FBI wants to wiretap all internet communications. We going to let this happen?

[DSRilk]

1) The FBI would not be the only people with access to all that stored data
2) Broad net fishing of data is a huuuuuge waste of money and resources that are better spent following actual leads
3) It's not a matter of nothing to hide, it's a matter of it being no one's business but my own. While I'm sure you look pretty similar to most people of your gender when you're naked, and thus have nothing to hide, you probably don't really want the cops staring in at you while you shower. Besides, it's not like others won't have access to that window. And any picture they took they could happily put elsewhere on the Internet. Hopefully you understand the analogy.

[Bathory]

It'll pass. People don't care enough to activate. "Oh another bill, I'll just sit here and keep being comfortable, doesn't affect me."

[scoobe]

BRILLIANT! Lets make back doors for another wanna-b Lulsec to get a hold of and play with...

But seriously, who's to say that these "back doors" are 100% safe/secure from being hijacked?

[Greg000115]

It'll pass. People don't care enough to activate. "Oh another bill, I'll just sit here and keep being comfortable, doesn't affect me."

Not necessarily.. With enough publicity people will care.

[procne]

They talk about social networks and VoiPs, but the FBI guy says:
"If you create a service, product, or app that allows a user to communicate, you get the privilege of adding that extra coding"
Now, is not internet ONLY about communication? Forums, blogs, video sites (youtube), games, websites - aren't they all about communicating? Sometimes one side, sometimes both, but still...
This quote sounds exactly like SOPA / PIPA to me. They didn't show exact wording on this law, but I can't imagine of any wording that would limit this law to only Facebook, skype and similar. Product or application allowing communication? It's every damn application and server on the internet.

edit: Damn, even ISP software and communication protocols (HTTP, TCP/IP, UDP) qualify here

[Deleted]

True, but even so.. do you want them listening to you cyber with your gf because they 'suspect' your doing something illegal?

Why not, who cares ? Law and order should prevail.

[bals]

nsa/fbi/cia/unnamed organization are already doing this

http://www.usawatch.org/archives/002147.html
from 2006

[ToxTheWrecker]

Its crazy how many people seem to "not care" and let go their privacy so easily even if its for so called "safety".

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin.

This wire tapping is literally uncalled for, so is Homeland security(Which has purchased over 200 million hallow point rounds and 2500+ heavily armored vehicles), for so called safety from terrorists? How absurd. Edit: true they have been doing it for decades but this seems to be on a more mass and open platform. Once you get people comfortable with being invaded in any sense, you have control over them.
And having such either immature comments to make towards these things or shrewd remarks isn't necessary. Little by little they are trying to remove privacy completely and have tyrant like powers over its citizens. Liberty will be a thing of the past and people will have to fight for their rights all over again. (If things continue in their patterns to remove privacy and rights.)

[Deleted]

1) The FBI would not be the only people with access to all that stored data
2) Broad net fishing of data is a huuuuuge waste of money and resources that are better spent following actual leads
3) It's not a matter of nothing to hide, it's a matter of it being no one's business but my own. While I'm sure you look pretty similar to most people of your gender when you're naked, and thus have nothing to hide, you probably don't really want the cops staring in at you while you shower. Besides, it's not like others won't have access to that window. And any picture they took they could happily put elsewhere on the Internet. Hopefully you understand the analogy.

Totally different.
If it helps catch pedophiles and terrorists, then they can spy on my internet activity all they like.
In before slippery slope fallacy.

[Maleficus]

sooo if you got nothing to hide cops could enter your house look every where with out needing a good reason and you are fine with that?o.O (it is a example btw )

This exactly. The notion "why would you care if you don't have anything to hide" is so backwards! It's BECAUSE i don't have anything to hide is why i don't want the fbi or any other entity taping, probing, snooping, etc. without my permission - or "reasonable suspiscion".

---------- Post added 2012-05-04 at 07:56 PM ----------

Totally different.

How so? Going by the assumption that it will be "secure" and not for public vieiwing, why would you care?

[coldfiredragon]

Well I wrote to my Senators about this. It needs to be stopped.

[gamma Ray]

Anyone who gives the ridiculous answer of "if you have nothing to hide it should be fine!" has to give naked pictures of themselves to their grandparents while masturbating.

We all have something to hide even if its just out of "decency"

[Greg000115]

Why not, who cares ? Law and order should prevail.

Agreed with gamma Ray


Edit- Removed my actual post because gamma ray made me laugh

[Norgannon the Dreamweaver]

The FBI are turds.

[Deleted]

Totally different.
If it helps catch pedophiles and terrorists, then they can spy on my internet activity all they like.
In before slippery slope fallacy.

I recall from discussions with you in the UK Free Speech thread I made that personal liberty isn't really something you care for.

The "Slippery Slope Fallacy" appears less of a fallacy each day and more of a reality with every piece of legislation planned and implemented.

[Deleted]

How so? Going by the assumption that it will be "secure" and not for public vieiwing, why would you care?

That's the point, I don't care.

I'm not a (for lack of a better word) moron who uses the internet for anything ridiculously personal or secure that I don't want ANYONE in the world to see. It's the internet for god's sake, not a maximum security vault.

Catch pedos and terrorists vs they see my page history of MMO champion and youtube : my choice is made.

(Also I suspect they have been doing this kind of stuff for a long time without our knowledge.)

[Deleted]

Why not, who cares ? Law and order should prevail.

So government authorities, according to you should be granted unlimited access to people's private lives so long as it is legislated and for our protection?

[PACOX]

The NSA has been has been piggybacking on all your communication systems for years. They don't care what you are doing on the internet, even if you are doing some not so legal downloading (unless you're running some huge operation).

[SunbakedDuck]

there are probs some pedos /weirdos in the goverment who will watch u threw ur webcam when ur doing something totally goes against privacy! how would this even work tbh? how do they know when X person is a pedo/terrorist ?? the only way they would know if theres a program that scans what people do / look on the computer and if theres anything illegal then it will signal the FBI and they can look over it and arrest the person... so they shouldent be able to just eavesdrop on some random person whenever they like etc...

edit1: so basicly theres too many people on the internet to like manualy look at peoples chat and such so there must be a program that alerts the gov of suspicious things so they get alerted and THEN they should be spying on you... if its like that i dont think anyone has to worry about their privacy since they have no reason to listen / look at what ur talking about. unless theres someone corrupt there who will just spy on u for personal reasons like watching some chick naked on webcam etc=D or to use the info against u and blackmail u i guess?

what do u think ?am i right or wrong

[RaoBurning]

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Does any more really need to be said?