Why Libertarians Aren't just Republicans Who Smoke Pot
Because we also think this kind of intrusion by the state is offensive.
Yesterday, the House Judiciary Committee voted 19-10 for H.R. 1981, a data-retention bill that will require your ISP to spy on everything you do online and save records of it for 12 months. California Rep Zoe Lofgren, one of the Democrats who opposed the bill, called it a “data bank of every digital act by every American” that would “let us find out where every single American visited Web sites.”
It really pisses me off that the Republicans wrap themselves in the mantle of individual liberty when challenging Obama over insane spending levels, but then, simultaneously, do this kind of crap.
Perhaps the rogue isp's see real costs and fail to see the "infinite cost-benefits"
Oops, that should read "Perhaps the Wi-Fi providers ..." although I guess the isp's would see them too.
"Perhaps the rogue isp’s see real costs and fail to see the “infinite cost-benefits”"
But then, until this moment you have never mentioned the "cost" issue. My statement clearly is just the ratio in benefits between value to the government (and the People), and the "loss" of individual liberty.
As far as cost to the provider, it is really limited. Businesses are required to retain lots of data. With the cost of a terra byte of data storage being about $50 it really should be no big deal to archive this information.
As far as the nuances of this deal, I really don't care. It simply is not that important to me. If I want to TRULY PROTECT my privacy then I simply would avoid going on any internet sites that are illegal or embarrassing. But, we all have our vices!!!
"As far as the nuances of this deal, I really don’t care. It simply is not that important to me."
I was pretty sure of that since you didn't care that no warrant was required. Just wanted to see if you would bite.
Mark: "then I simply would avoid going on any internet sites that are illegal or embarrassing." But you do *not* know what might be a crime to a federal prosecutor with a grudge or a quota to fill. No one can even count all the federal crimes any more.
And you keep repeating that "probable cause" is required to look at ISP records. Wrong again. Business records merely require a subpoena, which only requires suspicion. Most judges were prosecutors before they were appointed to the bench, and when the threshold is this low, the only real limitation on a prosecutor going on a fishing expedition is how much paperwork his clerks can fill out. This went too far long ago with subpoena's of bank and medical records, now they want to make ISP's keep *many* more records so they can go on more fishing expeditions.
Third, I do not need to be doing anything wrong to object to invasion my of privacy. Would you object to surveillance cameras in your home? Why? You aren't doing anything wrong...
Finally, if you don't understand why we distrust government, I suggest you learn some of the history of the last 100 years.