Obama Wants To Increase Internet Wiretapping

Discussion in 'Politics & Law' started by Mirage, Sep 27, 2010.

  1. Mirage

    Mirage Administrator Staff Member V.I.P.

    Not happy about this. I would be surprised if anybody here supports this:

    FOXNews.com - U.S. Wants Broader Internet Wiretap Authority

    Basically, large sites such as Facebook would have to create backdoors for the government to eavesdrop on private conversations that took place on the platform, regardless of a users individual privacy settings.

    Same thing goes for Gmail and other very public communication platforms, even your encrypted Blackberry text messages and emails.

    What ever happened to no search without a warrant? As far as I'm concerned, this is the same as the government setting up physical wiretaps in malls and large buildings, or even our personal houses.

    Does this remind anybody else of 1984?

  2. CaptainObvious

    CaptainObvious Son of Liberty V.I.P.

    I heard about this on the radio this morning and I made a mental note to make a thread about it and forgot:lol:

    I'm not happy about this at all. I heard it will also involve programs such as Skype.

    It not only reminds of 1984, it reminds me of Bush's wiretapping earlier this century. I'm interested in hearing and reading what those in the media who attacked Bush for his program have to say about this.
  3. Jeanie

    Jeanie still nobody's bitch V.I.P. Lifetime

    I don't trust FOX News to be honest with the information they are putting out there. When I see this from a legitimate news source, I will be appropriately outraged. But coming solely from FOX, I find it difficult to believe. That's true of any news story from FOX.
    Sim likes this.
  4. Mirage

    Mirage Administrator Staff Member V.I.P.

    To prove that Fox news did not make this up for the lulz... here it is again from the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/27/us/27wiretap.html?_r=1
  5. CaptainObvious

    CaptainObvious Son of Liberty V.I.P.

  6. Jeanie

    Jeanie still nobody's bitch V.I.P. Lifetime

    I'm not suggesting FOX does anything for the lulz. I'm suggesting they do it to increase viewership. They've shown over and over that they are not interested in "Fair and Balanced" reporting, just in getting people worked up so that they'll watch more.
    oh and as far as this story goes, yeah it scares the pants off of me. I joke about being a Communist sympathizer and being on the FBI watch list and all that crap, but it actually does really scare me.

    I'd like to know if you conservatives would support the efforts of the ACLU should they challenge this bill?
    Last edited: Sep 27, 2010
  7. Mirage

    Mirage Administrator Staff Member V.I.P.

    There's always small print in such a challenge. It would depend on what aspects of it they were challenging. At first glance, I don't see why I wouldn't support them if they challenged it.

    It's not always about being on a side no matter what. If somebody from "across the aisle" is pushing for something I support, I don't have a problem supporting that cause. Otherwise it would be no worse than cutting off my nose to spite my face right? :-/
    Last edited: Sep 28, 2010
  8. icegoat63

    icegoat63 Son of Liberty V.I.P. Lifetime

    I will support, defend, attack, or discredit anything that goes for or against my beliefs regardless of what side it lays on the political Spectrum. I do not want to be considered a straight ticket voter, ever.

    I would defend the American Civil Liberties Union without a doubt in my mind if they are fighting for what I believe is right, for my right of Privacy in this case.
  9. CaptainObvious

    CaptainObvious Son of Liberty V.I.P.

    That depends. I haven't read what the administration is proposing and what exactly the ACLU's arguments are. Here is something from the AP on the story, btw.

    AP News: Report: US would make Internet wiretaps easier

    During the Bush administration I argued while I initially found the administration's actions wrong I also argued that part of fighting terrorism what finding actual terrorists here in the US, and thus the president had that authority under the Commander-in-Chief Clause, which is what Alberto Gonzalez relied on as well.

    So I stand by that same assessment, I'm not going to change it because the President now has a (D) by his name instead of an (R). The problem I have is these are the same people who called for Gonzalez' resignation.

    All and all it is scary, but I'm not going to pretend I am privy to the intelligence the President has in regards to terrorists here in the US. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt until I know for sure what regulations he is proposing and what he intends to find out from these regulations. I am also interested in hearing from those who oppose these regulations and why.
    icegoat63 likes this.
  10. Sim

    Sim Registered Member

    It's indeed frightening. And just one more point to add to the list of disappointments in the Obama administration. It's obvious now that Obama doesn't want to, or cannot, at any rate will not change the ongoing policy of bloated executive powers that was started by Bush.

    Again, that adds to my impression that voting a new candidate and administration into office is less and less suited to really make a difference. The problems apparently run deeper.

Share This Page