U.S. Wants to Make It Easier to Wiretap the Internet

lemmings

Veteran
Nov 5, 2006
2,587
132
California
✟18,469.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Democrats where more than a little outraged when Bush passed the PATRIOT Act that essentially set the standard for privacy issues. The progressives have had more than a few problems getting equally outraged by simulator legislation passed by Democratic Administrations like the DMCA passed by Clinton or the continuation and sometimes extension of Bush's civil rights violations by Obama.

Rather embarrassing and disheartening to say the least.
 
Upvote 0

lawtonfogle

My solace my terror, my terror my solace.
Apr 20, 2005
11,585
350
35
✟13,892.00
Faith
Christian
They would have to make it illegal to produce programs that encrypt a message on one computer transmits it, and then decrypts it on another computer without giving the government the key (a communication which would destroy the security of the encryption). Basically, it would push the internet literate further into the zone of illegal.

To do the following would destroy the purpose of encryption to begin with.
¶ Communications services that encrypt messages must have a way to unscramble them.
 
Upvote 0

Billnew

Legend
Apr 23, 2004
21,246
1,234
58
Ohio
Visit site
✟35,363.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
CA-Conservatives
The goverment wants programers to put in place a system that the "goverment" could open files that the people wanted to keep secret?
The goverment that has trouble keeping military secrets?

They would have to make it illegal to produce programs that encrypt a message on one computer transmits it, and then decrypts it on another computer without giving the government the key (a communication which would destroy the security of the encryption). Basically, it would push the internet literate further into the zone of illegal.

To do the following would destroy the purpose of encryption to begin with.
Exactly.
If anyone can break the encryption, then why buy it?

Has there ever been technology that goverment has demanded changes to allow them to exploit the invention?

basically, if goverment gets the answer, then anyone can get the answer.
(hint; the goverment is a group of people. the more people that can get this information, the more chance it will be sold or exploited for personal gain.)
 
Upvote 0
P

Protocol11

Guest
I think now would be a good time to laugh in the face of anyone who actually thought the dems cared about individual liberty on any scale.

I was listening to a local talk show with this the topic. Some guy actually called in and said the government should have the right to listen in on any conversation or communication without even having to get a warrant first. All because of, "the times we live in."

Said it before, and I'll say it again. This over-intrusive government we have coupled with the useful idiots they buy into the lies of the politicians are a far, far greater threat to this country than any terrorist group.
 
Upvote 0

KIYX

Junior Member
Jul 18, 2010
1,611
174
✟9,824.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
Democrats where more than a little outraged when Bush passed the PATRIOT Act that essentially set the standard for privacy issues. The progressives have had more than a few problems getting equally outraged by simulator legislation passed by Democratic Administrations like the DMCA passed by Clinton or the continuation and sometimes extension of Bush's civil rights violations by Obama.

Rather embarrassing and disheartening to say the least.

The democrats outrage over the Patriot Act was just for show as their renewing it last year showed.
 
Upvote 0

SithDoughnut

The Agnostic, Ignostic, Apatheistic Atheist
Jan 2, 2010
9,118
306
The Death Starbucks
✟18,474.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

-Benjamin Franklin

Yeah, like those crazy people who want to keep murder illegal.
 
Upvote 0
N

Nathan45

Guest
I think now would be a good time to laugh in the face of anyone who actually thought the dems cared about individual liberty on any scale.

I was listening to a local talk show with this the topic. Some guy actually called in and said the government should have the right to listen in on any conversation or communication without even having to get a warrant first. All because of, "the times we live in."

Said it before, and I'll say it again. This over-intrusive government we have coupled with the useful idiots they buy into the lies of the politicians are a far, far greater threat to this country than any terrorist group.

I am so damned angry at Obama right now. Constitutional scholar, my ass... He basically lied non-stop about civil liberties during the campaign. The worst part is that there's basically no alternative, republicans don't even pretend to care about civil liberties. So even in 2012 when Obama is up for re-election there will most likely be no alternative unless some kind of third party gets traction.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
N

Nathan45

Guest
Yeah, like those crazy people who want to keep murder illegal.

I don't think that the right to murder is an essential liberty, and i don't think Ben Franklin thinks it is either.

The right to privacy is essential, IMO, because if you don't have it then you're often vulnerable to blackmail by whoever is spying on you. With unlimited powers of spying, the powers that be could selectively enforce laws only against their political opponents and use blackmail to accumulate power and influence, which is a threat to democracy.

P.S.: Is Ben Franklin not popular in Britain? I hope you're not taking that whole american revolution thing too personally :p
 
Upvote 0

SithDoughnut

The Agnostic, Ignostic, Apatheistic Atheist
Jan 2, 2010
9,118
306
The Death Starbucks
✟18,474.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
You consider murder to be an essential liberty?

Wow.

Ok.

Deciding what it and isn't an 'essential' liberty is just a subjective and arbitrary decision. For someone who wants to kill someone, it probably is essential. It could also be argued that internet privacy isn't essential, as you're not forced to use it; you volunteer your information. I'm against the idea of wiretapping the internet but that quote is more sound bite than substance.
 
Upvote 0

Billnew

Legend
Apr 23, 2004
21,246
1,234
58
Ohio
Visit site
✟35,363.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
CA-Conservatives
I think now would be a good time to laugh in the face of anyone who actually thought the dems cared about individual liberty on any scale.

I was listening to a local talk show with this the topic. Some guy actually called in and said the government should have the right to listen in on any conversation or communication without even having to get a warrant first. All because of, "the times we live in."

Said it before, and I'll say it again. This over-intrusive government we have coupled with the useful idiots they buy into the lies of the politicians are a far, far greater threat to this country than any terrorist group.
Sadly, these people are not limited to either main political group.
There are left wingers and right wingers that believe this.
No matter which side of politics your on, as we have seen, both sides can
go crazy. Better to not trust goverment with to much personal stuff.

Sarcasm alert.
Remember, we should allow goverment to listen in, and be able to read our most secret files, we do it to make our police more efficient and to protect our children. You don't want our police to be obstructed or our children to be harmed do you? What kind of person are you?
 
Upvote 0

ACougar

U.S. Army Retired
Feb 7, 2003
16,795
1,295
Arizona
Visit site
✟30,452.00
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
The reality is that there are groups of people in both parties who go for this sort of thing and groups of people in both parties who oppose this sort of thing. The ACLU is fighting it... or did they fail to talk about that on Faux news?

Without a warrant government should not have the right to spy on anyone. There has to be oversight for this kind of authority, to at least reduce the odds of it being abused.

What someone needs to do is develope a simple publicly available network encryptor that implements an unclassified Suite B algorythim like AES-256 and then sell it cheap. People will no longer need to rely on a service, they will be able to encrypt thier own traffic... there is no reason the same device couldn't also be used to protect data at rest on your computer.


I think now would be a good time to laugh in the face of anyone who actually thought the dems cared about individual liberty on any scale.

I was listening to a local talk show with this the topic. Some guy actually called in and said the government should have the right to listen in on any conversation or communication without even having to get a warrant first. All because of, "the times we live in."

Said it before, and I'll say it again. This over-intrusive government we have coupled with the useful idiots they buy into the lies of the politicians are a far, far greater threat to this country than any terrorist group.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

KIYX

Junior Member
Jul 18, 2010
1,611
174
✟9,824.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
Isn't it strange how it was a Republican President and a Republican Congress who passed the PATRIOT Act and we had all those wire-taps without a warrant with?

I bet you find it just as strange that the democrats who raised such hell about the Patriot Act for the past 8 years, now that they have a Democratic president and democratic congress voted to renew the PATRIOT Act.

I don't.
 
Upvote 0