Central planners don't need no stinking warrants!

[eflatminor]

Senate bill rewrite lets feds read your e-mail without warrants:

Leahy's rewritten bill would allow more than 22 agencies -- including the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Federal Communications Commission -- to access Americans' e-mail, Google Docs files, Facebook wall posts, and Twitter direct messages without a search warrant. It also would give the FBI and Homeland Security more authority, in some circumstances, to gain full access to Internet accounts without notifying either the owner or a judge.

Should this pass the house, will Obama sign it into law? After signing the NDAA and Patriot Act, odds are yes.

Constitution smonstitution...the central planners know what's best for all of us...

Senate bill rewrite lets feds read your e-mail without warrants | Politics and Law - CNET News

 

[occupied]

Already a thread on this, seems to be BS.

 

[eflatminor]

Already a thread on this, seems to be BS.

I'd like to believe you're correct. Do you have any evidence that this bill is not being considered?

 

[occupied]

Already a thread on this, seems to be BS.

I'd like to believe you're correct. Do you have any evidence that this bill is not being considered?

Here's the thread, you figure it out.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...ves-in-the-post-office-and-read-our-mail.html

 

[konradv]

Already a thread on this, seems to be BS.

I'd like to believe you're correct. Do you have any evidence that this bill is not being considered?

LOL!!! Typical! We're asked to prove a negative. Logical fallacies 'r us, eh?

Argument from ignorance (appeal to ignorance, argumentum ad ignorantiam) – assuming that a claim is true (or false) because it has not been proven false (true) or cannot be proven false (true).

List of fallacies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[blastoff]

Maybe just trying to make legal what they've been doing all along?

 

[koshergrl]

The internet is not the venue for sensitive material to be passed back and forth. I have always assumed that any hack could get into my accounts and read my e-mail. People who think they can protect the privacy of internet accounts and corresponsdence are delusional.

 

[eflatminor]

Already a thread on this, seems to be BS.

I'd like to believe you're correct. Do you have any evidence that this bill is not being considered?

LOL!!! Typical! We're asked to prove a negative. Logical fallacies 'r us, eh?

Argument from ignorance (appeal to ignorance, argumentum ad ignorantiam) – assuming that a claim is true (or false) because it has not been proven false (true) or cannot be proven false (true).

List of fallacies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hey, asshole. I'm not assuming anything. We have plenty of evidence that this bill is under serious consideration. Occupied suggested there was nothing to worry about, so I asked for something to support his position...because I hope he's correct.

 

[eflatminor]

The internet is not the venue for sensitive material to be passed back and forth. I have always assumed that any hack could get into my accounts and read my e-mail. People who think they can protect the privacy of internet accounts and corresponsdence are delusional.

I agree. However, that does't mean I support the government gaining access to my personal documents without a warrant. There is good reason why that was a founding principal.

 

[dblack]

Already a thread on this, seems to be BS.

Are you saying that the suggestion that government would actually aspire to have this power is bullshit? Or that they shouldn't be after this kind of power in the first place? Do you back this kind of intrusive government? What about about NDAA or the Patriot Act in general? How much police state do you enjoy?

 

[konradv]

I'd like to believe you're correct. Do you have any evidence that this bill is not being considered?

LOL!!! Typical! We're asked to prove a negative. Logical fallacies 'r us, eh?

Argument from ignorance (appeal to ignorance, argumentum ad ignorantiam) – assuming that a claim is true (or false) because it has not been proven false (true) or cannot be proven false (true).

List of fallacies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hey, asshole. I'm not assuming anything. We have plenty of evidence that this bill is under serious consideration. Occupied suggested there was nothing to worry about, so I asked for something to support his position...because I hope he's correct.

I'm the asshole? You say there's plenty of evidence, yet you asked that negative evidence be presented! If there's plenty of evidence, YOU present it, .

 

[GeoLaureate8]

Already a thread on this, seems to be BS.

I'd like to believe you're correct. Do you have any evidence that this bill is not being considered?

LOL!!! Typical! We're asked to prove a negative. Logical fallacies 'r us, eh?

Argument from ignorance (appeal to ignorance, argumentum ad ignorantiam) – assuming that a claim is true (or false) because it has not been proven false (true) or cannot be proven false (true).

List of fallacies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He provided evidence from a credible source. You said it's BS and he asked you to explain why you affirmed that. He didn't ask you to prove a negative, he asked you to disprove his evidence.

You have no knowledge and you lack critical thinking skills. You abused and incorrectly applied a logical fallacy and then bragged about it.


.
.

 

[eflatminor]

LOL!!! Typical! We're asked to prove a negative. Logical fallacies 'r us, eh?

Argument from ignorance (appeal to ignorance, argumentum ad ignorantiam) – assuming that a claim is true (or false) because it has not been proven false (true) or cannot be proven false (true).

List of fallacies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hey, asshole. I'm not assuming anything. We have plenty of evidence that this bill is under serious consideration. Occupied suggested there was nothing to worry about, so I asked for something to support his position...because I hope he's correct.

I'm the asshole? You say there's plenty of evidence, yet you asked that negative evidence be presented! If there's plenty of evidence, YOU present it, .

That's what the link was for. Geez, are you always this obtuse?