Yeah, the government really cares what you do during your daily lives, even if you aren't doing anything illegal. *Add sarcasm* Do you think you are so important that the government will decide to listen in on you, one person out of the approximately 300 million people? How about some modesty?
Even if they do, why should you really care? Will they come busting down your door and catch you watching naughty videos?
Don't talk to me about modesty, either you're deliberately misinterpreting my post or you need to improve your comprehesnion, I don't assume they're listening to me, I was illustrating a point. I know that this specific ability of theirs to invade privacy will have any direct personal effect on me, but I can't be as sure as I should be able to be. I don't think they should have the ability to do this without going through the proper channels, and presenting the proper evidence.
Quote:
"How do I know that the fact I was even listened in on, even if absolutely nothing came of it, won't come back to hurt me later in some way?"
This is where common sense comes in. Weesnaw said it right: "Being ultra-paranoid about the government is just as stupid as accepting everything they say blindly".
Do you know how the info is handled? Do you know who has access to it? How much info do the corporations that assist the government have access to? How will that info be handled in the future? If you have these answers, please let me know, otherwise your "common sense" is pretty useless, if it's not based on anything substantial. I didn't say any of this under the idea that it is actually going to happen to me, my point is that it should not be a legally possible for it to happen to anyone.
Quote:
You probably are paranoid because you are doing something illegal, don't want to get caught, and don't want the government to have the ability to catch you. I lived in the U.S. for 9 years, and during that time, I didn't waste a single minute thinking "Oh noes! My rights are compromised!". My daily life wasn't affected in the least bit. Now I am back in Canada, and I care just as little about said predicament.
I'm not doing anything illegal, but I wouldn't say my daily life isn't affected in the least bit, or won't be in the future, given the complexities we're dealing with. It's not as simple as whether they're tapping my phone or not.
Quote:
Before any of you go ahead and say something like this (again): "I wish fewer people thought like you, but you appear to present the majority, who buy into the fear-mongering and just hand over your rights."...
The rights that I used weren't handed over, so I don't care. If the government were to ban guns entirely, I still wouldn't care, because I don't use guns. I'll care when the government does something about which I actually care. I don't buy into the "fear-mongering" or whatever you may assume. I simply have better things to do than waste my time being paranoid about the government.
Great for you, hopefully if they do ever strip you of a right you care about, it isn't too late to do something about it, and you won't regret not standing up for your rights when you might have accomplished something. I type that completely sincerely, because a bigpart of the reason we have these rights, is so that we do have recourse to assure the government does not abuse it's power, they're essential to a democratic system. I don't know the specific situation in Canada, but wherever someone is, I think they should recognize that if they sit by while rights they think don't matter to them are being chipped away, they're lessening their power to resist if the rights they do care about are attacked as well. It's not just about one specific effect of a law or action undertaken by the government, there is a bigger picture to consider.
I'm not being ultra-paranoid, I'm not talking about crazy conspiracy theories, I'm talking about the basic functions of our political system, which requires citizens to question the government in order to work correctly.
Last edited by HipHopScribe; 07-13-2008 at 06:27 PM.
Don't talk to me about modesty, either you're deliberately misinterpreting my post or you need to improve your comprehesnion, I don't assume they're listening to me, I was illustrating a point.
Or... I was illustrating a point as well. Such as the point that is it very unlikely that you would be singled out personally to be listened in upon. You might want to know exactly what the government is doing, but that is not the way it works. It has not been that way since... ever. Why do you think it would change now?
Imagine this:
Government: "American people, we are currently trying to catch suspected terrorists to help defend against terror. We are doing this by wiretapping suspected terrorist's phone lines with the help of AT&T."
Terrorist 1: Yo, dude. The government is all up in our grill! We didn't invite them to the barbecue. We need to switch our phone company, man.
Terrorist 2: What?? But I love my iPhone. NOOOO! Damn you America! I didn't think it was possible, but I hate you even more. I will kill even more of your people now!
Nice work, government.
Anyways... I hope you get my point. As for how the information is going to be handled... I do not see how that information could be of any use or relevance to anything. How can they possible use information obtained by a few phone calls be used in a manner that could profoundly affect someone's life? (Assuming that there was no sort of incriminating information obtained. Unless there is evidence to prove otherwise, the government is not doing anything with non-incriminating information obtained by wiretapping. Do you have to constantly prove that you are not doing anything illegal? I highly doubt it.
I do not know where you get the idea of "complexities". It is as simple as whether they are tapping your phone or not.
The U.S. Constitution has a system of "checks and balances" to make sure that each branch of the government does not become to powerful or abuse their powers. Thus, there is no need to worry about rights being taken away, since if rights are taken away, the branch that checks the branch that is taking away said rights will stop it... This may be interesting to you: Impeach Bush
The government can not take away basic rights and get away with it. The entire government would have to collapse. The members of Congress want to stay in Congress. If they do nothing about a president that violates the people's rights, they will not get re-elected. The people themselves do not have to keep the President in line. That is Congress's job. I do not know why you think that is not sufficient.
Also, soon there will be a new president, and most likely, the new president will not do any of the unconstitutional things that Bush did. It was not the "government" that has taken away your right of privacy, it was George W. Bush. Most (if not all) wiretapping that has occurred has been under his direct orders. Such is another reason you should not be worried so much.
Or... I was illustrating a point as well. Such as the point that is it very unlikely that you would be singled out personally to be listened in upon. You might want to know exactly what the government is doing, but that is not the way it works. It has not been that way since... ever. Why do you think it would change now?
Imagine this:
Government: "American people, we are currently trying to catch suspected terrorists to help defend against terror. We are doing this by wiretapping suspected terrorist's phone lines with the help of AT&T."
Terrorist 1: Yo, dude. The government is all up in our grill! We didn't invite them to the barbecue. We need to switch our phone company, man.
Terrorist 2: What?? But I love my iPhone. NOOOO! Damn you America! I didn't think it was possible, but I hate you even more. I will kill even more of your people now!
Nice work, government.
I don't expect to know every detail of what the government is doing, I want there to be sufficient oversight of their activities, as in they need to present evidence and obtain a warrant, which doesn't have to be made public, before they can tap someone's phone.
Quote:
Anyways... I hope you get my point. As for how the information is going to be handled... I do not see how that information could be of any use or relevance to anything. How can they possible use information obtained by a few phone calls be used in a manner that could profoundly affect someone's life? (Assuming that there was no sort of incriminating information obtained. Unless there is evidence to prove otherwise, the government is not doing anything with non-incriminating information obtained by wiretapping. Do you have to constantly prove that you are not doing anything illegal? I highly doubt it.
Even the possible release of the fact that some faceless person decided there was enough suspicion to tap your phone could be potentially damaging to someone, even if no incriminating information came of it. If, for example, someone was running for political office, and their opposition was able to obtain and release info showing that the decision was made to tap their phone, however many years ago, because it was suspected they were talking to someone from another country who might have been a terrorist. Even if the tap found absolutely nothing, the suspicion could be enough to derail their campaign, it's similar to the McCarthyism that was brought up earlier.
Quote:
I do not know where you get the idea of "complexities". It is as simple as whether they are tapping your phone or not.
No it's not, it's part of a larger picture, that doesn't exist in a vacuum, there is an interplay between politicis, economics and civil society. It set precedent for future governmental action, and also leads to other actions, such as the push for immunity for telecom companies who participated in illegal wiretapping, which effects consumer rights, and in turn the economy. There is also the social/psychological effect on civil society, which is hard to track. You can't act like this one action exists independent of the rest of the system that it is a part of.
Quote:
The U.S. Constitution has a system of "checks and balances" to make sure that each branch of the government does not become to powerful or abuse their powers. Thus, there is no need to worry about rights being taken away, since if rights are taken away, the branch that checks the branch that is taking away said rights will stop it... This may be interesting to you: Impeach Bush
The government can not take away basic rights and get away with it. The entire government would have to collapse. The members of Congress want to stay in Congress. If they do nothing about a president that violates the people's rights, they will not get re-elected. The people themselves do not have to keep the President in line. That is Congress's job. I do not know why you think that is not sufficient.
Also, soon there will be a new president, and most likely, the new president will not do any of the unconstitutional things that Bush did. It was not the "government" that has taken away your right of privacy, it was George W. Bush. Most (if not all) wiretapping that has occurred has been under his direct orders. Such is another reason you should not be worried so much.
This all requires the power to exercise organized political action among citizens, to elect representatives who will protect their interests. That power is guaranteed by the rights afforded to citizens by the Bill of Rights. So, as the Bill of Rights is weakened, the power to exercise that organized political action is weakened in turn. That's my point, there are mechanisms in place to protect us, and people are standing by while those mechanisms are weakened.
As for the next president, McCain seems to be a successor to Bush in a lot of ways, philosophically, and Obama voted in favor of the FISA bill, to give telecomms immunity for the illegal wiretapping. And I certainly don't think you can boil it down to "it's all Bush", at least not across the board, on all these issues related to our rights, he's often had the support of his party and even democrats didn't stand up to him like they could have.
Last edited by HipHopScribe; 07-14-2008 at 09:57 AM.
The government tried to ban alcohol, and I am sure that you know how well that went.
This whole argument is moot, and I have said everything that wanted to say. I do not like repeating myself.
As I have said before, I live in Canada. The government here is not screwed up like it is in the U.S. We are more free here. This is yet another reason I do not care what the U.S. government does, as long as it stays out of Canada.
The government tried to ban alcohol, and I am sure that you know how well that went.
This whole argument is moot, and I have said everything that wanted to say. I do not like repeating myself.
As I have said before, I live in Canada. The government here is not screwed up like it is in the U.S. We are more free here. This is yet another reason I do not care what the U.S. government does, as long as it stays out of Canada.
That's a very insular view netrix - The USA and their policies have, unfortunately, had rather dire consequences on an international stage which, I might add, have lead to fatalities - do you not think it is a responsibility of a citizen of this world to take an interest when something cancerous is growing in our community?
And how do you respond to claims that a 16 year old has been incarcerated in guantanamo bay this week?
That's a very insular view netrix - The USA and their policies have, unfortunately, had rather dire consequences on an international stage which, I might add, have lead to fatalities - do you not think it is a responsibility of a citizen of this world to take an interest when something cancerous is growing in our community?
And how do you respond to claims that a 16 year old has been incarcerated in guantanamo bay this week?
The main reason I was saying the Patriot Act is not worth worrying about is because there is a "big picture" that should be worried about, which really does not have anything to do with the Patriot Act. It is little things like this that distracts everyone from the real problem.
I am just wondering how long it will take the general American population to realize that they do not control America, and have not for quite a while (before George W. Bush was born).
Call it a conspiracy theory or anything else you want. The information is out there. If you choose to ignore it, you will be contributing to the problem.
Quote:
"The end goal is to get everybody chipped, to control the whole society, to have the bankers and the elite people control the world." -Nicholas Rockefeller
The American population is doing nothing about this because it is usually labeled a "conspiracy theory" and not taken seriously. They do not realize that whoever controls the economy of the U.S. controls the U.S. The Federal Reserve (banks) controls the economy. It is semi-independent of the government and acts on its own without the need of any approval from Congress or the President.
So, while the American people are whining about petty little things (petty compared to the big picture) like wiretapping and other things that George Bush is doing, worse things are being put into place to which no one pays attention.
Deny this if you want. It does not really matter. If someone really wants to live in an illusion, I am not one to deny them that.
The main reason I was saying the Patriot Act is not worth worrying about is because there is a "big picture" that should be worried about, which really does not have anything to do with the Patriot Act. It is little things like this that distracts everyone from the real problem.
I am just wondering how long it will take the general American population to realize that they do not control America, and have not for quite a while (before George W. Bush was born).
Call it a conspiracy theory or anything else you want. The information is out there. If you choose to ignore it, you will be contributing to the problem.
The American population is doing nothing about this because it is usually labeled a "conspiracy theory" and not taken seriously. They do not realize that whoever controls the economy of the U.S. controls the U.S. The Federal Reserve (banks) controls the economy. It is semi-independent of the government and acts on its own without the need of any approval from Congress or the President.
So, while the American people are whining about petty little things (petty compared to the big picture) like wiretapping and other things that George Bush is doing, worse things are being put into place to which no one pays attention.
Deny this if you want. It does not really matter. If someone really wants to live in an illusion, I am not one to deny them that.
Finally, a smart post.
I agree completely. The Patriot Act in the beginning was the start of this "bigger picture" and now we are finally at the point where it's finished. George W. Bush has set up the United States to make himself a dictator, so that he could control the the country and that the government was everywhere in people's lives.
Sadly, people didn't realize this when it first happened. Then again, the way the media control is in the U.S. people couldn't do much. Like when we tried to impeach Bush for letting 9/11 happened, and the media didn't show anything about it.
I only disagree with your last paragraph. Worse things have ALREADY been put in place. George Bush now just needs to declare martial law so that the elections are canceled and he rules the country.
Nathan your an idiot. Bush doesn't write laws. You shouldn't care what the government looks at if you have nothing to hide.
Politics are ****ing stupid, and so is the government that's all I have to say. And just to let you know moving isn't going to help, all governments are stupid.
Technically. Apparently he created some, though. Impeach Bush
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mitch
You shouldn't care what the government looks at if you have nothing to hide.
Of course.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mitch
Politics are ****ing stupid, and so is the government that's all I have to say. And just to let you know moving isn't going to help, all governments are stupid.
I am sure you mean that in a non-literal sense, i.e. You are just calling them stupid because you despise them, and not because they are actually intellectually deficient.
I am not sure whether the U.S. government is really smart or not. Sure, they have been able to get away with so many things without the general population knowing about it, but that could be attributed to the lack of competence of the general population.
Everyone should know that money equals power in the United States. So logically, whoever has the most money has the most power. Who has the most money? Rich bankers.
Nathan your an idiot. Bush doesn't write laws. You shouldn't care what the government looks at if you have nothing to hide.
Politics are ****ing stupid, and so is the government that's all I have to say. And just to let you know moving isn't going to help, all governments are stupid.
He still passes a lot of bad ones that do nothing but invade our privacy. And, while all governments are stupid, not all of them have the same control over their country like the U.S. does. Look at Sweden, right now all they have is wiretapping. Here in the U.S. their is police brutality (if you don't know what I'm talking about, Google it, or go to Digg and search "police brutality" or something), wiretapping, and the President has passed the Patriot Act (around 2001, I'm not sure) which lets the government invade all of our privacy.
And the "you shouldn't care" is opinionated. Not EVERYONE likes the idea of the government being able to look at everything you buy (credit card, they can look at your purchases with one), listen in on your phone calls (wiretapping), or keep logs of everything you do (like at ATMs. People have noticed that ATMs are now slower than they used to be, it could be that everything is being logged now). The U.S. is becoming more of a police state, like I said about police brutality above, and not everyone likes it.
If you don't believe me about the above, look at this word:
Totalitarianism(or totalitarian rule) is a concept used to describe political systems where a state regulates nearly every aspect of public and private life.
That's what the U.S. government wants, and they nearly have it.
Just think like this. Would you want someone always watching over you in your house, even if you did nothing wrong? If they treated you like a criminal for just living?
That's what the U.S. Government is doing, and I'm against it. Hence, I say "Vote Ron Paul." Sadly, he isn't running for president anymore.
I'm backing out of this for the moment until there's a formal apology for a personal attack in what's meant to be a debate on human liberties.
I agree that this is no place for personal insults. Debates should stay focused on the topic.
Just to clarify what I meant when I said "of course" to not caring what the government looks at if you have nothing to hide...
If the government has reasonable suspicion that you have done something seriously wrong, then I believe they have the right to look at what they need to in order to determine if you actually something seriously wrong. This is because they should not have reasonable suspicion if you have not done anything wrong in the first place. Still, if they think they do, and you do not have anything to hide, then it should not be a problem if they need to look at some things of yours to make sure that you have not done anything wrong.
I agree that under reasonable suspicion they should be able to monitor communication, but there should be a standard of suspicion that must be met, and the action should be approved by a court order. Under the recent FISA bill, all that is required is that you be communicating with someone outside this country, and with no court order, the government can order companies to give them access to phone calls, e-mails, and text messages. We have a system in place through which warrants can be attained to monitor communications for a reason, this unchecked power is going too far.
The point is, current bills have enabled law enforcement to monitor people suspected of disruptive movement without, for example, the exapnsion of the maximum jailable sentence without charge to 42 days - there is no possible justification for such a move. The fact is that aside from this, projects such as echelon are open to massive abuse. Are you saying, netrix that a government should be allowed to monitor the conversations and movements of people within its border without due cause or having to justify such action to anybody?
Are you saying, netrix that a government should be allowed to monitor the conversations and movements of people within its border without due cause or having to justify such action to anybody?
Not at all. I should have said 'probable cause' instead of 'reasonable suspicion'. Reasonable suspicion (in its legal sense) is not enough to justify a warrant. Reasonable suspicion requires less evidence than probable cause and apparently the legal requirement for a warrant is probable cause. If the government has probable cause, and they present the evidence that they have to the FISA court, the FISA court should grant a warrant.
There is not a good reason why they should not get a warrant first. This goes back to what I was saying about distraction. Why would George W. Bush care enough to wiretap random people's phones or peek through their e-mails? There does not seem to be any real reason for that except for the sole purpose of distracting the American population (and possibly the rest of the world as well) from the real problem. Unfortunately, it appears to be working.
Nathan, I hate to tell you but people have been watching what you've been buying for years, that is how marketing works. Police brutality usually involves racism, not really sure what that has to do with this. Saying the government can invade all of our privacy isn't true either.
The problem with America is everyone wants privacy and everyone wants to be safe, but don't touch my freedoms. With the internet now you can do just about anything criminal you want to. Why does it matter if the government knows you talk to your girlfriend 3 hours each and every night, especially when because of the same law they know your neighbor is plotting to blow up the State Capital?
I don't really think of them watching what I'm doing as them watching me as if I'm a criminal, they are only doing it to protect us. If they are doing it for some other reason, please explain to me what exactly they are trying to do.
The Patriot Act targets one thing, and one thing only, Terrorism. I can almost guarantee that any information found using the Patriot Act that is used in courts that doesn't involve terrorism will be thrown out.
Nathan, I hate to tell you but people have been watching what you've been buying for years, that is how marketing works. Police brutality usually involves racism, not really sure what that has to do with this. Saying the government can invade all of our privacy isn't true either.
The problem with America is everyone wants privacy and everyone wants to be safe, but don't touch my freedoms. With the internet now you can do just about anything criminal you want to. Why does it matter if the government knows you talk to your girlfriend 3 hours each and every night, especially when because of the same law they know your neighbor is plotting to blow up the State Capital?
I don't really think of them watching what I'm doing as them watching me as if I'm a criminal, they are only doing it to protect us. If they are doing it for some other reason, please explain to me what exactly they are trying to do.
The Patriot Act targets one thing, and one thing only, Terrorism. I can almost guarantee that any information found using the Patriot Act that is used in courts that doesn't involve terrorism will be thrown out.
The Patriot Act targets one thing, and one thing only, Terrorism. I can almost guarantee that any information found using the Patriot Act that is used in courts that doesn't involve terrorism will be thrown out.
OK, that is just like me saying," The sky is blue" and you saying," No, it's not." If you say that, then there is no more point in talking to someone like you.
It's sick that someone can believe everything the government says like you just stated.. Well, more sad...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mitch
I can almost guarantee that any information found using the Patriot Act that is used in courts that doesn't involve terrorism will be thrown out.
No you can't. You can be a fool in denial believing what they say, or a liar like one of them.
By the way, here is something that MIGHT get a few people upset here. According to a new bill that's been passed, the government will now use unlimited printed money to bail out Freddie and Fannie, Raise the National debt by $800,000,000,000, Finger printing of all MORTGAGE people, and now ALL credit card purchases over the NET reported to the IRS.
