Home Forums Miscellaneous Topics Second Amendment WARM AND FUZZY FEELING, NOT!

Read this and tell me if it gives you a warm and fuzzy feeling for our government. Note high on the list of priorities is "firearms purchases".
<br>
<br>[WASHINGTON � A massive database that the government will use to monitor every purchase made by every American citizen is a necessary tool in the war on terror, the Pentagon said Wednesday.]
<br>
<br>]http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,70992,00.html]
<br>Quote: "Examples he cited were: sudden and large cash withdrawals, one-way air or rail travel, rental car transactions and purchases of firearms, chemicals or agents that could be used to produce biological or chemical weapons."
<br>
<br>I gotta go be sick now!
<br>
<br>

It feels so good to know that my government cares enough to keep track of my every move. This can't be really happening, can it? Seems I've had this nightmare before. I'll eventually wake up and realize it was just a nighmare, right?

I got bruises on both thighs from pinching my self while reading that one. This is the stuff of nightmares, I'd hate to be the rancher buying fertilizer once that gets to working, OH [bleep], my daughter and I are! And we own guns! Sometimes take out a bunch of money to go to auctions with. Hell my family is doomed!
<br>
<br>Where is Henry Bowman when you really need him? We have the HOGS!
<br>
<br>Now I am in deep do-do when they read this!

All I got from the link was the FOX news sight. So I typed in a search for "Government Database". The other stories sound just as scary. Here's the one you want.
<br>
<br>
<br>WASHINGTON � A massive database that the government will use to monitor every purchase made by every American citizen is a necessary tool in the war on terror, the Pentagon said Wednesday.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>Edward Aldridge, undersecretary of Acquisitions and Technology, told reporters that the Pentagon is developing a prototype database to seek "patterns indicative of terrorist activity." Aldridge said the database would collect and use software to analyze consumer purchases in hopes of catching terrorists before it's too late.
<br>
<br>"The bottom line is this is an important research project to determine the feasibility of using certain transactions and events to discover and respond to terrorists before they act," he said.
<br>
<br>Aldridge said the database, which he called another "tool" in the war on terror, would look for telltale signs of suspicious consumer behavior.
<br>
<br>Examples he cited were: sudden and large cash withdrawals, one-way air or rail travel, rental car transactions and purchases of firearms, chemicals or agents that could be used to produce biological or chemical weapons.
<br>
<br>It would also combine consumer information with visa records, passports, arrest records or reports of suspicious activity given to law enforcement or intelligence services.
<br>
<br>The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency is home to the Pentagon's brightest thinkers -- the ones who built the Internet. DARPA will be in charge of trying to make the system work technically.
<br>
<br>Rear Adm. John Poindexter, former national security adviser to President Reagan, is developing the database under the Total Information Awareness Program. Poindexter was convicted on five counts of misleading Congress and making false statements during the Iran-Contra investigation. Those convictions were later overturned, but critics note that his is a dubious resume for someone entrusted with so sensitive a task.
<br>
<br>Aldridge said Poindexter will only "develop the tool, he will not be exercising the tool." He said Poindexter brought the database idea to the Pentagon and persuaded Aldridge and others to pursue it.
<br>
<br>"John has a real passion for this project," Aldridge said.
<br>
<br>TIAF's office logo is now one eye scanning the globe. The translation of the Latin motto: knowledge is power. Some say, possibly too much power. "What this is talking about is making us a nation of suspects and I am sorry, the United States citizens should not have to live in fear of their own government and that is exactly what this is going to turn out to be," said Chuck Pena, senior defense policy analyst at the Cato Institute.
<br>
<br>Pena and others say the database is an even greater violation of privacy rights than Attorney General John Ashcroft's nixed proposal to turn postal workers and delivery men into government tipsters. No matter what protections Congress requires, Pena fears a database big enough and nimble enough to track the entire nation's spending habits is ripe for abuse.
<br>
<br>"I don't think once you put something like this in place, you can ever create enough checks and balances and oversight," Pena said.
<br>
<br>But proponents say big business already has access to most of this data, but don't do anything with it to fight terrorism.
<br>
<br>"I find it somewhat counter intuitive that people are not concerned that telemarketers and insurance companies can acquire this data but feel tremendous trepidation if a government ventures into this arena. To me it just smacks of paranoia," said David Rivkin, an attorney for Baker & Hostetler LLP.
<br>
<br>The database is not yet ready and Aldridge said it will not be available for several years. Fake consumer data will be used in development of the database, he said.
<br>
<br>When it's ready, Aldridge said individual privacy rights will be protected. But he could not explain how the data would be accessed. In some cases, specific warrants would give law enforcement agencies access, he said. But in other cases the database might flag suspicious activity absent a specific request or warrant, and that suspicious activity could well be relayed to law enforcement or intelligence agencies.
<br>
<br>"I don't know what the scope of this is going to be," Aldridge said. "We are in a war on terrorism. We are trying to find out if this technology can work."
<br>
<br>
<br>Scar stuff.
<br>7mm

Thats the link I posted, nice hunh? Don't work for me now either. ?????

Consider what this former senator and now A G said a mere 5 years ago. Republicans were against this at one time. It really is worth the couple of minutes it takes to read the whole thing..............red
<br>
<br>
<br>http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itgic/1097/ijge/gj-7.htm
<br>
<br>
<br>KEEP BIG BROTHER'S HANDS OFF THE INTERNET
<br>By Senator John Ashcroft
<br>Republican, Missouri
<br>Chairman of the Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Consumer Affairs, Foreign Commerce and Tourism
<br>[Senator Ashcroft takes issue with administration views on the Internet
<br>and the use of encryption technology.]
<br>
<br>The Internet provides a great opportunity to our country, in part by representing the most inviting form of communication ever developed. It draws people together from all corners of the globe to share and communicate on an unprecedented level, and brings all branches of government closer to the public that they serve.
<br>The Internet allows small businesses to reach out across the globe and conquer the distances between them and potential customers. Individuals can view merchandise and make purchases without leaving home. The Internet also holds great promise for education. Students -- rural, suburban, and urban -- are increasingly able to access a wealth of information with their fingertips that was previously beyond their reach.
<br>In order to guarantee that the United States meets the challenge of this new means of commerce, communication, and education, government must be careful not to interfere. We should not harness the Internet with a confusing array of intrusive regulations and controls. Yet, the Clinton administration is trying to do just that.
<br>The Clinton administration would like the Federal government to have the capability to read any international or domestic computer communications. The FBI wants access to decode, digest, and discuss financial transactions, personal e-mail, and proprietary information sent abroad -- all in the name of national security. To accomplish this, President Clinton would like government agencies to have the keys for decoding all exported U.S. software and Internet communications.
<br>This proposed policy raises obvious concerns about Americans' privacy, in addition to tampering with the competitive advantage that our U.S. software companies currently enjoy in the field of encryption technology. Not only would Big Brother be looming over the shoulders of international cyber-surfers, but the administration threatens to render our state-of-the-art computer software engineers obsolete and unemployed.
<br>There is a concern that the Internet could be used to commit crimes and that advanced encryption could disguise such activity. However, we do not provide the government with phone jacks outside our homes for unlimited wiretaps. Why, then, should we grant government the Orwellian capability to listen at will and in real time to our communications across the Web?
<br>The protections of the Fourth Amendment are clear. The right to protection from unlawful searches is an indivisible American value. Two hundred years of court decisions have stood in defense of this fundamental right. The state's interest in effective crime-fighting should never vitiate the citizens' Bill of Rights.
<br>The president has proposed that American software companies supply the government with decryption keys to high level encryption programs. Yet, European software producers are free to produce computer encryption codes of all levels of security without providing keys to any government authority. Purchasers of encryption software value security above all else. These buyers will ultimately choose airtight encryption programs that will not be American-made programs to which the U.S. government maintains keys.
<br>In spite of this truism, the president is attempting to foist his rigid policy on the exceptionally fluid and fast-paced computer industry. Furthermore, recent developments in decryption technology bring into question the dynamic of government meddling in this industry. Three months ago, the 56-bit algorithm government standard encryption code that protects most U.S. electronic financial transactions from ATM cards to wire transfers was broken by a low-powered 90 MHZ Pentium processor.
<br>In 1977, when this code was first approved by the U.S. government as a standard, it was deemed unbreakable. And for good reason. There are 72 quadrillion (72,000 trillion) different combinations in a 56-bit code. However, with today's technology these 72 quadrillion combinations can each be tried in a matter of time.
<br>Two days after this encryption code was broken, a majority of the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee voted, in accordance with administration policy, to force American software companies to perpetuate this already compromised 56-bit encryption system. In spite of the fact that 128-bit encryption software from European firms is available on Web sites accessible to every Internet user. Interestingly, European firms can import this super-secure encryption technology (originally developed by Americans) to the United States, but U.S. companies are forbidden by law from exporting these same programs to other countries.
<br>I believe that moving forward with the president's policy or the Commerce Committee's bill would be an act of folly, creating a cadre of government "peeping toms" and causing severe damage to our vibrant software industries. Government would be caught in a perpetual game of catch-up with whiz-kid code-breakers and industry advances. Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott has signaled his objection to both proposals.
<br>The leader and I would like to work to bring solid encryption legislation to the Senate floor. Any proposal should give U.S. encryption software manufacturers the freedom to compete on equal footing in the international marketplace, by providing the industry with a quasi-governmental board that would decide encryption bit strength based on the level of international technological development.
<br>U.S. companies are on the front line of on-line technologies -- value-added industries of the future. Consider this: Every eighteen months, the processing capability of a computer doubles. The speed with which today's fastest computers calculate will be slug-like before the next millennium or the next presidential election comes along. The best policy for encryption technology is one that can rapidly react to breakthroughs in decoding capability and roll back encryption limits as needed.
<br>The administration's interest in all e-mail is a wholly unhealthy precedent, especially given this administration's track record on FBI files and IRS snooping. Every medium by which people communicate can be subject to exploitation by those with illegal intentions. Nevertheless, this is no reason to hand Big Brother the keys to unlock our e-mail diaries, open our ATM records, read our medical records, or translate our international communications.
<br>Additionally, the full potential of the Internet will never be realized without a system that fairly protects the interests of those who use the Internet for their businesses, own copyrighted material, deliver that material via the Internet, or individual users. The implications here are far-reaching, with impacts that touch individual users, companies, libraries, universities, teachers, and students.
<br>In December 1996, two treaties were adopted by the diplomatic conference of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) to update international copyright law. These treaties would extend international copyright law into the digital environment, including the Internet. However, these treaties do not provide a comprehensive response to the many copyright issues raised by the flourishing of the Internet and the promise of digital technology. We must work to keep the scales of copyright law balanced, providing important protections to creators of content, while ensuring their widespread distribution. In an attempt to meet these goals, I introduced the Digital Copyright Clarification and Technology Education Act of 1997.
<br>Equally important, we must begin a process that is structured to balance the rights of copyright owners with the needs and technological limitations of those who enable the distribution of the electronic information, and with the rights and needs of individual end users. The current treaties and statements are not sufficient, and include some language that could create legal uncertainty. This vague language could lead to laws that ignore technical realities. The language must be clarified through the enactment of legislation in conjunction with the Senate's ratification of the treaties.
<br>Another issue that could prevent the Internet from reaching its potential is taxation. If we tax the Internet prematurely or allow discriminatory taxing, we may stifle a burgeoning technological development that holds much commercial, social, and educational promise for all Americans. Taxation should be considered only after we have fully examined and understood the impact that unequivocal taxation would have on this new means of commerce. The Internet Tax Freedom Act would allow for full consideration of the opportunities and possible abuses by placing a moratorium on further taxation of online commerce and technologically discriminatory taxes. It is important to note that S. 442 will allow states and local jurisdictions to continue to collect any tax already levied on electronic commerce.
<br>On-line communications technology is akin to the Wild West of the 19th century. To best settle this new frontier, we should unleash American know-how and ingenuity. The government's police-state policy on encryption is creating hindrances and hurdles that will eventually injure our ability to compete internationally. Government's role should be to break down barriers, to allow everyone to excel to their highest and best.
<br>__________
<br>Senator Ashcroft is a member of the Senate Commerce, Judiciary, and Foreign Relations Committees. His Web homepage is: <http://www.senate.gov/~ashcroft/> and his e-mail address is: john_ashcroft@ashcroft.senate.gov
<br>
<br>Global Issues <ijge1097.htm>
<br>USIA Electronic Journal, Vol. 2, No. 4, October 1997
<br>------------------------------------------
<br>red
<br>
<br>

Their memories are both short and convienient, are they not?

TLee, Yes their memories are short!!! What I find ironic is on one hand we will fight terrorism to preserve our lives, remaining freedoms,liberties and our way of life, while at the same time our politicians take away our remaining liberties in the name of security.
<br>
<br>What we are faced with now is a more powerful centralized intrusive government.
<br>
<br>Our citizens have already been reduced to the status of supplicants. We don't have that much more to lose.
<br>
<br>red
<br>
<br>

Simple:
<br>Those that are willing to give up a little freedom for a little security, deserve neither!
<br>Or in my own words:
<br>The meek shall inherit the earth, and the politicians will run it for them!

Yes, it seems that very few people any longer understand or appreciate liberty. We were a great country once. I guess they accomplished this through the education establishment. Instead of teaching the great principles upon which this nation was founded, they taught the kids how the white European brought murder and slavery to America, and oppressed women and homosexuals. Now we have a bunch of adults who don't even know what it means to live in a free country, but they have committed to memory a list of our supposed offenses.

It's called the dumbing down of America, another step to socialism and a totalitarian form of government!

T LEE,
<br>
<br>Don't they already do that?
<br>
<br>Well if you're looking for work you could always sign on as a Federal firearms purchase monitor.
<br>
<br>Norm

Red,
<br>
<br> The Government's role in "breaking down barriers" was accomplished over two years ago with the FBI's Carnivore Program, which scans ALL internet communications,including this one, and stores the copy of them in a prioritized system for later analysis.
<br> As far as the Internet is concerned, what else did anyone expect from something Al Gore "invented"? Did we really think that powerful Socialist politicians totally dedicated to assimillating our nation into a Socialist World Order would leave our electronic communications private?
<br> Did we actually believe that cell phone conversations relayed through towers and satellites would be allowed to remain private?
<br> Did we really think that a lack of Court Order for a wire tap would stop the political masters from intruding into and monitoring ALL our land line and wireless conversations?
<br> The desire of the powerful and self-serving Socialist politicians to maintain and enhance their positions, by far exceeds our ability to protect our rights and our privacy.

Glock, I wish I could say you are wrong. I can't.
<br>
<br>The only thing I can say is it will probably be even worse in the very near future.
<br>
<br>red

Why is this so suprising to many? Started long ago.

It has always amazed me how synonymous the terms "mother land" and "home land" could be used. I believe that the great founders of this country are begining to roll over in thier graves.
<br>
<br>Respectfully
<br>James Ruby

Actually it should be "Fatherland"! Jawol mein Furer! (clicking heels), coming to a place near you soon.

Jim;
<br>
<br>They began rolling over 'bout 20 years ago. Now they're spinning so fast they are screwing themselves out of their coffins!
<br>
<br>We've been sliding to socialism since 1935. Whats amazing is people are only noticing now; when its too late.

What is amazing to me is that we got the president that most gun owners wanted. Are we really any better off with an ex drunk, who has always relied on his daddy's money, throws tempertantrums with the US military power and we now call our president. How many of you are certain that we will be able to keep our guns any longer than if Gore was elected and what are the ultimate costs of having Bush placed into power?
<br>
<br>I am ex military and I voted for Bush and everyday I look at the paper I am sorry that I did. I have yet to see how he has actually helped the United States, perhaps someone more knowledgeable than I could explain it.
<br>
<br>Respectfully
<br>James Ruby
<br>

What you say is true, however there was no way I could condone what Klintoon and bafoon Bore did and what Bore would do in office. We are still better off with what we have than the alternative IMHO.
<br>
<br>All this "homeland security-patriot act" stuff does have me mighty worried I will admit. But I believe we would see more draconian action by the Dem's against us if they were in power and less action towards the Tango's that hit us 9/11/01 tahn we have seen.