danceswithoctopus
Guest
I don't think anyone here cares that the FBI knows that they dive. What I (at least) have been questioning is the method by which they obtain information.
Interesting. How do you see that being dangerous?
Dive Agencies Giving Student Records to the FBI - What do you think?
- Thread starter exnewwavedivers
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
From what I understand, the way they got the information was simply stating to the agencies what they were doing and could they please have the contact info. on all divers certified in the last 3 years. You are I could buy that information from the agencies for a mailing list. I really don't see what the problem people have with this.
Burke
Guest
with cmay, what is the problem here? The FBI didn't do anything wrong, they didn't conducted an unlawful search in any way, they simply asked for some information and PADI gave it to them. You have a right to refuse to allow police to search your house without a warrant, but if the police come to your house and ask to search it, and you, being a law abiding citizen with nothing to hide, allow them to search your house even though they don't have a warrant there is nothing wrong with, that is the way the law works. This whole argument seems as ridicules as when someone say "the 2nd amendment say I have to carry a gun" all the 2nd amendment says is that you can own a gun if you want, it doesn't say you have too (of course there are some people disputing that it even says that). Just because the FBI would need a subpoena in order to FORCE PADI into giving up this information, that doesn't mean there is anything wrong with PADI giving it up WILLING.
By the way I changed my sig. line to something that represents my beliefs on this issue alittle better.
By the way I changed my sig. line to something that represents my beliefs on this issue alittle better.
92630Diver
Contributor
I have no issues whatsoever with PADI, the LDS that I was certified through, or other local dive shops giving any information that they may have about me to the FBI or other governmental agency. If the information that is gathered aids in the search and capture of individuals that would threaten the health, safety, and welfare of my family, other families, and this country in general... then I for one encourage the FBI to continue.
All Americans should do whatever they can to aid in the prevention of terrorist acitivity. If letting the government know that we are certified scuba divers is the least that we can do, then we should do so willingly.
I could go on but standing on this soapbox is drafty.
All Americans should do whatever they can to aid in the prevention of terrorist acitivity. If letting the government know that we are certified scuba divers is the least that we can do, then we should do so willingly.
I could go on but standing on this soapbox is drafty.
JustAddWater
Guest
I think that the overmisuse of the term "violation of my privacy rights" dilutes the importance of its intended meaning, and becomes cliche. That an idea so paramount to the substance of our nation becomes cliche is very dangerous. We each have our own feelings of personal privacy and sensitivity to intrusion, but the "right of privacy" granted by the Fourth Ammendment may, or may not be the same thing when a person invokes that their rights have been violated. I think it is often misused as a panacea excuse by some to find a legal loop hole to get out of trouble.
The beauty is we are entitled to debate the parameters.
The beauty is we are entitled to debate the parameters.
While that is correct, the law comes in to question where a 3rd party is involved... ie: you, me, the other person living in that house. Did that person have the legal right to waive that 3rd parties rights? Thats where the law becomes iffy. If that person lets say was a renter then you have no legal grounds to waive that persons right when there is a expectation of privacy ie: the room he lives in. The matter of law is not if one person has a right to waive his own rights but yet does that person or company have the right to waive the rights of its customers where there is a expectation of privacy.
Ryan Stone
DivePartner1
Contributor
Aside from Rstone's jailhouse lawyer jibberish (1st yr. law student?), the FBI may be seizing records because they're at a loss as to what to do. That's fine, it's happened before and it will happen again, but let them follow the rules.
There will be honest, loyal, American, muslim divers out there or others that may confuse those inclined to indict those who don't look white or Christian/jewish enough at first glance. It would be a shame to ruin their lives because PADI's and NAUI's craven management hand over the keys to the store with no forethought.
Working a few blocks from the White House, I have may more skin in the game than their Lordships on the Hill and in the WH who will be evacuated at the first whale fart, but that's no excuse for the FBI, or PADI, or NAUI to turn the Spanish Inquisition on the good guys; no ALL of the guys, good, bad and indifferent. When the government (and obseqious halfwits like PADI/NAUI) adopt the tactics of the bad guys, they've forgotten they are government and we've lost this so-called war. We can be safe without becomiing . . . well, you choose the name.
This would be merely pathetic if no one got hurt, but I fear someone innocent will, or has.
There will be honest, loyal, American, muslim divers out there or others that may confuse those inclined to indict those who don't look white or Christian/jewish enough at first glance. It would be a shame to ruin their lives because PADI's and NAUI's craven management hand over the keys to the store with no forethought.
Working a few blocks from the White House, I have may more skin in the game than their Lordships on the Hill and in the WH who will be evacuated at the first whale fart, but that's no excuse for the FBI, or PADI, or NAUI to turn the Spanish Inquisition on the good guys; no ALL of the guys, good, bad and indifferent. When the government (and obseqious halfwits like PADI/NAUI) adopt the tactics of the bad guys, they've forgotten they are government and we've lost this so-called war. We can be safe without becomiing . . . well, you choose the name.
This would be merely pathetic if no one got hurt, but I fear someone innocent will, or has.
Burke
Guest
It's always nice when someone bashes someone elses information ("jailhouse lawyer jibberish (1st yr. law student?)"), and then they proceed to give ZERO pieces of factual information.
If this argument is about weather or not PADI or the FBI did something illegal, then the answer is NO. PADI VOLUNTERILY gave over that information, that is not illegal, unless of course when you guys took your open water courses the paperwork you signed included anything about the information not being disclosed to the FBI.
So, with that out of the way, I guess the only real question is should PADI have fought giving the information to the FBI, if you think they should have, fine, you are allowed you own opinion. I just can't imagine why anyone would feel that way. The FBI would have gotten this information anyway, sense when is it a BAD THING when people cooperate with the authorities in their search for terrorist.
If the FBI had asked the Florida flight school for their records on Sept. 1 the flight school would have had the option of refusing to comply on the grounds that the FBI didn't have a subpoena, now please don't tell me that anyone here can say that would have been a good thing.
If this argument is about weather or not PADI or the FBI did something illegal, then the answer is NO. PADI VOLUNTERILY gave over that information, that is not illegal, unless of course when you guys took your open water courses the paperwork you signed included anything about the information not being disclosed to the FBI.
So, with that out of the way, I guess the only real question is should PADI have fought giving the information to the FBI, if you think they should have, fine, you are allowed you own opinion. I just can't imagine why anyone would feel that way. The FBI would have gotten this information anyway, sense when is it a BAD THING when people cooperate with the authorities in their search for terrorist.
If the FBI had asked the Florida flight school for their records on Sept. 1 the flight school would have had the option of refusing to comply on the grounds that the FBI didn't have a subpoena, now please don't tell me that anyone here can say that would have been a good thing.
danceswithoctopus
Guest
I know I'm in big trouble here, but that would have been a good thing.
More to the point: If the FBI had probable cause for the records they could have quickly obtained a subpoena and would have obtained the records. THAT, my friend, would have been a good thing. It's all about due process, checks and balances.
(For those who might flame me: I too lost people in 9-11. I just choose not to wear it on my sleeve. Those I knew would support my position.)
Burke
Guest
If the FBI had received a tip on Sept. 1 that someone was taking or had taken flight lessons in Florida in order to hijack a plane and run it into something, and they (the FBI) went to the flight school that had unknowingly trained the hijackers and they asked for the flight schools records the flights school could:
(A) Do the right thing and say, "sorry you don't have enough evidence to get a subpoena so we aren't going to let you look at our records.
OR
(B) Do the wrong thing and say "sure go ahead and take a look at our records" this of course would have saved 3000 lives, but, hey that is nothing compared to the fact that it would have been taking a step toward giving in to the government and we would soon be living in a police state.
(A) Do the right thing and say, "sorry you don't have enough evidence to get a subpoena so we aren't going to let you look at our records.
OR
(B) Do the wrong thing and say "sure go ahead and take a look at our records" this of course would have saved 3000 lives, but, hey that is nothing compared to the fact that it would have been taking a step toward giving in to the government and we would soon be living in a police state.
Similar threads
