• Now's your chance win big! Join our community and get entered to win a RTX 2060 GPU, plus more! Join here.

    Meet Stan Dmitriev of SurrogateTV on the Pi Cast TODAY! The show is live August 11th at 2:30 pm ET (7:30 PM BST). Watch live right here!

    Professional PC modder Mike Petereyns joins Scharon on the Tom's Hardware Show live on Thursday, August 13th at 3:00 pm ET (8:00 PM BST). Click here!

Warrantless E-mail Access for Feds Shelved

Status
Not open for further replies.

candrwhite

Distinguished
Feb 2, 2010
81
0
18,630
0
It's funny, I didn't read where he said 'Yes, I tried to screw over the country, the entire internet freaked out, and now... let's just ignore those things and know that I'm all about citizen's privacy'.
 
G

Guest

Guest
What it makes me wonder, is what else is in the bill? Has anyone read the [assumed] several-hundred pages of legalese?
 
G

Guest

Guest
Wish that the same could be said of the "Patriot Act" which created a hugely expensive underground secretive government bureaucracy that monitors every activity of every American (data collecting). Yet, it hasn't stopped or spotlighted any terrorist activity since passage back in 2001.
 

koga73

Distinguished
Jan 23, 2008
404
0
18,780
0
Do yourself a favor and get your own email server that you control.
My server is in my house so the only way the feds could read my emails is if they raided my house and took my server... which is also encrypted. I also use my server for DNS and use OpenDNS.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Since this is another act of the government intruding on our liberty, it is funny how they don't mention in the article that this is a democrat proposing this. If it would have been a republican, they would have said so and added what state he was from.
 

millerm84

Distinguished
Jan 5, 2009
143
0
18,680
0
[citation][nom]madethisup[/nom]Since this is another act of the government intruding on our liberty, it is funny how they don't mention in the article that this is a democrat proposing this. If it would have been a republican, they would have said so and added what state he was from.[/citation]


If you checked the previous article you would have noticed that his party affiliation is stated. If you understood how the US government worked you would know that the head of any committee is usually a member of that house's controlling party. So, committee heads in the Senate will be democrats while those in the house will be republicans in the current Congress. If I had to guess it was an oversight on the part of Tom's, but his party affiliation was stated in the original article and if you're, as I have assumed, an American citizen you should be able to determine his party affiliation based on the facts presented in the article. The omission of his state is present in both articles but that fact doesn't carry the same weight as his party affiliation. None the less, this isn't party bias as you imply; it's the author assuming you're following the story.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS