Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Calling a Spade a Spade
Mercurial Times ^ | December 3, 2001 | Aaron Armitage

Posted on 12/03/2001 10:00:13 PM PST by Mercuria

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 181-198 next last
To: A.J.Armitage
"Yes, and doesn't matter. The issue is having them read by people."

So since Carnivore isn't a person, you have no issue with the public messages being read by it. Good. Progress.

81 posted on 12/04/2001 6:40:00 PM PST by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: UnBlinkingEye
Thank you UnBlinkingEye, your prayers and thoughts are much appreciated.
82 posted on 12/04/2001 6:41:59 PM PST by LiberalBassTurds
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Southack
So since Carnivore isn't a person, you have no issue with the public messages being read by it. Good. Progress.

You think the government has a big system set up to read everyone's e-mails, but no actual person ever sees it? Sheesh.

83 posted on 12/04/2001 7:16:20 PM PST by A.J.Armitage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Registered
Post #81 is for you (because I thought that you could use a laugh or two this evening).
84 posted on 12/04/2001 7:18:30 PM PST by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
"You think the government has a big system set up to read everyone's e-mails, but no actual person ever sees it? Sheesh."

The government has had a system set up to read every packet of data traffic on the Internet since the FIRST day DARPANET's interconnection project went live. This is due to the technical need to recieve every packet, read every packet, decode the IP address in the header of every packet, process the IP address and then transmit the packet. People are very peripheral to this entire technical-level equation. Sure, some people see some raw packets every day, but most do not. Nonetheless, for all practical purposes every message is read in its entirity by government machines and never seen by humans.

Early Carnivore software might have just flashed a message that IP XXX had transmitted a message with the keyword "bomb" in it. The human might just see the IP address and the keyword, for all that you know.

And hey, you admitted that it doesn't bother you for machines to read and process public messages (this is actually MANDATORY for the Internet to even work in the first place, after all), so it really isn't an issue what those machines do with those messages, right?!

85 posted on 12/04/2001 7:25:18 PM PST by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Southack
so it really isn't an issue what those machines do with those messages, right?!

Yes, it is an issue.

86 posted on 12/04/2001 7:28:12 PM PST by A.J.Armitage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: from occupied ga
I think the Supreme Court will throw that out the first chance they get

- Don't hold your breath waiting

Especially if you're in a secret jail cell unable to speak to a lawyer.

87 posted on 12/04/2001 7:28:33 PM PST by bluefish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
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?

"Yes, and doesn't matter. The issue is having them read by people."

88 posted on 12/04/2001 7:50:22 PM PST by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
so it really isn't an issue what those machines do with those messages, right?!

"Yes, it is an issue."

I sense a contradiction coming along soon...

89 posted on 12/04/2001 7:51:34 PM PST by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Mercuria
What we allow now can be used later to justify things we would otherwise never have allowed. When emotional fevers run high, reason is the first to die.
90 posted on 12/04/2001 7:58:37 PM PST by Rocky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
I dare say, that any government, no matter how sound or properly laid out, with all the liberty and freedom you could desire, will always be damaged by evil men. Clinton was an evil man. A man that raped both a defenseless woman and a trusting Nation. I'm sure you know that, so I can only assume that this piece was intended to place President Bush in the same light...how sad.
91 posted on 12/04/2001 8:01:59 PM PST by Registered
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Southack
Whatever point you think you have, come right out and say it.
92 posted on 12/04/2001 8:09:40 PM PST by A.J.Armitage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Registered
I dare say, that any government, no matter how sound or properly laid out, with all the liberty and freedom you could desire, will always be damaged by evil men.

Which is why we must always be on our guard.

Clinton was an evil man. A man that raped both a defenseless woman and a trusting Nation. I'm sure you know that, so I can only assume that this piece was intended to place President Bush in the same light...how sad.

The point is to put the domestic legislation Bush pushed through on in the same light it would be in if Clinton pushed it through. Bush himself doesn't have to be evil to have extremely bad policies. Be honest: if Clinton had done this, would you be against it?

93 posted on 12/04/2001 8:15:43 PM PST by A.J.Armitage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: ThanksBTTT
Bump to find in the AM!
94 posted on 12/04/2001 8:17:22 PM PST by SusanUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
On the one hand you claim that it doesn't matter if only machines are reading internet messages, but then on the other hand you claim to have an issue with machines reading internet messages.

You just can't admit when you're wrong, much less when you contradict yourself.

95 posted on 12/04/2001 8:22:25 PM PST by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: bluefish
"Especially if you're in a secret jail cell unable to speak to a lawyer."

Who has been denied an attorney?

96 posted on 12/04/2001 8:23:08 PM PST by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: LiberalBassTurds
If an event of similar magnitude impacted us during President Clinton's term clearly the country would have backed him equally in his efforts to prevent a recurrence.

Please excuse, but I have a REALLY TOUGH TIME believing that.

REALLY tough.

Considering you lost a family member in the atrocity of 9/11, I can understand your feelings about our security and your rather acerbic feelings towards someone who does not look upon such a move as the "Patriot" Act as a legitimate security measure.

I am indeed very sorry that you lost loved ones to the actions of the terrorists, and apologize if I seemed insensitive to that, but your primary dialogue with me on this board was to question the veracity of contributors to my site re: their OPINIONS on issues, as well as my "truth in advertising" as it were.

That doesn't make you any less deserving of condolences for your loss, but it might bring into better light that, with your reaction to Mr. Armitage's opinions on certain actions by our Administration and my reaction to your backhanded implication that those columnists on my site (who love America and ARE patriots) are something more sinister, emotions are getting rubbed pretty raw around here.

I don't blame Mr. Armitage for being cynical about the implementation of the "Patriot" Act. This idea was lying around for MONTHS (like from January!), with those supporting it just waiting for something like 9/11 to happen so that those who are looking to increase the power (and let's be frank, the possible ABUSE) of Federal Government could play upon the fears of someone exactly in your situation to cram it through without comment from the public, without hindrance from the President...and hell, without even READING it themselves.

And considering the Feds admitted they knew the 9/11 attack was being planned for quite some time, it's rather tough for me and others NOT to be cynical about This Magic Solution suddenly popping up as The Answer To All Our Problems. "We're from the government and we're here to help you", as the old joke goes.

I'm POSITIVE if President Clinton signed something like this under such circumstances, the red warning lights would have been flashing like Rudolf's nose on Christmas Eve 'round these parts.

As to the current conflict (or war, whatever you want to call it)...I say find the bastards who did this and who assisted them, put them down, and then bring our troops home. No "nation-building" aftermath, if you please.

I think we've discovered over the past few years that too many of these people we've assisted in the past usually wind up NOT appreciating it.

And we've got more important things to do at home than set up future, dangerous foreign ingrates into positions of power.

97 posted on 12/04/2001 8:27:29 PM PST by Mercuria
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
Be honest: if Clinton had done this, would you be against it?

Of course. I'd be against ANYTHING the man did. But the premise of your question is grounded in absurdity. BECAUSE CLINTON WAS EVIL. Get it? The actions of an honorable man and the actions of an evil one, though they be similar in nature, will always end at two very different destinations. But frankly A.J., after following your discussions over the past few days I know that your opinions apparently cannot be impacted or changed. In other words, I think I'll save my breath.
98 posted on 12/04/2001 8:35:22 PM PST by Registered
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: Southack
"Especially if you're in a secret jail cell unable to speak to a lawyer."

- Who has been denied an attorney?

Aside from a the few with lawyers complaining about no ability to see their clients, it is hard to say since they won't tell us who is being secretly held.

99 posted on 12/04/2001 8:35:41 PM PST by bluefish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: bluefish
Are you familiar, in the least, with the culture of JAGs? Do you really think that you can claim that someone is unrepresented without any proof (and be taken seriously)?! You might as well make claims about space aliens that no one can verify (it's about the same level of paranoia either way)...
100 posted on 12/04/2001 8:40:13 PM PST by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 181-198 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson