[QUOTE=matt000024;41058268]So humans aren't entitled to privacy?[/QUOTE]
No, they aren't entitled to phone company-user confidentiality.
There should be a certain degree of surveillance - but monitoring facebook chats? Skypes? Phone calls? Unethical. This kind of thing should discontinue immediately; it's a massive violation of privacy.
I'm from the UK so I'm probably not being watched by Uncle Sam. Still, those who are affected should not put up with this.
-snip
Can the government use information (from Skype, Facebook, or any other type of messaging) to arrest you? Is it legal?
[QUOTE=Valnar;41045459]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.[/QUOTE]
Advertisers do this pretty openly, are still bound by privacy laws (AFAIK in many countries they can only keep anonymized data) and the data they collect is never looked at by humans, only by algorithms deciding what advertisements to show. I find that a lot less scary than the prospect of the government reading my private communications.
Besides, there are lots of people who don't like advertisers collecting data either.
As for the thread title: I'd say most tech-savvy people have been suspecting this kind of shit for years. There's always encryption to defend yourself (though I'll admit, it's not very convenient; I doubt anyone encrypts their Facebook posts).
I say Facepunch organizes a march. What we need is peaceful direct democratic representation. But we need people, people who are willing to let go of their death-grip on this system and just change it. A move towards utter transparency and diplomacy.
[QUOTE=Darkstorm7777;41057357] I've read though the 4th amendment and it doesn't state anything about wiretapping.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]The right of the people to be secure in their [...] papers [...] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated[/QUOTE]
But I guess since there's no paper involved in digital communications it's all fair.
[QUOTE=Darkstorm7777;41057357]Lol, human right? Tell me more about the no phone-tapping clause in the Human Rights manifesto.[/QUOTE]
I have no inherent rights, just the rights the state gives me in its infinite gratitude
[QUOTE=Eudoxia;41059908]But I guess since there's no paper involved in digital communications it's all fair.
I have no inherent rights, just the rights the state gives me in its infinite gratitude[/QUOTE]
Did you miss [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katz_v._United_States"]this link[/URL] too?
[QUOTE=Call Me Kiwi;41059931]Did you miss [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katz_v._United_States"]this link[/URL] too?[/QUOTE]
He used public property to break the law. That is vastly different. You can't really have an expectation of that kind of privacy when in a phone booth.
To be fair, for this discussion it's irrelevant what the legal situation is; the discussion is about what people think it should be.
[QUOTE=SelfishDragon;41058251]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]
Touché.
But seriously, That was just one persons view of the fourth amendment and is not considered law, otherwise their would be someone arrested for this thing.
Also, snowden being labeled a traitor? Ha, cool story bro, next time add dinosaurs. Snowden is being praised by almost literally everyone except the people he actually betrayed.
[editline]16th June 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Cabbage;41059406]There should be a certain degree of surveillance - but monitoring facebook chats? Skypes? Phone calls? Unethical. This kind of thing should discontinue immediately; it's a massive violation of privacy.
I'm from the UK so I'm probably not being watched by Uncle Sam. Still, those who are affected should not put up with this.[/QUOTE]
Again. Can you tell me WHY this is unethical?
[editline]16th June 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Eudoxia;41059908]But I guess since there's no paper involved in digital communications it's all fair.
I have no inherent rights, just the rights the state gives me in its infinite gratitude[/QUOTE]
It says "papers" not letters, therefore communication isn't applied and is therefore not relevant.
I think it's alright. Maybe google will give me a job after they check out all my interesting search querries and find out how cool I am.
[QUOTE=godfatherk;41061016]I think it's alright. Maybe google will give me a job after they check out all my interesting search querries and find out how cool I am.[/QUOTE]
Lol, you clearly have no that google already is watching your search queries*. They do it to find out what advertisements to give you. This is in no way related to the conversation at hand anyway
[QUOTE=Darkstorm7777;41057357]You still have failed to state how this is wrong at all.[/QUOTE]
What I mean is that controlled surveillance on certain dangerous targets are fined, but mass surveillance is disgusting and bad. Understand now?
[QUOTE=Darkstorm7777;41060866]
Also, snowden being labeled a traitor? Ha, cool story bro, next time add dinosaurs. Snowden is being praised by almost literally everyone except the people he actually betrayed.
[/quote]
Although he is praised more than hated, he was labeled a traitor by the people who support this operation.
[Quote]
Again. Can you tell me WHY this is unethical?
[/quote]
The government has rights to spy on and has access to every bit of your information including emails, private messages, and some other stuff. I have nothing to hide in my house, it doesn't mean I wouldn't mind an agent going in to search everything. Privacy is something that should be protected, a freedom that we have to some extent.
It's the citizens duty to question the government on things like this, they're secretly spying on all of us which is wrong. The government should not be taking away freedoms, which in my opinion privacy is something that we all deserve.
I mean come on, it's actually confirmed that Big Brother is in fact watching us. Mass surveillance sounds like something a corrupt dictatorship would find really useful.
[QUOTE=SelfishDragon;41064430]Mass surveillance sounds like something a corrupt dictatorship would find really useful.[/QUOTE]
That would basically be saying Facebook is something rapists would find useful
As for the rest of it, how is something that literally has no effect on your life (unless your a dangerous terrorist) unethical? If using this method actually did stop a crime would it be worth it?
[QUOTE=Darkstorm7777;41064748]That would basically be saying Facebook is something rapists would find useful
As for the rest of it, how is something that literally has no effect on your life (unless your a dangerous terrorist) unethical? If using this method actually did stop a crime would it be worth it?[/QUOTE]
Technically Facebook probably is :V
The ends does not justify the means, and I have yet to see evidence of this ever stopping anyone from committing a crime. Only idiots who would get caught anyways would use Facebook and E-Mail to organize crime. They'd be safer in an isolated area where they know they aren't being recorded.
They have access to a lot of things we thought were only between ourselves and another person. It's extremely shady and unethical. I don't want to sacrifice my privacy and freedom for a false sense of security.
[QUOTE=SelfishDragon;41064877]Technically Facebook probably is :V
The ends does not justify the means, and I have yet to see evidence of this ever stopping anyone from committing a crime. Only idiots who would get caught anyways would use Facebook and E-Mail to organize crime. They'd be safer in an isolated area where they know they aren't being recorded.
They have access to a lot of things we thought were only between ourselves and another person. It's extremely shady and unethical. I don't want to sacrifice my privacy and freedom for a false sense of security.[/QUOTE]
You don't want to sacrifice your freedom and privacy?
Simple. Don't use Facebook.
[QUOTE=Darkstorm7777;41064942]You don't want to sacrifice your freedom and privacy?
Simple. Don't use Facebook.[/QUOTE]
I don't use it, but I do use my phone and email. I expect only myself to have access to it, not some weirdos wondering what I meant by "You're the bomb dude!"
[QUOTE=Darkstorm7777;41044627]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.[/QUOTE]
If you give the government power, they will use it. One thing leads to another. And do you honestly believe that this will help them find "turrists"? Or that they are doing this to protect you? The guys at NSA that are using this shit have one mindset: everyones a criminal until proven otherwise, when it should be the other way around.
Also, it symbolizes a lot more than that. Our country used to be known for it's "freedom" and "democracy." Our forefathers made the fourth amendment for a reason.
[QUOTE=Darkstorm7777;41064942]You don't want to sacrifice your freedom and privacy?
Simple. Don't use Facebook.[/QUOTE]
Or text... or email... or phone... or internet...
This is as bad as setting up secret security cameras inside someones house to monitor their activity. This is a deep breach of privacy and security. This goes deeply against my morals and I find this outrageous and disgusting. I'm not surprised one bit though.
I would be able understand more if it was only happening to US citizens, but since this is happening on a global scale I find this harder to forgive.
You guys are all on the blacklist now LOL.
Dw, when I come to power this will all be over.
[QUOTE=Robertbrownlo;41066294]You guys are all on the blacklist now LOL.
Dw, when I come to power this will all be over.[/QUOTE]
What is the US going to do? Half of us are non-US citizens and we haven't done anything wrong. So I'm not concerned.
[editline]17th June 2013[/editline]
I wouldn't be surprised if Anonymous did something about this.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but do they not have access to data from companies such as Google from anywhere in the world?
And to say they won't use their access to one's personal data because they haven't done anything wrong is all well and good, but the fact that they merely have access to my data is worrying to say the least. Well all know a country such as the USA dosn't give a shit about that. Let's hope Abbott will try to do something to protect us when he gets elected...
Also, found [url=https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/pardon-edward-snowden/Dp03vGYD]this petition which might be worth spreading[/url]. But it will most likely be ignored; revealing secrets is taken so fucking heavily over there.
[url=https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/president-obama-if-you-believe-nsa-surveillance-we-challenge-you-live-public-debate-edward-snowden/dvjXcZHZ]This one would also be entertaining to watch[/url].
What should we do? We should embrace it and mislead everyone by searching random stuff into our search engines like plutonium... how to make pressure bombs... tactical combat... insurgency tips... slip and slides....
[QUOTE=MyBumBum;41063667]What I mean is that controlled surveillance on certain dangerous targets are fined, but mass surveillance is disgusting and bad. Understand now?[/QUOTE]
No, you simply state it's disgusting and bad, and continue to dodge my question.
[editline]17th June 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=SelfishDragon;41065004]I don't use it, but I do use my phone and email. I expect only myself to have access to it, not some weirdos wondering what I meant by "You're the bomb dude!"[/QUOTE]
I think the government is smart enough to realize the difference to a harmless phrase, and an actual plan to commit an act of terrorism.
[editline]17th June 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;41066135]Or text... or email... or phone... or internet...[/QUOTE]
Exactly, and yet you are, right now, using the Internet.
[editline]17th June 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Darth Ninja;41066287]This is as bad as setting up secret security cameras inside someones house to monitor their activity. This is a deep breach of privacy and security. This goes deeply against my morals and I find this outrageous and disgusting. I'm not surprised one bit though.
I would be able understand more if it was only happening to US citizens, but since this is happening on a global scale I find this harder to forgive.[/QUOTE]
This isn't nearly, remotely, as bad as setting up security in people's homes. For one thing, your home is your own, while email, Facebook, Internet etc. are technically somebody else's. And these someone's let the government look at your stuff.
[editline]17th June 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=RonJohnDon;41066970]What should we do? We should embrace it and mislead everyone by searching random stuff into our search engines like plutonium... how to make pressure bombs... tactical combat... insurgency tips... slip and slides....[/QUOTE]
People already do that.
[QUOTE] Exactly, and yet you are, right now, using the Internet.[/QUOTE]
That's a pretty poor cop-out. You can't tell people not to use things, it limits their liberty so as to avoid the issue, and for many this isn't a live option to them as the use of technology such as the internet is required for their daily lives.
[QUOTE]This isn't nearly, remotely, as bad as setting up security in people's homes. For one thing, your home is your own, while email, Facebook, Internet etc. are technically somebody else's. And these someone's let the government look at your stuff.[/QUOTE]
You'll have to let me ask the question of who owns the Internet? Despite 'somebody' owning Facebook or my e-mail service of choice that does not make it right for that to happen. You're missing the gap between 'is' and 'ought'. A doctor has my medical records in his documents that details information about me, but does that mean it would be right for him to do willy-nilly with it because he owns that information?
I'm on the fence about this matter, while I agree that snooping on EVERY single chat or text message is unorthodox and a huge violation of privacy, in the event that it saves the nation from a domestic attack I feel it's justified. As a criminal justice major, knowledge is power, the more information you have about somebody the better you can analyze their intentions and depict a threat from a joke. Having said that, if somebody jokes to their friend about bombing a government building or police station, to be honest, their f***ing ignorant and childish, and should be punished with how much violence revolves this world now-a-days. While I can see why people feel their privacy is in jeopardy, it's not like they are hacking your photos and making fun of them, it's for security reasons.
It's similar to how police are a provided service to our nation, yet there are a ton of people who hate cops (because they are crooks, there's no other logical explanation), yet in order to provide you with public safety, they have to do things like keep a record on you, and run a background check when they pull you over. It's just a safety precaution.
Final Thoughts: Ok so maybe they have some of your information, but it's not like somebody sits down and READS through EVERY SINGLE thing you say and do on the internet, they are flagged by trigger words and phrases, even with people that are on a watch list, ain't nobody got time for that. In the event that you say something that gets you flagged, you must be foolish to have thought that the internet was private from day one, so the fact you say it online is on your shoulders. It's like when Anonymous took down those pedophiles, it's not like the pedophiles KNEW they were being watched, the government is just being honest :)
[editline]17th June 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Top Cat;41068881]That's a pretty poor cop-out. You can't tell people not to use things, it limits their liberty so as to avoid the issue, and for many this isn't a live option to them as the use of technology such as the internet is required for their daily lives. [/quote]
For things that shouldn't be deemed a terrorist threat right? So why does it matter, using the internet while expecting your information to be 100% confidential is like walking outside on the phone and expecting nobody to eavesdrop. How do you prevent it? Don't say stupid things on the phone outside, and don't put personal information on the internet. Don't use it, or use it by choice, but understand the risks. Like steroids.
[QUOTE=Top Cat;41068881]You'll have to let me ask the question of who owns the Internet? Despite 'somebody' owning Facebook or my e-mail service of choice that does not make it right for that to happen. You're missing the gap between 'is' and 'ought'. A doctor has my medical records in his documents that details information about me, but does that mean it would be right for him to do willy-nilly with it because he owns that information?[/QUOTE] Nobody owns the internet, but nobody owns the "public" either. When you sign up for all of these services you agree to a TOS protocol, which allows for government access to your information, you agreed to it, not their fault. A doctor's privacy policy is a lot stricter than that of the internet, is it right? Some may not think so, but every time you check that little box without reading it through, that's what you're doing, giving away your privacy, hence the whole facebook and google privacy policy fiasco awhile back. Not to mention you say "willy nilly" as if the government actually does "willy nilly" with your information. They don't sell it, they don't point and laugh at it, they scan it for threats to national security. Completely different. It would be more like your doctor letting the nurse look at your paperwork to save your life, not do "willy nilly" with it
[QUOTE=Top Cat;41068881]That's a pretty poor cop-out. You can't tell people not to use things, it limits their liberty so as to avoid the issue, and for many this isn't a live option to them as the use of technology such as the internet is required for their daily lives.
You'll have to let me ask the question of who owns the Internet? Despite 'somebody' owning Facebook or my e-mail service of choice that does not make it right for that to happen. You're missing the gap between 'is' and 'ought'. A doctor has my medical records in his documents that details information about me, but does that mean it would be right for him to do willy-nilly with it because he owns that information?[/QUOTE]
I'm not sure you get the point I was trying to make. What I was saying is that it clearly isn't issue enough for you to stop using the Internet, email etc. so it's obviously not that much of an issue to you.
As for the rest, when its a matter of national security (more or less) I'm sure it's appropriate for these companies to hand over information.
You act as if the United States is on the brink of becoming a totalitarian state.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.