Datatilsynet slakter regjeringen igjen.
Datatilsynet om ny e-lov: Dette er fremdeles masseovervåking
Datatilsynet var en blant flere svært kritiske høringsinstanser da forslag til ny lov for etterretningstjenesten ble sendt på høring i 2018.
Tilsynet var særlig skeptisk til forslaget om lagring av metadata av all nettrafikk som krysser grensen og mente det innebar masseovervåking av nordmenn, og at det kunne stride mot menneskerettighetene.
Da forsvarsminister Frank Bakke-Jensen (H) presenterte endelig lovforslag onsdag, sa han at regjeringen har lyttet til kritikken og gjort flere begrensninger på E-tjenestens bruk av metadataene.
Direktør i Datatilsynet, Bjørn Erik Thon, mener derimot lite ser ut til å være endret.
– Med forbehold om at vi ikke har rukket å lese hele forslaget grundig, er det fremdeles relativt likt som sist. Vi synes fremdeles formuleringene i loven er vage og uklare på hvem og hva som skal omfattes av dette, og hva loven betyr for vanlige norske borgere. Det er viktig med et så presist lovverk som mulig siden dette skal praktiseres hemmelig, sier Thon til NTB.
– Vi står fast ved at dette innebærer masseovervåking av nordmenn, understreker han.
https://www.digi.no/artikler/datatilsynet-om-ny-e-lov-dette-er-fremdeles-masse-overvaking/490637
Datatilsynet var en blant flere svært kritiske høringsinstanser da forslag til ny lov for etterretningstjenesten ble sendt på høring i 2018.
Tilsynet var særlig skeptisk til forslaget om lagring av metadata av all nettrafikk som krysser grensen og mente det innebar masseovervåking av nordmenn, og at det kunne stride mot menneskerettighetene.
Da forsvarsminister Frank Bakke-Jensen (H) presenterte endelig lovforslag onsdag, sa han at regjeringen har lyttet til kritikken og gjort flere begrensninger på E-tjenestens bruk av metadataene.
Direktør i Datatilsynet, Bjørn Erik Thon, mener derimot lite ser ut til å være endret.
– Med forbehold om at vi ikke har rukket å lese hele forslaget grundig, er det fremdeles relativt likt som sist. Vi synes fremdeles formuleringene i loven er vage og uklare på hvem og hva som skal omfattes av dette, og hva loven betyr for vanlige norske borgere. Det er viktig med et så presist lovverk som mulig siden dette skal praktiseres hemmelig, sier Thon til NTB.
– Vi står fast ved at dette innebærer masseovervåking av nordmenn, understreker han.
https://www.digi.no/artikler/datatilsynet-om-ny-e-lov-dette-er-fremdeles-masse-overvaking/490637
fabian2
24.04.2020 kl 07:38
470
Datatilsynet slakter hvem som helst , de har fastlønn selv og kan ikke sies opp
Sosialist-utopia - målet om et menneskeskapt sosialistisk paradis på jord er ikke ferdig utviklet og optimalisert før alle nyfødte får en GPS chip i armen, samt kamera og mikrofon operert inn i panna.
Herunder hører også med at når pensjonsalder oppnås, så skal dette feires med en høytidelig offentlig seremoni med utdeling av medalje, som takk for lang og tro tjeneste som stemmegiver og skattebetaler, før turen går til legen som setter sprøyta i ræva, og deretter videre til krematoriet.
Ført når vi kommer dit vil vi oppnå det kollektivistiske drømmesamfunnet, og paradis på jord.
Veien mot det kollektivistiske drømmesamfunnet består av veldig mange og veldig små skritt, faktisk så små at man nesten ikke legger merke til dem. Men summen av alle de små skrittene over lang tid utgjør en kontinuerlig prosess. «Sosialiseringsprosessen» som jeg pleier å kalle den.
Og endemålet er et orwelliansk 1984 X100.
Pussig når man er så konkret som datatilsynet, så snakker folk rundt grøten om emnet. Dette blir som om solen gir oss alle kreft, men det snakker vi ikke om, men istedet klager vi på varmen og at vi blir solbrent.
Etterretningstjenesten har en jobb å gjøre. Tro det eller ei, men enhver med bena i jordkontakt krever at jobben gjøres. Og er en forutsetning for det alminnelige menneskets trygghet. Menneskeheten er slik skapt, der vil alltid finnes dem som ikke ville sky noen midler for å sikre seg naboens territorier, eller ressurser. Også med makt. Koste hva det koste vil. Dette hører man intet om på søndagsskolen. Virkelighetens verden. Tidligere hadde vi verneplikt, eller leidang. Den tekniske utviklingen krever idag tilpassede tiltak. Og vi, som fikk oppleve både den varme og den kalde krigen, kan nå leve med senkede skuldre. I vissheten om at Etterretningstjenesten, som vet hvor skoen trykker, får til rådighet de midlene som egner seg. Og registrerer alle, også dem som ikke holder sin sti ren.
« kan nå leve med senkede skuldre. I vissheten om at Etterretningstjenesten,»
Ja, er det ikke herlig å kunne lulle seg inn i illusjonen om at den allmektige velferdsstaten passer på deg....da får man en sånn deilig og varm følelse inni seg...
Og selv om enkeltindividene som utgjør statsmakten kanskje er mest opptatt av kombinasjonen karrierebygging, unnasluntring, og ansvarsfraskrivelse, og derfor aldri er forberedt når noe uventet skjer, så vet vi i det minste at det vil bli skrevet utfyllende rapporter etter at katastrofen er et faktum.
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. - Benjamin Franklin
Var det konkret nok for deg?
Med all heder til Benjamin Franklin og sitatet, i dette aktuelle temaet er det klokere å sitere Okulus.
I USA så har de saying som mest sannsynlig går langt over huet på verdens mest konforme folkeslag, anyhow her er det:
Hello, we are from the government, and we are here to help.
Og da humrer dem godt i skjegget, over there.
Hello, we are from the government, and we are here to help.
Og da humrer dem godt i skjegget, over there.
Jeg vet ikke om jeg skal le eller gråte over konklusjonen din?
Etterretningstjenesten i land hvor diktatorer styrer og har styrt er årsaken til slavebindingen av folket. Etterretningstjenesten er verktøyet slike mennesker med makt ønsker og bruker.
Frie mennesker skal ikke overvåkes og slavebindes, da skal vi heller gå under. Dette er en kamp vi i den vestlige verden har kjempet siden tidenes morgen, og jeg vil aldri si ja til et slikt verktøy i politikernes hender. Fordi vi har hatt en teknologisk utvikling skal vi ikke tåle å bli overvåket. Hvis regjeringen er så redd, bør de heller få tilbake almen verneplikt, og plassere soldater på grensene våre hvis de er så redd som de gir uttrykk for. De får bygge ut et effektivt forsvar mot fremmede makters E-tjeneste, og dette kan fint gjøres uten å spionere på landets befolkning. Bygg ut i stor skala et effektivt og offensivt data-forsvar sammen med våre allierte. Et forsvar betyr at man skal forsvare seg ved inntrengning eller invasjon, ikke angripe egen befolkning.
Man får gå fra å være defensiv i sitt arbeid til å gå offensivt til verks og overvåke de fremmede makter de frykter slik. At du har slik tiltro til de samme politikerne som knekket geværene 1940 er utrolig.
Etterretningstjenesten i land hvor diktatorer styrer og har styrt er årsaken til slavebindingen av folket. Etterretningstjenesten er verktøyet slike mennesker med makt ønsker og bruker.
Frie mennesker skal ikke overvåkes og slavebindes, da skal vi heller gå under. Dette er en kamp vi i den vestlige verden har kjempet siden tidenes morgen, og jeg vil aldri si ja til et slikt verktøy i politikernes hender. Fordi vi har hatt en teknologisk utvikling skal vi ikke tåle å bli overvåket. Hvis regjeringen er så redd, bør de heller få tilbake almen verneplikt, og plassere soldater på grensene våre hvis de er så redd som de gir uttrykk for. De får bygge ut et effektivt forsvar mot fremmede makters E-tjeneste, og dette kan fint gjøres uten å spionere på landets befolkning. Bygg ut i stor skala et effektivt og offensivt data-forsvar sammen med våre allierte. Et forsvar betyr at man skal forsvare seg ved inntrengning eller invasjon, ikke angripe egen befolkning.
Man får gå fra å være defensiv i sitt arbeid til å gå offensivt til verks og overvåke de fremmede makter de frykter slik. At du har slik tiltro til de samme politikerne som knekket geværene 1940 er utrolig.
Ja, dette var konkret, og riktig.
Dagens store glede fremkalles ved erkjennelsen av at imatza ikke har eller vil få ansvar for borgernes sikkerhet. Her kreves realisme, ikke enfoldighet.
Når man ikke har et motsvar, kommer tøvet fram.
sus1
25.04.2020 kl 21:06
342
Våpen loven i USA laget de fordi de ikke ville at forsvaret skulle være lønnet av staten, fordi det ville føre til en proffensjonell hær som igjen ville føre til en diktator. Derfor hver man sin gunner. Hvordan har det gått? Politiet bærer rundt på 10 kg utstyr for å drepe og militære?
Second Amendment
The Second Amendment, often referred to as the right to bear arms, is one of 10 amendments that form the Bill of Rights, ratified in 1791 by the U.S. Congress. Differing interpretations of the amendment have fueled a long-running debate over gun control legislation and the rights of individual citizens to buy, own and carry firearms.
Right to Bear Arms
The text of the Second Amendment reads in full: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The framers of the Bill of Rights adapted the wording of the amendment from nearly identical clauses in some of the original 13 state constitutions.
During the Revolutionary War era, “militia” referred to groups of men who banded together to protect their communities, towns, colonies and eventually states, once the United States declared its independence from Great Britain in 1776
Many people in America at the time believed governments used soldiers to oppress the people, and thought the federal government should only be allowed to raise armies (with full-time, paid soldiers) when facing foreign adversaries. For all other purposes, they believed, it should turn to part-time militias, or ordinary civilians using their own weapons.
State Militias
But as militias had proved insufficient against the British, the Constitutional Convention gave the new federal government the power to establish a standing army, even in peacetime.
However, opponents of a strong central government (known as Anti-Federalists) argued that this federal army deprived states of their ability to defend themselves against oppression. They feared that Congress might abuse its constitutional power of “organizing, arming and disciplining the Militia” by failing to keep militiamen equipped with adequate arms.
So, shortly after the U.S. Constitution was officially ratified, James Madison proposed the Second Amendment as a way to empower these state militias. While the Second Amendment did not answer the broader Anti-Federalist concern that the federal government had too much power, it did establish the principle (held by both Federalists and their opponents) that the government did not have the authority to disarm citizens.
Well-Regulated Militia
Practically since its ratification, Americans have debated the meaning of the Second Amendment, with vehement arguments being made on both sides.
The crux of the debate is whether the amendment protects the right of private individuals to keep and bear arms, or whether it instead protects a collective right that should be exercised only through formal militia units.
Those who argue it is a collective right point to the “well-regulated Militia” clause in the Second Amendment. They argue that the right to bear arms should be given only to organized groups, like the National Guard, a reserve military force that replaced the state militias after the Civil War.
On the other side are those who argue that the Second Amendment gives all citizens, not just militias, the right to own guns in order to protect themselves. The National Rifle Association (NRA), founded in 1871, and its supporters have been the most visible proponents of this argument, and have pursued a vigorous campaign against gun control measures at the local, state and federal levels.
Those who support stricter gun control legislation have argued that limits are necessary on gun ownership, including who can own them, where they can be carried and what type of guns should be available for purchase.
Congress passed one of the most high-profile federal gun control efforts, the so-called Brady Bill, in the 1990s, largely thanks to the efforts of former White House Press Secretary James S. Brady, who had been shot in the head during an assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan in 1981.
District of Columbia v. Heller
Since the passage of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, which mandated background checks for gun purchases from licensed dealers, the debate on gun control has changed dramatically.
This is partially due to the actions of the Supreme Court, which departed from its past stance on the Second Amendment with its verdicts in two major cases, District ofColumbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago (2010).
For a long time, the federal judiciary held the opinion that the Second Amendment remained among the few provisions of the Bill of Rights that did not fall under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, which would thereby apply its limitations to state governments. For example, in the 1886 case Presser v. Illinois, the Court held that the Second Amendment applied only to the federal government, and did not prohibit state governments from regulating an individual’s ownership or use of guns.
But in its 5-4 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, which invalidated a federal law barring nearly all civilians from possessing guns in the District of Columbia, the Supreme Court extended Second Amendment protection to individuals in federal (non-state) enclaves.
Writing the majority decision in that case, Justice Antonin Scalia lent the Court’s weight to the idea that the Second Amendment protects the right of individual private gun ownership for self-defense purposes.
McDonald v. Chicago
Two years later, in McDonald v. Chicago, the Supreme Court struck down (also in a 5-4 decision) a similar citywide handgun ban, ruling that the Second Amendment applies to the states as well as to the federal government.
In the majority ruling in that case, Justice Samuel Alito wrote: “Self-defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present day, and in Heller, we held that individual self-defense is ‘the central component’ of the Second Amendment right.”
Gun Control Debate
The Supreme Court’s narrow rulings in the Heller and McDonald cases left open many key issues in the gun control debate.
In the Heller decision, the Court suggested a list of “presumptively lawful” regulations, including bans on possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill; bans on carrying arms in schools and government buildings; restrictions on gun sales; bans on the concealed carrying of weapons; and generally bans on weapons “not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.”
Mass Shootings
Since that verdict, as lower courts battle back and forth on cases involving such restrictions, the public debate over Second Amendment rights and gun control remains very much open, even as mass shootings became an increasingly frequent occurrence in American life.
To take just three examples, the Columbine Shooting, where two teens killed thirteen people at Columbine High School, prompted a national gun control debate. The Sandy Hook shooting of 18 children and two adults at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut in 2012 led President Barack Obama and many others to call for tighter background checks and a renewed ban on assault weapons.
And in 2017, the mass shooting of 58 people attending a country music concert in Las Vegas (to date the largest mass shooting in U.S. history, overtaking the 2016 attack on the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida) inspired calls to restrict sales of “bump stocks,” attachments that enable semiautomatic weapons to fire faster.
On the other side of the ongoing debate of gun control measures are the NRA and other gun rights supporters, powerful and vocal groups that views such restrictions as an unacceptable violation of their Second Amendment rights.
Sources
Bill of Rights, The Oxford Guide to the United States Government.
Jack Rakove, ed. The Annotated U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence.
Amendment II, National Constitution Center.
The Second Amendment and the Right to Bear Arms, LiveScience.
Second Amendment, Legal Information Institute.
Citation Information
Article Title
Second Amendment
Author
History.com Editors
Website Name
HISTORY
URL
https://www.history.com/topics/united-states-constitution/2nd-amendment
Access Date
25. april 2020
Publisher
A&E Television Networks
Last Updated
November 27, 2019
Original Published Date
December 4, 2017
The Second Amendment, often referred to as the right to bear arms, is one of 10 amendments that form the Bill of Rights, ratified in 1791 by the U.S. Congress. Differing interpretations of the amendment have fueled a long-running debate over gun control legislation and the rights of individual citizens to buy, own and carry firearms.
Right to Bear Arms
The text of the Second Amendment reads in full: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The framers of the Bill of Rights adapted the wording of the amendment from nearly identical clauses in some of the original 13 state constitutions.
During the Revolutionary War era, “militia” referred to groups of men who banded together to protect their communities, towns, colonies and eventually states, once the United States declared its independence from Great Britain in 1776
Many people in America at the time believed governments used soldiers to oppress the people, and thought the federal government should only be allowed to raise armies (with full-time, paid soldiers) when facing foreign adversaries. For all other purposes, they believed, it should turn to part-time militias, or ordinary civilians using their own weapons.
State Militias
But as militias had proved insufficient against the British, the Constitutional Convention gave the new federal government the power to establish a standing army, even in peacetime.
However, opponents of a strong central government (known as Anti-Federalists) argued that this federal army deprived states of their ability to defend themselves against oppression. They feared that Congress might abuse its constitutional power of “organizing, arming and disciplining the Militia” by failing to keep militiamen equipped with adequate arms.
So, shortly after the U.S. Constitution was officially ratified, James Madison proposed the Second Amendment as a way to empower these state militias. While the Second Amendment did not answer the broader Anti-Federalist concern that the federal government had too much power, it did establish the principle (held by both Federalists and their opponents) that the government did not have the authority to disarm citizens.
Well-Regulated Militia
Practically since its ratification, Americans have debated the meaning of the Second Amendment, with vehement arguments being made on both sides.
The crux of the debate is whether the amendment protects the right of private individuals to keep and bear arms, or whether it instead protects a collective right that should be exercised only through formal militia units.
Those who argue it is a collective right point to the “well-regulated Militia” clause in the Second Amendment. They argue that the right to bear arms should be given only to organized groups, like the National Guard, a reserve military force that replaced the state militias after the Civil War.
On the other side are those who argue that the Second Amendment gives all citizens, not just militias, the right to own guns in order to protect themselves. The National Rifle Association (NRA), founded in 1871, and its supporters have been the most visible proponents of this argument, and have pursued a vigorous campaign against gun control measures at the local, state and federal levels.
Those who support stricter gun control legislation have argued that limits are necessary on gun ownership, including who can own them, where they can be carried and what type of guns should be available for purchase.
Congress passed one of the most high-profile federal gun control efforts, the so-called Brady Bill, in the 1990s, largely thanks to the efforts of former White House Press Secretary James S. Brady, who had been shot in the head during an assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan in 1981.
District of Columbia v. Heller
Since the passage of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, which mandated background checks for gun purchases from licensed dealers, the debate on gun control has changed dramatically.
This is partially due to the actions of the Supreme Court, which departed from its past stance on the Second Amendment with its verdicts in two major cases, District ofColumbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago (2010).
For a long time, the federal judiciary held the opinion that the Second Amendment remained among the few provisions of the Bill of Rights that did not fall under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, which would thereby apply its limitations to state governments. For example, in the 1886 case Presser v. Illinois, the Court held that the Second Amendment applied only to the federal government, and did not prohibit state governments from regulating an individual’s ownership or use of guns.
But in its 5-4 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, which invalidated a federal law barring nearly all civilians from possessing guns in the District of Columbia, the Supreme Court extended Second Amendment protection to individuals in federal (non-state) enclaves.
Writing the majority decision in that case, Justice Antonin Scalia lent the Court’s weight to the idea that the Second Amendment protects the right of individual private gun ownership for self-defense purposes.
McDonald v. Chicago
Two years later, in McDonald v. Chicago, the Supreme Court struck down (also in a 5-4 decision) a similar citywide handgun ban, ruling that the Second Amendment applies to the states as well as to the federal government.
In the majority ruling in that case, Justice Samuel Alito wrote: “Self-defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present day, and in Heller, we held that individual self-defense is ‘the central component’ of the Second Amendment right.”
Gun Control Debate
The Supreme Court’s narrow rulings in the Heller and McDonald cases left open many key issues in the gun control debate.
In the Heller decision, the Court suggested a list of “presumptively lawful” regulations, including bans on possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill; bans on carrying arms in schools and government buildings; restrictions on gun sales; bans on the concealed carrying of weapons; and generally bans on weapons “not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.”
Mass Shootings
Since that verdict, as lower courts battle back and forth on cases involving such restrictions, the public debate over Second Amendment rights and gun control remains very much open, even as mass shootings became an increasingly frequent occurrence in American life.
To take just three examples, the Columbine Shooting, where two teens killed thirteen people at Columbine High School, prompted a national gun control debate. The Sandy Hook shooting of 18 children and two adults at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut in 2012 led President Barack Obama and many others to call for tighter background checks and a renewed ban on assault weapons.
And in 2017, the mass shooting of 58 people attending a country music concert in Las Vegas (to date the largest mass shooting in U.S. history, overtaking the 2016 attack on the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida) inspired calls to restrict sales of “bump stocks,” attachments that enable semiautomatic weapons to fire faster.
On the other side of the ongoing debate of gun control measures are the NRA and other gun rights supporters, powerful and vocal groups that views such restrictions as an unacceptable violation of their Second Amendment rights.
Sources
Bill of Rights, The Oxford Guide to the United States Government.
Jack Rakove, ed. The Annotated U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence.
Amendment II, National Constitution Center.
The Second Amendment and the Right to Bear Arms, LiveScience.
Second Amendment, Legal Information Institute.
Citation Information
Article Title
Second Amendment
Author
History.com Editors
Website Name
HISTORY
URL
https://www.history.com/topics/united-states-constitution/2nd-amendment
Access Date
25. april 2020
Publisher
A&E Television Networks
Last Updated
November 27, 2019
Original Published Date
December 4, 2017