If there ever comes a time where we are actually being attacked *on our own soil* with *alarming frequency* (did you read my post?), I want our government to do something about it. Being that terrorists are so hard to find by the fact that they are a hidden target, if the best way to find them is by using information technology and giving up some freedoms on our precious telecommunications, I'm totally fine with that. Like I said in my post, I don't think that time is now. My point was there is a point where you want to take some temporary uncomfortable action to prevent the spread of something worse. As a simple example, when a crowd gets out of hand at a concert or after winning a national championship and goes on a looting rampage... yeah, bring out the farkin police force until its over. Or, wait, would you say that having a temporary police-state or is a violation of your freedom to go walking around at night while a riot is happening? You can only state such idealist thoughts because the problem is not immediately in your backyard. When it is (however likely that actually is), I'm sure you'll change your tune. Again, my point was there is a time (not now)... people who say otherwise don't have a very good imagination.
Just like there is a time to kill, there is a time to sacrifice your freedoms; in this case, some freedom of privacy. Not saying that time is now (i actually think its not), but for sake of argument, there may well come a time where lockdown, marshall law, govt wire-tapping, or something more serious is the best course of action to correct a bigger problem. A lesser of two evils. Right now, the chances of you getting killed from terrorist activity on US soil is somewhere between slim and none. But, its not too far-fetched to imagine a scenario where bomb attacks or whatever on US soil actually start happening with alarming frequency. Maybe thats even up for debate in this scenario, but still... it would be a terrible lack of judgment to insist of preserving every one of your freedoms in the face of actual danger. Some people are actually implying that here. Its been said before, 'how many times do you have to get hit in the face before you defend yourself?'. Some problems just don't go away.
Read through all the user comments on the article... The vast majority of them are COCKSURE. It's a human tendency that we should try to overcome. Conservatives tend to exhibit this headlong stubbornness more so than liberals. But, it exists in all of us.
"Don't let overconfidence consume THEE!" (+10 pts to whomever remembers what old Mac video game that quote is from)
Quick thinking is rarely a sign of wisdom. I think wisdom and critical thinking are best measured by a person's ability to put on the brakes when they think they have formed a conclusion and continuously go back up their decision-tree to revisit assumptions. And, put their ego aside.
No one likes to be wrong... just watch how angry I get when someone trolls this post.
Slashdot Mirror
If there ever comes a time where we are actually being attacked *on our own soil* with *alarming frequency* (did you read my post?), I want our government to do something about it. Being that terrorists are so hard to find by the fact that they are a hidden target, if the best way to find them is by using information technology and giving up some freedoms on our precious telecommunications, I'm totally fine with that. Like I said in my post, I don't think that time is now. My point was there is a point where you want to take some temporary uncomfortable action to prevent the spread of something worse. As a simple example, when a crowd gets out of hand at a concert or after winning a national championship and goes on a looting rampage... yeah, bring out the farkin police force until its over. Or, wait, would you say that having a temporary police-state or is a violation of your freedom to go walking around at night while a riot is happening? You can only state such idealist thoughts because the problem is not immediately in your backyard. When it is (however likely that actually is), I'm sure you'll change your tune. Again, my point was there is a time (not now)... people who say otherwise don't have a very good imagination.
Just like there is a time to kill, there is a time to sacrifice your freedoms; in this case, some freedom of privacy. Not saying that time is now (i actually think its not), but for sake of argument, there may well come a time where lockdown, marshall law, govt wire-tapping, or something more serious is the best course of action to correct a bigger problem. A lesser of two evils. Right now, the chances of you getting killed from terrorist activity on US soil is somewhere between slim and none. But, its not too far-fetched to imagine a scenario where bomb attacks or whatever on US soil actually start happening with alarming frequency. Maybe thats even up for debate in this scenario, but still... it would be a terrible lack of judgment to insist of preserving every one of your freedoms in the face of actual danger. Some people are actually implying that here. Its been said before, 'how many times do you have to get hit in the face before you defend yourself?'. Some problems just don't go away.
Read through all the user comments on the article... The vast majority of them are COCKSURE. It's a human tendency that we should try to overcome. Conservatives tend to exhibit this headlong stubbornness more so than liberals. But, it exists in all of us. "Don't let overconfidence consume THEE!" (+10 pts to whomever remembers what old Mac video game that quote is from) Quick thinking is rarely a sign of wisdom. I think wisdom and critical thinking are best measured by a person's ability to put on the brakes when they think they have formed a conclusion and continuously go back up their decision-tree to revisit assumptions. And, put their ego aside. No one likes to be wrong... just watch how angry I get when someone trolls this post.