NSA spying power dramatically expanded with new ability to recieve shared information - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Spacewolf;51677086]We didn't hang big red banners all over the place but yeah, there were times in our country where speaking out against the government could land you in trouble. It is not impossible that this could happen again, especially with their almost unlimited surveillance capabilities.[/QUOTE] It happened in Germany, it happened in Italy, it happened in China. It happened in many places in South America, Africa, Asia-minor, and all over the civilized world. The United States of America is [I]not[/I] immune to this, and to think otherwise is arrogant and naive. [editline]15th January 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=simkas;51677103]Is it really worth sacrificing your security over "maybe" and "who knows"?[/QUOTE] Your chances of dying in a car accident are far higher than your chances of dying in a terrorist attack or a mass shooting. Why risk basic, tangible liberties in order to prevent a distant possibility?

[QUOTE=simkas;51677103]Is it really worth sacrificing your security over "maybe" and "who knows"?[/QUOTE] Yes. How many rights are you willing to trade away for security?

[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;51677162]Yes. How many rights are you willing to trade away for security?[/QUOTE] If by rights you mean that someone somewhere maybe knows some personal stuff about me stored in some database where it'll just lie there and never get touched unless I decide to blow up a building then I'm fine with that if I know that it might prevent others from blowing up said building.

[QUOTE=simkas;51677174]If by rights you mean that someone somewhere maybe knows some personal stuff about me stored in some database where it'll just lie there and never get touched unless I decide to blow up a building then I'm fine with that if I know that it might prevent others from blowing up said building.[/QUOTE] he who choses security over liberty will lose both and deserves neither

[QUOTE=simkas;51677174]If by rights you mean that someone somewhere maybe knows some personal stuff about me stored in some database where it'll just lie there and never get touched unless I decide to blow up a building then I'm fine with that if I know that it might prevent others from blowing up said building.[/QUOTE] OK, so privacy's on your chopping block. How about free speech? Or, to word it the way you would, "if by freedom of speech you mean I wouldn't be able to say a bunch of nasty things I probably wouldn't or shouldn't be saying about the government anyway". Would you give up that to feel a little safer from mean ol' mister terrorist?

[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;51677196]OK, so privacy's on your chopping block. How about free speech? Or, to word it the way you would, "if by freedom of speech you mean I wouldn't be able to say a bunch of nasty things I probably wouldn't or shouldn't be saying about the government anyway". Would you give up that to feel a little safer from mean ol' mister terrorist?[/QUOTE] That's kind a huge leap in logic.

[QUOTE=simkas;51677174]If by rights you mean that someone somewhere maybe knows some personal stuff about me stored in some database where it'll just lie there and never get touched unless I decide to blow up a building then I'm fine with that if I know that it might prevent others from blowing up said building.[/QUOTE] You're not taking the long view and the potential for abuse into account. Right now they're looking for Mr. "wants to blow up buildings and shoot up shopping malls". That could easily transition to them looking for Mr. "said something bad about a government official or the regime in general". That parody cartoon you drew of Donald Trump and posted on Facebook? No problem now, but what if Francisco Franco, with an American coat of paint, gets elected POTUS and dismantles the democratic system? Say something bad about him online, guess what, you get to spend the rest of your short life in a pitch-black cell. See what I'm getting at?

[QUOTE=simkas;51677198]That's kind a huge leap in logic.[/QUOTE] Maybe to you but you seem to have spent a lot of time downplaying and rationalizing losing your right to privacy

[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;51676958]A hypothetical million has no political opinion. They could be a million people ready to die for privacy's sake, or a million who'd trade it away, or 50-50, or whatever split you want. All I can say is I'd rather walk around all day knowing that at any moment I could be killed by some random dude turned terrorist than walk around all day knowing the government knows everything about me, my friends, my family, and everyone else. It'd take a lot more deaths than are actually possible for a guy in his basement to cause than it would take to even maybe change my mind.[/QUOTE] Why, exactly, is that? A terrorist killing you directly hurts your lifestyle and your family. Knowing that the government has your information on file (they already do, it's called the census) - why should they care? I'm sure your life is interesting, but there are 300 million other Americans. What makes you think a human would even read your info, and what compels you to die to defend it? Wouldn't an easier solution be not putting the info you're paranoid of on the internet?

[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;51677202]Maybe to you but you seem to have spent a lot of time downplaying and rationalizing losing your right to privacy[/QUOTE] It's not really losing privacy if no one actually does anything with that information. I still have my privacy to do whatever the fuck I want and no one's going to do anything about that as long as that "whatever" isn't a plan to kill a bunch of people. [editline]16th January 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Psychokitten;51677201]You're not taking the long view and the potential for abuse into account. Right now they're looking for Mr. "wants to blow up buildings and shoot up shopping malls". That could easily transition to them looking for Mr. "said something bad about a government official or the regime in general". That parody cartoon you drew of Donald Trump and posted on Facebook? No problem now, but what if Francisco Franco, with an American coat of paint, gets elected POTUS and dismantles the democratic system? Say something bad about him online, guess what, you get to spend the rest of your short life in a pitch-black cell. See what I'm getting at?[/QUOTE] I see what you're getting at but I'm also not expecting the world to go to complete chaos within the next 10 years.

[QUOTE=simkas;51677209]It's not really losing privacy if no one actually does anything with that information. I still have my privacy to do whatever the fuck I want and no one's going to do anything about that as long as that "whatever" isn't a plan to kill a bunch of people. [editline]16th January 2017[/editline] I see what you're getting at but I'm also not expecting the world to go to complete chaos within the next 10 years.[/QUOTE] It's not necessarily about the next ten years. If that does come to pass, however long into the future it may be, people will wish something was done now.

One can work against the degradation of needed privacy, a weapon on the other hand is something best stopped through force and defensive planning.

[QUOTE=Spacewolf;51677227]It's not necessarily about the next ten years. If that does come to pass, however long into the future it may be, people will wish something was done now.[/QUOTE] Yeah well, maybe I just happen to have some faith in humans to have learned at least a little bit from our past mistakes to not have that happen in the future again.

[QUOTE=TurtleeyFP;51677203]Why, exactly, is that? A terrorist killing you directly hurts your lifestyle and your family. Knowing that the government has your information on file (they already do, it's called the census) - why should they care? I'm sure your life is interesting, but there are 300 million other Americans. What makes you think a human would even read your info, and what compels you to die to defend it? Wouldn't an easier solution be not putting the info you're paranoid of on the internet?[/QUOTE] This isn't about how many times I jerked off to gay clown porn. This is about protecting my ability to speak out against abuse-of-power. In this country, the government serves the people, at least in theory. If you give the government the tools to silence dissent and opposition, that opens the door for all kinds of atrocities, with no accountability.

[QUOTE=Judas;51677195]he who choses security over liberty will lose both and deserves neither[/QUOTE] Unless you're an anarchist, you're always trading liberty for security.

[QUOTE=Judas;51677195]he who choses security over liberty will lose both and deserves neither[/QUOTE] No one's talking about losing liberty here.

[QUOTE=Psychokitten;51677006]It's not about thresholds. It's about whether or not this government, or any government, can be trusted with this kind of power.[/QUOTE] The PRISM leaks already included instances where those in charge of utilizing the system abused it to spy on those in their lives. [QUOTE=simkas;51677209]It's not really losing privacy if no one actually does anything with that information. I still have my privacy to do whatever the fuck I want and no one's going to do anything about that as long as that "whatever" isn't a plan to kill a bunch of people.[/QUOTE] This is a very optimistic viewpoint. You're assuming the best of the government when the government has historically overstepped its bounds and abused its powers as much as it can get away with.

[QUOTE=TurtleeyFP;51677203]Why, exactly, is that? A terrorist killing you directly hurts your lifestyle and your family. Knowing that the government has your information on file (they already do, it's called the census) - why should they care? I'm sure your life is interesting, but there are 300 million other Americans. What makes you think a human would even read your info, and what compels you to die to defend it? Wouldn't an easier solution be not putting the info you're paranoid of on the internet?[/QUOTE] This is something I don't understand. People are willing to die, to even sacrifice the safety of anyone they know and will ever know, in order to protect their online browsing and social data. If this data was truly so valuable, would it not be better to just stop using the internet and deny anyone access while also upholding a necessary precaution? I know the chance of attack is miniscule, but maybe it won't be for much longer (look at Europe 10 years ago vs today).

[QUOTE=TurtleeyFP;51677203]Why, exactly, is that? A terrorist killing you directly hurts your lifestyle and your family. Knowing that the government has your information on file (they already do, it's called the census) - why should they care? I'm sure your life is interesting, but there are 300 million other Americans. What makes you think a human would even read your info, and what compels you to die to defend it? Wouldn't an easier solution be not putting the info you're paranoid of on the internet?[/QUOTE] I don't care whether or not a human ever reads it, I don't want them recording people's activities. Let me put it to you this way. I am not going to die of a terrorist attack. Give me a million years on this Earth and I'll still make that bet. That's actually the safest bet I've ever made and I can say it with more confidence than I can say "I'm going to walk over to that slot machine right now and lose". I'm not afraid of terrorists. For the overwhelming majority of us, terrorism will never have an effect on our lives beyond the scary stories the news tells us. Meanwhile, if I let the government record my activities, like who I'm calling, what pictures I take, where I'm at every day of the week, and what I do on the internet for instance, oh they [I]definitely[/I] will. That will 100 percent happen to everyone who uses a computer or a phone or buys anything. And at some point in the future they could turn dictatorial and I'll be in jail for all the very nasty things I've said about the government, or, if I succeed at becoming a public figure like I want to, they could totally attempt to use blackmail to suppress my speech, and I'm pretty sure they've already done that in an age where they [I]didn't[/I] have people's porn habits or naked pictures on hand. I actually think a scenario where the United States becomes a totalitarian dictatorship is far [I]more[/I] likely than me dying of a terrorist attack, and I'll pass on willingly giving them powers like that that help them to do that.

[QUOTE=Ishwoo;51677266]This is something I don't understand. People are willing to die, to even sacrifice the safety of anyone they know and everyone they will ever know, in order to protect their online browsing and social data. If this data was truly so valuable, would it not be better to just stop using the internet? I know the chance is miniscule, but maybe it won't be for much longer (look at Europe 10 years ago vs today).[/QUOTE] Again, your risk of dying via terrorist attack is much lower than your risk of death by other causes. Unless, by chance, you live in Mosul. Going off of flagdog, I'm guessing no.

[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;51677284]I don't care whether or not a human ever reads it, I don't want them recording people's activities. Let me put it to you this way. I am not going to die of a terrorist attack. Give me a million years on this Earth and I'll still make that bet. That's actually the safest bet I've ever made and I can say it with more confidence than I can say "I'm going to walk over to that slot machine right now and lose". I'm not afraid of terrorists. For the overwhelming majority of us, terrorism will never have an effect on our lives beyond the scary stories the news tells us.[/QUOTE] Yeah I bet a lot of people in that Boston marathon thought similar too.

[QUOTE=simkas;51677302]Yeah I bet a lot of people in that Boston marathon thought similar too.[/QUOTE] What an absolutely useless statement. I bet you figure you won't die from a cow falling through your roof and killing you. Yeah, I bet Joao Maria de Souza thought similar too.

[QUOTE=simkas;51677302]Yeah I bet a lot of people in that Boston marathon thought similar too.[/QUOTE] Attacks like that, in this country, are statistically negligible. If my dad is late coming home from work, I'm not worried that al Qaeda al Jihad blew him up. I'm worried that he's been in an accident, or (maybe) been robbed and shot.

[QUOTE=simkas;51677302]Yeah I bet a lot of people in that Boston marathon thought similar too.[/QUOTE] what an absolutely illogical statement "you don't take hundreds of precautions against lightning strikes every day of your life because you don't think you'll get struck by lightning? [i]people struck by lightning probably thought that too![/i]

[QUOTE=Psychokitten;51677313]Attacks like that, in this country, are statistically negligible. If my dad is late coming home from work, I'm not worried that al Qaeda al Jihad blew him up. I'm worried that he's been in an accident, or (maybe) been robbed and shot.[/QUOTE] It was more directed that at his absolute certainty for something that at least does have some chance of happening. But whatever, yeah, it was kind of a pointless post. I feel like I've already made my point before.

[QUOTE=Ltp0wer;51676557]The way I see it, the further we go into the future the easier it gets for one person to destroy more and more lives. Technology enables people to do things evil people couldn't even dream of hundreds of years ago. How long do we have until it's trivially easy for one crazy dude in a basement without a whole lot of knowledge to create insane biological weapons capable of killing tens of thousands? Access to information, drones, 3d printing, general artificial intelligence, etc all makes that easier. What do we do? We can't lock people up for what they research/say, but we can see what they are looking at, who they're talking to, what materials they're collecting and feed it into some algorithm that flags them for surveillance. Then we can keep an eye on them and hopefully prevent them from accomplishing whatever goal they might have. Every time a mass killing happens people want to know how it could have been prevented, but they aren't willing to entertain the idea of mass surveillance. We either need to get used to the idea that the bad guys are going to win sometimes or that the government is going to be keeping an eye on all of us. That's my intuition anyway and I don't know how to feel about it.[/QUOTE] That's the justification for it, yes. But without any restrictions on it, if the goverment can reach in and take anything it wants for any reason, or indeed, take [I]everything[/I] it can because there might be a [I]potential[/I] reason in the future, which is exactly what they're doing, they're acting outside of the legal prerogative, which is predicated on a fundamental respect of the individual. Even if 30 people saw someone butcher someone with a cleaver in broad daylight, you still try him in court and have the burden of proof put on the prosecution, because to subvert that principal is to disrupt the foundations of society, and establish parallel tiers of accountability for different people. Likewise you always need a search and seizure warrant approved by a judge with reasonable evidence to search anyone's possessions/property for information of any kind. But the goverment is currently taking [I]all[/I] information from [I]everyone[/I] on a constant basis, completely ignoring all legal constrictions on the state's power to do so. Justified on the "well maybe some of this will be useful in some way some day." But that doesn't make any sense either. Because if the purpose was truly to find some rogue element in the public somehow, what they've done is increased the reserve of information so such an incredibly unmanageable size as to make actually making effective use of any of it impossible. I think it's 1 in 3 phonecalls for every person in the US is kept in full for around 6 months. And all phone records are kept permanently. Plus any internet traffic, all emails going "outside the us" (and since most email servers are hosted outside the us, that's basically all email) and god knows what else can all be taken at any time, and is permanently stored in bulk with no qualifying reason. If you want to find the one guy amoungst all that talking to some other guy about weaponizing anthrax, good fucking luck. The reasoning doesn't check out. So why are they actually doing this? God only knows. Either it's something deeply malicious or the entire government is so ridiculously inept that they thought that this would be both effective and safe. Neither is reassuring.

[QUOTE=Psychokitten;51677297]Again, your risk of dying via terrorist attack is much lower than your risk of death by other causes. Unless, by chance, you live in Mosul. Going off of flagdog, I'm guessing no.[/QUOTE] I understand that. But 80 years ago they would've said the same thing with cars, why bother with seat belts and safety features when your going to die of polio or in a work related accident. It's better to stop these things before loads of people die from it than after. [editline]15th January 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Mister Sandman;51677311]What an absolutely useless statement. I bet you figure you won't die from a cow falling through your roof and killing you. Yeah, I bet Joao Maria de Souza thought similar too.[/QUOTE] What an absolutely useless comparison. You are comparing an impossible scenario (which has never ended someone's life in the history of mankind) to one that kills thousands of people per year and of which the death toll is increasing year on year. Edit: i am aware Joao Maria de Souza, one man in the history of mankind, died from a falling cow. Please don't compare this to the 200+ people who have died from terror attacks since the start of january

[QUOTE=Ishwoo;51677344]I understand that. But 80 years ago they would've said the same thing with cars, why bother with seat belts and safety features when your going to die of polio or in a work related accident. It's better to stop these things before loads of people die from it than after.[/QUOTE] Seatbelts and vaccines don't come with a massive potential for abuse.

[QUOTE=Trilby Harlow;51677325]That's the justification for it, yes. But without any restrictions on it, if the goverment can reach in and take anything it wants for any reason, or indeed, take [I]everything[/I] it can because there might be a [I]potential[/I] reason in the future, which is exactly what they're doing, they're acting outside of the legal prerogative, which is predicated on a fundamental respect of the individual. Even if 30 people saw someone butcher someone with a cleaver in broad daylight, you still try him in court and have the burden of proof put on the prosecution, because to subvert that principal is to disrupt the foundations of society, and establish parallel tiers of accountability for different people. Likewise you always need a search and seizure warrant approved by a judge with reasonable evidence to search anyone's possessions/property for information of any kind. But the goverment is currently taking [I]all[/I] information from [I]everyone[/I] on a constant basis, completely ignoring all legal constrictions on the state's power to do so. Justified on the "well maybe some of this will be useful in some way some day." But that doesn't make any sense either. Because if the purpose was truly to find some rogue element in the public somehow, what they've done is increased the reserve of information so such an incredibly unmanageable size as to make actually making effective use of any of it impossible. I think it's 1 in 3 phonecalls for every person in the US is kept in full for around 6 months. And all phone records are kept permanently. Plus any internet traffic, all emails going "outside the us" (and since most email servers are hosted outside the us, that's basically all email) and god knows what else can all be taken at any time, and is permanently stored in bulk with no qualifying reason. If you want to find the one guy amoungst all that talking to some other guy about weaponizing anthrax, good fucking luck. The reasoning doesn't check out. So why are they actually doing this? God only knows. Either it's something deeply malicious or the entire government is so ridiculously inept that they thought that this would be both effective and safe. Neither is reassuring.[/QUOTE] That's actually one of the better arguments to not be afraid of the NSA. That their information intake is so bloated and filled with useless garbage that they would struggle to actually use it for anything or find anything inside it. Doesn't help a ton but it is kind of funny. Also makes it easier for terrorists which is pretty great dark humor :v:

[QUOTE=Ishwoo;51677344]What an absolutely useless comparison. You are comparing an near entirely impossible scenario (which has never ended someone's life in the history of mankind) to one that kills thousands of people per year and of which the death toll is increasing year on year.[/QUOTE] It remains an anecdotal fallacy; it is statistically very unlikely to die in a terrorist attack. An individual experience does not chance that.