reddogblitz Posted April 7, 2015 Posted April 7, 2015 If you want real action on this, you have to look to the right, like it or not. Didn't "the right" get us into this mess in the first place? "the right" loves to talk smaller government until they get in power. Patriot Act, Bush's drug benefit, wars of choice, Guantanamo, ... All those things increased the size of government.
B-Man Posted April 7, 2015 Posted April 7, 2015 Didn't "the right" get us into this mess in the first place? "the right" loves to talk smaller government until they get in power. Patriot Act, Bush's drug benefit, wars of choice, Guantanamo, ... All those things increased the size of government. wars of choice......
DC Tom Posted April 7, 2015 Posted April 7, 2015 Didn't "the right" get us into this mess in the first place? "the right" loves to talk smaller government until they get in power. Patriot Act, Bush's drug benefit, wars of choice, Guantanamo, ... All those things increased the size of government. The biggest recent change in the size and scope of government is the ACA. Before that, the USA PATRIOT Act and DHS. Before that...I'm not sure, but I'd bet Clinton had some expansion. Bush before him MIGHT be the last one to reduce the scope of government, but if so, only because of the RIF and the "Peace Dividend." Point being: it's not a partisan problem. It's a self-perpetuating bureaucracy problem. Which is why every candidate who runs on "changing the system" ends ub being full of ****. It's not that they're lying...they just end up being assimilated by the collective. Bush and Obama both are prime examples.
reddogblitz Posted April 7, 2015 Posted April 7, 2015 wars of choice...... Yeah because Saddam was going to get us with all those WMDs that that moron who couldn't find his butt with both hands, Hans Blix, couldn't find.
reddogblitz Posted April 7, 2015 Posted April 7, 2015 (edited) I'm assured the consumer will be getting a 1 terrabyte RRAM chip for their cell phones in less than 5 years. I don't have a link or anything but I totally believe this. When I started in computers we had 1.2 GB servers that were the size of 4 washing machines. While DC Tom may be correct today (don't know), I suspect in the near future FaceBook will have a data center twice that big. Regardless, the government and FaceBook and Google Yahoo and Microsoft and IBM and Sears already know more about ourselves than we do. Translation? People who trade security for freedom soon have neither? Edited April 7, 2015 by reddogblitz
Tiberius Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 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. Cut to 2016. Unless something mildly historic happens, the GOP (whom you seemingly don't like very much, go along with it if that's not entirely accurate for the sake of this example) is going to win the presidency. Now, imagine that they ran your WORST nightmare, doesn't matter who -- it could be W again -- and he won. Now the GOP is in power, controlling the senate, house and executive. Now imagine that the new president is every bit the bastard you fear he would become, he's overturning gay marriages, he's repealing the ACA, he's about to start WW3 by bombing Iran because he had a bad BM to start his morning -- I'm talking your absolute worst nightmare of a president. Still with me? Rightfully enraged by #45's new policies, you begin to exercise your right to free speech by donating money to the opposition party. The new president, as part of his scheme, wrote an executive order (classified top secret) that added "alerts" to all the watch lists of the surveillance apparatus. These alerts create a list of anyone who donates to the opposition party, or anyone who mentions going to a rally on the phone/email/text/social media. Even in jest. The moment you begin to move those 1s and 0s around in your bank account towards Elizabeth Warren's campaign, you're added to their watch list. Without needing a warrant, or without you having any knowledge they're doing so, the intelligence apparatus begins to go back through your entire history to see who you are. To look for ways to discredit you should they need to. Let's say this bastard of a president wants to take it one step further and freeze anyone's assets who pop up on the watch list (regardless of reason). So, your bank accounts are frozen (without warning), your mortgage payments, car payments, all your bills begin to mount up with no way to pay them. When you go to the bank to solve the problem, the bank tells you their hands are tied. The government doesn't have to tell them why they ordered your accounts frozen, that's classified. The bank has to comply and you're !@#$ed. No access to your money, no understanding of why this happened... all because you tried to voice an opposition opinion as is your right as a US citizen. All of this, right now, today, is legal and possible without a warrant or need for judicial oversight. Think about that. Without due process, the US Government can declare you a threat to national security (without having to prove anything more than a suspicion) and completely remove your democratic means of expressing yourself. This has always been possible on some scale, history is full of tyrants imprisoning innocents. But no tyrant has ever had the amount of control today's US Government is capable of. I said it earlier and you scoffed, but if information is power then what the government has today is absolute power. And that always leads to absolute control. While the idea of the above scenario seems unlikely to go that bad in a year's time, what happens 10 years from now? Twenty? Say it's 2035, it's been over two decades without a terrorist attack on US soil. ISIS / whoever is the boogeyman of the day has been defeated. But these policies are still on the books because the public has already considered them a fait accompli -- who's stopping the powers that be in 2035 from amending these laws and powers to suit their own political interests? Especially when they don't have to tell us (as the law is written today) that they've changed it at all? You'll read this and think it's paranoia, but I urge you to inform yourself on the realities of the world you're living in first. If you do, you'll see that everything I walked out in this scenario is legal and possible today. The only thing that has prevented it from happening are the people currently in power. How much faith in those elected representatives keeping to the straight and narrow without abusing what essentially is unlimited power over the individual do you actually have? Hasn't there been enough political malfeasance over your lifetime to make you at least a little suspicious or hesitant to willingly surrender your individual right to privacy and due process to a faceless, nameless government entity with zero oversight? You ask me for solutions and I have some. But not many. Why? Because this is an issue that isn't even being debated, it's difficult if not impossible to find a solution to something without understanding the full picture. Bits and pieces of that picture are now public but not the entire thing. We're not allowed to be fully aware of all the issues because our government doesn't think we're capable of making such choices for ourselves. And attitudes like the one you're demonstrating in this thread are exactly why they may ultimately be right. And once you absorb that... imagine what happens when it's not the US Government at the wheel of this kind of apparatus, but the Chinese/Russians/Iranians/Exxon/Apple/Google et al. If you don't think government is capable of overstepping their power and limits, how much faith do you have in corporations or criminal enterprises exerting the same type of restraint? That's another reason why this is such an important issue. We might be the first perhaps only government to have this kind of capability presently, but we certainly won't be the last. The reason none of this is ANY different from the past is because in the past and today we had/have dictatorships and didn't need internets, computers or anything. The thing that is still the same is we all have to--gasp--trust ourselves not to overstep our powers. We survived other national threats and will again. And your point about the terrorism thing and the powers derived thereof misses the point that people have way more ways of fighting against government overreach than in the past. Heck, even the terrorists at Gantanimo have lawyers now. Seriously, have we EVER been more free and had more rights than today?
DC Tom Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 The reason none of this is ANY different from the past is because in the past and today we had/have dictatorships and didn't need internets, computers or anything. The thing that is still the same is we all have to--gasp--trust ourselves not to overstep our powers. We survived other national threats and will again. And your point about the terrorism thing and the powers derived thereof misses the point that people have way more ways of fighting against government overreach than in the past. Heck, even the terrorists at Gantanimo have lawyers now. Seriously, have we EVER been more free and had more rights than today? Good Lord, you're a loon.
Deranged Rhino Posted April 10, 2015 Author Posted April 10, 2015 The reason none of this is ANY different from the past is because in the past and today we had/have dictatorships and didn't need internets, computers or anything. The thing that is still the same is we all have to--gasp--trust ourselves not to overstep our powers. We survived other national threats and will again. And your point about the terrorism thing and the powers derived thereof misses the point that people have way more ways of fighting against government overreach than in the past. Heck, even the terrorists at Gantanimo have lawyers now. Seriously, have we EVER been more free and had more rights than today? A lot to untangle here: 1. "The reason non of this is ANY different from the past is because in the past and today we had/have dictatorships and didn't need internets, computers or anything." What does this sentence even mean? Can you decipher it for me? Because it's a mess. I think what you are saying is that because dictatorships have existed in the past and we overcame them there's no need to worry about them in modern times. That's a gross oversimplification besides missing the entire point of my post (a post you decided to respond to twice, with different reactions). A lot of dictatorships (we'll use that word since it's the one you're most comfortable with) throughout history were toppled because control of the mass populace, by and large, was never possible on the scale that it is today. Today it's easier than ever to restrict freedoms and people's access to information because of the mass surveillance state we're currently residents of. You should educate yourself about the realities of the world you're living in before forming a belief system. It'll save you some headaches. 2. "The thing that is still the same is we all have to--gasp--trust ourselves not to overstep our powers." This is a ridiculous statement to fall back on when you aren't even willing to engage in a serious discussion of the topic. It isn't surprising that it's easy for you to "trust ourselves not to overstep our powers" when you clearly do not understand the power in question. You haven't demonstrated any understanding or comprehension of the issue, thus it's easy to think it's as simple as "trust ourselves." That's idiotic thinking at best, downright dangerous at worst. And if you bothered to actually comprehend what I wrote in post 35, you'd understand I address this line of thinking specifically. It's naive. The crux of my complaint is the lack of oversight. Right now there is virtually zero oversight outside of the FISA courts, which operate in secret. So, to your point, it's impossible to trust something that we're not informed about -- hell, something that we've been intentionally kept in the dark about. What I'm suggesting throughout this thread is a national discussion of the issue -- something that's never been had, and despite looming deadlines, still isn't being had. A discussion that would make clear to the public the pros and cons of this sort of mass data collection. That's it. Despite your proclamation to "trust ourselves", you won't even take the time to educate yourself on the issue. Go watch the John Oliver link I put in here and his interview with Snowden. It's 33 minutes but worth the time and is quite funny. Oliver made a brilliant point in that piece, essentially that Americans (like yourself) don't care about this issue because they don't understand it. If they knew, for example, that every dick pic they sent their girlfriend/wife/mistress is now property of the US Government (through multiple programs designed to capture data) people would !@#$ing riot. And that's just a picture of their dick. They're not thinking through the big picture about what sort of information is truly out there. All of that data, every call/email/text/digital communication is being collected and stored without any oversight whatsoever. But yes, let's "trust ourselves" not to take things too far because if there's one thing history shows unequivocally, it's the human capacity for restraint. 3. "We survived other national threats and will again." Again, this is silly to say when you don't even understand the threat we're talking about. Your first response to this was to acknowledge that it's an issue but defer to the safety in numbers argument (which is akin to knowingly burying your head in the sand). This isn't a threat to our country, this is a threat to individual liberty on a massive scale. That goes beyond the concept of national borders and state lines. It goes to the heart of what it means to live in a free society. 4. "And your point about the terrorism thing and the powers derived thereof misses the point that people have way more ways of fighting against government overreach than in the past. Heck, even the terrorists at Gantanimo have lawyers now." The only point about terrorism I made in the example was that it's used as the justification for why this level of data collection is needed. But that aside, what you're saying here only demonstrates how shortsighted you're being on this issue. While you could argue that people do have more ways than ever to fight against government overreach, what you're failing to grasp is that the government now has the capacity for unthinkable power over its people. Comparing the peoples' power versus the state right now is absurdity at its finest. 5. "Seriously, have we EVER been more free and had more rights than today?" The difference between us is highlighted by your closing sentence. You believe it's the state that gives us the right to be free. I believe we are born into this world free and the state exists to protect that inalienable right.
FireChan Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 I don't have a link or anything but I totally believe this. When I started in computers we had 1.2 GB servers that were the size of 4 washing machines. While DC Tom may be correct today (don't know), I suspect in the near future FaceBook will have a data center twice that big. Regardless, the government and FaceBook and Google Yahoo and Microsoft and IBM and Sears already know more about ourselves than we do. People who trade security for freedom soon have neither? That was a joke.
TakeYouToTasker Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 The difference between us is highlighted by your closing sentence. You believe it's the state that gives us the right to be free. I believe we are born into this world free and the state exists to protect that inalienable right.
Tiberius Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 1. "The reason non of this is ANY different from the past is because in the past and today we had/have dictatorships and didn't need internets, computers or anything." What does this sentence even mean? Can you decipher it for me? Because it's a mess. I think what you are saying is that because dictatorships have existed in the past and we overcame them there's no need to worry about them in modern times. That's a gross oversimplification besides missing the entire point of my post (a post you decided to respond to twice, with different reactions). A lot of dictatorships (we'll use that word since it's the one you're most comfortable with) throughout history were toppled because control of the mass populace, by and large, was never possible on the scale that it is today. Today it's easier than ever to restrict freedoms and people's access to information because of the mass surveillance state we're currently residents of. You should educate yourself about the realities of the world you're living in before forming a belief system. It'll save you some The difference between us is highlighted by your closing sentence. You believe it's the state that gives us the right to be free. I believe we are born into this world free and the state exists to protect that inalienable right. Not sure what you didn't understand you seemed to have gotten it. How can it possibly be easier to restrict access to information today when information is a thousands times more easy to get today? Are you seriously saying we have less access to information today? Really? What society are you living in? In the past it was MUCH easier for a government to restrict information.
FireChan Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 Not sure what you didn't understand you seemed to have gotten it. How can it possibly be easier to restrict access to information today when information is a thousands times more easy to get today? Are you seriously saying we have less access to information today? Really? What society are you living in? In the past it was MUCH easier for a government to restrict information. Censorship and surveillance are two different things.
Tiberius Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 A lot to un 2. "The thing that is still the same is we all have to--gasp--trust ourselves not to overstep our powers." This is a ridiculous statement to fall back on when you aren't even willing to engage in a serious discussion of the topic. It isn't surprising that it's easy for you to "trust ourselves not to overstep our powers" when you clearly do not understand the power in question. You haven't demonstrated any understanding or comprehension of the issue, thus it's easy to think it's as simple as "trust ourselves." That's idiotic thinking at best, downright dangerous at worst. And if you bothered to actually comprehend what I wrote in post 35, you'd understand I address this line of thinking specifically. It's naive. The crux of my complaint is the lack of oversight. Right now there is virtually zero oversight outside of the FISA courts, which operate in secret. So, to your point, it's impossible to trust something that we're not informed about -- hell, something that we've been intentionally kept in the dark about. What I'm suggesting throughout this thread is a national discussion of the issue -- something that's never been had, and despite looming deadlines, still isn't being had. A discussion that would make clear to the public the pros and cons of this sort of mass data collection. That's it. Despite your proclamation to "trust ourselves", you won't even take the time to educate yourself on the issue. Go watch the John Oliver link I put in here and his interview with Snowden. It's 33 minutes but worth the time and is quite funny. Oliver made a brilliant point in that piece, essentially that Americans (like yourself) don't care about this issue because they don't understand it. If they knew, for example, that every dick pic they sent their girlfriend/wife/mistress is now property of the US Government (through multiple programs designed to capture data) people would !@#$ing riot. And that's just a picture of their dick. They're not thinking through the big picture about what sort of information is truly out there. All of that data, every call/email/text/digital communication is being collected and stored without any oversight whatsoever. But yes, let's "trust ourselves" not to take things too far because if there's one thing history shows unequivocally, it's the human capacity for restraint. Lol, this is funny. Oh I love John Oliver but I seriously think anyone that thinks they are educated for watching him is out there! Yes, we live in a republic and have to trust ourselves. If that is ridiculous to you, then I see where your paranoia comes from. If you actually think a part of the federal government will start to use secret courts to...well, whatever it is you think they are going to do and everyone will sit back and do nothing I think you don't know American history very well. I guess the question I have to ask is, what will this court you fear do with this data of emails and texts? That's what you keep coming back to. If they--whoever they are--want to take over or whatever, why would they need my text messages to do it? Censorship and surveillance are two different things. Good point! Thank you. Greg? A lot to untangle here: 3. "We survived other national threats and will again." Again, this is silly to say when you don't even understand the threat we're talking about. Your first response to this was to acknowledge that it's an issue but defer to the safety in numbers argument (which is akin to knowingly burying your head in the sand). This isn't a threat to our country, this is a threat to individual liberty on a massive scale. That goes beyond the concept of national borders and state lines. It goes to the heart of what it means to live in a free society. Ok! I really don't understand the threat! Yes, I agree. Is it the secret courts reading my texts or them restricting my access to information, or secretly searching my house?? I do remember you saying that maybe in the future one party starts getting the upper hand and then going after the other side. But I'm sorry, if that happened in, say 1920, or 1820 the governments then could have instituted authoritarian power, but they didn't, because we all got along. I don't see why we won't get along in the future technology or no technology Seems to me you are trying to make the argument a small cabal of folks can take power with these courts, I say hog wash. Even the government is divided, even Republicans are divided, even Democrats are divided and subdivided
Deranged Rhino Posted April 10, 2015 Author Posted April 10, 2015 Lol, this is funny. Oh I love John Oliver but I seriously think anyone that thinks they are educated for watching him is out there! Yes, we live in a republic and have to trust ourselves. If that is ridiculous to you, then I see where your paranoia comes from. I never said watching John Oliver would serve as an education, but it would give you a crash course in what's at issue here. Something you still fail to understand or even grasp or shown any desire to remedy. The ridiculous part isn't "trusting ourselves" it's that you're so convinced that's the answer when you have no understanding of the issue you're trying to dismiss. This isn't about paranoia. This is about reality, something you don't do well with.
FireChan Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 I never said watching John Oliver would serve as an education, but it would give you a crash course in what's at issue here. Something you still fail to understand or even grasp or shown any desire to remedy. The ridiculous part isn't "trusting ourselves" it's that you're so convinced that's the answer when you have no understanding of the issue you're trying to dismiss. This isn't about paranoia. This is about reality, something you don't do well with. You'll never get through because gator thinks we have more freedoms than ever.
Deranged Rhino Posted April 10, 2015 Author Posted April 10, 2015 You'll never get through because gator thinks we have more freedoms than ever. It's really pretty amazing.
IDBillzFan Posted April 11, 2015 Posted April 11, 2015 It's really pretty amazing. No more amazing than his belief that the world's problems would be solved if only the federal government could ensure everyone had an equal supply of love and diginity.
Tiberius Posted April 12, 2015 Posted April 12, 2015 Greg wrote: And once you absorb that... imagine what happens when it's not the US Government at the wheel of this kind of apparatus, but the Chinese/Russians/Iranians/Exxon/Apple/Google et al. If you don't think government is capable of overstepping their power and limits, how much faith do you have in corporations or criminal enterprises exerting the same type of restraint? You are right, this whole thing is taking time to absorb. So Apple will come after me now? Exxon? This makes so little sense that I just don't know what to say. And if it were a foreign government or a drug cartel--again, not sure why they would want me?--but I'd expect our government to treat that as an attack or a crime. But I have a question. First, I meant to watch the John Oliver thing but no time yet this busy weekend, i'll get to it. But if this system is so power how come there is still so many crimes and criminal enterprises operating? Why isn't this all power eye in the sky clamping down with all its power? You'll never get through because gator thinks we have more freedoms than ever. You disagree? Make an argument we don't. No more amazing than his belief that the world's problems would be solved if only the federal government could ensure everyone had an equal supply of love and diginity. Ha, not the government but the good old market place will probably help all that out with technology and economic expansion added in part by government
FireChan Posted April 12, 2015 Posted April 12, 2015 You disagree? Make an argument we don't. You said it, you make an argument we do. I'm not typing up a paragraph proving you made an idiotic statement so you can post an emoticon and stop posting for 2 pages.
Recommended Posts