Then shouldn't one factor in the 10 year old girls freedom to not have undesired sex forced upon her?
That's like saying "Then shouldn't we factor in people who don't want to be blown up by terrorists?" to people who argue that the TSA needs to be abolished. There is a difference between criminals abusing people and the government, which I think should be a just entity, abusing people. What I meant is that I do not believe that something should be banned merely because it could be abused or could prove harmful in certain circumstances, at least in general.
and sending pictures of their penis to without saying in advance thats what the picture is
This I don't even care about; it's a picture.
and proceeded to try having sex with her.
With a nonexistent person?
There are also only a small number of situations, mainly where the adult chances their mind and doesn't want to do so in the end, that would factor in.
As far as I'm concerned, unless there is damning evidence that they were actually about to rape someone (they took action) or did rape someone, I don't care about anything else, including the age of the supposed victim.
If their intent is to have sex with a 10 year old, they clearly have intentions to have sex with a 10 year old.
Uh... thanks for stating the obvious, I guess. If 1 + 1 = 2, then 1 + 1 = 2.
The NSA is able to do what it does because there are plenty of pretend patriots in this country who don't actually believe in the constitution or in freedom in general. As soon as you let your government become the bad guy, I think you've already lost.
Again, read up on some history; you seem profoundly ignorant of what governments are capable of doing when they have too much power. Don't cower under a bed in fear of some largely exaggerated bogeymen when the constitution and freedom are on the line.
What protects normal people are laws against rape.
That's not a valid justification.
I don't think something should be banned merely because it could be abused, or because there's a potential for harm. People make mistakes. People do things they later regret. Deal with it.
You can't just pick and chose which court orders you would prefer.
Yes, I can. I believe certain court orders to be unconstitutional (from the 4th amendment) and immoral.
Your call metadata is already in the hands of your service provider for billing purposes.
And? I don't want it in the hands of the government, too. That excuse is, to me, absolutely nonsensical; it allows the government to outsource its spying to corporations, and that's not a world I want to live in.
That's just the thing nobody has provided any evidence of government misuse of the collected data.
Even possessing the data shows they've already abused their powers, or at least to me.
but it is currently a legal process.
Legal, but not constitutional. A secretive court rubberstamping general warrants is, I think, a recipe for disaster.
Historical knowledge or lack of is being distorted or ignored by people who are more interested in winning an argument than getting to the actual truth.
I can name off numerous acts of abuse and abusive governments. Historical knowledge is not being "distorted"; fools who blindly trust their governments are almost certainly going to find that their governments hardly more trustworthy than all the other ones that abused their powers throughout history. I believe "It can't happen here" is simply an absurd and naive statement; corruption can happen anywhere.
I believe history gives us a glimpse of the future.
If you attemp to intimidate me into doing something, i can leave
It's not already so easy for the abused to just leave; they're often controlled by fear.
But more pointedly, if im supposed to learn from you, how do i know it is wrong or not just the way things are?
By using your brain to form your own opinions. That's about the only way out, as far as I can see, and authority figures (including abusive people who become de facto authority figures) can be quite intimidating.
There is no public oversight, so that makes complete sense. And to begin with, the problem is not entirely the lack of oversight; I do not think this information should be collected even if people could provide oversight.
I suppose if the government started arresting people who criticize it to 'keep us safe,' you would say, "We're giving up no freedom at all."? If not, well, you can't just deny the existence of existing rights and parts of the constitution (privacy, the fourth amendment), and then pretend that people aren't affected by this.
I can go anywhere and do almost anything I want to. I can speak my mind freely.
And you're losing some of your rights, even if not those ones.
There are people in the system that can listen to you at any time.
And? You're trivializing the collection of all this information, and I really can't understand why.
If you're up to something you don't want anyone to know about don't do it over the phone or the internet.
The government makes the laws. Just because you think that you're doing something perfectly innocent, that doesn't mean the government thinks so as well; they could misinterpret you, or they could simply be malicious. There have been cases of the government misinterpreting jokes and harassing the individuals who made them; the same could happen with this so-called 'metadata,' and it most likely has and/or will.
I think it is unfortunate that you're naive enough to trust the government with all this information when all government in history, including the US government, used their powers to abuse the citizens. You're also trusting all the people who will be in the government in the future, and it's at the point where I think your level of naivete is astounding. If you want to see what governments are capable of, I suggest you move to North Korea rather than trying to ruin the US even further.
They're looking for people who are a threat to the US government.
You are, of course, assuming that the people in the government are perfect angels who would never intentionally harm you or make a mistake; I think history shows us that that's not a very good assumption to make. It also means that you're willing to trust all future governments with this information and this power. I think the sheer naivete that one must possess to actually trust the government with all of this is simply astounding. Furthermore, why do you seem so eager to trade away everyone's constitutional rights so you can feel safe? Do our rights and the constitution mean nothing to you?
I think there's a reason that organizations such as the ACLU and EFF, who try to defend our liberties, are rather upset about all this. I think there's a reason that many people who care about freedom in general are upset about all this.
You're so scared of the bogeymen that you'll give up your freedom and privacy in an effort to stop them, as well as everyone else's freedom and privacy? Quite principled, aren't we?
Well, I don't know if you were saying that such things should be banned, but I think that banning something entirely merely because it could be abused is, in general, wrong.
The power issue can occur in any relationship, really. A stronger person could intimidate a weaker person. One person could blackmail another person. There are many ways to obtain power over someone else.
To my knowledge I have not heard of the government using evidence collected by one of the NSA surveillance programs to prosecute a US citizen.
They probably know that that could prove detrimental to their causes. To keep everything secret, they'll probably try to harass people behind the scenes and try to keep their sources secret.
Do you really think the NSA has the capability to intercept, store, and analyze everyone's e-mail or phone conversation?
They can possibly intercept and store a significant amount of it and keep it around for whenever they want to abuse it. But whether they can or can't is irrelevant; even metadata can be used and abused, and most likely will be if this is allowed to go on.
The collection of call metadata by direct intercept may be ruled as potentially illegal but requesting the information from the service providers with a court order is currently not illegal.
To me, mass collection of metadata, even with a court order, should be considered unconstitutional.
Snowden himself injected some patently false information claiming he could tap any phone or e-mail account without going through any oversight.
The NSA, as an organization, basically has no oversight. Even if they did, I do not believe they should be able to do any of this.
I think there is a reason that people are willing to believe that the government is abusing its powers, even if the claims are sometimes untrue: History.
I don't think much more needs to be said about Snowden himself at this point; he's irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. The bigger issue is... the actual leaks, and what they reveal.
So you are a constitutional scholar and are absolutely positive the government is in violation?
I don't know about him, but in my opinion, the fact that they've violated the highest law of the land is absolutely clear to me, and you do not need to be a constitutional scholar to hold this opinion. The constitution was written in English, and anyone can read it and interpret it and form their own conclusions.
I think it's important that people not just mindlessly listen to whatever authority figures (constitutional scholars, in this case) tell them.
The government has technically covered their collective asses with the FISA
General warrants are unconstitutional, even if signed by a judge. Spying on just about people's communications en masse is, to me, a blatant violation of the constitution, and those general warrants aren't going to change my mind.
To me, if this isn't a violation of the constitution, then nothing is.
And it's not that I don't/am incapable of understanding your little nuances, it's that I simply don't care about that. Legal speak simply has no effect on me or my beliefs, nor does someone seemingly defending a corrupt system/decision.
Slashdot Mirror
Then shouldn't one factor in the 10 year old girls freedom to not have undesired sex forced upon her?
That's like saying "Then shouldn't we factor in people who don't want to be blown up by terrorists?" to people who argue that the TSA needs to be abolished. There is a difference between criminals abusing people and the government, which I think should be a just entity, abusing people. What I meant is that I do not believe that something should be banned merely because it could be abused or could prove harmful in certain circumstances, at least in general.
and sending pictures of their penis to without saying in advance thats what the picture is
This I don't even care about; it's a picture.
and proceeded to try having sex with her.
With a nonexistent person?
There are also only a small number of situations, mainly where the adult chances their mind and doesn't want to do so in the end, that would factor in.
As far as I'm concerned, unless there is damning evidence that they were actually about to rape someone (they took action) or did rape someone, I don't care about anything else, including the age of the supposed victim.
If their intent is to have sex with a 10 year old, they clearly have intentions to have sex with a 10 year old.
Uh... thanks for stating the obvious, I guess. If 1 + 1 = 2, then 1 + 1 = 2.
That only sounds arguably better at face value
It sounds better to me overall, because freedom is my prime concern, not safety.
They clearly would sexually abuse real children
Talking to someone and actually abusing them are two different things.
because they were in that situation and did exactly that.
They weren't and didn't.
It's just the best you get when no effort or money is being allocated for a better way.
But I think there is a better way: Do nothing. We'd save money by not putting as many innocent people in prison, at least.
Thas doesn't fit into any reasonable gray area.
That seems rather subjective.
you're part of the problem.
The almost nonexistent problem, you mean? Rapists aren't hiding behind every corner, you know.
It's not that they're not capable of it; it's that I believe them to be shortsighted and mostly irrational. I said nothing about myself.
Aren't we special.
I think even an idiot could make such an observation. I may be an idiot in some people's minds; who knows?
The NSA is able to do what it does because there are plenty of pretend patriots in this country who don't actually believe in the constitution or in freedom in general. As soon as you let your government become the bad guy, I think you've already lost.
Again, read up on some history; you seem profoundly ignorant of what governments are capable of doing when they have too much power. Don't cower under a bed in fear of some largely exaggerated bogeymen when the constitution and freedom are on the line.
Not all adults are
I'd argue that most adults aren't.
and we do have laws to protect them too.
What protects normal people are laws against rape.
That's not a valid justification.
I don't think something should be banned merely because it could be abused, or because there's a potential for harm. People make mistakes. People do things they later regret. Deal with it.
Laws about minors revolves around the fact that, by necessity, not all of them are capable of rational consent
Not all adults are capable of rational consent. In fact, I'd say that most adults aren't anything resembling "rational."
You can't just pick and chose which court orders you would prefer.
Yes, I can. I believe certain court orders to be unconstitutional (from the 4th amendment) and immoral.
Your call metadata is already in the hands of your service provider for billing purposes.
And? I don't want it in the hands of the government, too. That excuse is, to me, absolutely nonsensical; it allows the government to outsource its spying to corporations, and that's not a world I want to live in.
That's just the thing nobody has provided any evidence of government misuse of the collected data.
Even possessing the data shows they've already abused their powers, or at least to me.
but it is currently a legal process.
Legal, but not constitutional. A secretive court rubberstamping general warrants is, I think, a recipe for disaster.
Historical knowledge or lack of is being distorted or ignored by people who are more interested in winning an argument than getting to the actual truth.
I can name off numerous acts of abuse and abusive governments. Historical knowledge is not being "distorted"; fools who blindly trust their governments are almost certainly going to find that their governments hardly more trustworthy than all the other ones that abused their powers throughout history. I believe "It can't happen here" is simply an absurd and naive statement; corruption can happen anywhere.
I believe history gives us a glimpse of the future.
So I take it then that what you really want is peaceful danger?
Does not compute.
Because most of the outrage about foreign spying is from the uninformed.
Uninformed? Perhaps people are just tired of warmongering governments and people who want safety above all else.
I trust my government
There's your problem. A bit of history would probably tell you that doing such a thing is not advisable.
If you attemp to intimidate me into doing something, i can leave
It's not already so easy for the abused to just leave; they're often controlled by fear.
But more pointedly, if im supposed to learn from you, how do i know it is wrong or not just the way things are?
By using your brain to form your own opinions. That's about the only way out, as far as I can see, and authority figures (including abusive people who become de facto authority figures) can be quite intimidating.
You need to watch less TV.
I'd say you need to read up on history. The people in the government aren't the perfect angels you seem to want them to be.
Congress is failing to exercise proper oversight.
There is no public oversight, so that makes complete sense. And to begin with, the problem is not entirely the lack of oversight; I do not think this information should be collected even if people could provide oversight.
I'm giving up no freedom at all.
I suppose if the government started arresting people who criticize it to 'keep us safe,' you would say, "We're giving up no freedom at all."? If not, well, you can't just deny the existence of existing rights and parts of the constitution (privacy, the fourth amendment), and then pretend that people aren't affected by this.
I can go anywhere and do almost anything I want to. I can speak my mind freely.
And you're losing some of your rights, even if not those ones.
There are people in the system that can listen to you at any time.
And? You're trivializing the collection of all this information, and I really can't understand why.
If you're up to something you don't want anyone to know about don't do it over the phone or the internet.
The government makes the laws. Just because you think that you're doing something perfectly innocent, that doesn't mean the government thinks so as well; they could misinterpret you, or they could simply be malicious. There have been cases of the government misinterpreting jokes and harassing the individuals who made them; the same could happen with this so-called 'metadata,' and it most likely has and/or will.
I think it is unfortunate that you're naive enough to trust the government with all this information when all government in history, including the US government, used their powers to abuse the citizens. You're also trusting all the people who will be in the government in the future, and it's at the point where I think your level of naivete is astounding. If you want to see what governments are capable of, I suggest you move to North Korea rather than trying to ruin the US even further.
They're looking for people who are a threat to the US government.
You are, of course, assuming that the people in the government are perfect angels who would never intentionally harm you or make a mistake; I think history shows us that that's not a very good assumption to make. It also means that you're willing to trust all future governments with this information and this power. I think the sheer naivete that one must possess to actually trust the government with all of this is simply astounding. Furthermore, why do you seem so eager to trade away everyone's constitutional rights so you can feel safe? Do our rights and the constitution mean nothing to you?
I think there's a reason that organizations such as the ACLU and EFF, who try to defend our liberties, are rather upset about all this. I think there's a reason that many people who care about freedom in general are upset about all this.
You're so scared of the bogeymen that you'll give up your freedom and privacy in an effort to stop them, as well as everyone else's freedom and privacy? Quite principled, aren't we?
It's not the spying that harms anyone
I'd say violating our freedom, privacy, and constitution hurts everyone.
it's only if they abuse the data they intercept
What do you mean by "if"? History shows that it's almost an inevitability.
Well, I don't know if you were saying that such things should be banned, but I think that banning something entirely merely because it could be abused is, in general, wrong.
The power issue can occur in any relationship, really. A stronger person could intimidate a weaker person. One person could blackmail another person. There are many ways to obtain power over someone else.
To my knowledge I have not heard of the government using evidence collected by one of the NSA surveillance programs to prosecute a US citizen.
They probably know that that could prove detrimental to their causes. To keep everything secret, they'll probably try to harass people behind the scenes and try to keep their sources secret.
Do you really think the NSA has the capability to intercept, store, and analyze everyone's e-mail or phone conversation?
They can possibly intercept and store a significant amount of it and keep it around for whenever they want to abuse it. But whether they can or can't is irrelevant; even metadata can be used and abused, and most likely will be if this is allowed to go on.
The collection of call metadata by direct intercept may be ruled as potentially illegal but requesting the information from the service providers with a court order is currently not illegal.
To me, mass collection of metadata, even with a court order, should be considered unconstitutional.
Snowden himself injected some patently false information claiming he could tap any phone or e-mail account without going through any oversight.
The NSA, as an organization, basically has no oversight. Even if they did, I do not believe they should be able to do any of this.
I think there is a reason that people are willing to believe that the government is abusing its powers, even if the claims are sometimes untrue: History.
I don't think much more needs to be said about Snowden himself at this point; he's irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. The bigger issue is... the actual leaks, and what they reveal.
I'd say the real proof isn't in the actual leaks, but in the government's response to them.
And I hardly think it's paranoia to think that the government is doing what it's fully capable of doing, and doing so in relative secrecy.
So you are a constitutional scholar and are absolutely positive the government is in violation?
I don't know about him, but in my opinion, the fact that they've violated the highest law of the land is absolutely clear to me, and you do not need to be a constitutional scholar to hold this opinion. The constitution was written in English, and anyone can read it and interpret it and form their own conclusions.
I think it's important that people not just mindlessly listen to whatever authority figures (constitutional scholars, in this case) tell them.
The government has technically covered their collective asses with the FISA
General warrants are unconstitutional, even if signed by a judge. Spying on just about people's communications en masse is, to me, a blatant violation of the constitution, and those general warrants aren't going to change my mind.
To me, if this isn't a violation of the constitution, then nothing is.
And it's not that I don't/am incapable of understanding your little nuances, it's that I simply don't care about that. Legal speak simply has no effect on me or my beliefs, nor does someone seemingly defending a corrupt system/decision.