Bill Maher decides to permanently entrench himself on the wrong side of history

[awepittance]

Worth watching this Jacob Applebaum talk too on how the NSA can collect steal information and spy on people

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vILAlhwUgIU

highly recommended viewing, if you get turned off by Greenwald or Snowden check out this talk

[Adieu]

 

 

 

the point about airstrikes or police conduct or nsa is this: if you generally trust police not to rob you or shoot you why do you mistrust nsa on privacy abuses? both are perfectly capable of concealing their trails. so i think this public hardon about this ordeal is very irrational.

the secrecy of those post 9/11 courts and expanded authorities IS obviously sanctioned by the public because bush was reelected after implementing them (and obama admin, afaik, reduced their authority somewhat). i don't think you can say that just because their operation is secret it's ripe for abuse, ironically you don't know what this veil of secrecy covers exactly (some of snowden leaks did unveil inner oversight, i remember) and their secrecy is obviously important to their functioning. snowden and co had enough time to expose abuses but they revealed nothing of that kind. it's perfectly fine to debate the need for secrecy and those powerful tools for surveillance, but this debate went full retard from the get-go with speculations and baseless accusations of abuse.

 

saying that state own all data is like saying that cops own all our lives. they don't own it, they have a right to access to it under specific circumstances just like a cop has a right to shoot you under specific circumstances. also, i don't think you have a right to conceal criminal activity from the government.

 

 

actually I don't trust the police at all, which is why I'm happy to know they can't enter my house without a warrant, look in my car or search my body without permission, etc etc. I also have the right to remain silent in front of them (a brilliant right, imo). Here, you might find this helpful in understanding some of the rights we are supposed to have as US citizens:

https://www.aclu.org/drug-law-reform-immigrants-rights-racial-justice/know-your-rights-what-do-if-you

 

Again, these were enacted to protect citizens from abuse of power. That's a cornerstone of what used to be our governmental philosophy - that there need to be checks and balances, and protection of an individual's rights (to privacy, freedom from self-incrimination, etc) if one is to prevent govt. power from running amok.

 

As others have said, the ability to gather all that information about us is in itself a violation of our 4th Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.

 

 

in other words you trust the police not to bother you without warrants, you trust the institution of warrants. well that's exactly the same kind of trust that i expect that you'll put in the workings of nsa - not to open your file (let's assume the extreme, that it has absolutely every second of your life recorded in hi-def) without a warrant. but for some reason you and many others don't extend this trust in towards nsa.

 

As others have said, the ability to gather all that information about us is in itself a violation of our 4th Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.

 

i don't see how the existence of your file (lets assume the extreme scenario again) on nsa's computers violates the freedom from unreasonable searches if it's gathered automatically without any human involvement. the nsa knows exactly the same stuff about you whether there is a file on their computer or if there isn't if they need a special permission to access it. and you already conceded (imo) that you do intuitively trust this warrant procedure.

 

if we're clear on that then the only issue that remains is whether you can trust that under secrecy nsa indeed conforms to those norms of proper conduct and so far i haven't heard of a sensible reason why it wouldn't. just like it makes more sense to trust rather than mistrust various governmental institutions by default (not in every country, of course), i mean the water isn't being poisoned and the bridges aren't falling and social security clerks aren't stealing your identity on a daily basis.

 

 

Regarding your last point, i don't think you have a right to conceal criminal activity from the government, I would even go so far as to say we do have the right, it is subsumed under our right to privacy. Technically, jaywalking is a crime. Technically, tearing one of those little tags off your mattress is a crime. Technically making a "California rolling stop" at a stop sign is a crime. Whether people acknowledge it or not, part of the feeling of being free is knowing the police force/govt is limited in terms of how much they can spy on you. Yes, we all expect this in the privacy of our own home, but I expect it when I'm out and about as well, within reason. Which is one reason I hate the rise of video cameras everywhere.

Most people won't say it outright, but I bet their growing up was not unlike mine. I stole nudie mags from the corner shop. I did a little graffiti. I broke into derilict buildings. I did any number of small crimes, in the name of having fun and testing limits. As a responsible (ahem) adult now, I know that you can't say all these things are legal, but you can turn a healthy blind eye to them, unless they become a problem. I actually believe it's normal when you're young to play around at the boundary of what's legal and illegal, and test it a bit, in the same way two siblings gradually figure out it's okay to tease your sibling but not push him down the stairs. The purpose of the police is to concentrate on the big shit - murder, embezzlement, kidnapping, pedophiles, etc - not sweat the small stuff, unless asked to. They are supposed to serve the public, not the other way round.

 

 

well alright, i really don't think this alleged nsa apparatus is made for catching people who do any of those things you mentioned. and i don't really see any steps towards this over-gridalization of people's lives that you're wary of.

 

However, we seem to be progressing towards a state where the only remaining privacies exist only within your own home, and even then, only with people who are *also in your own home.* Heaven forbid that from the privacy of your own home you send an email or make a phone call to your friend, they'll track that too. It's not the kind of world I want to live in, where the govt. has video of when I was 15 years old and did some graffiti, or has an audio recording of when I told someone "you know what, after the second gulf War, I don't blame someone for 9/11, it was bound to happen sooner or later." (don't even think I said something like this, but I'm sure many did). It's none of the govt's fucking business, unless they have enough evidence to convince a judge (on a case-by-case basis) that I warrant surveillance.

 

 

as i said, there were nothing in snowden leaks' to show that this surveillance (apart from some minor abuses if i remember correclty), the actual peeking at your life, is done without warrant.

 

 

I'm almost certain you work for the government.

[brian trageskin]

lel, eugene is a mossad disinformation agent, in case you didn't know.

[awepittance]

someone who actually worked for the government would be doing a much better job, not meant as an insult to eugene but first off they wouldn't pick someone who overtly speaks his mind like that to be a disinfo agent, whether you agree with eugene or not he's a straight shooter

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fJm077cG2g

[SR4]

COINTELPRO

 

 

Ill have no problem mentioning this over and over.

[Adieu]

COINTELPRO

 

 

Ill have no problem mentioning this over and over.

 

haha I was going to cite this and your post in reply to Eugene. It's just that it requires way too much work, and I'm tired. I bow out.

[SR4]

 

COINTELPRO

 

 

Ill have no problem mentioning this over and over.

 

haha I was going to cite this and your post in reply to Eugene. It's just that it requires way too much work, and I'm tired. I bow out.

 

 

 

kudos to you to acknowledging it at the very least.

 

 

COINTELPRO

 

please remember and research.

 

This is not new.

 

This is not groundbreaking.

[eugene]

COINTELPRO

 

 

Ill have no problem mentioning this over and over.

precedents are just demonstrations of something that happened under specific set of circumstances, political climate, government, laws,degree of corruption and so on. but you should probably realize that this is absolutely meaningless as a proof or a hint at something that might or might not be going right now.

[azatoth]

COINTELPRO

 

 

Ill have no problem mentioning this over and over.

 

I remember reading somewhere that the Israeli's were in fact paying people to monitor and spread pro-Israeli propaganda on the interwebs. Eugene might want to get in on that action if he hasn't already.

[eugene]

 

 

 

 

the point about airstrikes or police conduct or nsa is this: if you generally trust police not to rob you or shoot you why do you mistrust nsa on privacy abuses? both are perfectly capable of concealing their trails. so i think this public hardon about this ordeal is very irrational.

the secrecy of those post 9/11 courts and expanded authorities IS obviously sanctioned by the public because bush was reelected after implementing them (and obama admin, afaik, reduced their authority somewhat). i don't think you can say that just because their operation is secret it's ripe for abuse, ironically you don't know what this veil of secrecy covers exactly (some of snowden leaks did unveil inner oversight, i remember) and their secrecy is obviously important to their functioning. snowden and co had enough time to expose abuses but they revealed nothing of that kind. it's perfectly fine to debate the need for secrecy and those powerful tools for surveillance, but this debate went full retard from the get-go with speculations and baseless accusations of abuse.

 

saying that state own all data is like saying that cops own all our lives. they don't own it, they have a right to access to it under specific circumstances just like a cop has a right to shoot you under specific circumstances. also, i don't think you have a right to conceal criminal activity from the government.

 

 

actually I don't trust the police at all, which is why I'm happy to know they can't enter my house without a warrant, look in my car or search my body without permission, etc etc. I also have the right to remain silent in front of them (a brilliant right, imo). Here, you might find this helpful in understanding some of the rights we are supposed to have as US citizens:

https://www.aclu.org/drug-law-reform-immigrants-rights-racial-justice/know-your-rights-what-do-if-you

 

Again, these were enacted to protect citizens from abuse of power. That's a cornerstone of what used to be our governmental philosophy - that there need to be checks and balances, and protection of an individual's rights (to privacy, freedom from self-incrimination, etc) if one is to prevent govt. power from running amok.

 

As others have said, the ability to gather all that information about us is in itself a violation of our 4th Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.

 

 

in other words you trust the police not to bother you without warrants, you trust the institution of warrants. well that's exactly the same kind of trust that i expect that you'll put in the workings of nsa - not to open your file (let's assume the extreme, that it has absolutely every second of your life recorded in hi-def) without a warrant. but for some reason you and many others don't extend this trust in towards nsa.

 

As others have said, the ability to gather all that information about us is in itself a violation of our 4th Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.

 

i don't see how the existence of your file (lets assume the extreme scenario again) on nsa's computers violates the freedom from unreasonable searches if it's gathered automatically without any human involvement. the nsa knows exactly the same stuff about you whether there is a file on their computer or if there isn't if they need a special permission to access it. and you already conceded (imo) that you do intuitively trust this warrant procedure.

 

if we're clear on that then the only issue that remains is whether you can trust that under secrecy nsa indeed conforms to those norms of proper conduct and so far i haven't heard of a sensible reason why it wouldn't. just like it makes more sense to trust rather than mistrust various governmental institutions by default (not in every country, of course), i mean the water isn't being poisoned and the bridges aren't falling and social security clerks aren't stealing your identity on a daily basis.

 

 

Regarding your last point, i don't think you have a right to conceal criminal activity from the government, I would even go so far as to say we do have the right, it is subsumed under our right to privacy. Technically, jaywalking is a crime. Technically, tearing one of those little tags off your mattress is a crime. Technically making a "California rolling stop" at a stop sign is a crime. Whether people acknowledge it or not, part of the feeling of being free is knowing the police force/govt is limited in terms of how much they can spy on you. Yes, we all expect this in the privacy of our own home, but I expect it when I'm out and about as well, within reason. Which is one reason I hate the rise of video cameras everywhere.

Most people won't say it outright, but I bet their growing up was not unlike mine. I stole nudie mags from the corner shop. I did a little graffiti. I broke into derilict buildings. I did any number of small crimes, in the name of having fun and testing limits. As a responsible (ahem) adult now, I know that you can't say all these things are legal, but you can turn a healthy blind eye to them, unless they become a problem. I actually believe it's normal when you're young to play around at the boundary of what's legal and illegal, and test it a bit, in the same way two siblings gradually figure out it's okay to tease your sibling but not push him down the stairs. The purpose of the police is to concentrate on the big shit - murder, embezzlement, kidnapping, pedophiles, etc - not sweat the small stuff, unless asked to. They are supposed to serve the public, not the other way round.

 

 

well alright, i really don't think this alleged nsa apparatus is made for catching people who do any of those things you mentioned. and i don't really see any steps towards this over-gridalization of people's lives that you're wary of.

 

However, we seem to be progressing towards a state where the only remaining privacies exist only within your own home, and even then, only with people who are *also in your own home.* Heaven forbid that from the privacy of your own home you send an email or make a phone call to your friend, they'll track that too. It's not the kind of world I want to live in, where the govt. has video of when I was 15 years old and did some graffiti, or has an audio recording of when I told someone "you know what, after the second gulf War, I don't blame someone for 9/11, it was bound to happen sooner or later." (don't even think I said something like this, but I'm sure many did). It's none of the govt's fucking business, unless they have enough evidence to convince a judge (on a case-by-case basis) that I warrant surveillance.

 

 

as i said, there were nothing in snowden leaks' to show that this surveillance (apart from some minor abuses if i remember correclty), the actual peeking at your life, is done without warrant.

 

 

I'm almost certain you work for the government.

 

i hope you realize that to say something like that after being asked to explain properly what is the basis for your opinions is just showing that you're an idiot not capable arguing your way out of a wet paper bag.

[eugene]

someone who actually worked for the government would be doing a much better job, not meant as an insult to eugene but first off they wouldn't pick someone who overtly speaks his mind like that to be a disinfo agent, whether you agree with eugene or not he's a straight shooter

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fJm077cG2g

a much better job of what ? you're not even addressing half of my points and just spam more youtube videos instead. the sad thing about you is that you don't realize how utterly delusional and unsubstantial 90% of the claims you make. you don't understand the difference between ideology/bias and proof/objectivity. you don't understand that your own thinking is so deeply entangled in the idea that everything government ever does is evil and is meant to derive your of your freedoms that you can't possible have a sensible argument about such topics and naturally all of your conclusions reaffirm this belief of yours because that belief is what dictates your method of findings. you're talking about being critical-minded, but you don't actually understand what it. you don't have the tools to have those discussions in a intellectually appropriate way.

 

i think if you ever read a textbook on research methods in social sciences it would simply make you want to kill yourself.

[Adieu]

 

 

 

 

 

the point about airstrikes or police conduct or nsa is this: if you generally trust police not to rob you or shoot you why do you mistrust nsa on privacy abuses? both are perfectly capable of concealing their trails. so i think this public hardon about this ordeal is very irrational.

the secrecy of those post 9/11 courts and expanded authorities IS obviously sanctioned by the public because bush was reelected after implementing them (and obama admin, afaik, reduced their authority somewhat). i don't think you can say that just because their operation is secret it's ripe for abuse, ironically you don't know what this veil of secrecy covers exactly (some of snowden leaks did unveil inner oversight, i remember) and their secrecy is obviously important to their functioning. snowden and co had enough time to expose abuses but they revealed nothing of that kind. it's perfectly fine to debate the need for secrecy and those powerful tools for surveillance, but this debate went full retard from the get-go with speculations and baseless accusations of abuse.

 

saying that state own all data is like saying that cops own all our lives. they don't own it, they have a right to access to it under specific circumstances just like a cop has a right to shoot you under specific circumstances. also, i don't think you have a right to conceal criminal activity from the government.

 

 

actually I don't trust the police at all, which is why I'm happy to know they can't enter my house without a warrant, look in my car or search my body without permission, etc etc. I also have the right to remain silent in front of them (a brilliant right, imo). Here, you might find this helpful in understanding some of the rights we are supposed to have as US citizens:

https://www.aclu.org/drug-law-reform-immigrants-rights-racial-justice/know-your-rights-what-do-if-you

 

Again, these were enacted to protect citizens from abuse of power. That's a cornerstone of what used to be our governmental philosophy - that there need to be checks and balances, and protection of an individual's rights (to privacy, freedom from self-incrimination, etc) if one is to prevent govt. power from running amok.

 

As others have said, the ability to gather all that information about us is in itself a violation of our 4th Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.

 

 

in other words you trust the police not to bother you without warrants, you trust the institution of warrants. well that's exactly the same kind of trust that i expect that you'll put in the workings of nsa - not to open your file (let's assume the extreme, that it has absolutely every second of your life recorded in hi-def) without a warrant. but for some reason you and many others don't extend this trust in towards nsa.

 

As others have said, the ability to gather all that information about us is in itself a violation of our 4th Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.

 

i don't see how the existence of your file (lets assume the extreme scenario again) on nsa's computers violates the freedom from unreasonable searches if it's gathered automatically without any human involvement. the nsa knows exactly the same stuff about you whether there is a file on their computer or if there isn't if they need a special permission to access it. and you already conceded (imo) that you do intuitively trust this warrant procedure.

 

if we're clear on that then the only issue that remains is whether you can trust that under secrecy nsa indeed conforms to those norms of proper conduct and so far i haven't heard of a sensible reason why it wouldn't. just like it makes more sense to trust rather than mistrust various governmental institutions by default (not in every country, of course), i mean the water isn't being poisoned and the bridges aren't falling and social security clerks aren't stealing your identity on a daily basis.

 

 

Regarding your last point, i don't think you have a right to conceal criminal activity from the government, I would even go so far as to say we do have the right, it is subsumed under our right to privacy. Technically, jaywalking is a crime. Technically, tearing one of those little tags off your mattress is a crime. Technically making a "California rolling stop" at a stop sign is a crime. Whether people acknowledge it or not, part of the feeling of being free is knowing the police force/govt is limited in terms of how much they can spy on you. Yes, we all expect this in the privacy of our own home, but I expect it when I'm out and about as well, within reason. Which is one reason I hate the rise of video cameras everywhere.

Most people won't say it outright, but I bet their growing up was not unlike mine. I stole nudie mags from the corner shop. I did a little graffiti. I broke into derilict buildings. I did any number of small crimes, in the name of having fun and testing limits. As a responsible (ahem) adult now, I know that you can't say all these things are legal, but you can turn a healthy blind eye to them, unless they become a problem. I actually believe it's normal when you're young to play around at the boundary of what's legal and illegal, and test it a bit, in the same way two siblings gradually figure out it's okay to tease your sibling but not push him down the stairs. The purpose of the police is to concentrate on the big shit - murder, embezzlement, kidnapping, pedophiles, etc - not sweat the small stuff, unless asked to. They are supposed to serve the public, not the other way round.

 

 

well alright, i really don't think this alleged nsa apparatus is made for catching people who do any of those things you mentioned. and i don't really see any steps towards this over-gridalization of people's lives that you're wary of.

 

However, we seem to be progressing towards a state where the only remaining privacies exist only within your own home, and even then, only with people who are *also in your own home.* Heaven forbid that from the privacy of your own home you send an email or make a phone call to your friend, they'll track that too. It's not the kind of world I want to live in, where the govt. has video of when I was 15 years old and did some graffiti, or has an audio recording of when I told someone "you know what, after the second gulf War, I don't blame someone for 9/11, it was bound to happen sooner or later." (don't even think I said something like this, but I'm sure many did). It's none of the govt's fucking business, unless they have enough evidence to convince a judge (on a case-by-case basis) that I warrant surveillance.

 

 

as i said, there were nothing in snowden leaks' to show that this surveillance (apart from some minor abuses if i remember correclty), the actual peeking at your life, is done without warrant.

 

 

I'm almost certain you work for the government.

 

i hope you realize that to say something like that after being asked to explain properly what is the basis for your opinions is just showing that you're an idiot not capable arguing your way out of a wet paper bag.

 

 

No, it isn't. You're interpreting it that way because it works to your advantage. I told you why I'm not going to keep discussing this. Nice flame-bait though. Your mother obviously didn't teach you any manners.

 

i don't see how the existence of your file (lets assume the extreme scenario again) on nsa's computers violates the freedom from unreasonable searches if it's gathered automatically without any human involvement.

 

Learn to logic bro.

[eugene]

learn to read whole paragraphs in order to understand the context.

a particular nsa agent doesn't know any more information about you and doesn't violate your privacy in any way whether such file exists on his computer or doesn't. "unreasonable search" in this scenario would be the unwarranted opening of such file (which according to snowden leaks didn't happen), not it's mere existence.

[Adieu]

learn to read whole paragraphs in order to understand the context.

a particular nsa agent doesn't know any more information about you and doesn't violate your privacy in any way whether such file exists on his computer or doesn't. "unreasonable search" in this scenario would be the unwarranted opening of such file (which according to snowden leaks didn't happen), not it's mere existence.

 

Yes, it does. your perspective is just hilarious to me.

 

"i mean the water isn't being poisoned and the bridges aren't falling and social security clerks aren't stealing your identity on a daily basis."

 

http://rt.com/usa/chemical-spill-poison-water-487/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bridge_failures

http://www.esecurityplanet.com/network-security/government-employee-admits-providing-data-for-identity-theft.html

 

[eugene]

it's not a matter of perspective but of proper understanding of what infringement of privacy actually means (aka someones getting information about you without asking you or without proper legal procedure) and translating this understanding to digital sphere. it's hilarious that you find it hilarious because it just makes you looks even more like an idiot.

 

if you're not capable of distinguishing between an occurrence and phenomena i think i'm really wasting my time with you.

[awepittance]

i don't know if anybody is looking like much of an idiot besides people who are in utter denial about the size and scope of the NSA program, and that includes you Eugene.

I'm not really interested in proving to one person who's still holding on desperately to a false reality of the dangers of the NSA program, they are now out in the open for people to see, plain as day. We're the ones wasting our time trying to 'convince' you when clearly no matter how high the stacks of evidence pile up, you will continue to skirt the issue and deny what it means.

To put it simply, trying nicely to point out to you these dangers is a complete waste of time, and I don't think anyone in this thread should continue to waste their own time who've already read and understand all the implications. You've always called people like us paranoid, and now finally when some sliver of the real reality comes out showing clearly that we may not be entirely paranoid, you still do mental gymnastics like an olympian trying to go for the gold. I would find it more amusing if people weren't actually determined to 'debate' you.

[Adieu]

it's not a matter of perspective but of proper understanding of what infringement of privacy actually means (aka someones getting information about you without asking you or without proper legal procedure) and translating this understanding to digital sphere. it's hilarious that you find it hilarious because it just makes you looks even more like an idiot.

 

if you're not capable of distinguishing between an occurrence and phenomena i think i'm really wasting my time with you.

 

Ah, so nuance is only important when it promotes your viewpoint. Interesting.

 

I'm going to make a computer program that collects everyone's search history that uses WATMM.com. I'm never going to view the information it collects. I promise. You can trust me. As you can generally trust other people to not cause you harm. Don't worry. Why wouldn't you trust me, right? This isn't illegal, because you can take my word that I'm not going to abuse the data. I'm just collecting it using a program I designed so I'm not actively doing anything. it's passive and therefore legal.

 

Sounds pretty fucking insane doesn't it? I'm definitely a fucking idiot Eugene. Like, how do I even have a driver's license, because I'm fucking retarded. People aren't safe around me I'm so fucking stupid.

 

Here's more shit for you.

 

bridges - http://www.cbsnews.com/news/thousands-of-us-bridges-vulnerable-to-collapse/

 

water - http://priceofoil.org/2013/07/31/fracking-causes-significant-damage-to-aquifers/

 

I don't know numbers, but I doubt we would get solid numbers from the government if our information was being used for fraud because we would then have a valid reason for not wanting to give information to the government in anyway. But my stepdad had is tax return stolen from him just a year ago. So, the problem is enough one that it has affected those around me. If his other information wasn't stolen then I wonder how they got access to his tax return :\

 

I don't know why you are promoting faith in government. Most, if not all, governments are shit. I think it's really foolish to put blind faith in the government. The most heinous of things our governments are doing we will never know about. That's why document leaks happen, and why transparency is important. I don't get why you would be arguing for such a thing.

[awepittance]

seriously dude stop wasting your time, not worth the expense of energy. He's never going to budge, even if the NSA delivered a file to his doorstep with a DVD of 24 hour video reels of him jerking off in front of his webcam

[eugene]

i don't know if anybody is looking like much of an idiot besides people who are in utter denial about the size and scope of the NSA program, and that includes you Eugene.

 

I'm not really interested in proving to one person who's still holding on desperately to a false reality of the dangers of the NSA program, they are now out in the open for people to see, plain as day. We're the ones wasting our time trying to 'convince' you when clearly no matter how high the stacks of evidence pile up, you will continue to skirt the issue and deny what it means.

 

To put it simply, trying nicely to point out to you these dangers is a complete waste of time, and I don't think anyone in this thread should continue to waste their own time who've already read and understand all the implications. You've always called people like us paranoid, and now finally when some sliver of the real reality comes out showing clearly that we may not be entirely paranoid, you still do mental gymnastics like an olympian trying to go for the gold. I would find it more amusing if people weren't actually determined to 'debate' you.

 

but you don't know 0.000001% of it's inner workings and procedures of this program and base everything on a bunch of documents who were leaked by people you idolize, so what dangers can you talk about exactly ? what's open for everyone to see, the secret manual to all of the nsa programs ? there's just a bunch of semi-comprehensible documents who nutters like you interpret in way that conforms to your nutter ideologies. you don't understand what can be considered evidence, you simply don't' realize what it means and i'm tired of repeating this.

[eugene]

 

it's not a matter of perspective but of proper understanding of what infringement of privacy actually means (aka someones getting information about you without asking you or without proper legal procedure) and translating this understanding to digital sphere. it's hilarious that you find it hilarious because it just makes you looks even more like an idiot.

 

if you're not capable of distinguishing between an occurrence and phenomena i think i'm really wasting my time with you.

 

Ah, so nuance is only important when it promotes your viewpoint. Interesting.

 

I'm going to make a computer program that collects everyone's search history that uses WATMM.com. I'm never going to view the information it collects. I promise. You can trust me. As you can generally trust other people to not cause you harm. Don't worry. Why wouldn't you trust me, right? This isn't illegal, because you can take my word that I'm not going to abuse the data. I'm just collecting it using a program I designed so I'm not actively doing anything. it's passive and therefore legal.

 

Sounds pretty fucking insane doesn't it? I'm definitely a fucking idiot Eugene. Like, how do I even have a driver's license, because I'm fucking retarded. People aren't safe around me I'm so fucking stupid.

 

Here's more shit for you.

 

bridges - http://www.cbsnews.com/news/thousands-of-us-bridges-vulnerable-to-collapse/

 

water - http://priceofoil.org/2013/07/31/fracking-causes-significant-damage-to-aquifers/

 

I don't know numbers, but I doubt we would get solid numbers from the government if our information was being used for fraud because we would then have a valid reason for not wanting to give information to the government in anyway. But my stepdad had is tax return stolen from him just a year ago. So, the problem is enough one that it has affected those around me. If his other information wasn't stolen then I wonder how they got access to his tax return :\

 

I don't know why you are promoting faith in government. Most, if not all, governments are shit. I think it's really foolish to put blind faith in the government. The most heinous of things our governments are doing we will never know about. That's why document leaks happen, and why transparency is important. I don't get why you would be arguing for such a thing.

 

with every new post you produce even more idiocy, do i really need to point out why i would it make sense to generally trust a body like government but not a private person ? all of the countless of institutions and laws that regulate and oversight it simply do not exists for you and it's whole purpose is to make your life hell and steal your freedoms ?

 

Most, if not all, governments are shit.

 

that's an idiotic and juvenile statement of a person incapable or realizing the enormous and ever-present benefit of this body called government. it's this typical american libertarian "i don't need no guvmnt and i can do everything by myself just fine" logic that i was talking about in the beginning and that's utterly insane in every way imaginable.

[brian trageskin]

at eugene: i agree with your point that blind distrust in the government is dumb, but since when are governments, government members, immune to private influence, corruption? i believe that corrupting a government is as easy as corrupting the man in the street.

[Guest A/D]

Right now I think there are 3 good points going.

 

1. Disp is right, Greenwald should really release all the docs he's written about online. They should be public now.

2. If the government were to record all of your communications, it's nothing to worry about, and it wouldn't be illegal (thanks Eugene).

3. The NSA is at least flagging domestic data that would be useful to other US agencies. This indicates that they are opening and reviewing domestic data with the intent to help prosecute domestic criminals.

 

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/08/dea-and-nsa-team-intelligence-laundering

 

I think it's illegal/unconstitutional to do that, since otherwise they wouldn't have to tell those agencies to recreate the evidence using other means.

[eugene]

i believe that corrupting a government is as easy as corrupting the man in the street.

well you believe wrong because government is an organization with way, way more systems of oversight, control, self regulations and so on.

[eugene]

2. If the government were to record all of your communications, it's nothing to worry about, and it wouldn't be illegal (thanks Eugene).

 

everything you do on the internet is recorded by many different bodies all of the time whose intents you do not know (that's a fact that's not debatable, i think you'll agree), does it make you worry ?

[triachus]

just want to point out that Bill Maher hasn't been mentioned in the last two pages

 

 

keep it on topic guys