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

[Imran Siddiqui]

How in the hell is it bad for the government to have improved surveillance capabilities.

When it violates mine (and everyone else's) right to privacy. Having the government treating everyone guilty before being proven innocent is a BAD thing and is against what American is supposed to be about.

Or did you think Orwell's "1984" was a good idea for a state?

what does this make civil rights into if not an arbitrary wish list that has nothing whatsoever to do with basic human rights?

While I do not agree that it is in the Constitution under substantive due process (which I don't think exists, but that's not for this thread), read Griswold v. Connecticut for a discussion on how privacy has been an important American value.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

vote lp. the ONLY party of principle - at least you know what you're getting.

https://www.lp.org

https://www.badnarik.org

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

I'm going to assume thats a troll and won't respond

Me too.. no one can be that dumb or Fascist (these days) can they? Saying we should give up our privacy rights so we can catch some terrorists, what does he think this is, Communist China?

Oh I see, what makes communist china bad is that people spy on you. It has nothing to do with restrictions on peoples freedoms? You can't believe I could be that fascist? You know there are countires that do not guarentee freedom of speech? The UK is one. Can you believe they can be that fascist? If so then why can't you believe that I would be so 'fascist' as to demand freedom of speech but not care if people are at liberty to observe my behavior?

I do however demand to know how my stance is 'dumb' moreover so 'dumb' that you cannot believe I hold this view. That is a remakably strong claim. Tell me what terrible outcome would arise from lack of guarentees of my privacy? In fact suppose I could magically make the government instantly know every last thing about me that I myself know. That wouldn't allow them to arrest me, it wouldn't allow them to do anything. it wouldn't make any difference. But I imagine you would say " but it will give the governement so much power! knowledge is power!" the government already has all the power it needs to **** any of us over just through knowing our ss# alone. they could totally destroy anybodys life with the information they have now. what difference will the new information make?

There are plenty of people who believe that it is perfectly acceptable for the government to ban ownership of say assault weapons. this obviously grossly decreases our power and increases that of the government and yet somehow people who support such governement regulation of weapons aren't fascists while those who don't care if the government can keep itself better informed are.

Imran every time a serious crime occurs the government decides it has to catch that perp. Every time it starts from scratch xzeros in on the person who seems most likely to be guilty after the fact and then sets out to convince a jury that this person did the deed. You sure as hell put a lot more innocent people away that way than you would by letting it pre-emptively investigate suspicious leads. After the crime is commited it will often be too late to exonerate the person whom it cast it's suspicions on before the crime occured.

[Drake Tungsten]

at least you know what you're getting.

Yeah, a tax-evader.

[Imran Siddiqui]

what makes communist china bad is that people spy on you. It has nothing to do with restrictions on peoples freedoms?

Spying on people is the mark of a totalitarian state. In fact it is required for one. And restricting the right to privacy is of course a restriction on people's freedoms. The government does not have a right to step in and see everything that happens in my life. The countries that demand that knowledge are not considered 'free' countries. No right to privacy leads to or is a consequence of elimination of other liberties. A government which knows everything about you can more easily restrict your free movement or action, such as restricting or publicizing to others those things which it considers morally reprehensible (such as, for example, pornography) by various means. Can you imagine a debate in Congress on allowing people to keep freedoms when the opposition can publicize the list of people engaging in that act which may be embarassing? Not everyone wants to be known as looking at pornography and may keep silent about their right to view it if they will be 'outed' by the all-powerful government.

Like I said, do you have any objections to Orwell's "1984"? A government with that much power cannot be trusted.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

How in the hell is it bad for the government to have improved surveillance capabilities.

When it violates mine (and everyone else's) right to privacy. Having the government treating everyone guilty before being proven innocent is a BAD thing and is against what American is supposed to be about.

Or did you think Orwell's "1984" was a good idea for a state?

First of all thank you for continuing to discuss this.

Next it doesn't follow whatsoever that because I couldn't give a damn about privacy that I must find the dystopia in Orwell's "1984" even remotely acceptable. It's as absurd as someone saying that someone who opposes a government mandated tax payer financed socialist health care system would love to live in the world of Mad Max. I've already said that I value personal freedom most of all so what part of Orwell's 1984 do you whink would be consistant with that?

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

what does this make civil rights into if not an arbitrary wish list that has nothing whatsoever to do with basic human rights?

While I do not agree that it is in the Constitution under substantive due process (which I don't think exists, but that's not for this thread), read Griswold v. Connecticut for a discussion on how privacy has been an important American value.

There are plenty of important American values. I just want to know why privacy necessarily trumps security? If I read this will explain that?

thanks again for addressing my post, I've brought this topic up in other threads and other forums and it is fiendishly difficult to get people to actually discuss it.

[Blake]

Vote Bush to help bring about communist revolution!!!

See, things have to get really bad to bring on a revolution, and Bush is just the man for that job!

[Imran Siddiqui]

I've already said that I value personal freedom most of all

No you don't. You are against the right to privacy, which may be just as important as any other right you have.

I just want to know why privacy necessarily trumps security?

Because freedom against government action is a very important virtue in American political theory. Yes, Griswold may help you to understand that. Also reading what the founders had to say on it may also help you understand (such as Franklin's famous quote about liberty and security).

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

what makes communist china bad is that people spy on you. It has nothing to do with restrictions on peoples freedoms?

Spying on people is the mark of a totalitarian state. In fact it is required for one. And restricting the right to privacy is of course a restriction on people's freedoms. The government does not have a right to step in and see everything that happens in my life. The countries that demand that knowledge are not considered 'free' countries. No right to privacy leads to or is a consequence of elimination of other liberties. A government which knows everything about you can more easily restrict your free movement or action, such as restricting or publicizing to others those things which it considers morally reprehensible (such as, for example, pornography) by various means. Can you imagine a debate in Congress on allowing people to keep freedoms when the opposition can publicize the list of people engaging in that act which may be embarassing? Not everyone wants to be known as looking at pornography and may keep silent about their right to view it if they will be 'outed' by the all-powerful government.

Like I said, do you have any objections to Orwell's "1984"? A government with that much power cannot be trusted.

It appears that we both value the ends that privacy is meant to serve as a means to achieving. I grossly differ in the choice of these means however. I despise censorship and legislation of 'morality' which does not involve any victim. However, rather than making it hard for the government to know where I am (so it won't restrict my movement) or to know what I see (so it can prevent me from seeing any 'naughty' things) or any other way trying to 'hide' myself from the government I simply demand that we not acknowledge any government authority to control these things. Demanding privacy as a means to protect our freedom is putting the cart before the horse because it implicitly suggests that the government has the power to control these things if it can find us doing them. Simply make it illegal for the government to publish information it gathers and criminally punish or impeach those who do so. If there are leaks, make them impeachable offenses.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

I've already said that I value personal freedom most of all

No you don't. You are against the right to privacy, which may be just as important as any other right you have.

I just want to know why privacy necessarily trumps security?

Because freedom against government action is a very important virtue in American political theory. Yes, Griswold may help you to understand that. Also reading what the founders had to say on it may also help you understand (such as Franklin's famous quote about liberty and security).

ut oh, there is the problem. I love Franklins quote and if he hadn't said it it would be my own quote "those who would trade liberty for security deserve neither". The problem is that you equate by definition liberty with privacy. That is the same as saying that if the government finds out about something I do then it has every right to control my behavior which is bull****. Suppose I publicly say that I watched a triple X porn film. Does this now mean that the government has a right to punish me? bull ****. What the government has a right to do has nothing to do with what the government learns or knows. Let the government do it's thing and let me do mine. That is liberty.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Demanding privacy as a means to protect our freedom is putting the cart before the horse because it implicitly suggests that the government has the power to control these things if it can find us doing them.

If they have the power to take away our privacy, then they already have to power to punish us for doing things that the current government considers immoral, whatever that may be.

I simply demand that we not acknowledge any government authority to control these things.

Good luck. By taking your privacy, the government has already told you it has the power to do anything it wants with the information it takes.

Simply make it illegal for the government to publish information it gathers and criminally punish or impeach those who do so. If there are leaks, make them impeachable offenses.

That won't work either. It is illegal for the government to violate our right to privacy. That's why the cops need a warrent before sneaking into our houses. They can't bust just to see what you've done wrong. That is the mark of a police state and the founders recognized it. Yet, its been abused time and time again. Yep, they've been punished, but it continues to happen.

That cite I gave you indicates the number of 'unconstitutional' provisions in the PATRIOT Act, because the SCOTUS has declared the right to privacy to be a Constitutional right. You can see that it doesn't deter the current legislature and executive. Hopefully the judiciary puts it foot down.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The problem is that you equate by definition liberty with privacy

Privacy is an important liberty. As important as our liberty to free speech. When the government knows everything about us, it can use that information for nefarious ends. Look at the abuses done by the Nixon Administration.

By keeping information OUT of the hands of government, there is less oppertunity for abuses.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Demanding privacy as a means to protect our freedom is putting the cart before the horse because it implicitly suggests that the government has the power to control these things if it can find us doing them.

If they have the power to take away our privacy, then they already have to power to punish us for doing things that the current government considers immoral, whatever that may be.

I simply demand that we not acknowledge any government authority to control these things.

Good luck. By taking your privacy, the government has already told you it has the power to do anything it wants with the information it takes.

Simply make it illegal for the government to publish information it gathers and criminally punish or impeach those who do so. If there are leaks, make them impeachable offenses.

That won't work either. It is illegal for the government to violate our right to privacy. That's why the cops need a warrent before sneaking into our houses. They can't bust just to see what you've done wrong. That is the mark of a police state and the founders recognized it.

That cite I gave you indicates the number of 'unconstitutional' provisions in the PATRIOT Act, because the SCOTUS has declared the right to privacy to be a Constitutional right. You can see that it doesn't deter the current legislature and executive. Hopefully the judiciary puts it foot down.

In a way so much of this response reads like double talk (if that's the right phrase). Listen, you are basically declaring "When you state the government can learn anything it likes then you are stating that the government may tell you what you can and can not do". bologna! That makes no sense! It would be like declaring that if I answer how many kids I have on the census form then I am declaring that the government has a right to determine how many children I may have. It just doesn't follow! If I can volunteer as much infomation about my behavior as I want without automatically declaring that the audience has a right to control my behavior then it also follows that if I accept for others to have access to that infomation then I am likewise not automatically declaring that they may control my behavior.

As to SCOTUS decisions concerning privacy, well, SCOTUS giveth SCOTUS taketh away. The constitution does not provide such a massive blanket protection of privacy so like so many other decisions that SCOTUS has seen fit to pull out of it's arse historically I would be happy to see it go the way of Dred Scott and any other other white elephants they have seen fit to tack onto our constitution.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

The problem is that you equate by definition liberty with privacy

Privacy is an important liberty. As important as our liberty to free speech. When the government knows everything about us, it can use that information for nefarious ends. Look at the abuses done by the Nixon Administration.

By keeping information OUT of the hands of government, there is less oppertunity for abuses.

could not the government make use of census information to abuse its power? Why not follow privacy to it's logical conclusion and forbid the governement to keep any records of any kind about anybody? Since you evidently do not support this are you not advocating that we should live in orwells "1984" dystopia? If that trollsome question angers you perhaps you can understand why I don't like people equating my stance on how much information the government can obtain to advocacy of a police state.

[DinoDoc]

You flip flop more than Kerry. Why should anyone bother convincing you of anything?