I believe that any words on the issue are unnecessary. As you probably know, we are being watched by the NSA at all times, even non-US citizen. Sign this petition that will be sent to the congress to make them stop. They have no right to invade our privacy.
https://optin.stopwatching.us
I'll finish this post with my favorite quote in this context.
Quote from: Benjamin FranklinThose who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.
The invasion of privacy is concerning. However, will this petition actually do anything to stop it? I've just accepted that I have no privacy and there's nothing I can really do about it.
It takes half a minute and it has a real chance of making a difference. If you don't sign, there is a 100% chance that it won't make a difference.
Petitions worked for SOPA, PIPA and ACTA, so obviously the voice of the people can be heard if it is loud enough.
signed, I hate spying b1tches... but don't be fooled...every big country does it not just USA
Of course they do. The core problem here is that the NSA spies on non-US citizen without reason which is unacceptable to me.
Signed. This is beyond unacceptable.
Sure, I agree that it is wrong that they invade our 'privacy', but to be honest, I don't care if some random American dude who is not interested in my personal affairs and files whatsoever is able to look at my files. Have fun watching my files that are meaningless to you, fool. Basically, I think this should be stopped, but I can't really get angry about it or anything like that.
I'm not saying that it's right, but I think people have the wrong idea. They spy on people as a matter of national security, to prevent shoot outs, bombings, etc. they don't really care about anyone and their personal life. I know if I wasn't American and they were spying on me I would be outraged too, but the simple fact is, if you are a normal person or even wierd in some way you will be fine. They only target threats to the country! You might think they have no business spying, but when you've had as many terrorists come do something as the US has, I think it's only fair we put our guard up!
Am I drunk? :v
There are numerous problems with your theory. First, if all this information was compromised, either by a rouge employee or an outside hacking attack, it could be very powerful and dangerous to whoever chose to use it. Second, with the amount of information they are gathering, they can destroy the lives of anybody they chose to target, including innocent people. This means that if you make it onto a government watchlist, by being middle eastern or by attending a peaceful protest for example, you are completely at the mercy of the government. There is no way you can make a case for your innocence because the government can pick and choose the worst bits of information from your entire life to paint you as a terrible person. Since they control all the information, you will only ever get the story they present to you.
Now, is there any way to actually end this program? No. Until they target a large portion of the American population, signed petitions and news coverage will not be enough to do anything about it. In fact, the US government is only likely to be more invasive in the future, as the standard of living is so high here that the small number of protesters and activists go unnoticed by the population, and the media has decided no to cover them. The protest movement is so small that they could literally disappear off the face of the earth in their entirety, and 90% of the country would never have even known who they were. Honestly, things will probably stay this way unless we experience another financial meltdown that is too big for the government to inflate us out of.
I really hate what the government is doing D: they are not only ruining America, but the whole world aswell!
winkio already summed it up very well, I have nothing more to add.
That's enough to get me to sign. But the thing is, we won't know for sure that they've stopped watching us even if this petition does go through.
Quote from: SBR* on June 20, 2013, 12:31:36 pm
Sure, I agree that it is wrong that they invade our 'privacy', but to be honest, I don't care if some random American dude who is not interested in my personal affairs and files whatsoever is able to look at my files. Have fun watching my files that are meaningless to you, fool. Basically, I think this should be stopped, but I can't really get angry about it or anything like that.
Right and Wrong are Subjective Terms. It has nothing to do with Right and Wrong. For there to exist a Conflict, all that needs to exist is a Difference of Opinion.
Now, if you don't care about Privacy at all, then please publicly post your Bank Account Number as well as your PIN Number, all of your Passwords to every account you have, your SSN (for US folks), and every shred of information you consider to be Private. Please also place a Public Webcam in every room in your home, including your Bathroom and your Shower.
Quote from: Heretic86 on December 19, 2013, 06:52:23 pm
...including your Bathroom and your Shower.
:naughty: :naughty:
Quote from: Heretic86 on December 19, 2013, 06:52:23 pm
Now, if you don't care about Privacy at all, then please publicly post your Bank Account Number as well as your PIN Number, all of your Passwords to every account you have, your SSN (for US folks), and every shred of information you consider to be Private. Please also place a Public Webcam in every room in your home, including your Bathroom and your Shower.
.-.
You're over-thinking it way too much with that one.
He just doesn't care that a bunch of agents possibly (possibly being a key word, because they can not monitor every person) monitor him, is all.
Following your logic, do you have any idea how stupid it'd be to publicly post all of that information?
There are plenty, and I mean plenty of dicks on the internet that'd do way worse with it than the NSA ever would.
So, really, your post is an example of over-thinking-it backfiring.
Anyways, that said, I'm not for the NSA. In fact, I'm against them, however I found your post to be a bit dumb.
Just because someone doesn't give a fuck, they shouldn't be expected to share their personal information with the many douchey blackhats on the internet because you give more fucks than said person.
Jesus Christ.
Quote from: DigitalSoul on December 19, 2013, 10:25:49 pm
Quote from: Heretic86 on December 19, 2013, 06:52:23 pm
...including your Bathroom and your Shower.
:naughty: :naughty:
:naughty:
EDIT: I agree with Branden. This is simply extrapolating what he said. Just because he doesn't care being monitored, doesn't mean he doesn't care about his private information at all. It would be like saying just because someone is for abortion, that they are also for murdering others.
True.
I cant and shouldnt be able to decide what others do with that kind of information. The thing is, they shouldnt be able to decide those things for me either. But its really a double edged sword.
Privacy Laws werent written with the intent of protecting Criminals from the Law, however, that can be one of the unintended consequences of such laws. Laws were intended to protect people from the abuses of others. The Hollocaust where millions of Jews were murdered for their faith may not have occured if the Germans were both respectful of a persons privacy (yeah, right), and people were more protective of that kind of information. Hindsight is always 20 20 I guess. But being Jewish is one of those examples where it isnt Right or Wrong, but due to the Difference of Opinion, has the potential to become a source of conflict.
The outright genocide of Jews is unlikely to occur again. But what may happen is the genocide of people with other types of beliefs. During World War 2, the US rounded up a lot of Japanese people for being Japanese, and stuck them in Internment Camps. There was no real crime other than being born to a Japanese heritage. Jewish and Japanese alike are both Human Beings. But what happens next time, when instead of being Jewish or Japanese as a basis for conflict, other information is used to coerce individuals? What happens if during an election, the "Wrong Candidate" is voted for? Should those people ever be rounded up?
The thing is, too many people take this personal approach to privacy. Those kinds of laws are also designed to protect a Society as a whole, not just the individual. The abuses of privacy we can see already often have political motivations being used as a reason to violate the rights of an individual, which, when done enough, determines the outcome of the society as a whole. The extreme overreach of the NSA and other spy organizations for many countries to me show a disturbing trend. Countries dont have any respect for the individual. If there are people they feel need to be observed, there have long existed legal methods for monitoring specific individuals. Those methods are done with the due process of law. Get a warrant. If they were to do that, I'd have much less of an issue with what goes on.
Say a mining company places an order for a bunch of explosives. Well, those explosives are probably going to be used for purpose of mining. Not very suspicious. But if a postal worker comes along and tries to place an order for a volume of explosives that exceeds what a mining company would use, thats flat out suspicious, probable cause, and a valid reason to issue a warrant and monitor that individual. Paying for a candy bar in cash at a convenience store to me is not a valid reason.
People need privacy in order to grow in whatever direction they see fit. When others know everything, what they read, what they say, what they learn, what they aspire to be, they can change that direction. When a society is directed to grow in the direction that is demanded by others, you end up with a society that does not grow itself naturally, and often only grows in the direction that benefits by those that dictate that direction. The ability to change the direction of a society is dependant on the ability to monitor every individual. Thus, people need to stop thinking about privacy only in regards to themselves, but how it will affect how they are permitted to communicate and interact with everyone else.
When an individual is under constant surveillance, that individual is no longer free. When an entire society is under constant and total surveillance, that society can no longer be considered "democratic" in any way shape or form.
I completely agree with your Opinion that Privacy is important, and We do not Need to be Spied on by Our Government, but my opinion is You are making kind Of Irrelevant points to Get it across in a very Wordy way. Lots of ideas, But no Real point to it That ties in. There are a million different Reasons that could be Made, but I think some Of these are A bit In left Field.
Then I'll try to clarify the point.
In the extremes of either Zero Privacy, or Total Privacy, problems will arise. We need a balance between both that respects the individual and upholds a society that benefits everyone, not just small groups at the expense of others.
Quote from: Blizzard on June 19, 2013, 10:02:52 am
Petitions worked for SOPA, PIPA and ACTA, so obviously the voice of the people can be heard if it is loud enough.
Hate to be the pickle in the ice cream sundae, but those policies were abandoned because big corporations like Google lobbied to have them halted; not because Joe Citizen complained.
be as cynical as you want but if Google didn't have the voice of close to a half a billion people behind them the government would of just laughed. you think Google was personally funding and asking people to sign those petitions for no reason?
Believe it or not most elected politicians listen to the people as is their job. but it takes a REALLY loud voice to be heard through the money lined walls of washington
Remember the statement "innocent until proven guilty"? Well, this breach of privacy basically says that everybody is potentially guilty and that they are desperately trying to get the information on how and why. Which is bullshit.
Quote from: Shek on December 21, 2013, 12:05:53 am
Hate to be the pickle in the ice cream sundae, but those policies were abandoned because big corporations like Google lobbied to have them halted; not because Joe Citizen complained.
Oh yeah? I think you should cite your source.
I don't know how you guys/girls feel about trading off your privacy in exchange for better security, but I'm not willing to make any concessions that are not forced upon me. I have no real fear of terrorists, because they're not a real, immediate threat to me. I'm far more concerned walking down some of the streets in my hometown at night, than I am of the million-to-1 chance that some terrorist is gonna get me.
I think a lot of the problems were seeing with the erosion of citizens rights to privacy could have been curtailed if a large company would have started selling online real estate. I think if citizens were able to purchase a "virtual home", they would damn well expect their privacy to be respected while occupying it. If you could keep your music, movies, songs, books, games, etc... in your "virtual home" you could invite your friends to come over and hangout. If you caught a company or person stalking you, breaking and entering, going through your belongings, etc... you could press charges. It would give some protection against illegal search and seizure... or it should.
If all of the companies want to treat their products as "real" and not "virtual" why don't we do it with housing. All we'd have to do is piggyback off of their well worn trail of rhetoric for copy right protection, and bam virtual houses are treated like real houses with all rights intact.
j/k it's never work.
Quote from: locowhiteknight on December 21, 2013, 08:55:21 pm
I don't know how you guys/girls feel about trading off your privacy in exchange for better security, but I'm not willing to make any concessions that are not forced upon me. I have no real fear of terrorists, because they're not a real, immediate threat to me. I'm far more concerned walking down some of the streets in my hometown at night, than I am of the million-to-1 chance that some terrorist is gonna get me.
This. The chance is probably even lower than one in a million. It's almost as ridiculous as if the government was trying to protect citizen from a potential meteorite impact.
You have a better chance of being killed by a Cop than a Terrorist. Cops now account for the deaths of 500 innocent people per year in the US.
Privacy and Security are NOT opposites. If you give up Privacy, youre giving up Security, not the other way around. They also arent exactly the same either so gains in Security does not always mean gains in Privacy, and versa visa.
Quote from: Heretic86 on December 23, 2013, 07:21:51 pm
Privacy and Security are NOT opposites. If you give up Privacy, youre giving up Security, not the other way around. They also arent exactly the same either so gains in Security does not always mean gains in Privacy, and versa visa.
I agree. You do not need to spy on your own citizens to increase security. Yes, there might be the one in a ten million potential threat that is discouraged this way, but seriously, all the time, money, and resources could be 100 times more effective if applied elsewhere for far better results, and no one would have there rights to privacy infringed upon. They just want to operate under the argument of "if you have nothing to hide, what are you worried about", when that is not the point at all. It's a matter of principle and going against the very foundation of the laws and beliefs that the government was founded on. It's another large step in the wrong direction, the direction of tyranny that the founding fathers of the government tried so hard to prevent and ensure would never happen.
I am a huge advocate of a limited and small government. Historically speaking, the smaller the government, the more this (the US) country has thrived, prospered, and grown. I am not advocating anarchy in the slightest, I belief a government is a very necessary thing, but I want to see it returned to the state that is used to and was envisioned to be, the one that allowed the US to become the nation that it has in the first place.
@F0, +Rep!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=lXBZd3jmbWg
I fully agree. I do not support total anarchy or total government. I believe that the essence of Freedom comes from a balance between Govt and People. The video explains this better than I can word it without just regurgitating it, so linky.
That was a pretty insightful video @Heretic86, thanks for the link. I'm on board with ForeverZer0, that generally (well I guess it has already been proven) that the smaller the government, the freer the people will be. The major hiccup in this line of thinking though, is for people to really be freer, ALL governments of the world would need to operate the same (even at the smaller state level) or there would need to be one government for all the people. The reason I say this is, we have these awkward interfaces in the U.S. (other countries as well) with the governments of some foreign countries, primarily where trade and military is concerned. In many ways the fact that there are these oligarchies, dictatorships, theocracies, etc.. our government is kind of forced into behaving in some awkward, perhaps unintended ways to compensate for this "imbalance" in policies with foreign countries.