4 ms·

What I don't get is that in the USA, figuring out a password to an email account is a crime punishable with years of jailtime (think of the Sarah Palin case) [1

by bartl 13y ago

What I don't get is that in the USA, figuring out a password to an email account is a crime punishable with years of jailtime (think of the Sarah Palin case) [1], but somehow, when the NSA does it to everyone in the world it's just "yesterday's news"? [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin_email_hack http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin_email_hack

rayiner 13y ago
That's a ridiculous comparison. The government has more power to do things than individuals. When people kill people its murder, no matter how guilty that person is. When the government does it pursuant to a legitimate sentencing, its no crime.
- ThomPete 13y ago
  Ridiculous might be a tad strong don't you think. I think most people are well aware and in agreement with the fact that the government not only have but should have a much broader scope to work within. The question is how far that scope should be stretched.
- ynniv 13y ago
  That's a ridiculous comparison. For one, the courts didn't find everyone who was surveilled guilty of something for which surveillance was a sentence, and government actions are justified by law, not fiat. For another, your choice of murder is unnecessarily extreme and emotional. A better comparison would be opening someone's mail. It is illegal for someone to open someone else's USPS mail, but the NSA thinks it's not a big deal to open everyone's mail and construct a big chart of who knows who and what they talk about. Given that no one under surveillance has been convicted of anything, running a program of that audacity and scale is not what a government "Of the People" should be doing. In previous times of war, we have said that governments who do that should be removed.
brown9-2 13y ago
This is true of all government actions. As an individual, I cannot sentence my neighbor to death because he or she committed a crime, or declare war on the town next door, or wiretap someone I suspect of a crime. This is one of the major purposes of having a government in society - to delegate tasks to them that the overall group/society does not feel comfortable allowing individuals to take.

by bartl 13y ago

rayiner 13y ago

That's a ridiculous comparison. The government has more power to do things than individuals. When people kill people its murder, no matter how guilty that person is. When the government does it pursuant to a legitimate sentencing, its no crime.

ThomPete 13y ago
Ridiculous might be a tad strong don't you think. I think most people are well aware and in agreement with the fact that the government not only have but should have a much broader scope to work within. The question is how far that scope should be stretched.
ynniv 13y ago
That's a ridiculous comparison. For one, the courts didn't find everyone who was surveilled guilty of something for which surveillance was a sentence, and government actions are justified by law, not fiat. For another, your choice of murder is unnecessarily extreme and emotional. A better comparison would be opening someone's mail. It is illegal for someone to open someone else's USPS mail, but the NSA thinks it's not a big deal to open everyone's mail and construct a big chart of who knows who and what they talk about. Given that no one under surveillance has been convicted of anything, running a program of that audacity and scale is not what a government "Of the People" should be doing. In previous times of war, we have said that governments who do that should be removed.

brown9-2 13y ago

This is true of all government actions. As an individual, I cannot sentence my neighbor to death because he or she committed a crime, or declare war on the town next door, or wiretap someone I suspect of a crime. This is one of the major purposes of having a government in society - to delegate tasks to them that the overall group/society does not feel comfortable allowing individuals to take.