Telecom Immunity Approved

The "bigger picture" is that we're trying to catch suspected terrorists.

All this bill does is prevent people from hating on the telecommunications companies when the government is trying to stop bad people. On a personal, day to day level, this affects hardly anyone.

And really, it's not like they'll tap everyone's phones, sit around, and listen to "no yooou hang up" all day long. It's like Draco said: its irrelevant to those of us who don't lead suspicious lives.

This post has been edited by Pucifur on Jul 10 2008, 01:01 AM

So say this person is found to have bought 100 pounds of deadly explosive from a Middle-Eastern country.

Then Feds would then find out, they tell the judge what they found, they ask the judge for a warrant to wiretap, and the judge says ok.
And the rest is business as usual. That's how you find out about these things. The warrant part is a critical aspect of the way America works.

Taking away the warrant aspect pretty much pushes America more in the direction of 1984. You don't want that kind of world, do you?

And I don't care if it doesn't affect me. It could happen to anybody.
I'd like my civil privacy, please.

I really can't believe that the government doesn't have better ways they can do this. Seriously.

This had better not be permanent.

This post has been edited by Parakarry on Jul 10 2008, 01:12 AM

lmfao

But you aren't affected either way. And if this happens to common folk? The government gets to listen to someone schedule a dentist appointment or something. They remove the thing and everyone is none the wise.

PK doesn't want them to find out he's recording certain things with his life-size Poképlushies.

... I meant tea parties, of course. Nothing terribly incriminating, but certainly embarrassing.

The man who said this decided to intentionally, physically harm himself with a malice of unknown power as a passive step of scientific study and believed that he was the most morally perfect man in the world.

It's also a critical aspect of how terrorists escape before they're caught and interrogated.

I honestly can't believe that there aren't better ways to go about this.

I don't see why it should matter if a bill/law/whatever affects you or not. It's not going to change the fact that it's an injustice or whatever.

I don't really see the big deal with having to get warrents to search stuff. I guess due process is a bit too complicated for the current administration.

Such as .. ? What, are you going to ask the terrorists to be good for a year?

as if it wasnt bad enough that they sued Youtube

Nevermind im thinking Viacom

This post has been edited by Mr.Cintrak on Jul 10 2008, 01:22 AM

God if it was Viacom it would be equally as bad

Yeah, it's really bad to potentially allow the government to infringe upon privacy to no benefit of their own

Say what you like about the government, but at least when they pull scandals, they do it for a benefit! There's no reward to abusing the wire-tap law - there's nothing at all to be concerned about - you are only whining about a slim possibility that exists in fantasy

I think the real concern is why can't they just get a warrent like they usually do?

i already told you that. i should think when they are working to get a warrant, the media will you know, tell everybody like they always do, and the terrorists will kind of vanish because of how bloody long it takes to do simple things like get warrants.

Hey guys. Wire-tapping and other snitching techniques have been legal since the Patriot Act was passed. Old news is old.

Where were you guys?

This post has been edited by Mrs. Aforcer on Jul 10 2008, 01:54 AM

haven't we seen instances in history where invading privacy caused problems?
in soviet russia, library checks you out? in soviet russia, movie watches you? I mean **** the whole russian reversal joke comes from the surveillance they had sniffing out opponents of the government

and the whole "any law is okay to pass as long as it helps us get those terrorists!" is bull****
the red scare a few decades ago? you sure hoped someone didn't accuse you of being a terrorcommunist back then!
doubt it'll be long until we have instances of "I don't like you, so I'm going to tell the authorities that I suspect you of being a terrorist"
once it becomes commonplace to call anyone who speaks out against the government a terrorist, this wiretapping will be a much bigger problem in the face of free speech
(and the more one watches fox news, the closer one realizes this time will be)

I'm actually going to agree with Parakarry.

Everyone knows this whole "its for suspected terrorists!!!" stuff is bull. Its just an excuse to get this stuff passed without stuff being brought up about it.

Now you're only a couple steps off of one person being able to convert you're nation to a dictatorship using "special" or "emergency" powers.

I sometimes wonder how easy it would be to purposely nurture one of my children to become US president and then take over the world using these kind of bills.

No offence but I think your government system is pretty silly.

Just look up how to say "bomb" in Arabic, then continuously say it over your cell phone while on a call to trigger the keyword-response system. Something might happen, but I don't want to test it myself -3-"