Slashdot Mirror
FCC Demands Universities Comply With Wiretap Law
tabdelgawad writes "The New York Times reports that the FCC is requiring universities to upgrade their online systems to comply with the 1994 wiretap law, which would make it easier for law enforcement to monitor communications online. The universities are not objecting on civil rights grounds (the law requires a court order before monitoring), but on cost grounds (upgrades may cost $7 billion). But with the technology infrastructure in place, what happens if congress decides to relax court order requirements in the future 'in their fight against criminals, terrorists and spies?'"
When I first read that headline I thought it said FCC Demands Universe Comply With Wiretap Law... Oddly, it didn't seem at all surprising.
Where's the fourth horseman? There are supposed to be four!
Perhaps the US government in their infinite wisdom could devise some plan whereas they go about renetworking the entire internet through the FBI? After all, the US does own the world. Don't we?
Season Three If you can't get taps on the burners, just sell the crooks pre-tapped phones.
surveillance cameras all over the place and a handgun ban
Welcome to Chicago, my friend
I hate to break it to you, but just because 60% or 90% or even 99% of people don't want to own an Atomic Bomb doesn't mean banning Atomic Bombs for the 1% that do isn't a violation of a civil liberty. The US mentality and laws about guns is dominated by sheer stupidity. Banning guns and bombs has nothing to do with civil liberties, but with having a society where people don't kill each other as easily, either by mistake or by intent. If you need a handgun for shooting at a club or because you're a hunter, apply for it.
I hate to break it to you, but just because 60% or 90% or even 99% of people don't want to own a handgun doesn't mean them banning a handgun for the 1% that do isn't a violation of a civil liberty. If it were truly the case that there was complete support for banning handguns, then there'd be no need for a law to ban handguns; people simply would choose not to possess, buy, or sell them. Clearly the case is that one group, however large, has decided that another group, however small, is likely to buy a handgun and use it against the first group.
there's something wrong with this argument. I'm not sure what it is. But you can say the same thing about murder, "just because 99% of people dont want murder to happen doesn't mean it shouldn't be illegal. If there were complete support for banning murder, we wouldnt need a law to ban it, peole would just not murder other people."