Verizon Customer?

[The Feral Slasher]

Hey, I'm all for slashing the military budget to implement single payer healthcare!

I agree, that would be an improvement over what we have now.

[Pogues]

Number of deaths for leading causes of death:

•Heart disease: 597,689
•Cancer: 574,743
•Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 138,080
•Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 129,476
•Accidents (unintentional injuries): 120,859
•Alzheimer's disease: 83,494
•Diabetes: 69,071
•Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 50,476
•Influenza and Pneumonia: 50,097
•Terrorism :less than 1000

How come those numbers work for this cause, but we can't use those same numbers to compare murders in the US...including by firearms? We just shrug off the differences there...

Just playing devil's advocate.

[The Feral Slasher]

How come those numbers work for this cause, but we can't use those same numbers to compare murders in the US...including by firearms? We just shrug off the differences there...

Just playing devil's advocate.

I'm not saying you can't include those numbers, it's something to consider.

Playing devil's advocate maybe we should up the war on drugs and start a "war on gangs". Start spying on all suspected drug dealers and gang members. The government could arrest and jail them all without a trial. I'm guessing that gang members kill a lot more people in the U.S. than Al-Qaeda so why don't we go after them in the name of national security ? We'd all be safer and if you aren't guilty then you have nothing to worry about. If that wasn't enough we could drone any of them that follow a pattern indicating they are likely in a gang. Damn, I'm feeling safer just thinking about it. Who could argue against it, we have to be safe and who is a bigger threat to safety than gang members ? I can't believe the American people just sit there and let gangs terrorize their communities when there is such an easy solution. The government has all the tools, why won't they use them ?

[Hornsby]

Veil is a good word in this context. Pretty much describes the last 15 years.

They don't have a right to any of my private data. None. If I do something illegal, and they have justifiable cause to request my data, then they are within their rights to follow the legal procedures and get it.

If I decide to willingly put all my personal details on Facebook or Twitter or some other public format (like here I guess) ... then I suppose that is fair game.

Otherwise they do not have any right to pry into my private affairs.

Safety ... terrorist threats ... all lies and bullshit. Not even close to being enough to sacrifice even an ounce of my personal freedom.

Post of the year, and I don't often agree with you. NONE of this is worth living in a Police state, none. Safety is an illusion, can they honestly say that spying on 300 million Americans, violating the constitution (BTW, where the fuck are the 2nd amendment supporters on THIS issue?), and increasing the data mining at an exponential rate make it all worthwhile?

[chancellor]

(BTW, where the fuck are the 2nd amendment supporters on THIS issue?)

Do you mean in general or on the board? If you mean in general, I have no idea what you're talking about - the center-right and right largest blogs are all over this (and are typically very strong 2nd amendment supporters), and virtually all of the right-leaning papers are as well.

[nullnor]

perhaps im just playing devils advocate, but what's easier, a truth discovered unlawfully or a lie uncovered legally? how many people were sent to prison for something they didn't do where key evidence was withheld? if someone is gonna be sent to prison for terrorism, wouldn't we want to make sure it's true? on the other hand if a terrorist was caught using spurious methods, would we care? also, this is sort of like the recent SCOTUS dna case. which was weird because it was kennedy, breyer, roberts, thomas, alito in favor and scalia, ginsburg, kagan, sotomayor in dissent. how many people have been freed from death row because of that dna project thing? so by making sure you have the right evidence, you can also prevent innocent ppl from going to jail for something they didn't do, even if they don't their cheek swabbed.

you guys signed up or this when you got telephones. when you got cellphones and i-phones and computers. what did you think the government is just gonna sit there and only do a police beat in the hopes of catching criminals?.. you knowe there was also a time once when one could reasonably expect everything they created on the internet would be temporary. then google came along and everything was suddenly cached.

not that i grow pot, i don't. but what about your electric bill. the cops use that to catch people growing drugs. can they say they used it in court? i don't think so but they use it. is your electric bill any different than your phone bill?

we have no privacy. we were never meant to have it as a species. we are a social. the electronic age has just accelerated it. it's not the knowledge about what you privately, it's what someone watching you does with it. but if you don't think your being watched, the cart left that horse long ago.

i think this is just an anti-government argument. this thread is just another attempt at winnowing mistrust in the our government.

[nullnor]

you know there's this movie i watched the other day called the divide. it's not about math but about these ppl surviving in a fallout shelter. it's a pretty gruesome and offensive movie. Milo Ventimiglia from heros plays a guy that goes sicko, Rosanna Arquette gets raped to death. Michael Biehn from terminator plays the guy that built the shelter. and it really was an awesome shelter if your into that sort of thing. of course.. this is a bad example since a foreign government nuked us and our government tried to kidnap some of them.

but is Iran not the most dangerous government on earth? and was there a way not have not created the current situation? if they nuke Israel of course they'll have to nuke us. so does the future not include, more eavesdropping, more dna taking, more loose nukes?

but there's always a divide. it's what makes the world go around. unfortunately we created Iran. we probably created a lot of things. and now we have no other choice but to keep surveillance for blowback. complaining about it now doesn't help.

[Hornsby]

Do you mean in general or on the board? If you mean in general, I have no idea what you're talking about - the center-right and right largest blogs are all over this (and are typically very strong 2nd amendment supporters), and virtually all of the right-leaning papers are as well.

Show me some links please...in general, they all seem to be quiet about this, IMO. None of the usual facebook rantings, not twitter bombs about the 2nd amendment, nothing. Now maybe I don't read the right (no pun intended) papers and web sites, but the silence is deafening to me. Hell, even crazy Michelle Bachmann came out publicly and said that she essentially supports the President on this issue.

[chancellor]

Show me some links please...in general, they all seem to be quiet about this, IMO. None of the usual facebook rantings, not twitter bombs about the 2nd amendment, nothing. Now maybe I don't read the right (no pun intended) papers and web sites, but the silence is deafening to me. Hell, even crazy Michelle Bachmann came out publicly and said that she essentially supports the President on this issue.

Instapundit, which is a libertarian blog run by UTenn prof Glenn Reynolds, is a huge defender of 2nd Amendment rights, and has been all over it. Links are too numerous to list, but the aggregator home page is here: http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/

Redstate has been split - with one primary author in favor, two against. Again, these guys are on the forefront of conservative blogs and strongly in favor of the 2nd Amendment.

American Interest, especially Walter Russell Mead, has been on it also - here's one example: http://blogs.the-american-interest.c...-war-strategy/

He does note the split in the GOP:

Republicans are divided. Jeffersonians and libertarians wave the flag of civil liberty, ready to join the liberal left in an attack on an administration that would have loved the Alien and Sedition Acts. Security focused Republicans are saying little; more concerned about the terror threat than some, they don’t want to see tools that may be necessary hastily stripped from the executive—though they have little reason to help President Obama out of his worst political scrape since Jeremiah Wright went under the bus.

When I have more time, I can drop about half a dozen other significant blog/websites that are very pro-2nd and all over this. Most lean libertarian to liberaliterian.

[Hornsby]

Instapundit, which is a libertarian blog run by UTenn prof Glenn Reynolds, is a huge defender of 2nd Amendment rights, and has been all over it. Links are too numerous to list, but the aggregator home page is here: http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/

Redstate has been split - with one primary author in favor, two against. Again, these guys are on the forefront of conservative blogs and strongly in favor of the 2nd Amendment.

American Interest, especially Walter Russell Mead, has been on it also - here's one example: http://blogs.the-american-interest.c...-war-strategy/

He does note the split in the GOP:

When I have more time, I can drop about half a dozen other significant blog/websites that are very pro-2nd and all over this. Most lean libertarian to liberaliterian.

I guess that's my problem with this...opinions shouldn't be split among the constitutionalists. It's pretty simple as I see it, the US government is simply ignoring the 4th amendment and doing so in the name of public safety. Sooner or later, once people accept this as a normal part of their lives, the NSA and their ilk can move on to other things the government doesn't like, perhaps individual gun ownership. It's a very slippery slope at this point to support one Amendment and not another, you really don't get the choice to pick and choose. It's the whole package, or eventually, perhaps, none of it.

[JudeBaldo]

Veil is a good word in this context. Pretty much describes the last 15 years.

They don't have a right to any of my private data. None. If I do something illegal, and they have justifiable cause to request my data, then they are within their rights to follow the legal procedures and get it.

If I decide to willingly put all my personal details on Facebook or Twitter or some other public format (like here I guess) ... then I suppose that is fair game.

Otherwise they do not have any right to pry into my private affairs.

Safety ... terrorist threats ... all lies and bullshit. Not even close to being enough to sacrifice even an ounce of my personal freedom.

The issue of privacy is really what I'm interested in here. Without getting into too much detail, the holding in Florida v. Jardines said that trained police dogs around a home or its immediate area constituted a search that violated the 4th Amendment. Whereas the holding in Maryland v. King claim that a DNA swab is really no different than finger printing.

So when considering ECHELON and Prism, is it more like the first case I mentioned or the second. Furthermore, does one have a reasonable expectation that their digital footprint is or should be private?

For example, Johnny noted that if you post personal details on Facebook then it is he supposes fair game. So if he started posting YouTube clips of jihadists on his wall, isn't that then fair game that could lead to further investigation of his activities?

[johnnya24]

The issue of privacy is really what I'm interested in here. Without getting into too much detail, the holding in Florida v. Jardines said that trained police dogs around a home or its immediate area constituted a search that violated the 4th Amendment. Whereas the holding in Maryland v. King claim that a DNA swab is really no different than finger printing.

So when considering ECHELON and Prism, is it more like the first case I mentioned or the second. Furthermore, does one have a reasonable expectation that their digital footprint is or should be private?

For example, Johnny noted that if you post personal details on Facebook then it is he supposes fair game. So if he started posting YouTube clips of jihadists on his wall, isn't that then fair game that could lead to further investigation of his activities?

ECHELON and PRISM are two very different things. There is a huge difference to snooping the airwaves and plucking out data and chatter that way (what I assumed was going on even though it is in a grey area legally speaking) and having court orders to indiscriminately get any and everyone's private data (which is pure wrong and indefensible).

PRISM is obviously the greater danger to individual freedom, and the greater threat. However, the court order for Verizon to hand over all details on everyone is the red flag, which is probably why it was released first. It shows exactly the intent behind these programs... to illegally gather as much data and info on every citizen as possible. That is the most disgusting thing.

If you add the intent of the Verizon order to the scope and reach of the PRISM order, you have the true scope of NSA's plan.

This can only be for population control and to further the evolution of the police states that the USA and other Western "democracies" are fast becoming. This will not be useful for catching terrorists, because serious organised terrorists will not be using unsecured electronic transmissions to plan their acts. Only naive disorganised minor threats could every be caught this way ... and they are not a threat at all.

The whole terrorism charade is nothing more than a bogie man story to justify getting us to give up our rights.

Once they're gone, you can't get them back.
Once they're gone, you can't get them back.
Once they're gone, you can't get them back.
Once they're gone, you can't get them back.
Once they're gone, you can't get them back.

[johnnya24]

The source of the NSA leaks ... Edward Snowden

Edward Snowden: the whistleblower behind the NSA surveillance revelations

"I understand that I will be made to suffer for my actions," but "I will be satisfied if the federation of secret law, unequal pardon and irresistible executive powers that rule the world that I love are revealed even for an instant."

"I really want the focus to be on these documents and the debate which I hope this will trigger among citizens around the globe about what kind of world we want to live in."

"My sole motive is to inform the public as to that which is done in their name and that which is done against them."

"I'm willing to sacrifice all of that because I can't in good conscience allow the US government to destroy privacy, internet freedom and basic liberties for people around the world with this massive surveillance machine they're secretly building."

The individual responsible for one of the most significant leaks in US political history is Edward Snowden, a 29-year-old former technical assistant for the CIA and current employee of the defence contractor Booz Allen Hamilton. Snowden has been working at the National Security Agency for the last four years as an employee of various outside contractors, including Booz Allen and Dell.

The Guardian, after several days of interviews, is revealing his identity at his request. From the moment he decided to disclose numerous top-secret documents to the public, he was determined not to opt for the protection of anonymity. "I have no intention of hiding who I am because I know I have done nothing wrong," he said.

Snowden will go down in history as one of America's most consequential whistleblowers, alongside Daniel Ellsberg and Bradley Manning. He is responsible for handing over material from one of the world's most secretive organisations – the NSA.

[The Feral Slasher]

The source of the NSA leaks ... Edward Snowden

Edward Snowden: the whistleblower behind the NSA surveillance revelations

"I understand that I will be made to suffer for my actions," but "I will be satisfied if the federation of secret law, unequal pardon and irresistible executive powers that rule the world that I love are revealed even for an instant."

"I really want the focus to be on these documents and the debate which I hope this will trigger among citizens around the globe about what kind of world we want to live in."

"My sole motive is to inform the public as to that which is done in their name and that which is done against them."

"I'm willing to sacrifice all of that because I can't in good conscience allow the US government to destroy privacy, internet freedom and basic liberties for people around the world with this massive surveillance machine they're secretly building."

Wow. His integrity and courage stand in stark contrast to that of our leaders.

[chancellor]

I guess that's my problem with this...opinions shouldn't be split among the constitutionalists.

Well, they're split on the liberal side, too, who traditionally are strong first amendment believers but are willing to ignore the 4th amendment for anything ranging from political expediency to belief that this improves public safety.

Just wanted to point out that there's major blowback from this on the right; not 100%, but certainly not insignificant, either.