 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
Geronimo
|
|
st cloud USA
Jan 1970
time: 05:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
The problem with the "Patriot" act is, for me, one of accountability.
What's wrong with requiring law enforcement to convince a judge that a search warrant is...well...warranted?
If they have suspicions about the possibility of a crime, then given our "innocent until proven guilty" mindset, should not they be required to furnish such evidence?
Ahhh, but not for the good "Patriots" among us. Now, law enforcement don't even need a reason.
Reason?
Who cares! Let's play with some of our high tech toys!
"Innocent until proven guilty?"
Bah! Let's just spy for a little while and see what dirt comes out in the wash. If it's anything suspicious...hell, if it's even something we don't agree with, we can always plant a little evidence and call it a day!
The government's freedom to pry into every corner of our lives makes them our jailors.
And what happens when a man with an agenda (:: cough:: Ashcroft) get his hands on such unfettered access to information?
Elimination of privacy is the first step down a slippery slope with a very dark ending.
No thanks.
-=Vel=- |
government is not a slope. change in government requires continual active change it doesn't just initiate and continue on its own. Government is also far more tempted to plant evidence after a crime is commited and the heat is on than it is before any crime has been comitted. If the patriot act is repealed there will surely be a hell of a lot more planted evidence and innocent people jailed than there would be with it remaining.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Geronimo
|
|
st cloud USA
Jan 1970
time: 05:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
That's rather intriguing notion given that the true mother of democracy and freedom, Britain, bases ideas about freedom around privacy and stopping the state from intruding on the private domain. That is why countries like Britain and Australia don't have constitutions or identity cards or Bills of Rights. We don't need them. Centuries of common law going back to Magna Carta sets out our rights and obligations in society. Our freedom is unfettered because it is a private domain, a domain unregulated or limited by the state - a man's home is his castle, if the law doesn't say you can't do something, you can etc.
I'm convinced that we Australians have far more freedom than Americans and that while most Americans bang on endlessly about freedom, they don't really know what it is. Freedom is based on privacy. |
Maybe it would be possible to enjoy the best of both worlds. I think perhaps we should grant immunity from practically all government constraint and proscription within the confines of our own homes. The individual would be soverign in their private residence and within any direct extensions there of. Then the patriot act could not be used to police our home lives. The only use i want to see made of the patriot act is as a means of finding and preventing massive acts of violence in advance, especially domestic terrorism which seems to have been forgotten in the wake of the more recent itnernational terrorism.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
 |
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:24
|
|
A hypothetical question for Geronimo:
What would your reaction be to the government proposing the following, "in the name of catching badguys" of course:
Everybody goes to the dentist, right? I mean, sooner or later?
So...let's get in league with the dentists and have them install a small tracking device in every person's mouth. With an on-board power supply, and a protective coating, figure they'd last 5-7 years (and by that time, you'd have returned to the dentist). Five minutes to tie said chip to your SSN.
Install proximity detectors (only a couple bucks each at the local radio shack, and bought in bulk for way less than that) in streetlamps on every corner.
Now, we can track you block to block from....well, most anywhere, really.
Add to that a new national ID card. One with a magnetic stripe. Easy to tie it in with your bank card. Technology exists right now to do that. This one card has all your info on it, AND it comes with the added bonus that the government can track your spending habits (more and more, a cashless economy, you see). So if you go buy anything of a "questionable" nature, we'll know.
And who defines "questionable"?
Why....the John Ashcrofts of our government, of course.
You trust his judgement, don't you? 
Now I grant you, the Patriot Acts don't advocate anything of the sort mentioned above.
On the other hand, it's a really short walk from there to the place mentioned above....
Very short walk indeed.
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Geronimo
|
|
st cloud USA
Jan 1970
time: 05:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
A hypothetical question for Geronimo:
What would your reaction be to the government proposing the following, "in the name of catching badguys" of course:
Everybody goes to the dentist, right? I mean, sooner or later?
So...let's get in league with the dentists and have them install a small tracking device in every person's mouth. With an on-board power supply, and a protective coating, figure they'd last 5-7 years (and by that time, you'd have returned to the dentist). Five minutes to tie said chip to your SSN.
Install proximity detectors (only a couple bucks each at the local radio shack, and bought in bulk for way less than that) in streetlamps on every corner.
Now, we can track you block to block from....well, most anywhere, really.
Add to that a new national ID card. One with a magnetic stripe. Easy to tie it in with your bank card. Technology exists right now to do that. This one card has all your info on it, AND it comes with the added bonus that the government can track your spending habits (more and more, a cashless economy, you see). So if you go buy anything of a "questionable" nature, we'll know.
And who defines "questionable"?
Why....the John Ashcrofts of our government, of course.
You trust his judgement, don't you?
Now I grant you, the Patriot Acts don't advocate anything of the sort mentioned above.
On the other hand, it's a really short walk from there to the place mentioned above....
Very short walk indeed.
-=Vel=- |
Well, I should warn you that as is seen in some other threads I am very biased against unsolicited tampering with other peoples bodies so naturally I recoil from the situation you describe. Suppose I might accept the ability to track the ID card but I'd be worried about abuse from the private sector. The government may not have cause to know where I am at all times but many private citizens sure would. This leads to another concern I have which is that it seems the private sector already has the freedom to monitor my spending habits and so long as that is the case I don't know how much good it really does me to bar the government from using the same information that the private sector unblushingly sees fit to use every day 
I think government survellience needs to be layered. The top layer would be passive intelligence gathering which would be totally and completely unregulated. The next would be slightly intrusive intelligence gathering like wire taps or tracking devices. These should be unregulated for a period not exceeding a couple weeks at the end of which the government would require a judge to issue a warrant of some kind to continue. The issuing of the warrant should be allowed to remian secret for something like a year so that it isn't always immediately obvious to the observed that the government is watching. The bar for the issuing of that sort of limited warrant should fall far short of compelling evidence of guilt of a crime but still need to at least describe why it is unusually likely in that case that the potential suspect might be expected to engage in criminal activity involving violence to others. For the most invasive searches such as rifling through somebodys residence I would require a full traditional warrant with the usual high criteria required to issue it.
i think such a system would make very little sacrifice to security at the gain of a great deal of privacy over a totally unregulated system.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Geronimo
|
|
st cloud USA
Jan 1970
time: 05:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
what is happening in the USA today is just plain scary
there is support for it because people believe its directed at someone else, "bad people", and they think "it can't happen to me"
people fail to grasp that their liberties are directly linked to "what happens to someone else" |
Horse i need a bit more clarification on the nature of the different stances on privacy in the US and the UK. In the UK people in these forums and in a few news articles have said there are a great deal more video cameras in public places than in the US. Do you think it's fair to asume that in the UK, privacy of ones private residence is valued more than in the US while in the US people seem to care more about 'privacy' in public places? If so I would have to agree that the UK stance makes more sense than what is found here.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Q Cubed
|
 |
t3h y3ll0w p3ril
Apr 1999
time: 23:24
|
|
quote:
Why in the hell are people so sensitive about the government eavesdropping on them? Are they all that bashful? How much time do you think the government will want to waste eavesdropping on you before it realizes it's wasting it's time and that you're probably not a terrorist? I can hardly believe that any innocent person could believe that it's more important to never encounter eavesdropping than it is to never encounter terrorists. |
Just because I have nothing to hide doesn't mean that I shouldn't be worried about the loss of privacy.
Besides, the Patriot Act is supposed to fight terrorism.
Which, of course, is why it's being used against Canadian marijuana smugglers.
Or those who are trying to spread the fandom of a particular show far and wide.
Then there's section 215. If you don't want to go to that link, it's all about the ability of the government to now obtain any records on you without your knowledge or consent, provided that it's "against terrorism". That means: credit reports, library records, video rentals, phone bills, church registrations, HIPAA material...
quote:
What the ****ing hell is everybody trying to hide gawdamnit? Why is privacy >>>>>>>> security? Damn I'm sick of this. |
Damn, I'm ****ing sick of people who would gladly trade in their liberties for their security.
======
The perfectly secure computer system, one that is free of all viruses and spyware, is the one that is isolated. No network connections, and few sources of information brought from the outside. Isolating it makes it safe, but it also makes it out of date. A computer using DR-DOS 5 will not suffer from the Sasser worm, nor will it have GAIN/Claria software.
The perfectly updated computer system, one integrated with the network, will be constantly beseiged by external threats. However, with the liberty it receives with respect to informational access, it is also that much more advanced, better, and more powerful. It is also that much more at risk.
Personally, I like the internet. I like liberty. Those of you who want security, well, you can go back to Windows 3.1.
And hey--the world's most secure states are also the world's most authoritarian. NKorea hasn't had a terrorist attack on it since its inception.
======
What it boils down to is this: Privacy is one of the Liberties we're trying to protect. Those that would seek to control your access to information, those that would seek to create a Fundamentalist state, they are the ones who would love to view into your private life the most. We do nothing to strengthen our freedoms and our rights by having ill-conceived, poorly-implemented systems like the Patriot Act.
Liberty entails that you lose a bit of Security.
Philosophically, I tend to agree with our Founding Fathers: Give me Liberty or Give me Death.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Geronimo
|
|
st cloud USA
Jan 1970
time: 05:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Q Cubed
quote:
Why in the hell are people so sensitive about the government eavesdropping on them? Are they all that bashful? How much time do you think the government will want to waste eavesdropping on you before it realizes it's wasting it's time and that you're probably not a terrorist? I can hardly believe that any innocent person could believe that it's more important to never encounter eavesdropping than it is to never encounter terrorists. |
Just because I have nothing to hide doesn't mean that I shouldn't be worried about the loss of privacy.
Besides, the Patriot Act is supposed to fight terrorism.
Which, of course, is why it's being used against Canadian marijuana smugglers.
Or those who are trying to spread the fandom of a particular show far and wide.
Then there's section 215. If you don't want to go to that link, it's all about the ability of the government to now obtain any records on you without your knowledge or consent, provided that it's "against terrorism". That means: credit reports, library records, video rentals, phone bills, church registrations, HIPAA material...
quote:
What the ****ing hell is everybody trying to hide gawdamnit? Why is privacy >>>>>>>> security? Damn I'm sick of this. |
Damn, I'm ****ing sick of people who would gladly trade in their liberties for their security.
======
The perfectly secure computer system, one that is free of all viruses and spyware, is the one that is isolated. No network connections, and few sources of information brought from the outside. Isolating it makes it safe, but it also makes it out of date. A computer using DR-DOS 5 will not suffer from the Sasser worm, nor will it have GAIN/Claria software.
The perfectly updated computer system, one integrated with the network, will be constantly beseiged by external threats. However, with the liberty it receives with respect to informational access, it is also that much more advanced, better, and more powerful. It is also that much more at risk.
Personally, I like the internet. I like liberty. Those of you who want security, well, you can go back to Windows 3.1.
And hey--the world's most secure states are also the world's most authoritarian. NKorea hasn't had a terrorist attack on it since its inception.
======
What it boils down to is this: Privacy is one of the Liberties we're trying to protect. Those that would seek to control your access to information, those that would seek to create a Fundamentalist state, they are the ones who would love to view into your private life the most. We do nothing to strengthen our freedoms and our rights by having ill-conceived, poorly-implemented systems like the Patriot Act.
Liberty entails that you lose a bit of Security.
Philosophically, I tend to agree with our Founding Fathers: Give me Liberty or Give me Death. |
I accept no government contraints on my actions apart from my actions that do violence to others. I'm not satisfied to simply get away with doing what I want rather I reject any law the government passes which constrains those actions of myself or others which do no violence to anyone. I'd rather die than have my life run by a police state and would die fighting one that attempted to run my life. Yet I don't wish to hide or hide my life from everyone. Does this mean I do not love liberty? Is a life that is 'free' only because it is lived in hiding truly free at all?
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:24.
Apolyton Time is 00:24. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
08-09-2004 03:51
From the Horse's mouth!
|