Still think Edward Snowden is a hero? (1 Viewer)

[BigSteelThrill]

Not a hero. The privacy nerds need to accept the monitoring is for the greater good. Guess what, nobody really cares that you went to Target or worked on your basement finishing project this weekend or that you watched a pron on the web, so stop pretending like you're hiding really important personal stuff from the govrnement.

If monitoring me means a better chance of me and mine not being kilt, have at it. You'll quickly become bored with what you're seeing and move on to the next guy.

I understand completely that the government will abuse this power and I'm cool with it given the end game. When they start popping up on my TV and telling me the pron is going away, then I draw the line.

Yes give away your liberty. Give away your freedoms someone fought and died for. All for the illusion of safety and it is am illusion. Your children will reap what you sow.

What liberty and freedom am I giving away here? So the government wants to listen in on my FaceTime with my kids? K. They wanna see the receipt from my trip to Lowe's? OMG MY FREEDOMI'll never get that sentiment. I guess if you're doing stuff that's illegal and you won't want them to find out, maybe it's an issue. My life isn't that exciting.

Is this more a "slippery slope" concern? Like today they're looking at your Home Depot shopping list, and tomorrow they're not letting you go to Home Depot anymore!

?

You mind posting your SSN and Visa # here, since privacy doesn't matter?

Has the government started hacking Citibank accounts?That's super different. You know better.

What's stopping them?

If the government starts stealing our money from our bank accounts, we have much bigger problems than the feds mapping out my Twinkie purchasing habits.

Again, what's stopping them?

I guess nothing. So is that what you guys are concerned about when you say loss of freedom? Freedom from having the government steal your stuff? Is that really the reason folks don't like government monitoring, is because they think the government is going to steal their PIN code and make some quiet withdrawals?

Living in peace without fear of undue prosecution.

 

[Otis]

I guess nothing. So is that what you guys are concerned about when you say loss of freedom? Freedom from having the government steal your stuff? Is that really the reason folks don't like government monitoring, is because they think the government is going to steal their PIN code and make some quiet withdrawals?

Living in peace without fear of undue prosecution.

Unless they start doling out sentences for taking my kids to Chili's on the weekends -- and I'll be the first to admit, maybe they should -- I'm not all that worried about it really.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

I guess nothing. So is that what you guys are concerned about when you say loss of freedom? Freedom from having the government steal your stuff? Is that really the reason folks don't like government monitoring, is because they think the government is going to steal their PIN code and make some quiet withdrawals?

Living in peace without fear of undue prosecution.

Unless they start doling out sentences for taking my kids to Chili's on the weekends -- and I'll be the first to admit, maybe they should -- I'm not all that worried about it really.

You can be oblivious to anything you choose, though. If that's your position in life - then it is.

 

[Otis]

I guess nothing. So is that what you guys are concerned about when you say loss of freedom? Freedom from having the government steal your stuff? Is that really the reason folks don't like government monitoring, is because they think the government is going to steal their PIN code and make some quiet withdrawals?

Living in peace without fear of undue prosecution.

Unless they start doling out sentences for taking my kids to Chili's on the weekends -- and I'll be the first to admit, maybe they should -- I'm not all that worried about it really.

You can be oblivious to anything you choose, though. If that's your position in life - then it is.

Well, let me ask: are you concerned about that because you engage in potentially illegal activity? Or are you just worried about the government trying to frame you for stuff randomly?

And if the latter, can't they do that anyway, whether they monitor you or not?

 

[Slapdash]

All I want to know is do I get to choose the corner of my living room the government installs its camera?

You likely already have

 

[BigSteelThrill]

I guess nothing. So is that what you guys are concerned about when you say loss of freedom? Freedom from having the government steal your stuff? Is that really the reason folks don't like government monitoring, is because they think the government is going to steal their PIN code and make some quiet withdrawals?

Living in peace without fear of undue prosecution.

Unless they start doling out sentences for taking my kids to Chili's on the weekends -- and I'll be the first to admit, maybe they should -- I'm not all that worried about it really.

You can be oblivious to anything you choose, though. If that's your position in life - then it is.

Well, let me ask: are you concerned about that because you engage in potentially illegal activity? Or are you just worried about the government trying to frame you for stuff randomly?

And if the latter, can't they do that anyway, whether they monitor you or not?

Im concerned about fellow citizens being looked at without any probably cause whatsoever.

We have a world history of people being wrongfully screwed over by over reaching powers.

USofA is (was supposed to be) different. We sacrifice our lives for that liberty... and proclaim so proudly.

 

[Politician Spock]

Not a hero. The privacy nerds need to accept the monitoring is for the greater good. Guess what, nobody really cares that you went to Target or worked on your basement finishing project this weekend or that you watched a pron on the web, so stop pretending like you're hiding really important personal stuff from the govrnement.

If monitoring me means a better chance of me and mine not being kilt, have at it. You'll quickly become bored with what you're seeing and move on to the next guy.

I understand completely that the government will abuse this power and I'm cool with it given the end game. When they start popping up on my TV and telling me the pron is going away, then I draw the line.

Yes give away your liberty. Give away your freedoms someone fought and died for. All for the illusion of safety and it is am illusion. Your children will reap what you sow.

What liberty and freedom am I giving away here? So the government wants to listen in on my FaceTime with my kids? K. They wanna see the receipt from my trip to Lowe's? OMG MY FREEDOMI'll never get that sentiment. I guess if you're doing stuff that's illegal and you won't want them to find out, maybe it's an issue. My life isn't that exciting.

Is this more a "slippery slope" concern? Like today they're looking at your Home Depot shopping list, and tomorrow they're not letting you go to Home Depot anymore!

?

You mind posting your SSN and Visa # here, since privacy doesn't matter?

Has the government started hacking Citibank accounts?That's super different. You know better.

What's stopping them?

If the government starts stealing our money from our bank accounts, we have much bigger problems than the feds mapping out my Twinkie purchasing habits.

Again, what's stopping them?

I guess nothing. So is that what you guys are concerned about when you say loss of freedom? Freedom from having the government steal your stuff? Is that really the reason folks don't like government monitoring, is because they think the government is going to steal their PIN code and make some quiet withdrawals?

Wrong. The constitution does.

 

[Slapdash]

Gotta give Tim credit. He has spent a lot of time arguing in favor of the surveillance state, but at least he was never had to resort to the "if you got nothing to hide..." crap.

 

[Otis]

Gotta give Tim credit. He has spent a lot of time arguing in favor of the surveillance state, but at least he was never had to resort to the "if you got nothing to hide..." crap.

I guess I don't understand why you care so much. What's the difference?

 

[SWC]

yeah i think otis is just trying to put some pages between him getting his rear end handed to him but it is not working bromigos take that to the bank

 

[Otis]

yeah i think otis is just trying to put some pages between him getting his rear end handed to him but it is not working bromigos take that to the bank

I still don't think I've seen an answer

 

[Politician Spock]

yeah i think otis is just trying to put some pages between him getting his rear end handed to him but it is not working bromigos take that to the bank

I still don't think I've seen an answer

That's because you are measuring people's responses by what does and does not bother Otis.

 

[Slapdash]

yeah i think otis is just trying to put some pages between him getting his rear end handed to him but it is not working bromigos take that to the bank

By being even more of an idiot? Smooth move.

 

[Otis]

yeah i think otis is just trying to put some pages between him getting his rear end handed to him but it is not working bromigos take that to the bank

I still don't think I've seen an answer

That's because you are measuring people's responses by what does and does not bother Otis.

I'm actually not. I'm asking what about it bothers you. What are you afraid of someone finding out? Why does it matter?

 

[Otis]

yeah i think otis is just trying to put some pages between him getting his rear end handed to him but it is not working bromigos take that to the bank

By being even more of an idiot? Smooth move.

Are you unhappy in your life?

 

[Politician Spock]

yeah i think otis is just trying to put some pages between him getting his rear end handed to him but it is not working bromigos take that to the bank

I still don't think I've seen an answer

That's because you are measuring people's responses by what does and does not bother Otis.

I'm actually not. I'm asking what about it bothers you. What are you afraid of someone finding out? Why does it matter?

Government violating the constitution bothers me. I am afraid of a Federal government that is not limited by the constitution. The constitution matters.

 

[Otis]

Man, if it ever gets out that I went with the grande pumpkin spice latte instead of my usual tall cappuccino, I'm toast.

 

[Otis]

yeah i think otis is just trying to put some pages between him getting his rear end handed to him but it is not working bromigos take that to the bank

I still don't think I've seen an answer

That's because you are measuring people's responses by what does and does not bother Otis.

I'm actually not. I'm asking what about it bothers you. What are you afraid of someone finding out? Why does it matter?

Government violating the constitution bothers me. I am afraid of a Federal government that is not limited by the constitution. The constitution matters.

I guess that's where we differ. I'm less concerned with constitutionally questionable activity on the margins if it's for the greater good and can potentially substantially decrease the chances that I'll lose my legs to a backpack bomb on my way home from the office.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

A discussion of whether or not my private matters are interesting (and they are definitely not) is completely beside the point.

As Americans, we have the inviolable right to be secure in our houses, and our papers, and our conversations, and to not have them searched without a warrant based upon probable cause.

I am not willing to give up one fraction of that right, just because it doesn't seem likely such surrender will result in negative consequences for me. Just like I'm not willing to give up my right to free speech even though I'm unlikely to say anything that will get me in trouble.

Preach brother. Perfectly stated.

It is well stated and I completely respect that viewpoint.

Individual freedoms is what our forefathers fought for and guaranteed. At the same time I will say that in times of great peril the individual has always made sacrifices to ensure the security of the nation and protect the stars and stripes. That almost always involved giving up personal freedoms for the preservation of the union.

My question I guess is are Americans strong enough in 2015 to do the things needed to ensure this great nation remains great, and that personal freedoms are guaranteed not for just the near future but for decades? Have we become so self-involved that we do not see the forest through the trees, that we are too comfortable with what we have and do not have a strategic vision for subsequent generations?

People thinking Edward Snowden is some kind of hero troubles me. His actions were premeditated and the results have set national security back years because of some personal mission he had to expose something that had no impact on the everyday lives of Americans. Then he stole data and very sensitive material, left the country, and settled down with one of our greatest rivals. To me he is no better than Aldrich Ames, Robert Hanssen, or the 2004 Olympic Men's Basketball team. He also stole files of many of our closest allies like Australia and Britain, now all in Russian hands (maybe Chinese also).

For what exactly? He could have reported all the domestic surveillance stuff in an unclassified forum, faced losing his security clearance and maybe a very short jail term at worst (whistleblowers protection would have helped him), and actually been someone that could be considered honorable. But calling him a "patriot" when Edward Snowden only cared about Edward Snowden is gross. Someday we'll probably let that giant turd back in and guarantee he won't face charges, or minimal charges. I wouldn't walk an extra two feet to #### in his hat.

 

[Politician Spock]

yeah i think otis is just trying to put some pages between him getting his rear end handed to him but it is not working bromigos take that to the bank

I still don't think I've seen an answer

That's because you are measuring people's responses by what does and does not bother Otis.

I'm actually not. I'm asking what about it bothers you. What are you afraid of someone finding out? Why does it matter?

Government violating the constitution bothers me. I am afraid of a Federal government that is not limited by the constitution. The constitution matters.

I guess that's where we differ. I'm less concerned with constitutionally questionable activity on the margins if it's for the greater good and can potentially substantially decrease the chances that I'll lose my legs to a backpack bomb on my way home from the office.

Like I said, you are measuring people's responses by what does and does not bother Otis. I understand you don't give a #### for the constitution. Those of us defending the constitution are defending your right to not give a ####.

 

[Slapdash]

yeah i think otis is just trying to put some pages between him getting his rear end handed to him but it is not working bromigos take that to the bank

By being even more of an idiot? Smooth move.

Are you unhappy in your life?

Nope

 

[Steed]

yeah i think otis is just trying to put some pages between him getting his rear end handed to him but it is not working bromigos take that to the bank

I still don't think I've seen an answer

That's because you are measuring people's responses by what does and does not bother Otis.

I'm actually not. I'm asking what about it bothers you. What are you afraid of someone finding out? Why does it matter?

Government violating the constitution bothers me. I am afraid of a Federal government that is not limited by the constitution. The constitution matters.

I guess that's where we differ. I'm less concerned with constitutionally questionable activity on the margins if it's for the greater good and can potentially substantially decrease the chances that I'll lose my legs to a backpack bomb on my way home from the office.

Did the surveillance state save those poor people at the Boston marathon? Next strawman

 

[timschochet]

Gotta give Tim credit. He has spent a lot of time arguing in favor of the surveillance state, but at least he was never had to resort to the "if you got nothing to hide..." crap.

I never argued in favor of a surveillance state. I argued in favor of the principle of obtaining bulk warrants for emails in order to run algorithms so as to locate keywords that terrorists might use, after which the NSA could then go back to the court to obtain a specific warrant to investigate that specific email further. I believed, and still do, that in theory this sort of procedure would not violate the 4th Amendment and could be necessary for security. But I've always maintained my concern over the execution of this practice. I never feared that it would lead to a 1984 scenario, but I did think that if we weren't careful it could lead to some Kafkaesque horrors, mainly because of government screwups. I also recommended, after the Clapper hearings in which he so clearly lied to the public, that the entire program should be halted pending a full investigation and examination of the legalities involved.

 

[Slapdash]

yeah i think otis is just trying to put some pages between him getting his rear end handed to him but it is not working bromigos take that to the bank

I still don't think I've seen an answer

That's because you are measuring people's responses by what does and does not bother Otis.

I'm actually not. I'm asking what about it bothers you. What are you afraid of someone finding out? Why does it matter?

Government violating the constitution bothers me. I am afraid of a Federal government that is not limited by the constitution. The constitution matters.

I guess that's where we differ. I'm less concerned with constitutionally questionable activity on the margins if it's for the greater good and can potentially substantially decrease the chances that I'll lose my legs to a backpack bomb on my way home from the office.

If it potentially substantially decrease odds of something less likely than you being hit by lightening? Good reason to trash the Bill of Rights here.

 

[grateful zed]

otis's massive fishing schtik has us all leaping in the boat.

but is it worth losing what crediblilty he has left.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

yeah i think otis is just trying to put some pages between him getting his rear end handed to him but it is not working bromigos take that to the bank

I still don't think I've seen an answer

That's because you are measuring people's responses by what does and does not bother Otis.

I'm actually not. I'm asking what about it bothers you. What are you afraid of someone finding out? Why does it matter?

Government violating the constitution bothers me. I am afraid of a Federal government that is not limited by the constitution. The constitution matters.

I guess that's where we differ. I'm less concerned with constitutionally questionable activity on the margins if it's for the greater good and can potentially substantially decrease the chances that I'll lose my legs to a backpack bomb on my way home from the office.

Did the surveillance state save those poor people at the Boston marathon? Next strawman

Well a lot of potential terrorist attacks have been thwarted too.

And those are the ones the public knows about, there are others.

 

[timschochet]

otis's massive fishing schtik has us all leaping in the boat.

but is it worth losing what crediblilty he has left.

No reason to believe it's shtick.

 

[Slapdash]

Gotta give Tim credit. He has spent a lot of time arguing in favor of the surveillance state, but at least he was never had to resort to the "if you got nothing to hide..." crap.

I never argued in favor of a surveillance state. I argued in favor of the principle of obtaining bulk warrants for emails in order to run algorithms so as to locate keywords that terrorists might use, after which the NSA could then go back to the court to obtain a specific warrant to investigate that specific email further. I believed, and still do, that in theory this sort of procedure would not violate the 4th Amendment and could be necessary for security. But I've always maintained my concern over the execution of this practice. I never feared that it would lead to a 1984 scenario, but I did think that if we weren't careful it could lead to some Kafkaesque horrors, mainly because of government screwups. I also recommended, after the Clapper hearings in which he so clearly lied to the public, that the entire program should be halted pending a full investigation and examination of the legalities involved.

Yeah. There is a big difference between arguing that right to privacy is not being violated by certain actions and arguing that the right to privacy shouldn't exist at all.

 

[SWC]

if it is not stick it is booooorrrrrriiiiiinnnnnngggggg take that to the bank

 

[Doctor Detroit]

if it is not stick it is booooorrrrrriiiiiinnnnnngggggg take that to the bank

Not Gekko boring though, brochacho.

 

[Politician Spock]

Gotta give Tim credit. He has spent a lot of time arguing in favor of the surveillance state, but at least he was never had to resort to the "if you got nothing to hide..." crap.

I never argued in favor of a surveillance state. I argued in favor of the principle of obtaining bulk warrants for emails in order to run algorithms so as to locate keywords that terrorists might use, after which the NSA could then go back to the court to obtain a specific warrant to investigate that specific email further. I believed, and still do, that in theory this sort of procedure would not violate the 4th Amendment and could be necessary for security. But I've always maintained my concern over the execution of this practice. I never feared that it would lead to a 1984 scenario, but I did think that if we weren't careful it could lead to some Kafkaesque horrors, mainly because of government screwups. I also recommended, after the Clapper hearings in which he so clearly lied to the public, that the entire program should be halted pending a full investigation and examination of the legalities involved.

Yeah. There is a big difference between arguing that right to privacy is not being violated by certain actions and arguing that the right to privacy shouldn't exist at all.

Slapdash is spot on here. Otis is in a realm even Tim has never attempted to swim.

 

[Otis]

yeah i think otis is just trying to put some pages between him getting his rear end handed to him but it is not working bromigos take that to the bank

I still don't think I've seen an answer

That's because you are measuring people's responses by what does and does not bother Otis.

I'm actually not. I'm asking what about it bothers you. What are you afraid of someone finding out? Why does it matter?

Government violating the constitution bothers me. I am afraid of a Federal government that is not limited by the constitution. The constitution matters.

I guess that's where we differ. I'm less concerned with constitutionally questionable activity on the margins if it's for the greater good and can potentially substantially decrease the chances that I'll lose my legs to a backpack bomb on my way home from the office.

Did the surveillance state save those poor people at the Boston marathon? Next strawman

No, but maybe it has saved tens of hundreds of others. We'll never know. And that's probably a good thing. How many terror plots have been foiled in the past few years?

 

[SWC]

if it is not stick it is booooorrrrrriiiiiinnnnnngggggg take that to the bank

Not Gekko boring though, brochacho.

they both have in common that i do not really read them tho so there is that take that to the bank bromigo

 

[Otis]

Gotta give Tim credit. He has spent a lot of time arguing in favor of the surveillance state, but at least he was never had to resort to the "if you got nothing to hide..." crap.

I never argued in favor of a surveillance state. I argued in favor of the principle of obtaining bulk warrants for emails in order to run algorithms so as to locate keywords that terrorists might use, after which the NSA could then go back to the court to obtain a specific warrant to investigate that specific email further. I believed, and still do, that in theory this sort of procedure would not violate the 4th Amendment and could be necessary for security. But I've always maintained my concern over the execution of this practice. I never feared that it would lead to a 1984 scenario, but I did think that if we weren't careful it could lead to some Kafkaesque horrors, mainly because of government screwups. I also recommended, after the Clapper hearings in which he so clearly lied to the public, that the entire program should be halted pending a full investigation and examination of the legalities involved.

Yeah. There is a big difference between arguing that right to privacy is not being violated by certain actions and arguing that the right to privacy shouldn't exist at all.

Slapdash is spot on here. Otis is in a realm even Tim has never attempted to swim.

I never said the right to privacy shouldn't exist at all. I'm balancing it against people getting to keep their legs. I guess other people do that math differently.

 

[Otis]

yeah i think otis is just trying to put some pages between him getting his rear end handed to him but it is not working bromigos take that to the bank

I still don't think I've seen an answer

That's because you are measuring people's responses by what does and does not bother Otis.

I'm actually not. I'm asking what about it bothers you. What are you afraid of someone finding out? Why does it matter?

Government violating the constitution bothers me. I am afraid of a Federal government that is not limited by the constitution. The constitution matters.

I guess that's where we differ. I'm less concerned with constitutionally questionable activity on the margins if it's for the greater good and can potentially substantially decrease the chances that I'll lose my legs to a backpack bomb on my way home from the office.

Did the surveillance state save those poor people at the Boston marathon? Next strawman

Well a lot of potential terrorist attacks have been thwarted too.

And those are the ones the public knows about, there are others.

Thank you.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

yeah i think otis is just trying to put some pages between him getting his rear end handed to him but it is not working bromigos take that to the bank

I still don't think I've seen an answer

That's because you are measuring people's responses by what does and does not bother Otis.

I'm actually not. I'm asking what about it bothers you. What are you afraid of someone finding out? Why does it matter?

Government violating the constitution bothers me. I am afraid of a Federal government that is not limited by the constitution. The constitution matters.

I guess that's where we differ. I'm less concerned with constitutionally questionable activity on the margins if it's for the greater good and can potentially substantially decrease the chances that I'll lose my legs to a backpack bomb on my way home from the office.

Did the surveillance state save those poor people at the Boston marathon? Next strawman

No, but maybe it has saved tens of hundreds of others. We'll never know. And that's probably a good thing. How many terror plots have been foiled in the past few years?

And maybe it incarcerated tens of thousands innocents as well... we'll never know.

Hey Otis Jr, put your dad back on the computer.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

I like Otis' passion on this terrorism stuff, he's got a purpose now. Is he always right? Well....

 

[Politician Spock]

Gotta give Tim credit. He has spent a lot of time arguing in favor of the surveillance state, but at least he was never had to resort to the "if you got nothing to hide..." crap.

I never argued in favor of a surveillance state. I argued in favor of the principle of obtaining bulk warrants for emails in order to run algorithms so as to locate keywords that terrorists might use, after which the NSA could then go back to the court to obtain a specific warrant to investigate that specific email further. I believed, and still do, that in theory this sort of procedure would not violate the 4th Amendment and could be necessary for security. But I've always maintained my concern over the execution of this practice. I never feared that it would lead to a 1984 scenario, but I did think that if we weren't careful it could lead to some Kafkaesque horrors, mainly because of government screwups. I also recommended, after the Clapper hearings in which he so clearly lied to the public, that the entire program should be halted pending a full investigation and examination of the legalities involved.

Yeah. There is a big difference between arguing that right to privacy is not being violated by certain actions and arguing that the right to privacy shouldn't exist at all.

Slapdash is spot on here. Otis is in a realm even Tim has never attempted to swim.

I never said the right to privacy shouldn't exist at all. I'm balancing it against people getting to keep their legs. I guess other people do that math differently.

I appreciate the shock value of your argument. But as has been pointed out, you want to give up your rights to protect against one of the most rare forms of harm that occur in our society. If protecting us from harm is the motivation, don't you think the trillions of tax dollars that are spent on protecting us from terrorism would be better spent protecting us from something that kills 30,000+ Americans a year and harms another 100,000+ more? Especially since we wouldn't have to give up any rights for them to use those trillions to help protect us.

 

[Otis]

I like Otis' passion on this terrorism stuff, he's got a purpose now. Is he always right? Well....

The police and military presence in Manhattan was incredible today. Two of the NYPD special team (I think they looked like the Hercules team guys) were staffed at the entrance to my building this morning, and on the way in I popped out my headphones and thanked them for protecting us. These guys sure do look like the real deal. GB having them around in times like these, even if only so you feel a little bit safer should something ugly happen.

Scary world.

 

[timschochet]

Gotta give Tim credit. He has spent a lot of time arguing in favor of the surveillance state, but at least he was never had to resort to the "if you got nothing to hide..." crap.

I never argued in favor of a surveillance state. I argued in favor of the principle of obtaining bulk warrants for emails in order to run algorithms so as to locate keywords that terrorists might use, after which the NSA could then go back to the court to obtain a specific warrant to investigate that specific email further. I believed, and still do, that in theory this sort of procedure would not violate the 4th Amendment and could be necessary for security. But I've always maintained my concern over the execution of this practice. I never feared that it would lead to a 1984 scenario, but I did think that if we weren't careful it could lead to some Kafkaesque horrors, mainly because of government screwups. I also recommended, after the Clapper hearings in which he so clearly lied to the public, that the entire program should be halted pending a full investigation and examination of the legalities involved.

Yeah. There is a big difference between arguing that right to privacy is not being violated by certain actions and arguing that the right to privacy shouldn't exist at all.

Slapdash is spot on here. Otis is in a realm even Tim has never attempted to swim.

But others have. When we were debating this a few months back, I used to ask friends and family members what they thought. The most common answer I got what very similar to Otis: "So what? I got nothing to hide."

 

[Slapdash]

Otis is far more likely to lose his legs from diabetes than terrorism

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Otis is far more likely to lose his legs from diabetes than terrorism

God Dammit

 

[timschochet]

Otis is far more likely to lose his legs from diabetes than terrorism

That's cold. Damn.

 

[grateful zed]

Gotta give Tim credit. He has spent a lot of time arguing in favor of the surveillance state, but at least he was never had to resort to the "if you got nothing to hide..." crap.

I never argued in favor of a surveillance state. I argued in favor of the principle of obtaining bulk warrants for emails in order to run algorithms so as to locate keywords that terrorists might use, after which the NSA could then go back to the court to obtain a specific warrant to investigate that specific email further. I believed, and still do, that in theory this sort of procedure would not violate the 4th Amendment and could be necessary for security. But I've always maintained my concern over the execution of this practice. I never feared that it would lead to a 1984 scenario, but I did think that if we weren't careful it could lead to some Kafkaesque horrors, mainly because of government screwups. I also recommended, after the Clapper hearings in which he so clearly lied to the public, that the entire program should be halted pending a full investigation and examination of the legalities involved.

Yeah. There is a big difference between arguing that right to privacy is not being violated by certain actions and arguing that the right to privacy shouldn't exist at all.

Slapdash is spot on here. Otis is in a realm even Tim has never attempted to swim.

I never said the right to privacy shouldn't exist at all. I'm balancing it against people getting to keep their legs. I guess other people do that math differently.

I appreciate the shock value of your argument. But as has been pointed out, you want to give up your rights to protect against one of the most rare forms of harm that occur in our society. If protecting us from harm is the motivation, don't you think the trillions of tax dollars that are spent on protecting us from terrorism would be better spent protecting us from something that kills 30,000+ Americans a year and harms another 100,000+ more? Especially since we wouldn't have to give up any rights for them to use those trillions to help protect us.

well put

 

[Otis]

Otis is far more likely to lose his legs from diabetes than terrorism

If my girth takes me, it will be cardiovascular.

 

[SWC]

Otis is far more likely to lose his legs from diabetes than terrorism

If my girth takes me, it will be cardiovascular.

your new name is diabotis take that to the bank

 

[Doctor Detroit]

My dog barked at me because I was laughing so loud.

 

[grateful zed]

best thread in awhile, thanks oats.

 

[tommyboy]

yeah i think otis is just trying to put some pages between him getting his rear end handed to him but it is not working bromigos take that to the bank

I still don't think I've seen an answer

That's because you are measuring people's responses by what does and does not bother Otis.

I'm actually not. I'm asking what about it bothers you. What are you afraid of someone finding out? Why does it matter?

Not afraid. Its our right to privacy, until we give it up, I choose to retain it fully.

 

[timschochet]

yeah i think otis is just trying to put some pages between him getting his rear end handed to him but it is not working bromigos take that to the bank

I still don't think I've seen an answer

That's because you are measuring people's responses by what does and does not bother Otis.

I'm actually not. I'm asking what about it bothers you. What are you afraid of someone finding out? Why does it matter?

Not afraid. Its our right to privacy, until we give it up, I choose to retain it fully.

Just curious, do you believe that Roe vs. Wade was a correct decision?