Obama defends surveillance effort as "trade-off" for security - Polidicks

[QUOTE=squids_eye;40952472]I honestly don't see why this is such a big deal. The government doesn't care about what you are looking at unless you have already done something to make them suspicious. Why is it that Americans get so riled up about privacy?[/QUOTE] it's the precedent that it sets that is troubling guilty before proven innocent

First they came...

nothings going to happen lol

[QUOTE=Bobsters34;40952513]it's the precedent that it sets that is troubling guilty before proven innocent[/QUOTE] How does it set that precedent? You need to investigate someone to determine if they are guilty or not, this is part of that investigation. If they were arresting random people and then searching through their internet habits then that would be true.

[QUOTE=CheesyTits;40952548]First they came...[/QUOTE] Hey, we all have that problem every now and then.

[QUOTE=Corporal Yippie;40952569]nothings going to happen lol[/QUOTE] It has been going on for about 6 years apparently. If something was going to happen it would have been before everyone found out about it, if anything they are going to have to be even more careful now it is out in the public.

[QUOTE=squids_eye;40952596]How does it set that precedent? You need to investigate someone to determine if they are guilty or not, this is part of that investigation. If they were arresting random people and then searching through their internet habits then that would be true.[/QUOTE] If they have reason to suspect you, they can get a warrant the old fashioned way. The cops don't have the right to go door to door in hopes of finding something incriminating, they need to have reasonable evidence against you first.

[QUOTE=squids_eye;40952637]It has been going on for about 6 years apparently. If something was going to happen it would have been before everyone found out about it, if anything they are going to have to be even more careful now it is out in the public.[/QUOTE] the majority of the public doesnt/will not care/be informed

Yeah, we are totally moving in the right direction. At this rate my grand-kids will be popping Soma and double-thinking.

[QUOTE=squids_eye;40952596]How does it set that precedent? You need to investigate someone to determine if they are guilty or not, this is part of that investigation. If they were arresting random people and then searching through their internet habits then that would be true.[/QUOTE] so you investigate the entire country? if the cops have any suspicion of someone breaking the law, they can get a warrant. [editline]8th June 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=I Know Karate;40952649]If they have reason to suspect you, they can get a warrant the old fashioned way. The cops don't have the right to go door to door in hopes of finding something incriminating, they need to have reasonable evidence against you first.[/QUOTE] ^

[QUOTE=I Know Karate;40952649]If they have reason to suspect you, they can get a warrant the old fashioned way. The cops don't have the right to go door to door in hopes of finding something incriminating, they need to have reasonable evidence against you first.[/QUOTE] In the hypothetical situation that you were put on their watchlist, how would them seeing your activities actually affect your life? Having a bunch of cops barge into your house would be, at the very least, an inconvenience. I don't think the same can be said for something that you will never even know happened to you.

[QUOTE=squids_eye;40952758]In the hypothetical situation that you were put on their watchlist, how would them seeing your activities actually affect your life? Having a bunch of cops barge into your house would be, at the very least, an inconvenience. I don't think the same can be said for something that you will never even know happened to you.[/QUOTE] let's say you want to run for a politcial office in 15 years and this law stays in place. You have some sort of weird sex fetish and even though it is no business of the governments to know, they do. your opponent proceeds to bribe some people and they get access to that information, grats your campaign is done. you can apply this to any job promotion ladder as well

[QUOTE=Ekalektik_1;40952510]Because "if you have nothing to hide why worry" is the stupidest mindset in the world. The government is there to serve us, not make us their bitch. [i]Serve.[/i][/QUOTE] THIS. SO MUCH THIS. It's basically saying: "Na, I don't mind being stared at 24 hours as long as it isn't me." It's bullshit, because it's basically denying the goddamn fact that indeed someone IS going to stare at you 24 hours a fucking day. It doesn't make the thing any less horrible. By the way, I really like Mr. Hypponen's statement in this regard (he's the chief research dude from F-Secure) saying that the EU should create it's own Facebook/Google/etc.. While it's not all that wrong there's at the same time no guarantee that this won't repeat itself.

"100% security" So umm how's that working for you, Obama [editline]9th June 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=KILLTHIS;40952818] By the way, I really like Mr. Hypponen's statement in this regard (he's the chief research dude from F-Secure) saying that the EU should create it's own Facebook/Google/etc.. While it's not all that wrong there's at the same time no guarantee that this won't repeat itself.[/QUOTE] Unfortunately most of the traffic would still be pipelined through US servers because much of the Internet's core infrastructure resides there.

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;40952687]Yeah, we are totally moving in the right direction. At this rate my grand-kids will be popping Soma and double-thinking.[/QUOTE] That was the worst book I have ever read (In terms of story-line; the writing was great.)

[QUOTE=Sgt.Sgt;40952348]He is DEFENDING an unconstitutional act. He is breaking his oath of office. It is wrong, and goes against what he said when he was running for President the first time. He said no more illegal wiretapping no more anti constitutional spying. [/QUOTE] Unconstitutional? It was reviewed by the federal courts. To receive access to extremely personal details (phone calls, emails) they need a court warrant. It's not unconstitutional, it's not illegal. It was secret, but expecting 100% transparency from the government is a pipe dream.

[QUOTE=Medevilae;40952082]With the course the NSA has had plotted post 9/11 I think this kind of thing was inevitable with or without Obama[/QUOTE] Pretty much, Obama might not be the "instigator" but he's still letting it happen [editline]9th June 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Roof;40952877]That was the worst book I have ever read (In terms of story-line; the writing was great.)[/QUOTE] 1984 wasn't meant to be entertaining, it was meant to be as unpleasant as possible

but how r we gunna fight da TERRORIST ?? ??? ? ?

[QUOTE=Roof;40952877]That was the worst book I have ever read (In terms of story-line; the writing was great.)[/QUOTE] Honestly I don't think Orwell or Huxley got it completely right. We seem to be following a middle ground between the two dystopias.

[QUOTE=squids_eye;40952758]In the hypothetical situation that you were put on their watchlist, how would them seeing your activities actually affect your life? Having a bunch of cops barge into your house would be, at the very least, an inconvenience. I don't think the same can be said for something that you will never even know happened to you.[/QUOTE] Every night, while you sleep, I break into your house and put my balls on your face. But it's ok, you don't know it ever happened to you.

[QUOTE=demoguy08;40952891]Pretty much, Obama might not be the "instigator" but he's still letting it happen [editline]9th June 2013[/editline] 1984 wasn't meant to be entertaining, it was meant to be as unpleasant as possible[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Zenreon117;40952914]Honestly I don't think Orwell or Huxley got it completely right. We seem to be following a middle ground between the two dystopias.[/QUOTE] Shit my apologies, I haven't read 1984 yet, I thought soma was only introduced into Brave New World?

Yes but doublethink was coined first in 1984 I believe

[QUOTE=I Know Karate;40952952]Every night, while you sleep, I break into your house and put my balls on your face. But it's ok, you don't know it ever happened to you.[/QUOTE] If that ball to face contact helps to prevent potential terrorist threats then by all means teabag away. I will gladly take a sweaty pair for the team. For the record, I do not agree with this. I don't think the government should be able to look into peoples internet history or phone records, I just don't think it is as harmful as a lot of people are making it out to be.

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;40952914]Honestly I don't think Orwell or Huxley got it completely right. We seem to be following a middle ground between the two dystopias.[/QUOTE] At this moment in our history, we're caught more in the dystopia of Huxley's Brave New World than we are in Orwell's. [img]http://americandigest.org/aldous_huxley_vs_george_orwell.jpg[/img] But there's definitely a handful of areas where the two are indeed both melding together.

fuck obama

[QUOTE=rilez;40952890]Unconstitutional? It was reviewed by the federal courts. To receive access to extremely personal details (phone calls, emails) they need a court warrant. It's not unconstitutional, it's not illegal. It was secret, but expecting 100% transparency from the government is a pipe dream.[/QUOTE] What you mean those appointed judges? The ones that usually do the bidding of the president regardless if it is or isn't actually constitutional. It's moronic to say this activity is ok and to just go about our business. This administration is just as bad as the last and it is sickening that people just take it in stride. Oh it's no big deal, I want to be safe I don't want to be free.

[QUOTE=Sgt.Sgt;40953085]What you mean those appointed judges? The ones that usually do the bidding of the president regardless if it is or isn't actually constitutional. It's moronic to say this activity is ok and to just go about our business. This administration is just as bad as the last and it is sickening that people just take it in stride. Oh it's no big deal, I want to be safe I don't want to be free.[/QUOTE] I guess we should throw out all of our court cases; every federal judge is appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, and those guys we voted in can't be trusted.

[QUOTE=Solo Wing;40951989]Didn't a wise man once say that a country that must trade freedom for security will deserve neither and lose both? [/QUOTE] Any society that isn't complete anarchist doesn't deserve freedom or security? [editline]8th June 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=BANNED USER;40952045]"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."[/quote] Nvm, you misquoted

People who are blaming Obama for this are just looking for a villain to point fingers at. He became President in 2009, PRISM has been running since 2007. This would be happening with or without him.

[QUOTE=rilez;40953114]I guess we should throw out all of our court cases; every federal judge is appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, and those guys we voted in can't be trusted.[/QUOTE] I hate this type of reply. The entirety of the federal government is riddled with ungodly amounts of corruption and its plainly visible. If you trust Obama, or anyone in his administration you are delusional on a level that is beyond comprehension. They have shown time and time again to do the exact opposite of what they say when they run for office. Personal freedom must not be important to you.