We Europeans have learned long ago that you cannot have your cake and eat it, and have decided - wisely - that your "freedom" is just nonsense.
Bullshit. Europeans have many rights that make law enforcement's job difficult. If you truly believed what you're saying, you'd advocate unlimited power for the government, and government surveillance everywhere. But you don't, because you know the "One life was saved so it's okay!" logic is absolute bullshit. And all of this assumes that the government can even be trusted, which is a claim that history (you even mentioned something implying some rather unfortunate historical events) does not support. In reality, being extremely cautious of the government is the way to maintain your freedoms.
One life is *not* worth sacrificing everyone's freedom. Europe knows it. The US knows it. Plenty of countries know it. Though, to what extent they acknowledge this fact is up for debate.
We do not want "freedom" of speech, because we know where hate speech and unchecked political extremism lead.
Can you even scientifically prove in a rigorous manner that freedom of speech led to the events you're referring to?
And they don't lead anywhere. Action leads somewhere. It's very telling that you're opposed to a fundamental right like freedom of speech.
We do not care for your "free market", social democracy is much better.
I never said anything about a free market. I'm talking about fundamental liberties here, like privacy, free speech, freedom of association, etc. I believe in reasonable regulations on business because I don't believe fundamental liberties are violated in those cases, so stuff it.
Anyway, stop wasting my time with your nonsensical authoritarianism. Just move to North Korea and be done with it.
Simple logic. The founders were opposed to general warrants, and also took steps to prevent all sorts of injustices that they knew of at the time, so had mass surveillance been used against them, they likely would have taken steps against it. Also, the constitution says that people should be secure in their papers (I'm focusing on this part). That's not for the actual papers themselves, but the information contained on the papers. I find it highly absurd to think that mass surveillance could ever be deemed unreasonable under these circumstances.
The fourth amendment isn't the only problem. Where's the part of the constitution that explicitly permits surveillance of this scale?
And anyway, I didn't say the constitution was completely unambiguous; just not as much as some people think.
So you are claiming I totally misinterpreted you, and it's all my fault because you are a beacon of clarity in an otherwise unclear world?
No, I'm claiming that I think that saying that I'm for anarchy or something similar just because I wasn't absolutely precise is an unreasonable interpretation of my words.
So you don't tell us anything about the Fourth Amendment, except that it's anti-authoritarian and anti-mass-surveillance in spirit?
It's both. Why would go in depth about it in an unrelated discussion?
Anti-Authoritarianism does not gain credibility from Appeals to Authority.
No clue what you mean.
Has it ever occurred to you that a) you should probably read the Fourth Amendment before making claims about it, and b) if the Founders included multiple 'buts' in the Amendment explicitly precluding it from being used the way you think it should be used
The founders couldn't have predicted mass surveillance on this scale. Still, they were opposed to general warrants (and that's with a judge actually providing checks and balances), and likely would have taken measures against it had mass surveillance been used against them (assuming they survived). Given that they took action against other injustices that they knew of at the time, any other interpretation seems unreasonable.
The state can not as it would be considered unreasonable search as has been shown in a few recent court cases.
As if the government hasn't ignored the courts and constitution before. Then again, it's not really necessary to make it mandatory.
There will always be a customer base who prioritize privacy over rates and there will always be at least one company to serve that client base.
You'd better hope that it doesn't become so expensive that it becomes a luxury only the wealthy can afford, or it is de facto mandatory, which shouldn't be tolerated.
This attitude is incompatible with freedom. There would be no restrictions upon the government if we were to take your stupid garbage seriously. There's a reason we're supposed to be (we aren't) "the land of the free and the home of the brave"; freedom is more important than safety, and free and brave people don't sacrifice fundamental liberties for safety. I would oppose the TSA even if it was effective. Same with DUI checkpoints, protest permits, the NSA's mass surveillance, and all the other unconstitutional nonsense. In case you don't understand why I'm bringing up those things, it's because your logic could be used to justify any intrusion.
There's no such thing as perfect safety, and if it did exist, the world would be draconian and utterly devoid of freedom. No one could do anything, because it might endanger them. But no. Even if we don't do it enough, we have, on many occasions, rejected the "One life saved means it's worth it." logic. Where? By having a constitution which greatly limits the government's power.
And who will they elect instead? A Republican who will ignore the constitution and violate our fundamental liberties about as much as Obama and his buddies? People who don't recognize that the 'two' parties are alike in so many ways that actually count are part of the problem. Left/right doesn't matter; it's authoritarian scumbags vs people who care about freedom.
That's not the kind of thing you say if you're gonna agree to any restriction on freedom.
No, that's just normal human language, where you don't necessarily qualify everything you say, because it's not necessary.
In practice nobody agrees on what the damn thing means.
In practice, it's mostly just people ignoring what it says/what it intended for convenience. Example: Authoritarians ignoring the spirit of the fourth amendment (among other things) so they can have their mass surveillance.
It's not really a problem, because they're just as wrong as if they said that 1 + 1 = 3.
The police have always been able to ask for whatever they want.
And apparently the government can also ask companies to give it all of your information so they can conduct mass surveillance. In an era where you're necessarily going to be handing over tons of data to third parties, this attitude is unworkable in any free country.
You think we should drop all forms of security and precaution? You think no one should ever lock their doors, lock their cars, or take reasonable precautions that could protect them from potential future harm?
This is exactly right. You don't blame someone for making these mistakes, you blame the perp.
Which is what people do. "Who committed the crime?" "The perp." "Who was the one that took unsafe actions when reasonable precautions could have been taken?" "The victim." Blame for different things can be assigned to different people, and none of this means the criminal should get away.
Only in straw man fantasy land does anything else happen in a grand majority of cases.
In case it's not obvious, I was saying that a country with a bad economy but a great amount of freedom is better than a country with a good economy but with few freedoms. I'm not sure how you interpreted that as supporting anarchy, or whatever.
Without freedom, we are nothing, even if we had money. I don't care how 'prosperous' a certain country is; if it's not free, then it's worthless to me.
And then they say the universe can't be eternity, despite believing in a magical sky daddy which they can't prove even exists. It's just special pleading garbage.
And do you think the government should have unlimited power in the name of safety? Is it so problematic to recognize that freedom and restrictions on government are what's important in truly free countries?
So when London or insert your European capital or major city here, has 30 or 40 Boston style bombings in month will you still be saying this?
I'll say the same as I said on 9/11: There's no such thing as perfect safety, and the very idea is terrifying. I rejected the TSA, the Patriot Act, and all the nonsense that followed, because I actually have principles and understand the concept of probability to a far greater extent than so many fools who, if they were truly rational, wouldn't get into a car. Freedom is more important for safety. If you feel otherwise, North Korea may be right up your alley.
But hey, let's using this stupid logic in an alternate scenario. If you were a murderer who was caught murdering someone, would you still be saying there should be laws against murdering? I'm going to assume the answer would be "No." Why? Because I can. And because I assumed that, your arguments for why there should be laws against murder are somehow invalid. And if that's not the sort of point you intended to convey, then why bring up that stupid nonsense about how I supposedly might believe differently if X happened? It serves no useful purpose.
Data collection by intelligence agencies Isn't pushing the boundaries
The only way to determine that is by analyzing the response to a few questions: Who is having their data collected? Why?
If the answers are anything like "everyone" or "because we need to see if they're terrorists/enemies" then there is a problem, and it doesn't matter how many people do it; that's a ridiculous excuse.
Soldiers kill people. It's not pretty, but it's reality.
There is a difference between a soldier and a criminal. There is also a difference betweeen a spy and a criminal.
Don't you think it's better to give an actual explanation that amounts to more than just "Group X does Y. It's not pretty, but it's reality."
The point is to do whatever it is in a moral, legal (if we're talking about restricting government powers) fashion. Handwaving the problem away by saying that spies spy only lets them get away with their misdeeds.
It's a nice thought but I don't think that works in the imperfect world we live in.
The notion of not being immoral scumbags doesn't work in this imperfect world? Having principles and morality isn't something reserved for perfect worlds.
There has to be some way of letting the security services in their various forms do what they need to do.
Okay. If there's reason to suspect that someone is doing something, they can get a warrant (if it's a citizen) by an actual judge, or get some other form of acceptance that involves more than just spying on people for no reason.
Mass surveillance should never be tolerated.
You want people to avoid abusing power because they think that's right, not just because it's against a law or rule of some kind.
Good luck with that. In the mean time, I'll endeavor to not be completely ignorant of history or of what's happening in the present: Illegal surveillance. They can't even follow the laws!
I'll gladly throw out this 'baby'; it's not a baby, but a piece of garbage. I'd take a less 'safe' world without this type of immoral surveillance over their surveillance 'paradise.'
You don't; you try to be the better man/country. Have some standards (Maybe not spy on completely random people?) and principles rather than just adopting a "They do it so I can too!" attitude.
The worrying aspect is that they're collecting the data at all. If they have the data, it will be misused; that is a historical guarantee. Privacy is violated through the mere collection of data. Mass surveillance should not be permitted. Targeted, legal surveillance at best. This is not what is happening.
Slashdot Mirror
Under the Constitution states have the power to regulate anything within their borders that isn't expressly forbidden them by one of the Amendments.
Constitutional != moral. I would support an amendment banning that power. I was saying that it's not moral.
Anyway, that does not apply to the federal government, silly interpretations of the commerce clause aside.
We Europeans have learned long ago that you cannot have your cake and eat it, and have decided - wisely - that your "freedom" is just nonsense.
Bullshit. Europeans have many rights that make law enforcement's job difficult. If you truly believed what you're saying, you'd advocate unlimited power for the government, and government surveillance everywhere. But you don't, because you know the "One life was saved so it's okay!" logic is absolute bullshit. And all of this assumes that the government can even be trusted, which is a claim that history (you even mentioned something implying some rather unfortunate historical events) does not support. In reality, being extremely cautious of the government is the way to maintain your freedoms.
One life is *not* worth sacrificing everyone's freedom. Europe knows it. The US knows it. Plenty of countries know it. Though, to what extent they acknowledge this fact is up for debate.
We do not want "freedom" of speech, because we know where hate speech and unchecked political extremism lead.
Can you even scientifically prove in a rigorous manner that freedom of speech led to the events you're referring to?
And they don't lead anywhere. Action leads somewhere. It's very telling that you're opposed to a fundamental right like freedom of speech.
We do not care for your "free market", social democracy is much better.
I never said anything about a free market. I'm talking about fundamental liberties here, like privacy, free speech, freedom of association, etc. I believe in reasonable regulations on business because I don't believe fundamental liberties are violated in those cases, so stuff it.
Anyway, stop wasting my time with your nonsensical authoritarianism. Just move to North Korea and be done with it.
Freedom is not binary. A country is not either free or unfree.
Right. Next time, I'll be sure to write multiple pages describing all the freedoms I believe are fundamental, just to please your pedantry.
What is a reasonable reduction in individual freedoms at one minute might be impermissible the next.
Depends on the freedom. Depends on the issue. Depends on what the constitution has to say about it.
Simple logic. The founders were opposed to general warrants, and also took steps to prevent all sorts of injustices that they knew of at the time, so had mass surveillance been used against them, they likely would have taken steps against it. Also, the constitution says that people should be secure in their papers (I'm focusing on this part). That's not for the actual papers themselves, but the information contained on the papers. I find it highly absurd to think that mass surveillance could ever be deemed unreasonable under these circumstances.
The fourth amendment isn't the only problem. Where's the part of the constitution that explicitly permits surveillance of this scale?
And anyway, I didn't say the constitution was completely unambiguous; just not as much as some people think.
So you are claiming I totally misinterpreted you, and it's all my fault because you are a beacon of clarity in an otherwise unclear world?
No, I'm claiming that I think that saying that I'm for anarchy or something similar just because I wasn't absolutely precise is an unreasonable interpretation of my words.
So you don't tell us anything about the Fourth Amendment, except that it's anti-authoritarian and anti-mass-surveillance in spirit?
It's both. Why would go in depth about it in an unrelated discussion?
Anti-Authoritarianism does not gain credibility from Appeals to Authority.
No clue what you mean.
Has it ever occurred to you that a) you should probably read the Fourth Amendment before making claims about it, and b) if the Founders included multiple 'buts' in the Amendment explicitly precluding it from being used the way you think it should be used
The founders couldn't have predicted mass surveillance on this scale. Still, they were opposed to general warrants (and that's with a judge actually providing checks and balances), and likely would have taken measures against it had mass surveillance been used against them (assuming they survived). Given that they took action against other injustices that they knew of at the time, any other interpretation seems unreasonable.
The state can not as it would be considered unreasonable search as has been shown in a few recent court cases.
As if the government hasn't ignored the courts and constitution before. Then again, it's not really necessary to make it mandatory.
There will always be a customer base who prioritize privacy over rates and there will always be at least one company to serve that client base.
You'd better hope that it doesn't become so expensive that it becomes a luxury only the wealthy can afford, or it is de facto mandatory, which shouldn't be tolerated.
One life saved means it's worth it.
This attitude is incompatible with freedom. There would be no restrictions upon the government if we were to take your stupid garbage seriously. There's a reason we're supposed to be (we aren't) "the land of the free and the home of the brave"; freedom is more important than safety, and free and brave people don't sacrifice fundamental liberties for safety. I would oppose the TSA even if it was effective. Same with DUI checkpoints, protest permits, the NSA's mass surveillance, and all the other unconstitutional nonsense. In case you don't understand why I'm bringing up those things, it's because your logic could be used to justify any intrusion.
There's no such thing as perfect safety, and if it did exist, the world would be draconian and utterly devoid of freedom. No one could do anything, because it might endanger them. But no. Even if we don't do it enough, we have, on many occasions, rejected the "One life saved means it's worth it." logic. Where? By having a constitution which greatly limits the government's power.
It's not reasonable for government thugs to harass you for having drugs in the first place. So no, that doesn't count.
And who will they elect instead? A Republican who will ignore the constitution and violate our fundamental liberties about as much as Obama and his buddies? People who don't recognize that the 'two' parties are alike in so many ways that actually count are part of the problem. Left/right doesn't matter; it's authoritarian scumbags vs people who care about freedom.
That's not the kind of thing you say if you're gonna agree to any restriction on freedom.
No, that's just normal human language, where you don't necessarily qualify everything you say, because it's not necessary.
In practice nobody agrees on what the damn thing means.
In practice, it's mostly just people ignoring what it says/what it intended for convenience. Example: Authoritarians ignoring the spirit of the fourth amendment (among other things) so they can have their mass surveillance.
It's not really a problem, because they're just as wrong as if they said that 1 + 1 = 3.
The police have always been able to ask for whatever they want.
And apparently the government can also ask companies to give it all of your information so they can conduct mass surveillance. In an era where you're necessarily going to be handing over tons of data to third parties, this attitude is unworkable in any free country.
This is exactly right.
You think we should drop all forms of security and precaution? You think no one should ever lock their doors, lock their cars, or take reasonable precautions that could protect them from potential future harm?
This is exactly right. You don't blame someone for making these mistakes, you blame the perp.
Which is what people do. "Who committed the crime?" "The perp." "Who was the one that took unsafe actions when reasonable precautions could have been taken?" "The victim." Blame for different things can be assigned to different people, and none of this means the criminal should get away.
Only in straw man fantasy land does anything else happen in a grand majority of cases.
In case it's not obvious, I was saying that a country with a bad economy but a great amount of freedom is better than a country with a good economy but with few freedoms. I'm not sure how you interpreted that as supporting anarchy, or whatever.
So the early 19th-century Cherokee, with absolutely no government to restrict any of their freedoms, were better off then the Georgians?
Wow, nice straw man. Consider the context of the discussion.
It's a very tricky balance.
Here's a "balance" for you: The government should follow the constitution. The end.
Without freedom, we are nothing, even if we had money. I don't care how 'prosperous' a certain country is; if it's not free, then it's worthless to me.
We should drop all forms of security and precaution, because anything else is victim blaming. Obviously.
And then they say the universe can't be eternity, despite believing in a magical sky daddy which they can't prove even exists. It's just special pleading garbage.
And do you think the government should have unlimited power in the name of safety? Is it so problematic to recognize that freedom and restrictions on government are what's important in truly free countries?
So when London or insert your European capital or major city here, has 30 or 40 Boston style bombings in month will you still be saying this?
I'll say the same as I said on 9/11: There's no such thing as perfect safety, and the very idea is terrifying. I rejected the TSA, the Patriot Act, and all the nonsense that followed, because I actually have principles and understand the concept of probability to a far greater extent than so many fools who, if they were truly rational, wouldn't get into a car. Freedom is more important for safety. If you feel otherwise, North Korea may be right up your alley.
But hey, let's using this stupid logic in an alternate scenario. If you were a murderer who was caught murdering someone, would you still be saying there should be laws against murdering? I'm going to assume the answer would be "No." Why? Because I can. And because I assumed that, your arguments for why there should be laws against murder are somehow invalid. And if that's not the sort of point you intended to convey, then why bring up that stupid nonsense about how I supposedly might believe differently if X happened? It serves no useful purpose.
Data collection by intelligence agencies Isn't pushing the boundaries
The only way to determine that is by analyzing the response to a few questions: Who is having their data collected? Why?
If the answers are anything like "everyone" or "because we need to see if they're terrorists/enemies" then there is a problem, and it doesn't matter how many people do it; that's a ridiculous excuse.
Soldiers kill people. It's not pretty, but it's reality.
There is a difference between a soldier and a criminal. There is also a difference betweeen a spy and a criminal.
Don't you think it's better to give an actual explanation that amounts to more than just "Group X does Y. It's not pretty, but it's reality."
The point is to do whatever it is in a moral, legal (if we're talking about restricting government powers) fashion. Handwaving the problem away by saying that spies spy only lets them get away with their misdeeds.
so a spy has to be able to justify his actions.
If only.
Then it isn't very good at its stated purpose.
It's a nice thought but I don't think that works in the imperfect world we live in.
The notion of not being immoral scumbags doesn't work in this imperfect world? Having principles and morality isn't something reserved for perfect worlds.
There has to be some way of letting the security services in their various forms do what they need to do.
Okay. If there's reason to suspect that someone is doing something, they can get a warrant (if it's a citizen) by an actual judge, or get some other form of acceptance that involves more than just spying on people for no reason.
Mass surveillance should never be tolerated.
You want people to avoid abusing power because they think that's right, not just because it's against a law or rule of some kind.
Good luck with that. In the mean time, I'll endeavor to not be completely ignorant of history or of what's happening in the present: Illegal surveillance. They can't even follow the laws!
I'll gladly throw out this 'baby'; it's not a baby, but a piece of garbage. I'd take a less 'safe' world without this type of immoral surveillance over their surveillance 'paradise.'
You don't; you try to be the better man/country. Have some standards (Maybe not spy on completely random people?) and principles rather than just adopting a "They do it so I can too!" attitude.
The worrying aspect is that they're collecting the data at all. If they have the data, it will be misused; that is a historical guarantee. Privacy is violated through the mere collection of data. Mass surveillance should not be permitted. Targeted, legal surveillance at best. This is not what is happening.