3 ms·

How's that government paycheck treating you? Also, it's spelled "asymmetric", Che.

by jgg 13y ago

AsymetricCom 13y ago
ad hominem
- jgg 13y ago
  You're right. It was a base ad hominem, and I probably deserve to be banned for my behavior (if I haven't been already - there are so many bizarre punishment methods on this site that it's hard to tell). Yet, reading what you actually have to say, I strongly feel compelled not to waste my time arguing you literally. I attacked you, because I tire of silly accounts with keyboard-warrior usernames showing up and spewing garbage defending the government with little-to-no rationality. It also makes me angry that someone is being paid with tax-payer dollars to post complete crap. However, in the interest of the general populace, I'll be happy to point out why I disagree: Have any of the NSA leaks told us anything we don't know? Yes. The NSA very strongly painted (in what little time they spent talking about their programs) the picture that the program was used mostly for foreign surveillance, and that blanket domestic spying was absurd, paranoid and not of interest to them. The leaks contradict this. (source: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/07/nsa-chief-denies-dossiers/ http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/07/nsa-chief-denies-do...) Haven't the majority of the leaks told our foreign enemies how to avoid being tracked more than anything? No. The "bad guys" with half a brain were savvy to techniques for avoiding government surveillance before the leaks (source: http://www.hstoday.us/industry-news/general/single-article/new-encryption-is-it-the-key-to-al-qaeda-s-resurgence/cd30a1be7e88931a3513d4c3c6257316.html http://www.hstoday.us/industry-news/general/single-article/n...). That is, al-Qaeda, who aren't exactly the most hi-tech organization in existence (to my understanding - please educate me if I am misinformed), are smart enough to realize that encrypting their traffic is a good idea; more organized groups caught on long ago (source: http://www.pcworld.com/article/110841/article.html http://www.pcworld.com/article/110841/article.html). I have yet to see any serious abuse of the NSA's power. Since you like name-dropping fallacies: "no true Scotsman fallacy." What constitutes a 'serious' abuse of power is subjective, but my ethical reasoning says that vacuuming up most Americans communications online without explicit knowledge or consent is abuse in and of itself. Further, we've already seen the love interest scandal, which clearly constitutes abuse (by my reasoning). The fact that they know that low level employees were spying on potential love interests means that they have a system in place to track such abuses. And yet, the fact still stands that they used taxpayer money to fund a system that stored all of that information on people they were supposed to be serving, misled them about how much of it they had, and then abused it. Whether or not they caught it later is irrelevant. Leaking those kind of emails can be spun to state the opposite, when those emails are direct evidence that such abuses are tracked and presumably punished. Moronic, illogical nonsense. I've seen articles that have said "what if they use this power to subvert political dissidents" Well, what if they actually have checks built into this system as they have claimed and this new information proves? So what? Does that justify having the information in the first place? I think not; I do not care that the state has the right to cut off my left arm to make cat food, if and only if a supervisory committee agrees that doing so is reasonable. The basic violation of a perceived right is the issue. Wouldn't that make Snowden a spy with his own self interests at heart, not the interests of the American people? Leaking piece-meal like he has is in his interests, not ours. Yes, perhaps he is. The thing is, what Snowden is or does, is irrelevant, because I only care about his message, since the discussion is concerned with abuse of authority, and Snowden has little-to-no sanctioned authority to abuse. What's that called when you attack the person instead of the message, AsymetricCom? Oh. Right. Ad hominem. Look at the scope of these systems. The fact that no abuses have come up (locally) is quite telling, imho. Once again, the concern is that these systems exist in the first place, not that no abuse has been documented. When this same type of hardware is in the hands of countries like China, we see these abuses. Is China seeing something we don't and just not telling us? I highly doubt it. What China does or doesn't do is absolutely irrelevant to the issue of the United States government's actions. In conclusion, you seem to like to act logical when it's convenient, but abandon all signs of it when making your point.
  - AsymetricCom 13y ago
    I see the issue here. You think your rights extend outside of your body and your property. Not sure where you got that idea, but insisting so does not make it true.
    - jgg 13y ago
      What a vast oversimplification of my post, and also, a strawman. I never made that claim, nor did I insist anywhere that I thought so. However, notice how when mentioning the debate of "rights" (namely, my right to submit information to a company or service without fear that the business is being quietly extorted to dump said information to the government without speaking about it under threat of prosecution), I said it was a "perceived" right. I used that adjective for a reason. However, your faux-argument is a convenient excuse to ignore my rebuttal to your points. But to address your point directly, about how I only have rights to my body and property, your statement is meaningless without defining "property." Did you even know what you meant when you wrote that? Would you care to elaborate? However, if we define a right as something legally-sanctioned, I actually have a lot of rights that aren't strictly body or property related. Further, any government that fails to enforce or violates these rights is in the wrong. Check this out: http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/billofrights http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/billofrights If you mean in an absolutist, natural sense, nobody has any goddamned rights, because a right is a man-made concept. Which system are we arguing within? Your attempt at forming a foundation for a creepy, fascist ideology is very illuminating, though.
      - AsymetricCom 13y ago
        >Your attempt at forming a foundation for a creepy, fascist ideology is very illuminating, though. the only "foundation" I'm forming is that you need to be aware of who you trust your data to, that you can't assert rights to data which you willingly handed over to third parties with a licence to use that data. >quietly extorted No business, that I've seen, has ever been "quietly extorted" I would love to see you prove me wrong. a) The cases where there are NDAs to be signed, then the data gathering is constrained to one user. The purpose of such NDAs is obviously needed in such cases. And I'm sure that if the business in question was cooperating with criminals willingly, they'll break their NDA to let their buddies know that The Man is on to them. Even in the case of Lavabit, they've never stated otherwise and are transparently using the event for personal publicity. b) In the cases where metadata is gathered such as business records, the businesses say this in their EULA where they say "we cooperate with government requests for data" along with "we respect your data privacy"

How's that government paycheck treating you? Also, it's spelled "asymmetric", Che.

by jgg 13y ago

How's that government paycheck treating you? Also, it's spelled "asymmetric", Che.

AsymetricCom 13y ago

ad hominem

jgg 13y ago
You're right. It was a base ad hominem, and I probably deserve to be banned for my behavior (if I haven't been already - there are so many bizarre punishment methods on this site that it's hard to tell). Yet, reading what you actually have to say, I strongly feel compelled not to waste my time arguing you literally. I attacked you, because I tire of silly accounts with keyboard-warrior usernames showing up and spewing garbage defending the government with little-to-no rationality. It also makes me angry that someone is being paid with tax-payer dollars to post complete crap. However, in the interest of the general populace, I'll be happy to point out why I disagree: Have any of the NSA leaks told us anything we don't know? Yes. The NSA very strongly painted (in what little time they spent talking about their programs) the picture that the program was used mostly for foreign surveillance, and that blanket domestic spying was absurd, paranoid and not of interest to them. The leaks contradict this. (source: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/07/nsa-chief-denies-dossiers/ http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/07/nsa-chief-denies-do...) Haven't the majority of the leaks told our foreign enemies how to avoid being tracked more than anything? No. The "bad guys" with half a brain were savvy to techniques for avoiding government surveillance before the leaks (source: http://www.hstoday.us/industry-news/general/single-article/new-encryption-is-it-the-key-to-al-qaeda-s-resurgence/cd30a1be7e88931a3513d4c3c6257316.html http://www.hstoday.us/industry-news/general/single-article/n...). That is, al-Qaeda, who aren't exactly the most hi-tech organization in existence (to my understanding - please educate me if I am misinformed), are smart enough to realize that encrypting their traffic is a good idea; more organized groups caught on long ago (source: http://www.pcworld.com/article/110841/article.html http://www.pcworld.com/article/110841/article.html). I have yet to see any serious abuse of the NSA's power. Since you like name-dropping fallacies: "no true Scotsman fallacy." What constitutes a 'serious' abuse of power is subjective, but my ethical reasoning says that vacuuming up most Americans communications online without explicit knowledge or consent is abuse in and of itself. Further, we've already seen the love interest scandal, which clearly constitutes abuse (by my reasoning). The fact that they know that low level employees were spying on potential love interests means that they have a system in place to track such abuses. And yet, the fact still stands that they used taxpayer money to fund a system that stored all of that information on people they were supposed to be serving, misled them about how much of it they had, and then abused it. Whether or not they caught it later is irrelevant. Leaking those kind of emails can be spun to state the opposite, when those emails are direct evidence that such abuses are tracked and presumably punished. Moronic, illogical nonsense. I've seen articles that have said "what if they use this power to subvert political dissidents" Well, what if they actually have checks built into this system as they have claimed and this new information proves? So what? Does that justify having the information in the first place? I think not; I do not care that the state has the right to cut off my left arm to make cat food, if and only if a supervisory committee agrees that doing so is reasonable. The basic violation of a perceived right is the issue. Wouldn't that make Snowden a spy with his own self interests at heart, not the interests of the American people? Leaking piece-meal like he has is in his interests, not ours. Yes, perhaps he is. The thing is, what Snowden is or does, is irrelevant, because I only care about his message, since the discussion is concerned with abuse of authority, and Snowden has little-to-no sanctioned authority to abuse. What's that called when you attack the person instead of the message, AsymetricCom? Oh. Right. Ad hominem. Look at the scope of these systems. The fact that no abuses have come up (locally) is quite telling, imho. Once again, the concern is that these systems exist in the first place, not that no abuse has been documented. When this same type of hardware is in the hands of countries like China, we see these abuses. Is China seeing something we don't and just not telling us? I highly doubt it. What China does or doesn't do is absolutely irrelevant to the issue of the United States government's actions. In conclusion, you seem to like to act logical when it's convenient, but abandon all signs of it when making your point.
- AsymetricCom 13y ago
  I see the issue here. You think your rights extend outside of your body and your property. Not sure where you got that idea, but insisting so does not make it true.
  - jgg 13y ago
    What a vast oversimplification of my post, and also, a strawman. I never made that claim, nor did I insist anywhere that I thought so. However, notice how when mentioning the debate of "rights" (namely, my right to submit information to a company or service without fear that the business is being quietly extorted to dump said information to the government without speaking about it under threat of prosecution), I said it was a "perceived" right. I used that adjective for a reason. However, your faux-argument is a convenient excuse to ignore my rebuttal to your points. But to address your point directly, about how I only have rights to my body and property, your statement is meaningless without defining "property." Did you even know what you meant when you wrote that? Would you care to elaborate? However, if we define a right as something legally-sanctioned, I actually have a lot of rights that aren't strictly body or property related. Further, any government that fails to enforce or violates these rights is in the wrong. Check this out: http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/billofrights http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/billofrights If you mean in an absolutist, natural sense, nobody has any goddamned rights, because a right is a man-made concept. Which system are we arguing within? Your attempt at forming a foundation for a creepy, fascist ideology is very illuminating, though.
    - AsymetricCom 13y ago
      >Your attempt at forming a foundation for a creepy, fascist ideology is very illuminating, though. the only "foundation" I'm forming is that you need to be aware of who you trust your data to, that you can't assert rights to data which you willingly handed over to third parties with a licence to use that data. >quietly extorted No business, that I've seen, has ever been "quietly extorted" I would love to see you prove me wrong. a) The cases where there are NDAs to be signed, then the data gathering is constrained to one user. The purpose of such NDAs is obviously needed in such cases. And I'm sure that if the business in question was cooperating with criminals willingly, they'll break their NDA to let their buddies know that The Man is on to them. Even in the case of Lavabit, they've never stated otherwise and are transparently using the event for personal publicity. b) In the cases where metadata is gathered such as business records, the businesses say this in their EULA where they say "we cooperate with government requests for data" along with "we respect your data privacy"