No more right to privacy.

[grooboggle]

For god's sakes everyone, we in America need to step up and put a stop to the freakin' office of homeland security and the patriot act. We are starting to resemble an Orwellian land. We have the endless conflict going on versus an udefinable enemy and although the government already has huge powers they just want more.
http://www.dailyemerald.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2005/10/27/436091eba8b23

to be honest, the article doesn't make sense to me. There is a lot of talk about the expense to institutions, but seems to me that when the government gets a court order for a wiretap, they pay the cost. All this appears to require from them is similar access. It would then be up to the government to get the information it wants. And we're not talkin rocket science -punching a hole in a firewall.

But perhaps i'm missing something.

[grooboggle]

Well I guess the part I don't like is how the FBI seems to be deliberately vague on whether or not they are going to have immediate root access to the machines. Also where they say the tuition cost is likely to go up 450 dollars per student I read that as per semester. If it is only one time I guess the cost isn't really so bad. However the idea that you have to revamp your entire system to allow the government more easy access rankles me.

My problem with that article is that there should not need to be this cost involved. That's a con, IMO. A scare tactic. All the institution would be required to do would be to allow access. How the government gathers its information after that is the governments problem.

Don't get me wrong. Homeland Security has problems. But in this instance I think that the folks taking advantage of what people don't know and understand are the opponents to this.

[TenneseeGirl]

I think that the essential problem with this is that we are afraid of those in power. If we did not fear what they would do with said access then there would be no problem. I am in agreement ESPECIALLY with things like the partiot act. The patriot act allows the law enforcement agencies to take anyone "suspected of anti american acts" and hold them, with out notification to family members. Allows these agencies to infiltrate groops without court orders. Alows them to hold you with out seeing a lawyer or a judge. All of these things remind me alot of gestapo tactics the nazi's used. GRANTED we have not sunk to that level. However I do not believe it would take much to send this country into a panic of dire concequence. just one more slice of our civil liberties if you ask me!

[Accountable]

The question arguably most dangerous to liberty:

Why do you object, if you don't have anything to hide?

[libertine]

Many are familiar with this famous quotation:

In Germany they came first for the Communists and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me--and by that time no one was left to speak up. (by Martin Niemoller)

We have already given up a lot in the past three years. We need to really think about whether our supposed 'security' is worth the loss of any more of our freedoms. We can't EVER be sure that searches and seizures, wire tapping, imprisonment happen only to the 'other guy' (who may or may not be guilty) if it is done under the banner of 'national security' i there is a madman at the helm. (Please!!! I'm not implying Mr. Bush is a mad man...but who knows who may come after)

[G-man]

Originally Posted by Accountable

Why do you object, if you don't have anything to hide?

Exactly!

[Accountable]

Originally Posted by libertine

Many are familiar with this famous quotation:

In Germany they came first for the Communists and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me--and by that time no one was left to speak up. (by Martin Niemoller)

We have already given up a lot in the past three years. We need to really think about whether our supposed 'security' is worth the loss of any more of our freedoms. We can't EVER be sure that searches and seizures, wire tapping, imprisonment happen only to the 'other guy' (who may or may not be guilty) if it is done under the banner of 'national security' i there is a madman at the helm. (Please!!! I'm not implying Mr. Bush is a mad man...but who knows who may come after)

Bullseye! We have to remember that laws last beyond the original lawmakers. We don't know who will be elected years from now, or how they may twist the written word of the law to suit their needs. While I was living in Las Vegas several local politicians were brought up on charges (I forget the specifics but it involved money, of course) using surveillance provisions allowed by the "Patriot" Act, a law written to catch terrorists. Remember that a carpenter's hammer can be used to crack walnuts, kill vermin, burglarize convenience stores, or a hundred other things it wasn't originally intended for. We must be very careful in choosing which tools we allow our representatives.

[Okie]

Originally Posted by Accountable

Bullseye! We have to remember that laws last beyond the original lawmakers. We don't know who will be elected years from now, or how they may twist the written word of the law to suit their needs. While I was living in Las Vegas several local politicians were brought up on charges (I forget the specifics but it involved money, of course) using surveillance provisions allowed by the "Patriot" Act, a law written to catch terrorists. Remember that a carpenter's hammer can be used to crack walnuts, kill vermin, burglarize convenience stores, or a hundred other things it wasn't originally intended for. We must be very careful in choosing which tools we allow our representatives.

I have a question. How is it that a company can ask people seeking employment if they are now or ever have accepted food stamps or equivalent. It seems irrelivent to me that they would need to know. That seems a private thing. I guess its public record but why do they need to know? I asked a friend and he said that the Fed pays employers money if they employ people that are drawing food stamps. I dont know why they would or if in fact they do. The food stamp programs are all state ran I think.