Senate bows to Bush and approves surveillance bill

Thursday 10th July, 07:10 AM JST

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

Latest 15 of 28 Total Comments Show All

skipthesong at 03:46 PM JST - 10th July

Does anyone have any data relative to other countries who basically do this but could careless if it against the people's desires?
RedMeatKoolAid at 04:39 PM JST - 10th July

Dem majority bows to Bush? But isn't Bush a lame duck? I'm sure that is what I have been reading for the last 2 years or so.
proxy at 05:01 PM JST - 10th July

Unbelievable! No wonder the approval rating for these clown is about 10%.
apecNetworks at 05:49 PM JST - 10th July

Though I harp on this somewhat, it may be irrelevant today as it was during the Red Scare:

US Bill of Rights

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Since it occurred before, they really should quit teaching it in public schools and/or to amend it to allow unwarranted searches and seizures.**
seaghyn at 06:42 PM JST - 10th July

well, I don't condone this really, but think about it. Eves-dropping happens all the time. Kids do it to their parents, and friends overhear friends conversations. So you say screw obama or screw bush, i'm gonna vanquish america. whether they hear it or not, you still have the freedom to say it. again, talking about the patriots as they play their sport. say you don't like the way so-and-so played, and bob overhears you at the bar. big deal. now if they start to barge into your homes with search warrents when you say screw america, then they're taking away the freedom to express or say what you think. that's where you need to be worrying about. while terrorism is huge, i'm certain the real reason for this bill deals with wanting to catch or overhear secrets on organizations, crime deals, what you and your wife did last night.....the list goes on ^_^. I say give 'em something to hear, if they're willing to spend our tax dollars and listen =)
RedMeatKoolAid at 09:26 PM JST - 10th July

"Obama ended up voting for the final bill..."

Obama is looking downright McSame.

He's pro-gun, he's pro-FISA, he's opposed to an immediate pullout from Iraq...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qtm66Z3lebc
Sarge at 10:09 PM JST - 10th July

tkoind - "The only terrorists we really need to be deeply fearful of are the ones rendering our constitution obsolete with their Patriot Act ad Monitoring policies"

The thousands of people who lost their loved ones in the 9/11 attacks and in battles against terrorists around the world would disagree with you.
proxy at 10:32 PM JST - 10th July

Sarge, the new surveillance bill has nothing to do with stopping terrorists, its about killing the 40 lawsuits filed against the phone companies for breaking the law. As you well know, there was more than enough information to have stopped 911; the problem was not with data gathering but with data correlation. And the old FISA court system was working fine. The problem was that the law was broken, smashed, and to avoid getting sued into bankruptcy the phone companies used their cash and lobby power to pass this bill.
sageb1 at 12:27 AM JST - 11th July

actually the ping times changed, and some relays changed their port exposure to the Internet. there is more and more less and less 'presence' of certain relays as they become hardened against port attacks by not showing up on pings.

often a traceroute only show relays that respond, and in toughened intranets the path stops at the secured firewall.

and this has accelerated after 911.

IMHO the reason why servers are being toughened like that is not really to be immune from cyberterrorists, but to not show up on Big Brother's radar.

it's assumed that they exchange more encrypted traffic via the secured relay.

Big Brother can only analyze the plaintext traffic.
SuperLib at 03:11 AM JST - 11th July

I have just one question. Who is protecting us from our own government and their assault of out constitutional liberties?

Gosh, if only there were some kind of court which could review the actions of the government to decide if they're constitutional or not... Eh, oh well. Until we do finally develop some kind of oversight on the Executive Branch I guess we'll just have to live in a constant state of fear.
adaydream at 03:14 AM JST - 11th July

The government will continue to do what they want to do. This surveillance bill actually means very little.

If they really wanted to protect us with this surveillance stuff, the bush administration would have warned people of the high possibility that terrorist were planning to use planes as weapons. But the george bush administration kept their mouths shut.

This bill is to protect their asses and the telecommunications companies for past practices that were illegal when done. < :-)
DanManjt at 04:24 AM JST - 11th July

"I am confident that history will not judge this Senate kindly if it endorses this tragic retreat from the principles that have governed government conduct in this sensitive area for 30 years"

You tell 'em, Russ.
michael8wp at 07:12 AM JST - 11th July

Each branch of the US government is supposed watch the other two branches to ensure that all action is constitutional. The problem is, there are people in all three branches who share the same interests.
skipthesong at 10:34 AM JST - 11th July

No, the problem is that people aren't watching the government enough. Instead they have people following them like rock stars.
smithinjapan at 12:40 PM JST - 12th July

So Bush's ONLY 'accomplishment' in his entire term in office was to pass a bill to spy on his own citizens. Mission accomplished, and way to go!