Edward Snowden thread

Originally posted by dadudemon
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).

I made none of those claims...

if he has nothing to hide, he should have no desire for privacy, ie: nothing to worry about. My point about private companies is to demonstrate that it is not simply the government who collects your private information, and I've never suggested that the security of that data makes any difference in the world.

How can you be such a pedant with what other poster's say, yet go out of your way to infer so much that I never say? You were the one who accused me of being too literal. If I am that literal, you should know there is going to be very little hidden in my words. If I wanted to argue that private companies were more of a risk to your data becoming public, I would have said that verbatim, you would not need to infer anything.

Originally posted by dadudemon
And, btw, I was right:

sure, you were right that he missed/proved my point, I never argued that he was talking about anything but the state. Such a limited application of this sentiment is beyond foolish imho.

It's like when Mariuzu argues about the only real oppression we have to worry about is that from the state.

EDIT: I might be wrong, but I think you are confusing where Bardock and I are approaching this issue from. He seems to be the one talking about data falling into the wrong hands, I'm talking about data collection in the first place.

Originally posted by Bardock42
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.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
That was the problem that East Germans were faced with during reunification--if Stasi files fell into the wrong hands it would be open season for blackmail and public humiliation (think of the episode of Malcolm in the Middle where Malcolm reads the psychological/disciplinary files of every student in the school)

Originally posted by Oliver North
I made none of those claims...

if he has nothing to hide, he should have no desire for privacy, ie: nothing to worry about. My point about private companies is to demonstrate that it is not simply the government who collects your private information, and I've never suggested that the security of that data makes any difference in the world.

How can you be such a pedant with what other poster's say, yet go out of your way to infer so much that I never say? You were the one who accused me of being too literal. If I am that literal, you should know there is going to be very little hidden in my words. If I wanted to argue that private companies were more of a risk to your data becoming public, I would have said that verbatim, you would not need to infer anything.

I am going to go ahead and ignore everything you just typed, here:

"except that privacy rights aren't just about preventing the government from spying on you, especially given the government contracts out that job..."

Originally posted by Oliver North
...I never argued that he was talking about anything but the state.

I am going to go ahead and ignore this statement, too, because you said this:

Originally posted by Oliver North
so, if he has nothing to hide, he would provide them openly on the internet

So you just trollin' for lulz, bro? If so, "haha", you got me. 😐

yes, that is clearly what I am doing. pointing out that he does in fact want to hide his private data is trolling.

Originally posted by Oliver North
yes, that is clearly what I am doing.

I assumed as much.

Originally posted by Oliver North
pointing out that he does in fact want to hide his private data is trolling.

This is a backpeddle and a willfully dishonest representation of what happened. Pointing out that he wants to hide his private data form the general public instead of the government is what you did.

oh well, it's there for everyone to look back on and read for themselves, and DDM has once again raced in to rescue another individual who says needlessly silly things.

/shrug

Originally posted by Oliver North
oh well, it's there for everyone to look back on and read for themselves, and DDM has once again raced in to rescue another individual who says needlessly silly things.

/shrug

I beat you to the punch:

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.

/moonwalk

I think, DDM, the issue isn't whether you're right about what you think this poster meant, but rather whether it's necessary to play advocate for other adult posters.

If someone says something and it's misinterpreted, I see no reason why that poster shouldn't be allowed (or indeed, expected) to deal with that misinterpretation on their own, and if there's any "piling on" then there's always the report button.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
If someone says something and it's misinterpreted, I see no reason why that poster shouldn't be allowed (or indeed, expected) to deal with that misinterpretation on their own,

None of you are dumb enough to have taken his post to be strictly literal and at face value. Correct me if I am wrong, but I did not see you jumping on the "taking the piss" wagon with his post so you really don't have to be worried. It is done and over with, imo. There is nothing left to discuss about it.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
and if there's any "piling on" then there's always the report button.

The report button is for trolls and assholes. None of you are those. 🙂

The more I hear from Snowden, the less I like him.

Originally posted by Oliver North
if tracking people's phone calls and reading their emails doesn't count as "persecution", what would?

Arresting them for pointless crimes.

I agree with Fat Rambo in that I don't mind government surveillance of my personal documents, because it's not as if the surveillance will harm me personally. It's not like they're reading my emails and telling everybody my secrets. They aren't going to use my personal records against me unless I do something worthy of the persecution, such as terrorism or something.

It's not an 1984 situation. The reason the surveillance of 1984 was so scary was because Ingsoc was persecuting people who even sneezed the wrong way. The same definitely does not apply here. In the US, you can outright say things like "Phuck Obama! I hope he goes to hell!" with no repercussions whatsoever. The only thing the NSA is tracking down is terrorists and people who are legitimately trying to bring harm to others. Any other info they gather is irrelevant to them. IDK how the NSA knowing that you secretly don't like your girlfriend is going to affect you.

The NSA isn't demanding people follow it's rules or else. It's not plucking people out for being too left-or-right wing. It's not plucking people out for their personal opinions. It only plucks people out if they are conspiring a terrorist act or some other violence or crime.

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the NSA have arrested people solely for their political views and opinions, but I've never heard of it.

Originally posted by Lestov16
Arresting them for pointless crimes.

I agree with Fat Rambo in that I don't mind government surveillance of my personal documents, because it's not as if the surveillance will harm me personally. It's not like they're reading my emails and telling everybody my secrets. They aren't going to use my personal records against me unless I do something worthy of the persecution, such as terrorism or something.

It's not an 1984 situation. The reason the surveillance of 1984 was so scary was because Ingsoc was persecuting people who even sneezed the wrong way. The same definitely does not apply here. In the US, you can outright say things like "Phuck Obama! I hope he goes to hell!" with no repercussions whatsoever. The only thing the NSA is tracking down is terrorists and people who are legitimately trying to bring harm to others. Any other info they gather is irrelevant to them. IDK how the NSA knowing that you secretly don't like your girlfriend is going to affect you.

The NSA isn't demanding people follow it's rules [b]or else. It's not plucking people out for being too left-or-right wing. It's not plucking people out for their personal opinions. It only plucks people out if they are conspiring a terrorist act or some other violence or crime.

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the NSA have arrested people solely for their political views and opinions, but I've never heard of it. [/B]

And will the next administration act that way? And the next? And the next?

It's only problem if it is abused but it is a danger simply by existing.

I understand the risk, but what about the rewards? Would you rather prevent a terrorist attack or see the aftermath on the news?

Will the American people allow the next administration to imprison people based on political beliefs? I think the public outcry to such government action would be overwhelming for the administration to handle. True there's outcry now, but lack of abuse keeps the outcry from making a direct impact to the government. If the NSA does start persecuting people, the outcry will be far more vitriolic.

Originally posted by Lestov16
I understand the risk, but what about the rewards? Would you rather prevent a terrorist attack or see the aftermath on the news?

I cannot estimate the reward without information the NSA keeps secret.

Originally posted by Lestov16
Will the American people allow the next administration to imprison people based on political beliefs? I think the public outcry to such government action would be overwhelming for the administration to handle. True there's outcry now, but lack of abuse keeps the outcry from making a direct impact to the government. If the NSA does start persecuting people, the outcry will be far more vitriolic.

I agree that its easier to stop the government than people think. Librarians just said "no" to the PATRIOT Act after all and that was the end of being required to hand over patron records. I don't agree that we should wait for things to be a problem to stop them. When there's a gun to your head it's best to do something before the trigger is pulled.

So you would rather the NSA use more difficult methods to catch perpetrators? What about the victims? Will they have died in the name of privacy?

Originally posted by Lestov16
So you would rather the NSA use more difficult methods to catch perpetrators?

Right now we have no reason to believe these methods have caught any perpetrators.

Originally posted by Lestov16
What about the victims? Will they have died in the name of privacy?

Your hypothetical victims are no more real the my hypothetical victims, however I have historical precedent for collected information being used to harm people.

I think Lestov might be seeing things with Jack Bauer goggles.

But there's no reason to think they've been used to harm any victims either.

Is this historical precedent Stalinist Russia or Nazi Germany? Because the US doesn't operate like those governments.