Seems a little bit of a double-edged sword issue for those making such a big deal about it.
Seems a little bit of a double-edged sword issue for those making such a big deal about it.
because the worst thing a company can do is send you a bunch of emails with crappy stuff to buy. if they make a mistake, you will get crappier emails.
the government can put you in prison. if they make a mistake, you're in prison.
put it this way:
Which of the these people do you trust the most to ensure that they don't put innocent people in prison?
Bill Clinton
George W. Bush
Barack Obama
John McCain
John Kerry
Paul Ryan
Dick Cheney
Joe Biden
Al Gore
Alberto Gonzales
Eric Holder
John Ashcroft
John Boehner
Nancy Pelosi
John Edwards
Mitt Romney
Joe Leiberman
With such a stellar bunch, I can't see why people would be upset.
Because business has to have your consent in some form or another. You don't have to use gmail or letsrun.com.
Imagine a country where everyone abided by the law and said "we'll give the government everything they need to kick butt in the world." The problem is that we all want there protection, we all want them to be strong in the world, protect our oil, out cars, and our leisure, but we don't want to pay for it. Believe me when I say, they aren't listening to your phone calls or bugging you if you live a clean life. They're going after criminals, not you're every day working joe and jane. They don't have that much manpower. The powers that be want a good world as much as you.
historiangeekman wrote:
They're going after criminals, not you're every day working joe and jane. They don't have that much manpower. The powers that be want a good world as much as you.
they did a real good job snaring those dudes from boston.
baby experiment wrote:
Seems a little bit of a double-edged sword issue for those making such a big deal about it.
The govt is spying on us because they wish to retain and grow their power. It has nothing to do with keeping us safe from terrorists.
If they wanted to put an end to terrorist attacks (which have been incredibly overhyped on any event), then they would put an end to JSOC's continuous killing of people all over the world (more than 100 countries) and stop doing Israel's bidding
douchebag dave wrote:
historiangeekman wrote:They're going after criminals, not you're every day working joe and jane. They don't have that much manpower. The powers that be want a good world as much as you.
they did a real good job snaring those dudes from boston.
Hell. If we look at the pattern of the FBI creating terrorist acts only to step in at the last minute -- dozens of times since 911 --we can assume with a high degree of certainty that they set this one up as well. They certainly lied their a$$e$ off about their knowledge and relationship with those two guys. Whether the FBI screwed up and the bombs went off or the Plan was to let the bombs go off as all the fake terror acts they set up weren't scaring people enuff, we will almost certainly never know
historiangeekman wrote:
They're going after criminals, not you're every day working joe and jane. They don't have that much manpower. The powers that be want a good world as much as you.
They may want a good work, but the problem is that they're stupid.
the FBI and the CIA profile peace groups and code pink, and drop the ball with guys who actually want to blow people up - you know, like chechneyan guys who are buying pressure cookers.
they'll infiltrate occupy wall st., keep tabs on greenpeace and peta, not to mention the tea party, and make a 95 year old wwii vet take off his shoes to get on a plane. but you can buy an unlimited amount of ammo and guns and fertilizer without a snoop.
dudes in the american ghetto can ride around with assault rifles on dirt bikes, but they'll strip search grandma because she has a metallic hip implant.
they're morons.
it's not remotely a double standard.
Business associations are voluntary, i.e. you freely agree to allow a tech company to monitor your activity when you use its products in exchange for the right to do so. The tech company isn't violating your rights in this context.
One the other hand, I don't grant the government permission to monitor me in any context. Its surveillance is imposed by force, against my strong objections and in spite of clear Constitutional protections against such activity. Therefore, the government is acting criminally.
Some would argue that by choosing to live in America, I am agreeing to whatever conditions the Federal Government imposes on me. This is a crackpot argument. I never consented to anything; the government imposed its surveillance on me by brute force, having neither the legal nor moral right to do so.
Because the narcissistic soccer moms and recently divorced 28 year olds want to share every last thing about their recently completed color runs! Including name/age/sex and location!
Real answer though, the government can make your life hell, google will only spam you.
Actually businesses can't freely monitor you for marketing purposes unless you agree to it. Even then that is an issue that people have made a big deal about because it violates the basic fundamentals of how a contract should be entered into. Generally a contract should be entered into with both sides having reasonable knowledge of what the terms of the contract are. There is no way an individual can realistically do that. And it shouldn't be an extortion racket where to have access to the web you have to agree to a contract.
This program with the NSA is a whole other issue. This is about people not even knowing the existence of it in the first place, government officials lying under oath to congressman of its existence, and the government threatening to take away the life of a person who basically just revealed the mere existence of it. Government secrecy has run totally out of control.
ryan foreman wrote:
Actually businesses can't freely monitor you for marketing purposes unless you agree to it. Even then that is an issue that people have made a big deal about because it violates the basic fundamentals of how a contract should be entered into. Generally a contract should be entered into with both sides having reasonable knowledge of what the terms of the contract are. There is no way an individual can realistically do that. And it shouldn't be an extortion racket where to have access to the web you have to agree to a contract.
This program with the NSA is a whole other issue. This is about people not even knowing the existence of it in the first place, government officials lying under oath to congressman of its existence, and the government threatening to take away the life of a person who basically just revealed the mere existence of it. Government secrecy has run totally out of control.
PRISM, the gathering of data like numbers called and duration, has been around for a while and written about in USA Today going back to 2008 if not earlier.
What government official has said to take the life from Snowden? Maybe I missed it as I have tired of the story, nothing new and a lot of the supposed new stuff has been brought into question.
Oh c'mon. Don't be a dead weight on this discussion. I'm obviously talking about the government storing in mass the domestic electronic activities of Americans. Government officials were actively lying about its existence.
If its no big deal why are government officials lying and keeping it secret?
douchebag dave wrote:
they did a real good job snaring those dudes from boston.
Yes, they stopped them from going down to Times Square once they had surveillance on them.
maybe I'm missing your sarcasm, but if not, I would suggest truly becoming a historian (as your name implies). I'm sure the term 'political dissident' will pop up a few times.
To the LR posters that believe in the 'doing nothing wrong, so the gov can freely tap my connections' mantra, YOU ARE THE PROBLEM! And yes, there is a disgustingly out-of-control problem.
You are a fool if you don't understand the Israelites are behind it. They have been calling the shots in and for our government since at least the early 1970's.
baby experiment wrote:
Seems a little bit of a double-edged sword issue for those making such a big deal about it.
Idiots like you sometimes even vote - which is why we're doomed...
ryan foreman wrote:
Actually businesses can't freely monitor you for marketing purposes unless you agree to it.
BS, complete and utter BS. They do not and have never had the need to get your permission to gather data on you. They only need your permission if they are going to sell that data to another entity and it's personally identifiable.
So I can gather all the data on you I want, do all the analysis I want. I don't need an established business relationship to send you email, only if I call you on the phone. I can send you all the email I want as long as I comply with the opt-out on CAN-SPAM.
I can get data about the magazines you subscribe to, your income, the likely places you work, you political affiliation, your criminal record. All without your permission. Any can do any analysis with that data and turn around and sell it to someone else without you knowing as I scrub the personal data first. But that someone I sell it to can use the block-group data to match that information back to you. Not you personally, but someone in your apartment building or city block.
If you think that's not happening you're delusional, because I was doing this level of aggregation and selling of data as far back as the 80s, and we can do it a LOT faster now.
Consider This wrote:
Because business has to have your consent in some form or another. You don't have to use gmail or letsrun.com.
Yep. That would stop the government from being able to monitor you too.
