Jump to content


Photo

How far can government intrude in your life before it actually becomes intrusive?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
25 replies to this topic

#1 DarkNemesis

DarkNemesis

    Keeper of the Threads

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,301 posts

Posted 08 June 2013 - 03:30 PM

So it's big news now that the US gov't has been gathering ungodly amounts of data on Verizon customers in search of terrorists. Also, the FBI has sued Google for the access of millions of people and their browsing habits in search of terrorists. In both instances, without a warrant and without an actual suspect. With the US's fear of terrorism we have begun to go down the road of being a policed state. This started with the Patriot Act, continued with warrantless spying of Americans and circumventing FISA and --as Americans were reminded recently-- the signing of the Telecommunications Act of 2008. But when is enough enough? How much does the government have to know about your and your habits so they can stop terrorists? Is there a line that can even be crossed at this point? If so, what is that line? Our friends across (UK) seems to have --well what I feel is-- intrusive government surveillance. CC cameras on every corner. But I'm sure that anyone in the UK, can point to that and say, "they've prevent crimes domestic and abroad and helped catch criminals". And most likely they've been around for so long now, that they've probably gotten used to them. It's like the show Big Brother but in real life.

 

In short, are these expansive laws necessary or is this just inefficiency, bureaucracy, and panic at work?


  • Sauron likes this

Kubo's announcement will be his new work will be called Tide; not as strong as bleach but does its trolling in a more colorful fashion! - arcane_chaos

Spoiler

#2 Sauron

Sauron

    Shinigami

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,144 posts

Posted 08 June 2013 - 04:34 PM

So it's big news now that the US gov't has been gathering ungodly amounts of data on Verizon customers in search of terrorists. Also, the FBI has sued Google for the access of millions of people and their browsing habits in search of terrorists. In both instances, without a warrant and without an actual suspect. With the US's fear of terrorism we have begun to go down the road of being a policed state. This started with the Patriot Act, continued with warrantless spying of Americans and circumventing FISA and --as Americans were reminded recently-- the signing of the Telecommunications Act of 2008. But when is enough enough? How much does the government have to know about your and your habits so they can stop terrorists? Is there a line that can even be crossed at this point? If so, what is that line? Our friends across (UK) seems to have --well what I feel is-- intrusive government surveillance. CC cameras on every corner. But I'm sure that anyone in the UK, can point to that and say, "they've prevent crimes domestic and abroad and helped catch criminals". And most likely they've been around for so long now, that they've probably gotten used to them. It's like the show Big Brother but in real life.

 

In short, are these expansive laws necessary or is this just inefficiency, bureaucracy, and panic at work?

 

Most of us will agree that a terrorist does not want to be on any radars until their deed is done i.e. they're dead. Therefore, a terrorist will - I imagine - not use the internet until they have adequate encryption of their data. And they are unlikely to draw attention to themselves. So surveillance of millions of individuals will only produce very little valuable data because it would be like looking for a needle in a haystack even if terrorists are among them they'll be difficult to spot. Surveillance of entire populations of countries would be very difficult to analyse and extrapolate.

 

The places to really find terrorists are places that might interest them. If we're talking Muslim terrorists then it would be extremist websites, martial art websites, weapons websites, news websites and Islamic websites. Mosques would be places terrorists might also visit. In other words, places where terrorists might be radicalised or planning attacks and meeting accomplices.


Edited by Sauron, 08 June 2013 - 04:37 PM.


#3 HSHINJI

HSHINJI

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,607 posts

Posted 08 June 2013 - 04:37 PM

So it's big news now that the US gov't has been gathering ungodly amounts of data on Verizon customers in search of terrorists. Also, the FBI has sued Google for the access of millions of people and their browsing habits in search of terrorists. In both instances, without a warrant and without an actual suspect. With the US's fear of terrorism we have begun to go down the road of being a policed state. This started with the Patriot Act, continued with warrantless spying of Americans and circumventing FISA and --as Americans were reminded recently-- the signing of the Telecommunications Act of 2008. But when is enough enough? How much does the government have to know about your and your habits so they can stop terrorists? Is there a line that can even be crossed at this point? If so, what is that line? Our friends across (UK) seems to have --well what I feel is-- intrusive government surveillance. CC cameras on every corner. But I'm sure that anyone in the UK, can point to that and say, "they've prevent crimes domestic and abroad and helped catch criminals". And most likely they've been around for so long now, that they've probably gotten used to them. It's like the show Big Brother but in real life.

 

In short, are these expansive laws necessary or is this just inefficiency, bureaucracy, and panic at work?

Lol only really ignorant people didn't know that Facebook and Google especially were sharing info in some capacity with Uncle Sam and by proxy the Queen. What we didn't know was how big the network was turns out the jokes on all those people who called Assange paranoid.



#4 Rayman

Rayman

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,058 posts
  • Location505

Posted 08 June 2013 - 05:00 PM

What really gets me about this is that Obama came out and said that its only targeted at non US citizens, as if thats supposed to be somehow reassuring. All its done is piss off the rest of the world, with ministers in Germany going as far to call for a boycott of the companies involved. 

 

Also, that thing about CCTV over here is a myth. There are supposedly less than half the cameras that that infamously bad study claimed, and 92% of them are privately owned.



#5 Sauron

Sauron

    Shinigami

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,144 posts

Posted 08 June 2013 - 05:03 PM

What really gets me about this is that Obama came out and said that its only targeted at non US citizens, as if thats supposed to be somehow reassuring. All its done is piss off the rest of the world, with ministers in Germany going as far to call for a boycott of the companies involved. 

 

Also, that thing about CCTV over here is a myth. There are supposedly less than half the cameras that that infamously bad study claimed, and 92% of them are privately owned.

 

Where does he say that?



#6 DarkNemesis

DarkNemesis

    Keeper of the Threads

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,301 posts

Posted 08 June 2013 - 05:04 PM

Lol only really ignorant people didn't know that Facebook and Google especially were sharing info in some capacity with Uncle Sam and by proxy the Queen. What we didn't know was how big the network was turns out the jokes on all those people who called Assange paranoid.

 

For those of us, who are tech-savvy sure. But the average citizen in any country should not and in most cases does not know that FB or Google is sharing every bit of personal info with X government. Nor should they have to worry about something like that anyway, IMHO.


Kubo's announcement will be his new work will be called Tide; not as strong as bleach but does its trolling in a more colorful fashion! - arcane_chaos

Spoiler

#7 Rayman

Rayman

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,058 posts
  • Location505

Posted 08 June 2013 - 05:21 PM

Where does he say that?

http://www.dni.gov/i...ion-702-of-fisa

I was under the impression from local news that it was a statement by him himself, but apparently not. My lack of attention I guess :s Though its easier to blame the reporting, so I will =P  



#8 disastrousmaster

disastrousmaster

    Pirate

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,624 posts
  • Locationtrying to find where I am

Posted 08 June 2013 - 05:29 PM

Most of us will agree that a terrorist does not want to be on any radars until their deed is done i.e. they're dead. Therefore, a terrorist will - I imagine - not use the internet until they have adequate encryption of their data. And they are unlikely to draw attention to themselves. So surveillance of millions of individuals will only produce very little valuable data because it would be like looking for a needle in a haystack even if terrorists are among them they'll be difficult to spot. Surveillance of entire populations of countries would be very difficult to analyse and extrapolate.

 

The places to really find terrorists are places that might interest them. If we're talking Muslim terrorists then it would be extremist websites, martial art websites, weapons websites, news websites and Islamic websites. Mosques would be places terrorists might also visit. In other words, places where terrorists might be radicalised or planning attacks and meeting accomplices.

I agree with your first part, but the second part I find a bit off. terrorism isnt merely based to just muslims it is based upon any people whom will go to extremes to further their cause. the thing is as these places that you listed are probable places to find terrorist, it would be the first place that any good terrorist would avoid. but to say that mosques would be places terrorist might visit is idiotic at best as you might as well say that you will find terrorist that try to further christian cause within a church and is just putting a blanket terrorist on all islamic people. it puts too much scuritiny within a place of worship by labeling that worship as a terrorist haven.


                                                    <p align=center><a target=_blank href=http://www.nodiatis....personality.htm><img border=0 src=http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/19.jpg></a></p>

“The man who passes the sentence should swing the sword. If you would take a man's life, you owe it to him to look into his eyes and hear his final words. And if you cannot bear to do that, then perhaps the man does not deserve to die.”― Eddard Stark, A game of thrones

Spoiler funny quotes

#9 Sauron

Sauron

    Shinigami

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,144 posts

Posted 08 June 2013 - 05:41 PM

http://www.dni.gov/i...ion-702-of-fisa
I was under the impression from local news that it was a statement by him himself, but apparently not. My lack of attention I guess :s Though its easier to blame the reporting, so I will =P

 

"Turning then to the far-reaching internet spy program dubbed PRISM, which allegedly lets the National Security Agency (NSA) tap into web user data on the servers of Google, Facebook, Yahoo, Apple, and other large US tech companies, the president remained on the defensive. "With respect to internet and emails, this does not apply to US citizens, and it does not apply to people living in the United States," he said, "again, in this instance, not only is Congress fully appraised of this, but what is also true is that the FISA Court has to authorize it."

 

^ Found it.

 

I agree with your first part, but the second part I find a bit off. terrorism isnt merely based to just muslims it is based upon any people whom will go to extremes to further their cause. the thing is as these places that you listed are probable places to find terrorist, it would be the first place that any good terrorist would avoid. but to say that mosques would be places terrorist might visit is idiotic at best as you might as well say that you will find terrorist that try to further christian cause within a church and is just putting a blanket terrorist on all islamic people. it puts too much scuritiny within a place of worship by labeling that worship as a terrorist haven.

 

Thoughts of terrorism don't just pop into existence within people's minds out of nothing. It's no doubt a gradual manifestation after visiting those kinds of places. Once a terrorist has become radicalised, then sure they'll avoid those places.

 

How the hell is it idiotic to deduce that MUSLIM terrorists are going to visit Mosques? ...so maybe you're calling yourself an idiot because what you've said doesn't make sense. I am not saying every Muslim is a terrorist or that every Mosque radicalises people; nevertheless, fact is simply that a terrorist who wishes to kill people on behalf of Muslims or for entrance into their heaven will (or want to) visit a Mosque. At the very least, they'll have friends and family who visit a Mosque! Common sense!


Edited by Sauron, 08 June 2013 - 05:47 PM.


#10 disastrousmaster

disastrousmaster

    Pirate

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,624 posts
  • Locationtrying to find where I am

Posted 08 June 2013 - 05:52 PM

"Turning then to the far-reaching internet spy program dubbed PRISM, which allegedly lets the National Security Agency (NSA) tap into web user data on the servers of Google, Facebook, Yahoo, Apple, and other large US tech companies, the president remained on the defensive. "With respect to internet and emails, this does not apply to US citizens, and it does not apply to people living in the United States," he said, "again, in this instance, not only is Congress fully appraised of this, but what is also true is that the FISA Court has to authorize it."

 

^ Found it.

 

 

Thoughts of terrorism don't just pop into existence within people's minds out of nothing. It's no doubt a gradual manifestation after visiting those kinds of places. Once a terrorist has become radicalised, then sure they'll avoid those places.

 

How the hell is it idiotic to deduce that MUSLIM terrorists are going to visit Mosques? ...so maybe you're calling yourself an idiot because what you've said doesn't make sense. I am not saying every Muslim is a terrorist or that every Mosque radicalises people; nevertheless, fact is simply that a terrorist who wishes to kill people on behalf of Muslims or for entrance into their heaven will (or want to) visit a Mosque. At the very least, they'll have friends and family who visit a Mosque! Common sense!

I am saying it is idiotic to with the deduction that muslim terrorists will visit muslim places of worship that you should monitor all muslims within said mosques. so yeah. refute that.


                                                    <p align=center><a target=_blank href=http://www.nodiatis....personality.htm><img border=0 src=http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/19.jpg></a></p>

“The man who passes the sentence should swing the sword. If you would take a man's life, you owe it to him to look into his eyes and hear his final words. And if you cannot bear to do that, then perhaps the man does not deserve to die.”― Eddard Stark, A game of thrones

Spoiler funny quotes

#11 Sauron

Sauron

    Shinigami

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,144 posts

Posted 08 June 2013 - 06:00 PM

I am saying it is idiotic to with the deduction that muslim terrorists will visit muslim places of worship that you should monitor all muslims within said mosques. so yeah. refute that.

 

It's easier to find what you're looking for in smaller samples e.g. Luffy in a house among some monkeys as opposed to Luffy in the Amazon Rainforest! Refuted! Again, not saying Muslim = terrorist. I'm saying Muslim inside a Mosque has a higher probability of being a terrorist.



#12 disastrousmaster

disastrousmaster

    Pirate

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,624 posts
  • Locationtrying to find where I am

Posted 08 June 2013 - 06:06 PM

It's easier to find what you're looking for in smaller samples e.g. Luffy in a house among some monkeys as opposed to Luffy in the Amazon Rainforest! Refuted! Again, not saying Muslim = terrorist. I'm saying Muslim inside a Mosque has a higher probability of being a terrorist.

.............muslim in mosque has a higher probability of being a terrorist is not a good thing at all. you are saying that it makes it easier to find them in a smaller sample but you are just going from a gigantic haystack to a haystack half the size. there is no reasoning behind trying to find terrorists within mosques because you dont know which person within the mosque is likely to be a terrorist. so it just ends up being pointless observation of peoples worship. which is a waste of time. your saying still makes no sense to me.


                                                    <p align=center><a target=_blank href=http://www.nodiatis....personality.htm><img border=0 src=http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/19.jpg></a></p>

“The man who passes the sentence should swing the sword. If you would take a man's life, you owe it to him to look into his eyes and hear his final words. And if you cannot bear to do that, then perhaps the man does not deserve to die.”― Eddard Stark, A game of thrones

Spoiler funny quotes

#13 DarkNemesis

DarkNemesis

    Keeper of the Threads

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,301 posts

Posted 08 June 2013 - 06:07 PM

It's easier to find what you're looking for in smaller samples e.g. Luffy in a house among some monkeys as opposed to Luffy in the Amazon Rainforest! Refuted! Again, not saying Muslim = terrorist. I'm saying Muslim inside a Mosque has a higher probability of being a terrorist.

So.... Muslim in a mosque = terrorist??????? How about we say that there is a decent probablility that a Muslim terrorist will visit a mosque. But then again, a Muslim terrorist will have white-collar job and live in the suburbs too......

 

I'll stop there because this is not about muslims or whether or not they are terrorists. That's just distracting from the point of this thread.


Edited by DarkNemesis, 08 June 2013 - 06:08 PM.

Kubo's announcement will be his new work will be called Tide; not as strong as bleach but does its trolling in a more colorful fashion! - arcane_chaos

Spoiler

#14 Sauron

Sauron

    Shinigami

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,144 posts

Posted 08 June 2013 - 06:10 PM

.............muslim in mosque has a higher probability of being a terrorist is not a good thing at all. you are saying that it makes it easier to find them in a smaller sample but you are just going from a gigantic haystack to a haystack half the size. there is no reasoning behind trying to find terrorists within mosques because you dont know which person within the mosque is likely to be a terrorist. so it just ends up being pointless observation of peoples worship. which is a waste of time. your saying still makes no sense to me.

 

So where the hell will we find Muslim terrorists? The bloody gay bar maybe? Please use some common sense!



#15 disastrousmaster

disastrousmaster

    Pirate

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,624 posts
  • Locationtrying to find where I am

Posted 08 June 2013 - 06:11 PM

So.... Muslim in a mosque = terrorist??????? How about we say that there is a decent probablility that a Muslim terrorist will visit a mosque. But then again, a Muslim terrorist will have white-collar job and live in the suburbs too......

 

I'll stop there because this is not about muslims or whether or not they are terrorists. That's just distracting from the point of this thread.

actually the argument does indeed revolve around this as most of the government intrusion is based on an attempt to prevent terrorism attacks or at least that is what they go off of as a means to do so.


So where the hell will we find Muslim terrorists? The bloody gay bar maybe? Please use some common sense!

your still not going to find the terrorists inside of the mosques. why dont you try to use some common sense as well. it is better to put protective things within areas instead of just trying to find the needle in the haystack instead put some gloves on so you dont end up being pricked by said needle.


                                                    <p align=center><a target=_blank href=http://www.nodiatis....personality.htm><img border=0 src=http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/19.jpg></a></p>

“The man who passes the sentence should swing the sword. If you would take a man's life, you owe it to him to look into his eyes and hear his final words. And if you cannot bear to do that, then perhaps the man does not deserve to die.”― Eddard Stark, A game of thrones

Spoiler funny quotes

#16 Sauron

Sauron

    Shinigami

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,144 posts

Posted 08 June 2013 - 06:13 PM

So.... Muslim in a mosque = terrorist??????? How about we say that there is a decent probablility that a Muslim terrorist will visit a mosque. But then again, a Muslim terrorist will have white-collar job and live in the suburbs too......

 

I'll stop there because this is not about muslims or whether or not they are terrorists. That's just distracting from the point of this thread.

 

No, but there's a good chance a Muslim terrorist will visit a Muslim temple aka Mosque. That's where they'll find like minded individuals. Mosques don't necessarily have to be in poor areas.



#17 disastrousmaster

disastrousmaster

    Pirate

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,624 posts
  • Locationtrying to find where I am

Posted 08 June 2013 - 06:14 PM

No, but there's a good chance a Muslim terrorist will visit a Muslim temple aka Mosque. That's where they'll find like minded individuals. Mosques don't necessarily have to be in poor areas.

so they will automatically start discussions on bombing buildings within their place of worship?


                                                    <p align=center><a target=_blank href=http://www.nodiatis....personality.htm><img border=0 src=http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/19.jpg></a></p>

“The man who passes the sentence should swing the sword. If you would take a man's life, you owe it to him to look into his eyes and hear his final words. And if you cannot bear to do that, then perhaps the man does not deserve to die.”― Eddard Stark, A game of thrones

Spoiler funny quotes

#18 Sauron

Sauron

    Shinigami

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,144 posts

Posted 08 June 2013 - 06:29 PM

actually the argument does indeed revolve around this as most of the government intrusion is based on an attempt to prevent terrorism attacks or at least that is what they go off of as a means to do so.


your still not going to find the terrorists inside of the mosques. why dont you try to use some common sense as well. it is better to put protective things within areas instead of just trying to find the needle in the haystack instead put some gloves on so you dont end up being pricked by said needle.

 

You want everyone to wear bomb proof clothes on every day of the week?

 

so they will automatically start discussions on bombing buildings within their place of worship?

 

Yes, maybe. Although it's more likely they'll find somewhere else to plan bombings, since Mosques are very public places. But the point I made and will reiterate is that a Mosque is one of the best places to find like minded individuals and eventually one of those guys will influence a very impressionable person to engage in terrorism. Not rocket science!



#19 disastrousmaster

disastrousmaster

    Pirate

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,624 posts
  • Locationtrying to find where I am

Posted 09 June 2013 - 02:12 AM

You want everyone to wear bomb proof clothes on every day of the week?

 

 

Yes, maybe. Although it's more likely they'll find somewhere else to plan bombings, since Mosques are very public places. But the point I made and will reiterate is that a Mosque is one of the best places to find like minded individuals and eventually one of those guys will influence a very impressionable person to engage in terrorism. Not rocket science!

no but the idea is to defend yourself properly  in the areas that require that defense. monitoring all americans to catch the few is tiring and unrewarding. there is little that will be found to actually be relevant, and you will more likely catch people whom are making harmless jokes than those that are actually trying to do said act. those whom would try to act in a manner that is not seen as good by the rest of the world certainly wouldnt have their members whom were on the lower scale post their meaning, also by saying such things you make it more likely that you would be found. were there some strange terrorist R us website where all the terrorist within the world gathered online to conspire against the world then yeah I think that would be a safe idea to monitor, but to monitor a religious site just because a few people whom are within said religion have done these acts to say that you should monitor all traffic on said site is ridiculous and, since it holds to a religious area, invasive.

 

also I doubt that they do public propaganda at their place of worship, more like they will talk with the individuals inside or around such an area, find out if they are opposed to certain things in the world and then after they have found out such things meet with them and try to recruit them. they will do their propaganda for their recruitment but not in the place of worship. also you would need to have the priest(dont know what they are called in islam) agree to the broadcasting of what goes on in their place of worship and judging by how much disfavor seems to be shown for images of the prophet mohammad(think thats how I spell that) it is highly unlikely to be something that they would like. then it goes into the seperation of church and state to police a church you must bring the state into the matter, and yes while I get that if the religious belief steps upon the rights of others that the government can step in, however with the matter of terrorist and islam is the two are seperate. so you could not legally say that terrorism is a proper reasoning to invade the privacy of all islamic worshippers.


Edited by disastrousmaster, 09 June 2013 - 02:19 AM.

  • waleuska likes this

                                                    <p align=center><a target=_blank href=http://www.nodiatis....personality.htm><img border=0 src=http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/19.jpg></a></p>

“The man who passes the sentence should swing the sword. If you would take a man's life, you owe it to him to look into his eyes and hear his final words. And if you cannot bear to do that, then perhaps the man does not deserve to die.”― Eddard Stark, A game of thrones

Spoiler funny quotes

#20 DarkNemesis

DarkNemesis

    Keeper of the Threads

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,301 posts

Posted 09 June 2013 - 07:20 AM

http://www.dni.gov/i...ion-702-of-fisa
I was under the impression from local news that it was a statement by him himself, but apparently not. My lack of attention I guess :s Though its easier to blame the reporting, so I will =P


Even if the DNI and the President say so, how are they not going through the private lives of private citizens with this all-encompassing dragnet. Too many eyes and too many opportunities for abuse and "new ideas" for that assurance to be taken too seriously.

Kubo's announcement will be his new work will be called Tide; not as strong as bleach but does its trolling in a more colorful fashion! - arcane_chaos

Spoiler




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users