EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 1434
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
nunez
Norway4003 Posts
| ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
nunez
Norway4003 Posts
digital surveillance is not ambiguous. time better spent making your boogeyman really scary. put some fangs on it. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
Doublemint
Austria8551 Posts
On November 17 2014 06:13 oneofthem wrote: you are missing the point here. the point is that in preserving access the government's action may resemble the physical equivalent of opening your door, but it is really just trying to find your address. you are totally downplaying what you can do with meta data alone. the totally out of this world fact of the matter is that even after snowden telling it how it is, the nsa is still trusted. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On November 17 2014 06:39 oneofthem wrote: go build your off grid cave or something This gets to the heart of what your position is. It's too late. Privacy doesn't exist anymore. You can't stop it so don't worry about it. I haven't personally noticed a difference and I trust the listeners when they say it's for our own good. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23270 Posts
On November 17 2014 06:44 Doublemint wrote: you are totally downplaying what you can do with meta data alone. the totally out of this world fact of the matter is that even after snowden telling it how it is, the nsa is still trusted. So are our credit rating agencies... go figure #Merica' | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
| ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On November 17 2014 08:27 Nyxisto wrote: The point isn't even whether their is some objective "border" of privacy, it's very difficult to draw an exact line anyway. The point is that a lot of people, not just outside of the US, think that agencies like the NSA are invading their privacy. In a democracy that should already be sufficient reason for a change in behaviour. It's not the people's job to prove that their privacy isn't invaded. This isn't even libertarian crazy talk, that's just one of the most basic features of democracies. From the video with Hayden a few pages back, the NSA is / will be changing how the program is conducted. It used to hold domestic data itself, and now it will have to ask for each query it runs. That should severely limit the potential of abuse, since each query will have to be justified and a paper trail for each will exist. On November 17 2014 07:20 GreenHorizons wrote: So are our credit rating agencies... go figure #Merica' They do as good of a job as one can expect. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
I know a lot of people whose last straw was the NSA/associated agencies outright lying about the bulk collection of data and the preservation of it. James Clapper at Congress was just the height of arrogance. | ||
|
Doublemint
Austria8551 Posts
On November 17 2014 13:45 Danglars wrote: I think tracking your credit and tracking cell phone metadata area apples and oranges. I know a lot of people whose last straw was the NSA/associated agencies outright lying about the bulk collection of data and the preservation of it. James Clapper at Congress was just the height of arrogance. exactly. and that got nothing to do with Dems or Reps per se. that's undermining everyone's interest in a functioning democracy and just goes too far to the side of security on the scale security <-> freedom/privacy. it does as good as nothing in comparison to the cost to everyone's life being fairly transparent and the potential abuse. in europe there were studies that data retention actually showed police incompetence rather than a higher rate of prevented crime/solved crimes. the people arguing for the motion in front of the European court of justice had fucking difficulties showing concrete results. that's why it got canned. for now. I can understand that people are afraid of attacks, but the terrorists won if you give up the freedoms and rights too willingly, rights you fought for to get from the government in the first place paradoxically. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
Simberto
Germany11544 Posts
Consider the following scenario: The government takes every single letter sent by anyone to anyone else, has a giant database with all the connections, and copies every single letter. But they promise not to look at those copies unless you are an evil terrorist. Of course, there is no oversight over this process because it needs to be secret for your safety. But rest assured that there is definitively a court overlooking all of this, even if noone can know anything about this procedure because once again, your safety. That is obviously absurd. Why does it stop being absurd once the letter is via the internet? The basic priciple is the following: If i have a private conversation with someone else, unless the police produces a warrent from a court before i do so, they have no right to listen in. It should not matter what medium this conversation takes place through, be it a letter, a phone call, or any modern digital version of those. I should also not be forced into taking complex measures to try to prevent the government from listening in, while they try their hardest to listen in. This should not be a competition between who knows more about digital data transfers. It should be a right that people just have, and that the government does not interfere with. And it was, until the internet got invented. The secrecy of letters is protected by laws. The secrecy of phone calls is protected by laws. But for some legalistic reason, once stuff is on the internet the same rules no longer apply. And that is obviously utterly insane, and i can not fathom why someone would argue otherwise. | ||
|
nunez
Norway4003 Posts
the nsa was vacuuming up phonecalls back in the 70s already. the medium is different, and more potent, but the nature of the beast stayed the same, and will continute to do so, barring a proper public response. from pando article quoted earlier: ... It was the first time that the NSA publicly maintained that it was legally entitled to wiretap Americans’ communications overseas, in spite of the 1934 Communications Act and other legal restrictions placed on other intelligence and law enforcement agencies. It was also the first time an NSA chief publicly lied to Congress, claiming it was not eavesdropping on domestic or overseas phone calls involving American citizens. (Technically, legalistically, the NSA argued that it hadn’t lied—the reason being that since Americans weren’t specifically “targeted” in the NSA’s vast data-vacuuming programs in the 1970s, recording and storing every phone call and telex cable in computers which were then data-mined for keywords, that therefore they weren’t technically eavesdropping on Americans who just happened to be swept up into the wiretapping vacuum.) the bolded part is pretty uncanny. i bet oneofthem is busy staging a false flag over in the blog section right now. time to don my tinfoil armor. | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
| ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
due process wont solve anything because the standard is very well established and pretty forgiving. it's up to internal regulations and these are in place. none of this is carried out to suppress or 'rule' over the public. | ||
|
Doublemint
Austria8551 Posts
On November 18 2014 01:27 oneofthem wrote: domestic line is very fluid given the number of foreign operatives who are citizens or communicate with u.s. nationals. due process wont solve anything because the standard is very well established and pretty forgiving. it's up to internal regulations and these are in place. none of this is carried out to suppress or 'rule' over the public. agreed, like really I do agree. I don't question their intentions, what I question is human nature. if you give someone too much power he or she will abuse it at some point. and that's a universal fact. proven many times over the course of history. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21740 Posts
On November 18 2014 01:27 oneofthem wrote: domestic line is very fluid given the number of foreign operatives who are citizens or communicate with u.s. nationals. due process wont solve anything because the standard is very well established and pretty forgiving. it's up to internal regulations and these are in place. none of this is carried out to suppress or 'rule' over the public. They say they are in place. They say they follow them yet it is all hidden behind secret this and secret that so all we have in the end is their word for it. And sorry but they are not really making a good case for that with the lies they keep telling. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
| ||
