The dangers of our new normal...

[gatorbait]

Just now, Deranged Rhino said:

Aliens. 

[Tiberius]

On 3/14/2015 at 6:12 PM, Deranged Rhino said:

 

It's amazing to me how political the subject of whether or not we wish to live in a surveillance state has become over the past 8 years. Used to be folks on the left were (rightly) up in arms about the Patriot Act and the ills that have come our way because of that. Now that Obama doubled down on it, it's no big deal.

 

Why is that? What's changed? If the only thing that makes it okay for the state to routinely invade our privacy is the letter in front of the sitting president's name, shouldn't the prospect of an all knowing, all seeing state scare the **** out of you knowing that the electorate in this country routinely swings back and forth between republicans and democrats in the oval office?

 

I'm actually interested to hear your thoughts on the issue.

 

 

 

Brett Kavanaugh voted to uphold NSA data collection program. Where's the friggin outrage?

 

What's changed? Everyone suddenly supports the survaliance state?

[Deranged Rhino]

Okay. It makes sense now. 

 

Asshattery per usual. 

[B-Man]

Attorney Miguel Estrada, a Kavanaugh supporter nominated unsuccessfully for a federal judgeship in 2001, defended Kavanaugh’s surveillance opinion, telling the Washington Examinerlast week that his "special need" analysis seems to fall in line with court precedent.

 

"Judge Kavanaugh was merely pointing out — quite correctly — that the collection of telephone numbers that one dials is not considered a search under the Supreme Court’s decisions in Smith v. Maryland, and that even if it were, the Supreme Court has also developed a 'special needs' doctrine under the Fourth Amendment that would seemingly apply here," Estrada said.

 

"If this exemplifies 'deference,' it is deference to the Supreme Court, whose decisions are binding on lower court judges, not deference to the executive branch," Estrada continued. "I note that even after the Supreme Court’s very recent decision in Carpenter, Smith v. Maryland continues to be good law. The Supreme Court was urged to overrule it but did not do so."

 

Orin Kerr, a Fourth Amendment scholar at George Washington University, said that the brevity of Kavanaugh’s concurrence made it difficult to thoroughly analyze his viewpoints, but that “Kavanaugh's view was more national-security oriented than privacy oriented, certainly.”

 

Kerr said that Kavanaugh’s determination that a “search” did not occur was consistent with Supreme Court precedent — “although at least in academic circles that view was controversial.”

 

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news-white-house/supreme-court-nominee-brett-kavanaughs-defense-nsa-phone-surveillance-confirmation-question

[/dev/null]

6 hours ago, B-Man said:

Attorney Miguel Estrada

 

 

Hello?  Estrada!

 

[Koko78]

10 hours ago, B-Man said:

Attorney Miguel Estrada, a Kavanaugh supporter nominated unsuccessfully for a federal judgeship in 2001, defended Kavanaugh’s surveillance opinion, telling the Washington Examinerlast week that his "special need" analysis seems to fall in line with court precedent.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news-white-house/supreme-court-nominee-brett-kavanaughs-defense-nsa-phone-surveillance-confirmation-question

 

C'mon man, facts, precedence, and nuance are irrelevant when there's a Republican to hang!

[Tiberius]

On 3/14/2015 at 9:14 PM, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Believe me, there was nothing BS about that statement. They've been collecting your metadata for over a decade, from that information they can paint an unbelievably accurate portrait of who you are, who you talk to, what causes you donate to, what belief systems you subscribe to, literally everything there is to know about you. And it'll all be 100% accurate -- accurate enough to sway any sort of court of public opinion about you if they so wished. However, just because they know who you talk to, how long you talk to them, where you go, how long you stay there, where you bank, where you shop, what you purchase, what public transportation you ride, exactly where you are located every single second of the day -- just because they know all that doesn't mean they know the truth about you, what you were doing, why you were there. All they can do is paint a picture. All of this is legal to collect and analyze without needing a warrant or any sort of judicial oversight right now, today, this very moment.

 

You've seen Twitter outrage take down numerous public and private figures since the emergence of social media. This trend has only just begun. The populous is monitored more than ever before, and easier to manipulate than ever before.... And the US Government, not to mention foreign governments, corporations, even potentially criminal elements (according to the article) are collecting every bit of digital and analogue information about you.

 

That should be chilling. Not because it sounds paranoid. But because it's already !@#$ing happening.

Chilling!!

 

But not to everyone. What's changed?
 

Quote

In 2015, for instance, Kavanaugh called the National Security Agency's mass collection of Americans' telephone records "entirely consistent with the Fourth Amendment." According to the logic of a 1979 decision in which the Supreme Court approved warrantless police access to the phone numbers dialed by a robbery suspect, he said, the NSA's snooping did not amount to a search. Even if it did, he added, it "readily qualifies as reasonable" because it "serves a critically important special need—preventing terrorist attacks on the United States."

 

 

https://reason.com/archives/2018/07/18/brett-kavanaughs-fourth-amendment-blind

[Deranged Rhino]

This is what happens when you refuse to engage honestly in a thread for months and months. You think you understand the topic being discussed, and the opinions expressed therein - but you don't. And you prove you don't with posts like the above. 

 

Start on page one, Tibs. And read. You're making yourself look even more dim than usual. 

[Tiberius]

6 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

This is what happens when you refuse to engage honestly in a thread for months and months. You think you understand the topic being discussed, and the opinions expressed therein - but you don't. And you prove you don't with posts like the above. 

 

Start on page one, Tibs. And read. You're making yourself look even more dim than usual. 

Swing!!!!! And a miss!!!

 

Fuzzy fuzzy fuzzy! ?So funny

[Deranged Rhino]

It was a swing and a miss. By you. Your posts in this thread are an embarrassment to anyone with a fully functioning frontal lobe. You know nothing about this topic, let alone my opinion of it, and instead of taking the time to address that deficiency in your understanding, you double down on your own ignorance. 

 

You love to revel in your own stupidity more than a pig loves to roll in the mud. 

[3rdnlng]

2 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

It was a swing and a miss. By you. Your posts in this thread are an embarrassment to anyone with a fully functioning frontal lobe. You know nothing about this topic, let alone my opinion of it, and instead of taking the time to address that deficiency in your understanding, you double down on your own ignorance. 

 

You love to revel in your own stupidity more than a pig loves to roll in the mud. 

Hey, he's got a Stupidity Crown to defend. It's just practice. Practice. Practice man.

 

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=It's+just+practice&view=detail&mid=1B1993897A6F927312621B1993897A6F92731262&FORM=VIRE

Edited July 19, 2018 by 3rdnlng

[Deranged Rhino]

https://www.technocracy.news/win-landmark-seventh-circuit-decision-says-fourth-amendment-applies-to-smart-meter-data/

[Tiberius]

On 7/19/2018 at 1:52 PM, Deranged Rhino said:

This is what happens when you refuse to engage honestly in a thread for months and months. You think you understand the topic being discussed, and the opinions expressed therein - but you don't. And you prove you don't with posts like the above. 

 

Start on page one, Tibs. And read. You're making yourself look even more dim than usual. 

You support Kanevaugh, though, right? You did all this sanctimonious blathering and crying and then cheered about a person who supports exactly the opposite of what you basically claimed was the end of freedom. You are a joke. Go deep State yourself 

[Deranged Rhino]

Proving yet again that you're a functioning illiterate with a propensity for fiction. 

[Tiberius]

Is that a yes or no then on  Kavanugh? 

https://reason.com/archives/2018/07/18/brett-kavanaughs-fourth-amendment-blind

In 2015, for instance, Kavanaugh called the National Security Agency's mass collection of Americans' telephone records "entirely consistent with the Fourth Amendment." According to the logic of a 1979 decision in which the Supreme Court approved warrantless police access to the phone numbers dialed by a robbery suspect, he said, the NSA's snooping did not amount to a search. Even if it did, he added, it "readily qualifies as reasonable" because it "serves a critically important special need—preventing terrorist attacks on the United States."

[Tommy Callahan]

53 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Is that a yes or no then on  Kavanugh? 

https://reason.com/archives/2018/07/18/brett-kavanaughs-fourth-amendment-blind

In 2015, for instance, Kavanaugh called the National Security Agency's mass collection of Americans' telephone records "entirely consistent with the Fourth Amendment." According to the logic of a 1979 decision in which the Supreme Court approved warrantless police access to the phone numbers dialed by a robbery suspect, he said, the NSA's snooping did not amount to a search. Even if it did, he added, it "readily qualifies as reasonable" because it "serves a critically important special need—preventing terrorist attacks on the United States."

 

 

The only thing surmised from reading all your comments, is you are very good at logical fallacies. 

 

I think you have used every one on the list.  (for the  record,  logical fallacies are also called propaganda techniques)

 

 

 

http://utminers.utep.edu/omwilliamson/ENGL1311/fallacies.htm

 

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/nolongerquivering/2015/04/spotting-logical-fallacies-and-propaganda-techniques/

[Tiberius]

On 3/14/2015 at 8:00 PM, Deranged Rhino said:

 

You realize that the amount of surveillance we're talking about goes well beyond phone calls, right? Just through collecting your meta-data, something they've been continuously doing since the early 2000, they are quite literally able to watch your every move. The level of invasion goes well beyond tracking an email or listening to your phone calls and is not being directed only at terror suspects, foreign nations (including allies), and corporations that threaten American interests -- but also every single American citizen. It's goes against the very ideals this country was founded upon.

Brett Kavenaugh disagrees with you, so calm down and cheer him on!! Have you changed your views? 

[Deranged Rhino]

Tibs. Proving his reading comprehension is beyond repair. 

 

[Tiberius]

Reading comprehension!  Ha ha, you are such a phony. 

 

I love this, you were pulling your short hairs out about how terrible this all was, but now, We Love Brett Kavenaugh! We always have loved him! 

[Deranged Rhino]

All this time, and you still don't know what the Trump/Russia story's really about.

 

Sad. 

On 3/15/2015 at 2:57 PM, Deranged Rhino said:

 

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.