T Nation

March Towards Fascism Continues

"The FBI appears to have begun using a novel form of electronic surveillance in criminal investigations: remotely activating a mobile phone’s microphone and using it to eavesdrop on nearby conversations…

Kaplan’s opinion said that the eavesdropping technique “functioned whether the phone was powered on or off.” Some handsets can’t be fully powered down without removing the battery; for instance, some Nokia models will wake up when turned off if an alarm is set."

Including GPS Systems

good thing gsm carriers like Cingular and T-Mobile don’t have a gps chipset in then Verizon and Sprint had to put a gps tracking chip in their devices in order to for e911(an ability to track a person if they needed to dial 911).

BUSHILTER! BUSHILTER! BUSHILTER! BUSHILTER! BUSHILTER! BUSHILTER! BUSHILTER! BUSHILTER! BUSHILTER!

Paranoia will destroy ya!

Ever notice how BUSHITLER and BULLSHITER look alike?

[quote]Hack Wilson wrote:
BUSHILTER! BUSHILTER! BUSHILTER! BUSHILTER! BUSHILTER! BUSHILTER! BUSHILTER! BUSHILTER! BUSHILTER!

Paranoia will destroy ya![/quote]

zdnet is a reputable magazine. This is probably a real thing.

[quote]pookie wrote:
Ever notice how BUSHITLER and BULLSHITER look alike?
[/quote]

Haha. My thoughts exactly.

Snno, you’ve already lost credability on these forums, at least try and earn some back by stopping these ridiculous posts. Or at least CONSIDERING reason.

[quote]ssn0 wrote:

"The FBI appears to have begun using a novel form of electronic surveillance in criminal investigations: remotely activating a mobile phone’s microphone and using it to eavesdrop on nearby conversations…

Kaplan’s opinion said that the eavesdropping technique “functioned whether the phone was powered on or off.” Some handsets can’t be fully powered down without removing the battery; for instance, some Nokia models will wake up when turned off if an alarm is set."

Including GPS Systems
[/quote]

Maybe we should just nicely ask the terrorists to talk louder in public places so we can more easily hear what they are planning?

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Maybe we should just nicely ask the terrorists to talk louder in public places so we can more easily hear what they are planning?
[/quote]

I think it would be easier to catch all the terrorists if you made it a crime to speak in any language other than English…

innocent whistling

beeeeep!

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
pookie wrote:
Ever notice how BUSHITLER and BULLSHITER look alike?

Haha. My thoughts exactly.

Snno, you’ve already lost credability on these forums, at least try and earn some back by stopping these ridiculous posts. Or at least CONSIDERING reason.[/quote]

If you didnt realize I can careless what another busy body such as yourself thinks of another busy body haha fuck off human

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
ssn0 wrote:

"The FBI appears to have begun using a novel form of electronic surveillance in criminal investigations: remotely activating a mobile phone’s microphone and using it to eavesdrop on nearby conversations…

Kaplan’s opinion said that the eavesdropping technique “functioned whether the phone was powered on or off.” Some handsets can’t be fully powered down without removing the battery; for instance, some Nokia models will wake up when turned off if an alarm is set."

Including GPS Systems

Maybe we should just nicely ask the terrorists to talk louder in public places so we can more easily hear what they are planning?

[/quote]

You’ve got the fear, why?

[quote]Hack Wilson wrote:
BUSHILTER! BUSHILTER! BUSHILTER! BUSHILTER! BUSHILTER! BUSHILTER! BUSHILTER! BUSHILTER! BUSHILTER!

Paranoia will destroy ya![/quote]

paranoia is what you call it. never say you know everything, keep questioning.

http://www.T-Nation.com/readTopic.do?id=1289328&pageNo=0#1289328

[quote]ssn0 wrote:
You’ve got the fear, why?[/quote]

If a few people weren’t being terrorized, we wouldn’t call them terrorists, right?

[quote]vroom wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Maybe we should just nicely ask the terrorists to talk louder in public places so we can more easily hear what they are planning?

I think it would be easier to catch all the terrorists if you made it a crime to speak in any language other than English…

innocent whistling

beeeeep![/quote]

Isn’t that what Canada tried to do in making French the official language of Quebec?

[quote]pookie wrote:
ssn0 wrote:
You’ve got the fear, why?

If a few people weren’t being terrorized, we wouldn’t call them terrorists, right?
[/quote]

And if the US were not vigilant in trying to track and prevent terrorism I’m sure ssn0 would be the first to whine about it saying “they should have done more, now all these people are dead”.

You can’t have it both ways, either you are protected, but loose some civil liberties, or you loose not civil liberties and more innocent people die. And what usually happens is that those who cry about civil liberties being lost have never lost anyone to terrorism. And if/when they do they change their position.

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
You can’t have it both ways, either you are protected, but loose some civil liberties, or you loose not civil liberties and more innocent people die.[/quote]

I think that’s a false dichotomy. You can address failures from intelligence agencies without giving away all the citizens’ rights.

You do not defend freedom and liberty by having less and less of it.

You claim to be “the land of the free and the home of the brave.” Are you?

The overwhelming majority of people living in America have never lost anyone to terrorism; yet they allow themselves to be scared into giving up their freedoms.

Personally, I think that’s giving in to the terrorists. You are changing your way of life for them. You are letting them win, in a way.

[quote]pookie wrote:

The overwhelming majority of people living in America have never lost anyone to terrorism; yet they allow themselves to be scared into giving up their freedoms.

Personally, I think that’s giving in to the terrorists. You are changing your way of life for them. You are letting them win, in a way.

[/quote]

Good point; I agree with you. Furthermore, the government hasn’t done enough, nor proven competent, with the power it already has–checking shipping containers, for instance–so I don’t see why we should give it any more.

[quote]pookie wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
You can’t have it both ways, either you are protected, but loose some civil liberties, or you loose not civil liberties and more innocent people die.

I think that’s a false dichotomy. You can address failures from intelligence agencies without giving away all the citizens’ rights.

You do not defend freedom and liberty by having less and less of it.
[/quote]

That sounds like a good talking point, but protecting freedom while protecting the people from terrorist (who are more free in the US to commit acts of terrorist) is not easy to balance.

When you have freedom, the terrorist do as well. So the fact is that they are more free, in a free society, to commit terrorist acts. So it really it is not false dichotomy. It is one of degree, but there is a definite relationship and increase risk the more free a society is.

But freedom always comes as a price. We are free to keep and bear arms, which means we will have more accidental shootings and intentional murder. So the cost of the 4th US amendment is lost lives. So the relationship holds up here as well. The more free we are to have and use guns the more the potential cost of death by guns.

I personally feel that the freedom is worth the cost, but many don’t see it that way.

I agree with that. However, the minute something happens people will start to whine that more should have been done. These are the same people who didn’t want more done because they thought it was a loss of freedom.

So I’m ok with maintaining all our freedoms and whatever happens, happens. I just don’t want to here any whining afterwards.

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
That sounds like a good talking point, but protecting freedom while protecting the people from terrorist (who are more free in the US to commit acts of terrorist) is not easy to balance.[/quote]

Who said it would be easy? I’m wary of making things too easy for the government. Personally, I’d rather live with a little more risk that I might be caught in an attack, than to live under constant surveillance.

Yes. Freedom is not without certain risks or costs. Still, I think it is more than worth it.

What I meant by false dichotomy is that the reducing civil liberties is not the only way of increasing security. You can start by addressing noted failures and finding ways of working better within the established laws.

But here too, you can reduce various risks by installing safety mechanisms on guns; by locking up your guns; by using trigger guards, etc.

There are many steps that can be taken to reduce the overall death toll without taking guns away.

You could also take cars as an example. A lot of people die each year in car accidents. Do you take away cars, or make them harder to possess? No, you add seatbelts and airbags; you put ABS brakes and mandate speed limits and running lights.

You do the best you can to minimize the risks while retaining as much of the advantage of car ownership as you can.

Good luck with that. I’ll put up with the whining if I get to keep my freedoms.

[quote]pookie wrote:
You claim to be “the land of the free and the home of the brave.” Are you?

And what usually happens is that those who cry about civil liberties being lost have never lost anyone to terrorism. And if/when they do they change their position.

The overwhelming majority of people living in America have never lost anyone to terrorism; yet they allow themselves to be scared into giving up their freedoms.

Personally, I think that’s giving in to the terrorists. You are changing your way of life for them. You are letting them win, in a way.

[/quote]

Canada would not exist, w/o the USA setting the gold standard for nations. How many functioning republics were there in 1789? Why did Canada come into existence in 1867?

You think the terrorists are winning? HA!

“Only a fool bets against the United States.”
— J. P. Morgan

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Canada would not exist, w/o the USA setting the gold standard for nations. How many functioning republics were there in 1789? Why did Canada come into existence in 1867?

You think the terrorists are winning? HA!

“Only a fool bets against the United States.”
— J. P. Morgan

[/quote]

Before 1867, what would eventually become Canada were British and French colonies.

Canada is not a republic either.

You managed to touch lightly on what was actually being discussed previously: Whether giving up liberties for increased security is worth it.

Apparently, you don’t think that giving up various principles and liberties means in any way that the terrorists have been able to change your country; I differ. We might argue about what constitutes “winning”, but the fact remains that since 9/11, the US has been passing a lot of legislation that reduce your rights and gives the government added powers of surveillance. Checks and balances are also being done away with, all in the name of “security.”

If you’d let go of the lovely quotes that bring nothing to the discussion and actually put a little more meat on your opinions, we might have a discussion about them.