Lamar Smith's revenge: The "Big Brother is watching" bill

[Malanu]

Really? I have all the freedom you have Sno. I even joined the military and defended the freedoms we have. I just don't find it so important to have an illusion of privacy. I also don't have anything in my life I need to keep private from the Government. So if they wanna look, "Here it is!"

I still get to go where I want, when I want, because I want. I can do it without fear of reprisal because I am not doing anything that would land me in an interrogation booth. So the bogymen will look at me, see I'm not a threat, and move on to someone that may be one. Makes their job easier.

 

[Snorunt conservationist]

Really? I have all the freedom you have Sno. I just don't find it so important to an illusion of privacy. I also don't have anything in my life I need to keep private from the Government. So if they wanna look, "Here it is!"

I still get to go where I want, when I want, because I want. I can do it without fear of reprisal because I am not doing anything that would land me in an interrogation booth. So the bogymen will look at me, see I'm not a threat, and move on to someone that may be one. Makes their job easier.

Three simplistic questions for a simplistic argument.

1. What right do these people have to do this? Morally in addition to legally.

2. Why do you not think people have a right to a private life?

3. How would you prevent the inevitable abuse/incompetence issues that are sure to arise.

If you truly think that such a law would not curtail your freedom, then you are severely misinformed.

 

[John Madden]

Sounds more like they didn't follow procedure

ahahaha yes, truly 40,000 violations of law, FBI regulations, and executive orders is simply an indication that procedure wasn't being followed

over one-third [of reported FBI intelligence violations] involved FBI violation of rules governing internal oversight of intelligence investigations.

nearly one-third involved FBI abuse, misuse, or careless use of the Bureau’s National Security Letter authority.

almost one-fifth involved an FBI violation of the Constitution, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or other laws governing criminal investigations or intelligence gathering activities.

From 2001 to 2008, in nearly half of all [National Security Letter] violations, third-parties to whom NSLs were issued — phone companies, internet service providers, financial institutions, and credit agencies —contributed in some way to the FBI’s unauthorized receipt of personal information.

From 2001 to 2008, the FBI engaged in a number of flagrant legal violations, including:
submitting false or inaccurate declarations to courts.
using improper evidence to obtain federal grand jury subpoenas.
accessing password protected documents without a warrant.

Yes, clearly this and Jewel v. NSA are indications of Something Less Than Abuse so that I can continue to pretend erosion of civil liberties is an Unambiguously Good Thing on the basis of "having nothing to hide".

(here is a pro tip RE: Jewel v. NSA: "having nothing to hide" did not preclude the federal government from illegally wiretapping millions of Americans)

 

[Jb]

so what do you have to hide?

Free downloads and ROMS because I don't want to spend $25+ on a video game or $3.00 on a song that came out 20 years ago.

 

[Snorunt conservationist]

What also amazes me is that people seem unable to grasp the fact that the freedoms we enjoy are a direct result of hundreds if not thousands of years of struggle against the mindset of those who seek to make use guilty before proven innocent.

 

[Malanu]

Three simplistic questions for a simplistic argument.

1. What right do these people have to do this? Morally in addition to legally.

2. Why do you not think people have a right to a private life?

3. How would you prevent the inevitable abuse/incompetence issues that are sure to arise.

If you truly think that such a law would not curtail your freedom, then you are severely misinformed.

1. There are people out there that want to blow up our homes, our families and our friends. I am perfectly willing to allow them the right to look at what ever they need to protect my loved ones (& Yours) from harm.

2. You have a private life, so do I. I also have that private life because I am not doing anything that would cause the government to want to infringe on that privacy.

3. You cannot prevent human incompetence. You're just privy to it because of the freedom of information act.

I never said it wouldn't infringe on my freedoms, I'm just pragmatic. If I want security & safety then freedoms must be sacrificed. Now which is better, knowing the government is doing something to keep you safe from terrorism, or that they found out you spend more money on internet porn than food every month for instance?

 

[John Madden]

If I want security then I will vote for someone in an election who pursues foreign (and not domestic, given that better border security by itself demonstrably does a better job) policies that maximize security.

You know, sort of like how the country's been plenty safe from terrorism under second-term Bush and first-term Obama without the authoritarian gift bag that is HR 1981?

 

[Malanu]

vote for someone in an election who pursues foreign policies that maximize security.

. So you are just fine with infringing someone else's freedom as long as it doesn't affect you?

 

[Snorunt conservationist]

1. There are people out there that want to blow up our homes, our families and our friends. I am perfectly willing to allow them the right to look at what ever they need to protect my loved ones (& Yours) from harm.

What they need to do then is use proper police and investigative work to identify truly potentially dangerous individuals (many of whom will never discuss their terrorist plans over the internet. "Dear Osama, uranium is primed and ready to go lol ", and then investigate them, and not assume that every single citizen is a suspect. The idea of protecting people's rights is somewhat hampered when you're invading them so much.

2. You have a private life, so do I. I also have that private life because I am not doing anything that would cause the government to want to infringe on that privacy.

It's not private if unseen, unnamed, unaccountable (to you) individuals have access to your life. That is not privacy. Never has been and never will be. It is the opposite of privacy. Also, what makes you assume that one single investigation will be enough? You could be checked every year of your life. It's vile and goes against everything free societies are set up for.

3. You cannot prevent human incompetence. You're just privy to it because of the freedom of information act.

One of the most disgustingly blase responses to the (theoretical) incompetence by unaccountable individuals which could, ironically given that we were talking about protection, put millions more people in danger than the current system.

I never said it wouldn't infringe on my freedoms, I'm just pragmatic. If I want security & safety then freedoms must be sacrificed.

To nowhere near the extent that is being suggested.

Now which is better, knowing the government is doing something to keep you safe from terrorism, or that they found out you spend more money on internet porn than food every month for instance?

Suggesting that they're mutually exclusive.

Malanu, given that investigating all these citizens effectively and properly would no doubt require more government spending and a large number of (unelected) bureaucrats running a system that would be possibly be so expensive as to raise taxes, I assume then that you'd also be fine essentially paying people to investigate you? This is potentially what this is. You're paying a P.I to investigate yourself.

What are your opinions on the freedom of the press?

 

[John Madden]

I'm fine with actions that maximize collective security without granting powers that would demonstrably infringe (and given past government actions, have already infringed) upon the civil liberties of my fellow 310 million countrymen, yes.

Maybe I'm just weird for having an idea of where this rabbit hole is going to lead or something.

 

[overlordmewtwo]

Now which is better, knowing the government is doing something to keep you safe from terrorism, or that they found out you spend more money on internet porn than food every month for instance?

My personal answer to this: neither/nor. The U.S. government has become WAY too powerful over the past several decades. Along with this expansion of power is the exponential increase in the potential to abuse that power. Laws and regulations have greatly increased in the past several decades. Sound like the potential to abuse it? Not that some laws were unnecessary (because some were), but there is too many laws.

I appreciate your views on the matter, Malanu, but I'd find it nice if the government were to give up a little bit of its power. That way we could have our privacy. After all, privacy in itself is "safety."

We don't need "safety" from terrorism. We have the strongest military in the world. Very few would dare to stand up against the might of the U.S. army. That, and the Middle East (where most of the terrorists are from) is in total turmoil, and Iran, Iraq, and other such countries are in no shape to attack us, terrorist or military.

 

[Malanu]

What they need to do then is use proper police and investigative work to identify truly potentially dangerous individuals (many of whom will never discuss their terrorist plans over the internet. "Dear Osama, uranium is primed and ready to go lol ", and then investigate them, and not assume that every single citizen is a suspect. The idea of protecting people's rights is somewhat hampered when you're invading them so much.

Nothing as blatant (or funny!) as your example. And how should they do this investigation? Yes there needs to be procedure followed, but there also needs to be flexibility so they can assess a suspect quickly.

It's not private if unseen, unnamed, unaccountable (to you) individuals have access to your life. That is not privacy. Never has been and never will be. It is the opposite of privacy. Also, what makes you assume that one single investigation will be enough? You could be checked every year of your life. It's vile and goes against everything free societies are set up for.

And you think this is something that just started happening? We haven't had really had privacy since the 60's! What make you think It matters to me if they investigate every month? "Nope Malanu is still a law abiding citizen and still watching busty belles porn!"

One of the most disgustingly blase responses to the (theoretical) incompetence by unaccountable individuals which could, ironically given that we were talking about protection, put millions more people in danger than the current system.

Or it could theoretically protect those same millions. *shrug*

To nowhere near the extent that is being suggested.

I guess that's just a question on how safe someone wants to be Sno? I'm sure there will be a point where I would say "No further" I just haven't heard it yet.

Malanu, given that investigating all these citizens effectively and properly would no doubt require more government spending and a large number of (unelected) bureaucrats running a system that would be possibly be so expensive as to raise taxes, I assume then that you'd also be fine essentially paying people to investigate you? This is potentially what this is. You're paying a P.I to investigate yourself.

What are your opinions on the freedom of the press?

Not at all. It brings me back to my "Whatcha got to hide point?" though. Because if I'm not doing anything wrong, Why would I care if someone looks? Yeah the price(taxes) would suck! As for freedom of press, I support it to an extent. If their report would jeopardize the security of an operation then the report should be withheld till such a time that the operation is done.

I appreciate your views on the matter, Malanu, but I'd find it nice if the government were to give up a little bit of its power. That way we could have our privacy.

We don't need "safety" from terrorism. We have the strongest military in the world. Very few would dare to stand up against the might of the U.S. army. That, and the Middle East (where most of the terrorists are from) is in total turmoil, and Iran, Iraq, and other such countries are in no shape to attack us, terrorist or military.

Thanks I respect your views as well as Sno's! Yes we have a good military, but the last few years have shown that they are not capable of doing the job that needs done. Not their fault mind you. Here's why:
As a Marine on a security detail at an Ammo Supply Point. I was handicapped by "safety measures". I had to have a stop block in my rifles chamber, my Ammo had to be in the pouch on my side not loaded in my rifle. Now this sounds all well and good, but I was guarding ammo including the ball rounds for our M-16s up to and including Nuclear warheads for field artillery! IF a security breach happened, I would have lost valuable time having to load & unblock my rifles chamber.

You cannot play by half measures when it comes to dealing with a hostile situation as every second counts. Security details in a hot zone should only have to say halt once in the native tongue. IF non compliant. They should open fire. If a group of people are known terrorists, they should be shot! It may not be the fuzzy friendly approach, but it saves more lives than it ends.

Yes, it's a militant outlook. But do you expect a former infantry marine to be a pacifist? It also is the influence on my views of freedom. You think you have it bad? Or these laws are harsh. Be in the military, where getting a sunburn is a breach of military law. Heck they even had rules and regulations on how you were allowed to have sex. Not exaggerating!!!

 

[Chaos Emperor]

Yes, it's a militant outlook. But do you expect a former infantry marine to be a pacifist? It also is the influence on my views of freedom. You think you have it bad? Or these laws are harsh. Be in the military, where getting a sunburn is a breach of military law. Heck they even had rules and regulations on how you were allowed to have sex. Not exaggerating!!!

And is that what you want to happen? This is a slippery slope. First they monitor you on the computer, then youll have police pull you over and/or enter your house without reason, then they can arrest you because they "feel like it." and eventually all technology that the government disapproves of is banned. Wouldn't that piss you off if the government said to you "you can't play Pokemon anymore cause we said so and of you do play it you'll never see your family again!"

I respect you for being a marine fighting for our freedoms, but can't you see not everyone's cut out for military law? You might be able to handle a 1984 world, but 99% of Americans can't, and that's what they're afraid this will eventually lead to. I do respect your opinion and your entitled to it (for now at least), I just think you should try to see it from a civilian point of view: we don't like the government having excess power/authority. Government should only have the bare minimum amount of authority needed to keep things from falling apart, that's it; anything else is unnecessary.

 

[Malanu]

Of course I can handle a 1984 world... I was just graduating high school!

Seriously, it's a slippery slope either way Chaos. Yes there is probable problems with my way. But the alternative is it would be easier for more events like 9/11 otherwise. It's a lose lose situation. As it is right now, I have no problem with what is going on. I do see both sides of the issue, and don't want any of you to actually change your position per se. Just don't be so closed minded to opinions other than yours. Funny isn't it, that the one child of the free love generation here, is the one advocating invasion of privacy... strange.

 

[Grey Wind]

Pedofiles are actually a sexually oriented people to children, as long as they don't harm kids like putting a sexual image of a little girl BUT made out of the computer instead of a real girl that shoudln't be illegal

Paedophilia isn't an orientation. Your orientation is the sex you like, and iirc little girls aren't a sex.

, i mean if gays got legalised why can't pedofiles be? i mean as long as they don't harm real kids this shoudln't be illegal

Paedophilia is illegal because it harms kids. Having the 'urges' but not acting on them isn't illegal because, as odd as it is, it doesn't harm anybody. Plus, there's not really any way to go around and check if anybody is a paedophile in disguise.

 

[Wolf Prince]

Paedophilia isn't an orientation. Your orientation is the sex you like, and iirc little girls aren't a sex.


Paedophilia is illegal because it harms kids. Having the 'urges' but not acting on them isn't illegal because, as odd as it is, it doesn't harm anybody. Plus, there's not really any way to go around and check if anybody is a paedophile in disguise.

I understand hurting little girls is illegal, all i wanted to point out was that as long as no little kids get harmed and everything is in fantasies or virtual(not real) it should be legal to see images such as hentai and that. Nobody get's hurt fantasysing.

 

[Malanu]

Yeah but you (as a general) do have to worry about parents like me! Cause if I found out you were looking at lolicon or outright child porn and involved in my children's lives I'd be inclined to beat the living the living crap out of you (again as a in general)!

I physically threw a "friend" out of my house over just this issue.

 

[Vernikova]

This is just begging to get abused by the government.

What was that Franklin quote? "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." I hope this doesn't pass.

 

[Malanu]

I don't see it happening Rebecca. Not only for obvious reasons, but because of the cost to implement such a vast amount of storage would be ridiculous!

 

[blaze boy]

and iirc little girls aren't a sex.

Er, they are.

I understand hurting little girls is illegal, all i wanted to point out was that as long as no little kids get harmed and everything is in fantasies or virtual(not real) it should be legal to see images such as hentai and that. Nobody get's hurt fantasysing.

If you mean done in a fantasy way in the style of Hentai and no real girls are used then fine, since the character aren't real. (Even though it is still creepy and wrong)

However I would agree with Malanu, if I find out that person like looking at child porn they would not be anywhere near my children since I would not be able trust the person to keep themselves under control and take advantage of their innocent.

Also it would be very unnerving knowing that a grown person finds your children sexually attractive.