Are you willing to give up any rights to become more safe?

Thumperfive · Mayor Joined: 11 Jun 2006 Posts: 222

the simple fact is that there's no way you can tap into ALL the phones - if you set up a system that only picks up when you yell terrorist or something other key word wise into the phone, then you get some attention.

we'll all regret whining about this when the bombs go off, right?

Coda1108 · Mayor's Aide Joined: 13 Jun 2006 Posts: 130 Location: PA

Dolly,
Regarding American Idol... Trust me, you don't want to be enlightened... hahaha.

Sorry... just a bit unimpressed with what sometimes passes for entertainment in my good ol' US of A.

Dolly · Mayor Joined: 17 Jun 2006 Posts: 247

We have the same quality entertainment over here these days, Coda.

I met a bloke the other month who had been abroad for years and he said he couldn't believe what the English had turned into.
He said they were brain dead and just sat and watched voyeur tv all the time. Basically their get-up-and-go, had got up and gone!

The bombs have been going off over here for years Thumper and we have much tighter security than you do. How far d you go to stop it?

paul morphy · Posted: Tue Jul 04, 2006 9:06 pm Post subject:

The government, by asking to look at private information, is saying trust us, we know what's good for you. That is the very core of Communism.

If monitoring the behaviour of people is such a good idea then why is it only now being justified? Americans have been and are being affected by crime each day from other Americans moreso than from terrorism. Why doesn't Bush and others just say that to reduce crime overall we will take away certain freedoms. Also, I'm certain that crime existed back when the US Constituion was put down on paper. Why, then, did they even bother to amend the Constitution to include these rights in the first place?

phil · Mayor Joined: 09 Nov 2005 Posts: 174 Location: Seattle

yes, I agree with Dolly....please share your wisdom dear sir.

Dolly · Mayor Joined: 17 Jun 2006 Posts: 247

I must say that I think Paul makes some very astute observations here.

The comment about communism is correct. Or it seems to me it is. And our government seems to have the same outlook that yours does.

It never fails to amaze me that there is always the undertone of fear, trickled into these situations when governments want to instigate some new legislation like this. I'm sure they base it on divide and rule. Some people will be scared and so it always gives them a solid standpoint for actually implementing the legislation.

Coda1108 · Mayor's Aide Joined: 13 Jun 2006 Posts: 130 Location: PA

It's a long jump from monitoring conversation to communism. Too long a jump for a thread, or even a forum... perhaps a 4-yr. degree could cover it.

As for monitoring communication, today the FBI disclosed findings of a plot to bomb the Holland Tunnel as well as potentially other targets. It resulted in an arrest of one suspect, and a hunt for others.

Most of the information came from monitoring chat rooms. I wouldn't be surprised if wiretaps were also involved. Am I feeling like wiretaps shouldn't be allowed? Not at all! The government can tap my phone 24 hours a day, I really don't mind. Today they would have found out how much I'm paying for homeowners insurance but I really don't think they care about that.

Truth is, they'd have no reason to tap my phone so they probably wouldn't... but if they tapped mine along with someone else's who discussed something leading to what was uncovered about the Holland Tunnel, then gosh darn it, I'm darn proud.

Dolly · Mayor Joined: 17 Jun 2006 Posts: 247

Well I had this discussion on another forum some time ago.

Somebody came on and said they would be monitored 24 hours a day if it would stop them getting mugged, murdered or raped.

Problem is, that surveillance can't guarantee this.

My aunt was of the same attitude though. She said she wouldn't mind either. Till I pointed out that my Uncle who is a plumber does odd jobs without paying tax. And my cousin only declares a certain amount of her income.

The problem is that if such laws become universal, then governments can implement them.
Here we had the bill passed, that said suspected terrorists could be shot. Two months later that guy was killed on the tube. No arrest, no warning, just 5 shots to the head.
We've had another one recently, but that guy didn't die.

If you welcome embrassing legislation such as this, then you better make sure you are squeaky clean - all of the time.
And also that you will still be squeaky clean when the next set of laws come in.

Coda1108 · Mayor's Aide Joined: 13 Jun 2006 Posts: 130 Location: PA

I have the same discussion with my barber every 4 to 6 weeks. He's convinced of the same thing... allowing wire taps will result in the government auditing him for not declaring all his tips, etc.

My response is always the same thing... the government wouldn't go through all this trouble just to monitor people's tips, etc. Allowing the FBI to wiretap to maintain national security is a smart thing to do. Passing a law to make it legal for them to do it is a necessary, unpopular, controversial reality. Do you really think they'd go through that if all they really wanted to do is find out who's not paying taxes?

Wiretap laws make it legal for authorities to make arrests based on the evidence gained that way. THIS in and of itself is a freedom we all enjoy.. the right not to be tried without sufficient evidence. Otherwise, they wouldn't need a law to wiretap, they'd just do it.

As for the shooting, yes that was a shame. In New York we had a similar incident where someone suspected of stealing a wallet was shot 41 times by police. Turns out he was holding a cell phone, not a stolen wallet or a gun. Thing is, we don't have a law that encouraged the shooting... It was tragic, but bad things happen with or without laws in place.

Dolly · Mayor Joined: 17 Jun 2006 Posts: 247

How can you shoot somebody 41 times????

Well I suppose we really have hit the Lib/Rep differences on the head here, without actually meaning to!

Looking at each end of the spectrum.
One side believes that such legislation won't be abused and that the laws are in the populations best interests.
And the other believes they would erode individual rights and freedoms.

Is that a fair summation?

Coda1108 · Mayor's Aide Joined: 13 Jun 2006 Posts: 130 Location: PA

Very well summed up.

By the way, the 41 shots came from more than one officer's gun. Not all hit the mark. It was a tragic incident fueled by a number of bad situations culminating at one time.

Dolly · Mayor Joined: 17 Jun 2006 Posts: 247

To be honest, I think either extreme is very scary.

Maybe here we are seeing it a bit more, or at least becoming aware of it.

It is one thing to do things in the majorities best interests, but another to consistently appear to confine individual rights.

There is a general uneasyness that we are all being placed under one umbrella and there is getting to be less room to move.

Mrs Wolfie · Mayor's Aide Joined: 16 Jun 2006 Posts: 117

The government is already more involved in our lives then most people realize. If they want to check my email to verify I'm safe to live here, I know I have nothing to hide so who cares.

Dolly · Mayor Joined: 17 Jun 2006 Posts: 247

I don't mind them checking my emails to make sure I'm not a terrorist either. But I don't want it to get to the stage where anybody who wants to complain about anything is seen as an extremist or trouble maker.

Coda1108 · Mayor's Aide Joined: 13 Jun 2006 Posts: 130 Location: PA

Hmmm... I wonder if that distinction is at least somewhat cultural. Personally, I feel it's a long jump from having my e-mails checked to fearing to speak out worrying about being considered a target. I wonder if our US Culture is just one of feeling comfortable speaking out against what we don't believe in because so much emphasis is placed on our individual rights of free speech, etc.

Any other Americans care to voice their opinion on this point?