#3 Posted on 26.11.02 1341.05 Reposted on: 26.11.09 1342.18
I think there is a difference in the details that is lost here... Clinton's plan would give the government full access to all emails, for any reason, with no regulation. The current plan is to allow searched of emails and computer files, provided there is "probably cause" and a warrant is issued. What is the big deal about updating laws to include the internet? I mean, please? It is not like we are all, all of the sudden, going to have each and every email we put out read by an FBI agent, who then determines if we are a terrorist... they have to think, and have strong reason to believe you are such a person, and have it approved by a court before they can read your emails. This is no different from our current laws that govern when they can search your house or car. This is almost as bad as saying Republicans want to kill old people because they want to reform Social Security. DETAILS PEOPLE!
#4 Posted on 27.11.02 1209.03 Reposted on: 27.11.09 1210.09
"What is the big deal about updating laws to include the internet? I mean, please? It is not like we are all, all of the sudden, going to have each and every email we put out read by an FBI agent, who then determines if we are a terrorist... they have to think, and have strong reason to believe you are such a person, and have it approved by a court before they can read your emails."
Elimination of freedom happens in baby steps. Click below to see what happens when the baby grows up and learns to runů
#5 Posted on 27.11.02 1403.35 Reposted on: 27.11.09 1405.20
You are right one on point, Flea... all powers we grant the government have the potention to be used badfly, and that is the reason you keep a constant watch on what is going on in the governement. However, the slippery slope argument is a bad one, because it can be applied to ANYTHING. There is a balance between personal libery and an orderly society. China, for a long long time, has been on the extreme end of that spectrum. Whehter it is the internet or something else, they are constantly punishing their people for the spread of ideas. We are not China. We already allow search warrants for our homes, if approved by a court. The officers requesting these warrants have the burden of proof on them- they are not just handed out like candy. Your argument would suggest that because China can search anyone's house at anytime by their laws, that we would be doing the same by now. We aren't. Just because the internet is new does not mean that reasonable adaptations of current laws and customs in this country should not be applied to it. I WANT the police to be able to serve a search warrant and access a suspect's computer files. To even suggest that we should not allow this because CHINA takes the practice too far is ridiculous. Again, WE ARE NOT CHINA. It is right to point out the dangers... so that the regulations of such a police power are worded properly, to avoid that sort of mishandling of power, but it is not right to completely oppose something because of a worst case scenario. Lets take that argument and put it in a different light. Gun Control. Some of the most oppresive dictatorships occured after the soon-to-be ruler removed weapons from the hands of the people. Scotland (England). China. If you pass gun control laws, the government will be able to simply take over the country, and there is nothing we, the unarmed masses, will be able to do about it. See how idiotic this sounds? If we do not let some freak have a rocket-launcher, we will become a dictatorship. I think that the majority of people do thing that certain weapons should be limited, but to suggest by doing so that the absolute worst possibility will take place, so we should not go ahead with it, is irresponsible. The only thing that this law changes is that email and computer files are now treated exactly like all other forms of personal property. And this is as it should be.
(edited by Pool-Boy on 27.11.02 1204)
ALL ORIGINAL POSTS IN THIS THREAD ARE NOW AVAILABLE