I've always believed in a revolution. But I don't think people will feel like it. Not when Maury is on t.v.

But how little of the little things should we worry about? If a cop looks at me, should I revolt? I mean, if I am talking to my mom about her coming up this weekend, and somebody listens in, then I consider it their loss because they just had to sit through 45 minutes of of me talking to my mom. If somebody is talking about setting a bomb somewhere, and somebody listens in, then maybe a crisis can be prevented. It's not that I WANT people listening in, it's just that I don't see the big deal.

All of it is your loss because eventually they will be able to target you because of any slight inclination against their policies you may inadvertently reveal.

You can agure that you're doing nothing wrong, so what does it matter, but what happens when you are falsely accused? What recourse do you have? If they are monitoring you illegally, and can prosecute you based on that illegal monitoring, what makes you think that you can legally defend yourself under such conditions?

For me, the problem is not the actual spying. Sure it's easy to write it off and say, and i should say presume, that if you're not discussing a coke deal you have nothing to worry about. But A) you don't know anything about the extent to what they are actually doing b/c only a handful do, and B) its more about the sneakyness of doing it without congress even being aware. It's completely unethical. That's the real soucre of concern. Do you trust the mf's at this point? Come on..We're hearing today that there are more programs that again, only a handful know about..

Most of the monitoring is going with international calls, be assured your intl call is being monitored.

BUt many of you don't get it. It is not about 'doing something wrong'. If you are calling a Palestinian friend, you are being monitored. The naysayers/agents on this board probably don't spend much time thinking about anything beyond thie new xbox, but the monitoring elite ARE STEALING OUR IDEAS. But since you don't have any ideas you wouldn't understand the significance of that statement. If you don't understand why authorities should not have unrestrained surveillance of a free society you don't deserve to live here. Women should be very worried, they can understand what an unrestrained techno-patriarchy does.

Further Proof

what if some cop decides he's going to fuck/own your girlfriend and uses all the unrestrained technology they have to screw you over and get her. Suddenly she's getting weird phone calls with your tape recorded calls to other people you didn't think she'd ever hear, or anonymous pictures taken from surveillance cameras. Meanwhile somehow child pornography gets uploaded to your laptop and the cops get anonymous tips and they find all that cocaine the cop stashed in a secret snoop of your apt...

this shit already happens...wake up...you pissed off some jerk 20 years ago who is now part of the security state and decides to really fuck up your life, oops, suddenly the treasury dept has frozen your accounts and no one can do anything about it, and what lawyer is going to work without getting paid, cuz remember they froze your accts.

it will get really bad when the pigs get rid of paper money and everyone carries their money around in chips on a card...

Yuck. That sounds like a health code violation.

actually I know people who have been raped by police officers, who have been pulled over and had their woman raped by a pig.

Someone mentioned a slow erosion of civil rights and that's what can/is happening. Next thing you know, since they are getting away with this, they' ll try something else in the name of fighting terrorism. That's it, time to break out my James Madison quote: "If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." Unchecked power will be our doom.

Livingstone fights 'stupid' Heathrow protesters ban

By Martin Hickman, Consumer Affairs Correspondent

Published: 01 August 2007



Heathrow's owner, BAA, came under sustained attack from the Mayor of London and business leaders over poor facilities at the airport and plans to halt environmental protesters.
Ken Livingstone, launched a tirade against the Spanish-owned company's "breathtaking stupidity" for trying to ban from the London Underground millions of people who might join a protest camp next month.
Today, BAA will mount its High Court bid to allow police to prevent five million members of the National Trust, RSPB and other groups from joining the protest against Heathrow's plans for expansion. They would be banned from within 100 yards of any airport building, travelling on the Tube's Piccadilly line, parts of the M25 and M4, platforms 6 and 7 of Paddington Station and from taking the Heathrow Express.
Mr Livingstone said yesterday that, "someone there must be out of their skull" as he confirmed that Transport for London's lawyers would fight the Tube's inclusion in the action. The Mayor complained that protesters would also be banned from within 100 metres of all Transport for London property.
Speaking at a press conference, he argued that all the injunction had done was to increase the likelihood of hardcore protesters invading the Camp for Climate Action being held from 14 to 21 August.
"A small hard core of virtually professional protesters were planning to do the sort of thing they do at G8 and other places," Mr Livingstone said. "What BAA have done is guarantee massive coverage of what was going to be a minor encampment. Now it will undoubtedly be larger than it would have been."
Mr Livingstone also promised to fight plans for a third runway and gave a withering assessment of Heathrow, which has been criticisedfor delays, overcrowding and shabbiness.
"Certainly Heathrow does shame London," he told reporters. "It is typical of the English short-termism, lack of planning, lack of investment."
Sir Thomas Harrison, of Standard Chartered Capital Markets, complained that years of under-investment and poor planning had left Heathrow "unfit for purpose" and said executives would do, "almost anything" to avoid the airport. The Confederation of British Industry said the solution to the "strains" on Heathrow was to expand its infrastructure. BAA's plan to increase flights by 50 per cent with a new runway and increased capacity on the existing two is behind the planned protest by the Camp for Climate Action and Plane Stupid.
Seven hundred homes would have to be demolished to make way for the runway and local council leaders warn noise will greatly increase. BAA claimed that the problems at Heathrow had been caused by facilities being too small, with 68 million passengers passing through facilities built for 45 million.
A spokesman said: "In under six months time, with the opening of T5, the experience will be vastly improved and BAA's plans to transform Heathrow will be clear for all to see and experience."
BAA sought to reassure members of the public about the terms of the injunction. In a statement, it said: "Contrary to media reports, the injunction will not affect anyone lawfully travelling to and from Heathrow airport or lawfully engaged in activities at the airport."
Nick Blake QC is defending the four environmentalists named by the injunction. One of them, Joss Garman, of Plane Stupid, said airport expansion had to be halted to prevent climate change. "Whilst BAA can ask for an injunction to protect their profits - there is no law protecting the Amazon, the coral reefs or the glaciers," he said.

This stuff already goes on. Theres no 'would be''could be'/'maybe' about it. There are reports of stalker cops using the surveillance apparatus to hunt down their exwives and helping their beer buddies hunt down women. These aren't exceptions, its part of the system. Like the car crash is built in to the car. Like the plane crash is built in to the plane. Criminal stalkers are part of the surveillance state.

Obviously, you think its useful to be contrary for its own sake.

We can't stop it, so why cry about it? You have your freedom now, so enjoy it. When you are locked up in prison for a crime you didn't commit, do you want to look back and say "wow, I had all that time and all I did was complain about the inevitable," or "hey, glad I used that time wisely and enjoyed life."

And of course, that is assuming you DO actually get locked up for a crime you didn't commit. They can't do that to EVERYBODY in America, come on.

you should watch out, they have computers watching message boards too and that sounded a lot like a dare to me..... (cuz by the way, they can, and are seriously on their way)



"And the problems dont never get solved
And the jobs dont never pay enough
So the rent always be late; can you relate?
We livin in a police state"

The difference is that if that person is raped by a 'friend', they can at least call the police. If they're raped by the police, THEN who you gonna call, ghostbusters?

Also, when you say 'not common enough to be a major issue', surely single events can have massive social repercussions - if they're felt to be part of a broader problem. The Rodney King incident, for example.

Screeners from the Transportation Security Administration checked passengers at two Downtown city bus stops this morning, looking for weapons and suspicious behavior.

David Kane, federal security director for TSA in Indianapolis, called it a "VIPR" operation.

"It's called Visual Intermodal Prevention Response. We have plainclothes inspectors, blue-gloved uniformed security officers who are checking baggage, the behavior detection officers, and federal air marshals, which are the law enforcement arm of TSA."

Security stations were set up at bus stops at Capitol Avenue and Market Street, and Ohio and Meridian streets.

Some passengers were patted down or submitted to having bags checked.

TSA said the searches were “by-permission,” meaning patrons could decline to be checked. Those who did would not be turned away, an official said, unless they otherwise appeared to be a security threat.

Canadian cops caught as provacateurs...this is policy unmasked.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/...ontebello.html

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles...tage_riots.htm

US Internet giants Yahoo and MSN confirmed Friday they had signed a code of conduct for their blogging operations in China that committed them to protecting the interests of the Chinese state.
Yahoo, Microsoft's MSN and other blog providers in China this week signed the "self-discipline" pact, under which they pledged to "safeguard state and public interests," according to a statement from the China Internet Society.
The pact "encourages" the Internet firms to register the real names, addresses and other personal details of the bloggers, and then keep this information.
The firms also committed to delete any "illegal or bad messages", according to a copy of the pact posted on the society's website.
Along with sex and violence, China's communist rulers have also deemed that opinions critical of it or the spreading of democratic ideology are not allowed.
Yahoo China and MSN told AFP they had signed the pact, but did not give any further comment.
"I can confirm that we signed the pact this week," Yahoo China's Beijing-based spokesman Dou Xiaohan said.
MSN China spokesman Feng Jinhu said: "We've signed the pact but there is no press release on that. On your other questions, we will get back to you as soon as possible."
US Internet companies such as Yahoo, Microsoft and Google have previously caused uproar abroad for bowing to the Chinese government's demands by agreeing to censor websites and content banned by the nation's propaganda chiefs.
They have repeatedly insisted that they have no choice but to follow local rules and regulations in China.
Yahoo came under particular criticism for cooperating with requests by China to pass on personal information of its users, leading to the jailing of several cyber-dissidents.
International press freedom group Reporters Without Borders condemned Yahoo and MSN for agreeing to the blogging pact.
"The Chinese government has yet again forced Internet sector companies to cooperate on sensitive issues. In this case blogger registration and blog content," it said in a statement.

Therianthropy

Therianthropy (from n. therianthrope and adj. therianthropic, part man and part beast, from the Greek therion, Θηριον, meaning "wild animal" or "beast", and anthrōpos, ανθρωπος, meaning "man") refers to the metamorphosis of humans into animals.[1] Therianthropes have long existed in mythology, appearing in ancient cave drawings[2] such as the Sorcerer at Les Trois Frères.
The term therianthropy was used to refer to animal transformation folklore of Asia and Europe as early as 1901.[3] Therianthropy was also used to describe spiritual belief in animal transformation in 1915[4] and one source[5] raises the possibility the term may have been used in the 16th century in criminal trials of suspected werewolves.
The "new-age" notion of "spiritual theriantropy" developed among the Usenet group alt.horror.werewolves (ca. 1992).[6] Some Usenet users began publicly asserting that they were part animal. It turned out that some were only joking, but others were apparently serious about the assertions, which were subject to ongoing discussion.[7] Such people initially called themselves lycanthropes, but since the word more accurately describes wolf-people, the word therianthropes became more popular.

Complete bullshit. You can vote. You can get involved. You can care.

AS long as you are alive and free it is your duty as a living and free being to protect that freedom, not just for yourself but for everyone else. I'm not embarrased at all to quote the right-ish bumper sticker: Freedom isn't Free.

But hell, what does it matter if they if the don't lock up EVERYBODY, just some of us. Come fucking on.