I don't see many results of the controversy surrounding the wiretap issue though. Did anyone mayor quit his job because of this? I have a sneaking suspiscion nothing will change because of it. Perhaps Bush can scream "terrorism" once more so a law can be made to legalize this practice? That's the way it works in Europe.

The EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation) is suing AT&T because of the NSA wiretap thing. The Department of Justice is now trying ot get the judge to dismiss the case citing concerns of national security. So, basically our only recourse for this kind of behaviour is to go to court, but the government is trying to shut down that avenue.

Of course, we have other recourses. Congressional elections are coming, and with Bush's approval ratings I'm willing to bet the new congress will be pretty antibush. That's one way. Armed resistance is another, but I don't see that coming any time soon.

link to ATT/EFF story

When did I say it wasn't our fault?

@ Satis #1 - I know what you are saying, but that's not what they are proposing here. If someone who I'd never meet, was to check that I was doing nothing illegal, I wouldn't give a damn. If they trashed my stuff, that's a different situation. If someone was to randomly search me, I'd be fine with it, so long as they flashed me an official ID. I've been through a few random checks in my time, working at safeway (Policy was something like one random check per month) and many times by doormen at clubs.

There's a big difference between monitoring traffic and doing a raid.

#2: Isn't that what i'm saying? *re reads to make sure* Yeah, I think it is. Correct me if I'm wrong.

now on to the rest of the thread.

I agree with what 11b is saying, but if it wasn't for the % of the worlds population that decided to be law breakers etc, we wouldn't need this sort of thing to occur.

Here's a question for you, and this is genuine, not one of those "I'm going to ask an arrogant question because I think it will prove a point" kinda questions, but a real question which I want your real thoughts on.

What if the whole tapping/added security loss of privacy thing was a success law wise? What if it cut crime/fraud/terrorism/other illegal activities dramatically? What do you think would happen next?

Would criminals revert back to the days of no computers?

but I am a criminal. So are you. I bet everyone here is a criminal in some fashion.

I believe that law is unjust and will always be unjust. The only recourse to that is that I will violate it, but will be generally ignored. If we become a police state, then I will no longer be able to violate laws...or if I do, I'll go to jail.

I would rather have laws + crime than no crime or no laws. It's a scale of sorts, that I see. On one side, you have anarchy and no laws, where anything you do is ok. On the other you have a police state, in which everything you do is watched and laws are enforced 100%. I'd rather be in the middle somewhere then at either extreme.

Isn't that the point in a law though? I'm not saying I want you to go to jail, but I am saying that you shouldn't be breaking the law.

I do agree with the whole situation of one extreme or the other. I'd rather not live like in the film equalibrium, that's for sure. But I do think that our law system is not enforced enough. For instance a life sentence should be life.

Fair enough, 20 years in a jail will wreck your life, your friends will have moved on, some people will have died, others will have found new love. But It sickens me that some of the things that some people do, only nets them 20 years in jail. It sickens me worse, that with good behaviour they can get out in less.

For instance, recently over here, a man raped a 4 month old baby. He got 6 years. That's just fucked up.

I think most murders over here get like 7-14 years. IMO, if you maliciously kill someone, you've forfeit your life. There can be extenuating circumstances, like crimes of passion and accidentally killing someone, but purposefully going out of your way to remove someone from life should be dealt with harshly.

On the other hand, someone carrying 4 hits of acid for personal use shouldn't go to jail for 20 years.

I think our legal system is just screwed up. In a perfect world, the laws on the books would be accurate and realistic. And in that perfect world, I think that 100% enforcement would be a good thing. But as long as laws are as screwed up as they are, I think it's good that we can get away with violating the stupid ones.

What's the problem of getting out of jail earlier because of good behaviour? The idea of the prison system is to make sure the criminal won't commit crimes again when he gets out of jail, so if a criminal is not rewarded for being good, why would he be?

Because a smart criminal will be good JUST to get out.

Infact that was also a recent story in a paper, the criminal was jailed for rape and murder. He got half sentence for good behaiviour. The same day he was released, he did it again.

I say the criminal should be rewarded for good behaviour within the jail walls. Not released.

About the drugs: I'm strongly apposed to drugs, with the exception of medical reasons and I suppose alcohol could be classed as a drug. I understand that's just a personal thing, which is fine by me because the junkies that do the drugs will most likely die before me. The problem I have, is some fucker who is fucked up on *insert drug here* can have a serious affect on the public, from silly things like noise polution through to murder under the influence.

I don't think people should be punished for using drugs. If they do something illegal while under the influence of drugs, I think they should be held accountable for what they did, not the fact they were on drugs. IE, if someone's on coke and kills someone, they should be tried for murder. Not coke.

Anyway, the number of people that have done and do drugs is staggering. People you never would have thought of as doing drugs do them regularly. It's a fact. The loud/criminal drug users are the vast majority. Most people are just really good at hiding it. Trust me.

Imo, it's like the alcohol thing. Lots of people drink, but only a small percent are the annoying/violent/loud drunks that you hear to much about. Just because some people are idiots doesn't mean we should illegalize alcohol.

No, but maybe we should illegalise drinking over a certain amount of alcohol. It's bad for you and the people around me.

In my opinion, there hsould be (At least) the following 5 levels of "murder"

Forced to
Manslaughter
Random Murder (Don't really know a name for it)
Murder under influecning circumstances - Drugs/Alcohol
Intent Murder

bah, I completely disagree. More laws = bad. Use existing laws, repeal stupid/ignored laws. Get the government out of our lives.

So you're going to make drinking beyond a certain amount illegal? What amount? And is it different for a 300 pound, 7 foot guy vs a 90 pound, 5' woman? What about a native american versus some Irish guy? What about at a club vs at a bar vs at a restaurant vs at home? Can I get arrested for drinking too much? Can I get arrested for drinking too much in my own house? Can I get arrested for having too much liqour/alcohol at my house? Can I get arrested if I'm drunking and taking out my trash and thus on public land in my back alley?

*grumbles*

Bullshit. A small group of people becomes violent when drinking, but the vast majority only becomes very happy. But you only hear about the violent ones. Should the majority suffer over the minority?

I'm not going to do it, no, because I don't have the power to. I just believe that if people were fined for being over a certain limit, we'd be in a better position.

And by your logic satis, the legal driving limit is wrong too.

What I'm saying is if you're in the street and your causing a riot, and you are over the legal limit, you'd get fined/prosecuted/whatever. If you weren't causing a riot, you'd have nothing to worry about because you wouldn't be stopped in the first place.

Problem solved.

You know what the problem with putting people away for life is? The cost. In america, guess who gets to pay for Joe Bob the pediophle rapist murder who killed 5 children? We do. The tax payers. My state taxes go to pay for Joe Bob to eat, sleep, take hot showers, etc. And for life? Why should he get a free ride for commiting murder while I work my ass off every day for 50 plus years to support him?

I support prison reform. The best prison system I ever heard of was this.

When a someone commits a crime like murder, that person gets thrown into a caged hole in the ground. They only time they get feed is if their family or other person/people come to feed them. When they die from starvation because not even their family wants anything to do with them, you just throw dirt over the hole.

Now, you tell me whats the better system?

If you live in the middle ages, that would be a perfect system.