Skip to comments.
FBI Seeking to Wiretap Internet
Fox News AP ^
Posted on 10/26/2001 12:47:40 PM PDT by Asmodeus
Edited on 04/22/2004 12:31:29 AM PDT by Jim Robinson.
[history]
Friday, October 26, 2001 WASHINGTON
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
TOPICS: Extended News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: michaeldobbs; privacylist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100, 101-104 next last
To: Black Agnes
..."Agreed. The only difference now between 'law abiding citizen' and 'suspected terrorist' is an 'anonymous informant'."...
And we know just how careful and concerned the FBI is about those who are innocent compared to informants!!!
61
posted on
10/26/2001 4:53:08 PM PDT
by
Rowdee
To: MadIvan
Goodness....it sounds as though you've heard about how our RICO laws, originally enacted to stop the Mafia in their tracks, has been turned around to where they now apply to people protesting the killing of unborn babies and thinking that just might occur with this new anti-terrorism law!!
62
posted on
10/26/2001 4:55:57 PM PDT
by
Rowdee
Comment #63 Removed by Moderator
Comment #64 Removed by Moderator
To: IceGirl2
Being a patriot or living a life that is free of things the FBI isn't interested in doesn't mean we have to bend over and take it in the a** whenever they want us to.
To: TightSqueeze
Uh, er.....didn't congress give the FBI what they wanted after the WTC bombing, or was it the OKC bombing? Yes.
One thing about what you wrote.....with Hilary in as Prez, FReepers would be on their toes questioning, questioning, questioning.....as it is now, they ahve either gone to sleep OR are busy running around to every thread to try to put a stop to dissent....with HER, the enemy is easy to spot/figure out; when it's 'your side', it's easy to close your eyes.
66
posted on
10/26/2001 5:11:19 PM PDT
by
Rowdee
To: hogwaller
I like the notion of Freenet, but isn't it likely that snoopers will look at people who use such things even more closely, suspecting they have something to hide? I know very little about such technology, but I assume the FBI and other agencies have the ability to break into any system if they want. Realistically, they don't have the resources to track everyone who uses the internet, but they might take extra meaures to watch those who use such privacy enhancing tools. I'm just wondering which would give me more privacy in reality, being one of millions of internet users who *could* be easily traced (not that I have a reason to really care beyond a matter of principle) or one of a smaller group of "rebels."
67
posted on
10/26/2001 5:12:59 PM PDT
by
Lchris
To: Careful
"When will everyone realize that the line between dissent and terrorism has been erased? Virtually everyone who has posted about this subject can (and eventually will) be called a terrorist under the new laws. ... The time to protect ourselves and our communications is now! EVERYONE should have a PGP key and should distribute it to the people they trust now." Suit yourself, but I suspect that you will find that mainstream America is not so paranoid that millions suddenly start worrying that their e-mails to their moms are going to get them arrested for terrorism. Likewise, I suspect that very few people resort to using encryption in their everyday transactions. More power to them if they are worried about their business secrets being compromised by corrupt government eavesdroppers, but I doubt we see much of that.
68
posted on
10/26/2001 5:13:25 PM PDT
by
Southack
Comment #69 Removed by Moderator
To: Asmodeus
Pings from Virginia..hmmmm....(scratching butt)
To: Careful
71
posted on
10/26/2001 5:18:17 PM PDT
by
carenot
To: Constitution Day
ALL:
I don't know what all the implications are here, but there is certainly no need for the government to have a "backdoor" into these systems. If there is a need to investigate (i.e. wiretap) then they can get a court order. The Constitution must come first, without it, security is meaningless.
JWinNC
72
posted on
10/26/2001 5:21:04 PM PDT
by
JWinNC
To: MadIvan
The presidents motives and intentions ARE NOT good...
Wake up America and put a stop to this NOW..!!!
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
..."If you keep doing what you've been doing...
...you'll just keep getting what you've been getting"...
73
posted on
10/26/2001 5:21:44 PM PDT
by
freddy
To: freddy
"The presidents motives and intentions ARE NOT good..." That's incorrect, but say hello to your DU buddies for me.
The President's "motive" is to protect the United States. Our President's "intentions" include killing a lot of terrorists. Those are all good things, contrary to what you and your Left-Wing friends wish to believe.
74
posted on
10/26/2001 5:27:33 PM PDT
by
Southack
To: freddy
Interesting how this will interact with the European Union's apparant view of ECHELON.
Lets see how this "Trial Baloon" plays out.
Interesting that the Washington Post is saying that the Anthrax almost surely came NOT from Russian or Iraqui stockpiles, but from OUR OWN.
I sense the level of trust in Government is plunging even as Americans are feeling Patriotic again!!
75
posted on
10/26/2001 5:45:46 PM PDT
by
Lael
To: Southack
Because I think that GW has made a mistake...That makes me a "Left-Winger..???
Are you NUTS..???
Those are some really bad laws and will undoubtably cause lots of grief for the American people over the years...
76
posted on
10/26/2001 6:20:20 PM PDT
by
freddy
Comment #77 Removed by Moderator
Comment #78 Removed by Moderator
Comment #79 Removed by Moderator
To: tomkat
80
posted on
10/26/2001 7:09:47 PM PDT
by
BraveMan
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100, 101-104 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson