Ron Paul 羅恩保羅

Last month, the House amended the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to expand the government’s ability to monitor our private communications.上個月，眾議院修改了1978年外國情報監視法案（ fisa ） ，以擴大政府的執政能力，以監察香港的私人通信。 This measure, if it becomes law, will result in more warrantless government surveillance of innocent American citizens.這項措施後，如果成為法律，將導致更多的無證政府的監視無辜的美國公民。

Though some opponents claimed that the only controversial part of this legislation was its grant of immunity to telecommunications companies, there is much more to be wary of in the bill.雖然一些反對者聲稱這只是爭議性的部分，這項立法是給予豁免權的電訊公司，有更必須小心在條例草案中。 In the House version, Title II, Section 801, extends immunity from prosecution of civil legal action to people and companies including any provider of an electronic communication service, any provider of a remote computing service, “any other communication service provider who has access to wire or electronic communications,” any “parent, subsidiary, affiliate, successor, or assignee” of such company, any “officer, employee, or agent” of any such company, and any “landlord, custodian, or other person who may be authorized or required to furnish assistance.” The Senate version goes even further by granting retroactive immunity to such entities that may have broken the law in the past.在眾議院版，第二編，第801 ，延伸免予起訴的民事法律行動，以人民和公司，包括任何供應商的電子通信服務，任何供應商的遠程計算服務" ，其他任何通信服務提供商人進入有線或電子通訊， "任何"的母公司，子公司，分公司，繼任者或受讓人"的這樣一家公司，任何"高級人員，僱員或代理人" ，任何這類公司，以及任何"房東，保管人或其他人可能授權或要求提供援助" 。參議院版更進一步，給予溯及既往免疫等實體可能觸犯法律，在過去的。

The new FISA bill allows the federal government to compel many more types of companies and individuals to grant the government access to our communications without a warrant.新fisa法案允許聯邦政府迫使更多類型的公司和個人，給予政府可以使用我們的通訊無逮捕證。 The provisions in the legislation designed to protect Americans from warrantless surveillance are full of loopholes and ambiguities.法例規定，旨在保護美國民眾免遭竊聽偵察是充滿漏洞和含糊之處。 There is no blanket prohibition against listening in on all American citizens without a warrant.有沒有全面禁止對聽力對所有美國公民在沒有逮捕證。

We have been told that this power to listen in on communications is legal and only targets terrorists.我們已被告知這項權力，以聽，在對通訊是合法的，並且只針對恐怖分子。 But if what these companies are being compelled to do is legal, why is it necessary to grant them immunity?但如果這些公司都被強迫做的是法律，為何要給予他們豁免權？ If what they did in the past was legal and proper, why is it necessary to grant them retroactive immunity?如果他們所做的，在過去是合法和正確的，為什麼要給予他們追溯免疫力？

In communist East Germany , one in every 100 citizens was an informer for the dreaded secret police, the Stasi.在共產東德，其中每100個公民被舉報人為可怕的秘密警察， stasi 。 They either volunteered or were compelled by their government to spy on their customers, their neighbors, their families, and their friends.要么是自願或被迫由政府來刺探他們的顧客，他們的鄰居，他們的家庭，以及他們的朋友。 When we think of the evil of totalitarianism, such networks of state spies are usually what comes to mind.當我們想到邪惡的極權主義，這種網絡的狀態間諜通常是什麼來銘記。 Yet, with modern technology, what once took tens of thousands of informants can now be achieved by a few companies being coerced by the government to allow it to listen in to our communications.然而，隨著現代科技發達，一旦有什麼了數以萬計的告密者，現在可以實現了由少數幾家公司被脅迫的，由政府，使之能收聽到我們的通訊。 This surveillance is un-American.這項監測是聯合國美洲。

We should remember that former New York governor Eliot Spitzer was brought down by a provision of the PATRIOT Act that required enhanced bank monitoring of certain types of financial transactions.我們應該記住，前紐約總督斯皮策被擊落所編列的愛國者的行為，需要加強銀行監管的某些類型的金融交易。 Yet we were told that the PATRIOT Act was needed to catch terrorists, not philanderers.然而，我們被告知，愛國者法案是要跟上恐怖分子，而不是philanderers 。 The extraordinary power the government has granted itself to look into our private lives can be used for many purposes unrelated to fighting terrorism.超常的權力，政府已決定給予自己的照顧到我們的私人生活，可作多種用途無關，以打擊恐怖主義。 We can even see how expanded federal government surveillance power might be used to do away with political rivals.我們甚至可以看到如何擴大聯邦政府偵察力量都有可能被用來消除政治對手。

The Fourth Amendment to our Constitution requires the government to have a warrant when it wishes to look into the private affairs of individuals.第四條修正案，以我國憲法規定，政府有需要時，它要尋找到私人事務的個人。 If we are to remain a free society we must defend our rights against any governmental attempt to undermine or bypass the Constitution.如果我們要保持一個自由的社會裡，我們一定要維護自己的權利，對任何政府，企圖破壞或繞開憲法。

Comment on 'The Emerging Surveillance State' : 評論'新興監視狀態' ：

RSS 的RSS TrackBack URL 跟踪 RUI

Related News: 相關新聞：