Tiberius Posted April 15, 2015 Posted April 15, 2015 (edited) And Snowden was actually upset that the government was, as he said, searching for and shooting back at, Cyberattacks. So if the government is reading emails to save us from that, go for it http://thehill.com/policy/technology/215020-snowden-unmasks-monstermind Edited April 15, 2015 by gatorman
Deranged Rhino Posted April 15, 2015 Author Posted April 15, 2015 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. That article doesn't make the point you think it's making. And it certainly doesn't do anything to bolster your point that collecting data alone thwarts cyber attacks. The data must be analyzed and deciphered to be of any use in that regard. ... But you've taken the stance on here (many times) that there's NO way the government could possible read every piece of material they scoop up. Yet, this article runs counter to that, as well as counter to your belief the government isn't really reading or analyzing content. I'll ask again: How do you define privacy and its role in a democratic society? What are the threads facing privacy today? And Snowden was actually upset that the government was, as he said, searching for and shooting back at, Cyberattacks. So if the government is reading emails to save us from that, go for it http://thehill.com/policy/technology/215020-snowden-unmasks-monstermind ... So now you're admitting the government isn't just storing material, they're reading it and analyzing it (all of it, innocent people and potential threats are all treated equally). Again, walk that through your brain and think about what you're posting for once. You -- the guy who claims it's okay because we have "checks and balances" -- are saying it's now okay for a nameless, faceless government entity to collect, read, and analyze all of your data with zero oversight or means of "checking" that power ... because it MIGHT help stop a cyberattack eventually. Is that really the stance you want to take?
Tiberius Posted April 15, 2015 Posted April 15, 2015 That article doesn't make the point you think it's making. And it certainly doesn't do anything to bolster your point that collecting data alone thwarts cyber attacks. The data must be analyzed and deciphered to be of any use in that regard. ... But you've taken the stance on here (many times) that there's NO way the government could possible read every piece of material they scoop up. Yet, this article runs counter to that, as well as counter to your belief the government isn't really reading or analyzing content. I'll ask again: How do you define privacy and its role in a democratic society? What are the threads facing privacy today? Funny! Oh, not alone? Great dodge! Yes, there is no way a person or persons in government can sit there and read all the mails texts, etc. Can they analyze and look for patters that lead to them finding things that will hurt the country? Yes! See, you really don't know what you are talking about. Question, why is the government collecting all this stuff then? Even Snowden admits its to stop cyber crimes, terrorists attacks and engage in counter attacks I've already defined privacy, why do you ask again? Out of gas?
IDBillzFan Posted April 15, 2015 Posted April 15, 2015 If you guys keep this up, gatorman is going to refer to the "right wing circle jerk" again. And once that happens, it's only a matter of time before he uses the word 'obfuscation' again. And once he does that, you'll have to start the conversation all over again.
Tiberius Posted April 15, 2015 Posted April 15, 2015 If you guys keep this up, gatorman is going to refer to the "right wing circle jerk" again. And once that happens, it's only a matter of time before he uses the word 'obfuscation' again. And once he does that, you'll have to start the conversation all over again. LABillz has chimed in! I must be doing well!
DC Tom Posted April 15, 2015 Posted April 15, 2015 I've already defined privacy, why do you ask again? Out of gas? No, you didn't. You gave an example of privacy. Which you call "obfuscation." Yet another textbook example of The Gatorman Fallacy.
IDBillzFan Posted April 15, 2015 Posted April 15, 2015 LABillz has chimed in! I must be doing well! I have to admit, you're really on your game today. You haven't sounded this resoundingly stupid since you told everyone the problems of the world would go away once the federal government could provide each American with their fair share of love and dignity.
Deranged Rhino Posted April 15, 2015 Author Posted April 15, 2015 Funny! Oh, not alone? Great dodge! Yes, there is no way a person or persons in government can sit there and read all the mails texts, etc. Can they analyze and look for patters that lead to them finding things that will hurt the country? Yes! See, you really don't know what you are talking about. Question, why is the government collecting all this stuff then? Even Snowden admits its to stop cyber crimes, terrorists attacks and engage in counter attacks I've already defined privacy, why do you ask again? Out of gas? Do you understand (rhetorical question since you clearly do not understand) what kind of information can be gleaned from analyzing the massive amounts of data they're collecting? Do you understand (again, rhetorical) how this information is analyzed and used to fight terrorism? The article you linked made it quite clear they're reading and interpreting much more of the data than you're giving them credit for -- including your personal data. Snowden was a member of the intelligence apparatus and believes fully (as do I) in having a strong and pro-active (rather than reactive) intelligence community. No one has argued there's not a national security benefit to a powerful surveillance apparatus. No one. The question is at what cost? We've already seen the chilling effect this kind of mass data collection can have on individual behavior -- you've said outright that your email isn't private because you know the government is collecting it and storing it. So your behavior has already been altered in a negative way... and what has this given you in terms of protection? Since the Patriot Act and all the ensuing FISA amendments, only one case of terrorism has been thwarted by this massive data collection apparatus. Just one. And that was a donation of $8,500 bucks from a cabbie. Not exactly a blue ribbon winner in the fight against terror. To get that one win, it's cost each citizen their fourth amendment protection as well as their right to due process. But yes, you're right, the right to due process and privacy are highly overrated aspects of being an American citizen. You haven't answered the questions posed to you, you haven't defined privacy (at all, you've only described what constitutes a breach of privacy) or what constitutes an illegal search, you haven't expounded upon what privacy means to a democratic society or how it's currently threatened by these programs. Will you ever? I'll answer (again) your question: Question, why is the government collecting all this stuff then Because they can and the information they're gaining is invaluable. The question you're asking is poor. You shouldn't be asking why the government is collecting this stuff. You should be asking what they're doing with it. That's the scarier question and the fact you aren't posing it just shows once again you are completely out of your element in this topic.
DC Tom Posted April 15, 2015 Posted April 15, 2015 Do you understand (rhetorical question since you clearly do not understand) what kind of information can be gleaned from analyzing the massive amounts of data they're collecting? Do you understand (again, rhetorical) how this information is analyzed and used to fight terrorism? The article you linked made it quite clear they're reading and interpreting much more of the data than you're giving them credit for -- including your personal data. Snowden was a member of the intelligence apparatus and believes fully (as do I) in having a strong and pro-active (rather than reactive) intelligence community. No one has argued there's not a national security benefit to a powerful surveillance apparatus. No one. The question is at what cost? We've already seen the chilling effect this kind of mass data collection can have on individual behavior -- you've said outright that your email isn't private because you know the government is collecting it and storing it. So your behavior has already been altered in a negative way... and what has this given you in terms of protection? Since the Patriot Act and all the ensuing FISA amendments, only one case of terrorism has been thwarted by this massive data collection apparatus. Just one. And that was a donation of $8,500 bucks from a cabbie. Not exactly a blue ribbon winner in the fight against terror. To get that one win, it's cost each citizen their fourth amendment protection as well as their right to due process. But yes, you're right, the right to due process and privacy are highly overrated aspects of being an American citizen. You haven't answered the questions posed to you, you haven't defined privacy (at all, you've only described what constitutes a breach of privacy) or what constitutes an illegal search, you haven't expounded upon what privacy means to a democratic society or how it's currently threatened by these programs. Will you ever? I'll answer (again) your question: Question, why is the government collecting all this stuff then Because they can and the information they're gaining is invaluable. The question you're asking is poor. You shouldn't be asking why the government is collecting this stuff. You should be asking what they're doing with it. That's the scarier question and the fact you aren't posing it just shows once again you are completely out of your element in this topic. Circular reasoning: you say they're collecting it because it's invaluable, but your only rationale for considering the info invaluable is that they're collecting it. The actual reason is: the initial problem they were trying to solve was finding a needle in a haystacks, which means collecting all the damn hay and looking at each piece to see if it's a needle. The reason they keep collecting and storing it is because government bureaucracy is the worst sort of hoarder. And THAT'S what should scare anyone. A byzantine, labyrinthine bureaucracy, responsible to no one, interested in its own perpetuation and growth collecting masses of minutiae on the populace. Throw in a willingness to use that information to the bureaucracy's own ends, and THAT is the perfect description of the Gestapo. And before crocodumbass chimes in with "checks and balances..." remember the IRS Targeting Controversy.
Chef Jim Posted April 15, 2015 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. What if it's email on your phone you have not yet sent that they have access to? Funny! Oh, not alone? Great dodge! Yes, there is no way a person or persons in government can sit there and read all the mails texts, etc. Can they analyze and look for patters that lead to them finding things that will hurt the country? Yes! See, you really don't know what you are talking about. Question, why is the government collecting all this stuff then? Even Snowden admits its to stop cyber crimes, terrorists attacks and engage in counter attacks I've already defined privacy, why do you ask again? Out of gas? Looking for things that can hurt the country. How would you define things that can hurt the country? Now how would the government define that?
Deranged Rhino Posted April 15, 2015 Author Posted April 15, 2015 Circular reasoning: you say they're collecting it because it's invaluable, but your only rationale for considering the info invaluable is that they're collecting it. The actual reason is: the initial problem they were trying to solve was finding a needle in a haystacks, which means collecting all the damn hay and looking at each piece to see if it's a needle. The reason they keep collecting and storing it is because government bureaucracy is the worst sort of hoarder. And THAT'S what should scare anyone. A byzantine, labyrinthine bureaucracy, responsible to no one, interested in its own perpetuation and growth collecting masses of minutiae on the populace. Throw in a willingness to use that information to the bureaucracy's own ends, and THAT is the perfect description of the Gestapo. And before crocodumbass chimes in with "checks and balances..." remember the IRS Targeting Controversy. Good post.
GG Posted April 16, 2015 Posted April 16, 2015 And before crocodumbass chimes in with "checks and balances..." remember the IRS Targeting Controversy. And that's the rub, how much adulation and press man-hours time have been devoted to hypothetical government abuses "unearthed" by Greenwald & Snowden vs real government abuse brought by IRS?
Tiberius Posted April 16, 2015 Posted April 16, 2015 Looking for things that can hurt the country. How would you define things that can hurt the country? Now how would the government define that? I'll define that as soon as he defines what he means by "the state."
Chef Jim Posted April 16, 2015 Posted April 16, 2015 I'll define that as soon as he defines what he means by "the state." What does someone else's statement have to do with my question?
Tiberius Posted April 16, 2015 Posted April 16, 2015 General Alexander said that confronting what he called the two biggest threats facing the United States — terrorism and cyberattacks — would require the application of expanded computer monitoring. In both cases, he said, he was open to much of that work being done by private industry, which he said could be more efficient than government. NSA trying to keep us safe from cyber attacks! http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/13/us/nsa-director-gives-firm-and-broad-defense-of-surveillance-efforts.html I'd also like to amend an answer from yesterday. Giving away my password would be unreasonable, but if NSA wanted to look at my email to try and see where someone had attached a malicious cyber malware or something up the internet food chain, I'd say that would be very reasonable What does someone else's statement have to do with my question? In in the same thread and discussion
DC Tom Posted April 16, 2015 Posted April 16, 2015 Giving away my password would be unreasonable, Why?
Chef Jim Posted April 16, 2015 Posted April 16, 2015 In in the same thread and discussion No that's not how it works. You can refuse to answer HIS question until he answers yours. However my question has nothing to do with him. So I'll ask it again. How would you define things that can hurt this country and how would the government define those? Why? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6iW-8xPw3k
Azalin Posted April 16, 2015 Posted April 16, 2015 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6iW-8xPw3k http://youtu.be/QtlVPko06EU
birdog1960 Posted April 16, 2015 Posted April 16, 2015 Circular reasoning: you say they're collecting it because it's invaluable, but your only rationale for considering the info invaluable is that they're collecting it. The actual reason is: the initial problem they were trying to solve was finding a needle in a haystacks, which means collecting all the damn hay and looking at each piece to see if it's a needle. The reason they keep collecting and storing it is because government bureaucracy is the worst sort of hoarder. And THAT'S what should scare anyone. A byzantine, labyrinthine bureaucracy, responsible to no one, interested in its own perpetuation and growth collecting masses of minutiae on the populace. Throw in a willingness to use that information to the bureaucracy's own ends, and THAT is the perfect description of the Gestapo. And before crocodumbass chimes in with "checks and balances..." remember the IRS Targeting Controversy. this is providing the nsa a huge and unwarranted benefit of the doubt. what evidence do we have against malicious intent? the irs targeting is an example for it. lets remeber that there are people looking at this data, some of which is quite titilating and some quite valuable. whether or not we trust the organizations, why should we trust the individuals?
Recommended Posts