3 ms·

It is about human rights. "All men are created equal." Of course the US government must only bow to its own people, and only US citizens can lead its policy, t

by bakhy 12y ago

It is about human rights. "All men are created equal." Of course the US government must only bow to its own people, and only US citizens can lead its policy, that is perfectly understandable. But we all deserve basic human rights and a country that is one of their biggest champions should, for the sake of its credibility, not ignore that! It would be ideal if some oversight existed for ALL such surveillance. With allied countries, the US should try to work with their governments. With adversaries, it's reasonable to have more relaxed rules. But just bulk collecting data of all non-citizens, treating us all with the same lack of respect of our human rights, is not cool. Perhaps the US government actually does do all this as I described, and cooperates with allied governments. Then it is just the US media and public that leave the impression like they don't give a fuck about the human rights of anyone other than US citizens... Not cool.

DanielBMarkham 12y ago
I pay my government to spy on people in other countries to make sure they are not going to hurt me. And, more to the point, they aren't going to put in motion things that are could conceivably hurt me or those I care about. I hate the security state, but I'm okay with that. We've got hundred of millions of people here. There are billions of people in the world. It makes sense to me to spy on all the folks in other countries. I don't see how else you would honestly do a good job of governing. Spying or digging into the affairs of the people who are voting to make choices in a democratic society? Screw that. There is a really good reason we separate foreign intelligence from domestic intelligence. The moves the U.S. made after 9-11 to tear down the walls were extremely bad.
- grrowl 12y ago
  I'd like to add the emphasis: > It makes sense to me to spy on all the folks in other countries. I'm not American, but I do live in a Five Eyes nation. I've had to come to terms that all my online correspondence for over a decade is stored in some data farm somewhere, for the sole purpose of incriminating me or someone I know. I'm not at all a terrorist, I don't infringe on the privacy or comfort of others, and yet I am targeted under the banner "Not American". I'm at a loss of words to explain how violated and helpless I feel, and how deplorable such an act is.
  - happyscrappy 12y ago
    >for the sole purpose of incriminating me Right, do you actually believe it has nothing to do with national security? Also it is funny how the home countries who have made intelligence deals with the US get a free pass. This is self fulfilling. Why don't you change your own country? Because you could actually do something, you know instead of just complaining. Maybe that is why?
    - grrowl 12y ago
      We are making progress in our own country, but it's slow. Our prime minister ignores rallies with tens of thousands of citizens in every capital city decrying new policies similar to the US's, the debate on metadata collection is fierce, polls show 97% of citizens want an emergency federal election called immediately. I'm leveraging my skills to create a website to inform voters exactly the consequence of their vote, since many people can't believe their vote ends up in the hands of a party contrary to their beliefs; apart from that, I feel like I've exhausted most reasonable options available to me. Reasonable debate is only one small part in instigating change.
- amirmc 12y ago
  > "It makes sense to me to spy on all the folks in other countries. I don't see how else you would honestly do a good job of governing." You've equated spying on me with good governance. This is fallacious (as well as offensive). I am not a threat to you or your country. Targeted surveillance is one thing but collating data on everyone just because you can is wrong. In some sense it flips the 'innocent until proven guilty' the other way around (I'm foreign, therefore I'm guilty of being foreign and should be watched). What you've advocated for is simply a digital arms race where states vacuum up whatever data they can, as fast as they can, on everyone they can. If the states are friendly, then they can simply share all that information with each other. Everyone is 'foreign' to someone else so ultimately, everyone loses.
  - angersock 12y ago
    There's a very practical issue as well--you can't just say "Oh, well, this machine only hoovers up packets from foreign nationals coming across the wire". It's far, far simpler just to grab everything, and so the practical tendency is to do that. And once the machinery is into place, and the invoices paid, and the appropriations made...well, you're not going to turn it off so easily.
- CWuestefeld 12y ago
  Whether it makes sense isn't the issue. The question is whether it's morally right. For the safety of myself and my family, it probably makes sense for me to shoot anyone who comes near my house (at least in the short term - but I think your logic also only works in the short term, as current world affairs shows). But I think we'll all agree that I shouldn't do this. To ensure my own lifestyle I should also cheat on my taxes, sneak items out of the grocery store in the bottom of my cart, take credit for other people's ideas at work, and plenty of other things for which the chances of, or cost of, getting caught is low. Nevertheless, these are things that I ought not to do.
- bakhy 12y ago
  The sentence "Screw that" is actually the core of your argument. Why not spy on "folks" (are you a politician? :D) at home? Their power of voting and free motion within your whole country actually makes them much more dangerous to your safety than any foreigner can be. The reason why they won't be so easily spied on is not "screw that", it's because they are voters. Not because spying on voters is wrong - but simply because they can change the government when they get annoyed! So, as it is meant to, voting protects the human rights of a population. But it would be nice if that population would actually believe in human rights. Particularly if they want to portray themselves champions of the matter. But if your attitude is an example, "screw that", huh?

by bakhy 12y ago

DanielBMarkham 12y ago

I pay my government to spy on people in other countries to make sure they are not going to hurt me. And, more to the point, they aren't going to put in motion things that are could conceivably hurt me or those I care about. I hate the security state, but I'm okay with that. We've got hundred of millions of people here. There are billions of people in the world. It makes sense to me to spy on all the folks in other countries. I don't see how else you would honestly do a good job of governing. Spying or digging into the affairs of the people who are voting to make choices in a democratic society? Screw that. There is a really good reason we separate foreign intelligence from domestic intelligence. The moves the U.S. made after 9-11 to tear down the walls were extremely bad.

grrowl 12y ago
I'd like to add the emphasis: > It makes sense to me to spy on all the folks in other countries. I'm not American, but I do live in a Five Eyes nation. I've had to come to terms that all my online correspondence for over a decade is stored in some data farm somewhere, for the sole purpose of incriminating me or someone I know. I'm not at all a terrorist, I don't infringe on the privacy or comfort of others, and yet I am targeted under the banner "Not American". I'm at a loss of words to explain how violated and helpless I feel, and how deplorable such an act is.
- happyscrappy 12y ago
  >for the sole purpose of incriminating me Right, do you actually believe it has nothing to do with national security? Also it is funny how the home countries who have made intelligence deals with the US get a free pass. This is self fulfilling. Why don't you change your own country? Because you could actually do something, you know instead of just complaining. Maybe that is why?
  - grrowl 12y ago
    We are making progress in our own country, but it's slow. Our prime minister ignores rallies with tens of thousands of citizens in every capital city decrying new policies similar to the US's, the debate on metadata collection is fierce, polls show 97% of citizens want an emergency federal election called immediately. I'm leveraging my skills to create a website to inform voters exactly the consequence of their vote, since many people can't believe their vote ends up in the hands of a party contrary to their beliefs; apart from that, I feel like I've exhausted most reasonable options available to me. Reasonable debate is only one small part in instigating change.
amirmc 12y ago
> "It makes sense to me to spy on all the folks in other countries. I don't see how else you would honestly do a good job of governing." You've equated spying on me with good governance. This is fallacious (as well as offensive). I am not a threat to you or your country. Targeted surveillance is one thing but collating data on everyone just because you can is wrong. In some sense it flips the 'innocent until proven guilty' the other way around (I'm foreign, therefore I'm guilty of being foreign and should be watched). What you've advocated for is simply a digital arms race where states vacuum up whatever data they can, as fast as they can, on everyone they can. If the states are friendly, then they can simply share all that information with each other. Everyone is 'foreign' to someone else so ultimately, everyone loses.
- angersock 12y ago
  There's a very practical issue as well--you can't just say "Oh, well, this machine only hoovers up packets from foreign nationals coming across the wire". It's far, far simpler just to grab everything, and so the practical tendency is to do that. And once the machinery is into place, and the invoices paid, and the appropriations made...well, you're not going to turn it off so easily.
CWuestefeld 12y ago
Whether it makes sense isn't the issue. The question is whether it's morally right. For the safety of myself and my family, it probably makes sense for me to shoot anyone who comes near my house (at least in the short term - but I think your logic also only works in the short term, as current world affairs shows). But I think we'll all agree that I shouldn't do this. To ensure my own lifestyle I should also cheat on my taxes, sneak items out of the grocery store in the bottom of my cart, take credit for other people's ideas at work, and plenty of other things for which the chances of, or cost of, getting caught is low. Nevertheless, these are things that I ought not to do.
bakhy 12y ago
The sentence "Screw that" is actually the core of your argument. Why not spy on "folks" (are you a politician? :D) at home? Their power of voting and free motion within your whole country actually makes them much more dangerous to your safety than any foreigner can be. The reason why they won't be so easily spied on is not "screw that", it's because they are voters. Not because spying on voters is wrong - but simply because they can change the government when they get annoyed! So, as it is meant to, voting protects the human rights of a population. But it would be nice if that population would actually believe in human rights. Particularly if they want to portray themselves champions of the matter. But if your attitude is an example, "screw that", huh?