3 ms·

Yeah. You'll get me too pull out my pitchfork if there is ever evidence this is being used for anything other than national security, I haven't seen that. IMO

by craigyk 13y ago

Yeah. You'll get me too pull out my pitchfork if there is ever evidence this is being used for anything other than national security, I haven't seen that. IMO, the first shady use of this would most likely be the war on drugs, if we see that happen than I'll start getting worried.

tptacek 13y ago
Hey: my pitchfork is already within arm's reach. My "problem" over the last couple days is shoddy reporting and rush to judgement, especially with things like "OMG Palantir is even named after the all-seeing eye in Lord of the Rings, they must be in on it". It's not OK if NSA is hoovering all communications in the US and sifting for national security issues, and that does appear to be what happened with Verizon/ATT/Sprint (though it does not appear to be true of Google and Facebook).
- sliverstorm 13y ago
  My "problem" over the last couple days is shoddy reporting and rush to judgement Right there with you. I've started digging in my heels at breaking stories simply for the speed at which people start jumping to conclusions.
rayiner 13y ago
If you're really interested in civil liberties, the battle ground is the drug war. Everything becomes less scary once sending people to prison for drug use and possession is taken off the table.
- rdl 13y ago
  Drug war far and away #1. Gambling and tax evasion might be #2. Child porn is probably morally abhorrent enough (and genuinely rare; if >1% of people out there wanted to fuck 4 year olds, I'd probably try to nuke the planet from orbit) to not be an issue. Maybe terrorism, if "terrorism" is badly interpreted enough to mean any contacts with terrorists, or advocacy of extreme political viewpoints.
  - clicks 13y ago
    > if >1% of people out there wanted to fuck 4 year olds, I'd probably try to nuke the planet from orbit Er, you should be wary in nuking only people who've done the crimes, not just those who 'want' to (even if it's something like child porn). That aside, I'm a big fan of the philosophy that if X causes Y, and Y is something really bad, don't treat Y, do something with X. So, if you have a pattern of priests abusing kids, maybe we should focus on more underlying problems: coerce the church to nullify the moronic rules that prohibit priests from marrying women... and let them live as normal humans live with normal human urges. I know pedophilia strikes a certain chord for people... but everyone deserves justice and dignity, even criminals. The first focus shouldn't be on punishment for the sake of punishment, it should be an action intended to curb future occurrences by studying what causes the bad behavior and indeed tending to those underlying causes.
baddox 13y ago
I think it's pitchfork-worthy when this evidence is used to justify the killing of innocent people on the other side of the world even if it's done in the name of "national security."
- tptacek 13y ago
  If you believe the entire enterprise of violently suppressing foreign terrorist groups is counterfeit or immoral, you of course aren't going to be convinced by any reasoning mustered by the USG or its supporters. But what about counterproliferation? The USG has the world's largest and most capable nuclear arsenal. In terrorist cases, reasonable people can disagree about how the USG's interests line up; maybe those cases have just as much to do with energy security or corporate profits as they do with safeguarding innocent citizens. But the same isn't true of proliferation: it really is in the USG's interests to suppress nuclear proliferation. Not coincidentally, nonproliferation is the other objective to which FISA surveillance has recently been put to use.
  - baddox 13y ago
    There's really two issues here. Firstly, I meant "killing innocent people" to refer to people who are innocent of anything that anyone routinely refers to as "terrorism," like children. Secondly, I have purposefully tried to leave out my own personal views on what constitutes "terrorism" and what constitutes a good response to it, because like you predicted, I'm probably not going to be convinced. But the first point still stands.
    - tptacek 13y ago
      I'm deliberately not challenging any perspective you might have on the "global war on terror" and instead trying to sidestep it for the sake of discussion with an isomorphic but distinct alternative issue.

by craigyk 13y ago

tptacek 13y ago

Hey: my pitchfork is already within arm's reach. My "problem" over the last couple days is shoddy reporting and rush to judgement, especially with things like "OMG Palantir is even named after the all-seeing eye in Lord of the Rings, they must be in on it". It's not OK if NSA is hoovering all communications in the US and sifting for national security issues, and that does appear to be what happened with Verizon/ATT/Sprint (though it does not appear to be true of Google and Facebook).

sliverstorm 13y ago
My "problem" over the last couple days is shoddy reporting and rush to judgement Right there with you. I've started digging in my heels at breaking stories simply for the speed at which people start jumping to conclusions.

rayiner 13y ago

If you're really interested in civil liberties, the battle ground is the drug war. Everything becomes less scary once sending people to prison for drug use and possession is taken off the table.

rdl 13y ago
Drug war far and away #1. Gambling and tax evasion might be #2. Child porn is probably morally abhorrent enough (and genuinely rare; if >1% of people out there wanted to fuck 4 year olds, I'd probably try to nuke the planet from orbit) to not be an issue. Maybe terrorism, if "terrorism" is badly interpreted enough to mean any contacts with terrorists, or advocacy of extreme political viewpoints.
- clicks 13y ago
  > if >1% of people out there wanted to fuck 4 year olds, I'd probably try to nuke the planet from orbit Er, you should be wary in nuking only people who've done the crimes, not just those who 'want' to (even if it's something like child porn). That aside, I'm a big fan of the philosophy that if X causes Y, and Y is something really bad, don't treat Y, do something with X. So, if you have a pattern of priests abusing kids, maybe we should focus on more underlying problems: coerce the church to nullify the moronic rules that prohibit priests from marrying women... and let them live as normal humans live with normal human urges. I know pedophilia strikes a certain chord for people... but everyone deserves justice and dignity, even criminals. The first focus shouldn't be on punishment for the sake of punishment, it should be an action intended to curb future occurrences by studying what causes the bad behavior and indeed tending to those underlying causes.

baddox 13y ago

I think it's pitchfork-worthy when this evidence is used to justify the killing of innocent people on the other side of the world even if it's done in the name of "national security."

tptacek 13y ago
If you believe the entire enterprise of violently suppressing foreign terrorist groups is counterfeit or immoral, you of course aren't going to be convinced by any reasoning mustered by the USG or its supporters. But what about counterproliferation? The USG has the world's largest and most capable nuclear arsenal. In terrorist cases, reasonable people can disagree about how the USG's interests line up; maybe those cases have just as much to do with energy security or corporate profits as they do with safeguarding innocent citizens. But the same isn't true of proliferation: it really is in the USG's interests to suppress nuclear proliferation. Not coincidentally, nonproliferation is the other objective to which FISA surveillance has recently been put to use.
- baddox 13y ago
  There's really two issues here. Firstly, I meant "killing innocent people" to refer to people who are innocent of anything that anyone routinely refers to as "terrorism," like children. Secondly, I have purposefully tried to leave out my own personal views on what constitutes "terrorism" and what constitutes a good response to it, because like you predicted, I'm probably not going to be convinced. But the first point still stands.
  - tptacek 13y ago
    I'm deliberately not challenging any perspective you might have on the "global war on terror" and instead trying to sidestep it for the sake of discussion with an isomorphic but distinct alternative issue.