Rattle wrote:
] I don't have a problem with it if its done through the legal
] system.. Subpoena the info.

On this we agree. :)

] Just don't use "National Security Letters" with attached gag
] orders. I don't like the idea of all this secret collection
] of information without any kind of oversight outside the
] intelligence agencies using the powers.

Here's where I diverge. Secret collection? No oversight? Gag orders? I mean, I agree with the statement in general, but what does that have to do with this Vegas story?

This story was *not* secret. In fact, plenty of papers were covering the fact that the FBI was on the job in Vegas, as a way of decreasing public fears. Just google the story. But then "Wired News" gets ahold of it, banners it with a big emotional headline, and all of a sudden the privacy people are jumping up and down and screaming, "See? See?"

] Its all about oversight. I don't think there is any. I have
] a problem with that. Unless I am mistaken, the closest thing
] to review I think these actions go under outside the agency
] they are used, is when it gets leaked to the press like this.

Or when somebody files a lawsuit. Or when the ACLU gets ahold of it. There are *lots* of watchdog groups that are willing to scream bloody murder at the drop of a hat, with or without just cause.

] I also have a much lower threshold for sounding the bullshit
] alarm because of the way these powers are being expanded..

Well, the definition of BS is subjective. :) Personally, my own alarm sounds for a lot of the stuff I see posted on Memestreams, especially when people start throwing the words "police state" around. I think some of our users need to get out more, and see what a *real* police state is like. Because lemme tell you, the U.S. just ain't it!

But until that promised "squelch" function gets implemented, or the reputation agent really does catch on to the fact that there are certain people who I have *no* desire to ever see a post from, I have to keep scanning headlines from people who I think are... (takes a deep breath and deletes a few words).... from people who I think could do better to inform themselves on the issues. :)

] That being, with as little public discourse as possible while
] still having the ability to look on the up-and-up.. The
] timing, the senate voice votes, the lack of press, etc..
] These things all heighten my tension over the issues at hand,
] and I see no reason why they shouldn't.

I agree that tension is high, and that public discourse is good. But I also think that timing has to play a factor. Passing a law is hard. Getting everybody's signoff takes a long time. Sometimes, to survive, I believe that it's better to do your best to make a fast and reasonably good decision, than to take a long time to make a perfect decision.

Also, as I understand it, many of these "quickly passed" laws included "sunset" provisions so that eventually they'll automatically expire unless they *do* go through a careful review and analysis process. Just because some of our lawmakers are dumb, doesn't mean *all* of them are. There are still checks and balances in place.

I *like* that Congress passed some emergency provisions to help law enforcement do their job better and faster. Especially when there are people out there who are actively trying to kill us, our neighbors, our cities, and more. This is not a case of peacetime where we have the leisure to carefully examine all options. This is a case where we have active and *current* threats -- organized and funded terrorists who, if they could, would gladly "kill millions and still not be satisfied." Just because there aren't things blowing up on a daily basis, do not make the assumption that we are safe. There is a war going on, and I don't mean the one in Iraq.

I'm also confident that if one of the plots got through our shields and was successful, like if there were a chemical weapon attack on Vegas, or a plane flown into another building, that many of the people who are now shouting, "What about privacy??" would instantly change course and start finger-pointing at the FBI and scream, "Why didn't they do anything???"

]
] ] I know this is putting me way out on the conservative side of
] ] our community here, but I feel strongly about this.
]
] So do I. And let me state as clearly as I can: If this is
] viewed as a 'liberal' vs. 'conservative' issue, then America
] is truly fucked.

Okay, let me be clear: I do not see myself as a conservative. I do not see myself as a liberal. I'm neither a Republican nor a Democrat. I vote independently in every election I can get to. However, if I were to rate the preponderance of the views that I see on Memestreams, including those of the two primary sysops, I would say that it's a very liberal community, a very "mistrust government" community. Many of the sentiments that I see posted, I do not share. So when I see something really inflammatory go by, I have to decide, "Do I want to stand up for what I believe on this one? Do I want to speak up? Or stay quiet while the voices who are saying stuff that I think is dead wrong, gather in number and get louder and louder? Should I speak up? Or let it go?" Because I know, as is going on with this thread, that if I *do* speak up, I'm almost certainly going to get one of the ops (probably both of them) jumping down my throat and arguing back, probably with emotional language and profanity, and my day is going to get ruined, and I'm not going to get any work done because they're going to want me to post long detailed messages justifying every iota of my position. Call it what you will, but the constant threat is there. Most of the people in this community disagree with me, or if they agree, they usually keep quiet. I don't believe this means I'm wrong -- I believe it means that I think differently from the community.

] You yourself said that you would ask for a "friendly" subpoena.
] Why?

(1) To verify that the request is coming from a bonafide law enforcement agency.

(2) To reassure myself that the matter was serious enough, that the law enforcement agency was willing to put it in writing.

(3) To keep a papertrail

(4) For protection in case some litigious person comes down the pipe later and would want to sue for defamation of character or whatever else they could talk a lawyer into suing us for.

] Don't show me one situation where these powers were used in a
] reasonable manor and expect me to believe that they are always
] going to be used in a reasonable manor. That's wishful
] thinking, not something I'm going to take to the bank. Not
] something I am going to bet my country's future on.

No, I'm not going to say that government powers are always used in a reasonable manner. I'm trying to say that they're *usually* used in a reasonable manner. From many of the other posts I see here though, I believe that a common opinion is that anything new that government does is usually inherently wrong, and that finding even one example of a power being misused is a way to prove that the entire system is bad. Whereas I believe that if/when there are problems in the system, that those problems can be (and usually are) addressed.

I think the fundamental difference in our points of view, is that you (and many of the other frequent posters on Memestreams) are starting from a place where you believe that government is not to be trusted, government is broken, the system doesn't work, and that everything is already screwed. Whereas I'm coming from a place where I believe that the system *does* work, and that we're *not* already screwed.

But at least we both agree that public discourse is good, and that oversight is good. :)

RE: The debate about the FBI obtaining Las Vegas Jan 1 room lists with no court auth.