• Internet Surveillance: What Should we do?
    98 replies, posted
[QUOTE=007SILVERTOE;41069092]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.[/QUOTE] No justification has yet to be shown for these measures, I already gave the example of the bombings in Boston. This method has yet to show that its ends justifies the means. [QUOTE]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. [/QUOTE] If having knowledge is power then how much knowledge should the government be allowed to have about you and your character - your claim doesn't limit itself to the scope of the internet and services within it. Where do you draw the line? [QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE] Your privacy is in jeopardy no matter what the justification. That is the issue, the high value we place on privacy. I, again, do not feel there is such a pressing threat against a nation's security that such methods are excused. While they might not be laughing at my photos they are certainly assuming that we are all criminals and data needs to be collected in order to ensure that which, I feel, is bad enough. [QUOTE]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. [/QUOTE] I think it's very ignorant of you to assume that because I have a negative attitude towards the police means that I am a crook. I know anecdotes should not be used to form an argument but certainly I feel it in this instance to be somewhat relevant. I have, on repeated occasions, been asked to prove my innocence without having done a thing or any evidence levied against me. For example, I was stopped while I was walking down my street and made to answer what I was doing, where I was going and why I was walking. They stopped with the excuse, and I quote for "looking a bit shady". It was cold and I wore a hoody, God forbid. At the same time I would like to argue that whose safety had I endangered by walking down the street? Until somebody is actually doing something criminal then what reasonable grounds do you have to claim that anybody's safety is endangered. It's a scary situation to be in I assure you, and that is why I have a negative attitude towards cops and authority in general. Not because I am rebellious or a criminal, but because it has the potential to be, and already is, abused. [QUOTE]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 :)[/QUOTE] The government, in this instance, was not at all honest. It was only uncovered by a whistle blower and there is nothing honest about violating the constitution of a country. [QUOTE][editline]17th June 2013[/editline] 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] If I have to acknowledge that a government violating a country's constitution is a risk to me then I fear for what would become of that. The situation where someone is outside on their phone and you happen to be around to hear them is very different to a body actively searching for and requesting your information also. [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.[/QUOTE] No, especially in America again the government is not allowed access to that information on the basis of it searching for potential criminality as it violates the country's constitution. [QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE] Again, the constitutional point. [QUOTE]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] I believe you've taken that willy nilly far too literally. [editline]17th June 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Darkstorm7777;41069492]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.[/QUOTE] No, even if an issue is not issue enough for me to run out on the streets and cry 'Revolution' it is still an issue. If an action contradicts my beliefs or is up for debate then it is an issue. Like I already said the option to simply remove all parts of services people use such as e-mail, their phones and so on is not a live one for them and for many their work requires it. I really am getting tired of throwing around the idea of 'national security' as a justification, at what point are you drawing the line between where this argument no longer becomes a viable one. How is it appropriate to assume everybody is a criminal and therefore we require as much information as we can about them? Your last sentence is just petty.
[QUOTE=Top Cat;41069938]No justification has yet to be shown for these measures, I already gave the example of the bombings in Boston. This method has yet to show that its ends justifies the means. If having knowledge is power then how much knowledge should the government be allowed to have about you and your character - your claim doesn't limit itself to the scope of the internet and services within it. Where do you draw the line? Your privacy is in jeopardy no matter what the justification. That is the issue, the high value we place on privacy. I, again, do not feel there is such a pressing threat against a nation's security that such methods are excused. While they might not be laughing at my photos they are certainly assuming that we are all criminals and data needs to be collected in order to ensure that which, I feel, is bad enough. I think it's very ignorant of you to assume that because I have a negative attitude towards the police means that I am a crook. I know anecdotes should not be used to form an argument but certainly I feel it in this instance to be somewhat relevant. I have, on repeated occasions, been asked to prove my innocence without having done a thing or any evidence levied against me. For example, I was stopped while I was walking down my street and made to answer what I was doing, where I was going and why I was walking. They stopped with the excuse, and I quote for "looking a bit shady". It was cold and I wore a hoody, God forbid. At the same time I would like to argue that whose safety had I endangered by walking down the street? Until somebody is actually doing something criminal then what reasonable grounds do you have to claim that anybody's safety is endangered. It's a scary situation to be in I assure you, and that is why I have a negative attitude towards cops and authority in general. Not because I am rebellious or a criminal, but because it has the potential to be, and already is, abused. The government, in this instance, was not at all honest. It was only uncovered by a whistle blower and there is nothing honest about violating the constitution of a country. If I have to acknowledge that a government violating a country's constitution is a risk to me then I fear for what would become of that. The situation where someone is outside on their phone and you happen to be around to hear them is very different to a body actively searching for and requesting your information also. No, especially in America again the government is not allowed access to that information on the basis of it searching for potential criminality as it violates the country's constitution. Again, the constitutional point. I believe you've taken that willy nilly far too literally. [editline]17th June 2013[/editline] No, even if an issue is not issue enough for me to run out on the streets and cry 'Revolution' it is still an issue. If an action contradicts my beliefs or is up for debate then it is an issue. Like I already said the option to simply remove all parts of services people use such as e-mail, their phones and so on is not a live one for them and for many their work requires it. I really am getting tired of throwing around the idea of 'national security' as a justification, at what point are you drawing the line between where this argument no longer becomes a viable one. How is it appropriate to assume everybody is a criminal and therefore we require as much information as we can about them? Your last sentence is just petty.[/QUOTE] So your arguement is that we shouldn't worry about crime until after it already happens? That would would be like saying you shouldn't get an anti-virus program until AFTER you get a virus.
In my opinion, the internet is a public place and subject to the same rules as you would have when you leave your house. The difference is that instead of physically leaving your house, you're digitally leaving your house. If the government wanted to, they can bug/tail your car as you leave your house to go to Walmart. So what is the difference between physically going to Walmart and going to Walmart's website? Your actions online have equivalent actions in real-life.
[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;41075277]In my opinion, the internet is a public place and subject to the same rules as you would have when you leave your house. The difference is that instead of physically leaving your house, you're digitally leaving your house. If the government wanted to, they can bug/tail your car as you leave your house to go to Walmart. So what is the difference between physically going to Walmart and going to Walmart's website? Your actions online have equivalent actions in real-life.[/QUOTE] It wouldn't be the equivalent of the government bugging your car, it would be the equivalent of the government reviewing video feed from a security camera.
[QUOTE=Uzor;41075424]The difference is, that things you say in real life will dissappear (well if the government has not started recording you yet) while on the internet, everything you say will be there and reachable to everyone. Meaning that shit you wrote as a 15-year old can be used against you 30 years later. The freedom of internet will be removed, the only shit you will be doing on the internet is causal shit. you will never ever dare express your opinion becuase it can be used against you. Every single fucking page you like on facebook, every single grp you agree and every single information about what you supported once 30 years ago can be later on used against you. The only thing you have the guts to do is post about how you drank coffee in Macdonalds or how you had a great time with your friends and what hardware you have used, but dont tell me that you dare express your opinion in debates. True freedom of speech will disappear when total surveillance is implemented. IRL you do have more privacy.[/QUOTE] That's quite some hyperbole and slippery slope you have. What's the difference from a security camera recording you entering a store to a log when you visit a website? Both are data that are stored for an indeterminate time. If you read history books, you'll notice that activism was very prominent in the 60s with the civil rights movement and the Vietnam war protests. The CIA had tons of files on major figureheads like MLK, but people were still going out to rallies and marches. Lastly, you're implying that the data isn't already stored. People will always find a way to dig up someone's past. Take Mitt Romney in the 2012 election: he was very opposed to universal healthcare, yet someone dug up an [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xn0GYg1PjUY]old video of him supporting it in 1994[/url]. [QUOTE=Darkstorm7777;41075463]It wouldn't be the equivalent of the government bugging your car, it would be the equivalent of the government reviewing video feed from a security camera.[/QUOTE] Fair enough. Bugging a car was something I added last minute without thinking much. But yeah, it's something they examine after the fact.
[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;41075277] If the government wanted to, they can bug/tail your car as you leave your house to go to Walmart. [/QUOTE] This is no longer true in the US (bugging, anyway). [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Jones_(2012)[/url] Well, I guess they "can" even if they "may" not. [QUOTE=Uzor;41075424]The difference is, that things you say in real life will dissappear (well if the government has not started recording you yet) while on the internet, everything you say will be there and reachable to everyone. Meaning that shit you wrote as a 15-year old can be used against you 30 years later. The freedom of internet will be removed, the only shit you will be doing on the internet is causal shit. you will never ever dare express your opinion becuase it can be used against you. Every single fucking page you like on facebook, every single grp you agree and every single information about what you supported once 30 years ago can be later on used against you. [/QUOTE] You don't need the internet to write things down... [editline]18th June 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Top Cat;41069938] If having knowledge is power then how much knowledge should the government be allowed to have about you and your character - your claim doesn't limit itself to the scope of the internet and services within it. Where do you draw the line? [/quote] When you voluntarily, publicly declare a position (ie, on Facebook), you consent to others, including the gvrnmnt, learning of your position. I have 0 problem with this. Phone records are another story. According to the "third party doctrine", you allow the phone company, a third party (you're the first, the person you're calling is the second), to know who you are calling and when, so it's not private. However, we don't really have the option to negotiate with the phone company for the kind of privacy we're talking about here, and living without a phone in these times is fairly loltastic, so the supposed voluntarism underpinning this doctrine is specious at best. Perhaps you could try to negotiate a special privacy agreement with your phone company? I imagine all the present bluster surrounding the recent blanket journalist record requisitions will spur a change in the landscape, but the coming will likely be slow. [quote] While they might not be laughing at my photos [U]they are certainly assuming that we are all criminals[/U] and data needs to be collected in order to ensure that which, I feel, is bad enough. [/quote] This is a massive stretch. I certainly value my privacy, but I can understand a "better safe than sorry" approach that doesn't require the attitude that you suggest. I would be more concerned that government resources are being wasted. It's not like we're talking about behavior that's actually [I]invasive [/I]here (like entering your home or emptying your pockets on the street). [quote] I think it's very ignorant of you to assume that because I have a negative attitude towards the police means that I am a crook. I know anecdotes should not be used to form an argument but certainly I feel it in this instance to be somewhat relevant. I have, on repeated occasions, been asked to prove my innocence without having done a thing or any evidence levied against me. For example, I was stopped while I was walking down my street and made to answer what I was doing, where I was going and why I was walking. They stopped with the excuse, and I quote for "looking a bit shady". It was cold and I wore a hoody, God forbid. At the same time I would like to argue that whose safety had I endangered by walking down the street? Until somebody is actually doing something criminal then what reasonable grounds do you have to claim that anybody's safety is endangered. It's a scary situation to be in I assure you, and that is why I have a negative attitude towards cops and authority in general. Not because I am rebellious or a criminal, but because it has the potential to be, and already is, abused. [/quote] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_v._Ohio[/url] You had to answer a couple questions? Unless you are making a slippery slope argument, your alarmism is misplaced. Public safety is a legit concern. [quote] The government, in this instance, was not at all honest. It was only uncovered by a whistle blower and there is nothing honest about violating the constitution of a country. [/quote] [quote] If I have to acknowledge that a government violating a country's constitution is a risk to me then I fear for what would become of that. The situation where someone is outside on their phone and you happen to be around to hear them is very different to a body actively searching for and requesting your information also. [/quote] [quote] No, especially in America again the government is not allowed access to that information on the basis of it searching for potential criminality as it violates the country's constitution. [/quote] [I]The right of the people to be secure in their [U]persons, houses, papers, and effects[/U], against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated....[/I] "Communications" is conspicuously missing from that list, although I suppose you could make an interesting originalist argument that "papers" in the 18th century meant "communications". There is still, however, the "unreasonable" qualifier, which is generally resolved by balancing the invasiveness of the intrusion upon privacy against the gravity of the public interest thereby served.
This debate is admittedly coming beyond my ability, though it has been good exercise and would be pointless to forfeit. [QUOTE=lawyers;41077540] [editline]18th June 2013[/editline] When you voluntarily, publicly declare a position (ie, on Facebook), you consent to others, including the gvrnmnt, learning of your position. I have 0 problem with this.[/QUOTE] I have a problem with it being used in such a manner. This debate has already shown that while the government currently has that ability does it mean that we cannot question what the government should be allowed to do with it? [QUOTE]This is a massive stretch. I certainly value my privacy, but I can understand a "better safe than sorry" approach that doesn't require the attitude that you suggest. I would be more concerned that government resources are being wasted. It's not like we're talking about behavior that's actually [I]invasive [/I]here (like entering your home or emptying your pockets on the street).[/QUOTE] The idea that this is for us to be "better safe than sorry" doesn't appear to have been practically demonstrated, could government resources not be better spent else where? Again, I don't care if the action is truly physically invasive or not. I still reject it for the sake of my privacy and to limit the state in its extension and further interference. [QUOTE][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_v._Ohio[/url] You had to answer a couple questions? Unless you are making a slippery slope argument, your alarmism is misplaced. Public safety is a legit concern.[/QUOTE] I was not making true reference to the issue at hand, but the person's point that the only reason people hold a negative view of the police is due to the fact that they are crooks. I was giving an example of an issue that has informed my view in such a way. If I'm understanding you correctly though, I do hold the slippery slope view. [QUOTE][I]The right of the people to be secure in their [U]persons, houses, papers, and effects[/U], against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated....[/I] "Communications" is conspicuously missing from that list, although I suppose you could make an interesting originalist argument that "papers" in the 18th century meant "communications". There is still, however, the "unreasonable" qualifier, which is generally resolved by balancing the invasiveness of the intrusion upon privacy against the gravity of the public interest thereby served.[/QUOTE] [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katz_v._United_States[/URL] [I] Regardless of the location, a conversation is protected from unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment if it is made with a “reasonable expectation of privacy”.[/I] [I]a two prong test for determining the existence of privacy: If (1) the individual "has exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy," and (2) society is prepared to recognize that this expectation is (objectively) reasonable, then there is a right of privacy in the given circumstance.[/I] With regards to the test of privacy it would seem that the majority of society conforms to both these views regarding these issues. Of course, there are exceptions such as yourself. Though this is an issue where the tyranny of the majority decides the outcome.
snip
[QUOTE=supercow9001;41089677]The lives, if any saved, would not outweigh those who died protecting your right not to be watched 24/7[/QUOTE] Shhh, we are supposed to ignore and forget the values of War Heroes past.
[QUOTE=supercow9001;41089677]The lives, if any saved, would not outweigh those who died protecting your right not to be watched 24/7[/QUOTE] Sorry, which US war was fought to protect Americans from being surveilled?
[QUOTE=lawyers;41090684]Sorry, which US war was fought to protect Americans from being surveilled?[/QUOTE] WW2? .... Who am I kidding? Hitler would have totally respected our privacy...
[QUOTE=supercow9001;41089677]The lives, if any saved, would not outweigh those who died protecting your right not to be watched 24/7[/QUOTE] Oh yeah, except there not fighting for your "right" not to watched. [editline]19th June 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Zenreon117;41090932]WW2? .... Who am I kidding? Hitler would have totally respected our privacy...[/QUOTE] Oh yeah, except no. America entered the war because (and this is going to blow your mind) Japanese bombed the heck out of Pearl Harbor.
snip
[QUOTE=supercow9001;41095833]That does not mean that they didn't protect that right when fighting the Germans. Also, the American Revolution. Fought to create those rights you say do not apply.[/QUOTE] Actually, democracy aside, the American revolution wasn't all that revolutionary. For example, slavery still went on for years and it took more then a hundred years for women to get the right to vote. Also during WW2 they rounds up all the Japanese and basically put them in prison simply for being Japanese, so I don't think you can really defend the moral integrity of WW2 America.
The main point was that the soldiers out there died protecting our country and what it attempted to stand for which was freedom. This country sometime fails at that though as mentioned before with the Japanese Camps (This was done in the name of safety, those Japs could still be loyal! Can't be to careful.) and now the NSA. Why not have the government put a tracking device on you? Or install cameras inside of your home? This way they always know where you are and what you're doing. Why should you care if they do this though, we've all got nothing to hide.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;41090932]WW2? .... Who am I kidding? Hitler would have totally respected our privacy...[/QUOTE] Hitler's regime openly murdered citizens in the street and imprisoned/tortured citizens who spoke out again his rule. That's the kind of "freedom" worth dying for. The government being able to find out information that is already available to other entities (the phone company, eg, who of course has your best interest at heart) is not. Also, using wars in which "free" citizens were compulsorily drafted to argue about the freedom for which they died is fairly ironic, dontcha think? And the government doesn't have to put a tracking device on you. You volunteer to carry around a cell phone which registers at every nearby cell tower. If you don't want to be seen, don't expose yourself; this is not a novel concept. The government isn't forcing you to sign up for Facebook or AT&T. As far as "nothing to hide" goes, there is an interesting S. Ct. case - Kyllo v US, 533 U.S. 27 (2001) - in which the Court denied the police the ability to use a heat sensor on a home to detect the growing of marijuana because it could be used to determine when a woman would be in her shower. Your privacy is respected [I]when you are in private[/I].
haven't read the thread, just first post. But giving a free open ground as internet are to the whole world, whatever could be planned and accomplished along the way of its existence, ofcourse someone want to control it and see whats happening, and ofcourse the biggest douches in schools gets to know all the gossip, someone should be hearing everything said on internet. So why does this come as a suprise for the whole world? I'm not a conspirist but hey, it was just a matter of time and regard the privacy, with all the surveilence in the world, aren't you watched everythime you go outside your door either way? What matters if the goverment later hears your opinion also? sorry for my bad english, grammatics ain't my trophy in life.
I think it's violating everyone's rights ( Someone probably said this millions of times). The thing is, people do not do anything convicting on the Clearnet, that's one thing our government will NEVER realize. Sure, some idiot will search: "How to make a bomb", or, "Child porn". BUT! What people do not realize is that NONE of that stuff is searched on the Clearnet (ie; Google, Bing). Most people, no, practically all criminals/terrorists get their information through TOR and the Deep Web. I've been on their before, there is millions of things on how to make powerful bombs, etc.
student
Software mentioned in sites like [url]https://prism-break.org/[/url] might help, but probably not given news like this: [url]http://siliconangle.com/blog/2013/07/19/how-the-nsa-taps-undersea-fiber-optic-cables/[/url]
they've tapped into cameras too
Protest n' destroy, Those shitwits have no right to do what they're doin' Privacy SHOULD be a given, They're using it to stop protests and such even. Go EFF!
Internet surveillance is, at least in my opinion, a direct violation of our implied rights to privacy, especially as those being spied on are being done so by a completely different country. They have no right to invade the privacy of internet users from countries who don't take part in their legislature, ballots, anything. We should not have to be part of the US' tail-chasing campaign of fear mongering and hitting the 'terrorist' label on anything they don't like. Besides, any 'terrorists' actually competent enough to be any sort of threat to the US would not send each other emails going 'yo so wen r we gnna bomb the USA lol' Ridiculous and stupid. They were tapping into the internet long before the Boston bombings, the Sandy Hook Massacre etc. and they still couldn't stop anything or anyone. Internet tapping is unethical, pointless and an utter disgrace to the people.
This shit is terrible. Government is out of control. We have a right to privacy, and they have no right to spy on our internet. They are supposed to serve, not rule. [sp]They also might pull a China on us and block most of the internet[/sp]
To me, it's the same feeling I get when a cop is driving behind me. I am not a bad person, and I am generally a pretty good driver, but I know if I fuck up, the cop could easily pull me over. As for what I can do? Not much, my only solution so far has been to install tor on my laptop and use this for the majority of my "questionable" internet activity.
[QUOTE=SashaWolf;41819198]To me, it's the same feeling I get when a cop is driving behind me. I am not a bad person, and I am generally a pretty good driver, but I know if I fuck up, the cop could easily pull me over. As for what I can do? Not much, my only solution so far has been to install tor on my laptop and use this for the majority of my "questionable" internet activity.[/QUOTE] Kinda extends to the New York Cops "Search suspicious people" thing that the court just overruled. However, what do you guys think bout Obama's promises on changing the laws? What would you guys suggest (other than the obvious "stop spying obama ur a faget")
Do you guys think this thing is like, over yet, since Snowden has agreed not to leak any more stuff?
[QUOTE=MyBumBum;42174862]Do you guys think this thing is like, over yet, since Snowden has agreed not to leak any more stuff?[/QUOTE] Weren't the financial documents recently leaked given after that promise, indicating that he does intend to keep leaking? [QUOTE=Cabbage;41771292]They were tapping into the internet long before the Boston bombings, the Sandy Hook Massacre etc. and they still couldn't stop anything or anyone.[/QUOTE] I'm late to reply but the bit I quoted is pure speculation. You have no idea who or what has been stopped, covertly, before it turns into a national tragedy. It could be none, it could be a 9/11-scale attack every year. Until it gets declassified in 25 or 50 years we won't know but you can't assume it isn't happening simply because it isn't making the news.
I believe the government is over stepping its boundaries and i am alarmed by many of the posters here that willingly accept this your the type we would call sheeple and the type to be despised to put it bluntly Benjamin Franklin said it best "[B]any man who is willing to give up freedom for security deserves neither[/B]
[QUOTE=DELTA440;42187358]I believe the government is over stepping its boundaries and i am alarmed by many of the posters here that willingly accept this your the type we would call sheeple and the type to be despised to put it bluntly Benjamin Franklin said it best "[B]any man who is willing to give up freedom for security deserves neither[/B][/QUOTE] You realize at any given moment the government could send you to prison. And nothing could be done about it? I don't think you realize, the more technology advances, the more control the government has. Besides, what 'freedom'? We've never had freedom, no country can have freedom. It just doesn't work like that. EDIT: I'm sorry, let me clarify freedom. I'm talking about complete freedom of actions, speech, and thought.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.