Doesn't It Bother You That Obama Is Trying To Gain Access To Private Emails?

[MaggieMae]

Not even close.

I don't give 2 turds in a toilet about big 0.

but this is just paranoid ranting.

It's only about giving the gov the chance to tap into criminals emails. nothing more.

Criminals, as classified by the government. The problem I have with this kind of thing is that it opens the door to abuse. Remember how all hell broke loose earlier this year because the DHS sent out a memo saying that law enforcement needed to be leery of "extremist" groups like the Tea Party? What if the current government suddenly decided they were a threat to the government or were enemies of the state and abused this law to begin dipping into their private communications simply because they didn't like their political agenda? It could be used as a tool to intimidate political opposition. Conversely, a Republican administration could abuse it in the same manner towards anti-war protesters or unions.

Our privacy rights have been eroding away rather quickly since 9-11 by both Republicans and Democrats in the name of security. We are headed in the direction of a police state. It may take a while to get all the way there, but make no mistake about it. That's where we're going.

The DHS memo warning of extremism did not mention ANY established group by name, including the Tea Party. And it was right-on, by the way.

 

[MaggieMae]

It's the same as a wire tap. with the same requirements.

much ado about nothing.

I would love to print up all of the screams from Libs here when Bush got caught Data-mining communications leaving this country.

Obama wants to set it up so a judge can get a request on his blackberry for a search on anyone. The level needed to get a warrant....if you want to call it a warrant....will be so low that just about any request will be granted within minutes and because this guy is untrustworthy I suspect he's gonna be reading love letters of political enemies and using it against them in elections.

Those who didn't like that kind of surveillance when Bush did it won't like it when Obama does it either. So far, I've seen nothing in this thread posted by anyone who claims otherwise.

Sorry your bash-Obama thread du jour didn't pan out the way you'd planned.

 

[JWBooth]

He Really Is

Your Best Friend
​

 

[MaggieMae]

I would love to print up all of the screams from Libs here when Bush got caught Data-mining communications leaving this country.

Obama wants to set it up so a judge can get a request on his blackberry for a search on anyone. The level needed to get a warrant....if you want to call it a warrant....will be so low that just about any request will be granted within minutes and because this guy is untrustworthy I suspect he's gonna be reading love letters of political enemies and using it against them in elections.

No, mudwhistle. No law enforcement agency can get a subpoena from a judge off a text message to the judge's blackberry...there has to be a signed, written affidavit of probable cause. The change in law concerns the subpoena power over the text messages of investigated persons, not the manner of seeking investigative power from judges.

I know that. That is the way the law is now. But what Obama's DOJ wants is to be able to get in touch with a judge 24/7 and get a warrant.

Don't you give a fuck that they're gonna be reading text mgs of anyone they feel warrants investigation? That's a long list. Tea Party members, returning Iraq war vets, anyone who votes GOP or shows the tendency to do so? I mean...the guy says Fox News is destructive to America. What does that mean? Does he consider them a security risk?

Everyone admits there is the potential for abuse. That is a major understatement.

So did Bush!!! Of the 11 members (all federal judges) of the FISA court, plus a presiding judge, at least one of them has to be available 24/7 in the case of an emergency approval of a warrant. How quickly you and your ilk forget the details of this and just about everything else that happened prior to January 21, 2009.

 

[MaggieMae]

No, mudwhistle. No law enforcement agency can get a subpoena from a judge off a text message to the judge's blackberry...there has to be a signed, written affidavit of probable cause. The change in law concerns the subpoena power over the text messages of investigated persons, not the manner of seeking investigative power from judges.

I know that. That is the way the law is now. But what Obama's DOJ wants is to be able to get in touch with a judge 24/7 and get a warrant.

Don't you give a fuck that they're gonna be reading text mgs of anyone they feel warrants investigation? That's a long list. Tea Party members, returning Iraq war vets, anyone who votes GOP or shows the tendency to do so? I mean...the guy says Fox News is destructive to America. What does that mean? Does he consider them a security risk?

Everyone admits there is the potential for abuse. That is a major understatement.

Yes, it is troubling. But mudwhistle, the potential to abuse power has always been there...all that has changed it the real life ability to monitor 'net based communications. We cannot afford to ignore them.

What else was there to do?

The unfortunate reality of today's Internet capability is that as soon as something (ANYTHING) is sent, no matter which device is used, it can immediately become someone else's business. There are no secrets on the Internet.

 

[MaggieMae]

I know that. That is the way the law is now. But what Obama's DOJ wants is to be able to get in touch with a judge 24/7 and get a warrant.

Don't you give a fuck that they're gonna be reading text mgs of anyone they feel warrants investigation? That's a long list. Tea Party members, returning Iraq war vets, anyone who votes GOP or shows the tendency to do so? I mean...the guy says Fox News is destructive to America. What does that mean? Does he consider them a security risk?

Everyone admits there is the potential for abuse. That is a major understatement.

Yes, it is troubling. But mudwhistle, the potential to abuse power has always been there...all that has changed it the real life ability to monitor 'net based communications. We cannot afford to ignore them.

What else was there to do?

I think now is not the time to grant this power.

Obama has communists running things in his Administration....people that are less the scrupulous. I don't think trusting this guy is wise.

There are other ways to spy on folks....he doesn't need the power to spy on all of us under any circumstance he deems fit.

For a moment, I actually thought I saw a few sparks of intelligence coming from you, but as usual, you blew it. My bad.

 

[MaggieMae]

I think this involves the FBI not the CIA.

I wonder why you feel that if Bush was in the White House he wanted to invade your privacy but now that some radical revolutionary asshole and his communist cronies want to spy on us you have no friggen problem with that. I would be willing to bet you were one of those bitching about the NSA story.

You're really losing credibility on this. I wouldn't accept this from anyone much less Obama.

I did whine about the Patriot Act, you are right. I wasn't on USMB then, though. I was less than thrilled when Obama made no move to repeal any provision of it. I have no idea what "the NSA story" might be.

I still don't hear you proposing any solutiuons, mudwhistle. How does the CIA/FBA/whatnot monitor communications on the 'net without this new law?

There was a major flap about the NSA a few years ago. Maybe you need to Google it.

The solutions are already in place. That is why they keep catching these idiot domestic terrorists in the planning stage. They give them a fake bomb and bust them when they plant it.

This is not a solution. This is an invasion of privacy. Obama is sneaking around trying to get these powers. Usually he proclaims something is a crisis and then he slams us with massive regulations labeled to be reform measures. This time he's sneaking around trying to do it on the sly. If you knew the kind of people he has working for him and the people he seems to want to associate with you'd never even consider this. He's personally not the greatest risk. It's the rotten people that will be implementing this that I worry about.

All bases need to be covered as much as possible. A cyber attack is a real possibility, and it's time for people to stop burying their heads in the sand. I so wish CNN (or someone) would re-air this mock attack (note that the panel is made up of high profile national security people from the Bush Administration).

Mock cyber attack shows US unpreparedness

 

[AmericanFirst]

First, Obama's a fucking Nazi

Second, he's full of shit because the government already has access to all out email's IM's and everything else once you access the Internet.

Third, Obama's a fucking Nazi

Oh shut up already loonie bird, Obama is not a Nazi.

No he is not a Nazi, he is a idiot communist puke!!!!!

 

[AmericanFirst]

No it doesn't bother me one bit as long as they are still required by the 4th amendment to get a warrant.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

That is the point, with the back door they won't need or get a warrant.

 

[AmericanFirst]

if bush did this....this thread would be over 500 posts right now

Poor Bush, so misunderstood.

*Yawn*

Bush was misunderstood, he was ten times better than obama and definitly better than clinton.

 

[Ringel05]

No it doesn't bother me one bit as long as they are still required by the 4th amendment to get a warrant.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

That is the point, with the back door they won't need or get a warrant.

Did you ever really try to think things through or do you just lack that capacity? What happened to the unconstitutional aspects of the Patriot Act would also happen in this case. The judicial branch would perform the function it was designed to perform and strike down any aspect of this law that doesn't meet constitutional muster.

 

[AmericanFirst]

It's the same as a wire tap. with the same requirements.

much ado about nothing.

I would love to print up all of the screams from Libs here when Bush got caught Data-mining communications leaving this country.

Obama wants to set it up so a judge can get a request on his blackberry for a search on anyone. The level needed to get a warrant....if you want to call it a warrant....will be so low that just about any request will be granted within minutes and because this guy is untrustworthy I suspect he's gonna be reading love letters of political enemies and using it against them in elections.

No, mudwhistle. No law enforcement agency can get a subpoena from a judge off a text message to the judge's blackberry...there has to be a signed, written affidavit of probable cause. The change in law concerns the subpoena power over the text messages of investigated persons, not the manner of seeking investigative power from judges.

You don't get it, that is what the idiot in charge wants to change, warrantless access. The commie!!!!

 

[AmericanFirst]

No it doesn't bother me one bit as long as they are still required by the 4th amendment to get a warrant.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

That is the point, with the back door they won't need or get a warrant.

Did you ever really try to think things through or do you just lack that capacity? What happened to the unconstitutional aspects of the Patriot Act would also happen in this case. The judicial branch would perform the function it was designed to perform and strike down any aspect of this law that doesn't meet constitutional muster.

No, I do not lack that capacity. I do not like the patriot act and neither the homeland security office. I think both was just a big expansion of gov't. and the wrong way to go. I am a constitutionalist. Bush violated the constitution I feel and Obama is violating the constitution. Where is George Washington when you need him?

 

[Charles_Main]

It's the same as a wire tap. with the same requirements.

much ado about nothing.

I would love to print up all of the screams from Libs here when Bush got caught Data-mining communications leaving this country.

Obama wants to set it up so a judge can get a request on his blackberry for a search on anyone. The level needed to get a warrant....if you want to call it a warrant....will be so low that just about any request will be granted within minutes and because this guy is untrustworthy I suspect he's gonna be reading love letters of political enemies and using it against them in elections.

No, mudwhistle. No law enforcement agency can get a subpoena from a judge off a text message to the judge's blackberry...there has to be a signed, written affidavit of probable cause. The change in law concerns the subpoena power over the text messages of investigated persons, not the manner of seeking investigative power from judges.

Law enforcement gets warrants over the Phone all the time. The signature often comes after the fact.

 

[Charles_Main]

That is the point, with the back door they won't need or get a warrant.

Did you ever really try to think things through or do you just lack that capacity? What happened to the unconstitutional aspects of the Patriot Act would also happen in this case. The judicial branch would perform the function it was designed to perform and strike down any aspect of this law that doesn't meet constitutional muster.

No, I do not lack that capacity. I do not like the patriot act and neither the homeland security office. I think both was just a big expansion of gov't. and the wrong way to go. I am a constitutionalist. Bush violated the constitution I feel and Obama is violating the constitution. Where is George Washington when you need him?

If Washington was alive today he would raise and army and march on DC.

 

[Ringel05]

That is the point, with the back door they won't need or get a warrant.

Did you ever really try to think things through or do you just lack that capacity? What happened to the unconstitutional aspects of the Patriot Act would also happen in this case. The judicial branch would perform the function it was designed to perform and strike down any aspect of this law that doesn't meet constitutional muster.

No, I do not lack that capacity. I do not like the patriot act and neither the homeland security office. I think both was just a big expansion of gov't. and the wrong way to go. I am a constitutionalist. Bush violated the constitution I feel and Obama is violating the constitution. Where is George Washington when you need him?

Like most, you seem to miss the primary purpose of the Patriot Act. Again, those elements of the act which did illegally expand the governments intrusive factor were struck down in the courts. What is left brings law enforcement and intelligence capabilities into the 21st century. Two primary examples: A. Instead of having to get a wire tap authorization on each and every phone a suspect is using the wiretap is issued on the suspect his or herself, (think disposable cell phones). B. Prior to the Patriot Act none of our intelligence services could "talk" to each other (share information) by law, they are now mandated to share info.
Oh and the so called warrant-less wire taps.... They're international and have never required attaining a warrant in the first place.

 

[Charles_Main]

Did you ever really try to think things through or do you just lack that capacity? What happened to the unconstitutional aspects of the Patriot Act would also happen in this case. The judicial branch would perform the function it was designed to perform and strike down any aspect of this law that doesn't meet constitutional muster.

No, I do not lack that capacity. I do not like the patriot act and neither the homeland security office. I think both was just a big expansion of gov't. and the wrong way to go. I am a constitutionalist. Bush violated the constitution I feel and Obama is violating the constitution. Where is George Washington when you need him?

Like most, you seem to miss the primary purpose of the Patriot Act. Again, those elements of the act which did illegally expand the governments intrusive factor were struck down in the courts. What is left brings law enforcement and intelligence capabilities into the 21st century. Two primary examples: A. Instead of having to get a wire tap authorization on each and every phone a suspect is using the wiretap is issued on the suspect his or herself, (think disposable cell phones). B. Prior to the Patriot Act none of our intelligence services could "talk" to each other (share information) by law, they are now mandated to share info.
Oh and the so called warrant-less wire taps.... They're international and have never required attaining a warrant in the first place.

You are confusing the issue with nasty facts. Please STOP!

 

[Ringel05]

No, I do not lack that capacity. I do not like the patriot act and neither the homeland security office. I think both was just a big expansion of gov't. and the wrong way to go. I am a constitutionalist. Bush violated the constitution I feel and Obama is violating the constitution. Where is George Washington when you need him?

Like most, you seem to miss the primary purpose of the Patriot Act. Again, those elements of the act which did illegally expand the governments intrusive factor were struck down in the courts. What is left brings law enforcement and intelligence capabilities into the 21st century. Two primary examples: A. Instead of having to get a wire tap authorization on each and every phone a suspect is using the wiretap is issued on the suspect his or herself, (think disposable cell phones). B. Prior to the Patriot Act none of our intelligence services could "talk" to each other (share information) by law, they are now mandated to share info.
Oh and the so called warrant-less wire taps.... They're international and have never required attaining a warrant in the first place.

You are confusing the issue with nasty facts. Please STOP!

Sorry. Sometimes I just can't help myself.

 

[Bill Angel]

I did whine about the Patriot Act, you are right. I wasn't on USMB then, though. I was less than thrilled when Obama made no move to repeal any provision of it. I have no idea what "the NSA story" might be.

I still don't hear you proposing any solutiuons, mudwhistle. How does the CIA/FBA/whatnot monitor communications on the 'net without this new law?

There was a major flap about the NSA a few years ago. Maybe you need to Google it.

The solutions are already in place. That is why they keep catching these idiot domestic terrorists in the planning stage. They give them a fake bomb and bust them when they plant it.

This is not a solution. This is an invasion of privacy. Obama is sneaking around trying to get these powers. Usually he proclaims something is a crisis and then he slams us with massive regulations labeled to be reform measures. This time he's sneaking around trying to do it on the sly. If you knew the kind of people he has working for him and the people he seems to want to associate with you'd never even consider this. He's personally not the greatest risk. It's the rotten people that will be implementing this that I worry about.

All bases need to be covered as much as possible. A cyber attack is a real possibility, and it's time for people to stop burying their heads in the sand. I so wish CNN (or someone) would re-air this mock attack (note that the panel is made up of high profile national security people from the Bush Administration).

Mock cyber attack shows US unpreparedness

Bringing up the potential actions of "rotten people" is an interesting point.
There are many aspects as to how the privacy of Americans can be compromised.
For example, a person may supply confidential information to a University subject to a strict non disclosure agreement, and the people to whom it is supplied do not honor the agreement. Or someone may share an office or a living space with other people, and those people evesdrop on one's telephone calls or internet activity, picking up information that they then share with others. And then there is the recent case of persons ij\n New Jersey videotaping the sexual activities of a college student, the sharing of which provoked the student to commit suicide. See
The Associated Press: Bias crime charges weighed after NJ teen's suicide

So if one were to rank the threats to one's privacy in terms of importance,
one might rank them as follows:

#1 Family, friends, co-workers, roomates, etc
#2 Organizations with which one chooses to share confidential information, such as Universities
#3 Government agencies charged with monitoring for terrorist threats, such as NSA, Dept of Justice, etc.

 

[mudwhistle]

There was a major flap about the NSA a few years ago. Maybe you need to Google it.

The solutions are already in place. That is why they keep catching these idiot domestic terrorists in the planning stage. They give them a fake bomb and bust them when they plant it.

This is not a solution. This is an invasion of privacy. Obama is sneaking around trying to get these powers. Usually he proclaims something is a crisis and then he slams us with massive regulations labeled to be reform measures. This time he's sneaking around trying to do it on the sly. If you knew the kind of people he has working for him and the people he seems to want to associate with you'd never even consider this. He's personally not the greatest risk. It's the rotten people that will be implementing this that I worry about.

All bases need to be covered as much as possible. A cyber attack is a real possibility, and it's time for people to stop burying their heads in the sand. I so wish CNN (or someone) would re-air this mock attack (note that the panel is made up of high profile national security people from the Bush Administration).

Mock cyber attack shows US unpreparedness

Bringing up the potential actions of "rotten people" is an interesting point.
There are many aspects as to how the privacy of Americans can be compromised.
For example, a person may supply confidential information to a University subject to a strict non disclosure agreement, and the people to whom it is supplied do not honor the agreement. Or someone may share an office or a living space with other people, and those people evesdrop on one's telephone calls or internet activity, picking up information that they then share with others. And then there is the recent case of persons ij\n New Jersey videotaping the sexual activities of a college student, the sharing of which provoked the student to commit suicide. See
The Associated Press: Bias crime charges weighed after NJ teen's suicide

So if one were to rank the threats to one's privacy in terms of importance,
one might rank them as follows:

#1 Family, friends, co-workers, roomates, etc
#2 Organizations with which one chooses to share confidential information, such as Universities
#3 Government agencies charged with monitoring for terrorist threats, such as NSA, Dept of Justice, etc.

Ha ha. The obvious difference that has totally escaped you is the damage government can do to you literally destroying your life through audits and other means and the simple fact that it's next to impossible to prosecute the Federal Government.

But I still wonder why you feel that national security is more important then your privacy....especially when there's no probable cause other then a political vendetta. Do we live in China??? You must think we do. The people asking for these powers are admirers of Chairman Mao. Do you think you can trust these folks?