|
On August 11 2012 13:01 Maxd11 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2012 11:55 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On August 11 2012 11:39 Maxd11 wrote:On August 11 2012 11:26 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On August 11 2012 11:20 mythandier wrote:
I can't say I care.
I'm still going to wake up, drive my nice car to work on Monday, work in my nice office, and go home to my hot wife and nice house in the suburbs and play some SC2 at some point in the week.
Despite what you might believe, everyone is not out to get you. You're just not that important. And there it is, why there isn't a reason to place faith in the people. You're the kind of person who would have been in Germany praising Hitler because no way big government can be bad, get real... It might not be there to be the boogeyman, but it puts its own interest ahead of others. You simply can't feel it because you've obviously been rather privileged, easy to be ignorant when you have not a worry. Not being paranoid≠no sense of morality. I can't even begin to understand how someone can compare supporting a mass murderer to simply not caring if there happens to be video footage of you somewhere that nobody but a computer will have access to unless you committed a serious crime. It has to start somewhere, ignorance allowed Hitler to gain power and once he did, well let's just say trying to stop him within Germany gave you a quick ticket to death. Once you allow power to freely be taken away, sure maybe it's not corrupt at first but if history has shown anything, power corrupts. I'd prefer to not let it get that far again. I hate how everyone who disagrees with me seems to find a way to turn me into a genocide supporter. All I'm saying is knowing where I get my coffee isn't going to give anyone any power over me. But if it has the slightest chance of deterring or stopping a homicidal maniac it's good by me. I think it all comes around to the question "What do you have to hide?" If you don't then you simply shouldn't care.
It isn't that you are a "genocide supporter" and don't play the innocent card while presenting yourself in a facetious tone making ridiculous claims that people who think a governments ability to monitor everyones movement at all times is equatable to "out to get you". I am saying that ignorance that you allow, is power someone will harness and it has happened again and again. Mainly because of people like yourself who deems that security > freedom and we should all continue as our day progresses because who cares, nothing to hide.
|
On August 11 2012 10:53 Warlock40 wrote:
First of all, it should be noted that Russia is probably the only nation on the planet that actually has enough nukes to blow the US "off the face of the earth". Second, if you set aside USA and Russia, the number of nukes in the hands of "brown people" is higher than that in the hands of, err, white people.
France, Great Britain and Israel probably have more nukes than India, Pakistan and China, not only that but the whole "if you set aside" is ridicolous because US and Russia have the majority of the nukes, how can they be "set aside".
When I read about this huge plans to control information and mass surveillance in the name of fighting terrorism I can only think that there is an underlying purpose, maybe the US government knows that with the economic crisis and all that comes with it a better surveillance system and storing of data could eventually prevent a rebellion of the people, just look at the wall street ocupy movement, protests like that could get bigger in the future, that to me is what this is all about. A future bigger economic crisis, let's say in 50 years could cause protests proportionally bigger that the ones of the late sixties, the difference is that those were against war these ones will be against the government and the system, it is only logical for the government to be prepared.
|
Pretty scary that this thing is completely hidden from the citizens and we have no way to voice our opinions against it or vote against it or anything. They obviously knew the public would be outraged if they knew so that's probably why it's so secretive.
|
This is bullshit. We shouldn't tolerate this. Just my two cents because I have to throw in on the side of sanity.
|
I guess it's cause for a little concern, but to the majority of people it shouldn't matter much. Even with 1984 levels of surveillance, it's just going to be: "well, he got back from work. now he's playing video games. now he's masturbating. now he's watching tv. now he's masturbating again."
|
On August 11 2012 13:09 starfries wrote:
I guess it's cause for a little concern, but to the majority of people it shouldn't matter much. Even with 1984 levels of surveillance, it's just going to be: "well, he got back from work. now he's playing video games. now he's masturbating. now he's watching tv. now he's masturbating again."
And when the walls between church and state erode along with our traditional privacy barriers you won't even be able to masturbate in peace! I think that's the point when people will get up and realize they might need to do something about their situation.
|
From quoted article in OP:
"...the corporation's ties are assumed to go deeper than even documented."
"and they are potentially monitoring every single person via facial recognition."
I laughed out loud at both of these. I would assume the ties go as deep as the reptilians in every major office, and the cameras are also equipped with automated killbots that can clean up the scene of any murder in less than 30 seconds. Why have facts when you can just assume the most paranoid shit you can think of?
|
This is a massive leak this time, whoa. If this really is what it seems to be..........wow. That's a ridiculous system. I can't believe he actually got access to this kind of information. This is no laughing matter.
|
On August 11 2012 13:17 Blennd wrote:
From quoted article in OP:
"...the corporation's ties are assumed to go deeper than even documented."
"and they are potentially monitoring every single person via facial recognition."
I laughed out loud at both of these. I would assume the ties go as deep as the reptilians in every major office, and the cameras are also equipped with automated killbots that can clean up the scene of any murder in less than 30 seconds. Why have facts when you can just assume the most paranoid shit you can think of?
The first one is not that far fetched. The second is quite goofy.
"Look that's Jenny, she's buying a bag of chips" *military guys golfclap*
|
On August 11 2012 13:07 Nevermind86 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2012 10:53 Warlock40 wrote:
First of all, it should be noted that Russia is probably the only nation on the planet that actually has enough nukes to blow the US "off the face of the earth". Second, if you set aside USA and Russia, the number of nukes in the hands of "brown people" is higher than that in the hands of, err, white people. France, Great Britain and Israel probably have more nukes than India, Pakistan and China, not only that but the whole "if you set aside" is ridicolous because US and Russia have the majority of the nukes, how can they be "set aside". When I read about this huge plans to control information and mass surveillance in the name of fighting terrorism I can only think that there is an underlying purpose, maybe the US government knows that with the economic crisis and all that comes with it a better surveillance system and storing of data could eventually prevent a rebellion of the people, just look at the wall street ocupy movement, protests like that could get bigger in the future, that to me is what this is all about. A future bigger economic crisis, let's say in 50 years could cause protests proportionally bigger that the ones of the late sixties, the difference is that those were against war these ones will be against the government and the system, it is only logical for the government to be prepared.
Regarding the nuclear status of most countries in the world, I feel like this is a very informative link
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/interactive/2012/05/201252416836407993.html
You certainly can't set aside the USA and Russia.
Other than that, I think this is absolutely horrendous. I agree with Drone, no amount of 'safety' would make me want to give up so much privacy. Sometimes, I am truly thankful that I grew up in third world countries. Nowadays, Im thankful much more often.
|
Not a surprise and big news, but not Orwellian.
|
On August 11 2012 13:01 Greenei wrote:
Wouldn't something like this be unconstitutional in pretty much every democracy out there? Just sayan. To all the "I don't care when they have my data LOL" guys.
I don't think so, not in the us at least, because no ones privacy rights are technically violated. You have no "reasonable expectation of privacy" in any of the places effected by the cameras/system. They already had the ability to create a dossier on any one individual and collect info/record him while in public... No warrant needed for that. So technically this is the same thing just on a much larger scale.
The fact that they are fucking selling the info to corporations should result in an uproar, though. Taxpayer dollars should be going to defense and security, not letting unscrupulous CEOs voyeuristically analyze us so as to better bombard and invade our lives with targetted ads... There's no telling what these private companies might do to us with this data.
Far more worrisome, and vastly more unconstitutional than any of this is the "suspicion" arrests and detainments being used by the government at present... As the article in the op states. But it is the combination of factors that might really fuck up our liberties. We need to clean house governmentally, this is just getting out of hand.
|
On August 11 2012 09:51 ilikeredheads wrote:
Freedom isn't free. The US government is there to serve large private corporations, not the general public.
Quick, hide before you get labelled a conspiracist.
|
On August 11 2012 13:13 nanoscorp wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2012 13:09 starfries wrote:
I guess it's cause for a little concern, but to the majority of people it shouldn't matter much. Even with 1984 levels of surveillance, it's just going to be: "well, he got back from work. now he's playing video games. now he's masturbating. now he's watching tv. now he's masturbating again." And when the walls between church and state erode along with our traditional privacy barriers you won't even be able to masturbate in peace! I think that's the point when people will get up and realize they might need to do something about their situation.
There's a wall between church and state? Since when? 
|
People seem to act like this only happens in shows like 24
Obviously the governments that are sworn to protect their people from any threat "both foreign and domestic" are going to be eager to ensure that they aren't caught unawares by a plot that could be averted by thorough surveillance. I know many would say that security isn't worth their freedom (yadda yadda ben franklin), but it's easy to say that on this side of an attack. The funny thing is, it's outrage now, but if there was an attack, those same people would blame the government for not taking necessary steps to protect them.
|
The US is so totalitarian and yet the people do not care. This is something people should care about, but nobody will, because the majority will not be aware of it, even if it is posted all over the internet. If you speak up, they are going to listen, because they can't ignore you. Unfortunately, people do nothing.
Definition of totalitarianism:
"Totalitarianism (or totalitarian rule) is a political system where the state recognizes no limits to its authority and strives to regulate every aspect of public and private life wherever feasible.[1] Totalitarian regimes stay in political power through an all-encompassing propaganda campaign, which is disseminated through the state-controlled mass media (Fox), a single party that is often marked by political repression, personality cultism (people in America idealize leaders), control over the economy (yep), regulation and restriction of speech, mass surveillance (LOL), and widespread use of terror." (Wikipedia)
|
On August 11 2012 13:33 Carson wrote:People seem to act like this only happens in shows like 24Obviously the governments that are sworn to protect their people from any threat "both foreign and domestic" are going to be eager to ensure that they aren't caught unawares by a plot that could be averted by thorough surveillance. I know many would say that security isn't worth their freedom (yadda yadda ben franklin), but it's easy to say that on this side of an attack. The funny thing is, it's outrage now, but if there was an attack, those same people would blame the government for not taking necessary steps to protect them.
The problem is they set it up in secret using a bunch of corporations and also giving data to other random corporations, and there was no vote, no discourse... And the company who owns it is filled with ex government spooks not exactly known for refraining from drugging kidnapping blackmailing assassinating, and lately imprisoning and torturing. Being a us citizen has been no defense against the agencies in the past.
|
On August 11 2012 13:40 Zahir wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2012 13:33 Carson wrote:People seem to act like this only happens in shows like 24Obviously the governments that are sworn to protect their people from any threat "both foreign and domestic" are going to be eager to ensure that they aren't caught unawares by a plot that could be averted by thorough surveillance. I know many would say that security isn't worth their freedom (yadda yadda ben franklin), but it's easy to say that on this side of an attack. The funny thing is, it's outrage now, but if there was an attack, those same people would blame the government for not taking necessary steps to protect them. The problem is they set it up in secret using a bunch of corporations and also giving data to other random corporations, and there was no vote, no discourse... And the company who owns it is filled with ex government spooks not exactly known for refraining from drugging kidnapping blackmailing assassinating, and lately imprisoning and torturing. Being a us citizen has been no defense against the agencies in the past.
I can dig it. However, my question is: is it better for these quasi-government relatively unaccountable agencies to be quietly used when it is deemed necessary, or should the nasty business of using assassination and torture be public knowledge?
|
On August 11 2012 13:39 mikell wrote:
The US is so totalitarian and yet the people do not care. This is something people should care about, but nobody will, because the majority will not be aware of it, even if it is posted all over the internet. If you speak up, they are going to listen, because they can't ignore you. Unfortunately, people do nothing.
Definition of totalitarianism:
"Totalitarianism (or totalitarian rule) is a political system where the state recognizes no limits to its authority and strives to regulate every aspect of public and private life wherever feasible.[1] Totalitarian regimes stay in political power through an all-encompassing propaganda campaign, which is disseminated through the state-controlled mass media (Fox), a single party that is often marked by political repression, personality cultism (people in America idealize leaders), control over the economy (yep), regulation and restriction of speech, mass surveillance (LOL), and widespread use of terror." (Wikipedia)
And if you speak out against the majority, you will be ostracized *by not only the government but the people too*, this thread has plenty of examples of this perhaps its because if they side with the majority they themselves cant be singled out, until its too late. And the worst part is the people literally cheer this behavior on.
|
with stuff like wikileaks and freedom of information legislation and various google products and marketing data, it's getting easier and easier to get your hands on this kind of information. I might not trust the government... but I trust my fellow citizens even less. so I wouldn't really worry about the FBI watching what you do. I'd worry more about your crazy ex-girlfriend watching what you do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
