Things like this don't happen in the land of the free, ...

freetown fred wrote:Such a decent discussion before the fanaticism--bound to happen I suppose

Is that not what was being discussed?

Whether of not the government can and should record all electronic communication?

Where have I taken the conversation/

Or is it that you realize how foolish your position is and would rather passively-aggressively attack me?

lsayre wrote:

Northern Maine wrote:So...it's okay for someone to say they would like to kill a POTUS (or any person for that matter) with an explanation on how they would like to do so and not get LOOKED at and plausibly get thrown in jail!

Absolutely not! The introduction of such a suggestion itself in response to this thread is highly out of line. But it must be considered moral to defend ones self and ones rational self interests (family, home, property, friends, etc...). And ones self(ish) interests such as those I just listed can be offended in more ways than just through brute force. Such as via spying on ones personal conversations for instance.

Not a suggestion...an extreme example....and if those personal conversations that one might have is in violation of the interests you mentioned then they should be stopped before they are acted upon!

Northern Maine wrote:If a person is not breaking the law what does it matter!

The issue becomes abuse of the law. The more power you give law enforcement the more likely that power will be abused. There is also the slippery slope argument, if you have nothing to hide then certainly you wouldn't be concerned about these companies not only storing your data but law enforcement having instant access to it either? You have nothing to hide right?

Having said that these companies already most likely storing these messages and frankly I'd be more concerned about what they are using it for.

Richard S. wrote:
Having said that these companies already most likely storing these messages and frankly I'd be more concerned about what they are using it for.

Not "most likely", they "are".

http://www.wired.com/science/discoverie ... 6/05/70908

Former AT&T technician Mark Klein is the key witness in the Electronic Frontier Foundation's class-action lawsuit against the company, which alleges that AT&T illegally cooperated in an illegal National Security Agency domestic-surveillance program.

For its part, AT&T is asking a federal judge to keep those documents out of court, and to order the EFF to return them to the company. Here Wired News presents Klein's statement in its entirety, along with select pages from the AT&T documents.

But Richard, it's public. Enter at your own risk. And yes, they do whatever they want with it & that's sad.

lsayre wrote:

jpete wrote:OK. So you don't mind having all your communications recorded by the government.

Let's take it a step further. Some criminals have GPS monitoring bracelets. It would be helpful in stopping crime if we ALL had them.

Some day we will, and most will openly welcome it. The V-Chip comes to mind here.

It's not fanaticism, but rather it's just a logical progression from point A (where we are now) to point B (where we will be if we continue down this path).

Glad someone gets it.. and it starting in the schools...


“Regimes in the past have always started with the schools, where they develop a compliant citizenry,” Whitehead continued. “These ‘Student Locator’ programs are ultimately aimed at getting students used to living in a total surveillance state where there will be no privacy, and wherever you go and whatever you text or email will be watched by the government.”

http://thenextweb.com/insider/2012/11/2 ... in-school/

If that were even suggested up here, these schools would be empty of students.

freetown fred wrote:If that were even suggested up here, these schools would be empty of students.

Where would they go? Everybody in private school? Could they handle the influx? Could the parents afford it?

New York doesn't make it easy to home school.

http://www.nyhen.org/regs.htm

freetown fred wrote:If that were even suggested up here, these schools would be empty of students.

Glad to hear that, it will come to you last.

Ya do what ya gotta do no matter what where your kids are concerned. That simple! At least that's the way it works in this area.

freetown fred wrote:Ya do what ya gotta do no matter what where your kids are concerned. That simple! At least that's the way it works in this area.

What if "the law" says they are supposed to be in school? I thought "the law" was supreme? Doesn't "the law" dictate our lives?

Be careful Fred, I hear a tone of "fanaticism" in your post.

jpete wrote:

freetown fred wrote:Ya do what ya gotta do no matter what where your kids are concerned. That simple! At least that's the way it works in this area.

What if "the law" says they are supposed to be in school? I thought "the law" was supreme? Doesn't "the law" dictate our lives?

Be careful Fred, I hear a tone of "fanaticism" in your post.

Yes the law does dictate our lives. we are a nation of laws.

grumpy wrote:

jpete wrote:

freetown fred wrote:Ya do what ya gotta do no matter what where your kids are concerned. That simple! At least that's the way it works in this area.

What if "the law" says they are supposed to be in school? I thought "the law" was supreme? Doesn't "the law" dictate our lives?

Be careful Fred, I hear a tone of "fanaticism" in your post.

Yes the law does dictate our lives. we are a nation of laws.

So how does that square with Fred's contention that you "do what you have to do when it comes to your children"?

I am familiar with someone who home school's their children. They submitted all the required paper work but the state asked for additional information which was not provided as it was not required by law.

So what is a person to do when the truant officer shows up threatening to get Childrens Services to remove ALL the children from the home?

Are we a "nation of laws" or do we "do what we have to do"?

Who wins when the laws conflict with what you know is right?

No, most fanaticism is based on negative projection. If it were to come to that, I guess our local Justice's would be busy people and we would see where the law of the land exactly lies. If it couldn't be dealt with local, I guess we'd go where ever we needed to, to get it settled.