FBI wants to require Facebook, Skype, etc to allow wiretapping

Oh nevermind, it's too late for you. Enjoy living in fear.

edit: directed to pennywise

  On 5/5/2012 at 1:46 AM, chassis said:

On facebook?

why not, what do you know about it?

nice troll

  On 5/5/2012 at 1:47 AM, Pennywise said:

  On 5/5/2012 at 1:46 AM, chassis said:

On facebook?

 

why not, what do you know about it?

Monitor facebook, they'll stop using facebook

Monitor texts, they'll stop using texts

Camera inside your anus, they'll cancel their bimonthly meeting in your anus.

Id probably prefer the odds of being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Believe me, i understand your arguments. I just think that the FBI obviously stops shit from going down using their methods. Would you rather they didn't bother.

Its a tough argument i know.

Yes, Id rather they didnt bother

what i dont get is why everyone seems to think terrorists are so much worse than any other criminal. if you are planning on killing someone, you are evil, pretty much end of story. just because they are foriegn and religiously motivated i dont see how its any worse than a council estate drugdealer planning on whacking his rival. its all wrong.

you have no idea what sort of things the FBI prevent, neither do I. How can we argue about this without that information.

It's not a tough argument at all. This is actual invasion of privacy. Not the supposed invasion of privacy that can be revealed by looking at what a person posts on their facebook wall (although if you're smart with that you can limit which people see what) or on a forum under a pseudonymous profile.

This is like having someone listening in on all your telephone conversations, all the time.

A camera in your house. Watching you all the time.

  On 5/5/2012 at 1:56 AM, Pennywise said:

you have no idea what sort of things the FBI prevent, neither do I. How can we argue about this without that information.

This is not about what the FBI can or cannot prevent. This is about invasion of privacy. In the united states, it is unconstitutional.

  On 5/5/2012 at 1:56 AM, messiaen said:

what i dont get is why everyone seems to think terrorists are so much worse than any other criminal. if you are planning on killing someone, you are evil, pretty much end of story. just because they are foriegn and religiously motivated i dont see how its any worse than a council estate drugdealer planning on whacking his rival. its all wrong.

I agree but terrorists tend to kill multiple amounts of people. not that it matters. 1 is enough

So does Mcdonalds

  On 5/5/2012 at 1:58 AM, chenGOD said:

It's not a tough argument at all. This is actual invasion of privacy. Not the supposed invasion of privacy that can be revealed by looking at what a person posts on their facebook wall (although if you're smart with that you can limit which people see what) or on a forum under a pseudonymous profile.

This is like having someone listening in on all your telephone conversations, all the time.

A camera in your house. Watching you all the time.

 

  On 5/5/2012 at 1:56 AM, Pennywise said:

you have no idea what sort of things the FBI prevent, neither do I. How can we argue about this without that information.

This is not about what the FBI can or cannot prevent. This is about invasion of privacy. In the united states, it is unconstitutional.

I'm pretty sure they would only look at you if they suspected you of doing something. I doubt they have enough staff to look at everyone on a daily basis

Yes, trust the world's complete information to a bunch of corrupted rednecks.

  On 5/5/2012 at 2:04 AM, Kanakori said:

Yes, trust the world's complete information to a bunch of corrupted rednecks.

you know that for a fact. They are all rednecks. tell me more

Also, Illuminati.

  On 5/5/2012 at 1:59 AM, Pennywise said:

  On 5/5/2012 at 1:56 AM, messiaen said:

what i dont get is why everyone seems to think terrorists are so much worse than any other criminal. if you are planning on killing someone, you are evil, pretty much end of story. just because they are foriegn and religiously motivated i dont see how its any worse than a council estate drugdealer planning on whacking his rival. its all wrong.

 

I agree but terrorists tend to kill multiple amounts of people. not that it matters. 1 is enough

So would you say Columbine was a terrorist or just some looper? What about that lad in Norway, whatever his name was.

Time spent looking for things that might not even be there is time wasted. What a fucking waste of resources.

Whatever though, America can do what ever it wants, seems the government hate civil liberties. You might not have to worry about terrorists if the republicans get their way though. Get rid of the EPA and you'll end up killing yourselves.

Slightly off-topic, but some of you will be interested to read this http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/opinion/sunday/terrorist-plots-helped-along-by-the-fbi.html?_r=1

Yep, surveillance culture changes the way people behave within a society. This has been well documented

  On 5/5/2012 at 1:37 AM, kaen said:

people will simply stop using these services and switch to others if this happens. it would be suicide

Nah. People are too fucking lazy to bother inconveniencing themselves to fight back.

  On 5/5/2012 at 2:01 AM, Pennywise said:

  On 5/5/2012 at 1:58 AM, chenGOD said:

It's not a tough argument at all. This is actual invasion of privacy. Not the supposed invasion of privacy that can be revealed by looking at what a person posts on their facebook wall (although if you're smart with that you can limit which people see what) or on a forum under a pseudonymous profile.

This is like having someone listening in on all your telephone conversations, all the time.

A camera in your house. Watching you all the time.

 

  On 5/5/2012 at 1:56 AM, Pennywise said:

you have no idea what sort of things the FBI prevent, neither do I. How can we argue about this without that information.

This is not about what the FBI can or cannot prevent. This is about invasion of privacy. In the united states, it is unconstitutional.

 

I'm pretty sure they would only look at you if they suspected you of doing something. I doubt they have enough staff to look at everyone on a daily basis

And if they suspect you of doing something, they can go to the court and get a court order.

maybe surveillance is beneficial because you can see who they are contacting. I get what you guys are saying. I cant decide though without knowing what the FBI prevents. Also I have 6 cans of beer inside me. Its fun to talk about this shit though. I respect all of your comments, I dont wanna argue no more

  On 5/5/2012 at 2:07 AM, roasty said:

Slightly off-topic, but some of you will be interested to read this http://www.nytimes.c...e-fbi.html?_r=1

i wish more people knew the nature of these "foiled terror plots"

  On 5/5/2012 at 2:24 AM, Pennywise said:

maybe surveillance is beneficial because you can see who they are contacting. I get what you guys are saying. I cant decide though without knowing what the FBI prevents. Also I have 6 cans of beer inside me. Its fun to talk about this shit though. I respect all of your comments, I dont wanna argue no more

the FBI should just get everyone drunk

  On 5/5/2012 at 2:28 AM, tauboo said:

  On 5/5/2012 at 2:24 AM, Pennywise said:

maybe surveillance is beneficial because you can see who they are contacting. I get what you guys are saying. I cant decide though without knowing what the FBI prevents. Also I have 6 cans of beer inside me. Its fun to talk about this shit though. I respect all of your comments, I dont wanna argue no more

the FBI should just get everyone drunk

Including the english? then im for it