Most people fear things that are very unlikely to happen:
Both of those things are rather unlikely to happen, but the mere act of violating people's rights is evil. The government need not kill you in order for their actions to be evil. The government doesn't need to kill you, either; they could abuse their powers in other ways.
Click bait for the countless 14-yo libertarians who infest these boards.
What about the 14-yo non-libertarians who whine that there are countless 14-yo libertarians on Slashdot?
And who be just OUTRAGED, that somebody dared to point out that the government is the collective will of the people, and may actually have our interests and safety as their core mission
Collective will or no, the government isn't supposed to violate the constitution; the majority do not and should not have absolute power, and neither should the government. Individual rights need to be protected, and I probably couldn't even be considered a libertarian.
Rubberstamping broad warrants isn't following the constitution.
Oh, I suppose you'd object to my saying they're "rubberstamping" warrants, but that appears to be the case given everything that's happened. We can't trust the government when it's acting so secretly, so it is foolish of you to give it the benefit of the doubt.
Note: I do not care what they have to do to actually look at the data; I care that they were allowed to get it at all.
At the moment you take little chance due to the overall success of anti-terrorism efforts.
I seriously can't believe that you're dense enough to buy into the government's scaremongering. Do you have no mind of your own? The chance that you'll be killed in a terrorist attack are absolutely minuscule with or without your precious security theater, drone.
Freedom is also more important than safety, so there's that.
At the moment you take little chance due to the overall success of anti-terrorism efforts.
And you know this how? Even before 9/11 (before people cruelly have their freedoms violated at airports and other such nonsense), there was a minuscule likelihood that I would die from a terrorist attack. You're just a scaremongering fool.
It has been followed as determined by the courts, and yet you complain bitterly
Rubberstamping broad warrants isn't following the constitution.
Both of those require massive amounts of data going to the Federal government.
I'm not worried about just any data, but one thing is clear to me: It is absolutely wrong to get data about millions of Verizon customers.
You want me to draw a line with perfect accuracy? I can't do such a thing, and neither can you. All I care about is how likely the data is to be abused, whether or not I think it's reasonable for the government to have the data, and how public the information is already.
Maybe you could list for us the abuses of power by President Washington?
My point is that it is extremely foolish to not bet on it, you pedantic fool.
As I said, you ignore history and give the government the benefit of the doubt; it does not deserve it, and that applies to any government.
I can see the usefulness, and perhaps even the imperative, for the US to collect and analyze data of this sort.
Then you've foolishly bought into their lies. I'd rather take the 0.000000000000001% chance of dying in a terrorist attack than let them have so much data, and anyone who cares about freedom takes that position as well.
But if you think that is oppressive, you probably don't have much understanding of genuine oppression.
Ah, the old "It could be worse, so it's not bad!" nonsense. Nice try.
The reach of the 1st Amendment is pretty broad, but there are some justifiable carve-outs.
Justifiable to those who have no love for freedom, maybe.
Experiments I strongly suggest you don't try include making jokes about bombs at an airport, or publicly making statements about killing the President.
I'm not so sure. I do not believe that secret courts and judges that rubber stamp overly-broad warrants are ever a good thing. But yeah, the government does not have any credibility.
How often is a teenager's goal to "go study in a different country to better their education?"
It doesn't matter, because having a piece of paper means little (especially if it's from a high school diploma). There are numerous ways to prove that you have ability besides just wasting your time getting a worthless piece of paper, and some employers actually try to evaluate potential employees rather than just relying on degrees and other such things.
dropping out is always due to either family problems and/or desire for quick cash, rather than conscious goals.
Since you said "always," I can say that that is false. Self-education.
Each requires tons of cash and qualifications, respectively.
Nope. In some states, homeschooling requires no qualifications, and it certainly does not require "tons of cash" (especially in the day and age of the Internet).
I don't see why you thought that was hyperbole, either. Surely you didn't mean to suggest that (for example) groping everyone who tries to get on a plane is anything less than evil?
It's rather difficult to interact with people who are so easily manipulated into giving away all of our freedoms.
Most people feel that terrorism is a real threat.
Because they're imbeciles. I know most people can't wrap their puny minds around the concept of freedom being more important than security, and that hurts all of us.
Instead of addressing the situation, you take an absolute position and dig in.
An "absolute position"? What else would I do, give up some of my freedoms as some sort of compromise? That sort of compromise isn't acceptable to me, but if that's not what you want from me, then please do tell.
and part of that purpose is to provide for security.
But freedom is ultimately more important than security. If their plans to keep us safe include violating any of our fundamental rights, then I'd rather take the 0.00001% chance that I'd die in a terrorist attack.
A balanced point of view is important when discussing these matters.
The ones who oppose these rights violations are taking a balanced point of view. The TSA, NSA, Patriot Act, and all the other nonsense that has been going on are evil.
Slashdot Mirror
What the hell?
No, he suggested that the majority shouldn't have absolute power. That should be obvious, right?
It's not good enough to just have a warrant, though, and that's really the entire problem.
You have no idea what it has or has not prevented
It doesn't really matter, either. It seems extremely unlikely that it thwarted "several more 9/11s," so that's off the table immediately.
Freedom is more important than security, anyway.
So they do have something to hide, then.
No, I'm not.
Most people fear things that are very unlikely to happen:
Both of those things are rather unlikely to happen, but the mere act of violating people's rights is evil. The government need not kill you in order for their actions to be evil. The government doesn't need to kill you, either; they could abuse their powers in other ways.
Click bait for the countless 14-yo libertarians who infest these boards.
What about the 14-yo non-libertarians who whine that there are countless 14-yo libertarians on Slashdot?
And who be just OUTRAGED, that somebody dared to point out that the government is the collective will of the people, and may actually have our interests and safety as their core mission
Collective will or no, the government isn't supposed to violate the constitution; the majority do not and should not have absolute power, and neither should the government. Individual rights need to be protected, and I probably couldn't even be considered a libertarian.
Rubberstamping broad warrants isn't following the constitution.
Oh, I suppose you'd object to my saying they're "rubberstamping" warrants, but that appears to be the case given everything that's happened. We can't trust the government when it's acting so secretly, so it is foolish of you to give it the benefit of the doubt.
Note: I do not care what they have to do to actually look at the data; I care that they were allowed to get it at all.
At the moment you take little chance due to the overall success of anti-terrorism efforts.
I seriously can't believe that you're dense enough to buy into the government's scaremongering. Do you have no mind of your own? The chance that you'll be killed in a terrorist attack are absolutely minuscule with or without your precious security theater, drone.
Freedom is also more important than safety, so there's that.
At the moment you take little chance due to the overall success of anti-terrorism efforts.
And you know this how? Even before 9/11 (before people cruelly have their freedoms violated at airports and other such nonsense), there was a minuscule likelihood that I would die from a terrorist attack. You're just a scaremongering fool.
It has been followed as determined by the courts, and yet you complain bitterly
Rubberstamping broad warrants isn't following the constitution.
Both of those require massive amounts of data going to the Federal government.
I'm not worried about just any data, but one thing is clear to me: It is absolutely wrong to get data about millions of Verizon customers.
You want me to draw a line with perfect accuracy? I can't do such a thing, and neither can you. All I care about is how likely the data is to be abused, whether or not I think it's reasonable for the government to have the data, and how public the information is already.
Maybe you could list for us the abuses of power by President Washington?
My point is that it is extremely foolish to not bet on it, you pedantic fool.
As I said, you ignore history and give the government the benefit of the doubt; it does not deserve it, and that applies to any government.
I can see the usefulness, and perhaps even the imperative, for the US to collect and analyze data of this sort.
Then you've foolishly bought into their lies. I'd rather take the 0.000000000000001% chance of dying in a terrorist attack than let them have so much data, and anyone who cares about freedom takes that position as well.
But if you think that is oppressive, you probably don't have much understanding of genuine oppression.
Ah, the old "It could be worse, so it's not bad!" nonsense. Nice try.
The reach of the 1st Amendment is pretty broad, but there are some justifiable carve-outs.
Justifiable to those who have no love for freedom, maybe.
Experiments I strongly suggest you don't try include making jokes about bombs at an airport, or publicly making statements about killing the President.
Exactly as I said...
"Bend over" indeed.
That's all you seem to be good at.
you have no idea of the ironclad penalties you agreed to when you sign a security contract, do you?
I don't really care.
and not one of you bleeding hearts will remember him in a year.
And you know this how? You don't; you're most likely just a troll.
Cold Fjord has a point.
I'm not so sure. I do not believe that secret courts and judges that rubber stamp overly-broad warrants are ever a good thing. But yeah, the government does not have any credibility.
How often is a teenager's goal to "go study in a different country to better their education?"
It doesn't matter, because having a piece of paper means little (especially if it's from a high school diploma). There are numerous ways to prove that you have ability besides just wasting your time getting a worthless piece of paper, and some employers actually try to evaluate potential employees rather than just relying on degrees and other such things.
dropping out is always due to either family problems and/or desire for quick cash, rather than conscious goals.
Since you said "always," I can say that that is false. Self-education.
Each requires tons of cash and qualifications, respectively.
Nope. In some states, homeschooling requires no qualifications, and it certainly does not require "tons of cash" (especially in the day and age of the Internet).
Stop jerking off to a 200 year old scrap of paper.
Yeah, we should just let the government do whatever it pleases, I suppose. Who cares if it follows the rules?
... how they placed a high school dropout in such a position of trust.
What's wrong with dropping out of the piss-poor public education system in the US?
but the government is following the law
But they're not following the constitution; other laws are irrelevant.
And if it turns out that he just blew what might have prevented several 9/11 level attacks?
Freedom is more important than security, drone.
and betraying democracy
When did that happen? What does that even mean in this case?
Seriously, this guy is a criminal
Even if that's true, he did nothing wrong. He merely shed light upon some of the government's wrongdoing.
Exactly the type of hyperbole I was referring to.
I don't see why you thought that was hyperbole, either. Surely you didn't mean to suggest that (for example) groping everyone who tries to get on a plane is anything less than evil?
Exactly the type of hyperbole I was referring to.
It wasn't hyperbole.
You are not advancing the discussion.
It's rather difficult to interact with people who are so easily manipulated into giving away all of our freedoms.
Most people feel that terrorism is a real threat.
Because they're imbeciles. I know most people can't wrap their puny minds around the concept of freedom being more important than security, and that hurts all of us.
Instead of addressing the situation, you take an absolute position and dig in.
An "absolute position"? What else would I do, give up some of my freedoms as some sort of compromise? That sort of compromise isn't acceptable to me, but if that's not what you want from me, then please do tell.
and part of that purpose is to provide for security.
But freedom is ultimately more important than security. If their plans to keep us safe include violating any of our fundamental rights, then I'd rather take the 0.00001% chance that I'd die in a terrorist attack.
A balanced point of view is important when discussing these matters.
The ones who oppose these rights violations are taking a balanced point of view. The TSA, NSA, Patriot Act, and all the other nonsense that has been going on are evil.