|
On June 30 2013 21:33 Sianos wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2013 21:22 m4inbrain wrote:
Did you somehow miss that the US isn't just monitoring their citizens? Your whole blabla about internet crime and stuff is completely pointless, since they don't have any legal ground here anyway. Even if you look at childporn and they catch a glimpse of it, they can do jackshit. That´s why i suggested to identify yourself in the internet. That would give the government more methods to catch those guys, who do crimes in the internet. I´m not especially talking about the US here, but about internet observation in general and the governments in any country. The problem about the police state could be avoided by having multiple organisations controlling each other, which heads are directly voted by the citizens. The more control and inside you grant the citizens the more unlikely it is that one organisation get´s too powerful.
You know that this wouldnt just affect the "bad" guys right? There are a lot of more implications if you have to identify yourself on the internet and be observated. It would make it a sad, sterile place. Not the internet we know right now.
And now i just realize one thread below this one it says a LOL player is in jail and faces up to 8 years of prison because he made a stupid comment in the game.
Now that is the internet we want. Feels damn right.
|
On June 30 2013 21:33 Sianos wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2013 21:22 m4inbrain wrote:
Did you somehow miss that the US isn't just monitoring their citizens? Your whole blabla about internet crime and stuff is completely pointless, since they don't have any legal ground here anyway. Even if you look at childporn and they catch a glimpse of it, they can do jackshit. That´s why i suggested to identify yourself in the internet. That would give the government more methods to catch those guys, who do crimes in the internet. I´m not especially talking about the US here, but about internet observation in general and the governments in any country. The problem about the police state could be avoided by having multiple organisations controlling each other, which heads are directly voted by the citizens. The more control and inside you grant the citizens the more unlikely it is that one organisation get´s too powerful.
I don't even know what to say about this, sorry. Maybe get a glimpse of the real world, without being offensive. You'd be surprised. In my world, corruption is a real problem. And for that matter, you will never get an "inside" into an organisation that monitors crime. It's like going to some SWAT team and asking for them to show their special tactics. They won't do it. Same applies here.
As a citizen, you will have NO control or inside whatsoever, ever. Which isn't even a bad thing, as long as such "institutions" don't exist in the first place.
Edit: not to mention, for example, laws. There are so many retarded and easy abusable laws out there, yet you can't do jackshit against it. Even though they were created by people you voted. Oh you didn't vote them? Well there's your problem i guess.
|
On June 30 2013 21:38 Sokrates wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2013 21:33 Sianos wrote:On June 30 2013 21:22 m4inbrain wrote:
Did you somehow miss that the US isn't just monitoring their citizens? Your whole blabla about internet crime and stuff is completely pointless, since they don't have any legal ground here anyway. Even if you look at childporn and they catch a glimpse of it, they can do jackshit. That´s why i suggested to identify yourself in the internet. That would give the government more methods to catch those guys, who do crimes in the internet. I´m not especially talking about the US here, but about internet observation in general and the governments in any country. The problem about the police state could be avoided by having multiple organisations controlling each other, which heads are directly voted by the citizens. The more control and inside you grant the citizens the more unlikely it is that one organisation get´s too powerful. You know that this wouldnt just affect the "bad" guys right? There are a lot of more implications if you have to identify yourself on the internet and be observated. It would make it a sad, sterile place. Not the internet we know right now.
Of course it would affect the good guys also. I´m just thinking that the human right, that nobody should know what I´m doing is wrong to begin with. The citizens want to be guarded by their government and they get angry at the government if something terrible like bomb attacks happen. But how can someone guard millions of people without knowing what each of them is doing? Can you give me an answer to that? We have to decide what we want. Do we want to be guarded by the government so that it can help us or do we want to fight for ourselfs in a dangerous situation? In my opinion a human right in terms nobody should know what I´m planning to do what is endangering the human right to live for other people shouldn´t be present at all. I think most people just watch too much movies and are afraid that the government gets too powerful and control us citizens like slaves, but I think we could avoid it if we make the actions of the government more transparant to the citizens and have multiple organisations controlling each other, which heads are directly voted by the citizens would make a situation that most people fear where the citizens are traded as slaves almost impossible. Yes, ralistically speaken this would be too much of a change and I don´t know where to start with, but I think it would be definitely better than the current situation. Let me dream :D
|
Well how about they dont control us at all? How about that? Because i dont feel threatened by the internet. And the guys that are planning something most likely wont be so stupid to use skype to plan their bombings.
“Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”
Benjamin franklin
|
On June 30 2013 21:33 Sianos wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2013 21:22 m4inbrain wrote:
Did you somehow miss that the US isn't just monitoring their citizens? Your whole blabla about internet crime and stuff is completely pointless, since they don't have any legal ground here anyway. Even if you look at childporn and they catch a glimpse of it, they can do jackshit. That´s why i suggested to identify yourself in the internet. That would give the government more methods to catch those guys, who do crimes in the internet. I´m not especially talking about the US here, but about internet observation in general and the governments in any country. The problem about the police state could be avoided by having multiple organisations controlling each other, which heads are directly voted by the citizens. The more control and inside you grant the citizens the more unlikely it is that one organisation get´s too powerful.
Ok so you would have no problem with telling us all your real name, income, creepy sites you visit?
On topic, yes he is gulity, but has done the world a huge favor. As a German I am really disapointed and quite angry towards the USA Gov. and Bristish!
|
On June 30 2013 21:33 Sianos wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2013 21:22 m4inbrain wrote:
Did you somehow miss that the US isn't just monitoring their citizens? Your whole blabla about internet crime and stuff is completely pointless, since they don't have any legal ground here anyway. Even if you look at childporn and they catch a glimpse of it, they can do jackshit. That´s why i suggested to identify yourself in the internet. That would give the government more methods to catch those guys, who do crimes in the internet. I´m not especially talking about the US here, but about internet observation in general and the governments in any country. The problem about the police state could be avoided by having multiple organisations controlling each other, which heads are directly voted by the citizens. The more control and inside you grant the citizens the more unlikely it is that one organisation get´s too powerful.
It's just a matter of policy then as Snowden as said. What's stopping them from modifying/using loopholes to collapse or change the level of control each organization has? What's stopping them from rendering the supposedly democratic process nonplus just like how the US election process is now?
|
|
|
On June 30 2013 22:30 Xahhk wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2013 21:33 Sianos wrote:On June 30 2013 21:22 m4inbrain wrote:
Did you somehow miss that the US isn't just monitoring their citizens? Your whole blabla about internet crime and stuff is completely pointless, since they don't have any legal ground here anyway. Even if you look at childporn and they catch a glimpse of it, they can do jackshit. That´s why i suggested to identify yourself in the internet. That would give the government more methods to catch those guys, who do crimes in the internet. I´m not especially talking about the US here, but about internet observation in general and the governments in any country. The problem about the police state could be avoided by having multiple organisations controlling each other, which heads are directly voted by the citizens. The more control and inside you grant the citizens the more unlikely it is that one organisation get´s too powerful. It's just a matter of policy then as Snowden as said. What's stopping them from modifying/using loopholes to collapse or change the level of control each organization has? What's stopping them from rendering the supposedly democratic process nonplus just like how the US election process is now?
Happy Birthday. And you're right.
|
In other news, the European Union's officials are furious at the US for allegations that the NSA spied not only on the US and China, but also on EU offices.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/30/world/europe/eu-nsa/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/eu-officials-furious-at-nsa-spying-in-brussels-and-germany-a-908614.html
"I am deeply worried and shocked about the allegations," European Parliament President Martin Schulz said in a statement. "If the allegations prove to be true, it would be an extremely serious matter which will have a severe impact on EU-US relations. On behalf of the European Parliament, I demand full clarification and require further information speedily from the U.S. authorities with regard to these allegations."
German Justice Minister Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger "said if the accusations were true it was reminiscent of the Cold War," ministry spokesman Anders Mertzlufft said, adding that the minister "has asked for an immediate explanation from the United States."
"We need more precise information," said European Parliament President Martin Schulz. "But if it is true, it is a huge scandal. That would mean a huge burden for relations between the EU and the US. We now demand comprehensive information."
"If these reports are true, then it is abhorrent," said Luxembourgian Foreign Minister Jean Asselborn. "It would seem that the secret services have gotten out of control. The US should monitor their own secret services rather than their allies."
"It is unacceptable when European diplomats and politicians are spied on in their day-to-day activities," said Manfred Weber, deputy head and security expert for the European People's Party, an amalgam of European center-right parties in European Parliament. "Our confidence has been shaken."
Elmar Brok, chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee in European Parliament added his opprobrium. "The spying has reached dimensions that I didn't think were possible for a democratic country. Such behavior among allies is intolerable." The US, he added, once the land of the free, "is suffering from a security syndrome," added Brok, a member of Chancellor Angela Merkel's conservative Christian Democrats. "They have completely lost all balance. George Orwell is nothing by comparison."
A further Merkel ally in European Parliament, Markus Ferber, accused the US on Sunday of using methods akin to the feared East German secret police, the Stasi. Like Weber, Ferber is a member of the CSU. "A democratic constitutional state that uses Stasi methods sacrifices all credibility as a moral authority," Ferber told the German daily Die Welt on Sunday. "It has destroyed trust."
"This is meltdown of the constitutional state," said Jan Philipp Albrecht, a Green Party representative in European Parliament. The NSA engaged in nothing less than "espionage against democratic countries and their institutions,"
Green Party floor leader in European Parliament Daniel Cohn-Bendit went even further. "A simple note of protest is not enough anymore. The EU must immediately suspend negotiations with the US over a free trade agreement," he said. "First, we need a deal on data protection so that something like this never happens again. Only then can we resume (free-trade) negotiations."
|
|
|
Hope he is safe from American persecution.
The guy that projected the words ‘United Stasi of America’ on the US embassy in Berlin facing criminal charges from the German police should be an outrage to everyone living in that country. How can Merkel just sit there and justify the US doing the same thing to the people of Germany as the Stasi did? A foreign country no less 
|
On July 12 2013 06:17 Zeo wrote:Hope he is safe from American persecution. The guy that projected the words ‘United Stasi of America’ on the US embassy in Berlin facing criminal charges from the German police should be an outrage to everyone living in that country. How can Merkel just sit there and justify the US doing the same thing to the people of Germany as the Stasi did? A foreign country no less
She's kissing Obama's ass so vigorously, it's pathetic.
Listening to her defending PRISM and misdirecting the public's attention to the free trade zone almost makes me ashamed to be a German as much as our government's stance of gay marriage...
|
Shooting the messanger ?
The way snowden, manning etc. are treated proves the point they try to make.
Some call it Inverted Totalitarism
|
On June 30 2013 21:50 Sianos wrote:
But how can someone guard millions of people without knowing what each of them is doing? Can you give me an answer to that?
They can't. Past a certain point, they shouldn't even bother trying because there is nothing they can do.
If someone wants to blow up a bomb in a public place, they will find a way to do it and no amount of surveillance, policing or oppressive regulations will prevent it. It's going to happen no matter what.
The security versus privacy discussion is very much obsolete in the modern day - because the trade is no longer fair to begin with. You do not trade equal amounts of privacy for comparable level of safety. You give up a LOT in terms of freedom and rights only to be only marginally safer at best (if at all).
If anything, the approach that US is taking not only invites further terrorist attacks, but may also encourage domestic dissidents in the long run. The more the people feel disillusioned with and detached from their country and the government, the less safe it is going to be to live there.
No matter how sacred every human life is and no matter the widely held belief that everything should be done to protect everyone, the reality doesn't bend to shallow rhetoric. There's a hard cap on how safe you can really be, and past that cap you're just going to be giving away too much value for too little (and eventually nothing) in return.
|
On July 12 2013 06:58 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2013 21:50 Sianos wrote:
But how can someone guard millions of people without knowing what each of them is doing? Can you give me an answer to that? They can't. Past a certain point, they shouldn't even bother trying because there is nothing they can do. If someone wants to blow up a bomb in a public place, they will find a way to do it and no amount of surveillance, policing or oppressive regulations will prevent it. It's going to happen no matter what. The security versus privacy discussion is very much obsolete in the modern day - because the trade is no longer fair to begin with. You do not trade equal amounts of privacy for comparable level of safety. You give up a LOT in terms of freedom and rights only to be only marginally safer at best (if at all). If anything, the approach that US is taking not only invites further terrorist attacks, but may also encourage domestic dissidents in the long run. The more the people feel disillusioned with and detached from their country and the government, the less safe it is going to be to live there. No matter how sacred every human life is and no matter the widely held belief that everything should be done to protect everyone, the reality doesn't bend to shallow rhetoric. There's a hard cap on how safe you can really be, and past that cap you're just going to be giving away too much value for too little (and eventually nothing) in return.
You know what they would do if they even gave a damn about human life? Pass a law that enforces using a seatbelt in a car... because car accidents are still the main cause of accidental death (by a loooong way). PRISM has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with control.
|
On July 12 2013 22:53 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 06:58 Talin wrote:On June 30 2013 21:50 Sianos wrote:
But how can someone guard millions of people without knowing what each of them is doing? Can you give me an answer to that? They can't. Past a certain point, they shouldn't even bother trying because there is nothing they can do. If someone wants to blow up a bomb in a public place, they will find a way to do it and no amount of surveillance, policing or oppressive regulations will prevent it. It's going to happen no matter what. The security versus privacy discussion is very much obsolete in the modern day - because the trade is no longer fair to begin with. You do not trade equal amounts of privacy for comparable level of safety. You give up a LOT in terms of freedom and rights only to be only marginally safer at best (if at all). If anything, the approach that US is taking not only invites further terrorist attacks, but may also encourage domestic dissidents in the long run. The more the people feel disillusioned with and detached from their country and the government, the less safe it is going to be to live there. No matter how sacred every human life is and no matter the widely held belief that everything should be done to protect everyone, the reality doesn't bend to shallow rhetoric. There's a hard cap on how safe you can really be, and past that cap you're just going to be giving away too much value for too little (and eventually nothing) in return. You know what they would do if they even gave a damn about human life? Pass a law that enforces using a seatbelt in a car... because car accidents are still the main cause of accidental death (by a loooong way). PRISM has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with control.
Err.....as much as i am becoming disgusted by my government, my state does have a seat belt ticket with fines as much as 500 for not having a seat belt on. The law is nicknamed "click it or ticket".
That said if they tell us what do we have to hide, if they had nothing to hide and this stupid program wasnt illegal and bullshit to begin with they wouldnt even be going after snowden for revealing the corruption.
|
On June 26 2013 02:34 electronic voyeur wrote:
Is Snowden a spy, and did he commit espionage by releasing to the public information which he thought are invasive to their privacy?
i think the wrong question is being asked and the argument is being shifted when a question like this is being posted. Snowden is a whistleblower, we must look at his message and not be distracted by the non argument of whether he is a traitor or not.
frankly to label him a traitor is to concede that what the government is doing is acceptable.
|
On July 12 2013 22:53 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 06:58 Talin wrote:On June 30 2013 21:50 Sianos wrote:
But how can someone guard millions of people without knowing what each of them is doing? Can you give me an answer to that? They can't. Past a certain point, they shouldn't even bother trying because there is nothing they can do. If someone wants to blow up a bomb in a public place, they will find a way to do it and no amount of surveillance, policing or oppressive regulations will prevent it. It's going to happen no matter what. The security versus privacy discussion is very much obsolete in the modern day - because the trade is no longer fair to begin with. You do not trade equal amounts of privacy for comparable level of safety. You give up a LOT in terms of freedom and rights only to be only marginally safer at best (if at all). If anything, the approach that US is taking not only invites further terrorist attacks, but may also encourage domestic dissidents in the long run. The more the people feel disillusioned with and detached from their country and the government, the less safe it is going to be to live there. No matter how sacred every human life is and no matter the widely held belief that everything should be done to protect everyone, the reality doesn't bend to shallow rhetoric. There's a hard cap on how safe you can really be, and past that cap you're just going to be giving away too much value for too little (and eventually nothing) in return. You know what they would do if they even gave a damn about human life? Pass a law that enforces using a seatbelt in a car... because car accidents are still the main cause of accidental death (by a loooong way). PRISM has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with control.
Seatbelts are actually enforced in nearly the whole world, at least whole of europe and i think also the usa.
Are they not in brazil?
|
On July 12 2013 06:58 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2013 21:50 Sianos wrote:
But how can someone guard millions of people without knowing what each of them is doing? Can you give me an answer to that? They can't. Past a certain point, they shouldn't even bother trying because there is nothing they can do. If someone wants to blow up a bomb in a public place, they will find a way to do it and no amount of surveillance, policing or oppressive regulations will prevent it. It's going to happen no matter what. The security versus privacy discussion is very much obsolete in the modern day - because the trade is no longer fair to begin with. You do not trade equal amounts of privacy for comparable level of safety. You give up a LOT in terms of freedom and rights only to be only marginally safer at best (if at all). If anything, the approach that US is taking not only invites further terrorist attacks, but may also encourage domestic dissidents in the long run. The more the people feel disillusioned with and detached from their country and the government, the less safe it is going to be to live there. No matter how sacred every human life is and no matter the widely held belief that everything should be done to protect everyone, the reality doesn't bend to shallow rhetoric. There's a hard cap on how safe you can really be, and past that cap you're just going to be giving away too much value for too little (and eventually nothing) in return.
a prime example is the boston bombing. The finish line was swimming with agencies and bomb sniffing dogs conducting a "drill" for the same event, didn't stop it from happening and if anything only raises suspicions that they were in on it.
its not about public safety its about control.
|
On July 12 2013 23:16 Dryzt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 02:34 electronic voyeur wrote:
Is Snowden a spy, and did he commit espionage by releasing to the public information which he thought are invasive to their privacy? i think the wrong question is being asked and the argument is being shifted when a question like this is being posted. Snowden is a whistleblower, we must look at his message and not be distracted by the non argument of whether he is a traitor or not. frankly to label him a traitor is to concede that what the government is doing is acceptable.
He released the information to the public. The only way he could be considered a traitor is if our government views its citizens as the enemy. Agreed that the wrong question is being asked, there is zero doubt he is a whistleblower. He is also a true hero.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
