National Science Foundation to help CIA spy on chatrooms

[Neil Schneider]

Lewis Wolfgang said:
>
> If the surveillance is targeted at groups seeking to kill me
> and my family, yes, I support it.  If the surveillance is aimed
> at suppression and control of citizens to perpetrate the government's
> power, I would be against it.  I see no evidence of the latter.

How can you tell the difference? Can it not do both at once?

>>
>>>This gets back into the GPG argument: If you don't care, why do you
>>> put
>>>your letters in an envelope instead of using postcards all the time?
>>
>>
>> One can always speak in code or hide one's speech. So why have a
>> First Amendment?
>
> Does the First give people an unalienable right to conspire to kill
> you and your family?  I'd say that it does, they may speak.  They
> may also be prosecuted if caught.  Would you have it any other way,
> Bob?  The Internet offers no expectation of privacy.  You shouldn't
> expect privacy when speaking in a public place.

The first amendment protects speach, but not conspiracy. Proving a
conspiracy is hard, so is protecting your right to free speach. I
don't trust any government to decide in secret which is which. And in
my lifetime there has been only one adminstration as secretive as this
one, that of Richard "I'm not a crook" Nixon. And anyone watched the
Wateregate hearings, or read the transcripts, as I did, you would not
trust this Whitehouse either.

-- 
Neil Schneider                              pacneil_at_linuxgeek_dot_net
                                           http://www.paccomp.com
Key fingerprint = 67F0 E493 FCC0 0A8C 769B  8209 32D7 1DB1 8460 C47D

"All political parties die at last of swallowing their own lies."
                 -- Dr. John Arbuthnot (1667-1735)