It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

EFF Sues NSA, President Bush, and Vice President Cheney to Stop Illegal Surveillance

page: 2
9
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 01:09 AM
link   
reply to post by WestPoint23
 


anyone is such a loose term, how about the constitution or bill of rights.
because you agreeing that the government should be able to spy on its people without limits is indeed trashing on them both!

''Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither''

your attempt at humour over the colour of socks shows your morals and ethics towards your own countries constitution.

traitor or appeaser?




posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 01:22 AM
link   
The issue is not whether or not they actually do listen to your conversations, the issue is that they are able to do so without any oversight, or reasonable cause whatsoever. Just because you specifically are not a victim, does not mean you will never be, even if you never do anything illegal.

The issue is about the power of government over the people, something the founding fathers specifically warned against. Fascist societies frequently, in history, have similar abuses, which accumulate slowly over time, with many citizens reacting just as you do.. "It's impossible for them to watch everyone, and I'm not doing anything wrong so they won't watch me, so I won't protest because its' really making me safer from (insert semi-illusory enemy here)"

Down that road, madness lies. Governments that become horrific never start out that way, and usually do not become so overnight, but by one small step followed by another. Slowly boiling us frogs to death..



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
your attempt at humour over the colour of socks shows your morals and ethics towards your own countries constitution.

traitor or appeaser?


Yeah, I have to agree here somewhat, Agit. The attitude of some people to just let the government do whatever they want as long as it doesn't directly affect them, is a particularly dangerous position. That's because by the time it does directly affect them, it's too late. Just like the frog thrown into the boiling water pot analogy. It feels good at first, but by the time the heat's too hot, you're dead. Westpoint has always been one of the staunchest conservatives I have ever seen at ATS, most always supporting what the government is doing. We need people like him around here though to keep the balance.



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 10:44 AM
link   
reply to post by TheAgentNineteen
 


I have to disagree with you, this "dragnet" is a cause for great concern.

It doesn't matter if they listen to every phone conversation, or just one, if they read every email, or just one. One is more than enough and all it takes to set the trend. If they violate the constitutional rights of one American and get away with it, they have essentially violated the constitutional rights of all Americans.


Any member of the government that violates their oath to uphold and protect the constitution of the Unites States should be taken out of office and tried for treason.

I think the lawsuit is a step in the right direction, unfortunately i don't believe that anything will become of it. They need to start treating these officials like the criminals they are and start criminal proceedings against them.



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 03:29 PM
link   
At the very least, it is important to keep reminding people of the illegality our administration's leveraging of new legislature that can potentially incriminate ordinary people when they had nothing to do with the impetus for said illegally applied legislation.
All it does is serve to instigate paranoia and distrust for the government because they don't seem to follow the rules they have been bound to.

Support the EFF because they are on the front lines for US...for OUR rights to freedom and privacy and if they need to be relinquished at any time for a valid reason, the EFF is there to make sure the law is clearly stated. These are things that need to happen as these "gray areas" can be abused by anyone...including our government, as we all know.

We don't need the government's "protection" as much as they'd like us to believe. So they just cram it down our throats.

I should hope the EFF would know if there was a technical hitch like not being able to sue the president before trying to do so and if they have gone ahead with this suit.



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 04:05 PM
link   
Telephone services are provided by private companies, which you either rent, lease, or pay for at the time of service. Telephone equipment, poles, cables, and transmission equipment are often placed on public property (this also includes RF transmissions in free space). Because of this, telephone companies pay fees and taxes to the government, and are subject to government regulation.

Taking all of that into account, one would have to be defective to believe that the government at large would have no right to monitor or record the information which you choose to insert into this medium.

Nobody is forced to use a telephone, nor is it a personal right to use the system as well. Individuals choose to use the system as a matter of convenience. If you cannot rectify the security of our nation against the convenience and speed of the telephone system - then don't use it. Write a letter. That is definitely protected.

What really irks me is the prevailing opinion that the people involved in this kind of surveillance and intelligence gathering are un-American, nefarious, and out to erode the Constitution. If you had any idea of how loyal and hard-working these people are, and how much they do to protect your real rights and freedoms, maybe your opinions would change. I continuously ask the same question in these threads over and over and over and over and over again........what real and specific right or freedom have you been deprived of by this surveillance? What can you not do now that you could do before? How has your life changed? All I get is esoteric "what if" answers and conceptual concepts that mean nothing.

Remember what Confucious said:

"The superior man, when resting in safety, does not forget that danger may come. When in state of security he does not forget the possibility of ruin. When all is orderly, he does not forget disorder may come. Thus his person is not endangered and his states and all their clans are preserved."

Freedom is NOT free. Sometime we pay in blood, other times we make other kinds of sacrifices. Get over it.



posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 03:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Pyros
 


Of course, you are right about the consideration that certain facilities provided by the government are not guaranteed rights, but are more like a luxury even.

As much as I hate to admit it, I would battle with the same thoughts whenever considering one of the many examples of publicity that secret government domestic spying programs have been given.

My hat is off to the guy that gets to sift through the never-ending stream of garbage they must be capturing from AT&T customers. Must get pretty monotonous trying to find a real national threat outside of the government.

Working in a NOC, I've had to deal with my fair share of DDoS attacks, but that was my karma for having previously worked for a company that hosted spammers. Poetic justice, I guess...but I am even-steven now.

I still think there should be more transparency and we should know when we are or are not being monitored and recorded. Like a disclaimer message or a polite operator that says "Hi, we'll be recording your conversation for this phone call" or something like that.

At least I have nothing to hide or I might be worried and there are always ways to keep your internet activity hidden if you are really paranoid...for now anyways.



posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pyros
Telephone services are provided by private companies, which you either rent, lease, or pay for at the time of service. Telephone equipment, poles, cables, and transmission equipment are often placed on public property (this also includes RF transmissions in free space). Because of this, telephone companies pay fees and taxes to the government, and are subject to government regulation.

Taking all of that into account, one would have to be defective to believe that the government at large would have no right to monitor or record the information which you choose to insert into this medium.


But wait. I choose to use a carrier based upon an agreement. Where in that agreement does it say I must consent to being monitored, with no warrant, by the government?

I also choose to use a carrier based upon the reasonable assumption they are not doing anything illegal. Like letting the government wiretap our phones as they please, for instance? The government already had authority for special cases through FISA. But no! Gotta be able to monitor everyone! The whole wide world! The universe! If they could plug a friggin tap into God's phone- they'd do that too.



posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 06:40 PM
link   
Don't waste any more taxpayers money. Once he leaves office he will be chased down the street across the border anyway. Or is he getting airlifted and flown straight down to Brazil where all the other 'boys' went after WW II ?



posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 11:29 PM
link   
One thing we realy have to understand is that, nowhere in our constitution is there any garruntee of privacy. All cases that ever got to the SCOTUS have been answered by this tidbit of information. If you want privacy, keep everything you don't want known to yourself. Never use a conveyance of any type to relay your ideas or opinions. All must be face to face and even then you might not have privacy. Its the conundrum that has plagued the human race for centuries and its just the way things are.

Zindo



posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 11:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZindoDoone
One thing we realy have to understand is that, nowhere in our constitution is there any garruntee of privacy.


That's not entirely true.

www.law.umkc.edu...


The U. S. Constitution contains no express right to privacy. The Bill of Rights, however, reflects the concern of James Madison and other framers for protecting specific aspects of privacy, such as the privacy of beliefs (1st Amendment), privacy of the home against demands that it be used to house soldiers (3rd Amendment), privacy of the person and possessions as against unreasonable searches (4th Amendment), and the 5th Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination, which provides protection for the privacy of personal information. In addition, the Ninth Amendment states that the "enumeration of certain rights" in the Bill of Rights "shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people." The meaning of the Ninth Amendment is elusive, but some persons (including Justice Goldberg in his Griswold concurrence) have interpreted the Ninth Amendment as justification for broadly reading the Bill of Rights to protect privacy in ways not specifically provided in the first eight amendments.

The question of whether the Constitution protects privacy in ways not expressly provided in the Bill of Rights is controversial. Many originalists, including most famously Judge Robert Bork in his ill-fated Supreme Court confirmation hearings, have argued that no such general right of privacy exists. The Supreme Court, however, beginning as early as 1923 and continuing through its recent decisions, has broadly read the "liberty" guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment to guarantee a fairly broad right of privacy that has come to encompass decisions about child rearing, procreation, marriage, and termination of medical treatment. Polls show most Americans support this broader reading of the Constitution.


Since the Bill of Rights was incorporated as the 14th Amendment, which does argue privacy and has come to be more thoroughly accepted as addressing privacy rights, your point can well be argued. Visit that link and read, and you will see.



posted on Sep, 23 2008 @ 10:52 AM
link   
Most Americans support the idea but, decisions made on case history says that SCOTUS has decided otherwise. There has been a great misunderstanding that all converstations are listened to. Any that originate in this country but connect to outside the US, or any comming into the US are not protected under search warrant protections. This is case law dating from before WW1. Only those converstaions on telemedia or any other media that originate here and connect here are regulated under the search warrant provisions. If it realy is a warrantless use of the law then there is recourse under the provisions. Although, with al the new media being developed, it will become increasingly difficult to prove. That sucks!

Zindo



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1   >>

log in

join