'Victims' aren't people who keep voting for the same two parties over and over. How do people live with themselves when they vote for evil, even if it's a 'lesser evil'? It would make me want to vomit.
And if they're worthless and idiotic enough to believe whatever they're told, what hope do we have that things will change for the better and stay that way?
Then knock it off. Stop being an NSA apologist and trying to trivialize the issue, which is what your post is obviously trying to do. Seriously, if you're going to say that you're trying to say that what the NSA does is acceptable, you shouldn't go on to try to trivialize the harm the NSA is doing.
The logic simply doesn't follow.
The logic does follow. It's essentially that previous corrupt governments used this same type of tactic for wide-scale oppression, and we should therefore be wary of it when our government is using this sort of information gathering on basically everyone.
An Agency that employs a guy like Snowden isn't a very good tool of mass repression, so implying it is only makes you look crazy.
All governments fall apart and make mistakes. But you'd be a fool to ignore the hundreds of millions of people throughout history who were abused or murdered by governments. Just because the government makes mistakes doesn't mean they can't oppress on a wide scale.
This appeals to the miniscule minority that honestly thinks government databases are evil.
This appeals to people with brains. This appeals to people who know that collecting 'metadata' on basically everyone's communications is evil.
More like, "Gee, there are literally millions of ways that kids bully each other with or without technology, so why bother blocking this one method they use when it only enables them to say mean things to one another?"
"Derp"? You're a moron for even saying that. What a piece of human garbage you are.
What is the use case for an extra level of anonymity?
Because people don't want an account? Because they don't want random assholes to be able to locate their comments and mod them down because they disagree with them? I don't know people's exact reasons, and no one needs to give you one, either. Anonymity is a good thing in and of itself.
Generally, it is to say something offensive that you're not willing to stand up and say openly, even with your pseudonym.
You're a fuckin' nigger. Wow, so hard.
If you haven't figured it out already, usernames don't do shit.
How could they possibly know? Are you serious? After all these leaks showing that the NSA is violating basically everyone's privacy and the fourth amendment, and the NSA even admitting that they're collecting tons of metadata, you ask how they could know which version of events to believe?
Play stupid? I thought I answered the question adequately. If all this information is public, how the hell wouldn't they find out? Looks like cops will have to find another way of enforcing the law, which may be less effective, but that would be for the best.
It's fairly instructive that you didn't respond to any of the points I made about how our system has historically been abused
As I said, if you're looking for perfection, you're wasting your time. It doesn't have to be perfect; the point is that the choice is not between the government not being able to do anything and the government being able to stop oppression but it able to abuse its powers left and right. Although, our system could definitely be improved to remove some of the government's unnecessary powers. None of this means that the government couldn't protect people's rights.
It also makes the quality of the comments worse (trivial, inane garbage), doesn't actually fix the 'problem' (it's not even a problem to begin with), and allows for easy tracking. What a great idea.
It's common because the courts have upheld the practice.
Given power, people will abuse it. This isn't surprising.
The way you want it to be isn't always the way it is.
I never said otherwise. The problem I have is when people state things in such a way that it suggests that courts' interpretations of the law/constitution are always right and no one can object. Maybe that's not what you meant, but the sentence I quoted (and the one after it) seemed to suggest that.
It's like the second amendment, shall not be infringed seems to mean unless some contrived situation exists like living in a democrat controlled state.
Slashdot Mirror
'Victims' aren't people who keep voting for the same two parties over and over. How do people live with themselves when they vote for evil, even if it's a 'lesser evil'? It would make me want to vomit.
And if they're worthless and idiotic enough to believe whatever they're told, what hope do we have that things will change for the better and stay that way?
I'm not saying what the NSA does is acceptable
Then knock it off. Stop being an NSA apologist and trying to trivialize the issue, which is what your post is obviously trying to do. Seriously, if you're going to say that you're trying to say that what the NSA does is acceptable, you shouldn't go on to try to trivialize the harm the NSA is doing.
The logic simply doesn't follow.
The logic does follow. It's essentially that previous corrupt governments used this same type of tactic for wide-scale oppression, and we should therefore be wary of it when our government is using this sort of information gathering on basically everyone.
An Agency that employs a guy like Snowden isn't a very good tool of mass repression, so implying it is only makes you look crazy.
All governments fall apart and make mistakes. But you'd be a fool to ignore the hundreds of millions of people throughout history who were abused or murdered by governments. Just because the government makes mistakes doesn't mean they can't oppress on a wide scale.
This appeals to the miniscule minority that honestly thinks government databases are evil.
This appeals to people with brains. This appeals to people who know that collecting 'metadata' on basically everyone's communications is evil.
Gee, we can't stop all murders, so why try?
More like, "Gee, there are literally millions of ways that kids bully each other with or without technology, so why bother blocking this one method they use when it only enables them to say mean things to one another?"
"Derp"? You're a moron for even saying that. What a piece of human garbage you are.
What is the use case for an extra level of anonymity?
Because people don't want an account? Because they don't want random assholes to be able to locate their comments and mod them down because they disagree with them? I don't know people's exact reasons, and no one needs to give you one, either. Anonymity is a good thing in and of itself.
Generally, it is to say something offensive that you're not willing to stand up and say openly, even with your pseudonym.
You're a fuckin' nigger. Wow, so hard.
If you haven't figured it out already, usernames don't do shit.
continue*
It just introduces a much worse problem of its own, and the non-problem doesn't actually get fixed; bullying will country.
This is the language of harassment --- belittling the victim
I don't have a problem with belittling such 'victims.'
If you report words to the police, then you despise freedom of speech.
Its power without accountability is wrong.
The ability to collect the metadata is an abuse in and of itself.
and it was even ruled Constitutional by the SCOTUS in Smith v Maryland
And your point is what? That government thugs vote to give government thugs more power? Big surprise.
How could they possibly know? Are you serious? After all these leaks showing that the NSA is violating basically everyone's privacy and the fourth amendment, and the NSA even admitting that they're collecting tons of metadata, you ask how they could know which version of events to believe?
And don't play stupid. Address the issue.
Play stupid? I thought I answered the question adequately. If all this information is public, how the hell wouldn't they find out? Looks like cops will have to find another way of enforcing the law, which may be less effective, but that would be for the best.
It's fairly instructive that you didn't respond to any of the points I made about how our system has historically been abused
As I said, if you're looking for perfection, you're wasting your time. It doesn't have to be perfect; the point is that the choice is not between the government not being able to do anything and the government being able to stop oppression but it able to abuse its powers left and right. Although, our system could definitely be improved to remove some of the government's unnecessary powers. None of this means that the government couldn't protect people's rights.
It also makes the quality of the comments worse (trivial, inane garbage), doesn't actually fix the 'problem' (it's not even a problem to begin with), and allows for easy tracking. What a great idea.
It's pretty easy to dismiss such a non-issue.
The question is what individual NSA workers know about what they are doing in general.
At this point, how could they not? Even if they didn't know before, they definitely do now; there's no avoiding it.
Does everyone else also have that right?
If it's available to someone like me, don't you think it would also be available to the general public? What a pointless question.
"just doing a job" is no excuse.
I feel I have every right to know what my lovely little government thugs are doing.
Well, as for the government (NSA), we've already seen that they don't care whose network it is or about anyone's privacy.
As for whether or not you do have any privacy in practice, that's separate from the matter of whether or not this is moral.
It's common because the courts have upheld the practice.
Given power, people will abuse it. This isn't surprising.
The way you want it to be isn't always the way it is.
I never said otherwise. The problem I have is when people state things in such a way that it suggests that courts' interpretations of the law/constitution are always right and no one can object. Maybe that's not what you meant, but the sentence I quoted (and the one after it) seemed to suggest that.
It's like the second amendment, shall not be infringed seems to mean unless some contrived situation exists like living in a democrat controlled state.
Yes. Or how certain weapons are banned.
Gag orders are pretty common.
I like how you say this as if how common something is makes a difference to whether or not someone's rights are being violated.
Where are all the people who say "it's their network!" when it is snooping in the workplace we are talking about?
I think I saw a few of those morons when reading the comments, so don't worry.
Thugs don't mind violating everyone's rights or privacy to achieve their goals.