Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by IJ Reilly, Jun 2, 2006.
Oh and where are all the conservatives who like to gripe about forcing businesses to spend money via the regulatory process?
Even ignoring the gross invasion of privacy this entails, won't this require massive upgrades in data strorage and retrieval systems? Who's going to pay for it?
"Oh but this is different" they'll say. "This unfunded mandate is WORTH mandating."
Three guesses, and the first two don't count.
I'm also a little concerned about how useful this information will be in preventing crimes. Sure it'll help after the fact when you know who's accounts to go poking through, but when you're trying to prevent terrorism and child molestation from occuring, how does having two years of records help? Is the government proposing to do real-time analysis of these records? I didn't see anything about that.
No, and you won't. In fact, this story never appeared. Understood?
This is just a massive fishing expedition, just like the NSA wiretaps.
As I recall, both my senators voted to confirm Alberto "What Constitution?" Gonzalez, and I won't be voting for either of them next time around.
soooo... what about gun purchase records?
Well that's different. Everyone knows that every single person who buys a gun is only going to use it for legal and safe ways. Unlike the internet. Or the phone.
Maybe that's what it is. If you're on the phone or the net, you should have nothing to hide. Apparently gun owners have something to hide.
From StratFor (Strategic Forecast, Inc.), just today:
"The Internet seems to be an important factor that is fostering the emergence of such a loose, but cohesive, structure. Of course, personal relationships are still important. In the case in question, Sadequee -- who lived in Canada before moving to the United States -- is the pivotal figure. He and Ahmed -- who are charged with having videotaped potential targets in the Washington, D.C., area -- are said to have met during 2005 with men he knew from his time in Canada, and three of those men were among the 17 rounded up last week. But the Internet is a great facilitator of communications as well. Since 9/11, chatrooms and Web sites have experienced a surge in popularity among jihadists. They provide a great forum for like-minded people to connect. Indeed, technology is not necessarily verboten for the current generation of jihadists, Islamist principles notwithstanding; another of the suspects connected to the Canada case is a computer hacker and "cyberwarrior" from Britain, Younis Tsouli, who goes by the handle "Irhabi007.
Significantly, the Internet can be an Achilles' heel for jihadist networks. It gives authorities a way of identifying people who may have become radicalized and a means to monitor their behavior -- both virtual and physical -- and communications. Authorities also can establish and nurture relationships with suspected militants online, much as they frequently impersonate children on the Internet in efforts to catch pedophiles."
So, yeah, it's invasive. However, it's not merely snooping for the sake of snooping; there is a reason.
Then they shouldn't have any problem getting a warrant.
solvs, no argument. There isn't the issue with physical availability of time with the Internet that there is with the phone calls. Stuff on a website is pretty much there forever.
This snoop-stuff is everywhere. I bought a truck from a dealer, early last year. First time I'd seen a specific form which required my SS #. That means--in my opinion--that the Guvmint is potentially aiding and abetting identity theft, since I don't think that each and every car dealer's folks are absolute in purity.
I closed, yesterday, on some land that I sold. Had to make a Xerox copy of my driver's license. Had to provide my SS #. The notary's bona fides were on another sheet of paper. Other new forms I'd not seen in previous years' land deals.
But somehow I don't feel safer...