[qbnkelt]

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.

Chapter III

Use and Examination

　　Article 13 Where any citizen is required to prove his identity when engaged in relevant activities, he shall have the right to use his resident identity card for the purpose, and no unit or its staff member concerned may reject it.

　　Article 14 Any citizen shall, under any of the following circumstances, produce his resident identity card to prove his identity:

　　(1) changing of the permanent residence registration;

　　(2) registering for conscription;

　　(3) registering for marriage or adoption ;

　　(4) applying for going through the formalities of leaving the country; or

　　(5) other circumstances where, according to the provisions of laws and administrative regulations, the resident identity card is required to prove his identity.

　　Where a citizen who fails to get the resident identity card in accordance with the provisions of this Law intends to do what is mentioned in the preceding paragraph, he may prove his identity by any other means which conforms to State regulations.

　　Article 15 ]When performing his duties in accordance with law under any of the following circumstances, a people's policeman may, after producing his law-enforcement papers, examine the resident identity cards:

　　(1) when it is necessary to find out the identity of a law-breaker or criminal suspect;

　　(2) when it is necessary to find out the identities of the persons concerned during on-the-spot control exercised in accordance with law;

　　(3) when it is necessary to find out the identities of the relevant persons on the spot in an unexpected incident that seriously endangers public security; or

　　(4) other circumstances under which it is necessary to find out people's identities, as is required by the provisions of laws.
　　Where a person refuses to have his resident identity card examined by the people's police under any of the circumstances listed in the preceding paragraph, measures shall, on the basis of the different circumstances, be taken to deal with him in accordance with the provisions of relevant laws.

　　No organization or individual may seize any resident identity card. However, exception shall be made where the public security organ executes the enforcement measure for residential surveillance in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China.

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

Most people don't carry it, but there are times that the physical card is required to conduct certain transactions. In other instances, the use of the number is required.

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.

I never said the driver's license by itself is used to obtain a passport. A birth certificate, certificate of naturalisation or certificate of citizenship proves U.S. citizenship for the purposes of a passport, but identityand physical residence is proven by the use of another state issued document, most often a driver's license.
Seriously, I am quite familiar with State.

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.

A passport card has no travel validity outside of the areas mentioned, which are Mexico, Canada, Bermuda, neighbouring islands. It cannot be used as a travel document beyond the Western Hemisphere. What hotels do is their own business. American missions abroad will see it as identification but to travel into other countries it is useless.
Really, I am quite familiar with State.

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.

The social security card is requested and inspected for certain financial and legal transactions. Financials institutions, at their discretion, and certain employers, at their discretion, can request to see the physical card. Where the card is not required you must have the number.
Truly, documentary requirements are quite familiar to me.

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.

You were the one who brought up "hispanic appearance." I told you that there are plenty of latinos who are blonde and blue/green eyed and who do not meet your "hispanic appearance" definition. You were the one who engaged in racial profiling by that description, not me. I told you you were wrong, and you are.
Actually your description of the "stereotypical hispanic" is more one of mestizo, where there is an Indian influence. Hispanic can be blonde blue eyes as there are in the Basque regions of Spain, dark skinned as in the Afro Cubans, and Asian looking as the Chinese populations in the islands. The range is wide.
You might want to read up on latino ethnic groups before discussing "hispanic appearance." Or take a look at my avatar.

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.

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.

I won't go near the hugely insensitive and offensive remark about the yellow star. You can keep that one.

You are again taking a huge leap from email monitoring of persons of interest to a devolution into a totaliarian state, while continuing to ignore the real life dangers inherent in not gathering intelligence needed to protect those very same liberties and freedoms that you feel will erode by not protecting those who would destroy the whole of America.
Between quoting Benjamin Franklin axioms and being alive, I would say that all of the victims of 9/11 would prefer to be alive.

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.

REALLY???? So the only means to live free from terrorism is to live in a police state???? OK. Go with that. I'm gobsmacked over that one. So a population has to accept a certain amount of risk in order to ascribe to 18th century ideas. Right. So then we should live exactly as prescribed, verbatim, in the 18th century.

No.

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.

We almost agreed.....then you threw in the last sentence.

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."

Go ahead and continue to take the huge leaps into perceived outcomes and deterioration of America into Amerika. Go ahead and quote 18th century founding fathers and assume that they would not use all tools at their disposal to protect the country.

I will deal with reality today. You know, where innocent victims are shot in theaters, in supermarket lots, are smashed into sides of buildings via airplanes, where suicide bombers board buses and detonate themselves killing people around them, where rush hour in the Metro is disrupted by bombs, where American missions abroad are taken over and ambassadors and civilians are killed....all by extreme fundamentalists who have sworn an oath to destroy America and American people.

All these axioms and theories and extreme anti government sentiment falls away the very next time an act of terror happens. Then the questions go very quickly into "why wasn't this stopped." Then you can tell the families of those killed that you oppose email monitoring that would have disclosed plans, and you can quote them as many Franklin axioms as you like, and tell them about concerns of authorities barging into a gay couple's house while they were making love because the government is routinely crashing into people's houses while they sleep. Tell me how you think they will feel, knowing that the deaths would have been stopped but you were concerned about email monitoring, or having someone look at your specific emails amongst the millions that are sent and received by the millions of people who use the internet on any given day.

[JR A]

The last few pages of this thread have gone waaaayyyy off topic.


Q, I read your comments, very touching personal story you have.

I don't think anyone is disagreeing that certain things need to be done in order for safety.

However, it's doing things WITHOUT a warrant, is what we (or at least I am) really upset about.

Personally, I'm not a leftist nor right; I'm a libertarian. I like less government involvement in my life, smaller government the better, and staying true to the Constitution, NOT politics.


Laws, especially those that take away liberties of others, are NOT what protect people. If that was the case, then all of the existing laws regarding terrorism would've stopped prior attacks. I mean think of it this way, the terrorists that hi-jacked those planes on 9/11 didn't break any security measures; they didn't bring any dangerous items on board, just a box cutter and some other wooden material, so I guess we now need to make a law against bringing those on airplanes and it's going to make us *safer* and *prevent* future terror attacks, right? And because of this, I have to go through hoops with TSA just to transport a legally owned and secured firearm because "guns are bad and kill people"... So how really safe does TSA's policies make us?

But look on the bright side... Most of the inept TSA officers now have the right to grope me, my family, significant other, and you, without a warrant or reasonable doubt. In fact, from the all the news reports, and YouTube clips, TSA doesn't have to bother with reasonable doubt or suspician - it's really whatever they feel like at the moment...

Well, I look forward to someday meeting you in person, just hopefully not in line at TSA's molesting center! But who am I to complain? It's all in the name of safety and the greater good!

[qbnkelt]

Taking away from me the right and the liberty to live is a greater evil and of greater concern to me than having my emails monitored.
Oh....just for the record....I don't work for the TSA.

[qbnkelt]

The last few pages of this thread have gone waaaayyyy off topic.


Q, I read your comments, very touching personal story you have.

I don't think anyone is disagreeing that certain things need to be done in order for safety.

However, it's doing things WITHOUT a warrant, is what we (or at least I am) really upset about.

Personally, I'm not a leftist nor right; I'm a libertarian. I like less government involvement in my life, smaller government the better, and staying true to the Constitution, NOT politics.


Laws, especially those that take away liberties of others, are NOT what protect people. If that was the case, then all of the existing laws regarding terrorism would've stopped prior attacks. I mean think of it this way, the terrorists that hi-jacked those planes on 9/11 didn't break any security measures; they didn't bring any dangerous items on board, just a box cutter and some other wooden material, so I guess we now need to make a law against bringing those on airplanes and it's going to make us *safer* and *prevent* future terror attacks, right? And because of this, I have to go through hoops with TSA just to transport a legally owned and secured firearm because "guns are bad and kill people"... So how really safe does TSA's policies make us?

But look on the bright side... Most of the inept TSA officers now have the right to grope me, my family, significant other, and you, without a warrant or reasonable doubt. In fact, from the all the news reports, and YouTube clips, TSA doesn't have to bother with reasonable doubt or suspician - it's really whatever they feel like at the moment...

Well, I look forward to someday meeting you in person, just hopefully not in line at TSA's molesting center! But who am I to complain? It's all in the name of safety and the greater good!

Exactly. They did not break existing laws in 2001. So after the 9/11 commission new laws and recommendations emerged.

I won't get into the TSA discussion.

[JR A]

Taking away from me the right and the liberty to live is a greater evil and of greater concern to me than having my emails monitored.
Oh....just for the record....I don't work for the TSA.

Oh, now you're assuming things.

You fall under the pretense that if people are NOT monitored/searched without a warrant and THEIR liberties are lessened then your life and liberty will be at risk.


Yup, sounds like the terrorists, did their job...

[qbnkelt]

Oh, now you're assuming things.

You fall under the pretense that if people are NOT monitored/searched without a warrant and THEIR liberties are lessened then your life and liberty will be at risk.


Yup, sounds like the terrorists, did their job...

They sure did. Take a look at the hole in Manhattan.

And they continue to do their job, killing innocent civilians and destroying American missions abroad, as people wring their hands over supposed lost liberties through an email monitoring law that hasn't been enacted yet.

[JR A]

They sure did. Take a look at the hole in Manhattan.

And they continue to do their job, killing innocent civilians and destroying American missions abroad, as people wring their hands over supposed lost liberties through an email monitoring law that hasn't been enacted yet.

You know, you may not be with the TSA, but from the sound of your 9/11 rhetoric you do sure sound like a politician.

Are you campaigning next race?

[wu-wei]

This is not going anywhere good. I respect everyone in this thread and, in order to maintain that respect, I will not be checking back in.

[qbnkelt]

You know, you may not be with the TSA, but from the sound of your 9/11 rhetoric you do sure sound like a politician.

Are you campaigning next race?

This conversation has gone on for two days now in a pretty civil manner.

Too bad you had to come into it with that comment.

[JR A]

This conversation has gone on for two days now in a pretty civil manner.

Too bad you had to come into it with that comment.

Good, I'm glad you took it the wrong way because it helps drive home the point im trying to make.

Someone said something that someone else didnt like.

It didnt hurt or kill anyone. So what now, throw me in jail?

Thats exactly where things are headed if bills like this one that say its ok for innocent residents and citizens to be searched and monitored witout a warrrant.

Put it on the flip side Q. You just revealed your personal opinion and stances on hot topics. What if the societ we lived in opposed your views and the govt didnt like it? Not only did the govt not like it, but they also had the authority to now put you on a blacklist and searched you and your home for no reason other than your personal beliefs dont match those of authorties.

Thats what will, not probably, but will happen over time as more and more liberties are impeded on.

[jakie55]

You know, folks...This has been fun, and I would love to sit with the "combatants" over a beverage of their choice to discuss this further, but the fact is, we will not change each other's viewpoint. As was stated, this has gone on for two days in a civilized manner. Let's keep it that way, for a change....

[belfastdispatcher]

To sort of bring it back on topic, Q is pro monitoring and she knows she's being monitored herself because of her job.

Well here's the irony, because she knows she's being monitored she's altering her use of email and cloud storage to protect herself. What makes her think she's the only one to have figured that out.

Blanket monitoring will not achieve anything except catching tweets like those two innocent/stupid kids, anybody malevolent enough will know how to circumvent it.

Which brings me to my original point, if businesses stop paying for cloud storage and go back to using local storage, will there be any free Cloud for us to use?

[qbnkelt]

You know, folks...This has been fun, and I would love to sit with the "combatants" over a beverage of their choice to discuss this further, but the fact is, we will not change each other's viewpoint. As was stated, this has gone on for two days in a civilized manner. Let's keep it that way, for a change....

Very much agreed.

I will follow Wuwei's lead and check out.

We all will have strongly held opinions. For me, I am not under the impression that privacy exists in the way most people believe, it was gone the instant we hit the digital age. For many of us, we are aware of it the instant we use a work BB with BES, so unless we want the admin to read personal messages, we use a personal device. I am under no egotistical misapprehension that my personal messages are of interest or will be of interest to anyone. Also for me, and perhaps because of where I work, the reality of the hatred that exists against America is a chilling, everyday fact of life, and because it is fact, more urgent than any dark imaginings of totalitarian regimes. The primal, biological sense of protection of life and loved ones is stronger in me than intellectual constructs and extremist exercises in what ifs.

I am aware that there are people who believe that 9/11 wasn't real. For others, complacency has set in. Others ridicule those of us who either will not forget because it's a personal raw wound or who, because the nature of our job or where we work, are exposed to the continuing reality of it. That's OK. Unfortunately I have been aware of AlQueda since I left the academy, and it was chilling to see what I knew from training brought suddenly live and in horrific detail on TV.

Anyone who believes that the American revolutionary thinkers would stand by and passively allow the United States be conquered does them a great disservice - they would have fought back with whatever tools were available to them. The Constitution is a living, breathing, adaptable document that changes as necessary to meet emergent realities. If not, slavery would still be the law of the land and I wouldn't be able to vote.

Over and out, Jakie. I would take you up on a pint.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Roo Zilla]

Chapter III

Use and Examination

　　Article 13 Where any citizen is required to prove his identity when engaged in relevant activities, he shall have the right to use his resident identity card for the purpose, and no unit or its staff member concerned may reject it.

　　Article 14 Any citizen shall, under any of the following circumstances, produce his resident identity card to prove his identity:

　　(1) changing of the permanent residence registration;

　　(2) registering for conscription;

　　(3) registering for marriage or adoption ;

　　(4) applying for going through the formalities of leaving the country; or

　　(5) other circumstances where, according to the provisions of laws and administrative regulations, the resident identity card is required to prove his identity.

　　Where a citizen who fails to get the resident identity card in accordance with the provisions of this Law intends to do what is mentioned in the preceding paragraph, he may prove his identity by any other means which conforms to State regulations.

　　Article 15 ]When performing his duties in accordance with law under any of the following circumstances, a people's policeman may, after producing his law-enforcement papers, examine the resident identity cards:

　　(1) when it is necessary to find out the identity of a law-breaker or criminal suspect;

　　(2) when it is necessary to find out the identities of the persons concerned during on-the-spot control exercised in accordance with law;

　　(3) when it is necessary to find out the identities of the relevant persons on the spot in an unexpected incident that seriously endangers public security; or

　　(4) other circumstances under which it is necessary to find out people's identities, as is required by the provisions of laws.
　　Where a person refuses to have his resident identity card examined by the people's police under any of the circumstances listed in the preceding paragraph, measures shall, on the basis of the different circumstances, be taken to deal with him in accordance with the provisions of relevant laws.

　　No organization or individual may seize any resident identity card. However, exception shall be made where the public security organ executes the enforcement measure for residential surveillance in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China.

Again, they are NOT required to carry it. Are they required to have it? Yes. But they do not have to have it on their person all the time. It's similar to a SS Card in the US. You are required to have one, but you are not required to carry it with you and have it on your person all the time. Perhaps there's some confusion to the definition of "carry." Perhaps you believe it means to actually possess one. I understand "carry" to mean that it has to be on one's person at all times.

As an aside, there are probably over 300+ million people in China who don't have an ID card. The way people got around the one child law was to have more kids, but not register them.

Most people don't carry it, but there are times that the physical card is required to conduct certain transactions. In other instances, the use of the number is required.

I'm sure there are certain situations where the actual physical card is required, but you are not required to have it on you. I haven't presented my SS card to anybody in over 10 years. I'm sure I'm not the only one.

I never said the driver's license by itself is used to obtain a passport. A birth certificate, certificate of naturalisation or certificate of citizenship proves U.S. citizenship for the purposes of a passport, but identityand physical residence is proven by the use of another state issued document, most often a driver's license.
Seriously, I am quite familiar with State.

Yes, something proving citizenship and a current photo ID is required. Children however, very infrequently have driver's licenses, in which case, one is not required.

A passport card has no travel validity outside of the areas mentioned, which are Mexico, Canada, Bermuda, neighbouring islands. It cannot be used as a travel document beyond the Western Hemisphere. What hotels do is their own business. American missions abroad will see it as identification but to travel into other countries it is useless.
Really, I am quite familiar with State.

I never ever stated you could use a Passport Card as a passport at other places besides the few that are expressly listed. I said it's quite possible to use it as identification at just about any US government institution to prove identity. I was told it can be used to prove identity to obtain a new passport book at US embassies and consulates. I don't know how true that is, since I haven't tried it yet.

The social security card is requested and inspected for certain financial and legal transactions. Financials institutions, at their discretion, and certain employers, at their discretion, can request to see the physical card. Where the card is not required you must have the number.
Truly, documentary requirements are quite familiar to me.

Well... nobody has yet requested to see my actual SS card, but admittedly, I've never had to use any SS services. Perhaps when I'm older and need Medicaid I'll have to have it on my person when I visit the SS Office. I've never been asked for my SS card for any financial service, and that includes opening bank accounts, brokerage accounts, obtaining credit cards, wiring money, and whatever else I might have done the past 10 years.

You were the one who brought up "hispanic appearance." I told you that there are plenty of latinos who are blonde and blue/green eyed and who do not meet your "hispanic appearance" definition. You were the one who engaged in racial profiling by that description, not me. I told you you were wrong, and you are.
Actually your description of the "stereotypical hispanic" is more one of mestizo, where there is an Indian influence. Hispanic can be blonde blue eyes as there are in the Basque regions of Spain, dark skinned as in the Afro Cubans, and Asian looking as the Chinese populations in the islands. The range is wide.
You might want to read up on latino ethnic groups before discussing "hispanic appearance." Or take a look at my avatar.

My referencing Hispanics was to point out racial profiling in AZ. People from Basque are not considered Hispanics, they are Europeans. The word "Hispanic" is typically used as a synonym to "Latinos" or "Latin Americans." If you find the term "Hispanic appearance" offensive, then so be it. It's just as legitimate as "Asian appearance." In some western areas of China, there are Asians who have light brown hair and blue eyes, that doesn't mean the term "Asian appearance" is not a thing.

I won't go near the hugely insensitive and offensive remark about the yellow star. You can keep that one.

You are again taking a huge leap from email monitoring of persons of interest to a devolution into a totaliarian state, while continuing to ignore the real life dangers inherent in not gathering intelligence needed to protect those very same liberties and freedoms that you feel will erode by not protecting those who would destroy the whole of America.
Between quoting Benjamin Franklin axioms and being alive, I would say that all of the victims of 9/11 would prefer to be alive.

I don't believe anything I said about Jews was offensive. I am somewhat of a Holocaust historian and take great pride in my knowledge of the events of that period pertaining to Jews. One of the reasons I am a lapsed Catholic is because of the Church's shortcomings during that terrible time.

The law in question is NOT about email monitoring. It's about LE having access to your email and documents stored in the cloud. I take it as a given that internet traffic is monitored by the government. It's quite a different thing however, to go from computers scanning internet traffic to allowing LE access to all emails or documents stored in the cloud without a warrant.

Intelligence gathering and LE access to information stored in the cloud are very different levels of intrusion. I can accept that intelligence agencies will monitor internet traffic to search for foreknowledge of potential disasters. Even if it's illegal, I accept that it's happening even this moment. That's is however, quite different from a overzealous prosecutor who has the power to go through a defendant's online life without a warrant, and use whatever he finds against a defendant.

As for what the victims of 9/11 feel, I'm sure they would rather be alive too. I don't understand how being alive and quoting Franklin are mutually exclusive.

REALLY???? So the only means to live free from terrorism is to live in a police state???? OK. Go with that. I'm gobsmacked over that one. So a population has to accept a certain amount of risk in order to ascribe to 18th century ideas. Right. So then we should live exactly as prescribed, verbatim, in the 18th century.

Living in a insular police state is one way.There are others, but all of them are bad. The more we, as a people, are willing to surrender our freedoms and the more power we give to government to monitor us, the further we move from a nation of liberty to one of crushing totalitarianism. Oddly, we also move further away from violent crime until a revolution happens. Historically, it's been true that the greater police force a government runs, especially secret police, the fewer instances of what we consider crime. From some recent reading, I understand Romanians under Ceaucescu lived in constant fear of the secret police, but crime was very low. The more freedom a country allows and the smaller the police force, the more crime there will be.

Another way to reduce crime is to make the punishment disproportionate to the crime. For example, execution for any type of theft will drastically reduce instances of small time robbery. It's possible that in the future, like in a few centuries, people will be more enlightened, and thus less monitoring will not necessarily lead to higher levels of crime. There is a price to be paid in living in a free society, and that price is the potential of other people doing bad things.

Go ahead and continue to take the huge leaps into perceived outcomes and deterioration of America into Amerika. Go ahead and quote 18th century founding fathers and assume that they would not use all tools at their disposal to protect the country.

I will deal with reality today. You know, where innocent victims are shot in theaters, in supermarket lots, are smashed into sides of buildings via airplanes, where suicide bombers board buses and detonate themselves killing people around them, where rush hour in the Metro is disrupted by bombs, where American missions abroad are taken over and ambassadors and civilians are killed....all by extreme fundamentalists who have sworn an oath to destroy America and American people.

All these axioms and theories and extreme anti government sentiment falls away the very next time an act of terror happens. Then the questions go very quickly into "why wasn't this stopped." Then you can tell the families of those killed that you oppose email monitoring that would have disclosed plans, and you can quote them as many Franklin axioms as you like, and tell them about concerns of authorities barging into a gay couple's house while they were making love because the government is routinely crashing into people's houses while they sleep. Tell me how you think they will feel, knowing that the deaths would have been stopped but you were concerned about email monitoring, or having someone look at your specific emails amongst the millions that are sent and received by the millions of people who use the internet on any given day.

The reality of today is we've lost a significant amount of freedom and privacy since the Burger Court. It's very true the world we live in today is vastly different than the one even as recently as 1985. That doesn't necessarily mean we should give up our freedoms. Every era has it's domestic and international problems. The 30's had worldwide depression and war in Europe and Asia. The 40's had WWII and the Holocaust. The 50's had the Korean War, and McCarthyism. The 60's had civil rights and Cuban Missile Crisis and Vietnam. The 70's continued Vietnam, nuclear proliferation, Iranian Hostage Crisis, and stagflation. The 80's had market crash, fall of the Berlin Wall, and the Tiananmen Protests. During all that turmoil, civil rights and individual freedoms actually increased. Is the America we live in today any more dangerous than America during the Cuban Missile Crisis? Is our fear of Islamic Fundamentalists any greater than the fear of Communists in the 50's?

Technology available today that allows LE to spy on its citizens was almost science fiction in the 60's. Instead of strengthening our protections from government, we're actually inviting them in. I find it frightening that any member of LE can use a drone to spy on anybody without a warrant. I agree, the world is different today than in the past, but are we really willing to give up portions of our freedom when our predecessors actually increased our freedoms while living in a world that was just as dangerous?

When 9/11 hit I was downtown in Chinatown. I watched the towers go down. I saw the huge plume of dust and smoke. I heard the horrible sound of crashing buildings. I was there when thousands of people covered in soot marched up the avenues to get away. I was there when the F-16 were circling above our heads. I waited for 3 hours stopped on the Westside Highway because they closed the bridges and tunnels. I saw the military in full combat dress holding rifles stationed at the GW Bridge. I know people who lost loved ones that day. Where I live in NJ, there's a park with a dozen trees commemorating each of the victims in my town who lost their lives that day. I avoid that park like the plague. I went to the 9/11 Memorial last year and I couldn't stop myself from silently weeping. I still say LE shouldn't be allowed be allowed to search emails without a warrant, and again, there is a difference between electronically monitoring random/all emails and what the law in question grants to LE.

There are certain ideas that have to live on. Democracy and free society are actually very new inventions in the history of man, barely 200 years old. Before that there were all different forms of authoritarian rule. It has taken thousands of years to get to the level of freedom we currently enjoy in the US. There are some sociologists who believe that autocratic rule is the norm, and that free society is actually an aberration. If indeed the concepts outlined by those 18th century gentlemen are indeed nothing more than a blip in the historical record of man, I would find that to be very disappointing. I like to think mankind is better than that, and that it has the maturity to handle the gift of a free society. I would like the ideas of liberty, equality, and fraternity to live beyond this current age. Liberty, equality, and fraternity aren't easy. They carry a much greater burden than simply falling in line with a autocrat. It means you have to be responsible for the welfare of yourself, and your neighbor. Basically, the choice is this. You can tell the government, "I'm scared of the world so please check to see if my neighbors are up to no good." Alternatively, you can tell them, "The world is a scary place, but I won't abide by unnecessary intrusions into my freedoms." I pick the latter, but others are perfectly free to pick the former. I think that's enough for me on this topic, thus this will be the last I post about it.

[belfastdispatcher]

Very much agreed.

I will follow Wuwei's lead and check out.

We all will have strongly held opinions. For me, I am not under the impression that privacy exists in the way most people believe, it was gone the instant we hit the digital age. For many of us, we are aware of it the instant we use a work BB with BES, so unless we want the admin to read personal messages, we use a personal device. I am under no egotistical misapprehension that my personal messages are of interest or will be of interest to anyone. Also for me, and perhaps because of where I work, the reality of the hatred that exists against America is a chilling, everyday fact of life, and because it is fact, more urgent than any dark imaginings of totalitarian regimes. The primal, biological sense of protection of life and loved ones is stronger in me than intellectual constructs and extremist exercises in what ifs.

I am aware that there are people who believe that 9/11 wasn't real. For others, complacency has set in. Others ridicule those of us who either will not forget because it's a personal raw wound or who, because the nature of our job or where we work, are exposed to the continuing reality of it. That's OK. Unfortunately I have been aware of AlQueda since I left the academy, and it was chilling to see what I knew from training brought suddenly live and in horrific detail on TV.

Anyone who believes that the American revolutionary thinkers would stand by and passively allow the United States be conquered does them a great disservice - they would have fought back with whatever tools were available to them. The Constitution is a living, breathing, adaptable document that changes as necessary to meet emergent realities. If not, slavery would still be the law of the land and I wouldn't be able to vote.

Over and out, Jakie. I would take you up on a pint.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Too late, it already happened, but not by AlQueda:

[kbz1960]

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

Seems it didn't do anything to stop 911 then so what good was it?

[trsbbs]

I called Senator Leahy's office and they indicated that CNET got it wrong.
If anyone else did please let me know.

See the following statement on his website:

"The rumors about warrant exceptions being added to ECPA are incorrect. Many have come forward with ideas for discussion before markup resumes on my bill to strengthen privacy protections under ECPA. As normally happens in the legislative process, these ideas are being circulated for discussion. One of them, having to do with a warrant exception, is one that I have not supported and do not support. The whole thrust of my bill is to remedy the erosion of the public�s privacy rights under the rapid advances of technology that we have seen since ECPA was first enacted thirty years ago. In particular, my proposal would require search warrants for government access to email stored by third-party service providers � something that of course was not contemplated three decades ago."

One thread folks bash CNET for an inaccurate article on BB10. Then take their word as gospel for this. DOH!

As for privacy rights, you loose what you do not fight for. Giving these rights up for any reason is the problem
with the world right now. Anything goes. No one takes a stand, they would rather play Angry Birds than defend a personal right.

You can give your rights away if you want buy keep your lazy hands off mine!

Tim

[trsbbs]

Seems it didn't do anything to stop 911 then so what good was it?

DOH! Most of these laws were put into affect after 911.

But in short, you have the rights you fight for.

com�pla�cen�cy (km-plsn-s)
n.
1. A feeling of contentment or self-satisfaction, especially when coupled with an unawareness of danger, trouble, or controversy.

Tim

[kb5zht]

Nothing new here.. America has been eroding the constitutional rights of their people since they allowed 911 to happen (part of their bigger plan).. Cloud adaption is a 2 prong plan between the government and corporations (who are one and the same).
Prong 1.. Get everyone saving all their personnel information in the cloud and we'll have access to it anytime we want...
Prong 2. They will need access to that data through internet and data plans. As data usage increase, so does communication companies profits and when they feel the need, they can cut people off from accessing their information..

Paranoid, maybe but take a closer look at everything is going on. These constitutional changes will continue to happen with little or no push back from the people. Funny thing is when you ask the average American they proclaim their "Constitution" is their rights to freedom, and they'll go to war to save those rights.. But ask those same people if they would give up rights for their Freedom, they'll answer with an emphatic Yes! Leaves you going hmmmm..

Just sayin!

I would love to take exception to your comment... But alas it is true. And both parties are guilty. They both used the opportunity to push their own agenda (while being hypocritical about the other party doing the same).

[TheScionicMan]

Country �muted� to fight terror
* Mobile phone, wireless phone services to remain suspended almost across country for two days from 6am to 10pm to �prevent terrorists activities�

ISLAMABAD: The government has decided to suspend mobile and wireless phone services in major cities across the country in a bid to thwart terrorists� plans and ensure a peaceful Ashura.

Talking to newsmen after chairing a meeting to review law and order situation in the country and emerging threats of terrorist acts, Interior Minister Rehman Malik said that in view of terrorist threats during Ashura, mobile phone service would be suspended for the next two days (Saturday and Sunday) in 46 cities, including the federal capital, between 6am and 10pm. The minister said information gathered by intelligence agencies and other sources of the Interior Ministry revealed that terrorists were planning more attacks in the coming days, particularly in Karachi, Quetta and Islamabad.

Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan

[jakie55]

[
Over and out, Jakie. I would take you up on a pint.


If I ever get to your neck of the woods, I'm buying....of course we were at one time talking about a BB 10 launch party.....we could get pantless, et al to join

[mhmediaonline]

My take is this, if businesses pull back from using paid cloud services, will free cloud services still be sustainable?

Just my personal opinion, but I think we'll be seeing a lot more private clouds starting up over the next year or so: the software's becoming readily available and users/owners will be able to implement their own security features. At least you'll know where your cloud is (mine's in the spare room )

[darkehawke]

I called Senator Leahy's office and they indicated that CNET got it wrong.
If anyone else did please let me know.

See the following statement on his website:

"The rumors about warrant exceptions being added to ECPA are incorrect. Many have come forward with ideas for discussion before markup resumes on my bill to strengthen privacy protections under ECPA. As normally happens in the legislative process, these ideas are being circulated for discussion. One of them, having to do with a warrant exception, is one that I have not supported and do not support. The whole thrust of my bill is to remedy the erosion of the public�s privacy rights under the rapid advances of technology that we have seen since ECPA was first enacted thirty years ago. In particular, my proposal would require search warrants for government access to email stored by third-party service providers � something that of course was not contemplated three decades ago."

One thread folks bash CNET for an inaccurate article on BB10. Then take their word as gospel for this. DOH!

As for privacy rights, you loose what you do not fight for. Giving these rights up for any reason is the problem
with the world right now. Anything goes. No one takes a stand, they would rather play Angry Birds than defend a personal right.

You can give your rights away if you want buy keep your lazy hands off mine!

Tim

I wouldn't say no one takes a stand.
There are plenty of people making a stand to preserve privacy right now, but someone somewhere has decided it is not newsworthy

Posted via CB10

[belfastdispatcher]

So as it turns out since this thread was started a lot of free services are being cut especially by Google, pim sync, Google reader, a number of apps support, yahoo etc, they're all starting to cut a lot of these free services. I wouldn't be surprised if in just a few years Google will end support for free Android OS.

[darkehawke]

So as it turns out since this thread was started a lot of free services are being cut especially by Google, pim sync, Google reader, a number of apps support, yahoo etc, they're all starting to cut a lot of these free services. I wouldn't be surprised if in just a few years Google will end support for free Android OS.

They can't start charging for Android. It will be too much of a legal hassle for them.
It would be easier for them to build a new Os from scratch and make it closed source.


Posted via CB10