House Panel Approves Electronic Surveillance Bill 513
narramissic writes "A U.S. House of Representatives Committee has approved the Electronic Modernization Surveillance Act, a controversial bill that would broaden the U.S. government's ability to conduct electronic surveillance on U.S. residents by making it easier for federal law enforcement officials to get court-issued warrants. The full House is expected to vote on the bill by the end of the month." From the article: "Republicans praised the bill, saying it will help the U.S. government fight terrorism. The bill will provide the U.S. intelligence agencies 'greater agility and flexibility as they try to thwart our determined and dangerous terrorist enemies,' Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner, a Wisconsin Republican, said in a statement. The full House is expected to vote on the bill by the end of the month. The committee's action comes after U.S. President George Bush called on Congress to approve a controversial electronic surveillance program conducted by the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA). "
The Rise & Fall of My Country (Score:5, Insightful)
One thing I do know is that this will allow my government to build a case against me with no warrant, probable cause or charges filed and documented against me. There could be a dossier (digital or hard copy) somewhere in the government's system with my name on it even though I haven't done anything wrong. Worse, the same could be said about every single American.
You can call me a crazed conspiracy theorist and you can call me a tin foil hat-ist but you can't deny it will be it will be a possibility for even you if you live in the United States.
Under the guise of "modernization," this bill will only add to the decline of my country. We sure aren't as "modernized" as Orwell's 1984 so I guess we're 22 years behind and we better get on it -- and who better than the Republicans to lead us there?
For the love of your country, write your representative in the house [house.gov] about how you feel on this issue. Please. Do it by hand with your signature and address on the letter. Physically mail it to them. Take the time to do this. Make sure you are heard about the things that matter to you. Make your concern known to those who represent you. If you spend a lot of time writing it, send it to your local newspaper also as a possible editorial. I doubt I'm alone on my concerns.
Remember, remember (Score:3, Funny)
[How come I feel like "Post Anonymously" gives me no protection from the government in this post?]
Mary had a little lamb (Score:3, Insightful)
I know a lot of you Americans have only heard the lines "Remember, remember, the 5th of November" from V for Vendetta and think it's very clever to quote it, but it sounds really dumb to anyone from the UK - you're quoting a nursery rhyme.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In this case, I'm of mixed response though. To know that your children are signing nursery rhymes to each other of the importance of fighting for freedom and constant vigilance against governmental control, is very heart warming.
On the other hand, your dismissal of the point of the story as nothing more than a nursery rhyme is quite disheartening. It's l
Re:The Rise & Fall of My Country (Score:2)
Not sure I understand this, having not RTFAd, but doesn't the summary say the Bill will make it easier to get court-approved warrants? Not that warrants will not be needed?
Re:The Rise & Fall of My Country (Score:4, Informative)
Re:The Rise & Fall of My Country (Score:2)
Re:The Rise & Fall of My Country (Score:5, Informative)
When will people learn that EVERY news outlet, magazine, article, caster, whatever.... Is biased. Dig into the story, and make up your own mind. Spewing the half truths of some article as facts, without due dilligence, is just plain wrong. It's wrong for the news and it's wrong for you.
RTFA Yourself (Score:5, Informative)
You left out "The Electronic Modernization Surveillance Act, opposed by several privacy groups, would also allow federal law enforcement officials to spy on U.S. residents for up to 90 days without a court order in the period after a terrorist attack."
So yes...bad freaking law...bad freaking stuff...but kneejerk creative editing only serves to further make the privacy folks that realize this is BAD juju for freedom look like paranoid lunatics. We all know that folks like Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan are taken so seriously these days due to their overzealous overreactionary nonsense.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:The Rise & Fall of My Country (Score:2)
Re:The Rise & Fall of My Country (Score:5, Funny)
They have that already - it's called the Fox Network.
scp -p -P 7777 localhost:/dev/random /dev/null (Score:3, Insightful)
A more intelligent thing to do -- and perhaps this is already done, I've never investigated it -- would be to configure a VLAN or VPN so that it sends a certain amount of traffic at all times. If there's not enough 'real' traffic to meet a certain minimum, then it just pads with random garbage that gets discarded at the remote end.
Such a thing w
Re:The Rise & Fall of My Country (Score:3, Insightful)
We have laws for this already. But they require courts and warrants. This bill removes those silly impedances. We'll just have nice, smooth secret surveillance of anyone they don't like, forever and ever and ever...
Re:The Rise & Fall of My Country (Score:2)
The Electronic Modernization Surveillance Act, opposed by several privacy groups, would also allow federal law enforcement officials to spy on U.S. residents for up to 90 days without a court order
someone correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't they already have some power similar to this? where they could obtain a court order retroactively? does this just extend their time limit on it?
Re:The Rise & Fall of My Country (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, 72 hours. (Score:3, Informative)
The difference between no warrant and warrantless. (Score:5, Insightful)
Sort of. Previously, spying could start and they would need to get a warrant before the deadline.
With this one, there doesn't seem to be a requirement for a warrant at all (as long as you don't exceed 90 days).
The problem Bush and Co had was that they weren't even bothering with the retroactive warrants. So now it looks like the law is being re-written to coincide with Bush and Co's practices.
Warrantless spying on US citizens.
Re:The difference between no warrant and warrantle (Score:4, Insightful)
Currently, W Bush and Cheney are essentially convicted felons [cnn.com], which is enough grounds to fasttrack their impeachment come November (if the Democrats take Congress, which is not impossible).
Once Bush and Cheney are impeached, Pelosi (as a Speaker), becomes an acting President (and gets the PATRIOT and other 'powers').
And that is why the Republicans desperately need to make what Bush did legal.
Re:The Rise & Fall of My Country (Score:5, Informative)
Somewhat. But this is a vast expansion.
No. It does, as a minor provision, extend the time limit (there have been characterizations that it extends the current 72-hour limit for foreign intelligence surveillance while seeking a warrant to 90 days—this is false. It extends that limit only to 120 hours (from 3 days to 5 days.) The 90-day limit is something completely different, see below.)
But it does a lot more, including (and this is not an exhaustive list):
It expands the definition of an "agent of a foreign power" to include not only actual agents of foreign powers, but also any person "reasonably expected to transmit or receive foreign intelligence information".
It also narrows the scope of the limitations on government power in FISA: currently, it is unlawful to conduct surveillance except under its rules against any US person who is within the United States. EMSA would make it only illegal if those conducting the surveillance reasonably believe the subject is within the United States. So if they don't believe you are in the United States when they target you, or if that belief is unreasonable, their action is not prohibited by the law any more.
EMSA would also further narrow the scope of the limitations on government surveillance power in FISA by defining "surveillance" that it restricts to only include the acquisition of the content of communications; under current law that is included, but so is the installation or use of an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device for "monitoring to acquire information" of any kind. As a concrete example of the effect, a camera planted inside a residence or other private area to see what went on and who was present at various times would probably not capture the "content of communication", and would be entirely unregulated under the changes proposed in EMSA, but is restricted under the current law.
It also entirely eliminates (not merely extends the timeline) the rule that, without a court order having been obtained, communications deliberately or incidentally captured of a US person cannot be retained, disseminated, etc., beyond a 72-hour period.
It expands the scope of surveillance that requires no warrant (retroactive or otherwise) to include not only surveillance of communications exclusively between foreign powers (including their agents), but to communication of a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power, and strikes the limitation that such warrantless surveillance may only be used when "there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party", (and, remember from above, it expands the definition of "agent of a foreign power" to include people who are expected to send or receive foreign intelligence information, whether or not they are in fact agents of foreign powers; as one example of the impact of the effect of these two provisions together, since reporters covering foreign affairs beats can be "reasonably expected" to sometimes receive or send "foreign intelligence information", that means that, under EMSA, any communication of any such reporter with any other person for any purpose can be monitored without any restriction of any kind.)
It expands the ability of the government to order private parties to assist it in performing surveillance: this is curerntly restricted only to communications common carriers, and would be expanded to "any person with authorized access to electronic communications or equipment used to transmit or store electronic communications".
It deletes the requirement that warrant applications for surveillance include "a d
Re:The Rise & Fall of My Country (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The Rise & Fall of My Country (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The Rise & Fall of My Country (Score:5, Interesting)
I think the best part of Clinton's presidency was that for most of it we had a Democrat for president with a Republican dominated Congress that hated him. The Lewinsky stuff kept all of them busy from doing real damage. I've always felt gridlock makes for good government, and I look forward to having it again in November.
Re:The Rise & Fall of My Country (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The Rise & Fall of My Country (Score:3, Insightful)
"When the government is too intrusive,
people lose their spirit."
-- Lao Tzu, 550BCE
Re:The Rise & Fall of My Country (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, it took the 99.9999999999% of the US population who didn't stand at the last election on a rational platform.
Re:The Rise & Fall of My Country (Score:4, Interesting)
He knew exactly what he was doing.
Read this quote from an interview right after 9/11:
"I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in -- and the West in general -- into an unbearable hell and a choking life."
--Osama bin Laden, October 21, 2001 [cnn.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, we are a republic. There's a huge difference. A democracy is just a popularity contest - tyranny of the majority. If the majority of people want to be spied on, then it is law, regardless of the 4th Amendment. Sadly, the Constitution and Bill of Rights aresupposed to be held above a "majority rules" (except in the case of an amendment).
You know, I'd like to vote for a lawremover, not a lawmaker. Ever think someon
Re:Republican vs. Democrat doesn't matter (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The Rise & Fall of My Country (Score:2)
They're attempting to use technology and "terrorism" to achieve their agenda, and citizens unfortunately are not well represented on the issue.
Re:The Rise & Fall of My Country (Score:5, Insightful)
Some fights are unavoidable, unless you would rather surrender or run away. The idea that we can end terrorism by treating everyone with "respect" is naïve.
Re:The Rise & Fall of My Country (Score:5, Insightful)
It's Never Been Tried So How Would You Know? (Score:5, Insightful)
Did I suggest we surrender or run away? No, I suggest an alternative more condusive to listening and thinking than burning and shooting.
Also you misunderstood me, I didn't say "everyone" as in individuals, I said "other countries" specifically the ones we have exerted influence over in order to benefit our own country or economy. I'm not concerned about respecting Osama Bin Laden. Hollowing out countries where he has been in the past in an effort to find him does concern me, however. I feel it leaves long lasting detrimental effects on the populace living there and only creates more anti-American sentiment. We should be fighting a war of words and asking for help from other countries, not blowing up what we want and demanding things. We make our allies look like puppets to the rest of the world and say things like, "If you're not with us, you're against us." Stupid.
Disculpame pero no es cierto (Score:5, Insightful)
Allow me to disagree on that. In order to end with terrorism on your country, you have to get to the root of the problem. What is it?, why are the people of the middle east so angered against your country/government/people?
Is it because they hate your "way of living"/culture? (as your government wants to make you believe). I really doubt it. See, I am from the poor country which sits at the south of yours (I am assuming you are from USA). I am from Mexico. One of the things that bothers me (a bit, as I run on the same tunnel a lot of times) is how we (Mexicans) love to imitate the American lifestyle. Hell, you just have to see the spark in the eyes of some Asian guys wen they ask me if I have been to America. America is cool for other people.
So, it is not your culture as the culture in my country is trying *so hard* to be like yours.
Then, what could it be?, what could conutries like Mexico, France, Canada (not sure about them), Japan, Brazil, Chile have been doing to avoid these terrorism attacks, hey, I guess, no.. I am positively SURE that the security systems in my country does not compare to the super technological security here in UK or in the USA.
My country cant afford that, neither Chile or Brazil can do it.
So, what I can tell you is that none of your gadgets/law-bills will help.
It is my view that what you [your government of course] should do to avoid being "terrorized" is to stop puttin gtheir noses everywhere. Leave other countries alone. Spain learnt the hard way, but HEY THEY LEARNT!!!.
It seems UK and USA government hasnt learnt (because they dont want to I guess).
btw, as one sig I read said, dont mod me down just because you dont agree with my opinions
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Or the two governments are too arrogant in their world status to think they can learn from others.
In the Battle of the Atlantic of WWII, British intelligence had broken the German communications encryption (it may have been ENIGMA, I' don't know) and could reliably track German U-boat sorties to the US east coast. In fact, the Brits were supplying this intel on nearly a daily basis.
The US Government, however, did nothing with
Re:The Rise & Fall of My Country (Score:3, Insightful)
well, the fact that the US pulled out of Afghanistan right after the soviets did, and the soviets basically trashed things on their way out, along with the fact that the various mujahideen groups that were fighting the soviets (some backed by the CIA) started fighting among each other, further screwing the country, which then lead to general dislike of the US as they basically used them as pawns against the soviets, then le
Re:The Rise & Fall of My Country (Score:3, Insightful)
Isn't there anybody speaking out against the fearmongering media over there ?
Gangs are the major TERRORIST threat (Score:5, Insightful)
Yet all we hear about from our corrupt politicians is that the boogeyman Osama and Al Quaeda is coming to get us. Fear! Fear! Fear! I lived in the inner-city for awhile. I absolutely guarantee you that those people living there could care less about Osama or Al Quaeda or Emmanuel Goldstein. The real threat to their lives, to their children's lives 24/7 is the gang problem. Those people truly live in fear.
However, what do our despicable policians do? Do they order the police and national guard to round up all gang members and get them off of our streets? No. They want to grant amnesty to the illegals! (I would say the majority of gang members are illegals or children of illegals.) And what happens when an individual police force tries to get tough on gangs? Civil lawsuits! The police "violated" these murderers', rapists', drug-dealers', and illegals' "rights."
So what do our politicians do? Why they enact laws that are meant to monitor, arrest, and imprison... we, the people!
I do not live in fear of "terrorists." I live in fear of my own government.
Re:The Rise & Fall of My Country (Score:3, Insightful)
How about US companies paying slave wages to Chinese citizens to make cheap products? Is keeping China's government in power via economic trade showing respect?
What about all the lopsided trade deals? You know, where we 'helped' a third world c
Re:The Rise & Fall of My Country (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, this bill specifically removes limits which raise the bar higher for surveillance of purely domestic communication. So you are wrong.
Only insofar as the justification that must be asserted to exercise the powers is that the subject matter is "foreign intelligence information". It is not restricted to foreign communica
I mod this Bill... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I mod this Bill... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think pretty much any law that claims to be about [insert fear mongering item here] and isn't specifically limited (in the text of the law) to [fear mongering item] should be considered Flamebait.
"The Electronic Modernization Surveillance Act,
The bill,
90 days without a court order after a terrorist attack?
It passed the committee 20-16 on a party line vote.
Fuck the Republicans on this one.
They've forgotten the reason we had those laws in the first place.
I have that in my quotefile. (Score:2)
Interesting but... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Interesting but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah you guys in the US are shafted, not that we have it much better...
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's partly the media to blame in the States though and the way they don't cover politics more than superficially and tend to overly dramatise everything out of proportion with endless drivel and comment. This puts any politician off taki
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you think they're not above punishing disloyalty in their own ranks, just take a look at how they sli
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Despite the lack of confidence, and despite an overwhelming feeling of disapproval of the current Congress, there's still a large slice of the American voting public who seem hypnotized by the media and government spin machine. Want to see a 5, 10 point rise in the president's approval ratings? Trot the president out and have him give a few speeches. Ta-da! I
Why bother? (Score:4, Insightful)
Why bother when the non-court-issued ones are readily available?
And the first people up for surveillance... (Score:4, Insightful)
...should be members of the House panel. Perhaps if they were the subjects of the electronic spying they were authorizing, they might think twice. Still, this is the House Judiciary Committee, not the full House or Senate, so there's still time to write your Congressman and tell him/her that if they vote for this, you'll help hand them a one-way ticket to unemployment.
Close the supermarkets (Score:4, Funny)
Make it _only_ for terrorism (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The great thing about being President (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It's me, GWB... (Score:5, Funny)
Thanks,
- GWB
p.s. Please redefine "torture" so our interrogators can keep up the good work.
p.p.s. And, uh, please don't hold an official vote on Bolton since some of you may prevent him from representing us at the UN.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In other words, we have no Ex Post Facto laws. You can't have something made illegal retroactively into the past. If congress passes a law tomorrow making it illegal to use the internet, we aren't breaking the law for using the internet today.
Similarly, can you retroactively make something legal? If the president is breaking the law today, and his actions are made legal tomorrow, isn't h
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I've quoted this before and i'll do it again... (Score:4, Insightful)
~ Benjamin Franklin
Re: (Score:2)
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin [wikiquote.org]
Still... keep on posting it! My sig actually IS a Franklin quote
Re: (Score:2)
That opens up a couple of points to debate:
1. Is privacy actually an essential liberty? You can live without it afte
come on guys (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why it is Important? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Terrorism has already won (Score:5, Insightful)
We shred our own basic Constitutional rights for fear of terrorism.
We blugeon our critics for being weak on terrorism.
We start a war with a country out of fear of terrorism and place our troops on a sacrificial altar.
Our administration runs on campaigns reminding us to be scared of terrorism.
Ladies and Gentlemen, we lost the War of Terror already.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Bin Laden wanted to a) Americans as a country and as a people to feel terror or fear and b) Cost you lots of money. Did he fail at either one of these? Every passing day his victory has been escalating.
Very not funny is that this reminds me of the War on Drugs, which has resulted in minimal success and mostly escalated the cost of drugs for the illegal consumer, which means crime boss drug lords make more money per product now. You gave t
Let me get this straight... (Score:5, Insightful)
Hmmm... Can you spot a pattern here? What's next? The coronation of George W. Bush as the emperor-for-life of the United States? What about the return of public flogging and/or public execution of people who dissent with our beloved Emperor?
And, remember, people: We have always been at war with Oceania and its Islamofascists. Ignorance is Strength! War is Peace! Freedom is Slavery! Long Live the Great Emperor!
In other words (and this is coming from someone who loves the USA): what the fsck are you people waiting for??? Get rid of that chimp already!!
Horrifying (Score:3)
Fuck you, Senate. Give me my country back.
Why are you so against efficiency? (Score:2, Funny)
Oh, good. (Score:2)
NOT. The article and writeup claim that court-issued warrants will be easier to get this way, but the article goes on to say that no warrant is required within 90 days of a terrorist attack. Who wants to bet we'll see another minor incident every three months or so from now on?
The true cost of terrorism (Score:5, Insightful)
Laws like this, ladies and gentlemen, are the true cost of terrorism. Yes, the terrorists did manage to kill 0.002 % of Americans 5 years ago, but the resulting fear and paranoia has led us to a state where everyone is a suspected terrorist and even innocent people are being tortured in the name of the "War on Terror". Far more Americans are affected by the knee-jerk reaction of Congress to 9/11 than by the actual attack itself.
On September 11, 2001, the terrorists took away more than just the lives of 4000 people. They managed to steal our liberties as well. We can't properly consider the impact of 9/11 without also considering the fact that it provided a catalyst for the removal of our Constitutional rights.
Well said. (Score:5, Insightful)
But hey...improving auto safety or levees doesn't allow for as much of a power grab does it?
Just a bit to add... (Score:3, Informative)
A brief recap. (Score:3, Interesting)
In reaction to these claims, Congress tries to retroactively legalize the President's actions, and pretend that he hasn't excercised kingly powers, and that they haven't scrambled over themselves to rubber-stamp said powers.
The funny thing is that Arlen Specter's original plan would have only given a 45-day window in addition to retroactively legalizing the President's decision that the law matters only when he feels like it. Apparently Congress can't fall over themselves fast enough to enable him. I am so writing my Congresscritters on this one.
Playing right inot terrorists hands (Score:4, Insightful)
1) Obviously to spread terror.
2) To create distrust of the exisitng government and authorities. By creating an extreme reaction by the exisitng authorities, the populance begins to first distrust and then works to actively undermine the exisitng authorities. This is what is happening in the US right now. Poeple are begining to distrust the governement and its motives.
The terorists are winning as long as this happens.
America, we have a problem (Score:4, Interesting)
It seams that you have to register with the government if you own a diesel truck and buy more that 50 pounds of fertilizer and fill your fuel tank on the same day.
Crap, I can't even even spread it in my pasture without somone in D.C. knowing what color the sh*t is.
Ohh well time to go buy another 1,000 rounds of 7.62x39 on the credit card again
I love messing with them.
----
Smile and look stupid and the government will love you...
Re:America, we have a problem (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Related to the topic at hand, I grew up target shooting various kinds of weaponry. I've been on my own a few years now, and would like to get a gun or two of my ow
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Poison? (Score:3)
screw this (tube station attack) up.
How would you Protect us? - Al Qaeda (Score:3, Interesting)
Examples:
a.)Would you allow tapping of phones incoming / outgoing calls where one or more of the parties were suspected Al Qaeda as long as a warrant was acquired prior?
b.)Would you not attack or try to capture any Al Qaeda abroad, but instead just wait for action until they confront us?
c.)Would you try to begin peace talks with Al Qaeda?
d.)Would you put a fence up along both our north and south borders?
e.)If we are attacked again would you respond by holding a press conference, shunning the actions, and then trying to negotiate peace talks?
I just want to know, I don't want to be flamed. I want to understand how you would try to protect us from this threat?
Hahahahahaha. (Score:4, Insightful)
You have completely ignored the implications of the other posters, that this sort of legislation is unnecessary given the tools that we already have, and have attempted to switch the argument around to once again say that we cannot prosecute or capture terrorists without this bill. No one is saying that we should hold peace talks with al-Qaida, no one except for strawmen erected in the yards of Republican Congressmen to be smacked around as necessary. Don't ask to not be flamed if you're throwing around flamebait.
I'm not going to answer these trollish questions because they are foregone conclusions. If you want to make America "safer," don't continue loading us up with these bullshit bills that provide just as much pass to investigate people who are not al-Qaida suspects. Instead, foot the bill to intelligence agencies to increase the number of agents in the field, increase communcation with foreign relations. What we need right now is not a stronger net with barbs and poison - what we need are more nets. This bill does nothing to actually increase enforcement of policy - it only increases policy.
The answer to your last question, which many progressives have provided and many Democrats agree with, is that we need to begin phasing out military operations in Iraq so that we can shift funds to intelligence agencies, bring our National Guard troops back to home grounds so that they can be ready to serve as first-responders for attacks that slip through our intelligence webs, and to begin preparing for possible engagements with Iran. As long as we continue blowing as much money as possible on the Iraqi occupation, then we're going to continue to hamper ourselves in the real goal, which is protecting American soil from terrorists. No, not the "war against terrorism," but the "protection against terrorism," which involves proactive intelligence and military action based on that intelligence. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and read any further into your questioning.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
In the five years since 9/11 there has been no terror attack on US soil. In the five years prior to 9/11, there were no terror attacks on US soil. What we were doing prior to 9/11 is at least as effective as what we have been doing since. So, keep doing those things. We don't need any new laws, and the ones passed since 9/11 should be repealed. They are unnecessary, and freedom lovers do
What about the rest of the world (Score:4, Interesting)
If the CIA is reading my gmail account, is it kosher ?
So this is how democracy dies... (Score:4, Insightful)
Since when (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, the same way it happens when you go to the police and say "This guy here just mugged me". I don't know about the USA but in my country the guy is essentially let free by default. And if you dare defend yourself during the mugging *you* go to jail.
Yeah offtopic and does not apply to this bill, but don't use fallacious arguments, please.
That said, sucks to be you and be treated like this, but I suspect we (Europeans) will fo
What if the judge would not approve it? (Score:2)
a. It isn't specific enough (we want to electronically scan a bunch of phone calls)
b. There isn't enough evidence to support it (we think that he might be a terrorist because he lives in the same building as someone else we think is a terrorist)
The "problem" with having judicial oversight is that, sometimes, the judges do not agree that your "evidence" is sufficient.
The reason we have judicial oversight is so that a disinterested par
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You know, it would make us a lot safer if we rounded up all the Muslims (no, better make it everyone who looks remotely middle eastern) and put them in "internment camps." If the TSA started handcuffing everyone who flies to their seat, we wouldn't need to worry about anyone hijacking a plane ever again. I'm sure officials could catch at least a few terrorists if they were allowed to sear