Online Privacy Again at Issue(chasing Porn covering Gestapo like watching?

[papau]

Keep everything about everyone on internet and we'll sort it out later - just want data tying Internet addresses to destinations on the Web and to e-mail sent and received - for now. Law requiring phone companies'records on who called whom being kept for 18 months to be extended to - forever? - by FCC?

Cato Institute: "You're talking about a massive transfer of power."

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-internet2jun02,0,3795364.story?track=tottext

Online Privacy Again at Issue
The government asks Internet firms to keep records longer to track terrorists and child pornographers. But some fear misuse.

By Joseph Menn Times Staff Writer June 2, 2006

SAN FRANCISCO — Big Internet and telephone companies are girding to fight an unprecedented call by the Bush administration for them to keep detailed records of customers' online activities for two years.

The request by Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales and FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III would dramatically expand the government's ability to track what people do online and with whom they communicate.

It follows disclosure this year that the Justice Department had solicited potentially billions of online search queries from some of the same companies and that the National Security Agency had requested calling records of virtually all U.S. customers.

Gonzales and Mueller asked Google Inc., Time Warner Inc.'s AOL and other companies to preserve the data at a May 26 meeting, citing their value to investigations into child-pornography distribution and terrorism. Internet companies typically keep customer histories for only a few days or weeks.<snip>

[MADem]

1. Well, hell, they may as well start up the Department of Mail Opening

next!!! Open and xerox all of our mail, everything from that birthday card you sent to little Freddie on his third birthday, to that Dear John letter you got from your heartless former girlfriend! It's the same damn thing....

[papau]

2. I agree - the cover of internet porn needs to be blown away, but that

may be dangerous and difficult given media spin

Our media loves a sex angle, and the reporters are too lazy or stupid or biased to care about civil rights if it does not involve a shield law for reporters.

[brianmckenna]

3. Media does not want to offend the powers in charge

There is not much in the press about amendment e. The State has its hands full defending against the censorship by a State Judge of a website that supports amendment E.

Newspapers such as the Yankton Press and Dakotan will not print paid election ads supporting amendment E. The Judge runs the town of Yankton.

The Judges Order is illegal on 2 fronts. A Judge can not censor a political website and the one of the parties committed perjury. Not just a small lie but out right perjury. Claimed she never used her ex's social security number but his number appears on her credit report. The Judge ignored the proof of her credit report. The only way is could appear on her credit report is if she used it in a financial transaction. The Yankton Sheriff knows and even wrote a letter he knows of social security number fraud but it is not his problem.

The South Dakota Supreme Court wants a Grand to hear the case. Justice has a price.

Maybe he could right a bunk of no account checks using fake social security numbers as that is what judges favor in South Dakota

None of the U.S Senators or House of Rep wants to do anything as it is a hot potato best to stay away from.

goggle southdakotagov.info