Survey on Edward Snowden

[PratchettFan]

"Now I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country. "


George Smith Patton, Jr.
General - United States Army

.

.

You think Patton would respect a man who ran away from the fight? Man, did you not understand that quote.

What's your NATIVE language? I'll have it translated for ya'.

The point is DESTROYING the enemy WITHOUT getting destroyed in the process.

Does Obama face the enemy when launches a drone attack?

Are pilots running away from the fight when they drop their bombs and go back to their base?

Shirley, you jest.

.

Yeah. You really, really did not understand that quote.

 

[Wake]

Should any distinction be made between surveillance from the government, and surveillance from private businesses?

 

[dblack]

You think your regular mail is not monitored? You think your activities are not monitored via webcam? This is happening all of the time and I can't believe you are not aware of it.

Let us take the mail. Do actually believe there are not specific addresses that are flagged and if you send a letter to that address you don't pop up as someone to be observed? The fourth amendment protects you from unreasonable search and seizure, it does not protect you from being observed. So if you send that letter, you are going to be observed. If, as a result of that observation, it is determined you need to be searched then they will get a warrant. If they find something as a result of that, then what they find will be seized. And none of that is unreasonable. If it is determined to be unreasonable, then whatever evidence is found against you will be found inadmissible and you will get off.

The NSA was created in 1952 and it has been monitoring Americans from day one. If you did not already know that, then the problem is that you weren't paying attention. The scandal here is not that they have been doing this, it is that Americans have been living in a dream world.

So, it sounds like your answer is 'yes' regarding the spying on your regular mail as well. What about the webcam stuff? Like in 1984. Would you be cool with cameras installed in our homes, watching us go about our daily activities? Where would you draw the line?

As to whether they've been doing this along, or whether we 'shoulda known' it's really irrelevant. My other question still remains, how does all this not violate the fourth amendment?

I have responded to your question on the fourth. Read it again.

What about the webcam stuff. Do you think when you walk into Sears you are not on camera? There are cameras everywhere. Open your eyes.

That's 'yes' on webcam monitoring as well? Wow.. well honestly I'm a little hesitant to see how far you'd be willing to go. But I am curious, mandatory tracking bracelets? I'm not being facetious. I'm asking an honest question. Where would you draw the line? Would you at all?

 

[dblack]

Should any distinction be made between surveillance from the government, and surveillance from private businesses?

Of course. But I didn't see much point in going there just yet.

 

[Contumacious]

Should any distinction be made between surveillance from the government, and surveillance from private businesses?

Yes, big difference.

Last I checked , microsoft did not have a massive paramilitary domestic force ready to pounce on WE THE PEOPLE

Last I checked , Google , could not manufacture bullshit criminal charges against WE THE PEOPLE.

.

 

[BlindBoo]

For those of you answering "yes", it is ok for the NSA to monitor our private communications to stop terrorism, I have a couple of follow up questions:

Would that also extend that to our regular mail and personal documents? What about video surveillance of our private activities (perhaps via webcams and the like)? If not, why not? How are these different? How does this practice not grossly violate the fourth amendment?

Sure. If you agre that the government should be able to blanket data mine all americans comms, you probably have no problem with being watched in other activities. Hell, I'd best most of these types wouldn't object to much to blanket property searches to check for questionable items or potential "terrorist" items.

I mean, what difference does it make? If you have nothing to hide then no problem, right?

The Patriot Act gives the government the legal authority to collect the data, however to mine that dataset I think they still have to have probable cause and a warrant. If they don't, they damn sure should. I still think you need a warrant to search my house. It would take a constitutional amendment to change that.

 

[PratchettFan]

So, it sounds like your answer is 'yes' regarding the spying on your regular mail as well. What about the webcam stuff? Like in 1984. Would you be cool with cameras installed in our homes, watching us go about our daily activities? Where would you draw the line?

As to whether they've been doing this along, or whether we 'shoulda known' it's really irrelevant. My other question still remains, how does all this not violate the fourth amendment?

I have responded to your question on the fourth. Read it again.

What about the webcam stuff. Do you think when you walk into Sears you are not on camera? There are cameras everywhere. Open your eyes.

That's 'yes' on webcam monitoring as well? Wow.. well honestly I'm a little hesitant to see how far you'd be willing to go. But I am curious, mandatory tracking bracelets? I'm not being facetious. I'm asking an honest question. Where would you draw the line? Would you at all?

No. I see no point in tracking bracelets. I am hesitant to ask you, what is it you are doing that you are so concerned the government is going to waste its time with you? Because, that is what I am seeing. People who think some guy in a little room is going to spend his time listening to them order pizza. If you are that worried about it, get off the grid because no matter how you feel about it - if you hang your underwear out of your front window people are going to see it.

 

[PratchettFan]

For those of you answering "yes", it is ok for the NSA to monitor our private communications to stop terrorism, I have a couple of follow up questions:

Would that also extend that to our regular mail and personal documents? What about video surveillance of our private activities (perhaps via webcams and the like)? If not, why not? How are these different? How does this practice not grossly violate the fourth amendment?

Sure. If you agre that the government should be able to blanket data mine all americans comms, you probably have no problem with being watched in other activities. Hell, I'd best most of these types wouldn't object to much to blanket property searches to check for questionable items or potential "terrorist" items.

I mean, what difference does it make? If you have nothing to hide then no problem, right?

The Patriot Act gives the government the legal authority to collect the data, however to mine that dataset I think they still have to have probable cause and a warrant. If they don't, they damn sure should. I still think you need a warrant to search my house. It would take a constitutional amendment to change that.

Pretty much.

 

[francoHFW]

He's a naive idiot who broke his oath. FIVE YEARS!!

Obama and Dems have done nothing but add constitutionality, congressional/ judicial oversight, hater dupes.

I sycophant like you really has no business calling anyone a 'dupe'. Is your name 'Smithers' by any chance? Will you swallow pretty much anything your esteemed leaders feed you?

I believe in the bipartisan congressional committee and the FISA court that was put in by Dems. I don't believe in your ridiculous, paranoid, naive BS, hater dupe. Nor did I believe in the secrecy Booosh and Darth Cheney operated under. THAT"S when your fears of disappearances and spy cameras had more validity.

 

[PratchettFan]

Should any distinction be made between surveillance from the government, and surveillance from private businesses?

I don't know. However, I think a rational review of the facts will show that the impact upon your life is far greater from private business than government.

 

[Wake]

Should any distinction be made between surveillance from the government, and surveillance from private businesses?

I don't know. However, I think a rational review of the facts will show that the impact upon your life is far greater from private business than government.

Why is private business more dangerous than the government?

 

[PratchettFan]

Should any distinction be made between surveillance from the government, and surveillance from private businesses?

I don't know. However, I think a rational review of the facts will show that the impact upon your life is far greater from private business than government.

Why is private business more dangerous than the government?

I didn't say more dangerous, I said greater impact. Dangerous is a relative term.

As I have said, the NSA has been doing what it is doing since 1952. Just when is this great police state supposed to happen?

 

[dblack]

I have responded to your question on the fourth. Read it again.

What about the webcam stuff. Do you think when you walk into Sears you are not on camera? There are cameras everywhere. Open your eyes.

That's 'yes' on webcam monitoring as well? Wow.. well honestly I'm a little hesitant to see how far you'd be willing to go. But I am curious, mandatory tracking bracelets? I'm not being facetious. I'm asking an honest question. Where would you draw the line? Would you at all?

No. I see no point in tracking bracelets.

But what if there were? If a compelling argument could be made that requiring everyone to wear tracking bracelets was required to stop terrorism, would that be ok too? I hope you can appreciate that I'm asking about objective limits on government power, not whether any given practice is useful or not. No doubt, the blanket surveillance programs will stop (some) acts of terrorism. The question isn't whether there is a 'point'. The question is whether it's worth the loss of our liberty and privacy.

I am hesitant to ask you, what is it you are doing that you are so concerned the government is going to waste its time with you? Because, that is what I am seeing. People who think some guy in a little room is going to spend his time listening to them order pizza. If you are that worried about it, get off the grid because no matter how you feel about it - if you hang your underwear out of your front window people are going to see it.

I don't have any particular concerns personally, outside the kind of scenarios I outlined above. But as a reaction to 9/11, we're creating a fundamentally different kind of government, and that bothers me a great deal. Your dismissal of these changes, based on claims that government was likely doing similar things before, misses the point.

I have no doubt that agents of the US tortured people before 9/11 as well, but the shift to adopting it as official policy changed how the rest of the world viewed us, and it changed how we view ourselves. The same goes for the changes we're now asked to accept as official domestic policy. They mark a fundamental change in how we view ourselves and our government. Principle matters, especially when it comes to government.

Fascism and totalitarian states don't happen all at once. They're usually the result of incremental changes that 'seemed like a good idea at the time'.

 

[PratchettFan]

That's 'yes' on webcam monitoring as well? Wow.. well honestly I'm a little hesitant to see how far you'd be willing to go. But I am curious, mandatory tracking bracelets? I'm not being facetious. I'm asking an honest question. Where would you draw the line? Would you at all?

No. I see no point in tracking bracelets.

But what if there were? If a compelling argument could be made that requiring everyone to wear tracking bracelets was required to stop terrorism, would that be ok too? I hope you can appreciate that I'm asking about objective limits on government power, not whether any given practice is useful or not. No doubt, the blanket surveillance programs will stop (some) acts of terrorism. The question isn't whether there is a 'point'. The question is whether it's worth the loss of our liberty and privacy.

I am hesitant to ask you, what is it you are doing that you are so concerned the government is going to waste its time with you? Because, that is what I am seeing. People who think some guy in a little room is going to spend his time listening to them order pizza. If you are that worried about it, get off the grid because no matter how you feel about it - if you hang your underwear out of your front window people are going to see it.

I don't have any particular concerns personally, outside the kind of scenarios I outlined above. But as a reaction to 9/11, we're creating a fundamentally different kind of government, and that bothers me a great deal. Your dismissal of these changes, based on claims that government was likely doing similar things before, misses the point.

I have no doubt that agents of the US tortured people before 9/11 as well, but the shift to adopting it as official policy changed how the rest of the world viewed us, and it changed how we view ourselves. The same goes for the changes we're now asked to accept as official domestic policy. They mark a fundamental change in how we view ourselves and our government. Principle matters, especially when it comes to government.

Fascism and totalitarian states don't happen all at once. They're usually the result of incremental changes that 'seemed like a good idea at the time'.

What you are asking is, is there a line between reasonable and unreasonable? Certainly there is. Although it is often fuzzy. It is not an all or nothing proposition. Just as I would not say that there is nothing the government can't do, I doubt you would say government can do nothing. A police officer walking a beat is, after all, the government monitoring citizens.

So would I agree to wearing a bracelet...? no. That I would see as a direct invastion of privacy. I would also say if you want to search my house or car you had better have a warrant. However, when you print an address on an envelope - it is not private. You are intentionally making it not private by the very fact that it is out where anyone can read it. In terms of email, what you are essentially doing is taking the contents of the envelope out of the envelope and handing into the control of people you not only do not know but never even see. Yet you assume it is private? On what basis?

To put this in a more physical perspective, let us say you want to sunbathe in your backyard in the nude. If you have high walls surrounding the yard so no one can look in, then you are in private. But if you have no walls at all, you can't call it private even if it is the same yard. The reality people need to understand is that anything you put out on the internet is sunbathing without walls. If you don't want to be seen, then don't do it at all. If you do, then don't complain when you are being watched.