[adamschuetze]

[snip]
Because if you are implying that the U.S. government was responsible for the deaths on 9/11, you are really going off a cliff.
[snip]
God willing nobody ever takes another plane into a building.
[snip]
By God's providence I wasn't touched. But God is my witness
[snip]

I just wanted to point out that you accuse someone of "going off a cliff", and then you refer to God three times in your post.

Not a strong start to an argument.

[qbnkelt]

I just wanted to point out that you accuse someone of "going off a cliff", and then you refer to God three times in your post.

Not a strong start to an argument.

Yup. I am a church going Episcopalian.
If someone doesn't wish to worship, they don't have to, no problem to me.
To me, faith is not going off a cliff.

Or are you implyging that the only logic that has value is that logic that comes from atheism? Go on with that belief, no problem to me.
And I wonder why a woman having a discussion is deemed an argument. I see this as a discussion. If you wish to categorise it as an argument, you are free to do so.

[adamschuetze]

Yup. I am a church going Episcopalian.
If someone doesn't wish to worship, they don't have to, no skin off my nose.
To me, faith is not going off a cliff.

Or are you implyging that the only logic that has value is that logic that comes from atheism? Go on with that belief, no skin off my nose.

Atheism is a belief system just like religion, I think they are both equally illogical and without merit. I hold no beliefs at all.

[qbnkelt]

Atheism is a belief system just like religion, I think they are both equally illogical and without merit. I hold no beliefs at all.

That is your belief and I welcome your enjoyment of it in good health. As such, I expect you to extend the same to me.

[adamschuetze]

I'm just going to let this one alone.

[Laura Knotek]

Laws addressing electronic surveillance predate 9/11. From this link:

In 1986 Congress passed extensive regulations regarding electronic surveillance and wiretapping in the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA). Courts have interpreted the Act as allowing magistrates and federal judges to grant law enforcement officers warrants to enter private homes in order to "bug" the home's means of electronic communication. Despite numerous constitutional challenges, the courts have repeatedly upheld these provisions.

[cjcampbell]

qbnkelt, I can see you are quite passionate about this but I have to ask you..... First, what do you think monitoring cloud storage is going to do about these random acts of violence you speak of? I say nothing as you can't prosecute or hold someone guilty for a crime they have not committed. These are "random acts" carried out by 1 or a small few, cannot be quantified in terms of plots unless they are actually communicating plans via the cloud. Second, if any terrorist group is planning an attack, and they are at all organized, do you really think that they are going to be storing any information in that fashion?? If one wants to be secretive, it's not hard. The governments of the world, not just the US, are using these scenarios to scare its citizens into believing that this is for their own protection, when in reality, it is there to monitor and have more control over the population.

What if, for example, I was to be writing an extremely dark and graffic novel? When I had ideas on the go, typed them out either on my phone, tablet, laptop etc, uploaded to the cloud so that when I got home, on my main PC, I could resume and have it right there. Would that now put me on the government radar? Even though I'm a law abiding citizen with no record and no history of violence? Does this seem right to you? And what if, the previous week to this, I just decided to help out my parents with their rather large garden and bought a bag of fertilizer... oh wow.. now we're cooking. I bet I'd have a knock on the door real quick.

[qbnkelt]

I'm in China, and they don't require their citizens to carry an identity card, and it is a big deal.... There's nothing more Nazi than the police having the right to come up to you without cause and saying, "show me your papers." It's only a couple of steps away from picking undesirable citizens and having them wear a yellow star on their clothes.

Really? So what is this?
Law of the People's Republic of China on Resident Identity Cards (Order of the President No.4)

I have a driver's license, but I don't carry my SS card, and I believe the SSA suggests you don't carry it around. A driver's license does not serve as a Federal ID.

If you don't believe that your SSN is an identity card, try going a year without its use.

The use of the driver's license as federal identification is being enacted throughout the country in the next five years. It is in place in several states.

http://www.dhs.gov/secure-drivers-licenses

Try getting a passport with one.

I did, many moons ago, along with my certificate of citizenship.
Since then I just use my non expired previous passport.

A Passport Card on the other hand, works fine anywhere in the US and at US Embassies and Consulates around the world.

A passport card cannot be used outside of Canada, Mexico, territories, Bermuda. Since you cannot affix a visa to a passport card you cannot use it in countries beyond the Western Hemisphere or beyond the Mexican border.

http://travel.state.gov/pdf/ppt_pptCard.pdf
http://travel.state.gov/passport/ppt...card_3921.html

Regardless, as of now, there is no Federal law requirement to have any of these items on your person at all times. You only need your driver's license if you're operating a motor vehicle.

You are not required to have a SS card on you at all times, but it is required for identification where financial transactions are held. Don't believe me? Put it away and function without its use for one year. And for purposes of the I-9, you will need one document from any of the three columns. SS card is one, in conjunction with the driver's license, or a passport. Therefore, identity documents are required in the U.S. and you are already complying.

In NJ, you don't need one to go out for a stroll in the park. In AZ, the cops can demand you do exactly that. They will of course deny it, but I suspect the AZ cops ask persons of Hispanic appearance for their IDs a lot more often than ones with blond hair and blue eyes.

That law allows law enforcement officials to ask for documentation when someone is under investigation from another violation, but not by itself. Are there rogue cops? Sure. Are they enforcing the law as written? No.
By the way....news flash. There are many latinos who are blonde and have blue or green eyes. So that whole "hispanic appearance" comment...not exactly applicable to all.

I don't engage in any questionable activities that would attract LE notice. There is no reason for LE to want to look into my home without a warrant. If however, I were of Arabic descent, I couldn't say the latter, even if I can say the former. In AZ, the same applies if I were Hispanic. Even if I were neither, I'd still be very wary of granting LE any type of blanket permission to peek into my home with some type of see through scanner or a drone with a video camera. In some states, there are laws still on the books for ridiculous things like sodomy, which can easily be used as a justification to look into your home. If LE wants to peek into my home, I want them to have a warrant signed by a judge.

Do you seriously think that there is a government agency somewhere just dying to come into your home? How many millions are there in the country? Do you seriously think that the authorities know you from Adam, unless you give them reason to?

I was not stating that this is happening right now. I was implying that this could possibly happen in the future as we incrementally give up our freedoms and submit to further intrusions to our privacy.

That's what I'm discussing.....I am talking about realities of today as opposed to suppositions of future extremes.

I would certainly want him caught too. How he's caught though, is just as important. It has to be done by the law of the land. If you run a police state with a huge secret police, there's virtually no crime. North Korea doesn't have people shooting people in movie theaters. They don't have terrorists with fertilizer bombs in SUVs parked in Times Square. They don't even have shoplifting. Do you want to live in a place like that?

In order to catch individuals like those home grown terrorists, new tools have to be used. Because terrorists are not using carrier pigeons and communcating with analog land lines. Their technology has changed and we must change as well to catch them.
As to your ridiculous implication that I am espousing a police state like North Korea....well, I'll just let that drop. Not worthy of address.

I live part of the year in China, I'm under no illusions that I'm not being monitored. I'm under no illusions that I'm also monitored in the US. What I do have issue with though, is any LE person being able to go through anybody's email without a warrant. Basically, that means if you tick off a cop anytime anywhere, he can go through your entire electronic life. I don't think it should be that easy. I think they should have to obtain a warrant from a judge. Even if you don't tick off a cop, the law would allow any LE officer to search anybody's electronic life, for no reason other than curiosity. There has to be a check to limit the powers of LE, and that's requiring a search warrant signed by a judge.

You continue to assume initial "human" intervention.

I fully expect certain parts of the government to break laws. Torture in Gitmo to obtain information to prevent terrorist attacks? Of course it happens, and it's probably a good thing. Is it legal? Probably not and the only reason they can get away with it is because they're in Cuba. NSA monitoring electronic communications from known associates of groups unfriendly to the US? I'm sure it happens. I'm also sure some of it's illegal. In the interests of national security, I'm willing to concede that the government will conduct illegal search. What I would be very scared of though, would be making it legal for any government entity to do conduct searches for any reason, or no reason, at all. That is what the new law does. It lets LE to conduct search for any reason, or no reason, without a warrant.

And I am more concerned with the reality of violence from sources who hold no value to human life and who hold that their salvation is gained by massacres of innocent victims.

[westcoastit]

You are comparing the kind of mysogyny that I am against in a country known for its religious fundamentalism - exactly the kind of lifestyle that the jihadists of September 11 espouse - with the use of bracelets of paroled crimilals and are taking the leap into equating that with electronic monitoring of emails with the purpose of catching the jihadists who would institute that kind fundamentalism into our society. OK.

Yup, it's a slippery slope.

I am completely unfamilar with that feature and it is not part of the electronic email monitoring that the bill attempts to address. If you speed, you get a fine. Solution, don't speed. Again, responsibility for one's actions. I've had speed tickets and I don't want to lose my license. So I don't speed. Easy.

It's not part of the email monitoring solution, it's a trend of ever-evolving government monitoring of personal actions.

That paper deals with 40.000 warrants served to nonviolent drug violators. Throughout history, at all times, there have been errors.
For the innocent victims, there is recourse - American Civil Liberties Union will address them, as they should.

Rubber stamped warrants, some not even read. For innocent victims there's recourse? I didn't know the ACLU had the ability to remove bullets and breathe life back into the dead. Amazing!

http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/ba...paper_2006.pdf

My government? You mean the government of the United States of America?
What do you mean "excluding 9/11 more americans citizens have been killed by your government than have died from terrorism?" Are you implying that "my" government killed the american citizens that died on 9/11? Let's look at what you said...."more American citizens have been killed by your government than have died from terrorism" and you preface that by saying "excluding9/11." I'm thinking you didn't actually mean that. Because if you are implying that the U.S. government was responsible for the deaths on 9/11, you are really going off a cliff.

I mean your government has killed more people than terrorism has, if you exclude the statistical outlier that is 9/11. It's an outlier because it is a nonrepeatable action. It is a nonrepeatable action because people will no longer sit idly by while terrorists commandeer their jet liner.

Is that the only form of terrorism that you can imagine?
Biological warfare
Chemical warfare
Dirty bombs
Suicide bombings
Snipers
Home grown terrorism

I can imagine plenty of other terrorist actions, and so can the FBI who keeps managing to find mentally deficient individuals and encouraging them to the point of providing materiel support to terrorists who want to blow up Times Square in order to keep the spectre of terrorism as high as possible in order to keep pushing freedom's boundaries.

A random shooter in a theater and a random shooter in a supermarket parking lot and two random teenagers caused irreparable pain to innocent families. By God's providence I wasn't touched. But God is my witness I expect *my* government to not allow me or my loved ones to be touched just because someone I don't know in an internet forum believes that his personal emails will be read by a human government employee in a basement somewhere.

I'll take those risks because I take bigger ones by crossing the street every day. The odds of me being in a theatre that gets shot up are so statistically insignificant as to be irrelevant. I'm far more likely to be hit by a bus or die in a car crash but I don't live in a culture of fear. If I did, I'd be pushing for buses with giant feather mattresses on the front because that would save far more lives.

[notfanboy]

I want my government to find those who would change my way of life and tie it down with religious fundamentalism, mysogyny, and racial hatred, and I would want my government to use every tool at its disposal.

See what if it happens to be your government that is trying to tie down your way of life with religious fundamentalism, mysogyny, and racial hatred? By giving up personal liberties, you are giving the government more power to impose such things. And that's not just a hypothetical. Sarah Palin was a vice-presidential candidate. She represents all these three views: religious fundamentalism, mysogyny, and racial hatred.

Oh and by the way, Cloud computing is just getting started.

[qbnkelt]

qbnkelt, I can see you are quite passionate about this but I have to ask you..... First, what do you think monitoring cloud storage is going to do about these random acts of violence you speak of? I say nothing as you can't prosecute or hold someone guilty for a crime they have not committed. These are "random acts" carried out by 1 or a small few, cannot be quantified in terms of plots unless they are actually communicating plans via the cloud. Second, if any terrorist group is planning an attack, and they are at all organized, do you really think that they are going to be storing any information in that fashion?? If one wants to be secretive, it's not hard. The governments of the world, not just the US, are using these scenarios to scare its citizens into believing that this is for their own protection, when in reality, it is there to monitor and have more control over the population.

What if, for example, I was to be writing an extremely dark and graffic novel? When I had ideas on the go, typed them out either on my phone, tablet, laptop etc, uploaded to the cloud so that when I got home, on my main PC, I could resume and have it right there. Would that now put me on the government radar? Even though I'm a law abiding citizen with no record and no history of violence? Does this seem right to you? And what if, the previous week to this, I just decided to help out my parents with their rather large garden and bought a bag of fertilizer... oh wow.. now we're cooking. I bet I'd have a knock on the door real quick.

The discussion went from cloud to electronic mail monitoring.
First, I would not put anything on the cloud that I would not want my family or my employer to see, because I simply assume that anything that is out of my control is, well, out of my control.

As far as electronic surveillance...there is the misconception that surveillance will be performed by humans poring over your electronic communication. There simply isn't the kind of manpower to allow for that.
However, as I have stated often, when monitoring "machines" for lack of a better word come across set parameters then an alert is issued.

Let's say that you send an email with the words "bomb" "TelAviv" "ElAl." An alert would be triggered. Upon that alert, specific surveillance on YOUR communcations would begin.

If you simply wrote "I am going to TelAviv on El Al and I've heard that airline's THE BOMB!!!" and nothing ever else is said similar to that, there is no concern.

But if your continued communications continue to use that kind of phrasing, then you will continue to be monitored. Upon reaching the airport you will be asked.

Now....one thing.....people think that gaining entrance into any country is assumed to happen simply because you bought a plane ticket and have a passport. Rather, the truth of the matter is that presenting your documents to any country anywhere is simply an application to enter that country, pretty much in the same manner as you knock on your friend's door and don't barge in.

In the instance of the 26 year old who was refused entry.....the immigration officer sent him to secondary (as is common practice where there are questions) and he was deemed a risk to enter. Entry into ANY country is NEVER guaranteed, that is a fact of immigration law.

In your example, I would say that a graphic novel that does not spell out violence against anyone or anything but simply a character is not going to raise any eyebrows. Nor would a bag of fertilizer.

If you write a dark and graphic novel and name a particular world leader, who knows. You might want to see how Tom Clancy does it.

[notfanboy]

Let's say that you send an email with the words "bomb" "TelAviv" "ElAl." An alert would be triggered. Upon that alert, specific surveillance on YOUR communcations would begin.

If you simply wrote "I am going to TelAviv on El Al and I've heard that airline's THE BOMB!!!" and nothing ever else is said similar to that, there is no concern.

Oh great, you just placed Crackberry.com on the terrorist watch list.

[qbnkelt]

Yup, it's a slippery slope

It's not part of the email monitoring solution, it's a trend of ever-evolving government monitoring of personal actions.

Rubber stamped warrants, some not even read. For innocent victims there's recourse? I didn't know the ACLU had the ability to remove bullets and breathe life back into the dead. Amazing!

http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/ba...paper_2006.pdf

I mean your government has killed more people than terrorism has, if you exclude the statistical outlier that is 9/11. It's an outlier because it is a nonrepeatable action. It is a nonrepeatable action because people will no longer sit idly by while terrorists commandeer their jet liner.

I can imagine plenty of other terrorist actions, and so can the FBI who keeps managing to find mentally deficient individuals and encouraging them to the point of providing materiel support to terrorists who want to blow up Times Square in order to keep the spectre of terrorism as high as possible in order to keep pushing freedom's boundaries.

I'll take those risks because I take bigger ones by crossing the street every day. The odds of me being in a theatre that gets shot up are so statistically insignificant as to be irrelevant. I'm far more likely to be hit by a bus or die in a car crash but I don't live in a culture of fear. If I did, I'd be pushing for buses with giant feather mattresses on the front because that would save far more lives.

I was going to anwer your post until I came to that phrase.
You don't live in a culture of fear.
Yet you assume that someone is going to be reading every email you write, and that extremist laws in fundamentalist countries will result in extremism in *my* country, and that black helicopters will swoop down and shoot you while you sleep and you end it all by "I don't live in a culture of fear."

OK.

Sounds to me you are more disturbed by unrealised dark imaginings than the real world events happening halfway around the world and in suburbia down the street. OK.

[qbnkelt]

Oh great, you just placed Crackberry.com on the terrorist watch list.

LOL!!!! DAMN!!!!!! SEE what you made me do?!?!?!?!

[qbnkelt]

See what if it happens to be your government that is trying to tie down your way of life with religious fundamentalism, mysogyny, and racial hatred? By giving up personal liberties, you are giving the government more power to impose such things. And that's not just a hypothetical. Sarah Palin was a vice-presidential candidate. She represents all these three views: religious fundamentalism, mysogyny, and racial hatred.

Oh and by the way, Cloud computing is just getting started.

Please don't mention Sarah Palin.

PLEASE don't equate Sarah Palin to me.

PLEASE.

Remember....that line of thinking got a good thrashing....deservedly so....during the last election.

Damn now I'm going to anger the conservative right just as much as I've angered *my* liberal left....

I'm homeless....

[qbnkelt]

Guys this has been grand but I've got a life to live out there, away from my computer. There are Black Friday sales I'm missing.

This has been fun.

Bye y'all.

[cjcampbell]

The discussion went from cloud to electronic mail monitoring.
First, I would not put anything on the cloud that I would not want my family or my employer to see, because I simply assume that anything that is out of my control is, well, out of my control.

As far as electronic surveillance...there is the misconception that surveillance will be performed by humans poring over your electronic communication. There simply isn't the kind of manpower to allow for that.
However, as I have stated often, when monitoring "machines" for lack of a better word come across set parameters then an alert is issued.

Let's say that you send an email with the words "bomb" "TelAviv" "ElAl." An alert would be triggered. Upon that alert, specific surveillance on YOUR communcations would begin.

If you simply wrote "I am going to TelAviv on El Al and I've heard that airline's THE BOMB!!!" and nothing ever else is said similar to that, there is no concern.

But if your continued communications continue to use that kind of phrasing, then you will continue to be monitored. Upon reaching the airport you will be asked.

Now....one thing.....people think that gaining entrance into any country is assumed to happen simply because you bought a plane ticket and have a passport. Rather, the truth of the matter is that presenting your documents to any country anywhere is simply an application to enter that country, pretty much in the same manner as you knock on your friend's door and don't barge in.

In the instance of the 26 year old who was refused entry.....the immigration officer sent him to secondary (as is common practice where there are questions) and he was deemed a risk to enter. Entry into ANY country is NEVER guaranteed, that is a fact of immigration law.

In your example, I would say that a graphic novel that does not spell out violence against anyone or anything but simply a character is not going to raise any eyebrows. Nor would a bag of fertilizer.

If you write a dark and graphic novel and name a particular world leader, who knows. You might want to see how Tom Clancy does it.

Well I stuck to Cloud as that is what this thread started as. It is yet one more way the government plans on nosing in to your personal affairs, should they wish to do so. As for travelling and immigration, I never said a word on the subject. I understand how it works and yes, I would expect a certain level of scrutiny of those trying to enter. Now, as for Tom Clancy..... first off, this is a new law trying to be passed, not one in existence so that is a moot point... second, a well know author would be recognized and the subject matter could easily be put in context. I was taking a "what if" scenario... I could simply be some guy, with an interest, putting notes in randomly, in no discernable order, with no cotext to follow.... that is where my worry lies. What people write down and choose to store is nobodies business but their own until they choose to share. Otherwise, there can be grave misunderstandings. That's the bottom line.

[notfanboy]

Please don't mention Sarah Palin.

PLEASE don't equate Sarah Palin to me.

Remember....that line of thinking got a good thrashing....deservedly so....during the last election.

That was never my intent. I would NEVER disrespect you like that.

The point I tried to make is that a government made too powerful is also a danger to it's citizens. And even though 53% of the population disagreed with that line of thinking in the last election, it is very much a danger. For example religious fundamentalism is still very much a threat in many states. Withholding sexual education from young girls is still a very popular viewpoint. Etc etc.

[westcoastit]

I was going to anwer your post until I came to that phrase.
You don't live in a culture of fear.
Yet you assume that someone is going to be reading every email you write, and that extremist laws in fundamentalist countries will result in extremism in *my* country, and that black helicopters will swoop down and shoot you while you sleep and you end it all by "I don't live in a culture of fear."

OK.

Sounds to me you are more disturbed by unrealised dark imaginings than the real world events happening halfway around the world and in suburbia down the street. OK.

Sodomy is a crime in how many states still?

With this being passed a meddling official would be able to warrantlessly search for gay men and convict them based on their 'private' online activity.

Guess Saudi Arabia isn't the only country ruled by religious fundamentalists using technology to oppress minorities.

[belfastdispatcher]

Does anybody in the right mind really think potential terorists/criminals will use certain key words? Really? Even the US government don't, re a certain "Fedex Package delivered by trucks today" so why do they think everybody else is stupid enough to use them.

How many versions of "the eagle has landed" can you come up with?

Will they include the millions of slang words too? Lol, after 13 years in Ireland I still learn new ones every day.

Oh, and I understand some feel strongly about this, so strongly that they're willing to impose it on others for their own peace of mind. Isn't that how it all starts?

[qbnkelt]

Sodomy is a crime in how many states still?

With this being passed a meddling official would be able to warrantlessly search for gay men and convict them based on their 'private' online activity.

Guess Saudi Arabia isn't the only country ruled by religious fundamentalists using technology to oppress minorities.

For someone who does not live in a culture of fear you seem to keep adding new ones. Now it's sodomy laws being enacted by the morality police and banging down an innocent couple's front door and you're equating this scenario on real events in Saudi Arabia.

OK.

Not to worry.

As of 2003, in Lawrence v. Texas, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that sodomy laws violate the right to privacy implicit in the U.S. Constitution..
It rendered all state sodomy laws unenforceable as a matter of practice where the partners are consenting adults and not prostitutes.

[qbnkelt]

I am terrified of frogs.
Morbidly afraid of them.
But I can't move away from frog displays in zoos.

This thread seems to be holding the same fascination, even as I'm trying to shop.

[wu-wei]

My early comments may have steered the discussion from cloud storage to email, and I did not intend that.

However, there is little difference in my view. Many law firms and other businesses are offering client portals that allow collaboration on sensitive documents. Those same firms and businesses are looking for economical but practical means of doing so. Enter cloud storage.

My view on this is simple: anyone who wants access to privileged material should still be required to demonstrate that probable cause exists sufficient to support a warrant. Allowing any entity carte blanche to monitor and sift through any digitally-stored document is ludicrous.

[qbnkelt]

Interestingly enough.....there is a documentary on the 9/11 report on MSNBC at this very moment.

Believe what you will, espouse what you will.

I will never forget this and will support efforts to exterminate AlQueda and supporting jihadists and hate fundamentalism and extremism.

That is my stance. Every cell in my body stands for that. For the very simple reason that I want my kids to live.


Sent from my iPhone 4S using Tapatalk

[Roo Zilla]

Really? So what is this?
Law of the People's Republic of China on Resident Identity Cards (Order of the President No.4)

Show me where it says you have to carry it. Nobody carries their national ID card in China. The law requires they have one, but there's nothing that requires them to carry one on their person at all times.

If you don't believe that your SSN is an identity card, try going a year without its use.

I haven't carried my SS card in over 10 years, ever since I memorized the number.

The use of the driver's license as federal identification is being enacted throughout the country in the next five years. It is in place in several states.

Secure Driver's Licenses | Homeland Security

I did, many moons ago, along with my certificate of citizenship.
Since then I just use my non expired previous passport.

You just need your certificate of citizenship, as long as you have a recent photo ID. It doesn't have to be a driver's license. The reverse is not allowed though. You can't just show up with your driver's license and expect to get a passport.

A passport card cannot be used outside of Canada, Mexico, territories, Bermuda. Since you cannot affix a visa to a passport card you cannot use it in countries beyond the Western Hemisphere or beyond the Mexican border.

http://travel.state.gov/pdf/ppt_pptCard.pdf
U.S. Passport Card Frequently Asked Questions

Passport Card can also be used at US Embassies and Consulates. It can only be used as a passport in a limited number of areas, but it serves as identification at any government office anywhere in the world. Although its supposedly limited to those areas, I've used it as ID for hotel rooms in numerous other countries.

You are not required to have a SS card on you at all times, but it is required for identification where financial transactions are held. Don't believe me? Put it away and function without its use for one year. And for purposes of the I-9, you will need one document from any of the three columns. SS card is one, in conjunction with the driver's license, or a passport. Therefore, identity documents are required in the U.S. and you are already complying.

I've stated already, I don't recall carrying my SS card in over 10 years. You just need the number, which I've memorized. Perhaps when I'm older and signing up for SS benefits or Medicaid or something. You certainly don't need it for financial transactions. I've never heard of having to present your SS card to withdraw or deposit money into a bank. I've opened multiple bank accounts and never once did I present a SS card. They ask for the number, but they never ask to see the actual SS card.

That law allows law enforcement officials to ask for documentation when someone is under investigation from another violation, but not by itself. Are there rogue cops? Sure. Are they enforcing the law as written? No.
By the way....news flash. There are many latinos who are blonde and have blue or green eyes. So that whole "hispanic appearance" comment...not exactly applicable to all.

Even currently, LE is not required to present anything but a request to see any information stored on the cloud that's over 6 months old. They should fix that law. And hey, there are Arabs who are blonde and have blue eyes too, so what of it? Do you think LE doing racial profiling in AZ doesn't happen? I'm pretty sure a guy with dark hair, dark eyes, olive skin, and looking a bit like the stereotypical HIspanic isn't going to be treated the same as the blonde blue eyed dude in AZ.

Do you seriously think that there is a government agency somewhere just dying to come into your home? How many millions are there in the country? Do you seriously think that the authorities know you from Adam, unless you give them reason to?

No, I don't think anybody anywhere's dying to come to my house. There's about 300 million people in the US. I personally know only 2 LE people, both are siblings of one of my best friends. Whether they want to come look at MY house, or who I know is irrelevant. LE shouldn't possess the power to look into anybody's personal affairs without just cause and a warrant.

That's what I'm discussing.....I am talking about realities of today as opposed to suppositions of future extremes.

The freedoms you give away today, leads to the authoritarian regime of tomorrow. I'm sure that in the beginning, the Jews didn't think it was such a big deal having to wear the yellow star.

In order to catch individuals like those home grown terrorists, new tools have to be used. Because terrorists are not using carrier pigeons and communcating with analog land lines. Their technology has changed and we must change as well to catch them.
As to your ridiculous implication that I am espousing a police state like North Korea....well, I'll just let that drop. Not worthy of address.

Yes, new tools should be used, but that does not mean having to curtail our freedoms and handing over our privacy. I think my North Korean comparison is very valid. That is exactly the kind of regime Ben Franklin had in mind in his famous quote. If you want to live free from the fear of terrorism, live in a police state. If you want to live in a free country (relatively free, anarchy has its own problems), recognize that also implies a certain amount of risk because not everybody uses their freedom to live peacefully. You have to strike a balance between the recognition of personal freedoms and public safety. When a government leans to far in one direction, problems arise. The problem with giving government additional powers is that once they have it, they are very reluctant to relinquish it even if they don't need it.

You continue to assume initial "human" intervention.

And I am more concerned with the reality of violence from sources who hold no value to human life and who hold that their salvation is gained by massacres of innocent victims.

That is a very valid fear. I contend though, the passage of this law does nothing to improve the outcome on that front. The various intelligence agencies already monitor electronic communications from thousands if not tens of thousands of potential evil doers, legally and illegally, and will continue to do so, even without the passage of this law. Anybody they find to be a potential terrorist will probably be shipped off to Gitmo where they won't even receive due process. Whether this is legal or not is up to debate, but it will continue to happen. This law however, won't make the country safer from terrorists, because the various LE agencies already do what this supposedly allows. For better or for worse, they just ignore the law.

I firmly believe any law like this is ripe for abuse. I can easily see someone being busted on a minor drug charge, and then LE searching through the suspect's email accounts to find evidence of other infractions he might have committed. Once that starts happening on a regular basis, we start losing "presumption of innocence." The fear is that eventually, you won't be "innocent until proven guilty," but rather "guilty until proven innocent."