Almalieque wrote:
There is no movement to actually fix the lists. These politicians have known about these errors for years, because the concern isn't the legitimacy of the no fly lists..
Flying on a commercial airliner is not an enumerated right in our constitution. Owning a firearm is. So errors that are acceptable when the list is a "no fly" list are *not* acceptable when it's a "no guns" list. Attempting to re-purpose the no fly list to make it sufficient due process for a no guns list, would likely never work, and would create dangerous gaps in the no fly list (where erring on the side of safety makes more sense). The bar to prohibit flying is far far lower than that required to prohibit gun ownership. You can't use the same list for both. But that didn't stop an entire half of our political spectrum from emotionally demanding just that thing (and conservatives getting bashed for correctly opposing this).
My concern is the day when the liberals "win" this fight, and stupid stuff like this actually gets put into law. I mean, it's clear that they do this just to create the conflict and the resulting political rhetoric, but what if one day the conservatives decide not to play the foils? Who loses? We all do. Someone has to stand up to the lunacy, but it's becoming increasingly difficult to do this in a political environment where doing so costs so much politically due to a public that seems too easily manipulated by emotion and so incredibly ignorant of some very basic concepts about rights and liberty (like, say the fact that flying and owning a gun are not equivalent from a rights perspective).
Quote:
You are suggesting something beyond stupid to be injected in our practices for the sole purpose of supporting your talking points. The point is your #5 will never happen or at least be supported by society.
Only so long as people like me actively speak out against it. When the other "side" constantly bashes us for this, what exactly are they fighting for? I assume you don't actually want an oppressive authoritarian government, so why so consistently attack those who work hard to prevent it from happening?
Quote:
Gbaji wrote:
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.
You haven't countered my point. "Expectation of privacy was nice while it lasted". You never had privacy to your network (phone or Internet) actions to begin with.
You do have privacy with regard to data on your own computer at home though. Even if that computer is attached to a network. Hence, my repeated mention of the government hacking into your computer and collecting data there. A point you keep ignoring. I'm not arguing that things you do online are private. What websites you visit is not private, in the same way that what restaurant you go out to eat at tonight is not. You are in a "public space" the second you interact with someone else's computer on the internet and thus have little or no expectation of privacy.
Your own files, stored on your own computer at home *are* private. The government can't just hack in an look at that stuff without a warrant.
Quote:
Privacy is your diary in your room.
Or on your own computer, in your room. Legally, something you write in a text file
on your computer (ie: not posted online) is just as protected by the 4th amendment as something you write in your diary. How do you not get this?
Quote:
Your network actions are available to your provider.
I'm not talking about your network actions. This is why I keep telling you your not addressing my point.
Quote:
Why "hack" into your system via a backdoor, when you can go in the front door?
Because I'm talking about files stored solely on someone's own computer located in their own home. Files which the government can *only* obtain by hacking into that computer and retrieving them. I'm saying that it's really important that we understand that this *is* private, while stuff you do online is *not* private. The concern is that people (like yourself apparently) will confuse the two, conclude that we don't have any expectation of privacy on the network, and thus not raise the alarm when privacy in our own homes is infringed. And frankly, your response more or less confirms that concern.
Quote:
That's why the FBI requested assistance from Apple to open their phone before doing it themselves. The point being, you're ok with the people who's job to exploit you to have your information, but not the people who's job is to protect you.
Huh? These are totally different situations. Again though, this is part of the problem. You honestly don't seem to understand what privacy rights we have, much less what might infringe them. You don't possess the tools to make a distinction between the FBi wanting to hack into a phone that they already possess, and have a warrant to search, versus the FBI secretly hacking into people's home computers with out any warrant at all to look to see if they are engaged in criminal behavior.
Which is scary. Well, not in your case, but in the fact that so many others in our society are just as ignorant about this as you are.
Quote:
So you're now against "show me your papers" and "stop and frisk?" That's great news! As I keep saying. You fail to differentiate passive vs active. Reacting to specific actions is completely different from targeting specific individuals.
And again you show that you don't understand the difference between actions taken in a public space versus those in a private space.
Which, again, is scary. The problem is that you fight the wrong battles for the wrong reasons. The result of this is a muddying of the waters, and more confusion among an already confused public. If you don't understand the difference between a public space and a private space, you can't determine what *is* public (and not protected) and what *is* private (and is protected), and cannot ever make an intelligent decision about privacy rights. Ever. You just can't. You don't have the basic foundation to make that determination. And, lacking that, your angry emotional protestations about all the wrong things will only serve to further erode our actual rights regarding privacy.
Edited, Jul 13th 2016 5:43pm by gbaji