I'm thinking about voting for Bush- talk me out of it

[Velociryx]

Well said.

It makes everybody a suspect, and if you balk at the intrusion, then "obviously you've got something to hide" or what would it matter?

That's chilling.



-=Vel=-

[Imran Siddiqui]

A great way to address this concern without making privacy an involate sacred right would be to bar the government from publicizing information it gathers in it's law enforcement activities. We could even bar it from using any such information to prosecute any victimless crime rather than barring it from gathering information on people.

You are dreaming. Let them get all the information they want, but wave our fingers and say they can't use it? Yeah, that will happen. The CIA, FBI, and state law enforcement already violate the laws of privacy... you want to give them more stuff to play with? No thank you. I don't trust the government that much.

Because an unorderly interference in democracy disenfranchises people. You don't regard disenfranchisment as undesireable?

Not always. The SCOTUS disenfranchises people by every decision it makes. It closes the democratic process each time. Order or unorderly, sometimes it can be for good.

why if the government found out what religion he was practicing it would suddenly interfere in his expression of his viewpoints.

You mean like how Muslims are harassed these days simply by being Muslim? You don't think their freedom of religion is being interfered with.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Horse, Vel .

Well put guys!

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Velociryx
A hypothetical question for Geronimo:

What would your reaction be to the government proposing the following, "in the name of catching badguys" of course:

Everybody goes to the dentist, right? I mean, sooner or later?

So...let's get in league with the dentists and have them install a small tracking device in every person's mouth. With an on-board power supply, and a protective coating, figure they'd last 5-7 years (and by that time, you'd have returned to the dentist). Five minutes to tie said chip to your SSN.

Install proximity detectors (only a couple bucks each at the local radio shack, and bought in bulk for way less than that) in streetlamps on every corner.

Now, we can track you block to block from....well, most anywhere, really.

Add to that a new national ID card. One with a magnetic stripe. Easy to tie it in with your bank card. Technology exists right now to do that. This one card has all your info on it, AND it comes with the added bonus that the government can track your spending habits (more and more, a cashless economy, you see). So if you go buy anything of a "questionable" nature, we'll know.

And who defines "questionable"?

Why....the John Ashcrofts of our government, of course.

You trust his judgement, don't you?

Now I grant you, the Patriot Acts don't advocate anything of the sort mentioned above.

On the other hand, it's a really short walk from there to the place mentioned above....

Very short walk indeed.

-=Vel=-

Well, I should warn you that as is seen in some other threads I am very biased against unsolicited tampering with other peoples bodies so naturally I recoil from the situation you describe. Suppose I might accept the ability to track the ID card but I'd be worried about abuse from the private sector. The government may not have cause to know where I am at all times but many private citizens sure would. This leads to another concern I have which is that it seems the private sector already has the freedom to monitor my spending habits and so long as that is the case I don't know how much good it really does me to bar the government from using the same information that the private sector unblushingly sees fit to use every day

I think government survellience needs to be layered. The top layer would be passive intelligence gathering which would be totally and completely unregulated. The next would be slightly intrusive intelligence gathering like wire taps or tracking devices. These should be unregulated for a period not exceeding a couple weeks at the end of which the government would require a judge to issue a warrant of some kind to continue. The issuing of the warrant should be allowed to remian secret for something like a year so that it isn't always immediately obvious to the observed that the government is watching. The bar for the issuing of that sort of limited warrant should fall far short of compelling evidence of guilt of a crime but still need to at least describe why it is unusually likely in that case that the potential suspect might be expected to engage in criminal activity involving violence to others. For the most invasive searches such as rifling through somebodys residence I would require a full traditional warrant with the usual high criteria required to issue it.

i think such a system would make very little sacrifice to security at the gain of a great deal of privacy over a totally unregulated system.

[Whoha]

Re: I'm thinking about voting for Bush- talk me out of it

Originally posted by Dissident
they were making fun of undecided voters today on Bill Maher. But I guess I'm one of them.

I'll be honest. I hate voting for democrats (girlie men). And I don't like Bush. I can't in good concience vote for Badnarik, because honestly he's not qualified to be president. So what does that leave?

Yes I know I've said I would vote for Bush in the past. Then this prison abuse scandal happened which changed my mind. But I'm kind of leaning towards Bush again. I guess you could call me a flip-flopper . In that case I should be voting for Kerry.

I usually take the stand that both candidates are equally bad. You end up getting screwed either way- they just use different methods of screwing you. With democrats you are screwed by high taxes and inefficient goverment. With republicans they support big business which screws the rest of america.

Well you could listen to everyone that calls Bush a protectionist.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
what is happening in the USA today is just plain scary

there is support for it because people believe its directed at someone else, "bad people", and they think "it can't happen to me"

people fail to grasp that their liberties are directly linked to "what happens to someone else"

Horse i need a bit more clarification on the nature of the different stances on privacy in the US and the UK. In the UK people in these forums and in a few news articles have said there are a great deal more video cameras in public places than in the US. Do you think it's fair to asume that in the UK, privacy of ones private residence is valued more than in the US while in the US people seem to care more about 'privacy' in public places? If so I would have to agree that the UK stance makes more sense than what is found here.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Well said.

It makes everybody a suspect, and if you balk at the intrusion, then "obviously you've got something to hide" or what would it matter?

That's chilling.



-=Vel=-

I don't think it needs to be given the resources to treat everybody as a suspect. That is to say i don't think it should be allowed to watch everybody all of the time or even certain people indefinately without evidence of some kind having to be provided at some point to continue observations of those particular individuals.

[Q Classic]

Why in the hell are people so sensitive about the government eavesdropping on them? Are they all that bashful? How much time do you think the government will want to waste eavesdropping on you before it realizes it's wasting it's time and that you're probably not a terrorist? I can hardly believe that any innocent person could believe that it's more important to never encounter eavesdropping than it is to never encounter terrorists.

Just because I have nothing to hide doesn't mean that I shouldn't be worried about the loss of privacy.
Besides, the Patriot Act is supposed to fight terrorism.
Which, of course, is why it's being used against Canadian marijuana smugglers.
Or those who are trying to spread the fandom of a particular show far and wide.
Then there's section 215. If you don't want to go to that link, it's all about the ability of the government to now obtain any records on you without your knowledge or consent, provided that it's "against terrorism". That means: credit reports, library records, video rentals, phone bills, church registrations, HIPAA material...

What the ****ing hell is everybody trying to hide gawdamnit? Why is privacy >>>>>>>> security? Damn I'm sick of this.

Damn, I'm ****ing sick of people who would gladly trade in their liberties for their security.

======

The perfectly secure computer system, one that is free of all viruses and spyware, is the one that is isolated. No network connections, and few sources of information brought from the outside. Isolating it makes it safe, but it also makes it out of date. A computer using DR-DOS 5 will not suffer from the Sasser worm, nor will it have GAIN/Claria software.

The perfectly updated computer system, one integrated with the network, will be constantly beseiged by external threats. However, with the liberty it receives with respect to informational access, it is also that much more advanced, better, and more powerful. It is also that much more at risk.

Personally, I like the internet. I like liberty. Those of you who want security, well, you can go back to Windows 3.1.

And hey--the world's most secure states are also the world's most authoritarian. NKorea hasn't had a terrorist attack on it since its inception.

======

What it boils down to is this: Privacy is one of the Liberties we're trying to protect. Those that would seek to control your access to information, those that would seek to create a Fundamentalist state, they are the ones who would love to view into your private life the most. We do nothing to strengthen our freedoms and our rights by having ill-conceived, poorly-implemented systems like the Patriot Act.

Liberty entails that you lose a bit of Security.

Philosophically, I tend to agree with our Founding Fathers: Give me Liberty or Give me Death.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

A great way to address this concern without making privacy an involate sacred right would be to bar the government from publicizing information it gathers in it's law enforcement activities. We could even bar it from using any such information to prosecute any victimless crime rather than barring it from gathering information on people.

You are dreaming. Let them get all the information they want, but wave our fingers and say they can't use it? Yeah, that will happen. The CIA, FBI, and state law enforcement already violate the laws of privacy... you want to give them more stuff to play with? No thank you. I don't trust the government that much.

Is it finger waving which will prevent the eventual use of WMD in a terract? Will finger waving prevent the government from taking advantage of such a tragedy to constrain our actions? It is just too easy to get away with terracts as it is and the tools to enable truly spectacular ones will only become easier to obtain over time.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Q Cubed

Why in the hell are people so sensitive about the government eavesdropping on them? Are they all that bashful? How much time do you think the government will want to waste eavesdropping on you before it realizes it's wasting it's time and that you're probably not a terrorist? I can hardly believe that any innocent person could believe that it's more important to never encounter eavesdropping than it is to never encounter terrorists.

Just because I have nothing to hide doesn't mean that I shouldn't be worried about the loss of privacy.
Besides, the Patriot Act is supposed to fight terrorism.
Which, of course, is why it's being used against Canadian marijuana smugglers.
Or those who are trying to spread the fandom of a particular show far and wide.
Then there's section 215. If you don't want to go to that link, it's all about the ability of the government to now obtain any records on you without your knowledge or consent, provided that it's "against terrorism". That means: credit reports, library records, video rentals, phone bills, church registrations, HIPAA material...

What the ****ing hell is everybody trying to hide gawdamnit? Why is privacy >>>>>>>> security? Damn I'm sick of this.

Damn, I'm ****ing sick of people who would gladly trade in their liberties for their security.

======

The perfectly secure computer system, one that is free of all viruses and spyware, is the one that is isolated. No network connections, and few sources of information brought from the outside. Isolating it makes it safe, but it also makes it out of date. A computer using DR-DOS 5 will not suffer from the Sasser worm, nor will it have GAIN/Claria software.

The perfectly updated computer system, one integrated with the network, will be constantly beseiged by external threats. However, with the liberty it receives with respect to informational access, it is also that much more advanced, better, and more powerful. It is also that much more at risk.

Personally, I like the internet. I like liberty. Those of you who want security, well, you can go back to Windows 3.1.

And hey--the world's most secure states are also the world's most authoritarian. NKorea hasn't had a terrorist attack on it since its inception.

======

What it boils down to is this: Privacy is one of the Liberties we're trying to protect. Those that would seek to control your access to information, those that would seek to create a Fundamentalist state, they are the ones who would love to view into your private life the most. We do nothing to strengthen our freedoms and our rights by having ill-conceived, poorly-implemented systems like the Patriot Act.

Liberty entails that you lose a bit of Security.

Philosophically, I tend to agree with our Founding Fathers: Give me Liberty or Give me Death.

I accept no government contraints on my actions apart from my actions that do violence to others. I'm not satisfied to simply get away with doing what I want rather I reject any law the government passes which constrains those actions of myself or others which do no violence to anyone. I'd rather die than have my life run by a police state and would die fighting one that attempted to run my life. Yet I don't wish to hide or hide my life from everyone. Does this mean I do not love liberty? Is a life that is 'free' only because it is lived in hiding truly free at all?

[Velociryx]

Geronimo....I used the chip-installation example for that very reason.

I guess my question is....what's the difference?

If you're okay with allowing the government unfettered access to spy on anyone, then why not make it even easier, by installing something in our bodies? Just another small nibble into the realm of privacy, yes? (after all, what could be more private than ourselves?)

The problem is that once we start down that path, the line will keep getting pushed back.

Best not to start down the path at all.

-=Vel=-

[The Emperor Fabulous]

Well-spoken, Vel

[Q Classic]

As far as the privacy vs. security goes...

There's always that question:

Who watches the watchers?

[The Emperor Fabulous]

The Watchests

[Imran Siddiqui]

Is it finger waving which will prevent the eventual use of WMD in a terract?

Avoiding the question? Do you actually think the government will be prevented from abusing the info given to them by us saying don't do that.