Page 1 of 1

shall we boycott aol?

Posted: Fri Oct 21, 2005 10:48 am
by thegreatone2176
The American-based internet giant, AOL, wholly-owned by Time-Warner, has formed a working partnership with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to permit unlimited surveillance of the millions of AOL online members, according to a report from the U.S. Department of Commerce.

read more at the bottom of:

http://www.tbrnews.org/Archives/a1902.htm

Posted: Fri Oct 21, 2005 11:33 am
by Grim...
Why?

Unless you are planning to commit a crime, there's nothing to worry about, right?

/devils advocate

Posted: Fri Oct 21, 2005 11:35 am
by John Cartwright
Grim... wrote:Why?

Unless you are planning to commit a crime, there's nothing to worry about, right?

/devils advocate
Thats not the point.. the thing is it is just not "right" to give up our freedoms.
There is a saying:
"Once your own government takes away your freedoms, the terrorists have won" or something along those lines

Posted: Fri Oct 21, 2005 12:37 pm
by Roja
The issue is *not* with AOL. The issue is with the Patriot act.

They are simply complying with the Patriot act.

Every major cell network in the United States does the same - they have a pass-through line direct to law enforcement, and all it takes is a request with the right paperwork to get it routed.

Previously, that paperwork included a subpeona. Now, thanks to the Patriot Act, law enforcement doesn't need a subpeona.

Object to the law, and tell your representatives. Vote on election day for candidates that will vote against extending it, and vote against making it permanent.

Choosing a provider based on that criteria means you will end up with no provider - so solve the problem, not the symptom.

Posted: Fri Oct 21, 2005 12:41 pm
by Buddha443556
The story as reported sounds bogus. There's no "Financial Reporter" newspaper listed in the UK as far as I can tell? Where's the Department of Commerce Report? DHS response? It's been 5 days since this reported on FMNN - where's the response? What are the sources? This report is so flimsy I can't believe I waste my time checking it out.

Posted: Fri Oct 21, 2005 2:44 pm
by Roja
Buddha443556 wrote:The story as reported sounds bogus. There's no "Financial Reporter" newspaper listed in the UK as far as I can tell? Where's the Department of Commerce Report? DHS response? It's been 5 days since this reported on FMNN - where's the response? What are the sources? This report is so flimsy I can't believe I waste my time checking it out.
They actually posted sources, a response, and an attack on the response here:

http://www.tbrnews.org/Archives/a1911.htm

Regardless, the Patriot Act does allow substantial eavesdropping by government agencies, including full wiretaps without a subpeona, and as such, is worth being concerned about.

Posted: Fri Oct 21, 2005 5:22 pm
by Buddha443556
Guess I'm not the only one that finds their sources lacking. :roll:
Roja wrote:Regardless, the Patriot Act does allow substantial eavesdropping by government agencies, including full wiretaps without a subpeona, and as such, is worth being concerned about.
The Patriot Act has greatly extended the Government's powers and concern about the Patriot Act is definitely justified. However, stories such as this, that are reported as fact with no proof, do nobody any good. I'm not defending the Government or AOL here, I just don't like to be used and that was the intention of whoever wrote that story.

We live in the age of cut and paste journalism and everyone needs to check their sources.

Posted: Sat Oct 22, 2005 11:03 am
by mu-tiger
Here goes you some more cut and paste journalism:

http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/display?content=3028

http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article ... 0000000001

http://news.com.com/Feds+uncloak+Patrio ... 55112.html

Couple that along with a discussion in which i'm participatory at another forum:
Besides, it is proberly not to catch hackers, crackers and pirates, but terrorists.
i disagree. After the Patriot Act was in place, The first arrests yileded 15 people selling weed from Canada to Washington; Chong was arrested, for selling bongs from a site. Oh yeah, big terror threat there. Oh, and a lady was arrested on charges she didn't pay her $50 fine for failing to properly put away her marshmellows at Yellowstone Nat'l Park.

Cannabis News: International Drug Ring

Cannabis News: Chong Arrested

Casper Star Tribune: Marshmellow Arrest.

Echelon is a sweetheart. Try researching Carnivore and Wolverine. ;)

Google Returns, Carnivore

Google Returns, Wolverine
i wholly agree with Jcart:


Thats not the point.. the thing is it is just not "right" to give up our freedoms.
That, and the fact that, regardless of the number of cold, hard facts staring them in the face, about half the american population choose to remain sheeple, because they're too i-don't-know-what to check the research themselves.

Feel free to check the credibility of the sources in this post, not just the origin of the sources. :roll:

Posted: Sat Oct 22, 2005 3:22 pm
by s.dot
hmm, if you think about it, nothing's really private anyways. You're sending information through servers, which could (and probably is) being recorded/logged.

They're just making you aware of it now. :-D

Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2005 6:18 pm
by Luke
Give people the freedom to vote, and people will eventually vote away their freedom.

Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2005 12:36 pm
by alvinphp
Regardless, the Patriot Act does allow substantial eavesdropping by government agencies, including full wiretaps without a subpeona, and as such, is worth being concerned about.
To not allow subpeona is pretty scarey. I agree that eavesdropping should be done for out national security, but there has to be some level of oversight attached to this to protect what we hold so dear (our freedom to live our lives).

Our agencies have been abused before, and I do not believe we improved as human beings since that time so let them tap, but put in some basic checks.

Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2005 4:11 am
by Han
It's not just about committing a crime.
There is political control. If Nazi Germany had computers at that time, they'd have been able to track and monitor the dissidents who'd gone underground.
The government can change political allegiance/party, and then use the thing against people. Turning innocent people into criminals.

Han.