I think it's time I call you guys out on an assumption you guys are making. Poor Frumple said it outright, so he gets the scrutiny.
Oh, to be fair, there's still some pretty bloody malicious things being done with that data, far beyond personalized advertisements -- you better damn sure believe scammers and con artists leaning on social engineering are using it to find targets*, and that's without getting into stuff like what some corps get up to outside the border or the types of pressure some of them roll out in certain situations. There is still plenty of abuse and room for abuse, some of it pretty damn nasty, that data collection either allows or aids and abets.
Corp abuse is less likely to end up with you in jail, though. Destitute, homeless? Sure. In the hospital or dead? Occasionally (and it's considerably more likely with gov. abuse, as we've seen with counter-protest activities). But usually not dragged out of your house and home and thrown into one of the world's worst prison systems (if we're sticking with the US, of course), with all that entails.
Still can get pretty bloody bad, but it's comparatively less of an issue (and arguably one you'd have more trouble legislating against.), which is potential reason to focus on government use before dealing with commercial if they can't be fixed in one go.
*Big data is pretty much the exact reason my grandparents constantly get calls from bastards trying to rip 'em off.
All in all, quite logical. Well thought out. The argument is "Government should not be able to do X but Corporations can", because "Government is oppressive, Corporations are at worst scammers". Makes sense. I'm not necessarily agreeing with it, but it certainly stands up to scrutiny. You say corporations are merely scammers, and provide arguments. But wait a moment:
...But usually not dragged out of your house and home and thrown into one of the world's worst prison systems (if we're sticking with the US, of course), with all that entails.
This is quite a serious accusation, and the very crux of your argument (I make no claims that it is
your personal argument, certainly the others argue for it more. You simply say it very openly); and yet, no evidence. At all. You just say it. You assume it to be true. A big fat old [CITATION NEEDED] sitting literally at the heart of your claims. I don't think this is common knowledge, and it is very, very serious thing to say; not to be made lightly. And yet, nothing. I know that, here at the Conspiracy theorists corner of Bay12, you can get a pass on that. But I am going to need some evidence.
Let's take a look at a little bit shall we? And not at whether the NSA is "legal" or "ethical"; I'm not saying that. I'm protesting the assumption that the government is using this to arrest people. First, a google. "NSA arrests" lead straight to infowars, never a good start. The other highlight is MSNBC interrupting a NSA interview for news of Bieber's arrest, managing to be even less relevant. A more direct "How many people have been arrested because of the NSA" leads to the
Washington Post blog denouncing claims by the NSA that has "foiled numerous plots", which sites evidence by the Guardian, saying only a single incident lead to arrest: That of a cab driver sending money to a tribal middle eastern group listed as terrorists. Not exactly many people being "dragged out of their homes and being thrown in the worst prison system" (an honor that likely belongs to North Korea, but I digress). The documents are from of course Edward Snowden, the paragon, who clearly has all the reason in the world to highlight improper uses of the system. It goes on to describe how the NSA was in fact wire-tapping the hijackers on 9/11; and utterly failed to do anything but listen. Clearly, not the mark of a competent oppressive agency. At worst, the Italian fascists to Germany's Gestapo: losers.
Certainly very serious accusations, but ones that completely undermine the malevolent image Frumple Highlights. Now, I could go on to point out the huge evidence of the
NSA's incompetence, but I don't think it's necessary. I have not heard backing up of political targeting. At least, with proof. Evidence. Googling "NSA dissidents" leads you to a few conspiracy sites, and an RT article on the NSA spying on Dissidents, Back in the Vietnam war. Not one thing from the Washington Post, NY times, Guardian, hell even Snowden. The evidence shows nothing more then that the NSA is utterly incompetent and a massive waste of money, as well as stepping on various constitutional limits. But not conspiracy.
So, no. I don't believe any of these claims. I know most of you already believe the government is terrible, but I need more then beliefs and feelings. I like to imagine Bay12 is better then infowars, so please, I invite proof. And not proof that "the NSA is intrusive"; that is very clear. I want proof that the NSA is targeting activists, dissidents, the opposition; anything political. And if not, expect any arguments resting on that premise will be sliced through: remember Occam's brother, Hanlon's Razor? "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." I think that needs to be remembered.
Poll
7 (6.5%)
Author
Topic: Bay12 Election Night Watch Party (Read 832953 times)