Jump to content
IGNORED

FBI and NSA Poised to Gain New Surveillance Powers Under Trump


WorthyNewsBot

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Royal Member *
  • Followers:  8
  • Topic Count:  91
  • Topics Per Day:  0.03
  • Content Count:  10,596
  • Content Per Day:  3.73
  • Reputation:   2,743
  • Days Won:  25
  • Joined:  06/16/2016
  • Status:  Offline

5 minutes ago, SavedByGrace1981 said:

Good faith question:  Used how?

Because if all you're saying is its COLLECTION followed the law, you're in effect saying the the law has been simply updated to reflect what I've been saying is going to happen anyway - i.e. the collection of data.  Or do you really believe that if the law does not permit data gathering, that all of the modern day J. Edgars and James Bonds will all of a sudden stop gathering it?  Because if history is a judge, it is NOT going to happen.  Like I wrote earlier, Hoover was gathering data without a warrant on MLK long ago.

Like it or not, we live in an age when all kinds of information is there for the taking.  Agencies no longer have to place bugs or phone taps.  All we can do (which I am entirely for) is remain vigilant.  One point you forgot to mention - at least with Trump in charge, we will all of a sudden return to the days of a vigilant press and a watchdog ACLU.  So perhaps this will ease your fears.  

Once it is a more Obama-like regime doing this, THEN I will be more concerned.  And I am concerned about the precedent being set.

As as aside though, at least this topic has united some Worthy-ites.  That's a good thing.

Blessings,

-Ed

 

Good faith answer:  How ever they darn well please I would assume, since there are no safeguards in place.

I believe the 4th amendment does not permit such things as warrantless spying of US citizens, I believe that to say "well they do it anyway so who cares" is a dangerous path to go down.  Freedoms and rights are lost one little bit at a time, and when they are given away without so much as a fight, that just means the next right or freedom is now the target. 

When it was found out that Hoover had done that to MLK there was an outcry against it, now there is a "well, as long as we are safe, do whatever you want".   

I fail to see how you on one hand can say "stay vigilant" and on the other say "well, they are going to do it anywhow".  The two are not compatible. 

The "vigilant press and a watchdog ACLU" did nothing while Bush II was doing this, why would they do anything about Trump?  

I do not trust Trump even a little bit more than I trust Obama.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  44
  • Topic Count:  6,178
  • Topics Per Day:  0.88
  • Content Count:  43,784
  • Content Per Day:  6.23
  • Reputation:   11,227
  • Days Won:  58
  • Joined:  01/03/2005
  • Status:  Offline

51 minutes ago, Out of the Shadows said:

New business opportunity, car washes in Az!  :rofl:

There are so many car washes in az. But I was coming out of a national monument (the roads inside the park are not paved) and there was no car wash at the monument. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  44
  • Topic Count:  6,178
  • Topics Per Day:  0.88
  • Content Count:  43,784
  • Content Per Day:  6.23
  • Reputation:   11,227
  • Days Won:  58
  • Joined:  01/03/2005
  • Status:  Offline

6 minutes ago, SavedByGrace1981 said:

Yeah, while your phone number is unlisted with your local directory, you must have entered it into an online form somewhere when you were shopping for walk in tubs.  THAT information (i.e. anything you put online) becomes available online.

Reputable dealers will state they do not share their lists or any data they collect.  That remains to be seen.

Blessings,

-Ed

 

I never once submitted that information online. I merely looked at tubs online without entering any personal information. They gleaned it themselves. I do not even think I went to their website. I looked at home depot and lowes, then clicked on a couple of manufacturers for more information, but I do not think that was any of the manufacturers sites that I looked at was the same one that called me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  104
  • Topics Per Day:  0.02
  • Content Count:  2,923
  • Content Per Day:  0.62
  • Reputation:   462
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  04/02/2011
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  03/22/1953

28 minutes ago, Out of the Shadows said:

Good faith answer:  How ever they darn well please I would assume, since there are no safeguards in place.

I understand the "slippery-slope" argument.  So other than the ballot box, how do YOU propose stopping them from doing what they are going to do anyway?  Because we just had an election, and I hope you're not suggesting Hillary would have held any different views on this topic. In fact, I don't recall this being on the radar.

When it was found out that Hoover had done that to MLK there was an outcry against it, now there is a "well, as long as we are safe, do whatever you want".   

Aside from a few "radicals" and "malcontents", I don't think there was much of an outcry in the 50s & 60s against Hoover's illegal surveillance of King.  In fact, I would argue there may be more of an outcry now (via social media and alternative sources of news).  Whether or not the outcry accomplishes anything remains doubtful.

I fail to see how you on one hand can say "stay vigilant" and on the other say "well, they are going to do it anywhow".  The two are not compatible. 

If someone is "wrongly convicted" due to a warrantless search, then be vigilant in seeing their conviction is overturned.  Happens all the time.

The "vigilant press and a watchdog ACLU" did nothing while Bush II was doing this, why would they do anything about Trump?  

If you mean the 'Patriot Act' I agree.  Why then wasn't it addressed when the Ds took over Congress in '06 and the WH in '08?

I do not trust Trump even a little bit more than I trust Obama.

NEWS FLASH!!!  Ha ha ha (sorry, I couldn't resist)

Blessings,

-Ed

 

Edited by SavedByGrace1981
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  104
  • Topics Per Day:  0.02
  • Content Count:  2,923
  • Content Per Day:  0.62
  • Reputation:   462
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  04/02/2011
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  03/22/1953

17 minutes ago, ayin jade said:

I never once submitted that information online. I merely looked at tubs online without entering any personal information. They gleaned it themselves. I do not even think I went to their website. I looked at home depot and lowes, then clicked on a couple of manufacturers for more information, but I do not think that was any of the manufacturers sites that I looked at was the same one that called me. 

Hmmm . . . now that is interesting.

I guess it just underscores the fact that yes indeed - ALL facets of our lives are online.  Scary stuff - I don't think even Orwell foresaw this.

Blessings,

-Ed

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member *
  • Followers:  8
  • Topic Count:  91
  • Topics Per Day:  0.03
  • Content Count:  10,596
  • Content Per Day:  3.73
  • Reputation:   2,743
  • Days Won:  25
  • Joined:  06/16/2016
  • Status:  Offline

16 hours ago, SavedByGrace1981 said:

I understand the "slippery-slope" argument.  So other than the ballot box, how do YOU propose stopping them from doing what they are going to do anyway?  Because we just had an election, and I hope you're not suggesting Hillary would have held any different views on this topic. In fact, I don't recall this being on the radar.

The ballot box is a good start, but people have to be willing to vote for someone other than a Repub or a Dem.  You are right it was not on the radar because most people do not care, they fall under the "I have nothing to hide" or the "what harm has it done to me" way of thinking.   As long as it is not harming them right now they could not care less. 

Quote

If someone is "wrongly convicted" due to a warrantless search, then be vigilant in seeing their conviction is overturned.  Happens all the time.

That could not happen because Congress make warrantless searches legal, despite what the constitution says. 

Quote

If you mean the 'Patriot Act' I agree.  Why then wasn't it addressed when the Ds took over Congress in '06 and the WH in '08?

because both parties are just as bad.  But on a bright note, Obama did promise not to use his power to indefinitely detain American citizens, and I am sure he would not lie about that, I mean you trust him, right?  :sarc:

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  28
  • Topic Count:  338
  • Topics Per Day:  0.05
  • Content Count:  15,676
  • Content Per Day:  2.46
  • Reputation:   8,498
  • Days Won:  39
  • Joined:  10/25/2006
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  02/27/1985

just fear mongering. They would be increasing servailance under either administration, I didnt see either candidate actually letting up on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member *
  • Followers:  8
  • Topic Count:  91
  • Topics Per Day:  0.03
  • Content Count:  10,596
  • Content Per Day:  3.73
  • Reputation:   2,743
  • Days Won:  25
  • Joined:  06/16/2016
  • Status:  Offline

10 hours ago, The_Patriot2016 said:

just fear mongering. They would be increasing servailance under either administration, I didnt see either candidate actually letting up on it.

Seems to be missing the point, we have a 4th amendment for a reason, and the fact that some people are scared of terrorist is not a good enough reason to ignore it.  The man Trump picked for CIA director has stated publicly on multiple occasions that we need more warrantless, probable causeless, spying on American citizens, not less.  Whatever a different president might have or not have done is totally irrelevant. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...