Want internet access on an airplane?

[MisterMark]

This "Big Brother" stuff is getting to be ridiculous...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Federal law enforcement agencies are seeking enhanced surveillance powers over Internet service on airplanes, an effort to shape an emerging technology to meet the government's concerns about terrorism.

Authorities want the ability to intercept, block or divert e-mail or other online communication to and from airplanes after obtaining a court order. Internet providers would have to allow government monitoring within 10 minutes of a court order being granted, be able to electronically identify users by their seat numbers and be required to collect and store records of the communications for 24 hours.

Such capabilities would go far beyond the government's current ability to monitor Internet traffic on land.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5071201435.html

 

[Dr Rock]

nice move. I must confess I was getting increasingly worried about terrorists hijacking planes with their laptops.

 

[SomeGuyOverThere]

Originally posted by Dr Rock@Jul 14 2005, 08:44 PM
nice move. I must confess I was getting increasingly worried about terrorists hijacking planes with their laptops.

[post=329166]Quoted post[/post]​

I agree, without the feds watching our every move, how will we ever know when a Moslim is using a laptop?

They could be out there, right now, useing laptops on planes, plotting our downfall!

And they could then use their laptops to hijak the plane! Assumeing they use windows, they could threaten to cause a BSOD on THEIR OWN LAPTOP!!! This is a disgusting threat to national security, and I think i should be addressed immediatly by assigning a federal agent to everyone who owns a laptop and impose curfews on their useage.

 

[BobLeeSwagger]

Seeing as how the NSA monitors as many internet and cellphone connections as they can, I don't see how it would make much difference. I can see why they'd want to pay special attention to communications on airline flights, but it doesn't seem to me like that would be much help. Once a hijacker gets on a plane, why would he be contacting someone outside the plane?

 

[madame_zora]

Because, of course, every Muslim who flies on a plane has Bin Laden's personal yahoo chat id and will be taking direct orders from him to plot the downfall of the Christian world, naturally! This is why we Americans have to bend over and take it up the ass every time we want to travel, God forbid that I should try to take over a plane with my nail clippers.

Fear and paranoia are good things to use to compel us to surrender our privacy and personal rights. The right wing is pushing it's agenda for domination down our throats using our own stupidity against us.

 

[SomeGuyOverThere]

Originally posted by madame_zora@Jul 16 2005, 07:40 PM
Because, of course, every Muslim who flies on a plane has Bin Laden's personal yahoo chat id and will be taking direct orders from him to plot the downfall of the Christian world, naturally! This is why we Americans have to bend over and take it up the ass every time we want to travel, God forbid that I should try to take over a plane with my nail clippers.

Fear and paranoia are good things to use to compel us to surrender our privacy and personal rights. The right wing is pushing it's agenda for domination down our throats using our own stupidity against us.

[post=329634]Quoted post[/post]​

I agree 100%

Luckily I dont live in the states, so Im not getting the whole totalitarianism by Christian Terroists thing going on.

Instead Im gettng the whole Tony Blair thing....

 

[BobLeeSwagger]

Originally posted by madame_zora@Jul 16 2005, 12:40 PM
The right wing is pushing it's agenda for domination down our throats using our own stupidity against us.

[post=329634]Quoted post[/post]​

I wouldn't characterize it as just right-wingers wanting it. In general, government likes to extend its reach. The only reason Democrats happen to oppose it now is because the GOP might support it. It has nothing to do with one party being more virtuous.

 

[madame_zora]

Originally posted by aloofman+Jul 18 2005, 05:54 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(aloofman &#064; Jul 18 2005, 05:54 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-madame_zora@Jul 16 2005, 12:40 PM
The right wing is pushing it&#39;s agenda for domination down our throats using our own stupidity against us.

[post=329634]Quoted post[/post]​

I wouldn&#39;t characterize it as just right-wingers wanting it. In general, government likes to extend its reach. The only reason Democrats happen to oppose it now is because the GOP might support it. It has nothing to do with one party being more virtuous.

[post=329924]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b][/quote]


Virtuous? Certainly not. I wouldn&#39;t claim moral highground for either side, but by "domination" I meant taking over all branches of government and using that opportunity to pass legislation the "other" side would thwart were they fairly represented. We can&#39;t really accuse the Dems of doing these since the opposite position has never happened.

 

[BobLeeSwagger]

Originally posted by madame_zora@Jul 17 2005, 11:19 PM


Virtuous? Certainly not. I wouldn&#39;t claim moral highground for either side, but by "domination" I meant taking over all branches of government and using that opportunity to pass legislation the "other" side would thwart were they fairly represented. We can&#39;t really accuse the Dems of doing these since the opposite position has never happened.

[post=329928]Quoted post[/post]​

I&#39;ve got two problems with that.

1) What does "fairly represented" mean? Last time I checked, the Republican party has received more votes in the last few elections. If by "fairly" you mean that real leaders can&#39;t get elected, then I&#39;m with you. But the GOP has more Senate and House seats because they won more elections. As usual, the problem is not so much who wins, but what they do with the power they have.

2) On the contrary, the Democrats have used control of Congress and the White House to demean and marginalize the Republicans on many occasions. The entire span of FDR&#39;s administration practically ignored the GOP. The Kennedy and Johnson administrations had more trouble with southern Democrats than they did with Republicans. Even in the 1980s, when Democrats only controlled Congress, they often shut Republican lawmakers out of policy-making in the same way that the GOP does today. It was that kind of arrogance and corruption that eventually led to their defeat in 1994. It was a classic case of overreach. And it will happen again someday.

 

[SomeGuyOverThere]

Originally posted by aloofman@Jul 19 2005, 03:30 PM
1) What does "fairly represented" mean? Last time I checked, the Republican party has received more votes in the last few elections. If by "fairly" you mean that real leaders can&#39;t get elected, then I&#39;m with you. But the GOP has more Senate and House seats because they won more elections. As usual, the problem is not so much who wins, but what they do with the power they have.

[post=330305]Quoted post[/post]​

Thats not strickly true, actually, in the first election Bush "won", the Democrats actually won, but due to some rather amusingly corrupt administration, and Fox news being told to report he won, forcing the other networks to follow suit, Bushy-poos got into power.

Also, in both elections there have been massive voting anomilies with several thousand people being struck off voting registers because of crimes commited in the future.

Other votes just were not counted, strangly, these votes were for the democrats.

Furthermore the people who own the company that is making the voting machines have direct ties to the Bush family, and companies owned by the Bush family and their friends.

But then again, thats not unusual considering rather a lot of the American economy is propped up by the Saudi Royal Family, who also have ties to the Bushes.

Oh, and also have ties to the Binladdens.

And, the Butterfly Ballot wa a sneaky, underhanded, bastard of a way to vote.


But enough of my liberal ranting.

Source:
"The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" By Greg Palast.

 

[madame_zora]

Democrats demeaned and marginalised republicans? I&#39;m horrified&#33; No, seriously, I expect politicians to be filthy, that&#39;s not my beef at all. Ever since Nixon and Watergate, the exploits of the presidents have been fascinating fodder for the tv- try to tell me it didn&#39;t start there&#33; I know politicians will sling mud at each other to get and stay elected and that they do so to protect their own incomes. What I can&#39;t abide is the legislation being offered up while there isn&#39;t fair representation in the house and senate. If you can justify believing that bush won by the narrowest of margins, but over 65% of legislators should be republican, I won&#39;t continue to challenge you as it would be worthless for both of us. Not only that, but republicans should head all three branches of government, our system was never set up to operate that way. Where are the checks and balances? You still do read about that stuff in school, right? Sorry, the only way you can NOT see corruption right now is to willfully choose to ignore it. Most people do this because they are comfortable with the decisions being made, they are "getting their way" so to speak. They are not realising that the control being handed the government on a sliver platter does not have the kinds of limitations that will prevent it from infringing where they are NOT wanted. I don&#39;t want it NOW.

Webster&#39;s dictionary has this to say:

Conservative- 1. a. Tending to oppose change: favoring traditional views and values. b. Traditional in style <conservative dress> 2. Moderate: cautious. 3. a. Belonging to a conservative party or political group.

Democratic 1. Of, marked by or advocating democracy. 2.a. Relating to, encompassing, or promoting the interests of the people. b. Carried on by the general populace. 3. Believing in or practicing social equality <"a proper democratic scorn for bloated dukes and lords"- Goerge DuMaurier>.


You see, it&#39;s very simple. IF we are in fact a Democracy, we have no choice but to care about the concerns of our fellows. IF we are not, then we have lived thus far under a complete illusion. I believe that life goes not backward nor tarries with yesterday. I believe that eventually things will progress despite the kicking and screaming of those who wish to cling desperately to the past and to ideologies that have already failed, but at what cost? We WERE set up as a Democracy, we will not survive as a theocracy, not as the America I grew up pledging to. How can any group be so selfish as to expect freedom for themselves at the cost of freedom to anyone else?

 

[jonb]

Well, the neocons are basically the biggest advocates of Big Government today. And they think we should keep programs which only help the richest 1%. While cutting taxes.