Don't click or your IP will be banned


Hittin' The Web with the Allman Brothers Band Forum
You are not logged in

< Last Thread   Next Thread ><<  1    2    3  >>Ascending sortDescending sorting  
Author: Subject: At Least The Germans Have Backbone

Maximum Peach





Posts: 8388
(8389 all sites)
Registered: 3/22/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 7/1/2013 at 12:20 PM
It's appalling to see so many Americans take a casual view of the NSA scandal and all the various infringements upon personal information and liberty that have been piled on us since the Patriot Act.

Common responses like "I'm fine with it, if it will make us safer" or "nothing to be afraid of, if you're doing nothing wrong" are sad signs of individuals with no care for, much less understanding of, the importance of protecting individual liberty against a gov't that will relentlessly expand and abuse it's powers if unopposed.

With fresher examples in their minds of govt's assault on personal liberty, it looks like the Germans have the right idea...


quote:
Germans Loved Obama. Now We Don’t Trust Him.

BERLIN — IN May 2010, I received a brown envelope. In it was a CD with an encrypted file containing six months of my life. Six months of metadata, stored by my cellphone provider, T-Mobile. This list of metadata contained 35,830 records. That’s 35,830 times my phone company knew if, where and when I was surfing the Web, calling or texting.

The truth is that phone companies have this data on every customer. I got mine because, in 2009, I filed a suit against T-Mobile for the release of all the data on me that had been gathered and stored. The reason this information had been preserved for six months was because of Germany’s implementation of a 2006 European Union directive.

All of this data had to be kept so that law enforcement agencies could gain access to it. That meant that the metadata of 80 million Germans was being stored, without any concrete suspicions and without cause.

This “preventive measure” was met with huge opposition in Germany. Lawyers, journalists, doctors, unions and civil liberties activists started to protest. In 2008, almost 35,000 people signed on to a constitutional challenge to the law. In Berlin, tens of thousands of people took to the streets to protest data retention. In the end, the Constitutional Court ruled that the implementation of the European Union directive was, in fact, unconstitutional.

In Germany, whenever the government begins to infringe on individual freedom, society stands up. Given our history, we Germans are not willing to trade in our liberty for potentially better security. Germans have experienced firsthand what happens when the government knows too much about someone. In the past 80 years, Germans have felt the betrayal of neighbors who informed for the Gestapo and the fear that best friends might be potential informants for the Stasi. Homes were tapped. Millions were monitored.

Although these two dictatorships, Nazi and Communist, are gone and we now live in a unified and stable democracy, we have not forgotten what happens when secret police or intelligence agencies disregard privacy. It is an integral part of our history and gives young and old alike a critical perspective on state surveillance systems.

When Wolfgang Schäuble, the interior minister from 2005 to 2009, pushed for the implementation of the data-retention law, Germans remembered the Stasi’s blatant disregard for privacy, as portrayed in the 2006 film “The Lives of Others.” They recalled their visits to the Hohenschönhausen district of Berlin, the site of the former Stasi detention center.

They were reminded of the stories of their grandparents, about the fear-mongering agents in the Gestapo. This is why Mr. Schäuble’s portrait was often tagged provocatively with the phrase “Stasi 2.0.”

Lots of young Germans have a commitment not only to fight against fascism but also to stand up for their own individual freedom. Germans of all ages want to live freely without having to worry about being monitored by private companies or the government, especially in the digital sphere.

That was my motivation for publishing the metadata I received from T-Mobile. Together with Zeit Online, the online edition of the weekly German newspaper Die Zeit, I published an infographic of six months of my life for all to see. With these 35,830 pieces of data, you can follow my travels across Germany, you can see when I went to sleep and woke up, a trail further enriched with public information from my social networking sites: six months of my life viewable for everybody to see what exactly is possible with “just metadata.”

Three weeks ago, when the news broke about the National Security Agency’s collection of metadata in the United States, I knew exactly what it meant. My records revealed the movements of a single individual; now imagine if you had access to millions of similar data sets. You could easily draw maps, tracing communication and movement. You could see which individuals, families or groups were communicating with one another. You could identify any social group and determine its major actors.

All of this is possible without knowing the specific content of a conversation, just technical information — the sender and recipient, the time and duration of the call and the geolocation data.

With Edward J. Snowden’s important revelations fresh in our minds, Germans were eager to hear President Obama’s recent speech in Berlin. But the Barack Obama who spoke in front of the Brandenburg Gate to a few thousand people on June 19 looked a lot different from the one who spoke in front of the Siegessäule in July 2008 in front of more than 200,000 people, who had gathered in the heart of Berlin to listen to Mr. Obama, then running for president. His political agenda as a candidate was a breath of fresh air compared with that of George W. Bush. Mr. Obama aimed to close the Guantánamo Bay detention camp, end mass surveillance in the so-called war on terror and defend individual freedom.

But the senator who promised to shut Guantánamo is now a second-term president who is still fighting for its closure. And the events of the past few weeks concerning the collection of metadata and private e-mail and social-media content have made many Germans further question Mr. Obama’s proclaimed commitment to the individual freedoms we hold dear.

DURING Mr. Obama’s presidency, no American political debate has received as much attention in Germany as the N.S.A. Prism program. People are beginning to second-guess the belief that digital communication stays private. It changes both our perception of communication and our trust in Mr. Obama.

Even as a Green Party politician, I wasn’t impressed with Mr. Obama’s focus on fighting global warming. While his renewed enthusiasm is appreciated, it served as a distraction from the criticism he is currently facing for allowing invasive state surveillance. He cannot simply change the subject.

His speech caused many Germans to question whether Americans actually share our understanding of the right balance between liberty and security. In the past, we celebrated the fact that both countries valued this balance, and there was huge solidarity with America after 9/11.

But the policy decisions of the Bush administration after the attacks — from waterboarding to Guantánamo — appalled Germans. We were shocked to see this mutual understanding disappear. Now we are not sure where Mr. Obama stands.

When courts and judges negotiate secretly, when direct data transfers occur without limits, when huge data storage rather than targeted pursuit of individuals becomes the norm, all sense of proportionality and accountability is lost.

While our respective security services still need to collaborate on both sides of the Atlantic to pursue and prevent organized crime and terrorism, it must be done in a way that strengthens civil liberties and does not reduce them. Although we would like to believe in the Mr. Obama we once knew, the trust and credibility he enjoyed in Germany have been undermined. The challenge we face is to once again find shared values, so that trust between our countries is restored.

Perhaps instead of including a quote from James Madison in his speech, arguing that “No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare,” Mr. Obama should have been reminded of the quote from another founding father, Benjamin Franklin, when he said, “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/30/opinion/sunday/germans-loved-obama-now-we -dont-trust-him.html?hp


 

____________________
Obamacare: To insure the uninsured, we first make the insured
uninsured and then make them pay more to be insured again,
so the original uninsured can be insured for free.

 
Replies:

Sublime Peach



Karma:
Posts: 7843
(7843 all sites)
Registered: 7/18/2010
Status: Offline

  posted on 7/1/2013 at 12:38 PM
quote:
Given our history, we Germans are not willing to trade in our liberty for potentially better security.


Unfortunately, maybe the only way for folks to wake up and take this stuff seriously is to experience first hand what it is like to have zero privacy rights. So, until the jack boots are kicking in your door because you texted someone with a dissenting opinion on govt policy, we'll just go on thinking it can't happen here.

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 27533
(27822 all sites)
Registered: 2/18/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 7/1/2013 at 01:02 PM
I'm seriously concerned over how the spying that's going on in this country is effecting our international relations.

 

____________________
Sometimes we can't choose the music life gives us - but we damn sure can choose how we dance!


 

World Class Peach



Karma:
Posts: 5032
(5027 all sites)
Registered: 12/27/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 7/1/2013 at 01:41 PM
Every nation does this. It's just the US that got caught because it had a traitor. I guarentee you Germany does this as well.
 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 8388
(8389 all sites)
Registered: 3/22/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 7/1/2013 at 01:46 PM
quote:
Every nation does this. It's just the US that got caught because it had a traitor. I guarentee you Germany does this as well.

I had exactly the same thought reading this.

However, now that it's outed and in the public arena for debate, I hope more Americans will demand changes in the various laws that have given untold powers to our gov't over the last decade or more.

 

____________________
Obamacare: To insure the uninsured, we first make the insured

uninsured and then make them pay more to be insured again,

so the original uninsured can be insured for free.

 

World Class Peach



Karma:
Posts: 5032
(5027 all sites)
Registered: 12/27/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 7/1/2013 at 01:50 PM
But then the US intelligence will be at a disadvantage. Every other country will be spying and collecting data except us.
 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 14590
(14590 all sites)
Registered: 3/28/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 7/1/2013 at 01:50 PM
Never heard a single Republican say boo about all this when it was started by Bush/Cheney with the Patriot Act. Republicans were all for it after 9-11 and they were the ones criticizing the Democrats for complaining about it. Now all of a sudden because Obama is in charge and even though it has thwarted over 50 terrorist attack attempts all of a sudden those on the right are opposed and outraged???????

Hypocrisy at it's best!

By the way, I am one of those Independents who don't really care about this and unless somebody has something to hide they shouldn't either. Or we could just end the whole program and make it easier for the terrorists to be successful with their plans against us.

 

____________________
Pete

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 46751
(46752 all sites)
Registered: 7/8/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 7/1/2013 at 02:04 PM
quote:
It's appalling to see so many Americans take a casual view of the NSA scandal and all the various infringements upon personal information and liberty that have been piled on us since the Patriot Act.

Common responses like "I'm fine with it, if it will make us safer" or "nothing to be afraid of, if you're doing nothing wrong" are sad signs of individuals with no care for, much less understanding of, the importance of protecting individual liberty against a gov't that will relentlessly expand and abuse it's powers if unopposed.



We never reconciled as a country just exactly what role the surveillance/security state has in a post-9/11 world. So, here we are.

The lastest NSA scandal isn't a standalone scandal, and if you want to call it a scandal, it's an ongoing one, about nine years old now.

quote:
However, now that it's outed and in the public arena for debate, I hope more Americans will demand changes in the various laws that have given untold powers to our gov't over the last decade or more.


It's always been in the public arena. Abuses of surveillance were self-reported by government agencies on several occasions. However, at the onset, supporting the Patriot Act was seen as, well, patriotic. The only thing different now is that there has been a large public swing towards anti-government sentiment.

quote:
BERLIN — IN May 2010, I received a brown envelope. In it was a CD with an encrypted file containing six months of my life. Six months of metadata, stored by my cellphone provider, T-Mobile. This list of metadata contained 35,830 records. That’s 35,830 times my phone company knew if, where and when I was surfing the Web, calling or texting.

The truth is that phone companies have this data on every customer. I got mine because, in 2009, I filed a suit against T-Mobile for the release of all the data on me that had been gathered and stored. The reason this information had been preserved for six months was because of Germany’s implementation of a 2006 European Union directive.


This is written as to be shocking? What is so shocking? We all used to get the phone bill every month in the mail with all the numbers we called along with call duration and the charge for it.

We want everything to be nice and easy, nothing messy. We want to be able to post details and pictures from our lives online but somehow keep some notion of privacy. We want to use our GPS as a map to help us get from place to place, but we don't want anyone to know where we are while using it.


 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 8388
(8389 all sites)
Registered: 3/22/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 7/1/2013 at 02:58 PM
quote:
By the way, I am one of those Independents who don't really care about this and unless somebody has something to hide they shouldn't either

This is fine, and understandable to a point. But it's normally based on static circumstances, ie; how you perceive this data could be used today.

The problem comes in how it might be used tomorrow.

Will future modifications of healthcare laws permit govt to take some action against you based on metadata of you calling the pizza place too often, or knowing you're going through the McD's drive-thru more than the allotted monthly times for your weight group? Silly as it sounds today, there is no end to the ways this data could rationalized and pretzel'd against you in the future.

There are serious 4th Amendment issues that need to be re-defined in light of these capabilities. I hope we're finally at a point where enough people push for that discussion.

 

____________________
Obamacare: To insure the uninsured, we first make the insured

uninsured and then make them pay more to be insured again,

so the original uninsured can be insured for free.

 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 8388
(8389 all sites)
Registered: 3/22/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 7/1/2013 at 03:05 PM
quote:
quote:
It's appalling to see so many Americans take a casual view of the NSA scandal and all the various infringements upon personal information and liberty that have been piled on us since the Patriot Act.

Common responses like "I'm fine with it, if it will make us safer" or "nothing to be afraid of, if you're doing nothing wrong" are sad signs of individuals with no care for, much less understanding of, the importance of protecting individual liberty against a gov't that will relentlessly expand and abuse it's powers if unopposed.

We never reconciled as a country just exactly what role the surveillance/security state has in a post-9/11 world. So, here we are.

The lastest NSA scandal isn't a standalone scandal, and if you want to call it a scandal, it's an ongoing one, about nine years old now.

Agreed Hawk. But like so much of what Washington passes in recent years, the public, the media, and even the politicians themselves don't understand everything that's in the bills, or the ramifications. Many times that takes years to sort out.

So if the recent revelations bring about a rise in public concern strong enough put these issues back on the table, then I for one am happy to see it.

 

____________________
Obamacare: To insure the uninsured, we first make the insured

uninsured and then make them pay more to be insured again,

so the original uninsured can be insured for free.

 

Sublime Peach



Karma:
Posts: 7168
(7166 all sites)
Registered: 4/7/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 7/2/2013 at 04:00 AM
People beg to be tagged and tracked. Sometimes you get what you deserve.

Get rid of your "smart" phone.
Pay with cash.
don't use "coupon" or "rewards" cards at grocery stores and gas stations.

You have a choice.

People are so willing to sell themselves out in order to get a deal or make what appears life easier on themselves. Americans are suckers for giving up their information.

 

____________________
"If everyone demanded peace instead of another television set, then there'd be peace."

- John Lennon

 

Universal Peach



Karma:
Posts: 6635
(6690 all sites)
Registered: 5/4/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 7/2/2013 at 07:57 AM
quote:
People beg to be tagged and tracked. Sometimes you get what you deserve.

Get rid of your "smart" phone.
Pay with cash.
don't use "coupon" or "rewards" cards at grocery stores and gas stations.

You have a choice.

People are so willing to sell themselves out in order to get a deal or make what appears life easier on themselves. Americans are suckers for giving up their information.


"You have a choice." Bingo.

 

____________________
"It's all about Allman Brothers pride." T Thompson Greek Theater, Los Angeles 5/6/2005

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 46751
(46752 all sites)
Registered: 7/8/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 7/2/2013 at 09:46 AM
That sounds all quaint and revolutionary. Fight the power!

However, there's that little thing called your Social Security Number. Long before the internet or smartphones, anyone with basic skip tracing ability could and can find out all kinds of things about anyone.

quote:
People are so willing to sell themselves out in order to get a deal or make what appears life easier on themselves. Americans are suckers for giving up their information.



Plenty of Americans are incredibly paranoid as well, so perhaps that strikes a balance.

 

Universal Peach



Karma:
Posts: 6495
(6494 all sites)
Registered: 8/11/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 7/2/2013 at 10:10 AM
quote:
That sounds all quaint and revolutionary. Fight the power!

However, there's that little thing called your Social Security Number. Long before the internet or smartphones, anyone with basic skip tracing ability could and can find out all kinds of things about anyone.

quote:
People are so willing to sell themselves out in order to get a deal or make what appears life easier on themselves. Americans are suckers for giving up their information.



Plenty of Americans are incredibly paranoid as well, so perhaps that strikes a balance.


All true. However, for me it's not necessarily any one program that has made me question our massive security state, but more to do with its ever increasing size, reach, and cost. From drones now being utilized by federal, state, and local law enforcement to literally track citizens and survey their private property to the massive FBI program that is utilizing face recognition and gate recognition software that is creating and storing profiles of any citizen and storing this information in a massive data base.

This capturing is occurring whenever you enter public buildings, military installations, etc. without permission of the individual or actual probable cause to create these profiles. This technology makes swabbing a cheek for DNA from a person charged with a misdemeanor so yesterday's news. Our technology is quickly surpassing our ability to maintain the checks and balances necessary to keep our own gov't in check is the big issue here. All this information of course is susceptible to abuse by individuals, corporations, etc. and not just the government.

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 16027
(16019 all sites)
Registered: 10/13/2007
Status: Offline

  posted on 7/2/2013 at 10:15 AM
quote:
Never heard a single Republican say boo about all this when it was started by Bush/Cheney with the Patriot Act. Republicans were all for it after 9-11 and they were the ones criticizing the Democrats for complaining about it. Now all of a sudden because Obama is in charge and even though it has thwarted over 50 terrorist attack attempts all of a sudden those on the right are opposed and outraged???????

Hypocrisy at it's best!



Right, and since when were the Liberals in favor of something Bush did? And don't you think it's odd that the same people that hated this law nine years ago are now bending over backwards defending it?

Hypocrisy at it's worst!

[Edited on 7/2/2013 by alloak41]

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 46751
(46752 all sites)
Registered: 7/8/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 7/2/2013 at 10:42 AM
quote:
And don't you think it's odd that the same people that hated this law nine years ago are now bending over backwards defending it?


In the end, does that matter? As far as the actual security/surveillance goes, nothing has changed at all. Is the only important thing about this issue is that some of the libruls are hypocrites? As a matter of pure observation, it would also seem that there are plenty of conservatives that were and are 110% in favor of this type of surveillance, but won't say so because they don't want to support anything that may have anything to do with Obama.

As I recall, the Patriot Act had plenty of attackers and defenders all over the place, from both sides of the spectrum.

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 46751
(46752 all sites)
Registered: 7/8/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 7/2/2013 at 10:48 AM
So, what is acceptable surveillance?

When the Patriot Act was passed, the proponents said that we were in a War On Terrorism, and under that guise, the rules had changed and we needed to be more vigilant.

Those who looked at terrorism as a crime were soundly ridiculed, that 9/11 wasn't a law enforcement issue. We were (and are?) at war, and being at war transcends mere crime.

Is that true? Do we need these levels of surveillance to stay safe? Say were is some sort of rollback (highly unlikely, but let's assume for a second) and there is a resulting terror attack that the formerly in place measures would have prevented. What then?

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 20943
(20942 all sites)
Registered: 6/15/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 7/2/2013 at 11:27 AM
quote:
Never heard a single Republican say boo about all this when it was started by Bush/Cheney with the Patriot Act. Republicans were all for it after 9-11 and they were the ones criticizing the Democrats for complaining about it. Now all of a sudden because Obama is in charge and even though it has thwarted over 50 terrorist attack attempts all of a sudden those on the right are opposed and outraged???????

Hypocrisy at it's best!

By the way, I am one of those Independents who don't really care about this and unless somebody has something to hide they shouldn't either. Or we could just end the whole program and make it easier for the terrorists to be successful with their plans against us.


Most Republicans want him extradited and tried for espionage. Who does not?

 

____________________

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 20943
(20942 all sites)
Registered: 6/15/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 7/2/2013 at 11:31 AM
quote:
So, what is acceptable surveillance?

When the Patriot Act was passed, the proponents said that we were in a War On Terrorism, and under that guise, the rules had changed and we needed to be more vigilant.

Those who looked at terrorism as a crime were soundly ridiculed, that 9/11 wasn't a law enforcement issue. We were (and are?) at war, and being at war transcends mere crime.

Is that true? Do we need these levels of surveillance to stay safe? Say were is some sort of rollback (highly unlikely, but let's assume for a second) and there is a resulting terror attack that the formerly in place measures would have prevented. What then?


If we would allow the government to do the obvious thing and focus their efforts on those most likely to be involved with terrorism, the government wouldn't need to do massive surveilance on everybody. It's called profiling and there is nothing wrong with it. It is how Israel, for example, keeps its airline safe.

 

____________________

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 46751
(46752 all sites)
Registered: 7/8/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 7/2/2013 at 11:32 AM
quote:
quote:
That sounds all quaint and revolutionary. Fight the power!

However, there's that little thing called your Social Security Number. Long before the internet or smartphones, anyone with basic skip tracing ability could and can find out all kinds of things about anyone.

quote:
People are so willing to sell themselves out in order to get a deal or make what appears life easier on themselves. Americans are suckers for giving up their information.



Plenty of Americans are incredibly paranoid as well, so perhaps that strikes a balance.


All true. However, for me it's not necessarily any one program that has made me question our massive security state, but more to do with its ever increasing size, reach, and cost. From drones now being utilized by federal, state, and local law enforcement to literally track citizens and survey their private property to the massive FBI program that is utilizing face recognition and gate recognition software that is creating and storing profiles of any citizen and storing this information in a massive data base.

This capturing is occurring whenever you enter public buildings, military installations, etc. without permission of the individual or actual probable cause to create these profiles. This technology makes swabbing a cheek for DNA from a person charged with a misdemeanor so yesterday's news. Our technology is quickly surpassing our ability to maintain the checks and balances necessary to keep our own gov't in check is the big issue here. All this information of course is susceptible to abuse by individuals, corporations, etc. and not just the government.


I'm not sure we (the collective we) look at this whole thing in the right way. The government has expanded things greatly, as you said. However, there's a reason that guys like Sergey Brin, Larry Page and Mark Zuckerberg have been included amongst world economic leaders...Google and Facebook are immensely powerful if one does believe that information=power. Google alone...real time demographics, real time searches, real time surveillance. Facebook with its information and images. I'm not sure where the line is between what we are having "taken" from us versus what we are giving away in the first place.

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 46751
(46752 all sites)
Registered: 7/8/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 7/2/2013 at 11:38 AM
quote:
quote:
So, what is acceptable surveillance?

When the Patriot Act was passed, the proponents said that we were in a War On Terrorism, and under that guise, the rules had changed and we needed to be more vigilant.

Those who looked at terrorism as a crime were soundly ridiculed, that 9/11 wasn't a law enforcement issue. We were (and are?) at war, and being at war transcends mere crime.

Is that true? Do we need these levels of surveillance to stay safe? Say were is some sort of rollback (highly unlikely, but let's assume for a second) and there is a resulting terror attack that the formerly in place measures would have prevented. What then?


If we would allow the government to do the obvious thing and focus their efforts on those most likely to be involved with terrorism, the government wouldn't need to do massive surveilance on everybody. It's called profiling and there is nothing wrong with it. It is how Israel, for example, keeps its airline safe.


Profiling how? Simply by nationality or religion? There's only a certain set of people that can be involved in terrorism? Are we talking about limiting only to terrorism that has basis in radical Islam?

Respectfully, I don't think you can compare the security policies of El Al to the entire United States.

Now, to be fair, on the flip side...Tamerlan Tsarnaev was in a CIA database, but that didn't stop him or his brother.

 

World Class Peach



Karma:
Posts: 5471
(5470 all sites)
Registered: 9/9/2011
Status: Offline

  posted on 7/2/2013 at 11:39 AM


I'm not sure we (the collective we) look at this whole thing in the right way. The government has expanded things greatly, as you said. However, there's a reason that guys like Sergey Brin, Larry Page and Mark Zuckerberg have been included amongst world economic leaders...Google and Facebook are immensely powerful if one does believe that information=power. Google alone...real time demographics, real time searches, real time surveillance. Facebook with its information and images. I'm not sure where the line is between what we are having "taken" from us versus what we are giving away in the first place.


BINGO

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 46751
(46752 all sites)
Registered: 7/8/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 7/2/2013 at 11:42 AM
quote:
quote:
Never heard a single Republican say boo about all this when it was started by Bush/Cheney with the Patriot Act. Republicans were all for it after 9-11 and they were the ones criticizing the Democrats for complaining about it. Now all of a sudden because Obama is in charge and even though it has thwarted over 50 terrorist attack attempts all of a sudden those on the right are opposed and outraged???????

Hypocrisy at it's best!

By the way, I am one of those Independents who don't really care about this and unless somebody has something to hide they shouldn't either. Or we could just end the whole program and make it easier for the terrorists to be successful with their plans against us.


Most Republicans want him extradited and tried for espionage. Who does not?


Republicans as in who? The Republicans on the Hill, or in general? If you are talking about the broader base, then there are reactions all over the place.

 

Universal Peach



Karma:
Posts: 6495
(6494 all sites)
Registered: 8/11/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 7/2/2013 at 11:52 AM
quote:
quote:
quote:
That sounds all quaint and revolutionary. Fight the power!

However, there's that little thing called your Social Security Number. Long before the internet or smartphones, anyone with basic skip tracing ability could and can find out all kinds of things about anyone.

quote:
People are so willing to sell themselves out in order to get a deal or make what appears life easier on themselves. Americans are suckers for giving up their information.



Plenty of Americans are incredibly paranoid as well, so perhaps that strikes a balance.


All true. However, for me it's not necessarily any one program that has made me question our massive security state, but more to do with its ever increasing size, reach, and cost. From drones now being utilized by federal, state, and local law enforcement to literally track citizens and survey their private property to the massive FBI program that is utilizing face recognition and gate recognition software that is creating and storing profiles of any citizen and storing this information in a massive data base.

This capturing is occurring whenever you enter public buildings, military installations, etc. without permission of the individual or actual probable cause to create these profiles. This technology makes swabbing a cheek for DNA from a person charged with a misdemeanor so yesterday's news. Our technology is quickly surpassing our ability to maintain the checks and balances necessary to keep our own gov't in check is the big issue here. All this information of course is susceptible to abuse by individuals, corporations, etc. and not just the government.


I'm not sure we (the collective we) look at this whole thing in the right way. The government has expanded things greatly, as you said. However, there's a reason that guys like Sergey Brin, Larry Page and Mark Zuckerberg have been included amongst world economic leaders...Google and Facebook are immensely powerful if one does believe that information=power. Google alone...real time demographics, real time searches, real time surveillance. Facebook with its information and images. I'm not sure where the line is between what we are having "taken" from us versus what we are giving away in the first place.


But with some of the technologies and companies you mention above, consumers have at least a limited choice in what they provide to these corporations. Granted, less and less choice, which is another issue. But the government doesn't give me such a choice when I walk into my local courthouse or post office, or military installation and am scanned by cameras and my face is immediately stored in some FBI data base to be used whenever or wherever the gov't sees fit. Like corporations who abuse and or sell our personal info. for profit, the gov't can just as easily do the same. At the moment all without my consent. When does this cross the boundary of violating our constitutional rights?

 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 14590
(14590 all sites)
Registered: 3/28/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 7/2/2013 at 12:18 PM
quote:
quote:
Never heard a single Republican say boo about all this when it was started by Bush/Cheney with the Patriot Act. Republicans were all for it after 9-11 and they were the ones criticizing the Democrats for complaining about it. Now all of a sudden because Obama is in charge and even though it has thwarted over 50 terrorist attack attempts all of a sudden those on the right are opposed and outraged???????

Hypocrisy at it's best!



Right, and since when were the Liberals in favor of something Bush did? And don't you think it's odd that the same people that hated this law nine years ago are now bending over backwards defending it?

Hypocrisy at it's worst!

[Edited on 7/2/2013 by alloak41]


I don't see anyone defending this except some Republicans still. It is one of the shockingly only things some of these Republicans led by Lindsey Graham have agreed with Obama on so no what you say is mostly false. I still see almost all Dems against this. I am one of the very few who have no problem with it and I am the one who is always labeled as a liberal here.

 

____________________
Pete

 
<<  1    2    3  >>  


Powered by XForum 1.81.1 by Trollix Software

Privacy | Terms of Service | Report Infringement | Personal Data Management | Contact Us
The ALLMAN BROTHERS BAND name, The ALLMAN BROTHERS name, likenesses, logos, mushroom design and peach truck are all registered trademarks of THE ABB MERCHANDISING CO., INC. whose rights are specifically reserved. Any artwork, visual, or audio representations used on this web site CONTAINING ANY REGISTERED TRADEMARKS are under license from The ABB MERCHANDISING CO., INC. A REVOCABLE, GRATIS LICENSE IS GRANTED TO ALL REGISTERED PEACH CORP MEMBERS FOR The DOWNLOADING OF ONE COPY FOR PERSONAL USE ONLY. ANY DISTRIBUTION OR REPRODUCTION OF THE TRADEMARKS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE PROHIBITED AND ARE SPECIFICALLY RESERVED BY THE ABB MERCHANDISING CO.,INC.
site by Hittin' the Web Group with www.experiencewasabi3d.com