Tiberius Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 Ok, you can't define what you mean by the state, then? Ok! You brought it up. I'll just move on to the next point. And I'll say that privacy involves being free from unreasonable searches and seizers. That ok? I've already said I don't really consider my email private after I send it out into the internet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 So, you can't define what we're talking about, or even summarize it, and you'd like me to do it again even though I've done it for you (post 35) already. The only thing worse than stupid is willful ignorance. You do realize that you're never going to get a relevant answer out of him, don't you? He believes that all he needs to do is reply, regardless of whether what he says makes any sense or has anything to do with anything. He's the Johnny Appleseed of stupid, skipping merrily along and tossing out random handfuls of idiocy wherever he goes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 Since you don't understand the scope of the security apparatus that's currently operating, I'm not sure this will help but I'll try. Answer me this without getting into personal specifics: where is the bulk of your money right now? Your liquid cash? In a bank, I'd presume? Is your paycheck automatically deposited into your bank account or are you given an actual check by your employer? What do you do with that check when you get it? Do you pay for most of your purchases with cash or some form of debit/credit card? How many pieces of technology are in the room you're sitting in right now with microphones, GPS devices, and internet connections? Three or more? How many of those devices do you carry on your person during your typical day? You also made this point. Is it ok to challenge you on it? Or would that be cherry picking and against the rules of debate you keep creating to hide behind? You do realize that you're never going to get a relevant answer out of him, don't you? He believes that all he needs to do is reply, regardless of whether what he says makes any sense or has anything to do with anything. He's the Johnny Appleseed of stupid, skipping merrily along and tossing out random handfuls of idiocy wherever he goes. I'm answering questions, he's the one avoiding discussing his own statements he made in this very thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted April 15, 2015 Author Share Posted April 15, 2015 Ok, you can't define what you mean by the state, then? Ok! You brought it up. I'll just move on to the next point. And I'll say that privacy involves being free from unreasonable searches and seizers. That ok? I've already said I don't really consider my email private after I send it out into the internet. Finish the assignment. You've only answered what privacy means to you (and you barely defined it). How does the lack thereof affect a democratic society? What are the current threats to privacy today? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 Finish the assignment. You've only answered what privacy means to you (and you barely defined it). How does the lack thereof affect a democratic society? What are the current threats to privacy today? Too opened ended question, so many types of privacy some that are important some that really not to a functioning democracy. I mean you have to agree that privacy--criminal, predatory and malicious can also hurts democracy, don't you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 I'm answering questions, he's the one avoiding discussing his own statements he made in this very thread. Whatever you say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 Whatever you say. Hey, you are the one that said we are worse than Nazi Germany you complete idiot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 Hey, you are the one that said we are worse than Nazi Germany you complete idiot You may want to go back and read that part again, Dumbrowski. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted April 15, 2015 Author Share Posted April 15, 2015 (edited) . That ok? I've already said I don't really consider my email private after I send it out into the internet. You don't consider your email private? Okay, then why don't you share your login information and password with the board here? Too opened ended question, so many types of privacy some that are important some that really not to a functioning democracy. I mean you have to agree that privacy--criminal, predatory and malicious can also hurts democracy, don't you? It's not too open ended unless you don't know what you're talking about, which you have demonstrated fully that you do not. Stop trying to turn this into some weird contest between us and try actually partaking in the discussion. This doesn't have to be hostile. Let's stick with the part of the question you (kind of) answered. You say privacy "involves being free from illegal search and seizure", expound on that. What qualifies as an illegal search in your mind? What protects US citizens (we'll keep the focus there) from illegal search and seizure? As you answer those, think again about what you wrote above: "I don't really consider emails to be private"... You're already changing your understanding of privacy in order to qualify your statement because you realize that what's going on is wrong. Why aren't emails considered private? Are hand written letters? Why is it that the most common form of communication (email) in our modern society doesn't have the same level of protection as a posted letter? What's the justification in your mind for that kind of delineation? Edited April 15, 2015 by GreggyT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddogblitz Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 Interestingly there was an editorial in today's Seattle Times about internet privacy. The author thinks a constitutional amendment is needed. http://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/how-to-protect-privacy-in-the-digital-age-a-constitutional-amendment/ While I agree this is big deal, I'm afraid the horse has already left the barn on this one. For every small thing congress will be able to play catch up on, the social media industry will skirt and by pass and just find new ways to do it. Obama wanted to let the internet companies make the rules! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 You don't consider your email private? Okay, then why don't you share your login information and password with the board here? No thanks, I actually trust the state to be less interested in it also You don't consider your email private? Okay, then why don't you share your login information and password with the board here? It's not too open ended unless you don't know what you're talking about, which you have demonstrated fully that you do not. Stop trying to turn this into some weird contest between us and try actually partaking in the discussion. This doesn't have to be hostile. Let's stick with the part of the question you (kind of) answered. You say privacy "involves being free from illegal search and seizure", expound on that. What qualifies as an illegal search in your mind? What protects US citizens (we'll keep the focus there) from illegal search and seizure? As you answer those, think again about what you wrote above: "I don't really consider emails to be private"... You're already changing your understanding of privacy in order to qualify your statement because you realize that what's going on is wrong. Why aren't emails considered private? Are hand written letters? Why is it that the most common form of communication (email) in our modern society doesn't have the same level of protection as a posted letter? What's the justification in your mind for that kind of delineation? I'm trying to be hostile by answering your questions? Please Will you answer a question I pose, or do you not want to? You don't Let's stick with the part of the question you (kind of) answered. You say privacy "involves being free from illegal search and seizure", expound on that. What qualifies as an illegal search in your mind? What protects US citizens (we'll keep the focus there) from illegal search and seizure? Great question! If you would actually take the question I'd like to pose to you we can both discuss that! As you answer those, think again about what you wrote above: "I don't really consider emails to be private"... You're already changing your understanding of privacy in order to qualify your statement because you realize that what's going on is wrong. Why aren't emails considered private? Are hand written letters? Why is it that the most common form of communication (email) in our modern society doesn't have the same level of protection as a posted letter? What's the justification in your mind for that kind of delineation? A hand written letter? Not entirely. If you'd just take my question I'd show you how wrong you are. You are the one that does not understand, and you are afraid to answer a question Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted April 15, 2015 Author Share Posted April 15, 2015 No thanks, I actually trust the state to be less interested in it also So, then, you do consider your email private. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 So, then, you do consider your email private. You got me, yes to a degree. See, we can do this nicely. Still ignoring any questions? Interestingly there was an editorial in today's Seattle Times about internet privacy. The author thinks a constitutional amendment is needed. http://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/how-to-protect-privacy-in-the-digital-age-a-constitutional-amendment/ While I agree this is big deal, I'm afraid the horse has already left the barn on this one. For every small thing congress will be able to play catch up on, the social media industry will skirt and by pass and just find new ways to do it. Obama wanted to let the internet companies make the rules! So obviously this makes great stuff for writers like that person to print goofy ideas. What would the ademnent say and how would it work? Love how the only example he gives is of a killer that got caught. Great! More killers can get away if we don't allow any searches Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted April 15, 2015 Author Share Posted April 15, 2015 (edited) You got me, yes to a degree. See, we can do this nicely. Still ignoring any questions? Ignoring? I've bent over backwards to answer your questions, even posting lengthy hypothetical to paint you a picture when you asked. The only one dodging any questions here is you. You still have yet to demonstrate you understand the topic being discussed. You could accomplish this by completely answering the stated questions: what is privacy, what role does it play (positive and negative) in a democratic society, and how is the notion of privacy threatened by our current security state? So far we've established you believe citizens have protection from unlawful search and seizure -- but you haven't defined what constitutes an illegal search or a breach of privacy. You claim emails aren't private, but refuse to share them with the people on the board here. Why is that? Why is not okay for us to have your emails and access to every piece of digital communication you put out "on the internet" but it's okay for a government entity, with zero oversight, to not only access your private emails, but collect and store them (along with the information about every call you make or receive, every text you send or receive, every IM you send or receive, any Skype call you make or receive, any Google search you enter...) where's the dividing line between necessary and unlawful in your mind? Edited April 15, 2015 by GreggyT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 You got me, yes to a degree. "To a degree?" In other words "yes, but no." You still can't answer the !@#$ing question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 Let's walk this out a bit more. The bulk of your assets are in 1s and 0s on a computer, you access this through your debit cards and credit cards. All of that is logged and stored for analysis whenever it's deemed necessary. More and more of your bills are paid with automatic debits from your accounts, increasing your dependency upon being connected each passing day. So far you've never tripped any alarms or alerts at the state level because you live an otherwise normal life and abide by the laws of the land. You're not a killer, you're not a terrorist, you're not a kook plotting to blow someone up for whatever reason. You're Gatorman, US citizen, going about your day. Yes, they are. And one email with a malicious cyber hack virus or something could hack into it or many other things. The government has a responsibility to look for cyber spy material, don't they? Even your hero Snowden admits this is happening and that the government is mining data to look for this stuff. I for one am glad they are Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted April 15, 2015 Author Share Posted April 15, 2015 Yes, they are. And one email with a malicious cyber hack virus or something could hack into it or many other things. The government has a responsibility to look for cyber spy material, don't they? :huh: So, now your argument is, massive data collection is a means to thwarting cyber crime?! Collecting data does NOTHING to stop cyber attacks or hackers. You realize this, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 :huh: So, now your argument is, massive data collection is a means to thwarting cyber crime?! Collecting data does NOTHING to stop cyber attacks or hackers. You realize this, right? No, not cyber crime. Cyber spy material. Whatever the !@#$ that is. Maybe they're trying to prevent me from sending in my six cyber-proofs-of-purchase to get my Archie and Jughead cyber-spy decoder ring... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 :huh: So, now your argument is, massive data collection is a means to thwarting cyber crime?! Collecting data does NOTHING to stop cyber attacks or hackers. You realize this, right? You don't even know this? http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/06/06/nsa-data-mining-cyber-crime-data/2397165/ Heck, Snowden talked about this and I'll find that too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keukasmallies Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 Please keep this volley going, I could "watch" it all day. G'man, y'all aren't even out of the locker room on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts