So I usually frequent a message board for Arizonan ravers and of course my responses in their serious chat have triggered a storm in which the hippies have gathered and have claimed that all our freedoms are leaving slowly. So my question to you is: Are our freedoms leaving us slowly? being chipped away?

Re: freedoms

no. gimme a link ASAP

Re: freedoms

Aside from having to take my shoes off at airport security, I have encountered no ill-effects from any legislation following 9/11.

You have to just accept that when discussing politics in a music-related forum, you will always encounter a disproportionate number of liberals.... particularly ultra-left leaning liberals. It just comes with the territory. Creative arts people just tend to think that way more. You can't take it personally if you get ganged up when discussing a topic like this.

Re: freedoms

like i say "show me ONE SINGLE person who has been affected by the patriot act"

Re: freedoms

[QUOTE=thesightless;420951]like i say "show me ONE SINGLE person who has been affected by the patriot act"[/QUOTE]

Jose Padilla? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Re: freedoms

yes, jose padilla, and for right cause i would think.

lets look

shot someone in roadrage in 91 assualt in 93 numerous detainments from gang activity in Chi-town left here in 98, spent 5 years on the afghan/pakistani border....

hmmm........ criminal in terror hotspot..........

Re: freedoms

ill throw in the theory that he lived near tim mcveigh for awhile, and the ""second suspect" in the OK bombings bears an uncanny resembelence,

Re: freedoms

[QUOTE=Localizer;420937]So my question to you is: Are our freedoms leaving us slowly? being chipped away?[/QUOTE]

It depends upon how you define freedom. Apart from some obvious changes to the flying process, we're still able to do pretty much the same shit we were able to do before Bush & 9/11, so in that respect, things are more or less unchanged. For those of us that like to be free from government intrusion in our lives, however, the landscape is quite different. Warrantless wiretaps, monitoring your comings and goings, archiving your phone records -- big brother is more a part of our lives than any time in my lifetime. Is that an encroachment on your freedom? I think so.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again -- it stuns me that so-called republicans, who claim to value things like civil liberties and advocate small government, are the ones that are always defending Bush on this shit.

Re: freedoms

[QUOTE=thesightless;420958]yes, jose padilla, and for right cause i would think.

lets look

shot someone in roadrage in 91 assualt in 93 numerous detainments from gang activity in Chi-town left here in 98, spent 5 years on the afghan/pakistani border....

hmmm........ criminal in terror hotspot..........[/QUOTE]

dude, just pulling your chain

Re: freedoms

right there lies the problem with media. [QUOTE]

Warrantless wiretaps, monitoring your comings and goings, archiving your phone records [/QUOTE]

they ALWAYS did the latter pair, in reagrds to flying and phones, now it is publicized a lot more b/c of all the shit. they always kept phone records, but the providers are a lot less willing nowadays to hand them over. so it became a lawsuit.

the wiretaps are not on domestic to domestic calls, but on calls to foreign nations (read middle east and north africa). and i think they arent grabbing paddy mcgee calling shamus o toole, but mohammed calling moqtada in lahore.

Re: freedoms

[quote=thesightless;420963]

the wiretaps are not on domestic to domestic calls...[/quote]

Come on, you don't really believe that do you? If so you should really read up a bit more on the topic and talk to some of the people who have worked as telco techs.

Re: freedoms

or i can ask my relatives who work in the NYPD and FBI....

Re: freedoms

[QUOTE=thesightless;420963]right there lies the problem with media.

they ALWAYS did the latter pair, in reagrds to flying and phones, now it is publicized a lot more b/c of all the shit. they always kept phone records, but the providers are a lot less willing nowadays to hand them over. so it became a lawsuit.

the wiretaps are not on domestic to domestic calls, but on calls to foreign nations (read middle east and north africa). and i think they arent grabbing paddy mcgee calling shamus o toole, but mohammed calling moqtada in lahore.[/QUOTE]

it's a matter of degree. They obviously made note of when you used your passport, but they didn't collect as much information about you as they do now. Domestic to domestic calls DO get tapped. And if you really trust your government that much, I guess I envy your naivety.

Re: freedoms

[QUOTE=thesightless;420973]or i can ask my relatives who work in the NYPD and FBI....[/QUOTE]

the taps we're talking about would be out of their jurisdiction.

Re: freedoms

FBI CT unit no longer has jurisddiction. they operate in many countries. but if you mean CIA, the CIA operates outside US borders. so who's jurisdiction u thinking????

Re: freedoms

Nsa

Re: freedoms

aaah.

Re: freedoms

I agree with Toasty's sentiment on this. Its more a feeling and a knowledge of intrusion. Doing financial transactions, particularly in larger sums has been impacted. Data collection is the single biggest threat to privacy and individual liberty imo. One day they will use it and we will all feel it.

Re: freedoms

gimme link or gimme death

Re: freedoms

[QUOTE=thesightless;421006]gimme link or gimme death[/QUOTE]

Can I pick? :lol: ;)

Re: freedoms

you can but i fight back, and i aint no BS st lou boy. you get bronx hardass.

Re: freedoms

[quote=Lorn;421003]I agree with Toasty's sentiment on this. Its more a feeling and a knowledge of intrusion. Doing financial transactions, particularly in larger sums has been impacted. Data collection is the single biggest threat to privacy and individual liberty imo. One day they will use it and we will all feel it.[/quote]

Lots of that has been done for years through various record keeping and governmental acts. As aforementioned of sorts, it's just gotten to be more widely known through things like the Patriot Act and the like.

IMHO though, not very often is someone truly innocent of any wrongdoing screwed (it happens, but is expected)...if you do something sketchy/illegal or that's perceived as sketchy/illegal in the populace, then that'll come back to get you, or put more surveillance on you, like it or not...

Re: freedoms

[quote=FM;421131]Lots of that has been done for years through various record keeping and governmental acts. As aforementioned of sorts, it's just gotten to be more widely known through things like the Patriot Act and the like.

IMHO though, not very often is someone truly innocent of any wrongdoing screwed (it happens, but is expected)...if you do something sketchy/illegal or that's perceived as sketchy/illegal in the populace, then that'll come back to get you, or put more surveillance on you, like it or not...[/quote]

We have to decide, as a country...... which scenario do we prefer.

1. No government surveilance, with increased threats of large-scale terror attacks.

2. A little bit of surveilance, with vastly decreased threat of attacks.

I feel confident that my liberties have not been infringed upon in the slightest since 9/11. I have only left the country once since then, and went to England and Ireland. I encountered no hardships travelling through customs.

Had I taken a trip to the middle east, however..... I would completely understand if the government wished to monitor my movements. We are just living in an age where we must be careful. We are at war.

Re: freedoms

[QUOTE=subterFUSE;421213]We have to decide, as a country...... which scenario do we prefer.

1. No government surveilance, with increased threats of large-scale terror attacks.

2. A little bit of surveilance, with vastly decreased threat of attacks.

I feel confident that my liberties have not been infringed upon in the slightest since 9/11. I have only left the country once since then, and went to England and Ireland. I encountered no hardships travelling through customs.

Had I taken a trip to the middle east, however..... I would completely understand if the government wished to monitor my movements. We are just living in an age where we must be careful. We are at war.[/QUOTE]

Wow. Way to hit those talking points. You angling for Snow's job?

I don't feel like expending the time and effort necessary to dissect the false dichotomy you present, but suffice it to say that you must assume everyone reading your post is a complete moron.

Re: freedoms

[quote=toasty;421301]Wow. Way to hit those talking points. You angling for Snow's job?

I don't feel like expending the time and effort necessary to dissect the false dichotomy you present, but suffice it to say that you must assume everyone reading your post is a complete moron.[/quote]

listen, i understand that you were quite distant from NY, but I live here, please dont ever trivialize a terror attack, we lost around 4000 innocent people who did nothing but go to work. if a little more cops on the streets, and wiretaps aim to prevent it, i can deal. i NEVER want to be standing there watching people jump from 1000 feet to their death again. it indeed was that bad, you have been to NYC, and i assume the WTC site. i have barely worked in manhatten since it happened, i just feel weird when im there. i would rather the overkill and safety than the other.

Re: freedoms

[QUOTE=thesightless;421313]listen, i understand that you were quite distant from NY, but I live here, please dont ever trivialize a terror attack[/QUOTE]

Although I'm not a resident of NYC, I've spent enough time there -- hell, I actually received mail at the W at 49th and Lex for about 8 months in 2002 -- that I feel a certain kinship with the city and yes, I have been to the WTC site, a number of times. We shared space with the St. Louis office of Aon on 9/11, and I remember none too fondly the anguish that was going on with our friends watching things unfold knowing their friends and colleagues were in the WTC that day. Nothing that I wrote in my previous post, have written in the past, or will ever write here or anywhere else should ever be interpreted as trivializing what happened on 9/11.

It just fires me up when people present it as if we have two options: (1) letting the terrorists run free and subjecting ourselves to certain doom, or (2) ignoring "minor" deviations from the fucking Constitution which will no doubt ensure that we never have to deal with such horrors again. The fearmongering is just absurd. I would think that someone leveraging this horrible act for their own political agenda would be equally offensive.

More cops on the streets? I'd love to see that. More funding for homeland security? I'd love to see that, too. In fact, I have no problem with wiretaps, provided you get a warrant at some point, which no judge in his/her right mind would ever deny. It does not dishonor those who died on 9/11 to ask that our leadership continue to hold to the ideals that had been in place and working quite well for 225 years prior, though. We weren't attacked because we have too many civil liberties, we were attacked because these folks are whack jobs who were willing to stop at nothing, including ending their own lives, to attack us.

Re: freedoms

[quote=toasty;421327] It just fires me up when people present it as if we have two options: (1) letting the terrorists run free and subjecting ourselves to certain doom, or (2) ignoring "minor" deviations from the fucking Constitution which will no doubt ensure that we never have to deal with such horrors again. The fearmongering is just absurd. [/quote]

God that is so true, and that's exactly how it's presented. Pisses me right off loyd.

Re: freedoms

[quote=Jenks;421329]God that is so true, and that's exactly how it's presented. Pisses me right off loyd.[/quote] where the beer flows like wine. [IMG]http://www.amarillo.com/images/070706/39001_512.jpg[/IMG]

Re: freedoms

every time in this thread I'm about to add something, I hit refresh and toasty has covered exactly what I'd wanted to say...he's spot on

+1 :Bingo:

Re: freedoms

[SIZE=2]The wiretapping issue just seems so overblown to me. I know we like to think that we're important and that our lives are worth all that trouble, but in the grand scheme of things 99.9% of us just aren't worth that much attention from Uncle Sam. If your concern is based on the idea that some suit in the pentagon is tapping your phone, take a second to think of the logistics of it:[/SIZE]

[SIZE=2]Forget emails, let's just look at phone calls. How many do you make and receive on an average day[/SIZE][SIZE=2] - 10? 11? Maybe if you're the popular sort it could be close to 20. How about if your work has you on the phone all day, maybe its even as high as 40 - but let's lowball it for the sake of discussion that the average person makes and receives 5 calls a day. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=2]What's the population at now 300 mil? Let's cut that in half to exclude kids and old folks - so 150,000,000 average Americans on the phone an average of 5 times a day. That is 3/4's of a BILLION individual phone calls in a single day. A DAY! [/SIZE]

[SIZE=2]Now its no secret that there are programs designed to pick out key words in a conversation, "bomb", "assassinate", "mutha fukkin jihad" ect.. ect.. I don't know about you but I don't use those words very often and I'd bet that average Joe American doesn't either. So let's say, just for the sake of argument, that 1% of those daily calls include one of those key words. That is over 7 MILLION private calls each and every single day that only [I]hint [/I]at a possible threat - and those calls would require a second look by real live people locked up in the dungeons of the Pentagon, evil Rumsfield wannabe's patrolling the aisles whips in hand.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=2]Now, you live your day to day life like you always do. As far as I can tell, no one here is a terrorist, no one is involved in plotting the destruction of the West, we all just go about our normal, not-posing-any-threat-to-America way of life. When they have numbers like that to contend with, what interest do you really think we offer to the government? Do you really think they are [I]that[/I] intrusive that they would track [I]our[/I] phone calls? Read[I] our[/I] emails? Unless they're dying to know what the current feeling is on the state of post-progressive house music in America and Europe, why would they ever bother looking at this website? I'm sorry to say folks, but we just aren't that interesting as average, law abiding citizens.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=2]I understand why this issue still circulates though. It paints the government in Orwellian terms, offers a juicy espionage-laced story for mainstream media to run with, and gives Bush bashers a new tune to beat their drum to. But when one looks at it in an objective manner, its clear that the chance that one of our phone calls or emails ends up on the desk of some seedy government worker is just far too remote. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=2]But the results of these wiretaps and message tracking are evident - attacks [I]have [/I]been stopped, plots [I]have [/I]been foiled. And you have to believe that some of those plots were never made public for intelligence reasons. Where is the intrusion? Where are the trampled rights? We are not the target of these taps, hell we aren't even on the map.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=2]But perhaps these acts will lead us down a ahem "slippery slope", that the groundwork is being laid for a more penetrating means. Do you really think that would ever get through even the [I]most [/I]closed-door government meeting? Imagine all the hands that would be involved in such an act, do you really think [I]no one [/I]would stand up and say, "Is this necessary?". Capitol Hill has more leaks than a public toilet - do you really think that would go unnoticed?[/SIZE]

[SIZE=2]Like I said, its nice to think that our lives are meaningful outside of our little sphere of influence, that somehow we are on the radar of a high-tek tracking board - but when looked at from high above we are but a sea of faceless figures, one completely indistinguishable from the next. And if you truly believe that our government is more concerned with the comings and goings of each and every single American than they are with stopping another 9/11 - well brother, I think you need to loosen up that tinfoil hat of yours[/SIZE]

Re: freedoms

thank you! it is way overblown and harped on based on principle. like i said the page before, they arent paying attention to paddy mcgee and shamus, but aiming to mohammed and sunil.

Re: freedoms

[QUOTE] We weren't attacked because we have too many civil liberties, we were attacked because these folks are whack jobs who were willing to stop at nothing, including ending their own lives, to attack us. [/QUOTE]

We were attacked by whack jobs who used our civil liberties against us.

Re: freedoms

[QUOTE=subterFUSE;421481]We were attacked by whack jobs who used our civil liberties against us.[/QUOTE]

please explain. Which of our civil liberties were exploited when those hijackers smuggled box cutters onto those planes, overtook the crew, and used the planes as weapons?

Re: freedoms

im agreeing with jimbo here. while our "freedoms" were pushed, they were not truly violated.

Re: freedoms

[quote=toasty;421564]please explain. Which of our civil liberties were exploited when those hijackers smuggled box cutters onto those planes, overtook the crew, and used the planes as weapons?[/quote]

The terrorists entered the country legally, obtained flight training legally, were admitted through security carrying box-cutters (which at the time were not deemed weapons), and then hijacked planes.

The point is, they used a number of the freedoms we have in this country in order to craft and carry out their plan.

Re: freedoms

[QUOTE=subterFUSE;421621]The terrorists entered the country legally, obtained flight training legally, were admitted through security carrying box-cutters (which at the time were not deemed weapons), and then hijacked planes.

The point is, they used a number of the freedoms we have in this country in order to craft and carry out their plan.[/QUOTE]

So it's OK to wiretap phones without a warrant because the hijackers entered the country legally and found someone to teach them to fly (yet Bush still wants to relax immigration requirements -- 'splain that! :roll: )

Sorry dude, no sale.

Re: freedoms

[quote=toasty;421679]So it's OK to wiretap phones without a warrant because the hijackers entered the country legally and found someone to teach them to fly (yet Bush still wants to relax immigration requirements -- 'splain that! :roll: )

Sorry dude, no sale.[/quote]

You are leaving out a critical point. It is OK to wiretap phone calls [U]between the USA and middle-eastern countries, and involving people on our terrorism watch lists[/U].

Re: freedoms

[QUOTE=subterFUSE;421685]You are leaving out a critical point. It is OK to wiretap phone calls [U]between the USA and middle-eastern countries, and involving people on our terrorism watch lists[/U].[/QUOTE]

nah, I'm just pointing out that you're trying to put a square peg in a round hole. You're saying that the terrorists took advantage of our civil liberties, which BTW are things like freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to bear arms, etc., and I'm saying that's bullshit -- they took advantage of the the fact that we were a nation that would never see something like that coming.

and BTW, there's nothing wrong with tapping the phone of someone on the watch list who is calling the mid-east -- just get a warrant, at some point. I don't care how liberal the judge is, the warrant is going to issue.

Re: freedoms

[quote=subterFUSE;421213]We have to decide, as a country...... which scenario do we prefer.

1. No government surveilance, with increased threats of large-scale terror attacks.

2. A little bit of surveilance, with vastly decreased threat of attacks. [/quote]

Sorry, but I feel less safe on both fronts. One, because there are more terrorists now than prior to Iraq and two because my appearance (East Indian) I am more likely to be profiled.

You talk of increased threats- in the US [B]FAR[/B] more people die of obesity than the terrorist bogeyman. Far more of cancer, car accidents, etc. If your looking to save lives, let's start there.

And what happened to the foundations this country was built on?

Sorry but just like copy protection on software, this doesn't hurt the bad guys, only the honest people. IIRC correctly per the 9/11 commission report the terrorists were successful because they considered electronic communications unsafe and used other methods.

If someone really wants to stay under the radar, they will, provided they take the time and effort to do so. For instance if you want voice communications you can set up VoIP fully encrypted end to end. I run VoIP as my home line. I set my adapter up to automatically encrypt if the other end supports it. What about Steganography for sending messages? Sadly, the only people being snooped on are the less technically savvy.

Trust me, we deal with the big boys on occasion and we've had times where we sent over some encrypted files used by hackers and they were unable to break the encryption after a year. Hackers trying to hide their code or steal data use encryption, you think a terrorist who wants to hide his plot won't?

If you look back to recent plots that were uncovered you'll see that it wasn't due to random surveillance but to an inside person coming forward.

Re: freedoms

[quote=neoee;421822]One, because there are more terrorists now than prior to Iraq [/quote]

Huh? How on earth do you know that?