Sorry to interject here but have you considered that he might not be American? This forum has a ton of people on it from different countries. That's all, thanks.UrKnightErrant said:
Privacy - Short counters to nothing to hide, nothing fear arguments.
- Thread starter ph0b0s123
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I find it concerning that you believe American History seems to be the total authority on what freedom and safety are.UrKnightErrant said:
I mean, I'm living in a nation that is considered both A. the most free and B. one of the most safe. We have done this by giving our government an incredible amount of power as well. We have no constitution. Our minorities are protected, our liberties are incredibly secure, our economy is stable and our international reputation is spotless.
But according to your supposed definitions my situation is impossible.
Now, let's get back to how this law is actually going to practically change things without ad hominem?
My stance is if it is used in a negative manner other laws and other abuses of power are already taking place and this law will just be the cherry on top. It will be useful in STARTING the procedure of abuse but it won't actually be part of the abuse itself.
Others have mentioned my main arguments against this line of reasoning, so I'll just do a quick implied proof by contradiction to show that sacrificing privacy for security is useless to begin with.
Prisoners in the US have essentially zero privacy, and drugs AND weapons still manage to get into prisons. That is to say, prisons, the place with the least amount of privacy, are not even twice as "secure" as the public. Not only that, murders, rapes, and beatings, by guards and other prisoners, go unpunished most(?) of the time, especially when committed by those in power (the guards) without any unbiased oversight (that is, oversight that doesn't solely consist of guard/police unions or those on their payroll).
If getting rid of 99% of your privacy doesn't even double your security, why volunteer, well, ANY of your privacy to a government? Sure, maybe sacrificing 5% privacy might yield a +10% security, and additional privacy sacrifices give diminishing returns, but why trust an obviously corrupt government with not abusing your waived private information?
edit:
At the very least, the Declaration of Independence ties the Laws of Nature into Nature's God, such that either or both could be the explanation for our rights, or that they are one in the same. It's hardly a "god-given" right (as many Americans seem to think these days) as worded originally.
Prisoners in the US have essentially zero privacy, and drugs AND weapons still manage to get into prisons. That is to say, prisons, the place with the least amount of privacy, are not even twice as "secure" as the public. Not only that, murders, rapes, and beatings, by guards and other prisoners, go unpunished most(?) of the time, especially when committed by those in power (the guards) without any unbiased oversight (that is, oversight that doesn't solely consist of guard/police unions or those on their payroll).
If getting rid of 99% of your privacy doesn't even double your security, why volunteer, well, ANY of your privacy to a government? Sure, maybe sacrificing 5% privacy might yield a +10% security, and additional privacy sacrifices give diminishing returns, but why trust an obviously corrupt government with not abusing your waived private information?
edit:
I fixed a small bit, with some emphasis, using the wording from the Declaration. The distinction, I feel, is pretty important, since many of the Founding Fathers, particularly the primary author of the Declaration, were deistic in belief, believing that the god that created the universe didn't play an active part in it beyond creation; that we live in a world of men, and that men decided man's fate; no miracles or divine intervention or the like. Our rights are natural, but not exactly "endowed" by a god. The way the latter statement is worded makes our country appear far more fanatical than the Nation of Men we were meant to be. "Nature's God" is a specifically deistic concept in the way that one might say "Mother Earth" or "Father Time," and isn't really referencing a 'real' deity like Yahweh.UrKnightErrant said:
At the very least, the Declaration of Independence ties the Laws of Nature into Nature's God, such that either or both could be the explanation for our rights, or that they are one in the same. It's hardly a "god-given" right (as many Americans seem to think these days) as worded originally.
Then why is anyone giving Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck the time of day? How can they possibly be so influential?UrKnightErrant said:
As for on topic...well, what can I say. I've done lotsa legal stuff that some people may find wrong, creepy, stupid or plain unnecessary.
I also think privacy is a right nobody should be able to take away from you. And people would do well to stir up a ruckus over this. Also, while we're at it, how about we also get angry at internet sites tracking our searches or TV service providers tracking what channels we're tuned in and then spamming us with targeted ads? I'm not kidding, I find that a violation of my privacy too.
Hell, but people only wake up when it's the government who does it.
I live in New Zealand, it's in my profile. My privacy is not threatened by those policies but my government could introduce a law like that if they wanted to or felt the need to... and I wouldn't mind. This is because I trust them, this is because we've kept them honest via practical means - not symbolic ones.UrKnightErrant said:
Yes, my freedom is at the mercy of my government - so is yours. Your "Government" is nothing more than a giant media circus. A two-party, two-ring circus that any outsider can see as a sham. A constitution doesn't protect you, it's a rock that keeps away tigers... or at least an extra hoop for the tiger to jump through. A chain one party uses to bind the other's foot.
Your armed citizenry means nothing, your assumption that power corrupts is self-fulfilling and your government is a two-party stagnant quagmire. The Constitution has become such a crutch in such a way that your government can't conduct itself when not engaged in issues the Constitution directly covers without staggering and tripping over its own feet.
As for your total authority on freedom, it defines it (supposedly) as a linear trade between freedom and safety... and that is something we all know to be absurd and entirely impractical.
Of all the issues plaguing the United States the thing people get upset the most about is the government being able to use a facility your telecommunications companies already have access to... but are only forbidden to use by law.
"Someone could abuse it with a bribe!" that has always been the case. Nothing has changed. Your information could always have been hacked or sold by immoral individuals.
It's a crying shame that the previous five posters didn't lead with this.furai47 said:
For the rest of you who are blissfully unawares of this, apparently "little-known" Amendment; here's a link for you to read up on it...and the link as to why it's slowly being degraded.
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
Death of the 4th Amendment
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00313
Protect me from data mining? It's like being protected from nitrogen to me. I don't care. Data mine away. They'll find I am an incredibly boring yet law abiding citizen.UrKnightErrant said:
See, I come from a nation where the government was smart enough to have retroactive evidence collection laws. This means an illegal search is only illegal if it doesn't turn up any evidence of illegal activities. This means we don't need such laws. But as usual the United States is missing the forest for the trees. Much like the issue with this policy: the information was always there to be exploited, could be abused or used in nefarious ways... now it can just be ACCESSED without it being illegal.
Short Rebuttal: Do you like it when your wife licks her finger and rubs the rim of your anus while she gives you head?
To which you can expect revulsion. Your reply should then be, "why would you want to hide your perfectly legal sexual preferences from me?"
If your point isn't made after that then you should keep in mind that you cannot defeat an idiot with reason.
To which you can expect revulsion. Your reply should then be, "why would you want to hide your perfectly legal sexual preferences from me?"
If your point isn't made after that then you should keep in mind that you cannot defeat an idiot with reason.
Simply put: even the vast majority people who have done nothing illegal have information that they wouldn't want widely spread. There have been plenty of instances where law enforcement has shown little qualms about using that information to harm, coerce, or undermine people- political opponents, various kinds of "undesirables", and others. Just because your sexual habits, your recreational drinking, or your choice of reading materials isn't illegal doesn't mean it can't cost you your job.
Such observation is also almost always one-sided, creating a lack of transparency and an intimidating imbalance in power between the watchers and the watched. It doesn't take much for people to feel they have something to lose if they fail to act according to their watchers' preferences- again, even if nothing that they would ordinarily do to the contrary is illegal.
That's no way for citizens in a democratic system to be expected to live.
Such observation is also almost always one-sided, creating a lack of transparency and an intimidating imbalance in power between the watchers and the watched. It doesn't take much for people to feel they have something to lose if they fail to act according to their watchers' preferences- again, even if nothing that they would ordinarily do to the contrary is illegal.
That's no way for citizens in a democratic system to be expected to live.
... what planet do you live on?UrKnightErrant said:
Put down the Tom Clancy books, man. You're sounding more and more absurd.
Actually, no. I don't think we should do "whatever we can" to monitor them. We should do what is reasonable and within the bounds of law. Even if it means the difference between stopping an attack and allowing it to proceed due to lack of information, there is never an excuse to dismantle individual liberty and privacy. Whatever happened to the "Land of the Free"?Zetona said:
"Law abiding citizens have nothing to hide!" Of course they do. I don't want anyone reading my private conversations.
Do i use my devices to watch porn? What porn do i watch? You guys don't know and i'm fine with that.
You could also turn this argument around and demand the disclosure of NSA files and operations. Or do they have anything to hide?
Do i use my devices to watch porn? What porn do i watch? You guys don't know and i'm fine with that.
You could also turn this argument around and demand the disclosure of NSA files and operations. Or do they have anything to hide?
because it can be used in politics.
lets say you decide to make a start in politics, and make revolutionary changes to our system. People want it, and you have huge support. Then the current government learns that you, for example - like "kinkier-than-usual-pron", that you used to be a troll on teh interwebs, it turns out that you are a closet homosexuals - etc etc etc.
everybody has secrets, ask your government - they dont tell you SHIT about what they are doing behind closed doors, and notice, more and more is discussed behind said closed doors.....
if people had nothing to hide you would see a lot more naked asses on the streets....
lets say you decide to make a start in politics, and make revolutionary changes to our system. People want it, and you have huge support. Then the current government learns that you, for example - like "kinkier-than-usual-pron", that you used to be a troll on teh interwebs, it turns out that you are a closet homosexuals - etc etc etc.
everybody has secrets, ask your government - they dont tell you SHIT about what they are doing behind closed doors, and notice, more and more is discussed behind said closed doors.....
if people had nothing to hide you would see a lot more naked asses on the streets....
So according to you normal people aren't important enough to monitor, but are important enough to blow up with a drone?
Sure.[/quote]Are normal people being blown up by drones by their own government?
No.
[/quote]
Have to disagree with you there...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMjuTZ6f0lM
Among the victims is a SIXTEEN YEAR OLD BOY
Sure.[/quote]Are normal people being blown up by drones by their own government?
No.
[/quote]
Have to disagree with you there...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMjuTZ6f0lM
Among the victims is a SIXTEEN YEAR OLD BOY