|
On July 12 2013 23:17 Rassy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 22:53 Acrofales wrote: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?
I was talking about the US. It's mandatory in all states (except New Hampshire), but most of the states don't allow it to be actively enforced: you can be fined for not wearing a seatbelt, but ONLY if you get pulled over for some other infraction (like speeding, drunk driving, going through red, etc.) So effectively people drive around without wearing a seat belt all the time (at least, in my experience when I was visiting there).
Now I have to say that this is purely anecdotal experience, but it's easy to check that at least the enforcement bit is lacking in the US.
But this was just one of many potential measures that would save more lives while being less intrusive.
|
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.
You are right, the should also forbid alcohol and high sugary food cause they cause heart and liver damage.
GOVERNMENT PLEASE PROTECT US!
Seriously, people need to stop thinking its justified that their beliefs, right or not, should be enforced trough violence by a 3rd party who coerces us and takes our stuff.
Governments everywhere already take SO MUCH of us and yet everyone seems to keep encouraging them to take more.
Just check how much of the price of your regular purchases is taxes, then check your income or future tax and you'll get the first bit of it. Nevermind inflation, paperwork or property taxes.
"I disagree strongly with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." is something people have completely forgotten about.
It's saddening what America has turned to. After 9/11 Americans have done more damage to themselves than what terrorists could ever hope for.
|
On July 13 2013 00:00 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 22:53 Acrofales wrote: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. You are right, the should also forbid alcohol and high sugary food cause they cause heart and liver damage. GOVERNMENT PLEASE PROTECT US! Seriously, people need to stop thinking its justified that their beliefs, right or not, should be enforced trough violence by a 3rd party who coerces us and takes our stuff. Governments everywhere already take SO MUCH of us and yet everyone seems to keep encouraging them to take more. Just check how much of the price of your regular purchases is taxes, then check your income or future tax and you'll get the first bit of it. Nevermind inflation, paperwork or property taxes. "I disagree strongly with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." is something people have completely forgotten about. It's saddening what America has turned to. After 9/11 Americans have done more damage to themselves than what terrorists could ever hope for.
Well said, well said.
If only it were simply America and if only we could love at them from afar, but Europeans are almost as bad in that regard.
|
I don't think 9/11 was really that important when it comes to this matter. It was just an excuse for Western countries especially to pick up the pace, which it certainly allowed them to. But the ability for Governments to abuse recent technologies is just far too tempting and easy in the end, with our without stuff like the patriot act. It was going to happen.
It's not like the specter of "terrorism" is anything new either.
|
On July 13 2013 00:00 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 22:53 Acrofales wrote: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. You are right, the should also forbid alcohol and high sugary food cause they cause heart and liver damage. GOVERNMENT PLEASE PROTECT US! Seriously, people need to stop thinking its justified that their beliefs, right or not, should be enforced trough violence by a 3rd party who coerces us and takes our stuff. Governments everywhere already take SO MUCH of us and yet everyone seems to keep encouraging them to take more. Just check how much of the price of your regular purchases is taxes, then check your income or future tax and you'll get the first bit of it. Nevermind inflation, paperwork or property taxes. "I disagree strongly with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." is something people have completely forgotten about. It's saddening what America has turned to. After 9/11 Americans have done more damage to themselves than what terrorists could ever hope for.
Am I actually saying they should? No. I'm not. It is COMPLETELY tangential to this discussion. What I was pointing out was that taking a MASSIVE INTRUSIVE MEASURE like SPYING ON your entire population AND that of yoru ALLIES is clearly not done to save human lives. If saving human life was what they were trying to do then any number of other measures would be far more effective.
That does, indeed, include, raising taxes on shit that is unhealthy for you. Do I agree with doing that? No. But I am also strongly opposed to giving the NSA mandate to snoop through my emails.
|
Well the way I see it, that we in Denmark have this rule that if he witness a crime and do not testify, we're committing a crime ourselves (as it'd be the same as helping the criminal indirectly).
So by that logic, he'd be committing a crime by not stopping the spying, unless ofcourse someone claims that the international spying on the public isn't a crime.
|
|
|
Of course not. The US government is unconstitutionally and secretly stealing all of the people's information and Snowden steals few documents to expose this criminality going on in secret and he is charged with espionage?
How about a foreign enemy force have taken over the federal government of the USA and are subverting the constitution, a crime which used to be punished with public hangings.
I mean the DOJ runs Fast and Furios, IRS scandal, targeting of journalists, then you have the Benghazi scandal, the NSA scandal, the declassified false flag operations like Northwoods and Gladio where the US government with its NATO allies have killed thousands of people, hundreds of which children to blame on their political enemies to push a certain narrative.
|
Being guilty of a crime does not necessarily coincide with moral failing. The anti nazi resistance in vichy france, for instance.
Anyway, I dislike all the focus on Snowden. Typical US media spin tactic. Focus on the personalities and not the issues. The US govt has all the means, motive and opportunity to begin using the same dirty tactics it employs overseas, in order to control the domestic front.
I didn't really care about expanding surveillance before, because I assumed it would be used for good. Now I see that the government will do basically whatever it thinks it can get away with, answering to no one, and disguising the whole thing as "national security". Hate to admit it but the conspiracy theorists are closer to the mark on this than everyone would like to believe.
Meanwhile the corporate-statist media will just throw up a smokescreen of "SNOWDEN: VILLAIN OR HERO!?" to distract everyone from the shadow empire slowly being erected around them.
|
On June 26 2013 02:51 Vanimar wrote:
It all depends on th edefinitions and guidelines of "espionage" in the US I guess.
Although since it is the US he will be tried or it, since, well, republicans.....
Uh...
Obama is a Democrat...
|
No, he did his job, didn't like what NSA/America were doing and so did what his conscience told him was right.
I don't see why he should be punished at all, he risked a lot to do the right thing and he should be seen as a hero of sorts imo.
|
|
|
Nothing is going to happen. If the amendment passes it will just get vetoed. Snowden didn't change much of anything. Just one more thing we're aware of that sucks but have no mechanism to do anything about. Better email your government representatives with your well written thoughts so they can put it in the spam inbox.
|
On July 25 2013 00:22 ddrddrddrddr wrote:
Nothing is going to happen. If the amendment passes it will just get vetoed. Snowden didn't change much of anything. Just one more thing we're aware of that sucks but have no mechanism to do anything about. Better email your government representatives with your well written thoughts so they can put it in the spam inbox.
And you were right :\
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/25/nsa-surveillance-amash-amendment-narrow-defeat
Let the unconstitutional mass privacy invasion continue!
|
On July 25 2013 22:11 AnomalySC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2013 00:22 ddrddrddrddr wrote:
Nothing is going to happen. If the amendment passes it will just get vetoed. Snowden didn't change much of anything. Just one more thing we're aware of that sucks but have no mechanism to do anything about. Better email your government representatives with your well written thoughts so they can put it in the spam inbox. And you were right :\ http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/25/nsa-surveillance-amash-amendment-narrow-defeatLet the unconstitutional mass privacy invasion continue!
The amendment that was shot down had nothing to do with the Patriot Act or it's successors, it's about the phone metadata which was covered by a Supreme Court ruling. That's the one the telecomms and advertisers absolutely loved long before the counterterrorism effort came in.
As long as Americans are giving their privacy away to commercial interests, they have no pedestal to stand to protest the security side of it.
|
On July 25 2013 22:19 Dimagus wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2013 22:11 AnomalySC2 wrote:On July 25 2013 00:22 ddrddrddrddr wrote:
Nothing is going to happen. If the amendment passes it will just get vetoed. Snowden didn't change much of anything. Just one more thing we're aware of that sucks but have no mechanism to do anything about. Better email your government representatives with your well written thoughts so they can put it in the spam inbox. And you were right :\ http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/25/nsa-surveillance-amash-amendment-narrow-defeatLet the unconstitutional mass privacy invasion continue! The amendment that was shot down had nothing to do with the Patriot Act or it's successors, it's about the phone metadata which was covered by a Supreme Court ruling. That's the one the telecomms and advertisers absolutely loved long before the counterterrorism effort came in. As long as Americans are giving their privacy away to commercial interests, they have no pedestal to stand to protest the security side of it.
And how do you propose people stop giving away their privacy, to corporate, or otherwise. For instance, should everyone just stop using their extremely expensive smartphones that they've invested not just a lot of money into? It's not really the people's fault, no one truly understood how abusive companies would be when they signed up for one, there should have been laws against that type of stuff, but instead our government just joined in on it.
As far as internet goes, I have one ISP where I live, Time Warner Cable. Should I just abandon all technology simply because there are those with money and power that want to exploit it? :\
|
|
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
I think we shouldn't really play e-lawyer. A court would be best suited for deciding whether or not he is guilty, assuming he would ever stand trial instead of running from the US government.
The details make all the difference.
|
On August 11 2013 15:44 LegalLord wrote:
I think we shouldn't really play e-lawyer. A court would be best suited for deciding whether or not he is guilty, assuming he would ever stand trial instead of running from the US government.
The details make all the difference.
And the details is the fact that the information NSA and every other gov is collecting is not for the safety of the common human but to sustain and increase power of the gov has over the human. They do this by deepthroating the big banks.
|
Whether you think it's fair or not, Snowden disclosed classified information which by definition contains sensitive information about the US government. Top Secret classification is defined as: "Such material would cause "exceptionally grave damage" to national security if made publicly available." Every government employee and contractor HAS to sign forms that acknowledge this and its legal repercussions. He's 100% guilty for the things they charged him with because he literally signed a contract that said he wouldn't do a, b, and c or else he'd be committing x, y, and z crimes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
