I don't get one :) Though I do wonder if the staff of the senators actually cross-reference the voting lists to see if a letter should be looked at.
On Tue, 19 Nov 2002, David Dudine wrote: > Lots of good discussion, but... > > Have those who are uncomfortable about this contacted both of their > Senators? > > David Dudine > > > From: Ward Oldham <woldham at insightbb.com> > > Reply-To: macgroup at erdos.math.louisville.edu > > Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 16:38:55 -0500 > > To: MUG <macgroup at erdos.math.louisville.edu> > > Subject: Re: MacGroup: Homeland Security bill > > > > Hey Jerry and all, > > > > None of this is that simple! But even in this short thread, I think we can > > all appreciate the difficulties the folks in Washington are having trying to > > figure this out. > > > > Ward > > > > 11/19/02 3:02 PM, "Jerry Yeager" <jerry at browseryshop.com> wrote: > > > >> If it were only that simple Ward. It is not. > >> > >> Uh folks keep in mind most of the CIA's budget is classified. The public > >> part that is available is for things like paper clips, etc. It will not > >> take long before the $200 million that we know about goes to the paper > >> clip budget and then who knows where the part we are not told about > >> (it's "classified") goes? > >> > >> This type of information should not be in the hands of the government. > >> Our government has shown that it will abuse the information it already > >> collects (employees at the IRS use tax return information for their own > >> gain, etc. there are many mis-uses on record that can be listed) > >> regardless of which major party is in office. I find it very odd that > >> right now the only folks who seem to be trying the protect American > >> ideals and citizens is the CIA (folks we hire to spy on others). > >> > >> Have you forgotten that the Nazi party began collecting this type of > >> information about citizens before they began doing what they did? > >> > >> The needs of the many are for the freedoms that we have had. The needs > >> ot the few are to control those freedoms so that they can stay in power. > >> I am very sure that the folks that put the list of freedoms together for > >> us knew what they were doing. After all, they got to see the horror of a > >> prolonged war on AMERICAN soil first hand. Was it not that very gang > >> that said something along the lines of "those that would trade freedom > >> for security deserve neither". I think they fully understood what is at > >> stake here. > >> > >> Giving the government this power will not protect us more. (As the NRA > >> likes to say, 'we already have existing laws that deal with this, why do > >> we need more?'). All this will do is open a new threat to us, this one > >> from within. > >> > >> > >> Jerry > >> > >> On Tuesday, November 19, 2002, at 02:18 PM, Ward Oldham wrote: > >> > >>> Well, having a history on this listserve of being potentially the most > >>> offensive when it comes to political issues, I should just shut > >>> up . . . But > >>> I can't! > >>> > >>> I cherish my privacy more than the average bear. I don't want anybody > >>> reading my mail, email, knowing my finances, seeing my tax return. When > >>> people ask how much I make because they need the info. for their > >>> application > >>> or survey, I tell them it's none of their business! > >>> > >>> With that said, we probably all recognize that our world will never be > >>> the > >>> same. We haven't had a threat in our community, yet. Because of that, > >>> there > >>> will be many folks out there who are against any change at all because > >>> it > >>> infringes upon their constitutional rights. I feel the same way. The > >>> bottom line is it hasn't hit close enough to home yet for us to feel the > >>> sting and why change the rules if we haven't been hurt. > >>> > >>> I always think back to an old Star Trek movie where Spock is dying > >>> because > >>> he sacrificed himself to save the ship and the crew. It depicted the > >>> philosophy "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." > >>> > >>> The time may be growing near when we have to be willing to sacrifice a > >>> little of our privacy in an effort to prevent potential harm that may > >>> affect > >>> many others than just ourselves. > >>> > >>> Ward Oldham > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On 11/19/02 12:00 PM, "David Dudine" <ddudine at psci.net> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Dear Group, > >>>> > >>>> Lee has given me permission to post this from conservative William > >>>> Safire. > >>>> > >>>> If you do not want the government watching your internet activity and > >>>> reading your email, you should contact your Senators IMMEDIATELY and > >>>> voice > >>>> your opposition. It is being rammed through by Bush as you read this. > >>>> > >>>> David Dudine > >>>> > >>>> .......................... > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> New York Times, November 14, 2002: Opinion > >>>> > >>>> You Are a Suspect > >>>> > >>>> By WILLIAM SAFIRE > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> WASHINGTON ? If the Homeland Security Act is not amended before > >>>> passage, > >>>> here is what will happen to you: > >>>> > >>>> Every purchase you make with a credit card, every magazine > >>>> subscription you > >>>> buy and medical prescription you fill, every Web site you visit and > >>>> e-mail > >>>> you send or receive, every academic grade you receive, every bank > >>>> deposit > >>>> you make, every trip you book and every event you attend ? all these > >>>> transactions and communications will go into what the Defense > >>>> Department > >>>> describes as "a virtual, centralized grand database." > >>>> > >>>> To this computerized dossier on your private life from commercial > >>>> sources, > >>>> add every piece of information that government has about you ? passport > >>>> application, driver's license and bridge toll records, judicial and > >>>> divorce > >>>> records, complaints from nosy neighbors to the F.B.I., your lifetime > >>>> paper > >>>> trail plus the latest hidden camera surveillance ? and you have the > >>>> supersnoop's dream: a "Total Information Awareness" about every U.S. > >>>> citizen. > >>>> > >>>> This is not some far-out Orwellian scenario. It is what will happen to > >>>> your > >>>> personal freedom in the next few weeks if John Poindexter gets the > >>>> unprecedented power he seeks. > >>>> > >>>> Remember Poindexter? Brilliant man, first in his class at the Naval > >>>> Academy, later earned a doctorate in physics, rose to national security > >>>> adviser under President Ronald Reagan. He had this brilliant idea of > >>>> secretly selling missiles to Iran to pay ransom for hostages, and with > >>>> the > >>>> illicit proceeds to illegally support contras in Nicaragua. > >>>> > >>>> A jury convicted Poindexter in 1990 on five felony counts of misleading > >>>> Congress and making false statements, but an appeals court overturned > >>>> the > >>>> verdict because Congress had given him immunity for his testimony. He > >>>> famously asserted, "The buck stops here," arguing that the White House > >>>> staff, and not the president, was responsible for fateful decisions > >>>> that > >>>> might prove embarrassing. > >>>> > >>>> This ring-knocking master of deceit is back again with a plan even more > >>>> scandalous than Iran-contra. He heads the "Information Awareness > >>>> Office" in > >>>> the otherwise excellent Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, > >>>> which > >>>> spawned the Internet and stealth aircraft technology. Poindexter is now > >>>> realizing his 20-year dream: getting the "data-mining" power to snoop > >>>> on > >>>> every public and private act of every American. > >>>> > >>>> Even the hastily passed U.S.A. Patriot Act, which widened the scope of > >>>> the > >>>> Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and weakened 15 privacy laws, > >>>> raised > >>>> requirements for the government to report secret eavesdropping to > >>>> Congress > >>>> and the courts. But Poindexter's assault on individual privacy rides > >>>> roughshod over such oversight. > >>>> > >>>> He is determined to break down the wall between commercial snooping and > >>>> secret government intrusion. The disgraced admiral dismisses such > >>>> necessary > >>>> differentiation as bureaucratic "stovepiping." And he has been given a > >>>> $200 > >>>> million budget to create computer dossiers on 300 million Americans. > >>>> > >>>> When George W. Bush was running for president, he stood foursquare in > >>>> defense of each person's medical, financial and communications > >>>> privacy. But > >>>> Poindexter, whose contempt for the restraints of oversight drew the > >>>> Reagan > >>>> administration into its most serious blunder, is still operating on the > >>>> presumption that on such a sweeping theft of privacy rights, the buck > >>>> ends > >>>> with him and not with the president. > >>>> > >>>> This time, however, he has been seizing power in the open. In the past > >>>> week > >>>> John Markoff of The Times, followed by Robert O'Harrow of The > >>>> Washington > >>>> Post, have revealed the extent of Poindexter's operation, but > >>>> editorialists > >>>> have not grasped its undermining of the Freedom of Information Act. > >>>> > >>>> Political awareness can overcome "Total Information Awareness," the > >>>> combined force of commercial and government snooping. In a similar > >>>> overreach, Attorney General Ashcroft tried his Terrorism Information > >>>> and > >>>> Prevention System (TIPS), but public outrage at the use of gossips and > >>>> postal workers as snoops caused the House to shoot it down. The Senate > >>>> should now do the same to this other exploitation of fear. > >>>> > >>>> The Latin motto over Poindexter"s new Pentagon office reads "Scientia > >>>> Est > >>>> Potentia" ? "knowledge is power." Exactly: the government's infinite > >>>> knowledge about you is its power over you. "We're just as concerned as > >>>> the > >>>> next person with protecting privacy," this brilliant mind blandly > >>>> assured > >>>> The Post. A jury found he spoke falsely before. > >>>> > >>>> .???`?.? ><((((?> .???`?.??.???`?.? <?))))>< ,.???`?.?.???`?.? ><((((?> > >>>> ?.???`?..???`?.? ><((((?> .???`?.??.???`?.?.?.?.???`?.? ><((((?> > >>>> .???`?.??.???`?.? <?))))>< .???`?.?.???`?.? ><((((?> ?.???`?..???`?.? > >>>> > >>>> --------------------------------------------- > >>>> Introducing NetZero Long Distance > >>>> 1st month Free! > >>>> Sign up today at: www.netzerolongdistance.com > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> The next meeting of the Louisville Computer Society will be November 26 > >>>> For more information, see <http://www.aye.net/~lcs>. A calendar of > >>>> activities is at <http://www.calsnet.net/macusers>. > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> The next meeting of the Louisville Computer Society will be November 26 > >>> For more information, see <http://www.aye.net/~lcs>. A calendar of > >>> activities is at <http://www.calsnet.net/macusers>. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> The next meeting of the Louisville Computer Society will be November 26 > >> For more information, see <http://www.aye.net/~lcs>. A calendar of > >> activities is at <http://www.calsnet.net/macusers>. > >> > > > > > > The next meeting of the Louisville Computer Society will be November 26 > > For more information, see <http://www.aye.net/~lcs>. A calendar of > > activities is at <http://www.calsnet.net/macusers>. > > > > > The next meeting of the Louisville Computer Society will be November 26 > For more information, see <http://www.aye.net/~lcs>. A calendar of > activities is at <http://www.calsnet.net/macusers>. > > The next meeting of the Louisville Computer Society will be November 26 For more information, see <http://www.aye.net/~lcs>. A calendar of activities is at <http://www.calsnet.net/macusers>.
