[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
(NOISE) Re: White House M
|> Maybe so, but we don't have to like it. And I don't. But
|> it's not so much their access, per se, that I object to.
F|Why the hell do you care ? Someone has a home page for something on the Web.
|Someone at the White House looks at it. So what ? You object to the fact
|that somebody in the government has a Web browser and *gasp* uses it to read
|stuff on the WWW ???
What did I just write? It's not so much their access...
|> It's their potential intentions,
F|You take moral offense to what you think someone else _might_ be thinking ?
Not normally, no. But I've found a number of reasons to take
offense at more overt government actions, and I see no reason
not to take offense at obscure government actions.
Especially when it involves spooks (NSA, DOD, military branch
agencies, CIA, FBI, DEA, alphabet soup agency of choice).
|Sounds like you believe in thoughtcrime. Banned any good books lately ?
I _DO_ believe in thoughtcrime. I think it's a goddamned crime
when some dickhead with more power than sense attempts to limit
the actions of private citizens, in complete disregard for the
idea of "presumed innocent until proven guilty." If someone so
much as THINKS this, I have a problem with them.
Now, go fuck yourself.
F|> all things considered, and
|> the fact that they aren't at all open about such monitoring.
F|This is absurd. You expect the White House to issue a press release every tim
|a staffer clicks on a URL ?
No. I want to know what they're monitoring on a general
basis and why. It's my tax money, too. But they aren't
open about the monitoring. Half the time they deny doing
it at all, and the rest of the time they come up with a
few dozen specious excuses.
[email protected] [email protected] C1225CE1
RADical 1 Systems - Multi-Platform Custom Programming, Service, & Support