[Full-disclosure] [Clips] A small editorial about recent events. (fwd)
dudevanwinkle at gmail.com
Mon Dec 19 13:10:49 GMT 2005
On 12/18/05, Jamie C. Pole <jpole at jcpa.com> wrote:
> As far as the rest of your point, I actually agree with you. I see
> no reason why the government needs to know which books you are
> reading, and I don't believe the government should know how long you
> are talking to your "psychic-phone-sex" operator in London (I would
> suggest that you look for one in the USA, though - the transatlantic
> phone calls can get expensive).
> On the other hand,
there is no other hand. if I am right, I am right. Case closed ;-)
if you are talking to a known or suspected
> terrorist, or if you are a known or suspected terrorist, I believe it
> is absolutely the government's responsibility to know what is going
> on. I know that there is a very specific provision that allows
> access to this information legally, but we do not know the
> circumstances that prompted the extralegal wiretaps. There may have
> been a very good reason why these particular circumstances were
> handled this way.
You are assuming that the elected officials have decency and our best
interests at heart. That is a _very_ dangerous and risky mindset. what
_if_ they dont? just imagine, if they dont care about you and me, or
if the next guy elected doesnt care about us... what then? what powers
did we just give the next douchbag elected?
> A blanket condemnation without all of the facts is just as wrong as a
> blanket justification without all of the facts.
I only condemn the blankets, those bastards!
"Hack the elections!!"
Full-Disclosure is hosted and sponsored by Secunia.