This Day in History

Daily Cartoon provided by Bravenet

  #11  
Old 01-04-2007
PT-The Italian Commie's Avatar
PT-The Italian Commie PT-The Italian Commie is offline
Super Senior member - Has no life and spends a lot of time here
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sardinia, Italy
Posts: 2,611
Angry Talking to you is like talking to a wall, right?

Quote:
Originally Posted by D Yankee (The Zionist)
Thank your peacefull muslim pals for all this shit and stop blaming America.

If it was only about that, they would have only made background checks on people coming from certain Countries. Following your point of view, you'd make such background checks because you can never know who is a Muslim. But that's religious discrimination, isn't it? No, right? Because we don't call it that, when applies to Muslims. When it's about Jews or Christians, yes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CeeTee
If this is too much, then stop going to US.
It would be really bad if US have decided to apply this sort of control all over the planet. But inside their borders it's something that we have to accept as foreigners.
My emails have a lot in that could be judged "dangerous" - explosives informations, reloading data, shooting meetings, etc - but I don't think that the US government will ban me from going there. They will surely track my moves and spend a lot of US taxes on it, but maybe it will make their land safer after all.

You said it: MAYBE. And maybe not. Let's say, 98% not. It might make more difficult for COMMON CRIMINALS, or members of the organized crime, to enter the US. Let's be frank: the US borders are a joke. One terrorist can easily enter Mexico, then enter the USA through the southern borders and have an accomplice on the other side providing him a false touristic visa, false passport, cloned credit cards, etc. Also, from Mexico, through the troubled areas on Central/Southern America, a terrorist group could smuggle to the US any equipment needed to launch a conventional terror attack to American territory.
Terrorists have already used airliners as a mean to entrance and attack once, they are not so fool to do it again. They know that the plot would be foiled. Take example of the recent attempts: the "liquid explosives" at the Heathrow Airport, and even before, the idiot with the shoe-bomb. These were not organized attacks; at least not organized on any large scale. The shoe-bomb guy was an idiot individual. The ones with the liquid explosives probably too. Was Al-Qaeda behind them? I strongly disbeleve so. Al-Qaeda has the means to organize much more complicated attempts, with an higher success probability. The fact that Al-Qaeda has "claimed" those acts, and that the attempted-perpetrators have talked about Al-Qaeda, means nothing: Al-Qaeda has all the interest to claim any attack, even if only attempted, against the West. This throws people in a state of insecurity. They are "Terrorists", after all, and that's what they do: provoke "Terror". It's their job, we might say. And the dumbfux that tried to put up such ridiculous attempts, have probably inspired themselves to Al-Qaeda. But let me tell: the shoe-bomb guy is no Mohamed Atta; he is much probably like Tim McVeigh.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JCoyote
Honestly, a country can make any criteria they want to be necessary to get in. If you don't like it, just don't go there. Nobody's forcing you to.

On the other hand, if a country disallows nonspecific people from leaving, then there's a problem.

There ARE parts of the EU where every single thing you do outside your home is recorded on camera. (One wonders if the aptly named show "Big Brother", created for the state run BBC, had any intention of glamorizing or at least acclimating people to the idea.) But I don't have to go there either, lucky me.

If the US starts telling Italy and Japan how they have to let the US do this on all their flights between, you got an honest problem.

And anyway PT, considering all of us hang around on the internet and speak openly and sometimes authoritatively about military weapons, sans games or airsoft nonsense, most of us here have probably had at least a cursory glance from one intelligence or law enforcement agency or another. None of us seems to have run into any real trouble for it yet either... maybe some of them are just as concerned about the growing zombie problem as we are.

At least somebody who speaks politely and even hironically. Somebody you can POLITELY DISCUSS with.

Well, so, let's put it in that way: putting up background checks upon ALL citizens from Countries that are considered "Friends and Allies" is, do say the least, an insult. It's even less acceptable when the authorities who make such background checks DON'T warn the subject, when they DON'T show to have a justified reason to perform such check right on THAT individual and not to others, and when they DON'T need a warrant to do such DEEP checks. I understand if they check your criminal records, and your status with the Law Enforcement (if you are suspected of being a dangerous individual, and thus "kept under close eye" by your Police). This, I would accept. But that's not the case.
But the WORST thing of this all is when such authorities claim to have the right to control prolly FOREVER the E-Mail box and the Credit Card movements of the subject. Was you talking about the "Big Brother"? Well, at least the "Big Brother" -TOLD- you when he was watching you.

What is disturbing is that this is a GENERALIZED check, an all-out scan on ANYBODY. It will be a waste of American taxpayers money, a waste of time and resources, and most probably return NOTHING but the sensation of full control over the entire world that the Right Wingers like so much, generally everywhere and in America especially.
Let me explain: it's like entering in a dark room full of hostiles and innocents and shoot in full-auto inside hoping to bring down all the terrorists and wound no bystanders. Not only you have no chance of hurting no civilians, but most probably you will only waste bullets and not kill all terrorists.

Quote:
Originally Posted by UZI4U
You're mad as hell and not going to take it anymore... Why do I care again? Not like you can do anything about it.

The United States has a national right to require anything of anyone entering our country. We could make a rule that says everyone has to dress up like a circus clown and stand on their head for the entire flight. Don't like it? Fine, just stay the hell in your own country and it won't be an issue for you.

You have no right to travel to the United States. It is privilage that we alone control.

The same is true for Italy. You have the exact same rights in that regard.

I don't hear you bitching much about countries like Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Oman, Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, and various other Islamic crapholes. If I attempted to travel to any of those nations today, they would do a background check on me, and as soon as they discovered the fact I'm Jewish and/or Israeli linked I would be denied a visa (official policy in all those nations. Call their embassy and ask if you don't believe me).

But frankly, I don't care. I have no intent on visiting those crapholes. It's their national right to keep me out and my person right to not try to get in.

You know what? Let's get back to the dark room, with terrorists and bystanders. You have an assault rifle. You get in, shed no light, and shoot an entire magazine hoping to kill all the terrorists and injury no innocent. You most probably will -NOT- succeed. But do you know what are you saying? You are blaming the innocent for having been in the room with the terrorist! Can you understand the idiocy?

Also, I could argue a lot about the "national right" of the USA to perform all those checks. It's a desperate measure. If America was so good and powerful as it claims to be, then your Government could have much more accurate, less expensive, and safe means to stop terrorists from entering your Country without causing troubles to the hundreds of thousands of normal, law-abiding people who yearly travel the USA for work, study, vacation, and sometimes NECESSITY. It's highly, highly unfair.

To conclude, let me sayt that I don't feel the -NEED- to bitch about Countries like "Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Oman, Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, and various other Islamic crapholes", and about what they do. There is a big difference between the USA and them: those Countries are fully, or partially, authoritarian States or dictatorships. The USA aren't supposed to. That's what differentiates a democracy from a dictatorship: respect of individual rights.
__________________
"It is criminal to teach a man not to defend himself, when he is the constant victim of brutal attacks. It is legal and lawful to own a shotgun or a rifle. We believe in obeying the law." -- Malcolm X

"We (atheists) act in good conscience because we believe in moral principles, not because we expect a reward in Heaven." -- Margherita Hack

Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 01-04-2007
UZI4U's Avatar
UZI4U UZI4U is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: San Antonio, Texas.
Posts: 890
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PT-The Italian Commie
If it was only about that, they would have only made background checks on people coming from certain Countries. Following your point of view, you'd make such background checks because you can never know who is a Muslim. But that's religious discrimination, isn't it? No, right? Because we don't call it that, when applies to Muslims. When it's about Jews or Christians, yes.

Jews and Christians didn't fly planes into the World Trade Center, Pentagon and (attempt to hit) the White House.

Nor did they use a truck bomb on the World Trade Center.

Nor did they blow up our embassies a dozen times.

Nor have they attacked our ships docked in peace at a port.


Fact: 99% of international terrorist acts against the United States in the last three decades have been carried out by followers of Islam.

I see nothing wrong with using that fact to point out likely security threats. It's a bit like how we focused on Germans and Japanese in WWII due to, gee, the risk they might be Nazis or Imperial Japanese.

Quote:
You said it: MAYBE. And maybe not. Let's say, 98% not. It might make more difficult for COMMON CRIMINALS, or members of the organized crime, to enter the US. Let's be frank: the US borders are a joke. One terrorist can easily enter Mexico, then enter the USA through the southern borders and have an accomplice on the other side providing him a false touristic visa, false passport, cloned credit cards, etc. Also, from Mexico, through the troubled areas on Central/Southern America, a terrorist group could smuggle to the US any equipment needed to launch a conventional terror attack to American territory.

Hence why we want to put a wall (backed by landmines) on the southern border... And the northern border.


Quote:
Terrorists have already used airliners as a mean to entrance and attack once, they are not so fool to do it again.

They used airlines for attacks several times before 9/11, so the idea that they never use the same method twice is bull.

Quote:
They know that the plot would be foiled. Take example of the recent attempts: the "liquid explosives" at the Heathrow Airport,

A plot which was foiled by the British government spying on internet traffic...

Quote:
and even before, the idiot with the shoe-bomb.

But don't DARE say it's because they're muslims.

Quote:
The ones with the liquid explosives probably too. Was Al-Qaeda behind them? I strongly disbeleve so. Al-Qaeda has the means to organize much more complicated attempts, with an higher success probability. The fact that Al-Qaeda has "claimed" those acts, and that the attempted-perpetrators have talked about Al-Qaeda, means nothing:

This proves you do not understand the nature of Al Qaeda.

Quote:
Well, so, let's put it in that way: putting up background checks upon ALL citizens from Countries that are considered "Friends and Allies" is, do say the least, an insult.

Fine, then stay home.

If you ask to come into MY home, I have the right to ask for information about you to make sure you are not going to be a danger.

Period. The End.

Don't like it? Then don't ask to come into my home!

How hard is that to understand?

Quote:
It's even less acceptable when the authorities who make such background checks DON'T warn the subject,

It has been made publically known that if you are trying to fly to the United States, your records may be searched. I don't understand why we have to mail a form letter to every damn passenger to explain a general policy ANNOUNCED ON THE FREAKING TV.

Quote:
when they DON'T show to have a justified reason to perform such check right on THAT individual and not to others,

You're asking to come to my country. That's all the justification I need.

Quote:
and when they DON'T need a warrant to do such DEEP checks.

As far as I'm concerned you should feel lucky we don't require DNA, retina scans, finger and toe-prints, complete records of everything, X-rays and cavity searches for every single non-US citizen trying to fly to the United States.

Quote:
But the WORST thing of this all is when such authorities claim to have the right to control prolly FOREVER the E-Mail box and the Credit Card movements of the subject. Was you talking about the "Big Brother"? Well, at least the "Big Brother" -TOLD- you when he was watching you.

This policy was made publically known. What do you want, a CIA agent to walk up to each passenger with a megaphone and scream into their ears "WE'RE GOING TO SEARCH YOUR RECORDS!!!"?

Quote:
What is disturbing is that this is a GENERALIZED check, an all-out scan on ANYBODY. It will be a waste of American taxpayers money,

That is for us to decide, and frankly you should mind your own damn concerns before it pisses us off. You don't see me telling you how to spend your tax money.

Quote:
and most probably return NOTHING but the sensation of full control over the entire world that the Right Wingers like so much,

This from a man that supports the Soviet Union and People's Republic of China.

Tell us another one.


Quote:
Let me explain: it's like entering in a dark room full of hostiles and innocents and shoot in full-auto inside hoping to bring down all the terrorists and wound no bystanders. Not only you have no chance of hurting no civilians, but most probably you will only waste bullets and not kill all terrorists.

No, it's like this:

You are a police officer and have been informed that there is a man with a brick of high-explosives in a room full of otherwise innocent people.

You are told to locate that person before he can misuse the explosives.

As a result you search everyone in the room until you find the guy with the brick of high-explosives.

Problem, how?


Quote:
You are blaming the innocent for having been in the room with the terrorist! Can you understand the idiocy?

We aren't killing folks, we are searching folks. They are VOLUNTEERING to be searched by trying to travel to the United States. Don't like it? Then don't come here!

Quote:
Also, I could argue a lot about the "national right" of the USA to perform all those checks. It's a desperate measure. If America was so good and powerful as it claims to be, then your Government could have much more accurate, less expensive, and safe means to stop terrorists from entering your Country without causing troubles to the hundreds of thousands of normal, law-abiding people

How is it causing them problems? Did we accidentally delete the spam from someones email box?


Quote:
who yearly travel the USA for work, study, vacation, and sometimes NECESSITY. It's highly, highly unfair.

No, what's "highly unfair" is the European Unions "Spy Camera Up Every Citizens Ass" policy, which you don't seem to have a problem with.


Quote:
To conclude, let me sayt that I don't feel the -NEED- to bitch about Countries like "Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Oman, Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, and various other Islamic crapholes", and about what they do. There is a big difference between the USA and them: those Countries are fully, or partially, authoritarian States or dictatorships. The USA aren't supposed to. That's what differentiates a democracy from a dictatorship: respect of individual rights.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt, wrong answer, the United States is not a Democracy, it is a Republic. Thank you for playing, please try again.
__________________
Am Yisrael Chai!

Last edited by UZI4U : 01-04-2007 at 02:39 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 01-05-2007
PT-The Italian Commie's Avatar
PT-The Italian Commie PT-The Italian Commie is offline
Super Senior member - Has no life and spends a lot of time here
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sardinia, Italy
Posts: 2,611
Thumbs down Just one thing...

'Cause I won't bother to reply to the rest of your moronic post. I will only focus on the peak of your idiocy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by UZI4U
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt, wrong answer, the United States is not a Democracy, it is a Republic. Thank you for playing, please try again.

You mean that the USA is not a democracy?

OH, and, I don't know how do you reason, but here it comes: a country can be a Democracy even if it is a Kingdom. Does it sounds any bell?
__________________
"It is criminal to teach a man not to defend himself, when he is the constant victim of brutal attacks. It is legal and lawful to own a shotgun or a rifle. We believe in obeying the law." -- Malcolm X

"We (atheists) act in good conscience because we believe in moral principles, not because we expect a reward in Heaven." -- Margherita Hack

Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 01-05-2007
CeeTee's Avatar
CeeTee CeeTee is offline
Super Senior member - Has no life and spends a lot of time here
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: now: Torgau - Germany
Posts: 271
Cool something wrong, something right

Quote:
Originally Posted by UZI4U
It has been made publically known that if you are trying to fly to the United States, your records may be searched. I don't understand why we have to mail a form letter to every damn passenger to explain a general policy ANNOUNCED ON THE FREAKING TV.

Nop! I don't watch TV.



Quote:
Originally Posted by UZI4U
No, what's "highly unfair" is the European Unions "Spy Camera Up Every Citizens Ass" policy, which you don't seem to have a problem with.

Yeap! Italian motorways are being stuffed with cameras that monitorize every single vehicle. The system is able to read plate number and get average speed between two check points. Police says that this is made to check speed, but how they manage that data nobody knows. It's territory control without citizen permission (or knowledge). The system knows when and where people is going. And this is just one more step to full territory surveilance.




nobody's perfect






../ct
__________________
.--. . .
.. -.
- .... .
... .. -. -.-
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 01-05-2007
PT-The Italian Commie's Avatar
PT-The Italian Commie PT-The Italian Commie is offline
Super Senior member - Has no life and spends a lot of time here
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sardinia, Italy
Posts: 2,611
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CeeTee
Yeap! Italian motorways are being stuffed with cameras that monitorize every single vehicle. The system is able to read plate number and get average speed between two check points. Police says that this is made to check speed, but how they manage that data nobody knows. It's territory control without citizen permission (or knowledge). The system knows when and where people is going. And this is just one more step to full territory surveilance.

You KNOW that it's not exactly like that. As an example: the Police can not legally retain the tapes or the pictures for more than 24 hours unless for "valid investigation reasons" (this means: if a crime has been committed, or an accident has happened, during that time in that particular tract of Route). Also, the "Corte di Cassazione" (the Italian Supreme Court, the only one whose sentences "make jurisprudence") has ruled that a driver who excesses speed and is taped or photographed by those equipments can not even be fined if the Police is not there to stop him immediately.
On a side note I must say that such equipments used by the Highway Police to get speeding drivers are activated via sensors that allow the camera to tape, or picture, only the cars that exceed the given speed limit for that particular tract of Route.

Also, the laws and regulations in Italy clearly state that ALL cameras put in public places, on the street, on roads, etc., must be signalled by a visible placard, even if these are private cameras (ex.: surveillance cameras of a Bank, or a public house, which are pointed on a street and can film what happens there). Banks can retain the tapes for no more than 30 days, then them must be destroyed. The tapes of security cameras of private properties pointed on public space must be deleted or destroyed within 24 hours. Anyway, any citizen who knows that he has been taped in any place where there's a camera can notice at any time the "Privacy Guarantee Authority" AND the owner/manager of the place where he has been taped, asking immediate destruction of the tape where he has been caught on video. This request can be refused only for the "valid reasons" stated above.

Taping people here in Italy, even for public safety reasons, isn't so "easy" as CeeTee is trying to make you believe.
Unlike in the UK, to say.
__________________
"It is criminal to teach a man not to defend himself, when he is the constant victim of brutal attacks. It is legal and lawful to own a shotgun or a rifle. We believe in obeying the law." -- Malcolm X

"We (atheists) act in good conscience because we believe in moral principles, not because we expect a reward in Heaven." -- Margherita Hack


Last edited by PT-The Italian Commie : 01-05-2007 at 12:03 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 01-05-2007
UZI4U's Avatar
UZI4U UZI4U is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: San Antonio, Texas.
Posts: 890
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PT-The Italian Commie
'Cause I won't bother to reply to the rest of your moronic post. I will only focus on the peak of your idiocy.


In other words you can't find a response to the logic of the rest of the post, so you'll ignore it.



Quote:
You mean that the USA is not a democracy?

Correct, we are a constitutional representative Republic. A democracy is something very different.

Quote:
OH, and, I don't know how do you reason, but here it comes: a country can be a Democracy even if it is a Kingdom. Does it sounds any bell?

It's not my fault you don't understand just what "democracy" and "constitutional representative Republic" mean, and the huge difference between them.
__________________
Am Yisrael Chai!
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 01-05-2007
PT-The Italian Commie's Avatar
PT-The Italian Commie PT-The Italian Commie is offline
Super Senior member - Has no life and spends a lot of time here
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sardinia, Italy
Posts: 2,611
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by UZI4U
Correct, we are a constitutional representative Republic. A democracy is something very different[...]
It's not my fault you don't understand just what "democracy" and "constitutional representative Republic" mean, and the huge difference between them.

Humm, NO, man.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WIKIPEDIA, The Free Encyclopedia
A Republic is a form of government maintained by a state or country whose sovereignty is based on popular consent and whose governance is based on popular representation and control. Several definitions stress the importance of the rule of law as part of the requirements for a republic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WIKIPEDIA, The Free Encyclopedia
Democracy (literally "rule by the people", from the Greek δημοκρατία-demokratia demos, "people," and kratos, "rule") is a form of government by the will of the people.

Today, the term democracy is often used to refer to liberal democracy,[1] but there are many other varieties and the methods used to govern differ. While the term democracy is typically used in the context of a political state, the principles are also applicable to other bodies, such as universities, labor unions, public companies, or civic organizations, as well as dictatorships in disguise of democracies.

It is HARD to say that the two things aren't the same. A Kingdom can be a democracy, and a Republic can not be a democracy in the sense that it can be ruled by a dictator. In the nowadays' sense of the word, a "Democracy" is a form of State where the people freely choose their representants to govern the Country.

If the two things would be mutually exclusive, like you say, well...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Constitution of Italy, Article 1: Form of State
Italy is a Democratic Republic based on labor. The sovereignty belongs to the People who exercise it in the forms and limits of the Constitution.

...this would not be logically possible, right?
__________________
"It is criminal to teach a man not to defend himself, when he is the constant victim of brutal attacks. It is legal and lawful to own a shotgun or a rifle. We believe in obeying the law." -- Malcolm X

"We (atheists) act in good conscience because we believe in moral principles, not because we expect a reward in Heaven." -- Margherita Hack

Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 01-05-2007
UZI4U's Avatar
UZI4U UZI4U is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: San Antonio, Texas.
Posts: 890
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PT-The Italian Commie
Humm, NO, man.

Wikipedia is not something I would use to back up abstract concepts.


Quote:
It is HARD to say that the two things aren't the same.

No it isn't.

Being male or being female is not the same.

See? That wasn't hard at all.


Quote:
A Kingdom can be a democracy,

Correct.

Quote:
and a Republic can not be a democracy in the sense that it can be ruled by a dictator.

Again correct.

Quote:
In the nowadays' sense of the word, a "Democracy" is a form of State where the people freely choose their representants to govern the Country.

A sadly common misconception. A Democracy is a government by which the majority rule.

A constitutional representative Republic is a government by which the majority make decisions, but a constitution rules.

Very different things.


Because of such, a constitutional representative Republic cannot be a democracy, and a democracy cannot be a constitutional representative Republic.

Quote:
If the two things would be mutually exclusive, like you say, well...



...this would not be logically possible, right?

You assume that the document you quote was written using logic

But in reality the problem is you are considering Democracy (the type of government) and democratic (the concept of the public having a direct say in their government) to be the same words. Maybe they are in Italian, but in English they carry different (but somewhat related) meanings.
__________________
Am Yisrael Chai!
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 01-05-2007
CeeTee's Avatar
CeeTee CeeTee is offline
Super Senior member - Has no life and spends a lot of time here
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: now: Torgau - Germany
Posts: 271
Cool as I said

Quote:
Originally Posted by PT-The Italian Commie
As an example: the Police can not legally retain the tapes or the pictures for more than 24 hours unless for "valid investigation reasons" (this means: if a crime has been committed, or an accident has happened, during that time in that particular tract of Route).
I said they record. I didn't say how long they keep it. So we agree on this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PT-The Italian Commie
Taping people here in Italy, even for public safety reasons, isn't so "easy" as CeeTee is trying to make you believe.
Unlike in the UK, to say.
Nobody thought was "easy". It happens and it will get worse (in the name of public safety).



Anyway, once inside the system...
...who's there to check what the program is doing?
For example: the italian law over "privacy" sucks. They always ask for permission to use your data. And if you don't allow them to, the procedure stucks.



../ct
__________________
.--. . .
.. -.
- .... .
... .. -. -.-
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 01-06-2007
PT-The Italian Commie's Avatar
PT-The Italian Commie PT-The Italian Commie is offline
Super Senior member - Has no life and spends a lot of time here
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sardinia, Italy
Posts: 2,611
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CeeTee
Nobody thought was "easy". It happens and it will get worse (in the name of public safety).

In fact, no. If you'd follow Italian politics AND the decisions of the Italian "Privacy Guarantee Authority", you'd see that everything is going on the opposite side, especially after the latest "Telecom taping scandal".

For those who don't know: in the lastest months has been discovered that TELECOM ITALIAN (the Italian national telecommunications company, formally 100% State-owned and now largely privatized) had a "secret office" inside itself, organized by some of the new private owners, members of the Right-Wing political coalition and corrupted officials of the Secret Service; this "secret office" forged fake Warrants to wire-tap some people, so that they could actually tape their phone conversations. The list of the people whose conversations have been taped include Italian Left-Wing politicians, members of the economic "Gotha", and common opinion-leaders like the comedian Beppe Grillo. Allegedly, this was made to gather informations to be eventually used against them in a vast blackmail operation to force them to support or pass laws in favour of the above-mentioned mafia.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CeeTee
Anyway, once inside the system... who's there to check what the program is doing?

Read above.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CeeTee
For example: the italian law over "privacy" sucks. They always ask for permission to use your data. And if you don't allow them to, the procedure stucks.

Sure. But if you allow them to use your data, the Law states clearly that they can use it SOLELY AND EXCLUSIVELY for the purposes of GIVING YOU THE SERVICE that you asked (no commercials, no selling your datas to mass advertisement companies, etc.). Even advertisement calls from call-centers that pick up your phone number from the Telephone Directory have been recently deemed as an "violation of Privacy".
__________________
"It is criminal to teach a man not to defend himself, when he is the constant victim of brutal attacks. It is legal and lawful to own a shotgun or a rifle. We believe in obeying the law." -- Malcolm X

"We (atheists) act in good conscience because we believe in moral principles, not because we expect a reward in Heaven." -- Margherita Hack


Last edited by PT-The Italian Commie : 01-06-2007 at 11:47 AM.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:40 AM.


Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright SecurityArms.com 1995 - 2009