Since the law only applies to large companies, don't you think that drug dealers, terrorists, etc. will just opt for small companies....or companies located outside US jurisdiction (news flash: the web is global).
- Status
[citation][nom]bejabbers[/nom]there's a major problem here... what about all the people who use these sites who are not american? Why should another country's citizens have their privacy violated as well. The world is going to hell in a hand-basket, and it's both sides that are taking us there.[/citation]
Most of FB and Tweeter servers and data are located in the US so US laws apply, unless servers are outside of the US. On the other hand Skype is completely different thing but in that case M$ will just adjust EULA to cower it, same as EA Origin EULA covers anti piracy scaning of your pc.
Most of FB and Tweeter servers and data are located in the US so US laws apply, unless servers are outside of the US. On the other hand Skype is completely different thing but in that case M$ will just adjust EULA to cower it, same as EA Origin EULA covers anti piracy scaning of your pc.
why does the FBI need them to interject new codeing when there is a backdoor already for the NSA? So cant the FBI ask congress for permission to be able to ask the NSA to use the backdoor to check on people who are thought to be criminals?
Is that thinking to logically though as nothing in politics makes any logical sense other wise we would have either a totally sociallist state already with the real form of the Health care bill which the replicans propused in the early 1990's but then opposed and changed in the 2000's or we would have a true capulist system in which we do not give big subisties to instrusies which then turn around make big profits and still charge a arm an a leg for everything.
You also have the thing of arnt all the branches of goverment asuppose to talk to one another and be able to give cases from one branch to another so it is where the case can be solved most effectively thus having the FBI have this "power" over the social media on the web though the NSA already does why not change how the cases are givin out to each of them so the cases which require the power to "wiretap" the internet in this way will be givin to the NSA and the ones which are not will be givin to the FBI
Is that thinking to logically though as nothing in politics makes any logical sense other wise we would have either a totally sociallist state already with the real form of the Health care bill which the replicans propused in the early 1990's but then opposed and changed in the 2000's or we would have a true capulist system in which we do not give big subisties to instrusies which then turn around make big profits and still charge a arm an a leg for everything.
You also have the thing of arnt all the branches of goverment asuppose to talk to one another and be able to give cases from one branch to another so it is where the case can be solved most effectively thus having the FBI have this "power" over the social media on the web though the NSA already does why not change how the cases are givin out to each of them so the cases which require the power to "wiretap" the internet in this way will be givin to the NSA and the ones which are not will be givin to the FBI
[citation][nom]darnrll[/nom]Without an approval by the White House -- which was expected to arrive last year -- the bill will likely not be passed into law[/citation]
Obama; lame duck president... "Where do I sign?"
Romney; 4 years to backpedal... "Didn't I pass this already? Oh. That was for Massachusetts."
Obama; lame duck president... "Where do I sign?"
Romney; 4 years to backpedal... "Didn't I pass this already? Oh. That was for Massachusetts."
kinggraves
Distinguished
- May 14, 2010
- 445
- 0
- 18,940
Wiretapping laws need to be reinterpreted for modern tech. I'm not saying this is the way to do it either. If you record police falsely arresting someone with audio, the police will claim that audio is a wiretappiing offense.
Security is frequently a compromise of freedom. Wiretapping catches criminals, there's no doubt about it. But it can also be used to monitor you. You've got to ask yourselves whether you want Big Bro protecting you or you're ready to protect yourselves. I don't trust the government to protect my interests when their interests seem more focused on protecting corporate interests.
Security is frequently a compromise of freedom. Wiretapping catches criminals, there's no doubt about it. But it can also be used to monitor you. You've got to ask yourselves whether you want Big Bro protecting you or you're ready to protect yourselves. I don't trust the government to protect my interests when their interests seem more focused on protecting corporate interests.
this is why you need a split drive, a dynamic ip and multiple fake accounts on facebook.
i guess the fbi will have a new 'going dark' problem. hmm, what a shame, it always seems to go in tumbles.
i guess the fbi will have a new 'going dark' problem. hmm, what a shame, it always seems to go in tumbles.
What does it matter, they will keep doing what there doing because 95% of the country doesn't care or are unaware of what's really going on. And Our leaders are cowards and traitors for not having the guts to put there foot down and say NO enough is enough no more violating peoples rights and privacy.
the FBI and it's contractors are full of really stupid dumb fucks... ya think really bad people will radio their moves on facebook, fucking get real. the FBI wants it for background investigations... security clearance work... there goes our freedom of expression and freedom of speech... ever since they lost the fight against terrorism they went after folks who downloaded porn... now when there aren't any porn freaks left they need to feed all their contractors... the ratio of "good guys" looking for "bad guys" is well over 250000:1 it's time we sent some of these intelligence analysts back to the malls and back to the shoe stores where they came from in the first place.
Funny how all this shit is going down under Obama's watch. Wasn't Bush the great threat to civil liberty? Looks to me like Barry is taking GW to school when it comes to stomping all over privacy laws with the big black boot of the Federal government.
Seriously? The FBI think terrorists are plotting the next attempt to overthrow the government on Facebook?????? Please, Dear God above, tell me this a joke. I must have fallen asleep! Did someone put the Republicans back in charge?
guardianangel42
Distinguished
- Jan 18, 2010
- 169
- 0
- 18,630
[citation][nom]chumly[/nom]Espionage is defined as the act of spying. The government is The People, then committing acts of espionage against The People is committing acts of espionage against the government. If you are a member of this government, then you are committing acts of espionage against your own. There's a word for this: Treason. These people are betraying your government and the ideals of liberty. They are the criminals, not the people.[/citation]
I found this contrived logical fallacy amusing. If A=B and B=C then A=D is essentially what you just said. You took the vaguest definition of a word and attempted to turn it on itself to prove something unrelated.
As an aside, I really don't see how this is any different that existing wiretap laws. The Feds still require a warrant to make use of these backdoors same as they need a warrant to make use of a wiretap.
You could argue that this introduces a "whole new scary paradigm" for the Patriot Act, which is probably true (which is why that act should be either repealed or reigned in), but forcing companies to build a backdoor into their sites is effectively the same as forcing telephone companies to allow tapping on any line.
Seriously people, stop with the scare tactics. This isn't some new idea that will render your privacy void, its an application of an existing concept you live with every single day to a different technology.
I found this contrived logical fallacy amusing. If A=B and B=C then A=D is essentially what you just said. You took the vaguest definition of a word and attempted to turn it on itself to prove something unrelated.
As an aside, I really don't see how this is any different that existing wiretap laws. The Feds still require a warrant to make use of these backdoors same as they need a warrant to make use of a wiretap.
You could argue that this introduces a "whole new scary paradigm" for the Patriot Act, which is probably true (which is why that act should be either repealed or reigned in), but forcing companies to build a backdoor into their sites is effectively the same as forcing telephone companies to allow tapping on any line.
Seriously people, stop with the scare tactics. This isn't some new idea that will render your privacy void, its an application of an existing concept you live with every single day to a different technology.
Security is frequently a compromise of freedom. Wiretapping catches criminals, there's no doubt about it. But it can also be used to monitor our self. Its a quite serious problem that FBI wants backdoor to every American site hosted on Internet or we can say to most used Social networking site , this mean if any by somehow anybody leaked the information about this backdoor. it can ruin or exploit the whole world data. Frankly said Hacker like Anonymous , Lulzsec has much more advanced technology than FBI . So its better to not handle the backdoors to FBI.
The REAL PROBLEM IS THIS :
"In addition to the FBI's move, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is considering reinterpreting CALEA so that products ranging from Skype to Google Hangouts will include backdoors to help solve the "Going Dark" problem."
bureaucratic agencies, run by political appointees, are CHANGING the laws at their own whim!
"In addition to the FBI's move, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is considering reinterpreting CALEA so that products ranging from Skype to Google Hangouts will include backdoors to help solve the "Going Dark" problem."
bureaucratic agencies, run by political appointees, are CHANGING the laws at their own whim!
whatever, they have all been watching online for years (before Bush), it would help if they just get there facts strait offline before they bust into someones house.
thezooloomaster
Honorable
- Apr 19, 2012
- 29
- 0
- 10,580
"only apply if a threshold of a certain number of users is exceeded"
So why is Yahoo on the list then?
So why is Yahoo on the list then?
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Question NordPass issues with email masking?
- Started by Spotty352
- Replies: 0
-
Question low-cost laptop recommendations for gaming?
- Started by gutta
- Replies: 1
-
-
Question Buy a new Changingtouch lapdock recommendation- Started by Harold Robeson
- Replies: 1
-
Blacklisting phone with various variables- Started by Blindcracker
- Replies: 2
-
-
Facebook
Twitter