FBI creating a police state and using 9/11 as an excuse to do so

[Deleted member 4644]

I took a class on national security here at UCLA. We pretty much concluded that technology isnt going to help the situation. Rather, we *are* going to have to make some changes to our society. Finger printing people doesnt seem that horrible.

 

[Moonbeam]

Everybody needs to be plugged into the World Empath AI. It will make sure you don't hurt yourself, that you obey the laws, and that you apply yourself in a productive and harmonious fashion. There will be no crime, no want, no loneliness, and no need for fear. You will need only to conform, and you will be asked only to conform to the real truth. The insane will no longer make world destroying decissions.

 

[UltraQuiet]

they do want to track internet surfing.

BS. They have never said that.

 

[Laguna]

The terrorists won the day they executed their plan. Any further talk of more imminent security as, "losing" to the terrorists is ludicrous. They got the publicity, they got the world up in arms. Further security works towards the loss of privacy, but we gain theoretical security. The only people who "lose" anything are US citizens.

I think of it as loosely analagous with computer security. There's always that fine struggle between security and useability. With the US, it comes down to security vs. privacy...

 

[Tiger]

The FBI can't expand their power by themselves.
The FBI director is on capital hiil this morning getting his ass reamed because he wasn't clairvoiant his first week on the job.
In every case searches and wire taps are approved by a federal judge only after probable cause is proven.

 

[Lucky]

Originally posted by: dwell

That's exactly my point, you don't know. Muller and Ashcroft have outlined specifically what will and won't be allowed . However that doesn't stop you and all your ignorant buddies from posting BS in this thread and a hundred others. Try finding out what the truth is instead of just reading one news article, listening to one sound bite or reading the banner going across the bottom of your TV.

Even if they cannot intercept email, they do want to track internet surfing. Is that not enough for you? Do you want to live in a country where the government can spy on you? What's even worse is that they are using 9/11 as they excuse. Did all those people die so some fat fed can watch me surf pr0n sites?

they dont want to track web surfing. where the hell do you get this? Make it up? The new rules allow them to surf the web to collect information pertaining to terrorism, child porn, etc. Meaning, if they want to read Anandtech because they think terrorists post here, they are now allowed to do that. They arent tracking anything, they are just now allowed to do the same thing you and I do-surf the web.

 

Originally posted by: DaveSohmer

they do want to track internet surfing.

BS. They have never said that.

"The Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday will examine proposed Justice Department guidelines that would give federal investigators new license to mine publicly available databases and monitor Web use."

No?

 

[UltraQuiet]

dwell- read Lucky's post. Do your homework before you post here and you won't get reamed.

 

[Tiger]

So what if they want to surf the web?
More power to them.
If they suspected you of any federal crime they could, with a warrant from a federal judge, have you under 24hr/day surveillance, tap your phone, read your mail, without you knowing about it.

ZDNet, yep they know what the hell they're talking about.

 

[FlashG]

Has anyone here ever read Aldus Huxley - Brave New World?

Finger printing and other types of personal identification and surveillance are not in themselves threats to loss of freedom. It's there potential application and control that threaten us.

As long as we question and create accountable cross checks we should be OK. But we are all individually responsible for making sure that personal; freedom is not sacrificed in the process.

 

The new rules allow them to surf the web to collect information pertaining to terrorism

Damn, if only they knew about www.wearegoingtohijackplanesandflythemintobuildings.com ahead of time.

The FBI getting any more room to move is bad, no matter how little.

 

[Moonbeam]

FlashG: Has anyone here ever read Aldus Huxley - Brave New World?

Have you ever read any of my posts, like the one a few back?

 

[FlashG]

Moonbeam,

Unfortunately I did not take the time to decipher your post.

My intention was to clearly point out that we all are responsible for protecting our gift of freedom. I believe you were alluding to the same conclusion.

Damn.. Now I have to go back and re-read the book again.

 

[etalns]

I personally could care less if they did this, as long as they dont arrest me for looking at pr0n.

 

[Spagina]

As someone else stated earlier, the FBI and CIA have all the powers they need at this point, they just need to clean up their act and piece the information together more efficiently (e.g. clean up the bloated beauacracy that is our gov't). I'd rather die a free man than live in a protected box whilst all my rights are slowly being eroded. I am honestly hating the government for what they are doing at this point, they aren't running this in a constructive intelligent manner anymore, rather they are doing these knee jerk measures that hopefully the supreme court will abolish soon enough.

I know this quote has been used before, but this post sure as hell needs this quote brought to light again...
"Those who would trade liberties for security, deserve neither." - Benjamin Franklin

 

[Bluefront]

Today I heard some pretty sound thinking from a US senator: "The US Constitution is not a suicide pact". This means to me we should not use any section of the constitution to our detriment. If we need a slight loss of so-called liberty to insure our lives, so be it.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Bluefront
Today I heard some pretty sound thinking from a US senator: "The US Constitution is not a suicide pact". This means to me we should not use any section of the constitution to our detriment. If we need a slight loss of so-called liberty to insure our lives, so be it.

Of course, the thought that we can combat terrorism and fight wars without losing freedoms has never crossed his, or your mind, huh?

Sound thinking my ass. It's a tasty little slogan thought up by a man who wants to take our freedoms away.

You can never have freedom, and absolute safety. It just wont happen.

So pick your poison:

1. Cradle to grave security and oppression.

2. Freedom

Give me freedom any day over oppressive nanny/police state bullsh!t.

 

[Moonbeam]

AmusedOne,

what cracks me up about this is that one of our local (SF) left winged loose cannon, Bernie Ward has for some time now had a diagnosis our on the American people that all the right winged wackos, what you would call an Average American, would gladly sell their freedom for a whiff of security. As you can, I think, plainly see, he's right. Well he's left, actually, but he's correct. Qosis sort of sums it up. As long as I don't get arrested looking at prOn. Perhaps Rome no longer listens to her geese.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
AmusedOne,

what cracks me up about this is that one of our local (SF) left winged loose cannon, Bernie Ward has for some time now had a diagnosis our on the American people that all the right winged wackos, what you would call an Average American, would gladly sell their freedom for a whiff of security. As you can, I think, plainly see, he's right. Well he's left, actually, but he's correct. Qosis sort of sums it up. As long as I don't get arrested looking at prOn. Perhaps Rome no longer listens to her geese.

Holy cow, Moonie, are you agreeing with me???

:Q:Q:Q:Q:Q:Q:Q

 

[kgraeme]

Originally posted by: DaveSohmer

I don't know specifically about intercepting emails, but it seems to fall into the theme.

That's exactly my point, you don't know. Muller and Ashcroft have outlined specifically what will and won't be allowed . However that doesn't stop you and all your ignorant buddies from posting BS in this thread and a hundred others. Try finding out what the truth is instead of just reading one news article, listening to one sound bite or reading the banner going across the bottom of your TV.

Carnivore
Designed specifically to entercept email. At the time of its implementation, the FBI assured us that its use was governed by very strict laws about requests for wiretaps.

H. R. 3162 USA PATRIOT Act
This bill, passed without even being read by our elected officials, significantly relaxes rules regarding intellegence gathering, including the wiretap rules which govern Carnivore.

Even more troubling, is this section:

(b) AUTHORITY TO SHARE ELECTRONIC, WIRE, AND ORAL INTERCEPTION INFORMATION-

(1) LAW ENFORCEMENT- Section 2517 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting at the end the following:

`(6) Any investigative or law enforcement officer, or attorney for the Government, who by any means authorized by this chapter, has obtained knowledge of the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, or evidence derived therefrom, may disclose such contents to any other Federal law enforcement, intelligence, protective, immigration, national defense, or national security official to the extent that such contents include foreign intelligence or counterintelligence (as defined in section 3 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 401a)), or foreign intelligence information (as defined in subsection (19) of section 2510 of this title), to assist the official who is to receive that information in the performance of his official duties. Any Federal official who receives information pursuant to this provision may use that information only as necessary in the conduct of that person's official duties subject to any limitations on the unauthorized disclosure of such information.'.

What this means is that information gathered by the CIA and NSA monitoring international communications may be freely shared with the FBI for domestic investigations. International monitoring does not fall under the same privacy restrictions as their domestic counterparts; however, what is monitored is the satellite communications which also carry domestic traffic. So now domestic communications can be surveilled by the CIA and NSA and shared with the FBI, thus circumventing a Federal judge granting a wiretap.

Those specifically apply surveillance of email and other personal communications.

Regarding the new guidelines referred to in the ZDNet article:

Ascroft proudly promotes snooping in public.

...unnecessary procedural red tape must not interfere with the effective detection, investigation, and prevention of terrorist activities. To this end, the revised guidelines allow Special Agents in Charge of FBI field offices to approve and renew terrorism enterprise investigations, rather than having to seek and wait for approval from headquarters.

Our new guideline reads, "For the purpose of detecting or preventing terrorist activities, the FBI is authorized to visit any place and attend any event that is open to the public, on the same terms and conditions as members of the public generally."

As you can see, there is nothing mistaken about what dwell is concerned with. Ashcroft has indeed given the FBI permission to monitor public forums. This was an area of questionable surveillance before, an area which the FBI reasonably respected people's rights to convene without government agents eavesdropping. That respect for people has gone out the window, and it's back to feeling like the McCarthy era. It wasn't illegal for them to monitor before, but it they didn't out of a respect for the presumption of innocence of the public.

 

"Those who would trade liberties for security, deserve neither." - Benjamin Franklin

Thanks for the new sig

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: dwell

"Those who would trade liberties for security, deserve neither." - Benjamin Franklin

Thanks for the new sig

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.

PLEASE, if you're going to quote the man, get it right.

 

[kgraeme]

Originally posted by: Viper GTS
You as the public have to choose which is more important to you - your freedom or your safety.

With all the dumbasses tearing the government a new asshole over not stopping 9/11, you're going to get EXACTLY what you're asking for.

Take your pick, both have their costs.

Viper GTS

Actually, it's not a choice between freedom and safety. The FBI had all the information they needed before 9/11, and they had the legal authority to act on the information. They didn't. THAT is the problem.

There is and was absolutely NO need to further undermine civil liberties with the various post-9/11 laws. The appropriate information collection was both possible and practiced under the old laws. All these new laws do is further strip our personal freedoms.

And now we are getting yet another intelligence agency? All that is going to do is stretch the tax dollars even more, giving less money to the agencies that already exist. Either that, or it means raised taxes for a redundant government bureaucracy.

 

[Cyberian]

"For the purpose of detecting or preventing terrorist activities, the FBI is authorized to visit any place and attend any event that is open to the public, on the same terms and conditions as members of the public generally."

I don't see how this infringes on my freedom.
Nor do I see how someone reading a public message board does.

 

[kgraeme]

Originally posted by: Cyberian
"For the purpose of detecting or preventing terrorist activities, the FBI is authorized to visit any place and attend any event that is open to the public, on the same terms and conditions as members of the public generally."

I don't see how this infringes on my freedom.
Nor do I see how someone reading a public message board does.

Do you say bad things about your wife, mother, boss, etc. if they are standing right there? The bad things may be true, but fear of the consequences of saying them creates a stifling effect.

We have a first amendment freedom to express ourselves. But what will happen to the critical discussion of the government's practices when we become afraid to say anything critical for fear of having agents there creating a file of "un-American activity". What happens when the government begins taking political activists in "for questioning" because of speaking at a rally? The Constitution is intended to provide for "un-American activity".

The fear to speak is the infringment of the First Amendment.