"It is pretty obvious they DO have complete access to all that data - and we already knew about the supposed "oversight" that we're not allowed to even know who is performing or what their directives are."
From my point of view, it's obvious the government should not be in a position to protect our private data. My phone company should keep my records -- and if they lose them due to a security breach, I MIGHT be a target of ID theft.
However, if the GOVERNMENT has that information, I could be the target of political retaliation. It doesn't matter if there are "safe guards" or not. If the Government has the data, nothing can guarantee against a future time when such information might be used against me in some way. While the IRS scandal is still playing out, it's pretty obvious private documents of some organizations were "leaked" to their political opponents.
Then there's the entire issue of the government collecting potential "embarrassing" information on government office holders and use that to "blackmail" them to act or vote a certain way. Tin foil hattery? Perhaps -- but the IRS reveals -- but JE Hoover shenanigans can happen anywhere.
This is why ALL people should have been upset by Clinton's acts in office -- he placed himself in a position where he could have been blackmailed to act a certain way or veto a certain way. And that he lied under oath about it shows he was willing to break the law to HIDE it. I flipping don't care if he got a BJ in the white house -- at least beyond how it sullies of office he held. It's the potential POWER he could have given some one OUTSIDE of elected office to influence our government.
"Discredit the messenger to distract from the actual message"
If people fall for that, they are stupid.
"He's a traitor..."
He may well be. He certainly violated laws. Perhaps he's a hero -- perhaps not. It'll come out eventually. We just need to keep making noise to "find out the truth". Those interested in covering it up will eventually fall prey to their political opponents demands for the "truth". I don't care WHY the truth comes out -- I just want it to. And if that means that PARTY A gets beaten up politically by PARTY B, so be it. Maybe PARTY A deserves to get beaten up over this.
"At this point, this is not an issue of a lawbreaker. Until he's charged with something in a free and open court, Snowden is not a criminal."
"At this point, this is not an issue about parenthood. Until the birth certificate has has been filed with the county clerk, the baby isn't a baby".
He has not been arrested or charged, true. The fact that he's not charged doesn't mean he didn't break the law (and is therefore a lawbreaker). He *DID* break the law and *IS* a lawbreaker -- by his own statements to the press this is an irrefutable fact.
He is a criminal and he is a lawbreaker.
Using your logic, you CAN claim he is not a convict -- has he hasn't been convicted of anything, nor can you call him a fugitive as he's not running from the law (at least not yet).
"Except, there is knowledge of a crime, and evidence that you committed it may reside in that hard drive's data just as surely as it may reside in your fingerprints' unique pattern."
No... there is a suspicion of a crime and evidence of that suspected crime MAY reside on the HD. It's not the same thing, I believe.
I still think it's a fundamentally different "thing".
The court cant' compel me to say "I did it". It can compel me to give finger prints and/or blood -- then they would compare that to whatever the collected at a crime scene and it would be up to the prosecution to make the case that BECAUSE my finger prints are at a crime scene, and other "compelling" evidence, this man (me) is guilty. All without me lifting a finger to help the prosecution.
I.e. -- the court doesn't have access to my private thoughts (I have the right to remain silent). They can get a warrant and get physical evidence -- and if that includes material they cannot read, they cant force me to open up my brain and tell them how to read it. However, if someone ELSE had the decryption key, they could compel them under penalty of contempt to provide the key.
I'm certainly not a lawyer -- nor do I necessarily agree with the argument Im making. I'm just trying to follow the logic and how the 5th amd could apply.
That's really not the same thing. I cannot be forced to talk or give any information which might incriminate me. Finger prints and blood samples are for comparative analysis of a crime scene vs. a hard drive which there is no evidence is part of a crime, but a suspicion that evidence of one MAY reside.
A court can order the HD turned over under a warrant -- but under the 5th, I cannot be compelled to tell you whats on it or how to read it.
Hmmm... Anwar al-Awlaki is believed to help PLAN at least one of the attacks he's closely tied to. That sounds awfully like an act of aggression and an act of war, doesn't it?
"Can we value human life any less? The massacre of innocent *non-combattants* is "regrettable"? Anyone who thinks like this has lost the right to be considered civilized. You shed crocodile tears. I will not regret your demise, nor shed any tears for the likes of you."
How do you handle aggressors who hide among civilians?
If in a foreign country, you demand the government do something about controlling their people. If they cannot, what do you do? Do you go in and "do something about it" yourself? or do you resign your peoples to being targeted and killed without recourse?
Sometimes civilian/non-combatant death is unavoidable if this is how the aggressors operate.
Anyone who is unwilling to take out someone deliberately targeting YOU (as your your country, etc) has effectively placed a target on their back -- and by your standards, being "civilized" leads to "death".
"and cannot guarantee against the authorities abusing their armed power against the people (this has happened countless times already)"
Here's a question that most people don't consider:
Given the thought of an "ARMED populous in the US' is in part to insure protection against Government tyranny or to out right overthrow a tyrannical Government" is scoffed at by most, why is it we send arms to "rebels" in other countries (who would otherwise be grocers or cobblers or other benign profession) to help them?
It doesn't take a lot of people unwilling to live by the common law to cause major problems.
"Simply not true - gun ownership among criminals in the uk is pretty low."
Maybe I missed something, but I do not read ANYWHERE in the GP that he claimed that gun ownership in the UK was high. He claimed: "As long as we cannot prevent criminals from having guns (most do, even in countries where gun possession is highly restricted),"
Your statement basically affirms what he said. Saying that it is "Simply not true" is demonstrably wrong. However, if you said: "You are right, but it's still pretty low" that would have added to the discussion rather than create a distraction.
"That would be un-American. Clearly, you can't have people living off someone else's work, even though that someone else is a machine, because...quick, help me someone here!"
Cute. How about we eliminate a huge mass of government workers and unions? If you get a check from the state and you have the ability to work, let the state FIND you work.
Example: Kill the bulk of street cleaners. Designate on person per block (or two or three or 5 blocks) who's daily job is to clean trash off sidewalks/streets and to clean leaves out of storm drains. Do that 40 hours a week, you get your state check. If they're getting a check ANYWAY, it doesn't matter that street cleaners would be cheaper or more efficient.
I've got broken sidewalks, cracked roads and modest flooding due to clogged storm drains -- all within a 5 mins walk of my house (never mind all around town). This poor infrastructure management -- one of the PRIMARY jobs of my local government -- is primarily caused by the money drain of social programs. It makes ZERO sense for the government to pay people who cannot find work AND not adequately fund and perform infrastructure maintenance. It takes zero skill to pick up trash and leaves. It also takes zero skill to wear an orange vest and direct traffic around construction vehicles.
Another example: Cant get out of the house because of kids? Get rid of all the envelope stuffing machines (and maintenance contracts for them). Ship bulk generic paperwork requests to stuck at home moms/dads. Have them stuff envelopes. Again, why pay for the "more efficient and cheaper" machines if we already have a potential work force getting paid while not working?
"It is the type of privacy that you get when you mark a box on a ballot."
Your example kind of illustrates my point. When you "mark the box on a ballot", you are generally in a PRIVATE setting (booth with 'security panels' so your anonymity is preserved and expected.
However, if you are in a town hall and they ask for a showing of hands, that certainly isn't private -- it's public.
You may very well consider me 80% down the slippery slope, but I consider you to be misunderstanding what "public" means. How can I protect my privacy in a "public" place? To me, it's an oximoronic situation.
"No, what they want is their right to not be harassed upheld."
When have public cameras caused someone to be harassed?
"Their right to not have every moment of their public activities stored as part of a permanent record."
I'm unfamiliar with this 'right'. Is it a natural right? Or is it a magical 'right' that came in to being when recording devices were invented? My tone might be dismissive and I apologize for that, but it's a serious question. I fall on the side of fundamental 'natural rights' side of things and consider what YOU are suggesting a privilege allowed or enforced by law. Perhaps what you want is a "good", but I wouldn't call it a 'right'.
"It (not being recorded) is not unreasonable"
I won't argue that as I agree -- it's not unreasonable. I also think it's not unreasonable to expect to be recorded in "public".
If strangers have the right to "see" me with their eyes as I walk the street and walk in to a store, is it so different if that "seeing" is recorded? Is that REALLY a violation of "privacy" when one is in a public place? I don't see a huge difference nor do I see it as a 'privacy' violation.
I think what the "privacy" crowd wants is a right to "anonymity". And I'm not sure we have a right to "anonymity".
Most of that can be packaged as a file and sent from a client in windows 7, vista, 2008, etc etc etc. There's not a LOT of software that requires a particular app to send that data.
Walk with blinders much? Do you even pay attention to the conversations of which you participate?
It was claimed:
"Now look at the list of terror attacks in 2012"
To which you responded with several citations to counter the original posters position. Then you summarized with the following:
"If you guess every terrorism attack in the USA is Islamic, you're going to be wrong more often than you are right."
I pointed out both the inaccuracies of your source AND how you misinterpreted the data. I suggested you look at the entire "alleged" section to see just how many were in fact Islamic based (which would make him right more often than wrong).
Your response was to ignore your failure to make your point and suggest I go "fix" your source material. Again, that's not my job. You made a claim and backed it up with faulty information. You need to either let your argument die or come up with better source material. Please note I'm ignoring the back-handed insult fashion in which you presented your "suggestion" to fix the wiki. Real classy by the way.
You want to suggest my 'priority is winning pissing contests rather than the truth'? Really? You are ignoring the 'truth' that your position has no foundation -- and in fact, the inverse is strongly suggestive of being accurate using your OWN sources (if one actually takes the time to interpret the data presented). What a pretentious prat.
I'll keep "pissing" with my eyes open, you keep walking down the street with blinders on spitting at anyone who tells you to look left, right or tries to warn you not to step in your own filth.
It's not my job to fix your citations. It's enough that I point out that you were citing inaccurate sources AND misinterpreting them to boot. I did so clearly and with examples. Since your statements no longer had any support it's up to you to either provide other sources or let your argument die on the vine.
You do know how debates/arguments work, don't you?
I really question the accuracy of those links and/or your interpretation of them. No mention of Corkins and his attack on the FRC at all (not Islamist, but a pro-gay marriage activist)? And if you NEED to look at the "alleged and proven plots" section. Example:
Sami Samir Hassoun Nidal Hasan
Just to name a few. There's quite a list of Islamic terrorism that appears to be hidden under the guise of "alleged".
"You're now offended that I don't share your views on the US constitution,"
I'm no more offended that you don't understand the constitution than I am if you didn't understand the purpose of rebar in construction.
"You are acting ever more like it's a religion."
No more than I have faith that rebar will strengthen concrete structures -- and to take shortcuts would weaken the structure. Have you studied the constitution? Not the DOCUMENT, but the process and debates that proceeded and followed? The federalist papers? Antifederalst papers? The constitution of Mass?
If you haven't and make the proclamations you do, then you are a bigot. You assume "Oh, well we can talk about changing this law or that law and it's easy to discuss". No, its not. If what you are discussing violates the constitution, the discussion NEEDS focus on amending the constitution for whatever reasons if necessary.
Slashdot Mirror
"It is pretty obvious they DO have complete access to all that data - and we already knew about the supposed "oversight" that we're not allowed to even know who is performing or what their directives are."
From my point of view, it's obvious the government should not be in a position to protect our private data. My phone company should keep my records -- and if they lose them due to a security breach, I MIGHT be a target of ID theft.
However, if the GOVERNMENT has that information, I could be the target of political retaliation. It doesn't matter if there are "safe guards" or not. If the Government has the data, nothing can guarantee against a future time when such information might be used against me in some way. While the IRS scandal is still playing out, it's pretty obvious private documents of some organizations were "leaked" to their political opponents.
Then there's the entire issue of the government collecting potential "embarrassing" information on government office holders and use that to "blackmail" them to act or vote a certain way. Tin foil hattery? Perhaps -- but the IRS reveals -- but JE Hoover shenanigans can happen anywhere.
This is why ALL people should have been upset by Clinton's acts in office -- he placed himself in a position where he could have been blackmailed to act a certain way or veto a certain way. And that he lied under oath about it shows he was willing to break the law to HIDE it. I flipping don't care if he got a BJ in the white house -- at least beyond how it sullies of office he held. It's the potential POWER he could have given some one OUTSIDE of elected office to influence our government.
"Discredit the messenger to distract from the actual message"
If people fall for that, they are stupid.
"He's a traitor..."
He may well be. He certainly violated laws. Perhaps he's a hero -- perhaps not. It'll come out eventually. We just need to keep making noise to "find out the truth". Those interested in covering it up will eventually fall prey to their political opponents demands for the "truth". I don't care WHY the truth comes out -- I just want it to. And if that means that PARTY A gets beaten up politically by PARTY B, so be it. Maybe PARTY A deserves to get beaten up over this.
"At this point, this is not an issue of a lawbreaker. Until he's charged with something in a free and open court, Snowden is not a criminal."
"At this point, this is not an issue about parenthood. Until the birth certificate has has been filed with the county clerk, the baby isn't a baby".
He has not been arrested or charged, true. The fact that he's not charged doesn't mean he didn't break the law (and is therefore a lawbreaker). He *DID* break the law and *IS* a lawbreaker -- by his own statements to the press this is an irrefutable fact.
He is a criminal and he is a lawbreaker.
Using your logic, you CAN claim he is not a convict -- has he hasn't been convicted of anything, nor can you call him a fugitive as he's not running from the law (at least not yet).
"Except, there is knowledge of a crime, and evidence that you committed it may reside in that hard drive's data just as surely as it may reside in your fingerprints' unique pattern."
No... there is a suspicion of a crime and evidence of that suspected crime MAY reside on the HD. It's not the same thing, I believe.
Perhaps.
I still think it's a fundamentally different "thing".
The court cant' compel me to say "I did it". It can compel me to give finger prints and/or blood -- then they would compare that to whatever the collected at a crime scene and it would be up to the prosecution to make the case that BECAUSE my finger prints are at a crime scene, and other "compelling" evidence, this man (me) is guilty. All without me lifting a finger to help the prosecution.
I.e. -- the court doesn't have access to my private thoughts (I have the right to remain silent). They can get a warrant and get physical evidence -- and if that includes material they cannot read, they cant force me to open up my brain and tell them how to read it. However, if someone ELSE had the decryption key, they could compel them under penalty of contempt to provide the key.
I'm certainly not a lawyer -- nor do I necessarily agree with the argument Im making. I'm just trying to follow the logic and how the 5th amd could apply.
That's really not the same thing. I cannot be forced to talk or give any information which might incriminate me. Finger prints and blood samples are for comparative analysis of a crime scene vs. a hard drive which there is no evidence is part of a crime, but a suspicion that evidence of one MAY reside.
A court can order the HD turned over under a warrant -- but under the 5th, I cannot be compelled to tell you whats on it or how to read it.
At least, that's the logic I see behind it.
So... maybe "The Force" or "magic" is just an accumulation of old wifi products?
Hmmm... Anwar al-Awlaki is believed to help PLAN at least one of the attacks he's closely tied to. That sounds awfully like an act of aggression and an act of war, doesn't it?
Can you REALLY say that about fundamentalist Islamic terrorists? Who would be free? Christians? Jews? Women? Who's liberty will be restored?
Are there any examples where someone or group wasn't targeted because of an act of aggression or war?
"Can we value human life any less? The massacre of innocent *non-combattants* is "regrettable"? Anyone who thinks like this has lost the right to be considered civilized. You shed crocodile tears. I will not regret your demise, nor shed any tears for the likes of you."
How do you handle aggressors who hide among civilians?
If in a foreign country, you demand the government do something about controlling their people. If they cannot, what do you do? Do you go in and "do something about it" yourself? or do you resign your peoples to being targeted and killed without recourse?
Sometimes civilian/non-combatant death is unavoidable if this is how the aggressors operate.
Anyone who is unwilling to take out someone deliberately targeting YOU (as your your country, etc) has effectively placed a target on their back -- and by your standards, being "civilized" leads to "death".
"and cannot guarantee against the authorities abusing their armed power against the people (this has happened countless times already)"
Here's a question that most people don't consider:
Given the thought of an "ARMED populous in the US' is in part to insure protection against Government tyranny or to out right overthrow a tyrannical Government" is scoffed at by most, why is it we send arms to "rebels" in other countries (who would otherwise be grocers or cobblers or other benign profession) to help them?
It doesn't take a lot of people unwilling to live by the common law to cause major problems.
"That may or may not be true, but isn't directly related to my point really, is it?"
Which point is that? The point in which you were wrong about the GP's post being "Simply not true"? That point?
"Simply not true - gun ownership among criminals in the uk is pretty low."
Maybe I missed something, but I do not read ANYWHERE in the GP that he claimed that gun ownership in the UK was high. He claimed: "As long as we cannot prevent criminals from having guns (most do, even in countries where gun possession is highly restricted),"
Your statement basically affirms what he said. Saying that it is "Simply not true" is demonstrably wrong. However, if you said: "You are right, but it's still pretty low" that would have added to the discussion rather than create a distraction.
Would have been funny if you said: "...call me Narth"
"That would be un-American. Clearly, you can't have people living off someone else's work, even though that someone else is a machine, because...quick, help me someone here!"
Cute. How about we eliminate a huge mass of government workers and unions? If you get a check from the state and you have the ability to work, let the state FIND you work.
Example: Kill the bulk of street cleaners. Designate on person per block (or two or three or 5 blocks) who's daily job is to clean trash off sidewalks/streets and to clean leaves out of storm drains. Do that 40 hours a week, you get your state check. If they're getting a check ANYWAY, it doesn't matter that street cleaners would be cheaper or more efficient.
I've got broken sidewalks, cracked roads and modest flooding due to clogged storm drains -- all within a 5 mins walk of my house (never mind all around town). This poor infrastructure management -- one of the PRIMARY jobs of my local government -- is primarily caused by the money drain of social programs. It makes ZERO sense for the government to pay people who cannot find work AND not adequately fund and perform infrastructure maintenance. It takes zero skill to pick up trash and leaves. It also takes zero skill to wear an orange vest and direct traffic around construction vehicles.
Another example: Cant get out of the house because of kids? Get rid of all the envelope stuffing machines (and maintenance contracts for them). Ship bulk generic paperwork requests to stuck at home moms/dads. Have them stuff envelopes. Again, why pay for the "more efficient and cheaper" machines if we already have a potential work force getting paid while not working?
"We do not want to give government this power."
While I don't necessarily agree with you, it may well be a concern. How about this: Leave it in the public domain.
Weren't the Boston bombers caught by a privately owned security camera? And umpteen gagillian cell phone cams?
Offer incentives to businesses or private residences to have security cameras (aside from their obvious function).
Bias alert: Several private security cameras (home and business) helped ID the monster who kidnapped my daughter.
"It is the type of privacy that you get when you mark a box on a ballot."
Your example kind of illustrates my point. When you "mark the box on a ballot", you are generally in a PRIVATE setting (booth with 'security panels' so your anonymity is preserved and expected.
However, if you are in a town hall and they ask for a showing of hands, that certainly isn't private -- it's public.
You may very well consider me 80% down the slippery slope, but I consider you to be misunderstanding what "public" means. How can I protect my privacy in a "public" place? To me, it's an oximoronic situation.
"Yes, obviously"
I don't think it's as obvious as you think.
"No, what they want is their right to not be harassed upheld."
When have public cameras caused someone to be harassed?
"Their right to not have every moment of their public activities stored as part of a permanent record."
I'm unfamiliar with this 'right'. Is it a natural right? Or is it a magical 'right' that came in to being when recording devices were invented? My tone might be dismissive and I apologize for that, but it's a serious question. I fall on the side of fundamental 'natural rights' side of things and consider what YOU are suggesting a privilege allowed or enforced by law. Perhaps what you want is a "good", but I wouldn't call it a 'right'.
"It (not being recorded) is not unreasonable"
I won't argue that as I agree -- it's not unreasonable. I also think it's not unreasonable to expect to be recorded in "public".
Is this really about PRIVACY? Or ANONYMITY?
If strangers have the right to "see" me with their eyes as I walk the street and walk in to a store, is it so different if that "seeing" is recorded? Is that REALLY a violation of "privacy" when one is in a public place? I don't see a huge difference nor do I see it as a 'privacy' violation.
I think what the "privacy" crowd wants is a right to "anonymity". And I'm not sure we have a right to "anonymity".
Most of that can be packaged as a file and sent from a client in windows 7, vista, 2008, etc etc etc. There's not a LOT of software that requires a particular app to send that data.
Wow. Just wow.
Walk with blinders much? Do you even pay attention to the conversations of which you participate?
It was claimed:
"Now look at the list of terror attacks in 2012"
To which you responded with several citations to counter the original posters position. Then you summarized with the following:
"If you guess every terrorism attack in the USA is Islamic, you're going to be wrong more often than you are right."
I pointed out both the inaccuracies of your source AND how you misinterpreted the data. I suggested you look at the entire "alleged" section to see just how many were in fact Islamic based (which would make him right more often than wrong).
Your response was to ignore your failure to make your point and suggest I go "fix" your source material. Again, that's not my job. You made a claim and backed it up with faulty information. You need to either let your argument die or come up with better source material. Please note I'm ignoring the back-handed insult fashion in which you presented your "suggestion" to fix the wiki. Real classy by the way.
You want to suggest my 'priority is winning pissing contests rather than the truth'? Really? You are ignoring the 'truth' that your position has no foundation -- and in fact, the inverse is strongly suggestive of being accurate using your OWN sources (if one actually takes the time to interpret the data presented). What a pretentious prat.
I'll keep "pissing" with my eyes open, you keep walking down the street with blinders on spitting at anyone who tells you to look left, right or tries to warn you not to step in your own filth.
It's not my job to fix your citations. It's enough that I point out that you were citing inaccurate sources AND misinterpreting them to boot. I did so clearly and with examples. Since your statements no longer had any support it's up to you to either provide other sources or let your argument die on the vine.
You do know how debates/arguments work, don't you?
I really question the accuracy of those links and/or your interpretation of them. No mention of Corkins and his attack on the FRC at all (not Islamist, but a pro-gay marriage activist)? And if you NEED to look at the "alleged and proven plots" section. Example:
Sami Samir Hassoun
Nidal Hasan
Just to name a few. There's quite a list of Islamic terrorism that appears to be hidden under the guise of "alleged".
"You're now offended that I don't share your views on the US constitution,"
I'm no more offended that you don't understand the constitution than I am if you didn't understand the purpose of rebar in construction.
"You are acting ever more like it's a religion."
No more than I have faith that rebar will strengthen concrete structures -- and to take shortcuts would weaken the structure. Have you studied the constitution? Not the DOCUMENT, but the process and debates that proceeded and followed? The federalist papers? Antifederalst papers? The constitution of Mass?
If you haven't and make the proclamations you do, then you are a bigot. You assume "Oh, well we can talk about changing this law or that law and it's easy to discuss". No, its not. If what you are discussing violates the constitution, the discussion NEEDS focus on amending the constitution for whatever reasons if necessary.