toke
|
posted on June 13, 2001 02:29:42 PM new
I was assuming the will of the people was still relevant to some degree.
I thought that was what all the publicity on porn sites on the Internet was about...to get public support for government intervention and control of Internet content, providers, and end users.
|
Antiquary
|
posted on June 13, 2001 02:32:39 PM new
Oh, I agree with you, toke. I was addressing krs' earlier statements.
|
krs
|
posted on June 13, 2001 02:35:41 PM new
Or two,
It may well be that the FBI had enough information to be able to predict that an event would occur.
Antiquary, it's so extensive already that it could not be a result of anything but a plan. They couch it as individually needed, by that I mean needed for this or that reason and with such an such scope, but the data once gathered is easy to compile to give a much broader scope than any court would intend or allow. It's been a matter of concern in the legal community for quit some time as this shows: http://www.uchastings.edu/plri/96-97tex/video.htm
and it's reach is broadening as much as every day without concerted controls. Because they can say "oh, we need to monitor this for this reason only and that for that reason only" and then put the two together to create something altogether different than what they had described.
http://www.europarl.eu.int/stoa/publi/166499/execsum_en.htm?redirected=1
http://thewinds.arcsnet.net/arc_features/government/surveillance12-98.html
http://www.cisp.org/imp/february_2000/02_00simons-insight.htm
http://fly.hiwaay.net/~pspoole/echelon.html
http://www.heise.de/tp/english/special/pol/8026/1.html
http://lists.essential.org/pipermail/random-bits/2000-October/000397.html
(am I the only person with a search engine or two?)
[ edited by krs on Jun 13, 2001 02:38 PM ]
|
BittyBug
|
posted on June 13, 2001 02:37:36 PM new
Why couldn't is be convenient to have these things happen...make it the will of the people to give up freedom for safety?
|
roofguy
|
posted on June 13, 2001 02:38:52 PM new
Was it in the best interest of the [government] to have this action happen?
There are no credible conspiricy theories.
The question "did McVeigh's action have any effect with respect to McVeigh's goal?" remains to be answered. The six years we can examine yield no concise answer.
|
reamond
|
posted on June 13, 2001 02:40:31 PM new
The problem with modern surveilance is that the technology is moving faster than the courts.
The article that announced the recent S Court ruling regarding infared mentioned several new technologies being developed by the Justice Dept.
"Seeing" through walls now presents no problems. EMFs coming from monitors and hard drives can now be captured and deciphered from a distance.
Tracking your Internet use can and is done.
The cost of many of these devices is getting dirt cheap. Regular consumers can buy infared, pin hole wireless cameras, listening devices, etc. Law enforcement may only be part of the problem.
Most large cities have TV News cameras placed around the city, watching "traffic", etc..
Surveilance information gathered by non-law enforcement takes a different stripe in court, and thus far only some jurisdictions have outlawed audio surveilance. Civilian video surveilance won't be outlawed because news gathering organizations will lobby against it.
But I think the ability to digitally alter media should also cause strict scruntiny of all types of recorded "evidence".
Anybody that has even played with digital image morphing software knows you can't believe the authenticity of images anymore.
|
BittyBug
|
posted on June 13, 2001 02:41:34 PM new
What was McVeigh's goal? I honestly have had a great deal of difficulty determining exactly what his goal was...except to blow up a Federal building.
|
krs
|
posted on June 13, 2001 02:44:23 PM new
The six years we can examine yield no concise answer.
Maybe it does. Suppose that his act brought factions together in order to take political action towards the selection of Dumbya?
What if those very factions struck such fear by threat into the hearts of the members of the U.S. Supreme Court that they felt they had no other choice than to commit the grievious violations of the oaths and purpose and allow, even further, the end result?
|
roofguy
|
posted on June 13, 2001 02:47:50 PM new
What was McVeigh's goal?
A strike against government oppression.
To hit the bully as hard as he could.
|
krs
|
posted on June 13, 2001 02:49:29 PM new
Bully being Clinton--Timothy McVeigh was no patriot! HE WAS A REPUBLICAN!
|
figmente
|
posted on June 13, 2001 02:52:04 PM new
Timothy McVeigh was no patriot! HE WAS A FRUITCAKE.
|
roofguy
|
posted on June 13, 2001 02:52:27 PM new
krs, we can speculate as to what might happen. There are plenty of reasons to predict that the bombing will have a negative effect WRT the stated goal.
But the recent presidential election is not evidence of much.
(Edited to fix spelling, which will make krs' subsequent posting look disconnected, sorry krs)
[ edited by roofguy on Jun 13, 2001 03:07 PM ]
|
reamond
|
posted on June 13, 2001 02:55:46 PM new
Kinda off topic dealing with surveilance, but WHAT IF technology was developed that would prevent your auto license plate from showing up on video but still allowed it to be seen live with the naked eye ?
Such as having a device that bathes your license plate in a certain frequency of light or really bright light, yet still allowed it to be seen with the naked eye ?
The same things could be used to thwart video cameras in public places.
Counter measures present a whole new set of questions to the surveilance questions, and may be a new industry.
|
krs
|
posted on June 13, 2001 02:56:09 PM new
Lets hope it was not precedential.
|
roofguy
|
posted on June 13, 2001 02:57:25 PM new
What was McVeigh's goal?
Having answered this once, I realize that my answer was more to "what was McVeigh's strategy" than goal.
McVeigh's stated goal was the preservation of liberty in America.
|
krs
|
posted on June 13, 2001 03:02:10 PM new
reamond,
They make such devices illegal to possess or to use or both, as with radar detectors and police scanners in many areas.
|
Antiquary
|
posted on June 13, 2001 03:05:12 PM new
krs, bringing up isolated instances of assumed abuses does not constitute a masterplan. Rather like the welfare abuses discussed in another thread. And if the McVeigh instance is irrelevant in public debate so would be any public discourse about surveillance and government control, unless one wished to advocate revolution. If that were McVeigh's purpose it failed miserably since by all accounts it has had the opposite effect on the "patriot's movement" and a number of other radical groups.
|
roofguy
|
posted on June 13, 2001 03:12:47 PM new
The "patriot militia" movement has indeed declined.
We have seen no government actions comparable to either Ruby Ridge or Waco.
The cause and effect of either of those lacks evidence. Intuitively, one might suggest that both were in fact influenced by McVeigh.
Such analysis yields no concise answer.
|
gk4495
|
posted on June 13, 2001 03:27:22 PM new
We have seen no government actions comparable to either Ruby Ridge or Waco
True, but until US News blew the whistle on the FBI, the FBI had a computer/computer program called Carnivore that actively invaded computers via modem connections looking for evidence of illegal activities. It wasn't looking at "target" computers (i.e. Joe Doaks Drug Lord's computer) but whatever computer it came into contact with whether it was a private PC or a corporate system. It blew through firewalls and looked for pictures, keywords, etc. and if it found enough it sent up a flag and an investigation was started. It also monitored chat rooms and message boards. In other words, if it were still up and running, it could very well be monitoring this discussion here. Now do you feel safe and your privacy secure???
[ edited by gk4495 on Jun 13, 2001 03:28 PM ]
|
bunnicula
|
posted on June 13, 2001 09:40:11 PM new
What is really ironic is that while people are crying out against "government tyranny" and "Big Brother" they are at the same time *demanding* that the government take more of a stand in their lives in the form of regulations against this or for that... Can't have it both ways.
As for McVeigh--no, he was no patriot. He was a mass murderer plan & simple.
|
codasaurus
|
posted on June 14, 2001 05:33:06 AM new
A patriot might easily be considered one who takes a stand against a perceived oppressive government.
But I don't see a violent stand against the "oppressive" government as a first step. Only a last resort and grudgingly taken.
Folks who quickly resort to violence because they have no patience (and then seek to justify their actions as patriotism) are no patriots in my book.
|
roofguy
|
posted on June 14, 2001 07:35:41 AM new
Folks who quickly resort to violence because they have no patience (and then seek to justify their actions as patriotism) are no patriots in my book.
Codasaurus, your argument engages the question head on. Unfortunately, it's only meaningful to those who are already inclined to be patient.
|
codasaurus
|
posted on June 14, 2001 12:51:39 PM new
Hello Roofguy,
Just so. And that is why I believe that acts of such violence as McVeigh's justify capital punishment.
McVeigh resorted to violence. That he chose to ignore or abandon reasonable means to change what he saw as wrong was nothing less than a declaration of war on society.
Society does not defend itself by trying to engage the aggressor in a reasonable discourse. The aggressor has already demonstrated that that route is no longer accessible.
Sometimes, as civilized as we think we are or pretend to be, it comes down to kill or be killed. It isn't something to revel in, nor is it something to flagellate ourselves about.
[ edited by codasaurus on Jun 14, 2001 12:53 PM ]
|
roofguy
|
posted on June 14, 2001 02:19:16 PM new
I had no beef with the execution either, but it would almost certainly be incorrect to predict that this will deter those who would idolize McVeigh.
|
reamond
|
posted on June 14, 2001 02:31:42 PM new
Who said Carnivore isn't up and running ?
Carnivore has a double edge to it. If it is found to offend the Constitution, it can not be used by a US agency against a US citizen.
However, the United Kingdom, Australia, and others use this device under the perview of US agencies, and our agengies are free to use information gathered by these other nations, regardless if the information is about a US citizen.
Carnivore is a "sniffer" program that sorts through billions of bits of communications over satelite links. It looks for key words. If it flags a word, the whole communication can be gathered up, including who the communication was to. They can then target all the individuals involved in the communications with this individual[s].
Thus far, it is claimed that Carnivore is not used on cable/wire ground links, or fiber optics. But sniffer technology is very easy to use on Internet communications.
|
gk4495
|
posted on June 14, 2001 02:53:05 PM new
Actually Carnivore was one step beyond a sniffer program. The sniffer programs you refer to are passive in a sense in that they only monitor what what is being transmitted. This one was being tested on modem connections, etc. as an active invasive detection device (all under the guise of anti-terrorism.) Once the whistle was blown it was shut down.
|
reamond
|
posted on June 14, 2001 11:25:58 PM new
I think what you are referring to is not Carnivore- Carnivore is a sniffer.
There was some information in the press about a hidden key portal on all PCs which was supposedly placed there by Microsoft for Govt agencies to be able to enter any PC connected to the Internet. But it was never substantiated.
I haven't seen anything in the press regarding modems and Carnivore.
|
jamesoblivion
|
posted on June 14, 2001 11:31:37 PM new
If I remember correctly, the Microsoft thing involved a registry key labeled 'NSA'. That set off a storm, and Microsoft totally denied that it has anything to do with the NSA.
|
codasaurus
|
posted on June 15, 2001 05:44:48 AM new
Roofguy,
Executing McVeigh certainly "deterred" him from further action.
|
roofguy
|
posted on June 15, 2001 08:05:24 AM new
Executing McVeigh certainly "deterred" him from further action.
Agreed, it did.
However, it also wrapped McVeigh into a well defined story with a crisp, respectful end. The kind of story which is useful for iconification.
McVeigh himself is surely deterred, but we've not heard the last of him. This seems to have been McVeigh's rationale for not fighting the execution. His vision of himself in history would have suffered if he had lost a long fight to avoid execution, and was greatly enhanced by what actually occurred. He, the captain, chose when to die.
It's not a glorification I'm making here. It's a report of icebergs up ahead.
|
