BOO, stupid move W.
I read an article about it from the BBC, but I forget where it was from. Reference?
And yeah, the whole PATRIOT act thing is scary. Crown corps/government departments here are no longer allowed to outsource to American companies because the US government can read any of your data without telling you. That's unacceptable, to us. It costs us a lot more money, and loses American companies money, but ohwell...
Btw, is this related to PATRIOT? That was my first assumption, but I could be wrong.
Hm.. *installs Gaim-Encryption*
Quote from: iago on December 17, 2005, 08:24 PM
I read an article about it from the BBC, but I forget where it was from. Reference?
And yeah, the whole PATRIOT act thing is scary. Crown corps/government departments here are no longer allowed to outsource to American companies because the US government can read any of your data without telling you. That's unacceptable, to us. It costs us a lot more money, and loses American companies money, but ohwell...
Btw, is this related to PATRIOT? That was my first assumption, but I could be wrong.
100% agreed...I dislike the Patriot Act too.
I love the Patriot Act, and it's one of the things I feel more strongly about. CrAz3D, you suck.
It basically gives the federal government total power to deny you certain basic rights that you supposedly deserve as a human being and American citizen. How can you support something that denies you your basic freedoms?
Quote from: iago on December 17, 2005, 09:52 PM
It basically gives the federal government total power to deny you certain basic rights that you supposedly deserve as a human being and American citizen. How can you support something that denies you your basic freedoms?
Because it doesn't affect me? It doesn't hurt anyone unless the government suspects them of intended (or future intentions of) malice, and I don't intend to make any plots against our government.
Plus, the Patriot Act is the reason the Brooklyn Bridge is still around.
Yeah, let me put my foil hat on.
Quote from: hismajesty[yL] on December 17, 2005, 09:55 PMQuote from: iago on December 17, 2005, 09:52 PMIt basically gives the federal government total power to deny you certain basic rights that you supposedly deserve as a human being and American citizen. How can you support something that denies you your basic freedoms?
Because it doesn't affect me?
Yet. As long as it's on the books, there's the
potential for it to be used. Anti-gun bureaucrats in the U.S. have long denied that there would ever be blatant firearm confiscation, but that's exactly what happened in New Orleans after the hurricane. Big-brother bureaucrats similarly deny that privacy-limiting legislation will ever be used for purposes other than "anti-terrorism." Can you affirm that not only are they telling the truth, but that all their successors and subordinates will be similarly pure of purpose? If not, why are you so eager to see something so dangerous laid into the lawbooks, particularly since the U.S. doesn't have a history of repealing unnecessary/outdated laws?
Hey, that is great! Anyone carrying a firearm is obviously planning something sneaky. So they deserve to be spied on and have their guns confiscated!
Quote from: hismajesty[yL] on December 17, 2005, 09:55 PM
Quote from: iago on December 17, 2005, 09:52 PM
It basically gives the federal government total power to deny you certain basic rights that you supposedly deserve as a human being and American citizen. How can you support something that denies you your basic freedoms?
Because it doesn't affect me? It doesn't hurt anyone unless the government suspects them of intended (or future intentions of) malice, and I don't intend to make any plots against our government.
Plus, the Patriot Act is the reason the Brooklyn Bridge is still around.
"or future intentions"That means anyone if they have a 'feeling' I may bomb something.
EXAMPLE:
Me: "I just feel like blowing up California"
NSA: "GO GO GO! Take him down"...etc
I literally mean I feel like blowing up California, but I won't. Them listening is an infringment on my civil liberties
I have no problem giving up some of my civil rights in exchange for more safety. I honestly don't fit the demographic they're searching for, nor do I plan on making threats against the country.
QuoteHey, that is great! Anyone carrying a firearm is obviously planning something sneaky. So they deserve to be spied on and have their guns confiscated!
It was New Orleans, so, yeah, pretty much, they were.
We were founded upon a belief/focus in the people...not the state.
One of most famous quotes ever:
"Give me liberty or give me death!"
Another excerpt from his speech/address:
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?"
http://libertyonline.hypermall.com/henry-liberty.html
I'm well aware of who Patrick Henry was and what he said. Just because he made a speech saying that doesn't mean I have to agree with it. I actually would probably have been a Loyalist in the Revolutionary War.
Quote from: hismajesty[yL] on December 18, 2005, 08:00 AM
I have no problem giving up some of my civil rights in exchange for more safety. I honestly don't fit the demographic they're searching for, nor do I plan on making threats against the country.
So as long as they're doing it in a purely racist way, it's ok?
What if I say, "hey hismajesty, when are we going to blow up the Washington Monument?" on this forum? Or on AIM, or I'll send you an email. I wouldn't be surprised if the US had sensors around their portion of the Internet that would see that kind of traffic. Suddenly, you fit right into the group of people who it's "okay" to take civil rights away from.
Quote from: iago on December 18, 2005, 09:37 AM
Quote from: hismajesty[yL] on December 18, 2005, 08:00 AM
I have no problem giving up some of my civil rights in exchange for more safety. I honestly don't fit the demographic they're searching for, nor do I plan on making threats against the country.
So as long as they're doing it in a purely racist way, it's ok?
I'm not opposed to it.
QuoteWhat if I say, "hey hismajesty, when are we going to blow up the Washington Monument?" on this forum? Or on AIM, or I'll send you an email.
I'd probably say "never."
It could still raise enough of a red flag on your name that the government could start monitoring you without telling you. Of course, you'd never know if you were singled out.
But I see where this is going -- if you're going to say that it's ok for the US Government to be racist, there isn't a lot I can say about that. Racism is a very convenient state of mind that makes it pretty much impossible to argue with somebody.
Quote from: iago on December 18, 2005, 10:01 AM
It could still raise enough of a red flag on your name that the government could start monitoring you without telling you. Of course, you'd never know if you were singled out.
But I see where this is going -- if you're going to say that it's ok for the US Government to be racist, there isn't a lot I can say about that. Racism is a very convenient state of mind that makes it pretty much impossible to argue with somebody.
I'm up for the debate. I've had to argue pro-Government racism IN debate, and I can pull out my debate box and use the same evidence cards against you. :)
Quote from: hismajesty[yL] on December 18, 2005, 08:00 AMI have no problem giving up some of my civil rights in exchange for more safety.
To save us some time, please enumerate which rights you'd like to keep (and go ahead and surrender any that you don't list). Alternately, list those you're OK with giving up. Once we're clear on which rights you value, we can argue over the others.
Quote from: Kp on December 18, 2005, 10:41 AM
Quote from: hismajesty[yL] on December 18, 2005, 08:00 AMI have no problem giving up some of my civil rights in exchange for more safety.
To save us some time, please enumerate which rights you'd like to keep (and go ahead and surrender any that you don't list). Alternately, list those you're OK with giving up. Once we're clear on which rights you value, we can argue over the others.
My opinion on which rights I wouldn't mind surrendering isn't relative to whether or not the policy is just.
Quote from: hismajesty[yL] on December 18, 2005, 10:50 AM
Quote from: Kp on December 18, 2005, 10:41 AM
Quote from: hismajesty[yL] on December 18, 2005, 08:00 AMI have no problem giving up some of my civil rights in exchange for more safety.
To save us some time, please enumerate which rights you'd like to keep (and go ahead and surrender any that you don't list). Alternately, list those you're OK with giving up. Once we're clear on which rights you value, we can argue over the others.
My opinion on which rights I wouldn't mind surrendering isn't relative to whether or not the policy is just.
I don't understand. You'e saying that certain American citizens should be forced to give up certain rights because of their race. Which rights, exactly, you think that other Americans should be denied? I think that's a very important piece of this debate.
The general right to privacy.
What about Freedom of Assembly? Should "they" be allowed to have their own gatherings?
Freedom of Speech? Should "they" be able to say anything they want, without being arrested for it?
Freedom of thought? They'd might as well get rid of that, too.
Um, which of those involve privacy?
Edit: Also, I don't necessarily agree with Freedom of Speech - I think it needs to be restricted a tad bit, people take it way too far these days.
Those all have to do with rights that are often abused/removed from minorities. As long as you're arguing for a racist government, I think those are important issues.
Quote from: iago on December 18, 2005, 01:14 PM
Those all have to do with rights that are often abused/removed from minorities. As long as you're arguing for a racist government, I think those are important issues.
Let me make my position a bit more clear: The government should focus more of its time against those that pose a bigger threat to the country.
Quote from: hismajesty[yL] on December 18, 2005, 01:38 PM
Quote from: iago on December 18, 2005, 01:14 PM
Those all have to do with rights that are often abused/removed from minorities. As long as you're arguing for a racist government, I think those are important issues.
Let me make my position a bit more clear: The government should focus more of its time against those that pose a bigger threat to the country.
Like timothy mcveigh?
Quote from: Forged on December 18, 2005, 01:59 PM
Quote from: hismajesty[yL] on December 18, 2005, 01:38 PM
Quote from: iago on December 18, 2005, 01:14 PM
Those all have to do with rights that are often abused/removed from minorities. As long as you're arguing for a racist government, I think those are important issues.
Let me make my position a bit more clear: The government should focus more of its time against those that pose a bigger threat to the country.
Like timothy mcveigh?
Who happens to be an outlier. Now we need our attention focused on those of middle-eastern decent (specifically 1st or 2nd generation immigrants/those on student visas/etc.) I can furnish evidence that this is the case if you'd like.
Arguing with a person who thinks racism is the best way to go is pointless, so don't worry about it...
Just rember, the social and political climate changes frequentlly. To set up a discrimantory policy based on race, religon, or ideology is a bad idea.
Quote from: Forged on December 18, 2005, 02:51 PM
Arguing with a person who thinks racism is the best way to go is pointless, so don't worry about it...
Just rember, the social and political climate changes frequentlly. To set up a discrimantory policy based on race, religon, or ideology is a bad idea.
Obviously. The government enacted a discrimantory policy against Japanese during WWII, because they were the ones that posed a threat - not middle eastern people. But look at today, look at who does. If you saw a white guy, an asian guy, or even a black guy messing with his shoe on an airplane do you think anybody would care? No. They wouldn't.
I'd like to state that there are dangerous terrorist groups that are not of middle-eastern origin.
QuoteThe government enacted a discrimantory policy against Japanese during WWII
That wasn't really racism, more like xenophobia.
Quote from: DarkMinion on December 18, 2005, 03:17 PM
QuoteThe government enacted a discrimantory policy against Japanese during WWII
That wasn't really racism, more like xenophobia.
Possibly, but I think xenophobia is more broad?
But many people consider Korematsu vs. US to be a case that came from that ordeal that gives the government the ability to be "racist" (or, at least, use racial profiling/discrimination/etc.) now.
Quote from: hismajesty[yL] on December 18, 2005, 01:38 PMLet me make my position a bit more clear: The government should focus more of its time against those that pose a bigger threat to the country.
Would the government not have more resources available to do so if it didn't waste time spying on innocent people (which is the entire point of this thread)?
Quote from: Kp on December 18, 2005, 03:33 PM
Quote from: hismajesty[yL] on December 18, 2005, 01:38 PMLet me make my position a bit more clear: The government should focus more of its time against those that pose a bigger threat to the country.
Would the government not have more resources available to do so if it didn't waste time spying on innocent people (which is the entire point of this thread)?
It'd have more resources if it narrowed it down to certain demographics.
Like the black (and white) people in street gangs who are responsible for 50% of the murders in your country every year?
Non-terrorist crime represents a significantly higher threat to your safety than terrorists do. Why isn't everybody as racist against them?
You mentioned people here on student visas/work visas...I agree, monitor them them out the whazoo, they aren't Americans & would most likely be the terrorists.
However, American citizens, I believe, should have a right to privacy
There's PLENTY of people racist against blacks and whites. But I'd definitely be willing to bet there is more gang-related crimes for blacks than whites. Because who's most likely to be in a gang? It's the black people from the hood or the white people who wish they were (black). And some Hispanics (but not really where I live.) Plus in crime reports hispanics are grouped with caucasians.
Quote# Blacks murder more than 1,600 whites each year.
# Blacks murder whites at 18 times the rate whites murder blacks.
# Blacks murdered, raped, robbed, or assaulted about one million whites in 1992.
# In the last 30 years, blacks committed 170 million violent and non-violent crimes against whites.
# Blacks under 18 are more than 12 times more likely to be arrested for murder than whites under 18.
# About 90% of the victims of interracial crimes are white.
# Blacks commit 7.5 times more violent interracial crimes than whites, although whites outnumber blacks by 7 to 1.
# On a per capita basis, blacks commit 50 times more violent crime than whites.
# Black neighborhoods are 35 times more violent than white neighborhoods.
# Of the 27 million nonviolent robberies in 1992, 31% (8.4 million) were committed by blacks against whites. Less than 2% were committed by whites against blacks.
# Of the 6.6 million violent crimes, 20% (1.3 million) were interracial.
# Of the the 1.3 million interracial violent crimes, 90% (1.17 million) are black against white.
# In the past 20 years, violent crime increased four times faster than the population.
# In the last 30 years (1964-94), more than 45,000 people were killed in interracial murders compared to 38,000 killed in Korea and 58,000 in Vietnam.
Whites, of course, are a close second (or first, whatever) but it's because that these are the two most populated races. On the other hand, the 6% (is that figure correct?) of black males in the country perform over 50% of the crimes.
---
And, iago, the government responds to that. I hardly ever see a patrol car in my neighborhood, even though there are busy roads on each side and it's not even an upper-middle or upper income neighborhood. But the crime in the hood is low, minus a few shed breakins that were occuring a couple months ago. However, in our "project" and higher-minority areas there are a lot more police patrols (and also murders, source=news).
When police see some black people just hanging around or whatever, they usually question them (Source=COPS) to see whats up.
So, the government is using this method now..by evaluating what demographic (lower class blacks/whites) and what locations (the projects, rundown areas, etc.) are the most dangerous and have the highest probability for crimes, and they respond.
Given that, it's only natural, when combatting terrorism, to look at whos most likely to commit a terrorist act (of course there is outliers, like Oklahoma Cit), and the fact is that it's middle eastern men.
Good points. Watch them closer, but watch them to where they know you're watching.
Also, I think alot of the cime has to do w/income level in which black people are generally poorer which I think their laziness (in general) was created by affirmative action
Hmm, possibility, maybe we DON'T have a right to privacy. I KNOW we have the right to free speech, to bear arms & to vote...but there isn't an ammendment about privacy....interesting, maybe they never meant for us to have a full privacy
QuoteIf you saw a white guy, an asian guy, or even a black guy messing with his shoe on an airplane do you think anybody would care? No. They wouldn't
~2 years ago didn't a white terrorist try and blow up an international flight using a shoe bomb?
Quotebut there isn't an ammendment about privacy
How exactlly do you interpret the 4th amendment?
unreasonable search & seizure
I spose if you dont take it literally it could mean privacy.
It could also mean that cops just cant look through yourstuff & take it...& drop it @ that
I don't agree with this policy at all, there must be a better way to protect your country without spying on your own people?
Quote from: Falcon[anti-yL] on December 19, 2005, 11:22 AM
I don't agree with this policy at all, there must be a better way to protect your country without spying on your own people?
With more freedom comes more danger. Unless you want to drastically limit peoples rights, security has to be strict.
Quote from: Disco on December 19, 2005, 11:52 AM
With more freedom comes more danger. Unless you want to drastically limit peoples rights, security has to be strict.
Yeah, strict security is good. Ideally, police would have pictures and dna samples of all citizens, and cameras should be mounted in strategic locations everywhere. This way, any time there is a concern for terrorism, whoever has been moving around the area can be traced down instantly.
Also consider how efficient it would make verifying suspect behaviour - someone calls the police saying they saw someone suspicious moving about. All the police have to do is enter the surveillance system, load up the recording of that location and identify the suspect. They could even have a database of what citizens do, so if someone if moving where they normally do not, they would be identified and tagged immediately. This process could be completely automated, with central computers monitoring citizens and alerting a response force as soon as something out of the ordinary happens.
Edit: This system would be almost completely automated, so there would never be a need to fear any intrusion into your privacy unless you were actually doing suspect things. Only those who were suspect would get anyone watching them. That should definitely dispell any privacy concerns anyone might have.
Yay for living an automated 'protected' life
Privacy is a right, and an essential one.
Quote from: Arta[vL] on December 19, 2005, 12:54 PM
Privacy is a right, and an essential one.
Word, I totally agree.
Quote from: Adron on December 19, 2005, 12:46 PM
Quote from: Disco on December 19, 2005, 11:52 AM
With more freedom comes more danger. Unless you want to drastically limit peoples rights, security has to be strict.
Yeah, strict security is good. Ideally, police would have pictures and dna samples of all citizens, and cameras should be mounted in strategic locations everywhere. This way, any time there is a concern for terrorism, whoever has been moving around the area can be traced down instantly.
Also consider how efficient it would make verifying suspect behaviour - someone calls the police saying they saw someone suspicious moving about. All the police have to do is enter the surveillance system, load up the recording of that location and identify the suspect. They could even have a database of what citizens do, so if someone if moving where they normally do not, they would be identified and tagged immediately. This process could be completely automated, with central computers monitoring citizens and alerting a response force as soon as something out of the ordinary happens.
Edit: This system would be almost completely automated, so there would never be a need to fear any intrusion into your privacy unless you were actually doing suspect things. Only those who were suspect would get anyone watching them. That should definitely dispell any privacy concerns anyone might have.
We should embed RFID chips in everybody's body, make it illegal to not have it. Then we can reliably track where everybody is at every time of every day, from a satellite. That would be linked into your system too.
I think before we discuss this any further, there is an important concept we're all making assumptions about.
What is a "human right"? Why do we have the rights we do? And why do we deserve to have rights?
It's a very important question. It was only fairly recent (last couple hundred years) that what's his name defined what it means to have certain rights. A big political philosopher. In any case, we all make certain assumptions about rights. I make the assumption that they're inalienable, and that all people are entitled to them. Trust makes the assumption that it's ok for the government to push certain rights aside, if they're a minority and you claim it's for national security. But in the end, what IS a right?
*trust says its ok to push rights aside not if they're a minority but if they are statistically more of a risk.
My definition:
A right is something that is paralelled between all people. It should be recognized by all people. It should be protected at any cost.
Now, obviously, "any cost" brings up the question of what is ok to be labeled as a cost.
I believe that inorder to maintain a certain level of safety repeat criminals should be monitored/watched.
There is the question "what about the immigrants/people here on visas/illegal immigrants, aren't they people too?"
I see it as they are people of a different state (not U.S. state). We only have the means and ability to protect our own people within our country and must focus on protecting our citizens before any others. It is in the best interest of our country that the American people are first and foremost in our government's agenda.
As we cannot "control", I use this term losely, people in other countries, we must protect our citizens further by making sure immigrants/illegal immigrants/workers are not planning an international attack while undercover. The possibility that a terrorist could gain access to the U.S. simply by moving here & then continuing to communicate overseas is very risky.
AS a side note, I heard something on the news today, just a little blurb from Paul Harvey.
-After 9/11 there were 14 Senators that said "Mr. President, why weren't we told about these people learning to fly airplanes & not land them? Why didn't you do more to protect us?" More recently these same 14 Senators say "Mr. President, you are invading our privacy by looking over our shoulder, that is unconstitutional."
An example of the left's amazing ability to flip-flop on any issue.
iago, yeah, no I didn't. Minorities are just statistically shown to be of higher risk, and as such deserve more attention. But not just minorites. People like anarchists and stuff should be watched closer than government lovers.
true dat.
However, I think SPYING isn't right.
Quote from: iago on December 19, 2005, 01:56 PM
We should embed RFID chips in everybody's body, make it illegal to not have it. Then we can reliably track where everybody is at every time of every day, from a satellite. That would be linked into your system too.
I was considering RFID tags, but I do not think those are technically viable yet to read from such range. Cameras and face recognition will probably have to do for a while. In the long run, he RFID chips will be in everyone's clothes too, so in case someone refuses to have it implanted, we can still trace them somewhat as long as they are not naked. For now, cameras are better as they can be used to track and identify people whom we have not yet tagged as well.
Also, I see no reason a great amount of privacy would be a human right. There are many circumstances where you give up most of your privacy and do just fine.
Quote from: CrAz3D on December 19, 2005, 04:36 PM
A right is something that is paralelled between all people. It should be recognized by all people.
[.........]
We only have the means and ability to protect our own people within our country and must focus on protecting our citizens before any others. It is in the best interest of our country that the American people are first and foremost in our government's agenda.
That becomes contradictory if the second part of that quote denies them rights, though. And privacy is a right that all people should have.
I know, that's how it is though, its gay, you can't define it specifically down to black & white, there is ALWAYS gray/grey (which is it?)
Quote from: CrAz3D on December 19, 2005, 07:42 PM
I know, that's how it is though, its gay, you can't define it specifically down to black & white, there is ALWAYS gray/grey (which is it?)
Horribly offtopic, but they're both valid spellings for the same word. Spelling it is kind of a gray area. Hah *cough*