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

"Alright, I'm done here. I'm going to sleep. Wake me up when we have a responsible and competent government." Thus was created the Eternal Sleeper.

[QUOTE=Joazzz;40952015]Benjamin Franklin knew what was up it's also one of my favorite quotes of all time, completely timeless and so true[/QUOTE] Anything by Benjamin Franklin is my favorite quote of all time.

[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;40956589]Anything by Benjamin Franklin is my favorite quote of all time.[/QUOTE] "This faggot kite won't fucking fly straight" -Benjamin Franklin, 1752

[QUOTE=lew06;40952022]"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."[/QUOTE] Am I the only one who doesn't like this quote? Obviously you need to give up SOME liberty for safety. It feels like it almost advocates complete anarchy. Like, I've seen this applied to things like airline safety and it's just ridiculous. You can't just let people get on a plane with a switchblade or a pistol or something just because if you didn't it would be "limiting their freedom". There is a middle ground, and the quote suggests that there isn't, and that you need complete freedom or everything is fucked.

[QUOTE=lord0war;40956747]Am I the only one who doesn't like this quote? Obviously you need to give up SOME liberty for safety. It feels like it almost advocates complete anarchy. Like, I've seen this applied to things like airline safety and it's just ridiculous. You can't just let people get on a plane with a switchblade or a pistol or something just because if you didn't it would be "limiting their freedom". There is a middle ground, and the quote suggests that there isn't, and that you need complete freedom or everything is fucked.[/QUOTE] what liberty do you want to give up?

[QUOTE=butre;40956767]what liberty do you want to give up?[/QUOTE] Well I'd give up the liberty to be able to carry a weapon on a plane, as the example I gave stated. However, I wouldn't give up the liberty to have privacy. I don't agree with the whole spying thing, if that's what my post made it seem like.

[QUOTE=lord0war;40956824]Well I'd give up the liberty to be able to carry a weapon on a plane, as the example I gave stated. However, I wouldn't give up the liberty to have privacy. I don't agree with the whole spying thing, if that's what my post made it seem like.[/QUOTE] planes are privately owned by the airline companies and as it is private property the airline companies get to decide whether or not you get to carry on a weapon. you have the freedom to choose not to fly.

[QUOTE=butre;40956876]planes are privately owned by the airline companies and as it is private property the airline companies get to decide whether or not you get to carry on a weapon. you have the freedom to choose not to fly.[/QUOTE] You're completely ignoring his point and we both know that. He has no problem giving up liberties like weapons in certain situations for the sake of higher safety, flight was only an example.

[QUOTE=butre;40956876]planes are privately owned by the airline companies and as it is private property the airline companies get to decide whether or not you get to carry on a weapon. you have the freedom to choose not to fly.[/QUOTE] The TSA (the ones actually enforcing the law) is not a private company

Modest or not, it's encroachment and all that modesty adds up to liberalism.

Projects like PRISM are nothing new, it's just that people are hearing about it more now. Various experts and Ex-NSA employee's have talked about it at [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqIz-RNUL1g]Defcon[/url] for years on and off stage, and lots of break-ins and document leaks, hacks of H.B. Gary emails etc have confirmed that projects like this have been around since before 9-11. I don't remember the military project names but the H.B. Gary emails gave some insight into a mobile version of PRISM that has been in operation in the middle east for a few years and is transitioning and getting re-branded internally to the United States right now. Before the internet, it was common practice to spy on American tele-communications out of datacenters setup in other countries (germany, france, canada, to name a few), where it was perfectly legal to spy on US Citizens. The biggest push for technological spying in the past decade has been the product of a new US military doctrine of Total Information Awareness, hear everything, log everything, and have it when you need it. These programs preceed any recent administration, it's just that every administration has approved of these practices and other similar practices of an un-restrained military industrial complex. Enjoy your myspace, facebook, google+, phones and other social platforms, they are totally there for your convenience and never sell your information.

Just gon' repost what I said in another thread about [I]if[/I] it stopped any terror actions. [QUOTE=Riller;40938121]Then it's still not justified to gather tens of millions of citizens' phone records. Even a massive terrorist attack, say; fuckin' 9/11 scale big. That's still only three thousand people who died. That's still fairly low compared to the hundreds of thousands who die in other untimely, random incidents; traffic accidents, murders, work injuries and so forth each year. People sometimes die before they're supposed to die. Completely eliminating terrorism is not gonna even make a dent in the amount of untimely deaths, and while terrorism is fairly low like it currently is, I'd say just ignore it. Mourn the dead, of course, but don't fuckin' build your laws and life around the risk of terrorism. Now, when "getting-blown-up-by-dirty-muslims" breaches the top-100 causes of death in America, it might become an issue worth looking at.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Riller;40957714]Just gon' repost what I said in another thread about [I]if[/I] it stopped any terror actions.[/QUOTE] You can't compare everyday lethal accidents and domestic murder cases to terrorism attacks. Even though they have a far higher body count, terrorism has a incomparable impact on society and is often far more violent. It attacks society as a whole. People would cry just as hard for measures if the government wouldn't do anything, as compared to how hard people are crying about the measures now.

[QUOTE=MightyMax;40955208]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] That is not the same at all. If I gave you or anyone else my password they could remove my access from it at any time. A closer equivalent would be looking at my steam profile and seeing what games I have been buying and playing, which you are free to do. They aren't stopping you from accessing the internet, they are just watching some people do it. [editline]9th June 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=butre;40956767]what liberty do you want to give up?[/QUOTE] You have given up plenty of liberties for the sake of safety. Laws and a police force to enforce them are in place so that people can not commit certain acts for the safety of others or themselves. A more specific example is drug use; you are not free to take heroin, it is illegal for your own safety. You may not agree with it, I don't, but it is the law.

Of course it's not okay to run a super liberal state, but neither is running a police state. And this PRISM thing is a huge step towards that.

How about the trade off is that you're not elected ever again, Obama.

[QUOTE=Clavus;40957871] People would cry just as hard for measures if the government wouldn't do anything, as compared to how hard people are crying about the measures now.[/QUOTE] Well, if people are gonna be crying one way or the other, then I much prefer people crying without being wiretapped.

[QUOTE=Midas22;40958516]How about the trade off is that you're not elected ever again, Obama.[/QUOTE] He won't be, this is his second term.

[QUOTE=squids_eye;40958548]He won't be, this is his second term.[/QUOTE] The most interesting thing is to see how history will remember him.

[QUOTE=Riller;40958554]The most interesting thing is to see how history will remember him.[/QUOTE] The first black president most likely. He hasn't done anything significantly good or bad to make him stand out from the crowd.

[QUOTE=squids_eye;40958579]The first black president most likely. He hasn't done anything significantly good or bad to make him stand out from the crowd.[/QUOTE] there's still a plenty of time for some major fuckups

[QUOTE=lord0war;40956747]Am I the only one who doesn't like this quote? Obviously you need to give up SOME liberty for safety. It feels like it almost advocates complete anarchy. Like, I've seen this applied to things like airline safety and it's just ridiculous. You can't just let people get on a plane with a switchblade or a pistol or something just because if you didn't it would be "limiting their freedom". There is a middle ground, and the quote suggests that there isn't, and that you need complete freedom or everything is fucked.[/QUOTE] "[B]Essential[/B] liberty" Though what constitutes as an 'essential' is completely subjective and so it's not really a great quote imo

[QUOTE=squids_eye;40958579]The first black president most likely. He hasn't done anything significantly good or bad to make him stand out from the crowd.[/QUOTE] Well, on the bright side; being black and medicare. On the other side, illegal drone warfare and now this.

This is some BS.

[quote]We're going to have to make some choices as a society[/quote] Maybe we are going to have to make some choices but we're not actually making any. They made them without telling anybody. I wouldn't say that was society making a choice.

[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] My government is being very suspicious, they should tell us exactly what's going on, [i]what do they have to hide?[/i]

[QUOTE=Vodkavia;40952018]Presidents should really be 1 term, once they don't have the pressure being elected again they can pull bullshit that they know people don't condone.[/QUOTE] wouldn't that just push that "bullshit" to their first term if they could only serve one term?

[QUOTE=BANNED USER;40962593]My government is being very suspicious, they should tell us exactly what's going on, [i]what do they have to hide?[/i][/QUOTE] This, fucking hell, THIS. The government should never be some mythical entity separate from it's people. It should be transparent to the very limits of the word.

[QUOTE=Medevilae;40963197]Clearly the best way to handle PRISM would be to flood the internet with "terrorists'" communications[/QUOTE] We need to coordinate one day where everyone just fills their internet traffic by uploading and downloading clips of JC Denton going "A bomb!"

[QUOTE=Diet Kane;40963268]We need to coordinate one day where everyone just fills their internet traffic by uploading and downloading clips of JC Denton going "A bomb!"[/QUOTE]considering the whole government oppression/conspiracy thing, it would be incredibly fitting