JustUsBoys.com gay porn forum

logo

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 57
  1. #1

    Jimmy Carter about NSA

    Maybe he wasn`t the most popular president but his statement is correct. Since 9/11 civil rights are restricted. And Benjamin said: “Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.” Former President Jimmy Carter chimed in on the NSA surveillance scandal and the plight of whistle blower Edward Snowden. "I think the invasion of human rights and American privacy has gone too far," President Carter told CNN's Suzanne Malveaux. "And I think that the secrecy that has been surrounding this invasion of privacy has been excessive... Bringing it to the public notice has probably been, in the long term, beneficial." Last year, Carter railed against the U.S. government for losing moral ground on a series of human rights issues. "Recent laws have canceled the restraints in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to allow unprecedented violations of our rights to privacy through warrantless wiretapping and government mining of our electronic communications," he wrote in a New York Times . My question: USA - land of the free?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Benjamin Franklin. Sorry

  2. #2
    JUB Addict T-Rexx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    4,897

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Jimmy Carter about NSA

    Quote Originally Posted by Ben1 View Post
    Maybe he wasn`t the most popular president but his statement is correct. Since 9/11 civil rights are restricted. And Benjamin said: “Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.” Former President Jimmy Carter chimed in on the NSA surveillance scandal and the plight of whistle blower Edward Snowden. "I think the invasion of human rights and American privacy has gone too far," President Carter told CNN's Suzanne Malveaux. "And I think that the secrecy that has been surrounding this invasion of privacy has been excessive... Bringing it to the public notice has probably been, in the long term, beneficial." Last year, Carter railed against the U.S. government for losing moral ground on a series of human rights issues. "Recent laws have canceled the restraints in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to allow unprecedented violations of our rights to privacy through warrantless wiretapping and government mining of our electronic communications," he wrote in a New York Times . My question: USA - land of the free?

    - - - Updated - - -



    Benjamin Franklin. Sorry

    I wish our current president had this kind of insight.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ben1 View Post
    And Benjamin [Franklin] said: “Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”
    There are actually people who post regularly in this forum who insist that Franklin's warning against trading liberty for security constitutes an endorsement by Franklin for occasionally trading liberty for security.

    It is strangely Orwellian.

  3. #3
    PerScientiam AdJustitiam bankside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Beware the deepity.
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Married (to a man)
    Posts
    16,820
    Blog Entries
    2

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Jimmy Carter about NSA

    Well, Carter and Franklin are right.
    Americans need to keep their guns so they can protect themselves from gun violence just like Nancy Lanza did. And like Chris Kyle did. And like Gabby Giffords did. And like Tom Clements did. And like Michael Piemonte. And Joseph Wilcox.

  4. #4
    Sex God tigerfan482's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Columbia
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    862

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Jimmy Carter about NSA

    Can you at least quote Franklin correctly?

    Quote Originally Posted by Benjamin.Franklin
    They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
    The adjective modifiers in that quote mean a world of difference. Franklin was not a stupid man and was quite the wordsmith. While he had every available opportunity to write the phrase you did, he specifically chose to limit the scope of the liberty and the safety he was talking about. Since he is not with us today to explain what he meant, I can only interpret his careful choice of words as meaning that he realized that while some safety (the temporary kind) was not worth giving up some liberties (the essential kind), he did realize that there were times when non-essential liberties could be sacrificed for a more permanent safety.

    Here is a great paper written about the use and original meaning of the phrase: http://www.brookings.edu/research/pa...ecurity-wittes

  5. #5
    I can't breathe. chrisrobin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    8,420

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Jimmy Carter about NSA

    Quote Originally Posted by T-Rexx View Post
    I wish our current president had this kind of insight.
    He does, but lacks the balls to assert himself. Please Google milquetoast.

    ...with history the final judge of our deeds. - JFK

  6. #6
    Lions&Tigers&Bears Oh My!
    eastofeden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Silicon Valley
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    5,428
    Blog Entries
    2

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Jimmy Carter about NSA

    As usual I agree with Mr Carter.

    I have refrained from criticizing Mr Obama in mixed company and will continue with that plan so I will not elaborate.

  7. #7
    JUB Addict T-Rexx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    4,897

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Jimmy Carter about NSA

    Quote Originally Posted by tigerfan482 View Post
    I can only interpret his careful choice of words as meaning that he realized that while some safety (the temporary kind) was not worth giving up some liberties (the essential kind), he did realize that there were times when non-essential liberties could be sacrificed for a more permanent safety.
    Please enumerate for us the nonessential liberties.

    You know, those liberties the founding fathers didn't think were very important.

    And please define for us "permanent" safety.
    Last edited by T-Rexx; July 17th, 2013 at 09:27 PM.

  8. #8
    JUB Addict Sausy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    21,102
    Blog Entries
    2

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Jimmy Carter about NSA

    I have no qualms in criticizing President Obama here. He essentially has said "full speed ahead, torpedo the Constitution" when given the opportunity to reverse course from the Bush/ Cheney push to a national security surveillance state. Jimmy Carter is off base on a lot, but spot on with his assessment on what we have done in the name of protecting the safety of America in a 9-11 world.
    unofficial official mini meet Friday- Saturday April 11-12, 2014

  9. #9

    Re: Jimmy Carter about NSA

    Of course a Democracy needs freedom AND security, especially legal certainty - not only in a 9/11-world.
    But there can be not doubt that the security authorities have exploited the situation. They have so much influence and power like never before. The government supports that - the Bush administration as well as the Obama administration. And the media keep us in fear and terror. By this scenario we think we need more security and agree that we lose liberties. This is a danger for democracy. America was always proud of his civil rights and liberties - but today the freedom has become much smaller. I think, Benjamin Franklin would not like it - WE should not like it. --- He didn`t want a Big-Brother-State. Every time a politican says "9/11" we are ready for anything. ---- Our time is paradoxical. Dangerous people running around with weapons but if someone smokes a cigarette we are hysterical. If the security authorities read our mails, it`s okay for us but if the president wants better health care we say, he wants to restrict our freedom. We don`t know, what we want!! And therefore the government and organizations can make what they want.

  10. #10
    Sex God tigerfan482's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Columbia
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    862

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Jimmy Carter about NSA

    Quote Originally Posted by Ben1 View Post
    Of course a Democracy needs freedom AND security, especially legal certainty - not only in a 9/11-world.
    But there can be not doubt that the security authorities have exploited the situation. They have so much influence and power like never before. The government supports that - the Bush administration as well as the Obama administration. And the media keep us in fear and terror. By this scenario we think we need more security and agree that we lose liberties. This is a danger for democracy. America was always proud of his civil rights and liberties - but today the freedom has become much smaller. I think, Benjamin Franklin would not like it - WE should not like it. --- He didn`t want a Big-Brother-State. Every time a politican says "9/11" we are ready for anything. ---- Our time is paradoxical. Dangerous people running around with weapons but if someone smokes a cigarette we are hysterical. If the security authorities read our mails, it`s okay for us but if the president wants better health care we say, he wants to restrict our freedom. We don`t know, what we want!! And therefore the government and organizations can make what they want.
    Actually, the more astute observation would be that we don't know what we want, so that's why it looks like the government can't decide on what it wants. The government only reflects the will of the people. People want security, which is why we have the various acts that allow for wider surveillance of foreigners (again, no proof has been provided Americans are being spied on.) If you want change, talk to your fellow Americans.

  11. #11

    Re: Jimmy Carter about NSA

    lawmakers of both parties voice doubts about nsa surveillance programs

    lawmakers of both parties expressed deep skepticism wednesday about the government’s bulk collection of americans’ telephone records and threatened not to renew the legislative authority that has been used to sanction a program described as “off the tracks legally.”

    [quoted text: Truncated] © 1996-2013 the washington post

    source link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...20d_story.html


    washington post
    Last edited by opinterph; July 19th, 2013 at 07:54 AM. Reason: truncated excessive quote from copyrighted source; added quote tags and source link; Refer to CE&P Posting Guidelines

  12. #12
    Sex God tigerfan482's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Columbia
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    862

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Jimmy Carter about NSA

    Quote Originally Posted by Ben1 View Post
    washington post
    Here's a link to the full hearing.

    Let's get the entire hearing, including the actual statements by the panels, and not just quote the Washington Post's brief synopsis of the parts that support their position. You will see that there is patently false and misleading information being presented by the media in this situation and that the government efforts are indeed not the indiscriminate gathering of American's personal data. There is also some pretty explicit detailing of how these programs operate and under what statutory authorities.

    Here is some supplemental information about the hearing as well.

  13. #13
    PerScientiam AdJustitiam bankside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Beware the deepity.
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Married (to a man)
    Posts
    16,820
    Blog Entries
    2

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Jimmy Carter about NSA

    Quote Originally Posted by tigerfan482 View Post
    Here's a link to the full hearing.

    Let's get the entire hearing, including the actual statements by the panels, and not just quote the Washington Post's brief synopsis of the parts that support their position. You will see that there is patently false and misleading information being presented by the media in this situation and that the government efforts are indeed not the indiscriminate gathering of American's personal data. There is also some pretty explicit detailing of how these programs operate and under what statutory authorities.

    Here is some supplemental information about the hearing as well.
    You know if you're actually a media officer for the NSA, I have some pointers on how to manage a controversy and let things die down without actually appearing like a media officer for the NSA. Because repeating the "key messages" often enough to draw attention is probably not the right strategy here.

    Basically when a former President says "Yes, we should have a national debate about this" then "Hope it goes away" is no longer the relevant chapter in the Scenario Note.
    Americans need to keep their guns so they can protect themselves from gun violence just like Nancy Lanza did. And like Chris Kyle did. And like Gabby Giffords did. And like Tom Clements did. And like Michael Piemonte. And Joseph Wilcox.

  14. #14
    Sex God tigerfan482's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Columbia
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    862

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Jimmy Carter about NSA

    Quote Originally Posted by bankside View Post
    You know if you're actually a media officer for the NSA, I have some pointers on how to manage a controversy and let things die down without actually appearing like a media officer for the NSA. Because repeating the "key messages" often enough to draw attention is probably not the right strategy here.

    Basically when a former President says "Yes, we should have a national debate about this" then "Hope it goes away" is no longer the relevant chapter in the Scenario Note.
    No one is hoping it goes away. I'm presenting the full set of data to process instead of just the biased talking points provided by some media outlet with an agenda. Dismissing a dissenting point of view as "the enemy" is displaying the exact behavior you're pretending to be outraged about and are railing against.

  15. #15
    Execuvette Rolyo85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Boystown, Chicago
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    8,930

    Code of Conduct
    Quote Originally Posted by tigerfan482 View Post
    No one is hoping it goes away. I'm presenting the full set of data to process instead of just the biased talking points provided by some media outlet with an agenda. Dismissing a dissenting point of view as "the enemy" is displaying the exact behavior you're pretending to be outraged about and are railing against.
    I'm actually mildly horrified that pure information can be dismissed in an argument as "propaganda"...
    That we are capable only of being what we are, remains our unforgivable sin.
    - Gene Wolfe

  16. #16
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    104,093
    Blog Entries
    78

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Jimmy Carter about NSA

    Quote Originally Posted by eastofeden View Post
    As usual I agree with Mr Carter.

    I have refrained from criticizing Mr Obama in mixed company and will continue with that plan so I will not elaborate.
    You mean Democrats and Republicans at the same time?

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  17. #17
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    104,093
    Blog Entries
    78

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Jimmy Carter about NSA

    Quote Originally Posted by tigerfan482 View Post
    Actually, the more astute observation would be that we don't know what we want, so that's why it looks like the government can't decide on what it wants. The government only reflects the will of the people. People want security, which is why we have the various acts that allow for wider surveillance of foreigners (again, no proof has been provided Americans are being spied on.) If you want change, talk to your fellow Americans.
    Only in a warped, dirty mirror with a number of cracks.

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  18. #18
    Execuvette Rolyo85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Boystown, Chicago
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    8,930

    Code of Conduct
    Do you feel socially aware when you say pointless stuff like that?
    That we are capable only of being what we are, remains our unforgivable sin.
    - Gene Wolfe

  19. #19
    Lions&Tigers&Bears Oh My!
    eastofeden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Silicon Valley
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    5,428
    Blog Entries
    2

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Jimmy Carter about NSA

    Quote Originally Posted by Kulindahr View Post
    You mean Democrats and Republicans at the same time?
    Yes.

    Back in 2007 I was on another political board and not so silent and there were quite a few actual left liberals and we had a lot of criticism for Mr Obama and it was really annoying to watch the resident republicans using our arguments against the resident Democrats when they were coming from a completely different place. Mr Obama isn't my enemy nor do I hate him at all...he is actually my favorite Republican President since Abe Lincoln.

  20. #20
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    104,093
    Blog Entries
    78

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Jimmy Carter about NSA

    ^
    I think Obama and Lincoln would get along very well. For starters, bith had the conviction that there are times when it's appropriate to say "To Hell with the Constitution".

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  21. #21
    Sex God tigerfan482's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Columbia
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    862

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Jimmy Carter about NSA

    Quote Originally Posted by Kulindahr View Post
    ^
    I think Obama and Lincoln would get along very well. For starters, bith had the conviction that there are times when it's appropriate to say "To Hell with the Constitution".
    The idea that individual liberties trump the protection and security of the entire population no matter the circumstances is a ludicrous stance. There are situations in which individual liberties will be trumped by the security of the society, and most Americans recognize this. Lincoln is consistently ranked in the top 3 best Presidents in the history of this country because of the way he handled the issues during his administration. The Civil War is a perfect example of how the interests of the country and society outweighed the rights of individuals. The writers of the Constitution even recognized this and wrote it into the Constitution (suspension of habeus corpus, giving Congress the power to put down insurrections, etc.) Your rigid and narrow view of personal liberties always trumping everything else is exactly the view anarchists take when promoting their cause. While an individual's rights are supreme when protecting those rights furthers the security of the society they live in, they do not take precedence when they are in direct conflict to the rights and needs of the society.

  22. #22

    Re: Jimmy Carter about NSA

    tigerfan: "There are situations in which individual liberties will be trumped by the security of the societ"

    Tell me, tigerfan, how long is a "situation"? 10 years? How long the "situation" will be like this?

    And when the situation is over, the security authorities will change their behavior? Do you really think that?

  23. #23
    Sex God tigerfan482's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Columbia
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    862

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Jimmy Carter about NSA

    Quote Originally Posted by Ben1 View Post
    tigerfan: "There are situations in which individual liberties will be trumped by the security of the societ"

    Tell me, tigerfan, how long is a "situation"? 10 years? How long the "situation" will be like this?

    And when the situation is over, the security authorities will change their behavior? Do you really think that?
    When I was speaking, I was speaking in general terms. I was not speaking in reference to the current NSA matter. As I have argued many times previous, I don't believe what is actually being done with these programs is unconstitutional.

    However, we've had few instances is the past to compare to in order to answer your questions. Lincoln exercised a number of extra-constitutional powers during the civil war (suspension of habeas corpus, increasing the size of the army and navy, institution blockades, etc.) that were ended after the war. So yes, I do believe that "security authorities" will change their behavior.

  24. #24

    Re: Jimmy Carter about NSA

    When? -----------

  25. #25

    Re: Jimmy Carter about NSA

    And the US even have to spy on friends??? What more?

    "Are new revelations from the NSA data trove going to drop in the next few days? Speaking on a political talk show on German public broadcaster ARD on Thursday night, Glenn Greenwald said he expected stories to appear in the coming days that would be even "more explosive" in Germany than reports previously published about cooperation between the National Security Agency and German intelligence authorities. Greenwald is the journalist who broke the original story about former NSA contractor and whistleblower Edward Snowden's data trove, revealing how the intelligence agency taps tech giants' user data to facilitate its mass-scale surveillance. Since then, additional reporting on the documents by SPIEGEL has exposed how the American intelligence agency spies on both the European Union and a half-billion communications connections in Germany each month."
    DER SPIEGEL (Germany)

    Source Link: http://www.spiegel.de/international/...-a-912034.html
    Last edited by opinterph; July 21st, 2013 at 07:46 AM. Reason: added quote tags and source link; Refer to CE&P Posting Guidelines

  26. #26
    Do I dare to eat a peach?
    palbert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Coastal Downeast Maine
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    11,127

    Code of Conduct

  27. #27
    Sex God tigerfan482's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Columbia
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    862

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Jimmy Carter about NSA

    Quote Originally Posted by Ben1 View Post
    And the US even have to spy on friends??? What more?

    DER SPIEGEL (Germany)

    Source Link: http://www.spiegel.de/international/...-a-912034.html
    It seems as if the US is spying WITH friends, not on friends. I remember it wasn't too long ago when the accusations was that NSA was spying on Germans, and now it turns out that the NSA was spying with Germans. I'm sure it will come out soon that the NSA was spying WITH the EU and not on the EU. Either way, everything that comes out paints the picture the government has been claiming all along - it is using this information to look for terrorists. Last time I checked, all of these countries we're allegedly spying on all of the citizens in have publicly thwarted a number of terrorist attacks and have arrested many more terrorists and terrorist supporters. Further, I have not seen any cases where people have had their rights taken away or are otherwise enjoying any less freedom than they previously had.

  28. #28
    Sex God tigerfan482's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Columbia
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    862

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Jimmy Carter about NSA

    They seems to support what the government has been claiming all along - they're collecting metadata to connect the dots between terrorists all over the globe in cooperation with other governments. I don't see any evidence of sinister plots to spy on all citizens of a country or take away any of their rights. Everything coming out seems to be supportive of the ability to track foreign terrorists wherever they go and good for them. They're doing much more to try and stop terrorists before they strike than any of the Libertarian whiners on here.

  29. #29
    auribus teneo lupum Stardreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Over the Hedge and Under the Hill
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Married
    Posts
    3,359

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Jimmy Carter about NSA

    Quote Originally Posted by tigerfan482 View Post
    It seems as if the US is spying WITH friends, not on friends. I remember it wasn't too long ago when the accusations was that NSA was spying on Germans, and now it turns out that the NSA was spying with Germans. I'm sure it will come out soon that the NSA was spying WITH the EU and not on the EU. Either way, everything that comes out paints the picture the government has been claiming all along - it is using this information to look for terrorists. Last time I checked, all of these countries we're allegedly spying on all of the citizens in have publicly thwarted a number of terrorist attacks and have arrested many more terrorists and terrorist supporters. Further, I have not seen any cases where people have had their rights taken away or are otherwise enjoying any less freedom than they previously had.
    If anyone is under the impression that we and our allies and friends don't spy on each other, I have some nice bottom land I like to sell you, just don't ask what it is on the bottom of. It is a normal state of affairs the only real difference between our allies and other countries is its largely not talked about in polite circles because we are friends but each side expects it to happen.
    Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule - and both commonly succeed, and are right. H. L. Mencken US editor (1880 - 1956)

  30. #30
    Sex God tigerfan482's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Columbia
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    862

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Jimmy Carter about NSA

    Quote Originally Posted by Stardreamer View Post
    If anyone is under the impression that we and our allies and friends don't spy on each other, I have some nice bottom land I like to sell you, just don't ask what it is on the bottom of. It is a normal state of affairs the only real difference between our allies and other countries is its largely not talked about in polite circles because we are friends but each side expects it to happen.
    Agreed. Everyone knows it goes on and the "outrage" any country shows when these things come to light is mild and short-lived.

  31. #31

    Re: Jimmy Carter about NSA

    I wonder how easily you give up your civil rights...

  32. #32
    auribus teneo lupum Stardreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Over the Hedge and Under the Hill
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Married
    Posts
    3,359

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Jimmy Carter about NSA

    Quote Originally Posted by Ben1 View Post
    I wonder how easily you give up your civil rights...
    I don't intend to readily which is why I'm libertarian in outlook. But government spying on governments is not something I'm going to get too upset about as it just part of the games that governments play on each other. It has always existed and always will exist as long as you can find information with labels like NOFORN on a government's files. The issue with the NSA and the hoovering up of large amounts of data on individuals is another matter and the 'its just metadata' excuse just doesn't cut it. If my government is going to do these things, I want to know is it really the only way to achieve the goal and what safeguards are in place to protect the privacy of individuals.
    Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule - and both commonly succeed, and are right. H. L. Mencken US editor (1880 - 1956)

  33. #33
    Sex God tigerfan482's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Columbia
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    862

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Jimmy Carter about NSA

    Quote Originally Posted by Ben1 View Post
    I wonder how easily you give up your civil rights...
    Metadata is not a civil right. There's no expectation of privacy with it. All it is is routing information for computers to know where to send a connection. What traverses that connection does have a reasonable expectation of privacy which is why a probable cause court order is required to turn that over. However, companies can voluntarily or be compelled to turn over metadata all day.

  34. #34
    Sex God tigerfan482's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Columbia
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    862

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Jimmy Carter about NSA

    Quote Originally Posted by Stardreamer View Post
    I don't intend to readily which is why I'm libertarian in outlook. But government spying on governments is not something I'm going to get too upset about as it just part of the games that governments play on each other. It has always existed and always will exist as long as you can find information with labels like NOFORN on a government's files. The issue with the NSA and the hoovering up of large amounts of data on individuals is another matter and the 'its just metadata' excuse just doesn't cut it. If my government is going to do these things, I want to know is it really the only way to achieve the goal and what safeguards are in place to protect the privacy of individuals.
    I would be interested to hear your ideas on how to identify people who wish to do us harm in this country communicating with their handlers outside of this country. The reason this was put into place to begin with was because of the 9/11 report saying that the government was lacking in being able to track terrorists in this country. Before the Patriot Act, NSA wasn't allowed to collect any information from any connections that went through the US, regardless of whether the participants were inside or outside of the US. I remember the couple of days after 9/11 people were wondering if there were other terrorists in the country and whether more attacks were planned. People demanded their government protect them. This is a solution to that problem. If you have any other means of being able to identify who known terrorists are maintaining contact with in this country, by all means write your representative and let them know ASAP.

  35. #35
    JUB Addict cm98059's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Holdenville
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Available
    Posts
    1,502

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Jimmy Carter about NSA

    Quote Originally Posted by tigerfan482 View Post
    They seems to support what the government has been claiming all along - they're collecting metadata to connect the dots between terrorists all over the globe in cooperation with other governments. I don't see any evidence of sinister plots to spy on all citizens of a country or take away any of their rights. Everything coming out seems to be supportive of the ability to track foreign terrorists wherever they go and good for them. They're doing much more to try and stop terrorists before they strike than any of the Libertarian whiners on here.
    Quote Originally Posted by tigerfan482 View Post
    Agreed. Everyone knows it goes on and the "outrage" any country shows when these things come to light is mild and short-lived.
    Quote Originally Posted by tigerfan482 View Post
    I would be interested to hear your ideas on how to identify people who wish to do us harm in this country communicating with their handlers outside of this country. The reason this was put into place to begin with was because of the 9/11 report saying that the government was lacking in being able to track terrorists in this country. Before the Patriot Act, NSA wasn't allowed to collect any information from any connections that went through the US, regardless of whether the participants were inside or outside of the US. I remember the couple of days after 9/11 people were wondering if there were other terrorists in the country and whether more attacks were planned. People demanded their government protect them. This is a solution to that problem. If you have any other means of being able to identify who known terrorists are maintaining contact with in this country, by all means write your representative and let them know ASAP.
    You seem to be down to earth on most issues, so I don't understand your willingness to unconditionally support the government on this. It seems like you are saying that if the governments said it, it is true. Like our government would actually say, "Yes, we have been collecting data on Americans even though it is against the constitutional protections". Just like our government admitted everything when they got caught with their hand in the Watergate cookie jar. Just like they admitted everything in the Iran Contra Affair. We have seen that these officials are willing to lie to congress. I personally have no doubts that they would lie to the American People, and to foreign governments if that would cover their asses. Our government is still lacking in their ability to track terrorists in this country. Downloading and storing terra bytes of data per second isn't going to miraculously cure the inability. Secret courts issuing secret warrants is not going to correct the problem. It doesn't work in Israel, it does not work in Palestine, and it isn't going to work here. We have joined the rest of the world who have been fighting terrorist attacks for ages.

    It is a slippery slope, first the government takes small portions of your liberties, Like telling you what you can and cannot carry on to an airplane. But it is only a minor thing, and we are told that it is for national security. Then they tell us that they need to collect this metadata and that they need this information for National Security. Some groups try to tell us that we need to ban firearms for National Security, that our country would be safer if firearms were banned. Some groups are trying to tell us that we need to make it harder for Americans to Vote, so that we can protect our elections process. Our elections process doesn't work and it needs to be changed, but not with what they are trying to tell us we need. The government keeps chipping away at liberties, and eventually we will have no liberties left. It doesn't matter what the government tells us to justify the taking of liberties, as long as we continue to allow the government to take away liberties, we are in danger of losing all of our liberties. We need to draw the line in the sand, and protect that line, because when free speech is taken away and the dissenters are all in prison, we will be saying nothing.

  36. #36
    auribus teneo lupum Stardreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Over the Hedge and Under the Hill
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Married
    Posts
    3,359

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Jimmy Carter about NSA

    Two of the safest cities where you could walk the streets in relative safety and not have to worry about crime were Berlin in Nazi Germany and Moscow at the height of the Soviet Union. But I wouldn't want to live in either. Safety and freedom are always a balancing act. You can find a lot of criminals by doing a dragnet search of every house in a city on a regular basis, why not, only criminals need to worry right? We have safeguards in place that forbid such actions unless the authorities have reason to justify searching a residence. Perhaps this surveillance is the only way to deal with the threat but if that is the case, all the more reason to apply VERY strict controls and restrictions to protect the non-terrorists. A secret rubber stamp court is not adequate.
    Last edited by Stardreamer; July 21st, 2013 at 07:55 PM.
    Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule - and both commonly succeed, and are right. H. L. Mencken US editor (1880 - 1956)

  37. #37
    Sex God tigerfan482's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Columbia
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    862

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Jimmy Carter about NSA

    Quote Originally Posted by cm98059 View Post
    You seem to be down to earth on most issues, so I don't understand your willingness to unconditionally support the government on this. It seems like you are saying that if the governments said it, it is true. Like our government would actually say, "Yes, we have been collecting data on Americans even though it is against the constitutional protections". Just like our government admitted everything when they got caught with their hand in the Watergate cookie jar. Just like they admitted everything in the Iran Contra Affair. We have seen that these officials are willing to lie to congress. I personally have no doubts that they would lie to the American People, and to foreign governments if that would cover their asses. Our government is still lacking in their ability to track terrorists in this country. Downloading and storing terra bytes of data per second isn't going to miraculously cure the inability. Secret courts issuing secret warrants is not going to correct the problem. It doesn't work in Israel, it does not work in Palestine, and it isn't going to work here. We have joined the rest of the world who have been fighting terrorist attacks for ages.

    It is a slippery slope, first the government takes small portions of your liberties, Like telling you what you can and cannot carry on to an airplane. But it is only a minor thing, and we are told that it is for national security. Then they tell us that they need to collect this metadata and that they need this information for National Security. Some groups try to tell us that we need to ban firearms for National Security, that our country would be safer if firearms were banned. Some groups are trying to tell us that we need to make it harder for Americans to Vote, so that we can protect our elections process. Our elections process doesn't work and it needs to be changed, but not with what they are trying to tell us we need. The government keeps chipping away at liberties, and eventually we will have no liberties left. It doesn't matter what the government tells us to justify the taking of liberties, as long as we continue to allow the government to take away liberties, we are in danger of losing all of our liberties. We need to draw the line in the sand, and protect that line, because when free speech is taken away and the dissenters are all in prison, we will be saying nothing.
    What I am is a realist. I prefer to live in the real world and not some theorized version of a <insert political ideology here> Utopia. The real world requires trade-offs and compromises to meet the end goal. I support the government because it is MY government. Despite your most dastardly conspiracy theories, the fact remains that the government is of the people, by the people, and for the people. There is no payout for stripping people of their rights and creating a police state. No one benefits from that scenario. The more realistic explanation is that the government is utilizing our lead in technology and the fact that we have access to the vast majority of the world's communication infrastructure and metadata to help protect us against outside threats that have taken advantage of our freedoms to wiggle their way inside. They do this in secrecy because it has to be done that way. You don't announce what you are doing to prevent something to the people you are trying to prevent from doing it. It's the most basic of common sense. But you and people who think like you don't get that because you're blinded by your hatred of a government that has provided you, as a citizen, more than any other government on the face of this Earth. You see enemies and conspiracies everywhere and seem to live in this constant state of thinking everyone is out to get you, and even when a realistic and reasonable scenario is presented to you, you dismiss it as some lie from The Man because all you see is the government out to get you.

    So in response to your other points:

    1) Watergate wasn't the government. It was the work of a couple of people in power that was meant solely to benefit them.
    2) The Iran Contra Affair was conducted in order to secure release of American hostages and attempt to normalize relations with Iran. Was it a good plan? Not really, but it's goal was the exact opposite of some nefarious scheme to screw over Americans. What did you do to try and get American hostages released?
    3) You mention a number of groups with different goals, but you do realize these are the "people" with which you want this country governed by right? You fight for a Libertarian view of the people running everything and being able to basically do what they want. You do realize that these groups you mention that try to make voting harder, block marriage rights, prevent women from making their own health decisions, either promote or ban firearms, preach racism and hate, etc. are all made up of people who are citizens of this country right? The government is a check to these people. They balance out the needs of the minority with the desires of the majority.

    But tell me, what liberties have you lost? Let me know what you aren't able to do anymore because of your lost liberties. Let's talk about this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Stardreamer View Post
    Two of the safest cities where you could walk the streets in relative safety and not have to worry about crime were Berlin in Nazi Germany and Moscow at the height of the Soviet Union. But I wouldn't want to live in either. Safety and freedom are always a balancing act. You can find a lot of criminals by doing a dragnet search of every house in a city on a regular basis, why not, only criminals need to worry right? We have safeguards in place that forbid such actions unless the authorities have reason to justify searching a residence. Perhaps this surveillance is the only way to deal with the threat but if that is the case, all the more reason to apply VERY strict controls and restrictions to protect the non-terrorists. A secret rubber stamp court is not adequate.
    Safety and freedom are a balancing act, and I think we've got a good balance here. I've not lost a single right or ability and we're safer. You keep talking about these rubber stamp courts, but what is your alternative? Do we announce our plans to the world so that they're ineffective right off the bat? You keep talking about surveillance, but what is being surveilled? Metadata? This has been rehashed numerous times. Have you uncovered any evidence yet of Americans being spied on? You and your cohorts keep claiming that there is no evidence because it's all secret, but that's evidence in itself of nothing but a conspiracy theory. Doesn't it not sound absurd to you to basically say "The government must be spying on us because I can't prove it which just shows how secretive they are"? You had your champion Snowden, with his endless accesses and authorities according to him, that had his chance to produce this "super secret" evidence of spying on American, yet he didn't. In fact, most of the information he has put out has been about the US spying on foreign countries and doesn't even relate to his claims. He's sputtered out and will fade into irrelevance, but the best part is the government will never stop hunting him and he'll wind up either with a bullet he put in his own head or he'll wind up in court.

    And by the way, Soviet Moscow and Nazi Berlin were only safe if you were a certain group of people. Not as safe as you might think.

  38. #38
    PerScientiam AdJustitiam bankside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Beware the deepity.
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Married (to a man)
    Posts
    16,820
    Blog Entries
    2

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Jimmy Carter about NSA

    Quote Originally Posted by tigerfan482 View Post
    What I am is a realist. I prefer to live in the real world and not some theorized version of a <insert political ideology here> Utopia. The real world requires trade-offs and compromises to meet the end goal. I support the government because it is MY government.
    My government is not your government. The British government is not your government. Why are you happy that they should spy on your network of contacts and your pattern of web browsing. You have no safeguards under Canadian law, or under British law. Why do you find that satisfactory?
    Americans need to keep their guns so they can protect themselves from gun violence just like Nancy Lanza did. And like Chris Kyle did. And like Gabby Giffords did. And like Tom Clements did. And like Michael Piemonte. And Joseph Wilcox.

  39. #39
    Know thyself kallipolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Piraeus, Greece
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    11,529

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Jimmy Carter about NSA

    Quote Originally Posted by Stardreamer View Post
    Two of the safest cities where you could walk the streets in relative safety and not have to worry about crime were Berlin in Nazi Germany and Moscow at the height of the Soviet Union. But I wouldn't want to live in either. Safety and freedom are always a balancing act. You can find a lot of criminals by doing a dragnet search of every house in a city on a regular basis, why not, only criminals need to worry right? We have safeguards in place that forbid such actions unless the authorities have reason to justify searching a residence. Perhaps this surveillance is the only way to deal with the threat but if that is the case, all the more reason to apply VERY strict controls and restrictions to protect the non-terrorists. A secret rubber stamp court is not adequate.
    I enjoyed reading this post...thanks.

  40. #40
    Sex God tigerfan482's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Columbia
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    862

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Jimmy Carter about NSA

    Quote Originally Posted by bankside View Post
    My government is not your government. The British government is not your government. Why are you happy that they should spy on your network of contacts and your pattern of web browsing. You have no safeguards under Canadian law, or under British law. Why do you find that satisfactory?
    Because I think it is unreasonable to expect any government other than my own to care at all about my needs and desires and I certainly wouldn't expect them to put my needs over the needs of their citizens. An example would be in some middle eastern countries, a woman would be required to marry the man who raped her to avoid prison time. In the United States, not only would that not even be considered, but it wouldn't be tolerated. Should the US Government be expected to safeguard that behavior simply because another country does? Or does it make sense that the will of their population be supreme over the will of another country's population?

  41. #41
    auribus teneo lupum Stardreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Over the Hedge and Under the Hill
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Married
    Posts
    3,359

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Jimmy Carter about NSA

    Quote Originally Posted by tigerfan482 View Post
    Safety and freedom are a balancing act, and I think we've got a good balance here. I've not lost a single right or ability and we're safer. You keep talking about these rubber stamp courts, but what is your alternative? Do we announce our plans to the world so that they're ineffective right off the bat? You keep talking about surveillance, but what is being surveilled? Metadata? This has been rehashed numerous times. Have you uncovered any evidence yet of Americans being spied on? You and your cohorts keep claiming that there is no evidence because it's all secret, but that's evidence in itself of nothing but a conspiracy theory. Doesn't it not sound absurd to you to basically say "The government must be spying on us because I can't prove it which just shows how secretive they are"? You had your champion Snowden, with his endless accesses and authorities according to him, that had his chance to produce this "super secret" evidence of spying on American, yet he didn't. In fact, most of the information he has put out has been about the US spying on foreign countries and doesn't even relate to his claims. He's sputtered out and will fade into irrelevance, but the best part is the government will never stop hunting him and he'll wind up either with a bullet he put in his own head or he'll wind up in court.

    And by the way, Soviet Moscow and Nazi Berlin were only safe if you were a certain group of people. Not as safe as you might think.
    Part of my job as a computer security specialist is scanning and tearing apart files from sensitive networks before they are released, primarily for metadata and ensuring it is removed. Metadata is any information that is embedded in a data file but is not visible when the data file is viewed in its native viewer. A great deal of confidential information has been unintentionally given out by people and organizations because they thought that metadata was harmless.

    I don't know that Americans are being spied on or not which is the problem, because the shear volume of information being gathered means that they CAN be being spied on and we wouldn't know it. The metadata you refer to when congregated can track your whereabouts and movements something the Supreme Court has already said is unconstitutional without a probable cause warrant in cases involving GPS tracking devices. There is a major uproar building right now in several cities because police departments are using cameras and special sensors to record license plates and their locations, building databases of the information. By itself noting a cars license plate and its location at a specific time is perfectly legal and constitutional as it is out in public. BUT when you gather that information in large volumes into a database that can cross correlate the information based on time and place, it becomes a mechanism for tracking a person's whereabouts which gets you into shaky constitutional ground unless you have a probable cause warrant. Yet the police is gathering this information on everybody warrant or not.

    Now there are legitimate law enforcement functions that can be done with databases of this sort as you clearly point out but they are also highly fraught with potential for abuse if not tightly regulated. All I ask in these cases is that the government show that the need for such a wide ranging database is absolutely necessary and that there are very stringent safeguards in place to ensure they are used only for those reasons. Preferably any data that is not relevant to an ongoing investigation should be destroyed promptly. There should be some outside and/or public overview of the process, there are ways to provide such overview while protecting the integrity of investigations. The FISA court is clearly an attempt to do this but it is very badly handled and its purpose is defeated by the very secrecy that surrounds it.

    Right now the NSA appears to be gathering petabytes of information on a regular basis and storing it, this is the electronic equivalent of searching every house in the city for a few criminals. That may be absolutely necessary to protect the country but the citizens of this country have a right to demand that process have strict public safeguards against abuse and we also have the right to decide as a people that the safety it portends to provide isn't worth the cost to liberty and demand the government stop. But we can't know and make those decisions if the extent of the program is not made public.
    Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule - and both commonly succeed, and are right. H. L. Mencken US editor (1880 - 1956)

  42. #42
    auribus teneo lupum Stardreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Over the Hedge and Under the Hill
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Married
    Posts
    3,359

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Jimmy Carter about NSA

    Quote Originally Posted by bankside View Post
    My government is not your government. The British government is not your government. Why are you happy that they should spy on your network of contacts and your pattern of web browsing. You have no safeguards under Canadian law, or under British law. Why do you find that satisfactory?
    Friendly governments spy on each other all the time, it is just part of the normal interactions between governments. Most of it is purposely overlooked by the governments involved. In fact, I suspect quite a bit of information is knowingly passed between governments this way. Most of it is simply watching the economic and political dealings of the other that is not advertised for situation awareness purposes.
    Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule - and both commonly succeed, and are right. H. L. Mencken US editor (1880 - 1956)

  43. #43
    auribus teneo lupum Stardreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Over the Hedge and Under the Hill
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Married
    Posts
    3,359

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Jimmy Carter about NSA

    So if the American people are so in favor of this surveillance, why are Google and the other service providers bending over backwards to show their customers that they are resisting this data collection?

    Why Google is testing encryption of Drive consumer data?

    Google and the others have resisted for years providing serious encryption of their services in response to far more pervasive hacker threat on the excuse that it was costly and difficult. Of course a significant factor was that they also scan your data themselves to generate targeted advertising and user controlled encryption would hinder that. But now they are running scared with the consumers impression that they sharing your data with the government and changing their tune.
    Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule - and both commonly succeed, and are right. H. L. Mencken US editor (1880 - 1956)

  44. #44
    Sex God tigerfan482's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Columbia
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    862

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Jimmy Carter about NSA

    Quote Originally Posted by Stardreamer View Post
    Part of my job as a computer security specialist is scanning and tearing apart files from sensitive networks before they are released, primarily for metadata and ensuring it is removed. Metadata is any information that is embedded in a data file but is not visible when the data file is viewed in its native viewer. A great deal of confidential information has been unintentionally given out by people and organizations because they thought that metadata was harmless.
    You're dealing with a different type of metadata. In telecommunications, metadata is used to route voice and data information across complex networks to its appropriate destination. Metadata is a very widely encompassing term, which is why the Verizon warrant that was leaked stated what data could be collected under the court order.

    Quote Originally Posted by Stardreamer View Post
    I don't know that Americans are being spied on or not which is the problem, because the shear volume of information being gathered means that they CAN be being spied on and we wouldn't know it. The metadata you refer to when congregated can track your whereabouts and movements something the Supreme Court has already said is unconstitutional without a probable cause warrant in cases involving GPS tracking devices. There is a major uproar building right now in several cities because police departments are using cameras and special sensors to record license plates and their locations, building databases of the information. By itself noting a cars license plate and its location at a specific time is perfectly legal and constitutional as it is out in public. BUT when you gather that information in large volumes into a database that can cross correlate the information based on time and place, it becomes a mechanism for tracking a person's whereabouts which gets you into shaky constitutional ground unless you have a probable cause warrant. Yet the police is gathering this information on everybody warrant or not.
    I invite you to watch the House Judiciary Committee hearings from this past Wednesday to see how both the metadata and PRISM programs work. They were fairly well explained by the members of the first panel. The problem with the information Snowden released was that it was 4 slides out of a 41 page slide deck. The slides were very generic and described a system in which they could get certain data. They left out the information on who gets targeted, how they are targeted, what process occurs to get the data, etc. Snowden had every opportunity to release evidence showing Americans were being spied on, but didn't. He said "look at these 4 slides and trust me about the rest." In fact, Snowden never once made the claim that Americans were being spied on by the systems and he never once accused anyone of wrongdoing. He consistently made the point that bad things COULD happen, but that logic could be used to outlaw or ban anything.

    Your GPS and data aggregation argument is flawed in that it is the act itself (placing a GPS on someone's care or aggregating the data you have) that is illegal, not the gathering of data with no reasonable expectation of privacy. As you mentioned, your car's license plate and its location at any given point in time has no reasonable expectation of privacy. It's the aggregation of all of those to intentionally track you which is (arguably) illegal. That doesn't mean that the data can't be kept, it just means it can't be used in that particular way. Again, like in the Snowden case, the ACLU didn't allege that the police are doing anything wrong. They are arguing the police COULD possibly do something wrong. If you support that reasoning, then you should support banning all firearms because owners of them COULD possibly shoot someone. Or maybe we should ban cars because the possessors of those COULD possibly get in a wreck or hurt somebody. It's a pretty ridiculous stance when you think about it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Stardreamer View Post
    Now there are legitimate law enforcement functions that can be done with databases of this sort as you clearly point out but they are also highly fraught with potential for abuse if not tightly regulated. All I ask in these cases is that the government show that the need for such a wide ranging database is absolutely necessary and that there are very stringent safeguards in place to ensure they are used only for those reasons. Preferably any data that is not relevant to an ongoing investigation should be destroyed promptly. There should be some outside and/or public overview of the process, there are ways to provide such overview while protecting the integrity of investigations. The FISA court is clearly an attempt to do this but it is very badly handled and its purpose is defeated by the very secrecy that surrounds it.
    By publicizing and having debates on everything a place like the NSA does, you defeat the purpose of why it does it. You don't announce to criminals that you're using cameras in these particular locations to check license plates for crimes. Then, they just change their route or take off their license plates. You can't announce what you are going to do and expect it to still be effective. That's why we don't send battle plans to be published in newspapers for public review before executing them. It really doesn't make sense.

    And I, for one, believe the government has explained a pretty darn good case for keeping this information. They've explained how they use this information to track terrorist suspects. If this information isn't kept, then all you have is the information in the present and you can't go back to see who else may be conspiring with someone. It's a very logical and simplistic concept.

    Quote Originally Posted by Stardreamer View Post
    Right now the NSA appears to be gathering petabytes of information on a regular basis and storing it, this is the electronic equivalent of searching every house in the city for a few criminals. That may be absolutely necessary to protect the country but the citizens of this country have a right to demand that process have strict public safeguards against abuse and we also have the right to decide as a people that the safety it portends to provide isn't worth the cost to liberty and demand the government stop. But we can't know and make those decisions if the extent of the program is not made public.
    Your analogy is not correct. The government isn't searching anyone's home. That would be the content of the messages. They're driving by the home and noting the street name, address, and color of the house. That would be the metadata equivalent. But you're right - you do have every right to demand the government stop. Just get the majority of Americans to vote in people who will not authorize these types of operations and you're perfectly able to change the law.

    Quote Originally Posted by Stardreamer View Post
    So if the American people are so in favor of this surveillance, why are Google and the other service providers bending over backwards to show their customers that they are resisting this data collection?

    Why Google is testing encryption of Drive consumer data?

    Google and the others have resisted for years providing serious encryption of their services in response to far more pervasive hacker threat on the excuse that it was costly and difficult. Of course a significant factor was that they also scan your data themselves to generate targeted advertising and user controlled encryption would hinder that. But now they are running scared with the consumers impression that they sharing your data with the government and changing their tune.
    Easy. It's a smart business decision that capitalizes on the current situations and the desire to try and save face with certain groups of vocal people. It's nothing more than that.

    I think a more relevant question to ask is that if so many Americans are against what these companies are doing with the government, how many have stopped using their services?

  45. #45
    JUB Addict cm98059's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Holdenville
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Available
    Posts
    1,502

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Jimmy Carter about NSA

    Quote Originally Posted by tigerfan482 View Post
    Your GPS and data aggregation argument is flawed in that it is the act itself (placing a GPS on someone's care or aggregating the data you have) that is illegal, not the gathering of data with no reasonable expectation of privacy. As you mentioned, your car's license plate and its location at any given point in time has no reasonable expectation of privacy. It's the aggregation of all of those to intentionally track you which is (arguably) illegal. That doesn't mean that the data can't be kept, it just means it can't be used in that particular way. Again, like in the Snowden case, the ACLU didn't allege that the police are doing anything wrong. They are arguing the police COULD possibly do something wrong. If you support that reasoning, then you should support banning all firearms because owners of them COULD possibly shoot someone. Or maybe we should ban cars because the possessors of those COULD possibly get in a wreck or hurt somebody. It's a pretty ridiculous stance when you think about it.
    It isn't the government placing a GPS device on your car anymore. You placed it there yourself when you started your car and turned on your navigation system. You placed a secondary one in your car as you got in with your cellular phone in your pocket. Unfortunately, your argument falls flat because of one simple fact, Our constitutional protections are designed to protect us from having our rights usurped by the government, not each other. The constitution doesn't protect us from ourselves, business, or others.

  46. #46
    Sex God tigerfan482's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Columbia
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    862

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Jimmy Carter about NSA

    Quote Originally Posted by cm98059 View Post
    It isn't the government placing a GPS device on your car anymore. You placed it there yourself when you started your car and turned on your navigation system. You placed a secondary one in your car as you got in with your cellular phone in your pocket. Unfortunately, your argument falls flat because of one simple fact, Our constitutional protections are designed to protect us from having our rights usurped by the government, not each other. The constitution doesn't protect us from ourselves, business, or others.
    I'm confused by your point. I never made any claims about the Constitution providing protections against private citizens. However, in your examples of you putting your own GPS enabled device in the car with you, it would still be illegal for the government to use the tracking of those devices without an appropriate court order. I'm not getting the point you're trying to make. Are you arguing the hypothetical scenario where the government uses all of this to track you, because I haven't seen anywhere where some has provided any evidence this is being done? And in this case, I would agree with you that what the government is doing is illegal if it didn't have a probable cause warrant.

  47. #47
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    104,093
    Blog Entries
    78

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Jimmy Carter about NSA

    Quote Originally Posted by cm98059 View Post
    It isn't the government placing a GPS device on your car anymore. You placed it there yourself when you started your car and turned on your navigation system. You placed a secondary one in your car as you got in with your cellular phone in your pocket. Unfortunately, your argument falls flat because of one simple fact, Our constitutional protections are designed to protect us from having our rights usurped by the government, not each other. The constitution doesn't protect us from ourselves, business, or others.
    I suspect that if the Founding Fathers had foreseen the sort of intrusive power available to giant corporations, there would indeed be constitutional protections against that unbridled use of power.

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  48. #48
    JUB Addict cm98059's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Holdenville
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Available
    Posts
    1,502

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Jimmy Carter about NSA

    Quote Originally Posted by tigerfan482 View Post
    I'm confused by your point. I never made any claims about the Constitution providing protections against private citizens. However, in your examples of you putting your own GPS enabled device in the car with you, it would still be illegal for the government to use the tracking of those devices without an appropriate court order. I'm not getting the point you're trying to make. Are you arguing the hypothetical scenario where the government uses all of this to track you, because I haven't seen anywhere where some has provided any evidence this is being done? And in this case, I would agree with you that what the government is doing is illegal if it didn't have a probable cause warrant.
    I was trying to clarify that in this day and age, it is not necessarily someone physically placing a tracking device on your vehicle. They just use the ones you are already providing them with. But yes, to be within the law, they need to have a valid probable cause warrant.

    The reference to the constitution not providing protections from corporations or each other was in rebuttal of your comment to stardreamer about using the same logic to ban firearms or cars. the reason that logic could not be used to ban cars, is that the constitution doesn't protect us from each other, The constitution was written to define what activities are acceptable for the government to do. Now, there are laws that dictate interpersonal behavior, but they are not a part of the document called the constitution.

  49. #49
    JUB Addict cm98059's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Holdenville
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Available
    Posts
    1,502

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Jimmy Carter about NSA

    Quote Originally Posted by Kulindahr View Post
    I suspect that if the Founding Fathers had foreseen the sort of intrusive power available to giant corporations, there would indeed be constitutional protections against that unbridled use of power.
    I don't agree. The constitution was never intended to dictate interpersonal behavior. The constitution was written with the intent of defining the activities that are legal for the government to endeavor in. They in essence created a setoff rules about what the government could and could not do. There are separate laws that dictate interpersonal behavior. Laws that were set down by the government. What the constitution does, is in effect limit the government so that it cannot become a tyrant.

  50. #50
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    104,093
    Blog Entries
    78

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Jimmy Carter about NSA

    Quote Originally Posted by cm98059 View Post
    I don't agree. The constitution was never intended to dictate interpersonal behavior. The constitution was written with the intent of defining the activities that are legal for the government to endeavor in. They in essence created a setoff rules about what the government could and could not do. There are separate laws that dictate interpersonal behavior. Laws that were set down by the government. What the constitution does, is in effect limit the government so that it cannot become a tyrant.
    Then they would have simply made it illegal for the government to give any legal status whatsoever to entities large enough to be so intrusive.

    The thing is, corporations are given their powers by government. The government should not be allowed to hand out such power as today's corporations have.

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | About JustUsBoys.com | Site Map | RSS | Webmasters | Advertise | Link to JUB | Report A Bug on this Page

Visit our sister sites: Broke Straight Boys | CollegeDudes.com | CollegeBoyPhysicals.com | RocketTube
All models appearing on JustUsBoys.com were over 18 at the time of photography. The records for sexually explicit images required by U.S. 2257 are kept by the
individual producers of the images. The location of the records is available by clicking the Custodian of Records link at the bottom of each gallery page.
© 2012 JustUsBoys.com. The JustUsBoys.com name and logo are registered trademarks. Labeled with ICRA and RTA. Member of ASACP and The Free Speech Coalition.