I don't need links or names, SI, I just wanted the basic facts. What kind of crimes are you talking about? What kind of charges? Copyright infringement or ????
I was only referring you to the post because it wasn't my own. It had a full story for you. Also because people have hard time taking my word for things, which I totally understand. I specified it wasn't piracy. There have been arrests and investigations (as I said) for comments on different sites, without the person's knowledge, without a warrant, etc. I'm not typing out the entire list of charges. You can go back and look at what was posted or look here. http://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2013/apr/12/ua-studio-evacuated-following-twitter-post/ there are multiple cases. You can keep searching on your own, as I always advise.
Wholeheartedly agree. I've never been a FB user, because of my job. Google is a lot harder to get around, as they do more than anyone else BETTER than anyone else. It's just the cost...
So, I just scanned the whole thread. There's a link to a couple who couldn't get a visa to the US after posting some kind of threat to the US, and your link here where someone suggested shooting all the students in a school. I fail to see the privacy problem. You post that kind of crap in a public arena then complain your privacy was invaded because people saw it? All the other links are to news stories about the legislation. What would you have had the U of Arkansas do when the student's Twitter message came to light?
Were they not arrested? Without warrant? Is that not what you asked for (ppl arrested not for piracy/copywrite). Please, PLEASE, take the time to really look before you speak. Please? Read and investigate before just reacting. And you didnt mention HE NEVER SAID THERE WAS A BOMB OR ANYTHING. He said there was a funny noise. He was arrested. Without a warrant. The school was evacuated. FOR NO REASON. Don't ask for what I'd do. I wouldn't be scanning his tweets in the first place. And it's a nil point, as I am not and will never be in that position. Stick to facts, please. The kind you can backup with more than your own voice.
Ha! Her two 'smoking guns' posted so far have been: A college student publicly stating he was going to shoot people. (He was investigated for the threat, but only arrested for illegal drug use.) A man who publically admitted he killed someone. (Who was never investigated or arrested.) Your examples are honestly laughable. Oh, and how many times do you need to say you're 22? What difference does it make?
It doesn't. Just like reminding you I'm a real person. And these aren't "smoking guns". Someone asked for examples and I provided sourced, third party information. Also, Google Fiber is coming next to the city I wrote my story about earlier this year. Again, the links verify what I've said. You don't have to take it from me. People will investigate further on their own. No need to babysit. Again, glad you're looking into it so much, but please, you're discussing a non point. CISPA is valid, the links I posted were valid and from transparent sources people can look into. Thousands of people agree, who are in fields that actually deal with securities. I can't say much more beyond that.
You haven't verified a single thing. Google buying unused fiber optic cable doesn't mean ANYTHING. You have ZERO proof that they have any nefarious intentions. It is ALL speculation. You need to give up the 'Chicken Little' rhetoric. Get away from the black helicopters and Skynet and move on. It's great for books, but not so much for real life. I
Hey, you're the one (the ONLY one, btw) who mentioned Google is out to get anyone. All I said, which is VERIFIED BY LINKS, is that Google uses your information (and has access to your email) to sell market research to advertisers. That is ALREADY HAPPENING. Like, look around. This act will only increase that. Which, again, you'd know if you knew anything about anything and weren't just flapping your mouth to act out for attention. Stick to facts, JJ, and sources BEYOND YOUR OWN VOICE, as the posters here have all done with links. I know I shouldn't take pleasure from someone's pain, but watching you run around, guided by my information, scrambling to click the links is a bit entertaining, I must admit.
That's not what the Fourth Amendment says. If the government wasn't allowed to collect information at all, then a lot of government agencies wouldn't exist (the CIA, for example). The Fourth Amendment is about unlawful searches and seizures. There's a difference there. This bill basically interprets the Fourth Amendment in a different way, and it's a perfectly valid interpretation in my opinion. Again, keep in mind that companies aren't required or obligated to pass on the information to the government. Also, and this is a very important point, it's not an unlawful search if you have no right to the thing being searched (i.e., the internet). It's actually a brilliant loophole if you think about it. Sorry, I spelled his name wrong by mistake. It was a typo. Anyways, yes, he was against such bills, but that's not why he got arrested. He got arrested for downloading articles on JSTOR and distributing them for free. Even though JSTOR didn't want to press charges, the government ignored them and pressed their own charges anyways, which is the part I'm mad about. So I do sympathize with him, and I think the government did a horrible thing by targeting him. I'll leave it at that. No, they aren't. Not by the NSA at least. I said that they store emails, not that they go through them. It would take a ridiculous amount of resources to comb through each and every email they collect. It's not feasible. They store emails so that if you are convicted of a crime or something of the sort, they can look through your emails for evidence. I looked through the links, and I understand why they were arrested. It's nothing out of the ordinary. Some of those comments could be interpreted as threats. You don't need a warrant to arrest someone for threatening to shoot people or blow up a building (just to use some examples). You should look up laws about arrests without a warrant.
Thanks for checking out the links! Still think you should move forward with your education. Wiki-ing someone's arrest and YEARS LONG STRUGGLE is good and all, and I know the simplified version is easier for you to understand, but again, maybe bringing up things you only half-know (and JUST learned, actually) isn't the best option for SPREADING information. I left links because I was ASKED to. By you, actually. Those sources go beyond me, and if you have trouble with the things they say, you should go to the actual link and make your argument there. In front of the thousands who KNOW and AGREE. I said facts, you said they weren't true. I sited links (from multiple sites with their own sources) and you said they weren't verified, and continued to state mis-information. You won't listen to me, or to anyone else. I don't know what you're looking for.
I'm not too worried. The bill faces some uphill battles in the Senate, and the President is already threatening to veto it (should it pass there too). Given our government's current track record, I doubt it will ever reach his desk. We can't pass things that a majority support, let along controversial stuff.
I first heard about his arrest about 2 years ago. So this isn't something I just learned. The links you posted make it clear that these people were arrested for making threats though Twitter, Facebook, etc. You don't need a warrant to arrest these people, so I'm not sure what the issue is. For cases where tweets were protected, it's highly possible that someone following the user alerted the police. Twitter is actually fairly strict when it comes to giving information to authorities.
I, for one, am 'listening' to you. I'm just not interpreting your 'facts' the same way you are interpreting them. You seem to be saying, spying on people's private Internet exchanges has led to arrests. When I look at the provided examples there was one arrest, not multiple arrests, and the reason was not because the government spied on some private emails, the reason for the arrest was the suspect posted public statements that he might be planning a mass shooting at a university. Those two things are not the same. When I think of Big Brother, I think of data mining the Net and arresting a government whistleblower, or the reporters she told the wrongdoing to. Another example would be searching my house because the data mining was triggered by my innocent discussion of the Boston bombers in a forum thread. If a warrant was served because the data mining program was seriously flawed, that would be a Big Brother issue we should all be concerned about. I'm concerned if foreigners are denied visas because of their political beliefs which were posted on the Net. If, OTOH, the Net discussion was one of suggesting some kind of violence against people in the US, I would hope the government at least takes a close look to determine if the discussion was just banter or actual planning. There's not much difference from the law that says you can be arrested for joking about blowing up a plane. I would hope people who actually were joking either are cleared in court, or get no more than a suspended sentence. The arrest does not tell us the outcome in court.
Except that wasn't the way it was reported, so "highly possible" again, is JUST SOMETHING YOU ARE SAYING, against a bunch of reported, sourced, newspaper fact. But again, those links were in response to someone who wanted to see WHO WAS ARRESTED AND FOR WHAT. I gave 1 link about an arrest. The rest I didn't even provide. And just because you heard about it two years ago and relooked into it now, is not a basis for saying you know what happened.
These are my facts. I sited everything I said. I didn't come up with any of it. It's all sourced for you, whether you agree with the source or not is your issue. You asked who was arrested and for what. I provided ONE link to ONE instance in which ONE person was arrested for something OTHER THAN PIRACY. I gave you exactly what you asked for, as a courtesy. The rest, I urged you to look further into. I'm glad you're doing that. Again, I never mentioned BIG BROTHER ANYTHING. I'm less concerned (how many times do I have to say this before it lands?) with arrests than with corps in bed with political organizations for ADVERTISING AND MONEY.
Frankly, I find you insulting. You don't have to tell me how to 'read', I am perfectly capable of reading. I know how to do research, and I don't assume every fact is a fabrication. I think most of the people in this thread know the truth, and you are the lone wolf still howling in the moonlight. CISPA is a poorly written bill, but we here at WF are intelligent, savvy people who know how to spot the difference between fact and fabrication. So if you think you can come to OUR FORUM, and tell us all we're a bunch of no-nothing idiots, then frankly, the EXIT is over there.
Don't always take everything you hear in the news at face value. There's always more to the story than is reported. It's highly unlikely that the authorities were spying on the Twitter/Facebook accounts of the people who got arrested. It's more likely that the police got a warrant or subpoena to look through the person's account(s) because they had probably cause (i.e., someone alerted them). I think you're just misinterpreting what you read and jumping to conclusions.
Again, words in my mouth. No nothing idiots is something YOU SAID. And I am sure you are capable of reading, I just don't think you were really reading. By reading and responding to the suggestion (not command you proved you were. Thanks. And again, I posted various sources to someone who didn't even know (2 days ago) that your address and phone number can be acquire via IP cooperation. I don't even know where to begin with your 'facts'. They've already been disproved. Move on. I've posted other discussions and comments, all on other forums (some I started myself) and everyone was perfectly civil. I won't, however, let you hijack or call into question something already validated by people who, truly, know more than you do on the topic. You don't want to admit it. It's okay to just say, this is what I think without passing it off as fact without offering any verification. I've given the links, we're all adults here. People will look into the information and decide for themselves. No need to play babysitter, again.
Again, highly likely is NOT fact. That's fine, but not as a way to disprove something. You asked for sources. I gave multiple. You're reaching here, by trying to say "what was reported may not have happened" which everyone knows and which isn't relevant to the discussion. I have no problem with the sources I provided. If you do, take that up with them. I can't do it for you. If you want to find out, GO FIND OUT. If you want to argue, which you already said you do, then we can do that. I'm doing it because I have sited facts and work in securities. I'm here to answer questions with voices beyond my own. You're just here cause I'm here.
You can't prove that the government illegally spied on those individuals. Frankly, it's a ridiculous claim since the article makes no mention of it, so I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion. That's not what I said. I have no doubt that the person made threats and was arrested. I can believe that part. What I can't believe is that the government is illegally looking at Facebook/Twitter profiles to look for threats. Think of the sheer number of profiles they would have to go through. It's actually much easier getting a warrant and doing things legally. All you need is probable cause or a suspicion, and a judge will grant you a warrant. If you're right and the government really does go through millions of posts and tweets a day, then the government is stupider than I thought.
That's not what I said. Putting words in my mouth and they taste bad. The link was posted in response to a question, NOT FROM YOU, which has already been answered. Thanks. There are programs for scanning and storing information already in place. I've given you links, you "can't" believe, which means your issue is with them, not me. GO INVESTIGATE. I "can't" do it for you. Will a link from CNN do anything, because even THEY HAVE COMMON KNOWLEDGE ARTCLES about agencies scanning your tweets, private messages and so on. No? Then why are you asking questions you don't want answered? Also, we already proved Google scans email for ads, something they've outright admitted to. Where do you think your info goes after the cloud? It's stored. That's how INTERNET DATABASES work. Oh, that's right. You're just here to argue, like you said. Which is fine, because again, 22 yr old stuck in a chair with a bone disease has all the time in the world to watch you run yourself into circles over the links I post for other people.
I know about such programs. It's actually hard to argue that they're illegal. Programs looking for key phrases or words isn't the same as someone actually reading the entire email/post. You should look up the recent executive order on this issue. The program scans the internet traffic of defense contractors, and this includes scanning the emails and internet activity of employees, not of the general public. I know Facebook programs look for keywords and certain phrases in online chats. If there's something out of the ordinary, Facebook is notified, and they can decide what to do with it. In extreme cases, they go to the authorities. All of this is completely legal. Twitter may have something similar, but they have strict policies about giving up information. The authorities need a search warrant or subpoena for that. As for emails, there's an interesting case about this issue. It's called United States v. Warshak (2010). Please look it up. Yes, and it's for revenue purposes. I'm fine with that. If you don't like the service, don't use it. Simple as that.
