Re: [Full-disclosure] [Clips] A small editorial about recent events. (fwd)

["Jamie C. Pole" <jpole@xxxxxxxx>]

I'm not at all scared.

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, 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.

A blanket condemnation without all of the facts is just as wrong as a  
blanket justification without all of the facts.

Jamie


On Dec 18, 2005, at 11:11 PM, Dude VanWinkle wrote:
> what about this point?
>
> Just cause you are scared, doesnt mean you need trounce on my
> liberties in a vain attempt to protect yourself. You arent even
> protecting yourself: just cause GWB knows what books I rented from the
> library or how long I cry on the phone to my psychic-phone-sex
> operator in London doesnt mean Bin Laden cant ship a nuke right up
> your ass via freighter.
>
> ?
>
> -jp

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/