Change you can believe in!

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washin...triot-Act_N.htm

Obama signs extension of Patriot Act

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Obama has signed a one-year extension of several provisions in the nation's main counterterrorism law, the Patriot Act.

Provisions in the measure would have expired on Sunday without Obama's signature Saturday.

The act, which was adopted in the weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks, expands the government's ability to monitor Americans in the name of national security.

Three sections of the Patriot Act that stay in force will:

• Authorize court-approved roving wiretaps that permit surveillance on multiple phones.

• Allow court-approved seizure of records and property in anti-terrorism operations.

• Permit surveillance against a so-called lone wolf, a non-U.S. citizen engaged in terrorism who may not be part of a recognized terrorist group.

Obama's signature comes after the House voted 315 to 97 Thursday to extend the measure.

The Senate also approved the measure, with privacy protections cast aside when Senate Democrats lacked the necessary 60-vote supermajority to pass them. Thrown away were restrictions and greater scrutiny on the government's authority to spy on Americans and seize their records.

Which one do you disagree with? No warrant-less wiretapping here.

• Authorize court-approved roving wiretaps that permit surveillance on multiple phones.

• Allow court-approved seizure of records and property in anti-terrorism operations.

• Permit surveillance against a so-called lone wolf, a non-U.S. citizen engaged in terrorism who may not be part of a recognized terrorist group.

I guess I just don't trust any of the a-holes in government not to abuse powers like this once they are enshrined into law. Once they get their foot in the door with crap like this, it seems inevitable that our right to privacy will continue to erode over the coming years..

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10451518-38.html

In that case, the Obama administration has argued that warrantless tracking is permitted because Americans enjoy no "reasonable expectation of privacy" in their--or at least their cell phones'--whereabouts. U.S. Department of Justice lawyers say that "a customer's Fourth Amendment rights are not violated when the phone company reveals to the government its own records" that show where a mobile device placed and received calls.

I don't have a problem just as long as it isn't warrant-less. If it is warrant-less, we have a problem. What can we do about it though? I know. Join and donate to the ACLU today!

It's no better than allowing the assassination of US citizens abroad.
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/2/5/headlines#2

Rome was not built in a day.

___________________
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

Nor did Rome collapse overnight.

You're right - it took barbarians decades to bring down civic order by way of idealistic anarchy. But then Rome didn't quite die - it just sort of moved to Constantinople.

I am by no means defending the current administration, but things don't seem to be getting worse, which they quite could with but a few signatures. I think that says something.

___________________
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

I suppose the most honest position would be indifference. Fuck it. Only time will tell.

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt In that case, the Obama administration has argued that warrantless tracking is permitted because Americans enjoy no "reasonable expectation of privacy" in their--or at least their cell phones'--whereabouts.[/b] U.S. Department of Justice lawyers say that "a customer's Fourth Amendment rights are not violated when the phone company reveals to the government its own records" that show where a mobile device placed and received calls.

i never understand why people get so bent out of shape when the government supposedly looks at their cell phone bill / internet history / whatever. If you're not fucking around you have nothing to worry about. I'm certainly not a supporter of invading people's privacy, but the government could be doing much worse things than parsing through paper trails. Moreover, it's highly doubtful the government is even looking at the phone records of the idiots who complain the most about it.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 i never understand why people get so bent out of shape when the government supposedly looks at their cell phone bill / internet history / whatever.

The government isn't faultless and is composed of people, not machines.
Considering government is often a highly partisan organization, people can feel that their "private activities" such as the phone and internet are private, not public occurences. Eg. When you send your email do you want someone to know and record those messages. What if someone you know works for the government, or someone that you had a dispute with previously. Who is to insure that that information isn't being used for other means? Eg. what if the person monitors private information about company operations or other insider secrets, quits their job with the government then monopolizes on that information to damage the person. What if a criminal works for the government 1 in 3 US service women were sexually assaulted in Iraq - does this abuse of authority make it possible for other branches of the goverment to take advantage of women by tracking their location and activities?

While I'm not saying this happens or will happen, I am saying that there are reasonable grounds not to want your private activities monitored by others governmental or non governmental because it exposes you to violations that are sought to be protected from when conducting yourself in private vs. in a public capacity.

quote:

If you're not fucking around you have nothing to worry about.

See above.

quote:

I'm certainly not a supporter of invading people's privacy, but the government could be doing much worse things than parsing through paper trails. Moreover, it's highly doubtful the government is even looking at the phone records of the idiots who complain the most about it.

Personally I don't have a phone - my paygo cellphones always get stolden and I don't use phones often enough to pay a monthly rate of $20+/month for something that would cost me a few dollars on a payphone. I have free voip and call answer services.

None the less. I'm geussing a lot of these measures existed without the patriot act. As I recall reading about the NSA's operations room in an AT&T hub.

none the less the third one is what I am wondering about...

why monitor someone engaged in terrorist activities -- shouldn't they be arrested if they have committed terrorist acts? Why would you just monitor them?

Being someone who was tortured and abused and had my personal records altered to make me look very bad, I know that people in authority arn't faultless and can take advantage of people. That is why you want to limit governmental powers as much as possible, except as absolutely required. If the founding fathers wanted a police state they wouldn't have given people protections - even though they came after the constitution, they are there for a reason - to provide for that liberty and security while in pursuit of happiness.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 i never understand why people get so bent out of shape when the government supposedly looks at their cell phone bill / internet history / whatever.

People dont want the government to know what porn sites they are visiting, thats what all the fuss is about Wasnt it mentioned in the news this or the previous week that when there was some investigation in the working of the SEC (i think, dont hold me on this) and it was discovered that one of the people there who was supposed to be looking for financial fraud spent 90% of his work time looking at internet porn...and then they listed some of the sites he visited and it was ladyboy this ladyboy that

___________________