|
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. |
On November 18 2014 08:01 Doublemint wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2014 07:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 18 2014 07:48 Doublemint wrote:On November 18 2014 07:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 18 2014 06:38 Doublemint wrote:On November 18 2014 05:44 JonnyBNoHo wrote:The question itself is a red herring. You can't legislate that Walmart, and only Walmart, raise its wages. Moreover, you wouldn't want to. Businesses are supposed to be dynamic competitive entities where best practices are allowed to develop and spread. Trying to force a company's profit down defeats that dynamic, and should be reserved for special circumstances such as profit from monopoly power or 'unfair' (i.e. anti-competitive) practices or something of the like. Walmart's profit largely comes from a highly efficient supply chain. The bulk of that efficiency is passed on to consumers in the form of lower prices and not higher profits. That is a great thing, and if all retailers were as efficient we'd all be much better off economically. Edit: I'll also say that the idea that 'food stamps are corporate welfare' is a really stupid idea that just needs to die already. nobody takes this question at its literal meaning. except you I guess. It's not a practical policy measure or punitive policy for any company, but a specific example showing what if. but good to know we got some wal mart fans in the house. It is not useful as a 'specific example' either. Businesses are heterogeneous. The specific impact on one will not be the specific impact on another. Edit: Sorry, figured everyone already knew that. it set out to answer what kind of wage walmart had to pay their employees to get them off food stamps, and what the impact of that would be. it did just that. you jumping in on behalf of walmart, or any other "heterogenous business" is another story entirely. Yeah, it set out to answer an irrelevant question. lol. and there I was about to call you Lisa Simpson. "The answer to a question that was never asked!"
Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer 
|
On November 18 2014 08:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2014 08:01 Doublemint wrote:On November 18 2014 07:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 18 2014 07:48 Doublemint wrote:On November 18 2014 07:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 18 2014 06:38 Doublemint wrote:On November 18 2014 05:44 JonnyBNoHo wrote:The question itself is a red herring. You can't legislate that Walmart, and only Walmart, raise its wages. Moreover, you wouldn't want to. Businesses are supposed to be dynamic competitive entities where best practices are allowed to develop and spread. Trying to force a company's profit down defeats that dynamic, and should be reserved for special circumstances such as profit from monopoly power or 'unfair' (i.e. anti-competitive) practices or something of the like. Walmart's profit largely comes from a highly efficient supply chain. The bulk of that efficiency is passed on to consumers in the form of lower prices and not higher profits. That is a great thing, and if all retailers were as efficient we'd all be much better off economically. Edit: I'll also say that the idea that 'food stamps are corporate welfare' is a really stupid idea that just needs to die already. nobody takes this question at its literal meaning. except you I guess. It's not a practical policy measure or punitive policy for any company, but a specific example showing what if. but good to know we got some wal mart fans in the house. It is not useful as a 'specific example' either. Businesses are heterogeneous. The specific impact on one will not be the specific impact on another. Edit: Sorry, figured everyone already knew that. it set out to answer what kind of wage walmart had to pay their employees to get them off food stamps, and what the impact of that would be. it did just that. you jumping in on behalf of walmart, or any other "heterogenous business" is another story entirely. Yeah, it set out to answer an irrelevant question. lol. and there I was about to call you Lisa Simpson. "The answer to a question that was never asked!" Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer
"There are naive questions, tedious questions, ill-phrased questions, questions put after inadequate self-criticism. But every question is a cry to understand the world. There is no such thing as a dumb question.”- Carl Sagan
|
On November 18 2014 07:06 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2014 06:24 m4ini wrote:nsa also has a compliance wing specifically to ensure enforcement of new oversight laws put into place a few years ago. To whom do they answer? Honest question, since i didn't read about them. it's an internal effort because they care, like it or not. the compliance officer is like a vice president of operations in rank and is in charge of this specific compliance stuff. here's a faq http://blogs.wsj.com/riskandcompliance/2014/01/23/compliance-in-government-qa-with-john-delong-of-the-nsa/btw on the overall question of how to keep government honest. the internal institutional culture is very important. if you truly care join the service, but not in the malicious and sabotaging way a snowden would. keep an open mind
Lol. Even Snowden says that the analysts are "good people." The problem is that the NSA has decided to take something unto itself that is forbidden to wise people. No one here questions that there are people in the NSA who want to "do the right thing." But even a benevolent tyrant is a tyrant, and without freedom of the mind there is no democracy, only slavery.
Also lol at jonny drawing a distinction between content and metadata. Privacy requires both secrecy and anonymity. Knowing who you are talking with vitiates freedom just as knowing what you are talking about does.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
talk about hyperbole. police scanners on highways are enslaving too?
|
On November 18 2014 08:25 Doublemint wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2014 08:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 18 2014 08:01 Doublemint wrote:On November 18 2014 07:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 18 2014 07:48 Doublemint wrote:On November 18 2014 07:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 18 2014 06:38 Doublemint wrote:On November 18 2014 05:44 JonnyBNoHo wrote:The question itself is a red herring. You can't legislate that Walmart, and only Walmart, raise its wages. Moreover, you wouldn't want to. Businesses are supposed to be dynamic competitive entities where best practices are allowed to develop and spread. Trying to force a company's profit down defeats that dynamic, and should be reserved for special circumstances such as profit from monopoly power or 'unfair' (i.e. anti-competitive) practices or something of the like. Walmart's profit largely comes from a highly efficient supply chain. The bulk of that efficiency is passed on to consumers in the form of lower prices and not higher profits. That is a great thing, and if all retailers were as efficient we'd all be much better off economically. Edit: I'll also say that the idea that 'food stamps are corporate welfare' is a really stupid idea that just needs to die already. nobody takes this question at its literal meaning. except you I guess. It's not a practical policy measure or punitive policy for any company, but a specific example showing what if. but good to know we got some wal mart fans in the house. It is not useful as a 'specific example' either. Businesses are heterogeneous. The specific impact on one will not be the specific impact on another. Edit: Sorry, figured everyone already knew that. it set out to answer what kind of wage walmart had to pay their employees to get them off food stamps, and what the impact of that would be. it did just that. you jumping in on behalf of walmart, or any other "heterogenous business" is another story entirely. Yeah, it set out to answer an irrelevant question. lol. and there I was about to call you Lisa Simpson. "The answer to a question that was never asked!" Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer "There are naive questions, tedious questions, ill-phrased questions, questions put after inadequate self-criticism. But every question is a cry to understand the world. There is no such thing as a dumb question.”- Carl Sagan
Fair enough, but the context there is a genuine search for knowledge, which you don't seem to be interested in.
Edit: I should add that the video isn't genuinely searching for knowledge either. It's possible they started out that way, but they're giving answers now so they're no longer simply questing for knowledge but trying to impose what they see as the truth on others.
|
On November 18 2014 08:44 oneofthem wrote:
talk about hyperbole. police scanners on highways are enslaving too?
Is the internet a public highway now? If we expect our reading to be private do we have to wear a disguise to a bookstore and pay in cash?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
it is in terms of your behavior and activities on it can be illegal/highly harmful. if guys are talking about abusing children or laundering money for either crime or terrorism/jihad yea we have an interest in seeing what's going on.
btw privacy is damaged both by the act and by the knowledge of the act. keeping a fine operation covert is a part of protection of privacy and snowden clearly did more harm than anything nsa ever did.
|
On November 18 2014 08:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2014 08:25 Doublemint wrote:On November 18 2014 08:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 18 2014 08:01 Doublemint wrote:On November 18 2014 07:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 18 2014 07:48 Doublemint wrote:On November 18 2014 07:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 18 2014 06:38 Doublemint wrote:On November 18 2014 05:44 JonnyBNoHo wrote:The question itself is a red herring. You can't legislate that Walmart, and only Walmart, raise its wages. Moreover, you wouldn't want to. Businesses are supposed to be dynamic competitive entities where best practices are allowed to develop and spread. Trying to force a company's profit down defeats that dynamic, and should be reserved for special circumstances such as profit from monopoly power or 'unfair' (i.e. anti-competitive) practices or something of the like. Walmart's profit largely comes from a highly efficient supply chain. The bulk of that efficiency is passed on to consumers in the form of lower prices and not higher profits. That is a great thing, and if all retailers were as efficient we'd all be much better off economically. Edit: I'll also say that the idea that 'food stamps are corporate welfare' is a really stupid idea that just needs to die already. nobody takes this question at its literal meaning. except you I guess. It's not a practical policy measure or punitive policy for any company, but a specific example showing what if. but good to know we got some wal mart fans in the house. It is not useful as a 'specific example' either. Businesses are heterogeneous. The specific impact on one will not be the specific impact on another. Edit: Sorry, figured everyone already knew that. it set out to answer what kind of wage walmart had to pay their employees to get them off food stamps, and what the impact of that would be. it did just that. you jumping in on behalf of walmart, or any other "heterogenous business" is another story entirely. Yeah, it set out to answer an irrelevant question. lol. and there I was about to call you Lisa Simpson. "The answer to a question that was never asked!" Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer "There are naive questions, tedious questions, ill-phrased questions, questions put after inadequate self-criticism. But every question is a cry to understand the world. There is no such thing as a dumb question.”- Carl Sagan Fair enough, but the context there is a genuine search for knowledge, which you don't seem to be interested in. Edit: I should add that the video isn't genuinely searching for knowledge either. It's possible they started out that way, but they're giving answers now so they're no longer simply questing for knowledge but trying to impose what they see as the truth on others. Academic detachment with the economist flavor, unafraid to show some mean-spirited partisanship (such is the current state of the term). I like it!
|
|
|
btw privacy is damaged both by the act and by the knowledge of the act. keeping a fine operation covert is a part of protection of privacy and snowden clearly did more harm than anything nsa ever did.
Yet you use his "legacy" as an argument for "proof" about how efficient the self-regulation works. Isn't that interesting.
edit: i also don't understand "your privacy is totally protected as long as you don't know that it isn't".
|
On November 18 2014 09:39 oneofthem wrote:
btw privacy is damaged both by the act and by the knowledge of the act. keeping a fine operation covert is a part of protection of privacy and snowden clearly did more harm than anything nsa ever did.
are you serious? If I steal money out of your bank account without you noticing it I'm not hurting your financial interests? I mean a dollar here and there doesn't hurt as long as you don't notice it? If you don't catch me snooping around in your stuff means it never happened? That's some next level Orwellian thinking
|
On November 18 2014 09:53 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2014 09:39 oneofthem wrote:
btw privacy is damaged both by the act and by the knowledge of the act. keeping a fine operation covert is a part of protection of privacy and snowden clearly did more harm than anything nsa ever did. are you serious? If I steal money out of your bank account without you noticing it I'm not hurting your financial interests? I mean a dollar here and there doesn't hurt as long as you don't notice it? If you don't catch me snooping around in your stuff means it never happened? That's some next level Orwellian thinking
That .... is incredible. I would never have thought that there are actually people who think like that.
"Spying on you is only bad if you know about it, so really the guys telling you about it are to blame, not the people doing the spying".
I honestly don't have a response to that. I don't think i can find any common ground with a person whose logic is so broken. This is basically a glimpse into a bizarre different world in which pigs fly up the rainbow river on St. Cthulhu day.
|
|
|
On November 18 2014 10:13 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2014 09:53 Nyxisto wrote:On November 18 2014 09:39 oneofthem wrote:
btw privacy is damaged both by the act and by the knowledge of the act. keeping a fine operation covert is a part of protection of privacy and snowden clearly did more harm than anything nsa ever did. are you serious? If I steal money out of your bank account without you noticing it I'm not hurting your financial interests? I mean a dollar here and there doesn't hurt as long as you don't notice it? If you don't catch me snooping around in your stuff means it never happened? That's some next level Orwellian thinking That .... is incredible. I would never have thought that there are actually people who think like that. " Spying on you is only bad if you know about it, so really the guys telling you about it are to blame, not the people doing the spying". I honestly don't have a response to that. I don't think i can find any common ground with a person whose logic is so broken. This is basically a glimpse into a bizarre different world in which pigs fly up the rainbow river on St. Cthulhu day.
He should clarify, but he didn't actually say that. Keywords: "both","and".
|
"snowden clearly did more harm than anything nsa ever did. "
Clearly goes a lot more into the direction of "The spying itself is not the problem, you knowing about it is". than "well the spying is really bad, but it would be slightly less bad if you didn't know about it".
And that is utter nonsense. The problem is the spying. Telling people that their rights are being ignored and they are being spied upon by a giant, totally uncontrolled stasi-like organisation (Well, more like the Stasi's wet dream) is not worse than ignoring their rights ans spying upon them with a giant totally uncontrolled stasi like organisation. It is actually NOT bad at all.
Or would anyone argue that date rape is not bad if you use chemicals such that the victim doesn't remember? No. A crime is bad, even if the victim doesn't know it happened, and the person publicising the fact that that crime happened is NOT responsible for it originally happening.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
this is rather simple. if you have a secret investigation making it public is a breach of privacy. it's how secrecy works. the NSA and any intelligence arm has to keep their stuff secret in part to defend the public's privacy. 10 guys sworn to protect your data vs the whole world knowing your stuff has been seen, plus the panopticon effect of subjective knowledge.
the concern over data fragility is real in terms of what if the database is breached by unauthorized access, but this is not an impossible problem to solve.
|
On November 18 2014 10:32 Simberto wrote:
"snowden clearly did more harm than anything nsa ever did. "
Clearly goes a lot more into the direction of "The spying itself is not the problem, you knowing about it is". than "well the spying is really bad, but it would be slightly less bad if you didn't know about it".
And that is utter nonsense. The problem is the spying. Telling people that their rights are being ignored and they are being spied upon by a giant, totally uncontrolled stasi-like organisation (Well, more like the Stasi's wet dream) is not worse than ignoring their rights ans spying upon them with a giant totally uncontrolled stasi like organisation. It is actually NOT bad at all.
Or would anyone argue that date rape is not bad if you use chemicals such that the victim doesn't remember? No. A crime is bad, even if the victim doesn't know it happened, and the person publicising the fact that that crime happened is NOT responsible for it originally happening.
It only weakens your argument if you guys paraphrase him wrong, though.
Running with the rape analogy there's are legitimate and conflicting concerns between due justice and privacy. The victim will want privacy with regards to the crime's details and the alleged perpetrator will want to confront his / her accuser. Balancing those two isn't always easy, and total public transparency probably wouldn't be the best way to go for that.
|
On November 18 2014 10:46 oneofthem wrote:
this is rather simple. if you have a secret investigation making it public is a breach of privacy. it's how secrecy works. the NSA and any intelligence arm has to keep their stuff secret in part to defend the public's privacy. 10 guys sworn to protect your data vs the whole world knowing your stuff has been seen, plus the panopticon effect of subjective knowledge.
the concern over data fragility is real in terms of what if the database is breached by unauthorized access, but this is not an impossible problem to solve.
No, the concern is over them having a giant database on everyone in the first place, without any oversight whatsoever. Anything else is secondary to that. I am not even that scared about unauthorized access. It is the authorized access that bothers me most. Because noone knows who authorizes that access, what the procedures are, there is no seperation of powers and no oversight. Just a gigantic nontransparent organisation that collects shitloads of data on everyone, lies to your government about what they do with that data, etc...
The NSA does not "protect the publics privacy". You don't protect someones privacy by spying on them, that does not make the slightest amount of sense. And you not knowing that they spy on you does not mean they don't breach your privacy, it just means that you don't know that they do. Your privacy is breached nonetheless.
As far as i understand, your argument is "Well if you don't know about it, it has no negative effect on you, so if you don't know there is no problem, the problem only appears once you find out, thus the real problem is you finding out, not the spying itself". That is utter nonsense.
On November 18 2014 10:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2014 10:32 Simberto wrote:
"snowden clearly did more harm than anything nsa ever did. "
Clearly goes a lot more into the direction of "The spying itself is not the problem, you knowing about it is". than "well the spying is really bad, but it would be slightly less bad if you didn't know about it".
And that is utter nonsense. The problem is the spying. Telling people that their rights are being ignored and they are being spied upon by a giant, totally uncontrolled stasi-like organisation (Well, more like the Stasi's wet dream) is not worse than ignoring their rights ans spying upon them with a giant totally uncontrolled stasi like organisation. It is actually NOT bad at all.
Or would anyone argue that date rape is not bad if you use chemicals such that the victim doesn't remember? No. A crime is bad, even if the victim doesn't know it happened, and the person publicising the fact that that crime happened is NOT responsible for it originally happening. It only weakens your argument if you guys paraphrase him wrong, though. Running with the rape analogy there's are legitimate and conflicting concerns between due justice and privacy. The victim will want privacy with regards to the crime's details and the alleged perpetrator will want to confront his / her accuser. Balancing those two isn't always easy, and total public transparency probably wouldn't be the best way to go for that.
The best way to go would be for there to not be the rape in the first place. Which is hard to do when it comes to crimes like that. But incredibly easy to do when it comes to spying on your population. You could just...NOT finance a giant organisation to spy on your own population. Then it stops. And you don't have any of that moral dilemma left. If you are feeling particularly geopolitical you could even stop spying on everyone elses citizens too, that would be pretty nice, but i know that in american politics only americans are actually people with rights, everyone else doesn't get to have any.
|
On November 18 2014 10:46 oneofthem wrote:
this is rather simple. if you have a secret investigation making it public is a breach of privacy. it's how secrecy works. the NSA and any intelligence arm has to keep their stuff secret in part to defend the public's privacy. 10 guys sworn to protect your data vs the whole world knowing your stuff has been seen, plus the panopticon effect of subjective knowledge.
the concern over data fragility is real in terms of what if the database is breached by unauthorized access, but this is not an impossible problem to solve.
The listeners being upset that their secrecy has been breached? Wow. Who knew? Why should the listeners be subject to the people they are listening to? Democracy is overrated anyway right?
|
It's nothing new that oneofthem takes the same elitist stance on every goddamn topic just for the sake of it. Claiming that the problem about spying is that the spies are getting caught is just insane.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
