After SOPA and PIPA blew over, something more shocking was revealed-
[B]we were being watched all along.[/B]
Snowden reveals that USA had been hacking nearly 61,000 computers around the world to collect data for surveillance since 2009. The government also controls most major Internet companies such as Microsoft and Apple and is able to access data, looking at billions of phone calls and messages. They can check what you have been saying on Facebook and in chats, and if something eye-catching is seen, you will usually be put into a blacklist.
The NSA, the agency that collects this data, hacks into a huge Internet center in every country to access all files and data. Agencies included in this hacking in Hong Kong include the Chinese University, Hang Seng, and several other buisnesses. (I live in Hong Kong)
After this leaked, it created a humongous uproar internationally, spurring distrust towards Obama. People around the world have signed petitons and donated money to Snowden.
Full report:
[url]http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1259335/exclusive-whistle-blower-edward-snowden-talks-south-china-morning[/url]
So...
What do you guys think? I think that we should all petition to stop this, or what do you guys think?
I personally have nothing to hide and it's not the government is doing this so that they can giggle while watching you cyber, it's so they can protect the freaking country from criminals. I also think that Snowden SHOULD be punished because any terrorists or criminals that MAY have previously been using these forms of communication definitely won't now since he basically announced what forms of communication they SHOULDN'T use.
I think internet surveillance is completely unethical in in violation of our implied rights to privacy, I feel the government officials in charge of the organization and operation of these practices have over-stepped the boundaries set fourth by previously stated law and should be acted on accordingly.
As for Snowden I think he demonstrated an excellent act of selflessness; and I don't think it would be moral to try a man for raising awareness to a moral misstep committed by the government just because they are the government.
[QUOTE=snapshot32;41044749]I think internet surveillance is completely unethical in in violation of our implied rights to privacy, I feel the government officials in charge of the organization and operation of these practices have over-stepped the boundaries set fourth by previously stated law and should be acted on accordingly.
As for Snowden I think he demonstrated an excellent act of selflessness; and I don't think it would be moral to try a man for raising awareness to a moral misstep committed by the government just because they are the government.[/QUOTE]
Ok, let me make a scenario.
IF, I repeat IF, the government was to discover and prevent a terrorist attack through phone and Internet survallience, would that, in effect, be worth it?
[QUOTE=Darkstorm7777;41044810]Ok, let me make a scenario.
IF, I repeat IF, the government was to discover and prevent a terrorist attack through phone and Internet survallience, would that, in effect, be worth it?[/QUOTE]
This isn't a case of whether or not the effort justifies the action, this is a case of the governing body overstepping its social boundaries and being hostile when confronted on it.
It's not my job to decide if things are worth-while or not, but I can tell you that it is immoral to monitor peoples day-to-day activities without their knowledge or consent, and that's why this is an issue for me.
I don't get why people are upset about this now.
Advertisers have been doing this type of thing since pretty much the dawn of the internet. Infact the NSA probably gets the vast majority of their information from aggregators that work with advertisers.
The point that you 'have nothing to hide' doesn't justify this mass-surveillance. I have nothing to hide, yet I am not comfortable with the idea of data about me being logged day-to-day just in case I happen to be a criminal.
Nobody gave their consent for this, there was no vote put to the American people. It was done without their consent, and they would not have known if not for Snowden. Which begs the question, what else do they have to hide?
The government in this instance is clearly stepping over its boundaries in the name of counter-terrorism. It violates the rights given to the American people so clearly they are again unjustified in their actions. A further issue with this is the potential it has to be misused by future leaders, could you imagine what leaders such as Stalin or the Tsar could have done with this sort of technology?
Just because a method works well doesn't necessarily justify its implementation. Wouldn't it be just as true that having cameras on every one at every time while they are under constant house arrest would curb terrorism and crime in general? Yes, but that clearly isn't justified. There is a line regarding privacy that has to be drawn now before it can go any further, especially when it contradicts a populations given rights.
[QUOTE=snapshot32;41045231]This isn't a case of whether or not the effort justifies the action, this is a case of the governing body overstepping its social boundaries and being hostile when confronted on it.
It's not my job to decide if things are worth-while or not, but I can tell you that it is immoral to monitor peoples day-to-day activities without their knowledge or consent, and that's why this is an issue for me.[/QUOTE]
So even if something is worthwhile for the good of a society as a whole, the government shouldn't do it anyway because of morals? So even if it COULD save lives, it doesn't matter, because morals are absolutely the most important thing that the government should consider when making decisions?
[QUOTE=Darkstorm7777;41045525]So even if something is worthwhile for the good of a society as a whole, the government shouldn't do it anyway because of morals? So even if it COULD save lives, it doesn't matter, because morals are absolutely the most important thing that the government should consider when making decisions?[/QUOTE]
Of course moral considerations should be taken into account, morality is one of the most important features of humanity. Who defines that is 'good' for the whole of society?
According to people such as Devlin, allowing for gay marriage wouldn't be a good action as it would tear the fabric of society and harm social unity. However, is that really the case?
[QUOTE=Top Cat;41045481]The point that you 'have nothing to hide' doesn't justify this mass-surveillance. I have nothing to hide, yet I am not comfortable with the idea of data about me being logged day-to-day just in case I happen to be a criminal.
Nobody gave their consent for this, there was no vote put to the American people. It was done without their consent, and they would not have known if not for Snowden. Which begs the question, what else do they have to hide?
The government in this instance is clearly stepping over its boundaries in the name of counter-terrorism. It violates the rights given to the American people so clearly they are again unjustified in their actions. A further issue with this is the potential it has to be misused by future leaders, could you imagine what leaders such as Stalin or the Tsar could have done with this sort of technology?
Just because a method works well doesn't necessarily justify its implementation. Wouldn't it be just as true that having cameras on every one at every time while they are under constant house arrest would curb terrorism and crime in general? Yes, but that clearly isn't justified. There is a line regarding privacy that has to be drawn now before it can go any further, especially when it contradicts a populations given rights.[/QUOTE]
What right? Is there a document or formal that says the government can't tap your phone or computer?
Also, I'm not sure you realize what a Tsar is, and besides, this isn't a technology, it's a method, technology just makes it slightly easier.
[QUOTE=Darkstorm7777;41045577]What right? Is there a document or formal that says the government can't tap your phone or computer?
Also, I'm not sure you realize what a Tsar is, and besides, this isn't a technology, it's a method, technology just makes it slightly easier.[/QUOTE]
Unless I am reading this incorrectly I would argue that "The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, along with requiring any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause." protects against exactly this.
I do quite well realise what Tsar is, and I recognise Tsars such as Nicholas the Second and others made it difficult for you to have a variety of political opinions. It is technology, the technology available to log data from the internet.
If this technology was not the created, the method would not exist.
[QUOTE=Top Cat;41045622]Unless I am reading this incorrectly I would argue that "The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, along with requiring any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause." protects against exactly this.
I do quite well realise what Tsar is, and I recognise Tsars such as Nicholas the Second and others made it difficult for you to have a variety of political opinions. It is technology, the technology available to log data from the internet.
If this technology was not the created, the method would not exist.[/QUOTE]
Monitoring communication secretly is much, much different then an unauthorized search of a persons home.
[QUOTE=Darkstorm7777;41045644]Actual it's morals that are more often taken into consideration when gay marriage is being criticized, but that's not related to the conversation.
Anyway, how do you determined what's good for society? Simple, whatever prevents harm or death or oppression of the society is deemed good for the society, at least from my point of view. Surveillance can prevent harm to the community without causing any harm. Now you might think that it DOES cause harm, but let me ask you this: before you knew about the surveillance, was your life effected in any way?[/QUOTE]
Not sure what on Earth you mean with your first point, but seeing as it isn't relevant then I'll not bother.
If you're going to say preventing harm is good then arguing that yes such mass surveillance can be seen as harm then you're sitting on some weak ground.
If my life was effected or not beforehand is non-issue. Should my life directly be affected for me to say whether or not something is wrong?
The death sentence does not effect me, for I am not a criminal, though I am still able to argue that it is right or wrong.
The further point, as I already argued, is that it can very clearly be seen to go against a right guaranteed to the American people in America's constitution. If the state is asked to adhere to those rights then it should do exactly that.
[QUOTE]Monitoring communication secretly is much, much different then an unauthorized search of a persons home.[/QUOTE]
I don't believe it specified a 'home' being involved. While it is different, it is still a search on the premise that you may commit a crime and therefore you must have your communications monitored, even though no prior evidence has been shown to the idea that you may commit a crime. According to that right, it appears unjust to do so.
[QUOTE=Top Cat;41045816]Not sure what on Earth you mean with your first point, but seeing as it isn't relevant then I'll not bother.
If you're going to say preventing harm is good then arguing that yes such mass surveillance can be seen as harm then you're sitting on some weak ground.
If my life was effected or not beforehand is non-issue. Should my life directly be affected for me to say whether or not something is wrong?
The death sentence does not effect me, for I am not a criminal, though I am still able to argue that it is right or wrong.
The further point, as I already argued, is that it can very clearly be seen to go against a right guaranteed to the American people in America's constitution. If the state is asked to adhere to those rights then it should do exactly that.[/QUOTE]
I'm not saying just because your life wasn't effected, doesn't mean you don't have a say, I'm saying that you shouldn't be all butthurt about the surveillance because its not even effecting you.
Also, what right does it go against?
[editline]15th June 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Top Cat;41045816]Not sure what on Earth you mean with your first point, but seeing as it isn't relevant then I'll not bother.
If you're going to say preventing harm is good then arguing that yes such mass surveillance can be seen as harm then you're sitting on some weak ground.
If my life was effected or not beforehand is non-issue. Should my life directly be affected for me to say whether or not something is wrong?
The death sentence does not effect me, for I am not a criminal, though I am still able to argue that it is right or wrong.
The further point, as I already argued, is that it can very clearly be seen to go against a right guaranteed to the American people in America's constitution. If the state is asked to adhere to those rights then it should do exactly that.
I don't believe it specified a 'home' being involved. While it is different, it is still a search on the premise that you may commit a crime and therefore you must have your communications monitored, even though no prior evidence has been shown to the idea that you may commit a crime. According to that right, it appears unjust to do so.[/QUOTE]
Surveillance is in no way similar to a search, watching someone's communications isn't the same as going through someone's personal belongings.
[QUOTE=Darkstorm7777;41045859]I'm not saying just because your life wasn't effected, doesn't mean you don't have a say, I'm saying that you shouldn't be all butthurt about the surveillance because its not even effecting you.
Also, what right does it go against?[/QUOTE]
I've already specified the right, and I'm also not 'butthurt'. I merely respect the rights given to a population and also respect the ability to have my own privacy. Furthermore, I feel the state should not overreach into social matters in such a manner.
[QUOTE] Surveillance is in no way similar to a search, watching someone's communications isn't the same as going through someone's personal belongings.[/QUOTE]
My communications between myself and other individuals are personal much like my belongings. The fact they are personal is why we aren't comfortable with others looking through them. Surveillance, especially in the case of what the NSA were/are performing, was the ability to search through your both personal and impersonal communications as they are all logged and kept in a database without your consent or knowledge.
It would be as if someone had copied my diary, or journal, and kept it for themselves so that they could have the leisure to read through it whenever they felt.
[QUOTE=Top Cat;41045893]I've already specified the right, and I'm also not 'butthurt'. I merely respect the rights given to a population and also respect the ability to have my own privacy. Furthermore, I feel the state should not overreach into social matters in such a manner.[/QUOTE]
And I've already specified that the fourth amendment doesn't apply.
And also you are getting butthurt, as you are perceiving the surveillance as an invasion of your privacy, despite it being for you benefit.
[QUOTE=Darkstorm7777;41045923]And I've already specified that the fourth amendment doesn't apply.
And also you are getting butthurt, as you are perceiving the surveillance as an invasion of your privacy, despite it being for you benefit.[/QUOTE]
I also argued that you failed to reason out that the fourth amendment didn't apply.
What benefit have I received from it? The benefit doesn't appear all too clear. Especially in light of events such as the Boston bombings.
Tor is still invulnerable to this. Just make sure you don't reveal yourself by the data you send: Request a new identity every time you want to go from Facepunch to Facebook and viceversa or something like that.
[QUOTE=Top Cat;41045958]I also argued that you failed to reason out that the fourth amendment didn't apply.
What benefit have I received from it? The benefit doesn't appear all too clear. Especially in light of events such as the Boston bombings.[/QUOTE]
I'm not saying that your reaping benefits from it now, but it may prevent terrorist attacks in the future.
For example, cyberterrorism.
Anyway, how have I failing to dismiss the fourth amendment as unrelated? In what way are searches of person and home, which are owned by the person, and a monitoring communication similar?
[editline]15th June 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Eudoxia;41045984]Tor is still invulnerable to this. Just make sure you don't reveal yourself by the data you send: Request a new identity every time you want to go from Facepunch to Facebook and viceversa or something like that.[/QUOTE]
What are you talking about?
[QUOTE=Darkstorm7777;41046066]What are you talking about?[/QUOTE]
Use Tor if you don't want to be spied on, just don't use the same Tor connection to log in to Facebook and browse /pol/ :v:
[QUOTE=Eudoxia;41046189]Use Tor if you don't want to be spied on, just don't use the same Tor connection to log in to Facebook and browse /pol/ :v:[/QUOTE]
What does that have to do with the conversation?
[QUOTE=Darkstorm7777;41046240]What does that have to do with the conversation?[/QUOTE]
You can't stop what government is doing, you can only defend yourself.
[QUOTE=Eudoxia;41046382]You can't stop what government is doing, you can only defend yourself.[/QUOTE]
Ok, so what is your opinion on the surveillance vs. no surveillance debate?
[QUOTE=Darkstorm7777;41045525]So even if something is worthwhile for the good of a society as a whole, the government shouldn't do it anyway because of morals? So even if it COULD save lives, it doesn't matter, because morals are absolutely the most important thing that the government should consider when making decisions?[/QUOTE]
Well, morality is self defined. However, [B]everything[/B] is a double-edged blade. For example, meth. Small amounts of meth are used for pharmaceutical use but large doses are bad. Same in this situation - if the NSA just watches certain dangerous people, it should be fine. But if they watch everybody, it's not.
I honestly think it's disgusting. I have nothing to hide on my computer besides the gigabytes of Bond Lau rule 34 (#insidejoke) To be serious I hate it. It's a violation of human rights. The internet and computers in general make us so vulnerable to collecting information. It makes me feel like i'm being raped and I don't know when, who or how.
(P.S Gabe stop using bold)
[QUOTE=Darkstorm7777;41046066]In what way are searches of person and home, which are owned by the person, and a monitoring communication similar?
[/QUOTE]
Wiretapping is covered under the fourth amendment to the constitution.[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katz_v._United_States"][][/URL]
Now, if the government is supposed to get a warrant to wiretap any individual, then why the hell are they allowed to monitor everything that most everyone in the world is doing on the internet, without any probable cause?
[QUOTE=Call Me Kiwi;41053638]Wiretapping is covered under the fourth amendment to the constitution.[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katz_v._United_States"][][/URL]
Now, if the government is supposed to get a warrant to wiretap any individual, then why the hell are they allowed to monitor everything that most everyone in the world is doing on the internet, without any probable cause?[/QUOTE]
Thank you for identifying that, I didn't have the time to read through the entire amendment.
[QUOTE=MyBumBum;41053278]Well, morality is self defined. However, [B]everything[/B] is a double-edged blade. For example, meth. Small amounts of meth are used for pharmaceutical use but large doses are bad. Same in this situation - if the NSA just watches certain dangerous people, it should be fine. But if they watch everybody, it's not.[/QUOTE]
You still have failed to state how this is wrong at all.
[editline]16th June 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Call Me Kiwi;41053638]Wiretapping is covered under the fourth amendment to the constitution.[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katz_v._United_States"][][/URL]
Now, if the government is supposed to get a warrant to wiretap any individual, then why the hell are they allowed to monitor everything that most everyone in the world is doing on the internet, without any probable cause?[/QUOTE]
I've read though the 4th amendment and it doesn't state anything about wiretapping.
[editline]16th June 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Teenage Dirt;41053509]I honestly think it's disgusting. I have nothing to hide on my computer besides the gigabytes of Bond Lau rule 34 (#insidejoke) To be serious I hate it. It's a violation of human rights. The internet and computers in general make us so vulnerable to collecting information. It makes me feel like i'm being raped and I don't know when, who or how.
(P.S Gabe stop using bold)[/QUOTE]
Lol, human right? Tell me more about the no phone-tapping clause in the Human Rights manifesto.
[QUOTE=Darkstorm7777;41057357]
I've read though the 4th amendment and it doesn't state anything about wiretapping.
[/QUOTE]
Did you miss this [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katz_v._United_States"]link?[/URL]
In my opinion trading off your freedoms for security never works out in the end. It's an unjust violation of privacy that not everyone agreed to. Snowden exposed the government breaking the law and spying on us and this he is labeled a traitor for standing up for everyone's rights. Even if what he did was the wrong thing you can't deny that he was just trying to protect people's privacy.
The use the guise that its helping them find terrorist but I pretty much doubt that bunch of guys planning terror attacks use Emails to plan it out. Unless they have half a brain they'd most likely do secret meets.
It doesn't matter if I have nothing to hide, the government is spying on us and violating our privacy without even asking us anything. They should only ever spy on people who are suspected to be terrorist, not everyone because "you can never be to careful".
[QUOTE=Darkstorm7777;41057357]
Lol, human right? Tell me more about the no phone-tapping clause in the Human Rights manifesto.[/QUOTE]
So humans aren't entitled to privacy?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.