Well, that's the rub isn't. These guys get all fired up about their rights, and their liberties, and their opinions BUT, that's where it stops. They are unwilling to take the next step, trying to do something about it. They think the ballot box won't change anything (because their fellow citizens are stupid sheep, don't you know) so all they are left with are their impotent rantings. That next step eludes them because they are mouthy cowards in the end.
Even our elected representatives are more interested in getting an early jump on Father's Day than finding out what the the facts are on the latest NSA stories. Fewer than half our Senators could be bothered to attend a secret briefing late Thursday where those involved explained the programs and detailed the data they were capable of collecting..
Actually you can't turn off all the system. Get the facts straight before you call people dumb @ss. It sure seems unconstitutional to me.
Where's your evidence that it's "unconstitutional". It seems more like current practices making a natural move into newer technology.
E.g. A tornado siren is not unconstitutional, even though you're forced to hear it. In fact, that's the whole point. Broadcasting that "siren" via cell phone towers is simply utilizing later technology, same as when commercial radio towers were used to broadcast a weather "siren" to weather radios.
However, I do agree that you should be able to turn off even the Presidential mode. I mean, if you don't want to know that a nuke strike on you is only thirty minutes away, that's your own grave to dig... at least, as long as you're not getting in the way. Alternatively, you could just ignore the message when it comes.
For that matter, I think that the Do Not Call list should include political campaigns and charity calls, and I'm mad that it does not.
It is quite delusional to think that anything is actually your property if you do not have the right to control it! This is why people will continue to jailbreak, unlock, and change carrier files to stop nonsense like this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chazwatson
It's quite delusional to think the carrier profile update will be used to take ones property away.
Government does not get anything right when they use force to ram something down our throats. Everyone should have the ability to fully voluntarily opt-in, and of course opt out!
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
There's still much that the government gets right and this is one of them.
Ever seen the TV series Firefly and Serenity movie? It was about getting away from intrusive government, among other things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiA
Put your money where your mouth is, move to a place with little or no functioning government, e.g. Somalia or some remote island in an Indonesian archipelago.
Report back to us in a year or two how so much better your life is without government.
Others will follow your lead if you end up better off as a result.
This is simply plugging a hole in the emergency notification network that has existed in the U.S. since the early days of television broadcasting. With fewer people listening to radios or watching broadcast television, this does nothing more than replicate a function that other forms of over-the-air communications have performed for decades.
For anyone who claims that this is some form of unconstitutional privacy intrusion, take it up with the FCC, which regulates the public airwaves and has jurisdiction over the cellular spectrum. If this regulation is unconstitutional, then it would uniformly apply to the radio, television, and satellite communications that have operated under the requirement of carrying EAS (and EBS and CONELRAD before that) alerts for decades.
Wrong. It is not the job of the SCOTUS to interpret the Constitution. The court was intended (once again i invite you to read the Constitution) to be the weakest of the three parts of the government. This was on purpose and is well documented in the writings of those who authored the Constitution. It may surprise you to discover that the SC only needs to be composed of one (ONE) person. I suspect that you have been reading the popular press instead of actual history.
Government does not get anything right when they use force to ram something down our throats. Everyone should have the ability to fully voluntarily opt-in, and of course opt out!
Much of government oversight is stuff rammed down our throats but for our safety. I personally don't like the inconveniences of traffic lights but we must abide by them or traffic mayhem will ensue.
According to AT&T, these alerts are "mandated by law" and are optional, except for the Presidential Alert - for which there is no option to turn off or opt out - in other words, you are required to receive such alerts. I find this just a tad unnerving.
Ever seen the TV series Firefly and Serenity movie? It was about getting away from intrusive government, among other things.
because you suggest where you live has this intrusive government that makes life insufferable. Move to a place where you're free to live your life free of government.
If you do not then you're admitting that life in the USA is still better even with its intrusive government than life elsewhere without a government.
But then in doing so, you're accepting that an intrusive government isn't the worst thing you can face in life.
And in Serenity, unlike Earth, they had the vastness of Space to flee to.
Unlike the government in Serenity, Uncle Sam won't chase you in Somalia, of course, unless you're plotting violent acts against Uncle Sam and his people, but that's another topic.
Thank you to those who pointed out (accurately) that if I had read the article carefully, I would have seen that I could turn the PUSH notifications off. Thank you also to those who point out that this is the first step is the government forcing us to accept their push notifications whether we want to participate or not.
And for those who do not either read or understand the Constitution: Please refer to Article 1, Section 8 (the enumerated posers section) and also to Amendment #10. The constitution is explicit in telling exactly what the federal government may do and specifically prohibits it from doing things outside those enumerated powers. And NO! THE CONSTITUTION IS NOT A LIVING DOCUMENT. It contains provisions for changing it. It is not subject to the whims of the Supreme Court.
Please gentlemen and ladies...do not mouth off about things you have neither studied nor understand. It just makes you look foolish and uninformed.
A review of Marbury v. Madison* would be helpful, IMHO. Absent intepretation by the Supreme Court of the United States all you've got are some meaningless dark marks on a piece of animal skin; which is why the Framers constructed a Supreme Court. They understood millions of individual interpretations of the Constitution would be simple chaos.
The government has the right to prevent you from harming yourself. If that means sending someone a text message to let them know about an incoming nuclear attack then that's what they'll do.</span>
Comments
See above.
Actually you can't stop the alerts from the President. So stop calling the 10 million people that care about the constitution dumb@ss's. You dumb lib
Quote:
Originally Posted by stwiggin
Actually you can't turn off all the system. Get the facts straight before you call people dumb @ss. It sure seems unconstitutional to me.
Where's your evidence that it's "unconstitutional". It seems more like current practices making a natural move into newer technology.
E.g. A tornado siren is not unconstitutional, even though you're forced to hear it. In fact, that's the whole point. Broadcasting that "siren" via cell phone towers is simply utilizing later technology, same as when commercial radio towers were used to broadcast a weather "siren" to weather radios.
However, I do agree that you should be able to turn off even the Presidential mode. I mean, if you don't want to know that a nuke strike on you is only thirty minutes away, that's your own grave to dig... at least, as long as you're not getting in the way. Alternatively, you could just ignore the message when it comes.
For that matter, I think that the Do Not Call list should include political campaigns and charity calls, and I'm mad that it does not.
You are quite lost if you think a forced message from the President is ever going to save your life.
How did people EVER survive?!
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
You're quite lost if you consider an alert that could potentially save your life as a government intrusion.
It is quite delusional to think that anything is actually your property if you do not have the right to control it! This is why people will continue to jailbreak, unlock, and change carrier files to stop nonsense like this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chazwatson
It's quite delusional to think the carrier profile update will be used to take ones property away.
Government does not get anything right when they use force to ram something down our throats. Everyone should have the ability to fully voluntarily opt-in, and of course opt out!
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
There's still much that the government gets right and this is one of them.
Why would I want to move there? I want to improve the place I live -- moving to another state could help too, hence the Free State Project:
http://freestateproject.org
Ever seen the TV series Firefly and Serenity movie? It was about getting away from intrusive government, among other things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiA
Put your money where your mouth is, move to a place with little or no functioning government, e.g. Somalia or some remote island in an Indonesian archipelago.
Report back to us in a year or two how so much better your life is without government.
Others will follow your lead if you end up better off as a result.
This is simply plugging a hole in the emergency notification network that has existed in the U.S. since the early days of television broadcasting. With fewer people listening to radios or watching broadcast television, this does nothing more than replicate a function that other forms of over-the-air communications have performed for decades.
For anyone who claims that this is some form of unconstitutional privacy intrusion, take it up with the FCC, which regulates the public airwaves and has jurisdiction over the cellular spectrum. If this regulation is unconstitutional, then it would uniformly apply to the radio, television, and satellite communications that have operated under the requirement of carrying EAS (and EBS and CONELRAD before that) alerts for decades.
What do these people do when the local fire siren goes off? Sue the gummint?
Wrong. It is not the job of the SCOTUS to interpret the Constitution. The court was intended (once again i invite you to read the Constitution) to be the weakest of the three parts of the government. This was on purpose and is well documented in the writings of those who authored the Constitution. It may surprise you to discover that the SC only needs to be composed of one (ONE) person. I suspect that you have been reading the popular press instead of actual history.
Much of government oversight is stuff rammed down our throats but for our safety. I personally don't like the inconveniences of traffic lights but we must abide by them or traffic mayhem will ensue.
According to AT&T, these alerts are "mandated by law" and are optional, except for the Presidential Alert - for which there is no option to turn off or opt out - in other words, you are required to receive such alerts. I find this just a tad unnerving.
Quote:
Originally Posted by libertyforall
Why would I want to move there? I want to improve the place I live -- moving to another state could help too, hence the Free State Project:
http://freestateproject.org
Ever seen the TV series Firefly and Serenity movie? It was about getting away from intrusive government, among other things.
because you suggest where you live has this intrusive government that makes life insufferable. Move to a place where you're free to live your life free of government.
If you do not then you're admitting that life in the USA is still better even with its intrusive government than life elsewhere without a government.
But then in doing so, you're accepting that an intrusive government isn't the worst thing you can face in life.
And in Serenity, unlike Earth, they had the vastness of Space to flee to.
Unlike the government in Serenity, Uncle Sam won't chase you in Somalia, of course, unless you're plotting violent acts against Uncle Sam and his people, but that's another topic.
We're not talking about house searching. We're talking about filtering through electronic communications.
OK, so let's put it this way:You won't mind if the post office opens all your mail, photocopies it and then files it away for later research, without a warrant, right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sky King
Thank you to those who pointed out (accurately) that if I had read the article carefully, I would have seen that I could turn the PUSH notifications off. Thank you also to those who point out that this is the first step is the government forcing us to accept their push notifications whether we want to participate or not.
And for those who do not either read or understand the Constitution: Please refer to Article 1, Section 8 (the enumerated posers section) and also to Amendment #10. The constitution is explicit in telling exactly what the federal government may do and specifically prohibits it from doing things outside those enumerated powers. And NO! THE CONSTITUTION IS NOT A LIVING DOCUMENT. It contains provisions for changing it. It is not subject to the whims of the Supreme Court.
Please gentlemen and ladies...do not mouth off about things you have neither studied nor understand. It just makes you look foolish and uninformed.
A review of Marbury v. Madison* would be helpful, IMHO. Absent intepretation by the Supreme Court of the United States all you've got are some meaningless dark marks on a piece of animal skin; which is why the Framers constructed a Supreme Court. They understood millions of individual interpretations of the Constitution would be simple chaos.
* http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/landmark/marbury.html
When you're the one with all the weapons?