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

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.

You provided a link to increase surveillance which is not abuse. I already stated that. Is that what you were so hung up on?

I already stated that your idea of increased observation is abuse is pretty much reaching. If no action is taken because of that obervation how can it be abuse?

If the only action taken is against individuals who broke the law is that abuse or policing?

I didn't realize you were so hung up on such a far reaching argument as observation is abuse. Sorry.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: RichardE

You provided a link to increase surveillance which is not abuse. I already stated that. Is that what you were so hung up on?

I already stated that your idea of increased observation is abuse is pretty much reaching. If no action is taken because of that obervation how can it be abuse?

If the only action taken is against individuals who broke the law is that abuse or policing?

I didn't realize you were so hung up on such a far reaching argument as observation is abuse. Sorry.

Well the President (Bush), the DOJ Inspector General, and the FBI would disagree with you since every single one of them has stated that it was an abuse of power. This is what I was talking about earlier. Your idea that unaccountable general search power is not an abuse is one that is not supported by the letter of the law, the founding document for our country, or public opinion. While you're more than welcome to have that opinion, you can't expect people to take such an ultra-authoritarian fringe position very seriously.

In fact my argument is so far reaching that a prohibition against it is written into the Bill of Rights. I'm sure the founding fathers just decided to throw that one in there because they wanted to make it an even ten though.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: RichardE

You provided a link to increase surveillance which is not abuse. I already stated that. Is that what you were so hung up on?

I already stated that your idea of increased observation is abuse is pretty much reaching. If no action is taken because of that obervation how can it be abuse?

If the only action taken is against individuals who broke the law is that abuse or policing?

I didn't realize you were so hung up on such a far reaching argument as observation is abuse. Sorry.

Well the President (Bush), the DOJ Inspector General, and the FBI would disagree with you since every single one of them has stated that it was an abuse of power. This is what I was talking about earlier. Your idea that unaccountable general search power is not an abuse is one that is not supported by the letter of the law, the founding document for our country, or public opinion. While you're more than welcome to have that opinion, you can't expect people to take such an ultra-authoritarian fringe position very seriously.

In fact my argument is so far reaching that a prohibition against it is written into the Bill of Rights. I'm sure the founding fathers just decided to throw that one in there because they wanted to make it an even ten though.

Well funny enough that the FISA Amendments act of 2008 increased the power of surveillance even when these people were publicly dismissing it as an abuse of power. You would think with such an "abuse" They would not have increased the Warrantless surveillance limit from 48 hours to 7 days. Not to mentions dismisses any of the rules if an "emergency" exists.

Face it, this is the way of the future. In 10 years you will be going "Fuck, RichardE was right' yet you will be safer, so it won't matter.

Don't forget the National Security Surveillance Act of 2006 that changed the definition of surveillance so that automatic capturing of certain things would not be defined as surveillance. All these things passed/will pass through the government more or less easily and nobody cares.


Either way, I don't think we can come to an agreement on this. Your arguments were interesting and I realize now more oversight and checks and balances are needed for this implementation. Interesting conversation, :beer:

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Well funny enough that the FISA Amendments act of 2008 increased the power of surveillance even when these people were publicly dismissing it as an abuse of power. You would think with such an "abuse" They would not have increased the Warrantless surveillance limit from 48 hours to 7 days. Not to mentions dismisses any of the rules if an "emergency" exists.

Face it, this is the way of the future. In 10 years you will be going "Fuck, RichardE was right' yet you will be safer, so it won't matter.

Don't forget the National Security Surveillance Act of 2006 that changed the definition of surveillance so that automatic capturing of certain things would not be defined as surveillance. All these things passed through the government more or less easily and nobody cares.

Huh? Why would the passage of other legislation in 2008 possibly matter as to whether or not the actions of the FBI in 2006 were or were not an abuse of power?

The rest of your post is just more crap that is unrelated to my argument. The definition of surveillance is irrelevant to my point, whether or not surveillance increases in the future is irrelevant to my point, the fact that the government has increased surveillance power in other laws is irrelevant to my point, etc... etc.

I guarantee you I won't be saying "Fuck, RichardE was right" 10 years in the future though, as your old point that police powers aren't abused is so laughably false that it really doesn't even merit consideration now, much less 10 years from now. In the one chance in a billion you turn out to be right though, I will be very very happy. It will mean that human nature has fundamentally altered itself so that people can be trusted to do the right thing even when they are not held accountable. This will save the world untold billions of man-hours, of misery, of so much. Truly edenic.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: RichardE

Well funny enough that the FISA Amendments act of 2008 increased the power of surveillance even when these people were publicly dismissing it as an abuse of power. You would think with such an "abuse" They would not have increased the Warrantless surveillance limit from 48 hours to 7 days. Not to mentions dismisses any of the rules if an "emergency" exists.

Face it, this is the way of the future. In 10 years you will be going "Fuck, RichardE was right' yet you will be safer, so it won't matter.

Don't forget the National Security Surveillance Act of 2006 that changed the definition of surveillance so that automatic capturing of certain things would not be defined as surveillance. All these things passed through the government more or less easily and nobody cares.

Huh? Why would the passage of other legislation in 2008 possibly matter as to whether or not the actions of the FBI in 2006 were or were not an abuse of power?

The rest of your post is just more crap that is unrelated to my argument. The definition of surveillance is irrelevant to my point, whether or not surveillance increases in the future is irrelevant to my point, the fact that the government has increased surveillance power in other laws is irrelevant to my point, etc... etc.

I guarantee you I won't be saying "Fuck, RichardE was right" 10 years in the future though, as your old point that police powers aren't abused is so laughably false that it really doesn't even merit consideration now, much less 10 years from now. In the one chance in a billion you turn out to be right though, I will be very very happy. It will mean that human nature has fundamentally altered itself so that people can be trusted to do the right thing even when they are not held accountable. This will save the world untold billions of man-hours, of misery, of so much. Truly edenic.

Something we can both hope for 🙂 :beer:

 

[imported_Lothar]

Only in Canada.

 

[ModerateRepZero]

I too am boggled by Richard's blithe indifference to privacy....yes every reasonable person would want criminals to be caught and punished for their actions, but no sane person would argue that locking up relatives, threatening to break a prisoner's legs until they talked, etc. are the appropriate means to achieve the goal.

He's correct about privacy INSOFAR as that with changes in technology we do not have the reasonable expectation that people would've had, say, 100 years ago. I strongly disagree, however, with his contention that privacy is "an out-dated fad". I would instead argue that in today's society, keeping SOME sort of privacy is essential. No one needs to, or should know, what I ate for dinner, what political beliefs I hold, or what I did five weeks ago unless it has some sort of governmental significance (ie brings into question impartiality in legal matters), criminal matter etc or if I knowingly and voluntarily posted about it. Publicly available information is understandably public and should not entitle people to privacy, but that doesn't mean that it's open season for people to misuse the information.

taking the position "it doesn't bother me because I have nothing to hide" misses the point that society benefits from granting individuals a certain amount of privacy and protection. it's no different from believing "mi casa es su casa" (my house is your house) and then experiencing the nightmare that occurs when uninvited guests come over. it's also worth remarking that it's easy to be self-righteous....until you're in the crosshairs.

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=14242 (recent article about continued harassment of a couple via the internet despite a not-guilty sentence)

I don't see any difference in a authoritarian country which has internet censors and police which violently suppress peaceful protests versus an 'enlightened' democratic country which nevertheless encourages people to spy on one other and which fervently believes that everyone is guilty until proven innocent. The distrust, paranoia, and open season mentality is the same whether you label something a police state, or not.

Society is NOT safer when everyone is presumed guilty not innocent, and hasty actions are self-righteously justified for a 'noble cause'....the road to hell, it is said, is paved with good intentions. Society is safer when we presume that there should be a standard of evidence to be met before we can bring the coercive power of the state down on individuals, and that the system and society/country benefits in the long run by adhering to its policies and procedures instead of openly flouting them for a short-term, immediate benefit of apprehending the guilty.

2000 Nytimes article on privacy

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: ModerateRepZero
I too am boggled by Richard's blithe indifference to privacy....yes every reasonable person would want criminals to be caught and punished for their actions, but no sane person would argue that locking up relatives, threatening to break a prisoner's legs until they talked, etc. are the appropriate means to achieve the goal.

He's correct about privacy INSOFAR as that with changes in technology we do not have the reasonable expectation that people would've had, say, 100 years ago. I strongly disagree, however, with his contention that privacy is "an out-dated fad". I would instead argue that in today's society, keeping SOME sort of privacy is essential. No one needs to, or should know, what I ate for dinner, what political beliefs I hold, or what I did five weeks ago unless it has some sort of governmental significance (ie brings into question impartiality in legal matters), criminal matter etc or if I knowingly and voluntarily posted about it. Publicly available information is understandably public and should not entitle people to privacy, but that doesn't mean that it's open season for people to misuse the information.

taking the position "it doesn't bother me because I have nothing to hide" misses the point that society benefits from granting individuals a certain amount of privacy and protection. it's no different from believing "mi casa es su casa" (my house is your house) and then experiencing the nightmare that occurs when uninvited guests come over. it's also worth remarking that it's easy to be self-righteous....until you're in the crosshairs.

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=14242 (recent article about continued harassment of a couple via the internet despite a not-guilty sentence)

I don't see any difference in a authoritarian country which has internet censors and police which violently suppress peaceful protests versus an 'enlightened' democratic country which nevertheless encourages people to spy on one other and which fervently believes that everyone is guilty until proven innocent. The distrust, paranoia, and open season mentality is the same whether you label something a police state, or not.

Society is NOT safer when everyone is presumed guilty not innocent, and hasty actions are self-righteously justified for a 'noble cause'....the road to hell, it is said, is paved with good intentions. Society is safer when we presume that there should be a standard of evidence to be met before we can bring the coercive power of the state down on individuals, and that the system and society/country benefits in the long run by adhering to its policies and procedures instead of openly flouting them for a short-term, immediate benefit of apprehending the guilty.

2000 Nytimes article on privacy

You seem to also believe the idea that a society without privacy would mean scrutiny of every individual. The man power needed would be enourmous for that and it would obviously be an automatic system with checks that would only show certain issues to human eyes.

Would a human ever see that you had steak for the 7th night in a row? No, there would be no point, same as if you dressed your wife up for sheep. If a monitoring system saw you taking escalating steps towards a crime, would it than notify its overseerers? Probably.

The technology is rapidly becoming available for an purely automatic passive total monitoring system where the only time human eyes will see anything is when it deviates from the norm into the potentially criminal realm and even than until a crime is committed you can only be monitored. If the total monitoring network was able to hear someone make a threat, load a gun and than get in his car and begin driving towards the house of the person he made the threat too, how much easier would it be for society to implement a "call" to this individual and let him know what monitoring has noticed and he is instructed to turn around and return the gun to his home.

This was the jist of a paper I read recently on this very subject. I will scan it tomorrow and return to this thread with it. The possibility of the technology we have will make your current ideas seem medevil in comparrision.

On another note. Say you have a lady call the police regarding her neighbor saying she saw him two weeks ago molesting a child. Instead of having this man dragged through the mud, face on in the paper, reputation ruined ect ect, the total monitoring system easily sees that this individual was in another state at the time of this complaint.

The system is not about making the state more powerful, it is about streamlining law enformcent to make it more efficient. How many crimes could be prevented if the person knew that the system caught him planning it? How much easier would our system be on society if it was not centered around punishment but intervention and prevention.

Eitherway, I will scan the paper. 🙂

 

[Asslee]

Face it, this is the way of the future. In 10 years you will be going "Fuck, RichardE was right' yet you will be safer, so it won't matter.

Uh, no. You think a fear of government is laughable? I think a lack of fear is more laughable. Just because someone is an authority figure doesn't mean they can be trusted.

If the total monitoring network was able to hear someone make a threat, load a gun and than get in his car and begin driving towards the house of the person he made the threat too, how much easier would it be for society to implement a "call" to this individual and let him know what monitoring has noticed and he is instructed to turn around and return the gun to his home.

This is also laughable. Do you really think that someone who wanted to kill would listen to someone who told him to turn around and return his gun?

Normally when someone has a desire to kill another person, they don't have much regard for the consequences for they are not thinking clearly. This can be said for any crime. Consequences are thrown out, and they just get tunnel vision.

Crimes won't ever be prevented through a friendly call telling them to not go through with it. In an ideal world that would be nice, but it's not reality.

How many crimes could be prevented if the person knew that the system caught him planning it? How much easier would our system be on society if it was not centered around punishment but intervention and prevention.

To answer your question: None. Intervention may stop YOU from committing a crime, but this does not apply to the entire population. Some people understand punishment better than intervention.

People who understand punishment are likely to come from lower social classes. I read that people who commit crime are usually from lower classes. Someone from a lower social class would not respond to intervention. Intervention mainly works for those in the middle social classes and higher.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: Asslee

Face it, this is the way of the future. In 10 years you will be going "Fuck, RichardE was right' yet you will be safer, so it won't matter.

Uh, no. You think a fear of government is laughable? I think a lack of fear is more laughable. Just because someone is an authority figure doesn't mean they can be trusted.

If the total monitoring network was able to hear someone make a threat, load a gun and than get in his car and begin driving towards the house of the person he made the threat too, how much easier would it be for society to implement a "call" to this individual and let him know what monitoring has noticed and he is instructed to turn around and return the gun to his home.

This is also laughable. Do you really think that someone who wanted to kill would listen to someone who told him to turn around and return his gun?

Normally when someone has a desire to kill another person, they don't have much regard for the consequences for they are not thinking clearly. This can be said for any crime. Consequences are thrown out, and they just get tunnel vision.

Crimes won't ever be prevented through a friendly call telling them to not go through with it. In an ideal world that would be nice, but it's not reality.

How many crimes could be prevented if the person knew that the system caught him planning it? How much easier would our system be on society if it was not centered around punishment but intervention and prevention.

To answer your question: None. Intervention may stop YOU from committing a crime, but this does not apply to the entire population. Some people understand punishment better than intervention.

People who understand punishment are likely to come from lower social classes. I read that people who commit crime are usually from lower classes. Someone from a lower social class would not respond to intervention. Intervention mainly works for those in the middle social classes and higher.

Sigh, you didn't look beyond the obvious.

If they failed to respond to intervention, it does not mean we would passively sit back, we can still intervene in the crime.

I would wonder how many people would reconsider there actions if they *knew* that they were being monitored/discovered and actions were already being taken to stop them, and this is there chance to "turn around".

 

[Wheezer]

Can't have your cake and eat it too.....we all know that once you put something out on the web no matter how private you "think" it is, it is not, and it will never ever go away.....so why is this such a big deal?

If you seriously thought that what you did online was considered "private"...you are a fool.

It's like having a "private" conversation on a cell phone in a public place, no such thing.......it's not private when everyone else in the store can hear you.

 

[shira]

I predict that the anonymizing industry will be a real growth area.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: shira
I predict that the anonymizing industry will be a real growth area.

GOT TOR?

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Wheezer
Can't have your cake and eat it too.....we all know that once you put something out on the web no matter how private you "think" it is, it is not, and it will never ever go away.....so why is this such a big deal?

If you seriously thought that what you did online was considered "private"...you are a fool.

It's like having a "private" conversation on a cell phone in a public place, no such thing.......it's not private when everyone else in the store can hear you.

So you won't mind if I go through your mail?

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Wheezer
Can't have your cake and eat it too.....we all know that once you put something out on the web no matter how private you "think" it is, it is not, and it will never ever go away.....so why is this such a big deal?

If you seriously thought that what you did online was considered "private"...you are a fool.

It's like having a "private" conversation on a cell phone in a public place, no such thing.......it's not private when everyone else in the store can hear you.

So you won't mind if I go through your mail?

I wouldn't, you shouldn't either.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: RichardE

So you would rather the police be hamstrung in catching individuals who are obviously partaking in activities that would be detrimental to society as a whole to prevent some minuscule chance of some abuse happening somewhere? Why not remove all guns from police officers to prevent an accidental shooting which has a history of happening?

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.

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

As for what 'windfalls' these changes would bring... I'd be interested to hear what you think those are. Are we in the grip of some unstoppable internet crime wave? Are police currently unable to catch people committing crimes online due to the fact that they are have to process warrants for some level of minimal oversight on the police's activities? Are we unable to staff our police departments with sufficient manpower to protect the public due to the requirements of warrants? What do you think we're going to be gaining here?

When you argue against warrants, you are arguing against impartial oversight of the police.

The people who wrote the Constitution knew very well that constraining governmental police and detention power was absolutely necessary for the functioning of a free society. That's why a provision against indefinite detention is written into the Constitution, and why strict limitations on search and seizure powers were written into the Bill of Rights. They knew as well as everyone does that police powers are always abused.

Police states that existed in times where complete surveillance was not technologically possible so the abuse of powers was needed to "make sure".

In a society where we could monitor you completely, and without it affecting your life greatly it is possible to have complete security without a police state.

The advancement of technology has made the necessary evils in previous police states obsolete. The notion of people physically listening to your calls, asking your employers questions, talking to the neighbors, people following you are left to Hollywood movies at best. We can monitor your movements by GPS, install monitoring technology in peoples homes they would soon forget even existed, monitor your activities without you even noticing, and do this on a scale large enough that we can specifically target those who are committing crime or about to commit a crime.

Complete security without the present technology we have was messy and it understandable to have a fear of returning to that, complete security with the technology we have now would do nothing but better our lives immensely.

Go read the constitution and bill of rights please.

You live in fairy tale land. Good thing we had founding fathers with brains instead of ideals.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: RichardE

So you would rather the police be hamstrung in catching individuals who are obviously partaking in activities that would be detrimental to society as a whole to prevent some minuscule chance of some abuse happening somewhere? Why not remove all guns from police officers to prevent an accidental shooting which has a history of happening?

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.

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

As for what 'windfalls' these changes would bring... I'd be interested to hear what you think those are. Are we in the grip of some unstoppable internet crime wave? Are police currently unable to catch people committing crimes online due to the fact that they are have to process warrants for some level of minimal oversight on the police's activities? Are we unable to staff our police departments with sufficient manpower to protect the public due to the requirements of warrants? What do you think we're going to be gaining here?

When you argue against warrants, you are arguing against impartial oversight of the police.

The people who wrote the Constitution knew very well that constraining governmental police and detention power was absolutely necessary for the functioning of a free society. That's why a provision against indefinite detention is written into the Constitution, and why strict limitations on search and seizure powers were written into the Bill of Rights. They knew as well as everyone does that police powers are always abused.

Police states that existed in times where complete surveillance was not technologically possible so the abuse of powers was needed to "make sure".

In a society where we could monitor you completely, and without it affecting your life greatly it is possible to have complete security without a police state.

The advancement of technology has made the necessary evils in previous police states obsolete. The notion of people physically listening to your calls, asking your employers questions, talking to the neighbors, people following you are left to Hollywood movies at best. We can monitor your movements by GPS, install monitoring technology in peoples homes they would soon forget even existed, monitor your activities without you even noticing, and do this on a scale large enough that we can specifically target those who are committing crime or about to commit a crime.

Complete security without the present technology we have was messy and it understandable to have a fear of returning to that, complete security with the technology we have now would do nothing but better our lives immensely.

Go read the constitution and bill of rights please.

You live in fairy tale land. Good thing we had founding fathers with brains instead of ideals.

A living document that can easily be circumvented in times of need. The 4th amendment is outdated and in need of serious overall, a procedure not without precedent, there are other changes that could easily be made, and you would be blind to not notice these slowly being torn down piece by piece until we can fully establish a total secure nation. I understand your basic instinct is to reject it, but thinking logically only irrational fear truly makes you fear this.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Wheezer
Can't have your cake and eat it too.....we all know that once you put something out on the web no matter how private you "think" it is, it is not, and it will never ever go away.....so why is this such a big deal?

If you seriously thought that what you did online was considered "private"...you are a fool.

It's like having a "private" conversation on a cell phone in a public place, no such thing.......it's not private when everyone else in the store can hear you.

So you won't mind if I go through your mail?

I wouldn't, you shouldn't either.

This same allowance of government power allowed Hitler to thrive and slowly tear apart germany.

We are doomed to repeat history if we are too dumb to learn from it.

To most, with no privacy, there is no point in living. Live free or die ring a bell? You NOT caring has no relevance here and does not create an argument.

Let's destroy the forests. "I" don't care, you shouldn't either. There we go... perfect argument!

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Wheezer
Can't have your cake and eat it too.....we all know that once you put something out on the web no matter how private you "think" it is, it is not, and it will never ever go away.....so why is this such a big deal?

If you seriously thought that what you did online was considered "private"...you are a fool.

It's like having a "private" conversation on a cell phone in a public place, no such thing.......it's not private when everyone else in the store can hear you.

So you won't mind if I go through your mail?

I wouldn't, you shouldn't either.

Why? It's none of your f*cking business what I get in my mailbox. I don't care that I'm doing nothing wrong. Here in the US, the 4th amendment grants me the right to privacy (and thus the government needs a warrant backed by some evidence to get around that).

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: RichardE

So you would rather the police be hamstrung in catching individuals who are obviously partaking in activities that would be detrimental to society as a whole to prevent some minuscule chance of some abuse happening somewhere? Why not remove all guns from police officers to prevent an accidental shooting which has a history of happening?

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.

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

As for what 'windfalls' these changes would bring... I'd be interested to hear what you think those are. Are we in the grip of some unstoppable internet crime wave? Are police currently unable to catch people committing crimes online due to the fact that they are have to process warrants for some level of minimal oversight on the police's activities? Are we unable to staff our police departments with sufficient manpower to protect the public due to the requirements of warrants? What do you think we're going to be gaining here?

When you argue against warrants, you are arguing against impartial oversight of the police.

The people who wrote the Constitution knew very well that constraining governmental police and detention power was absolutely necessary for the functioning of a free society. That's why a provision against indefinite detention is written into the Constitution, and why strict limitations on search and seizure powers were written into the Bill of Rights. They knew as well as everyone does that police powers are always abused.

Police states that existed in times where complete surveillance was not technologically possible so the abuse of powers was needed to "make sure".

In a society where we could monitor you completely, and without it affecting your life greatly it is possible to have complete security without a police state.

The advancement of technology has made the necessary evils in previous police states obsolete. The notion of people physically listening to your calls, asking your employers questions, talking to the neighbors, people following you are left to Hollywood movies at best. We can monitor your movements by GPS, install monitoring technology in peoples homes they would soon forget even existed, monitor your activities without you even noticing, and do this on a scale large enough that we can specifically target those who are committing crime or about to commit a crime.

Complete security without the present technology we have was messy and it understandable to have a fear of returning to that, complete security with the technology we have now would do nothing but better our lives immensely.

Go read the constitution and bill of rights please.

You live in fairy tale land. Good thing we had founding fathers with brains instead of ideals.

A living document that can easily be circumvented in times of need. The 4th amendment is outdated and in need of serious overall, a procedure not without precedent, there are other changes that could easily be made, and you would be blind to not notice these slowly being torn down piece by piece until we can fully establish a total secure nation. I understand your basic instinct is to reject it, but thinking logically only irrational fear truly makes you fear this.

I see the government creep of power. My solution is to acknowledge it and hope the rest of the fools in this country do in time to stop the next repeat of WW2.

You choose to accept it? Then, you will shoulder the guilt of being responsible for the next holocaust.

Irrational fear? Did you see the Iraqi occupation and "war"? 2 million were forced to leave Iraq, 100s of thousands killed, the US has huge debt, 10s of thousands killed, tens of thousands injured. This is what happens when you do not have enough fear.

Trust Nixon, did you?

It is irrational to ignore day to day reality in favor of some utopian fantasy.

The human race, as I see it, is doomed to fail in the next few hundred years unless people start controlling their governments. Giving them more power will ultimately lead to destruction with people like you saying, "Huh, I didn't see that coming! I really thought the giving the government unlimited power over our lives would save us!"

You are the problem, not the solution.

Of course, we both know you are just looking for attention here. Another problem for humanity to deal with.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Wheezer
Can't have your cake and eat it too.....we all know that once you put something out on the web no matter how private you "think" it is, it is not, and it will never ever go away.....so why is this such a big deal?

If you seriously thought that what you did online was considered "private"...you are a fool.

It's like having a "private" conversation on a cell phone in a public place, no such thing.......it's not private when everyone else in the store can hear you.

So you won't mind if I go through your mail?

I wouldn't, you shouldn't either.

Why? It's none of your f*cking business what I get in my mailbox. I don't care that I'm doing nothing wrong. Here in the US, the 4th amendment grants me the right to privacy (and thus the government needs a warrant backed by some evidence to get around that).

Of course it is none of my business. Human eyes would never see your mail unless some obvious concern arose from the automated system. We wouldn't care that you like midget porn, we would care if you subscribe to activities that would be a threat to the state or a thread to basic Western Ideals.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Wheezer
Can't have your cake and eat it too.....we all know that once you put something out on the web no matter how private you "think" it is, it is not, and it will never ever go away.....so why is this such a big deal?

If you seriously thought that what you did online was considered "private"...you are a fool.

It's like having a "private" conversation on a cell phone in a public place, no such thing.......it's not private when everyone else in the store can hear you.

So you won't mind if I go through your mail?

I wouldn't, you shouldn't either.

This same allowance of government power allowed Hitler to thrive and slowly tear apart germany.

We are doomed to repeat history if we are too dumb to learn from it.

To most, with no privacy, there is no point in living. Live free or die ring a bell? You NOT caring has no relevance here and does not create an argument.

Let's destroy the forests. "I" don't care, you shouldn't either. There we go... perfect argument!

The idea that one resemblance makes a repeat of history is folly. You might as well say "Hitler was elected, every time we have an election we are about to go down that same path!"

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Wheezer
Can't have your cake and eat it too.....we all know that once you put something out on the web no matter how private you "think" it is, it is not, and it will never ever go away.....so why is this such a big deal?

If you seriously thought that what you did online was considered "private"...you are a fool.

It's like having a "private" conversation on a cell phone in a public place, no such thing.......it's not private when everyone else in the store can hear you.

So you won't mind if I go through your mail?

I wouldn't, you shouldn't either.

Why? It's none of your f*cking business what I get in my mailbox. I don't care that I'm doing nothing wrong. Here in the US, the 4th amendment grants me the right to privacy (and thus the government needs a warrant backed by some evidence to get around that).

Of course it is none of my business. Human eyes would never see your mail unless some obvious concern arose from the automated system. We wouldn't care that you like midget porn, we would care if you subscribe to activities that would be a threat to the state or a thread to basic Western Ideals.

Yeah, this happened.. it was called McCarthyism.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Wheezer
Can't have your cake and eat it too.....we all know that once you put something out on the web no matter how private you "think" it is, it is not, and it will never ever go away.....so why is this such a big deal?

If you seriously thought that what you did online was considered "private"...you are a fool.

It's like having a "private" conversation on a cell phone in a public place, no such thing.......it's not private when everyone else in the store can hear you.

So you won't mind if I go through your mail?

I wouldn't, you shouldn't either.

This same allowance of government power allowed Hitler to thrive and slowly tear apart germany.

We are doomed to repeat history if we are too dumb to learn from it.

To most, with no privacy, there is no point in living. Live free or die ring a bell? You NOT caring has no relevance here and does not create an argument.

Let's destroy the forests. "I" don't care, you shouldn't either. There we go... perfect argument!

The idea that one resemblance makes a repeat of history is folly. You might as well say "Hitler was elected, every time we have an election we are about to go down that same path!"

Seriously? That's all you have? I was expecting at least an effort.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: RichardE

So you would rather the police be hamstrung in catching individuals who are obviously partaking in activities that would be detrimental to society as a whole to prevent some minuscule chance of some abuse happening somewhere? Why not remove all guns from police officers to prevent an accidental shooting which has a history of happening?

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.

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

As for what 'windfalls' these changes would bring... I'd be interested to hear what you think those are. Are we in the grip of some unstoppable internet crime wave? Are police currently unable to catch people committing crimes online due to the fact that they are have to process warrants for some level of minimal oversight on the police's activities? Are we unable to staff our police departments with sufficient manpower to protect the public due to the requirements of warrants? What do you think we're going to be gaining here?

When you argue against warrants, you are arguing against impartial oversight of the police.

The people who wrote the Constitution knew very well that constraining governmental police and detention power was absolutely necessary for the functioning of a free society. That's why a provision against indefinite detention is written into the Constitution, and why strict limitations on search and seizure powers were written into the Bill of Rights. They knew as well as everyone does that police powers are always abused.

Police states that existed in times where complete surveillance was not technologically possible so the abuse of powers was needed to "make sure".

In a society where we could monitor you completely, and without it affecting your life greatly it is possible to have complete security without a police state.

The advancement of technology has made the necessary evils in previous police states obsolete. The notion of people physically listening to your calls, asking your employers questions, talking to the neighbors, people following you are left to Hollywood movies at best. We can monitor your movements by GPS, install monitoring technology in peoples homes they would soon forget even existed, monitor your activities without you even noticing, and do this on a scale large enough that we can specifically target those who are committing crime or about to commit a crime.

Complete security without the present technology we have was messy and it understandable to have a fear of returning to that, complete security with the technology we have now would do nothing but better our lives immensely.

Go read the constitution and bill of rights please.

You live in fairy tale land. Good thing we had founding fathers with brains instead of ideals.

A living document that can easily be circumvented in times of need. The 4th amendment is outdated and in need of serious overall, a procedure not without precedent, there are other changes that could easily be made, and you would be blind to not notice these slowly being torn down piece by piece until we can fully establish a total secure nation. I understand your basic instinct is to reject it, but thinking logically only irrational fear truly makes you fear this.

I see the government creep of power. My solution is to acknowledge it and hope the rest of the fools in this country do in time to stop the next repeat of WW2.

You choose to accept it? Then, you will shoulder the guilt of being responsible for the next holocaust.

Irrational fear? Did you see the Iraqi occupation and "war"? 2 million were forced to leave Iraq, 100s of thousands killed, the US has huge debt, 10s of thousands killed, tens of thousands injured. This is what happens when you do not have enough fear.

Trust Nixon, did you?

It is irrational to ignore day to day reality in favor of some utopian fantasy.

The human race, as I see it, is doomed to fail in the next few hundred years unless people start controlling their governments. Giving them more power will ultimately lead to destruction with people like you saying, "Huh, I didn't see that coming! I really thought the giving the government unlimited power over our lives would save us!"

You are the problem, not the solution.

Of course, we both know you are just looking for attention here. Another problem for humanity to deal with.

Is it so hard for you to accept the possibility of a government that protects its people without malice? You keep going off on tangents of issues that have nothing to do with what I am discussing. How does the Iraq occupation have anything to do with this topic, how is the circumstances that were prevalent in Europe at the time of the Fascist uprisings have any resemblance to the current circumstances of the world?

You are not thinking this through.

You accuse me of just looking for attention because you are afraid of my ideas, that makes sense especially when you know these ideas are somewhat prevalent among the people you elect. As I said earlier, it is better to spend your energies making sure a smooth transition and molding of democracy, freedom and total security, than trying to impede such a cause.