Your place for discussion about RPGs, gaming, music, movies, anime, computers, sports, and any other stuff we care to talk about...
https://tows.cc/phpBB2/
They want to see just how much you're pirating. Don't you guys in the US have some sort of law where people who d'load can be charged?Imakeholesinu wrote:I was using peerguardian but I just left it on and was browsing around the interwebs. Then all the sudden I get an alert on it that there was a TCP connection that was blocked. I look and it was time warner cable attempting to connect to my machine. Why is time warner so interested what I do on my AT&T DSL?
To his credit, he said that he wasn't happy with that provision, but he figured that a compromised solution was better than nothing. More here: http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/0 ... ports.htmlImakeholesinu wrote:Oh, our shit for brains senate just decided to grant immunity to telco's for spying on us. Dumb fucks.
And Obama voted for it! WHAT THE FUCK!!!
Talk about focusing on the negative... I never read anywhere that actually said this was preventing it from happening in the future. In that case whatever; you can't really prosecute a company for doing something the executive branch told them to do (you can get angry at the executive branch for telling them, though)SineSwiper wrote:To his credit, he said that he wasn't happy with that provision, but he figured that a compromised solution was better than nothing. More here: http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/0 ... ports.htmlImakeholesinu wrote:Oh, our shit for brains senate just decided to grant immunity to telco's for spying on us. Dumb fucks.
And Obama voted for it! WHAT THE FUCK!!!
I have to say that many people are focusing on the negative, which sucks, but the bill means that we aren't going to see this sort of illegal wiretap bullshit. It's basically saying "Yeah, the telcos were breaching the law, but so was our President for authorizing it. We can't really fault them because the government said to do it, and this bill will prevent it from happening again."
Frankly, if it was our ISP, we would have told them "subpoena or fuck off".
So, suddenly, having a "secret court" would allow him to answer the question of whether he was being monitored or not? No. Not at all. This secret court doesn't announce who they are monitoring, so it's a dumb and overblown argument. The government has been monitoring phone and emails for as long as there has been phone and emails.TFA wrote:The reach of such surveillance has already hampered my work. I was once told about a showdown between a U.S. warship and the Iranian navy that had the potential to escalate into a military conflict. I contacted someone who was on the ship at the time of the alleged incident and who reportedly had photos. His first question was whether my phone and e-mails were being monitored.
What could I say? How could I know? I offered to travel to see him but, frightened of retribution, he refused. I do not know if the man's story is true. I only know that the fear of surveillance made it impossible for me to determine its veracity. Under this law, all those who hold information that could embarrass and expose the lies of those in power will have similar fears. Confidentiality, and the understanding that as a reporter I will honor this confidentiality, permits a free press to function. Take it away and a free press withers and dies.
So, what part of that says that the FISA has no power any more?TFA wrote:The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Amendment bill also would:
_Require FISA court permission to wiretap Americans who are overseas.