,
R
Traumahawk
Well-Known Member
One of the reasons that it was shot down last year was because of companies like Google and the like spreading the word. Unfortunately the government has monitored the net for years. 2 programs in the late 90's (sniffer programs) were called carnivore and omnivore.
ALL of the Bill of RIGHTS are important.
old timer
Well-Known Member
This will continue to happen until we clean out these scumbags...vote out incumbants that keep this shit coming up...that's pretty simple...
MtnMax/Magniac
Well-Known Member
They've already shoved socialized medicine down our throats. That's step one, disarmament is step two. We can't let it happen.
Traumahawk
Well-Known Member
Unfortunately the government hasn't ever been able to be trusted, and will do exactly what it wishes. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Look at MKUltra back in the 60's, and Project paperclip in the late 40's.
Freedom requires an armed populace. Armed with weapons, Armed with communications, and Armed with knowledge.
Freedom requires an armed populace. Armed with weapons, Armed with communications, and Armed with knowledge.
85 MAX-fan
Well-Known Member
I trully don't understand why you would want to prevent passage of this Law Zack. I mean people shouldn't be able to say anything they want. You have no right to try to convince the less intellegent and easily manipulated people in our country to do illegal things over the internet.
There is way to much of a possibility that some tea party wacko could say the wrong thing and it could lead to someone getting hurt. If you aren't saying or doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about.
I think some common sense monitoring of what is being said, and possibly removing insensitive or inflamatory talk from the net could really help to protect our children from internet predators and sexual deviants.
As long as this is handled responsibly by our federal law enforcement agencies I say GOOD IDEA!
Traumahawk
Well-Known Member
If the government runs this as efficiently as the Mustang ranch, Socialized health care, the post office (which loses billions of dollars a year)...it makes me very afraid....
"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"
the 3rd amendment kills this....unless Im wrong and if I am please correct me disqualifies the government from legal power to do anything that your saying...As for the internet privacy it simply does not exist. Once a person puts something out over the internet it would fall under our 1st amendment right to freedom of speech and unless Im wrong there are so many agencies out there TV news, newspapers, reporters, and religious nuts that either spin or get spun by the government would be a bill that will never get passed.
forestdaledave
Well-Known Member
Bingo! Any expectation of privacy on the internet is a dellusion. Soon, if not already, everything you say, do, go, your medical history, bank accounts, will be availabe with a click. Some Senators are working on a national electronic I.D. that you will have to have in order to work. All under the heading of protecting citizens from illegals working. Is the cure worst than the problem?
David
Traumahawk
Well-Known Member
BUT....NOW its legal to kill American citizens on US soil for being a SUSPECTED terrorist. To me that is a violation of the 4th amendment (due process). I'm thinking that the 3rd amendment doesn't allow to government to take over your house and property and make you feed and house government troops.
ZackDaniels
Well-Known Member
Sorry about the gun comment folks... its just I can't look or do anything without somebody outraged over gun laws. Yet nobody seems to be talking about the plans to break the general design of the internet in the name of security.
It's revolutionary communication and ecommerce. Unfortunately that means some negatives come along. That's no justification for dns blacklists and other measures being discussed that are laughably bad ideas towards solving what they're supposed to. Meanwhile there's a lot of sacrifice for nothing at all to gain.
It's revolutionary communication and ecommerce. Unfortunately that means some negatives come along. That's no justification for dns blacklists and other measures being discussed that are laughably bad ideas towards solving what they're supposed to. Meanwhile there's a lot of sacrifice for nothing at all to gain.
Traumahawk
Well-Known Member
I agree with you 100%
dannymax
Well-Known Member
Fair enough....these are touchy times! :confused2:
Tex85
Well-Known Member
If you want to keep updated on topics like this I found joining https://www.google.com/takeaction/ did a decent job of keeping me in the loop. This took off when SOPA came around last year and the send out an update every now and then via email, nothing crazy just informative.
ZackDaniels
Well-Known Member
To break particular bill down a bit for those not overly familiar with it. In a nutshell it grants immunity to any corporation or government body that wishes to share private information with a government entity or relevant private organization. This is supposed to be for security purposes but it's not expressly structured as such.
It would give government agencies and many private companies access to your personal communications and financial information and would allow government security agencies like the National Security Agency unprecedented power to access your data including medical records, private emails and financial information – all without a warrant, oversight by any court or due process of law.
This access to your records would require no misbehavior on your part, not even an accusation of terrorism or criminal activity and it would take place without your knowledge or any opportunity to protect your information or your privacy interests. That information could then be passed on to private companies or other agencies or used against you with no real rules or restrictions on who could access it or what hands it would end up in.
It would override virtually every privacy and due process law we have, and even toes against the 1st and 4th amendment as stated.
Imagine going to court for some misunderstanding or even as a witness of some variety. To have the prosecution side present you with your internet activity and a list of e-mails, friend-only facebook posts, bill payments and subscriptions you may have, etc that are taken completely out of context. This is all legal and fair in a court of law if this passes, and you'll have no recourse against anybody who provided your information which had an expectation of privacy to anybody else.
The supporters of this bill are clueless, and are using international cyber attacks as justification for reintroducing it. Local spying doesn't help with an international problem like that. It's not a good solution to the current problems being used to justify it, but it can have dramatic effects and pretty much craps all over the majority of privacy laws we have in the process.
It would give government agencies and many private companies access to your personal communications and financial information and would allow government security agencies like the National Security Agency unprecedented power to access your data including medical records, private emails and financial information – all without a warrant, oversight by any court or due process of law.
This access to your records would require no misbehavior on your part, not even an accusation of terrorism or criminal activity and it would take place without your knowledge or any opportunity to protect your information or your privacy interests. That information could then be passed on to private companies or other agencies or used against you with no real rules or restrictions on who could access it or what hands it would end up in.
It would override virtually every privacy and due process law we have, and even toes against the 1st and 4th amendment as stated.
Imagine going to court for some misunderstanding or even as a witness of some variety. To have the prosecution side present you with your internet activity and a list of e-mails, friend-only facebook posts, bill payments and subscriptions you may have, etc that are taken completely out of context. This is all legal and fair in a court of law if this passes, and you'll have no recourse against anybody who provided your information which had an expectation of privacy to anybody else.
The supporters of this bill are clueless, and are using international cyber attacks as justification for reintroducing it. Local spying doesn't help with an international problem like that. It's not a good solution to the current problems being used to justify it, but it can have dramatic effects and pretty much craps all over the majority of privacy laws we have in the process.
ZackDaniels
Well-Known Member
I recall carnivore, and I keep hearing evidence of other detailed monitoring programs. The difference between this and that is that they were/are sniffing and storage devices.
The thought around carnivore specifically was to drop a unit in all major ISPs and datacenters in the us, and let these things eat all relevant data. At some later point if an investigation found it was worthwhile to dig in a judge still had to issue a warrant before anybody could legally look at what it had on file.
This act will require no warrants, and no devices. Just the ability to pressure governments, businesses, and organizations to give up everything they have on somebody. With no notification necessary or legal recourse available to the individual(s) they give up.
As bad as the carnivore programs were, they at least tried to line up with our current laws and procedures, and were of benefit only to high government law enforcement arms. This is far worse both in scope (the amount of orgs eligible to share, and the detail of data that can be shared) and in practice (no due process, warrants, or even notification required).
