First, let me say thanks for maintaining a level of dignity in this discussion. Usually you can't debate things like this without someone getting their underware totally in a knot.

Next, point by point:

Look at the first word in there... "voluntary." By the by, the ISP's information on you isn't yours in the first place... they, like any other commercial

As for their rights to sell your information, I think there is still unsettled precident here but thats a different discussion for a different time. However, if you have a non-disclosure agreement with your ISP, or as with higher ed, some strict regulations on what is permissible to disclose, this allows them to circumvent any agreement that you may have without liability. And we aren't talking about aggregate data here, we are talking about protected communications that they are not free to sell or listen in on unless explicitly stated in the user agreement.



A mistyped URL alone won't cut it. A prosecutor would have to prove that you made a concerted and deliberate effort to break into "supersecretserver.microsoft.com", else his case would go straight to hell.


I am not making any argument about a winable case here, we are talking about a window for the government to pry and maintain files ala Marthin Luther King Jr., One might recall that Dr. King was the basis for some of the rules that the Patriot ACT works to circumvent, namely overt collusion of the CIA and FBI and undue influence on them by the Whitehouse. And even if it was just a simple prosecution, I can't support something that gives the government a legal right to harass the hell out of its citizens, like those that disagree with their appraisal of WMD claims. I concede these aren't the only mechanisms available put thats a poor excuse for acquiesence.


access "supersecretserver.microsoft.com" before, ne?


Agreed, but that was meant only to be a laymen's example of an innocent act that could intentionally be misused by someone with an agenda, that almost all of us have comitted at one point or another.



The unconstitutional seizure provisions that were enacted under Reagan and Bush I and
...
We're discussing the Patriot Act itself and how it does nothing that doesn't already exist in case law


But these don't exist in current case law except in a very narrow band of circumstances. The Patriot ACT significantly expands the applicability of bad legislation. The death penalty is already in existing case law but if the Patriot ACT allowed government agents to indiscriminantly execute citizens based on suspicion of terrorism, I think you must agree that it would be relevant, existing legislation not withstanding.


... Those laws were signed in by a Democrat-controlled Congress, and Bill Clinton wasn't in any hurry to rescind them in the 8 years he had the job of President.


This is irrelevant, though I also concede that Clinton did nothing to rectify the situation and I won't defend him for it here. But please also note that my opposition to this has nothing to do with political parties. I don't care if Bill Clinton was the President and Mother Theresa was the attorney general. This is bad news and I would vote them out of office in a New York minute. The problem is that in a two party system, your have, let me see .... umm... two, yes two choices. Don't take my opposition to all this bushit as an implicit nod for the Dems, Lieberman actually scares me more than Bush.





Now, all you need are cites, or at least some kernel of factual proof. Do tell when and where this has supposedly happened... How have they "shown" us that it is more than willing to..., etc. etc.?



Executive privilege for Enron:
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/DailyNews/enronair020131.
html

Pre-emptive war in Iraq (I believe we should be bound by international law or we are nothing but a rogue state that fosters terrorism)
http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/08-02/08-22-02/a14op067
.htm

Karl Rove in basically everything he does:
http://www.thedailyenron.com/documents/20031002132223-78403.
asp

Aschcroft for the vary forfiture laws I refered to earlier:
http://www.progress.org/ashcroft01.htm

Ashcroft, constitutionally impaired:
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story
=328103

Aschcroft, legally impaired
http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/other_stor
ies/multi-page/documents/02048777.htm

Ashcroft, just pathetic
http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel022502.shtml

Bush, maybe not the boundary of the law, but certainly ethics:
http://foi.missouri.edu/enronandetal/bushharken/


I could go on and on. And of course, you could question the authenticity of these posts since they largely haven't been picked up by the "liberal media" like fox and clear channel but I believe we can agree to not see eye to eye here. The net effect is clear though, and Tim Robbins put it more clearly than I ever could:

http://www.impeach-bush-now.org/Articles/Media/timrobbins.ht
m

Just one more, that I will note is likely not based in fact but is too funny not to share:
http://www.noapologiespress.com/newnews/analprobing.html


Otherwise, I found this quite enjoyable...


Thanks, and actually it is nice to have someone debate on facts, whether or not you can agree on what are and what aren't. This will be my last post on this thread, not in defeat or in declaration of victory, but because I think we may have strayed just a wee bit from the topic ;-)


[ reply ]

Link to this comment: http://www.securityfocus.com/comments/columns/187/22820#22820