From the American Heritage Dictionary: bypass also by-pass(b'ps')
1. To avoid (an obstacle) by using an alternative channel, passage, or route. 2. To be heedless of; ignore: bypassed standard office procedures.
3. To channel (piped liquid, for example) through a bypass.
It wasn't written to protect us when time are good, it was written to protect us when times are bad.
What is so disappointing is how easily the Constitutional safeguards have been bypassed. The impotent Congress is mostly to blame on this one.
Phone-taps on American citizens without any warrants or judicial oversight?!? Seems like a clear violation of the 4th Amendment, but Congress let it slide by without even a hand-slap.
Re:Continuation of Coffee Breaks and Rude Service
on
Back to the Bunker
·
· Score: 3
No, no. They're going to make sure that any survivors left after a nuclear attack are not trading copyrighted music or movies. Catastrophic attack or not, sharing files is wrong, and people must be punished!
This is very true. However, this is what most Joe and Jane Sixpacks are looking for. An appliance that they can use to surf the internet, play music, and write email. Most people don't care how their tv or refrigerator works.
Wouldn't the world be a safer place, for wage-slave citizens and mega-corporations alike, if the U.S. just attacked the every other country and created one global government? Then we wouldn't have to worry about the difficulty of enforcing U.S. law in foreign countries. There would be no foreign countries! Problem solved! I nominate G.W. as our first global dictator, er... I mean first elected president of the United Countries of Freedom-World!
And it's also very interesting that everyone here just assumes I think it's cool what the government's doing... But it needs to be done.
It doesn't matter whether you think it's cool or not. You support it. How do you not agree with it when you think it needs to be done?
I do apologize for calling you a coward. That wasn't necessary. Whether or not I or others have or do serve in the military, however, is hardly as relevant; we are not the ones convinced that this war requires measures as serious as disregarding the constitution. Age aside however, I find it very telling that you won't stand up and fight for american rights, because you think it is a hopeless battle. Is there anything the government would do during "war-time" that would cause you to protest?
Once we win, we go back to a peacetime mode
Ha! That's a good one. What is your estimate, kind sir, of when we will win the war on terror? When exactly will terror be defeated?
Have you ever joined (or previously served) the military, Mr. Potty-Mouth?
Mr. Potty-Mouth is not the one so willing to give up other people's constitutional rights. You're willing to support an administration that infringes on our rights because you apparently believe we are in a very dire situation. A so-called war. But you don't feel strongly enough about this "war" to fight for it?!? Coward.
if we don't take EVERY POSSIBLE MEASURE to prevent an attack (whatever manner or form it may be), THERE MAY WELL NOT BE A CONSTITUTION TO PROTECT OUR RIGHTS WITH.
So you don't care if we lose some constitutionally protected rights in the war on terror, because otherwise the scary boogeymen terrorists will blow us all up and then we wouldn't have a constitution anyway, right?
Place a lot of trust in the government, do you? Wouldn't it just be better then to tear up the constitution and structure ourselves as a military dictatorship? I imagine you and you pizza-filled boring life would be safer then. Seriously, if you are willing to take EVERY POSSIBLE MEASURE to prevent an attack, why not 24/7 martial law? Would you support temporarily abandoning our justice system? We could just shoot suspected terrorists on sight. I'm curious to hear just how far you're willing to go to "win" this WAR.
Unfortunately, I think you overestimate the america sheeple and the rubber-stamp U.S. Congress.
It would be a piece of cake for Gonzo and the DOJ to get a data retention law skyrocketed through Congress and on the books.
In two easy steps:
1. If you don't pass this law we can't fight off this ever-increasing wave of dangerous child predators. (For good measure: We failed to catch X number of child predators last year because this law wasn't in place.) Think of the children!
2. If you don't pass this law we can't fight off the ever-increasing wave of terrorists trying to attack the U.S. (Could have stopped 9-11, Oklahoma City, the Civil War, etc. were this law in place.)
Gonzo has discovered that as long as he mentions child porn/predators and terrorism, he can piss in citizen's faces and they'll open up their mouths and ask for more.
Putting aside for a second just how effective this data retention would be in catching child predators and terrorists, the probability of the DOJ and police forces abusing this vast database of information is staggeringly high.
Law enforcement agencies love pursuing internet crime because it is so exceedingly easy for them to do. They can sit behind a desk, eat doughnuts, and bust a bunch of teenagers on Myspace for posting a picture of a pot plant or a 16 y.o. boobie. Giving them mandatory data retention for two years would make their jobs easier still. If I was convinced they would be going after actual terrorists and real child-abusers then I would perhaps be more understanding, but I don't want the privacy rights of all americans sacrificed so the cops can bust a few more dumb teenagers and closet-perverts.
Wow being Republican is easy, i think the general rule is that anything like privacy, free speech and peace you just have to pretend its not important while anything to do with sex, sexual equality, sex on tv, sex in peoples private lives etc is a matter of life or death.
It is pretty funny that most of the holier-than-thou conservatives seem to be completely obsessed with sex. You could be a bi-sexual S&M leather/furry enthusiast and not think about sex nearly half as much as most of these U.S. conservative freaks.
How about a standard on how Applications manage this kind of like a personal privacy standard?
"Personal privacy" are the new codewords for terrorist-supporter. How long have you been a terrorist?
What if Al Gonzalez needed to check your hard-drive to make sure you aren't a terrerist or a kid-fiddler? Don't thwart Gonzo with encryption. The government needs to be able to pry into every single aspect of our personal lives to protect us from the oogity-boogity terrorists.
Don't forget growing a marijuana plant in the privacy of your own home.
America is becoming the land of a million laws, and more and more of these offenses are being turned into felonies. Also, while the founding fathers disliked the idea of a federal police force, laws are increasingly being prosecuted federally.
Little wonder that the U.S. has one of the highest per capita inmate populations in the world.
It doesn't help that many convicted felons are prohibited from voting and there are still many tv-fed mobs that seek ever-harsher criminal penalties.
Does someone using a search engine like that have an expectation of privacy? If so, why?
I believe they do, because no matter how revolting the search terms that lead someone to your site may be, you can never expect to stop someone from looking at normal pictures, nor should you be able to.
Perhaps there were a few sickos looking at pictures of girls playing soccer and getting off on it. Perhaps not. There may have been people watching in person while the game was being played and having perverse, impure thoughts. We will never know, because we can't read minds. Nor should we be able to. It may be very upsetting to you as her father, but your daughter remains unharmed whether people were having perverse thoughts or not.
With all of this pedo-scare in the media/culture recently, I get the feeling that people are just aching to prosecute thought-crimes. Bad thoughts do not necessarily = bad deeds. If you start using search terms to back up investigations (or to base investigations on), search engines will become sanitized, useless husks of what they once were. I don't want to be paranoid every time I type in a search term (for instance, looking for perfectly legal Girls Gone Wild videos could easily be misconstrued with the wrong terms).
Were I to really want privacy I suppose I could use an anonymizer, but I don't so I don't (if you see what mean).
Do you mean that if you're not doing anything wrong, then you have nothing to hide?
There are tons of searches that don't require probable cause.
Keep studying. A Terry stop is one of the very few exceptions to the general rule that a police officer needs a warrant to search a citizen's person, belongings, or home.
Other exceptions would be a search pursuant to an arrest (based on a misdemeanor/felony committed in a police officer's presence, etc.), and an arm's length sweep (wingspan) for weapons when arresting a suspect in a home. Even during a Terry stop, a police officer is only allowed to frisk for weapons, not actually search a person thoroughly, but regardless, a Terry stop is way off-topic.
To claim that there are "tons of searches that don't require probable cause" is absolutely absurd. There is no legal precedent for eavesdropping on private telecommunications without a warrant.
There have been quite a few news happenings in the past week about increasing restrictions on American's privacy rights in order to be a little safer from terrorism (and by terrorism, I mean drugs and crime and dissidents in general, as well as people blowing up stuff). We must be really, really safe now! Props to the all-powerful executive branch and the rubber-stamp congress.
Great post. Most kids who are sexually abused are molested by family members, yet the mainstream press would have you believe that "predators" leap through computer screens and attack children at will.
It is much easier to lose freedoms than to gain them back.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree with you.
From the American Heritage Dictionary:
bypass also by-pass(b'ps')
1. To avoid (an obstacle) by using an alternative channel, passage, or route.
2. To be heedless of; ignore: bypassed standard office procedures.
3. To channel (piped liquid, for example) through a bypass.
It wasn't written to protect us when time are good, it was written to protect us when times are bad.
What is so disappointing is how easily the Constitutional safeguards have been bypassed. The impotent Congress is mostly to blame on this one.
Phone-taps on American citizens without any warrants or judicial oversight?!? Seems like a clear violation of the 4th Amendment, but Congress let it slide by without even a hand-slap.
No, no. They're going to make sure that any survivors left after a nuclear attack are not trading copyrighted music or movies. Catastrophic attack or not, sharing files is wrong, and people must be punished!
Its a Microsoft approved appliance.
This is very true. However, this is what most Joe and Jane Sixpacks are looking for. An appliance that they can use to surf the internet, play music, and write email. Most people don't care how their tv or refrigerator works.
Wouldn't the world be a safer place, for wage-slave citizens and mega-corporations alike, if the U.S. just attacked the every other country and created one global government? Then we wouldn't have to worry about the difficulty of enforcing U.S. law in foreign countries. There would be no foreign countries! Problem solved! I nominate G.W. as our first global dictator, er... I mean first elected president of the United Countries of Freedom-World!
And it's also very interesting that everyone here just assumes I think it's cool what the government's doing... But it needs to be done.
It doesn't matter whether you think it's cool or not. You support it. How do you not agree with it when you think it needs to be done?
I do apologize for calling you a coward. That wasn't necessary. Whether or not I or others have or do serve in the military, however, is hardly as relevant; we are not the ones convinced that this war requires measures as serious as disregarding the constitution. Age aside however, I find it very telling that you won't stand up and fight for american rights, because you think it is a hopeless battle. Is there anything the government would do during "war-time" that would cause you to protest?
Once we win, we go back to a peacetime mode
Ha! That's a good one. What is your estimate, kind sir, of when we will win the war on terror? When exactly will terror be defeated?
Have you ever joined (or previously served) the military, Mr. Potty-Mouth?
Mr. Potty-Mouth is not the one so willing to give up other people's constitutional rights. You're willing to support an administration that infringes on our rights because you apparently believe we are in a very dire situation. A so-called war. But you don't feel strongly enough about this "war" to fight for it?!? Coward.
if we don't take EVERY POSSIBLE MEASURE to prevent an attack (whatever manner or form it may be), THERE MAY WELL NOT BE A CONSTITUTION TO PROTECT OUR RIGHTS WITH.
So you don't care if we lose some constitutionally protected rights in the war on terror, because otherwise the scary boogeymen terrorists will blow us all up and then we wouldn't have a constitution anyway, right?
Place a lot of trust in the government, do you? Wouldn't it just be better then to tear up the constitution and structure ourselves as a military dictatorship? I imagine you and you pizza-filled boring life would be safer then. Seriously, if you are willing to take EVERY POSSIBLE MEASURE to prevent an attack, why not 24/7 martial law? Would you support temporarily abandoning our justice system? We could just shoot suspected terrorists on sight. I'm curious to hear just how far you're willing to go to "win" this WAR.
Unfortunately, I think you overestimate the america sheeple and the rubber-stamp U.S. Congress.
It would be a piece of cake for Gonzo and the DOJ to get a data retention law skyrocketed through Congress and on the books.
In two easy steps:
1. If you don't pass this law we can't fight off this ever-increasing wave of dangerous child predators. (For good measure: We failed to catch X number of child predators last year because this law wasn't in place.) Think of the children!
2. If you don't pass this law we can't fight off the ever-increasing wave of terrorists trying to attack the U.S. (Could have stopped 9-11, Oklahoma City, the Civil War, etc. were this law in place.)
Gonzo has discovered that as long as he mentions child porn/predators and terrorism, he can piss in citizen's faces and they'll open up their mouths and ask for more.
Putting aside for a second just how effective this data retention would be in catching child predators and terrorists, the probability of the DOJ and police forces abusing this vast database of information is staggeringly high.
Law enforcement agencies love pursuing internet crime because it is so exceedingly easy for them to do. They can sit behind a desk, eat doughnuts, and bust a bunch of teenagers on Myspace for posting a picture of a pot plant or a 16 y.o. boobie. Giving them mandatory data retention for two years would make their jobs easier still. If I was convinced they would be going after actual terrorists and real child-abusers then I would perhaps be more understanding, but I don't want the privacy rights of all americans sacrificed so the cops can bust a few more dumb teenagers and closet-perverts.
And many Democrats who passed the PATRIOT Act are facing challengers in part due to that vote.
Are these challengers flying pigs?
By the way, it's pretty sad you could only come up with one name.
Wow being Republican is easy, i think the general rule is that anything like privacy, free speech and peace you just have to pretend its not important while anything to do with sex, sexual equality, sex on tv, sex in peoples private lives etc is a matter of life or death.
It is pretty funny that most of the holier-than-thou conservatives seem to be completely obsessed with sex. You could be a bi-sexual S&M leather/furry enthusiast and not think about sex nearly half as much as most of these U.S. conservative freaks.
How about a standard on how Applications manage this kind of like a personal privacy standard?
"Personal privacy" are the new codewords for terrorist-supporter. How long have you been a terrorist?
What if Al Gonzalez needed to check your hard-drive to make sure you aren't a terrerist or a kid-fiddler? Don't thwart Gonzo with encryption. The government needs to be able to pry into every single aspect of our personal lives to protect us from the oogity-boogity terrorists.
Crime as a whole decreased signifigantly. Unless you count homicides. But it's more fun to make up stuff and distort facts, isn't it?
Don't forget growing a marijuana plant in the privacy of your own home.
America is becoming the land of a million laws, and more and more of these offenses are being turned into felonies. Also, while the founding fathers disliked the idea of a federal police force, laws are increasingly being prosecuted federally.
Little wonder that the U.S. has one of the highest per capita inmate populations in the world.
It doesn't help that many convicted felons are prohibited from voting and there are still many tv-fed mobs that seek ever-harsher criminal penalties.
It's sad, and a more than a little frightening.
While still in its early stages, wouldn't something like the JAP Anonymity project undermind the entire purpose and usability of data retention?
Despite being in its "early stages", the JAP project already provided a backdoor to the German police.
http://www.securityfocus.com/news/6779
Tor is more trustworthy, but those of us who wear tin-foil attire may still wonder how many tor nodes are being run by 3-letter agencies.
The "catch and release" policy on pedophiles is sickening... I think the best thing to do is build a few micro-societies
Good call. We should quarantine all those sickos who are attracted to teenage girls and keep them away from the rest of our virtuous society.
All those perverts lusting after nubile 16 year-old girls. Disgusting.
Does someone using a search engine like that have an expectation of privacy? If so, why?
I believe they do, because no matter how revolting the search terms that lead someone to your site may be, you can never expect to stop someone from looking at normal pictures, nor should you be able to.
Perhaps there were a few sickos looking at pictures of girls playing soccer and getting off on it. Perhaps not. There may have been people watching in person while the game was being played and having perverse, impure thoughts. We will never know, because we can't read minds. Nor should we be able to. It may be very upsetting to you as her father, but your daughter remains unharmed whether people were having perverse thoughts or not.
With all of this pedo-scare in the media/culture recently, I get the feeling that people are just aching to prosecute thought-crimes. Bad thoughts do not necessarily = bad deeds. If you start using search terms to back up investigations (or to base investigations on), search engines will become sanitized, useless husks of what they once were. I don't want to be paranoid every time I type in a search term (for instance, looking for perfectly legal Girls Gone Wild videos could easily be misconstrued with the wrong terms).
Were I to really want privacy I suppose I could use an anonymizer, but I don't so I don't (if you see what mean).
Do you mean that if you're not doing anything wrong, then you have nothing to hide?
I use the horribly outdated and underpowered Geforce FX6600 card
Damn. And here I was feeling smug about my FX5900.
There are tons of searches that don't require probable cause.
Keep studying. A Terry stop is one of the very few exceptions to the general rule that a police officer needs a warrant to search a citizen's person, belongings, or home.
Other exceptions would be a search pursuant to an arrest (based on a misdemeanor/felony committed in a police officer's presence, etc.), and an arm's length sweep (wingspan) for weapons when arresting a suspect in a home. Even during a Terry stop, a police officer is only allowed to frisk for weapons, not actually search a person thoroughly, but regardless, a Terry stop is way off-topic.
To claim that there are "tons of searches that don't require probable cause" is absolutely absurd. There is no legal precedent for eavesdropping on private telecommunications without a warrant.
There have been quite a few news happenings in the past week about increasing restrictions on American's privacy rights in order to be a little safer from terrorism (and by terrorism, I mean drugs and crime and dissidents in general, as well as people blowing up stuff). We must be really, really safe now! Props to the all-powerful executive branch and the rubber-stamp congress.
is yast still slower than a one-legged turtle on ambien?
...and soon they won't hate us at all.
Terror, terrorists, terror!!
9/11, terrorists, 9/11, terror!!
Think of the children! 9/11!!
Feel better now?
Great post. Most kids who are sexually abused are molested by family members, yet the mainstream press would have you believe that "predators" leap through computer screens and attack children at will. It is much easier to lose freedoms than to gain them back.