A less intrusive government

[heckofajobbrownie]

That's what the Tea Party is all about, right? Privacy, liberty, and all of that?

 

Well...

 

"The House Republicans’ first major technology initiative is about to be unveiled: a push to force Internet companies to keep track of what their users are doing. A House panel chaired by Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin is scheduled to hold a hearing tomorrow morning to discuss forcing Internet providers, and perhaps Web companies as well, to store records of their users’ activities for later review by police."

 

Anyone think this is a good idea?

[calfoxwc]

NO.

 

The idea is to be able to prosecute homeland security, and criminal matters with stored information gleaned from

kept records off the interent.

 

It's just a proposal and discussion, and not a Republican owned issue, Heck.

 

But it's exactly like the TSA sexual assualt/pat-downs, in one fashion - it suspects absolutely everybody, and everybody

is treated accordingly. That's really wrong.

 

It also isn't very smart. The volume of information would be so huge over a day/week/month/year's time,

that few service providers would ever have the capacity to store that information for very long.

 

Give them the right to monitor activities, of chosen individuals for good reason, that's fine by me.

 

But to monitor every freakin body ? That's dumber than dumb.

****************************************************

 

 

http://shaneatwellblog.blogspot.com/2011/0...itizen-spy.html

 

The new chairman of the House Judiciary committee is Lamar Smith of Texas, who previously introduced a data retention bill. Sensenbrenner, the new head of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, had similar plans but never introduced legislation. (It's not purely a partisan issue: Rep. Diana DeGette, a Colorado Democrat, was the first to announce such a proposal.)

 

Police and prosecutors are the biggest backers of data retention. FBI director Robert Mueller has said that forcing companies to store those records about users would be "tremendously helpful in giving us a historic basis to make a case" in investigations, especially child porn cases. An FBI attorney said last year that Mueller supports storing Internet users' "origin and destination information," meaning logs of which Web sites are visited.

 

 

 

[calfoxwc]

Oh, btw, Sensenbrenner is a good compatriot to Obamao's admin and Dems in Congress.

 

He's a freakin Rhino - "Republican in name only".

 

Has no freakin thing to do with the Tea Party, Heck.

 

And, no, you can't blame Sarah, nor her kids for him doing it, either.

[heckofajobbrownie]

I'm not saying it's a purely Republican idea. I'm saying the Republicans in charge of formulating this rule are pushing it. They've scheduled hearings on it.

 

Anyone like this idea? Both me and Cal are on the no side.

 

 

[calfoxwc]

The Tea Party does NOT SUPPORT any Rhino. FACT.

 

Heck, by noting only Reps, and not mentioning him being a rhino,

 

and then dragging the Tea Party into it,

 

you are inferring, whether inadvertent or not,

 

that he represented the conservative Republicans that the Tea Party supports.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Cal, do you even know who Jim Sensenbrenner is? He's a staunch conservative. He's bringing this issue up for debate. He's not quashing it.

 

If he pushes it through and tries to make it law, how are you going to blame liberals? Maybe you should start thinking about that now. It'll give you some time to come with something.

 

Anyone else?

[Chicopee John]

That's what the Tea Party is all about, right? Privacy, liberty, and all of that?

 

Well...

 

"The House Republicans’ first major technology initiative is about to be unveiled: a push to force Internet companies to keep track of what their users are doing. A House panel chaired by Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin is scheduled to hold a hearing tomorrow morning to discuss forcing Internet providers, and perhaps Web companies as well, to store records of their users’ activities for later review by police."

 

Anyone think this is a good idea?

 

I don't and I don't think the so called, "Tea Party" and Republican Party are in synch. I expect a lot of friction, not unlike Boehnner (sp) and McConnel supporting Obama's current approach to Egypt and Rand Paul's different position.

 

I don't consider differences of opinion to be necessarily a bad thing.

 

[Kosar_For_President]

I'm not saying it's a purely Republican idea. I'm saying the Republicans in charge of formulating this rule are pushing it. They've scheduled hearings on it.

 

Anyone like this idea? Both me and Cal are on the no side.

 

Fook no. It's bullshit. The more and more of the freedoms taken away the more my stance of "well I'm not doing anything wrong I have nothing to worrying about" is looking more and more like bullshit.

[Mr. T]

I found an excerpt from another web page that can go along with this topic.

 

 

Almost Everything Is A Crime In America Now: 14 Of The Most Ridiculous Things That Americans Are Being Arrested For

 

#1 A Michigan man has been charged with a felony and could face up to 5 years in prison for reading his wife's email.

 

 

#2 A 49-year-old Queens woman had bruises all over her body after she was handcuffed, arrested and brutally beaten by NYPD officers.

So what was her offense? The officers thought that her little dog had left some poop that she didn't clean up.

 

#3 A 56-year-old woman who was once a rape victim refused to let airport security officials feel her breasts so she was thrown to the floor,

put in handcuffs and arrested.

 

#4 In Milwaukee, one man was recently fined $500 for swearing on a public bus.

 

#5 Several years ago a 12-year-old boy in South Carolina was actually arrested by police for opening up a Christmas present early against

his family's wishes.

 

#6 In some areas of the country, it is now a crime to not recycle properly. For example, the city of Cleveland has announced plans to sort

through trash cans to ensure that people are actually recycling according to city guidelines.

 

#7 A 12-year-old girl from Queens was arrested earlier this year and taken out of her school in handcuffs for writing “Lex was here. 2/1/10"

and “I love my friends Abby and Faith" on her desk.

 

#8 Back in 2008, a 13-year-old boy in Florida was actually arrested by police for farting in class.

 

#9 The feds recently raided an Amish farmer at 5 AM in the morning because they claimed that he was was engaged in the interstate sale of

raw milk in violation of federal law.

 

#10 A few years ago a 10-year-old girl was arrested and charged with a felony for bringing a small steak knife to school. It turns out that all

she wanted to do was to cut up her lunch so that she could eat it.

 

#11 On June 18th, two Christians decided that they would peacefully pass out copies of the gospel of John on a public sidewalk outside a

public Islamic festival in Dearborn, Michigan and within three minutes 8 policemen surrounded them and placed them under arrest.

 

#12 A U.S. District Court judge slapped a 5oo dollar fine on Massachusetts fisherman Robert J. Eldridge for untangling a giant whale from

his nets and setting it free. So what was his crime? Well, according to the court, Eldridge was supposed to call state authorities

and wait for them do it.

 

#13 Once upon a time, a food fight in the cafeteria may have gotten you a detention. Now it may get you locked up.

About a year ago, 25 students between the ages of 11 and 15 at a school in Chicago were taken into custody by police

for being involved in a huge food fight in the school cafeteria.

 

#14 A few years ago a 70 year old grandmother was actually put in handcuffs and hauled off to jail for having a brown lawn.

 

Why in the world would anyone approve of the police arresting ordinary Americans for such things?

 

It seems like ever since 9/11 the whole country has gotten "security fever".

 

 

Unfortunately, history has shown us that once a free nation starts to lose that freedom it is hard to reverse that slide. Perhaps we will be different. Perhaps the American people will stand up and demand that we restore the principles of liberty and freedom that this country w

as founded on.

 

Source

[Westside Steve]

That's what the Tea Party is all about, right? Privacy, liberty, and all of that?

 

Sounds more like traditional libertarians to me.

 

Well...

 

"The House Republicans’ first major technology initiative is about to be unveiled: a push to force Internet companies to keep track of what their users are doing. A House panel chaired by Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin is scheduled to hold a hearing tomorrow morning to discuss forcing Internet providers, and perhaps Web companies as well, to store records of their users’ activities for later review by police."

 

Anyone think this is a good idea?

 

Well the use of the word "force" tells me it's written from the left point of view but basically (with what little information we have right now) I don't see a big problem.

 

And I agree with John about the disagreement part.

 

 

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

Oh, Jesus, Steve. I think by "force" they mean, you know, "force." As in "write a law that says you have to do this or face legal penalties." Otherwise known as "force."

 

I'm with Kosar. And I take John's point. We'll see what comes out of the hearings.

[calfoxwc]

You're wrong, again, Heck.

 

Sensenbrenner is NOT always a staunch conservative.

 

He has a lot of good votes to his credit, but he is also a freakin Rhino when it suits him.

And the Tea Party has nothing to do with these discussions. And, John is correct,

the Tea Party is not always with the Republicans, when you have them doing things

that don't add to the idea of smaller gov. and less spending, like Sensenbrenner.

 

Do you even decide what to say on this forum by yourself? Read this stuff below,

and explain why YOU "think" that Sensenbrenner is a "staunch conservative".

Sometimes he is. Sometimes, he is most certainly NOT.

RHINO, EXACTLY LIKE I SAID. Whoever tells you what to type here

needs to say he's sorry to you for being wrong.

 

Here:

***********************************************

In 2006, Sensenbrenner joined with House Speaker Dennis Hastert in expressing outrage concerning the FBI raid of the congressional office of Democratic Representative William J. Jefferson, asserting constitutional concerns over separation of powers. He held Judiciary Committee hearings in May 2006 on this issue. Many Republican and conservative pundits, including Rush Limbaugh, took a dim view of this stance, and a June 1, 2006, ABC News poll found 86% of Americans supported the right of the FBI to search a congressional office when they obtain a warrant.

 

In fall 2006, The Animal Fighting Prohibition Act bill unanimously passed the Senate, but Sensenbrenner used his position to block final House consideration of the legislation, even though the bill had 324 co-sponsors.

 

The Right to Life Act had hearings scheduled for December 12, 2006 at 10 am, but Sensenbrenner canceled them right before the House adjourned on December 9 at 3:17am.[9] The purpose of H.R. 552 is to "implement equal protection ... for the right to life of each born and preborn human person." In the 109th Congress, the legislation collected 101 cosponsors.[10]

 

Sensenbrenner was the only Republican to join House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's Congressional delegation to meet the Dalai Lama in Dharamsala, India during the March 2008 protests against China by Tibetans.[11]

 

Sensenbrenner, in spite of unanimous Congressional support,[16] attempted to delay a bill[17] in December 2010 that would have been benefited Hotaru Ferschke the Japanese born widow of a United States Marine killed in combat. Congressman John Duncan and other supporters of Ms. Ferschke were able to get the bill passed in spite of Sensenbrenner's objections.[18]

 

The Republican Liberty Caucus of Wisconsin has recently learned of an ongoing backroom-style deal, which goes against the best interests of Wisconsin’s Republican voters, involving top ranking Republican Congressmen James Sensenbrenner and Paul Ryan, and Democrat Congresswoman Gwen Moore.

wi.rlc.org/2010/10/republican-congressmen-sensenbrenner... wi.rlc.org/2010/10/republican-congressmen-sensenbrenner-and-ryan-admit-to-shady-backroom-deal-with-democrat-moore/

 

Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) is ranking member of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming.

Sensenbrenner: House Shouldn’t Drop Global Warming Panel

 

 

wi.rlc.org/2010/10/republican-congressmen-sensenbrenner... wi.rlc.org/2010/10/republican-congressmen-sensenbrenner-and-ryan-admit-to-shady-backroom-deal-with-democrat-moore/

 

Voted NO on passage of the Bush Administration national energy policy. (Jun 2004)

Voted NO on implementing Bush-Cheney national energy policy. (Nov 2003)

 

Voted YES on prohibiting oil drilling & development in ANWR. (Aug 2001)

Rated 17% by the CAF, indicating opposition to energy independence. (Dec 2006

 

 

[Westside Steve]

I suppose not forcing banks or credit card companies to turn over records

to the IRS would be popular among privacy lovers too.

[calfoxwc]

The idea that the gov can get a search warrant, and go after bad guys, I'm fine with that.

 

The idea that the gov can go after every single American like they are bad guys, "just in case",

is not going to fly.

 

This isn't Venzuela, and it's never going to be.

[heckofajobbrownie]

That's exactly right. If you can show a judge that you've got a reason to search someone's internet history, go right ahead. It's not that different than searching someone's telephone records or credit card statements.

 

What people object to is giving the government the ability to comb through your records without any cause.

 

Geez, where were all these guys when Bush developed a program to sift through all internet traffic without cause?

[calfoxwc]

That was Gore, he invented that too.

[Westside Steve]

The idea that the gov can get a search warrant, and go after bad guys, I'm fine with that.

 

The idea that the gov can go after every single American like they are bad guys, "just in case",

is not going to fly.

 

This isn't Venzuela, and it's never going to be.

 

 

Of course if those records are destroyed or othjerwise not available the warrant means nothing...

 

And I don't believe the law requires ISPs to turn that info over without a warrant.

Am I wrong?

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

Well, there is no law now. But until very recently - astoundingly - you didn't have to get a warrant to search through emails like you do with phone calls. I mean, that was a court case in December. I think a lot of people - myself included - thought that this was already the law of the land, but it wasn't. The government could decide you were under investigation and search through your emails whenever they felt like it.

 

So what you're talking about, Steve, is the crux of the debate - if you require these companies to log everything that happens on the internet, who gets to see these logs? Under what conditions? Who protects them? Who protects them at the firms that hold them? Where are they held?

 

Of course, right now you can have computer experts find just about anything that's ever been done online anyway. This would just make it easier. It would also make it easier to abuse. After all, it ain't that hard to get a warrant.

 

And then there are the Constitutional questions.

[Westside Steve]

Well, there is no law now. But until very recently - astoundingly - you didn't have to get a warrant to search through emails like you do with phone calls. I mean, that was a court case in December. I think a lot of people - myself included - thought that this was already the law of the land, but it wasn't. The government could decide you were under investigation and search through your emails whenever they felt like it.

 

So what you're talking about, Steve, is the crux of the debate - if you require these companies to log everything that happens on the internet, who gets to see these logs? Under what conditions? Who protects them? Who protects them at the firms that hold them? Where are they held?

 

And until that's cleared up I'm not worried.

WSS

Of course, right now you can have computer experts find just about anything that's ever been done online anyway. This would just make it easier. It would also make it easier to abuse. After all, it ain't that hard to get a warrant.

 

And then there are the Constitutional questions.

 

[VaporTrail]

In other news, Patriot Act gets passed last night. Where is the outrage from the Tea Party over Big Brother? Oh wait, there is none, because the Tea Party only cares about what the corporations tell them to care about (health care).

 

 

/edit

I stand slightly corrected.

 

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/feb/07/na...ot-act-20110208

[calfoxwc]

No, wait. I was fine with the Patriot Act. I haven't seen it abused. But we've seen several terrorists' plots

 

thwarted.

 

The possibility of it being abused is worrisome, but we are at war with Islamic terrorists.

 

Otherwise, they can use our safeguards against us.

 

But this admin isn't trustworthy. When you have a president who disses our SUPREME COURT,

 

and our CONSTITUTION, and conservatives all over the country, and ANYONE who dares to criticize

 

his highness, the Patriot Act is FAR more likely/probably to be used by this corrupt admin to attack any dissent,

 

and any opposition.,

 

That isn't hard to figure, unless you have your head up somewhere...

[Westside Steve]

In other news, Patriot Act gets passed last night. Where is the outrage from the Tea Party over Big Brother? Oh wait, there is none, because the Tea Party only cares about what the corporations tell them to care about (health care).

 

 

/edit

I stand slightly corrected.

 

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/feb/07/na...ot-act-20110208

 

Slightly?

It was the tea party that put the kibosh on this until Obammy and the other Republicans passed it on a 50 % vote.

 

Godd for them.

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

It's true, Vapor. Many in the Tea Party not only didn't vote for it, but ignored Boehner's calls to support it.

 

Of course, it was a safe vote since it was going to pass anyway, but you've got to give some of them credit.