FBI now wants to wiretap xbox live as well

[JoeyN]

cnet.com posted a article today about a proposal the FBI and many other government agency's gave on friday. Xbox live is actually mentioned as well

 

FBI and your Internet Connections

[HL2CROSSFIREMOD]

My god... what is the world coming to today.

[Cyberwoo]

I wonder what the golden rule (if there is any) is that allows the FBI and other law inforcement agencies to invade someone privacy like this. Obviously there has to be some very heavy evidence that a person is breaking the law or has intent to do so. If this is used to fight terrorism, child porn, etc. than its fine with me but I want there to be some pretty clear rules that say when they can and can't tap into someones ISP activities.

[ant1]

I'd love to know if they are only allowed to tap into live accounts based in the States? And if so how would they limit themselves to just American based conversations?

I sure as shit do not want big brother having those powers reaching over the border . :evil:

Cyberwoo you might want to look into your infamous Patriot Act.

[dogbert]

I wonder what the golden rule (if there is any) is that allows the FBI and other law inforcement agencies to invade someone privacy like this.

 

Claim you're a terrorist or suspect you're a terrorist.

[iainl]

But its true!

 

They don't know for certain that Ant1 isn't a Terrorist, and its better to be on the safe side.

[Angry the Clown]

They don't just want to try and learn new strategies from playing Pandora Tomorrow online then?

 

Daniel

[merlot]

Originally posted by HL2CROSSFIREMOD@Mar 14 2004, 03:35 PM

My god... what is the world coming to today.

It's coming to be an unsafe place for many folks who were used to being safe. I for one, have no problem with them tapping into anything. I have nothing to hide, nor would I ever be the focus of any investigation, and I sure most of you are in the same boat.

 

Terrorism targets EVERYONE, especially the innocent. They don't play by the rules, thus, we need to reinvent the rules to play their game. I think civil rights needs to take a step back so human rights can remain.

[adamsappel]

It would be fine with me if things of this nature were limited to investigating terrorism. I'm happy to give the police the option to search me at any time, but if you look in my bags and find a half-key of pure heroin instead of plastic explosive, you'd better wave me on with a thank-you-kindly. The government wants the power to listen for terrorist plots, but if they should happen to overhear people discussing, say, ROMs and other illegalities, well, that's just gravy. "Nothing to hide" is probably a stretch, if not for you, for many people whose only "crime" is their choice of religion. When people can be removed from planes and interrogated for reading books by Arab authors, when libraries and bookstores are subpoenaed for their customer lists, when the government becomes a bookie for terrorist plots, etc., perhaps we've gone a little too far in the other direction.

[Beer Monkey]

Once we take away all of the personal freedom in this country, exactly what ideals will we be trying to defend any more?

 

In my opinion, it is more important to make sure we have a society worth defending. Take away all of our rights and we might as well go live somewhere else. There are plenty of countries where individuals have few rights, but that are not targeted by terrorists.

[The Daisy]

I for one, have no problem with them tapping into anything.

 

I actually prefer that they have a cause to tap me before they start listening in to all of my conversations.

 

I guess that's just the constitutional side of me.

 

Glen

[Robot Monkey]

Well said, Michael and Glen.

 

-j

[Robot Monkey]

But I should add that we all need to be wary of infringing the proscription of political discussion.

 

-j

[merlot]

Originally posted by Beer Monkey@Mar 15 2004, 11:29 AM

Once we take away all of the personal freedom in this country, exactly what ideals will we be trying to defend any more?

How about the right to life?

 

It's quite an exaggeration to say all our freedoms will be taken away.

 

I actually prefer that they have a cause to tap me before they start listening in to all of my conversations.

 

I can agree with you there. I doubt they say, "Hey, look at this John Doe. Married, 2 kids, clean records... let's see what he's up too" However, if said John Doe has somehow been linked to suspicious activity or linked to terrorists, then by all means do it.

 

My point is most of us are not targets on "big brothers" radar, so why let it bother you? You think they will waste time and money listening to normal, lawful citizens? Having such a policy would allow them immediate access without violating any civil liberties.

 

I enjoy my freedom as much as the next person, however, terrorists could use this against us. I have no problem putting personal freedoms aside, so that one day we'll still have it.

[Beer Monkey]

It's quite an exaggeration to say all our freedoms will be taken away.

 

You boil a live frog one degree at a time.

 

I can agree with you there. I doubt they say, "Hey, look at this John Doe. Married, 2 kids, clean records... let's see what he's up too" However, if said John Doe has somehow been linked to suspicious activity or linked to terrorists, then by all means do it.

 

As long as you convince a judge to sign an order for it, I've got no problem with it either.

 

However, many these days (including those behind the Patriot Act, and the FBI, CIA, and Homeland Security) find such due process trappings too cumbersome.

 

But if secure encryption is outlawed, only criminals will have secure encryption. I can't accept that.

 

I have no problem putting personal freedoms aside, so that one day we'll still have it.

 

When do we ever give anything back?

 

I'd love to throw some Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson quotes in here, but I'd better bow out. Politics and all that.

[rustyjaw]

I can agree with you there. I doubt they say, "Hey, look at this John Doe. Married, 2 kids, clean records... let's see what he's up too" However, if said John Doe has somehow been linked to suspicious activity or linked to terrorists, then by all means do it.

 

My problem with this is the phrase 'suspicious activity' - who is deciding what constitutes suspicious activity? Does the guy who picking up his medical marijuana prescription qualify? Or the guy scoring pot in the park? How about the anti-war protesters?

 

I will never be the married guy with 2 kids. In fact up until a few months ago, my status as a 'practicing' homosexual made me a criminal in many states. I'm sure a lot of people in the government would like to keep it that way, are they ones deciding who is suspicious?

 

We don't know one way or the other, but I for one don't think it's right to have to wonder.

 

Originally posted by Beer Monkey

When do we ever give anything back?

 

Good question

[JTello]

If this activity made us safer I would have no probelm with it, BUT ,...What I have issue with is that I believe this will have little effect on fighting terrorism.

-With the events of 9/11 the reaction of the government was to pour money into beefing up security in airports and on planes. The results being, 1. passengers are safer, and probably only marginally. 3. Passengers are inconvienienced 3. Terrorists look elsewhere for weaknesses.

-Just this past week, with Spain's train bombing, everyone is so concerned with train safety. So here we go again, spend money, inconvience passengers, marginally safer at best, terrorists look for other less scrutinized avenues for terror. (another unfortunate result IMO, the ruling party, who was favor to win, gets upset directly as a result of terrorist activities. Isn't this sort of like letting the terrorists influence the elections. Isn't this like saying, "hey, you want to influence world orders, try terrorism, it may work just like it did in Spain?")

-Anyway, my feeling is that these new 'tools' for the FBI and other agencies would affect the common citizens more than it would assist in fighting terrorism. The tough question against what I've said though, is " if it helps avert one terrorist attack, isn't it worth it?"

-ugh, tough topic. In the end I have my doubts about these laws having any real effects in fighting terrorism.

[Robot Monkey]

Originally posted by FreakTornado@Mar 15 2004, 02:48 PM

I will never be the married guy with 2 kids. In fact up until a few months ago, my status as a 'practicing' homosexual made me a criminal in many states. I'm sure a lot of people in the government would like to keep it that way, are they ones deciding who is suspicious?

You know, I've often wondered about this. It's the same thing with doctors and lawyers. After a while, shouldn't you be done practicing?

 

It's slightly amusing to me to hear people talking about getting judges to sign orders. The very concern about certain legislation is that it sidesteps warrant requirements -- so where is the test for Due Process? Probable Cause?

 

If people dislike the Constitution, they are welcome to speak against it. If they want to change it, they are welcome to try. If they want to selectively ignore it, well, I can't get behind that. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land and is not drafted in such a manner to permit people to selectively violate it for whatever reason.

 

Further, if a citizen chooses to believe that the government's coercive powers will not be misused when checks and balances are removed, that's fine with me. It isn't fine with me when they make that choice for me -- in contravention of a Constitution designed to protect me from intrusion, harassment and so on.

[Baiter]

With the new voice over ip technology, this is really a no brainer. :roll:

If I was using voice over ip, they'd need to tap my broadband connection to get the same results as wire tapping someone elses phone.

 

As a general rule, I consider anything I send out unencrypted to be intercepted and readable by anyone. My isp has this power, so I kinda assume that data has been intercepted and interpreted by someone. This doesn't seem to impact m in the slightest. :roll:

 

And FreakTornado, the supreme court ruling on the Texas case pretty much abolished all sodemy laws, you're not a criminal anymore. :tu:

[rustyjaw]

And FreakTornado, the supreme court ruling on the Texas case pretty much abolished all sodemy laws, you're not a criminal anymore

 

Yeah, that's why I said 'until a few months ago' - but my point is that to the eyes of some, I am still guilty of a crime, maybe even a moral crime, and that can make me suspicious, along with the other kinds of people I mentioned.

 

I realize that I will likely never be targeted by any kind of tapping, but the possibility is there depending on the motivations of those doing the tapping.

[merlot]

-With the events of 9/11 the reaction of the government was to pour money into beefing up security in airports and on planes. The results being, 1. passengers are safer, and probably only marginally. 3. Passengers are inconvienienced 3. Terrorists look elsewhere for weaknesses.

-Just this past week, with Spain's train bombing, everyone is so concerned with train safety. So here we go again, spend money, inconvience passengers, marginally safer at best, terrorists look for other less scrutinized avenues for terror.

You are saying passengers are only marginally safer, yet terrorists look elswhere. Wouldn't that make them much safer? I don't see a problem with being inconvienienced if it will help my safety and that of friends and family.

 

Do you find wearing a seatbelt in a vehicle an inconvienience? If so, then I see your train of thought.

[Chris F]

Guys, I want to remind everyone that opinons are just that, and to respect other peoples opinions, no matter how different than your own. You may have a different opinion, but this is a Video Games forum first and foremost, not a place to air your opinions on politics or attempt to discredit or belittle other people beliefs.

 

If you have a particularly strong feeling you'd like to get out about something that you think will stir up trouble if you post it publically, take it to a PM.

 

Snide comments, flames, etc will NOT be tolerated.

 

This thread will remain open at this point, but we will be keeping an eye on things in here.

[Angry the Clown]

You are saying passengers are only marginally safer, yet terrorists look elswhere. Wouldn't that make them much safer? I don't see a problem with being inconvienienced if it will help my safety and that of friends and family.

 

I took his comment there to mean that in terms of crisis, our governments globally can tend to throw all their eggs into the one basket. Planes used as a terrorist weapon, ok let's put a real focus on stepping up security here making it safer. At the time we see improvements there, we're not watching other means of transport so critically mind you, so now we have this tragedy in Madrid, so now trains, ok let's up security here now too.

 

Next boats, busses, a ferry perhaps... When though? Only after the world sees a large strike on transport of those means? History seems to dictate that matters of global security would seem to say then and only then. If that's the concern he meant, then the fear that our governments only really react strongly to a threat once something has actually happened, is a fear I share too. This is going off on a tangent here mind you where we have on foot firmly over the fence of the forum rules.

 

 

I'd love to know if they are only allowed to tap into live accounts based in the States? And if so how would they limit themselves to just American based conversations?

 

Yes I am curious regarding this too.

 

 

It's a big old can of worms really. It is a heinous invasion of privacy on one hand, and on the other (in theory), measures to help further protect the citizens of, in this case, the United States. Is such a practice justified then if it?s not causing you any conscious inconvenience? It's a real pickle.

 

Daniel

[rustyjaw]

After a while, shouldn't you be done practicing?

 

Nah...

[ant1]

It's an iconvenience when I have to ponder if a government official that I did not elect nor support is listening in on a conversation I'm involved in.