|
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. |
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On April 08 2015 09:44 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2015 09:00 oneofthem wrote:On April 08 2015 08:52 IgnE wrote:
Sorry but "reading comprehension" does not fit the bill for "resource intensive." What a joke. when you are talking about some potential eye of sauron level of invasive investigation, that would require a lot of resources. it's also inaccurate to say that "have the entire population's thoughts on tap with only a small hurdle to overcome to learn almost everything there is to know about someone." is the reality. bulk collection is just very noisy and it takes a lot of resources to select out the relevant stuff. the 'keyword' hurdle is also only applicable to those who are involved in foreign contact. domestic investigations still need to surmount the same hurdles as a physical warrant would need. however, i would completely change my tune if this structure is used for censorship etc purposes, and civil rights protection should be very rigorous in the programs that make use of this data. Uh, Eye of Sauron level invasive investigation is child's play for the NSA right now. They can easily just request from google all cookies they have stored on any person, and bam, you have a pretty accurate history of what they've been up to. And these are server-side cookies, clearing your history and cache will achieve nothing. Even a proxy can't hide you, because it doesn't provide anonymity, only pseudonymity. The proxy knows who you are. Then all the need to do is watch the traffic into the proxy, wait for the IP that has been used to make all the searches they're interested in, and bam, they got you. Show nested quote +On April 08 2015 09:31 oneofthem wrote:
the NSA isn't engaged in domestic censorship of that sort. For now. I bet in the 40's, you'd be saying the OSS would never be evil either. And yet we have shit like MKULTRA, plots to assassinate just about everyone, and the Iran Contra affair.
first point was already discussed. possibility of access and its scope doesn't mean actual access or widespread intensive surveillance. the NSA is really focused on data driven signal intelligence, and the human intelligence stuff is very resource intensive.
there are people who monitor potentially dangerous organizations, but this monitoring is no different than taking notes of what a particular group is doing at a rally.
there is no doubt that protection of political freedom from govt is important, and this would extend to monitoring. but not all monitoring was conducted by actual intelligence services, and the more harmful episodes of political persecution were the work of politicians, such as mccarthy.
All the technicalities aside, why do you actually need such a huge security apparatus? More security doesn't equal more safety. Other countries don't spend a small country's GDP worth of money on security and they're just as safe. Just use the money for food-stamps or healthcare or something. i would dispute this impression that these intelligence efforts are unproductive. western targets are still high value for these terrorist groups.
without intelligence what we'd have, in light of the potential threat, is more general and discriminatory border controls etc. i'd argue that the ability to more precisely tell who the actual dangerous guys are helps liberty for everyone else.
|
Rahm Emanuel has been reelected. -Local news.
|
On April 08 2015 08:55 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +A white police officer who shot and killed a black man after a traffic stop was charged with murder in North Charleston, S.C., on Tuesday.
The Post and Courier, a newspaper in Charleston, reports that officials played a video for reporters that showed Officer Michael Slager, 33, firing at 50-year-old Walter Scott as he fled, his back toward the officer.
The paper reports:
"Mayor Keith Summey added during a news conference that Slager's 'bad decision' prompted his arrest.
"'When you're wrong, you're wrong,' Summey said. 'When you make a bad decision, don't care if you're behind the shield or a citizen on the street, you have to live with that decision.'
"The footage, filmed by an anonymous bystander, shows the end of the confrontation between the two on Saturday after Scott, who had a warrant out for his arrest, ran from a traffic stop. It was the first piece of evidence that could contradict a statement that Slager released to the public through his attorney."
According to WCIV-TV in Charleston, Slager had said through his attorney that he believed he followed protocol during the incident. Source
Holy shit, didn't even notice the cop go back to grab the tazer to conveniently drop near the dying/dead man... That guy should die in prison. It was clearly an attempt at a cover up. Who knows how often stuff like that actually happens vs getting caught on tape though. The other cop on the scene isn't much better if he didn't report the obvious attempt at a cover-up.
|
United States2611 Posts
On April 08 2015 10:10 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2015 09:44 Millitron wrote:On April 08 2015 09:00 oneofthem wrote:On April 08 2015 08:52 IgnE wrote:
Sorry but "reading comprehension" does not fit the bill for "resource intensive." What a joke. when you are talking about some potential eye of sauron level of invasive investigation, that would require a lot of resources. it's also inaccurate to say that "have the entire population's thoughts on tap with only a small hurdle to overcome to learn almost everything there is to know about someone." is the reality. bulk collection is just very noisy and it takes a lot of resources to select out the relevant stuff. the 'keyword' hurdle is also only applicable to those who are involved in foreign contact. domestic investigations still need to surmount the same hurdles as a physical warrant would need. however, i would completely change my tune if this structure is used for censorship etc purposes, and civil rights protection should be very rigorous in the programs that make use of this data. Uh, Eye of Sauron level invasive investigation is child's play for the NSA right now. They can easily just request from google all cookies they have stored on any person, and bam, you have a pretty accurate history of what they've been up to. And these are server-side cookies, clearing your history and cache will achieve nothing. Even a proxy can't hide you, because it doesn't provide anonymity, only pseudonymity. The proxy knows who you are. Then all the need to do is watch the traffic into the proxy, wait for the IP that has been used to make all the searches they're interested in, and bam, they got you. On April 08 2015 09:31 oneofthem wrote:
the NSA isn't engaged in domestic censorship of that sort. For now. I bet in the 40's, you'd be saying the OSS would never be evil either. And yet we have shit like MKULTRA, plots to assassinate just about everyone, and the Iran Contra affair. first point was already discussed. possibility of access and its scope doesn't mean actual access or widespread intensive surveillance. the NSA is really focused on data driven signal intelligence, and the human intelligence stuff is very resource intensive. there are people who monitor potentially dangerous organizations, but this monitoring is no different than taking notes of what a particular group is doing at a rally. there is no doubt that protection of political freedom from govt is important, and this would extend to monitoring. but not all monitoring was conducted by actual intelligence services, and the more harmful episodes of political persecution were the work of politicians, such as mccarthy. Show nested quote +All the technicalities aside, why do you actually need such a huge security apparatus? More security doesn't equal more safety. Other countries don't spend a small country's GDP worth of money on security and they're just as safe. Just use the money for food-stamps or healthcare or something. i would dispute this impression that these intelligence efforts are unproductive. western targets are still high value for these terrorist groups. without intelligence what we'd have, in light of the potential threat, is more general and discriminatory border controls etc. i'd argue that the ability to more precisely tell who the actual dangerous guys are helps liberty for everyone else.
McCarthy didn't do it all himself. He had the help of the FBI and the Committee on Un-American Activities. No reason a modern politician couldn't take after McCarthy and use the NSA to harass or spy on their opposition.
|
On April 08 2015 09:15 Nyxisto wrote:
All the technicalities aside, why do you actually need such a huge security apparatus? More security doesn't equal more safety. Other countries don't spend a small country's GDP worth of money on security and they're just as safe. Just use the money for food-stamps or healthcare or something.
we don't. It could be a fair bit smaller. Though it's hard to see for sure without an inside look at what they're accomplishing.
A lot of people in the electorate confuse spending on things like "defense" and "intelligence" as actually being effective or important; rather than recognizing when it's overkill.
|
On April 08 2015 10:00 Yoav wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2015 09:52 Millitron wrote:On April 08 2015 09:49 Yoav wrote:On April 08 2015 09:15 Nyxisto wrote:
All the technicalities aside, why do you actually need such a huge security apparatus? More security doesn't equal more safety. Other countries don't spend a small country's GDP worth of money on security and they're just as safe. Just use the money for food-stamps or healthcare or something. While I'm certainly against the surveillance state, the point is just a rearrangement of your words: why do you actually need such a huge security apparatus?...Other countries don't spend money on security That's why. Maybe we should start spending less and make Europe pay its fair share. Yeah, but it's like a group project: Sure, you want to just say, fuck it, you deadbeats do it, but you're really worried they legit won't and you'll fail the assignment... or suffer a terrorist attack/get invaded by Russia.
Yeah, except the EU is still spending A LOT more money on it's military than Russia. Uk, France and Germany together roughly double Russia's military budget (A bit more or less depending on what numbers you look at). Just because we don't spend as insanely much as the US does not mean we don't spend enough to defend ourselves (Well, except against the US)
And your gigantic security apparatus benefits noone but the US, really. And even than, probably mostly the ruling elite as opposed to the actual people.
I doubt anyone here would complain if you spent less money spying on us.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
the overall relationship between german and american intelligence is cooperation and resource sharing. don't think there exists any basis for actual hostilities. but it is true that the u.s. simply does not trust germany to the extent of the UK etc five eyes nations.
|
On April 08 2015 10:54 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2015 10:00 Yoav wrote:On April 08 2015 09:52 Millitron wrote:On April 08 2015 09:49 Yoav wrote:On April 08 2015 09:15 Nyxisto wrote:
All the technicalities aside, why do you actually need such a huge security apparatus? More security doesn't equal more safety. Other countries don't spend a small country's GDP worth of money on security and they're just as safe. Just use the money for food-stamps or healthcare or something. While I'm certainly against the surveillance state, the point is just a rearrangement of your words: why do you actually need such a huge security apparatus?...Other countries don't spend money on security That's why. Maybe we should start spending less and make Europe pay its fair share. Yeah, but it's like a group project: Sure, you want to just say, fuck it, you deadbeats do it, but you're really worried they legit won't and you'll fail the assignment... or suffer a terrorist attack/get invaded by Russia. Yeah, except the EU is still spending A LOT more money on it's military than Russia. Uk, France and Germany together roughly double Russia's military budget (A bit more or less depending on what numbers you look at). Just because we don't spend as insanely much as the US does not mean we don't spend enough to defend ourselves (Well, except against the US) And your gigantic security apparatus benefits noone but the US, really. And even than, probably mostly the ruling elite as opposed to the actual people. I doubt anyone here would complain if you spent less money spying on us.
Recent articles in the press would suggest otherwise, especially regarding Germany.
Germany's defence ministry scrambled on Tuesday to counter media reports that its forces were so under-equipped they had to use broomsticks instead of machine-guns at Nato manoeuvres in Norway.
It was also true that much of the German force that participated did not have adequate weaponry: according to media reports, 41 percent of the soldiers lacked pistols they would carry in a genuine rapid deployment situation; and 31 percent of the MG3 general-purpose machine-guns were absent.
But this reflected the general short supply of equipment in Germany's armed forces, which was no secret and was addressed by rotation of certain hardware among units in a "very dynamic way" when required, according to the ministry.
http://www.thelocal.de/20150217/germans-troops-tote-broomsticks-at-nato-war-games
But not get too OT. but is interesting to see Europe's reaction to NATO. One is the reaction that the US doesn't offer enough. For example during the Libyan campaign where the UK, Italy and the Netherlands could barely keep their jets, and whatever ships fueled to not even having enough ammunition to even prep a patrol just in case. When Gates complained publicly about this US Diplomats were summoned. The of course there is the violent anti-American rhetoric that always seems to pop up now and again.
|
The GoFundMe campaign supporting the bigoted owners of Memories Pizza in Walkerton, Indiana, has ended, raising the O’Connor family a grand total of $842,387.
On April 08 2015 04:51 farvacola wrote:
Publicize this if you think it's abhorrent, folks. That's how the marketplace of ideas in a society that values freedom of expression works.
It's funny how quickly the "free" market sucks when its collectively decided that your decision to outwardly publicize a disinterest in serving gay weddings pizza is ignorant as fuck.
It is rather repulsive but not shocking how casually a purportedly news story will describe the attacked pizza parlor owners as "bigoted." I think it's a very good issue that got the publicity the left deserves. A news van driving around looking for a lightning rod for focusing the left's moral outrage machine can find a single business and put it out of business. If you think this level of enforced ideological conformity is discomforting, maybe you're among those that donated to show solidarity with them. I know I hope that gay couples will find patrons that will serve them, but think it's abhorrent that some will shop around for bakers that won't serve them to make a capital case out of it. It's a sad testament of the amplification soundbox that a minority can train on individuals and groups as well as another example of the viciousness of the actors in this debate, and those that would excuse it.
On April 08 2015 10:27 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Rahm Emanuel has been reelected. -Local news.
The Godfather stays! I was blown away that a challenger even got that close. Emanuel's a very effective politician.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
|
On April 08 2015 11:37 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +The GoFundMe campaign supporting the bigoted owners of Memories Pizza in Walkerton, Indiana, has ended, raising the O’Connor family a grand total of $842,387.
Show nested quote +On April 08 2015 04:51 farvacola wrote:
Publicize this if you think it's abhorrent, folks. That's how the marketplace of ideas in a society that values freedom of expression works.
It's funny how quickly the "free" market sucks when its collectively decided that your decision to outwardly publicize a disinterest in serving gay weddings pizza is ignorant as fuck. It is rather repulsive but not shocking how casually a purportedly news story will describe the attacked pizza parlor owners as "bigoted." I think it's a very good issue that got the publicity the left deserves. A news van driving around looking for a lightning rod for focusing the left's moral outrage machine can find a single business and put it out of business. If you think this level of enforced ideological conformity is discomforting, maybe you're among those that donated to show solidarity with them. I know I hope that gay couples will find patrons that will serve them, but think it's abhorrent that some will shop around for bakers that won't serve them to make a capital case out of it. It's a sad testament of the amplification soundbox that a minority can train on individuals and groups as well as another example of the viciousness of the actors in this debate, and those that would excuse it.
Yes, because apparently News Stations are wasting entire days just to look for specific stories instead of just, you know, interviewing business owners about the already existing lightning rod of the Religious Freedom Laws.
Also love how you frame your argument. "I hope that gay couples will find patrons that will serve them". Yeah, that's not how individual rights and freedoms work.
|
United States2611 Posts
On April 08 2015 11:45 oneofthem wrote:
but they are bigoted
Witch hunts are still bad. It's neither moral nor smart. In the court of public opinion, you're guilty until proven innocent. You really shouldn't just throw around accusations and media harassment.
Plus, making them martyrs isn't exactly a good idea either, as far as your cause is concerned.
On April 08 2015 12:00 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2015 11:37 Danglars wrote:The GoFundMe campaign supporting the bigoted owners of Memories Pizza in Walkerton, Indiana, has ended, raising the O’Connor family a grand total of $842,387.
On April 08 2015 04:51 farvacola wrote:
Publicize this if you think it's abhorrent, folks. That's how the marketplace of ideas in a society that values freedom of expression works.
It's funny how quickly the "free" market sucks when its collectively decided that your decision to outwardly publicize a disinterest in serving gay weddings pizza is ignorant as fuck. It is rather repulsive but not shocking how casually a purportedly news story will describe the attacked pizza parlor owners as "bigoted." I think it's a very good issue that got the publicity the left deserves. A news van driving around looking for a lightning rod for focusing the left's moral outrage machine can find a single business and put it out of business. If you think this level of enforced ideological conformity is discomforting, maybe you're among those that donated to show solidarity with them. I know I hope that gay couples will find patrons that will serve them, but think it's abhorrent that some will shop around for bakers that won't serve them to make a capital case out of it. It's a sad testament of the amplification soundbox that a minority can train on individuals and groups as well as another example of the viciousness of the actors in this debate, and those that would excuse it. Yes, because apparently News Stations are wasting entire days just to look for specific stories instead of just, you know, interviewing business owners about the already existing lightning rod of the Religious Freedom Laws. Also love how you frame your argument. "I hope that gay couples will find patrons that will serve them". Yeah, that's not how individual rights and freedoms work.
What about the business owner? They're an individual too. Do they not have rights and freedoms? Why do think its ok to force people to work?
|
On April 08 2015 11:45 oneofthem wrote:
but they are bigoted
Maybe. But maybe not. Maybe they have nothing against gay people but still honestly believe the precepts of their religion forbid them from participating in a ritual that is offensive to it. I don't think Catholics should be made to help out with executions, nor Quakers with arms manufacturing, nor Jews with KKK rallies. I do think that they shouldn't be allowed to refuse service on the basis of who someone is: Catholics should not refuse to serve executioners, nor Quakers soldiers, nor Jews racists. But they should absolutely be able to refrain from knowingly participating in a ritual that is offensive to their religion.
Don't get me wrong, I think the Bible suggests we should celebrate and accept gay couples. And I think equal rights is essential, as are non-discrimination laws. But there is a difference between refusing to serve people and refusing to participate in an offensive ritual or action. The refusal of some gay rights activists to understand that other people differ from them on gay marriage without being horrible people is troublingly puritanical.
|
On April 08 2015 12:00 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2015 12:00 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 08 2015 11:37 Danglars wrote:The GoFundMe campaign supporting the bigoted owners of Memories Pizza in Walkerton, Indiana, has ended, raising the O’Connor family a grand total of $842,387.
On April 08 2015 04:51 farvacola wrote:
Publicize this if you think it's abhorrent, folks. That's how the marketplace of ideas in a society that values freedom of expression works.
It's funny how quickly the "free" market sucks when its collectively decided that your decision to outwardly publicize a disinterest in serving gay weddings pizza is ignorant as fuck. It is rather repulsive but not shocking how casually a purportedly news story will describe the attacked pizza parlor owners as "bigoted." I think it's a very good issue that got the publicity the left deserves. A news van driving around looking for a lightning rod for focusing the left's moral outrage machine can find a single business and put it out of business. If you think this level of enforced ideological conformity is discomforting, maybe you're among those that donated to show solidarity with them. I know I hope that gay couples will find patrons that will serve them, but think it's abhorrent that some will shop around for bakers that won't serve them to make a capital case out of it. It's a sad testament of the amplification soundbox that a minority can train on individuals and groups as well as another example of the viciousness of the actors in this debate, and those that would excuse it. Yes, because apparently News Stations are wasting entire days just to look for specific stories instead of just, you know, interviewing business owners about the already existing lightning rod of the Religious Freedom Laws. Also love how you frame your argument. "I hope that gay couples will find patrons that will serve them". Yeah, that's not how individual rights and freedoms work. What about the business owner? They're an individual too. Do they not have rights and freedoms? Why do think its ok to force people to work?
Why does this argument always come up?
What rights and freedoms are you subscribing to that include "the right to treat other people however I want"?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
i don't particularly care why you believe gays should not be served.
|
On April 08 2015 12:08 oneofthem wrote:
i don't particularly care why you believe gays should not be served.
Because each person is an individual with the right to say no?
|
if you don't want to interact with an individual because he's an ass, fine. If you systematically discriminate people because of race, ethnicity or gender every sensible constitution should prohibit that behaviour.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On April 08 2015 12:11 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2015 12:08 oneofthem wrote:
i don't particularly care why you believe gays should not be served. Because each person is an individual with the right to say no?
when the intention to exclude includes a group of people, the underlying rationale is highly suspect and i personally don't really care. i care about consequences.
|
United States2611 Posts
On April 08 2015 12:15 Nyxisto wrote:
if you don't want to interact with an individual because he's an ass, fine. If you systematically discriminate people because of race, ethnicity or gender every sensible constitution should prohibit that behaviour.
How is forcing entire religions to violate their belief systems not discrimination, but refusing to bake a cake is?
|
We don't need to tolerate racist or homophobic behaviour just because someone's religion says so. I'm pretty sure the US wasn't founded as a theocratic state. Also Jesus would totally serve cake to homosexuals.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
