NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2214663,00.html

An e-mail trail has led to the arrest of suspects across the world who were recruited and then schooled in bombmaking

And so many were saying that trolling the Internet like this would never produce results.

I'm in favour of ISPs blocking access to illegal sites. I think it's time we stopped treating the internet as if it's a 'free-for-all' where the law doesn't apply.

Good on them for catching the buggers.

agreed there is too much terrorist, racist propaganda on internet. But I believe it should be left so and watched by goverments, let the fools think that they have a free place to talk their minds. Then when you want you you will know who to pick up and execute. :eek: Sometimes I just scare the shit out of myself...

*snarls*

A simple check on the way people dress daily is quite sufficient to tell you who is a friendly - and who is a Valid Military Target.

*snarls*

A simple check on the way people dress daily is quite sufficient to tell you who is a friendly - and who is a Valid Military Target.
:eek:

What should I wear to avoid getting shot then?

I'm in favour of ISPs blocking access to illegal sites. I think it's time we stopped treating the internet as if it's a 'free-for-all' where the law doesn't apply.

Good on them for catching the buggers.

What websites are illegal?

What websites are illegal?
The same sites that are illegal in 'the real world'.

Very simple; if there is a law against it, then it's illegal online as well.

The same sites that are illegal in 'the real world'.

Very simple; if there is a law against it, then it's illegal online as well.

Well, give me an example of an illegal website. Many websites are illegal in China due to their content regarding democracy. In states with harsh anti-racism laws, I could see how websites would be illegal there as well, whereas in states with more freedom of speech and expression it would be unconstitutional to block access or call them illegal. I'm just trying to get on the same page as to what illegal websites we're talking about here.

:eek:

What should I wear to avoid getting shot then?


[thinking cap on]
A God bless the USA-shirt.
[thinking cap off]

What you don't want to wear is the clothes that chap that got shot on saturday wore. ( And get a shave! )

Well, give me an example of an illegal website. Many websites are illegal in China due to their content regarding democracy. In states with harsh anti-racism laws, I could see how websites would be illegal there as well, whereas in states with more freedom of speech and expression it would be unconstitutional to block access or call them illegal. I'm just trying to get on the same page as to what illegal websites we're talking about here.


Phil's in Britain.
Any site containing child-porn is quite illegal.

Phil's in Britain.
Any site containing child-porn is quite illegal.

Well, I know in the US there is consistent crackdown on child-porn websites and activity. Its never treated as a free-for-all in that case. I thought we were talking about some other type of secret illegal website that I don't know about.

Phil's in Britain.
Any site containing child-porn is quite illegal.
Quite. As are bomb making sites, criminal sites and so on.

I really don't think that 'illegal is illegal' is that hard to understand. I'm talking about individual ISPs enforcing the law of the land.

Quite. As are bomb making sites, criminal sites and so on.

I really don't think that 'illegal is illegal' is that hard to understand. I'm talking about individual ISPs enforcing the law of the land.


The transnational element.
Furthermore, I don't think it would be sensible to make ISP law-enforcers:
Enforcing the Law is ( and should be! ) a strict State monopoly.

( Conflict of interest! Suppose an ISP were owned by a strict religious group who believes that anything damaging to their belief was actually banned under the blasphemy act? I refer you to
A] Sinclair Broadcasting and the Swifties 4 Truth.
B] That muslim-committee back in Rusdhie-days that felt that British Law meant that that book was blasphemy. )

Quite. As are bomb making sites, criminal sites and so on.

I really don't think that 'illegal is illegal' is that hard to understand. I'm talking about individual ISPs enforcing the law of the land.

In the United States, websites that would describe 'bomb making' aren't illegal. There are even books on the market that teach just this, like the Anarchist's Cookbook. They can't be repressed, because it would violate rights to free speech and expression, etc. When it all comes down to it, for someone to get charged with something or for their website to be illegal, it would have to advocate and express the intent and desire to commit a criminal action in a specific case, or advocate doing such. Even websites that talk about how great suicide bombing is and how it is the duty of very Muslim to be a shaheed don't violate the law in these circumstances.

So aside from child porn, where the law is violated explictly (making the child porn and posessing child porn are both crimes alone), can you give me any examples of an illegal website? Like one that existed that was removed because it was illegal?

The transnational element.
Furthermore, I don't think it would be sensible to make ISP law-enforcers:
Enforcing the Law is ( and should be! ) a strict State monopoly.

( Conflict of interest! Suppose an ISP were owned by a strict religious group who believes that anything damaging to their belief was actually banned under the blasphemy act? I refer you to
A] Sinclair Broadcasting and the Swifties 4 Truth.
B] That muslim-committee back in Rusdhie-days that felt that British Law meant that that book was blasphemy. )
Then people could choose to use a different ISP. In fact, you've just given me a business idea. I bet there is a niche market for religious people who would like some sites to be banned from use. You could probably charge a fortune for it. :eek:

*Runs off quickly so no one steals his idea.*

Then people could choose to use a different ISP. In fact, you've just given me a business idea. I bet there is a niche market for religious people who would like some sites to be banned from use. You could probably charge a fortune for it. :eek:

*Runs off quickly so no one steals his idea.*

That's what Sinclair Broadcasting did...

So aside from child porn, where the law is violated explictly (making the child porn and posessing child porn are both crimes alone), can you give me any examples of an illegal website? Like one that existed that was removed because it was illegal?
No one is talking about sites being 'removed'; this is impossible on a multinational web. I'm talking about sites being blocked.

Now, let's think this through. In Britain, it is illegal to posses child pornography. Therefore, that is blocked. It is illegal to import drugs/sex slaves/weapons. Therefore, sites that tell you how to do this or allow you to order these things are blocked. It is illegal to print libellous statements without evidence. Therefore, these things are regulated in the same way that the printed press is.

Illegal is illegal. Shall I make that flash in nice colourful letters for you so you can better understand?

No one is talking about sites being 'removed'; this is impossible on a multinational web. I'm talking about sites being blocked.

Now, let's think this through. In Britain, it is illegal to posses child pornography. Therefore, that is blocked. It is illegal to import drugs/sex slaves/weapons. Therefore, sites that tell you how to do this or allow you to order these things are blocked. It is illegal to print libellous statements without evidence. Therefore, these things are regulated in the same way that the printed press is.

Illegal is illegal. Shall I make that flash in nice colourful letters for you so you can better understand?Yes, but the websites in Deep Kimchi's original post aren't illegal, so they shouldn't be monitored.

Yes, but the websites in Deep Kimchi's original post aren't illegal, so they shouldn't be monitored.


It isn't illegal ( in the United States anyway ) to own a shedfull of machineguns.
Yet I'd say its better to monitor those mg's all the same.

Yes, but the websites in Deep Kimchi's original post aren't illegal, so they shouldn't be monitored.
Perhaps, but we have gone off on the slight tangent of how to deal with web terrorism.

It isn't illegal ( in the United States anyway ) to own a shedfull of machineguns.
Yet I'd say its better to monitor those mg's all the same.We aren't talking about monitoring the machineguns, we are talking about monitoring the people who may or may not have machineguns.

Perhaps, but we have gone off on the slight tangent of how to deal with web terrorism.Wasn't the point of the monitoring to help prevent terrorism?

No one is talking about sites being 'removed'; this is impossible on a multinational web. I'm talking about sites being blocked.

Now, let's think this through. In Britain, it is illegal to posses child pornography. Therefore, that is blocked. It is illegal to import drugs/sex slaves/weapons. Therefore, sites that tell you how to do this or allow you to order these things are blocked. It is illegal to print libellous statements without evidence. Therefore, these things are regulated in the same way that the printed press is.

Illegal is illegal. Shall I make that flash in nice colourful letters for you so you can better understand?

Ah, I see. So we should all follow China's model then, and block sites that are contrary to national laws.

Wasn't the point of the monitoring to help prevent terrorism?
Yep. And your coming argument, that these people weren't caught through surveilance so it doesn't work, is irrelevant; some bank robbers get away from the bank and are caught later; it doesn't mean we stop putting security systems in the bank itself.

1. We aren't talking about monitoring the machineguns, we are talking about monitoring the people who may or may not have machineguns.

2. Wasn't the point of the monitoring to help prevent terrorism?

1. So we watch the building. Same result: we end up knowing ( hopefully ) what's going on.

2. *shrug* The idea is to know more about the individuals with dangerous intentions.

Ah, I see. So we should all follow China's model then, and block sites that are contrary to national laws.
To say you are against such a thing is to say you are in favour of breaking the law.

If it's illegal, it is illegal. This absurd reverence that has fallen over the internet as somehow being above the law has got to come to an end; free speech is one thing, a criminals paradise is another.

Yep. And your coming argument, that these people weren't caught through surveilance so it doesn't work, is irrelevant; some bank robbers get away from the bank and are caught later; it doesn't mean we stop putting security systems in the bank itself.A video camera in a bank is different than checking the ID of everyone coming into the bank.

1. So we watch the building. Same result: we end up knowing ( hopefully ) what's going on.No, the goal should be to watch individuals suspected of terror plots, not watch the places where terror plots may or may not be hatched.

2. *shrug* The idea is to know more about the individuals with dangerous intentions.But simply because someone accesses a website on how to build a bomb doesn't mean that they intend to build a bomb.

A video camera in a bank is different than checking the ID of everyone coming into the bank.
If you held a gun up to the counter, they would shove those security screens up.

If you try and access an illegal website, we should throw a virtual security screen up.

The law is the law is the law. It doesn't stop being the law because you break it on your computer.

If you held a gun up to the counter, they would shove those security screens up.

If you try and access an illegal website, we should throw a virtual security screen up.

The law is the law is the law. It doesn't stop being the law because you break it on your computer.Yes, and I agree, but in this case we aren't talking about people accessing illegal website, we're talking about people accessing legal websites and those legal websites being monitored.

Yes, and I agree, but in this case we aren't talking about people accessing illegal website, we're talking about people accessing legal websites and those legal websites being monitored.
Well, I've been talking about blocking access to illegal sites from the start. You two have just gone off on another tangent. :p

Well, I've been talking about blocking access to illegal sites from the start. You two have just gone off on another tangent. :pLol. The original article doesn't involve illegal websites.

(Incidentally, some laws should be broken, but that's a separate topic.)

To say you are against such a thing is to say you are in favour of breaking the law.

If it's illegal, it is illegal. This absurd reverence that has fallen over the internet as somehow being above the law has got to come to an end; free speech is one thing, a criminals paradise is another.

You've slipped into the fallacy of equivocation. Being against the enforcement of "illegal" websites via some new policy of blocking them does not equal a favor to break the law. By your reasoning, every government right now supports breaking the law, because they don't follow your policy to begin with. Oh no, reducto ad absurdum.

The fact is, in the United States everyone is innocent until proven guilty. The websites would essentially have to go on trial to be deemed "illegal." There would have to be warrants issued, the owners of the websites taken to trial, the whole nine yards. Furthermore, an ISP blocking a website infringes on our rights, as it doesn't punish the illegal website but every single subscriber to that ISP, indiscriminately, by not allowing them access. People who would access these websites for legitimate reasons (examples: sociologists, psychologists, educators of all types, private investigators, etc.) would not be allowed to due to an infringement.

The only legal way to go about it would be to try and convict the owners of the websites, then remove them from the internet. There is no legal basis in the United States for government-enforced blocking of ISPs. Maybe there is in the UK, I'm not sure how far things like freedom of speech have fallen over there.

1. A video camera in a bank is different than checking the ID of everyone coming into the bank.

2. No, the goal should be to watch individuals suspected of terror plots, not watch the places where terror plots may or may not be hatched.

3. But simply because someone accesses a website on how to build a bomb doesn't mean that they intend to build a bomb.

1. Why not do both? Surely, the Bank has the right to check all those who enter their premises.

2. I disagree. I want to catch terrorists before they make a bomb. Not after they set it off.
It's better to stop the Luftwaffe before it drops the bombs - not on the way back to das Reich.

3. So we check - and keep checking! If the individual we caught on camera near the shed happens to have a prediliction for hallal food - we may want to interrogate him, and check his bank-account. Has he perhaps also donated money to charities in Palestine?

1. Why not do both? Surely, the Bank has the right to check all those who enter their premises.Perhaps, but in this case the bank wouldn't be doing the checking, the government would be, with or without the bank's consent.

2. I disagree. I want to catch terrorists before they make a bomb. Not after they set it off.
It's better to stop the Luftwaffe before it drops the bombs - not on the way back to das Reich. I want to catch people before they set the bombs off, but not until after they make them.

3. So we check - and keep checking! If the individual we caught on camera near the shed happens to have a prediliction for hallal food - we may want to interrogate him, and check his bank-account. Has he perhaps also donated money to charities in Palestine?I view this as a gross invasion of privacy. The goal of preventing terrorism isn't worth it.

The only legal way to go about it would be to try and convict the owners of the websites, then remove them from the internet. There is no legal basis in the United States for government-enforced blocking of ISPs. Maybe there is in the UK, I'm not sure how far things like freedom of speech have fallen over there.
*Shrugs*

That's up to you. It's quite common over here for ISPs to block child porn sites. If you prefer the 'freedom of speech' of these kiddie fiddlers over the protection of young lives, that's your choice.

I want to catch people before they set the bombs off, but not until after they make them.

I think it may actually be a crime to even intend to make explosives, just as it is to intend to manufacture drugs. This is why people are often arrested buying the materials for explosives and drug labs in the US, rather than after they have already made the explosives or drug labs. In any case, we don't have to wait until it gets that far down the line for them to be engaged in criminal activity.

I view this as a gross invasion of privacy. The goal of preventing terrorism isn't worth it.

All public places are considered (you guessed it), public. We have no rights to privacy at all in places like public roads, public parks, etc. Nor do we have rights of privacy when in buildings open to the public, like supermarkets or banks. We don't even have full privacy rights in our own cars. Only in our homes do we actually have the type of privacy you seem to be inferring. In short, there would be nothing illegal about monitoring the internet (as it is public, and it is currently monitored) nor would there be anything illegal about setting up cameras in public places (we've got those too in many big cities).

Its important to draw a distinction between when you really have privacy, and when you don't. You should never expect to be granted rights of privacy when you are in a public place or domain, like the internet or walking down the street.

I think it may actually be a crime to even intend to make explosives, just as it is to intend to manufacture drugs. This is why people are often arrested buying the materials for explosives and drug labs in the US, rather than after they have already made the explosives or drug labs. In any case, we don't have to wait until it gets that far down the line for them to be engaged in criminal activity.It is a crime to intend to manufacture drugs, but you have to have a sufficient amount of the right chemicals to make the drugs; simply having one ingredient isn't enough.
Either way, it isn't a crime to know how to make drugs, or to tell people how to make drugs.

All public places are considered (you guessed it), public. We have no rights to privacy at all in places like public roads, public parks, etc. Nor do we have rights of privacy when in buildings open to the public, like supermarkets or banks. We don't even have full privacy rights in our own cars. Only in our homes do we actually have the type of privacy you seem to be inferring. In short, there would be nothing illegal about monitoring the internet (as it is public, and it is currently monitored) nor would there be anything illegal about setting up cameras in public places (we've got those too in many big cities).

Its important to draw a distinction between when you really have privacy, and when you don't. You should never expect to be granted rights of privacy when you are in a public place or domain, like the internet or walking down the street.Even in public there is still an expectation of a certain amount privacy; it is illegal to stalk someone in public. Enough cameras in the public domain would be the equivalent of stalking someone.
Additionally, what BogMarsh was saying was significantly more than simply monitoring public places, he was saying that people who go to certain public places should have their actions elsewhere monitored.

1. Perhaps, but in this case the bank wouldn't be doing the checking, the government would be, with or without the bank's consent.

2. I want to catch people before they set the bombs off, but not until after they make them.

3. I view this as a gross invasion of privacy. The goal of preventing terrorism isn't worth it.

1. The Government can easily declare a statutory obligation - thus making the Banks' Right a Statutory Obligation.

2. I want them watched over the moment they speak out in favour of all-white-brotherhood, polygamy, or down-with-Israel. Or for kill-the-gays, for that matter.
I want 'em brought in for questioning if they join a momevent that support any of those 3. Or 4.

3. The Government exists to protect my life! Not to protect my 'right' to support Osama.

*Shrugs*

That's up to you. It's quite common over here for ISPs to block child porn sites. If you prefer the 'freedom of speech' of these kiddie fiddlers over the protection of young lives, that's your choice.

Blocking ISPs doesn't stop child porn. Only doing what I stated would - arrest the owners of the website and shut the website down. Blocking the ISP is just like a mother covering her son's eyes when a dirty scene comes on the television. It doesn't stop the obscene filming, the children being exploted, etc., it just lets people pretend it isn't there. And if the website is in another country, then blocking the ISP isn't going to stop their child porn operation nor do you have the opportunity to really do anything about it.

And it isn't a right to free speech on the part of offending parties, but a right to information on the part of innocent parties who are effected by the indiscriminate blocking of offending websites. I've already listed the parties it would effect, such as Academians of all ranks. Easy access and right to information is part of general civil liberties, something that European states (in contrast to their liberal reputation) seem to be forgetting about.

Keep in mind, these "illegal" sites you imply aren't just child porn. Terrorist websites, websites of criminals, etc. are valuable sources of information for numerous legitimate parties who study the subject matter. We'd be shooting our establishments of education in the feet if we started denying access, like China does.

Blocking ISPs doesn't stop child porn. Only doing what I stated would - arrest the owners of the website and shut the website down. Blocking the ISP is just like a mother covering her son's eyes when a dirty scene comes on the television. It doesn't stop the obscene filming, the children being exploted, etc., it just lets people pretend it isn't there. And if the website is in another country, then blocking the ISP isn't going to stop their child porn operation nor do you have the opportunity to really do anything about it.
Supply and demand. Cut off the demand, you stop the supply.

Plus, I do not feel the argument that 'it wouldn't stop anyway, so why bother to do anything about it?' is valid. If things were legal because we couldn't stop it, everything would be legal. What we have to do is reduce as much as possible the extent to which the law is broken.

And it isn't a right to free speech on the part of offending parties, but a right to information on the part of innocent parties who are effected by the indiscriminate blocking of offending websites. I've already listed the parties it would effect, such as Academians of all ranks. Easy access and right to information is part of general civil liberties, something that European states (in contrast to their liberal reputation) seem to be forgetting about.

Keep in mind, these "illegal" sites you imply aren't just child porn. Terrorist websites, websites of criminals, etc. are valuable sources of information for numerous legitimate parties who study the subject matter. We'd be shooting our establishments of education in the feet if we started denying access, like China does.
Then these people can go to a library and look the information up there. These places haven't stopped existing because the internet was invented. They can look things up, and any Tom Dick or Harry is stopped from easily getting the information in the comfort of their own home, where there is no chance of being seen to do it. At least in a library you can be asked what you intend to do with the information.

1. The Government can easily declare a statutory obligation - thus making the Banks' Right a Statutory Obligation.I'm not familiar with these; I would suggest that such a thing should be illegal...perhaps it is here.

2. I want them watched over the moment they speak out in favour of all-white-brotherhood, polygamy, or down-with-Israel. Or for kill-the-gays, for that matter.
I want 'em brought in for questioning if they join a momevent that support any of those 3. Or 4.I disagree with this idea; nobody should have their privacy intruded upon simply because they say something disagreeable.

3. The Government exists to protect my life! Not to protect my 'right' to support Osama.It exists to protect more than your life, it also exists to protect your freedom.

It is a crime to intend to manufacture drugs, but you have to have a sufficient amount of the right chemicals to make the drugs; simply having one ingredient isn't enough.
Either way, it isn't a crime to know how to make drugs, or to tell people how to make drugs.

Right, and so we should just stick with what we're doing in regards to this. If people are buying the ingredients, they need to be watched. If they are telling people how to make drugs, they should be watched. Since it isn't yet a crime, don't arrest them, just keep an eye on them.

Even in public there is still an expectation of a certain amount privacy; it is illegal to stalk someone in public. Enough cameras in the public domain would be the equivalent of stalking someone.
Additionally, what BogMarsh was saying was significantly more than simply monitoring public places, he was saying that people who go to certain public places should have their actions elsewhere monitored.

Stalking falls under the same type of crime that harassment does. Its a premeditated action against a specific person. Cameras are indiscriminate, and aren't used to target any one individual. If a man sits down in the park and watches people all day, he isn't stalking anyone. Just like if a camera sits at the top of a lamp post all day and monitors the park, it isn't stalking anyone.

And people who go to certain public places should have their actions elsewhere monitored. I agree with what he said that people who attend white supremacist or hate rallies of any type should be monitored, because those venues specifically promote extreme violence and crime. Yes, they should have the right to say those things, but freedom of speech does not mean freedom from scrutiny.

I'm not familiar with these; I would suggest that such a thing should be illegal...perhaps it is here.

I disagree with this idea; nobody should have their privacy intruded upon simply because they say something disagreeable.

It exists to protect more than your life, it also exists to protect your freedom.


Freedom seems to be the main issue here.

I want freedom to be good.
I don't want freedom to be bad.

I want to be free to listen to Bach.
I don't want to be free to listen to rap.

In other words: I can't be said to value freedom a great deal.

Right, and so we should just stick with what we're doing in regards to this. If people are buying the ingredients, they need to be watched. If they are telling people how to make drugs, they should be watched. Since it isn't yet a crime, don't arrest them, just keep an eye on them.Watching the ingredients is one thing, but I don't know of any place that watches the people who know how to make drugs to check if they're telling people how to make drugs.

Stalking falls under the same type of crime that harassment does. Its a premeditated action against a specific person. Cameras are indiscriminate, and aren't used to target any one individual. If a man sits down in the park and watches people all day, he isn't stalking anyone. Just like if a camera sits at the top of a lamp post all day and monitors the park, it isn't stalking anyone.But if you have a bunch of different men sitting in different places watching everyone in communication with each other, then the potential for stalking is there. The cameras being there can be used for the purpose of keeping tabs on particular individuals.

And people who go to certain public places should have their actions elsewhere monitored. I agree with what he said that people who attend white supremacist or hate rallies of any type should be monitored, because those venues specifically promote extreme violence and crime. Yes, they should have the right to say those things, but freedom of speech does not mean freedom from scrutiny.I disagree with the idea of thoughtcrime; people who commit thoughtcrimes shouldn't have their real-life activities monitored.

Freedom seems to be the main issue here.

I want freedom to be good.
I don't want freedom to be bad.

I want to be free to listen to Bach.
I don't want to be free to listen to rap.

In other words: I can't be said to value freedom a great deal.Sure you do, you simply value the freedoms that you are likely to use. The problem with this is that the restriction of freedoms is rarely going to take the form of the freedoms that you are likely to use. If someone said that you weren't free to listen to Bach, you'd rightfully take issue with that.

Plus, I do not feel the argument that 'it wouldn't stop anyway, so why bother to do anything about it?' is valid. If things were legal because we couldn't stop it, everything would be legal. What we have to do is reduce as much as possible the extent to which the law is broken.

The argument wasn't that we shouldn't do anything about it because it wouldn't stop. The fact is, ISP blocking does nothing about the offending action. It blocks the access of non-offenders. I support actually doing something about it (see arrests and shutting down websites), whereas ISP blocking is a scapegoat that effects only non-guilty parties.

Then these people can go to a library and look the information up there. These places haven't stopped existing because the internet was invented. They can look things up, and any Tom Dick or Harry is stopped from easily getting the information in the comfort of their own home, where there is no chance of being seen to do it. At least in a library you can be asked what you intend to do with the information.

And why stop there? We could restrict all internet usage to the library. Or, even better, we could make people get licenses to use the internet. The fact is, innocent people would be restricted from legitimate access to information, and this is a civil liberties violation. No person, in a free society, should be regulated in regards to this type of access to information. This is exactly what is happening in China right now.

But if you have a bunch of different men sitting in different places watching everyone in communication with each other, then the potential for stalking is there. The cameras being there can be used for the purpose of keeping tabs on particular individuals.

Stalking also requires malicious or threatening intent. And keeping tabs on particular individuals is fine in public places by qualified authorities. This is exactly how street drug dealers are caught, its certainly nothing new.

I disagree with the idea of thoughtcrime; people who commit thoughtcrimes shouldn't have their real-life activities monitored.

For one, it isn't thoughtcrime. This is a purjorative that people use to label things they find offensive. Their right to free speech is guaranteed, and free thought, there is nothing criminal about it.

However, they are not guaranteed a freedom from scrutiny. If they were, we would have to outlaw the media, because people would be guaranteed a freedom from scrutiny via the media. Yet, reporters are allowed to follow up on stories, dig through the garbage (in some states), follow people around town and take pictures of them, etc. There is no reason that a police officer shouldn't be allowed to do the same thing.

Sure you do, you simply value the freedoms that you are likely to use. The problem with this is that the restriction of freedoms is rarely going to take the form of the freedoms that you are likely to use. If someone said that you weren't free to listen to Bach, you'd rightfully take issue with that.

*nods*
Let's say I don't value Freedom with a capital F.

I find the idea of a body being free to listen to rap highly objectionable.

( I vale MY freedoms, not yours, which is another way of saying that I don't value Freedom. )

Stalking also requires malicious or threatening intent.Cameras everywhere alone is itself by definition threatening.

And keeping tabs on particular individuals is fine in public places by qualified authorities. This is exactly how street drug dealers are caught, its certainly nothing new.To my knowledge, to target those individuals requires a warrant, or if it doesn't, it should.

For one, it isn't thoughtcrime. This is a purjorative that people use to label things they find offensive. Their right to free speech is guaranteed, and free thought, there is nothing criminal about it.

However, they are not guaranteed a freedom from scrutiny.Scrutinizing people simply for exercising their freedom of speech undermines it in the same way that traffic cops stopping cars with Grateful Dead bumper stickers to check for drugs undermines freedom of speech.

If they were, we would have to outlaw the media, because people would be guaranteed a freedom from scrutiny via the media. Yet, reporters are allowed to follow up on stories, dig through the garbage (in some states), follow people around town and take pictures of them, etc. There is no reason that a police officer shouldn't be allowed to do the same thing.I don't know of any media group that's allowed to follow people around town 24/7; it's legal to sue the media for harassment.

*nods*
Let's say I don't value Freedom with a capital F.

I find the idea of a body being free to listen to rap highly objectionable.

( I vale MY freedoms, not yours, which is another way of saying that I don't value Freedom. )Which is fine, as long as you understand that limiting someone else's freedom probably means that your freedom is also going to be limited.

Which is fine, as long as you understand that limiting someone else's freedom probably means that your freedom is also going to be limited.

*nods*
I am aware of that - and consider it a fair trade-off in many a case.

*nods*
I am aware of that - and consider it a fair trade-off in many a case.<shrug> Only in rare instances would I consider such a thing to be a fair trade-off...to each his own, I suppose, but I believe in the saying "live free or die".

Cameras everywhere alone is itself by definition threatening.

It is? What definition is this? And why is it threatening? I don't see it as so, and since it doesn't violate any of our legal rights in the US it would be fair to say that the founding fathers didn't either.

To my knowledge, to target those individuals requires a warrant, or if it doesn't, it should.

It doesn't take a warrent to watch anyone. It only takes a warrent to make special arrests that aren't a result of an officer directly witnessing a crime, or warrents to seize property, etc.

Scrutinizing people simply for exercising their freedom of speech undermines it in the same way that traffic cops stopping cars with Grateful Dead bumper stickers to check for drugs undermines freedom of speech.

Why do you think freedom of speech infers any other type of freedom? You can say whatever you want, but be prepared to be held accountable for what you say. Freedom of speech does not mean that what you say will be endorsed or that you wont get consequences for it, it only means that you wont get legal consequences.

[QUOTE]I don't know of any media group that's allowed to follow people around town 24/7; it's legal to sue the media for harassment.[/QUOTE

Almost anyone can 'observe' another person as long as they like. If its done with malicious intent, it becomes stalking. If it becomes intrusive into the life of the person, then it is what is called 'hard shadowing.' Hard shadowing is illegal, thus paparazzi only show up spuriously, though intrusively, whereas police try to be as discreet as possible when observing for long periods of time so they can't be accused of hard shadowing. So in part you're right, you can't stay on someone's heels and follow them around all day, but aside from this they aren't guaranteed much.

But as I was saying, the media engages in the same policies that the police do. They follow up on extremist speech in the same fashion the police do. Do you believe it violates a person's rights if they give a hate speech, the media watches them, attends their speeches, digs through their garbage, researches their past history, and then writes a report about them that tells the whole nation about them?

If the laws are wrong then you change them. But you obey them thats what they are for and you make people obey it by any means necessary. Democracy means that we can change bad laws with good ones, not make bloody revolutions each time and format C everything each time when we dont like something. Its not a system of absolutes but people doesnt seem to get it and see every action as a fascist and dictator one, how the hell people expect the goverments to function if they are not trusted to do anything? Like it or not we need them we humans need to form goverments and use them to regulate our lives.
Laws apply to everthing and everywhere, it doesnt mean giving people freedom to let a place exist without laws and governing. If there is problem about freedom in your country it doesnt change much if internet is free or not, the real problem, the governors must be influenced or changed then.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2214663,00.html



And so many were saying that trolling the Internet like this would never produce results.
Amateurs (them not you)

<shrug> Only in rare instances would I consider such a thing to be a fair trade-off...to each his own, I suppose, but I believe in the saying "live free or die".

To each his own.

I expect the State to keep me free from harm.
I don't expect the State to keep terrorists free from harm.

In fact, since I expect the State to keep me free from harm, I expect the State to be vigilant and aggressive towards those who lean towards terrorism.
( Such as anyone who claims that gays are better off dead, that zionism is wrong, or that Hitler was misunderstood. )

To each his own.

I expect the State to keep me free from harm.
I don't expect the State to keep terrorists free from harm.

In fact, since I expect the State to keep me free from harm, I expect the State to be vigilant and aggressive towards those who lean towards terrorism.
( Such as anyone who claims that gays are better off dead, that zionism is wrong, or that Hitler was misunderstood. )
Now while I don’t agree with your overall stance this I can agree with (I think)

A society’s job is to protect its members. The trick is balancing the rights of its members with the protection, there is sure to be a near optimal balance.

Now while I don’t agree with your overall stance this I can agree with (I think)

A society’s job is to protect its members. The trick is balancing the rights of its members with the protection, there is sure to be a near optimal balance.


We're dealing with Pareto-optima here.
Statements that any Pareto-optimum is better than another one are purely normative -
and thus beyond proof.

What I mention is the situation as I see it - and noting that several things considered to be 'right' are from my POV irrelevant rights at best.

Now while I don’t agree with your overall stance this I can agree with (I think)

A society’s job is to protect its members. The trick is balancing the rights of its members with the protection, there is sure to be a near optimal balance.
Let's say we want to ensure privacy, and ensure the use of warrants in specific situations, but we want to make sure that everyone's information remains anonymous for as long as possible before we intrude.

And we want to strike a balance between privacy and intelligence gathering.

So, let's say I have a database of call records (these are called CDRs in telco terms).

I take the dump, and strip out the names, and place the names in a database table, which will have a generated primary key for each name. I then associate the primary key, and not the name, with each call data record.

Now, I can data mine the call data records without knowing anything except "these particular records are associated with key #4324322413243".

Now, let's search to see which numbers were called by, or called a known terrorist's cell phone number.

I may get some results (as the recent investigators obviously did in Canada, the US, and the UK).

Once I get a map of connected numbers, I can then go get a warrant to have the name which is associated with the key revealed, and obtain further warrants for actual searches if the evidence in the phone calls or emails is sufficient.

Meanwhile, I haven't violated anyone else's privacy, even if I searched through their phone calls and email - I don't have a name in hand until I get a warrant.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2214663,00.html



And so many were saying that trolling the Internet like this would never produce results.Is there an article somewhere that actually connects data-mining with this investigation? Because while the article never comes out and says one way or the other, I'm sure you know that there's nothing unusual about tracing email conversations in the course of a normal investigation.

I'm afraid, as usual, that you have failed to connect A to C, because you're making an assumption about B and you're expecting us all to just go along for the ride on it.

Now while I don’t agree with your overall stance this I can agree with (I think)

A society’s job is to protect its members. The trick is balancing the rights of its members with the protection, there is sure to be a near optimal balance.


Not everyone is a member of a society.
I don't think an egyptian national with a temporary visa can be said to be a member of american society.
The definition of membership is rather difficult and not open to precision.

Is there an article somewhere that actually connects data-mining with this investigation? Because while the article never comes out and says one way or the other, I'm sure you know that there's nothing unusual about tracing email conversations in the course of a normal investigation.

I'm afraid, as usual, that you have failed to connect A to C, because you're making an assumption about B and you're expecting us all to just go along for the ride on it.

The data mining in the Canadian case was originally done by civilians. Perfectly legal for civilians to spy on each other.

You would have to be pretty stupid to think that the NSA or Echelon wasn't aimed at this group to find more people.

Not everyone is a member of a society.
I don't think an egyptian national with a temporary visa can be said to be a member of american society.
The definition of membership is rather difficult and not open to precision.
Thats what I was saying ... sorry if it was too confusing for you

Let's say we want to ensure privacy, and ensure the use of warrants in specific situations, but we want to make sure that everyone's information remains anonymous for as long as possible before we intrude.

And we want to strike a balance between privacy and intelligence gathering.

So, let's say I have a database of call records (these are called CDRs in telco terms).

I take the dump, and strip out the names, and place the names in a database table, which will have a generated primary key for each name. I then associate the primary key, and not the name, with each call data record.

Now, I can data mine the call data records without knowing anything except "these particular records are associated with key #4324322413243".

Now, let's search to see which numbers were called by, or called a known terrorist's cell phone number.

I may get some results (as the recent investigators obviously did in Canada, the US, and the UK).

Once I get a map of connected numbers, I can then go get a warrant to have the name which is associated with the key revealed, and obtain further warrants for actual searches if the evidence in the phone calls or emails is sufficient.

Meanwhile, I haven't violated anyone else's privacy, even if I searched through their phone calls and email - I don't have a name in hand until I get a warrant.
While a good theory a double blind like this would be … hard to keep from being abused.

While a good theory a double blind like this would be … hard to keep from being abused.
I'm sure that someone could come up with something with some checks and balances in it.

I'm sure that someone could come up with something with some checks and balances in it.
Lol with the apparent incompetence of their database administrators, I would not trust the NSA to do it lol

Thats what I was saying ... sorry if it was too confusing for you

Naw. I was merely codifying my agreement by restating your position, so to speak.
*smile*

Lol with the apparent incompetence of their database administrators, I would not trust the NSA to do it lol

You have no idea.

I cant believe theres database records of everyone's phone calls. Do you realize how much hard disk space that takes up? Thats space that can be used for porn instead! Its horrendous I tell you.

Naw. I was merely codifying my agreement by restating your position, so to speak.
*smile*
Fair enough ... I do think a government has the responsibility to do its best to protect its constituants. But like I said there is a point where it becomes a loose loose proposition when you violate their rights

I'm sure that someone could come up with something with some checks and balances in it.

And we all know how checks and balances work with government agencies! They don't.

The data mining in the Canadian case was originally done by civilians. Perfectly legal for civilians to spy on each other.

You would have to be pretty stupid to think that the NSA or Echelon wasn't aimed at this group to find more people.
What data-mining? Was this just a random "we were monitoring emails and this subject came up" or was there a tip? If it was the latter, then it wasn't data-mining, and you know it. And if the NSA followed these guys based on a tip, then it's completely unlike what you were hinting at in your opening post, which was that this came about as the result of the huge mining operation.

I'm not saying that the large mining operation didn't yield these results, mind you--I don't know if it did or not, and the articles on the subject don't say one way or the other. I'm just saying that you're making a conclusion about this case that's based either on supposition or on some information you're not sharing wth us.

You have no idea.

I cant believe theres database records of everyone's phone calls. Do you realize how much hard disk space that takes up? Thats space that can be used for porn instead! Its horrendous I tell you.
Well using mysql and assuming only 3 fields per record (primary key sender and reciver) only about 4.8 GB to store one record for 200 million people

Not that bad really (I was assuming standard string storage at an 8 byte size ... probably an overkill)

Edit: to put that in perspective my personal webserver has enough storage space to handle 208 calls made by every person in the USA

What data-mining? Was this just a random "we were monitoring emails and this subject came up" or was there a tip? If it was the latter, then it wasn't data-mining, and you know it. And if the NSA followed these guys based on a tip, then it's completely unlike what you were hinting at in your opening post, which was that this came about as the result of the huge mining operation.

I'm not saying that the large mining operation didn't yield these results, mind you--I don't know if it did or not, and the articles on the subject don't say one way or the other. I'm just saying that you're making a conclusion about this case that's based either on supposition or on some information you're not sharing wth us.


"Data mining" can be done by hand- individuals roaming suspected websites and reading them with their own eyes. Or, it can be done by writing crawlers to do the same thing.

Or, you can use Google. When you search in Google, you're data mining.

http://www.google.com/search?hs=D2I&hl=en&lr=&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=The+Nazz+nationstates&btnG=Search

Todd Rundgren fan, are we?

"Data mining" can be done by hand- individuals roaming suspected websites and reading them with their own eyes. Or, it can be done by writing crawlers to do the same thing.

Or, you can use Google. When you search in Google, you're data mining.

http://www.google.com/search?hs=D2I&hl=en&lr=&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=The+Nazz+nationstates&btnG=Search

Todd Rundgren fan, are we?
Well to be fair google is the one doing the data mining and classification … you are just searching the results

Well to be fair google is the one doing the data mining and classification … you are just searching the results
That's like saying that the software at the NSA is doing the data mining (hell, they might be using a Google engine), and the analyst is just searching the results...

That's like saying that the software at the NSA is doing the data mining (hell, they might be using a Google engine), and the analyst is just searching the results...
In that case the mining and the serching are done by the same organization so they are doing the mining AND the searching.

But in your example that was not the case, there is a difference (if only for clarity)

"Data mining" can be done by hand- individuals roaming suspected websites and reading them with their own eyes. Or, it can be done by writing crawlers to do the same thing.

Or, you can use Google. When you search in Google, you're data mining.

http://www.google.com/search?hs=D2I&hl=en&lr=&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=The+Nazz+nationstates&btnG=Search

Todd Rundgren fan, are we?
Yeah, but that's hardly the kind of data-mining that got everyone up in arms when the NSA was doing it, and an individual doing it has no access to emails. You're trying to play cute here, using one sort of data-mining to justify another.

As to Rundgren, I've never heard the song--other people have made the same connection, so I guess I ought to look it up. Me, I'm a Lord Buckley fan.

Yeah, but that's hardly the kind of data-mining that got everyone up in arms when the NSA was doing it, and an individual doing it has no access to emails. You're trying to play cute here, using one sort of data-mining to justify another.

As to Rundgren, I've never heard the song--other people have made the same connection, so I guess I ought to look it up. Me, I'm a Lord Buckley fan.

We had an incident last summer where someone found out who Keruvalia was in just a few keystrokes using Google. Even had his forum postings from other forums.

Getting your email isn't difficult. I've read my ex-wife's email without a problem, and I'm not a hacker by any stretch of the imagination.

We had an incident last summer where someone found out who Keruvalia was in just a few keystrokes using Google. Even had his forum postings from other forums.

Getting your email isn't difficult. I've read my ex-wife's email without a problem, and I'm not a hacker by any stretch of the imagination.
Yes it is easy to find out info about people, hence why I am squeamish as hell to put info out there … I know exactly how easy it can be (White hat last 6 years black 2 years before that)

Well using mysql and assuming only 3 fields per record (primary key sender and reciver) only about 4.8 GB to store one record for 200 million people

Not that bad really (I was assuming standard string storage at an 8 byte size ... probably an overkill)

Edit: to put that in perspective my personal webserver has enough storage space to handle 208 calls made by every person in the USA

Youre forgetting about possible indeces. And...only 3 fields? SSID, NAME, NUMBER_CALLED, CALLED_FROM, DATE, TIME...Theres probably more. And you can (should) split up NUMBER_CALLED and CALLED_FROM into NUMBER_CALLED_COUNTRY_CODE, NUMBER_CALLED_AREA_CODE and so on.

BTW mysql sucks balls, use postgres.

We had an incident last summer where someone found out who Keruvalia was in just a few keystrokes using Google. Even had his forum postings from other forums.

Getting your email isn't difficult. I've read my ex-wife's email without a problem, and I'm not a hacker by any stretch of the imagination.
And just how legal was that?

I have no illusions about the security of my email, mind you--anything written in an email can certainly come back and haunt you, and I tell my students that all the time. But you're still dodging the initial question I raised in this thread--how did the investigation get started in the first place? Was it from a hit in a huge data mining operation a la the NSA program that pissed so many people off, or was it as the result of a tip? If you don't know, just say so--the article doesn't make the distinction, and I think you made an unwarranted rhetorical leap in your opening post.

Youre forgetting about possible indeces. And...only 3 fields? SSID, NAME, NUMBER_CALLED, CALLED_FROM, DATE, TIME...Theres probably more. And you can (should) split up NUMBER_CALLED and CALLED_FROM into NUMBER_CALLED_COUNTRY_CODE, NUMBER_CALLED_AREA_CODE and so on.

BTW mysql sucks balls, use postgres.
Was assuming a minimum of information needed, and you would not need the separate fields for area code that can be striped out on the fly… with a database this large it may be advantageous to let the processing power on analysis scoot up rather then database size grow


Any why exactly does MYSQL suck I have always had good luck with its accessibility, server resources. As well as they seem to hold their standards well when expanding (the 4 to 5 transition was fairly easy)

Was assuming a minimum of information needed, and you would not need the separate fields for area code that can be striped out on the fly… with a database this large it may be advantageous to let the processing power on analysis scoot up rather then database size grow


Any why exactly does MYSQL suck I have always had good luck with its accessibility, server resources. As well as they seem to hold their standards well when expanding (the 4 to 5 transition was fairly easy)

Try a query in mysqql and then try that same query in postgres (on a relatively large database). You'll have an orgasm.

Mysql 5 really advanced mysql alot though. Older mysqls didnt even have a create user statement which was just plain dumb. Installing postgres is also very simple compared to mysql.

And why would you strip out on the fly when you can just select it? The first normal form of database structures is ensuring no field can be broken down into smaller parts. For example, lets say a course ID was something like CS400. You wouldnt have a field called COURSE_ID. It would be 2 fields like COURSE_TYPE=CS, COURSE_NUMBER=400.

And just how legal was that?

I have no illusions about the security of my email, mind you--anything written in an email can certainly come back and haunt you, and I tell my students that all the time. But you're still dodging the initial question I raised in this thread--how did the investigation get started in the first place? Was it from a hit in a huge data mining operation a la the NSA program that pissed so many people off, or was it as the result of a tip? If you don't know, just say so--the article doesn't make the distinction, and I think you made an unwarranted rhetorical leap in your opening post.


As long as I'm not using the email as evidence in court, there's nothing illegal about reading your spouse's email (we were married at the time).

Then these people can go to a library and look the information up there. These places haven't stopped existing because the internet was invented. They can look things up, and any Tom Dick or Harry is stopped from easily getting the information in the comfort of their own home, where there is no chance of being seen to do it. At least in a library you can be asked what you intend to do with the information.

Because, of course, someone planning to make a bomb and blow something up is going to say "I'm planning to make a bomb and blow something up."

Try a query in mysqql and then try that same query in postgres (on a relatively large database). You'll have an orgasm.

And why would you strip out on the fly when you can just select it? The first normal form of database structures is ensuring no field can be broken down into smaller parts. For example, lets say a course ID was something like CS400. You wouldnt have a field called COURSE_ID. It would be 2 fields like COURSE_TYPE=CS, COURSE_NUMBER=400.
Depends sometimes striping is better when size is an issue … and analysis is infrequent.

But recalculating for 6 fields and giving them a bit more room closer to 14 gig for 200 mil. Still not bad.

And I have used both on large databases before … but in the end with my setup and purposes mysql is the better choice (have you ever seen the spanning comparisons? I have had much better luck spanning my mysql server across multi procs as well as across my cluster)

And I have used both on large databases before … but in the end with my setup and purposes mysql is the better choice (have you ever seen the spanning comparisons? I have had much better luck spanning my mysql server across multi procs as well as across my cluster)

What do you mean?

There are two issues regarding the bomb building information.

First, several of the books, like the original Anarchist Cookbook ARE boobytraps. That is what came out in one of the civil trials involving one of the publishers. IIRC, it was Paladin Press. Someone found out that the books was originally published in coordination with an undercover up from COINTELPRO. The idea was that leat 1960s and 1970s era radicals and anarchists would obtain the book and then burn, poison, or blow themselves up while following the incomplete directions in the book. IIRC, the book has claimed several victims that way, including a 14 year old boy in the 1980s whose mother brought the original lawsuit.

Second, here's the LAW if you're interested:
http://assembler.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000842----000-.html

(p) Distribution of Information Relating to Explosives, Destructive Devices, and Weapons of Mass Destruction.—
(1) Definitions.— In this subsection—
(A) the term “destructive device” has the same meaning as in section 921 (a)(4);
(B) the term “explosive” has the same meaning as in section 844 (j); and
(C) the term “weapon of mass destruction” has the same meaning as in section 2332a (c)(2).
(2) Prohibition.— It shall be unlawful for any person—
(A) to teach or demonstrate the making or use of an explosive, a destructive device, or a weapon of mass destruction, or to distribute by any means information pertaining to, in whole or in part, the manufacture or use of an explosive, destructive device, or weapon of mass destruction, with the intent that the teaching, demonstration, or information be used for, or in furtherance of, an activity that constitutes a Federal crime of violence; or
(B) to teach or demonstrate to any person the making or use of an explosive, a destructive device, or a weapon of mass destruction, or to distribute to any person, by any means, information pertaining to, in whole or in part, the manufacture or use of an explosive, destructive device, or weapon of mass destruction, knowing that such person intends to use the teaching, demonstration, or information for, or in furtherance of, an activity that constitutes a Federal crime of violence.

What do you mean?
Well I have had better luck with sql based servers and their spanning ability … we have a few VERY large databases on my servers and the ability for it to utilize multiple processors is key.


Just as an example here is one of three front end database servers (the database is actually on a san)
(This is not MYsql but another propriatary sql based databasing system ... stupid Desire to Learn)


Edit: took the link out was going to show you our fancy 16 proc machine ... but something phisical is up with my machine at home I think we had a power outage last night and it did not come back up and forgot to check it on the way out thismorning

As long as I'm not using the email as evidence in court, there's nothing illegal about reading your spouse's email (we were married at the time).
Still avoiding the primary question.

As long as I'm not using the email as evidence in court, there's nothing illegal about reading your spouse's email (we were married at the time).
I am not entirely sure that is true but having trouble finding ANY information on rights to privacy of spouses … I must be slacking off or something.

Still avoiding the primary question.
It seems that it would be not only possible, but highly probable that NSA data mining was used during the recent cases.

Yes, they were initially spotted using the naked eyes of civilians. But I bet that a lot of computer power was turned on them - which led to arrests in various countries, all of which happen to also be Echelon member states.

How convenient.

Well I have had better luck with sql based servers and their spanning ability … we have a few VERY large databases on my servers and the ability for it to utilize multiple processors is key.


Just as an example here is one of three front end database servers (the database is actually on a san)
(This is not MYsql but another propriatary sql based databasing system ... stupid Desire to Learn)


Edit: took the link out was going to show you our fancy 16 proc machine ... but something phisical is up with my machine at home I think we had a power outage last night and it did not come back up and forgot to check it on the way out thismorning

Before I talk about this...You have a machine with 16 processors?

It seems that it would be not only possible, but highly probable that NSA data mining was used during the recent cases.

Yes, they were initially spotted using the naked eyes of civilians. But I bet that a lot of computer power was turned on them - which led to arrests in various countries, all of which happen to also be Echelon member states.

How convenient.That was the key for me. Once you have a suspect, then you have a way to target the mining operation. What the NSA is doing is not targeted--it's just snarfing up all the info it can and hoping something will pop up. I have no issue with using targeted data mining. I have lots of issues with the other.

Before I talk about this...You have a machine with 16 processors?
This is not my personal one this is one of our three database controllers for the campuses online courses (Actualy the entire state of minnesota)

(I am responsable for the server part not actual database controll)

Lol I have a screenshot but it is frustrating that the copy I have is on a now powered off personal server lol

It is? What definition is this? And why is it threatening? I don't see it as so, and since it doesn't violate any of our legal rights in the US it would be fair to say that the founding fathers didn't either.What is the purpose of the cameras being everywhere? At best they serve as a warning (a threat) to potential criminals.

It doesn't take a warrent to watch anyone. It only takes a warrent to make special arrests that aren't a result of an officer directly witnessing a crime, or warrents to seize property, etc.It takes a warrant to search someone's house, it only makes sense that it should take a warrant to watch someone for a length of time. Hell, the government can't continually record someone's conversations legally.

Why do you think freedom of speech infers any other type of freedom? You can say whatever you want, but be prepared to be held accountable for what you say. Freedom of speech does not mean that what you say will be endorsed or that you wont get consequences for it, it only means that you wont get legal consequences.How is having increased scrutiny by police not a legal consequence?

Almost anyone can 'observe' another person as long as they like. If its done with malicious intent, it becomes stalking. What would be the point of the police shadowing someone if not done with malicious intent?

If it becomes intrusive into the life of the person, then it is what is called 'hard shadowing.' Hard shadowing is illegal, thus paparazzi only show up spuriously, though intrusively, whereas police try to be as discreet as possible when observing for long periods of time so they can't be accused of hard shadowing. So in part you're right, you can't stay on someone's heels and follow them around all day, but aside from this they aren't guaranteed much.But if there are enough cameras, then they can potentially be used to stay on someone's heels and follow them around all day.

But as I was saying, the media engages in the same policies that the police do. They follow up on extremist speech in the same fashion the police do. Do you believe it violates a person's rights if they give a hate speech, the media watches them, attends their speeches, digs through their garbage, researches their past history, and then writes a report about them that tells the whole nation about them?It depends. The police have potential access to priviledged information, whereas the media doesn't, or shouldn't. So I would say it depends on whether or not a person's rights are violated if priviledged information is accessed by the media.
Secondly, a police investigation is always meant to be harmful. The best that can come to an individual who is being investigated by the police is that they aren't charged with a crime. A media investigation can be either. It's conceivable that the media could find and print favorable information to the individual. I would say that if a media company investigates for the purpose of only printing negative information, and that if they find positive information they wouldn't print it, then that should be illegal, but such a law would be difficult to enforce.

To each his own.

I expect the State to keep me free from harm.
I don't expect the State to keep terrorists free from harm.I don't expect the state to keep me free from harm; the police here aren't required to save your life if they have the opportunity to. I expect the state to prosecute those who harm me, but that is a separate issue.

In fact, since I expect the State to keep me free from harm, I expect the State to be vigilant and aggressive towards those who lean towards terrorism.
( Such as anyone who claims that gays are better off dead, that zionism is wrong, or that Hitler was misunderstood. )I view a vigilant state as harming me, so I can't agree with such a statement. If a state is vigilant, that makes them more likely to take something said out of context.

This is not my personal one this is one of our three database controllers for the campuses online courses (Actualy the entire state of minnesota)

(I am responsable for the server part not actual database controll)

Lol I have a screenshot but it is frustrating that the copy I have is on a now powered off personal server lol

Im still baffled by 1 machine having 16 processors.

Im still baffled by 1 machine having 16 processors.
Welcome to the world of Sun.

Im still baffled by 1 machine having 16 processors.
We are not talking about a desktop here these are rack mount servers

Hell here is an example of a brand new one being released by tyan (this is a personal rather then a corporate machine) http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/06/07/tyan_unveils_typhoon/

8 procs, 16 cores

Ours has 16 seperate procs
(YAY I got someone to turn my server back on)
http://geek.upwardthrust.us/pictures/cpu2.jpg (big file sorry)

Welcome to the world of Sun.
We actually have compaq servers for the most part (I know I know I did not get to choose that one)

I'd like them to spend more time tracking down kiddie pornographers, frankly.

I'd like them to spend more time tracking down kiddie pornographers, frankly.
I guess that depends on how much you like downtown Toronto.

We are not talking about a desktop here these are rack mount servers

Hell here is an example of a brand new one being released by tyan (this is a personal rather then a corporate machine) http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/06/07/tyan_unveils_typhoon/

8 procs, 16 cores

Ours has 16 seperate procs
(YAY I got someone to turn my server back on)
http://geek.upwardthrust.us/pictures/cpu2.jpg (big file sorry)
Ill get some more pictures after we rebuild it too

I guess that depends on how much you like downtown Toronto.
Well, Toronto's got a pretty good task force working...but there should be more of them...it's not a problem isolated to one city or nation.

We are not talking about a desktop here these are rack mount servers

Hell here is an example of a brand new one being released by tyan (this is a personal rather then a corporate machine) http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/06/07/tyan_unveils_typhoon/

8 procs, 16 cores

Ours has 16 seperate procs
(YAY I got someone to turn my server back on)
http://geek.upwardthrust.us/pictures/cpu2.jpg (big file sorry)

I am understanding this information. If you have a rack with 16 servers I can understand. One machine having 16 processors is pretty much unheardof though.

postgres is actually really good when it comes to database replication.

I am understanding this information. If you have a rack with 16 servers I can understand. One machine having 16 processors is pretty much unheardof though.

postgres is actually really good when it comes to database replication.
Most of the Sun servers I've seen have either 8 or 16 processors.

I am understanding this information. If you have a rack with 16 servers I can understand. One machine having 16 processors is pretty much unheardof though.

postgres is actually really good when it comes to database replication.
They are seperate daughter boards with a single backplain ...

They may be seperate boards but it is one "machine" with one os rather then a cluster... we do have a cluster of 3 of these

Most of the Sun servers I've seen have either 8 or 16 processors.
If I remember right ours is the HP rx8620-32 (that one)

Yeah looks like our baby

http://www.hp.com/products1/servers/integrity/mid_range/rx8620/index.html