Losing our privacy, trust the government

[euterpenc]

Check this out (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071112/ap_on_go_ot/terrorist_surveillance)

So this dude Mr. Kerr pretty much says, "Hey we're gonna have to take some of your rights away. Trust us, we're the government."

[rek]

yea, I saw this yesterday, I'm still really pissed about it... my girlfriend called me an hour after i read it and wondered why I was so annoyed, heh


Privacy no longer can mean anonymity, says Donald Kerr, the principal deputy director of national intelligence. Instead, it should mean that government and businesses properly safeguard people's private communications and financial information.

Completely ridiculous. Privacy should mean the government and business knows everything we do and say but it's still private because they wont tell anyone? What kind of bullshit is that?

Guess we should expect a lot more of the internet spying...

I'm not sure how you can even say those things in this country without being laughed out of the country, or shot, it's a sad sad day.

[fripping]

i can trust them, they're the government.

[Decoy^]

[Inflammatory sarcasm]I thought there were no privacy rights in the US whatsoever. How can they take any away?[/Inflammatory sarcasm]

Seriously though, it's creepy. One thing is the reasoning behind it, which is apparently a desire to monitor foreign traffic through US channels and hubs. But then there are the many possibilities for abuse of such new legislation.

And then it's this quote: "Protecting anonymity isn't a fight that can be won. Anyone that's typed in their name on Google understands that."
So just because I can google my name and find that I have a Facebook page and have posted a bit on Usenet in the past, should I give up all privacy?

I don't live in the US, but I'd be might pissed if I did...

[Architectonic]

Can someone please assassinate this guy?

[Ptah]

Just one more notch toward statism. Great.

You know, is there a thread yet on what would happen if, say, a bunch of NTs inherited the world (or maybe just an island) and had it to design from scratch?

[xxxx]

Admins aren't going to like this thread

[rainfall]

This was mentioned in the "endgame - blueprint for global enslavement".


Makes me mad.

[lexiphanic]

Can someone please assassinate this guy?

Oh, how it thrills the blood to make overt attempts at access to various government blacklists.

[lowtech redneck]

Just one more notch toward statism. Great.

You know, is there a thread yet on what would happen if, say, a bunch of NTs inherited the world (or maybe just an island) and had it to design from scratch?

That's a good idea, you should start that thread. I think it would end in utter disaster, assuming the NTs could agree with each other in the first place.

[songbird36]

Check this out (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071112/ap_on_go_ot/terrorist_surveillance)

So this dude Mr. Kerr pretty much says, "Hey we're gonna have to take some of your rights away. Trust us, we're the government."

One word:

Stasi.

[Sokkorobo]

http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i161/Phantom40/1189247853143.jpg

[Shades of Gray]

You know, is there a thread yet on what would happen if, say, a bunch of NTs inherited the world (or maybe just an island) and had it to design from scratch?

I tend to be a technocrat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocrat).

In the long run, I don't think it would be very popular, although things would probably run very well.

[candela]

If your privacy being undermined for security affects nothing else, then what is the problem?

I guess a clearer question would be: What is privacy good for?

[fripping]

If your privacy being undermined for security affects nothing else, then what is the problem?

I guess a clearer question would be: What is privacy good for?
it is good for being private. something people tend not to notice while it's there but miss when it's gone.

[candela]

So privacy is good because it's good for being private? Circular logic?

How would you notice your privacy is missing? When you tell your doctor something, do you no longer have privacy over that matter?

[bizarro petey]

It's the principle of the whole thing. they're listening to phone conversations now. Pretty soon they've got a video camera in every home, telling you how many kids you can have, implanting you with a microchip, etc. Give them an inch and they'll take a mile. America was founded on a small federal government, not a big brother.

[fripping]

So privacy is good because it's good for being private? Circular logic?

How would you notice your privacy is missing? When you tell your doctor something, do you no longer have privacy over that matter?
what if i put cameras, night vision, and microphones in your living unit and had you followed and observed every time you went out. watched you poop. recorded every time you whacked off, and shared the videos amongst my friends. since privacy isn't worth anything i'm sure you wouldn't mind. you wouldn't even be able to tell, you would just know it was there, happening to you. who could possibly mind something so unintrusive?

[rawr]

About that freedom thing... I think its definition also needs a freshening up.


free·dom /ˈfridəm/
–noun
1. The state of having the choice between TGI Fridays or Chipotle

[s'box]

If your privacy being undermined for security affects nothing else, then what is the problem?

I guess a clearer question would be: What is privacy good for?

This is a naive question with a faulty premise.

It never affects nothing else. Every new power they gain they will abuse. I'd wager it being impossible to ever find an instance of increased government surveilance that wasn't used to moniter nonviolent political dissent.


How would you notice your privacy is missing? When you tell your doctor something, do you no longer have privacy over that matter?

You notice your privacy missing when theres an unmarked police car outside your home. You notice when they catch you for every law theyve made thats unjust or contradictory/not possible to follow. You notice when they make new laws later that directly curtail your freedoms, and you notice when they arrive before you do to protest those laws, making sure your protests are unheard. You notice when you cant get on an airplane, or visit another country. You notice when they've gone through your stuff when youre not home (or if they do a good job, i suppose you dont). You notice when you lose your job for an opinion you hold. You notice when people are framed on false or trumped up charges, and saying the wrong thing or acting on it can get you the same treatment.

So you notice when you live in fear.

[Limey]

pfff! piffle and poppycock! boulderdash!


This country really isn't all that "free" - sure there's plenty of liberty, but this is a measure that solely depends on how much of it you can afford.
The current outsourced "war" fleecing of the taxpayer in plain sight is just the tip edge of the pork barrel.
Also, I thought it was a joke when I first heard that American companies owned their employee's thoughts, inventions and any retroactive mention of anything of intellectual value to a co-worker.

Hand in my pocket? I'm surprised there isn't someone else's cock in there as well.

[candela]

what if i put cameras, night vision, and microphones in your living unit and had you followed and observed every time you went out. watched you poop. recorded every time you whacked off, and shared the videos amongst my friends. since privacy isn't worth anything i'm sure you wouldn't mind. you wouldn't even be able to tell, you would just know it was there, happening to you. who could possibly mind something so unintrusive?
I didn't say privacy wasn't worth anything. By the way, you just took away privacy completely in your hypothetical situation(edit: maybe not completely, but I'm leaving this in), and this would most likely have other effects than simply that alone. Do these people have any reason to be viewing the videos? If so, then it goes back to my original question.

My original question was, why would it matter if your privacy was undermined for security if that was the only change your life had?

So I asked what good privacy is. You just implicitly answered.

However, how is any of your hypothetical situation going to happen from the government intruding? Are they going to share videos of people pooping for fun?

[Psy-goat]

I don't see what all the fuss is about, this is nothing new. Echelon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON) was outed almost twenty years ago, Australia, NZ, Canada, UK and USA simply monitor each others traffic, they don't break their own laws because they aren't spying on their own citizens. There are some pretty hilarious, some frightening stories out there on the net about how they've used the comms. Echelon was studied by the European Parliament because amongst other things intelligence services are used to advance the economic, not just security interests of the countries involved.

Its like this, there are guardians, intellectuals, skilled labour and proletariats, always has been always will be. Guardians are the warriors and the property owners, they make the rules, they make the language that you live by. Don't want to get fucked up by them? Don't cross the lines, cross the lines you take your chances.

Marxist interpretations of the state, it includes all relationships that keep the people in line, the banks, corporations, police forces, army etc etc. What makes up the state:

1: Legitimation
2: Coercion
3: Facilitation of the accumulation of capital

Consider Eternal Recurrence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_return) Use your N, let me know if there is anything new under the sun.

[candela]

This is a naive question with a faulty premise.

It never affects nothing else. Every new power they gain they will abuse. I'd wager it being impossible to ever find an instance of increased government surveilance that wasn't used to moniter nonviolent political dissent.



You notice your privacy missing when theres an unmarked police car outside your home. You notice when they catch you for every law theyve made thats unjust or contradictory/not possible to follow. You notice when they make new laws later that directly curtail your freedoms, and you notice when they arrive before you do to protest those laws, making sure your protests are unheard. You notice when you cant get on an airplane, or visit another country. You notice when they've gone through your stuff when youre not home (or if they do a good job, i suppose you dont). You notice when you lose your job for an opinion you hold. You notice when people are framed on false or trumped up charges, and saying the wrong thing or acting on it can get you the same treatment.

So you notice when you live in fear.
Why was I breaking the law? Why were laws being made with the seemingly sole purpose of putting me in jail? What good does that do? Is it really that faulty of a premise? What incentive does the government have to imprison its people?

It sounds like you're assuming there could be no balance of power.

[rek]

My original question was, why would it matter if your privacy was undermined for security if that was the only change your life had?

The problem is: that's completely impossible. There is no possible situation in which your privacy could be undermined while having no other effect on your life besides security.

[s'box]

Why was I breaking the law? Why were laws being made with the seemingly sole purpose of putting me in jail? What good does that do? Is it really that faulty of a premise? What incentive does the government have to imprison its people?

It sounds like you're assuming there could be no balance of power.

I wasnt speaking in abstracts. Those are all things that are happening right now. And in none of those short of trumped up charges (mind you, a seperate category altogether from false charges), does it require you to be doing anything illegal.

The governments incentive to imprison its people is to protect their greed for power, money, or position and their fear of losing it or the system that protects it. If they make enough laws, and theyre watching you whenever they choose, they can then punish you for those things which they've yet to make illegal.

I'm not assuming anything of that sort. There isn't a balance of power. It sounds like youre trying to make an abstract seperation of an act from the very pattern of authoritarian behavior which originates it.

[bizarro petey]

Why was I breaking the law? Why were laws being made with the seemingly sole purpose of putting me in jail? What good does that do? Is it really that faulty of a premise? What incentive does the government have to imprison its people?

the answers are in accurately written history books

[xxxx]

I smell a dis-info agent in here

[erm]

My original question was, why would it matter if your privacy was undermined for security if that was the only change your life had?

I wouldn't mind giving up my privacy if I did actually trust what I gave it up to.

If I gave my privacy to an all-loving divine force, not that it would want my privacy, but if I did, I wouldn't mind, it could watch me masterbate and break laws as much as it wants.

The mere fact it's humans I'm giving it to scares me, I see some of the most mature people abuse privacy everyday, I see people who give up the privacy of their loved ones even though they promised to keep it, every month or so. There's no way I would stand for giving it to a group of people who probably desire more authoritarian power, considering the career path they've chosen.

Basically, it's not god or greater beings we are giving our intimacy (a scarier word) to, it's people you see on the street. It's going to affect alot more than security.

[Ellipsis]

Coming out of vacation for this one:


I got a good argument for all those religious types: God doesn't do it why should the government?

They are in the same situation....think about it...shit happens, God is there to be general protector/judger that is in the end what government should be....that is to say the Christian God...no idea about the others....i

Here I am referring to taking away other civil liberties with the excuse of protection...not specifically privacy....God is all knowing, so he is master of surveillance...thus like the one person said: God (the divine force) has all the information but does not use it except to judge the person...basically the ultimate court...yet he does not interfere until you do something idiotic like getting yourself killed. Government on the other hand is unable to handle that kind of power without interfering...in fact that is the whole reason behind it, to interfere before anything real happens.

[socrateez]

Read Orwell or Huxley if you want to know what a society with no privacy is like. You like conformity? They saw cameras everywhere and I see them too.
Ive already seen shows discussing the future use of unmanned surveillance craft hovering around major cities.
You know those little toy helicopters they sell now? Wait till a thousand of those are buzzing around catching jay-walkers.
Federal conspiracy laws already guarantee conviction on the testimony of two witnesses, without the benefit of physical evidence. there have been numerous laws proposed, and some passed, that reincarceration of offenders based solely on that "They'll probally do it again". This is tantamount to thought crime.
Signs of the times...Gawd i could rant.

[bizarro petey]

Huxley did an audio interview (http://odge.org/occultreview/glor_014/huxley.htm) in 1961. They give an intimate glimpse into the mind of this genius. He discusses his greatest work, Brave New World of course, and how his depiction of totalitarian government control over the masses is much more likely to happen than Orwell's big brother. The reason being that the system is so efficient, the masses cannot detect their mental prison (much like the Matrix).

Even more chilling, Aldous admitted that the book was not completely fiction, but rather a pipe dream of Julian, his brother, and other prominent eugenics nuts at that time.

Don't think that the power-hungry nuts that run this world have forgotten about the brave new world as the technology it employs becomes more and more viable.

[socrateez]

Huxley did an audio interview (http://odge.org/occultreview/glor_014/huxley.htm) in 1961. They give an intimate glimpse into the mind of this genius. He discusses his greatest work, Brave New World of course, and how his depiction of totalitarian government control over the masses is much more likely to happen than Orwell's big brother. The reason being that the system is so efficient, the masses cannot detect their mental prison (much like the Matrix).

Even more chilling, Aldous admitted that the book was not completely fiction, but rather a pipe dream of Julian, his brother, and other prominent eugenics nuts at that time.

Don't think that the power-hungry nuts that run this world have forgotten about the brave new world as the technology it employs becomes more and more viable.

I agree with the matrix analogy. How many people actually know what their freedoms are?

Have you read "Beneath the Iron Heel" by Jack London?