The big brother government uses twitter to track what you are doing, uses facebook to investigate you and your friends, uses google to try and figure out what you think.
The FBI exists specifically as an intelligence agency to spy on American citizens. So when random people add you as a friend on facebook it could be the beginning of an FBI investigation.
And ignorance of the law wont hold up in court, so if you don't know whats in the 1000+ page healthcare reform bill, or the tens of thousands of pages of new laws which pass each year, you could already be breaking some esoteric law and committing a felony.
And thats all you need to do to get the FBI to investigate you. So you better not talk about anything criminal.
It's essential that he pass calculus I, III, III and Diff EQ without the use of a calculator. Just in case we are bombed back into the stoneage, he wont have to worry about losing his job as a scientist.
They want you to pass calculus for a reason. No matter what kind of scientist you plan to be, your knowledge of calculus will be essential. You'll never use statistics but you will need to use calculus every day.
Yes Corporations can have legal mergers. And yes Corporations can vote, but only if Corporations can be arrested, and held legally responsible for crimes.
If someone does not like you, whether they be informant, stalker, or corrupt law enforcement, they can plant the gun, the drugs, the child porn into your possession and then arrest you for possession. This is why all laws which involve possession of an object, are fundamentally flawed because it does not make a difference is the possession is voluntary or involuntary.
I think that any information transmitted or received to or from their specific IP addresses can be monitored forum or not by the FBI. What the forums probably do is allow the CIA to identify who the terrorists are and who to watch more carefully.
Who knows maybe the terrorists added FBI agents to their facebook.
The growth of the internet created an atmosphere wherein information and 'intelligence' became a commodity. Then the emergence of an enemy that is not only difficult, if not impossible, to clearly define but who also operates entirely without borders. The polar opposite from what the CIA were trained to do.
I don't see the connection between the internet and the loss of borders. The Mexican border was even more wide open during the cold war than it is now. The enemy always operated without borders, unless we truly thought oceans could protect us.
Because an IP address usually can be traced to a computer, and a computer can give you the names of the individuals involved, and with those names you can take it offline.
Fortunately the terrorists aren't that smart. Just inject a stealth cookie or even a trojan into their computer and track every site they visit and everything they do online.
You have non violent "extremists" and you have terrorists. The difference is the non violent extremists are all talk, no action. The actual terrorists take action or provide financial support to individuals who do. Terrorists are more like paramilitary forces, this is not the same thing as 911 truthers, the Alex Jones crowd, or Glen Beck watchers.
So it makes absolute sense for the CIA to launch and host websites. And the argument that moderates can be radicalized into terrorists by a website is completely ridiculous. Especially if it's a CIA run site, that makes it even more ridiculous.
I'm sure it's possible that people do get radicalized, but I doubt that one website does it. It's probably a combination of things such as loss of family members via the Iraq war, the perception of Islam being under attack due to Bush announcing a crusade, and many other factors such as personality type. I don't think websites make people violent anymore than video games or "guns" kill people.
The press relies on confidential informants. This list of individuals is supposed to be secret. What do you think would happen to these people if their names and profiles were released to the public?
See how easy that was? With the possible exception of military secrets and other very narrow security concerns, for pretty much anything that the government needs to keep secret, you can make the same claim about the general public and it is equally true.
I agree that the press, the government, anybody should have the right to keep the identity of themselves or others a secret. I can think of many legit reasons why this would be necessary.
Start with the people called out by documents on Wikileaks. Work your way over to those who did nothing about those people. The watchlist should include anyone who has ever advocated an end run around the Constitution (see documents on Wikileaks plus press releases on the news).
So you are suggesting we honor the Constitution? In that case you'd be talking about A LOT of different individuals in A LOT of agencies. Does it look like our government is honoring the Constitution?
This is correct, but should the government really exist to invade the privacy of ever human on earth? Is that the purpose?
Sure the government will have maximum security, and everyone individual will have minimal liberty and security. But hey at least we'll be able to fund health reform, and at least everyone is paying taxes and consuming.
At what point do you or we decide that we need some level of liberty just to maintain quality of life? Does the government really have a good track record of invading privacy and not completely exploiting people? How do you prevent the government from enslaving the people?
There are legit reasons why people might want to keep secrets from all entities including governments. And it's mainly because governments don't have a conscience, and don't respect life in some instances.
If individuals have no privacy you have no "national" security. What you have is "institutional" security. All the people are so vulnerable that they could be killed and not even know they are being killed, while the government, institutions, corporations and big businesses continue to run and new people take over.
This is saying that America isn't the families, the lives, or even the Constitution, it's saying America is the institution and the corporations.
This is in my opinion a flawed view because sometimes the institution is completely broken, and when you value the institutions so much that people die for institutions, you could end up with institutions without any values or goals associated with them.
Like a prison industrial complex that exists to profit. Or a military industrial complex which exists to profit. And maintaining the war on drugs and launching wars to protect these complexes.
At what point is it no longer worth it? Or is that after we are all dead or in prison?
The names of spies must be kept secret for many of the same reasons.
In criminal investigations the identities of informants must be kept secret.
It's not an option to release that information. Because if the government did not protect that information, the government would have no informants, spies, or intelligence capability.
Slashdot Mirror
The big brother government uses twitter to track what you are doing, uses facebook to investigate you and your friends, uses google to try and figure out what you think.
The FBI exists specifically as an intelligence agency to spy on American citizens. So when random people add you as a friend on facebook it could be the beginning of an FBI investigation.
And ignorance of the law wont hold up in court, so if you don't know whats in the 1000+ page healthcare reform bill, or the tens of thousands of pages of new laws which pass each year, you could already be breaking some esoteric law and committing a felony.
And thats all you need to do to get the FBI to investigate you. So you better not talk about anything criminal.
It's essential that he pass calculus I, III, III and Diff EQ without the use of a calculator.
Just in case we are bombed back into the stoneage, he wont have to worry about losing his job as a scientist.
They want you to pass calculus for a reason. No matter what kind of scientist you plan to be, your knowledge of calculus will be essential. You'll never use statistics but you will need to use calculus every day.
Yes Corporations can have legal mergers. And yes Corporations can vote, but only if Corporations can be arrested, and held legally responsible for crimes.
That's about the closest thing to self ownership.
If we treat Corporations as persons in any context, they must be treated as persons in every context.
So it's time we treat them like persons under the law and arrest them.
If someone does not like you, whether they be informant, stalker, or corrupt law enforcement, they can plant the gun, the drugs, the child porn into your possession and then arrest you for possession. This is why all laws which involve possession of an object, are fundamentally flawed because it does not make a difference is the possession is voluntary or involuntary.
If the private sector wont hire, maybe the government will?
Thats one way to get an entry level job.
I think that any information transmitted or received to or from their specific IP addresses can be monitored forum or not by the FBI. What the forums probably do is allow the CIA to identify who the terrorists are and who to watch more carefully.
Who knows maybe the terrorists added FBI agents to their facebook.
The growth of the internet created an atmosphere wherein information and 'intelligence' became a commodity. Then the emergence of an enemy that is not only difficult, if not impossible, to clearly define but who also operates entirely without borders. The polar opposite from what the CIA were trained to do.
I don't see the connection between the internet and the loss of borders. The Mexican border was even more wide open during the cold war than it is now. The enemy always operated without borders, unless we truly thought oceans could protect us.
Because an IP address usually can be traced to a computer, and a computer can give you the names of the individuals involved, and with those names you can take it offline.
Fortunately the terrorists aren't that smart. Just inject a stealth cookie or even a trojan into their computer and track every site they visit and everything they do online.
It's easy to track the sites people visit. It's next to impossible to track the books people read.
You have non violent "extremists" and you have terrorists. The difference is the non violent extremists are all talk, no action. The actual terrorists take action or provide financial support to individuals who do. Terrorists are more like paramilitary forces, this is not the same thing as 911 truthers, the Alex Jones crowd, or Glen Beck watchers.
So it makes absolute sense for the CIA to launch and host websites. And the argument that moderates can be radicalized into terrorists by a website is completely ridiculous. Especially if it's a CIA run site, that makes it even more ridiculous.
I'm sure it's possible that people do get radicalized, but I doubt that one website does it. It's probably a combination of things such as loss of family members via the Iraq war, the perception of Islam being under attack due to Bush announcing a crusade, and many other factors such as personality type. I don't think websites make people violent anymore than video games or "guns" kill people.
You say it's a crime to lie to a federal agent, but since nobody knows who the federal agents are. This would make us all criminals wouldn't it?
Same here. My English sucked. Badly. I was close to failing every year.
Then text adventures became popular. 'nuff said.
'nuff isn't a word. Your English still sucks.
The press relies on confidential informants. This list of individuals is supposed to be secret. What do you think would happen to these people if their names and profiles were released to the public?
See how easy that was? With the possible exception of military secrets and other very narrow security concerns, for pretty much anything that the government needs to keep secret, you can make the same claim about the general public and it is equally true.
I agree that the press, the government, anybody should have the right to keep the identity of themselves or others a secret. I can think of many legit reasons why this would be necessary.
This is why you have a 5th amendment.
Start with the people called out by documents on Wikileaks. Work your way over to those who did nothing about those people. The watchlist should include anyone who has ever advocated an end run around the Constitution (see documents on Wikileaks plus press releases on the news).
So you are suggesting we honor the Constitution? In that case you'd be talking about A LOT of different individuals in A LOT of agencies. Does it look like our government is honoring the Constitution?
I'm sure there are bad guys in government but how do we determine who is "bad"?
This is correct, but should the government really exist to invade the privacy of ever human on earth? Is that the purpose?
Sure the government will have maximum security, and everyone individual will have minimal liberty and security. But hey at least we'll be able to fund health reform, and at least everyone is paying taxes and consuming.
At what point do you or we decide that we need some level of liberty just to maintain quality of life? Does the government really have a good track record of invading privacy and not completely exploiting people? How do you prevent the government from enslaving the people?
There are legit reasons why people might want to keep secrets from all entities including governments. And it's mainly because governments don't have a conscience, and don't respect life in some instances.
If individuals have no privacy you have no "national" security. What you have is "institutional" security. All the people are so vulnerable that they could be killed and not even know they are being killed, while the government, institutions, corporations and big businesses continue to run and new people take over.
This is saying that America isn't the families, the lives, or even the Constitution, it's saying America is the institution and the corporations.
This is in my opinion a flawed view because sometimes the institution is completely broken, and when you value the institutions so much that people die for institutions, you could end up with institutions without any values or goals associated with them.
Like a prison industrial complex that exists to profit. Or a military industrial complex which exists to profit. And maintaining the war on drugs and launching wars to protect these complexes.
At what point is it no longer worth it? Or is that after we are all dead or in prison?
The names of spies must be kept secret for many of the same reasons.
In criminal investigations the identities of informants must be kept secret.
It's not an option to release that information. Because if the government did not protect that information, the government would have no informants, spies, or intelligence capability.
The identities of informants must be kept secret for ALL TIMES. If that information is released within their lifetime, then we know what will happen.
So there are secrets which have to be kept forever. When these individuals die their files should be completely deleted, if we wanted true secrecy.
When lives are at stake you can understand the need for secrecy. When it's stuff like war strategy, that only need be kept secret for years.