There's the very real possibility that Americans, despite the assurances of government officials, are being monitored in a way that potentially violates their privacy.
What? Possibility? Potentially? Without a single doubt, the mere collection of this information does that.
You didn't answer, what about retaining evidence so it isn't lost?
That's not a valid reason for surveillance. Freedom > safety. There is no excuse for violating the constitution.
But if you were a judge a year ago, I doubt you could find legal justification to deny logging data that is searched only with judical oversight.
That "legal justification" is called the constitution, and yes I could. Not to mention that there is no real judicial oversight; they just rubber stamp general warrants, which are unconstitutional.
While that might be the case, it doesn't really improve the situation, and not all laws are just. It's not a good situation when the government can get anyone at anytime; that's especially true when they have as much information as the NSA is collecting.
But if your holding the gavel, where do you draw the line?
Don't conduct surveillance on someone unless you have damning evidence that they're not innocent of whatever it is you think they're doing. No ifs, ands, or buts.
People don't vote third parties because they don't win. It's wasting your vote
Again, it is not wasting your vote to send a message or try to change things; that is their own silly misconception. By voting for the same two parties over and over again, you are almost ensuring that nothing will ever change, and that you'll always be voting for evil. You might not be able to 'revenge vote' again whatever candidates you hate, but that's well worth not maintaining the status quo in perpetuity.
The real problem (IMO) is our First Past The Post voting system.
I agree that our entire system needs to be reworked to make simple-minded people more confident in voting for other parties, but I sincerely doubt the ones in power want that; they'll be the ones negatively affected by such changes, after all. Short of a huge outburst by tens of millions of people, I simply don't see it happening.
Absolutely. They couldn't get him normally, so they used something else. Does it not scare you that we have so many laws on the books that the government can harass almost anyone who angers it?
It might not be such an issue with the Capone case, but it still demonstrates that they're willing to use whatever means necessary to take people down.
And that is the issue. Snowden didn't reveal any wrong-doing.
Yes, he did; they're violating the constitution and collecting a massive amount of data on innocents.
but I trust the government to use the data for the benefit of society and prevent bad things from happening.
You are a naive ignoramus of the highest caliber. In the US alone, we had slavery, Jim Crow laws, general discrimination, Japanese internment camps, and it took quite a while for us to even grant women the right to vote; that isn't even all the government has done, either. There has never once been a government in the history of the world that hasn't abused its powers in horrendous ways; not one.
Why would you trust the government? Because you are willfully ignorant. There are governments right now (China, North Korea, and others) who use information to find out which citizens they want to attack, so there is no excuse for not understanding the issue. None.
People always fear the worst when they don't have control.
And for damn good reason; the government is made up of human beings, which are notorious for abusing any power they have, and especially so for people who actually try to obtain power.
Watch, the next time some terrorist attack happens when they got around surveillance, the right will blame Obama and the Democrats for not keeping us safe.
Strange. I didn't say that on 9/11, but I did protest the egregious violations of our constitution and freedoms that followed.
Even though they spent months railing about their cell phone numbers being stored in some computer database somewhere, and never being looked by anyone...
The groups you're talking about are almost completely different, with little overlap. No one who actually cares about freedom would suddenly change their position in the face of a disaster; I sure didn't.
That said, the fact that you downplay what they're doing indicates that you have no idea why it matters, and that you don't care about the constitution. Is it any wonder why organizations devoted to protecting our constitution and our rights are up in arms about this? It shouldn't be.
Yeah, but it's still rather terrifying. It shows that if you anger the government somehow, they'll use any means possible to take you down, and that combined with how many laws are on the books is but one of many reasons why the government should never have all the data the NSA is collecting.
If you remove or alter information with the intent of making it more difficult for people to view the original information wherever you removed it from or altered it, then I consider that censorship.
There is a huge difference between commence and government.
But not to such a degree that entities other than the government can't engage in censorship.
How much more clear can one possibly be? There is no way to make a huge blacklist of all the things the government shouldn't do, so what can be done there?
Yes. My point was that if you don't have a damn good reason (i.e. if you don't have evidence) to spy on someone, surveillance simply shouldn't take place, and your surveillance shouldn't impact innocent people when you do find someone.
Now, to me, sentence one tells me exactly what is happening and why.
They both tell you what's happening, but the problem with the second sentence is that you refrained from mentioning why they're censoring the book, which is the only reason that it doesn't explain why it is happening.
Sentence two says nothing specific except the name of the company and the title of the book.
Language is often ambiguous. This is not new and could be applied to many other things, as well. Not even the first sentence is entirely clear since it uses subjective words like "decency"; you need a bit more information than that to grasp the entire situation.
This abuse of the word creates an implication that is not true.
Again, it's not that it's not true; it's just that people are using a word in ways that you disagree with.
The same could be said about US citizens. Fact of the matter is, if you don't have a damn good reason to believe they're not innocent, you don't conduct surveillance.
And the government is as slimy as ever. Who he is or why he's trying to do it are completely irrelevant; how they obtained the evidence is, however, very relevant.
which goes to show who we are as a nation and our commitment to the rule of law and justice.
The fact that we have people getting molested at airports, shoved off into free speech zones, and spied on by the NSA should tell you who we are as a nation; liars. We are not 'the land of the free and the home of the brave'; that is mere propaganda, just like the DOJ's name.
because those companies have always, in brick and mortar form especially, dropped books they've previously carried when they age and aren't selling well, or for any reason they chose.
Which would fit my definition of censorship depending on their reasons for doing so.
Given that the people in the government are not perfect angels and that every government in history has abused its powers in horrendous, there is absolutely zero reason to believe that giving the government that much data could ever, in any conceivable way, be a good thing; this whole affair is an absolute disaster.
if protection and regulations are in place an enforced.
Even them possessing the data at all is dangerous.
Slashdot Mirror
There's the very real possibility that Americans, despite the assurances of government officials, are being monitored in a way that potentially violates their privacy.
What? Possibility? Potentially? Without a single doubt, the mere collection of this information does that.
Um. Why should the US gov't care about your privacy?
Why shouldn't they? It is morally wrong to spy on innocents.
All third parties are completely dominated by the drug lobby.
That's absurd to begin with.
The third party concept sounds great, but all third parties are firmly rooted in vice. They want legal drugs, legal prostitution, legal gambling.
The problem being that... you hate individual liberties, I guess? Why not move to China or North Korea, then?
Ron Paul himself wanted legalized heroin, and as a musician I can tell you we've lost way, way too many brilliant musicians from that damn drug.
As a person, I can tell you that freedom is more important than your feelings on this matter and safety.
You didn't answer, what about retaining evidence so it isn't lost?
That's not a valid reason for surveillance. Freedom > safety. There is no excuse for violating the constitution.
But if you were a judge a year ago, I doubt you could find legal justification to deny logging data that is searched only with judical oversight.
That "legal justification" is called the constitution, and yes I could. Not to mention that there is no real judicial oversight; they just rubber stamp general warrants, which are unconstitutional.
While that might be the case, it doesn't really improve the situation, and not all laws are just. It's not a good situation when the government can get anyone at anytime; that's especially true when they have as much information as the NSA is collecting.
That is why it is meaningless.
It wouldn't tell me anything either way. Sometimes you just need more of an explanation, and that's perfectly fine.
Well, yes, that is obvious. I disagree with turning valid, meaningful words into meaningless hyperbole
Again, not meaningless.
But if your holding the gavel, where do you draw the line?
Don't conduct surveillance on someone unless you have damning evidence that they're not innocent of whatever it is you think they're doing. No ifs, ands, or buts.
People don't vote third parties because they don't win. It's wasting your vote
Again, it is not wasting your vote to send a message or try to change things; that is their own silly misconception. By voting for the same two parties over and over again, you are almost ensuring that nothing will ever change, and that you'll always be voting for evil. You might not be able to 'revenge vote' again whatever candidates you hate, but that's well worth not maintaining the status quo in perpetuity.
The real problem (IMO) is our First Past The Post voting system.
I agree that our entire system needs to be reworked to make simple-minded people more confident in voting for other parties, but I sincerely doubt the ones in power want that; they'll be the ones negatively affected by such changes, after all. Short of a huge outburst by tens of millions of people, I simply don't see it happening.
That capability is a result of technology.
...And the willingness to install that technology in such a way that it allows them to gather as much information as they are.
I didn't even click on the link and knew it was some fag linking xkcd.
Well, it is a link that leads to xkcd.com, so it's not exactly difficult to figure out that that's where the link leads.
That they found a way to put Al Capone in prison?
Absolutely. They couldn't get him normally, so they used something else. Does it not scare you that we have so many laws on the books that the government can harass almost anyone who angers it?
It might not be such an issue with the Capone case, but it still demonstrates that they're willing to use whatever means necessary to take people down.
And that is the issue. Snowden didn't reveal any wrong-doing.
Yes, he did; they're violating the constitution and collecting a massive amount of data on innocents.
but I trust the government to use the data for the benefit of society and prevent bad things from happening.
You are a naive ignoramus of the highest caliber. In the US alone, we had slavery, Jim Crow laws, general discrimination, Japanese internment camps, and it took quite a while for us to even grant women the right to vote; that isn't even all the government has done, either. There has never once been a government in the history of the world that hasn't abused its powers in horrendous ways; not one.
Why would you trust the government? Because you are willfully ignorant. There are governments right now (China, North Korea, and others) who use information to find out which citizens they want to attack, so there is no excuse for not understanding the issue. None.
People always fear the worst when they don't have control.
And for damn good reason; the government is made up of human beings, which are notorious for abusing any power they have, and especially so for people who actually try to obtain power.
Watch, the next time some terrorist attack happens when they got around surveillance, the right will blame Obama and the Democrats for not keeping us safe.
Strange. I didn't say that on 9/11, but I did protest the egregious violations of our constitution and freedoms that followed.
Even though they spent months railing about their cell phone numbers being stored in some computer database somewhere, and never being looked by anyone...
The groups you're talking about are almost completely different, with little overlap. No one who actually cares about freedom would suddenly change their position in the face of a disaster; I sure didn't.
That said, the fact that you downplay what they're doing indicates that you have no idea why it matters, and that you don't care about the constitution. Is it any wonder why organizations devoted to protecting our constitution and our rights are up in arms about this? It shouldn't be.
Now some people have proposed that this be updated for more modern times.
Only people without brains would suggest otherwise, in fact.
But the idea this is new is poppycock.
Who explicitly said it's new? Some people are angry that the government is doing such things, as they should be.
Yeah, but it's still rather terrifying. It shows that if you anger the government somehow, they'll use any means possible to take you down, and that combined with how many laws are on the books is but one of many reasons why the government should never have all the data the NSA is collecting.
If you remove or alter information with the intent of making it more difficult for people to view the original information wherever you removed it from or altered it, then I consider that censorship.
There is a huge difference between commence and government.
But not to such a degree that entities other than the government can't engage in censorship.
Who defines "unreasonable"?
How much more clear can one possibly be? There is no way to make a huge blacklist of all the things the government shouldn't do, so what can be done there?
Yes. My point was that if you don't have a damn good reason (i.e. if you don't have evidence) to spy on someone, surveillance simply shouldn't take place, and your surveillance shouldn't impact innocent people when you do find someone.
Now, to me, sentence one tells me exactly what is happening and why.
They both tell you what's happening, but the problem with the second sentence is that you refrained from mentioning why they're censoring the book, which is the only reason that it doesn't explain why it is happening.
Sentence two says nothing specific except the name of the company and the title of the book.
Language is often ambiguous. This is not new and could be applied to many other things, as well. Not even the first sentence is entirely clear since it uses subjective words like "decency"; you need a bit more information than that to grasp the entire situation.
This abuse of the word creates an implication that is not true.
Again, it's not that it's not true; it's just that people are using a word in ways that you disagree with.
The same could be said about US citizens. Fact of the matter is, if you don't have a damn good reason to believe they're not innocent, you don't conduct surveillance.
And the government is as slimy as ever. Who he is or why he's trying to do it are completely irrelevant; how they obtained the evidence is, however, very relevant.
which goes to show who we are as a nation and our commitment to the rule of law and justice.
The fact that we have people getting molested at airports, shoved off into free speech zones, and spied on by the NSA should tell you who we are as a nation; liars. We are not 'the land of the free and the home of the brave'; that is mere propaganda, just like the DOJ's name.
because those companies have always, in brick and mortar form especially, dropped books they've previously carried when they age and aren't selling well, or for any reason they chose.
Which would fit my definition of censorship depending on their reasons for doing so.
Then you are happy with the newer, useless definition of censorship
I don't think it's useless, but say what you will.
it's how that data is used.
Given that the people in the government are not perfect angels and that every government in history has abused its powers in horrendous, there is absolutely zero reason to believe that giving the government that much data could ever, in any conceivable way, be a good thing; this whole affair is an absolute disaster.
if protection and regulations are in place an enforced.
Even them possessing the data at all is dangerous.
No where is the constitution does it say you can't be monitored.
And that's not how it works. The constitution is not a blacklist.