DescentBB

Remember back in the Bush glory years and how everyone on the left was complaining about tapping into phone call that were terrorist related? Note: those calls had a known terrorist on one end of the line and so there was reasonable cause to listen in.

Now we have a proggy that is as follows:

\"a summary of that program declassified Tuesday program known as Einstein.
The program is designed to look for indicators of cyber attacks by digging into all Internet communications, including the contents of emails, according to the declassified summary.

Homeland Security will then strip out identifying information and pass along data on new threats to NSA.\"

http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2010/03/02/ ... t_id=11601

Now call me old fashioned but do any of you here think the \"Identifying Info\" will be stripped out? Do any of you leftist liberalites worried about your personal info being passed around think this Einstein is more benign than what Bush was doing? If so, how? Put your thinking caps on.

Remember \"Carnivore\" ? Easy to get around too, ever heard of PGP ?

I remember Carnivore but not PGP

when Bush was pushing the boundaries of civil liberties and executive power, I kept telling those on the right, \"You like it when a conservative is in charge, but what do you think is going to happen when a liberal takes these same powers and runs with them?\"

<sigh>

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety --Benjamin Franklin

woodchip wrote:I remember Carnivore but not PGP

PGP.

Kilarin wrote:when Bush was pushing the boundaries of civil liberties and executive power, I kept telling those on the right, "You like it when a conservative is in charge, but what do you think is going to happen when a liberal takes these same powers and runs with them?"

Kilarin, it is one thing to tap into certain select calls with known terrorist on one end and quite another when you will be tapping into everyone's internet communications.

Grendel, thanks for the link.

woodchip wrote:Kilarin, it is one thing to tap into certain select calls with known terrorist on one end and quite another when you will be tapping into everyone's internet communications.

I agree, but the point is that once civil liberties start eroding, the next administration usually takes it further.

The Bush administration pushed very hard on the idea that it could just bypass the warrant process. They MAY have had a good excuse in some cases, but, sure enough, the next administration is pushing it further.

I would think the administration is a willing bystander, at least, anyway (they would have to be). So what do we do when the NSA/CIA/FBI run rough-shod over our rights? They have no right to the content of my e-mails without a warrant.

Aren't these guys supposed to be restrained by our constitution in the bill of rights?

U.S. Constitution: Bill of Rights wrote:Amendment IV

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.

E-mail is covered by "papers", by any reasonable measure.

Clearly when it comes to breeches of personal liberties and security - the issue runs deeper than just Democrats vs Republicans.

There is something wrong with both sides.

The Democrats may have been the lesser evil to vote in, but we shouldn't forget that it was still an evil that we voted for.
If we're to repair civil liberties, there is still much more to do. Voting in a democrat was a very small step, and almost unnoticable. What's the next step guys?

roid wrote:There is something wrong with both sides.

On this point, I agree with you completely!

roid wrote:What's the next step guys?

I think our progress has been backwards, even with the last step. If we are going to go forward, the people need to quit worrying about electing the "lesser of two evils" and actually vote for someone outside of the mainstream of the two parties who REALLY supports civil liberties.

But I don't think it will happen, because civil liberties come with responsibility, and no one wants responsibility any more.

The next step is to ask... what's all this \"we\" ★■◆●? And then to point out that no, voting in a liberal/socialist really hasn't helped us at all.

Kilarin wrote:But I don't think it will happen, because civil liberties come with responsibility, and no one wants responsibility any more.

Yes, and freedom comes with the possibility of ending up in the gutter, something else people fear.

Kilarin wrote:But I don't think it will happen, because civil liberties come with responsibility, and no one wants responsibility any more.

I do. Who's with me?

Sergeant Thorne wrote:

Kilarin wrote:But I don't think it will happen, because civil liberties come with responsibility, and no one wants responsibility any more.

Don't be so negative, guys. I do. Anyone else?

Valid point. Allow me to rephrase then, the vast majority of people in this country (and probably most of the western world) do not want personal responsibility.

Pipe dream…

The Gimme something…
Where’s mine & I’m entitled to it…croud outnumber us 10 to 1.

Spidey wrote:Pipe dream…

The Gimme something…
Where’s mine & I’m entitled to it…croud outnumber us 10 to 1.

That may be true Spidey but 8 out of 10 of those "I want mine!" people probably don't get off the couch to vote.

Actually, I'm pretty sure they were Obama's ticket to office. That's why the Obama campaign was so big on \"get out to vote\", which is something I've commented on before.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:That's why the Obama campaign was so big on "get out to vote", which is something I've commented on before.

I've also criticized get out the vote efforts, repeatedly, but in the end, the voters whom get most of their politics listening to Glenn Beck rant and raive are canceled out by those whom watch Michael Moore movies and don't see the bias. Flip a coin, which con-man are you going to follow?

The net negative result is that these "get out the vote" efforts allow politicians to be less accountable. The more people you can get to vote for you, whom arn't paying attention to what you are doing, the better.

Obama won because of Bush. It was time for the pendulum to sway in the other direction. Politics is cyclical, and the reason it is so is that you can always convince people that "things can be better."

People who think campaigning on change is an Obama creation either have short memories or this was their first election.

Gooberman wrote: People who think campaigning on change is an Obama creation either have short memories or this was their first election.

worked great for Roosevelt. (Teddy that is)

Heh, a \"chicken in every pot, a car in every garage\" motto is still alive and well. Hand out free ciggy's and a bottle of cheap dago red and you can buy a lot of votes.