Meh, I don't think this comes as a surprise to anyone. Our government should be trying to hack Chinese computers, and they should be trying to hack ours.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Verizon required to give ALL call data to NSA (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter PlasmaDogPlasma
- Start date
Ilov80s
Footballguy
China knows we are hacking them, just as the United States knows China is hacking us. It would be like someone publishing a story in 1955 revealing America had spies in the Soviet Union.
Hasn't Snowden said the majority of the stuff he stole is so sensitive that he won't release it? Grim times ahead for him.
jonessed
Footballguy
From where we are at, classifying groups that aren't politically mainstream as possible terrorists isn't that big of a step (it looks like it may have already been done). Given the FISA court track record you could wrap just about any entity, ranging from Tea Party groups to Occupy groups, into PRISM.
Last edited by a moderator:
jonessed
Footballguy
Maybe, maybe not. It's going to take a long time to extradite him even if we assume he's ever going to be extradited. Apparently he still holds quite a few cards as well. The Chinese may be very interested in keeping him around.
jonessed
Footballguy
Yeah, this guy is a doochbag.
Politician Spock
Footballguy
This is awesome hacking by us if it is true: Iranian nuclear program computers hacked by AC/DC's Thunderstuck
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
I think the problem here Tim is that your default position is to trust the government has enough controls between the branches to make the appropriate calls as to the appropriate balance between privacy and security. I, at least don't think that the government should ever violate the rights of the subject under its domain without first convincing us that it is necessary. Maybe it is, but it is impossible to come to that conclusion when the rights violations are all cloaked behind
national security "top secret". "Classified" can't be the default position for government either. It needs to justify why those of us that are supposed to be in charge "we the people" can't have the information required to make an informed decision on the appropriateness of the program.As for the program, if it is OK to data mine through our call data to keep us safe from terrorists, what else justifies using the data? Can it be used to find "drug kingpins"? How about to fine "drug users"? How about to crack a ring of car thieves? Or college kids sharing music? Or conspiring to rent a physician office with insufficient parking? When is it OK to go fishing through the social networks that these programs create to make us safe from other criminal activity? When do stop giving up privacy to make it easy and efficient for the police powers of the state to "keep us safe"?
Quez
Footballguy
Am I the only one who thinks this guy Snowdens story doesn't add up?
Check out his wikipedia,
On May 7, 2004, Snowden enlisted in the United States Army with the hope of eventually joining the Special Forces.[1] He said, "I wanted to fight in the Iraq war because I felt like I had an obligation as a human being to help free people from oppression"[8] but was discharged just months later on September 28 after breaking both of his legs in a training accident. His next employment was as a National Security Agency (NSA) security guard for a covert facility at the University of Maryland,[15] before joining the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to work on IT security.[16]
So this high school drop out is in the military for 4 months, and then breaks both of his legs. He is then hired by the NSA as a security guard at a covert CIA facility? Is the CIA really hiring high school drop outs to secure top secret facilities? And at what point do you get promoted from security guard to IT?
Check out his wikipedia,
On May 7, 2004, Snowden enlisted in the United States Army with the hope of eventually joining the Special Forces.[1] He said, "I wanted to fight in the Iraq war because I felt like I had an obligation as a human being to help free people from oppression"[8] but was discharged just months later on September 28 after breaking both of his legs in a training accident. His next employment was as a National Security Agency (NSA) security guard for a covert facility at the University of Maryland,[15] before joining the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to work on IT security.[16]
So this high school drop out is in the military for 4 months, and then breaks both of his legs. He is then hired by the NSA as a security guard at a covert CIA facility? Is the CIA really hiring high school drop outs to secure top secret facilities? And at what point do you get promoted from security guard to IT?
There have to be some pieces missing. He was working for Booz Allen as a security consultant. At some point he had to have gotten a degree or at least some sort of training and proved himself to be very good technically.Am I the only one who thinks this guy Snowdens story doesn't add up?
Check out his wikipedia,
On May 7, 2004, Snowden enlisted in the United States Army with the hope of eventually joining the Special Forces.[1] He said, "I wanted to fight in the Iraq war because I felt like I had an obligation as a human being to help free people from oppression"[8] but was discharged just months later on September 28 after breaking both of his legs in a training accident. His next employment was as a National Security Agency (NSA) security guard for a covert facility at the University of Maryland,[15] before joining the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to work on IT security.[16]
So this high school drop out is in the military for 4 months, and then breaks both of his legs. He is then hired by the NSA as a security guard at a covert CIA facility? Is the CIA really hiring high school drop outs to secure top secret facilities? And at what point do you get promoted from security guard to IT?
Also, it's wikipedia.
timschochet
Footballguy
BFS, just because I am OK with data mining for the purpose of stopping terrorism doesn't mean I am OK with it for any of the other purposes you cited. Terrorism is an extraordinary threat which requires extraordinary measures to combat it.I think the problem here Tim is that your default position is to trust the government has enough controls between the branches to make the appropriate calls as to the appropriate balance between privacy and security. I, at least don't think that the government should ever violate the rights of the subject under its domain without first convincing us that it is necessary. Maybe it is, but it is impossible to come to that conclusion when the rights violations are all cloaked behind
Politician Spock
Footballguy
Yep. It'd be easier to believe his story if he was married, with 2.3 kids, owned a home with a $200K mortgage, owned two cars with $20K loans on each, was 3 years and 4 months from paying off his student loan on his bachelors degree, etc, etc...But no one in that position would ever chose to become a whistleblower.Am I the only one who thinks this guy Snowdens story doesn't add up?
Check out his wikipedia,
On May 7, 2004, Snowden enlisted in the United States Army with the hope of eventually joining the Special Forces.%5B1%5D He said, "I wanted to fight in the Iraq war because I felt like I had an obligation as a human being to help free people from oppression"%5B8%5D but was discharged just months later on September 28 after breaking both of his legs in a training accident. His next employment was as a National Security Agency (NSA) security guard for a covert facility at the University of Maryland,%5B15%5D before joining the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to work on IT security.%5B16%5D
So this high school drop out is in the military for 4 months, and then breaks both of his legs. He is then hired by the NSA as a security guard at a covert CIA facility? Is the CIA really hiring high school drop outs to secure top secret facilities? And at what point do you get promoted from security guard to IT?
5 digit know nothing
Footballguy
What is it so unbelievable?He was an army brat, that's probably why he didn't complete high school, not because he was dumb.Am I the only one who thinks this guy Snowdens story doesn't add up?
Check out his wikipedia,
On May 7, 2004, Snowden enlisted in the United States Army with the hope of eventually joining the Special Forces.%5B1%5D He said, "I wanted to fight in the Iraq war because I felt like I had an obligation as a human being to help free people from oppression"%5B8%5D but was discharged just months later on September 28 after breaking both of his legs in a training accident. His next employment was as a National Security Agency (NSA) security guard for a covert facility at the University of Maryland,%5B15%5D before joining the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to work on IT security.%5B16%5D
So this high school drop out is in the military for 4 months, and then breaks both of his legs. He is then hired by the NSA as a security guard at a covert CIA facility? Is the CIA really hiring high school drop outs to secure top secret facilities? And at what point do you get promoted from security guard to IT?
I think you overvalue a college education, particularly in the I.T. Field where you typically learn none of that in school, it is all on the job.
Last edited by a moderator:
The Commish
Footballguy
And this will be the ever existing rub. The government controls ALL the information. We will NEVER know if what they are telling us is truth, lie, or a bit of both.I think the problem here Tim is that your default position is to trust the government has enough controls between the branches to make the appropriate calls as to the appropriate balance between privacy and security. I, at least don't think that the government should ever violate the rights of the subject under its domain without first convincing us that it is necessary. Maybe it is, but it is impossible to come to that conclusion when the rights violations are all cloaked behind
timschochet
Footballguy
Daniel Ellsberg was very financially well off.Yep. It'd be easier to believe his story if he was married, with 2.3 kids, owned a home with a $200K mortgage, owned two cars with $20K loans on each, was 3 years and 4 months from paying off his student loan on his bachelors degree, etc, etc...But no one in that position would ever chose to become a whistleblower.Am I the only one who thinks this guy Snowdens story doesn't add up?
Check out his wikipedia,
On May 7, 2004, Snowden enlisted in the United States Army with the hope of eventually joining the Special Forces.%5B1%5D He said, "I wanted to fight in the Iraq war because I felt like I had an obligation as a human being to help free people from oppression"%5B8%5D but was discharged just months later on September 28 after breaking both of his legs in a training accident. His next employment was as a National Security Agency (NSA) security guard for a covert facility at the University of Maryland,%5B15%5D before joining the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to work on IT security.%5B16%5D
So this high school drop out is in the military for 4 months, and then breaks both of his legs. He is then hired by the NSA as a security guard at a covert CIA facility? Is the CIA really hiring high school drop outs to secure top secret facilities? And at what point do you get promoted from security guard to IT?
timschochet
Footballguy
But wasn't this true long before this program? Hasn't it always been true of the IRS and Social Security numbers? If the government wants to screw around with your privacy rights, they've had the means to do it for a long time. They don't need the NSA for that.And this will be the ever existing rub. The government controls ALL the information. We will NEVER know if what they are telling us is truth, lie, or a bit of both.I think the problem here Tim is that your default position is to trust the government has enough controls between the branches to make the appropriate calls as to the appropriate balance between privacy and security. I, at least don't think that the government should ever violate the rights of the subject under its domain without first convincing us that it is necessary. Maybe it is, but it is impossible to come to that conclusion when the rights violations are all cloaked behind
Politician Spock
Footballguy
Exactly! Thank you for strengthing my point.Daniel Ellsberg was very financially well off.Yep. It'd be easier to believe his story if he was married, with 2.3 kids, owned a home with a $200K mortgage, owned two cars with $20K loans on each, was 3 years and 4 months from paying off his student loan on his bachelors degree, etc, etc...But no one in that position would ever chose to become a whistleblower.Am I the only one who thinks this guy Snowdens story doesn't add up?
Check out his wikipedia,
On May 7, 2004, Snowden enlisted in the United States Army with the hope of eventually joining the Special Forces.%5B1%5D He said, "I wanted to fight in the Iraq war because I felt like I had an obligation as a human being to help free people from oppression"%5B8%5D but was discharged just months later on September 28 after breaking both of his legs in a training accident. His next employment was as a National Security Agency (NSA) security guard for a covert facility at the University of Maryland,%5B15%5D before joining the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to work on IT security.%5B16%5D
So this high school drop out is in the military for 4 months, and then breaks both of his legs. He is then hired by the NSA as a security guard at a covert CIA facility? Is the CIA really hiring high school drop outs to secure top secret facilities? And at what point do you get promoted from security guard to IT?
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
I think you're right about this.Politician Spock said:Exactly! Thank you for strengthing my point.timschochet said:Daniel Ellsberg was very financially well off.Politician Spock said:Yep. It'd be easier to believe his story if he was married, with 2.3 kids, owned a home with a $200K mortgage, owned two cars with $20K loans on each, was 3 years and 4 months from paying off his student loan on his bachelors degree, etc, etc...But no one in that position would ever chose to become a whistleblower.Quez said:Am I the only one who thinks this guy Snowdens story doesn't add up?
Check out his wikipedia,
On May 7, 2004, Snowden enlisted in the United States Army with the hope of eventually joining the Special Forces.%5B1%5D He said, "I wanted to fight in the Iraq war because I felt like I had an obligation as a human being to help free people from oppression"%5B8%5D but was discharged just months later on September 28 after breaking both of his legs in a training accident. His next employment was as a National Security Agency (NSA) security guard for a covert facility at the University of Maryland,%5B15%5D before joining the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to work on IT security.%5B16%5D
So this high school drop out is in the military for 4 months, and then breaks both of his legs. He is then hired by the NSA as a security guard at a covert CIA facility? Is the CIA really hiring high school drop outs to secure top secret facilities? And at what point do you get promoted from security guard to IT?
timschochet
Footballguy
So is your conclusion that we have been living in a police state for the past 50 years?
The Commish
Footballguy
I used "ever existing rub" for a reason. And just because it's been this way for a long time doesn't change anything from the last 10+ pages either. Unless you want to change your argument to "It's been this way forever....not a big deal". This program provides another loophole that will potentially add to the problem.timschochet said:But wasn't this true long before this program? Hasn't it always been true of the IRS and Social Security numbers? If the government wants to screw around with your privacy rights, they've had the means to do it for a long time. They don't need the NSA for that.The Commish said:And this will be the ever existing rub. The government controls ALL the information. We will NEVER know if what they are telling us is truth, lie, or a bit of both.Bottomfeeder Sports said:I think the problem here Tim is that your default position is to trust the government has enough controls between the branches to make the appropriate calls as to the appropriate balance between privacy and security. I, at least don't think that the government should ever violate the rights of the subject under its domain without first convincing us that it is necessary. Maybe it is, but it is impossible to come to that conclusion when the rights violations are all cloaked behind
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
I'm not changing my argument. But I think my point here adds strength to it. If the government, regardless of PRISM, already has the means to invade privacy, then all of the slippery slope concerns raised in this thread are largely irrelevant, and we can go back to focusing on whether or not this new program is effective against terrorism as the only point worth considering.I used "ever existing rub" for a reason. And just because it's been this way for a long time doesn't change anything from the last 10+ pages either. Unless you want to change your argument to "It's been this way forever....not a big deal".timschochet said:But wasn't this true long before this program? Hasn't it always been true of the IRS and Social Security numbers? If the government wants to screw around with your privacy rights, they've had the means to do it for a long time. They don't need the NSA for that.The Commish said:And this will be the ever existing rub. The government controls ALL the information. We will NEVER know if what they are telling us is truth, lie, or a bit of both.Bottomfeeder Sports said:I think the problem here Tim is that your default position is to trust the government has enough controls between the branches to make the appropriate calls as to the appropriate balance between privacy and security. I, at least don't think that the government should ever violate the rights of the subject under its domain without first convincing us that it is necessary. Maybe it is, but it is impossible to come to that conclusion when the rights violations are all cloaked behind
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
No. (Thank you, Church Committee.)
Is it still your position that nothing nefarious will be done with the data the government collects?
mattdaddy
Footballguy
I know my conclusion is that it was 28 million letters so that is plenty enough violations of the 4th amendment to say that it's completely ok to do this.
You didn't seem concerned about them targeting our veterans either.timschochet said:BFS, just because I am OK with data mining for the purpose of stopping terrorism doesn't mean I am OK with it for any of the other purposes you cited. Terrorism is an extraordinary threat which requires extraordinary measures to combat it.Bottomfeeder Sports said:I think the problem here Tim is that your default position is to trust the government has enough controls between the branches to make the appropriate calls as to the appropriate balance between privacy and security. I, at least don't think that the government should ever violate the rights of the subject under its domain without first convincing us that it is necessary. Maybe it is, but it is impossible to come to that conclusion when the rights violations are all cloaked behind
I'm not changing my argument. But I think my point here adds strength to it. If the government, regardless of PRISM, already has the means to invade privacy, then all of the slippery slope concerns raised in this thread are largely irrelevant, and we can go back to focusing on whether or not this new program is effective against terrorism as the only point worth considering.I used "ever existing rub" for a reason. And just because it's been this way for a long time doesn't change anything from the last 10+ pages either. Unless you want to change your argument to "It's been this way forever....not a big deal".timschochet said:But wasn't this true long before this program? Hasn't it always been true of the IRS and Social Security numbers? If the government wants to screw around with your privacy rights, they've had the means to do it for a long time. They don't need the NSA for that.The Commish said:And this will be the ever existing rub. The government controls ALL the information. We will NEVER know if what they are telling us is truth, lie, or a bit of both.Bottomfeeder Sports said:I think the problem here Tim is that your default position is to trust the government has enough controls between the branches to make the appropriate calls as to the appropriate balance between privacy and security. I, at least don't think that the government should ever violate the rights of the subject under its domain without first convincing us that it is necessary. Maybe it is, but it is impossible to come to that conclusion when the rights violations are all cloaked behind
timschochet
Footballguy
The Commish
Footballguy
Someone earlier in the thread talked about it going to court in hopes that the courts will say it's "wrong". Everyone here knows the government can do pretty much anything they want and we can't stop them. The only thing we can do is have it on record that it's "wrong". It's the little sliver we can hold onto. The slippery slope then becomes one of acceptance, not of implementation.I'm not changing my argument. But I think my point here adds strength to it. If the government, regardless of PRISM, already has the means to invade privacy, then all of the slippery slope concerns raised in this thread are largely irrelevant, and we can go back to focusing on whether or not this new program is effective against terrorism as the only point worth considering.I used "ever existing rub" for a reason. And just because it's been this way for a long time doesn't change anything from the last 10+ pages either. Unless you want to change your argument to "It's been this way forever....not a big deal".timschochet said:But wasn't this true long before this program? Hasn't it always been true of the IRS and Social Security numbers? If the government wants to screw around with your privacy rights, they've had the means to do it for a long time. They don't need the NSA for that.The Commish said:And this will be the ever existing rub. The government controls ALL the information. We will NEVER know if what they are telling us is truth, lie, or a bit of both.Bottomfeeder Sports said:I think the problem here Tim is that your default position is to trust the government has enough controls between the branches to make the appropriate calls as to the appropriate balance between privacy and security. I, at least don't think that the government should ever violate the rights of the subject under its domain without first convincing us that it is necessary. Maybe it is, but it is impossible to come to that conclusion when the rights violations are all cloaked behind
Psychopav
Help us, Joebi-Wan Brynobi, you're our only ho
This is aThe Commish said:And this will be the ever existing rub. The government controls ALL the information. We will NEVER know if what they are telling us is truth, lie, or a bit of both.Bottomfeeder Sports said:I think the problem here Tim is that your default position is to trust the government has enough controls between the branches to make the appropriate calls as to the appropriate balance between privacy and security. I, at least don't think that the government should ever violate the rights of the subject under its domain without first convincing us that it is necessary. Maybe it is, but it is impossible to come to that conclusion when the rights violations are all cloaked behind
and why ultimately our elected representatives who were aware of this and allowed it MUST be held accountable. Any one of them could have been the "whistleblower" and should have been, instead of this kid breaking the law. Any idiot can tell that this level and scope of spying on our own people is not accceptable, even on September 12th. Yet no one did (or no one did anything about it). Everyone in the know, from the vice president down to the freshman Reps who could have known, needs to be identified and punished at the ballot box.Unfortunately, I don't see that happening.
timschochet
Footballguy
That was never my position. My position is that the program is worthwhile but that we need to keep an eye on it to make sure it is not used in such a manner.
Politician Spock
Footballguy
The IRS does what it does because the IRS tax code is "voluntary compliance". If it was mandatory compliance, it would violate 5th amendment.timschochet said:But wasn't this true long before this program? Hasn't it always been true of the IRS and Social Security numbers? If the government wants to screw around with your privacy rights, they've had the means to do it for a long time. They don't need the NSA for that.The Commish said:And this will be the ever existing rub. The government controls ALL the information. We will NEVER know if what they are telling us is truth, lie, or a bit of both.Bottomfeeder Sports said:I think the problem here Tim is that your default position is to trust the government has enough controls between the branches to make the appropriate calls as to the appropriate balance between privacy and security. I, at least don't think that the government should ever violate the rights of the subject under its domain without first convincing us that it is necessary. Maybe it is, but it is impossible to come to that conclusion when the rights violations are all cloaked behind
mattdaddy
Footballguy
Henry Ford
Footballguy
What?The IRS does what it does because the IRS tax code is "voluntary compliance". If it was mandatory compliance, it would violate 5th amendment.timschochet said:But wasn't this true long before this program? Hasn't it always been true of the IRS and Social Security numbers? If the government wants to screw around with your privacy rights, they've had the means to do it for a long time. They don't need the NSA for that.The Commish said:And this will be the ever existing rub. The government controls ALL the information. We will NEVER know if what they are telling us is truth, lie, or a bit of both.Bottomfeeder Sports said:I think the problem here Tim is that your default position is to trust the government has enough controls between the branches to make the appropriate calls as to the appropriate balance between privacy and security. I, at least don't think that the government should ever violate the rights of the subject under its domain without first convincing us that it is necessary. Maybe it is, but it is impossible to come to that conclusion when the rights violations are all cloaked behind
timschochet
Footballguy
I would like it to go to court too, so that the courts will say its right and give it a legitimacy which it seems to currently lack for many of you. (Though the cynic in me says that even when that happens, many of you won't accept it and we will hear cries of "Dred Scott" , etc.)The ACLU has started a lawsuit so let's see what happens.Someone earlier in the thread talked about it going to court in hopes that the courts will say it's "wrong". Everyone here knows the government can do pretty much anything they want and we can't stop them. The only thing we can do is have it on record that it's "wrong". It's the little sliver we can hold onto. The slippery slope then becomes one of acceptance, not of implementation.I'm not changing my argument. But I think my point here adds strength to it. If the government, regardless of PRISM, already has the means to invade privacy, then all of the slippery slope concerns raised in this thread are largely irrelevant, and we can go back to focusing on whether or not this new program is effective against terrorism as the only point worth considering.I used "ever existing rub" for a reason. And just because it's been this way for a long time doesn't change anything from the last 10+ pages either. Unless you want to change your argument to "It's been this way forever....not a big deal".timschochet said:But wasn't this true long before this program? Hasn't it always been true of the IRS and Social Security numbers? If the government wants to screw around with your privacy rights, they've had the means to do it for a long time. They don't need the NSA for that.The Commish said:And this will be the ever existing rub. The government controls ALL the information. We will NEVER know if what they are telling us is truth, lie, or a bit of both.Bottomfeeder Sports said:I think the problem here Tim is that your default position is to trust the government has enough controls between the branches to make the appropriate calls as to the appropriate balance between privacy and security. I, at least don't think that the government should ever violate the rights of the subject under its domain without first convincing us that it is necessary. Maybe it is, but it is impossible to come to that conclusion when the rights violations are all cloaked behind
timschochet
Footballguy
We already are. We have elected officials and appointed judges investigating this and making sure it is kosher. If we're not going to trust the people we chose freely to run our government, what is the point of this entire discussion?
Politician Spock
Footballguy
Watch around 5 minutes or so from where I bookmarked this Youtube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=P7bQ7wwGnQQ#t=1768sIf you've got a couple hours, watch the whole thing. But the five minutes from the bookmark explain how the IRS code is written to say "voluntary compliance". If it was written as mandatory compliance, it would violate the 5th amendment, as being mandatory compells people to be a witness against themselves by giving the government info that can incriminate them.What?The IRS does what it does because the IRS tax code is "voluntary compliance". If it was mandatory compliance, it would violate 5th amendment.timschochet said:But wasn't this true long before this program? Hasn't it always been true of the IRS and Social Security numbers? If the government wants to screw around with your privacy rights, they've had the means to do it for a long time. They don't need the NSA for that.The Commish said:And this will be the ever existing rub. The government controls ALL the information. We will NEVER know if what they are telling us is truth, lie, or a bit of both.Bottomfeeder Sports said:I think the problem here Tim is that your default position is to trust the government has enough controls between the branches to make the appropriate calls as to the appropriate balance between privacy and security. I, at least don't think that the government should ever violate the rights of the subject under its domain without first convincing us that it is necessary. Maybe it is, but it is impossible to come to that conclusion when the rights violations are all cloaked behind
Politician Spock
Footballguy
If we are going to freely trust the people we chose to run our government, what is the point of the Bill of Rights?
mattdaddy
Footballguy
I'm used to fallacious arguments along the lines of since the square and the rectangle both have 4 sides then the rectangle = a square. But your argument seems to be that the circle is a square. No thanks.
jonessed
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
The Bill of Rights only works if we can trust our elected and appointed officials to enforce it.
5 digit know nothing
Footballguy
What do you mean by extraordinary?timschochet said:BFS, just because I am OK with data mining for the purpose of stopping terrorism doesn't mean I am OK with it for any of the other purposes you cited. Terrorism is an extraordinary threat which requires extraordinary measures to combat it.Bottomfeeder Sports said:I think the problem here Tim is that your default position is to trust the government has enough controls between the branches to make the appropriate calls as to the appropriate balance between privacy and security. I, at least don't think that the government should ever violate the rights of the subject under its domain without first convincing us that it is necessary. Maybe it is, but it is impossible to come to that conclusion when the rights violations are all cloaked behind
It's certainly not a bigger threat. Or even in the top 20 threats in this country for our citizens to die an avoidable death. You don't think it would be more useful to use a system like PRISM to combat something like drunk driving or homicide as opposed to terrorism?
timschochet
Footballguy
Yes, you have shown your lack of understanding about this in the gun control thread. Nice to see that you're consistent, and also that you have learned nothing.
Politician Spock
Footballguy
Yet another declaration you pulled out of your ###.
timschochet
Footballguy
Extraordinary means exactly that. It's not related to bigness in terms of numbers. We can combat drunk driving and homicide through ordinary measures. We cannot do so with terrorism, so extraordinary measures are necessary, so long as they do not violate our essential rights.What do you mean by extraordinary?timschochet said:BFS, just because I am OK with data mining for the purpose of stopping terrorism doesn't mean I am OK with it for any of the other purposes you cited. Terrorism is an extraordinary threat which requires extraordinary measures to combat it.Bottomfeeder Sports said:I think the problem here Tim is that your default position is to trust the government has enough controls between the branches to make the appropriate calls as to the appropriate balance between privacy and security. I, at least don't think that the government should ever violate the rights of the subject under its domain without first convincing us that it is necessary. Maybe it is, but it is impossible to come to that conclusion when the rights violations are all cloaked behind
It's certainly not a bigger threat. Or even in the top 20 threats in this country for our citizens to die an avoidable death. You don't think it would be more useful to use a system like PRISM to combat something like drunk driving or homicide as opposed to terrorism?
So no issues with secret court opinions and classified breifings with Congress? We elected those people so they don't need to answer to us.
Probably the stupidest argument I have ever seen in a political thread.
5 digit know nothing
Footballguy
Says the guy that can't make a judgment for himself on whether or not something is unconstitutional until someone pays to challenge it in front of the Supreme Court, and when they do go to such lengths pats himself on the back saying, "See I told you so, the SCOTUS would not let us down.""Pay $80 billion for the government to make a machine to open everyone's mail and scan it, I don't have a problem with that"
-timschochet
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
What the heck are you talking about. I assumed you were a bit smarter than 5 digit Know Nothing.
There is not a single law on the books, and this includes the Constitution and the Bill of RIghts, that is effective unless we can trust those in charge to carry it out. The reason that the Founding Fathers imposed checks and balances is because they figured that if one branch of government became corrupt or evil, the other branches would fix it. Hence the PRISM plan, which, based on my understanding, requires approval from all 3 branches to operate.
But if you determine that all 3 branches of government are untrustworthy at the same time, then you can forget the Bill of Rights and all other law. Your only alternatives then are either acceptance of a dictatorship or revolution.
Similar threads
