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

[QUOTE=Lambadvanced;40954437]It's really rather selfish to want privacy so much that you're willing to risk lives. I know that seems like a big victim blaming thing, but honestly one of the only ways to stop crimes is to invade privacy one ways or the other. This is the reality of life, and you're living in a fairytale if you think that a society can function with 100% privacy.[/QUOTE] So it's too much to ask to turn things back to how they were in 2000, then? Because that's what I want. The balance was right where it should be back then.

[I]Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem[/I]. "I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."

[QUOTE=TestECull;40954451]So it's too much to ask to turn things back to how they were in 2000, then? Because that's what I want. The balance was right where it should be back then.[/QUOTE] Like it or not, the worlds changed since 2000.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40954471]Like it or not, the worlds changed since 2000.[/QUOTE] For the worse. For example, the TSA has made it impossible for me to fly. I'm not on a no-fly list, they'd let me right on through if I decided to board a jet, but there mere presence is enough to make me reach for my car keys instead. They represent a gross invasion of privacy, one I'm not willing to put up with, so instead I just shrug off commercial air travel.

[QUOTE=TestECull;40954508]For the worse. For example, the TSA has made it impossible for me to fly. I'm not on a no-fly list, they'd let me right on through if I decided to board a jet, but there mere presence is enough to make me reach for my car keys instead. They represent a gross invasion of privacy, one I'm not willing to put up with, so instead I just shrug off commercial air travel.[/QUOTE] I'm not equipped to deal with this

[QUOTE=kaine123;40954469][I]Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem[/I]. "I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."[/QUOTE] Can you stop it with these pretentious quotes? Throwing in a random quote about freedom without even bothering to add anything else is just being a tit. Doing it in latin is even worse.

[QUOTE=TestECull;40954508]For the worse. For example, the TSA has made it impossible for me to fly. I'm not on a no-fly list, they'd let me right on through if I decided to board a jet, but there mere presence is enough to make me reach for my car keys instead. They represent a gross invasion of privacy, one I'm not willing to put up with, so instead I just shrug off commercial air travel.[/QUOTE] Saying it is impossible for you to fly is stretching it a little. You could if you were willing to, most people who face the TSA don't get a sore arsehole or strip searched in front of their families. Not to say they are even remotely a good organisation but if you did need to fly, chances are you would do it without incident. [editline]9th June 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=kaine123;40954469][I]Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem[/I]. "I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."[/QUOTE] Says people who live in peaceful freedom.

Why shouldn't TSA be allowed to search you? They don't know you, they don't care who you are, they search you to make sure you aren't dangerous and don't present a risk. If a minor inconvenience is such a big deal for you, then you really need to be presented with some fucking reality.

[QUOTE=Lambadvanced;40954589]Why shouldn't TSA be allowed to search you? They don't know you, they don't care who you are, they search you to make sure you aren't dangerous and don't present a risk. If a minor inconvenience is such a big deal for you, then you really need to be presented with some fucking reality.[/QUOTE] No random searches would be a good start.

[QUOTE=Chicken_Chaser;40954605]No random searches would be a good start.[/QUOTE] I'm not well-versed in what TSA does specifically, but last I checked going through a checkpoint in a specified area to use a service that isn't your right is hardly a "random search". You know it's coming, and you can avoid it, but I have no idea why you'd want to.

[QUOTE=TestECull;40954333]I don't want 100% security, Barack. I want privacy. Turn the security back off and let us live our lives in private.[/QUOTE] Well the government should be able to violate peoples privacy in the interest of safety but doing this should require a strong reason. [QUOTE=Sobotnik;40952343]This always feels like an overused quote.[/QUOTE] Its overused but the power of the truth behind it never real dies out. [QUOTE=kaine123;40954469][I]Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem[/I]. [/QUOTE] Romanes eunt domus

[QUOTE=Rangergxi;40954663]Romanes eunt domus[/QUOTE] Romanes eunt domus? People called Romanes, they go, the house?

[QUOTE=Lambadvanced;40954642]I'm not well-versed in what TSA does specifically, but last I checked going through a checkpoint in a specified area to use a service that isn't your right is hardly a "random search". You know it's coming, and you can avoid it, but I have no idea why you'd want to.[/QUOTE] I don't understand the logic in searching me but not the guy infront of me or behind me. Their detectors should be good enough.

[QUOTE=Rangergxi;40954663]Well the government should be able to violate peoples privacy in the interest of safety but doing this should require a strong reason. [/quote] Yup. If you can convince a court of law that there's a valid reason to search my private affairs, fine. Due process and all that. But randomly searching me because they think I might be doing something yet have no proof or even suspicion that I am? That's bullshit. That's unreasonable search. [QUOTE=Lambadvanced;40954589]Why shouldn't TSA be allowed to search you?[/quote] Because that search is unreasonably excessive? I'm fine with them running my bags through a simple X-ray and stepping through a metal detector, but what the TSA does is way above and beyond the call of duty. Also, utterly pointless. [quote] They don't know you, they don't care who you are, they search you to make sure you aren't dangerous and don't present a risk.[/quote] And they also like to stickyfingers electronics. I like my Droid 3 being mine and I cannot afford to replace it. [quote] If a minor inconvenience is such a big deal for you, then you really need to be presented with some fucking reality.[/QUOTE] It's not a minor inconvenience. It's an unreasonable saerch, which I don't agree to. So I don't go near airports. Besides, road trips are better for crossing America anyway. You get to see things. You can make a detour on a whim. You don't get bitched at because of a still-sealed can of coke is in your hand in the wrong area. And, believe it or not, but the roads aren't dangerous. Yes, flying is safer, but you're not going to die every time you get in your car either. The roads are nowhere near as dangerous as some people make them out to be. [QUOTE=Lambadvanced;40954642]I'm not well-versed in what TSA does specifically, but last I checked going through a checkpoint in a specified area to use a service that isn't your right is hardly a "random search". You know it's coming, and you can avoid it, but I have no idea why you'd want to.[/QUOTE] He meant the TSA agents plucking 'random' passengers for 'enhanced screening'.

you know... at times like these i wonder, what could've happened if that plane that was headed for the white house during 9/11 actually managed to crash there... things would probably be even worse than they are now for you americans.

[QUOTE=Wizards Court;40954751]you know... at times like these i wonder, what could've happened if that plane that was headed for the white house during 9/11 actually managed to crash there... things would probably be even worse than they are now for you americans.[/QUOTE] Meh, they already had it evacuated. Now...if the airplanes also all had nukes on board then that'd be a thing.

[QUOTE=Lambadvanced;40954760]Meh, they already had it evacuated. Now...if the airplanes also all had nukes on board then that'd be a thing.[/QUOTE] yes, but i'm refering to the whole "they destroyed the white house, damn those TERRISTS!1" reaction the US would get, it would probably be even worse, you guys might have even invaded iran or something.

Ehh, White House has been through plenty of shit before.

I wish America at large wasn't so complacent towards all these. Massive unconstitutional scandals come up every week or so, and there's very rarely any repercussions from them.

[QUOTE=Reds;40954809]I wish America at large wasn't so complacent towards all these. Massive unconstitutional scandals come up every week or so, and there's very rarely any repercussions from them.[/QUOTE] Yeah it's mostly due to the kind of people who talk down the kind of people that get upset about this sort of thing. Quietism is a bitch.

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;40954894]Yeah it's mostly due to the kind of people who talk down the kind of people that get upset about this sort of thing. Quietism is a bitch.[/QUOTE] Generally it tends to be people who exaggerate situations and panic before going on the computer to play games again. At least I'm honest.

[QUOTE=Reds;40954809]I wish America at large wasn't so complacent towards all these. Massive unconstitutional scandals come up every week or so, and there's very rarely any repercussions from them.[/QUOTE] is not that you guys are complacent, the US is actually pretty active in politics compared to most countries, is that the ones actually willing to protest tend to fuck up in a myriad of ways. you have republicans who are more concerned with obamacare, women getting abortions, poor people getting welfare, pissed off about the "destruction of the family" due to gay rights and whatever than the goverment doing this stuff. and you have democrats like in occupy wall street who kept arguing amongst itself rather than focus on the goal. this is pretty much universally around the globe what tends to fuck right-wing and "left-wing" conversatives are a bloc but are constantly worried about tradition, "people slacking off", taxes or whatever and liberals/socialists/left-wing in general are a coalition that generally don't have these issues(due to suffering from them more directly generally speaking), but almost always end up fighting with each other over what to do(see the billions of different opinions in LGBT/feminism movement alone, now expand to economy, social issue in general and weep). you haven't seen complacency till you see how brazilians in general tend to not give a shit about literally anything(through that seems to be changing slowly), from EVERY side. :suicide:

[QUOTE=TestECull;40954451]So it's too much to ask to turn things back to how they were in 2000, then? Because that's what I want. The balance was right where it should be back then.[/QUOTE] the balance hasn't been right since 1900

[QUOTE=Medevilae;40955123]hardly [editline]9th June 2013[/editline] things were pretty nice pre 9/11 NSA-wise, DHS didn't even fucking exist[/QUOTE] it wasn't awful pre-9/11 but basically around the time prohibition came around it started going downhill, just started going downhill way faster after 9/11 [editline]9th June 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Xubs;40955148]not everyone has the access or the means for effective public protest you can contact your representatives but very few Americans live in a place where they'd gather enough protesters to mean anything[/QUOTE] yeah around here we'd be lucky to have more than 20 or so protesters. a million man march on biloxi, ms isn't happening anytime soon.

[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] Hey what's your password to facepunch? to steam? Since you dont care about privacy you shouldn't care about handing those out... unless you want us to be suspicious?

[QUOTE=Xubs;40955227]the United States benefits from its finely sprinkled populace. Its largeness, good soil around the midwest, and focus on agriculture early on spread the population so fine and that really works in the government's 'favor' because it makes protest quite hard to coordinate in the rural areas whereas European countries have the opposite effect. To imply that the [b]only[/b] thing holding back Americans from protest is their pacification and willingness to take it from entities with more power than them is both somewhat insulting and not quite looking at how geography plays into politics as well. Now, I didn't say it wasn't TRUE, but that it's naive to think that. :v: There are people like that, but to say "all americans are completely apathetic" about this subject isn't looking into just how many variables are playing into their unwillingness to protest.[/QUOTE] Erm, America has loads of urban areas.

[QUOTE=Xubs;40955478]that it does, but statistically speaking, the population of the rural, spread out communities outweighs the population of the urban areas by a large margin[/QUOTE] No it doesn't, don't talk bollocks. 80% of Americans live in urban or suburban areas. 58% of them live in urban areas with more than 200,000 people as well. [url]http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/census_issues/archives/metropolitan_planning/cps2k.cfm[/url]

That is literally one of the worst things he could have said.

[QUOTE=rilez;40953253]Hate what type of reply? This is how our government has worked for 200 years. We elect the President and Congress, they elect the judges. They all check each other. That's how it's supposed to work. If they all approve something like this, the system is working as it should. It isn't corruption, it's not illegal, it's not unconstitutional, it's not whatever buzzword you feel like using. If anything, it's a lack of initiative from[B] you.[/B] If you disagree with PRISM, do something about it. Sitting on your ass blaming everyone [B]we voted in[/B] last November solves jack all.[/QUOTE] Yes, blame us when we voted for people who said they would stop this kind of behavior, or be least likely to do it.

[QUOTE=rilez;40953253]Hate what type of reply? This is how our government has worked for 200 years. We elect the President and Congress, they elect the judges. They all check each other. That's how it's supposed to work. If they all approve something like this, the system is working as it should. It isn't corruption, it's not illegal, it's not unconstitutional, it's not whatever buzzword you feel like using. If anything, it's a lack of initiative from[B] you.[/B] If you disagree with PRISM, do something about it. Sitting on your ass blaming everyone [B]we voted in[/B] last November solves jack all.[/QUOTE] yeah except obama explicitly said he would stop all the wiretapping and shit that went down under the bush administration and all he did was keep it going