3 ms·

No. This is not what I meant at all. Your post seems almost comically apologetic. For instance: >the sea change was not the NSA deciding to spy on Americans, i

No. This is not what I meant at all. Your post seems almost comically apologetic. For instance: >the sea change was not the NSA deciding to spy on Americans, it was Americans deciding to join the rest of the world on a global network What? That's spit-take worthy. So, it's not that the NSA is doing anything to Americans. It's that the NSA was just minding its business and silly Americans got in the NSA's way? That's pretty funny on its face. Of course, it's also wrong. America created the Internet. We didn't just join in what the world was doing. But, it wouldn't absolve the NSA of its responsibility in any case. Look, these programs are designed to sweep in American's info and store it indefinitely. Period. Worse, they do not have the appropriate protective safeguards or oversight. There's no qualifying clause in the Fourth Amendment that reads, "unless it's really, really hard". >nor do I think that there is some directed effort by NSA to violate American civil liberties as a goal in and of itself Of course not. Neither is throwing detainees in Gitmo an effort to violate people's civil liberties as a goal in and of itself; and nor is torture for that matter. What earthly difference does it make? I don't even understand that argument. Are you saying that the government can do what it wants as long as it doesn't have an end goal of violating civil liberties?

mpyne 13y ago
> America created the Internet. We didn't just join in what the world was doing. While pedantically true, you should really read 'The Cuckoo's Egg'. And research into this CERN scientist named Tim Berners-Lee. The Internet has had an international development behind it since it was still split into NSFNET/ARPANET/MILNET/etc. But NSA wasn't there, and in fact couldn't have cared less, because the nascent Internet wasn't where their adversaries were at. > Are you saying that the government can do what it wants as long as it doesn't have an end goal of violating civil liberties? The end goal of an action is definitely part and parcel of the morality of that action. It's inseparable. E.g. the government could go around shooting people for being black and that would be unmistakeably horrifying. The government could also give the same weapons to the police for self-protection purposes only and we'd (mostly) consider that acceptable, as long as those weapons were only discharged for self-defense, defense of property (e.g. nuc weapons), etc. Also, your Gitmo example demonstrates much the opposite point. Prisons aren't inherently evil because they are used for an evil purpose at Gitmo. Call me weird, but I kind of prefer that serial killers are locked away myself. So yes, intent matters. I mean, I agree with you that neither the safeguards nor oversight needed for NSA programs are currently in place, but what if those safeguards and oversight were put into place? Would you be OK with some of those programs then?
- unclebucknasty 13y ago
  >But NSA wasn't there, and in fact couldn't have cared less, because the nascent Internet wasn't where their adversaries were at. Yeah, so that pretty much completely undermines your previous point. And again, it's laughable to say that the NSA was just minding its business when a bunch of Americans suddenly got in their way. >The end goal of an action is definitely part and parcel of the morality of that action. It's inseparable. You're committing a flagrant logical fallacy here and with your subsequent examples. Intent may help to determine the morality of a thing, but the absense of intent does not necessitate that something is morally appropriate. That is, of course they are completely separable. >Also, your Gitmo example demonstrates much the opposite point. It really doesn't. See previous comment regarding intent. Also, you completely miss the point and you seem to be confusing yourself. Your previous assertion was that the NSA's not setting out to violate detainee rights as an end goal absolves them (or matters at all) to some extent. If you agree that "prisons are [or even could be] used for an evil purpose at Gitmo", as you say, then you have conceded my point. That is, whether they intended for Gitmo to violate detainee civil rights as the end goal, the evil that now exists is unacceptable and there are people who are responsible for it. No one is talking about the rightness of prison as a concept or whether serial killers should be incarcerated. That's just strange. In general, you seem to just throw out a bunch of pedantic or semantic arguments as red herrings and strawmen. You are missing the fundamental points that started this thread. >Would you be OK with some of those programs then? See what I mean? I think my feelings on the matter are pretty clear.

mpyne 13y ago

> America created the Internet. We didn't just join in what the world was doing. While pedantically true, you should really read 'The Cuckoo's Egg'. And research into this CERN scientist named Tim Berners-Lee. The Internet has had an international development behind it since it was still split into NSFNET/ARPANET/MILNET/etc. But NSA wasn't there, and in fact couldn't have cared less, because the nascent Internet wasn't where their adversaries were at. > Are you saying that the government can do what it wants as long as it doesn't have an end goal of violating civil liberties? The end goal of an action is definitely part and parcel of the morality of that action. It's inseparable. E.g. the government could go around shooting people for being black and that would be unmistakeably horrifying. The government could also give the same weapons to the police for self-protection purposes only and we'd (mostly) consider that acceptable, as long as those weapons were only discharged for self-defense, defense of property (e.g. nuc weapons), etc. Also, your Gitmo example demonstrates much the opposite point. Prisons aren't inherently evil because they are used for an evil purpose at Gitmo. Call me weird, but I kind of prefer that serial killers are locked away myself. So yes, intent matters. I mean, I agree with you that neither the safeguards nor oversight needed for NSA programs are currently in place, but what if those safeguards and oversight were put into place? Would you be OK with some of those programs then?

unclebucknasty 13y ago
>But NSA wasn't there, and in fact couldn't have cared less, because the nascent Internet wasn't where their adversaries were at. Yeah, so that pretty much completely undermines your previous point. And again, it's laughable to say that the NSA was just minding its business when a bunch of Americans suddenly got in their way. >The end goal of an action is definitely part and parcel of the morality of that action. It's inseparable. You're committing a flagrant logical fallacy here and with your subsequent examples. Intent may help to determine the morality of a thing, but the absense of intent does not necessitate that something is morally appropriate. That is, of course they are completely separable. >Also, your Gitmo example demonstrates much the opposite point. It really doesn't. See previous comment regarding intent. Also, you completely miss the point and you seem to be confusing yourself. Your previous assertion was that the NSA's not setting out to violate detainee rights as an end goal absolves them (or matters at all) to some extent. If you agree that "prisons are [or even could be] used for an evil purpose at Gitmo", as you say, then you have conceded my point. That is, whether they intended for Gitmo to violate detainee civil rights as the end goal, the evil that now exists is unacceptable and there are people who are responsible for it. No one is talking about the rightness of prison as a concept or whether serial killers should be incarcerated. That's just strange. In general, you seem to just throw out a bunch of pedantic or semantic arguments as red herrings and strawmen. You are missing the fundamental points that started this thread. >Would you be OK with some of those programs then? See what I mean? I think my feelings on the matter are pretty clear.