Relevant laws include the Communications Act, first passed in 1934, and a variety of provisions of the Electronic Communications and Privacy Act, including the Stored Communications Act, passed in 1986.
You mean the president hasn't set aside these laws yet? It's not like we didn't authorize him to do so or anything. A person has to be pretty naive not to believe that all this was happening before the 2004 elections. And in light of this, Bush would STILL get re-elected if he could run. Too bad nobody will nominate and elect a decent alternative. I would consider that voting for the major party is an act of treason. We are the accomplices in all these violations. Let's see if the other shoe drops and we find the country to be placed under martial law very soon now. Especially if the crooks think the election might turn out poorly.
Since Sept. 11 2001, I can't sign up for a new bank account without providing my driver's license and social security card now, and no one has crashed two airplanes into another large building.
After Lyndon B. Johnson, Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George Bush, Bill Clinton, and George Bush(!), it should be pretty obvious that the people of the United States cannot be trusted with voting. Long live the Queen.
The government can be trusted keep secrets...from us. We got secret laws, secret prisons...And the best kept secret of all...Who's in charge here?
It seems very common these days to deny that that's how things work. First it's voluntary. When that has no effect, it becomes mandatory. The national speed limit instituted in the US in the 70s is a prime example. The government power grab peresently going on in the states is another example. I'm going Godwin on you to remind you that's how the Nazis took over Germany. Slow and easy. This is a non-violent property crime. You don't put these people in prison with truly violent offenders. There are tons of alternatives. Even people like Ken Lay could be effectively dealt with without locking him up. Just take ALL of his property and let him shop at the Salvation Army or Goodwill stores for the rest of his life. Let him work at McDonalds AND garnish his wages. Little by little it is becoming more common to lock people up for even the most trivial offenses. The private prison industry needs more tenants if it is to show a profit. And each day, the public finds it more acceptable. No sir, slippery slope is a proven formula. But the revenge factor is making most people blind to that fact.
:-) Very funny. To paraphrase somebody else, If you don't go to the felony, the felony will come to you. In other words, we'll find a way to make whatever you're doing a criminal offense.
I mean, it's a lot better for the victim to stop this before money gets spent. And I'm sure the CC companies feel the same way.
The credit card companies don't care either way. They get paid no matter what, through higher rates and tax write offs. If they did care. credit card fraud would actually be difficult.
Ahhh, the old "greater good" fallacy. What a load. The only "good" coming out of this is Yahoo's bottom line. Which is far more valuable than the lives of a couple of lousy dissidents, evidently. Well, if they're doing this in China, I wonder what they're doing to the Americans. Oh, yeah. Pretty much the same thing. With even less evidence of any crime. We should start seeing some arrests in the near future, but "national security" interests will prevent us from ever finding out.
First, you were applying your first post to blogs, not crowded theaters. So, that argument doesn't apply. Second, as far as libel and slander are concerned, and I know the law doesn't agree, but it up to the listener/reader to believe or not believe and to verify what was said. You're blaming the gun, when it's the shooter's fault. A gun doesn't work if nobody pulls the trigger. Speech is meaningless without action. And those who perform the action should be held responsible, no matter what was said. Don't blame me for "inciting" a riot. Blame the rioters. Otherwise you are claiming that the rioters have no free will. Feel free to blame the actors. Leave the speakers alone.
shouldn't be stored locally on a laptop. This would include passords, etc. Put it on the company server and work it from there. Might be kind of slow, but it seems like good insurance.
This should prove a cautionary tale: just because you blog does not necessarily mean you can say anything you like.
Why not? There's no obligation that you believe what you read. No sir, the responsibility lies with how you react. Action has consequences. Speech is just that, speech.
The people who advocate term linits completely fail to recognize they are voting for the party, not the individual. The party makes the rules, and the nominated/elected individual reads the supplied scripts. What is needed is a variety of platforms to put on the ballot. So far 99% of the votes are going to a single party. This is very discouraging to those who see the need for alternatives. The "throwing away your vote" FUD is very powerful. I can tell you from experience that "term limits and "no reeleción" do not have any positive effect on the process. The real power remains where it always has. And the real reason for that is that the people have abdicated their authority.
These are most definitely impeachable offenses. The only reason I don't recommend it, is because the man who would take his place is much worse. Our congresspeople swore to uphold the law. They are derelict in their duties and should be impeached also. Now, I have to figure out whether the people of the United States have violated their pledge of allegiance in allowing this to happen. It is clear that they have lost all respect for the office when they put a drunken frat brat in there...twice!
Maybe people would be a bit more understanding if giving up their privacy actually served to improve their security. Sufficiently resistant cockpit doors will provide security. This fishing expedition will not. This government, like all others, is looking after its own security, not ours. It is much more afraid of its citizens than any foreign terrorists. The whole thing smells. And finally some peole are starting to make some noise about it.
Good thing, too. Otherwise they still would have slavery and would be killing Indians and burning witches and invading Canada and Mexico (in that context they are exactly like their forefathers). It seems that they never intended to apply their freedoms to everybody. I bet you would find more heroism in their foremothers.
Slashdot Mirror
Relevant laws include the Communications Act, first passed in 1934, and a variety of provisions of the Electronic Communications and Privacy Act, including the Stored Communications Act, passed in 1986.
You mean the president hasn't set aside these laws yet? It's not like we didn't authorize him to do so or anything. A person has to be pretty naive not to believe that all this was happening before the 2004 elections. And in light of this, Bush would STILL get re-elected if he could run. Too bad nobody will nominate and elect a decent alternative. I would consider that voting for the major party is an act of treason. We are the accomplices in all these violations. Let's see if the other shoe drops and we find the country to be placed under martial law very soon now. Especially if the crooks think the election might turn out poorly.
Too late. The Empire has already sent two patrol droids to root out the rebels.
Since Sept. 11 2001, I can't sign up for a new bank account without providing my driver's license and social security card now, and no one has crashed two airplanes into another large building.
Well, maybe not two airplanes...
He can't run again, he'll be out of office in 2.5 years regardless.
But the party stays.
After Lyndon B. Johnson, Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George Bush, Bill Clinton, and George Bush(!), it should be pretty obvious that the people of the United States cannot be trusted with voting. Long live the Queen.
The government can be trusted keep secrets...from us. We got secret laws, secret prisons...And the best kept secret of all...Who's in charge here?
It seems very common these days to deny that that's how things work. First it's voluntary. When that has no effect, it becomes mandatory. The national speed limit instituted in the US in the 70s is a prime example. The government power grab peresently going on in the states is another example. I'm going Godwin on you to remind you that's how the Nazis took over Germany. Slow and easy. This is a non-violent property crime. You don't put these people in prison with truly violent offenders. There are tons of alternatives. Even people like Ken Lay could be effectively dealt with without locking him up. Just take ALL of his property and let him shop at the Salvation Army or Goodwill stores for the rest of his life. Let him work at McDonalds AND garnish his wages. Little by little it is becoming more common to lock people up for even the most trivial offenses. The private prison industry needs more tenants if it is to show a profit. And each day, the public finds it more acceptable. No sir, slippery slope is a proven formula. But the revenge factor is making most people blind to that fact.
Seems to me that if it's a choice between having more state intervention or that; I'll take the state.
You're making the false assumption that those are the only choices.
:-) Very funny. To paraphrase somebody else, If you don't go to the felony, the felony will come to you. In other words, we'll find a way to make whatever you're doing a criminal offense.
I mean, it's a lot better for the victim to stop this before money gets spent. And I'm sure the CC companies feel the same way.
The credit card companies don't care either way. They get paid no matter what, through higher rates and tax write offs. If they did care. credit card fraud would actually be difficult.
Tricky Dick has taught him well. Direct quote, "Well, when the president does it that means that it is not illegal." And the voters agree.
That only covers documented prisoners. This sheds a bit more light on the issue.
Ahhh, the old "greater good" fallacy. What a load. The only "good" coming out of this is Yahoo's bottom line. Which is far more valuable than the lives of a couple of lousy dissidents, evidently. Well, if they're doing this in China, I wonder what they're doing to the Americans. Oh, yeah. Pretty much the same thing. With even less evidence of any crime. We should start seeing some arrests in the near future, but "national security" interests will prevent us from ever finding out.
First, you were applying your first post to blogs, not crowded theaters. So, that argument doesn't apply. Second, as far as libel and slander are concerned, and I know the law doesn't agree, but it up to the listener/reader to believe or not believe and to verify what was said. You're blaming the gun, when it's the shooter's fault. A gun doesn't work if nobody pulls the trigger. Speech is meaningless without action. And those who perform the action should be held responsible, no matter what was said. Don't blame me for "inciting" a riot. Blame the rioters. Otherwise you are claiming that the rioters have no free will. Feel free to blame the actors. Leave the speakers alone.
He doesn't have to. He simply gives himself the authority to ignore it. As was pointed out here
shouldn't be stored locally on a laptop. This would include passords, etc. Put it on the company server and work it from there. Might be kind of slow, but it seems like good insurance.
This should prove a cautionary tale: just because you blog does not necessarily mean you can say anything you like.
Why not? There's no obligation that you believe what you read. No sir, the responsibility lies with how you react. Action has consequences. Speech is just that, speech.
What do they hope to gain?
I'll assume that's a rhetorical question and that you already know the answer.
The people who advocate term linits completely fail to recognize they are voting for the party, not the individual. The party makes the rules, and the nominated/elected individual reads the supplied scripts. What is needed is a variety of platforms to put on the ballot. So far 99% of the votes are going to a single party. This is very discouraging to those who see the need for alternatives. The "throwing away your vote" FUD is very powerful. I can tell you from experience that "term limits and "no reeleción" do not have any positive effect on the process. The real power remains where it always has. And the real reason for that is that the people have abdicated their authority.
How will they collect all the data they need for this?
I'm sure they can work out a deal with the NSA. The data has already been collected.
Caterpillar? Nah. More like this
The president will just override it. And don't think it will get any better when Jeb runs against Hillary in '08.
Bush will be out of office...
But the party* will stay in forever. Term limits are meaningless. Bush is just the mannequin in front of the camera.
*democrat/republican = one party, two faces.
These are most definitely impeachable offenses. The only reason I don't recommend it, is because the man who would take his place is much worse. Our congresspeople swore to uphold the law. They are derelict in their duties and should be impeached also. Now, I have to figure out whether the people of the United States have violated their pledge of allegiance in allowing this to happen. It is clear that they have lost all respect for the office when they put a drunken frat brat in there...twice!
Maybe people would be a bit more understanding if giving up their privacy actually served to improve their security. Sufficiently resistant cockpit doors will provide security. This fishing expedition will not. This government, like all others, is looking after its own security, not ours. It is much more afraid of its citizens than any foreign terrorists. The whole thing smells. And finally some peole are starting to make some noise about it.
Good thing, too. Otherwise they still would have slavery and would be killing Indians and burning witches and invading Canada and Mexico (in that context they are exactly like their forefathers). It seems that they never intended to apply their freedoms to everybody. I bet you would find more heroism in their foremothers.