1
Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Expectation of privacy was nice while it lastedFollow

#27 Jul 07 2016 at 8:10 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
angrymnk wrote:
I always found it somewhat amusing the extent to which a job defines people's perspectives and how they perceive the world. All the cops I met, for example, have these blinders on, which allow them to ignore all laws, privacy and common sense in the name of catching a perp. In their ideal world, we would all be sitting with hands on the table at all times. But we do not live in a cops' world, yet.


I'm not sure what cops you're dealing with, but my experience is the opposite. Cops are painfully aware of how even the slightest violation of procedure can result in a case being thrown out and a criminal going free. This does not preclude some bad cops falsifying evidence or doctoring their reports to make sure it looks like they did follow proper procedure when they really didn't, but they are certainly not "blind" to this and definitely do not ignore those things.

Edited, Jul 7th 2016 7:11pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#28 Jul 07 2016 at 9:12 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Do we want to live in a society where every time you open your mouth, you have to stop and think about whether what you say might be viewed negatively by the government? And in today's digital age, that never goes away. So maybe some topic or opinion is just fine today, but 30 years from now will be condemned. Do you just not talk about anything which might ever be controversial? We're already seeing this effect with social media.

Social media, nothing. "Candidate So-and-So wrote a paper in her junior year of high school, forty-three years ago, in which she said that women should try to be good wives! Can you believe it!? Can we trust this monster with elected office today??"
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#29 Jul 08 2016 at 12:40 AM Rating: Good
****
4,135 posts
angrymnk wrote:
Very Hoover of you.

Skip to 2:59!
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#30 Jul 08 2016 at 5:22 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
angrymnk wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
TLW wrote:

Discussion should not be curtailed by the government. Actions that harm others? Absolutely.
I wouldn't classify monitoring terrorists discussion as "curtailing" discussion. If anything, the government allows them to talk in order to gather as much information as possible.


I always found it somewhat amusing the extent to which a job defines people's perspectives and how they perceive the world. All the cops I met, for example, have these blinders on, which allow them to ignore all laws, privacy and common sense in the name of catching a perp. In their ideal world, we would all be sitting with hands on the table at all times. But we do not live in a cops' world, yet.

In a similar vein, military has similar views about the 'civilians', but this is not what I want to talk about.

I do find it... cute, however, that it is your belief that the purpose of the government is to vacuum as much information as possible. Very Hoover of you.


I realize that also. The problem is less about the blinders, but more about combating discussions in the media. Regardless if the topic is football/violence, military/secrets and sexual assaults, police/brutality, any high profile legal case, etc, people instantly become "experts" and befuddle the situation with misstatements and inaccuracies.
#31 Jul 08 2016 at 5:56 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
Almalieque wrote:
angrymnk wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
TLW wrote:

Discussion should not be curtailed by the government. Actions that harm others? Absolutely.
I wouldn't classify monitoring terrorists discussion as "curtailing" discussion. If anything, the government allows them to talk in order to gather as much information as possible.


I always found it somewhat amusing the extent to which a job defines people's perspectives and how they perceive the world. All the cops I met, for example, have these blinders on, which allow them to ignore all laws, privacy and common sense in the name of catching a perp. In their ideal world, we would all be sitting with hands on the table at all times. But we do not live in a cops' world, yet.

In a similar vein, military has similar views about the 'civilians', but this is not what I want to talk about.

I do find it... cute, however, that it is your belief that the purpose of the government is to vacuum as much information as possible. Very Hoover of you.


I realize that also. The problem is less about the blinders, but more about combating discussions in the media. Regardless if the topic is football/violence, military/secrets and sexual assaults, police/brutality, any high profile legal case, etc, people instantly become "experts" and befuddle the situation with misstatements and inaccuracies.


Sure. Obscurantism is a great method of controlling the people who could vote the wrong way.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#32 Jul 08 2016 at 6:27 AM Rating: Good
***
1,159 posts
Bad for your prestige, though.
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#33 Jul 08 2016 at 6:37 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I bet it's worth a good number of points in Scrabble.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#34 Jul 08 2016 at 7:49 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
Do we want to live in a society where every time you open your mouth, you have to stop and think about whether what you say might be viewed negatively by the government?
I'd love to live in a society where you have to stop and think about what you say before you open your mouth.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#35 Jul 08 2016 at 9:32 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Do we want to live in a society where every time you open your mouth, you have to stop and think about whether what you say might be viewed negatively by the government? And in today's digital age, that never goes away. So maybe some topic or opinion is just fine today, but 30 years from now will be condemned. Do you just not talk about anything which might ever be controversial? We're already seeing this effect with social media.

Social media, nothing. "Candidate So-and-So wrote a paper in her junior year of high school, forty-three years ago, in which she said that women should try to be good wives! Can you believe it!? Can we trust this monster with elected office today??"
Goodbye Armenian immigrant vote. Smiley: frown
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#36 Jul 08 2016 at 5:25 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Do we want to live in a society where every time you open your mouth, you have to stop and think about whether what you say might be viewed negatively by the government?
I'd love to live in a society where you have to stop and think about what you say before you open your mouth.


Sure. Based on how it's received by those immediately within earshot. No problem. That's pretty normal social interaction at work. I have a bit more of a problem when the concern is that someone working for big brother might not like what I say. You did catch the second half of the sentence I wrote, right?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#37 Jul 10 2016 at 6:14 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Gbaji wrote:
Sure. Based on how it's received by those immediately within earshot. No problem. That's pretty normal social interaction at work. I have a bit more of a problem when the concern is that someone working for big brother might not like what I say.
Is there any evidence of that actually happening? The POTUS(Clinton, Bush, Obama, etc), Governors, senators, etc. are talked negatively in the worse way possible in public forums everyday. What type of conversation are you concerned about triggering a Big Brother reaction? Thirdly, what type of reaction are you fearing?

Edited, Jul 10th 2016 2:17pm by Almalieque
#38 Jul 10 2016 at 1:13 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,323 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
Sure. Based on how it's received by those immediately within earshot. No problem. That's pretty normal social interaction at work. I have a bit more of a problem when the concern is that someone working for big brother might not like what I say.
Is there any evidence of that actually happening? The POTUS(Clinton, Bush, Obama, etc), Governors, senators, etc. are talked negatively in the worse way possible in public forums everyday. What type of conversation are you concerned about triggering a Big Brother reaction? Thirdly, what type of reaction are you fearing?

Edited, Jul 10th 2016 2:17pm by Almalieque


Not, as far we know, yet. And that yet is the important piece, because defending individual rights usually starts with defending the rights of, well, people society does not necessarily want to defend ( cuz they are ********, scoundrels,and otherwise undesirables -- making a good start to the 'first they came for' poem ). And you want that **** stopped before the mission creep moves beyond the current socially acceptable surveillance. Yesterday, it was National Security (TM).

That surveillance was, or so was the society assured, used only for 'national security' and society gladly obliged. It slowly moved into war on drugs. Suddenly, parallel construction became a very real thing in the US. Now it is slowly moving into catching 'sexual predators' or whatever scary thing they call them these days. Who knows what will become acceptable in the near future? Surely no politician would dream of squashing opposition, tracking and silencing protesters, and who knows what else.

And that is what I am fearing. That the pendulum is swinging in the direction of complete surveillance. Personally, I do not think it is normal, or acceptable to catalogue every step I take in my life for someone to peruse at their leisure. Nor do I think it is normal for the direction of National Intelligence to lie to its subj.. I mean American people about the scope of the surveillance. Then again, given that nothing happened afterwards, it may be already too late.

It does not ******* help the conversation, that the government lawyers just argued that it is like they are searching for anything. They already have everything they need, because they already collected that data and now they are just querying it. If you think it does not have chilling effect on what people do, I do happen to a bridge to sell you for pennies on the dollar.

Alma, do you honestly think you have nothing to fear, because you have nothing to hide? Even if you are boring as **** do you think it is wise to have all the information about you floating out there? People will be people. Best example of how information can be used against you is a jilted NSA ex.

To put it simply, information is power. No one person should have access to so much of it.

And since we are on the subject, thank you Snowden. Without you we would not even have a way of trying to push it back.
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#39 Jul 10 2016 at 7:00 PM Rating: Good
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Angrymnk wrote:
Alma, do you honestly think you have nothing to fear, because you have nothing to hide? Even if you are boring as **** do you think it is wise to have all the information about you floating out there? People will be people.
1. Yes, because preventing people from openly plotting terrorist attacks, human trafficking, etc. is more important 2. Define "floating out there?" There's a difference between "within NSA" vs "on Google".

Angrymnk wrote:

People will be people. Best example of how information can be used against you is a jilted NSA ex.
This is a risk living in the technical age. Stopping programs like these do not prevent the "jilted" Banker, doctor, teacher, boss etc. from putting your information out on the net for the world to know. So, if information is your concern, then avoid technology. Good luck with that.

Angrymnk wrote:
And since we are on the subject, thank you Snowden. Without you we would not even have a way of trying to push it back.
Push back? You will always be monitored. Always. Period. You Snowdenites are being played. Remember that Congress APPROVED of the programs. Their response was that they didn't fully read it. Yea, that's some how better.
#40 Jul 10 2016 at 7:41 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,323 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Alma, do you honestly think you have nothing to fear, because you have nothing to hide? Even if you are boring as **** do you think it is wise to have all the information about you floating out there? People will be people.
1. Yes, because preventing people from openly plotting terrorist attacks, human trafficking, etc. is more important 2. Define "floating out there?" There's a difference between "within NSA" vs "on Google".[/quote]


*shrug* I disagree. And we are not talking about jilted bankers,doctors, teachers. We are talking about jilted NSA analysts, and whoever else happens to get their paws on this information. Also, I am not a luddite. The technology is there to help me. It is not there to bring about a more annoying version of 1984.

Quote:
Yes, because preventing people from openly plotting terrorist attacks, human trafficking, etc. is more important


Maybe, I could argue against it, but I already mentioned my thoughts on it in the previous post. National security was already invoked as a reason and general public said lets do this. I do not recall general public saying it is cool for that data to be disseminated to other LEOs for a B&E -- and that is the direction we are heading. In fact, the public was assured, only Really Bad Guys â„¢ would be targeted.

Quote:
You will always be monitored. Always. Period.


You put a lot of faith in this. I seem to recall you saying that I am not important enough to be monitored. Why the change of heart?

Quote:

Push back? You will always be monitored. Always. Period. You Snowdenites are being played. Remember that Congress APPROVED of the programs. Their response was that they didn't fully read it. Yea, that's some how better.


You know what I find funny? That the next Snowden will say exactly the things you are saying, he will have a clear profile, clean online persona..

Edited, Jul 11th 2016 12:12am by angrymnk
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#41 Jul 11 2016 at 7:42 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
angrymnk wrote:
The technology is there to help me. It is not there to bring about a more annoying version of 1984.
You really can't blame the government of surveillance when the technology is being voluntarily used by the people to make every second of their lives available to the world. But conspiracy theorists do love to cite 1984. Smiley: thumbsup

Edited, Jul 11th 2016 9:43am by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#42 Jul 11 2016 at 8:01 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Heading to Room 101. Must be Monday! #doubleplusungood #sorrynotsorryjulia #bigbroreadingmytweets
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#43 Jul 11 2016 at 10:48 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Angrymnk wrote:
And since we are on the subject, thank you Snowden. Without you we would not even have a way of trying to push it back.
Push back? You will always be monitored. Always. Period. You Snowdenites are being played. Remember that Congress APPROVED of the programs. Their response was that they didn't fully read it. Yea, that's some how better.
Eh, they were just paranoid that if another 9/11 happened too soon they'd get blamed big time if they voted against it. Not like it's the kind of thing you fess up to publicly though, especially since everyone was a bit nutty at the time and public opinion was mostly in the "please don't let me blow up" mindset.

lolgaxe wrote:
angrymnk wrote:
The technology is there to help me. It is not there to bring about a more annoying version of 1984.
You really can't blame the government of surveillance when the technology is being voluntarily used by the people to make every second of their lives available to the world. But conspiracy theorists do love to cite 1984. Smiley: thumbsup
But how else will your get your second grade classmate from 20 years ago to be jealous of how cute your pet hamster is?
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#44 Jul 11 2016 at 3:03 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
angrymnk wrote:

*shrug* I disagree. And we are not talking about jilted bankers,doctors, teachers. We are talking about jilted NSA analysts, and whoever else happens to get their paws on this information. Also, I am not a luddite. The technology is there to help me. It is not there to bring about a more annoying version of 1984.
If your concern is exposed information, then you are indeed talking about jilted bankers, doctors, lawyers, etc.

angrymnk wrote:
Maybe, I could argue against it, but I already mentioned my thoughts on it in the previous post. National security was already invoked as a reason and general public said lets do this. I do not recall general public saying it is cool for that data to be disseminated to other LEOs for a B&E -- and that is the direction we are heading. In fact, the public was assured, only Really Bad Guys â„¢ would be targeted.
Read below.

angrymnk wrote:

You put a lot of faith in this. I seem to recall you saying that I am not important enough to be monitored. Why the change of heart?
You fail to differentiate passive vs active. You're not important enough to be targeted; however, when you start plotting terrorist attacks, that will change. Why? Because you (in the general sense) will always be monitored.

angrymnk wrote:
You know what I find funny? That the next Snowden will say exactly the things you are saying, he will have a clear profile, clean online persona..
You haven't addressed the fact that Congress knew about this. Monitoring will not stop. You just believe what people say. I can't remember, do you so happen to be a Sanders supporter? You seem gullible enough.
#45 Jul 11 2016 at 5:08 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
Sure. Based on how it's received by those immediately within earshot. No problem. That's pretty normal social interaction at work. I have a bit more of a problem when the concern is that someone working for big brother might not like what I say.
Is there any evidence of that actually happening? The POTUS(Clinton, Bush, Obama, etc), Governors, senators, etc. are talked negatively in the worse way possible in public forums everyday. What type of conversation are you concerned about triggering a Big Brother reaction? Thirdly, what type of reaction are you fearing?


When you have a political party's representatives shutting down congress while chanting "no fly, no guns", the issue of what might put someone on a no fly list and thus result in potential future removal of said person's second amendment rights does kinda become important. Yes. I'm conflating two thread topics, but I find it amusing that you were the one arguing in that other thread that using things like a no fly list to strip away rights from citizens was a good idea, and here you are questioning why someone might be concerned about the government listening in on their private conversations.

I'm not even talking about the no fly list specifically. That's just a current example. But the fear goes like this:

1. Government starts listening in on a whole ton of people's "private" conversations, justified as a means to "stop terrorism before it happens".

2. In the name of security and efficiency, government creates automatic algorithms to detect specific word patterns in those conversations and flag them as potentially "dangerous" (cause they can't have the manpower to do this in any other way).

3. The people who are identified as having raised said flags are investigated as to whether they are a real danger.

4. Someone who's under investigation (by actual people) but not yet determined to be a danger commits some terrible act of violence/terrorism/whatever. Public outrage as to why this person wasn't placed on some restricted list during the investigation will occur.

5. Government switches to putting people on lists automatically, and then removing them only when it's proved that they are not a threat (btw, this is not far from how it works right now).

6. We now have at best a due process nightmare, and at worse a society that isn't remotely "free" anymore.


And this doesn't even take into account the potential of said words/phrases being potentially manipulated to result in things like people talking about issues that are political in nature being put on said lists (thus harassing supporters of political opponents). Sound crazy? We already see people labeling political speech they disagree with as "hate speech" today. It's not much of a leap to imagine a future where merely talking about eliminating the minimum wage (for example) is an example of hate for poor people and minorities and should be flagged. Or perhaps anyone saying that abortion is murder gets them flagged. Or someone complaining about trans bathroom requirements. Or someone saying they disagree with gay marriage. Or, frankly, any of a thousand different opinions which someone should be free to express, but that a government overly empowered to "protect the people", might view as a threat to a happy orderly society and take efforts to squelch them.


It's not hard to imagine a simple jump from where we are right now to something as basic as what you write on an online forum like this one being used as a data point to determine if you pass a background check to purchase a firearm, or get a government job, or *any* job. Part of that is already happening, but it's based on volunteered information via social media. Giving the government free reign to dig through any data about us, anywhere, even without permission, is hugely problematic.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#46 Jul 11 2016 at 5:47 PM Rating: Good
****
4,135 posts
gbaji wrote:
It's not much of a leap to imagine a future where merely talking about eliminating the minimum wage (for example) is an example of hate for poor people and minorities and should be flagged. Or perhaps anyone saying that abortion is murder gets them flagged. Or someone complaining about trans bathroom requirements. Or someone saying they disagree with *** marriage...

It's not hard to imagine a simple jump from where we are right now to something as basic as what you write on an online forum like this one being used as a data point to determine if you pass a background check to purchase a firearm, or get a government job, or *any* job.


You are taking this very personally.
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#47 Jul 11 2016 at 6:24 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
gbaji wrote:
It's not much of a leap to imagine a future where merely talking about eliminating the minimum wage (for example) is an example of hate for poor people and minorities and should be flagged. Or perhaps anyone saying that abortion is murder gets them flagged. Or someone complaining about trans bathroom requirements. Or someone saying they disagree with *** marriage...

It's not hard to imagine a simple jump from where we are right now to something as basic as what you write on an online forum like this one being used as a data point to determine if you pass a background check to purchase a firearm, or get a government job, or *any* job.


You are taking this very personally.


Not personally. But if past patterns are any indication, conservative political speech is far more likely to be labeled as hate speech, and far more likely to result in some sort of backhanded government suppression. Recall that Tea Party groups were eternally delayed in (unintentional, I'm sure) filing hell, more or less because the good honest unbiased folks working at the IRS just automatically assumed that causes that aligned with conservative ideology were not "good", and thus should not qualify for tax exempt status. They literally categorized them based on the names of the groups themselves. In theory just as an administrative filing method, but what a shocker, the filing group that the conservative organizations got put into took far far more time to get through than any other group. Shocking! And totally unintentional.

Now imagine the same good honest and unbiased people working in the agencies that decide if a group should be investigated as a hate group, or whether an individuals speech justifies putting him on a "list" as mentioned above? It's honestly not the top level that I'm worried about. We tend to keep a pretty decent eye on the major public figures. It's the army of little guys, working in their government offices, never known to the public, but each with the potential to influence outcomes based on their own opinions, that can have a huge difference. And when the bulk of those people lean leftward in terms of their own politics (not shocking that those who believe in big government as a means to a social/political end are more likely to gravitate into working in it), the work environments themselves lend themselves to a kind of group think that leads to the biases we've seen.

No one had to tell the IRS workers assigned to sort and process the conservative applications to take their time and delay as much as possible. They just did it. They all assumed that was why those groups were separated out in the first place. Nod and wink and bias occurs. Heck. It would not surprise me at all to discover that over time, many of these offices become filled with people who are not just a little bit biased, but a lot biased. They may even seek out work in various government agencies with the intent of "making a difference", where the difference they want to make is to take every opportunity to help push along the liberal agenda while delaying or obstructing conservatives. They may even believe it's their moral duty to do this.


So yeah. If such power were wielded by our government, it's not unreasonable to assume it would mostly be aimed at the right side of our political spectrum. The nuttier a conservative is, the less likely he is to work in government. The opposite is kinda true on the liberal side though. Liberals believe that the government is the instrument to bring about their agenda. Conservatives believe that government is the thing obstructing theirs. Which "side" do you think benefits from a more intrusive government with greater power to restrict the actions of it citizens based on what is essentially internal administrative action? We've already seen a hint of this. It will get worse.

Edited, Jul 11th 2016 5:31pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#48 Jul 11 2016 at 6:30 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Gbaji wrote:
When you have a political party's representatives shutting down congress while chanting "no fly, no guns", the issue of what might put someone on a no fly list and thus result in potential future removal of said person's second amendment rights does kinda become important. Yes. I'm conflating two thread topics, but I find it amusing that you were the one arguing in that other thread that using things like a no fly list to strip away rights from citizens was a good idea, and here you are questioning why someone might be concerned about the government listening in on their private conversations.
What's amusing is pretending that the accuracy of the no-fly zone list is the core of the problem, when it's actually the ideology of using the list to prevent firearm sales.

Gbaji wrote:
5. Government switches to putting people on lists automatically, and then removing them only when it's proved that they are not a threat (btw, this is not far from how it works right now).
This is stupid. Prevent this from happening and problem solved.

Gbaji wrote:
And this doesn't even take into account the potential of said words/phrases being potentially manipulated to result in things like people talking about issues that are political in nature being put on said lists (thus harassing supporters of political opponents). Sound crazy? We already see people labeling political speech they disagree with as "hate speech" today. It's not much of a leap to imagine a future where merely talking about eliminating the minimum wage (for example) is an example of hate for poor people and minorities and should be flagged. Or perhaps anyone saying that abortion is murder gets them flagged. Or someone complaining about trans bathroom requirements. Or someone saying they disagree with *** marriage. Or, frankly, any of a thousand different opinions which someone should be free to express, but that a government overly empowered to "protect the people", might view as a threat to a happy orderly society and take efforts to squelch them.
None of your examples provide an example of a threat to national security or the local populace. Freedom of speech doesn't guarantee you from verbal attack. There's a difference between negatively expressing yourself against a particular demographic and discussing plots on killing them.


Gbaji wrote:
It's not hard to imagine a simple jump from where we are right now to something as basic as what you write on an online forum like this one being used as a data point to determine if you pass a background check to purchase a firearm, or get a government job, or *any* job. Part of that is already happening, but it's based on volunteered information via social media. Giving the government free reign to dig through any data about us, anywhere, even without permission, is hugely problematic.
It really is hard to imagine that. I mean, this forum is monitored and censored. As I said, you'll never be free of observation on the net.
#49 Jul 11 2016 at 6:58 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Almalieque wrote:
What's amusing is pretending that the accuracy of the no-fly zone list is the core of the problem, when it's actually the ideology of using the list to prevent firearm sales.


It's not an either/or proposition though. I'm pointing out that when you do have an entire half of our political landscape calling for using the no-fly list as a list to restrict firearms, then you also now need to look at the accuracy of the list itself. Because both work together.

The difference is that I'm not naive enough to just assume that when such lists are assembled, that someone wont use them for another purpose later on. The demands of the House Democrats just proves my point. These things get repurposed. How many things do you use your social security number for again? The number that the government swore up and down would never be used for any form of identification at all, but was just an account number social security and nothing else?

Got a bridge to sell ya.

Quote:
This is stupid. Prevent this from happening and problem solved.


Yes, it is stupid. How do you prevent it from happening? You speak out against it like I am doing now. See how that works? Because trying to argue against it after someone who was on the list commits a terrorist act is often shouted down by the emotionally charged mob. You know, like folks saying "let's not tie gun rights to a no-fly list" were? Just like that.

This is why we should have these discussions openly and publicly *before* the emotion laden trigger event occurs. It does not always help, but at least puts the kernel of sense into people that when someone says "we shouldn't do this because of X", more people will have actually heard that before and might just stop their emotional reaction and engage their intellect instead. Maybe still not enough of them, but more than would other wise.

Quote:
None of your examples provide an example of a threat to national security or the local populace.


Correct. But in the process of any large scale government program to collect enough data about people's communications to catch all the folks who do qualify as threats to national security, you will also collect plenty of data about a host of other things people say. And, as I mentioned above, once that data is collected, someone will think to use it for another purpose. Like rooting out hate speech. Or tracking voting trends to speech patterns. And then using that data in some way that benefits those speaking in ways that align with "good" voting patterns, and penalizes those with "bad" voting patterns.

You're looking at what this data would be used for today. I'm looking at how it could be used tomorrow once it's collected. Those are two different things. And as I said above, it's incredibly naive to just assume that data wont ever be used for anything other than catching terrorists and other threats to national security.

Quote:
Freedom of speech doesn't guarantee you from verbal attack. There's a difference between negatively expressing yourself against a particular demographic and discussing plots on killing them.


I think you totally missed the point. I'm not talking about someone reclassifying some types of speech as threats to national security, but using the same data collected in the process of looking for threats to national security to look for other things. Those "other things" could be anything at all.

Quote:
It really is hard to imagine that. I mean, this forum is monitored and censored. As I said, you'll never be free of observation on the net.


I was speaking of what would happen if we just gave up on the idea of privacy at all, and allowed the government to freely hack into all our computers, bug all our homes, record all our phone conversations, etc. The potential uses of the data we already allow to be publicly accessible is just a starting point. If we can already see how that information can hurt us, we should see even greater potential harm if information we currently consider "private" becomes so broadly available to our government. Again, it would start out as a means to catch terrorists, but the temptation to use it for a "greater good", would almost certainly be too great to resist.

Just think how much better our society would be if we could key in on communication patterns that indicate some form of mental illness? We could get those people the help they need! And we could pick up on patterns that indicate abuse in a home and fix that too! Think of all the sexual predators we could get off the streets? But once we do that, what then? We might move on to other social "problems", right? And I'm again led right to the common belief by many on the left that conservative ideologies and actions are hateful and harmful to society. I recall a thread on homeschooling where several posters equated homeschooling to child abuse. Think that opinion is limited just to random liberals on a forum board? Or do you think that people who intentionally gravitate into a position involving detecting and preventing child abuse might just hold that view as well?

We need to make decisions about the balance between having a free society and a safe society. It's obviously not an all-or-nothing proposition in either direction. But it's incredibly important that someone be the voice for the "free" side every time someone proposes some new thing that will make our lives just a little bit safer. Isn't that really the issue here?

Edited, Jul 11th 2016 6:07pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#50 Jul 11 2016 at 7:26 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Gbaji wrote:
It's not an either/or proposition though. I'm pointing out that when you do have an entire half of our political landscape calling for using the no-fly list as a list to restrict firearms, then you also now need to look at the accuracy of the list itself. Because both work together.

The difference is that I'm not naive enough to just assume that when such lists are assembled, that someone wont use them for another purpose later on. The demands of the House Democrats just proves my point. These things get repurposed. How many things do you use your social security number for again? The number that the government swore up and down would never be used for any form of identification at all, but was just an account number social security and nothing else?

Got a bridge to sell ya.
If your concern were the legitimacy of the no fly lists, then you would argue for the correction of the no fly lists.

Gbaji wrote:
Yes, it is stupid. How do you prevent it from happening? You speak out against it like I am doing now. See how that works? Because trying to argue against it after someone who was on the list commits a terrorist act is often shouted down by the emotionally charged mob. You know, like folks saying "let's not tie gun rights to a no-fly list" were? Just like that.

This is why we should have these discussions openly and publicly *before* the emotion laden trigger event occurs. It does not always help, but at least puts the kernel of sense into people that when someone says "we shouldn't do this because of X", more people will have actually heard that before and might just stop their emotional reaction and engage their intellect instead. Maybe still not enough of them, but more than would other wise.


It's stupid in the sense that would never be acceptable or a threat. Can it happen? Theoretically, yes, but a police officer could also go inside your house and assault your family at gun point. Are you equally concerned about that?


Gbaji wrote:
Correct. But in the process of any large scale government program to collect enough data about people's communications to catch all the folks who do qualify as threats to national security, you will also collect plenty of data about a host of other things people say. And, as I mentioned above, once that data is collected, someone will think to use it for another purpose. Like rooting out hate speech. Or tracking voting trends to speech patterns. And then using that data in some way that benefits those speaking in ways that align with "good" voting patterns, and penalizes those with "bad" voting patterns.

You're looking at what this data would be used for today. I'm looking at how it could be used tomorrow once it's collected. Those are two different things. And as I said above, it's incredibly naive to just assume that data wont ever be used for anything other than catching terrorists and other threats to national security.


Gbaji wrote:
I think you totally missed the point. I'm not talking about someone reclassifying some types of speech as threats to national security, but using the same data collected in the process of looking for threats to national security to look for other things. Those "other things" could be anything at all.

It's incredible naive to think people have the patience and/or desire to be in your conversations. As I told Angrymnk, your information is equally at risk with everyone else you connect to on the net. Why do you think the government goes to third party vendors like ISPs and cellular service providers? They have your information. Funny how you're more paranoid about the people who's job is to protect you than the people who's job is to exploit you.


Gbaji wrote:
I was speaking of what would happen if we just gave up on the idea of privacy at all, and allowed the government to freely hack into all our computers, bug all our homes, record all our phone conversations, etc.
Why do you think you would be targeted for "ISIL", if you never browse their sites?
#51 Jul 11 2016 at 8:06 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Almalieque wrote:
If your concern were the legitimacy of the no fly lists, then you would argue for the correction of the no fly lists.


Again. It's not an either/or thing. I can simultaneously argue that we should be cautious about how we generate such "lists" *and* how we use the content of those lists later on. I'm not sure how you can keep failing to understand this. Both are two sides of the same coin. We need to ensure that the data that our government collects about us does not violate due process requirements *and* that whatever actions we take with the data that the government does have is restricted as much as possible.

Quote:
It's stupid in the sense that would never be acceptable or a threat. Can it happen? Theoretically, yes, but a police officer could also go inside your house and assault your family at gun point. Are you equally concerned about that?


It's not a comparison or a competition, so scratch that last bit. Here's the thing. Do you think it's more or less likely that a police officer will go inside your house and assault your family at gun point if we've already passed legislation allowing officers to enter people's homes without a warrant or probable cause?

The answer, in case you are wondering, is "yes". So if we want to minimize the rate at which police barge into people's homes and assault them at gunpoint, we should restrict as much as possible the power of an officer to enter your home in the course of his duties.

In the same way, the odds that data collected by the government will be used in some abusive manner increases the more freely we allow the government to collect that data and the more power we give the government to use that data for. So, assuming we want to minimize the rate of government abuse we should minimize the amount of data the government can collect, and the purposes to which it can use what data it has.

I'm not sure why this is remotely controversial. I'm not expressing some new and radical idea here. It's been around for centuries.

Quote:
As I told Angrymnk, your information is equally at risk with everyone else you connect to on the net. Why do you think the government goes to third party vendors like ISPs and cellular service providers? They have your information. Funny how you're more paranoid about the people who's job is to protect you than the people who's job is to exploit you.


In this thread, we were specifically speaking about government being able to legally hack into your computer and collect data there. You keep missing this point, despite me repeating it several times. I'm using the fact that existing public data is already being used against people as a backdrop for the potential abuse if we just abandoned the idea of privacy entirely and just let the government rummage around through all our private papers, files, data, etc.

You've kinda forgotten what the topic was about. Go read the freaking title if you can't remember.

Quote:
Gbaji wrote:
I was speaking of what would happen if we just gave up on the idea of privacy at all, and allowed the government to freely hack into all our computers, bug all our homes, record all our phone conversations, etc.
Why do you think you would be targeted for "ISIL", if you never browse their sites?


And this is you continuing to not get it. I've already answered this question. Several times now.

A. It's not about browsing sites. It's about government hacking into our computers. It's even right in the paragraph you quoted.

B. It's not about looking through my private data for terrorist plots. It's about any of a host of other things they might want to use that private data for.


I find it odd that someone who argues so strongly against profiling would fail to grasp that this private information would be used for exactly that. Only on a scale that makes what's going on now look like nothing. And again, it's not about information we hand out publicly. The entire conversation is about how strongly we should draw the line between "public" and "private" information, and how strongly we should fight against any efforts to allow our government to access the "private" information absent really really sufficient due process and/or probable cause.

If you'd read my entire post for comprehension instead of just responding to each individual sentence or paragraph as though it shares no context with the rest, you might just understand what I'm trying to say. It's seriously like you're just arguing against each section without having any kind of consistent point or position. Which I find a bit strange.

Are you arguing that the government should have unlimited ability to hack into our computers just to collect data on all of us? Because that's what I'm arguing against, just in case you still haven't figured it out.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 327 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (327)