If you didn't catch this, read Kim's take on it


PDA






oneslowgun
June 21, 2005, 04:49 AM
http://www.kimdutoit.com/ee/index.php/rant/single/extended_use/

Here is the original article on CNet....
http://news.com.com/Your+ISP+as+Net+watchdog/2100-1028_3-5748649.html?tag=nefd.lede

When the "It's for the children" card is played, do you doubt THR and many others will not be included?

If you enjoyed reading about "If you didn't catch this, read Kim's take on it" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
artherd
June 21, 2005, 06:02 AM
Well, I run a hosting company. And I won't be doing anything of the kind. They can supeona me, and guess what, might be a good time for a fire in the backup tapes room the day before. Oops.

This smacks of 1930s Germany.

Art Eatman
June 21, 2005, 09:58 AM
"...if an Internet provider were to retain all traffic data, the database would swell to a size of 20,000 to 40,000 terabytes--too large to search using existing technology."

Never underestimate the power of a bureaucrat or an electee to ignore reality...

Art

Third_Rail
June 21, 2005, 10:10 AM
That'd be fun. Imagine being the guy to have to sift through all of that to find a single offense?


Sounds ok (from the gov's point of view) on paper, but in practice it'll never work - the rate at which information is being exchanged is simply increasing too quickly for them to ever play catch up.

armoredman
June 21, 2005, 10:49 AM
How many off shore providers/sites/etc? How does .gov track everyone, or do they finally realize they DON'T control the world?

taliv
June 21, 2005, 11:21 AM
"...if an Internet provider were to retain all traffic data, the database would swell to a size of 20,000 to 40,000 terabytes--too large to search using existing technology."

i beg to differ...


©2005 Google - Searching 8,058,044,651 web pages


if an internet startup can search 8 billion documents and return the the results in under a second from halfway across the planet. i see no reason why the gov couldn't index 40,000 terabytes of data.

2nd Amendment
June 21, 2005, 11:25 AM
Well, we keep absolutely zero records here and we aren't going to start, under any circumstances, so they can whine all they want...

ravinraven
June 21, 2005, 12:00 PM
Isn't this snooping called "phishing?" Anyway, no matter if it is or not, It seems that the net should be totally jammed with trash messages to keep the bastids busy!

I've also heard that there is a "keystroke reader" program that record your key strokes and sed it on to the feds. This is bad because it can read encrypted messages before the encoding program gets to it. This technology is supposedly not yet in use, but who knows. Where's my damn tinfoil hat!?

A part of any computer usage course should include the many ways snoopers have of finding out what you're doing and possible ways of stopping the snooping. Of course, thinking of this makes me a facist, turban wearing, redneck militia shootist ped-o-phile from the far left/right wing.

There must be a country song in there somewhere.

rr

Skunkabilly
June 21, 2005, 12:06 PM
Of course, thinking of this makes me a facist, turban wearing, redneck militia shootist ped-o-phile from the far left/right wing.

There must be a country song in there somewhere.

Will a cross between Toby Keith's 'Courtesy of the Red White and Blue' and 'Taliban Song' be good enough?

R.H. Lee
June 21, 2005, 12:16 PM
“We were told, ‘You’re going to have to start thinking about data retention if you don’t want people to think you’re soft on child porn.’ “
This is the so-called Department of 'Justice' speaking???? The government? Sounds more like the mafia to me. :mad:

Telperion
June 21, 2005, 12:25 PM
Now one wonders when image classification technology will advance to the point the DOJ wants every digital camera to tag and report suspect images... for the children, after all.

longeyes
June 21, 2005, 12:49 PM
"It's for the children."

~The Pied Piper

Zundfolge
June 21, 2005, 12:53 PM
Well, I run a hosting company. And I won't be doing anything of the kind. They can supeona me, and guess what, might be a good time for a fire in the backup tapes room the day before. Oops.

Well whatever you do, don't put the ashes in a coffee can. :evil:


Its stuff like this that is helping to get America out of Claire Wolfe's "Awkward Stage". :fire:

R.H. Lee
June 21, 2005, 02:11 PM
This is the kind of abuse that will not only continue, but increase as government continues its relentless pursuit of control over the minutia of the lives of Americans. It is misguided policy, based on a legislative ‘solution’ for ‘security’ and is indicative of the contempt the Bush administration has for the Constitution and the founding principles of this country. It sets a precedent for future statist administrations (think Democrats) to engage in all sorts of tyrannical behavior. This policy coupled with the FBI’s desire to issue ‘administrative’ warrants could easily result in ‘no-knock’ warrants on private residences that are little more than fishing expeditions looking for some violation of any of the myriad of ‘laws’. At least, that will be the cover story. The real intent will be to strong arm suspected enemies of the state, and will be expanded to include gunowners, libertarians, dissidents of any kind, etc. Private property will be confiscated as ‘evidence’ for the ‘investigation’. The subjects will be smeared with unproven accusations of child porn, terrorist ties, you name it.

The War on Terror will become the War on Liberty, as American citizens become the target of an increasing central bureaucracy intent on absolute control. IF George Bush were REALLY interested in combating terrorism, he would first secure the borders. DHS would do some real investigative police work, find and deport persons illegally in this country, rather than intrude on the lives of U.S. citizens.

The ‘prosecution’ of the war in Iraq proves this administration is not interested in combating terrorism. U.S. military personnel are being tried for violating the ‘rules of engagement’ in Iraq while ‘enemy combatants’ continue to kill and maim our armed forces on a daily basis-with no end in sight. Instead of bringing overwhelming force against the enemy, this administration continues a back-and-forth policy of playing footsie with tribal warriors who have no compunction about killing not only men, but innocent women and children as well. They will saw off your head with a rusty knife, for no reason other than you are American or Jewish.

Apparently, George Bush is not a student of history. He does not understand that in order to have peace, you must first have victory. In order to have victory, you must crush your enemy with overwhelming force and lay waste to his land, leaving him nothing. Saddam was able to control Iraq, yet George Bush, supposedly the most powerful man in the world cannot.

The defense cited in the article against this government intrusion only asserts that compliance will be ‘burdensome’, as if it’s ok as long as it isn’t burdensome. How about ‘its none of your business, the server is private property, get a warrant from a judge if you think you have probable cause’. I guess nobody wants to piss off big brother, less they be accused of [insert favorite criminal behavior here].

Henry Bowman
June 21, 2005, 02:30 PM
Apparently, George Bush is not a student of history. He does not understand that in order to have peace, you must first have victory. In order to have victory, you must crush your enemy with overwhelming force and lay waste to his land, leaving him nothing. Saddam was able to control Iraq, yet George Bush, supposedly the most powerful man in the world cannot. The average American of the 21st Century, led by the main stream media, does not have the will or stamina for a victory. We won't let him win.

At the same time, America has an insatiable appetite for the feeling of security. as I've said before, the price of freedom is as high as ever, but its perceived value is at an all time low.

robb969
June 21, 2005, 03:39 PM
You know, Riley, you're awfully gliob with the "Bush This" and "Bush That," But you're completely full of it if you don't realize AND say that this is a problem from BOTH major parties. Neither has our privacy as a major interest, and NEITHER will do squat to insure the Constitutionality of the governments actions. So quit pointing that finger only one direction, it's dishonest to everyone here, including yourself.

R.H. Lee
June 21, 2005, 04:15 PM
You're exactly right, Robb. However, George W. Bush is the occupant of the Whitehouse and has the opportunity and the power to act in the interests of the American people. He didn't run as a Democrat, why is he acting like one?

You vote for one, you get the other, you vote for the other, and you get the same. Hard to tell the difference.

ravinraven
June 21, 2005, 05:50 PM
'...and is indicative of the contempt the Bush administration has for the Constitution and the founding principles of this country.'

So. When Hitlary gets in, her day one activity will be to give all our rights back to us. Can hardly wait.

rr

sumpnz
June 21, 2005, 07:06 PM
So. When Hitlary gets in, her day one activity will be to give all our rights back to us. Can hardly wait. Fortunately America isn't dumb enough to elect that Hillary creature.

artherd
June 21, 2005, 10:57 PM
If any of you think the repubs/dems actually have it in for each other, and are instead NOT a manifistation made up by our de-facto ruling elite to keep the masses confused, scared, and voting for either one all the time, then you have had your head in the sand for the last 200 years.

Our founders understood that POWER corrupts MEN of all sorts. That is why power was delegated 3 seperate ways, and then left ultimately in the hands of the people in codified law. Checks and balances.

Destroy the check, and you have a big big problem with balance.

lunaslide
June 21, 2005, 11:26 PM
'...and is indicative of the contempt the Bush administration has for the Constitution and the founding principles of this country.'

So. When Hitlary gets in, her day one activity will be to give all our rights back to us. Can hardly wait.

You're really not getting it, are ya. All these people, despite all of the public bickering, namecalling, overblown rhetoric and nonsense, all know each other. They go to the same parties, the same events. They eat lunch and talk on the phone. They are the political class. Their overriding interest, over all else, is staying in power and staying a part of the club. They will pander to and placate the lowest common denominator of society to stay where they are and enjoy those privilages.

This week, it might be the Republicans in power and they are pushing the stuff that they are interested in. Sure, they get taxes repealed, bolster the defense, etc. But do they ever really roll back the infringments on civil liberties made by the Democrats during their time in office? No. They haven't done a damn thing to repeal gun laws or protect the border. Instead they are focusing on their own infringments upon our rights and our livlihood. Have they done anything to scale back the massive welfare programs the Democrats have been building into institutions for years? No. They just shuffle things around, talk about new ways to fund them and play the shell game. The Democrats are the same way. Whatever civil rights the Republicans have infringed upon while they were in office tend to stay there forever. The so called "rights" they try to protect while in office aren't any such thing, they are entitlements like welfare programs, affirmative action, housing subsidies, etc. The free speech restrictions already in place stay there. So do the invasions of privacy. By pandering to the fat and fearful public by offering more security and protections from "hate", they take each one of our rights one by one and we let them do it, because we are too unwilling to throw the whole lot of them out.

Republicans, Democrats, they all have a vested interest in keeping the status quo and in maintaining government power over the people. In defending one side over the other by claiming that the other side is worse, we delude ourselves into believing that there is really a difference between them.

I don't know when the "akward stage" will end, but I can tell you one thing about what will come after: it will be horrible beyond our comprehension. If you thought the first civil war was bad, the coming one will be nothing short of a living nightmare.

2nd Amendment
June 21, 2005, 11:30 PM
I am lunaslide's newest fan. I've been saying this for years, right down to that view of what the next revolution will be like. But nobody listens. At least I'll have someone to sit in the corner with and mumble to now. :banghead:

Zundfolge
June 21, 2005, 11:51 PM
If you 3rd party folk are right then we're screwed and the only solution is to kill every last member of The Congress, The Senate, The White House Staff and every public official in the City of Washington DC down to the meter maids.

If change cannot be made within the Republican and/or Democrat parties then the changes cannot be made.


More and more I believe the absolute last chance for this country is Republican Liberty Caucus (www.rlc.org/) because the so-called 3rd parties just aren't capable of doing anything but dividing the majority and giving the left more victories.

beerslurpy
June 22, 2005, 12:03 AM
My only worry about any upcoming civil war is who will be on what side.

While the original Civil War is often talked about "pitting brother against brother" the lines were fairly clear geographical ones. If you lived in Georgia, you knew which side you were on. If a civil war were to break out tomorrow, which side would a libertarian like myself be on? Would my enemies be over 1000 miles away in DC? Would they be down the street in the sheriff's office? Would they be 50 miles away in Tampa or 300 miles away in Talahassee? Where would my allies be?

All the tyranny in the world isnt having a day to day effect on the lives of most citizens like the Draft did in the 60s. No one is hurting, so no one is angry. I've personally never had any dealings with the feds and they certainly havent kicked my door in. I just dont feel particularly oppressed right now.

I guess I personally expect any "civil war" type deal to be a very "low intensity" conflict in that violence will be intermittent and rarely involve head-to-head fighting. It will probably be a lot like a certain insurgency we are fighting in a certain sandy place. I'm not really looking forward to being in the country when that happens. Being blown up sucks, I hear.

beerslurpy
June 22, 2005, 12:22 AM
I dont agree with many of the republican liberty caucus' ratings. While I agree that uber-gungrabber Bill Nelson (Nazi-FL) is a turd, I am not really sure Republican Gun Grabber George Allen deserves the tag "libertarian."

The list is heavily slanted to paint Democrats as "authoritarian" and Republicans as "libertarian" whenever possible. It is basically a net to catch libertarians and keep them in the republican fold. Which isnt bad, but they have to walk the walk too.

2nd Amendment
June 22, 2005, 12:23 AM
While the original Civil War is often talked about "pitting brother against brother" the lines were fairly clear geographical ones. If you lived in Georgia, you knew which side you were on. If a civil war were to break out tomorrow, which side would a libertarian like myself be on? Would my enemies be over 1000 miles away in DC? Would they be down the street in the sheriff's office? Would they be 50 miles away in Tampa or 300 miles away in Talahassee? Where would my allies be?

You just defined the problem. It's a problem that has no resolution unless strong leaders rise up that people who support freedom and don't care about party labels or political "agendas" can rally behind. Our Founders were these kind of people and they drew the support of a motley but highly effective crew.

Sadly I don't see anyone who meets the criteria today and, if such ARE out there, how would they get the attention needed and how would they last long enough before the government shut them down?

beerslurpy
June 22, 2005, 01:59 AM
Leaders dont create causes, they only bring people out of the woodwork. There needs to be a cause and some sort of widely perceived triggering event for a leader to have anythign to work with. Something wakes everyone up and the leader is merely the first guy who charges in the direction everyone wants to go and yells "follow me!" Remember that most people are sheep.

Like how Pearl Harbor suddenly brought everyone into the pro-War camp in WWII, or how the AWB mobilized gun owners in the 90s or how My Lai and Kent State mainstreamed the anti-war movement in the 60s. We need something that shocks a significant portion of the public into a realization that the statism genie needs to get stuffed back in the bottle. What form will it take? What straw will break the camel's back? I cant predict it.

I also think too much of america still gets its information from the broadcast media, which filters out nearly all of the libertarian leaning ideas and movements. With the size of the US today and nearly 100 million US gun owners, you would expect THR and similar sites to have at least a few million members. I get the impression that it is still a small fraction of a percent of people who might enjoy participating in this site. Still, this is going to continue to tilt in our favor as time goes on. More and more people are getting online.

Would something like the Boston Tea Party be possible today? Would it be called terrorism? How would people on this board react?

Really? How did people here react to Oklahoma City?

2nd Amendment
June 22, 2005, 02:05 AM
The MSM will immediately characterize any kind of uprising, regardless of what it is a reaction to, as "terrorism" and the government will have the full support of most people in quelling it any way they can. That's one reason why I asked how any leadership could establish itself.

However, I think we're already primed to a large degree. While leadership doesn't create issues it can serve as a lightning rod if sufficient issues already exist. Since I think the propaganda machine would wreck any single event through misrepresentation I'll stick with believing we need some clear leadership first, since I believe the issues are there. It just won't have an opportunity to crystalize afterward. Things happen to fast in this day and age.

Strings
June 22, 2005, 02:44 AM
Sorry guys, but I only see ONE way any "revolution" or "civil war" could get off the ground. And that's if the government gets WAY too cocky, pulling things lilke Waco and Ruby Ridge in a regular and widespread basis. And I'm talking one a week, somewhere in the States...

Short of that, no uprising will happen. People just don't care enough...

beerslurpy
June 22, 2005, 02:54 AM
So far they have shown great skill at riding the tiger. My impression right now is that dissatisfaction from the masses bubbles up fairly quickly to the establishment and while it may often be ignored, I dont get the impression that they are doing things that will cause large sections of the public to become very agitated.

It is unlikely either party will intentionally do anything to foment a mild voter revolt let alone a revolt involving shooting, bombing and hanging.

ravinraven
June 22, 2005, 04:38 AM
Artherd and Lunaslide: You seem to be saying what I've been saying to myself for years. I get blank stares when I mention such things to all but a few others. The Dem/Rep thing is like a football game. No matter how the game comes out, the teams only get better at what they do. {rape us}

I don't think the situation can be saved from inside itself anymore than the colonies could have voted England out of here back in the begining. Power only bows to greater power as we've demonstrated in the sands of Iraq.

The only chance I can see of getting the ship of state back on course is thru a "nudge" here and there that doesn't wreck the ship, but does eliminate some force that is trying to steer it into the boonies. How do the "nudges" get done? That gets into THR disapproved suggestions. It will not be done without violence at least of a "surgical" kind. We want to fix what is wrong while strengthening what is good about this old "ship."

Unfortunately, shockingly, blood is the currency of politics. Nothing meaningful will get done without the exchange of that currency, methinks. And meshudders as methinks.

rr

lunaslide
June 22, 2005, 04:42 AM
It will happen one day when no one expects it, probably in the aftermath of a terrorist attack. We have been lucky these past years since 9/11, but we would be naive to believe that it will not happen again. When it does, it will be on a larger scale than 9/11, but probably not as instantanously dramatic. A dirty bomb or a smallpox outbreak or some similar occurance; martial law will be declared until the situation is "stabilized", but it never will be. Think of it like an "Outbreak" scenario, only the disease will not be the fast acting Ebola type, but a lingering viral or radiological infection of the area. Some people will be quarantined and never released, considered casualties of the outbreak. Civil unrest breaks out after a short time, followed by government agents with guns. The unrest will spread. FEMA suspends constitutional law, etc. That is how it will begin.

If you enjoyed reading about "If you didn't catch this, read Kim's take on it" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!