Canadian judges rule, no expectation of privacy online.

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: RichardE

The potential to abuse powers is much more prevalent in todays society with todays technology and it seems the abuse of these powers has actually subsided.

No, not at all actually.

I don't see an abuse of powers that would affect your life at all in that. During MLK's time and before the "snooping" or investigating of your personal life was followed up by an action, which was the abuse. Investigating without action is not abuse.

On the contrary investigating without action validates my point that less privacy would not result in increased abuse.

Wait, what? Are you seriously arguing that people used to use the information they illegally obtained against people in the 1960's, but suddenly they just don't do that anymore? Did human nature undergo some sort of overhaul in the 1970's that I didn't hear about?

The use of surveillance powers to obtain confidential information about people is a source of incredible power over them. To think that this power would not be abused is mind bogglingly naive. Especially since all of human history up to this point has shown us time and time again just how it has been abused.

A history that lacked the ability to truly monitor its subjects. You seem to be unable to wrap your head around the significance of that.

You are arguing that once we reach a certain level of surveillance power that people will stop abusing it. It doesn't even make sense in view of what I've already linked. Can you please provide some explanation, any explanation for why human nature has changed in the past 40 years so that people who have obtained confidential information about others will suddenly not abuse this? Again, mind bogglingly naive and completely unsupported.

I never once said that that the US was a police state, they are just so rife with abuse of police powers that they provide easy examples. Furthermore, you are using an extremely simplistic idea as to what the interests of the government and the police are, which again shows a shockingly naive view of the world.

Finally, authoritarianism has many facets to it. We were talking about police powers, and your position is the authoritarian one on them. Period. I imagine you are very young, not that your age would discount the validity of your opinions, but it would explain views this naive.

I can provide you explanations of why the situations are so different you are comparing apples to oranges.

We can discuss the fascism in Germany and the Communism in the USSR (Funny enough, the "police state" of Italy was not very bad for the populace at all until Mussolini began shipping jews to Germany)


In a police state of Germany the abuse of the police powers were for a few reasons. The top ones were

1) A war that was very real, with a defined enemy on its border as well as a very real resistance that needed to be squashed. These were not "maybe" or imaginary threats that we see today in the war on terrorism, these were rampant, multiple, daily attacks by a group that was trying to overthrow the government or disrupt the war machine.

2) The nationalism that enabled the scapegoating of the Jews. On a mostly uneducated populace that was rampant with nationalism it was easy for them to believe that the Jews were causing all the problems, therefore abuse of powers was used to remove the Jewish people. Two reasons this would not occur in our day and age, the multi culturalism that the advancement of the Jet and the internet has allowed, and the lack of trade barriers that has allowed more or less melting pots worldwide to occur. As well, education has brought society past a standard of rampant nationalistic fear that can be focused on certain groups of people.

3) Control of population for industrial purposed. As a war country Germany needed people to continue working in order for Germany to survive. Even during peacetime this would be needed. Today, as a society that is so intertwined with other societies we do not need our people to manafacture as that can be left up to societies of lesser standing. Therefore the government has no need to use powers to force us to work.

4) Control of rise in crime/civic disobedience due to poverty. The states Germany conquered and occupied were full of rampant repercussions of poverty. In a world where even our poor are fat this is also not an issue, and if it became an issue the education level of the people would prevent a massive decay into society anarchy.

As you can see the reasons behind the abuse of powers do not apply to a modern day society, especially one of advanced technological knowledge that we posses.


As for the USSR

It was still relatively post revolution. If you remember the Russians became a communist state in the middle of WW1. Due to the political instability and power struggles that were brought on by that the abuse of power by Stalin was not the result of a slow progressed lack of privacy, but the result of a cleansing of political individuals in the aftermath of a massive shift during a very short time frame in society and ideological politics. They took a unindustrialized medevil society and brought it to modern day in under 50 years.

Again this is not an event in anyway applicable to our society.


As I stated earlier, you are comparing apples to oranges. A lack of privacy is not exclusive from a free and democratic society.

As well, your age strawmen can work both ways since I imagine the older you are the more indoctrinated you have been with "Evil red commies! and the authotarian regime!" When in reality the US was never at risk of becoming a communistic state.

Either way though, that is a weak argument attempting to use inexperience of age to defend a argument that is still unable to logically apply. Funny enough the people born today won't know that there was a time they were not continuesly monitored and it won't matter to them.

 

[fskimospy]

Spare me your analysis of the root causes of police power abuse, because they are absolutely absurd and largely unrelated to the topic.

Even if you were right, the 'reasons' for why you think Germany and the USSR acted the way they did also wouldn't really apply to the 1960's US. We were not in a war (unless you count the cold war which was every bit as illusory as the war on terror), we were not subject to attacks on the government, we weren't overcome with scapegoating nationalism, we weren't in a war economy, and we weren't consumed by massive crime due to poverty. All this right around the time they were writing our good friend Dr. King anonymous threatening letters that are frequently considered to have been attempts to force him to suicide. Oops!

I don't think further discussion of this is going to get us anywhere. You have inexplicably stated that mankind has developed to the point at which people will no longer abuse power, and furthermore that the example set by several millennia of human history doesn't apply.

There's really nothing more to say to that, because that's not really a logical position that I can argue with. It's just absurd on its face. I don't know how someone can have so little understanding of human nature. (not to be insulting, but it's almost like Aspergers.)

EDIT: Oh, and please go learn what a straw man is. A straw man is a deliberate misrepresentation of someone's argument in order to make it easy to defeat. Calling you young doesn't do that. Also, I specifically went out of my way to state that it did not change the validity of your argument, just that it explained how someone would hold opinions as naive as yours.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Spare me your analysis of the root causes of police power abuse, because they are absolutely absurd and largely unrelated to the topic.

Even if you were right, the 'reasons' for why you think Germany and the USSR acted the way they did also wouldn't really apply to the 1960's US. We were not in a war (unless you count the cold war which was every bit as illusory as the war on terror), we were not subject to attacks on the government, we weren't overcome with scapegoating nationalism, we weren't in a war economy, and we weren't consumed by massive crime due to poverty. All this right around the time they were writing our good friend Dr. King anonymous threatening letters that are frequently considered to have been attempts to force him to suicide. Oops!

I don't think further discussion of this is going to get us anywhere. You have inexplicably stated that mankind has developed to the point at which people will no longer abuse power, and furthermore that the example set by several millennia of human history doesn't apply.

There's really nothing more to say to that, because that's not really a logical position that I can argue with. It's just absurd on its face. I don't know how someone can have so little understanding of human nature. (not to be insulting, but it's almost like Aspergers.)

EDIT: Oh, and please go learn what a straw man is. A straw man is a deliberate misrepresentation of someone's argument in order to make it easy to defeat. Calling you young doesn't do that. Also, I specifically went out of my way to state that it did not change the validity of your argument, just that it explained how someone would hold opinions as naive as yours.

You are right, and the so called "abuse of powers" were not abuse and did not result in a police state in the US. So your examples are even off base there as well. Your entire argument is based on some idea that a lack of privacy will result in a police state yet you have absolutyl no evidence to back this up.

If anything your examples of what the US lacked verifies my idea that a lack of privacy will not result in a police state. We lost privacy during the 50's to present day and we are not a police state. All the evidence you keep on displaying strengthens my argument that a lack of privacy and a free democracy can co-exist, since they have been now for 50 years.

I wonder if you even know what your argument is or if you are so blinded by a fear breded into you that government is bad that you lack the ability to formulate an actual reason for your argument.


I also find it humorous that you disregard Germany and the USSR after using them as examples when the explanations of there decent into a abusive authoritarian police state do not fit in line with your ideas.

 

[Double Trouble]

I'm 100% on the same page as eskimospy on this one.... People like RichardE who can't seem to grasp the serious threats to liberty that a lack of privacy and anonymity create are scary. Even more scary is that there are lot of them.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: RichardE

You are right, and the so called "abuse of powers" were not abuse and did not result in a police state in the US. So your examples are even off base there as well. Your entire argument is based on some idea that a lack of privacy will result in a police state yet you have absolutyl no evidence to back this up.

If anything your examples of what the US lacked verifies my idea that a lack of privacy will not result in a police state. We lost privacy during the 50's to present day and we are not a police state. All the evidence you keep on displaying strengthens my argument that a lack of privacy and a free democracy can co-exist, since they have been now for 50 years.

I wonder if you even know what your argument is or if you are so blinded by a fear breded into you that government is bad that you lack the ability to formulate an actual reason for your argument.


I also find it humorous that you disregard Germany and the USSR after using them as examples when the explanations of there decent into a abusive authoritarian police state do not fit in line with your ideas.

See now that's an example of a straw man! My argument was that police powers are always abused, it was never that expanded police powers would invariably lead to an authoritarian state. By modifying my argument into an unsupportable position that is easy to defeat, you have in fact constructed a straw man. I guess it's easiest to learn by doing, huh? Unfortunately for you, you HAVE made an absolutely unsupportable position in stating that people today will suddenly not abuse police powers. I am aware of absolutely no credible source who would ever claim something so ridiculous.

I'm not sure if you got confused by me using police states as an example of abused police power (as they are the easiest places to find rampant examples), but you seem to have taken that and turned it into my argument, for what reason I have no idea. This is why your examples weren't particularly relevant to begin with.

Like I said, your position is so absurd that it hardly bears refutation other than by saying 'no'. I have all of human history on my side, you have your word that things are different now. Nothing more really needs to be said.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: RichardE

You are right, and the so called "abuse of powers" were not abuse and did not result in a police state in the US. So your examples are even off base there as well. Your entire argument is based on some idea that a lack of privacy will result in a police state yet you have absolutyl no evidence to back this up.

If anything your examples of what the US lacked verifies my idea that a lack of privacy will not result in a police state. We lost privacy during the 50's to present day and we are not a police state. All the evidence you keep on displaying strengthens my argument that a lack of privacy and a free democracy can co-exist, since they have been now for 50 years.

I wonder if you even know what your argument is or if you are so blinded by a fear breded into you that government is bad that you lack the ability to formulate an actual reason for your argument.


I also find it humorous that you disregard Germany and the USSR after using them as examples when the explanations of there decent into a abusive authoritarian police state do not fit in line with your ideas.

See now that's an example of a straw man! My argument was that police powers are always abused, it was never that expanded police powers would invariably lead to an authoritarian state. By modifying my argument into an unsupportable position that is easy to defeat, you have in fact constructed a straw man. I guess it's easiest to learn by doing, huh? Unfortunately for you, you HAVE made an absolutely unsupportable position in stating that people today will suddenly not abuse police powers. I am aware of absolutely no credible source who would ever claim something so ridiculous.

I'm not sure if you got confused by me using police states as an example of abused police power (as they are the easiest places to find rampant examples), but you seem to have taken that and turned it into my argument, for what reason I have no idea. This is why your examples weren't particularly relevant to begin with.

Like I said, your position is so absurd that it hardly bears refutation other than by saying 'no'. I have all of human history on my side, you have your word that things are different now. Nothing more really needs to be said.

I was going on the basis of your reply of

Uhmm, yes there is a real rational argument for it. It's called every police state that has ever existed.

to my comment of

There is no real rational argument for the level of privacy we still have as society today when lowering that level of privacy would bring significant society windfalls.

Which to me would mean you think that lowering the privacy of society would make us become a police state.


As for the abuse of police powers, you seem to consider police investigating individuals abuse? Since you would have to believe that in order for any or your arguments to make sense.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: eskimospy

See now that's an example of a straw man! My argument was that police powers are always abused, it was never that expanded police powers would invariably lead to an authoritarian state. By modifying my argument into an unsupportable position that is easy to defeat, you have in fact constructed a straw man. I guess it's easiest to learn by doing, huh? Unfortunately for you, you HAVE made an absolutely unsupportable position in stating that people today will suddenly not abuse police powers. I am aware of absolutely no credible source who would ever claim something so ridiculous.

I'm not sure if you got confused by me using police states as an example of abused police power (as they are the easiest places to find rampant examples), but you seem to have taken that and turned it into my argument, for what reason I have no idea. This is why your examples weren't particularly relevant to begin with.

Like I said, your position is so absurd that it hardly bears refutation other than by saying 'no'. I have all of human history on my side, you have your word that things are different now. Nothing more really needs to be said.

I was going on the basis of your reply of

Uhmm, yes there is a real rational argument for it. It's called every police state that has ever existed.

to my comment of

There is no real rational argument for the level of privacy we still have as society today when lowering that level of privacy would bring significant society windfalls.

Which to me would mean you think that lowering the privacy of society would make us become a police state.


As for the abuse of police powers, you seem to consider police investigating individuals abuse? Since you would have to believe that in order for any or your arguments to make sense.

I'm not sure how you got that out of what I wrote, and you continued with the argument after I explicitly stated that police states just provide easy examples for the abuse I was talking about.

Of course I don't consider police investigating individuals abuse, I consider police investigating individuals without proper cause to be abuse due to the long, long history of abuse associated with it. Removing the requirements for warrants eliminates impartial oversight from the process, and therefore makes it far far more likely that individuals will be investigated without proper cause, and to improper ends. When people can act without oversight, they frequently do bad things. This is basic human nature.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: eskimospy

See now that's an example of a straw man! My argument was that police powers are always abused, it was never that expanded police powers would invariably lead to an authoritarian state. By modifying my argument into an unsupportable position that is easy to defeat, you have in fact constructed a straw man. I guess it's easiest to learn by doing, huh? Unfortunately for you, you HAVE made an absolutely unsupportable position in stating that people today will suddenly not abuse police powers. I am aware of absolutely no credible source who would ever claim something so ridiculous.

I'm not sure if you got confused by me using police states as an example of abused police power (as they are the easiest places to find rampant examples), but you seem to have taken that and turned it into my argument, for what reason I have no idea. This is why your examples weren't particularly relevant to begin with.

Like I said, your position is so absurd that it hardly bears refutation other than by saying 'no'. I have all of human history on my side, you have your word that things are different now. Nothing more really needs to be said.

I was going on the basis of your reply of

Uhmm, yes there is a real rational argument for it. It's called every police state that has ever existed.

to my comment of

There is no real rational argument for the level of privacy we still have as society today when lowering that level of privacy would bring significant society windfalls.

Which to me would mean you think that lowering the privacy of society would make us become a police state.


As for the abuse of police powers, you seem to consider police investigating individuals abuse? Since you would have to believe that in order for any or your arguments to make sense.

I'm not sure how you got that out of what I wrote, and you continued with the argument after I explicitly stated that police states just provide easy examples for the abuse I was talking about.

Of course I don't consider police investigating individuals abuse, I consider police investigating individuals without proper cause to be abuse due to the long, long history of abuse associated with it. Removing the requirements for warrants eliminates impartial oversight from the process, and therefore makes it far far more likely that individuals will be investigated without proper cause, and to improper ends. When people can act without oversight, they frequently do bad things. This is basic human nature.

So you believe that abuse is the investigation of individuals without proper government approved authorization?

I would like to hear these historical examples of abuse where a lowering of privacy resulted in widespread abuse that actually affected people and was not solely an academic version of abuse, or an abuse that had no effect on individuals en mass. Since you said the vast human history is on your side, I do await these examples since I would find them an interesting study. Thanks! :beer:

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: RichardE

So you believe that abuse is the investigation of individuals without proper government approved authorization?

I would like to hear these historical examples of abuse where a lowering of privacy resulted in widespread abuse that actually affected people and was not solely an academic version of abuse, or an abuse that had no effect on individuals en mass. Since you said the vast human history is on your side, I do await these examples since I would find them an interesting study. Thanks! :beer:

I already told you, see every single police state that ever existed. Just pick one.

EDIT: This conversation has really gotten incredibly silly at this point. Your entire argument is based on an absurd premise (that police don't abuse their powers in this current day and age), and I'm not really interested in indulging you on it any longer. Your view is impossibly naive, and your position unsupportable.

I'm finished with this thread.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: RichardE

So you believe that abuse is the investigation of individuals without proper government approved authorization?

I would like to hear these historical examples of abuse where a lowering of privacy resulted in widespread abuse that actually affected people and was not solely an academic version of abuse, or an abuse that had no effect on individuals en mass. Since you said the vast human history is on your side, I do await these examples since I would find them an interesting study. Thanks! :beer:

I already told you, see every single police state that ever existed. Just pick one.

EDIT: This conversation has really gotten incredibly silly at this point. Your entire argument is based on an absurd premise (that police don't abuse their powers in this current day and age), and I'm not really interested in indulging you on it any longer. Your view is impossibly naive, and your position unsupportable.

I'm finished with this thread.

I did pick a bunch and showed you exactly how your idea was invalid. You have to use any actual examples besides "History has shown!" Well, where? It's not a very difficult question. You stated that the loss of privacy would move on to abuse. You have yet to actually show that, or even offer anything substantial that points to that and just keep becoming increasingly more defensive if anything is asked of you. No need to get angry and spaz, I'm just asking for examples since obviously if they are around my ideas might need readjustment. Which police states specifically show this? If that is an easier question for you, I can do my own research on the laws and other socio/political/economic reasons behind it if you don't have it readably available.

For someone who enjoys accusing other people of being naive and taking unsupportable positions (positions which I have supported) you seem to lack any real world understanding of this issue. Do you put all your beliefs on "gut feelings" like you seem to be doing with this one?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: RichardE

I did pick a bunch and showed you exactly how your idea was invalid. You have to use any actual examples besides "History has shown!" Well, where? It's not a very difficult question. You stated that the loss of privacy would move on to abuse. You have yet to actually show that, or even offer anything substantial that points to that and just keep becoming increasingly more defensive if anything is asked of you. No need to get angry and spaz, I'm just asking for examples since obviously if they are around my ideas might need readjustment. Which police states specifically show this? If that is an easier question for you, I can do my own research on the laws and other socio/political/economic reasons behind it if you don't have it readably available.

For someone who enjoys accusing other people of being naive and taking unsupportable positions (positions which I have supported) you seem to lack any real world understanding of this issue. Do you put all your beliefs on "gut feelings" like you seem to be doing with this one?

No you didn't. Your examples did nothing to disprove my point. Hell, when you wrote them out you hadn't even read the thread well enough to know what my point was. Both Germany and the USSR are good examples of exactly what you asked for. Go learn about them and get back to me.

While you're doing that, you might also want to go read up on the history of the 4th amendment and why it even exists to begin with. I'll give you a hint: It rhymes with 'abuse of generalized, unaccountable search powers'.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: RichardE

I did pick a bunch and showed you exactly how your idea was invalid. You have to use any actual examples besides "History has shown!" Well, where? It's not a very difficult question. You stated that the loss of privacy would move on to abuse. You have yet to actually show that, or even offer anything substantial that points to that and just keep becoming increasingly more defensive if anything is asked of you. No need to get angry and spaz, I'm just asking for examples since obviously if they are around my ideas might need readjustment. Which police states specifically show this? If that is an easier question for you, I can do my own research on the laws and other socio/political/economic reasons behind it if you don't have it readably available.

For someone who enjoys accusing other people of being naive and taking unsupportable positions (positions which I have supported) you seem to lack any real world understanding of this issue. Do you put all your beliefs on "gut feelings" like you seem to be doing with this one?

No you didn't. Your examples did nothing to disprove my point. Hell, when you wrote them out you hadn't even read the thread well enough to know what my point was. Both Germany and the USSR are good examples of exactly what you asked for. Go learn about them and get back to me.

While you're doing that, you might also want to go read up on the history of the 4th amendment and why it even exists to begin with. I'll give you a hint: It rhymes with 'abuse of generalized, unaccountable search powers'.

The point was loss of privacy did not turn into an abusive government, the abusive government was already in place when the loss of privacy occurred.

Which means your entire premise is invalid if you are depending on Germany and the USSR as examples. Any other ones? 🙂

 

[vhx]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: RichardE

So you believe that abuse is the investigation of individuals without proper government approved authorization?

I would like to hear these historical examples of abuse where a lowering of privacy resulted in widespread abuse that actually affected people and was not solely an academic version of abuse, or an abuse that had no effect on individuals en mass. Since you said the vast human history is on your side, I do await these examples since I would find them an interesting study. Thanks! :beer:

I already told you, see every single police state that ever existed. Just pick one.

EDIT: This conversation has really gotten incredibly silly at this point. Your entire argument is based on an absurd premise (that police don't abuse their powers in this current day and age), and I'm not really interested in indulging you on it any longer. Your view is impossibly naive, and your position unsupportable.

I'm finished with this thread.

I did pick a bunch and showed you exactly how your idea was invalid. You have to use any actual examples besides "History has shown!" Well, where? It's not a very difficult question. You stated that the loss of privacy would move on to abuse. You have yet to actually show that, or even offer anything substantial that points to that and just keep becoming increasingly more defensive if anything is asked of you. No need to get angry and spaz, I'm just asking for examples since obviously if they are around my ideas might need readjustment. Which police states specifically show this? If that is an easier question for you, I can do my own research on the laws and other socio/political/economic reasons behind it if you don't have it readably available.

For someone who enjoys accusing other people of being naive and taking unsupportable positions (positions which I have supported) you seem to lack any real world understanding of this issue. Do you put all your beliefs on "gut feelings" like you seem to be doing with this one?

Actually he linked it long ago where you just shrugged it off as "how does that affect you"? It affects you by setting precedent that it's OK for police to overstep their bounds and people are OK with it. We have warrants and oversight for a reason.

Originally posted by: eskimospy
I will be setting up cameras in your house tomorrow. If you're not doing anything illegal, you have nothing to fear. I'll never use the information I gather for any purpose other than solving crimes involving children.

Originally posted by: RichardE
I have no problem with that.

That screamed such bull, that I laughed IRL.

It's also not hard at all with the thousands of minor and strange laws to find something you're doing illegally, even if you don't know it is illegal. As eskimospy has showed us, your argument doesn't even make sense. Do you honestly believe that an authority figure who oversteps their authority, will always do it in a positive manner? Even when surveillance and controlling measures begin to border on ridiculous? If so, that is sad and beyond naive.

I guess people will try to justify anything (even wrong as right) to feel safe, content, and in control of their world.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: RichardE

The point was loss of privacy did not turn into an abusive government, the abusive government was already in place when the loss of privacy occurred.

Which means your entire premise is invalid if you are depending on Germany and the USSR as examples. Any other ones? 🙂

/facepalm You can't win this, you're only embarrassing yourself at this point man... seriously.

Your chicken or the egg argument is completely absurd and it appears that you have once again forgotten my argument and replaced it with one you made up. Stop doing that. Loss of privacy rights does not make a government abusive. This is a point that I never argued (shocking that you made that 'mistake' again), and since abuse of police powers is a constant, ongoing process in every single country on earth due to human fallibility how someone would even go about making that argument is mind boggling. A loss of privacy rights will lead to abuse by police and governmental authorities however, as examples already provided in this thread have shown ad nauseum.

I don't know how you can not know this as there are plenty of quotes from famous figures going back centuries (if not millenia) saying almost the exact same thing about the corrupting influence of unchecked power.

 

[BoberFett]

I think RichardE is being intentionally obtuse.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: RichardE

The point was loss of privacy did not turn into an abusive government, the abusive government was already in place when the loss of privacy occurred.

Which means your entire premise is invalid if you are depending on Germany and the USSR as examples. Any other ones? 🙂

/facepalm You can't win this, you're only embarrassing yourself at this point man... seriously.

Your chicken or the egg argument is completely absurd and it appears that you have once again forgotten my argument and replaced it with one you made up. Stop doing that. Loss of privacy rights does not make a government abusive. This is a point that I never argued (shocking that you made that 'mistake' again), and since abuse of police powers is a constant, ongoing process in every single country on earth due to human fallibility how someone would even go about making that argument is mind boggling. A loss of privacy rights will lead to abuse by police and governmental authorities however, as examples already provided in this thread have shown ad nauseum.

I don't know how you can not know this as there are plenty of quotes from famous figures going back centuries (if not millenia) saying almost the exact same thing about the corrupting influence of unchecked power.

It is not unchecked power, it would be passive monitoring of a population. Your irrational fears of abuse from the government are laughable.

The examples in this thread were of dictatorships that had been established already than than removed privacy. That is very different from a removal of privacy in a two party democracy. I am sure even you can see this.

I find it laughable at your irrational fear of authority though.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: vhx

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: RichardE

So you believe that abuse is the investigation of individuals without proper government approved authorization?

I would like to hear these historical examples of abuse where a lowering of privacy resulted in widespread abuse that actually affected people and was not solely an academic version of abuse, or an abuse that had no effect on individuals en mass. Since you said the vast human history is on your side, I do await these examples since I would find them an interesting study. Thanks! :beer:

I already told you, see every single police state that ever existed. Just pick one.

EDIT: This conversation has really gotten incredibly silly at this point. Your entire argument is based on an absurd premise (that police don't abuse their powers in this current day and age), and I'm not really interested in indulging you on it any longer. Your view is impossibly naive, and your position unsupportable.

I'm finished with this thread.

I did pick a bunch and showed you exactly how your idea was invalid. You have to use any actual examples besides "History has shown!" Well, where? It's not a very difficult question. You stated that the loss of privacy would move on to abuse. You have yet to actually show that, or even offer anything substantial that points to that and just keep becoming increasingly more defensive if anything is asked of you. No need to get angry and spaz, I'm just asking for examples since obviously if they are around my ideas might need readjustment. Which police states specifically show this? If that is an easier question for you, I can do my own research on the laws and other socio/political/economic reasons behind it if you don't have it readably available.

For someone who enjoys accusing other people of being naive and taking unsupportable positions (positions which I have supported) you seem to lack any real world understanding of this issue. Do you put all your beliefs on "gut feelings" like you seem to be doing with this one?

Actually he linked it long ago where you just shrugged it off as "how does that affect you"? It affects you by setting precedent that it's OK for police to overstep their bounds and people are OK with it. We have warrants and oversight for a reason.

Originally posted by: eskimospy
I will be setting up cameras in your house tomorrow. If you're not doing anything illegal, you have nothing to fear. I'll never use the information I gather for any purpose other than solving crimes involving children.

Originally posted by: RichardE
I have no problem with that.

That screamed such bull, that I laughed IRL.

It's also not hard at all with the thousands of minor and strange laws to find something you're doing illegally, even if you don't know it is illegal. As eskimospy has showed us, your argument doesn't even make sense. Do you honestly believe that an authority figure who oversteps their authority, will always do it in a positive manner? Even when surveillance and controlling measures begin to border on ridiculous? If so, that is sad and beyond naive.

I guess people will try to justify anything (even wrong as right) to feel safe, content, and in control of their world.

Of course not, but I didn't advocate anywhere not putting in checks and balances for this new power. I assumed that the idea of checks and balances being implemented would be common sense. I guess not.

And no, I would have no problem being continuesly monitored.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
I think RichardE is being intentionally obtuse.

For once we agree.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: RichardE

It is not unchecked power, it would be passive monitoring of a population. Your irrational fears of abuse from the government are laughable.

The examples in this thread were of dictatorships that had been established already than than removed privacy. That is very different from a removal of privacy in a two party democracy. I am sure even you can see this.

I find it laughable at your irrational fear of authority though.

And yet you still seem to be unable to grasp my (extremely... extremely simple) point, that governments always abuse their police powers. When you provide examples of governments that abused police powers, regardless of what rationale you conjure up out of thin air to explain it, you are helping MY point, not yours.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Sacrilege
I will be setting up cameras in your house tomorrow. If you're not doing anything illegal, you have nothing to fear. I'll never use the information I gather for any purpose other than solving crimes involving children.

I have no problem with that. Out of the 350 million people in North America, how many would you need to monitor every single individual 24/7?

Since that would be impractical it is obvious those being monitored would only be monitored for legitimate reasons due to a limited resource of manpower. In the end that would drastically cut down on crime in society, if we could see the person getting ready to rob someone would we not want to stop him?

Privacy in a technologically advanced society is a out-dated fad that does much more harm than good. It had it's purposes as did Unions, and single (protectionist) states and is now more of a burden to society than anything else and will be irrelevant within a few generations I imagine.

Your beliefs on this issue disgust and frighten me. They are in opposition to the very ideals which make this country great. I sincerely hope that none of your fascist ideas ever come to fruition. If they did, it would mark the end of this nation's greatness.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: RichardE

It is not unchecked power, it would be passive monitoring of a population. Your irrational fears of abuse from the government are laughable.

The examples in this thread were of dictatorships that had been established already than than removed privacy. That is very different from a removal of privacy in a two party democracy. I am sure even you can see this.

I find it laughable at your irrational fear of authority though.

And yet you still seem to be unable to grasp my (extremely... extremely simple) point, that governments always abuse their police powers. When you provide examples of governments that abused police powers, regardless of what rationale you conjure up out of thin air to explain it, you are helping MY point, not yours.

I grasp it, I don't agree with it. Very simply. I have yet to see concrete proof of a loss of privacy resulting in an abuse of government powers on the scale you say it will occur. The snowball theory is a fear tactic.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Sacrilege
I will be setting up cameras in your house tomorrow. If you're not doing anything illegal, you have nothing to fear. I'll never use the information I gather for any purpose other than solving crimes involving children.

I have no problem with that. Out of the 350 million people in North America, how many would you need to monitor every single individual 24/7?

Since that would be impractical it is obvious those being monitored would only be monitored for legitimate reasons due to a limited resource of manpower. In the end that would drastically cut down on crime in society, if we could see the person getting ready to rob someone would we not want to stop him?

Privacy in a technologically advanced society is a out-dated fad that does much more harm than good. It had it's purposes as did Unions, and single (protectionist) states and is now more of a burden to society than anything else and will be irrelevant within a few generations I imagine.

Your beliefs on this issue disgust and frighten me. They are in opposition to the very ideals which make this country great. I sincerely hope that none of your fascist ideas ever come to fruition. If they did, it would mark the end of this nation's greatness.

Well, either way, we will know which way it will go right?

If you want an indication look at the result of the NSA's wiretapping. People were upset for a few weeks than realize that it doesn't affect there day to day life. A total surveillance program can be implemented slowly enough that people realize it doesn't affect there day to day life. This will be the way of the future, energies would be better used to ensure that it exists properly with freedom and democracy than attempting to just fight it, which in turn makes its creaters more resolved to implement it without full consideration to checks and balances needed with this system.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: RichardE

It is not unchecked power, it would be passive monitoring of a population. Your irrational fears of abuse from the government are laughable.

The examples in this thread were of dictatorships that had been established already than than removed privacy. That is very different from a removal of privacy in a two party democracy. I am sure even you can see this.

I find it laughable at your irrational fear of authority though.

And yet you still seem to be unable to grasp my (extremely... extremely simple) point, that governments always abuse their police powers. When you provide examples of governments that abused police powers, regardless of what rationale you conjure up out of thin air to explain it, you are helping MY point, not yours.

I grasp it, I don't agree with it. Very simply. I have yet to see concrete proof of a loss of privacy resulting in an abuse of government powers on the scale you say it will occur. The snowball theory is a fear tactic.

If you grasped my argument then you wouldn't be making counter-arguments that in no way related to what I said.

Once again you are making up arguments and things I never said. I never commented on any scale that I thought the violations would occur on. Since I believe in individual liberty, pretty much the founding principle of our country, the violation of one person's rights is important. Furthermore, if you wanted proof I already linked you the FBI's abuse of NS letters. Just because you think that someone searching your house without cause, effective oversight, or authorization is not abuse doesn't mean that it is in fact abuse by A.) the letter of the law and B.) the opinion of the vast majority of your countrymen.

If you were to even find one person on this board that agrees with your position on this I would be amazed. Now just because you're the only person who believes something doesn't make you wrong, but it should give you a moment of pause to consider why it is that everyone else seems to think you're crazy.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: RichardE

It is not unchecked power, it would be passive monitoring of a population. Your irrational fears of abuse from the government are laughable.

The examples in this thread were of dictatorships that had been established already than than removed privacy. That is very different from a removal of privacy in a two party democracy. I am sure even you can see this.

I find it laughable at your irrational fear of authority though.

And yet you still seem to be unable to grasp my (extremely... extremely simple) point, that governments always abuse their police powers. When you provide examples of governments that abused police powers, regardless of what rationale you conjure up out of thin air to explain it, you are helping MY point, not yours.

I grasp it, I don't agree with it. Very simply. I have yet to see concrete proof of a loss of privacy resulting in an abuse of government powers on the scale you say it will occur. The snowball theory is a fear tactic.

If you grasped my argument then you wouldn't be making counter-arguments that in no way related to what I said.

Once again you are making up arguments and things I never said. I never commented on any scale that I thought the violations would occur on. Since I believe in individual liberty, pretty much the founding principle of our country, the violation of one person's rights is important. Furthermore, if you wanted proof I already linked you the FBI's abuse of NS letters. Just because you think that someone searching your house without cause, effective oversight, or authorization is not abuse doesn't mean that it is in fact abuse by A.) the letter of the law and B.) the opinion of the vast majority of your countrymen.

If you were to even find one person on this board that agrees with your position on this I would be amazed. Now just because you're the only person who believes something doesn't make you wrong, but it should give you a moment of pause to consider why it is that everyone else seems to think you're crazy.

I know a number of people within academia and political parties that share these ideas to some extent, though perhaps not as detailed as I have displayed them yet. Your arguments are all over the place Esk, sorry if I didn't directly answer one of them you stated, you keep going off in different directions it is easy to end up in circles. I'm still not sure exactly what you are stating besides lack of privacy = lack of freedoms = abuse. We have pretty much discussed each part individually but obviously I missed something there that is important you were trying to state. So what is it?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: RichardE

It is not unchecked power, it would be passive monitoring of a population. Your irrational fears of abuse from the government are laughable.

The examples in this thread were of dictatorships that had been established already than than removed privacy. That is very different from a removal of privacy in a two party democracy. I am sure even you can see this.

I find it laughable at your irrational fear of authority though.

And yet you still seem to be unable to grasp my (extremely... extremely simple) point, that governments always abuse their police powers. When you provide examples of governments that abused police powers, regardless of what rationale you conjure up out of thin air to explain it, you are helping MY point, not yours.

I grasp it, I don't agree with it. Very simply. I have yet to see concrete proof of a loss of privacy resulting in an abuse of government powers on the scale you say it will occur. The snowball theory is a fear tactic.

If you grasped my argument then you wouldn't be making counter-arguments that in no way related to what I said.

Once again you are making up arguments and things I never said. I never commented on any scale that I thought the violations would occur on. Since I believe in individual liberty, pretty much the founding principle of our country, the violation of one person's rights is important. Furthermore, if you wanted proof I already linked you the FBI's abuse of NS letters. Just because you think that someone searching your house without cause, effective oversight, or authorization is not abuse doesn't mean that it is in fact abuse by A.) the letter of the law and B.) the opinion of the vast majority of your countrymen.

If you were to even find one person on this board that agrees with your position on this I would be amazed. Now just because you're the only person who believes something doesn't make you wrong, but it should give you a moment of pause to consider why it is that everyone else seems to think you're crazy.

I know a number of people within academia and political parties that share these ideas to some extent, though perhaps not as detailed as I have displayed them yet. Your arguments are all over the place Esk, sorry if I didn't directly answer one of them you stated, you keep going off in different directions it is easy to end up in circles. I'm still not sure exactly what you are stating besides lack of privacy = lack of freedoms = abuse. We have pretty much discussed each part individually but obviously I missed something there that is important you were trying to state. So what is it?

My argument has always been exactly the same, I've probably repeated it a half dozen times by now. My argument is NOT that lack of privacy = lack of freedoms = abuse. Jesus man... come ON.

My argument is: police powers are always abused and so we should be highly reluctant to increase them. You wanted evidence, I provided you with a link of increased police powers being abused.

By the way, I would love to get some links to the people in academia and political parties who endorse your argument here.