Anyone in Bremerton washington wanna have some fun?

news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57552225-38/senate-bill-rewrite-lets-feds-read-your-e-mail-without-warrants/

A Senate proposal touted as protecting Americans' e-mail privacy has been quietly rewritten, giving government agencies more surveillance power than they possess under current law, CNET has learned.

Patrick Leahy, the influential Democratic chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has dramatically reshaped his legislation in response to law enforcement concerns, according to three individuals who have been negotiating with Leahy's staff over the changes. A vote on his bill, which now authorizes warrantless access to Americans' e-mail, is scheduled for next week.
Leahy's rewritten bill would allow more than 22 agencies -- including the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Federal Communications Commission -- to access Americans' e-mail, Google Docs files, Facebook wall posts, and Twitter direct messages without a search warrant. It also would give the FBI and Homeland Security more authority, in some circumstances, to gain full access to Internet accounts without notifying either the owner or a judge.

CNET obtained a draft of the proposed amendments from one of the people involved in the negotiations with Leahy; it's embedded at the end of this post. The document describes the changes as "Amendments intended to be proposed by Mr. Leahy."

It's an abrupt departure from Leahy's earlier approach, which required police to obtain a search warrant backed by probable cause before they could read the contents of e-mail or other communications. The Vermont Democrat boasted last year that his bill "provides enhanced privacy protections for American consumers by... requiring that the government obtain a search warrant."

Leahy had planned a vote on an earlier version of his bill, designed to update a pair of 1980s-vintage surveillance laws, in late September. But after law enforcement groups including the National District Attorneys' Association and the National Sheriffs' Association organizations objected to the legislation and asked him to "reconsider acting" on it, Leahy pushed back the vote and reworked the bill as a package of amendments to be offered next Thursday. The package (PDF) is a substitute for H.R. 2471, which the House of Representatives already has approved.

One person participating in Capitol Hill meetings on this topic told CNET that Justice Department officials have expressed their displeasure about Leahy's original bill. The department is on record as opposing any such requirement: James Baker, the associate deputy attorney general, has publicly warned that requiring a warrant to obtain stored e-mail could have an "adverse impact" on criminal investigations.

Christopher Calabrese, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, said requiring warrantless access to Americans' data "undercuts" the purpose of Leahy's original proposal. "We believe a warrant is the appropriate standard for any contents," he said.

An aide to the Senate Judiciary committee told CNET that because discussions with interested parties are ongoing, it would be premature to comment on the legislation.

Marc Rotenberg, head of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, said that in light of the revelations about how former CIA director David Petraeus' e-mail was perused by the FBI, "even the Department of Justice should concede that there's a need for more judicial oversight," not less.

Markham Erickson, a lawyer in Washington, D.C. who has followed the topic closely and said he was speaking for himself and not his corporate clients, expressed concerns about the alphabet soup of federal agencies that would be granted more power:

There is no good legal reason why federal regulatory agencies such as the NLRB, OSHA, SEC or FTC need to access customer information service providers with a mere subpoena. If those agencies feel they do not have the tools to do their jobs adequately, they should work with the appropriate authorizing committees to explore solutions. The Senate Judiciary committee is really not in a position to adequately make those determinations.

The list of agencies that would receive civil subpoena authority for the contents of electronic communications also includes the Federal Reserve, the Federal Trade Commission, the Federal Maritime Commission, the Postal Regulatory Commission, the National Labor Relations Board, and the Mine Enforcement Safety and Health Review Commission.

Leahy's modified bill retains some pro-privacy components, such as requiring police to secure a warrant in many cases. But the dramatic shift, especially the regulatory agency loophole and exemption for emergency account access, likely means it will be near-impossible for tech companies to support in its new form.

A bitter setback
This is a bitter setback for Internet companies and a liberal-conservative-libertarian coalition, which had hoped to convince Congress to update the 1986 Electronic Communications Privacy Act to protect documents stored in the cloud. Leahy glued those changes onto an unrelated privacy-related bill supported by Netflix.

At the moment, Internet users enjoy more privacy rights if they store data on their hard drives or under their mattresses, a legal hiccup that the companies fear could slow the shift to cloud-based services unless the law is changed to be more privacy-protective.

Members of the so-called Digital Due Process coalition include Apple, Amazon.com, Americans for Tax Reform, AT&T, the Center for Democracy and Technology, eBay, Google, Facebook, IBM, Intel, Microsoft, TechFreedom, and Twitter. (CNET was the first to report on the coalition's creation.)

Leahy, a former prosecutor, has a mixed record on privacy. He criticized the FBI's efforts to require Internet providers to build in backdoors for law enforcement access, and introduced a bill in the 1990s protecting Americans' right to use whatever encryption products they wanted.

But he also authored the 1994 Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, which is now looming over Web companies, as well as the reviled Protect IP Act. An article in The New Republic concluded Leahy's work on the Patriot Act "appears to have made the bill less protective of civil liberties." Leahy had introduced significant portions of the Patriot Act under the name Enhancement of Privacy and Public Safety in Cyberspace Act (PDF) a year earlier.

One obvious option for the Digital Due Process coalition is the simplest: if Leahy's committee proves to be an insurmountable roadblock in the Senate, try the courts instead.

Judges already have been wrestling with how to apply the Fourth Amendment to an always-on, always-connected society. Earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that police needed a search warrant for GPS tracking of vehicles. Some courts have ruled that warrantless tracking of Americans' cell phones, another coalition concern, is unconstitutional.

The FBI and other law enforcement agencies already must obtain warrants for e-mail in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee, thanks to a ruling by the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in 2010.

I don't own a gun, never needed a reason to (most of the time), but if I did, I DEFINATELY would not want to loose that right in the face of our oppressive friendly neighborhood government that has a excessively strong compulsion to maintain law and order no mater what the cost. If anything, I think we should fucking disarm our government!

So for those of you young anti-gun activists who are so but-hurt about the faults of humanity, here is a little tidbit for those of you that are ether too young or ignorant of history. Hell, I was even a kid when this shit happened.

Southern California State
Feb. 1968
3 dead, 27wounded

Jackson State
May 1970
2 dead, 12 wounded

Kent state
May 1970
4 dead, 9 wounded

Southern University
Nov 1972
2 dead, 2 wounded

After the Kent state shootings, the attorney general John Mitchell said there was no need to explore the killings because he knew in advance the causes couldn’t possibly be the national guard or the police.
The FBI investigation report subsequently proved that there were no shots fired by the students and there was grave culpability on the part of the guard.
Needless to say, Washington did nothing about it.

Another flashback people! Remember Mr. Hands, the Boeing contractor from Seattle Washington who died while taking a horse dick up his ass, he starred in an infamous video we know of as "2 guys 1 horse". The link to the video is below. Following the link, you can only watch the video once every 60 minutes. You'll also be confronted with a disclaimer when you get on to the site that says that the dude isn't Mr. Hands and that the horse isn't real, it's a fake rubber horse, but that is all a crock of shit:

www.twoguysonehorse.com/

A documentary has been made documenting Mr. Hands and his gang of zoophiles. The name of the documentary is "Zoo". The link is below. It's actually a pretty good documentary. The video is broken into ten minute intervals but they play in succession automatically:

http://watchdocumentary.org/watch/zoo-video_158f058b7.html

Anyone near Seattle Washington? 

People from Washington, add me!

Vote Frog and keep out the pest in Washington.

Hello, no idea if this'll work or not... anyway, I've got some thoughts about possibly going into porn production [like a director or producer, not an actor] as a springboard to get into general independent film production [most likely specializing in low budget sci-fi and horror].

The problem is I have no experience with film production of any kind, and though I've read that you don't need stuff like degrees to get into independent film [or porn for that matter!], I've got no idea where to look around in my local area; I live in the Pacific Northwest, near Seattle.

1. Are there any places around that area which could allow me to potentially interact with the people specializing in general independent film and/or adult film production?

2. Is there any rules in Washington state that makes adult film and pornographic production here illegal?

Outta curiosity, is there anyone on here male or female from northwest Washington state? And I'm talking from Seattle north?

WHITE WOMEN MATTERS GOOD NIGGER BOI NEEDS A WHITE QUEEN TO KEEP THIS COON ABLE TO RESPECT THE POWER DOMINANCE AND GRACE THAT THE WHITE GODDESS PUT IN MY FACE . I NEED A WHITE WOMEN ASSHOLE ON THE TIP OF MY TOUNGE AND MAKE ME SPEND THE MONEY ON CRACK METH BEING DUMB. . I LOVE THE WHITE WOMEN WAY and how she makes a dumb nigger smoke crack and meth as she teases me to obey and jack my SBC small black cock every day. PLZ be in Washington state 

bestiality and it is allowed or not on these boards?

I know in most countries bestiality is illegal, but here in the US.. and Finland..
bestiality is legal (or at least not expressly outlawed) in these U.S. states:

Alaska
Arizona
Colorado
Connecticut
Florida
Hawaii
Iowa
Kentucky
Louisiana
Missouri
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
Ohio
Oregon
South Dakota
Texas
Vermont Washington
West Virgina

A lot of these states used to have sodomy laws,where most of the Zoophillia stuff resided, but in the last 20 or so years they have been slowly been repealed thanks to the gay movement.

The only federal law prohibiting zoophilic pornography, is 18 U.S.C. 2256, which prohibits distribution in interstate commerce and on federal property of child pornography of a minor under 18 years old engaging in "sexually explicit conduct" of bestiality.

and to my knowledge no state prohibits the ownership or distribution of zoophile material, just the act.

So whats the verdict?