3 ms·

Major can of worms lol. Are you arguing that your concern is that the gov is going to change the record if it decides it doesn't like you and then imprison you?

Major can of worms lol. Are you arguing that your concern is that the gov is going to change the record if it decides it doesn't like you and then imprison you? How about a bank creating fictitious > 10k deposits that they'd have to report to government? Now, the FBI is on your tail (see Eliot Spitzer).

dasil003 13y ago
Privacy is not even necessarily the issue per se. Data is going to be out there in increasing quantities, and it's naive to think that we can force it all to be private. Obviously some legal controls should be in place to prevent corporate entities from abusing the data they collect, but that's really a secondary issue. The primary issue is that the government is our representative, and we have never given them the authority to spy on us in this way. Even if all the data were public the government should not be doing mass surveillance to ferret out terrorism. If terrorism were 1000 times worse than it is in the US it would not justify this activity, but given the tiny problem that terrorism actually is in the US, it's shameful how quickly some people are willing to sell out our principles for the false promise of absolute security. These are the stepping stones towards tyranny which are being built in the face of an apathetic public behind the smokescreen of the legend of America's exceptional liberty. So many people believe "it can't happen here" and just nod along when Obama declares the necessity and level headedness under which this is all occurring, but even if you give them the benefit of the doubt that everyone's intentions are pure and no abuses are occurring at this moment, the apparatus will not be dismantled, and it will only be a matter of time until someone comes into power that does abuse it. It must not be allowed to exist; certainly not in our names and with our tax dollars.
- trestles 13y ago
  If terrorism were 1000 times worse than it is in the US it would not justify this activity In light of the fact that the Patriot Act allows this, you are a naive person - it's no big deal but just acknowledge the reality. The comparison to tyranny is absurd. This has been going on for 15 years http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnivore_(software) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnivore_(software) The fact that you don't know that isn't my fault. Get with the times. The question is why are you so naive to act surprised to hear about this? You really think Auschwitz or the Gulag is the next step from where we are now?
  - dasil003 13y ago
    The Patriot Act is a reactionary cowardly piece of legislation. The fact that it is law in no way makes it equally definitive of the nation as the constitution. I'm not sure why you equate my outrage to ignorance. I can set you up as a complementary straw man by asking why long-term human rights abuses by your government cause you to automatically approve of their actions? As to Auschwitz, well, that's why I said "stepping stones" not, "next thing you know Obama's going to grow a toothbrush mustache and send the jews off to labor camps". The point is that this kind of unbridled power of global surveillance, supposedly checked through secret courts but which are accountable to no one outside the innermost circles of power is guaranteed to corrupt in the long run. Furthermore, when the tyranny starts, you won't even know about it because it will be done in secret with explicit legal approval. Give your "it can't happen here" attitude I find it incredibly ironic that you would call me naive.
    - trestles 13y ago
      My point is that, if you perceive that the capabilities of PRISM are new and that the behavior that the NSA has engaged in for 10 years are new and you are outraged by it (which was the point of the original article and I assume is the point of your stepping stone argument), then I think you are naive. This behavior, the FISA courts, etc... are part of the Patriot Act and Carnivore has been known about for > 10 years and is IE3 type technology. I actually probably see the world much more sinisterly than you do (hence the contradiction of the Madison quote). Snowden probably can't get asylum not because of what he has said but the can of worms of what is in his laptop. Oh well.... The fact that you are trying to cast me as an apologist for ' long-term human rights abuses by your government cause you to automatically approve of their actions'; I think the stupidest thing America has ever done is invoke the traditional war-machine (esp drones and block sites) against the Middle East.
ctdonath 13y ago
The concern isn't that the government is going to change the record. The concern is there are so many laws, so vaguely worded, that if they want to imprison you they just have to sift thru your data until they find a match on something. Equifax may have that data, but they can't imprison me with it; read my prior post re the gov't terrorizing (and perhaps imprisoning, the incident isn't over yet) someone just for a dark-humor post on a chat board. There is no justifiable reason for the gov't to engage on such a constant, pervasive, national "fishing expedition". The consequences are too severe.
- trestles 13y ago
  You realize that the excample you provide has absolutely nothing to do with what the article is about, PRISM, or my post. A chat board is PUBLIC which is the exact opposite of what PRISM is supposed to be.
  - ctdonath 13y ago
    Even if on a public chat board, the police shouldn't be sniffing up all your material to use against you. If they're doing sweeping "fishing expeditions" with public content, how much worse is it with private content?
    - trestles 13y ago
      You're talking about public pronouncements being the same as PRISM which shows you just don't really get what this article is about. If you say you're going to do something in a public forum, then you have to live with the consequences. If you don't understand that, good luck in life.

dasil003 13y ago

Privacy is not even necessarily the issue per se. Data is going to be out there in increasing quantities, and it's naive to think that we can force it all to be private. Obviously some legal controls should be in place to prevent corporate entities from abusing the data they collect, but that's really a secondary issue. The primary issue is that the government is our representative, and we have never given them the authority to spy on us in this way. Even if all the data were public the government should not be doing mass surveillance to ferret out terrorism. If terrorism were 1000 times worse than it is in the US it would not justify this activity, but given the tiny problem that terrorism actually is in the US, it's shameful how quickly some people are willing to sell out our principles for the false promise of absolute security. These are the stepping stones towards tyranny which are being built in the face of an apathetic public behind the smokescreen of the legend of America's exceptional liberty. So many people believe "it can't happen here" and just nod along when Obama declares the necessity and level headedness under which this is all occurring, but even if you give them the benefit of the doubt that everyone's intentions are pure and no abuses are occurring at this moment, the apparatus will not be dismantled, and it will only be a matter of time until someone comes into power that does abuse it. It must not be allowed to exist; certainly not in our names and with our tax dollars.

trestles 13y ago
If terrorism were 1000 times worse than it is in the US it would not justify this activity In light of the fact that the Patriot Act allows this, you are a naive person - it's no big deal but just acknowledge the reality. The comparison to tyranny is absurd. This has been going on for 15 years http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnivore_(software) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnivore_(software) The fact that you don't know that isn't my fault. Get with the times. The question is why are you so naive to act surprised to hear about this? You really think Auschwitz or the Gulag is the next step from where we are now?
- dasil003 13y ago
  The Patriot Act is a reactionary cowardly piece of legislation. The fact that it is law in no way makes it equally definitive of the nation as the constitution. I'm not sure why you equate my outrage to ignorance. I can set you up as a complementary straw man by asking why long-term human rights abuses by your government cause you to automatically approve of their actions? As to Auschwitz, well, that's why I said "stepping stones" not, "next thing you know Obama's going to grow a toothbrush mustache and send the jews off to labor camps". The point is that this kind of unbridled power of global surveillance, supposedly checked through secret courts but which are accountable to no one outside the innermost circles of power is guaranteed to corrupt in the long run. Furthermore, when the tyranny starts, you won't even know about it because it will be done in secret with explicit legal approval. Give your "it can't happen here" attitude I find it incredibly ironic that you would call me naive.
  - trestles 13y ago
    My point is that, if you perceive that the capabilities of PRISM are new and that the behavior that the NSA has engaged in for 10 years are new and you are outraged by it (which was the point of the original article and I assume is the point of your stepping stone argument), then I think you are naive. This behavior, the FISA courts, etc... are part of the Patriot Act and Carnivore has been known about for > 10 years and is IE3 type technology. I actually probably see the world much more sinisterly than you do (hence the contradiction of the Madison quote). Snowden probably can't get asylum not because of what he has said but the can of worms of what is in his laptop. Oh well.... The fact that you are trying to cast me as an apologist for ' long-term human rights abuses by your government cause you to automatically approve of their actions'; I think the stupidest thing America has ever done is invoke the traditional war-machine (esp drones and block sites) against the Middle East.

ctdonath 13y ago

The concern isn't that the government is going to change the record. The concern is there are so many laws, so vaguely worded, that if they want to imprison you they just have to sift thru your data until they find a match on something. Equifax may have that data, but they can't imprison me with it; read my prior post re the gov't terrorizing (and perhaps imprisoning, the incident isn't over yet) someone just for a dark-humor post on a chat board. There is no justifiable reason for the gov't to engage on such a constant, pervasive, national "fishing expedition". The consequences are too severe.

trestles 13y ago
You realize that the excample you provide has absolutely nothing to do with what the article is about, PRISM, or my post. A chat board is PUBLIC which is the exact opposite of what PRISM is supposed to be.
- ctdonath 13y ago
  Even if on a public chat board, the police shouldn't be sniffing up all your material to use against you. If they're doing sweeping "fishing expeditions" with public content, how much worse is it with private content?
  - trestles 13y ago
    You're talking about public pronouncements being the same as PRISM which shows you just don't really get what this article is about. If you say you're going to do something in a public forum, then you have to live with the consequences. If you don't understand that, good luck in life.