Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[alexandertnt]

Better everyone than the NSA, in my opinion

But if someone I knew ended up with a video feed of me I wouldnt be anonymous anymore. Likewise I could end up doing surveylence on someone I know, identifying them by their voice/face/surroundings etc. I would feel better (better, not good) if it were someone who treated me as a generic, faceless individual, as I dont know anyone in the NSA. If it were not for that anonymous issue, I would probably agree.

I am not defending the NSA of course, they are terrable. Just (a bit) less terrable than that other option IMO.

[SalmonGod]

http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2849

Not sure I like that argument. I'll agree about the end result (selective enforcement), but "benign breaking of laws and taboo" sounds... well the issue is that the law and/or taboo is dumb. If you can benignly break a law or taboo, that law or taboo shouldn't exist (or be modified for the benign exceptions). That's the root issue there.

I agree with you, but I'm also of the opinion that the law can never, ever be otherwise. 

First, because people will always have prejudices and they will always work their way into law.  Just look at how homosexuality has been a legal issue throughout history.  It's a perfect example of how taboo breaking can be benign and deserves privacy.

Second, because I think it's completely impossible for the law to ever be sufficiently modified to include all benign exceptions.  It would have to reach such a magnitude of bloat in order to describe the handling of every possible circumstance in relation to every possible crime that it would be completely impossible to work with.  This is why we have judges, isn't it?  But any lack of specificity opens the door to selective enforcement. 

But I think as applies to law, the emphasis is on selective enforcement, not law-breaking being benign.  And I don't think I need to describe how rampantly the law favors certain people over others, or how surveillance can be used to amplify that problem even further.  And I don't think it's possible to ever operate otherwise, so long as human beings are tasked with execution of the law.

[kaijyuu]

Can't really say I disagree with anything there, it's just that all those arguments support privacy to be a practical necessity rather than a right.

Maybe I'm splitting hairs here.

[Baffler]

The solution, then, would be to disentangle the judicial system from the political system a bit more. Political parties putting up judges seems to me to be against the best interests of the people, given the influence the powers that be have over party leadership. Even at the local level, it doesn't seem right to me to have judges on a party ticket. I am unaware of any alternative system, but either way, the influence inside politics has on the appointment of judges is certainly part of the problem.

[misko27]

With relevance to the first paragraph:

http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2849

Fact: In New York, there are so-called "One Party Recording laws" which allow anyone to record any conversation ever, and use it unrestricted without any permissions, as long as there are only 2 parties (more parties require permission from everyone).

It's details like that you use to your advantage. I know one cabbie posted conversations as Art.

[GlyphGryph]

Personally I think you should be 100% allowed to record every conversation you are party to ever.

Conversations you are NOT party too are something else.

But if you can see and hear it, you should be able to record it.

[PatriotSaint]

*knock at door*

"Hello, Mr. Doe, meet your new mandatory and permanent party member.

Here's the paperwork. Inside are instructions for innediate burning and disposal.

Oh, I'll be back with your new friend's audio and video recording equipment tomorrow. Could't fit it all in the van."

[Bauglir]

Are you trying to claim that allowing recording of anything somebody can personally witness would lead to a situation in which everyone would be followed around by state employees recording their every activity?

I can think of several reasons why it would be impossible, and a couple reasons why that would still be preferable to the situation we have now, even if it were possible.

[PatriotSaint]

Nope.

Just a Nightmare Scenario, more like.

[PatriotSaint]

Nope.

Just a Nightmare Scenario, more like.

Needless to say, killers may cause problems in a situation with sharp objects, should it ever happen.

Haha, don't be silly, our loving government would never let that happen.

Everybody knows crime has been officially outlawed.

[Descan]

Yes, Russia has been outlawed, too.

[Scoops Novel]

Firstly, here's a link to Glenn Greenwald(one of the journalists involved with the leaks) describing the detaining of his partner yesterday by the UK as an attempt at intimidation. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/18/david-miranda-detained-uk-nsa?CMP=twt_gu

You lot know that I'm not big on a free press (please look at previous posts if you wish to argue with me on this), so i ask you what the focus of discussion was before this came to the fore, how it's changed the tone of the conversation, and what we might have been talking about instead. I know this has put a bite to conversations about the abuse of technology, as well as a general drop in faith in governments. I struggle to recall what the closest thing to this, which is to say chief in the public mind, or big news, or widespread concern, was before this came along. I doubt there was anything that stood out from the crowd as much as this does. On the point of what we might have been discussing instead, you know why i don't expect you to go great lengths here, but I'd appreciate it if you told me where you thought things- news, dissatisfaction, attention- would be going before this news broke.

[GlyphGryph]

Why? Why would you link to something important and actually relevant to the thread, and then intentionally request a derail?

Geeze, dude, geeze.

Regardless, the UK has started using anti-terrorism laws explicitly to target journalists, so, well... I don't even think I can add anything to this. It speaks for itself, I think.

[Scoops Novel]

Well, you guys do keep coming back to either trying to convince people of the failings of the program as well as the occasional discussion of how it has been received. I'm curious as to how it's changed related conversations. You're right though, i don't think my description of the article gave it sufficient weight. I am less certain that it will make a significant impact in the UK at least, given that he's talked about it so soon after and so freely.

[Jelle]

Even the Mafia had ethical rules against targeting the family members of people they felt threatened by. But the UK puppets and their owners in the US national security state obviously are unconstrained by even those minimal scruples.

Ough, harsh but true I suppose.
Such blatant abuse of power so close to home, a little disturbing. One more reason not to go anywhere near the UK I guess...