• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Officials Push to Bolster Law on Wiretapping

Councilman

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 25, 2009
Messages
4,454
Reaction score
1,654
Location
Riverside, County, CA.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I can't really object to this as long as they stick to "Communications Assistance to Law Enforcement Act, a 1994 law that says telephone and broadband companies must design their services so that they can begin conducting surveillance of a target immediately after being presented with a court order."

I am not sure so sure that all the wire tapes being done are all that legal.

The use of warrantless wire tapping is up since Obama took over, and it was not good under President Bush. Making it easier for a narcissistic egomaniac who is believed by some to already have an enemies list could be a problem.

Did everyone know that On Star can be remotely activated and your private conversations listened to?

The same goes for some Computers and Smart phones as well.

At the end of 2005, all cell phone carriers were required to provide the ability to trace cell phone calls to a location within 100 meters or less.

To comply with FCC requirements, cell phone carriers decided to integrate GPS technology into cell phone handsets, rather than overhaul the tower network.

So as they want to make it easier should we be concerned at all?

[QUOTE
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/19/us/19wiretap.html?_r=1

By CHARLIE SAVAGE
Published: October 18, 2010

WASHINGTON — Law enforcement and counterterrorism officials, citing lapses in compliance with surveillance orders, are pushing to overhaul a federal law that requires phone and broadband carriers to ensure that their networks can be wiretapped, federal officials say.

An Obama administration task force that includes officials from the Justice and Commerce Departments, the F.B.I. and other agencies recently began working on draft legislation to strengthen and expand the Communications Assistance to Law Enforcement Act, a 1994 law that says telephone and broadband companies must design their services so that they can begin conducting surveillance of a target immediately after being presented with a court order.[/QUOTE]
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
74,114
Reaction score
32,327
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I'm ok with it as long as they get a judge to sign off on it. It's the warrantless wiretapping under the PATRIOT act that bothers me. I mean, they have a secret court to handle these things, so it's not like there's a reasonable OpSec concern. The only reason I can think of that someone would want to bypass a secret court is that they don't think their hand-picked judge would approve the wiretap. If your evidence is that shoddy, you shouldn't be tapping that phone, jerkfaces.
 

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
34,340
Reaction score
16,230
Location
A place where common sense exists
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
The feds forcing companies to make their **** less secure so that the government does not have to work as hard in the event they get a warrant. I think this is wrong. It would be like the government making homeowners give law enforcement a key to their house so that if something suspicious happens then they can have easy access and not have to break down the door or window. If law enforcement wishes to tap lines or what ever the hell else then they can hire experts.
 

Councilman

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 25, 2009
Messages
4,454
Reaction score
1,654
Location
Riverside, County, CA.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I'm ok with it as long as they get a judge to sign off on it. It's the warrantless wiretapping under the PATRIOT act that bothers me. I mean, they have a secret court to handle these things, so it's not like there's a reasonable OpSec concern. The only reason I can think of that someone would want to bypass a secret court is that they don't think their hand-picked judge would approve the wiretap. If your evidence is that shoddy, you shouldn't be tapping that phone, jerkfaces.
The warrantless wiretapping under the PATRIOT Act was to be restricted to terror suspects for National Security and yet a few years ago it was used to listen in on a couple of guys who were in the night club business in Vegas and were moving into Sad Diego. They owned clubs I believe were called the Cheetah Clubs. The Feds tapped into the ON Star system on a Hummer II limo and nailed the club manager and three city council members on bribery charges. All without any warrant under the Patriot Act.

Not good.I think the scum bags should have been put away but we have laws for a reason I thought.

I also found out that under Patriot Act II as a reporter if I saw someone I knew being arrested and went on the radio and talked about what I saw and the person being arrested was going to be help without charges or would not have access to an attorney I was subject to the same kind of arrest with no rights and could be held indefinitely with out charges.

I tried to verify this with an FBI acquaintance but he would not discuss it with me on or off the record. I talked with my City attorney who said he would recommend not trying to find out if it was true if the occasion ever came up.

So welcome to the Brave new world.

In Warrantless Wiretapping Case, Obama DOJ's New Arguments Are Worse Than Bush's

Happy reading.

In Warrantless Wiretapping Case, Obama DOJ's New Arguments Are Worse Than Bush's | Electronic Frontier Foundation
 

Goof Noodle

Active member
Joined
May 12, 2010
Messages
257
Reaction score
60
Location
Omaha, NE
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
People who have nothing to hide have nothing to be afraid of.
So you support the government listening in our conversations to make sure we are following the laws that force us to only use environmentally friendly products in our homes. After all, California needs to catch the guy who brags to his friend in Iowa that he kept his 72 inch flat screen despite the state passing a law banning them.
 

Boo Radley

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
37,066
Reaction score
7,028
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I'm ok with it as long as they get a judge to sign off on it. It's the warrantless wiretapping under the PATRIOT act that bothers me. I mean, they have a secret court to handle these things, so it's not like there's a reasonable OpSec concern. The only reason I can think of that someone would want to bypass a secret court is that they don't think their hand-picked judge would approve the wiretap. If your evidence is that shoddy, you shouldn't be tapping that phone, jerkfaces.
Judicial oversight is key. We can't trust the governemnt to always be proper.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
74,114
Reaction score
32,327
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
People who have nothing to hide have nothing to be afraid of.
People who don't own guns right now don't need the 2nd amendment protected!

edit: I mean Jesus Christ, your argument is basically "if I'm not currently exercising the right there's no reason for me to have it!"
 
Last edited:

Zyphlin

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 21, 2005
Messages
51,312
Reaction score
35,172
Location
NoMoAuchie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Question...

Warrantless Wiretapping is such a generic catch all when talking about PATRIOT that seems to just get trotted out there but never fully pointed out. What sections are you all referencing when you speak about warrantless wiretapping?

Saying you see "no purpose" to it without being specific seems vague and just not really helpful to a discussion. For example I've spoken with someone before that viewed the roving wiretaps as a "warrantless" wiretap because even though they need a warrant to do the wiretapping in general the provision allows them to tap multiple items at law enforcements discretion so it wasn't getting a warrant for every one which to him meant warrantless. Which provisions are you all talking about specifically?

I'd need to look into the current proposal more to decide how I feel on it, however at this point I don't believe the public desire or national need for more stringent security is as needed.
 

Boo Radley

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
37,066
Reaction score
7,028
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Picture needing to connect thre dots, needing it to be the right three dots on a page. Fill the page with dots. Can you connect them. I think this is the problem with minning. Too much to follow up on without anything specific enough top focus the pursuit. I think that address the lack of purpose in minning.

But I repeat, we should always have oversight. We should never trust the government to have this power without some check on it.
 

Binary_Digit

DP Veteran
Joined
May 21, 2005
Messages
4,215
Reaction score
1,701
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
People who have nothing to hide have nothing to be afraid of.
This is the stupidest argument anyone could make on this subject. People who have nothing to hide still have Constitutional rights such as the right to be protected against unreasonable search and seizure. Seriously Korimyr, you're better than this.
 

Korimyr the Rat

Baby Eating Monster
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
19,553
Reaction score
15,757
Location
Cheyenne, WY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
So you support the government listening in our conversations to make sure we are following the laws that force us to only use environmentally friendly products in our homes. After all, California needs to catch the guy who brags to his friend in Iowa that he kept his 72 inch flat screen despite the state passing a law banning them.
The law is the law. If you allow the government to make stupid laws it's your fault and that's no excuse for breaking them. And if the police are willing to go to all the time and effort to wiretap someone to look for illegal oversized televisions, you should be thankful that you live somewhere that they don't have real crimes to deal with.
 

Korimyr the Rat

Baby Eating Monster
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
19,553
Reaction score
15,757
Location
Cheyenne, WY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
edit: I mean Jesus Christ, your argument is basically "if I'm not currently exercising the right there's no reason for me to have it!"
And your argument is that the reason people have rights is so that they can get away with breaking the law. Somehow, that doesn't sound right, either.

People who have nothing to hide still have Constitutional rights such as the right to be protected against unreasonable search and seizure.
That's what the law says, sure. Until the law says something else. Which is what we're discussing. The only Amendment in the Bill of Rights that is not thoroughly and consistently violated by the government is the 3rd; I happen to think a number of those violations are good things.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
74,114
Reaction score
32,327
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
And your argument is that the reason people have rights is so that they can get away with breaking the law. Somehow, that doesn't sound right, either.
Your statement only works in a world where the government is perfect, never making any mistakes about the potential guilt or innocence about a person. My right against unreasonable search and seizure protects me in the event that some cop has a personal grudge because I looked at him funny or have a bumper sticker on my car he doesn't like. Or maybe just mistakes me for someone else.
 
Last edited:

Korimyr the Rat

Baby Eating Monster
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
19,553
Reaction score
15,757
Location
Cheyenne, WY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Your statement only works in a world where the government is perfect, never making any mistakes about the potential guilt or innocence about a person. My right against unreasonable search and seizure protects me in the event that some cop has a personal grudge because I looked at him funny or have a bumper sticker on my car he doesn't like. Or maybe just mistakes me for someone else.
He can plant dope on you just as easily in a "reasonable" search and seizure and falsifying probable cause is easier than falsifying evidence. There are mechanisms in place to guard against this kind of corruption, and I like to think they work fairly well, but they're not perfect. Wiretapping doesn't "produce" evidence unless there is actually a crime being discussed. It's not like CCTV cameras on street intersections or Feds in an unmarked van would suddenly gain the ability to falsify footage-- and if they're willing to go that far to screw you, the Bill of Rights, the Ten Commandments and the Code of Hammurabi combined aren't going to save you.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
74,114
Reaction score
32,327
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
He can plant dope on you just as easily in a "reasonable" search and seizure and falsifying probable cause is easier than falsifying evidence. There are mechanisms in place to guard against this kind of corruption, and I like to think they work fairly well, but they're not perfect. Wiretapping doesn't "produce" evidence unless there is actually a crime being discussed. It's not like CCTV cameras on street intersections or Feds in an unmarked van would suddenly gain the ability to falsify footage-- and if they're willing to go that far to screw you, the Bill of Rights, the Ten Commandments and the Code of Hammurabi combined aren't going to save you.
The 4th and 5th amendments exist mainly to protect innocent people, not criminals.
 

Boo Radley

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
37,066
Reaction score
7,028
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
The 4th and 5th amendments exist mainly to protect innocent people, not criminals.
People fiorget this, until they're the innocent person in trouble that is.
 
Top Bottom