Noticed a trend.

I'm sure Yuri already lumped me in as pro-government since he is anti-government and I don't agree with what he is saying, but I'm pretty neutral when it comes to government.. mostly because all the negative aspects of the nature of politics comes from human nature, and in reality, masses of people need some people at the helm helping to run things for everyone to protect us from ourselves.

There's a bunch wrong with our government.. but a big factor in that is because there is a bunch wrong with society in general. People as individuals aren't as bad, but people as a whole suck. The vast majority only think of themselves.. and since that is how the vast majority of people are, that's how it will be with politicians and government.

Then you have people who are completely paranoid and look at everything as some plot to make us slaves and beat us around.. when its not like that. No matter what, when you have people leading the masses, there are going to be disagreements. Sometimes it turns physical and violent, sometimes the government starts it, sometimes the people. Like the war on drugs is ridiculous.. and there is a lot of corruption and people with self interests.. but some things are justified to me.

Like that rancher who was grazing his cattle on federally protected land. I'm sure someone will think "there's no such thing as federal land", but there is. The rancher was in the wrong and the feds even stayed out of it for way longer than they should have, letting it be dealt with on a local level. Things weren't, so the feds stepped in like they should of long ago and people geeked out.. it was ridiculous. That kind of stuff is needed cause if you were to let one person do it, more would and then we wouldn't have any nice, protected lands. It'd be even worse without anything at all.. cause you'd be out in a park enjoying the wildlife, much of which is probably going extinct because people are slobs who only care about themselves, then some dude comes ripping through on an ATV cause there is no threat of legal repercussion.

It's a fine line.. but it is needed and in order to rip all the negative aspects of government, we need to rid the population of its negative aspects.. and its like, good luck.

 

I'm somewhat on your brother's side. Wouldn't say I'm all for it.. but it really doesn't bother me. The other week they interviewed Snowden on John Oliver and they were talking about the NSA and brought up dick pics. It was kind of funny cause they asked people on the street and none of them really knew who Snowden was and when asked if they thought the government could see their nudie pics, most said no. But they can.. and that doesn't bother me cause if I'm using some kind of modern technology, I'm already operating under the assumption that more than the intended parties are going to see whatever it is. You'll always have non-government people trying to snoop on your shit.. hell, hackers snagged up all those celebrity nudes awhile back and released them. At least with the government, they don't show the entire population your dick pics.

And when you're scanning the entire nation, you really wouldn't be going after everyone and anyone who does something that is illegal, yet minor.. lol, there wouldn't be enough resources to do it because everyone would be doing something minor.

 

You got any proof for that first statement? Cause according to Snowden, not a 3rd party, they don't even really record phone calls unless you're on a specific watch list. The NSA records information like who made the call and to who and for how long.. in order for them to save every phone call, conversation included, they'd need an asinine amount of data storage. While they already have a huge database, the amount of hardware to record all audio would be insanely more than what they have. And I am pretty sure that the NSA only feeds the DEA information on those who the DEA is already investigating and if you're being investigated by the DEA, its probably because you're going overboard. It's not like you would talk to someone on the phone about smoking weed or even growing weed for yourself and the DEA is just going to show up. I live in a state where weed is illegal and I've talked about smoking and growing weed on the phone and not once had any kind of blow back. Now if you're talking about pushing pounds of weed weekly, or bout smuggling weed over borders, then you'll probably catch someone's attention.

Here's my deal. I remember as a kid, before the internet and cell phones, we only had land lines. At my grandma's, the lines were crossed and we could hear our neighbors' phone calls. Not only that, we all are (well should be) fully aware that our phone calls go through the service companies.. where they too can listen in if they wanted. Anytime you use the internet or phone, you should be aware that it's far from private.. it never really was to begin with. If you want privacy, the only way you'll be guaranteed it is if you do it face to face. If I were paranoid about the NSA, I'd have to be paranoid about the phone companies and anyone else who is involved.. and if that were the case, then I'd just be a neurotic ball of paranoia who doesn't use any modern technology.

As for unwarranted searches, no I don't agree with them.. but like I said, there are problems with our government.. it will never be perfect, always a work in progress. I just don't lump different issues together cause it'll only feed unwarranted paranoia.

You should see if the Snowden interview is on YouTube.. might give you some more insight hearing it from the horse's mouth.

 

When evaluating whether or not they are comfortable with being spied upon, most "good" people make the same mistake. 
They assume that the observer/spy/judge  will view the footage with the same mindset they themselves have. 

"I don't think I'm doing anything wrong, therefore no one else could possibly disagree with my acts or try to construe surveillance footage against me."

People also do not take the evolution or devolution of laws into consideration.    If spying/monitoring is firmly embedded into our every day lives, then every opressive or just ridiculous law passed in the future instantly counts a thousand fold because the observed can be held accountable for it 24/7.  




 

 

www.dumblaws.com There are already a ton of ridiculous laws still on the books, many of which "they" could go after you for.. and governments have been spying on it's people since there was government, it is nothing new and has been embedded in our daily lives before we were even alive. Yet with all the laws and spying they have, the vast majority of us are still walking free. If the government cracked down on all laws, pretty much only children would be left to run society.

 

I think we approach the same data with different conclusions.  

The fact that there are already "a ton of ridiculous laws on the books they could go after you for"  just haven't yet does not make me ok with granting them more surveillance.     Otherwise, what is the train of thought here?   They haven't gone after people before, so that means they never will?

Also, let us not confuse the fact that governments always had spies and court sanctioned wire taps on individuals with the rapid  advancement of technology we are currently experiencing.   Mass surveilance of a population on this scale is unprecedented simply because the tech was never there.  Now everyone and their cat has a GPS, camera and microphone in their pocket. 

To be clear,  I am not saying I know "the government"  is coming to getcha,  but I am against giving anyone rapidly increasing means of surveillance while placing my hopes on them never abusing it out of the goodness of their hearts.   History is full of regimes that turned on their people, whether as a whole or targetted groups that opposed it, and there is no geopolitical provision in place guaranteeing American immunity in such regard.

 

It was never really up to the people to decide how much surveillance they can do.. and the government is typically ahead of the game in terms of technology. In fact, the most of the technology people have has been stuff that filtered down through the government. That's how its always been, the government has advanced technology in comparison to what the people have and they keep it that way until they are working on or have new tech and then they start filtering down the old stuff to the people.. meanwhile, it is new to us. Pretty much all of our everyday technology has been stuff that the government/military used on other countries or its own citizens before the people really even knew of its existence. They always need to be a step ahead and what better way to do that than to give out your leftovers.. and I don't really have a problem with that. It'd be nice if it weren't like that, but realistically it has to be cause in order to keep secrets from the world, you have to keep secrets from your people cause people have big mouths.

I'm not saying it is impossible for our government to turn on us completely.. but it is highly unlikely with how the US is today. It would end up being a civil war.. and a bloody one. And in reality, I can see the people turning on the government long before the government turns on us. We are too varied of a culture/people to actually reign in by one group. People say "history repeats itself" but there really wasn't a country like the US before. Look at all the big players, they've pretty much had their lands for thousands of years with rich cultural backgrounds.. our culture started a few hundred years ago and didn't take long at all to become extremely varied.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEVlyP4_11M
 
You should give this a watch.. I highly doubt it'd change your opinion on it because it is basically saying the government is spying too much, but it'll help to give you a better idea of what is what. Plus, it's funny..

 

Your first paragraph is an accurate historical rundown of "how things are" and I agree with it.     I believe the topic of discussion is how people are comfortable with more and more government dependency and intrusion.   Some, like yourself, do not seem to have a problem with it but it is quite obvious that many others do.    Snowden is a good example of how divided the nation is on this issue as many consider him a hero while others want to hang him.

I came out of a civil war, and while I was fairly young when my family fled the country, I remember many adults saying it would never come to bloodshed and that the government would never turn on them.   Granted, my country's circumstances were very different than modern day US, but just like in many conflicts before and since, there does seem to be a trend of denial until shit hits the fan.   People who grew up in peacetime tend to generally overestimate the sturdiness of said peace.     

Many, like in this forum,  make mention of Nazi Germany of the 30's and 40's, which in turn causes people to compare their modern life to that period.  A quick examination yields several differences, so the conclusion tends to often be "we are nothing like that because X, Y, and Z".     In this particular comparison, most people's notion of Nazi Germany is what was witnessed during the actual war, once they already  had the power.  Few are aware of the factors that lead to that in the first place in detail.

It bears value to remark that oppressive regimes do not have to be carbon copies of previous oppressive regimes, nor that they have to follow the same path of ascension to power.  Moreso, considering changes to technology and society over time, it seems logical that they specifically wouldn't be carbon copies.  The only thing the general populace ever did have, before war or open oppression began, were suspicions and pondering of potentially threatening trends.  Any government that purposely or accidentally even  becomes oppressive  will never run a public service announcement counting down the days until official dictatorial control.  Historically, things generally tend to be fine, until they are not.
 

 

I should also point out that entertaining and especially accepting a colossal change, like having to live in oncoming war, or a dictatorship, or having to leave the country, is by definition not something most people want to or can accept.    Most do not want to change their daily breakfast and going to work routine. They certainly would not want to entertain the notion of far greater and more grave changes to their lifestyle, like war and oppression.   To truly accept this would demand exhausting and uncertain moves on their part like moving, pulling kids out of school, quitting jobs, etc etc. Nobody wants to do this.  Most can't even.     This is why even after rumors of oppression circulate for months or years, the vast majority will not scramble to improve their circumstances until said oppression is at the front door.    

I don't even blame them in most cases, just pointing out how much more tempting and easier it is to accept that nothing bad can happen/is happening than to truly entertain the notion of major paradigm shift.

 

 

Assuming that you are being spied apon proves our point does it not? You do realize this is illegal right?

 

You're right, they didn't stop it.. because they wanted it. Fear and paranoia are the dominant emotions for masses of people. Not saying it is right, but it didn't take long after Pearl Harbor for Americans to become paranoid of Japanese Americans. There was already racism against them before the war.. and when PH was hit, at first Americans weren't so paranoid and many even supported them. It didn't take long after new information trickled in for the seed of fear to spread through Chinese whispers.. like how they were willing to kamikaze shit. To a mass of people, that's going to be scary as shit.. and putting the Japanese into camps wasn't just out of fear of them, it was also out of fear of the people retaliating against them. So your example isn't really an example of the government turning on the people.. but the government and people turning on the people. When the government does what a large chunk of the people wants done, you can't blame the government cause the people wanted it.

But anyway, you got any proof for your earlier statement that NSA spying is mostly used for drug enforcement laws? Cause the only way NSA information is going to go towards a case against you with drug laws is if you're already under investigation from a drug law enforcement agency. Even Snowden said that they don't record phone calls of inside communication.. only the phone numbers and call duration. They'd record the call if you were on a watch list or communicating between the US and a few select countries.

It really isn't. Sure, you could argue that you place phone calls and write emails in your private domain.. but once it travels outside your private domain, it is part of the public domain. You don't own the internet or email companies, you don't own the phone lines, you don't own the air that signals travel through. Once you sent something out from your private domain, it is no longer private. Any communication you send does go from you to your friends.. but passes through a plethora of other people. Nothing is really private aside from a face to face conversation.

Now of they invaded your home and recorded you that way, it would be an invasion of your private domain. They don't do that.. and they don't even listen in unless you trigger their computer for keywords or already on a list. And if that were the case, its no more or less illegal than law enforcement getting an order to tap your calls without your knowledge.

One of the reasons I'm "defending" the surveillance is because if I were the president or part of the government overseeing the country.. I would want a system in place that is at least similar to this. In the same way that if I owned a business I would want a system with cameras throughout so I know what is going on with the area/people under my care/leadership/rule.

 

How bout we double back and have you back up your claim that I had to ask twice for you to back up? Or was that a claim made out of fear and paranoia? If you want to actually have a conversation about this, actually do it rather than making false claims and trying to move on to more false claims so you don't have to address your previous false claims.

And please, find where I said that I think this won't happen again.. you won't cause I didn't and you're making another false claim trying to put words in my mouth. What I said is that that wasn't an example of the government turning on the people, it was an example of the people turning on the people.. cause that's what it was.

 

Howdy intellectuals!
Hey manticore!
Devoured anybody whole lately?