It's possible for the government to install surveillance equipment in people's houses. That this is possible does not mean they aren't violating people's privacy. Most people don't even see others' "metadata" (which is just data to begin with) at all, and it's not "in plain view".
Disclosing them to 3rd parties is not the same as saying, "I want the government to look at this!" Hell, even your data itself is disclosed to 3rd parties. Using this logic, it would be perfectly okay to look at the contents.
The government is supposed to be under the people's control. It is not at all unreasonable to greatly limit its access to our information, and the information of companies.
Comments on Slashdot hardly represent the general populace. If people actually cared about this issue, they would make it a top priority to vote out everyone who supports it.
How many people only support it because they have been force-fed FUD and propaganda by the media along the lines of "if we dont spy on everyone, the terrorists win"?
Well, if they believed that nonsense, they're unintelligent. Even if the terrorists that supposedly exist would 'win', I think people should take the position that freedom is more important than security.
It really IS the 'least intrusive' way to keep tabs on everybody legally, without simply reading every email and listening to every phone call.
What? Since it violates people's freedoms and privacy, I don't think it should be allowed. The end. I don't care how much less intrusive you think it is than the alternatives.
Clearly you have never been to israel if you believe that.
In Israel, the government is in the airports, which is the opposite of what I want. Their strategy is to selectively harass people and perform intrusive background checks, and I approve of neither of those things.
Which makes absolutely no sense even if you think their phone metadata argument made sense. Allowing the collection of metadata for phones doesn't make sense, either. It's a convenient excuse for oppression.
Looks like an intrusive pain in the ass. I want nothing to do with it, just like I want nothing to do with the TSA. The government just needs to vanish from airports.
Yes, but hard to see how a requirement to keep certain records for a certain period of time and hand them over if presented with a constitutionally valid warrant violates the constitution.
If the constitution gives the government the power to do such a thing, then it is constitutional. Even if it is, whether it's the right thing to do is another matter.
If you can't do your job without violating people's rights (which I highly doubt in this case), then I don't think your job should exist, regardless of whether the security is effective or not. Freedom is more important than security to me.
that's probably way worse from an outcome perspective.
I feel this attitude is the problem.
What if (again, as I said above, theorizing here) the NSA stops collecting that data and within 3 years the amount of bombs going off increases tenfold, while at the same time drug usage increases by millions of souls, meat trafficking gets out of control, etc.?
What if giving the government the power to murder anyone they wanted was the only way to stop bogeymen from nuking a city every so often? Then wouldn't it be better to die while defending your principles? I'd rather not live in such extreme, ridiculous worlds to begin with.
From what I've seen, people are either apathetic or support it. As it turns out, people in the "land of the free" don't actually care about freedom all that much.
If you make such a mistake you'd also want your stuff back.
Of course you would. Humans tend to desire results that benefit them. That doesn't mean that their desires would lead to a fair or free world, though. How many people, if they were on the receiving end, would want to keep the goods? Why do their feelings matter less?
Slashdot Mirror
It's possible for the government to install surveillance equipment in people's houses. That this is possible does not mean they aren't violating people's privacy. Most people don't even see others' "metadata" (which is just data to begin with) at all, and it's not "in plain view".
Disclosing them to 3rd parties is not the same as saying, "I want the government to look at this!" Hell, even your data itself is disclosed to 3rd parties. Using this logic, it would be perfectly okay to look at the contents.
The government is supposed to be under the people's control. It is not at all unreasonable to greatly limit its access to our information, and the information of companies.
Comments on Slashdot hardly represent the general populace. If people actually cared about this issue, they would make it a top priority to vote out everyone who supports it.
How many people only support it because they have been force-fed FUD and propaganda by the media along the lines of "if we dont spy on everyone, the terrorists win"?
Well, if they believed that nonsense, they're unintelligent. Even if the terrorists that supposedly exist would 'win', I think people should take the position that freedom is more important than security.
Well, if we're going to make changes to the current system, we might as well make sure that we're happy with the changes. This is not an either/or.
It really IS the 'least intrusive' way to keep tabs on everybody legally, without simply reading every email and listening to every phone call.
What? Since it violates people's freedoms and privacy, I don't think it should be allowed. The end. I don't care how much less intrusive you think it is than the alternatives.
Clearly you have never been to israel if you believe that.
In Israel, the government is in the airports, which is the opposite of what I want. Their strategy is to selectively harass people and perform intrusive background checks, and I approve of neither of those things.
This idea got extended to email
Which makes absolutely no sense even if you think their phone metadata argument made sense. Allowing the collection of metadata for phones doesn't make sense, either. It's a convenient excuse for oppression.
And that means the debate on what and how much data is collected and how long it is stored will continue.
Because people don't like freedom?
Does that mean I can own a nuclear weapon legally?
Sure, why not? Don't like it? Amend the constitution.
If you don't like it, then blame the people who caused the problem in the first place.
The attacks were their fault, but they do not control what goes on in other people's minds. If someone is racist, then that is their own problem.
Look at the airport in israel
Looks like an intrusive pain in the ass. I want nothing to do with it, just like I want nothing to do with the TSA. The government just needs to vanish from airports.
We're now asking them to stop doing something they've been doing for decades.
Good. The amount of time they've been infringing upon people's freedoms is irrelevant to whether or not they should stop.
And it's not that they don't know how to do their jobs properly; they just don't want to.
The problem isn't so much that the data is being collected.
I believe you are wrong, as I think the mere collection of this data is an abuse in and of itself. No amount of oversight would change my opinion.
what's really going on in the minds of the general populace
That's easy:
Yes, but hard to see how a requirement to keep certain records for a certain period of time and hand them over if presented with a constitutionally valid warrant violates the constitution.
If the constitution gives the government the power to do such a thing, then it is constitutional. Even if it is, whether it's the right thing to do is another matter.
Companies already have to keep a variety of business records for periods of time for regulatory purposes
And? I can't think of a case where I don't feel that's morally wrong.
The 4th amendment protects your data, not your metadata.
There is no such exception in the fourth amendment, and those two are the same things.
If you can't do your job without violating people's rights (which I highly doubt in this case), then I don't think your job should exist, regardless of whether the security is effective or not. Freedom is more important than security to me.
that's probably way worse from an outcome perspective.
I feel this attitude is the problem.
What if (again, as I said above, theorizing here) the NSA stops collecting that data and within 3 years the amount of bombs going off increases tenfold, while at the same time drug usage increases by millions of souls, meat trafficking gets out of control, etc.?
What if giving the government the power to murder anyone they wanted was the only way to stop bogeymen from nuking a city every so often? Then wouldn't it be better to die while defending your principles? I'd rather not live in such extreme, ridiculous worlds to begin with.
Then you are short sighted and not admitting reality.
I don't see anything about his comment that's shortsighted, or anywhere where he doesn't admit reality.
(And refrain from hyperbole such as "all our rights")
I don't think it's hyperbole.
Like it or not, old unverified quotes aside, people want both liberty AND security.
Hopefully the former is considered far more important, but I don't think people are very intelligent in general.
From what I've seen, people are either apathetic or support it. As it turns out, people in the "land of the free" don't actually care about freedom all that much.
Step 1: Require that the companies collect the information and retain it.
Which then is at the government's fingertips. How about we do no such thing?
That person would likely do the same with a found wallet.
Maybe, but maybe not. It depends on whether or not they feel the two situations are different.
Looks like the Internet psychologists are out and about.
I don't like what you say. Therefore, you need help.
You can assess the moral fiber of a person when (s)he is in a situation that they can get away with something.
It's certainly possible to do so, but what conclusion you come to is another matter entirely.
If you make such a mistake you'd also want your stuff back.
Of course you would. Humans tend to desire results that benefit them. That doesn't mean that their desires would lead to a fair or free world, though. How many people, if they were on the receiving end, would want to keep the goods? Why do their feelings matter less?