http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/04/i...ner=GOOGLE&pagewanted=print&position=
Of course, a loss of privacy rights for the terrorists and us.
Of course, a loss of privacy rights for the terrorists and us.
A Victory for international cooperation and war on terror
- Thread starter DemoCoder
- Start date
Re: A Victory for international cooperation and war on terro
just my 2 cents
later,
epic
Im not slamming you DC. But I hate the argument of loss of privacy. Lets assume they were listening to everycall from the cell phone you and I use. Would it have changed any call you made? Not any of the ones Ive made. And I doubt most people would really care either, as long as we live a bit safer lives.DemoCoder said:
just my 2 cents
later,
epic
Re: A Victory for international cooperation and war on terro
This statement is so wrong I don't know where to start. Go read the US constitution and the Declaration of Independence. It's not just a loss of privacy it's a loss of autonomy and sovreignty of the individual to the government.
The ends don't justify the means my friend. This simple truism has been ignored. Along with 2 wrongs don't make a right. It's better in my opinion to fight the good fight and lose than to fight with no honor and win.
Secret jails are filled with secret people whom were arrested on secret charges imposed during a secret proceeding by a secret judge. The information was gathered using a secret method by secret police. All them secrets are ok but not a citizen making a secret call , Whcich secrets are more dangerous again ? ....
epicstruggle said:
This statement is so wrong I don't know where to start. Go read the US constitution and the Declaration of Independence. It's not just a loss of privacy it's a loss of autonomy and sovreignty of the individual to the government.
The ends don't justify the means my friend. This simple truism has been ignored. Along with 2 wrongs don't make a right. It's better in my opinion to fight the good fight and lose than to fight with no honor and win.
Secret jails are filled with secret people whom were arrested on secret charges imposed during a secret proceeding by a secret judge. The information was gathered using a secret method by secret police. All them secrets are ok but not a citizen making a secret call , Whcich secrets are more dangerous again ? ....
indio, I would normally agree with what your saying indio. However the people who are trying to kill us are not imaginary terrorists. They are real, and the threat is real. I gladly sacrifice some privacy so that we can live a safer life. Unconditional freedom and privacy isnt all its cracked up to be when your dead from a terrorist bomb.
later,
epic
later,
epic
K.I.L.E.R said:
I hope your kidding.later,
epic
The founding fathers lived during a time where the power of a nuclear bomb(chemical/biolagical warfare et al) was inconcivable(sp?). Im sure they would have thought things differently had they lived through 9/11.MPI said:
BTW you talking on your cell phone is not an "essential liberty".
later,
epic
Joe DeFuria
Legend
MfA said:
That was my take on it...I mean, the real "eavsdropping" looks to have occured once they had actual numbers to work with...
MPI said:
This isn't directed at any one person, but I'm perpetually amazed at how the more radical right wingers profess to love the Founding Fathers and yet are so totally ignorant of their viewpoints on these essential issues.
Joe DeFuria said:
Exactly, can someone explain to me how this is "a loss of privacy rights for the terrorists and us" with the emphasis on the us part?
Also, why don't I hear all you people who pretend to be soo concerned with the loss of liberties and privacy rights and preserving the Constitution ripping apart the FBI for their investigations into the 'Mafia' since the 1980s. Which, frankly, are just as bad if not worse than anything I've yet to hear concerning Teorrist based loss of privacy.
I'll even answer that for you - because you don't give a shit, thats why. You only care when it's a 'Politically-Correct' issue which is politically charged and you can run around and recite your favorite political parties talking-points.
K.I.L.E.R, you need help.
The gist of the article was merely to inform the public as to a nice victory in the war on terror. It simply detailed one particular investigation. It said nothing about the privacy implications, I added that as a troll comment. Perhaps you need to re-read the article.
Do all news articles have to have a "point" to make?
As for the privacy implications, I have said in the past that privacy and freedom are orthogonal concepts. It is possible for a society to be 100% transparent, with no privacy whatsoever, where everyone's behavior is available to everyone else for review and critique, yet, such a society could still remain essentially democratic and free. One of the defining qualities of western democracies is transparency: being able to see what goes on in government and in public markets. The flow of information is very important to the proper function of democracy, otherwise, people's decisions have no basis in reality.
Alas, anonymity is a useful tool in today's world due to government abuse and discrimination, but fundamentally, being able to communicate in private would not be needed if you did not fear the government or other thieves using the information to harm you.
There is however, an end to government snooping. Modern cryptography is unbreakable and once phones become powerful enough to run VoIP applications, the only thing left to the government will be traffic analysis.
Do all news articles have to have a "point" to make?
As for the privacy implications, I have said in the past that privacy and freedom are orthogonal concepts. It is possible for a society to be 100% transparent, with no privacy whatsoever, where everyone's behavior is available to everyone else for review and critique, yet, such a society could still remain essentially democratic and free. One of the defining qualities of western democracies is transparency: being able to see what goes on in government and in public markets. The flow of information is very important to the proper function of democracy, otherwise, people's decisions have no basis in reality.
Alas, anonymity is a useful tool in today's world due to government abuse and discrimination, but fundamentally, being able to communicate in private would not be needed if you did not fear the government or other thieves using the information to harm you.
There is however, an end to government snooping. Modern cryptography is unbreakable and once phones become powerful enough to run VoIP applications, the only thing left to the government will be traffic analysis.
Views held 200+ years ago cannot naively be held so steadfastly today. The constitution is a living document, it changes with times. THAT was something the founding fathers planned for.John Reynolds said:
Please remember that the FFs viewed minorities and women as second (and third) class citizens. Do you agree with them?? There are many issues that we have grown up on.
later,
epic
What the hell does the govermnent want with you. Unless your a suspected terrorist, your never going to come under the microscope.Sazar said:
later,
epic
