I guess its OK to warrrantless wiretap and watch emails then because they could involve illegal activity?
its already ok to warrantless wiretap and watch emails. HER party legislated it. her party was using it against anyone not from her party. people used it against her. observe the irony.
More to the point, what would happen if nothing had been found? The difference between your analogy and what actually happened was, filming an event in progress (assuming its in a public space) is not a breach of privacy. This is more like breaking into someones house, with, based on the usual goings on/b/, vandalising the inside of said house, and then happening to come across evidence of misdoing. It might have been there, but that doesn't make what you did right.
privacy cant, and shouldnt be allowed to be used for shielding illegal activities. imagine a citizen filming someone suspicious doing something in his backyard. if the filming shows stuff of a criminal nature, it is evidence, discovery. noone can claim privacy rights and make the evidence illegitimate. at least, they shouldnt be able to do. it would be an abuse of rights and exploitation of law. if, there is nothing wrong in the film, then it is indeed a violation of privacy.
The worst bit is based on the your opinions on other issues I quickly browsed, you seem to be willing to throw away your moral standpoint in an instant. You post negatively about border checks of laptops and the Bavarian trojan thing, yet when it happens to this politician its suddenly OK? While I agree that something untoward may have occurred here, if we don't respect the principles of our common law justice system in our most scrutinised cases (corruption in high office), what hope does the man on the street have?
see, its like this. if you were living in 1938, and happened to discover evidence that nazis were planning mass murders of ethnic groups, would it be immoral to use that evidence and act upon it ? OR, you had 'illegally' uncovered evidence that nazis were behind the reichstag burning ?
there are some stuff in the world that has much more aspect than an individual's privacy rights. this woman is no ordinary bavarian citizen. she is poised (by any chance) to become vp of the country with most powerful army in the world, and god forbid, she may be president in 1-2 years due to the other biting the dust out of old age. risks are paranormally high. she is a religious nutjob, she may start a world war 3, in which all of the rights, legalese and modern values of life are sure to be trampled to dust, during and after.
no. while poised to a position like this, she doesnt have similar rights as a citizen. sorry. cant let her. she has to pass a lot of tests, be them legal, or illegal, to prove that she is not dangerous. and up to this point, she has proven to be someone who tramples rule of law, and ignores citizens' rights at whim. she is just one person, and when her rights are ignored, just one person's rights will be ignored. but she is in office. she already ignored the rights of 700.000 alaskans, and already (as of today) defied a subpoena from a legitimate court of law. and if she takes a higher office, she has the possibility of trampling rights of not only 300 million americans, but also many other people of this world.
And you are a condescending shit with the reading comprehension of a brain-damaged eight-year-old. Now that we've traded childish insults, this discussion is really over, but I will answer your points.
you dont deserve the right to vote, leave aside a decent candidate to vote for.
you should grow out of your caveman manners before attempting to discuss with anyone.
you are either naive, or brainwashed, or extremely disillusioned.
fact a)
there is nothing such as "both are equal". they are different. a dolt would be able to say so. for starters, no 2 human being are the same.
fact b)
voting for someone will make your vote go to waste. a candidate who can win the election, is what matters. if there were 3, fine. but there are 2 now. you have to choose from among viable options, and you gotta choose the best. for any confusion at this point, refer to fact a.
fact c)
'we are all doomed' is surrendering right at the start. you cant have zit with that attitude. you have to go an inch, even if its the furthest you can go.
heavens and all gods conceived prior to date may bless anyone participated in this. and curses on any piece of shit who tries to cover the shit that was within it.
what you said basically means 'richard nixon had the right to withhold the tapes he was recording from watergate scandal investigators - because they were a private affair'.
its stupidity at its best.
this woman purposefully used a private email in order to avoid investigation of her conduct while doing government business - PEOPLE'S RIGHTS. constituents.
apparently she doesnt recognize constituent rights or anything - her rights are what matters, not theirs. she thinks she can wantonly ignore laws if it suits her.
you owe your ass to them. they have shown you the potential vp (hell, even presidential) candidate of your country wantonly ignores law while conducting government business - YOUR business.
you owe infinite amounts of ass to them for saving your sorry single ass from living under such a shameless power abuser for the next 4 years.
noone is asking you not to take a stand. take your stand, but also be a pragmatist.
because your actions are going to determine your next 4 years. its either worse, or better of the worse, even IF the better of the worse actually deserved that title.
For, then you would have used your personal email to ESCAPE PUBLIC OVERSIGHT and violate citizen's rights to information and public scrutiny of your actions.
excuse me, but personal miseries or privacy or psychology doesnt mean shit, if you are trying to undo people who you are sworn to serve. anyone who does that, should be made feel miserable.
excuse me, but she lost her privacy rights on that account right at the moment she sent the first government related email, or replied to a government related email.
the fact that we weren't in the know in regard to her violation of law, her illegal act before the hacking, doesnt make her any more right about the matter. a crime is being committed, you just dont have proof.
its like someone filming a gang operation and publishing it, and then gang coming up and claiming that their privacy rights were violated.
5 years is a whop-ass time. if resources are diverted to renewable energy, immense progress can be made in the course of 5 years, and results would be much more plausible than sticking with oil.
you think that businessmen, travelers will still maintain u.s. as a destination of choice, if this shit of a practice stays the same ? hell, or even just stays though changed ?
there are heaploads of countries in the world to travel to and do business with.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess its OK to warrrantless wiretap and watch emails then because they could involve illegal activity?
its already ok to warrantless wiretap and watch emails. HER party legislated it. her party was using it against anyone not from her party. people used it against her. observe the irony.
More to the point, what would happen if nothing had been found? The difference between your analogy and what actually happened was, filming an event in progress (assuming its in a public space) is not a breach of privacy. This is more like breaking into someones house, with, based on the usual goings on /b/, vandalising the inside of said house, and then happening to come across evidence of misdoing. It might have been there, but that doesn't make what you did right.
privacy cant, and shouldnt be allowed to be used for shielding illegal activities. imagine a citizen filming someone suspicious doing something in his backyard. if the filming shows stuff of a criminal nature, it is evidence, discovery. noone can claim privacy rights and make the evidence illegitimate. at least, they shouldnt be able to do. it would be an abuse of rights and exploitation of law. if, there is nothing wrong in the film, then it is indeed a violation of privacy.
The worst bit is based on the your opinions on other issues I quickly browsed, you seem to be willing to throw away your moral standpoint in an instant. You post negatively about border checks of laptops and the Bavarian trojan thing, yet when it happens to this politician its suddenly OK? While I agree that something untoward may have occurred here, if we don't respect the principles of our common law justice system in our most scrutinised cases (corruption in high office), what hope does the man on the street have?
see, its like this. if you were living in 1938, and happened to discover evidence that nazis were planning mass murders of ethnic groups, would it be immoral to use that evidence and act upon it ? OR, you had 'illegally' uncovered evidence that nazis were behind the reichstag burning ?
there are some stuff in the world that has much more aspect than an individual's privacy rights. this woman is no ordinary bavarian citizen. she is poised (by any chance) to become vp of the country with most powerful army in the world, and god forbid, she may be president in 1-2 years due to the other biting the dust out of old age. risks are paranormally high. she is a religious nutjob, she may start a world war 3, in which all of the rights, legalese and modern values of life are sure to be trampled to dust, during and after.
no. while poised to a position like this, she doesnt have similar rights as a citizen. sorry. cant let her. she has to pass a lot of tests, be them legal, or illegal, to prove that she is not dangerous. and up to this point, she has proven to be someone who tramples rule of law, and ignores citizens' rights at whim. she is just one person, and when her rights are ignored, just one person's rights will be ignored. but she is in office. she already ignored the rights of 700.000 alaskans, and already (as of today) defied a subpoena from a legitimate court of law. and if she takes a higher office, she has the possibility of trampling rights of not only 300 million americans, but also many other people of this world.
no she doesnt have any rights.
And you are a condescending shit with the reading comprehension of a brain-damaged eight-year-old. Now that we've traded childish insults, this discussion is really over, but I will answer your points.
you dont deserve the right to vote, leave aside a decent candidate to vote for.
you should grow out of your caveman manners before attempting to discuss with anyone.
suit yourself, moron.
you are either naive, or brainwashed, or extremely disillusioned.
fact a)
there is nothing such as "both are equal". they are different. a dolt would be able to say so. for starters, no 2 human being are the same.
fact b)
voting for someone will make your vote go to waste. a candidate who can win the election, is what matters. if there were 3, fine. but there are 2 now. you have to choose from among viable options, and you gotta choose the best. for any confusion at this point, refer to fact a.
fact c)
'we are all doomed' is surrendering right at the start. you cant have zit with that attitude. you have to go an inch, even if its the furthest you can go.
it is clear.
it is clear that she corresponded with people using government email addresses by using her private email address.
heavens and all gods conceived prior to date may bless anyone participated in this. and curses on any piece of shit who tries to cover the shit that was within it.
you dolt.
what you said basically means 'richard nixon had the right to withhold the tapes he was recording from watergate scandal investigators - because they were a private affair'.
its stupidity at its best.
this woman purposefully used a private email in order to avoid investigation of her conduct while doing government business - PEOPLE'S RIGHTS. constituents.
apparently she doesnt recognize constituent rights or anything - her rights are what matters, not theirs. she thinks she can wantonly ignore laws if it suits her.
there can be no privacy or rights in doing this.
you owe your ass to them. they have shown you the potential vp (hell, even presidential) candidate of your country wantonly ignores law while conducting government business - YOUR business.
you owe infinite amounts of ass to them for saving your sorry single ass from living under such a shameless power abuser for the next 4 years.
taking a stand != idiocy or impragmatism.
noone is asking you not to take a stand. take your stand, but also be a pragmatist.
because your actions are going to determine your next 4 years. its either worse, or better of the worse, even IF the better of the worse actually deserved that title.
http://www.php.net/
you are aware as well as i that no other candidate has ANY chance of winning this election than those 2 major party candidates.
stop living in dream world.
as of this moment you should be getting concerned about how your candidate wantonly tries to evade the rule of law, and violate your rights.
but morons like you deserve such candidates though.
i dont get whether you are living in a parallel reality in which you have more choices or something.
...
you have 2 choices : obama. or mccain.
any sane individual chooses the better of available choices when offered.
unless you have the means to transfer a green martian to be president and magically set things straight that is
a guy served 30 years in senate, and as head of one of the most busy, most stress inducing commissions. that surely has to be a total waste.
....
he should have sit and got fat like mccain instead.
holy mother of god
all secret services are as of now controlled by neocon shit that belongs to republican party. has been so since 2001.
wired confirmed that mccain campaign confirmed the hacking, and one of mail senders confirmed it was one of her emails in there :
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/09/group-posts-e-m.html
our summary still says there is no way to confirm ingenuity of the wikileaks material - you dont need to - mccain campaign confirmed it.
For, then you would have used your personal email to ESCAPE PUBLIC OVERSIGHT and violate citizen's rights to information and public scrutiny of your actions.
excuse me, but personal miseries or privacy or psychology doesnt mean shit, if you are trying to undo people who you are sworn to serve. anyone who does that, should be made feel miserable.
but now we do.
the behaviour that cant be condoned is palin using her private email to DODGE THE RULE OF LAW to conduct government business like she was shopping.
that woman may become the president of u.s., god forbid. the damage that she may cause is the concern of every citizen on the face of this earth.
excuse me, but she lost her privacy rights on that account right at the moment she sent the first government related email, or replied to a government related email.
the fact that we weren't in the know in regard to her violation of law, her illegal act before the hacking, doesnt make her any more right about the matter. a crime is being committed, you just dont have proof.
its like someone filming a gang operation and publishing it, and then gang coming up and claiming that their privacy rights were violated.
federal authorities should be seeking the bavarian fascist that initiated the program.
they said 40 years ago, but noone invested. first, they were too cozy in the oil setup for now, second, oil interests, naturally, didnt want it.
today we have to.
5 years is a whop-ass time. if resources are diverted to renewable energy, immense progress can be made in the course of 5 years, and results would be much more plausible than sticking with oil.
it was just an example.
sucks to be them.
you think that businessmen, travelers will still maintain u.s. as a destination of choice, if this shit of a practice stays the same ? hell, or even just stays though changed ?
there are heaploads of countries in the world to travel to and do business with.
or should i use the delorean to go back to when article was posted ?