Verizon required to give ALL call data to NSA (1 Viewer)

[Doug B]

Security by obscurity never works in the long run.

Cold War? The KGB, MI5, CIA, etc. weren't exactly broadcasting their intentions or the locations of their assets.

 

[Psychopav]

Just testing the new liberalization of image posting. Nothing to see here.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/999036_521324744569873_800698338_n.jpg?dl=1

 

[Psychopav]

“There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time. But at any rate they could plug in your wire whenever they wanted to.”~George Orwell in “1984”

:greatposting:

 

[timschochet]

“There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time. But at any rate they could plug in your wire whenever they wanted to.”~George Orwell in “1984”

:greatposting:

Really?

The central theme of 1984 is that a totalitarian dictatorship controls through lack of communication. In Soviet Russia, which was Orwell's primary model for his two masterpieces, nobody was allowed to talk about political issues with anybody else- just the threat of doing so was terrifying, because you never know who might be listening. Orwell's protagonist spends half the novel looking for someone, some connection he can actually speak to.

So it seems extremely ironic that you guys are making references to Orwell in an internet discussion forum where virtually any topic is open for debate. We ourselves, and this forum, are proof positive that a society like 1984 cannot exist here. If George Orwell were alive today and aware of the internet, he would laugh at your analogy. He would say, "Why are you people so concerned with dictatorship? You've created the perfect antidote in your new technology. You've defeated it forever!"

And so we have.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

All of you guys seem to have this fear that the government shouldn't have too much information. Because who knows what dire and tyrannical things they can do with it. But this is the same sort of paranoid rhetoric we've been hearing from those who have complained about the Census for years, except in that case we could relegate it to the "Black Helicopter" crowd. It dismays me that this sort of crowd has grown to include what the WSJ guy refers to a "libertarians"- not that it resembles even remotely the libertarianism that I once belonged to and admired, which concerned itself primarily with free trade and open immigration.

I too remember the good old days, when libertarians were completely supportive of the government spying on its own citizens.

 

[timschochet]

Now as I have pointed out earlier in the thread, a far better analogy, and much more reasonable fear, is Franz Kafka's The Trial:

Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything truly wrong, he was arrested.

This is my biggest fear with government having this much access to information- not that it's going to do anything deliberately evil, but that it's going to screw things up due to size and bureaucracy, and there are going to be some Josef Ks out there that get arrested through no fault of their own. Based on some of the reports about Guantanamo, this has already happened.

 

[timschochet]

All of you guys seem to have this fear that the government shouldn't have too much information. Because who knows what dire and tyrannical things they can do with it. But this is the same sort of paranoid rhetoric we've been hearing from those who have complained about the Census for years, except in that case we could relegate it to the "Black Helicopter" crowd. It dismays me that this sort of crowd has grown to include what the WSJ guy refers to a "libertarians"- not that it resembles even remotely the libertarianism that I once belonged to and admired, which concerned itself primarily with free trade and open immigration.

I too remember the good old days, when libertarians were completely supportive of the government spying on its own citizens.

Glad you agree with something I never wrote or even implied.

 

[Slapdash]

“There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time. But at any rate they could plug in your wire whenever they wanted to.”~George Orwell in “1984”

:greatposting:

Really?

The central theme of 1984 is that a totalitarian dictatorship controls through lack of communication. In Soviet Russia, which was Orwell's primary model for his two masterpieces, nobody was allowed to talk about political issues with anybody else- just the threat of doing so was terrifying, because you never know who might be listening. Orwell's protagonist spends half the novel looking for someone, some connection he can actually speak to.

So it seems extremely ironic that you guys are making references to Orwell in an internet discussion forum where virtually any topic is open for debate. We ourselves, and this forum, are proof positive that a society like 1984 cannot exist here. If George Orwell were alive today and aware of the internet, he would laugh at your analogy. He would say, "Why are you people so concerned with dictatorship? You've created the perfect antidote in your new technology. You've defeated it forever!"

And so we have.

I was going to respond to this claptrap, but the bold lets me know you are just fishing here.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

All of you guys seem to have this fear that the government shouldn't have too much information. Because who knows what dire and tyrannical things they can do with it. But this is the same sort of paranoid rhetoric we've been hearing from those who have complained about the Census for years, except in that case we could relegate it to the "Black Helicopter" crowd. It dismays me that this sort of crowd has grown to include what the WSJ guy refers to a "libertarians"- not that it resembles even remotely the libertarianism that I once belonged to and admired, which concerned itself primarily with free trade and open immigration.

I too remember the good old days, when libertarians were completely supportive of the government spying on its own citizens.

Glad you agree with something I never wrote or even implied.

???

You've said over and over again that you're embarrassed that self-described "libertarians" are all paranoid about the NSA's data collection program. What part am I misunderstanding?

 

[timschochet]

“There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time. But at any rate they could plug in your wire whenever they wanted to.”~George Orwell in “1984”

:greatposting:

Really?

The central theme of 1984 is that a totalitarian dictatorship controls through lack of communication. In Soviet Russia, which was Orwell's primary model for his two masterpieces, nobody was allowed to talk about political issues with anybody else- just the threat of doing so was terrifying, because you never know who might be listening. Orwell's protagonist spends half the novel looking for someone, some connection he can actually speak to.

So it seems extremely ironic that you guys are making references to Orwell in an internet discussion forum where virtually any topic is open for debate. We ourselves, and this forum, are proof positive that a society like 1984 cannot exist here. If George Orwell were alive today and aware of the internet, he would laugh at your analogy. He would say, "Why are you people so concerned with dictatorship? You've created the perfect antidote in your new technology. You've defeated it forever!"

And so we have.

I was going to respond to this claptrap, but the bold lets me know you are just fishing here.

I'm not fishing at all. I honestly don't believe that any free society with an existing internet will ever again be able to impose a dictatorship. I believe that all the world's governments which are not currently free are doomed in the long run- within a decade or two after they have use of the internet, and especially social networking, the dictatorship will collapse. That is my firm conviction.

 

[Politician Spock]

“There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time. But at any rate they could plug in your wire whenever they wanted to.” ~George Orwell in “1984”

:greatposting:

Really? The central theme of 1984 is that a totalitarian dictatorship controls through lack of communication. In Soviet Russia, which was Orwell's primary model for his two masterpieces, nobody was allowed to talk about political issues with anybody else- just the threat of doing so was terrifying, because you never know who might be listening. Orwell's protagonist spends half the novel looking for someone, some connection he can actually speak to. So it seems extremely ironic that you guys are making references to Orwell in an internet discussion forum where virtually any topic is open for debate. We ourselves, and this forum, are proof positive that a society like 1984 cannot exist here. If George Orwell were alive today and aware of the internet, he would laugh at your analogy. He would say, "Why are you people so concerned with dictatorship? You've created the perfect antidote in your new technology. You've defeated it forever!" And so we have.

So in other words, the government is but "regulation of the internet" away from achieving it.

 

[Slapdash]

The central theme of 1984 is that a totalitarian dictatorship controls through lack of communication. In Soviet Russia, which was Orwell's primary model for his two masterpieces, nobody was allowed to talk about political issues with anybody else- just the threat of doing so was terrifying, because you never know who might be listening. Orwell's protagonist spends half the novel looking for someone, some connection he can actually speak to. So it seems extremely ironic that you guys are making references to Orwell in an internet discussion forum where virtually any topic is open for debate. We ourselves, and this forum, are proof positive that a society like 1984 cannot exist here. If George Orwell were alive today and aware of the internet, he would laugh at your analogy. He would say, "Why are you people so concerned with dictatorship? You've created the perfect antidote in your new technology. You've defeated it forever!" And so we have.

So in other words, the government is but "regulation of the internet" away from achieving it.

It isn't like the government is trying to regulate the internet with laws like CISPA or anything.

 

[timschochet]

All of you guys seem to have this fear that the government shouldn't have too much information. Because who knows what dire and tyrannical things they can do with it. But this is the same sort of paranoid rhetoric we've been hearing from those who have complained about the Census for years, except in that case we could relegate it to the "Black Helicopter" crowd. It dismays me that this sort of crowd has grown to include what the WSJ guy refers to a "libertarians"- not that it resembles even remotely the libertarianism that I once belonged to and admired, which concerned itself primarily with free trade and open immigration.

I too remember the good old days, when libertarians were completely supportive of the government spying on its own citizens.

Glad you agree with something I never wrote or even implied.

???

You've said over and over again that you're embarrassed that self-described "libertarians" are all paranoid about the NSA's data collection program. What part am I misunderstanding?

The libertarian position would never have been "completely supportive of the government spying on it's own citizens", and isn't now. But in the past I don't believe they would have regarded this issue, or drones, or gun control, or how much soda you can drink, as defining positions worthy of priority. And they certainly wouldn't have feared that any of these items would lead to dictatorship. As Hayek makes clear in The Road to Serfdom, it's economic policy, and particularly restrictions on free trade, which can lead to a "serfdom" for ordinary people. Economics in the form of free trade and free movement (i.e. immigration) used to be the key issues for thoughtful libertarians.

 

[Politician Spock]

The central theme of 1984 is that a totalitarian dictatorship controls through lack of communication. In Soviet Russia, which was Orwell's primary model for his two masterpieces, nobody was allowed to talk about political issues with anybody else- just the threat of doing so was terrifying, because you never know who might be listening. Orwell's protagonist spends half the novel looking for someone, some connection he can actually speak to. So it seems extremely ironic that you guys are making references to Orwell in an internet discussion forum where virtually any topic is open for debate. We ourselves, and this forum, are proof positive that a society like 1984 cannot exist here. If George Orwell were alive today and aware of the internet, he would laugh at your analogy. He would say, "Why are you people so concerned with dictatorship? You've created the perfect antidote in your new technology. You've defeated it forever!" And so we have.

So in other words, the government is but "regulation of the internet" away from achieving it.

It isn't like the government is trying to regulate the internet with laws like CISPA or anything.

Who needs new laws? They can just do it now. Be careful when you say anything against government on Facebook

 

[Slapdash]

“There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time. But at any rate they could plug in your wire whenever they wanted to.”~George Orwell in “1984”

:greatposting:

Really?

The central theme of 1984 is that a totalitarian dictatorship controls through lack of communication. In Soviet Russia, which was Orwell's primary model for his two masterpieces, nobody was allowed to talk about political issues with anybody else- just the threat of doing so was terrifying, because you never know who might be listening. Orwell's protagonist spends half the novel looking for someone, some connection he can actually speak to.

So it seems extremely ironic that you guys are making references to Orwell in an internet discussion forum where virtually any topic is open for debate. We ourselves, and this forum, are proof positive that a society like 1984 cannot exist here. If George Orwell were alive today and aware of the internet, he would laugh at your analogy. He would say, "Why are you people so concerned with dictatorship? You've created the perfect antidote in your new technology. You've defeated it forever!"

And so we have.

I was going to respond to this claptrap, but the bold lets me know you are just fishing here.

I'm not fishing at all. I honestly don't believe that any free society with an existing internet will ever again be able to impose a dictatorship. I believe that all the world's governments which are not currently free are doomed in the long run- within a decade or two after they have use of the internet, and especially social networking, the dictatorship will collapse. That is my firm conviction.

You're either fishing or lack the reading comprehension to understand people like Orwell, Hayek, and Friedman you think you keep pretending agree with you.

Freedom and dictatorship aren't binary options.

 

[Slapdash]

The central theme of 1984 is that a totalitarian dictatorship controls through lack of communication. In Soviet Russia, which was Orwell's primary model for his two masterpieces, nobody was allowed to talk about political issues with anybody else- just the threat of doing so was terrifying, because you never know who might be listening. Orwell's protagonist spends half the novel looking for someone, some connection he can actually speak to. So it seems extremely ironic that you guys are making references to Orwell in an internet discussion forum where virtually any topic is open for debate. We ourselves, and this forum, are proof positive that a society like 1984 cannot exist here. If George Orwell were alive today and aware of the internet, he would laugh at your analogy. He would say, "Why are you people so concerned with dictatorship? You've created the perfect antidote in your new technology. You've defeated it forever!" And so we have.

So in other words, the government is but "regulation of the internet" away from achieving it.

It isn't like the government is trying to regulate the internet with laws like CISPA or anything.

Who needs new laws? They can just do it now. Be careful when you say anything against government on Facebook

Countdown to Tim not being bothered by this....

 

[timschochet]

The central theme of 1984 is that a totalitarian dictatorship controls through lack of communication. In Soviet Russia, which was Orwell's primary model for his two masterpieces, nobody was allowed to talk about political issues with anybody else- just the threat of doing so was terrifying, because you never know who might be listening. Orwell's protagonist spends half the novel looking for someone, some connection he can actually speak to. So it seems extremely ironic that you guys are making references to Orwell in an internet discussion forum where virtually any topic is open for debate. We ourselves, and this forum, are proof positive that a society like 1984 cannot exist here. If George Orwell were alive today and aware of the internet, he would laugh at your analogy. He would say, "Why are you people so concerned with dictatorship? You've created the perfect antidote in your new technology. You've defeated it forever!" And so we have.

So in other words, the government is but "regulation of the internet" away from achieving it.

It isn't like the government is trying to regulate the internet with laws like CISPA or anything.

Glad to see I have the attention of both Spock and evil Spock. Now I know I'm doing something right.

If and when the government manages to ever restrict free speech in the internet making discussions like the kind we're having right now impossible, then we'll have a real problem on our hands, and that's when I would truly fear a tyranny. I doubt that will ever happen, however.

 

[Politician Spock]

The central theme of 1984 is that a totalitarian dictatorship controls through lack of communication. In Soviet Russia, which was Orwell's primary model for his two masterpieces, nobody was allowed to talk about political issues with anybody else- just the threat of doing so was terrifying, because you never know who might be listening. Orwell's protagonist spends half the novel looking for someone, some connection he can actually speak to. So it seems extremely ironic that you guys are making references to Orwell in an internet discussion forum where virtually any topic is open for debate. We ourselves, and this forum, are proof positive that a society like 1984 cannot exist here. If George Orwell were alive today and aware of the internet, he would laugh at your analogy. He would say, "Why are you people so concerned with dictatorship? You've created the perfect antidote in your new technology. You've defeated it forever!" And so we have.

So in other words, the government is but "regulation of the internet" away from achieving it.

It isn't like the government is trying to regulate the internet with laws like CISPA or anything.

Glad to see I have the attention of both Spock and evil Spock. Now I know I'm doing something right. If and when the government manages to ever restrict free speech in the internet making discussions like the kind we're having right now impossible, then we'll have a real problem on our hands, and that's when I would truly fear a tyranny. I doubt that will ever happen, however.

They don't have to make it impossible. They just have to watch. Then just the threat of talking politically on the internet will be terrifying, because you never know who might be watching.

 

[timschochet]

The central theme of 1984 is that a totalitarian dictatorship controls through lack of communication. In Soviet Russia, which was Orwell's primary model for his two masterpieces, nobody was allowed to talk about political issues with anybody else- just the threat of doing so was terrifying, because you never know who might be listening. Orwell's protagonist spends half the novel looking for someone, some connection he can actually speak to. So it seems extremely ironic that you guys are making references to Orwell in an internet discussion forum where virtually any topic is open for debate. We ourselves, and this forum, are proof positive that a society like 1984 cannot exist here. If George Orwell were alive today and aware of the internet, he would laugh at your analogy. He would say, "Why are you people so concerned with dictatorship? You've created the perfect antidote in your new technology. You've defeated it forever!" And so we have.

So in other words, the government is but "regulation of the internet" away from achieving it.

It isn't like the government is trying to regulate the internet with laws like CISPA or anything.

Who needs new laws? They can just do it now. Be careful when you say anything against government on Facebook

Countdown to Tim not being bothered by this....

I am bothered by it. But once again, it's much more Joseph K than Winston Smith, and that's the distinction you guys keep failing to make again and again.

 

[sporthenry]

Well just like we use the logic, if you have nothing to hide, why worry about these programs?

Why was this a big secret if the US government had nothing to hide from?

From what I can glean from his leaks, he didn't really leak much in terms of compromising our intelligence, just what we were collecting. I don't think China or Russia can use what he leaked to further their intelligence unless they get a hold of him. Which, by us driving him away with the threat of prosecution, makes that more realistic.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

The central theme of 1984 is that a totalitarian dictatorship controls through lack of communication. In Soviet Russia, which was Orwell's primary model for his two masterpieces, nobody was allowed to talk about political issues with anybody else- just the threat of doing so was terrifying, because you never know who might be listening. Orwell's protagonist spends half the novel looking for someone, some connection he can actually speak to. So it seems extremely ironic that you guys are making references to Orwell in an internet discussion forum where virtually any topic is open for debate. We ourselves, and this forum, are proof positive that a society like 1984 cannot exist here. If George Orwell were alive today and aware of the internet, he would laugh at your analogy. He would say, "Why are you people so concerned with dictatorship? You've created the perfect antidote in your new technology. You've defeated it forever!" And so we have.

So in other words, the government is but "regulation of the internet" away from achieving it.

It isn't like the government is trying to regulate the internet with laws like CISPA or anything.

Glad to see I have the attention of both Spock and evil Spock. Now I know I'm doing something right.

If and when the government manages to ever restrict free speech in the internet making discussions like the kind we're having right now impossible, then we'll have a real problem on our hands, and that's when I would truly fear a tyranny. I doubt that will ever happen, however.

So you'll fear tyranny only after you lose the ability to stop it?

Pass.

 

[timschochet]

“There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time. But at any rate they could plug in your wire whenever they wanted to.”~George Orwell in “1984”

:greatposting:

Really?

The central theme of 1984 is that a totalitarian dictatorship controls through lack of communication. In Soviet Russia, which was Orwell's primary model for his two masterpieces, nobody was allowed to talk about political issues with anybody else- just the threat of doing so was terrifying, because you never know who might be listening. Orwell's protagonist spends half the novel looking for someone, some connection he can actually speak to.

So it seems extremely ironic that you guys are making references to Orwell in an internet discussion forum where virtually any topic is open for debate. We ourselves, and this forum, are proof positive that a society like 1984 cannot exist here. If George Orwell were alive today and aware of the internet, he would laugh at your analogy. He would say, "Why are you people so concerned with dictatorship? You've created the perfect antidote in your new technology. You've defeated it forever!"

And so we have.

I was going to respond to this claptrap, but the bold lets me know you are just fishing here.

I'm not fishing at all. I honestly don't believe that any free society with an existing internet will ever again be able to impose a dictatorship. I believe that all the world's governments which are not currently free are doomed in the long run- within a decade or two after they have use of the internet, and especially social networking, the dictatorship will collapse. That is my firm conviction.

You're either fishing or lack the reading comprehension to understand people like Orwell, Hayek, and Friedman you think you keep pretending agree with you.

Freedom and dictatorship aren't binary options.

I never said they were.

I have to leave again. I'm enjoying the debate, but it's really sad to me that every often you seem to resort to insults, like claiming I lack reading comprehension. I'm perfectly willing to admit that my interpretation of Orwell, or Hayek, or Friedman might be different from yours. But it's not like I'm stating any original ideas here. Every point I've made has been made first by other people a lot smarter than me- I just happen to agree with them. So if we're going to discuss this further later on, please abstain from the insults and superior attitude. You're a guy I respect a lot here; your posts are almost always thoughtful, and the fact that I disagree with you on this issue doesn't change my high opinion of you.

 

[Politician Spock]

The central theme of 1984 is that a totalitarian dictatorship controls through lack of communication. In Soviet Russia, which was Orwell's primary model for his two masterpieces, nobody was allowed to talk about political issues with anybody else- just the threat of doing so was terrifying, because you never know who might be listening. Orwell's protagonist spends half the novel looking for someone, some connection he can actually speak to. So it seems extremely ironic that you guys are making references to Orwell in an internet discussion forum where virtually any topic is open for debate. We ourselves, and this forum, are proof positive that a society like 1984 cannot exist here. If George Orwell were alive today and aware of the internet, he would laugh at your analogy. He would say, "Why are you people so concerned with dictatorship? You've created the perfect antidote in your new technology. You've defeated it forever!" And so we have.

So in other words, the government is but "regulation of the internet" away from achieving it.

It isn't like the government is trying to regulate the internet with laws like CISPA or anything.

Glad to see I have the attention of both Spock and evil Spock. Now I know I'm doing something right. If and when the government manages to ever restrict free speech in the internet making discussions like the kind we're having right now impossible, then we'll have a real problem on our hands, and that's when I would truly fear a tyranny. I doubt that will ever happen, however.

So you'll fear tyranny only after you lose the ability to stop it? Pass.

I don't believe Tim has been more wrong on anything than this... and that is considering a lot that he has been wrong on.

 

[lod01]

As long as they don't come after my pron, I'm good.

 

[timschochet]

The central theme of 1984 is that a totalitarian dictatorship controls through lack of communication. In Soviet Russia, which was Orwell's primary model for his two masterpieces, nobody was allowed to talk about political issues with anybody else- just the threat of doing so was terrifying, because you never know who might be listening. Orwell's protagonist spends half the novel looking for someone, some connection he can actually speak to. So it seems extremely ironic that you guys are making references to Orwell in an internet discussion forum where virtually any topic is open for debate. We ourselves, and this forum, are proof positive that a society like 1984 cannot exist here. If George Orwell were alive today and aware of the internet, he would laugh at your analogy. He would say, "Why are you people so concerned with dictatorship? You've created the perfect antidote in your new technology. You've defeated it forever!" And so we have.

So in other words, the government is but "regulation of the internet" away from achieving it.

It isn't like the government is trying to regulate the internet with laws like CISPA or anything.

Glad to see I have the attention of both Spock and evil Spock. Now I know I'm doing something right.

If and when the government manages to ever restrict free speech in the internet making discussions like the kind we're having right now impossible, then we'll have a real problem on our hands, and that's when I would truly fear a tyranny. I doubt that will ever happen, however.

So you'll fear tyranny only after you lose the ability to stop it?

Pass.

I'll fear tyranny when I see it approaching. You guys are seeing mirages.

 

[Psychopav]

“There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time. But at any rate they could plug in your wire whenever they wanted to.”~George Orwell in “1984”

:greatposting:

Really?

The central theme of 1984 is that a totalitarian dictatorship controls through lack of communication. In Soviet Russia, which was Orwell's primary model for his two masterpieces, nobody was allowed to talk about political issues with anybody else- just the threat of doing so was terrifying, because you never know who might be listening. Orwell's protagonist spends half the novel looking for someone, some connection he can actually speak to.

So it seems extremely ironic that you guys are making references to Orwell in an internet discussion forum where virtually any topic is open for debate. We ourselves, and this forum, are proof positive that a society like 1984 cannot exist here. If George Orwell were alive today and aware of the internet, he would laugh at your analogy. He would say, "Why are you people so concerned with dictatorship? You've created the perfect antidote in your new technology. You've defeated it forever!"

And so we have.

I was going to respond to this claptrap, but the bold lets me know you are just fishing here.

This affirms my wise decision to have Tim on ignore. Thank you for quoting his post, Slapdash.

 

[Steve Tasker]

But it's not like I'm stating any original ideas here. Every point I've made has been made first by other people a lot smarter than me

Pretty par for the course for you, Tim.

 

[Slapdash]

“There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time. But at any rate they could plug in your wire whenever they wanted to.”~George Orwell in “1984”

:greatposting:

Really?

The central theme of 1984 is that a totalitarian dictatorship controls through lack of communication. In Soviet Russia, which was Orwell's primary model for his two masterpieces, nobody was allowed to talk about political issues with anybody else- just the threat of doing so was terrifying, because you never know who might be listening. Orwell's protagonist spends half the novel looking for someone, some connection he can actually speak to.

So it seems extremely ironic that you guys are making references to Orwell in an internet discussion forum where virtually any topic is open for debate. We ourselves, and this forum, are proof positive that a society like 1984 cannot exist here. If George Orwell were alive today and aware of the internet, he would laugh at your analogy. He would say, "Why are you people so concerned with dictatorship? You've created the perfect antidote in your new technology. You've defeated it forever!"

And so we have.

I was going to respond to this claptrap, but the bold lets me know you are just fishing here.

This affirms my wise decision to have Tim on ignore. Thank you for quoting his post, Slapdash.

Not sure why I took him off ignore, honestly.

 

[Politician Spock]

The central theme of 1984 is that a totalitarian dictatorship controls through lack of communication. In Soviet Russia, which was Orwell's primary model for his two masterpieces, nobody was allowed to talk about political issues with anybody else- just the threat of doing so was terrifying, because you never know who might be listening. Orwell's protagonist spends half the novel looking for someone, some connection he can actually speak to. So it seems extremely ironic that you guys are making references to Orwell in an internet discussion forum where virtually any topic is open for debate. We ourselves, and this forum, are proof positive that a society like 1984 cannot exist here. If George Orwell were alive today and aware of the internet, he would laugh at your analogy. He would say, "Why are you people so concerned with dictatorship? You've created the perfect antidote in your new technology. You've defeated it forever!" And so we have.

So in other words, the government is but "regulation of the internet" away from achieving it.

It isn't like the government is trying to regulate the internet with laws like CISPA or anything.

Glad to see I have the attention of both Spock and evil Spock. Now I know I'm doing something right. If and when the government manages to ever restrict free speech in the internet making discussions like the kind we're having right now impossible, then we'll have a real problem on our hands, and that's when I would truly fear a tyranny. I doubt that will ever happen, however.

So you'll fear tyranny only after you lose the ability to stop it? Pass.

I'll fear tyranny when I see it approaching. You guys are seeing mirages.

No you won't. You'll believe it when someone a lot smarter than you tells you it's coming. I've never known you to see something on your own.

 

[TakiToki]

All of you guys seem to have this fear that the government shouldn't have too much information. Because who knows what dire and tyrannical things they can do with it. But this is the same sort of paranoid rhetoric we've been hearing from those who have complained about the Census for years, except in that case we could relegate it to the "Black Helicopter" crowd. It dismays me that this sort of crowd has grown to include what the WSJ guy refers to a "libertarians"- not that it resembles even remotely the libertarianism that I once belonged to and admired, which concerned itself primarily with free trade and open immigration.

I too remember the good old days, when libertarians were completely supportive of the government spying on its own citizens.

Glad you agree with something I never wrote or even implied.

???

You've said over and over again that you're embarrassed that self-described "libertarians" are all paranoid about the NSA's data collection program. What part am I misunderstanding?

The libertarian position would never have been "completely supportive of the government spying on it's own citizens", and isn't now. But in the past I don't believe they would have regarded this issue, or drones, or gun control, or how much soda you can drink, as defining positions worthy of priority. And they certainly wouldn't have feared that any of these items would lead to dictatorship. As Hayek makes clear in The Road to Serfdom, it's economic policy, and particularly restrictions on free trade, which can lead to a "serfdom" for ordinary people. Economics in the form of free trade and free movement (i.e. immigration) used to be the key issues for thoughtful libertarians.

I'm curious as to how you are differentiating most of these things from "free trade". Gun control and soda pop restrictions clearly fall under the free trade umbrella. While the issue at hand has much further-reaching implications than simply free trade, that element is certainly present. If the government mandated and enforced that every picture of a naked woman you view on the internet is immediately emailed to your wife and mother, would your naked woman-viewing habits be altered?

 

[SacramentoBob]

So basically it's tim vs everyone else in this thread? Good times.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

This happened

 

[tommyboy]

last i checked we have a right to privacy.

the Gov't needs to make a compelling constitutional argument why we DON'T retain a right to privacy. They haven't made one that i can see.

we also retain the right to bear arms, the right to religious freedom, the right to own property and many others.

but this leak about the rampant spying network created by NSA over the last 12 years is pretty damaging in other respects. For example, NSA may be spying on our Congress, which raises a seperation of powers issue. NSA may have leverage on politicians including the President himself. And who's to say Chinese hackers haven't backdoored all this information they have accumulated.

and another red flag is that the congressional oversight charged with responsibility of this can't talk about it publicly without couching in vague terms since its highly secret. Therefore, if they have concerns it makes it quite difficult for them to go on the record so that we the public can have this debate. It takes a whistleblower to do that. You have a secret government within the government that is protected. This isn't a good situation for a free nation such as ours.

 

[Slapdash]

“There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time. But at any rate they could plug in your wire whenever they wanted to.”~George Orwell in “1984”

:greatposting:

Really?

The central theme of 1984 is that a totalitarian dictatorship controls through lack of communication. In Soviet Russia, which was Orwell's primary model for his two masterpieces, nobody was allowed to talk about political issues with anybody else- just the threat of doing so was terrifying, because you never know who might be listening. Orwell's protagonist spends half the novel looking for someone, some connection he can actually speak to.

So it seems extremely ironic that you guys are making references to Orwell in an internet discussion forum where virtually any topic is open for debate. We ourselves, and this forum, are proof positive that a society like 1984 cannot exist here. If George Orwell were alive today and aware of the internet, he would laugh at your analogy. He would say, "Why are you people so concerned with dictatorship? You've created the perfect antidote in your new technology. You've defeated it forever!"

And so we have.

I was going to respond to this claptrap, but the bold lets me know you are just fishing here.

I'm not fishing at all. I honestly don't believe that any free society with an existing internet will ever again be able to impose a dictatorship. I believe that all the world's governments which are not currently free are doomed in the long run- within a decade or two after they have use of the internet, and especially social networking, the dictatorship will collapse. That is my firm conviction.

You're either fishing or lack the reading comprehension to understand people like Orwell, Hayek, and Friedman you think you keep pretending agree with you.

Freedom and dictatorship aren't binary options.

I never said they were.

I have to leave again. I'm enjoying the debate, but it's really sad to me that every often you seem to resort to insults, like claiming I lack reading comprehension. I'm perfectly willing to admit that my interpretation of Orwell, or Hayek, or Friedman might be different from yours. But it's not like I'm stating any original ideas here. Every point I've made has been made first by other people a lot smarter than me- I just happen to agree with them. So if we're going to discuss this further later on, please abstain from the insults and superior attitude. You're a guy I respect a lot here; your posts are almost always thoughtful, and the fact that I disagree with you on this issue doesn't change my high opinion of you.

Listen, you're free to want to give up all of your privacy because you are scared of the terrorism boogeyman or don't understand what this technology actually does.

But you can't sit here and argue from authority that these liberty-minded people (who wrote books about a populations that lose their freedom) would laugh at concern that the government is massively spying on its citizens. That deserves nothing more than ridicule.

 

[jonessed]

The use of metadata is simply what the government has admitted to. According to Snowden they pull in much more and can actively intercept whatever and whenever they want.

 

[jonessed]

All of you guys seem to have this fear that the government shouldn't have too much information. Because who knows what dire and tyrannical things they can do with it. But this is the same sort of paranoid rhetoric we've been hearing from those who have complained about the Census for years, except in that case we could relegate it to the "Black Helicopter" crowd. It dismays me that this sort of crowd has grown to include what the WSJ guy refers to a "libertarians"- not that it resembles even remotely the libertarianism that I once belonged to and admired, which concerned itself primarily with free trade and open immigration.

I too remember the good old days, when libertarians were completely supportive of the government spying on its own citizens.

Glad you agree with something I never wrote or even implied.

??? You've said over and over again that you're embarrassed that self-described "libertarians" are all paranoid about the NSA's data collection program. What part am I misunderstanding?

The libertarian position would never have been "completely supportive of the government spying on it's own citizens", and isn't now. But in the past I don't believe they would have regarded this issue, or drones, or gun control, or how much soda you can drink, as defining positions worthy of priority. And they certainly wouldn't have feared that any of these items would lead to dictatorship. As Hayek makes clear in The Road to Serfdom, it's economic policy, and particularly restrictions on free trade, which can lead to a "serfdom" for ordinary people. Economics in the form of free trade and free movement (i.e. immigration) used to be the key issues for thoughtful libertarians.

I'm curious as to how you are differentiating most of these things from "free trade". Gun control and soda pop restrictions clearly fall under the free trade umbrella. While the issue at hand has much further-reaching implications than simply free trade, that element is certainly present. If the government mandated and enforced that every picture of a naked woman you view on the internet is immediately emailed to your wife and mother, would your naked woman-viewing habits be altered?

Tim is consistently inconsistent because he gets major tunnel vision. Once you accept that he becomes a lot easier to understand.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Black Helicopters: 1

Terrorist Boogeymen: 0

 

[5 digit know nothing]

The use of metadata is simply what the government has admitted to. According to Snowden they pull in much more and can actively intercept whatever and whenever they want.

If Snowden was smart he'd write a book.

 

[Politician Spock]

The use of metadata is simply what the government has admitted to. According to Snowden they pull in much more and can actively intercept whatever and whenever they want.

Even if it is simply "metadata", is that okay?If you get pulled over in your car, is it okay for the police to search your car as long as they limit the search within your car to simply metadata?

 

[Slapdash]

The use of metadata is simply what the government has admitted to. According to Snowden they pull in much more and can actively intercept whatever and whenever they want.

If Snowden was smart he'd write a book.

At least he was smart enough to GTFO of here.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

The use of metadata is simply what the government has admitted to. According to Snowden they pull in much more and can actively intercept whatever and whenever they want.

If Snowden was smart he'd write a book.

At least he was smart enough to GTFO of here.

Gave up a +$200k a year job and a house in Hawaii that must have been a tough choice.

 

[SacramentoBob]

The use of metadata is simply what the government has admitted to. According to Snowden they pull in much more and can actively intercept whatever and whenever they want.

If Snowden was smart he'd write a book.

At least he was smart enough to GTFO of here.

One thing I'd like to establish is his actual knowledge levels and access privileges. He clearly had access to some interesting stuff, but I'd like to know what he knew about firsthand vs what he heard could be done with their systems.

 

[jonessed]

The use of metadata is simply what the government has admitted to. According to Snowden they pull in much more and can actively intercept whatever and whenever they want.

Even if it is simply "metadata", is that okay?If you get pulled over in your car, is it okay for the police to search your car as long as they limit the search within your car to simply metadata?

Of course not. I'm just pointing out that the government still isn't admitting to all if what they are doing.

 

[Politician Spock]

The use of metadata is simply what the government has admitted to. According to Snowden they pull in much more and can actively intercept whatever and whenever they want.

If Snowden was smart he'd write a book.

At least he was smart enough to GTFO of here.

Gave up a +$200k a year job and a house in Hawaii that must have been a tough choice.

Makes me wonder how many people do NOT chose to give it up. As they say, don't bite the hand that feeds you.

 

[Politician Spock]

The use of metadata is simply what the government has admitted to. According to Snowden they pull in much more and can actively intercept whatever and whenever they want.

Even if it is simply "metadata", is that okay?If you get pulled over in your car, is it okay for the police to search your car as long as they limit the search within your car to simply metadata?

Of course not. I'm just pointing out that the government still isn't admitting to all if what they are doing.

Ah, I see. I agree. I read what you posted wrong.

 

[jonessed]

The use of metadata is simply what the government has admitted to. According to Snowden they pull in much more and can actively intercept whatever and whenever they want.

If Snowden was smart he'd write a book.

At least he was smart enough to GTFO of here.

Gave up a +$200k a year job and a house in Hawaii that must have been a tough choice.

That alone gives him credibility with me. This guy had a lot to lose and knew it.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

The use of metadata is simply what the government has admitted to. According to Snowden they pull in much more and can actively intercept whatever and whenever they want.

If Snowden was smart he'd write a book.

At least he was smart enough to GTFO of here.

One thing I'd like to establish is his actual knowledge levels and access privileges. He clearly had access to some interesting stuff, but I'd like to know what he knew about firsthand vs what he heard could be done with their systems.

You don't think he is credible?"I, sitting at my desk, certainly had the authorities to wiretap anyone, from you, or your accountant, to a federal judge, to even the President if I had a personal email."

 

[SacramentoBob]

You don't think he is credible?

Link?

 

[timschochet]

“There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time. But at any rate they could plug in your wire whenever they wanted to.”~George Orwell in “1984”

:greatposting:

Really?

The central theme of 1984 is that a totalitarian dictatorship controls through lack of communication. In Soviet Russia, which was Orwell's primary model for his two masterpieces, nobody was allowed to talk about political issues with anybody else- just the threat of doing so was terrifying, because you never know who might be listening. Orwell's protagonist spends half the novel looking for someone, some connection he can actually speak to.

So it seems extremely ironic that you guys are making references to Orwell in an internet discussion forum where virtually any topic is open for debate. We ourselves, and this forum, are proof positive that a society like 1984 cannot exist here. If George Orwell were alive today and aware of the internet, he would laugh at your analogy. He would say, "Why are you people so concerned with dictatorship? You've created the perfect antidote in your new technology. You've defeated it forever!"

And so we have.

I was going to respond to this claptrap, but the bold lets me know you are just fishing here.

I'm not fishing at all. I honestly don't believe that any free society with an existing internet will ever again be able to impose a dictatorship. I believe that all the world's governments which are not currently free are doomed in the long run- within a decade or two after they have use of the internet, and especially social networking, the dictatorship will collapse. That is my firm conviction.

You're either fishing or lack the reading comprehension to understand people like Orwell, Hayek, and Friedman you think you keep pretending agree with you.

Freedom and dictatorship aren't binary options.

I never said they were.

I have to leave again. I'm enjoying the debate, but it's really sad to me that every often you seem to resort to insults, like claiming I lack reading comprehension. I'm perfectly willing to admit that my interpretation of Orwell, or Hayek, or Friedman might be different from yours. But it's not like I'm stating any original ideas here. Every point I've made has been made first by other people a lot smarter than me- I just happen to agree with them. So if we're going to discuss this further later on, please abstain from the insults and superior attitude. You're a guy I respect a lot here; your posts are almost always thoughtful, and the fact that I disagree with you on this issue doesn't change my high opinion of you.

Listen, you're free to want to give up all of your privacy because you are scared of the terrorism boogeyman or don't understand what this technology actually does.

But you can't sit here and argue from authority that these liberty-minded people (who wrote books about a populations that lose their freedom) would laugh at concern that the government is massively spying on its citizens. That deserves nothing more than ridicule.

I have time to respond to this one post before I have to go into another meeting. Sorry about that.

First off, George Orwell was not a libertarian, so it would be incorrect to lump him in with people like Hayek and Friedman. I absolutely believe that if Orwell were alive he would recognize the internet as an essential antidote to his warning of a non-information society as depicted in 1984, and he would reject the notion that the same technology could be used to turn us into a dictatorship.

As regards Hayek and Friedman, I don't think they would laugh at the concern that government is massively spying on its citizens. I'm fairly sure they would be strongly opposed, to the extent that we might disagree on it. But I also believe that they would agree with my position that in the overall scheme of things, tyranny is not threatened, that there are too many other factors that would prevent tyranny, and that this issue is being over-prioritized by some of you. I don't think that based on my reading of these two gentlemen that is an unreasonable assessment, and it's hardly worthy of ridicule.

As to your first sentence, you keep making the same false statement and trying to apply it to me. I'm certainly not willing to give up "all of my privacy." I'm not willing to give up ANY of my privacy- or to be absolutely correct (since you tried to contradict me before) any of my ESSENTIAL privacy. I don't think it's affected at all by what's going on here.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

The use of metadata is simply what the government has admitted to. According to Snowden they pull in much more and can actively intercept whatever and whenever they want.

If Snowden was smart he'd write a book.

At least he was smart enough to GTFO of here.

One thing I'd like to establish is his actual knowledge levels and access privileges. He clearly had access to some interesting stuff, but I'd like to know what he knew about firsthand vs what he heard could be done with their systems.

You don't think he is credible?"I, sitting at my desk, certainly had the authorities to wiretap anyone, from you, or your accountant, to a federal judge, to even the President if I had a personal email."

Link?