07-09-2004 10:47									#31
	Suffering from ads?

quote: How in the hell is it bad for the government to have improved surveillance capabilities.

When it violates mine (and everyone else's) right to privacy. Having the government treating everyone guilty before being proven innocent is a BAD thing and is against what American is supposed to be about.

Or did you think Orwell's "1984" was a good idea for a state?

quote: what does this make civil rights into if not an arbitrary wish list that has nothing whatsoever to do with basic human rights?

While I do not agree that it is in the Constitution under substantive due process (which I don't think exists, but that's not for this thread), read Griswold v. Connecticut for a discussion on how privacy has been an important American value.

	07-09-2004 10:56									#32
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

vote lp. the ONLY party of principle - at least you know what you're getting.

www.lp.org
www.badnarik.org

	07-09-2004 10:57									#33
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: I'm going to assume thats a troll and won't respond Me too.. no one can be that dumb or Fascist (these days) can they? Saying we should give up our privacy rights so we can catch some terrorists, what does he think this is, Communist China?

Oh I see, what makes communist china bad is that people spy on you. It has nothing to do with restrictions on peoples freedoms? You can't believe I could be that fascist? You know there are countires that do not guarentee freedom of speech? The UK is one. Can you believe they can be that fascist? If so then why can't you believe that I would be so 'fascist' as to demand freedom of speech but not care if people are at liberty to observe my behavior?

I do however demand to know how my stance is 'dumb' moreover so 'dumb' that you cannot believe I hold this view. That is a remakably strong claim. Tell me what terrible outcome would arise from lack of guarentees of my privacy? In fact suppose I could magically make the government instantly know every last thing about me that I myself know. That wouldn't allow them to arrest me, it wouldn't allow them to do anything. it wouldn't make any difference. But I imagine you would say " but it will give the governement so much power! knowledge is power!" the government already has all the power it needs to **** any of us over just through knowing our ss# alone. they could totally destroy anybodys life with the information they have now. what difference will the new information make?

There are plenty of people who believe that it is perfectly acceptable for the government to ban ownership of say assault weapons. this obviously grossly decreases our power and increases that of the government and yet somehow people who support such governement regulation of weapons aren't fascists while those who don't care if the government can keep itself better informed are.

Imran every time a serious crime occurs the government decides it has to catch that perp. Every time it starts from scratch xzeros in on the person who seems most likely to be guilty after the fact and then sets out to convince a jury that this person did the deed. You sure as hell put a lot more innocent people away that way than you would by letting it pre-emptively investigate suspicious leads. After the crime is commited it will often be too late to exonerate the person whom it cast it's suspicions on before the crime occured.

	07-09-2004 10:58									#34
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: at least you know what you're getting.

Yeah, a tax-evader.

	07-09-2004 11:07									#35
	Suffering from ads?

quote: what makes communist china bad is that people spy on you. It has nothing to do with restrictions on peoples freedoms?

Spying on people is the mark of a totalitarian state. In fact it is required for one. And restricting the right to privacy is of course a restriction on people's freedoms. The government does not have a right to step in and see everything that happens in my life. The countries that demand that knowledge are not considered 'free' countries. No right to privacy leads to or is a consequence of elimination of other liberties. A government which knows everything about you can more easily restrict your free movement or action, such as restricting or publicizing to others those things which it considers morally reprehensible (such as, for example, pornography) by various means. Can you imagine a debate in Congress on allowing people to keep freedoms when the opposition can publicize the list of people engaging in that act which may be embarassing? Not everyone wants to be known as looking at pornography and may keep silent about their right to view it if they will be 'outed' by the all-powerful government.

Like I said, do you have any objections to Orwell's "1984"? A government with that much power cannot be trusted.

	07-09-2004 11:10									#36
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: How in the hell is it bad for the government to have improved surveillance capabilities. When it violates mine (and everyone else's) right to privacy. Having the government treating everyone guilty before being proven innocent is a BAD thing and is against what American is supposed to be about. Or did you think Orwell's "1984" was a good idea for a state?

First of all thank you for continuing to discuss this.

Next it doesn't follow whatsoever that because I couldn't give a damn about privacy that I must find the dystopia in Orwell's "1984" even remotely acceptable. It's as absurd as someone saying that someone who opposes a government mandated tax payer financed socialist health care system would love to live in the world of Mad Max. I've already said that I value personal freedom most of all so what part of Orwell's 1984 do you whink would be consistant with that?

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: what does this make civil rights into if not an arbitrary wish list that has nothing whatsoever to do with basic human rights? While I do not agree that it is in the Constitution under substantive due process (which I don't think exists, but that's not for this thread), read Griswold v. Connecticut for a discussion on how privacy has been an important American value.

There are plenty of important American values. I just want to know why privacy necessarily trumps security? If I read this will explain that?

thanks again for addressing my post, I've brought this topic up in other threads and other forums and it is fiendishly difficult to get people to actually discuss it.

	07-09-2004 11:10									#37
	Increase Your PM Length

Vote Bush to help bring about communist revolution!!!

See, things have to get really bad to bring on a revolution, and Bush is just the man for that job!

	07-09-2004 11:15									#38
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: I've already said that I value personal freedom most of all

No you don't. You are against the right to privacy, which may be just as important as any other right you have.

quote: I just want to know why privacy necessarily trumps security?

Because freedom against government action is a very important virtue in American political theory. Yes, Griswold may help you to understand that. Also reading what the founders had to say on it may also help you understand (such as Franklin's famous quote about liberty and security).

	07-09-2004 11:22									#39
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: what makes communist china bad is that people spy on you. It has nothing to do with restrictions on peoples freedoms? Spying on people is the mark of a totalitarian state. In fact it is required for one. And restricting the right to privacy is of course a restriction on people's freedoms. The government does not have a right to step in and see everything that happens in my life. The countries that demand that knowledge are not considered 'free' countries. No right to privacy leads to or is a consequence of elimination of other liberties. A government which knows everything about you can more easily restrict your free movement or action, such as restricting or publicizing to others those things which it considers morally reprehensible (such as, for example, pornography) by various means. Can you imagine a debate in Congress on allowing people to keep freedoms when the opposition can publicize the list of people engaging in that act which may be embarassing? Not everyone wants to be known as looking at pornography and may keep silent about their right to view it if they will be 'outed' by the all-powerful government. Like I said, do you have any objections to Orwell's "1984"? A government with that much power cannot be trusted.

It appears that we both value the ends that privacy is meant to serve as a means to achieving. I grossly differ in the choice of these means however. I despise censorship and legislation of 'morality' which does not involve any victim. However, rather than making it hard for the government to know where I am (so it won't restrict my movement) or to know what I see (so it can prevent me from seeing any 'naughty' things) or any other way trying to 'hide' myself from the government I simply demand that we not acknowledge any government authority to control these things. Demanding privacy as a means to protect our freedom is putting the cart before the horse because it implicitly suggests that the government has the power to control these things if it can find us doing them. Simply make it illegal for the government to publish information it gathers and criminally punish or impeach those who do so. If there are leaks, make them impeachable offenses.

	07-09-2004 11:28									#40
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: I've already said that I value personal freedom most of all No you don't. You are against the right to privacy, which may be just as important as any other right you have. quote: I just want to know why privacy necessarily trumps security? Because freedom against government action is a very important virtue in American political theory. Yes, Griswold may help you to understand that. Also reading what the founders had to say on it may also help you understand (such as Franklin's famous quote about liberty and security).

ut oh, there is the problem. I love Franklins quote and if he hadn't said it it would be my own quote "those who would trade liberty for security deserve neither". The problem is that you equate by definition liberty with privacy. That is the same as saying that if the government finds out about something I do then it has every right to control my behavior which is bullshit. Suppose I publicly say that I watched a triple X porn film. Does this now mean that the government has a right to punish me? bull ****. What the government has a right to do has nothing to do with what the government learns or knows. Let the government do it's thing and let me do mine. That is liberty.

	07-09-2004 11:30									#41
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Demanding privacy as a means to protect our freedom is putting the cart before the horse because it implicitly suggests that the government has the power to control these things if it can find us doing them.

If they have the power to take away our privacy, then they already have to power to punish us for doing things that the current government considers immoral, whatever that may be.

quote: I simply demand that we not acknowledge any government authority to control these things.

Good luck. By taking your privacy, the government has already told you it has the power to do anything it wants with the information it takes.

quote: Simply make it illegal for the government to publish information it gathers and criminally punish or impeach those who do so. If there are leaks, make them impeachable offenses.

That won't work either. It is illegal for the government to violate our right to privacy. That's why the cops need a warrent before sneaking into our houses. They can't bust just to see what you've done wrong. That is the mark of a police state and the founders recognized it. Yet, its been abused time and time again. Yep, they've been punished, but it continues to happen.

That cite I gave you indicates the number of 'unconstitutional' provisions in the PATRIOT Act, because the SCOTUS has declared the right to privacy to be a Constitutional right. You can see that it doesn't deter the current legislature and executive. Hopefully the judiciary puts it foot down.

	07-09-2004 11:32									#42
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: The problem is that you equate by definition liberty with privacy

Privacy is an important liberty. As important as our liberty to free speech. When the government knows everything about us, it can use that information for nefarious ends. Look at the abuses done by the Nixon Administration.

By keeping information OUT of the hands of government, there is less oppertunity for abuses.

	07-09-2004 11:44									#43
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: Demanding privacy as a means to protect our freedom is putting the cart before the horse because it implicitly suggests that the government has the power to control these things if it can find us doing them. If they have the power to take away our privacy, then they already have to power to punish us for doing things that the current government considers immoral, whatever that may be. quote: I simply demand that we not acknowledge any government authority to control these things. Good luck. By taking your privacy, the government has already told you it has the power to do anything it wants with the information it takes. quote: Simply make it illegal for the government to publish information it gathers and criminally punish or impeach those who do so. If there are leaks, make them impeachable offenses. That won't work either. It is illegal for the government to violate our right to privacy. That's why the cops need a warrent before sneaking into our houses. They can't bust just to see what you've done wrong. That is the mark of a police state and the founders recognized it. That cite I gave you indicates the number of 'unconstitutional' provisions in the PATRIOT Act, because the SCOTUS has declared the right to privacy to be a Constitutional right. You can see that it doesn't deter the current legislature and executive. Hopefully the judiciary puts it foot down.

In a way so much of this response reads like double talk (if that's the right phrase). Listen, you are basically declaring "When you state the government can learn anything it likes then you are stating that the government may tell you what you can and can not do". bologna! That makes no sense! It would be like declaring that if I answer how many kids I have on the census form then I am declaring that the government has a right to determine how many children I may have. It just doesn't follow! If I can volunteer as much infomation about my behavior as I want without automatically declaring that the audience has a right to control my behavior then it also follows that if I accept for others to have access to that infomation then I am likewise not automatically declaring that they may control my behavior.

As to SCOTUS decisions concerning privacy, well, SCOTUS giveth SCOTUS taketh away. The constitution does not provide such a massive blanket protection of privacy so like so many other decisions that SCOTUS has seen fit to pull out of it's arse historically I would be happy to see it go the way of Dred Scott and any other other white elephants they have seen fit to tack onto our constitution.

	07-09-2004 11:49									#44
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: The problem is that you equate by definition liberty with privacy Privacy is an important liberty. As important as our liberty to free speech. When the government knows everything about us, it can use that information for nefarious ends. Look at the abuses done by the Nixon Administration. By keeping information OUT of the hands of government, there is less oppertunity for abuses.

could not the government make use of census information to abuse its power? Why not follow privacy to it's logical conclusion and forbid the governement to keep any records of any kind about anybody? Since you evidently do not support this are you not advocating that we should live in orwells "1984" dystopia? If that trollsome question angers you perhaps you can understand why I don't like people equating my stance on how much information the government can obtain to advocacy of a police state.

	07-09-2004 11:50									#45
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

You flip flop more than Kerry. Why should anyone bother convincing you of anything?

	07-09-2004 11:51									#46
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: The problem is that you equate by definition liberty with privacy Privacy is an important liberty. As important as our liberty to free speech. When the government knows everything about us, it can use that information for nefarious ends. Look at the abuses done by the Nixon Administration. By keeping information OUT of the hands of government, there is less oppertunity for abuses.

suppose the patriot act had been in force when Nixon was president. How would it have played out differently?

	07-09-2004 11:52									#47
	Suffering from ads?

quote: If I can volunteer as much infomation about my behavior as I want without automatically declaring that the audience has a right to control my behavior then it also follows that if I accept for others to have access to that infomation then I am likewise not automatically declaring that they may control my behavior.

But you are giving them increased power to do so. When they realize your personal habits, they can more easily constrict them. If we look at your children example, you are looking at the wrong thing. The government does control how you parent, in MANY ways. So perhaps that is not the best example you wish to use.

Listen, there is a reason that the Enlightenment wanted greatly to protect people's privacy. And it is no coincidence that totalitarian states first crack down the privacy of its citizens. By knowing what everyone does, it can more easily restrict those people. It knows if everyone is following capricious laws, or if someone is acting out.

Look at the countries which don't have some right to privacy protected. Cuba, China, most Mid East countries. And not coincidentally they control a lot of their citizen's rights. Do you think that is an example we should be emulating?

	07-09-2004 11:57									#48
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: You are against the right to privacy, which may be just as important as any other right you have.

I think you need liberty and life before you can hope to have a right to privacy.

What use is it to be private when you are not free in the first place?

	07-09-2004 11:58									#49
	Full PM-box? Change here!

- [EDIT]why did I only just now realize that DD was addressing Diss and not me?- sorry DD

Last edited by Geronimo on 07-09-2004 at 13:20

	07-09-2004 12:03									#50
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: If I can volunteer as much infomation about my behavior as I want without automatically declaring that the audience has a right to control my behavior then it also follows that if I accept for others to have access to that infomation then I am likewise not automatically declaring that they may control my behavior. But you are giving them increased power to do so. When they realize your personal habits, they can more easily constrict them. If we look at your children example, you are looking at the wrong thing. The government does control how you parent, in MANY ways. So perhaps that is not the best example you wish to use. Listen, there is a reason that the Enlightenment wanted greatly to protect people's privacy. And it is no coincidence that totalitarian states first crack down the privacy of its citizens. By knowing what everyone does, it can more easily restrict those people. It knows if everyone is following capricious laws, or if someone is acting out. Look at the countries which don't have some right to privacy protected. Cuba, China, most Mid East countries. And not coincidentally they control a lot of their citizen's rights. Do you think that is an example we should be emulating?

Imran suppose I oppose this government control of how I parent. Is the right way for me to express this opposition a refusal to provide to the government any information about my children or is it to oppose the laws it is using to constrain me in the first place? It sounds a little like you believe that if I were opposed to drinking age the right response would be to have the government forbid bars from asking patrons their age rather than ask the government to repeal the drinking age laws. It just continues to seem so backarsewards to me. Can you at least see where I'm coming from on this yet?

	07-09-2004 12:14									#51
	Remove this text

quote: It sounds a little like you believe that if I were opposed to drinking age the right response would be to have the government forbid bars from asking patrons their age rather than ask the government to repeal the drinking age laws.

Actually both would work fine. If you can't get the government to repeal the drinking law, by having them pass a law saying that the bars can't ask people their age, you have effectively neutered the law. A better example, though, is the drug law, which plays more to privacy. Instead of banning drugs, if you put great limits into how much the feds can pry into your life in doing drugs, the law banning drugs would be severly weakened.

quote: What use is it to be private when you are not free in the first place?

To be free you need privacy. Without it, freedom doesn't exist.

	07-09-2004 12:20									#52
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: To be free you need privacy. Without it, freedom doesn't exist.

There is an explicit right to liberty enshrined in the constitution, but not a similar right to privacy.

Arguments for a right to privacy are all based on extentions of the right to liberty, so liberty must come first, and take primacy over any right to privacy.

	07-09-2004 12:29									#53
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: It sounds a little like you believe that if I were opposed to drinking age the right response would be to have the government forbid bars from asking patrons their age rather than ask the government to repeal the drinking age laws. Actually both would work fine. If you can't get the government to repeal the drinking law, by having them pass a law saying that the bars can't ask people their age, you have effectively neutered the law. A better example, though, is the drug law, which plays more to privacy. Instead of banning drugs, if you put great limits into how much the feds can pry into your life in doing drugs, the law banning drugs would be severly weakened.

Imran, doesn't such a dual track system lead to the situation where the degree to which the law applies to someone is dependant entriely on how public one's life becomes? what kind of freedom is that? If we allow people to escape the law by hiding from it then we are short circuiting the democratic process. People who oppose a law will not participate in politically opposing it if they can simply hide from it while people who cannot hide will have to oppose it alone.

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: What use is it to be private when you are not free in the first place? To be free you need privacy. Without it, freedom doesn't exist.

Suppose there really was a Santa claus and he really knew who was naughty or nice. In that imaginary situation, are none of us then free because this guy at the north pole knows everything about us and will even choose whether or not to give us presents based on how he judges our behavior? Suppose I became clairevoyant to the extant that I knew everything about everybody, would our freedom cease to exist along with our privacy? It seems patently obvious that freedom and privacy are discrete separate entities.

you seem to believe freedom is nothing but ones success at getting away with ones actions rather than an entitlement to control our own fates.



--By the way, Diss I apologize for the thread jack, I've been meaning to post my own thread on the nature and role of privacy in society but lack of response on other forums and threads discouraged me. But I'm not trolling I genuinely care about this issue--

	07-09-2004 12:52									#54
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: It sounds a little like you believe that if I were opposed to drinking age the right response would be to have the government forbid bars from asking patrons their age rather than ask the government to repeal the drinking age laws. Actually both would work fine. If you can't get the government to repeal the drinking law, by having them pass a law saying that the bars can't ask people their age, you have effectively neutered the law. A better example, though, is the drug law, which plays more to privacy. Instead of banning drugs, if you put great limits into how much the feds can pry into your life in doing drugs, the law banning drugs would be severly weakened. .

Actually there is another side I can approach this from. Purjury is illegal. It is illegal to lie under oath in a court of law. Now are you saying that it is right to lie under oath if you are tried for breaking a law you disagree with? If so can we as a society ever justify punishing purjury when we structure our entire system of government under the premise that the best way to oppose a law you don't like is by not getting caught?

	07-09-2004 13:08									#55
	Put an end to popups!

How about the fact that Bush invaded Iraq on false premises. A big part of the argumentation was that Iraq was connected to 9/11, a claim informed people now know have little basis in reality (though it seems that 50% af Americans still believe there were Iraqies among the hijackers).

Or the whole weapons of mass destruction thing.

In either case the Bush administration was either lying to the public, knowing better but letting themselves be decieved, or grossly incompetent. Take your pick.

I know one can argue that Saddam Hussein is a bad guy who deserved to be overthrown, and I agree to some degree. But that doesn't change the fact that administrations way to sell the war was wrong. I don't trust leaders who act that way. While John Kerry may not be the most inspirering leader, he sounds like he wouldn't make mistakes like that.

	07-09-2004 20:19									#56
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: when we structure our entire system of government under the premise that the best way to oppose a law you don't like is by not getting caught?

That's a nice attempt at a strawman, but try again. No one has said the best way to oppose any law is to avoid getting caught. Though having privacy may allow a way to circumvent an unjust law which may not be officially changed any time soon, such as the drug laws. It's my private residence, and no one should be able to peek in there.

quote: If we allow people to escape the law by hiding from it then we are short circuiting the democratic process.

Good, sometimes the democratic process isn't the best thing. When the Courts decide an issue they may be subverting the democratic process, but that is a good.

quote: Arguments for a right to privacy are all based on extentions of the right to liberty, so liberty must come first, and take primacy over any right to privacy.

Freedom is, at its base, the right to be left alone. Free speech is about being able to say what you want and be left alone even though you say it. Freedom to work is about working wherever you want and being left alone no matter what that job is.

Privacy is a necessary extention.

	07-09-2004 20:25									#57
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

erm....if as we've established in the 'alien signals' thread, that the fungoo federation is responible for life on our planet and the way it is evolving - then Mr Bush as the most likely candidate for controlling the most powerful country in the world, is most likely an agent of the fungoo.
So a vote for Bush is a vote for an alien race we know nothing about - their incentives and plans for the rest of humankind.

Also the last bit in my signature says something(trees=life in the equation)

	07-09-2004 22:03									#58
	Support Apolyton

quote: I can't in good concience vote for Badnarik, because honestly he's not qualified to be president.

Yea, but he isn't going to win anyways, so you don't have to worry about him becoming President. A vote for Badnarik is more a protest vote than anything. If enough people vote for Badnarik, the Repubs will wake up and realize their "borrow, spend & conquer" policies are alienating voters that could potentially be part of their coalition (libertarians) and may seek to adjust their policies accordingly.

If you are dissatisfied with Bush, then by all means don't vote for him. A vote for Bush sends the message that you agree with him. If you don't, let him know by voting Badnarik.

	07-09-2004 22:16									#59
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly Be fair, Imran; he kept that promise. After all, can you name a nation he's built?

	07-09-2004 23:05									#60
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Privacy you can argue with whoever forever, but the Patriot Act is unconstitutional. end of story.