TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- FBI wants palm prints, eye scans, tattoo mapping
Pages (10): « 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 »

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN but since there is no legal framework for them to demand any personal information they don't already have access to...

But there is, at least in the U.S. It's called an executive order.

quote:

Originally posted by Elec Anyway you look at this, its another step into a society of surveillance. Eventually, anywhere you go cameras will be able to ID you based on your face, eyes, even the way you walk. And to whoever said that people cannot be searched without a warrant...the Patriot Act already showed that to be false. This advanced surveillance might seem like a good idea to some now, but think of it down the road. What if some laws come about, probably in the interest to some particular entity, which are absurd and you don't agree with? Tough luck, you got nowhere to hide. And whos to say that the FBI will use this new database only for its intended purpose and nothing else in the future? And that the information will certainly be safe? This is giving a whole lot of power to the government. Can't wait for the tinfoil comments...

If you support the 2nd Amendment (which so many liberal-leaning people who worry about "1984" don't), then you'll have some recourse when your Government tries to enslave you.

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles But there is, at least in the U.S. It's called an executive order.

so what, the president is going to make an executive order that all the people must submit to a retinal scan that will be placed in a government database?

i dont buy it.

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles They already put so much out there for fun, and nothing too bad comes of that...

You just negated your own argument, lol.

I love it when that happens.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN so what, the president is going to make an executive order that all the people must submit to a retinal scan that will be placed in a government database?

Nah, nothing that specific. It wouldn't even have to be an executive order. Lawyers working for the Bush administration read the AUMF (Authorization for Use of Military Force -- passed after 9/11) as authorizing pretty much anything you can think of, foreign or domestic.

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco You just negated your own argument, lol.

How is that? The fact that nothing bad comes of something now doesn't imply that nothing bad can ever come of it.

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles Nah, nothing that specific. It wouldn't even have to be an executive order. Lawyers working for the Bush administration read the AUMF (Authorization for Use of Military Force -- passed after 9/11) as authorizing pretty much anything you can think of, foreign or domestic.

oh well, sucks to be a yank!

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles How is that? The fact that nothing bad comes of something now doesn't imply that nothing bad can ever come of it.

Well, as you so aptly pointed out, it's a case of "information overload" and the government isn't going to care what's on your MySpace page unless you give them cause to care (like you start molesting children or robbing banks, etc.)

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco Well, as you so aptly pointed out, it's a case of "information overload" and the government isn't going to care what's on your MySpace page unless you give them cause to care (like you start molesting children or robbing banks, etc.)

What governments care about is such a changeable thing.

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles Nah, nothing that specific. It wouldn't even have to be an executive order. Lawyers working for the Bush administration read the AUMF (Authorization for Use of Military Force -- passed after 9/11) as authorizing pretty much anything you can think of, foreign or domestic.

Why is it that people think George Bush is omnipotent?

They give the man WAY too much credit.

We have a judicial branch in this country, separate from the legislative branch (and it even has the power to look in to the "executive" branch, even when that branch invokes "executive powers"). For the most part, I still have faith in the judicial branch. I think it has proven itself to be non-bias in most situations where it has been tested.

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles What governments care about is such a changeable thing.

Well, last I checked, they don't care about my fishing trips in Florida, my dating experiences, or the fact that I'm a fan of "Flight of the Concords" and "Dave Chapelle".

But if they ever do care, I'm not too worried about it, because we don't live in a Dictatorship vacuum. I have LOTS of recourse to address the situation (the courts, the free press, freedom of speech, etc.), should it become a problem for me.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN oh well, sucks to be a yank!

So you down-talk the increased surveillance efforts, and then go on about how you love living in Australia and how it sucks to live in the US. Care to elaborate on the reasons why? Surely not because there are increased surveillance efforts in the US, since you don't think they are a big deal

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco Nowhere in that article is it stated that they want to insert RFID chips in to anyone. Nor is this system a MANDATORY system that they are forcing everyone to take part in. Nor is it said that they wish to arbitrarily track everyone and their every movement throughout the country, for no reason other than because they can. It's simply a database of existing forms of I.D. (garnered mostly from criminals), so they can track them easier. They may wish to do eye scans of criminals in the future, but so what? They have been doing finger-printing for nearly 100 years now, which is the same thing in terms of individual I.D. This article is overly-sensationalized for the purpose of selling more ad space.

I was quoting somebody in this thread

quote:

Originally posted by SkyHigh I was quoting somebody in this thread

I thought you might be. I just decided to address your RFID post because I happened to be on that page, lol.

quote:

Originally posted by Elec So you down-talk the increased surveillance efforts, and then go on about how you love living in Australia and how it sucks to live in the US. Care to elaborate on the reasons why? Surely not because there are increased surveillance efforts in the US, since you don't think they are a big deal

if i WERE an american no, it wouldn't worry me in the slightest. surveillance isnt anything to worry about. what exactly can they do to you if they're watching you all the time?

as donny notes, this is why we have the judiciary. if you dont have any faith in your system of government then that is where the worry lies, not in a database that essentially already exists, albeit of a lesser sort.

watch out for the boogieman!

edit: oh, and i love living in australia because even if we had all the stupid american laws, we have a much better system of government so i dont need to fear it.

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco Why is it that people think George Bush is omnipotent?

Why can't people read?

I never said anything like "George Bush is omnipotent." I said that his lawyers argued that he had pretty much absolute legal authority. He would probably have a good deal of trouble abusing his power much than he has, but the fact remains that the legal justification is out there.

quote:

We have a judicial branch in this country, separate from the legislative branch (and it even has the power to look in to the "executive" branch, even when that branch invokes "executive powers").

Read some history. The judicial branch has historically been reticent to limit executive power, especially during wartime. In some instances they have specifically neglected to deal with what they consider political questions in areas like international relations and how to prosecute wars.

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles Read some history. The judicial branch has historically been reticent to limit executive power, especially during wartime. In some instances they have specifically neglected to deal with what they consider "political questions," things like international relations and how to prosecute wars.

why did the judiciary shut down the illegal wire tapping then?

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN why did the judiciary shut down the illegal wire tapping then?

What case are you talking about?

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles What case are you talking about?

i dont know "cases", but wasnt the mass data-mining of telephone calls as well as emails shut down by judicial ruling? and the prospect of lawsuits against telecommunication companies raised?

perhaps im just a confused australian

In ACLU vs. NSA the District Court judge ruled in 2006 that the wiretap program was unconstitutional. But in 2007 the Court of Appeals overturned the ruling of the District Court, saying that the plaintiffs in the case had no standing to bring the suit against the NSA.

Maybe you're thinking of something else.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN i dont know "cases", but wasnt the mass data-mining of telephone calls as well as emails shut down by judicial ruling? and the prospect of lawsuits against telecommunication companies raised? perhaps im just a confused australian

Australian's are normally confused. Like how the hell do I get out of this god forsaken hole...

Anyhow, we make sure we don't have bad guys going to attack us in our backyard even if it means hearing about Aunt Helen's hernia operation.


[[[smoke]]]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panopticon

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles In ACLU vs. NSA the District Court judge ruled in 2006 that the wiretap program was unconstitutional. But in 2007 the Court of Appeals overturned the ruling of the District Court, saying that the plaintiffs in the case had no standing to bring the suit against the NSA. Maybe you're thinking of something else.

ok, but the wiretapping program ceased did it not? Bush now has to go through the FISA (sorry If it�s the wrong acronym, I forget) courts within 48ish hours of beginning a wiretap, in accordance with the law?

i could be completely confused mind you.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN ok, but the wiretapping program ceased did it not?

I'm not sure, but I don't think so.

In re Sealed Case, 310 F.3d 717, 742 (Foreign Intel. Surv. Ct. of Rev. 2002) said that:

"The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. It was incumbent upon the court, therefore, to determine the boundaries of that constitutional authority in the case before it. We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President�s constitutional power."

I haven't found any ruling that contradicts that.

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles I'm not sure, but I don't think so. In re Sealed Case, 310 F.3d 717, 742 (Foreign Intel. Surv. Ct. of Rev. 2002) said that: "The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. It was incumbent upon the court, therefore, to determine the boundaries of that constitutional authority in the case before it. We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President�s constitutional power." I haven't found any ruling that contradicts that.

ouch. well then, is the REAL problem the FBI having a database or a system of government which gives the head of state far too much fucking power? goddamn your system sucks dog's balls!

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.