You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Vancouver Off-Topic / Current EventsThe off-topic forum for Vancouver, funnies, non-auto centered discussions, WORK SAFE. While the rules are more relaxed here, there are still rules. Please refer to sticky thread in this forum.
How do you decide what is and isn't related to terrorism? Most people would say "those who wish to destroy the country and/or the ideals it stands for".
So, what about people who march in protest against activities which the Canadian government is participating in? Let's say that some real terrorists attend some events which are legitimate events organized by nonviolent individuals wishing to raise awareness and put pressure on the politicians to change their minds? Then the activity could be labelled a "terrorist recruitment ground", and then (by your standards) your data could be held "until it is determined that you are not a terrorist". Yet as time goes on,w e are increasingly finding that people are not suddenly turned, and are in fact slowly and gradually turned over a period of years or decades.
So if I attend a protest (or several), because I object to
-Increased taxes
-Decreased taxes
-Military spending
-Military interventions
-Waste by the government
-Nepotism in the government
and there happens to be a terrorist there, the government in its current mind would feel justified in keeping my data until they decided I wasn't really a terrorist. But since there are so many sleepers and delayed recruitment, then they would most likely only relinquish my data when I was dead.
Last time I checked, protests and demonstrations are legitimate forms of democratic involvement. And yet look where it's gotten us.
Thank you for calling me scum. I suppose you'd much rather see this
as long as every last bit of your privacy is preserved?
I wonder who is the real scumbag here?
the boston bombing happened concurrently with prism...so if anything you prove my point. did it prevent the boston bombing? nope. did it help with his capture? nope
notice how the world actually got less safe after the patriot act, ndaa etc?
its scum like you that embolden the gov't to strip away our civil liberties one after one
the "i dont have anything to hide, so its okay" argument has been debunked over and over yet you attempt it again
I think we'd all rather not see that. But perhaps we should start looking at the root of why terrorists attack others. And a bit beyond the "they hate our freedoms" rationale.
How do you decide what is and isn't related to terrorism? Most people would say "those who wish to destroy the country and/or the ideals it stands for".
So, what about people who march in protest against activities which the Canadian government is participating in? Let's say that some real terrorists attend some events which are legitimate events organized by nonviolent individuals wishing to raise awareness and put pressure on the politicians to change their minds? Then the activity could be labelled a "terrorist recruitment ground", and then (by your standards) your data could be held "until it is determined that you are not a terrorist". Yet as time goes on,w e are increasingly finding that people are not suddenly turned, and are in fact slowly and gradually turned over a period of years or decades.
So if I attend a protest (or several), because I object to
-Increased taxes
-Decreased taxes
-Military spending
-Military interventions
-Waste by the government
-Nepotism in the government
and there happens to be a terrorist there, the government in its current mind would feel justified in keeping my data until they decided I wasn't really a terrorist. But since there are so many sleepers and delayed recruitment, then they would most likely only relinquish my data when I was dead.
Last time I checked, protests and demonstrations are legitimate forms of democratic involvement. And yet look where it's gotten us.
And that is why the treatment of those data is so crucial -- they are not supposed to be used outside of the terrorist investigation. These are not the days of McCarthyism. Attending an anti-government protest is not going to get you into intense FBI interrogation. You are not going to lose your job or get sent to prison for something you haven't done. You are innocent until proven guilty. This is how our society works.
It is a very fine line, and we are striving to maintain as much of our personal privacy as possible. I do not like it either, but if a little electronic eavesdropping that possess no consequence nor inconvenience to me, and yet it carries the very real possibility of catching some crooks and saving people lives, I will reluctantly agree to it.
the boston bombing happened concurrently with prism...so if anything you prove my point. did it prevent the boston bombing? nope. did it help with his capture? nope
notice how the world actually got less safe after the patriot act, ndaa etc?
its scum like you that embolden the gov't to strip away our civil liberties one after one
the "i dont have anything to hide, so its okay" argument has been debunked over and over yet you attempt it again
True, PRISM did not prevent the Boston bombing. But when the Department of Homeland Security issue press conferences about how they have spoiled terrorist plots in the making, have you ever wondered how that happen?
If you see people getting hurt, then it is already too late.
We can get into a shouting matching with you calling me a scum that embolden the government to strip away our civil liberties, and I can just as easily call you a scum for putting your own privacy ahead of other human lives.
There is no point in continuing the discussion with the likes of you.
I think we'd all rather not see that. But perhaps we should start looking at the root of why terrorists attack others. And a bit beyond the "they hate our freedoms" rationale.
Thank you. Of course any sensible person would rather not see that happening. At the end of the day, looking at the reasons why terrorists attacks happen and preventing those reasons from brewing in the first place is the ultimate solution. But enacting that ultimate solution is a slow and on-going process. In the mean time, what are we going to do to thwart the plots that are brewing and minimize the number of people that could get hurt?
I am very much an average person just like yourself, and I do not have a good solution as to what that intermediate solution might be. Schemes such as PRISM is far from ideal, and I have repeatedly mentioned that I do not like it either. But I see there are merits to it, and I do not know of another viable solutions, so I reluctantly agree with it. (If I had or have seen a better idea, I would already have rallied for it.)
True, PRISM did not prevent the Boston bombing. But when the Department of Homeland Security issue press conferences about how they have spoiled terrorist plots in the making, have you ever wondered how that happen?
.
government tooting their own whistle? dont be so naive
__________________
Quote:
[23-07, 02:03] shawn79 i find that at vietnamese place they cut ur hair like they cut grass
[23-07, 02:03] shawn79 do u go to vietnamese places for haircuts
...
We can get into a shouting matching with you calling me a scum that embolden the government to strip away our civil liberties, and I can just as easily call you a scum for putting your own privacy ahead of other human lives.
There is no point in continuing the discussion with the likes of you.
But who are you to judge the good guys from the bad guys... what if the worlds biggest bad guys are ruling us.
Maybe you've heard of the Roman empire which collapsed... and look at occupied Greece now... people are so destitute they are committing suicide in large numbers. In this age of technology do you think they can form groups and put up any kind of resistance?
I dont want this country to be the next Greece or my future children to face the same fate.
One question. Just so that I know you're not some hippie living a remote forest which gets online only a few hours a year to see what goes on outside of British Columbia... can you tell me how many people have died in the last decade because of our allied forces meddling in other countries affairs?
government tooting their own whistle? dont be so naive
I most certainly wouldn't take the info they present at face value. At the same time, there is going to be some truth in what they announce. And IMO, this is how we should view any governing bodies, you never trust them 100%, but at the same time, a basic level of trust has to exist. Otherwise, society would cease to function.
In light of that and bringing things back to the topic of this discussion, it means we need to have a basic level of trust in the government, even when it comes to programs such as PRISM. We have to be prudent and we need whistleblowers such as Snowden to keep the government honest. But at the same time, I would say a lot of these programs are a necessary evil.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlesInCharge
But who are you to judge the good guys from the bad guys... what if the worlds biggest bad guys are ruling us.
Maybe you've heard of the Roman empire which collapsed... and look at occupied Greece now... people are so destitute they are committing suicide in large numbers. In this age of technology do you think they can form groups and put up any kind of resistance?
I dont want this country to be the next Greece or my future children to face the same fate.
One question. Just so that I know you're not some hippie living a remote forest which gets online only a few hours a year to see what goes on outside of British Columbia... can you tell me how many people have died in the last decade because of our allied forces meddling in other countries affairs?
Except for your first point, I am not sure what you are trying to say with the Roman Empire / Greece references.
Continuing on your example of allied forces meddling in other countries affairs, I would say this -- despite the recurring casualties caused by the allied forces, does it mean we should entirely disband the UN forces? Of course we wouldn't want to! It's the same idea with stuff like PRISM. Yes, we know it is violating our personal privacy a bit, but in the absence of other effective solutions, and in the face of possible consequences, it is better to begrudgingly choose the lesser of the two evils.
Greece was pretty much in the center of the empires realm... some of the greatest philosophers originated from there which have greatly influenced western culture... so to have all that cultural political awareness and origins of intellectual wisdom... today its in shambles.
The people tried to storm the political buildings and revolt in mass protests against the establishment but were obviously powerless against the NWO behind it.
You didnt answer my question, you posted a guy with his feet cut off as a warning but I want to know how many people you think died in the last decade because of our allied meddling...
edit - also tell me how many have died because of America's meddling from 1960-2000.
I most certainly wouldn't take the info they present at face value. At the same time, there is going to be some truth in what they announce. And IMO, this is how we should view any governing bodies, you never trust them 100%, but at the same time, a basic level of trust has to exist. Otherwise, society would cease to function.
In light of that and bringing things back to the topic of this discussion, it means we need to have a basic level of trust in the government, even when it comes to programs such as PRISM. We have to be prudent and we need whistleblowers such as Snowden to keep the government honest. But at the same time, I would say a lot of these programs are a necessary evil.
Except for your first point, I am not sure what you are trying to say with the Roman Empire / Greece references.
Continuing on your example of allied forces meddling in other countries affairs, I would say this -- despite the recurring casualties caused by the allied forces, does it mean we should entirely disband the UN forces? Of course we wouldn't want to! It's the same idea with stuff like PRISM. Yes, we know it is violating our personal privacy a bit, but in the absence of other effective solutions, and in the face of possible consequences, it is better to begrudgingly choose the lesser of the two evils.
While I do agree that we need a certain level of trust in order to move forward as a society, what about the citizens who are jerked around by the government? All it takes is one bad experience from a body and the trust is broken.
Corrupt police for example, being hung out to dry on the medical system, no justice for crimes etc.
The UN is only good for keeping small countries in check, period. Otherwise it's only a benefit to the superpowers around the world.
Remember Iraq? The invasion was 110% illegal. It was not authorized by the UN but Bush decided to go ahead and shit in the country. No consequences? Of course not, who is going to go toe to toe with America.
Basically once you give the government too much power, only a police state will ensue. What are you going to do then? It will be too late to do anything.
You didnt answer my question, you posted a guy with his feet cut off as a warning but I want to know how many people you think died in the last decade because of our allied meddling.
Obviously people, including civilians, innocent ones, and troops of our own, have died from allied forces meddling in other countries affairs. But again, perhaps you could answer the question I raised as well, Charles -- does it mean we should disband the UN forces? Also, without the allied force's meddling, do you think there will more or less people dying or otherwise suffering from war crimes?
Relating back to the topic of the thread, I will say again that between not having programs such as PRISM and enjoying a little more privacy, versus having programs such as PRISM and enjoying a little less privacy, I believe more people will be harmed if we do not have these wire tapping computer analysis. It's the same with TSA -- I don't like them, but I think without them in this current world, there would be a lot more airplane bombers and hijackers, more people will get hurt, and all of us will be worse off.
When citizens find out that that they really have a bad guy running in the office, they apply public pressure to remove the said leader from office (eg. Nixon), or they punish him (and his party) through their votes, or they punish him in the court of public opinions (eg. GW Bush). It isn't 100% effective, but I would argue that it is effective enough, or we wouldn't be doing this continually.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarobbt
While I do agree that we need a certain level of trust in order to move forward as a society, what about the citizens who are jerked around by the government? All it takes is one bad experience from a body and the trust is broken.
Corrupt police for example, being hung out to dry on the medical system, no justice for crimes etc.
The UN is only good for keeping small countries in check, period. Otherwise it's only a benefit to the superpowers around the world.
Remember Iraq? The invasion was 110% illegal. It was not authorized by the UN but Bush decided to go ahead and shit in the country. No consequences? Of course not, who is going to go toe to toe with America.
Basically once you give the government too much power, only a police state will ensue. What are you going to do then? It will be too late to do anything.
Yes, the trust can be easily broken. The Dziekanski incident has probably forever tarnished the RCMP's image and trust in a lot of people's minds -- including mine. But I still wouldn't call for the disbanding of the RCMP because that would be absurd. We'd just keep seeking legal ways to make things right again. With the Dziekanski incident, for example, the cops involved are facing purgery charges now, and maybe this time justice will be done. It's pretty much the same stuff with PRISM.
You have brought up a lot of good points and questions, but you have not offered a viable alternative. So are we supposed to do nothing because that is the better option?
The key in this PRISM matter, IMO, is vigilance among the public to be aware of what is happening, and to keep an eye on whether the government has over-extended / abused their power. It is not going to be perfect -- this world never is. I ask you to consider which option is the lesser evil of the two. Or if you have a viable alternative, present and lobby for that.
Obviously people, including civilians, innocent ones, and troops of our own, have died from allied forces meddling in other countries affairs. See I dont know where you're coming from... from your views, I doubt you've ever watched more then an hour of none main stream news which technically is English RT from Russia or English PressTV from Iran. You think we are the lesser of two evils? They dont publish this on main stream TV news so I want to know if you actually know how many people have died because of our meddling in the last decade?
But again, perhaps you could answer the question I raised as well, Charles -- does it mean we should disband the UN forces? Also, without the allied force's meddling, do you think there will more or less people dying or otherwise suffering from war crimes?
Relating back to the topic of the thread, I will say again that between not having programs such as PRISM and enjoying a little more privacy, versus having programs such as PRISM and enjoying a little less privacy, I believe more people will be harmed if we do not have these wire tapping computer analysis. It's the same with TSA -- I don't like them, but I think without them in this current world, there would be a lot more airplane bombers and hijackers, more people will get hurt, and all of us will be worse off.
When citizens find out that that they really have a bad guy running in the office, they apply public pressure to remove the said leader from office (eg. Nixon), or they punish him (and his party) through their votes, or they punish him in the court of public opinions (eg. GW Bush). It isn't 100% effective, but I would argue that it is effective enough, or we wouldn't be doing this continually.
I only answer to my username, my real name is Irrelevant!
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: CELICAland
Posts: 25,646
Thanked 10,380 Times in 3,906 Posts
fair warning im tired as hell right now may not be intelligible
All government agencies act like the police, they only look for what they can use against you; that's why you should never speak to the police without a lawyer present as you may think you're assisting them or explaining your side of the story but it doesn't matter, all the police are hearing is what they can use to charge/convict you, they're not looking at it from an impartial pov it's very much a biased one.
This is why so many innocent people are charged with crimes and why many of those are even convicted of crimes (it's not rare) because of that biased viewpoint as well as people who think "i've got nothing to hide" (they don't realize that doesn't really matter) this is one of the reasons why wealthy people, proportionately, get convicted far less (they keep their mouths shut and lawyer up)
So you may think it doesn't matter that you're being spied upon by the government or foreign governments but in these circumstances you don't have a lawyer in the room or next to that govt agent (or in this case computer software!) going "no, no not so fast" like you would in a police interview so all your activity can be looked at as suspicious and you'll be stuck in a cell, hopefully, with a lawyer trying to explain yourself and worst case scenario in some secret prison hoping to speak to someone someday.
See I dont know where you're coming from... from your views, I doubt you've ever watched more then an hour of none main stream news which technically is English RT from Russia or English PressTV from Iran. You think we are the lesser of two evils? They dont publish this on main stream TV news so I want to know if you actually know how many people have died because of our meddling in the last decade?
LOL~ I am not so naive to think that Uncle Sam is the good guy. The American tyranny isn't something entirely new to new.
For the record, I am certainly not advocating the belief that "you shouldn't need to be worried if you have nothing to hide". My personal business is my personal business, and the government really has no business in spying on my personal life. But again, as I have repeatedly said so many times in this thread (yet I keep getting getting blasted and failed for it), if me getting a little spied on solely for the purposes of anti-terrorism means lives could potentially be saved from terrorist acts, I will begrudgingly put up with it.
So it really just boils down to this same yes/no answer for you and everyone else, Charles. From the way this thread has been going and the responses that have been posted, it is clear that a lot of you do not see eye to eye with me.
You know, I've been thinking more on this, in two directions.
One...everyone in America cannot have access to healthcare, but they can have their phone calls recorded. That's a priority. You know what true terror is? It isn't the 3000 that lose their lives in the WTC-its very tragic, don't get me wrong...but true terror is getting a diagnosis of cancer and knowing that you may not be able to fight it.
And two, I have heard of this show but haven't watched it, but this:
Undoubtedly, the US has a lot of their priorities screwed up. Spending $$ on tanks, F35, drones before using it on healthcare and education is screwed up. I'd never say the US is a righteous good guy.
LOL~ I am not so naive to think that Uncle Sam is the good guy. The American tyranny isn't something entirely new to new.
Today, on this vast earth we cant just pick uninhabited land and grow our own food to live... we are dependent on the system. We have no power over our food or any protectionism for jobs... in the next few generations we can find our population working for way less and dying in their 50's.
The tagging and monitoring of our lives is one of the ultimate tools in keeping the status quo.
When citizens find out that that they really have a bad guy running in the office, they apply public pressure to remove the said leader from office (eg. Nixon), or they punish him (and his party) through their votes, or they punish him in the court of public opinions (eg. GW Bush). It isn't 100% effective, but I would argue that it is effective enough, or we wouldn't be doing this continually.
The whole political, media, schooling, medical and commerce systems have been hijacked.
LOL~ I am not so naive to think that Uncle Sam is the good guy. The American tyranny isn't something entirely new to new.
For the record, I am certainly not advocating the belief that "you shouldn't need to be worried if you have nothing to hide". My personal business is my personal business, and the government really has no business in spying on my personal life. But again, as I have repeatedly said so many times in this thread (yet I keep getting getting blasted and failed for it), if me getting a little spied on solely for the purposes of anti-terrorism means lives could potentially be saved from terrorist acts, I will begrudgingly put up with it.
So it really just boils down to this same yes/no answer for you and everyone else, Charles. From the way this thread has been going and the responses that have been posted, it is clear that a lot of you do not see eye to eye with me.
lets be real here, go'vt surveillance is not only a fundamental violation of americans constitutional rights but completely and 100% ineffective
not only did it failed to prevent the boston bombing, but also the myriad of shootings that happened around the same time
i'm sure alot of people who live in police states "begrudingly" put up with censorship, suspension of habeas corpus, indefinite detainment, and extra judicial killings because it gives them a false sense of security
we should be better than that...give the gov't an inch and theyll take a mile (which they already have)
NSA guilty of covering up child abductions, rapes, murders and more!
Spoiler!
This kind of proof requires use of your brain.
We've all heard the reasoning the government uses to justify their extensive surveillance and intel networks. They say "It is for the public good, to keep the public safe from enemies foriegn and domestic".
Well, what kind of info are they gathering and storing forever? All internet and phone data, gps tracking, drone and satellite imagery, millions of video surveillance devices in businesses and homes, as well as millions of traffic video cams and other city surveillance.
So, they've set up an excellent system to catch terrorists...like your neighborhood oathkeeper, homeschooler, christian, patriot...and the islamic terrorists. Right?
So, since this system is so massive and contains basically all the information needed to catch perps and keep us safe, we should be hearing about more and more arrests of child abductors, murderers, rapists, etc...right? Every time we hear about a new abduction or murder -- or terrorist bombing -- we should expect the perp to be arrested and the child found in a matter of hours to days. Not weeks. Not months. Not years. And almost never "unsolved". Right?
Since we as citizens clearly do not see those kinds of results, I don't think we're seeing the correct bang-for-buck ratio with this surveillance system we paid for.
It also proves that the government doesn't give a shit about us, and that they have been covering for murderers, pedophiles, rapists...letting children be taken from their parents and be sexually assaulted and murdered, or kidnapped and abused for years, etc. With their all too untimely discovery of who blew up that apparent surveillance deadzone at the finish line at the boston marathon, plus the abilities their systems give them, it is clear we were being lied to about when they knew who did it and that they were being "sought" (they clearly knew where they were the whole time with this system).
In conclusion, the government is guilty of not only Constitutional violations through the use of this system, but they are also covering up murders and kidnappings in order to not expose the reach of their system, and they are at the very least derelict in their duties. QED.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!
