America is not the first surveillance state

America is not the first surveillance state (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

JeffBC -> America is not the first surveillance state (6/9/2013 11:09:22 PM)
This is not the first time some state has decided they needed such surveillance. It's happened before. In point of fact I posted a fascinating link in that other thread but I'll post it here too.... This is a story from a young man moved from one of the Arab Spring countries and now resident in the US. http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1fv4r6/i_believe_the_government_should_be_allowed_to/caeb3pl?context=3 I think one of the most chilling things was the author pointing out that "safety" and "protection" are ALWAYS the reasons governments say they needs this stuff and history reveals that is never true. You want to know why revolutions happen? Because little by little by little things get worse and worse. But this thing that is happening now is big. This is the key ingredient. This allows them to know everything they need to know to accomplish the above. The fact that they are doing it is proof that they are the sort of people who might use it in the way I described. In the country I live in, they also claimed it was for the safety of the people. Same in Soviet Russia. Same in East Germany. In fact, that is always the excuse that is used to surveil everyone. But it has never ONCE proven to be the reality. There's a lot of other fascinating stuff in that link for those willing to consider the possibility that this might be the voice of experience rather than a voice of muslim hatred of America. Honestly, the writer doesn't sound like he hates America all that much. Note that the author declares anyone wishing to create such a system de-facto proof that they are untrustworthy to have it. I agree. The author also notes that once the system is created, you need to trust ALL future leaders through time. Maybe Obama (the guy who built it) isn't such a bad guy. Maybe the next president isn't. But we all know that sooner or later that streak will end. Do we dump this on our kids? You know, if it was simply PRISM I'd be alarmed. But it isn't. It's PRISM, Stellar Wind, Argus Drones, Court ordered call tracking for the entire country, and the list goes on. In other words there is a vast and almost entirely secret campaign to massively increase the ability of the US government to spy on us. Why? And honestly.... even if you don't care about privacy, freedom and the like... how about the cost? I'm here to tell you this sort of tech isn't coming cheap. This is like yet another massive, wasteful war on terror... except this time the terrorists are US.

DesideriScuri -> RE: America is not the first surveillance state (6/10/2013 2:27:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JeffBC This is not the first time some state has decided they needed such surveillance. It's happened before. In point of fact I posted a fascinating link in that other thread but I'll post it here too.... This is a story from a young man moved from one of the Arab Spring countries and now resident in the US. http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1fv4r6/i_believe_the_government_should_be_allowed_to/caeb3pl?context=3 I think one of the most chilling things was the author pointing out that "safety" and "protection" are ALWAYS the reasons governments say they needs this stuff and history reveals that is never true. You want to know why revolutions happen? Because little by little by little things get worse and worse. But this thing that is happening now is big. This is the key ingredient. This allows them to know everything they need to know to accomplish the above. The fact that they are doing it is proof that they are the sort of people who might use it in the way I described. In the country I live in, they also claimed it was for the safety of the people. Same in Soviet Russia. Same in East Germany. In fact, that is always the excuse that is used to surveil everyone. But it has never ONCE proven to be the reality. There's a lot of other fascinating stuff in that link for those willing to consider the possibility that this might be the voice of experience rather than a voice of muslim hatred of America. Honestly, the writer doesn't sound like he hates America all that much. Note that the author declares anyone wishing to create such a system de-facto proof that they are untrustworthy to have it. I agree. The author also notes that once the system is created, you need to trust ALL future leaders through time. Maybe Obama (the guy who built it) isn't such a bad guy. Maybe the next president isn't. But we all know that sooner or later that streak will end. Do we dump this on our kids? You know, if it was simply PRISM I'd be alarmed. But it isn't. It's PRISM, Stellar Wind, Argus Drones, Court ordered call tracking for the entire country, and the list goes on. In other words there is a vast and almost entirely secret campaign to massively increase the ability of the US government to spy on us. Why? And honestly.... even if you don't care about privacy, freedom and the like... how about the cost? I'm here to tell you this sort of tech isn't coming cheap. This is like yet another massive, wasteful war on terror... except this time the terrorists are US. Not really fascinating, imo. "Chilling" is what I would call it. Damn chilling.

Politesub53 -> RE: America is not the first surveillance state (6/10/2013 3:49:50 AM)
Question time then chaps......... How would you enforce an effective surveillence system to halt another 9/11, or would you just figure that as the cost of having no state surveillence ? Obama was 100% correct, you cant have both, as idyllic as it sounds.

Hillwilliam -> RE: America is not the first surveillance state (6/10/2013 5:40:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Question time then chaps......... How would you enforce an effective surveillence system to halt another 9/11, or would you just figure that as the cost of having no state surveillence ? Obama was 100% correct, you cant have both, as idyllic as it sounds. Actually, Jefferson said it a long time before Obama was even thought of. Something along the lines of A nation that sacrifices liberty for security deserves neither.

Yachtie -> RE: America is not the first surveillance state (6/10/2013 7:05:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Question time then chaps......... How would you enforce an effective surveillence system to halt another 9/11, or would you just figure that as the cost of having no state surveillence ? Obama was 100% correct, you cant have both, as idyllic as it sounds. Therein lies part of the problem, PS. You've bought into the offered why. You have been conquered, because it's not about ~9/11. It is, though, about YOU.

Real0ne -> RE: America is not the first surveillance state (6/10/2013 8:12:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Question time then chaps......... How would you enforce an effective surveillence system to halt another 9/11, or would you just figure that as the cost of having no state surveillence ? Obama was 100% correct, you cant have both, as idyllic as it sounds. NONE of the puppy chow fed to you about 911 is true except the resulting damage. The state is the problem not the solution.

popeye1250 -> RE: America is not the first surveillance state (6/10/2013 8:23:48 AM)
"The further a society drifts from the truth the more it will hate those that speak it." - George Orwell- I think my new fun phrase is going to be; ..."a modest encroachment." It was funny the news showing Richard Milhaus Obama railing against any type of ...."encroachment" by the government in 2005. But,....now he's... "for" it? And, it's not "modest" if it's your phone that's being bugged, is it? Nevermind 100 or 200 million phones. It's amazing how many things that Orwell spoke of that are coming true. And it's amazing that Richard Milhaus Obama is (now) defending them. So he knew about this all along but didn't say anything! "Transparency?"

Real0ne -> RE: America is not the first surveillance state (6/10/2013 8:25:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Question time then chaps......... How would you enforce an effective surveillence system to halt another 9/11, or would you just figure that as the cost of having no state surveillence ? Obama was 100% correct, you cant have both, as idyllic as it sounds. Actually, Jefferson said it a long time before Obama was even thought of. Something along the lines of A nation that sacrifices liberty for security deserves neither. “The purpose of government is to enable the people of a nation to live in safety and happiness. Government exists for the interests of the governed, not for the governors.” ― Thomas Jefferson yep people in america are completely drunk on koolaid People are NOT happy, they are NOT safe and the government does NOT operate for the interests of the governed. Seems it no longer serves its intended purpose. "The government has no lawful requirement to protect citizens." yet we are sold this nonexistant bridge over and over every time government wants to encroach on rights and expand their power, and once acquiesced we never get it back. How legislation for truth in government and all citizen suits against government are paid for by government as government business?

Real0ne -> RE: America is not the first surveillance state (6/10/2013 8:45:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Question time then chaps......... How would you enforce an effective surveillence system to halt another 9/11, or would you just figure that as the cost of having no state surveillence ? Obama was 100% correct, you cant have both, as idyllic as it sounds. Therein lies part of the problem, PS. You've bought into the offered why. You have been conquered, because it's not about ~9/11. It is, though, about YOU. HELP the pro se's are coming the pro se's are coming the pro se's are coming the pro se's are coming the pro se's are coming the pro se's are coming the pro se's are coming http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=tPHjQ3dimKs#!

lovmuffin -> RE: America is not the first surveillance state (6/10/2013 3:15:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Question time then chaps......... How would you enforce an effective surveillence system to halt another 9/11, or would you just figure that as the cost of having no state surveillence ? Obama was 100% correct, you cant have both, as idyllic as it sounds. Actually, Jefferson said it a long time before Obama was even thought of. Something along the lines of A nation that sacrifices liberty for security deserves neither. I hate to nit pick but it was Franklin who said that. I do though agree with the sentiment.

vincentML -> RE: America is not the first surveillance state (6/10/2013 3:20:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Question time then chaps......... How would you enforce an effective surveillence system to halt another 9/11, or would you just figure that as the cost of having no state surveillence ? Obama was 100% correct, you cant have both, as idyllic as it sounds. Actually, Jefferson said it a long time before Obama was even thought of. Something along the lines of A nation that sacrifices liberty for security deserves neither. Sheer hyperbole. Nothing more. PS raises a legitimate issue and you answer with a bumper sticker slogan. Pitiful.

vincentML -> RE: America is not the first surveillance state (6/10/2013 3:27:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Question time then chaps......... How would you enforce an effective surveillence system to halt another 9/11, or would you just figure that as the cost of having no state surveillence ? Obama was 100% correct, you cant have both, as idyllic as it sounds. Therein lies part of the problem, PS. You've bought into the offered why. You have been conquered, because it's not about ~9/11. It is, though, about YOU. It is not about 9/11 . . . . . until it is about 9/11 again. Then who will lament the failure to connect the dots? [image]local://upfiles/897398/6CEEE48CAF2A49488B8239182B22DD64.jpg[/image]

vincentML -> RE: America is not the first surveillance state (6/10/2013 3:32:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Question time then chaps......... How would you enforce an effective surveillence system to halt another 9/11, or would you just figure that as the cost of having no state surveillence ? Obama was 100% correct, you cant have both, as idyllic as it sounds. Our friends who beat their chests and cry out against some imagined assault on their privacy because their phone numbers have been gathered into one pot are unwilling or unable to reply to your question with a cogent answer. Hell, they will ignore that big question so they can bleat and cry in self pity about the alleged loss of their freedoms when in fact not one of them can cite one tiny bit of impact the NSA has had on their lives even though we all knew the surveilence has been going on for more than a decade. Their feined outrage is more important to them than the loss of lives.

dcnovice -> RE: America is not the first surveillance state (6/10/2013 3:54:03 PM)
Too funny not to share: [image]https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/425214_388399971280637_54049282_n.png[/image]

DaddySatyr -> RE: America is not the first surveillance state (6/10/2013 3:56:33 PM)
All this fuckin' NSA surveillance really helped those folks in Boston. Yep, the answer is our safety because big brother loves us. Sorry, that shit doesn't even pass the giggle test.

vincentML -> RE: America is not the first surveillance state (6/10/2013 3:58:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr All this fuckin' NSA surveillance really helped those folks in Boston. Yep, the answer is our safety because big brother loves us. Sorry, that shit doesn't even pass the giggle test. So, what do you propose? Withdraw all efforts to defend the people and the nation so your ears will not be offended?[8\|]

DesideriScuri -> RE: America is not the first surveillance state (6/10/2013 3:59:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice Too funny not to share: [image]https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/425214_388399971280637_54049282_n.png[/image] Great post, DC! LMAO

DesideriScuri -> RE: America is not the first surveillance state (6/10/2013 4:03:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr All this fuckin' NSA surveillance really helped those folks in Boston. Yep, the answer is our safety because big brother loves us. Sorry, that shit doesn't even pass the giggle test. So, what do you propose? Withdraw all efforts to defend the people and the nation so your ears will not be offended?[8\|] So, the only two options are an Orwellian world, or no effort to defend the people/nation? I call fallacy of the false dilemma.

vincentML -> RE: America is not the first surveillance state (6/10/2013 4:14:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr All this fuckin' NSA surveillance really helped those folks in Boston. Yep, the answer is our safety because big brother loves us. Sorry, that shit doesn't even pass the giggle test. So, what do you propose? Withdraw all efforts to defend the people and the nation so your ears will not be offended?[8\|] So, the only two options are an Orwellian world, or no effort to defend the people/nation? I call fallacy of the false dilemma. I call fallacy on the notion of an Orwellian world. You are drinking the kool aide, DS. There is nothing Orwellian or illegal or unconstitutional about the NSA data base. Nor will there be until someone shows the harm done to them in a court of Law.

Politesub53 -> RE: America is not the first surveillance state (6/10/2013 4:17:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Question time then chaps......... How would you enforce an effective surveillence system to halt another 9/11, or would you just figure that as the cost of having no state surveillence ? Obama was 100% correct, you cant have both, as idyllic as it sounds. Therein lies part of the problem, PS. You've bought into the offered why. You have been conquered, because it's not about ~9/11. It is, though, about YOU. Just as I thought, no answer to my actual question.

Page: [1] 2 3 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875