US Politics Mega-thread - Page 2540

On November 20 2015 04:27 Plansix wrote:
I really hope one of the Republican candidates has the back bone to go after Trump for pile of non-sense. It could be a great moment for Rubio if he just calls and spade a spade.

On November 20 2015 04:16 KwarK wrote:

That amounts to "if the Secret Service picked the lock rather than breaking the door down, and if they put things back where they found them after searching then really, what is the harm?". And the FISA court is a joke.

I'll take the moat. Even if enemies get one too.

On November 20 2015 04:18 Gorsameth wrote:

You have 0 ways of knowing if your emails are being read. Yeah officially they need court orders but when its impossible to detect the desire to get those orders swiftly goes away and they instead just go read everything all the time because you cant know it happened anyway.

As I said previously, You know when your door is smashed in and you can ask to see the warrant.
You will never know your digital privacy was breached, so how will you ever ask to see the warrant?
(ofc if it ever goes to court you could but we are talking about innocent people here).

On November 20 2015 04:29 Gorsameth wrote:

That gets him + General election points and - Primary election points so in the end he still loses.

Welcome to the problem of the Republican nomination.

On November 20 2015 04:31 oneofthem wrote:
no, it amounts to 'we time capsule a particular house and throw it away in the cabinet in case we need to investigate.'
a more abstract analogy is simply labeling a house on the map in case of later retrieval.

the FISA court is populated by circuit court judges that will at least require the agency to state some reason for a search. it's far more security than what silicon valley does with your data.


yet again you are emotionally comparing an archival copy of content with active snooping behind your back or in your house. it's simply not similar whether by level of peeking or by the functional role in which this step serves in the discovery of information.

i fail to see how knowing whether the data is being searched is that relevant after it isn't disproportionately understood. but granting that knowing a search is a problem, there is no difference. if the police has a warrant, they will search your place. you knowing them knocking isn't going to help you unless you are just there to burn up your drugs or whatever. it's simply not a meaningful distinction because the police does not inform you that they are applying for a warrant in the real world situation.

On November 20 2015 03:47 oneofthem wrote:
the specific thing hillary was talking about is complete encryption stuff. it's not broad surveillance.

also would not surprise me if a lot of this noise about the nsa is putin lackeys

On November 20 2015 04:50 Nyxisto wrote:
Whether they are reading your emails are not

On November 20 2015 04:50 oneofthem wrote:
try to think about privacy beyond the simple emotional reflex entirely captured by "kyaa! hentai."

On November 20 2015 04:48 IgnE wrote:


Lol you really are obsessed with putin

On November 20 2015 04:55 oneofthem wrote:
problem with that view is that the information required to further discriminate between harm and harmless suspects might be encrypted and/or beyond the grasp of current monitors.

On November 20 2015 04:58 oneofthem wrote:

and you are really naive about the russians.

i'll just say that like the immune system, civil rights safeguards are important. but this is a simple allergic reaction brought about by changing technological and threat environment.

The Obama administration has been widely criticized for not prosecuting Wall Street executives who presided over the financial crisis. Would you have tried to send them to jail?

Ha!

…And do they still deserve to go?

I'd like to be able to tell you more than I can. I think meetings that one has with the president have got to be held private. But what I can tell you: About a half-dozen of us went to visit the president, I'm guessing six months into his [first] term. And we went into the White House, and Larry Summers was there and [Tim] Geithner was there. We had all their money people, all their financial people. That was the issue.

I like the president very much, and I have supported him. We've worked together. But these are some of the disagreements we have. The American people were crushed by the greed and illegal behavior on Wall Street, right? And the American people wanted justice.


And we said to the president – I wasn't alone on this – we said, "Mr. President, you gotta do something. You gotta be tough on this issue." The end result was seven years have come and gone and there are still no high-ranking CEOs who are in jail. There are kids who smoke marijuana who have criminal records, but not CEOs of large corporations. No matter what kind of crimes and illegal activity, these guys [Wall Street CEOs] are too big to jail?

That is one of the reasons why people become alienated from the political process. They just don't see justice. From a public-policy point of view, in terms of holding people accountable for serious crimes, the Obama administration blew it. From a political point of view, in giving people confidence that we have a criminal-justice system that works for all, regardless of their wealth or power, it blew it.

Now what do you think a president should have done? On Day One, I am appointing a special committee to investigate the crimes on Wall Street. We're gonna move this quickly, and if these people are found guilty, they will be in jail. Nobody in America is above the law. Is that what Barack Obama said? Mm – not quite.

On November 20 2015 05:23 Deathstar wrote:
Sanders interview yesterday.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/bernie-sanders-political-revolution-20151118?page=9

While reading this, I remembered one of the debate quotes by Sanders. "Wall Street regulates Congress, Congress does not regulate Wall Street." If Hillary wins, we'll probably have a war on our hands and further deregulation.

I don't want you to think that a display of your strength is simply shutting other people up. And that part of your ability to bring about change is going to be by engagement and understanding the viewpoints and the arguments of the other side.

And so when I hear, for example, you know, folks on college campuses saying, "We're not going to allow somebody to speak on our campus because we disagree with their ideas or we feel threatened by their ideas--" you know, I think that's a recipe for dogmatism. And I think you're not going to be as effective…

I do worry if young people start getting trained to think that if somebody says something I don't like, if somebody says something that hurts my feelings, that my only recourse is to shut them up, avoid them, push them away, call on a higher power to protect me from that.