Print

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

[Another]

NSA's Keith Alexander about the leaks this time and every time they get out (paraphrased): "No,No,No. That is not truth. Lies. All we do is legal anyway. No further comments."

[darkrider2]

I think everything should be spied upon by everybody.

If everyone has espionage, we'll all be safer.

[Zangi]

I think everything should be spied upon by everybody.

If everyone has espionage, we'll all be safer.

You'll be fine with this if you have nothing to hide.  (In the mean time, the gov't scrambles to hide everythingput everything under the classified stamp or in a big bonfire.)

[cerapa]

I think everything should be spied upon by everybody.

If everyone has espionage, we'll all be safer.

But what if two people spy on each other at the same time?

Exploding heads. That's what would happen. And once it starts, the chances of it go up with every person lost, creating a chain-reaction that will destroy all of humanity.

Do you want that on your conscience? No? Then vote for non-mutual spying, for everyones safety.

[Frumple]

You'll be fine with this if you have nothing to hide.

There's a lot of stuff where it's not so much having something to hide, as it is having things that are no damn body else's business.

Alternately, I might be comfortable with mutual spying so long as it also comes with a mandate making it legal to gouge the eyes out of anyone you catch doing it.

[SalmonGod]

It amazes me how many people fail to realize that a person who has done nothing wrong can still have things to hide.

* SalmonGod casts Summon Truean

[Bauglir]

In a perfect world with no shame or metaphorical assholes (the literal kind are fine), then universal surveillance could be fine. That's never going to happen, and I don't think I'd actually want to live in such a world anyway. Possibly because it would probably require humanity to be some manner of hive mind, and I want no part of that for largely arbitrary reasons.

EDIT: Imagine a world in which your grandparents know your tastes in pornography. I don't think it actually matters what those tastes are, for this hypothetical, unless they are "None at all", in which case there's still almost certainly something that'll do for this.

[Frumple]

"None at all" would still make most people I'm aware of somewhat concerned. It's one of those things not oft talked about, but when it's missing (so to speak) people look on in askance.

[misko27]

I think everything should be spied upon by everybody.

If everyone has espionage, we'll all be safer.

You'll be fine with this if you have nothing to hide.  (In the mean time, the gov't scrambles to hide everythingput everything under the classified stamp or in a big bonfire.)

Brief digression, but the IC have done terrible damage by over-classifying things. It leads to open secrets (like drones, up until recently) and Congressmen can't debate secrets, even if everyone knows. Furthermore, due to people actually having to know things, the number of people who can access classified information increases; consequently, everything from the silly things they classified, to the seriously important things, are accessible to a increasingly large number of people. It leads either to less public knowledge, or people exposing important secrets, or worse, and most likely, both.

[LeoLeonardoIII]

It's not a hypothetical world. It's a real world. And I think every single person in this real world has some things they would rather not be known.

Secondly, I like my civil rights. I like my human rights. As citizens, as humans, if we let our governments or our corporations or whatever other organizations encroach upon those rights, we're seriously losing out. So many people simply don't care. Well let me tell you, there is a point you will care, and the more insulated you are the longer it will take to reach that point and the less able you will be to do anything about it.

And how effective is this domestic spying? How many times has the NSA domestic spying program stopped an act of terrorism or a major crime? And, how many times has there been a false-positive that was acted upon? I doubt the government would keep all their great successes a secret. I suspect it's less about stopping crime and more about suppressing dissidents. And of course now that it's leaked, the chilling effect on speech and demonstration.

[Bauglir]

-snip-

I, uh, think maybe you've misunderstood? I am pretty sure a world in which there is no such thing as shame, and nobody's a jackass, is hypothetical. Such a world does not exist.

EDIT: I was proposing a preposterous scenario for the purpose of illustrating the degree to which I think universal surveillance is unacceptable. I am in agreement with your arguments.

[Max White]

In a perfect world with no shame or metaphorical assholes (the literal kind are fine), then universal surveillance could be fine.

Funnily enough in such a world surveillance would be least needed.

There are many legitimate secrets that people keep. Everything from corporate secrets that a company has every right to keep private, to that mistress you don't want to tell your wife about (Sketchy, but totally legal. Perfect blackmail material) as such no, this kind of surveillance is not a good thing, and even worse when the people doing it are not being transparent about it.

Justice must not just be done, but also be seen to be done. What precedent is set when the law enforcement agencies that commit this surveillance work in secret?

[Duuvian]

Mike Rogers, Representative from Michigan and Chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, stated on television in defense of the NSA that "You can't have your privacy violated if you don't know your privacy is violated."

[Max White]

On that basis, if I close my eyes can nobody find me?

[10ebbor10]

John Kerry admits that some NSA spying might have possible gone a little bit too far.