Slashdot Mirror
Pay To Have Your Phone Tapped
An anonymous reader writes "The Globe and Mail is running an interesting story over who should carry the cost of wiretapping (registration may be required): 'Canada's police chiefs propose a surcharge of about 25 cents on monthly telephone and Internet bills to cover the cost of tapping into the communications of terrorists and other criminals.'"
at least the money comes up front... Not as if you aren't paying already.
What we call folk wisdom is often no more than a kind of expedient stupidity.-Edward Abbey
On your phone bill or through your taxes elsewhere.
Will he next ask for a tax for doughnuts?
You pay for it either way.. At least in this case its not 'hidden'...
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I've also been looking for someone to kick me in the nuts, for $10/hr. Any takers?
Visit the Game Programming Wiki!
The phone company (Bell) will eventually win, jacking up prices at this suggestion for the supposed costs involved in the physicaly act of wiretapping. The government can't win, as it has a) the Bell Canada lobby against it and b) the canadian public totally against it. Eventually, these fees will be hidden in the cost of the phone service, per line, with no explanation, except that the fees will be diverted to a waretapping fund.
Police say they cannot - and should not - be forced to pay the often hefty costs involved in carrying out court-approved wiretaps and message searches, warning that investigations will suffer if they are expected to pick up the tab.
BS. Law enforcement is publically funded. If it's not funded enough, fine; we the voters will think about giving you more money. But making an end run around the process just because law enforcement in the new millenium is sooo expensive, thereby giving them a cash flow that actually encouragesthem to wiretap frivolously, is not an appropriate solution.
The opinions stated herein do not necessarily represent those of anybody at all. Deal with it.
I guess the answer is pretty obvious - no matter who initially paid for this, customers will be the ones shouldering the cost.
This has already happened to the airline industry, guess who is paying for the security tax7?
Uselessful technology (Air-Charged
You're going to pay for this anyway. Maybe not upfront; in fact, maybe it's part of the government's budget. But guess who provides that?
Here's a version of the article with no registration required.
Visit the Game Programming Wiki!
Lovely. Tap folks and charge them for it in the process. Ya gotta love law enforcement.
--- Asking inconvenient questions for over 30 years...
Doesn't matter if it's a direct tax on your phone use, or an increase in your income tax (well, it does matter in terms of fairness - do the rich/poor/heavy-phone-users pay more or less of the total antiterrorism bill? - but ultimately, it is the mass of taxpayers that will bear the burden)
Who do you think pays for wiretapping, already? Magical fairies?
What we call folk wisdom is often no more than a kind of expedient stupidity.-Edward Abbey
And with a burden shared equivalently by all carriers in this age of record corporate profits, who is going to pay for that? You will, but there will be no line-item on your bill letting you know. Just an across-the-board price hike.
Where your family will get billed for the bullet after you get executed.
On the other hand, who am I to talk, as the Netherlands is the country with the most wiretaps in the world annually, or at least the most open about the amount they wiretap.
- -- Truth addict for life.
and if you pay a 2$ daily surcharge, I'll even wear boots
will be the 35 cent "administrative fee" that providers will charge for collecting it.
Look at the two hundred other posts that have similar content. Duh.
**That's why I support opt-in taxes. Liberals want to pay for health care, environment, etc? Great, you do that. Me, I'll just check this box here for defense, and maybe that one for education.**
oh that would be great if people would plan ahead and there would be a cheap way to exclude those not paying from getting the benefits(don't want to pay for keeping the roads in good shape? well, lose your ability to receive any goods transferred on those roads.. the point being that a system like that would ultimately suck because people are short sighted and can't see the connections between things that make their daily life possible).
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
On top of this, there is also a $2.95 Telus long distance administration charge. This charge I'm told is for using Telus's long distance service, regardless if I make any long distance calls. I hear that if I switch long distance carriers, this administration charge increases.
They could easily add a $0.25 "security enhancement" charge to my phone bill.
MRS. BUTTLE: Thank you. And this is my receipt for your receipt.
(sigh)
Blockwars: free, multiplayer, Tetris like game
"They do not preach that their god will rouse them, a little before the Nuts work loose." Kipling, 'The Sons of Martha'
Note that we are discussing the second post to the article.
Guess who's already paying for that phone tapping? Here's a hint: it sure ain't the criminals, for the most part.
Duh.
Only on slashdot can a posting be rated "Score -1, Insightful".
Am I the only one still waiting for a decent secure voip solution. Say with client certificates instead of caller ID to verify who's calling.
And don't say pgpfone, I want a mainstream easy to use voip phone/software that even my gran could use.
Utilities use public land, resources and in other ways burden the taxpayer. Maybe the government shouldn't have to pay.
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
Hey, if you want that sort of service, may I suggest signingup with Free iKicks
Get enough people to signup, and it's free!
I hear that in China, when they execute someone by firing squad, they make their family pay for the bullets in order to further humiliate the family.
*Actually, my full system sets aside 50% of your taxes for the legislature to decide, and 50% for you to specify. You can of course opt to let them decide your 50% or part of it. Regardless, they'd get a clear indication of what the taxpayers value and be forced to carry it out their will.*
well something to that extend can already be done if you wish just by switching into a lesser giving lesser taking country, and paying the 50% you save in taxes directly for private health care, security, education and so on(there's at least a dozen country-pairs where such differences in taxing and society funded systems exist now, like moving from a scandinavian high-tax country to some place in africa where you would end up paying privately for paving the road in your neighbourhood and educating your kids, and still get off cheaper).
of course finding a job & locating to another country isn't that easy but anyways..
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Foundations of Government
"I understand this concern on behalf of the taxpayers. People want value for money. That's why we always insist on the principal of Information Retrieval charges. It's absolutely right and fair that those found guilty should pay for their periods of detention and the Information Retrieval procedures used in their interrogations."
Law Enforcement funded by taxpayers - never saw that one coming, eh?
Only charge those who are being wiretapped. That way they can see the charge in their bill, know they're being tapped, and stop using that phone line to conduct their illegal activies. This ultimately reduces the cost of wire tapping to zero. ;-)
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Well if were getting charged for it, we might as well use it eh?: "Plot, bomb, president, plane, nuclear, chemical, hi-jack, kill, big-mac.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
As a US & Canadian citizen, I am tired of hearing government asking for more tax revenue due to things such as "increased security costs". What we need is a transparent process that details the costs of the government doing business and then we will know whether or not we should be giving up our hard-earned dollars. For example, in this case of money for wiretaps, the government and Bell Canada need to reveal why this is such a costly endeavour. If regular citizens are expected to bear increased responsibility due to new "security issues", then someone please tell me why Bell Canada and other corporations should not also do their part?
As several others have pointed out, all wiretapping, email snooping and other communications intercepting are inherently invasions of privacy, but are sometimes needed. If the police agency asking for it has to pay the costs out of their regular operating budget, then they have to ask themselves if the benefits are worth the cost. Having a fund like this means it's effectively free for them, making "fishing expeditions" more attractive, and invites abuse. Yes, I know they still have to persuade a judge to sign the warrant, but I'd still rather have the police reluctant to use them without good reason.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
In Europe, it's common knowledge that the telcos pay the costs of the wiretapping infrastructure (upfront, I don't believe they're swallowing it).
;-)
This is very nice for the authorities, as they could have a system built to their spec but not pay a single cent for it.
What is interesting is that some time ago, a large German telco made a mistake and billed several customers for the wiretapping (their detailed phonebill showed lots of connections to a number where the calls were presumably forwarded to).
Obviously, the authorities were not amused at all.
It has not happened again since
Rainer
Windows 2000 - from the guys who brought us edlin
Sheesh, people! It should be so clear - if a person is causing a problem, you send them the bill. Just charge the suspect. Make sure to get the money before you do it. You could tell them it was for... I don't know, a nation-wide iPod purchasing campaign.
I'm sorry it's called a police budget. I'm a Canadian and I'm sick of the cops trying to weasel more and more money out of us taxpayers. They squander their budgets on police brutality and corruption cases, so it's not my fault they have fallen a tad short these days. And I'm not paying for it. This kind of cash grab always happens when the Liberals are in. It's worse when the Tories get in... they just hand the cops more money without asking. The Liberals always want to ask us for more money.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
It's wrong for "successful" people to pretend that they are that way only on their own merits and efforts. Everyone benefits from a stable society. Those with more, benefit more -- and probably disproportionately. Since they have more to lose, a stable society is more valuable to them. Therefore they should pay more.
Oh, wait. No one seems to be a believer in "capitalism" when confronted with the idea of taxes as payment for social goods. Suddenly then we don't believe in paying for what we get.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
Agreed, but the side-effect of this is becoming a plutocracy, which the USA now is (and has been for quite some time).
For you political neophytes:
PLUTOCRACY: A government where power is in the hands of the wealthy classes;
The rich dictate policy and law
Someone asked me the difference between ignorance and apathy, I told them I don't know and I don't care.
Get a load of this:
"We're thinking, amongst ourselves, 25 cents. Whether that would cover off all the costs, we don't know. We haven't done the analysis on it," Supt. Grue said.
What a maroon.
It is not that easy to judge the impact of government spending. And in the end most people will be in the position where there are benefiting without paying the underlying tax.
For example, an EMS unit comes to help you. There is the cost of developing and maintaining the road, the cost of the pension insurance program (for the autoworkers), the cost of educating the EMS personel, the cost of maintaining the EMS system, the cost of developing that system (partial), the cost of developing any medicines (partial) and the cost of any basic research related to those medicines, among others.
Woe be on to them, all who rise against poor people, shall perish in a the end. Buju Banton
People are looking at Voice over IP as a solution to all this idiocy, but really, not because of its technological advantages at all. They're looking at it because telephone communication is too mainstream and has been saddled with all these extra charges, surveillance, telemarketing, et cetera, none of which is optional to pay for. If VOIP was mainstream, it would have exactly the same crap tacked onto it.
I don't see why i should have to buy anything but what I want to buy... which is commmunication with family, friends, government, and businesses. Telcom's should not be forced to offer 'services' like this at all, they should only be motivated to offer services that benefit and attract customers.
If the country thinks they should be using wire taps that is totally separate, and the budget certainly does exist.
I wonder how they'll deal with refunds... :-)
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
Either:
An individual line item for $0.25 on your bill --- "Security Surcharge - $0.25"
or
"Due to increased operating costs, we're changing the base rate for standard phone service from $18.45 to $18.70"
or
"Police budget will increase this year by $600,000 dollars. Most of this increase will be used to create two new officer position, specifically targeted at electronic crime prevention. The rest will be used for their network infrastructure."
Why not charge someone for the tapping fees upon conviction? That way you have to be *convicted* to pay. It might cut down on unneccessary wiretaps too....
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Since they have more to lose, a stable society is more valuable to them. Therefore they should pay more.
I think that's the most idiotic argument for a "progressive" tax system that I've ever heard.
By your logic, the poor should be paying more for medicare and social security since obviously, they have the most to lose if those go down.
Taxes are not a way to "keep society stable". Taxes are a way for citizens to pay for what the government does for the common good. It's debatable what any persons "fair share" in this is but pretending that it is somehow proportional to what they have to lose is preposterous.
Mmmm.. Donuts
I actually think this whole thing is doublespeak.
...
... it's a charge that is wholly the result of national security concerns. As such, it belongs (a) being regulated by external oversight (not just giving Grue a blank check for some amount that results from charging each customer what seems to be not an overly burdensome amount); and (b) coming from the public in the form of a tax.
...).
/.'er has said, the public will cover the costs, it's just a question of who has to stick them with the bill. So this story is about all of these people playing musical chairs to avoid getting stuck with delivering the check. Not even covering it. And it's a totally appropriate expenditure in my mind.
The company -- Bell Canada -- is doing a nice job of saying that it's concerned for the customer. Doesn't want to increase costs covered by the customer,
But what they mean is that (a) they don't want the customer to see this charge as part of their Bell Canada (TM) phone bill; AND (b) they don't want to cover the costs for processing that charge...
But mostly Bell Canada doesn't want to be seen as the SOURCE of this cost. Which is completely understandable AND completely fair. This is not a charge related to upgrading their network or switches or
Grue doesn't want to have to justify the costs to the public and so that's why he wants to just pass it onto them under the auspices of the phone company, always an easy villian (behemoth,
As every
At least the phone company says it's willing to split the costs: half coming from LE, half from the phoneco itself; whereas LE just wants to charge everyone a quarter b/c, as Grue says, that seems about right (next breath he says that he hadn't done the analysis on those numbers yet--whatever).
Agreed, but the side-effect of this is becoming a plutocracy, which the USA now is (and has been for quite some time).
Nonsense. Political power and the government is NOT in the hands of "the wealthy classes". Political power is squarely in the hands of ALL the people. Some people might be too stupid to exercise their political power but to pretend that it is in the hands of the wealthy in a democracy is a travesty of the truth.
Mmmm.. Donuts
oh that would be great if people would plan ahead and there would be a cheap way to exclude those not paying from getting the benefits(don't want to pay for keeping the roads in good shape? well, lose your ability to receive any goods transferred on those roads.. the point being that a system like that would ultimately suck because people are short sighted and can't see the connections between things that make their daily life possible).
If no one payed for social security disability, or food stamps, or head start programs, then we'd have a whole lot more crime as people grow up unable to find simple things like food and jobs. How do you even begin to measure that?
At some point we need to stop looking at ourselves as just individuals, and begin looking at ourselves as a society which rises and falls in unison.
LOL, thanks for the laugh, it's the funniest thing I have read in ages, thanks.
Someone asked me the difference between ignorance and apathy, I told them I don't know and I don't care.
Oh, no, there you just paid for your own police interrogation.
-All that is gold does not glitter - Tolkien
www.ra
Ideally I'm a libertarian (with a small l). I want government to be small. I do not want government to have these blanket rights to do these things because, ultimately, the misuses and abuses will scale up to be more expensive than any real uses. People can cry and scream about catching criminals all they want but, at the end of the day, how many times has any criminal been caught on the basis of a phone tap? In all of my years criminals are still caught by good old-fashioned investigation. Phone taps rarely reveal anything that enforcement officials didn't already know.
/. thinks. Big government cares only about one thing: self-propagation. Topics such as wiretapping are simply flavor-of-the-day. They provide debate. They get people's blood running hot. They provide emotion and energy which mobilizes silly legal feuds which, ultimately, cost the working taxpayer more and more money with every year.
Now back to reality...
Big government is here. Big government does not care two whits what you, I, or anyone on
But big government is not all bad. Without big government the big corporations and big banks would have us all as tenant slaves on their property, renting out slums from their agencies. Our only defense against big industry is big government. It's a never-ending vicious cycle. It is a cycle that cannot be broken in today's era of world government. Big government will not capitulate and neither will big industry. Our only choice is to carve out what little happiness we can from life.
Do not fret about your freedoms. Do not lament your rights. At the end of the day only one thing is certain: You will pay and someone else will profit. Live with it.
Besides, if you don't like it, you can always leave.
+++ATHZ 99:5:80
If no one payed for social security disability, or food stamps, or head start programs, then we'd have a whole lot more crime as people grow up unable to find simple things like food and jobs. How do you even begin to measure that?
Those programs are inefficient pyrmaid schemes which take more money from the taxpayers than they give back to the needy. By eliminating them we'd actually be doing society and the economy a favor by putting the money back in the hands of the locales that need it most. No longer would Washington DC amass huge coffers from which it can dispense aid to its preferred locales, but each locale would address its own issues on a case by case basis.
If you don't agree then I will be more than happy to take your money and put it into a trust, which I control, to dispense for your aid as I see fit. Doesn't that make perfect sense? Don't you trust me? Why should you trust someone who, for the greatest probability, you didn't even vote for?
+++ATHZ 99:5:80
Nonsense. Political power and the government is NOT in the hands of "the wealthy classes". Political power is squarely in the hands of ALL the people
Pass the crack pipe, please.
What rock do you live under? And how did you get to be so susceptible to lip service? You know, the kind where people tell you what you want to hear just so you'll go back to working, paying taxes, and not asking any difficult questions?
+++ATHZ 99:5:80
I saw this and couldn't help being reminded of "Imformation Retreval" from the film Brazil http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088846/. Where they charge the victims of government oppression the cost of actually oppressing them.
Although the idea of charging criminals the "real" cost to prosecute them is interesting...
An old argumnent that 80% of the wealth is controlled by 10% of the people is wrong because those are not THE SAME people every year/month/day!
/. some time ago, along the lines of "If you are making more than 80K/year you are actually wealthy by Kerrie's campaign definition", I would not be surprized.
Do you really believe that the people who controlled substantial chunks of $$ in 1997 are the same as in 2004?
When you start talking about "classes" the distinction is less noticeable, after all you can define a "wealthy class" as ones who control more than X% of the economy, and then your statement will become true BY DEFINITION, but it says absolutely nothing about the actual people involved.
Paul B.
P.S. There was that thread on
...Then i don't haveto pay for other people's wiretaps? or will this somehow be added to cellular/VoIP providers as well?
It's not like wiretapping is new; has Bell/Telus/Alliant or the RCMP/local police agencies been picking up the cost for the last 30, 40 or 50 years?
What the article does not say is that the costs at issue really concern access to Internet email and services from an attempt to modernize wiretapping regulations (the Liberal governement originally proposed these changes two years ago). There must already exist an infrastructure for tapping wireline and wireless phone calls since police have been doing this for years. Nothing new here, but Internet companies are balking at the cost of tapping their own networks.
At some point we need to stop looking at ourselves as just individuals, and begin looking at ourselves as a society which rises and falls in unison.
As someone who actually grew up in the SOVIET RUSSIA, I would rather opt-out of this plan, really. The thinking that "society" has "rights", while "individual" only has "responsibilities" is a very dangerous (and *logically* totally unsupported!) proposition.
Paul B.
this is crazy for two reasons
1. adding a charge to the phone bill is a tax on people who have phones/internet connections. wiretapping protects everyone, so everyone should pay, not just those with phones/internet connections
2. the overhead of collecting small amounts from various businesses is inefficient compared with the normal tax system. behind the scenes, companies are having to modify software, accountants are having to do reconciliations, etc. the customer is paying for that too!
I think it is grossly unfair to make everybody pay for wiretapping when the majority of people will themselves never be wiretapped. Kind of like paying the private copying levy on blank CDs when all you are doing is backing up your data.
To be fair, they should only add the levy to the phone bills of people who are being wiretapped.
Ideology is for ideots.
In purely economic terms, the wealthy elements of society have the most to lose from social disruption. In every government program (especially defense, transportation, and any form of research) those that gain the most from government expenditures are those with the most invested in the system. Those benefits either come directly (defense contract pay pretty damn well) or indirectly (I don't need to hire a security firm to protect my apartment and my nice computers because we all pay a little for a police department).
GPP is correct. A progressive tax is fairer because those that can pay more most defintely gain more from the system. You are right; "taxes are not a way to 'keep society stable'", but what you are missing is that the services those taxes provide ARE what help keep society stable.
I'd be willing to posture that even those "pure" welfare payments (in the old sense of the word as opposed to corporate subsidies which definitely benefit the wealthy overwhelmingly) like medicaid help keep society stable becuase they are a symbol of a level of compassion towards the weakest members of society.
BTW, neither of your two examples are technically taxes. We pay social security to pay for the previous generation's retirement. Presumably, our kids will pay for social security to pay for our retirement. I'm less certain about medicare but I think it works similarly.
Waltz, nymph, for quick jigs vex Bud.
That only makes sense as even a way-out-in-left-field idea IF the law officer is somehow financially compensated for getting a conviction (or participating in a conviction since police officers don't try folks).
Because otherwise all you have is the police officer paying out for the wiretap and never getting paid IN. Cops' jobs are hard enough and not well compensated enough as it is; now you want them to sacrifice in order to be able to carry out their jobs? It'd be like your IT dept telling you that YOU have to pay for your new 256 MB RAM card == you need it to do bidness.
Which would perhaps set up some screwy incentives (evidence planting to increase likelihood of gaining a conviction? strange partnerings b/n prosecutors & police officers?)
"There are lies, damned lies and statistics"
Did the author of that page (or you) ever consider the president BEFORE the one who posted all those gains? 4 years makes a difference, but not a huge one. We're still seeing backlash from things Clinton and even the first Bush did. Get a clue.
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
If VOIP was mainstream, it would have exactly the same crap tacked onto it.
/dev/dsp|nc localhost 7000"
Really?
Allow me to post something that I wrote last time Slashdot ran a "tapping VoIP" article:
Whoever thinks that they are going to wiretap all VoIP networks at the FBI is living in dreamland. Let's take a brief look at a quick VoIP system that I'm going to design. I'll even publish the source code, right here on Slashdot. It will take me a few seconds to write:
#!/bin/bash
# smallvoip.sh
# VoIP software capable of bypassing FBI wiretap regulations.
# Warning: use or posession of this software may be a federal crime in the United States of America. Download this software at your own risk.
# Copyright 2004, 0x0d0a, released under the GPL
# Usage: smallvoip remote-username remote-ip-address
# You must have a shell account on the remote machine.
# Run on each of the two machines involved in the call.
# Duplex audio support required.
# TODO: pass through lame or oggenc for better bandwidth usage. This will make the second line slightly longer.
# LIMITATIONS: only one user per host at once
# I recommend setting up public-key ssh authentication with this software.
nc -l -p 7001 >/dev/dsp &
ssh -R 7000:`hostname`:7001 $1@$2 "cat
Hmm. My high-security, encrypted Internet phone doing VoIP.
Now, I have to ask the people in charge of Homeland Security: do you really, truly, honestly think that you have *any* hope of keeping anyone from writing such a two-line program? Any *IX user with a bit of experience could write this piece of software and distribute it to the world. In addition, the fact that it contains voice data is essentially undetectable to the outside world, so there is no practical way to "catch" someone using such a system.
It is true that this is a very simple program, but it can also be very easily extended into a full-blown encrypted voice communication program, without the minor limitations here that make this annoying for day-to-day use. In addition, there are a vast number of extant Internet systems for communicating that cannot be wiretapped by the FBI -- PGP/GPG contains no back doors to allow wiretapping of email communications. Frost (on the Freenet platform) can disguise the very fact that an association exists between two users. These systems are rarely used, but they are also not hard to deploy, and if the FBI insists on forcing conventional voice communication to be breakable, there is little incentive not to use systems such as the one that I have demonstrated here.
May we never see th
Your powerful message shook the cynicism from my eyes. (cue patriotic music...)
No longer will I assume that lobbiests funnel money to our representatives to buy influence. I now realize that they simply want to be friendly.
No longer shall I think negative thoughts when Dick C. invites energy companies into private meetings to write energy bills. They were probably just playing Risk or Dungeons & Dragons.
No longer will I assume that George was skipping National Guard duty in Texas rather than slogging through the jungles of Vietnam because of his family connections. It was probably just the luck of the draw.
I will recognize that the DMCA was for the benefit of all citizens of our great country and not a cynical manuever to extend Mickey Mouse's value. I feel better knowing that my copyrights are now protected for decades after I die.
I will rejoice that the grassroots efforts of the voters of California managed to unseat a lawfully elected govenor without the influence of outside money. Jeb next, anyone?
From now on the great words of the commie freak Arlo will echo in my ears: "This Land is YOUR Land; This Land if MY Land!" Assuming, of course, that this is considered "fair use" under the current law.
Waltz, nymph, for quick jigs vex Bud.
"From our perspective, it's a very slippery slope to start paying for the execution of search warrants or any kind of a court order," said Grue.
A slippery slope to pay for the execution of a search warrant that they ask for?
I can't believe that Canadians tolerate that kind of crap.
I the police feel that they don't get enough money for their investigations, then they should ask to have their appropriations increased. Isn't the point of a police budget to pay for investigations? Maybe its just for salaries in Canada.
I thought things were getting bad here in the States. But, even we would not tolerate that kind of statement.
So, what happens if the *tax* generates more money than is needed? Is their a plan to give it back? (lol) What if its not enough? (spend a lot more money to convince folks to raise it).
----- If communism is a system where the government owns business, what do you call a system where business owns govern
I think this is evidence the American influence is starting to get to us Canadians. now OUR police is assuming everyone is guilty and keeping tabs on everyone because it's POSSIBLE we're criminals. If this goes through, the whole notion of "innocent until proven guilty" will be turned on it's head here too. *sigh*
That happened in Germany two years ago :-)
Some customers of the mobile phone provider "O2" got bills with a lot of "outgoing voicemail" connections to one certain telephone number.
That number was used by the authorities to record the customers calls - so warning the suspects that they were under observation.
According to some spokesperson of "O2" the reason was an erroneous software update.
Two year old (german)article at heise.de and a follow up.
I would love to see some research on how many criminal case juries were significantly influenced by the existence and contents of information gained form wiretaps.
It seems to me that most criminal cases do not rely on wiretaps, only certain high-profile and complex crimes (just speculation - I have no evidence). If this is the case then might there be a better way of funding it?
Taxes levied like this have little accountability on how they are spent. Taxes levied by a legislative body, on the other hand, have annual budgets and audits. I guess I would like to see how much wiretaps are needed first.
If I were to guess, we would see that in the last 2 years wiretaps have gone up dramatically while convictions from wiretaps have declined as a percentage. In other words, more spying, less results.
The solution to all problems of excess government is to make political parties pay the costs arising from any laws that their politicians enact.
Good idea :) At one time soldiers had to pay for their own equipment and weapons, which if nothing else ensured that they took care of what they were issued!
;)
Tho taken to its logical extreme, one can envision an inverse scenario -- if the cops have to pay for everything they do that costs money, maybe they'll just sit back and draw their salaries -- after all, investigative costs come out of their pockets.
In reality, tho, you're right -- there should be some sort of penalty attached to requests for any sort of warrant (wiretap or other), so the cop has to think twice about asking for it, and ideally the judge should also have to think twice about issuing it.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
He's talking about the Liberal party, not "liberals". Big huge difference dude.
This sounds a lot like the Ministry of Information Retrieval from the movie Brazil. The more things change, the more they remain the same. :)
Posting messages for the betterment of humanity..
We pay for the previous generation - the next generation is likely smarter than we are and will kick us out on our collective asses.
A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
That's the way it is now. The cops are getting billed by the phone company for the wire taps and records searches and are supposed to pay for it out of their operating budgets. The money for wire taps, informants, etc are supposed to be budgetted out of the public funds that they receive for their annual budgets. Where things are getting complicated and where the controversy lies is that some police forces are refusing to pay the bills when they arrive and instead using the money for other things (unspecified).
They're effectively breaking the law, but the phone company can't do anything about it. It's not like they can just cut the police off for not paying the phone bill.
From my point of view, I've already paid for this stuff in my taxes and they've got parts of their budget already allocated for it. I do not wish to pay for this twice.
In all honesty, the time will come when the retirement age will be raised, the distributions will be lessened, and the FICA taxes will go up. We probably won't be smart enough to say "fuck off", but I'm sure that our children will.
A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
It seems to me that by the police being allowed to have a special "wiretap surcharge" put on the bill that just makes it easier for them to say "let's tap a whole bunch of folks and hope for the best, since it's free." What crap. At least now they have to put a little thought into the consequences (since it seems more and more a judge's signature isn't required). At least if it comes out of their "budget" they have to convince the government to up their budget. Besides, at least here in the US they are already crying "poverty" and confiscating everything worth anything criminals. Maybe a little better management of their money (rather than their tricked out shiney Ford Explorers, Crown Vics, Harleys, and other high end vehicles) would allow them a few more dollars to violate our supposed rights.
The next thing you know we'll start seeing a "Future Jail Surcharge" explicitly on your taxes -- viewed as an investment in "your possible future incarceration."
Invalid Checksum. Retrying.
If this surcharge is put in place then obviously the price will need to be adjusted occasionally. By exaggerating the need for wiretaps the police chiefs can increase their budgets and their headcount without even raising taxes because the citizen only sees an increase in his phone and internet bills.
Don't think it could happen? More than once, a friend of mine who compiles crime statistics was pressured by his female boss to massage the numbers for domestic violence cases because that is her pet peeve. She couldn't flat out say to change the numbers but it was clear what she wanted, especially after several years of this. He ended up reclassifying certain types of cases that had never been counted under DV before. Presumably she wanted to show an increased need for funding either for her own satisfaction or as a political favor to the director of that program.
I guarantee you that if someone can bump up their headcount or budget by doing more wiretaps then more and more wiretaps will get performed regardless of the true need. Peace. Big Brother loves you.
you may want to look further than simple cash before refusing the senior generation social security. I don't know what it's like in the U.S., but in australia a large amount of the previous generations sacrificed their standard of living so that my standard of living could be better. My parents didn't go to Uni and worked very hard so that it would be my right to be able to be educated. I'm guessing it's the same for a lot of others. Our generation is rich in all senses because of the previous generations sacrifice. It might make us all better people to remember that.
Welfare programs don't create wealth though, they can only transfer and destroy it. (Welfare employee's don't produce anything of value, they are a cost, and overhead expense of our good will.) Thus every dollar of welfare spending will lowers the average standard of living in this country (you have to take from one to give anything to another). Pooring money into poor communities doesn't make them better off, it masks the underlying problems. It's a bandaid, not a cure. However, the AVAILABILITY of money to private and public sector to invest in these communities is a necessary but not sufficient condition to improving them. The problem is, how do you know if the is acting as a bandaid or a tonic?
----- Question authority, but not ours. Hate the man, but we're not him.
Really, one of the problems I can see with this whole; you pay for your own wiretap business is the following transaction.
It is about 10:45 in the morning in an undisclosed city. The apartment is worn down and the furniture mostly consists of milk crates and things found outside of construction sites, much like your typical bachelor pad. A man stands in the midst of the room, knee deep in his shag carpet with a bill in one hand and a phone in the other pressed tightly up against his ear. He appears to be in his late twenties with about five days growth of beard, he taps his foot impatiently as he stands staring hard at the bill, as if that would make the inscrutable charges vanish. The line picks up...
Operator: Hello, this is [phone company x], how can we help you?
Man: Yes, I have a question about an item on my phone bill.
Operator: I'm sure that you do sir, or else you wouldn't be calling us. Could you tell me what the item is?
Man: Yeah, it's a twenty-five cent surcharge with the code WT next to it.
Operator (Pauses for a moment): According to our records, that's supposed to be there.
Man: (Confused) But what is it, I'm looking at last month's bill and it isn't there.
Operator (again pauses, some typing can be heard): Yes, the charge was added this month.
Man (a little upset): Yes, but for what.
Operator (pausing once again, and letting out a loud sigh): For the wiretap sir.
Man (really upset): The wiretap?
Operator: Yes sir, the wiretap that the Feds put on your phone last month to monitor you.
The man then hangs up the phone, tossing it casually onto the couch. He then goes into the kitchen and grabs a bite to eat.
Of course that's a bit of an exaggeration, the phone company is never that helpful. All right, so this was mostly a joke, deal.
Yeah, the crack pipe needs to be passed... you've been sucking on it way too long! CEO's get to vote the same number of times as the rest of us. Yeah they lobby and run commercials on all different sides of issues and candidates, but in the end, it's the rest of us who win or lose elections, because we all get only one vote.
----- Question authority, but not ours. Hate the man, but we're not him.
Watch when random people start running and/or calling Bell asking why are they being wire-tapped. "It wasn't me, they made me do it I swear! Please don't tap my phone."
Easy. Telephone companies have a long tradition of billing various taxes from all customers to benefit a few. This requires only a small change: Telephone basic rate: 19.50 Long Distance: 5.42 Universal lifeline surcharge: 1.42 911 fund: .73
Universal Terrorism Fee: 2.97
Flat Rate Criminality charge: .42
Camera phone usage: : .00
We saw your pics. .00
You look kind of funny fee: 1.27
CEO Monopoly money: .93
Well then why not tax everyone down to $2,000 regardless of income. Then the government can use all that money to pay for everyone to have identical apartments, cars, eat the same food everyday, the same clothes, etc. The $2,000 could cover entertainment.
That wasn't Arlo, that was his dad Woody.
I recently read the following article online in the Globe & Mail web site and am quite concerned.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servle
I believe that funding for wiretapping costs should be provided according to the cost-sharing plan that Bell Canada and others propose. There are a number of reasons why I feel their proposal is attractive:
While I sometimes don't agree with some of your stances, I did vote for you in the last election because I felt that, in spite of the scandals the Liberals have had recently, Liberal policy was better than the alternatives available. I hope you will seriously consider this input from one of your constituents.
Sincerely yours,
Paul-Andre Panon
Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
I agree with the spirit of your post. In the United States, however, this generation (that is, the children of the baby boomers, those just entering the workforce in their early twenties) will be the first to be worse off financially on average than the previous.
That is to say, throughout the course of US history, there has been a net increase in standard of living with every generation, except for ours. I'm speaking in averages here, as obviously extreme punctuations like the great depression caused rather low standards of living for particular generations -- but only temporarily.
This is great!
More reason to build a free encrypted internet based voice network. With surcharges, taxes, roaming fees, etc. It will either provide some much needed competition for the telecoms or at least give people an alternatives.
Though personally I think it should be designed with async in mind since its much more efficient to communicate asynchronously, IMO. Kinda like instant voice messaging..
And if it were p2p/distributed it would be more difficult for a central authority to request the ability to tap the connections, demand taxes/fees, etc. But governments will get away with anything they want as long as their citizens let them.
If Iraq was behing 9-11, which we all know is what they want us to believe, then why not tax iraq for the wiretapping required because of 9-11. We'll simply take it out of their oil sales, like garnished wages. same with every other terror-related cost. what's so hard about this?
because I have been enjoined by this Holy Office to abandon the false opinion which maintains that the Sun is the centre
No longer will I assume that George was skipping National Guard duty in Texas rather than slogging through the jungles of Vietnam because of his family connections. It was probably just the luck of the draw.
Actually, he was a fighter pilot. They weren't sent "slogging through the jungles of Vietnam" regardless of who their family was.
enough said
In the United States, the largest tax for 74% of taxpayers is the payroll ax - the combination of Medicare and Social Security taxes that are a flat 15.30 percent - unless you're rich.
See, the payroll tax is really a worker tax, beause the only people who pay it are workers. If you're unemployed, you obviously don't pay it, but if you're fortunate enough to already HAVE money and live on interest/dividends/capital gains, then you also pay... nada! Not to mention that only the first $87,000 or so of wages are subject to the tax, so if you're filthy, filthy rich you get a very low percentage payroll tax as well.
paintball
It is wrong to punish people for being successful.
I havn't seen too many successful people deciding to start failing miserably due to their punishment for being successful.
I don't mind paying much more in taxes than poor people. I *DO* mind that filthy rich people tend to pay a lower percentage of taxes than me.
paintball
You pay for that passport you need so that big brother can keep control of your travels.
You pay a post-9/11 tax for air travel so that Uncle Sam can buy more cameras to watch travellers.
So how is paying for a wire tap any different?
Engineering is the art of compromise.
In the end, the consumer will always pay for being tapped. Some way or another....
I would prefer to have the costs explicitly listed on the bill. In that case consumers would see what enormous costs the tapping is causing and how little (compared to the costs) results we're getting.
Canada's police chiefs propose a surcharge of about 25 cents on monthly telephone and Internet bills to cover the cost of tapping into the communications of terrorists and other criminals
Allow me to laugh. We're not talking about 25 cents. Perhaps this are the costs the police needs to do the actual tapping. Currently providing the capability of tapping makes up 15% of your telco bill. Perhaps it is less for large telcos but for the averade city carrier (in germany) this figure is correct.
These costs will drive the concentration process in the telco and ISP business. New regulation in germany require ISPs to have email tapping equipment ready for use which must comply certain standards. Those costs 100.000+ $.
Regards, Martin
Actually, he was a fighter pilot. They weren't sent "slogging through the jungles of Vietnam" regardless of who their family was.
Unless they got shot down...
CEO's get to vote the same number of times as the rest of us. Yeah they lobby and run commercials on all different sides of issues and candidates, but in the end, it's the rest of us who win or lose elections, because we all get only one vote.
Voting is not the be all and end all of democracy. Lobbying can matter far more than voting. Especially somewhere like the US where the 2 major political parties agree on many issues.
I hate how official statements like this, especially ones concerning civil liberties, always refer primarily to the anti-terrorist factors.
Everyone knows the terrorists don't use phones.
I bet that anti-terrorism is the reason behind the wiretap in only a tiny, miniscule number of cases and yet it is touted in a way implying it is one of the main reasons and therefor everyone should be happy about it as everyone needs to remeber to be scared of the terrorists.
They should just admitt that the vast majority of the time the wiretaps will be used to combat fraud and people trying to take sickies from work.
4 years ago the State already forced on the operators the holding of connexion logs for a certain amount of time and said "how, we will compensate for that". As far as I know, we're still waiting.
At least the Canadian government is not fooling anyone here.
Armed with this information, use OpenBSD to set up firewalls with ALTQ packet prioritizing, PF stateful filtering and IPsec secure VPNs between all endpoints.
Setup Asterisk PBX' behind the firewalls and network them over the VPNs.
Now let them try to monitor your calls.
(No, this doesn't help with calls you terminate with an insecure 3rd party, like a VoIP provider gatewaying your calls out to the PSTN. The "P" in PSTN is for "Public", so you need to treat it as completely insecure and act accordingly.)
And remember kids: Never trust a computer you can actually lift.
"oh that would be great if people would plan ahead and there would be a cheap way to exclude those not paying from getting the benefits"
I'm a bit fuzzy on this one. Personally, as a pacifist, I may well not want to pay my contribution towards defence expenditure. Are the Government going to turn a blind eye when my house gets invaded by a foreign power, but not my next-door neighbour, who did pay?
"I Know You Are But What Am I?"
Just felt I need to let you know, that while I support balanced budgets, I really hate this:
Federal Taxes->Federal Grants to State Governments->State Services.
If it's going to run a state service, it should be run from taxes at a state level. Why? Each step the money goes through wastes some of it. Some states might not need the service. Some might have a different solution.
As far as 'raiding social security' every administration has 'raided' it. It's actually in the codes, any surplus is placed in savings bonds.
In any case, the deficit was mostly caused by:
decreased revenues from the dot.com bubble bust
decreased revenues and expense from 9/11
stock market loss from Enron/Worldcom
continuing costs from the war on terror.
Meanwhile, home ownership is at an all time high, a recovery is continuing, and unemployment is still several points below most of Europe.
I don't read AC A human right
..not just the people that have phones. This is like saying: You have a phone, therefore you should pay to get criminals of the street. Shouldn't the people *without* a phone pay to get criminals of the street too ? In other words: isn't this implying some sort of guilt upon those people who own telephones: you own one, so you *could* be guilty and thus have to pay ??
Slashdot: stuff for news, nerds that matter, matter for news, stuff that nerd
it doesn't matter if it's through some add on tax or any other tax... if the government is doing it, WE are paying for it, somehow. At least this is upfront and honest about how your money is being spent.
I've always thought you should be able to fill out a tax form, maybe along with your W4 (here in the U.S.), where, while you can't say how much the government can have, you can tell them where to spend it (%20 for this, 10% for that...) Then let's see how many politicians get their pork barrel projects funded. I think we'd finally see an end to the subsidization of helium reserves (in case of blimp warfare) and sheep farmers (wool for uniforms... only we don't use wool in uniforms anymore).
Stupid sexy Flanders.
In the simple form presented, the idea fails, sure. But some variation on it might be workable..
For instance, I (as US citizen) would *love* to be able to say on my taxes that I would prefer to, say, preserve Arts Endowment and Welfare funding, but cut back on Defense spending. (I don't feel that the current process -- voting for one of a few corporate-sponsored and increasingly homogenous candidates -- offers me much influence or voice.) I would still pay the same amount in taxes, presumably -- but have some more influence on where my tax dollars were being spent.
To answer your example: suppose I don't use the roads much anyway, preferring to walk or bike? I need the roads to work for shipping of goods, yeah, but I don't care as much about them as a long-distance commuter would. Conversely, you may prefer not to fund public trains as highly as I would. Overall, we (assuming you're American) could better choose how our tax dollars are spent.
Another thought: if roads (for example) were underfunded, they would deteriorate over time, presumably prompting more people to check the "road work" box on their taxes. Sort of a free-market micro-economy for tax expenditures.
At any rate, here in the US anyway, some parts of the tax system are basically broken. No harm in at least trying a little creative thinking to see if we can come up with something theoretically better. =)
This space intentionally left blank.
Well, at least you'd know if somebody was tapping your phone lines....
--
Adobe's anti-counterfeiting softw
They should follow the Unied States example from "The War On Drugs." When you arrest a suspect, freeze all their finances. Then when you convict, sell off all those assets and give the money to the law enforcement agency that made the arrest. This way the criminals pay for the enforcement.
Insert Generic Sig Here:
Unless they got shot down...
He was a jet fighter pilot. We didn't have too many jet fighter planes in Vietnam. He wouldn't have been there regardless. Get over it.
Am I the only one who thought that phone companies were going to offer services where by you could have your own phone tapped?
--Must need more coffee...
Insert Generic Sig Here:
When I lived in Texas, I was surprised how many nickel-and-dime to death charges that GTE (now Verizon) charges. Believe it or not, having DTMF ("Touch Tone") dialling was charged as an extra service! The line item was for about $1 a month to have the privilege of DTMF dialing, which is already part of the switch (and it probably saves the phone company money if you use it over pulse dialing as you tie the circuit up for less time).
Someone from Manx Telecom told me in relation to why roaming GPRS was free for a while, "If we don't bill you for something, it's just because we haven't yet worked out how to bill you for it".
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
The cost of actually doing a wiretap is small. I believe they can just configure the switch to call-forward to another number in addition to completing the call. The cops/feds/whoever just need to sit at a computer for a couple minutes to set it up (remotely) and then just wait for the phone to ring and record the calls. $0.25/month would probably cover the cost of tapping your phone once per year. That's a whole lot of tapping - every phone once per year...
I don't know how popular that's going to be, something like that. Twenty-five cents is a really significant amount to add to everybody's phone bill.
oh yeah? so what does Bell Canada call the Touch-Tone Service (tm) charge of $2.80 i.e. more than 11 times as much that is on every one of their customers' phone bills every month?
blessed are those who have a quasi-monopoly.
don't get me wrong, i hate the idea of paying for that but their argument is plain ridiculous given their own completely arbitrary charges (i haven't tried but it would be interesting to see if a pulse (i.e. non touch tone) dial phone would work on a new bell line at all. plus, i sure couldn't opt out of that charge then).
you may want to look further than simple cash before refusing the senior generation social security. I don't know what it's like in the U.S., but in australia a large amount of the previous generations sacrificed their standard of living so that my standard of living could be better. My parents didn't go to Uni and worked very hard so that it would be my right to be able to be educated. I'm guessing it's the same for a lot of others. Our generation is rich in all senses because of the previous generations sacrifice. It might make us all better people to remember that.
I hope you are really old. In Australia, most baby boomers received free university education from the Gough Whitlam government. Nowadays students pay through the ass. You know all that government debt? Guess who generated it. Those generations that _lol_ 'sacrificed'. Face it, the baby boomers can take credit for being the most selfish generation ever.
The situation is much worse in the U.S. though. Fiscal discipline related to the U.S. national deficit is all but nonexistant. Imagine being born and immediately having a $25,000 debt- If you were American you wouldn't have to imagine. That's the reality. That's roughly what the deficit would be worth if each U.S. citizen took an equal share today. That figure will be much worse in the future.
Sounds like a good argument for increased immigration to me.
No longer shall I think negative thoughts when Dick C. invites energy companies into private meetings to write energy bills. They were probably just playing Risk or Dungeons & Dragons.
Dick C. and George W. Bush were elected by the people.
No longer will I assume that George was skipping National Guard duty in Texas rather than slogging through the jungles of Vietnam because of his family connections. It was probably just the luck of the draw.
George was elected by the people.
I will recognize that the DMCA was for the benefit of all citizens of our great country and not a cynical manuever to extend Mickey Mouse's value. I feel better knowing that my copyrights are now protected for decades after I die.
The Senators and Congressmen who voted for the DMCA were elected by the people.
I will rejoice that the grassroots efforts of the voters of California managed to unseat a lawfully elected govenor without the influence of outside money. Jeb next, anyone?
Gray Davis was recalled in a vote cast by the people.
CEOs and "rich" people get exactly the same number of votes as everyone else. All power is granted exclusively through the democratic process. I know you want to try and blame the boogeyman for everything that is wrong in the world so you can feel better about yourself but in this case the buck stops with the people. None of the above would have happened without the authority expressly granted by the people.
Mmmm.. Donuts
Why? Just tap their phone and then send them a bill for it. The same way the Chinese execute someone and then send the family a bill for the bullet.
I work for a large Canadian telco, people ALREADY come screaming to us every time they hear the faintest click on the line POSITIVE that someone is tapping their phone, as a field technician I get sent out to investigate many of these complaints (never mind the fact that if the police WERE tapping your phone you'd never hear a thing anyway)
There are a LOT of paranoid people out there, and if this does go through the customer support calls will go through the roof to explain this charge. (There will be a LOT of upset customers as well...)
The thinking that "society" has "rights", while "individual" only has "responsibilities" is a very dangerous (and *logically* totally unsupported!) proposition.
Actually, I would say individuals have rights, and as members of society we also have responsibilities.
The situation is much worse in the U.S. though. Fiscal discipline related to the U.S. national deficit is all but nonexistant. Imagine being born and immediately having a $25,000 debt- If you were American you wouldn't have to imagine. That's the reality. That's roughly what the deficit would be worth if each U.S. citizen took an equal share today. That figure will be much worse in the future.
Sounds like a good argument for increased immigration to me.
No, it sounds like a good argument for having sound fiscal policy. Simply bringing in more people is not a viable long-term solution for anything.
This sort of argument is what drives people to Libertarianism. Nobody here is typing about wether or not we should help mom or dad. We're typing about a TAX. (actually we used to be typing about a tax to split out the cost of wiretaps but obviously that's fallen far by the wayside). And that's where the whole "government is here to take care of you" thing really falls on it's face. You (personally) don't get off the hook of taking care of your parents because you pay for SS (or whatever your country calls it)... but that is definetly the way quite a lot of people act. Viewed from a slightly more "radical" (or realistic) perspective: why are you forcing your neighbor to pay for your parents care? Answers to this question usually devolve quickly into talk about "social contract" and similar nonexistent vagueisms that concentrate on the warm fuzzy "lets take care of one another" while blotting out the implementing reality of tax guys with guns and flash bang grenades.
At any rate that's a lot of typing to say that I certainly do agree that we owe our parents our lives. I'm just not sure that I owe mine your income.
Token on topic point- taxes that make expenses easier to account are good imo. If this means we break them out into to many things for people to think about... maybe people will get to thinking about -that-. Just IMHO.
The RICH have the most to lose if medicare and social security go down. Because if they did, the riots in the streets would have people hunting and killing the rich.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Interesting that when confronted with humour about your post that you strike back with an alarming pettyness that is truly insulting.
Unlike the person that you were flaming, you have mimicked the stereotype that you suggest in your post.
It's a sad day for trolls...
I pay 15% payroll tax. Rich people pay 0 or 3%, depending on where they get their income.
Additionally, I pay in the 30%+ tax brackets on the majority of my income. This extra payroll tax is more than enough to offset the difference in income tax, especially since almost all of my income is from actually working, while the rich can derrive quite a bit of income from things like interest, capital gains, etc, which have no payroll tax, and in the case of capital gains, are taxed at a much lower rate.
paintball
Gough Whitlam was in government from 72 to 75...I was born in 74, so I don't know whether that makes me old or not (or whether it just makes you young ;) ). The baby boomer generation is defined from 1946 to 1964. University fees were abolished Jan 1, 1974. So, just for clarity, my parents didn't have the option of free university, and I'm guessing, unless you're less than 12 years old, neither did yours.
:)
In regards to having to pay for university currently, my comment above is exactly used as a reason why we shouldn't have to pay for university. The government would argue that education is a service to be payed for. Others (including the baby boomer generation) would argue that it's our right...it's our right borne from the sacrifices of the previous generation (i.e. my parents sacrificed to make this country better so I would have the right to health care, the right to an education etc...the argument goes, that to make people now pay for that, it to ignore the percieved social contract of the previous generation).
In regards to debt, I take it you're talking about our $AU2.2 billion trade deficit? The trade deficit is the dollar difference between monthly exports to other countries and imports. Now, to blame that on the previous generation when it's measured on a monthly basis is a little short sighted...even to call it 'debt' would be incorrect. There are a massive number of factors that go into play in working out the economic status of a country, and it's quite normal for a country of our size, who has many trading partners as we do, to have a trade deficit. It is interesting however to note that under a keating government, we had a trade surplus...so the transition from surplus to debt has occured in the last 9 years of liberal power...so don't blame the baby boomers for john howards mistakes.
In regards to the baby boomers being the most selfish generation ever...well, I could spend the morning researching standards of living and average weekly earnings figures from 46-64, however I think a quick generalization will do the job.
How many 17 year olds have cars today...how many 17 year olds had cars in 1946? How many 23 year olds have travelled overseas? How many 23 years olds in the baby boomers generation had travelled over seas (vietnam doesn't count)? How many 30 year olds in australia currently own their own home (or are paying it off)? How many 30 year olds in 46-64 owned their own homes?
I think you get my point. Cut them some slack, the vast majority of the previous generation sacrificed greatly for us. Don't blame them for the acts of one very right winged government. It was howard that killed the right to education, not the baby boomers...they fought hard in many rallies to give you that right, and one man took it away. Ask any baby boomer whether they want the right to free education brought back and I think you'd find they would whole heartedly support the idea.
And one final point on "this sounds like a case for increasing immigration". Ever heard of "Populate or perish"? It was the slogan of the australian government after the second world war. We increased immigration and brought in over 2 million european immigrants in the space of just a few years. We also increased family offspring output by pushing it as every australians duty to have a big family with the slogan "Australians, populate or perish". It was a very big thing, and while, in the short term it was wonderful for australia, and made us the power we are today. Now we have a large amount of older people (baby boomers) that need to be supported (because of exactly what you recommend). So, on one hand you're suggesting exactly what put us in the situation (I don't believe it's a problem, so I won't call it that), but you're unwilling to lend a hand to support the previous generation who exists as a result of your suggestion?!?! That doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.
<end-2-cents/>
It was around long before VoIP became popular, and still works great.
http://www.pgpi.org/products/pgpfone/
"Dick C. and George W. Bush were elected by the people."
The people who are the 5 Republican Supremes.
">No longer will I assume that George was skipping National Guard duty in Texas rather than slogging through the jungles of Vietnam because of his family connections. It was probably just the luck of the draw.
George was elected by the people."
Yeah, but his National Guard service was dictated by powerful family connections that allowed him to jump to the head of the line for available positions, despite getting the lowest passing score on the aptitude test. He took a place of safety that belonged to someone else. Someone else went to Vietnam in his place.
"Gray Davis was recalled in a vote cast by the people."
The recall was purchased by a Republican. How many do-overs should the right get? If we were to "recall" the Gropinator, and if that failed, do it again, and again, and again until it stuck, would you be just as happy?
Do you really believe that special interest money has no effect on elections? That lobbying has no effect on politicians? That the electorate tracks the actions of politicians with 100% accuracy? If so, you are a fool. Or else, you should earn a commission on all you save lobbying firms by telling them to stop.
The law prohibiting us from sleeping under a bridge applies equally to the rich and the poor. Does it have the same impact on both? There are two kinds of votes - the ones in the ballot box and the kind that go with $$$.
> George was elected by the people.
Wrong, he would have lost if not had been for the chad thing in Florida which was related to none other than Jeb Bush, did you not hear about the thousands of 'lost' DEMOCRAT votes sitting in Oliphants office near a boiler? Jeb Bush put her there. Anyone claiming all that as coincedence is delusional at best. Then when the minority speakers tried to point this fact out and get the votes counted, congress refused to listen to 2 dozen or so people because they did not have a congressmans signature, when asked, each one told the same story, as they tried to get in contact with every congressman, they were snubbed and told they were unavailable, NONE of them would sign the requests.
Someone asked me the difference between ignorance and apathy, I told them I don't know and I don't care.
No, the "Rich" would hire private militia to maintain their security.
It's a stupid argument. Taxes are not a way of appeasing thugs so they won't hurt you. Let it go.
Mmmm.. Donuts
It is wrong to punish people for being successful.
Tax is not punishment for being successful.
Tax is not punishment for being successful.
Tax is not punishment for being successful.
I can certainly sympathize with the suffering and misery of other successful people. We, successful people, have a very hard time getting by in this world. Just look at the infant mortality rate of successful infants, and the life expectancy rate or quality of living ratings of successful people.
Of the quality of healthcare successful children get. Or the amount of time successful parents can spend with successful children.
Abysmal. all around.
What an easy time of it, the poor have. Taking all the shitty jobs, we succcessful people would never stoop so low to perform. Cleaning our toilets, picking up our trash, picking our cotton, guarding our office buildings, and going to shitty public schools, where the students are so lazy they use 30 year old textbooks.
The poor should be greatful for the charity of us successful people. If it wasn't for us, then perhaps THEY would be successful.
Why can't the poor just accept the fact that pure unadulterated capitalism is the best substitute for actual morality.
America is still a country where absolutely anyone with a functioning mind can become wealthy if they are honest with themselves, and work hard enough.
America is also still a country where absolutely anyone with the right background, education, political connections and friends can become super-wealthy if they accept and defend the power structure in this system and work to support and defend the status quo and insure the wealthy stay wealthy and the poor shut the fuck up and get back to work, or quit and watch their kids starve. And having rich parents also helps.
Or you can win a lottery.
Because let us be honest with ourselves now. In America being honest with your fellow man, and admitting THE SYSTEM IS NOT FAIR certainly doesn't pay a good dividend on the dollar.
Due dilligence is important, but if this is absent, it's just another case of laziness.
Or inferior lifestyle choices.
No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
We are NOT stating they are a way to appease thugs. We are stating that one of the ways the rich benefit from taxes is that it allows poor people to live without committing crimes. If you give a man a choice of starve to death or kill a rich man, they will kill the rich man. This does not make them a thug.
Finally, you ended with my favorite indicator of stupidity: "Let it go". Let it go means you do not care if I am right or wrong, you just want me to shut up about it. Yes it is more polite than "shut up", but it is still never used by people that know what they are talking about.
Or rather it WOULD have been polite if you had just stated "It's a stupid argument, let it go."
But instead you gave your own argument, THEN told me to let it go, indicating that you yourself just wanted the last word.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Yes, a Texas Governor tends to sign bills into law that apply to Texas. But only a complete moron would miss the apparent inconsistency of G.W. Bush fighting a voting standard in Florida that he approved in Texas. This was my point and you are a fuckwit to miss it. Is this point spelled out clearly enough? If not, get a cranial enema and read it again.
I am denying that a majority of people in California voted to oust Gray Davis. A minority of those who voted in that election voted for the Gropinator, and due to the provisions of the recall, he's in.
And paid signature gathering as a form of free speech? You can't be serious. That's probably the least apt way to discribe it. Are you denying that a wealthy partisan bought an election? He paid, and the election happened. Is there not a disproportionate advantage to be had by those who can cause elections on topics of their choosing? I'll make it easy: there is. To make it easier: would you want an election to determine whether you got to stay alive? Just putting the question on the ballot is a real disadvantage to you, and an advantage for everyone else...
Revisionist history. Chickenhawks like Bush and Quayle and the other members of the "Millionare Boys Club" flocked to the National Guard because at the time it was considered much safer than taking a chance on the draft. This is indisputable - quit disputing it. And there is no disputing the war record Kerry had. You get right-wing wingnuts who didn't serve with him, and a commander changing his story to suit his politics. It is really weird that Republicans think they can compare the service records - "Kerry didn't get wounded enough! While in contrast, W. may actually have showed up for Guard duty! My mannnnnn!" Amazing.
Taxes do so much more than "keep the poor from starving". You're not even close to making a relevant point there.
Just to clarify what I meant earlier. I said what you were arguing was stupid. You should let your ego out of the way and just admit you were wrong and let it go rather than come up with ridiculous arguments just because you don't want to admit you are wrong.
Mmmm.. Donuts
Many companies already have this, although it doesn't come out of the employee's salary -- it comes out of their project budget. That's essentially the same thing, although perhaps not so direct. A similar proposal in this case might have the police department budget pay for wiretaps. The nice thing here is that the costs of harrassing people by wiretap is twofold: first, they experience a reduction in their overall budget; second, their inappropriate expenditures become public record -- that's a force to be reckoned with when it could cost the police chief (and through hierarchy, the officer) his job.
evidence planting to increase likelihood of gaining a conviction?
Nothing new there. No, I'm not suggesting that police officers plant evidence on a regular basis, but it does go on, no matter what measures the law has in place to stop it.
strange partnerings b/n prosecutors & police officers?
Strange partnerings? The prosecutors & police officers are already partnered and interdependent. Police investigate crime; prosecutors take the perpetrators to court.
So thats how mum knew i was homosexual
Business Voyeur
That depends, how many votes are actually changed by some guy writing a $5000 check?
----- Question authority, but not ours. Hate the man, but we're not him.
Using the word propaganda is as thread invalidation as the word NAZI. Er, wait...
Fuck it this thread is dead either way.
The message on the other side of this sig is false.