Just run this, my computer is clear, maybe.

On Wednesday, November 26, 2014 8:49:21 AM UTC-5, Lord Vath wrote:
On Wed, 26 Nov 2014 03:37:23 -0800 (PST), wsnell01 wrote
this crap:

And of course don't say anything to anybody anywhere, anytime,
lest your conversation be picked up by a bug (warrant-less or not)

Unless you've been read your Miranda rights nothing you say can be
used in court.

Criminal cases are only part of the issue.

Amendment IV of the US Constitution reads:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, *AND* no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Notice the "*AND*" that I highlighted. It both joins and separates two ideas. One is the right to privacy, without which a govt could harass or intimidate dissidents or opponents even in the absence of a crime, and the other is the idea that evidence of crimes cannot be "fished-for" indiscriminately.

A phone company's, Email provider's, etc., answer to a government demand for customer information should always be "Let me see the warrant."

http://inthetank.newamerica.net/blog...ting-dangerous

On Wed, 26 Nov 2014 04:59:13 -0800 (PST), wrote:

Well, that depends on how we define "monitor". Do I think anybody is
personally paying attention to me? No. Do I think automatic agents are
scanning my electronic activity? Yes.

http://www.theguardian.com/technolog...our-life-study

Non sequitur.

On Wednesday, November 26, 2014 10:01:34 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 26 Nov 2014 04:59:13 -0800 (PST), wsnell01 wrote:

Well, that depends on how we define "monitor". Do I think anybody is
personally paying attention to me? No. Do I think automatic agents are
scanning my electronic activity? Yes.

http://www.theguardian.com/technolog...our-life-study

Non sequitur.

Try to get you attributions correct by not editing so carelessly, peterson.

Now, my link describes why metadata is not a concern to just brush casually aside, as you tend to do, peterson.

The govt probably has no interest in you, currently, (and we can see why... you voice only the kind of PC opinions that the current "leaders" accept.)

On Wed, 26 Nov 2014 07:55:49 -0800 (PST), wrote:

http://www.theguardian.com/technolog...our-life-study

Non sequitur.

Try to get you attributions correct by not editing so carelessly, peterson.

Now, my link describes why metadata is not a concern to just brush casually aside, as you tend to do, peterson.

The link is irrelevant because I did not suggest that metadata was
revealing sensitive details about me.

The govt probably has no interest in you, currently, (and we can see why... you voice only the kind of PC opinions that the current "leaders" accept.)

I've already said that I don't think I'm being personally monitored by
the government. So your link is irrelevant. Once again, your lack of
reading comprehension produces nonsensical comments.

On Wednesday, November 26, 2014 11:05:00 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 26 Nov 2014 07:55:49 -0800 (PST), wsnell01 wrote:

http://www.theguardian.com/technolog...our-life-study

Non sequitur.

Try to get you attributions correct by not editing so carelessly, peterson.

Now, my link describes why metadata is not a concern to just brush casually aside, as you tend to do, peterson.

The link is irrelevant because I did not suggest that metadata was
revealing sensitive details about me.

However, metadata could be revealing sensitive data about you even if you aren't particularly cognizant of the possibility.

The govt probably has no interest in you, currently, (and we can see why... you voice only the kind of PC opinions that the current "leaders" accept.)

I've already said that I don't think I'm being personally monitored by
the government. So your link is irrelevant. Once again, your lack of
reading comprehension produces nonsensical comments.

You -probably- aren't on its radar screen; you are, after all, a rather dull and obtuse person who runs with the rabbits and barks with the dogs. Perhaps you are a sheeple?

That doesn't give you cause to dismiss out of hand some others' very real reasons to be concerned about metadata surveillance and collection.

On Wed, 26 Nov 2014 08:49:44 -0800 (PST), wrote:

That doesn't give you cause to dismiss out of hand some others' very real reasons to be concerned about metadata surveillance and collection.

And I did that where? Every comment I've made in this thread voices
concern about government monitoring of electronic communications.

On Wednesday, November 26, 2014 12:10:02 AM UTC-7, Paul Schlyter wrote:
Terrorism is really nothing but war
fought by those who cannot afford an army of their own.

Language restricts how people think.

The word "war" confuses people, I claim.

Armed men rob a bank, armed police officers confront them. Here, while there
are two sides, and bullets are flying, what the robbers are doing is "crime",
and what the police officers are doing is "law enforcement".

Because, in general, we take it for granted that banking is a legitimate
business (Social Crediters and conspiracy theorists may disagree) and that
trying to take what doesn't belong to you is wrong. The costs associated with
bank robberies drive down the interest you and I can get on our savings
accounts.

So, when during World War II, German soldiers invaded Holland and France and
Belgium and so on, to say they were making "war", and when American soldiers
came to the beaches of Normandy to give France back to the French, they were
also making "war", obscures the most vital and important distinction. The Nazis
were the criminals, the Allies were the policemen.

If some people say differently, they're liars.

People who can't afford an army, indeed, often engage in asymmetrical warfare,
using, say, guerilla tactics. That is true enough.

However, your statement "Terrorism is really nothing but war fought by those
who cannot afford an army of their own" appears to be saying things about
values that I find pernicious.

For one thing, the current crop of terrorists we're worrying about, the Islamic
extremists, are aggressors. So even if terrorism was just "war", this wouldn't
somehow exempt them from moral condemnation.

And terrorists are not identical with guerilla fighters. Hostage-taking, mass
slaughter of innocents... those who use such tactics *rightly* find their
credentials as "freedom-fighters" suspect.

Of course, I admit that not everyone takes the simplistic view of Middle East politics that I do:

1) No invading army came to Palestine before 1948 to drive the Arabs out of
Palestine and take it for the Jews. Instead, the Jews who were there in 1948
had come there legally and peacefully as immigrants - until the British started
unfairly restricting Jewish immigration, causing great hardship for refugees
from the devastation created by the Nazi aggression.

2) Life for Jews under Arab majority rule would likely be like life for
Christians in Egypt or Pakistan - they would be subject to inequality and
discrimination. No one should be expected to tolerate that.

3) Thus, the partition of Palestine, supported by the world community through
the United Nations at the time, was right and just.

4) The surrounding Arab nations tried to drive Israel into the sea. Through
great and heroic efforts, this was prevented from succeeding. Later, in 1967,
Egypt built up its armaments, plotting to try again - getting the weapons from
illegitimate sources (i.e. he didn't buy them from the United States or Britain
or France, but from the blood-soaked tyrants of the Kremlin, the enemies of all
freedom everywhere). For both of these incidents, a price was paid - Israel
gained additional territory, so that it would be harder to try to drive it off
the map the next time.

5) Instead of accepting the consequences of their wrong actions, the
surrounding Arab countries maintained their hostility towards Israel, in open
rebellion against the will of the American people and public opinion in the
lands were people were free. In October 1973, when the Soviet Union was still
in existence, and the survival of liberty remained in peril, not only did they
launch a war of aggression against Israel - but as the Cold War raged, they
halted the flow of a vital strategic material, oil, to the Western world.

So they were very much on the wrong side of history. They put their wrong-
headed petty quarrel with Israel above the survival of freedom and
civilization, risking putting all humanity into a dark age under Communist
rule, similar to one under Nazi rule, for thousands of years.

From this perspective, the problems faced by the Palestinians... are the result
of the terrorists making it necessary for Israel to take security measures.
Someone in the Gaza Strip can't get an ambulance in time? Prior to that
happening, Hamas terrorists used ambulances for their own transportation.

Israelis shouldn't have to worry about being attacked by terrorists any more
than people in Milwaukee have to worry about an Indian uprising. The Islamic
world suffered the consequences of its aggression against Israel, and should
deal with it, and get on with being responsible partners in the international
community. (Unlike Russia and China, which aren't.)

And then there was September 11, 2001.

That changed everything, and now *terrorism can no longer be tolerated*. At
all. For our own survival, we must wipe it out utterly so that it will never be
tried again. Too many Americans have died, *not one more must die ever*, from
terrorism. (And, of course, _far_ too many Jews have died. So the Islamic world
is not even to _think_ about killing innocent Jews.)

But the West is failing to respond adequately to ISIS. It managed to kill many people of one Sunni tribe that heroically resisted them - hesitation by the Iraqi government delayed reinforcements that might have saved them. What sort of message is that sending to the Sunni people - that one is likelier to survive if one is on the wrong side? It managed to commit unthinkable crimes against humanity against the Yezidi minority.

The U.S. failed to intervene with massive boots on the ground to prevent this.
Instead, they're worried about what other countries in the region will think.
When clearly their thinking is wrong to begin with.

John Savard

On Wednesday, November 26, 2014 12:23:26 PM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 26 Nov 2014 08:49:44 -0800 (PST), wsnell01 wrote:

That doesn't give you cause to dismiss out of hand some others' very real reasons to be concerned about metadata surveillance and collection.

And I did that where? Every comment I've made in this thread voices
concern about government monitoring of electronic communications.

peterson wrote:

"But I think it very likely that the technology will
make it nearly impossible to conduct the sort of wholesale monitoring
that has gone on in recent years."

Your statement assumes that such "technology" would not be outlawed or circumvented:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clipper_chip

On Wed, 26 Nov 2014 09:36:13 -0800 (PST), wrote:

peterson wrote:

"But I think it very likely that the technology will
make it nearly impossible to conduct the sort of wholesale monitoring
that has gone on in recent years."

Your statement assumes that such "technology" would not be outlawed or circumvented:

Yes, it does.

On Wednesday, November 26, 2014 10:36:15 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Wednesday, November 26, 2014 12:23:26 PM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:

"But I think it very likely that the technology will
make it nearly impossible to conduct the sort of wholesale monitoring
that has gone on in recent years."

Your statement assumes that such "technology" would not be outlawed or
circumvented:

It would indeed be a big assumption to expect that there wouldn't be attempts
to outlaw or circumvent it. But that he expects such attempts to ultimately
fail is not entirely unreasonable, given the economic importance of the
Internet and the IT industry, the liberal traditions of the Western world, and
various other factors.

John Savard