That's because you're not paying attention. I said that since the government does one ridiculous thing (grope people at airports), it doesn't surprise me to find out that they do something slightly more ridiculous (spy on people). That's not definitive proof, and I never framed it as such.
Who cares? I might feel that I should be able to 'own' the data on everyone's hard drives, but my feels are irrelevant to whether or not such a thing is just. If corporations want to use a song for that purpose, then I don't see the problem.
but spying on innocent people is absolutely outlandish.
Spying on innocent people is immoral. What I meant was that the idea of them spying on people in the name of preventing terrorism is not outlandish.
After all, if I am innocent, then you have no logical reason to spy on me.
Paranoia. Power. The fact that you might do something in the future. There are plenty of reasons for people to spy on you, but none of them justify the spying.
I know. I meant that the idea of them spying on people in the name of preventing terrorism (their stated goal) is not at all outlandish; it's simply par for the course.
Outlandish? We have people getting groped at airports because they want to get on a plane. You call spying in the name of terrorist "outlandish"? Please.
The amusing thing is, if anyone asked anyone I know if the NSA had all our phone records before this, I think almost everyone I know would have said, "yeah, of course they do."
But no concrete evidence. You also forget that most people are morons.
So, I am struggling to figure out how this has informed anyone of something they didn't already know.
Morality is not dictated by law. I am not talking about silly legal definitions.
That is a ridiculous, and has no bearing on the options available to Snowden. He could have gone to the Inspector General, or to Congress. It is Congress that would have to change the laws in any event. It is Congress that changes the laws if need be. That is how the democratic process works.
Right... more or less the same people who allow travesties such as the TSA to exist. Good luck with that.
That said, I feel the public has a right to know about this so they can make informed choices when voting.
As someone pointed out, there are Inspector Generals
Who more than likely would just trot out the same tired old "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" mantra.
If Congress was really being lied to, don't you think they want to know about it?
Given the fact that our liberties have been continually eroded in the name of fighting terrorism, I seriously think the only reason these people care is because it's Obama who's president. Had it never came to light, I don't think they'd do anything.
Without this information, voters can't make informed choices.
he's hiding because he broke the law and he knows it.
I honestly couldn't care less if he broke the law or not; that is not my concern.
If the law is not enforced, then anyone who finds it fashionable to leak stories like this will be inclined to do so.
And the ones who don't actually reveal any wrongdoings would be punished. There is no problem there; we have too many secrets as it is.
In this case, I don't believe that this was his only option for getting this in front those who could change things.
Really? At every opportunity they refuse to give out any information; court rulings, decisions, and even the existence of various programs. There wasn't much else to do.
So do you think there is no reason to be concerned about protecting critical intelligence sources and methods, or the identities of informants?
Not overly concerned, no.
Since 9/11 there have been a number of attacks and attempted attacks
Very few people here care, you'll find; I certainly don't.
What value do you put on the lives of ordinary Americans?
Less than I place on freedom and privacy. Whatever happened to being home of the brave and land of the free? If we want to live up to that, shouldn't we at least give the appearance that we're willing to die to preserve our freedoms?
Besides, no one here thinks that nothing should be done about terrorism. They should use methods that don't involve violating the constitution or violating just about everyone's privacy; both of those are ridiculous, and it's bad that they gathered all that data to begin with.
I am NOT in favor of what Snowden did, and I think he should be tried, and if found guilty, sent to jail for what he did.
Why? I appreciate it very much when people reveal our government's wrongdoings. I don't believe it should be a crime if a whistle blower reveals that the government violated the very same constitution it is supposed to uphold.
Your position is no better than "We can't tell you anything", just on the opposite extreme.
Actually, assuming that the government is doing wrong is much better.
With that said, I only meant that they use that excuse to cover up their wrongdoings, not that there's never a legitimate threat. Problem is, the ones who decide it's a matter of national security seem to love abusing that little power they have.
If even that isn't possible, then the AG would need to explain specifically why the opinion needs to be kept secret.
That's just pathetic. Give them the opportunity to hide their wrongdoings and that's exactly what they will do. The "national security" excuses need to stop.
Government of the people for the people and by the people. Are you protesting representative democracy now? Thought that was chosen by "same group of men that Franklin stood with."
The majority do not and should not have absolute power. Some rights should not be infringed (and you pedantically take other ways to say this literally), and the constitution must be followed.
The reason you are safe is because we have abrogated their rights.
You are a very silly troll. The point is that we should strive to make it as unlikely as is humanely possible that we won't put an innocent behind bars. However, like an imbecile, you seem to be interpreting everything literally and then attacking straw men based on your literal interpretations.
My interest is in the highest law of the land, the US constitution. If the government was violating it in any way, I expect people who know about it to come forth and inform the American people of the government's wrongdoings.
If you dumb kids don't stop it, before you know it they'll mandate measures to disable cell phones in cars, and then even your passengers won't be able to phone, text, or google. Look at "open container" laws, if idiots didn't drink and drive, the passengers could have a beer.
That's actually the fault of the people who make the laws.
Reactions like yours are exactly what I hope for when I comment. It is rather amusing that you of all people call my gene line an "intellectual dead end."
I'm not saying it's a good thing that terrorists are able to kill more people, but you are supporting a solution that strips privacy away from everyone. I cannot accept that solution.
Another logical disconnect. FISA courts provide the checks and balances that are required by the 4th amendment, so you should have no problem here. Well, that is unless you have a problem with all forms of warrants?
Your position has no logical grounding. You mock one type of "fear" (fear of terrorist) and replace it with another "fear" (fear of the government). Do you not see the hypocrisy here? Terrorists have no oversight, but the government does.
Do you really see the lives of those hypothetical victims as more important than personal privacy?
The victims are not hypothetical. Terrorism has claims many lives already. It is NOT hypothetical.
Slashdot Mirror
That's because you're not paying attention. I said that since the government does one ridiculous thing (grope people at airports), it doesn't surprise me to find out that they do something slightly more ridiculous (spy on people). That's not definitive proof, and I never framed it as such.
Getting groped at the airport, while obnoxious, is not something that subverts democracy.
No, it doesn't, but it shows that they do not care about the constitution at all. Furthermore, this type of spying is hardly outlandish, honestly.
How would you feel about that?
Who cares? I might feel that I should be able to 'own' the data on everyone's hard drives, but my feels are irrelevant to whether or not such a thing is just. If corporations want to use a song for that purpose, then I don't see the problem.
but spying on innocent people is absolutely outlandish.
Spying on innocent people is immoral. What I meant was that the idea of them spying on people in the name of preventing terrorism is not outlandish.
After all, if I am innocent, then you have no logical reason to spy on me.
Paranoia. Power. The fact that you might do something in the future. There are plenty of reasons for people to spy on you, but none of them justify the spying.
I know. I meant that the idea of them spying on people in the name of preventing terrorism (their stated goal) is not at all outlandish; it's simply par for the course.
Outlandish? We have people getting groped at airports because they want to get on a plane. You call spying in the name of terrorist "outlandish"? Please.
I instantly believe you. It's not as if it's the government's fault that people are so distrusting of it or anything; it couldn't be!
The amusing thing is, if anyone asked anyone I know if the NSA had all our phone records before this, I think almost everyone I know would have said, "yeah, of course they do."
But no concrete evidence. You also forget that most people are morons.
So, I am struggling to figure out how this has informed anyone of something they didn't already know.
Because it wasn't as established as it is now.
I didn't say it was new or that I believe it will change; I only said that it needed to stop.
So you don't support the rule of law then?
I don't care about unjust laws, no.
Wrongdoing is legally defined.
Morality is not dictated by law. I am not talking about silly legal definitions.
That is a ridiculous, and has no bearing on the options available to Snowden. He could have gone to the Inspector General, or to Congress. It is Congress that would have to change the laws in any event. It is Congress that changes the laws if need be. That is how the democratic process works.
Right... more or less the same people who allow travesties such as the TSA to exist. Good luck with that.
That said, I feel the public has a right to know about this so they can make informed choices when voting.
As someone pointed out, there are Inspector Generals
Who more than likely would just trot out the same tired old "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" mantra.
If Congress was really being lied to, don't you think they want to know about it?
Given the fact that our liberties have been continually eroded in the name of fighting terrorism, I seriously think the only reason these people care is because it's Obama who's president. Had it never came to light, I don't think they'd do anything.
Without this information, voters can't make informed choices.
he's hiding because he broke the law and he knows it.
I honestly couldn't care less if he broke the law or not; that is not my concern.
If the law is not enforced, then anyone who finds it fashionable to leak stories like this will be inclined to do so.
And the ones who don't actually reveal any wrongdoings would be punished. There is no problem there; we have too many secrets as it is.
In this case, I don't believe that this was his only option for getting this in front those who could change things.
Really? At every opportunity they refuse to give out any information; court rulings, decisions, and even the existence of various programs. There wasn't much else to do.
So do you think there is no reason to be concerned about protecting critical intelligence sources and methods, or the identities of informants?
Not overly concerned, no.
Since 9/11 there have been a number of attacks and attempted attacks
Very few people here care, you'll find; I certainly don't.
What value do you put on the lives of ordinary Americans?
Less than I place on freedom and privacy. Whatever happened to being home of the brave and land of the free? If we want to live up to that, shouldn't we at least give the appearance that we're willing to die to preserve our freedoms?
Besides, no one here thinks that nothing should be done about terrorism. They should use methods that don't involve violating the constitution or violating just about everyone's privacy; both of those are ridiculous, and it's bad that they gathered all that data to begin with.
I am NOT in favor of what Snowden did, and I think he should be tried, and if found guilty, sent to jail for what he did.
Why? I appreciate it very much when people reveal our government's wrongdoings. I don't believe it should be a crime if a whistle blower reveals that the government violated the very same constitution it is supposed to uphold.
And they plan to defeat this 'threat' to their freedom by making use of idea monopolies? IP seems to be worse for academic freedom than anything else.
Your position is no better than "We can't tell you anything", just on the opposite extreme.
Actually, assuming that the government is doing wrong is much better.
With that said, I only meant that they use that excuse to cover up their wrongdoings, not that there's never a legitimate threat. Problem is, the ones who decide it's a matter of national security seem to love abusing that little power they have.
If even that isn't possible, then the AG would need to explain specifically why the opinion needs to be kept secret.
That's just pathetic. Give them the opportunity to hide their wrongdoings and that's exactly what they will do. The "national security" excuses need to stop.
Government of the people for the people and by the people. Are you protesting representative democracy now? Thought that was chosen by "same group of men that Franklin stood with."
The majority do not and should not have absolute power. Some rights should not be infringed (and you pedantically take other ways to say this literally), and the constitution must be followed.
The reason you are safe is because we have abrogated their rights.
You are a very silly troll. The point is that we should strive to make it as unlikely as is humanely possible that we won't put an innocent behind bars. However, like an imbecile, you seem to be interpreting everything literally and then attacking straw men based on your literal interpretations.
Exactly. The issue is that many people seem to not care about the constitution, and such mindsets are poisonous to the pursuit of liberty.
damaged American interests.
My interest is in the highest law of the land, the US constitution. If the government was violating it in any way, I expect people who know about it to come forth and inform the American people of the government's wrongdoings.
If you dumb kids don't stop it, before you know it they'll mandate measures to disable cell phones in cars, and then even your passengers won't be able to phone, text, or google. Look at "open container" laws, if idiots didn't drink and drive, the passengers could have a beer.
That's actually the fault of the people who make the laws.
Reactions like yours are exactly what I hope for when I comment. It is rather amusing that you of all people call my gene line an "intellectual dead end."
You should not have disrupted my fiddlin'. You will soon deeply regret that.
I'm not saying it's a good thing that terrorists are able to kill more people, but you are supporting a solution that strips privacy away from everyone. I cannot accept that solution.
Another logical disconnect. FISA courts provide the checks and balances that are required by the 4th amendment, so you should have no problem here. Well, that is unless you have a problem with all forms of warrants?
Your position has no logical grounding. You mock one type of "fear" (fear of terrorist) and replace it with another "fear" (fear of the government). Do you not see the hypocrisy here? Terrorists have no oversight, but the government does.
Do you really see the lives of those hypothetical victims as more important than personal privacy?
The victims are not hypothetical. Terrorism has claims many lives already. It is NOT hypothetical.