bush_cheney2004 Posted June 25, 2013 Report Posted June 25, 2013 So now you're comparing the NSA to a team like the Maple Leafs. I rest my case. No...all Canadian NHL teams...I rest my case ! Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Michael Hardner Posted June 25, 2013 Report Posted June 25, 2013 I was asking you a simple question, and the purpose was to demonstrate to you your own broken logic. No, the logic isn't broken. You're comparing apples and oranges, and repeating the same stretched logic over and over. Once again... Why not use these capabilities to hunt down violent criminals here in Canada? What logical reason do you have to draw a line there? Why would you ignore the big threats to your security in favor of the tiny ones? I already addressed this above, I think, in the post where I talk about premeditation and CCTVs. Please read it agian. No Im not, I know exactly what the government wants to do, because they already tried to do it. That's not what I said - I said you're making assumptions about the ISP. This is getting really tiresome: will you please read my posts more carefully ? Yeah... its a valid question and if you force yourself to think about it, you see the flaw in your thought process, and I suspect you already have or you would have just answered it. No, it's not a flaw - it's a terrible analogy. See my wiki link. From what I can tell you didnt even try to convince me. I expressed why I think it's worth the trade off. I gathered data on this very thread. This isn't like number crunching, it's a trade off of personal values, i.e. it's more of an opinion or value proposition than factual IMO. Your argument appears not be designed to work on someone that has a habit of basing decisions on real information. It sure as hell wouldnt work on the other Mike Hardner on this forum that posts about healthcare Well, at least you're not saying that I don't understand the technology any more. I don't think I'm missing any facts. It's just a trade off and I have made my choice just as you have made yours. You seem to want to continue this discussion, for some reason. If so, please add something new to the discussion, as w'ere just looping around here. There's no equation that will solve this issue for us. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Hudson Jones Posted June 25, 2013 Author Report Posted June 25, 2013 No...all Canadian NHL teams...I rest my case ! Really though, the Leafs sucking aside... can you, at least for one day, try to avoid sharing one of your ridiculous analogies and comparisons? Quote When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love have always won. There have been tyrants and murderers, and for a time, they can seem invincible, but in the end, they always fall. Think of it--always. Gandhi
Argus Posted June 25, 2013 Report Posted June 25, 2013 He would be extradited in a heartbeat. He's fleeing persecution. He's fleeing prosecution. There is a distinct difference between the two terms. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted June 25, 2013 Report Posted June 25, 2013 Ron Paul speaks the truth. He's a wack job. And Snowden apparently walked away with several laptops full of data. If you don't think the Chinese and Russians are now looking through that data you're awfully naive. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 25, 2013 Report Posted June 25, 2013 Really though, the Leafs sucking aside... can you, at least for one day, try to avoid sharing one of your ridiculous analogies and comparisons? Why? I am tailoring my message to the audience. Should the NSA, like so many hapless Canadian NHL teams, stop trying to be successful ? Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Argus Posted June 25, 2013 Report Posted June 25, 2013 (edited) Why be furious about the obvious ? It's not like we live in Canada ! I'd be more concerned if the NSA wasn't doing its job. It wasn't. Or it wouldn't be privatizing top secret information processing and analyses, most likely to corporations which donate heavily to various political campaigns. It's a lot easier for a spy to get hired by a corporation and get his hands on data than to get hired by the NSA or CIA. And if Snowdon managed to deliberately get himself hired specifically to steal data, as he has said, imagine how difficult the Chinese and Russians find it getting spies into these corporations. They're probably riddled with foreign spies. Edited June 25, 2013 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted June 25, 2013 Report Posted June 25, 2013 Why? I am tailoring my message to the audience. Should the NSA, like so many hapless Canadian NHL teams, stop trying to be successful ? Perhaps the Canadians, like the US, should put billions of tax dollars into supporting their hockey teams.... Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 25, 2013 Report Posted June 25, 2013 And if Snowdon managed to deliberately get himself hired specifically to steal data, as he has said, imagine how difficult the Chinese and Russians find it getting spies into these corporations. They're probably riddled with foreign spies. There are "spies" everywhere....in many government and non-government organizations...in many different nations. It was the American FBI that informed Canada of their naval officer turned "spy" for Russia. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 25, 2013 Report Posted June 25, 2013 Perhaps the Canadians, like the US, should put billions of tax dollars into supporting their hockey teams.... They do.....for instance, Winnipeg's new Jets team will cost taxpayers about $240 million. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
dre Posted June 26, 2013 Report Posted June 26, 2013 No, the logic isn't broken. You're comparing apples and oranges, and repeating the same stretched logic over and over. Its not apples and oranges at all. The proposal would use the same technology but it would do way way more to protect your security. Why is one acceptable to you and the other not? Its a simple question, why dont you just answer it? You seem to want to continue this discussion, for some reason. If so, please add something new to the discussion, as w'ere just looping around here. There's no equation that will solve this issue for us. Iv been the only one adding anything, and you just ignore most of it. If you dont want to talk about this, then fine... dont post about it. But if you continue to promote the idea that my right to privacy should be reduced to protect you from something with a 1 in 20 million likely hood of happening, and provide absolutely no evidence that the "problem" warrants your solution, and no evidence that this solution is the best way to address the problem, then Im going to keep poking your posts full of holes. That's not what I said - I said you're making assumptions about the ISP. No Im not. ISP's dont have the hardware required to store all this data, and they should not be forced to fund this. Thats why the ISA proposed forcing ISP's to allow the government to install hardware. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Michael Hardner Posted June 26, 2013 Report Posted June 26, 2013 Its not apples and oranges at all. The proposal would use the same technology but it would do way way more to protect your security. Why is one acceptable to you and the other not? Its a simple question, why dont you just answer it? I already did. Murder isn't usually premeditated, and planned over email and phone in the same way as terrorist acts - which require collaboration over thousands of miles, funding and so on. The chance of individual murders being stopped by this technology is next to nil as far as I can see. CCTVs are a better way to mitigate public criminal acts. I already explained that above - are you going to make me tell you a third time ? Iv been the only one adding anything, and you just ignore most of it. Actually, as with the example above - I answer and you just don't like my answer. Or maybe you don't raed it. If you dont want to talk about this, then fine... dont post about it. But if you continue to promote the idea that my right to privacy should be reduced to protect you from something with a 1 in 20 million likely hood of happening, and provide absolutely no evidence that the "problem" warrants your solution, and no evidence that this solution is the best way to address the problem, then Im going to keep poking your posts full of holes. I don't have to convince you, any more than you have to convince me that my right to security should be reduced to protect you from an abstract idea that you've been violated... presumably by a search algorithm. And, this is yet another restatement. No Im not. ISP's dont have the hardware required to store all this data, and they should not be forced to fund this. Thats why the ISA proposed forcing ISP's to allow the government to install hardware. It's not a big problem, pretty easily solvable I should think. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
dre Posted June 26, 2013 Report Posted June 26, 2013 I already did. Murder isn't usually premeditated, and planned over email and phone in the same way as terrorist acts - which require collaboration over thousands of miles, funding and so on. The chance of individual murders being stopped by this technology is next to nil as far as I can see. CCTVs are a better way to mitigate public criminal acts. I already answered that point. The information could help catch and convict violent criminals which would do a lot more for your safety and security than what you propose. next to nil Kinda like 1 in 20 million? It's not a big problem, pretty easily solvable I should think. Warehousing all of this data would be very expensive. Its not impossible, but no valid reason has been provided to do it. Furthermore siezing these private communications in transit would be a clear violation of section 8 of the charter, so its all a non-starter anyways. And the police can already read your email, they just need an easily obtainable court order to do it. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Michael Hardner Posted June 26, 2013 Report Posted June 26, 2013 I already answered that point. The information could help catch and convict violent criminals which would do a lot more for your safety and security than what you propose. It's too wide a net for too small a gain. I don't think it would work. Kinda like 1 in 20 million? 3K people out of 300M died in 2001, which is 1 out of 100K for that year. Factor in the fear, misery, and economic damage and value can be seen in putting up barriers to anybody planning attacks. Also, it's not if but when: America and the west in general have enemies who are plotting against them - this is not imaginary. Warehousing all of this data would be very expensive. Its not impossible, but no valid reason has been provided to do it. I think there are ways to do it cheaply. Furthermore siezing these private communications in transit would be a clear violation of section 8 of the charter, Depends on how it's done. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
GostHacked Posted June 26, 2013 Report Posted June 26, 2013 He's a wack job. And Snowden apparently walked away with several laptops full of data. If you don't think the Chinese and Russians are now looking through that data you're awfully naive. Through cyber warfare the Chinese and Russians already knew most of this information. The American population seemed to be the last to know. None of this is really new information to them. Lots of speculation on this Snowden guy which has yet to materialize into fact, and yet people have already decided he is guilty. The US smear campaign against him is working full tilt. Quote
GostHacked Posted June 26, 2013 Report Posted June 26, 2013 It's too wide a net for too small a gain. I don't think it would work. If you take this mentality, then you seem to fail to understand how big the net already is. 3K people out of 300M died in 2001, which is 1 out of 100K for that year. Factor in the fear, misery, and economic damage and value can be seen in putting up barriers to anybody planning attacks. Also, it's not if but when: America and the west in general have enemies who are plotting against them - this is not imaginary. Factor in the fear? So who is instilling the fear? The government or the terrorists? No one is dimissing the enemies America has made for herself over the last few decades. However the scenario is that you have a better chance of getting killed by car walking across the street for your morning coffee. You have a better chance of dying by a police firearm than you do a terrorist. You have a better chance of getting hit by lightning than a terror attack. You have a better chance of getting cancer before ALL of these mentioned above. The risk of terrorism is real, but the probability of it happening is so low on the list, all this security theater is simply just for show to make people FEEL safe. And remember a good portion of the foiled plots by the FBI and other agencies were set up by those same agencies. Using entrapment to nail brainless idiots who cannot tell an FBI agent from a real terrorist. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/opinion/sunday/terrorist-plots-helped-along-by-the-fbi.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 THE United States has been narrowly saved from lethal terrorist plots in recent years — or so it has seemed. A would-be suicide bomber was intercepted on his way to the Capitol; a scheme to bomb synagogues and shoot Stinger missiles at military aircraft was developed by men in Newburgh, N.Y.; and a fanciful idea to fly explosive-laden model planes into the Pentagon and the Capitol was hatched in Massachusetts. But all these dramas were facilitated by the F.B.I., whose undercover agents and informers posed as terrorists offering a dummy missile, fake C-4 explosives, a disarmed suicide vest and rudimentary training. Suspects naïvely played their parts until they were arrested. Quote
Michael Hardner Posted June 26, 2013 Report Posted June 26, 2013 If you take this mentality, then you seem to fail to understand how big the net already is. I'm assuming that it's limited by what we know - since we're presumably talking about what should be allowed, not what is possible, or what is possible if they're currently cheating and collecting and storing all conversations for example. Factor in the fear? So who is instilling the fear? The government or the terrorists? I would ask who is establishing the basis for fear, and between those two, I would pick the terrorists. The risk of terrorism is real, but the probability of it happening is so low on the list, all this security theater is simply just for show to make people FEEL safe. Right. Which is weighed off against people FEELING their privacy is violated. We're dealing in an emotional arena here, there's no denial of that. And remember a good portion of the foiled plots by the FBI and other agencies were set up by those same agencies. Using entrapment to nail brainless idiots who cannot tell an FBI agent from a real terrorist. No - your article says nothing of the sort. It says they were facilitated. But, I will take your point - made in the NYT pice - that this is a "gray area". Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Shady Posted June 26, 2013 Report Posted June 26, 2013 Through cyber warfare the Chinese and Russians already knew most of this information. The American population seemed to be the last to know. None of this is really new information to them.Lots of speculation on this Snowden guy which has yet to materialize into fact, and yet people have already decided he is guilty. The US smear campaign against him is working full tilt. How can you make such a ridiculous unsubstantiated claim like Russia and China already knew of such intelligence? How do you know that? And how do you know the entirety of the intelligence Snowden possesses? Quote
DogOnPorch Posted June 26, 2013 Report Posted June 26, 2013 You have a better chance of dying by a police firearm than you do a terrorist. You have a better chance of getting hit by lightning than a terror attack. You have a better chance of getting cancer before ALL of these mentioned above. The risk of terrorism is real, but the probability of it happening is so low on the list, all this security theater is simply just for show to make people FEEL safe. Yet terrorist attacks occur and folks do get caught-up in them. It's political suicide to not do anything about attacks that could kill anyone and their dog. If it's biker on biker terrorism, for example, less people care. But, as soon as that little kid gets waxed by the biker's nail bomb...the compass needle shifts. It's what the so-called authorities do about terrorism that frustrates me and those like me. Frisking grandma at the airport isn't going to fix it. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
GostHacked Posted June 26, 2013 Report Posted June 26, 2013 I'm assuming that it's limited by what we know - since we're presumably talking about what should be allowed, not what is possible, or what is possible if they're currently cheating and collecting and storing all conversations for example. You are going to get nothing but low level terrorists. The real ones don't use GMAIL or Windows. The real terrorists don't use the same system used to spy on Americans. I would ask who is establishing the basis for fear, and between those two, I would pick the terrorists. I hear more about the terrorists from Obama than I do from the terrorists. He is always telling me they are going to attack, is it a warning or is he trying to scare people to give up their rights for the boogie man. Right. Which is weighed off against people FEELING their privacy is violated. We're dealing in an emotional arena here, there's no denial of that. It's not a feeling of the privacy being violated, their privacy IS being violated. No - your article says nothing of the sort. It says they were facilitated. But, I will take your point - made in the NYT pice - that this is a "gray area". So it's the FBI's job to facilitate potential terrorists? The terror attacks that did happen, did the FBI fail to stop a plot they helped facilitate? Quote
Michael Hardner Posted June 26, 2013 Report Posted June 26, 2013 You are going to get nothing but low level terrorists. The real ones don't use GMAIL or Windows. The real terrorists don't use the same system used to spy on Americans. I'll take a low level terrorist. It's not a feeling of the privacy being violated, their privacy IS being violated. Privacy is a personal thing. What you consider private is not what I consider private. It's like "public decency" - there is an unstated consensus on what it is. So it's the FBI's job to facilitate potential terrorists? Good idea for a different thread. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
GostHacked Posted June 26, 2013 Report Posted June 26, 2013 How can you make such a ridiculous unsubstantiated claim like Russia and China already knew of such intelligence? I read books Shady, I read books. I also work with technology daily, this is my bread and butter. I've been following this kind of thing for years. You do understand that the US, China, Russia and many countries now use cyber warfare extensively? Don't forget much of the technology used to spy on Americans is already the same system used by the Chinese to spy on their own citizens and to control the flow of information. A couple common players are Google and Microsoft, who are part of the program in both the USA and China. How do you know that? And how do you know the entirety of the intelligence Snowden possesses? I don't know, and neither do you. It's all speculation at this point. But please this is a perfect example of why the constitution needs to be upheld, innocent until proven guilty. The other thing that this may end up proving is the ability for the US to kill Snowden without any kind of trial. Being an American he has full rights under the accordance of the law correct? But what does a law mean when it can be changed even to the point where former illegal activities that would violate the constitution are completely legal now simply because they have changed the laws? Quote
GostHacked Posted June 26, 2013 Report Posted June 26, 2013 Good idea for a different thread. Which can and will eventually tie into the spy program. Why do you need to spy on Americans when the FBI already knows about most of the terrorists through already working methods. Also understand that the FBI's jurisdiction is the USA while the CIA is everything else. Quote
GostHacked Posted June 26, 2013 Report Posted June 26, 2013 So another thing to think about is why is the USA helping terrorists overseas (Al-Queda and the Free Syrian Arm) while trying to prevent groups like Al-Queda from attacking the USA? Still think this NSA program is after terrorists? Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 26, 2013 Report Posted June 26, 2013 It's what the so-called authorities do about terrorism that frustrates me and those like me. Frisking grandma at the airport isn't going to fix it. Right, but they gotta frisk grandma to survive court challenges to security screenings. Airliner security pre-dates the current WOT going back to the 1960's and highjackings. "Fly this plane to CUBA !! " Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.