Originally posted by Oliver North
post your address and phone number then...
I have both and I've actually been there. He really doesn't have anything to hide...he keeps it simple.
But if a person spends just a tiny bit of time looking over controversial criminal cases, you can see quite quickly how ANYTHING can be twisted into something horrible, disgusting, or otherwise not positive. This is why people say to "plead the 5th until you lawyer up". Even if you don't have something to hide, you should do it, anyway.
Even if no one in the world had anything to hide ever there would still be the question of whether it's ethical to snoop through other people's business.
For instance, when I write I almost never write something that I want to hide and keep from light of day, but I still don't like it when someone reads it without my saying they can (usual reasons are that it's not finished or it doesn't make sense out of context).
And besides that, an increasingly powerful, increasingly paranoid government can redefine what it means to have something to hide until everyone has something to hide. The East German Stasi secret police actually had a section called the Division of Garbage Analysis which went through citizens' garbage to find if they had consumed any Western foods.
Originally posted by Oliver North
so he has something to hideEDIT: much like his statement, there is no qualifier about who one wants privacy from, and Snowden wasn't a government employee
Per the usual song and dance, you've taken a poster's comments too literally and I haven't. He'll agree with me for the reasons I've stated and you'll say he backpedaled in one form or another.
I'm tired of these fights we have: I want a divorce.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Per the usual song and dance, you've taken a poster's comments too literally and I haven't. He'll agree with me for the reasons I've stated and you'll say he backpedaled in one form or another.I'm tired of these fights we have: I want a divorce.
except that privacy rights aren't just about preventing the government from spying on you, especially given the government contracts out that job...
also, yes, I have a very literal mind. I'm the type of person who thinks Animal Farm is just a story about farm animals.
Originally posted by Oliver North
except that privacy rights aren't just about preventing the government from spying on you, especially given the government contracts out that job...also, yes, I have a very literal mind. I'm the type of person who thinks Animal Farm is just a story about farm animals.
And in cases like those, they are required to meet or exceed the same standards as the federal employees (making your point moot or even worse, making your intended point backfire because they are more secure and more qualified than the federal employees (almost universally)).
Additionally, where is your evidence that people other than NSA, FBI, and/or CIA federal employees analyzed the PII and associated records that were collected?
Because this would be the first I am hearing/reading about that happening (to be more direct (because I have gotten in trouble in the past, over it) I think you're full of shit...but I can eat a large helping of humble pie if you have something).
And, btw, I was right:
Originally posted by The Fat Rambo
Yeah, because you are a high level government official.Wait, you're just some net noob.
See what I did there?
nya nya
Originally posted by Bardock42
So, fair enough, you trust your government officials. But do you also trust the British government? The Chinese government? Russian Hackers? The Mafia? Everyone on this planet? Cause once that data is collected, at some point there will inevitably be some leaks out there.
Well, this government has a vested interest in maintaining, securing, and improving this country. Other countries do not necessarily have that same interest in US Citizens. So, I don't think your rhetoric is working to prove this trollwagon.
Originally posted by dadudemonWell, this government has a vested interest in maintaining, securing, and improving this country. Other countries do not necessarily have that same interest in US Citizens. So, I don't think your rhetoric is working to prove this trollwagon.
I think my argument is of the essence here. While he may trust his government, he obviously won't trust everyone that can potentially receive that data at some point. So the big deal is that the government is collecting data, that could feasible fall in the wrong hands and hurt its citizens. The point being that even if we accept his naive trust in the government as valid, the collecting of the data brings other issues with it that are not glossed over by love for ones government.