Print

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

[Loud Whispers]

You keep using that word, i do not think it means what you think it means.

Hitlery is a pretty Hitlery word

I think it only truly becomes Hitlery when the French round all the ultras up and gas them for being the cause of all their ills.

Otherwise it's just kinda sensible to keep people known for football-related violence away from football.

Or use such a database to destroy dissidents like the strike leaders

[hector13]

So basically any publicly available database is a tool to destroy people.

While I see your point - even accept your point, to a point - I will point out I reserve the right to think you're a little bit mad as a result.

[Sergarr]

You keep using that word, i do not think it means what you think it means.

Hitlery is a pretty Hitlery word

I think it only truly becomes Hitlery when the French round all the ultras up and gas them for being the cause of all their ills.

Otherwise it's just kinda sensible to keep people known for football-related violence away from football.

Or use such a database to destroy dissidents like the strike leaders

I'm pretty sure that the government already keeps such databases. How do you think intelligence agencies work? Just by randomly picking out people from the crowd?

[Loud Whispers]

I'm pretty sure that the government already keeps such databases. How do you think intelligence agencies work? Just by randomly picking out people from the crowd?

Varies from gov to gov
Some are literally like that

[Wolfhunter107]

NATO to send four multinational battalions to the Baltic.

BRUSSELS — NATO's chief said Monday the alliance will agree this week to send four multinational battalions to the Baltic states and Poland to boost their defenses against Russia.

Jens Stoltenberg, the NATO secretary-general, said alliance defense ministers will formally approve the deployment plan drafted by NATO military planners at a meeting that begins Tuesday in Brussels.

Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland, four of NATO's members that feel most threatened by Russia, will each be reinforced by "a robust multinational battalion," Stoltenberg told a news conference.

"This will send a clear signal that NATO stands ready to defend any ally," the NATO chief said.

Stoltenberg said the battalions will be commanded by NATO military leaders, and deployed on a rotational basis rather than being based permanently in the host countries.

U.S. NATO Ambassador Douglas Lute said details of the number of troops to be deployed as well as the national composition of the battalions and who will be in their command will be decided and announced at the July NATO summit in Warsaw. NATO officials say that some 4,000 troops will be involved.

Lute, speaking Monday during a telephone press briefing, said the rotation will be on the heel-to-toe basis, meaning the troops will be present in the host countries every day of the year.

Lute said the troops will remain as long as is necessary.

The United States, Britain and Germany have already committed to acting as so-called framework nations for three of the battalions. It was not immediately clear which NATO member country would agree to furnish the core forces for the fourth battalion.

[MarcAFK]

Sending troops to Poland? Now that's hitlery.

[scriver]

So basically any publicly available database is a tool to destroy people.

While I see your point - even accept your point, to a point - I will point out I reserve the right to think you're a little bit mad as a result.

We have this database here called "medical records" - clearly not an attempt to help others but for the hitlerites to know who to eugenicise and to spare.

[Baffler]

So basically any publicly available database is a tool to destroy people.

While I see your point - even accept your point, to a point - I will point out I reserve the right to think you're a little bit mad as a result.

We have this database here called "medical records" - clearly not an attempt to help others but for the hitlerites to know who to eugenicise and to spare.

An important part of the security of a database is access control. You don't want just anyone going around reading people's medical records, or you'd have a Gattaca-esque scenario where insurance companies and employers refuse to deal with certain people to avoid paying out. There are lots of very good reasons it's pretty difficult for anyone that isn't actively providing care to you to access those records, but it's also very important that the information exists so doctors are aware of any pre-existing conditions that might affect their treatment of you.

A database created for security reasons, on the other hand, has to be shared with as many people as possible to reach its full potential. It isn't really relevant to anyone but the doctor that John Doe's taking medication that results in decreased liver function. It's just so much noise. But the more widely aware people are that John is a potential terrorist the better, plus as a potential terrorist he could theoretically do terrorist stuff at any time. Potential terrorists need to be watched so they can't do any of that stuff on the sly, and the more complete that surveillance the better, from a security standpoint. It will be as intrusive and as comprehensive as it can be, because that's the most effective way to do it. The benefits to the individual and society as a whole are very small compared to the loss of privacy and chilling effect on political speech. And all that's to say nothing of the personal benefits for the people running the database to start abusing it.

So no, they aren't really comparable.

[scriver]

Security databases only need to be shared with security personnel, just like medical databases only news to be shared with medical personnel. I see no difference here that is relevant to the context of the discussion.

[Baffler]

There are lots of very good reasons it's pretty difficult for anyone that isn't actively providing care to you to access those records, but it's also very important that the information exists so doctors are aware of any pre-existing conditions that might affect their treatment of you.

...The benefits to the individual and society as a whole [for a security-oriented list/database] are very small compared to the loss of privacy and chilling effect on political speech. And all that's to say nothing of the personal benefits for the people running the database to start abusing it.

These are the important parts. It's in what they're used for, or more directly, who gets what out of them that makes the difference.

[Sheb]

Security databases only need to be shared with security personnel, just like medical databases only news to be shared with medical personnel. I see no difference here that is relevant to the context of the discussion.

Your medical records don't need to be accessed by all medical practitioners in the country, just your doctor. There is a difference in the privacy issue between giving your data to one doctor, and giving it to potentially every cop in the country.

Another issue is that there is such a think as a terrorist database that's too complete. After the Brussels attack, one thing that transpired was that the intelligence agency in charge of counter-terrorrism was receiving so much data from local law enforcement and the like they couldn't keep up. Not missing real terrorists while not overloading intelligence agencies is a real problem. Especially since maintaining such database draw manpower away from the infiltration and shadowing of potential terrorists too, jobs which are less sexy but are arguably more effective.

[scriver]

Security databases only need to be shared with security personnel, just like medical databases only news to be shared with medical personnel. I see no difference here that is relevant to the context of the discussion.

Your medical records don't need to be accessed by all medical practitioners in the country, just your doctor. There is a difference in the privacy issue between giving your data to one doctor, and giving it to potentially every cop in the country.

Medical records need to be accessed not just by your general doctor but by my doctor's overdoctor, his substitutes, the other doctors your doctor advise with, the stafett doctors you get if you don't have a doctor, your specialist doctors, emergency personnel, long term care personnel, and the nurses who will be the actually care for me. That's what medical databases is for. If there wasn't a need to share information then there wouldn't be any point of having a database.

Another issue is that there is such a think as a terrorist database that's too complete. After the Brussels attack, one thing that transpired was that the intelligence agency in charge of counter-terrorrism was receiving so much data from local law enforcement and the like they couldn't keep up. Not missing real terrorists while not overloading intelligence agencies is a real problem. Especially since maintaining such database draw manpower away from the infiltration and shadowing of potential terrorists too, jobs which are less sexy but are arguably more effective.

How fortunately then that the discussion is more about keeping databases of known football hooligans and using them during the weeks of the championship, than about terrorists.

[martinuzz]

Your medical records don't need to be accessed by all medical practitioners in the country, just your doctor. There is a difference in the privacy issue between giving your data to one doctor, and giving it to potentially every cop in the country.

I don't know what made you think that. Quite the contrary, medical databases are specifically created to be shared between health professionals, with as main reason to prevent deaths from lethal combinations of medication.
It's already failing though, last week my newspaper reported on the database being shared with parties that have no business getting it (government employment office), and it's also already been hacked once.

[Loud Whispers]

Also you do get the dangerous situation where retards/news people/people who are as arab as terrorists get labeled as terrorists, like that one guy who the US intelligence lads were 100% certain was a terrorist because:

• Man was Pakistani Sunni
• Was known to travel in terrorist held areas frequently
• Had the contacts of people they knew were terrorists on his phone

So that sounds like a terrorist right? Man was a reporter, whose job was to interview terrorists
Also such a database is easy to abuse, a la Netherlands, USA or Erdobants

Newly-appointed Muslim mayor of London Sadiq Khan takes on his first big target - immodestly-dressed ladies on adverts. He's probably just kissing the feminist ring, but either way, it seems both foolish and remarkably ill-timed.

Lol I wonder at what point in life, someone got the bright idea to call obesity healthy, healthy unhealthy, and beauty unrealistic

[Sonlirain]

Also you do get the dangerous situation where retards/news people/people who are as arab as terrorists get labeled as terrorists, like that one guy who the US intelligence lads were 100% certain was a terrorist because:

• Man was Pakistani Sunni
• Was known to travel in terrorist held areas frequently
• Had the contacts of people they knew were terrorists on his phone

So that sounds like a terrorist right? Man was a reporter, whose job was to interview terrorists
Also such a database is easy to abuse, a la Netherlands, USA or Erdobants

I'm quite sure mericans even called that system "Skynet" as well adding to the hilarity because they might have used it to start drone attacks on "terrorist targets" that had fuckall to do with terrorism.