DescentBB

I think we're seeing something fundamental in this thread: that younger generations have less expectation of privacy than older ones. That's probably always been the case, since when you're a kid you're used to your parents \"going though your stuff.\" As you get older and more independent, you come to value your privacy more.

The thing is, the evolution I just described is changing with the advent of ubiquitous electronic media. I think the kids growing up now will not develop the expectation of privacy that previous generations did. Combine this trend with the current governmental trends and things start to look very worrisome.

Ferno wrote:unless you're another one of those armchair chickenhawks.

Ferno, chill. She stated her position clearly, that she feels wiretapping and 'net monitoring are acceptable risks. I don't agree, but that doesn't give me reason to start flaming.

Genghis wrote:I think we're seeing something fundamental in this thread: that younger generations have less expectation of privacy than older ones.

Interesting. My youngest days on the computer were in the era of dial-up bulletin-boards, just before the advent of the popular internet... I think I have more expectations of privacy now. Of course, I was still a pre-teen and living at home.

Ferno wrote:

Bet51987 wrote:

Ferno wrote:Then go to your nearest recruiting office Bee.

And that is relevent to the OP how?

Bee

you're so gung-ho about this, what's stopping you from joining?

unless you're another one of those armchair chickenhawks.

Again...for the last time. What does your comment have to do with the OP. If you want trouble I can dish it out too.

Bee

you supported the piece. and I challenged you 'to put your money where your mouth is'. That's what it has to do with the OP.

Foil: I just call it like I see it.

Bet:

If you want trouble I can dish it out too

Don't go there.

Ferno wrote:you supported the piece. and I challenged you 'to put your money where your mouth is'. That's what it has to do with the OP.

Yeah, but why go to the recruing office?
All she really needs to do 'to put her money where her mouth is' is to do nothing, because that's what happening now. It's you that's supposed to be doing something.

TIGERassault wrote:

fliptw wrote:the problem with saying you have nothing to hide is that you let everyone see what can be used against you, and you might not even know what...

Yes, but this is supposed to be a "nothing to hide from the government".

thats like only locking the back door because burglars won't go in anywhere else.

The key to safeguarding privacy is protect it on all fronts, not just one.

TIGERassault wrote:I haven't found anything to say that that information will also be avaliable to other people.

That assumes that the systems collecting and safeguarding the information is 100% error-free 100% of the time. Considering that this is being collected by one of the largest bureaucracies in history doesn't help things. Humans make mistakes, and it just takes one to ruin someone's life.

I'm not an american citizen.

but if anything like that was happening here, I would be doing something.

Ferno wrote:Don't go there.

I am going there because I'm not afraid of you anymore. The only power you have is to ban me...thats all..nothing else.

Bee

How many Americans clicked that link and complained?
If you don't complain then you WILL lose your rights and privacy.

Bet51987 wrote:

Ferno wrote:Don't go there.

I am going there because I'm not afraid of you anymore. The only power you have is to ban me...thats all..nothing else.

Bee

ban? huh? I think you have me confused with someone else. but you haven't answered my point yet, specifically about joining up.

Although 's idea of wiretapping the entire nation and defiling the constitution is very rediculous, the mention that should join up into the military because she supports wiretapping and/or the Iraq War is a very rediculous statement.

Ferno wrote:you're so gung-ho about this, what's stopping you from joining?

Come on folks, we should be able to discuss this rationally, even if we disagree, without getting sidetracked into personal attacks. Whether or not someone has joined the military (I haven't and WON'T by the way, just in the interest of full disclosure) is perhaps a valid point to tell us something about that persons character. I admire people who back up what they believe by putting their lives on the line. It tells me they are very sincere in what they believe, but it doesn't tell me ANYTHING about whether what they believe is right or wrong. So it really doesn't have any place in a discussion of the issues.

And in particular, this issue is about wiretapping and privacy, so joining the military is doubly irrelevant. Bettina is dead on, it's just not relevant at all.

And just so I bash both sides:

Bet51987 wrote:I could care less what you think.

This may FEEL good to say, but it's not very USEFUL in a discussion. In particular, it encourages people to discount the views you have expressed as ALL being emotional instead of logical. If someone has offended you so badly that you don't wish to respond to them, just ignore them. It leaves a better impression on other people.

it was a simple question. if she believes in it, will she be active about it? and joining up definitely fits under being active about it.

It tells me they are very sincere in what they believe

Which is what I'm trying to get at. it's the meat of the matter.

which brings me to another question of the same nature: Those who are against it, did they click the link, voicing their opposition?

It's one thing to say that you're for/against something, but it's quite another to put your money where your mouth is. because it tells me you have the conviction to support your ideals.

Bet51987 wrote:No, I'm just not interested in anything that YOU have to say.

Bee

How does it feel to be sitting there with your fingers in your ears yelling "LA LA LA?"

This is a forum where people debate and discuss issues. If you have nothing to contribute and are not willing to listen to any viewpoint opposing your own, you have no business here.

Kyouryuu wrote:

Bet51987 wrote:No, I'm just not interested in anything that YOU have to say.

Bee

How does it feel to be sitting there with your fingers in your ears yelling "LA LA LA?"

This is a forum where people debate and discuss issues. If you have nothing to contribute and are not willing to listen to any viewpoint opposing your own, you have no business here.

I dont care what u thing either.

I think this thread is done then.

Bet51987 wrote:

Kyouryuu wrote:

Bet51987 wrote:No, I'm just not interested in anything that YOU have to say.

Bee

How does it feel to be sitting there with your fingers in your ears yelling "LA LA LA?"

This is a forum where people debate and discuss issues. If you have nothing to contribute and are not willing to listen to any viewpoint opposing your own, you have no business here.

I dont care what u thing either.

Maybe debating on the internet isnt ideal for you. I know im not, hence my minimal participation here.

Security is reinforced with surveillance but not assured.

And invasion of privacy on AMERICAN citizens is definitely not the way of safeguarding u.s soil.

Either way if you take away more and more freedoms and rights you will be contributing to a different ideal of what is considered \"American\" to begin with.

I guess one would be silly to think this is the land of freedom and opportunity.

Bet51987 wrote:No, I'm just not interested in anything that YOU have to say.

Bee

So in other words, you don't want to listen to anyone with an opposing view. I hate to break it to you Bee, but if you don't want your views challenge, you should keep your damn mouth shut. Part of debating is challenging the viewpoint of the "opposition". If you can't take the heat, then get out of the kitchen. You're a "big girl" now, so don't expect anyone to hold your hand anymore.

Ad hominem!

Kilarin wrote:It tells me they are very sincere in what they believe

Ferno wrote:Which is what I'm trying to get at. it's the meat of the matter.

But being sincere doesn't have ANYTHING to do with whether you are right or wrong. There are many people who are very sincere on BOTH sides of the issue.

Which is why it's better to discuss the issues and peoples views instead of directly attacking the people who hold those views.

Ferno wrote:Those who are against it, did they click the link, voicing their opposition?

Actually, I haven't clicked yet because I think the topic needs more research. I am VERY disturbed by the general trend, I'm certainly opposed to many aspects of the patriot act.

BUT, in this particular case, while I think the Bush administration has made a stupid (and telling) mistake by not getting FISA warrants, I'm also not certain we haven't built something very stupid into the foreign intelligence wiretapping laws.

If the police get a warrant to listen in on the conversations of a big mob boss, they don't (I hope) have to get a separate warrant for each person that mob boss talks to. I've tried to look up information on this topic and can't find it amidst the flood of the recent NSA/FISA issue. But I THINK if I've gotten a warrant to listen to Mob Boss Gambino, then I can listen to everyone he calls, and everyone who calls him. Otherwise domestic wiretapping warrants would be pretty useless.

It seems to me, that there ought to be a simple way to do the same thing for foreign surveillance. If the FISA issues a single warrant saying the NSA may listen in on domestic conversations with a foreigner, say Osama Bin Laden, then they should be able to listen in if an American Citizen calls Osama, or if Osama calls an American Citizen, without needing a separate warrant for each call to a different citizen.

This wouldn't be a warrantless system, it would just make the system work like domestic wiretapping warrants work.

I need more research to really understand what is going on here before I commit myself to opposition of a particular bill. Especially since the Bush administration has shown itself VERY anxious to rid itself of any kind of oversight. So I have SOME sympathy for their position here, but I don't trust them at all. And especially, I think they've mishandled the entire thing from the begining and shown a blatant disregard for the law. Stupid law or not, they need to follow it until they can get it changed.

And one of the things that really makes me nervous about the entire thing is how many U.S. Citizens are so anxious to say, NOT that they think this wiretapping program has adequate oversight, or can be done with adequate oversight, but that they don't CARE if it has any oversight or not. Just so long as we are fighting them bad guys, whatever the government does is just fine. THAT attitude scares me to death. And that's why I jumped into this conversation in the first place. If we take the attitude that government oversight is unimportant, it will soon become nonexistant.

Fliptw wrote:Ad hominem!

This is Latin. Hominem=man. Ad=Advertisement. So it translates to "advertisements for men". Usually used to refer to the ads in Playboy. But what has it got to do with this discussion? I think you only brought this up because you are the kind of shallow person who reads playboy magazine.

I went after the behaviour, dude.

...because you are the kind of shallow person...

oopsies!
you can't call me on anything now with that from you.

Kilarin wrote:

Fliptw wrote:Ad hominem!

This is Latin. Hominem=man. Ad=Advertisement. So it translates to "advertisements for men". Usually used to refer to the ads in Playboy. But what has it got to do with this discussion? I think you only brought this up because you are the kind of shallow person who reads playboy magazine.

*COUGH*

Dakatsu wrote:

Kilarin wrote:

Fliptw wrote:Ad hominem!

This is Latin. Hominem=man. Ad=Advertisement. So it translates to "advertisements for men". Usually used to refer to the ads in Playboy. But what has it got to do with this discussion? I think you only brought this up because you are the kind of shallow person who reads playboy magazine.

I don't get it

Your icon amuses me in this instance. Is he rolling his eyes because he thinks someone is dumber than he? He'd be wrong. Or is he rolling his eyes trying to catch sight of something that just went over his head? That seems more likely.

Bet51987 wrote:I dont care what u thing either.

I know, and that's what scares me about people like you and those who share your mindset.

MD-2389 wrote:You're a "big girl" now...

I bet you a million dollars that this pathological liar lied about her age. No way in hell she's 18 or whatever she said.

Guys... chill with the personal stuff. Let's keep it on topic.

Dakatsu wrote:

Fliptw wrote:Ad hominem!

Kilarin wrote:This is Latin. Hominem=man. Ad=Advertisement. So it translates to "advertisements for men". Usually used to refer to the ads in Playboy. But what has it got to do with this discussion? I think you only brought this up because you are the kind of shallow person who reads playboy magazine. Wink

I don't get it

I was trying to make a funny. I made up what I thought was an amusing mis-definition of Ad Hominem, and then followed it with a deliberately silly Ad Hominem attack.

As you point out in your link, Ad Hominem means "Attack against the Man". Which is something that we should be avoiding here.

Seriously. I like killing you guys in the mines, and I like owning you in debate, but I really don't enjoy deleting your stuff because you can't behave like adults.

The following things need to stop:
1) personal attacks / insults. This includes \"I don't care what you think\" arguments, \"you're a hypocrite if you don't go enlist\" arguments, namecalling, etc.
2) off-topic lameness, particularly of the grammar nazi type. It doesn't do anybody any good when your like OMG u spelld somethn rong! or discussing someone's avatar or whatever. (If you put in a funny line at the end of an otherwise worthwhile post, OK, fine... just, no more whole posts consisting of nothing more than a complaint about a tpyo or mispelling or whatever.)

Let's keep this thread on topic, shall we?

Ferno...Kyouryuu...MD2389.

I owe you a big apology and I'm sorry for what I said to you. My outburst had nothing to do with you or your comments and everything to do with me and my demon that my pill didn't help but I will be more than glad to answer any question without insult.

Again, I'm really sorry and I hope you forgive me.

Bettina.

Top Wop... I'm 19, but what brought that on?

Bettina

Bet, thats nothing I'd hold a grudge over, although I would appreciate a straight answer.

Wait..you're legal now? Hot damn!

Bet51987 wrote:My outburst had nothing to do with you or your comments and everything to do with me and my demon that my pill didn't help

Bet, please! We are not little 10-year-old kids. If you want to apologise like that, you say it in a mature way, such as "I'm sorry for my harsh comments recently, I'm currently taking medication to try to stop it".

Tiger, please! You are not a 10-year-old kid. When an apology is offered, take it.

Bet51987 wrote: Top Wop... I'm 19, but what brought that on?

Check PM.

Zuruck wrote:Wait..you're legal now? Hot damn!

Topic?

As, \"Back on topic\"? Yes, please.

There seem to be two major points being discussed here:
1. Possibility of government having power to wiretap/monitor people without oversight (e.g. getting a warrant).
2. Private telecommunications company getting immunity for assisting government wiretapping/monitoring.

There has been some distinction made, but I tend to think it all comes back to the same base issue: the inherent danger of power without accountability. I realize the intentions are good; protecting US citizens is a good thing. However, I think the benefits are far outweighed by the potential problems. The present system of \"checks and balances\" to keep each official and branch of government accountable was put there for a reason!