Posted on 12/03/2001 10:00:13 PM PST by Mercuria
Even in the worst of times, there's always something to be grateful for, a silver lining in the darkest cloud. For my part, I'm grateful the attacks and the events after it didn't happen while Bill Clinton was in office. Clinton was fundamentally in love with power. As he did after the bombing in Oklahoma City, and school shootings, he would have taken advantage of the deaths of other Americans for his own political advancement. In an example of extreme hypocrisy, his backers would call his grubby exploitation honoring the dead, and would accuse anyone who disagrees of having no concern for the loss of life. I've never understood the attitude that the way to memorialize the dead is by giving up freedom, the thing that makes us Americans. All I can say is, I'm glad Republicans don't have that attitude.
Picture what Clinton might have done, through crass political manipulation of the crisis. It would have been an excuse for a federal power grab. I'd imagine that he would get laws passed making it legal for his jack-booted thugs to search homes without even telling the person whose property is searched. He's the kind of dangerous politician to have done that, and more. He might have gone further, letting federal law enforcement track what content a person accesses over the internet, and, in his boundless desire to have unlimited authority over ordinary people, he might have required a lower standard of proof than probable cause. Maybe the only requirement would be that it's relevant to an investigation. I'm glad Bush is in office instead.
In 1998, the Clinton administration released plans to implement a set of regulations called "Know Your Customer", which would have required banks to determine the sources of customers' funds, track their transactions, and report anything considered unusual. The reports would be investigated by something called FinCEN, which would keep the records around for the feds to snoop through, regardless of whether there was any evidence of a crime. The whole idea was abandoned after a public outcry. Bill Clinton thus showed himself to be an enemy of financial privacy, and given what we know about his unscrupulousness he wouldn't have hesitated to exploit the situation to resume his attack. Maybe he would have revived Know Your Customer, or maybe he would have attacked privacy some other way. Maybe he would have made all retailers follow the rules banks already follow under the misnamed Bank Secrecy Act.
On that subject, that Democrats give their bills gimmicky, misleading names has always annoyed me. It's as if they know that political truth in advertising would undo them. If the Bank Secrecy Act had been called the Spy Bank Accounts Act, nobody would have voted for it. Clinton probably would've bundled all of it together in a single bill with a gimmick name like the "Patriot Act". I'm glad the honorable man in the White House now would never do something like that.
Beyond Clinton himself, there was his authoritarian Attorney General, Janet Reno. The Butcher of Waco would have plunged headlong into whatever tyranny she thought she could get away with. That was her nature, seeing no reason not to have a police state and every reason to have one, and thus subjugating ordinary people to official thuggery every time she could. By now she might have hundreds of people held incommunicado in jail, without charges, and in secret. The worst fears of the black helicopter crowd would be coming true. That woman, I tell you, had no respect whatsoever for our basic legal traditions. She might even have gotten the FBI to spy on political and religious organizations, creating the opportunity for purely political investigations like J. Edgar Hoover used to have.
But maybe I've taken it too far. Even if she wanted to, the public would never stand for that. War or not, there would be enough public complaint to stop that. And even if the public is too complacent, at least we now have good men in office, who would never take advantage of that kind of complacency.
In the 1960's, a federal agency known as DARPANET created the original internet connection backbone with public taxpayer funds. As universities and later corporations later clamored for access to this system, contracts were signed (voluntarily) which continued to treat data traffic on this backbone as open, public information (traffic originating from an ISP that is connected to one gateway isn't prohibited from view by the other gateways or backbone repeaters - and in fact the very nature of reading the address that is encoded on each TC/PIP "packet" REQUIRES that every piece of data on the internet be reviewed by every piece of equipment which the data passes over/through). Today, this internet backbone connects all internet gateways (ISP's connect to the gateways).
Thus, learned people consider internet data traffic to be public information. The situation of Carnivore is therefor similar to police officers watching public traffic on freeways, except that Internet traffic can be encrypted by those who desire privacy to prevent searches with far better accuracy than can be done with cars.
Of course, there will always be the Chicken-Littles of the world crying that the sky is falling on the bill of rights whenever a police officer watches traffic on either an interstate freeway or an internet information super-hiway...
I know all of this. Your point?
Thus, learned people consider internet data traffic to be public information. The situation of Carnivore is therefor similar to police officers watching public traffic on freeways, except that Internet traffic can be encrypted by those who desire privacy to prevent searches with far better accuracy than can be done with cars.
Source.
Of course, there will always be the Chicken-Littles of the world crying that the sky is falling on the bill of rights whenever a police officer watches traffic on either an interstate freeway or an internet information super-hiway...
Free government is founded on suspicion, not confidence.
Therefore, if you dispute that each packet of internet data traffic must be read by every piece of hardware which it passes through (i.e., public), then you are welcome to debate that point in any manner in which you seem fit.
And if you don't dispute it, then no source is needed.
Sure am glad that you agree with him.
< Chuckle >
I'm sure that's exactly why you're showing no sources.
Therefore, if you dispute that each packet of internet data traffic must be read by every piece of hardware which it passes through (i.e., public), then you are welcome to debate that point in any manner in which you seem fit.
There's a difference between a piece of hardware and a person. No doubt, though, 200 posts from now you'll be saying I deny that packets of information are read by the hardware they go through.
Why leave such ambiguities to chance? Why not just state, unequivocably, that you either think that all internet packets are read by all machines (regardless of who owns each machine) that they cross, or not?
Is it really so difficult for you to take a black or white, firm stand on a single point?
Yes, and doesn't matter. The issue is having them read by people.
Time to kiss the Constitution good-bye sheople.
Having people read them... Help Me understand something, what are you trying to get across with your writings? Are these "feel good" peices for people who already agree with you? Are you trying to win people over to your side, to propose alternatives to the current adminstration's approach? If so, what are they?
I know it's tough,living in Kalifornia but have ya'll considered getting a C&R License,it only costs thirty bucks and is good for three years.
Mine is due in the mail this week,it means I can buy any weapon over 50 years old or that have a specific historical interest and is listed on the ATF list from dealers or other C&R holders and have them shipped RIGHT to my door!
Check out www.milsurpshooter.net
It's a great gunboard and you'll find me there if I'm not freepin.
My condolences and prayers. BTW, in my prayer, I couldn't bring myself to use your screen name so I prayed for him (meaning you), my guess is God understands...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.