|
Author
|
Topic: Congrats America
|
Lark84
My skeleton is made of creamy nougat.
Member # 1186
Member Rated:
|
posted 12-14-2005 02:30 PM
Your president finally fessed up, while the European Parliament today voted through a law which will mandate every telco and ISP to store data about all your communications (e-mail, phone calls, VoIP) for up to 2 years, in order to stop terrorists.
Fucking fucking fuck. And the stupid masses don't care, as long as they're fed their daily dose of Paris Hilton and reality TV.
It's very Gibsonesque. Not to mention Orwellian.
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
CHaRiZaRd
Farting Nudist
Member # 994
Member Rated:
|
posted 12-14-2005 03:50 PM
1. Nothing wrong with increasing security in a nation. If you've been to Israel or at least know someone who has, you'd know that there exists no tighter security in any other country in the world. Soldiers patrol all public areas and people are routinely searched everywhere. When compared to a place like Israel, America's security is almost infantile. A measure such as this is the least that can be done.
2. People will carry on with their lives as usual. This implementation will function as though it isn't even there.
I don't see what the big fucking deal is.
'omg invasion of privacy lol ameriac!!!!11!'
If I don't have anything to hide (which I don't), then I couldn't care less if the government has access to what websites and phone calls I make. They aren't doing it to look at my website history and say "Oh look at the porn sites he's been to, hee hee!" or "Haha he posts on a Pokemon message board!"
So in the end, it doesn't matter because my life isn't being significantly affected by it. For people to get their undies in a bundle over something that shouldn't have that big of an impact on their lives in the first place is ultimately a waste of breath.
From: NJ or DC | Registered: Oct 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
IceHawk78
NOBODY IMPORTANT
Member # 1699
Member Rated:
|
posted 12-15-2005 04:59 PM
The big deal is the invasion of privacy in and of itself. There's a reason we have the right to privacy laws in the first place. It's because we ![[Eek!]](eek.gif) *gaspos* have a right to our privacy.
It's right up there with that whole "right to free speech" and "right to not get shot in the face". You mentioned the "security" in Israel. Two things. One, Israel isn't the United States. They don't have the same rights we do, because their government doesn't have the same constitution as ours. And spying on its own citizens doesn't make us more enough secure to outweigh the costs of loss of privacy. Remember that ammendment in the constitution? Right to not be subjected to an unlawful search and siezure? Unlawful has been defined as seaching someone without a warrant or without reason to believe they have committed a crime. Since I've given the government no reason to believe I've committed a crime, and I'm certain that no one has given a warrant to search me, then I'm pretty sure that spying on me (and every other American) is an unlawful search.
From: Ohio | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
CHaRiZaRd
Farting Nudist
Member # 994
Member Rated:
|
posted 12-15-2005 05:50 PM
Please read the following post in its entirety before individually taking it apart and disagreeing with certain words/sentences. Last thing we want is an argument over silly semantics.
quote:
The big deal is the invasion of privacy in and of itself. There's a reason we have the right to privacy laws in the first place. It's because we *gaspos* have a right to our privacy.
The right to privacy isn't a black and white issue. There are varying degrees, in my opinion at least, to which these statutes should be considered "invasions" at all. The very nature of something invading something else should be regarded as an inconvenience that actually gets in the way of normal proceedings; I do not believe this motion does such a thing. My previous post explains this a bit more.
This is what I picture as invasion of privacy: A gay man not being able to have sex with another gay man in the privacy of his own home due to some police officer responding to some random noise violation.
What I don't consider an invasion of privacy is the government having access to IP addresses and the like. As I stated before, the government doesn't have a collection of people sitting in unmarked vans across the US listening into our phone calls and reading all of our emails and viewing our web history. The government merely has access to such information should a legitimate reason arise warranting a search of such information.
I don't want to get into what these "legitimate" reasons may be, because that would call into question the whole "War on Terror" bit, which people have a lot of different opinions on that I don't particularly care to discuss at the moment.
quote:
It's right up there with that whole "right to free speech" and "right to not get shot in the face".
First of all, the very nature of this new law serves as a security measure above all else. At least that's my interpretation of it. The "right to not get shot in the face" is sort of complimented by a national security measure that may prevent exactly that from happening.
quote:
You mentioned the "security" in Israel. Two things. One, Israel isn't the United States.
Ohmygod really? The point of my bringing up Israel was to illustrate the effectiveness of national security measures by comparing two nations that are applying them. And last time I checked, Israel was the closest thing to a competent democracy in the Middle East (A little FYI, I am not pro-Israel. I'm actually Lebanese and Palestinian, in case you wondering that I was arguing some other subtle point here.).
I think you're too hung up on a minor privacy infringement, and as a result are failing to see the forest because of the trees. The bigger picture is not a destruction of our civil and fundamental rights, but a longterm protection of our population.
quote:
They don't have the same rights we do, because their government doesn't have the same constitution as ours.
Constitutional rights/semantics need not be identical for a government to wish safety upon its people. My opinion, of course.
quote:
And spying on its own citizens doesn't make us more enough secure to outweigh the costs of loss of privacy.
Okay, then this is the point where you and I see this issue entirely differently. I do not believe this to be spying by any account, for reasons I previously alluded to, and as a result, I don't think any form of privacy is being forfeit. To reinforce an older point I made: this law is meant to function as though it isn't even there.
If you've got nothing to hide, and if you have no reason to warrant a search of your IP information, then you shouldn't have to worry about this law even affecting you, or any other law abiding citizen.
quote:
Remember that ammendment in the constitution? Right to not be subjected to an unlawful search and siezure? Unlawful has been defined as seaching someone without a warrant or without reason to believe they have committed a crime.
Exactly, which is why this law should not be worrying you as much as it is. For the Nth time, if you've got nothing to hide, and no reason to be searched, then you will most likely not be subject to whatever effects this law would otherwise have on non-law abiding individuals in the US.
From: NJ or DC | Registered: Oct 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
pika
Farting Nudist
Member # 1908
Member Rated:
|
posted 12-15-2005 06:22 PM
i hope my country will finally see me as a real thread now ![[Smile]](smile.gif) - because i use an encrypted line to access... oh wait my university network.
and this will finally get all these mp3-downloading-terrorists awesome. I say to jail with these 12 year old bastards.
- - - - -
"PIKA OF ALL PEOPLE IS THE BIGGEST TWO-FACED ASSHOLE HERE. AS HE ALREADY DEMONSTRATED HE SAID THAT THERE IS A WAY TO MAX OUT ALL STATS COMPLETELY ABOVE 510. WELL DUH...! HOW WOULD HE KNOW THAT IF HE DIDN'T HACK IT HIMSELF?! LOL! PATHETIC!"
TIDUSBLITZABESX
From: Silent Hill | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IceHawk78
NOBODY IMPORTANT
Member # 1699
Member Rated:
|
posted 12-15-2005 07:23 PM
If I didn't feel like puking I'd respond to the rest of your post.
However,
You keep saying, "If it doesn't affect you, then why worry about it?" The answer to that is that there is great potential for someone else to be affected by it if it is used in unlawful ways. If you only care about/worry about laws that affect only you, then you are failing in your civic duty as a citizen. I can go back to all of those cases of slavery and womens' rights that required someone to be a bit less than selfish and care about someone else, but I'm too lazy right now.
From: Ohio | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
CHaRiZaRd
Farting Nudist
Member # 994
Member Rated:
|
posted 12-15-2005 11:56 PM
Slavery and women not having rights in the past resulted in people speaking out and taking action against oppression (keyword: oppression; look it up). I doubt anyone will be oppressed by what the US government now has access to. I fail to see the relevance of your example.
And if the message you got from my posts were "if it doesn't affect you, turn the other cheek," then I instruct you to take some courses in reading comprehension.
Do yourself a favor and take some time to respond thoughtfully to what I said, as opposed to what you're doing now, which is continuing to reduce this discussion into an exchange of stupid banter.
I chose to head my post with the "eye roll" icon, as you seem to be enjoying that one thoroughly.
From: NJ or DC | Registered: Oct 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. K
Racist
Member # 2
Member Rated:
|
posted 12-16-2005 12:00 AM
CHaRiZaRd: I don't see what the big fucking deal is.
Whew. Glad I didn't waste any time with this retard in the atheism thread.
From: Cinnabar Island | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
CHaRiZaRd
Farting Nudist
Member # 994
Member Rated:
|
posted 12-16-2005 04:23 AM
That statement was a bit of an exaggeration. I do see what the big deal is for a lot of people, and perhaps that line wasn't the best to open up a post with.
Thanks for the reply, btw. Nice to know that my posts are neither read nor taken seriously by the people with whom I'm conversing.
Also nice to know that if I try to instigate conversation on this board I'll get quoted out of context and the majority of the content in my posts will be ignored.
[ 12-16-2005, 04:25 AM: Message edited by: CHaRiZaRd ]
From: NJ or DC | Registered: Oct 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lark84
My skeleton is made of creamy nougat.
Member # 1186
Member Rated:
|
posted 12-16-2005 11:20 AM
Dude, welcome to the Internet.
On a more relevant note, what if someone like Hitler gets elected? He'd just pass laws saying "I have unlimited access to that data", then he'll run a couple of filters on it, and anyone flagged gets a bullet in his head. Reason enough to not do it, I'd say. (While the law says the upper limit in 2 years, in practice, each conutry may set its own upper limit. Poland has decided on 15 years. "So, mr. president candidate, it seems you porn surfed quite a lot when you were 17...")
A less radical and more likely scenario is that once they have this huge pile of information, the pressure (and the bribes) from various "interest groups" will get high to use that data for whatever they deem necessary. The music industry is, no surprise, already pushing for getting access to that data to stop copyright infringement. Or they could just track someone with uncomfortable political opinions.
And then we'll have a society where people obey the law out of fear for punishment, not out of respect for it.
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rysto
Farting Nudist
Member # 24
Member Rated:
|
posted 12-16-2005 12:04 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that the actual data isn't be saved, only the destination and the source.
- - - - -
So "a" can be any value?
-a guy in my Calculus class, on the nature of variables
From: Waterloo, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
CHaRiZaRd
Farting Nudist
Member # 994
Member Rated:
|
posted 12-16-2005 12:24 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Lark84:
Dude, welcome to the Internet.
Thanks. Feels great to be here =)
quote:
A less radical and more likely scenario is that once they have this huge pile of information, the pressure (and the bribes) from various "interest groups" will get high to use that data for whatever they deem necessary.
Yeah, that's something a lot of people express concern for down the line. In the end, who the hell actually knows what goings-on occur behind the scenes? For all we know, someone may indeed be prompted/bribed in some manner to misuse certain statutes for the purpose of pushing a specific political agenda with no regard for the greater good. I personally don't think this is likely to happen, but to dismiss entirely would be foolish. Anyway...
quote:
And then we'll have a society where people obey the law out of fear for punishment, not out of respect for it.
That's assuming these alleged alterior agendas are pushed that would warrant such government misuse of the new law, but the outcome is still extremely troubling and unfavorable.
And Rysto, I'm not exactly sure how much information the government will be able to use, but if it is what you say, then the matter of this being a privacy infringement is somewhat reduced, albeit slightly.
From: NJ or DC | Registered: Oct 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dweedle
My hands and feet are mangos
Member # 1209
Member Rated:
|
posted 12-16-2005 02:29 PM
so does this mean they'll know when i'm calling to pick up some weed
- - - - -
the only way to get pass this will be to commit suicune
From: second of all, Quagmire's not really a bad guy! | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lark84
My skeleton is made of creamy nougat.
Member # 1186
Member Rated:
|
posted 12-16-2005 03:26 PM
Rysto is right. For now, only the data about the conversations (be they e-mail or phone calls) is saved, and as for the Internet, from what I've heard, they'll only save information about when you log on or off (but that seems totally useless - everyone who has cable is logged on all the time), but I'm not willing to bet on that just yet.
However, in analogy with my previous post, implementing this much tracking opens up to saying "But if we also saved the contents of the e-mails...", etc.
You might say I am not against the actual law as it stands today. However, I am certain that monitoring will increase - ask yourself how likely it is that the people in power 5 years from now will decide that "Hey, that data retention thing, it didn't help. Let's get rid of it.".
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rysto
Farting Nudist
Member # 24
Member Rated:
|
posted 12-16-2005 06:49 PM
Slippery slope arguments don't fly with me. Besides, I'm reasonably sure phone companies in the US have been keeping this kind of information for years(way before 9/11) without anybody suggesting they should record the conversations as well.
- - - - -
So "a" can be any value?
-a guy in my Calculus class, on the nature of variables
From: Waterloo, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. K
Racist
Member # 2
Member Rated:
|
posted 12-16-2005 09:23 PM
hello
From: Cinnabar Island | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rysto
Farting Nudist
Member # 24
Member Rated:
|
posted 12-17-2005 12:18 PM
Ok, other than the Bush administration, who are crazy. Besides, as that link proves, they don't let little things like "laws" get in their way.
- - - - -
So "a" can be any value?
-a guy in my Calculus class, on the nature of variables
From: Waterloo, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
IceHawk78
NOBODY IMPORTANT
Member # 1699
Member Rated:
|
posted 12-17-2005 01:12 PM
Well, after reading K's link, I feel somewhat dumb... I thought the original topic had said the law was passed that made the US telecoms keep that info. So all those arguements about constitutional rights and all? Sorry 'bout that. Those only apply if we're talking about the US.
As for the fact that it's in Europe, I think the points Lark made are about the same as the concerns I had. You're saying that nothing is being monitered, but as that article showed, whether it's supposed to be monitered or not doesn't exactly concern all people. And if you seriously think that the Bush administration is the only corrupt leadership in the western world, then I'd say you're being naive. Most of the others simply are better at hiding their corruption, and thus would be even more effective at utilizing something such as this.
From: Ohio | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sonuis
Sonius
Member # 1508
Member Rated:
|
posted 12-17-2005 04:51 PM
We might have a Mormon president in the near future.
Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
starCaliber
is evil and also MewtwoSama
Member # 268
Member Rated:
|
posted 12-18-2005 09:46 PM
could you faggots all just shut UP jesus fucking fuck shit christ
this thread is worse than television
From: San Francisco, CA | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rysto
Farting Nudist
Member # 24
Member Rated:
|
posted 12-18-2005 09:55 PM
God forbid there's actually a serious thread in this place, eh?
- - - - -
So "a" can be any value?
-a guy in my Calculus class, on the nature of variables
From: Waterloo, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
starCaliber
is evil and also MewtwoSama
Member # 268
Member Rated:
|
posted 12-18-2005 11:46 PM
get punched
From: San Francisco, CA | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lark84
My skeleton is made of creamy nougat.
Member # 1186
Member Rated:
|
posted 12-19-2005 01:46 PM
lol
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
MK
is somewhat large.
Member # 1445
Member Rated:
|
posted 12-21-2005 10:25 PM
quote:
Originally posted by starCaliber:
(shit)
[ 12-29-2005, 02:31 PM: Message edited by: MewtwoSama ]
- - - - -
even my mother thinks i'm an idiot
Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic