RE: US. Security or paranoia?

RE: US. Security or paranoia? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

farglebargle -> RE: US. Security or paranoia? (1/8/2007 5:04:58 PM)
quote: Q "Why do you hate Americans so much?" Torture, Blanket Domestic Surveillance of all Internet and LD Voice traffic, and Secret Prisons, to begin the list.

sleazy -> RE: US. Security or paranoia? (1/8/2007 7:24:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: Q "Why do you hate Americans so much?" Torture, Blanket Domestic Surveillance of all Internet and LD Voice traffic, and Secret Prisons, to begin the list. My little snippet from south park was meant as humour with a sprinkling of truth (and was actually OT, but adressed at one specific point of the quoted post). Hatred of the US predates most of your list and is basically an attack on all those that believe democracy and equality are a universal truth, and if we just showed all those oppressed people how to get along with each other the world would be a nicer place etc etc etc. Much as what goes down well in Las Vegas may get you in deep doo-doo in Boston, what works for the US wont necessarily work for {insert random country here}

Sinergy -> RE: US. Security or paranoia? (1/8/2007 10:06:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sleazy On 9/11 CAPPS was one of the few systems that DID work as intended, the failure as usual was in the human element. Hello A/all, One of the nutty ideas that DHS has about the harbor is to force all longshoreman to have background checks and use biometric screening in order to gain access to our jobs. They currently have something like this for truckers, although not biometric. What happens is the first 15 truckers who pull up to the security counter are required to provide information. When the backlog of truckers waiting to get in is 150 truckers long, what they do is "roll the gates" or let all of them in. I have used biometric screening before. The reality of biometric screening hardware is that it will work for 3 people after you spend 300,000 dollars to install it. Then it will be broken for 4 weeks because of salt water, abuse by neanderthal, etc. Then it will get fixed and work for another 3 days. In between the times it is actually working, they will be "rolling the gates" and letting longshoremen in. It is one of those situations where the solution they have come up with is simply idiotic and unworkable. On the other hand, one of the Republican senators on the DHS committee insisted that an element of id testing systems be developed by the company his son worked for. They had no background in security testing, etc., so the contract included a bunch of money for research and development of the company. While it may be security or paranoia, one thing they have proven is that intelligence is not a requirement. Sinergy

meatcleaver -> RE: US. Security or paranoia? (1/31/2007 3:24:38 AM)
Privacy is back on the agenda in the EU after information collected by US border security is passed to all US agencies, even those that have nothing to do with border control in violation of agreements and that European citizens have no redress for inaccuracies and misuse of such material. Why the fuck did the EU agree to this? Most liberal MEPs said this is exactly what would happen but were accused of anti-Americanism for objecting to the transfer of information. Well it wasn't anti-Americanism, they were just right. This is the BBC report but the Dutch, French and German newspaper reports are more in depth and much more scathing of European leaders who agreed to this. Can't find nothing in British papers about it but there is a surprise. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6315893.stm

sleazy -> RE: US. Security or paranoia? (1/31/2007 6:16:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver Why the fuck did the EU agree to this? Hang on there, is the same super-democratic body that is more legitimate than the governments of member nations? Or is it in fact more autonomous and less answerable than claimed in previous threads? Guess maybe it does not have its citizens at heart after all. As for the other media outlets, well guess if the story came out today it wont make print until tomorrows editions.

meatcleaver -> RE: US. Security or paranoia? (1/31/2007 7:27:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sleazy quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver Why the fuck did the EU agree to this? Hang on there, is the same super-democratic body that is more legitimate than the governments of member nations? Or is it in fact more autonomous and less answerable than claimed in previous threads? Guess maybe it does not have its citizens at heart after all. As for the other media outlets, well guess if the story came out today it wont make print until tomorrows editions. If that is what you you really think then you don't know the first thing about the EU. I can accept people being against the EU but when when they misrepresent it to justiy their own prejudice it is difficult to take them seriously. The EU is as democratic as your nation state. The fact that the British state is not as democratic as it claims is not the fault of the EU. The EU takes the lead from the nation states and if you followed this story it was Britain that fought for this agreement with the USA. It was Britain that persuaded other countries to compromise.

caitlyn -> RE: US. Security or paranoia? (1/31/2007 8:30:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver Go on holiday to the US have have you rights infringed. Go to Canada and Mexico and don't. My suggestion would be to not go on vacation in the United States. [;)] The same question applies to this, and all statements like them: What 'real' right (as opposed to hypothetical rights), would you like to have, that you would have had fifty years ago, and don't have today?

farglebargle -> RE: US. Security or paranoia? (1/31/2007 8:35:28 AM)
"What 'real' right (as opposed to hypothetical rights), would you like to have, that you would have had fifty years ago, and don't have today?" The right to having your communications private. The 9th Amendment is clear, just cause it's not enumerated, doesn't mean we don't have the right. And since I don't see "Tapping the Internet" ( EFF v. AT&T's evidence makes it clear that's happening ) or Blanket surveillance of our phones in the Constitution, according to the 10th Amendment, they don't have the authority to do it.

caitlyn -> RE: US. Security or paranoia? (1/31/2007 8:39:04 AM)
Have you had your communications made public?

farglebargle -> RE: US. Security or paranoia? (1/31/2007 8:47:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: caitlyn Have you had your communications made public? They are being monitored and recorded. Who cares if they're made public. The rights EXIST ( see 9th Amendment ) and The feds DO NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY to infringe them. (see 10th Amendment) And it infringes on several of my non-enumerated rights. The right to communicate privately. The right to keep my social network of friends confidential. The right to not be spied on by the government without due process or equal protection ( Ok, that one is enumerated, via the 4th and 14th Amendments ). The right to not have my tax dollars wasted... I guess there are many who say, "Who cares how many people they spy on"? AMERICANS DO. And those who don't care, I suspect didn't do very well in Civics class in the first place.

caitlyn -> RE: US. Security or paranoia? (1/31/2007 8:59:31 AM)
Really ... you are being monitored and recorded? How do you know this? Come on sports fans ... if there is this overwhelming loss of rights, you would think someone could come up with something a little more ... ummmmm ... substantial.

MasterKalif -> RE: US. Security or paranoia? (1/31/2007 8:59:33 AM)
meatcleaver....without reading too many of the posts....I can say that yes to me this smacks of more Bush-fed paranoia...it still amazes me that people saw Iraq as a threat to the continental United States....Iraq was perhaps a mild threat to US interests and allies such as Israel....mild because after the gulf war they were utterly destroyed and their military might close to useless... As such, the US government to bolster popular support that the nation is "at war" by "terrorists" (who could be anyone although mostly al-qaida), is able to instill fear in their citizens, and just creates more bureaucracy and feds more anti-americanism arouns the world, such as with the fingerprints taking, as it was instituted in Brazil only for Americans (funnyily enough, Americans did not like that), and smaller unimportant countries like Bolivia are smacking visa's for Americans travelling there (this is very counterproductive for a small, impovireshed country like that)....all in all the terrorists will keep coming and the ones who always suffer are innocent people, mostly American citizens.

meatcleaver -> RE: US. Security or paranoia? (1/31/2007 9:00:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: caitlyn quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver Go on holiday to the US have have you rights infringed. Go to Canada and Mexico and don't. The same question applies to this, and all statements like them: What 'real' right (as opposed to hypothetical rights), would you like to have, that you would have had fifty years ago, and don't have today? The right for my bank account to remain private unless under a criminal investigation. The right for my private information such as addresses, phone numbers, salary and travel and personal contact details not to be dispersed. It pisses me off that if I want to travel to the US to see my brother that when I return I have to change my bank account and phone numbers because there is no way of knowing who has access to them. If my bank account is emptied by someone who has got my account details because US border control is circulating the information to just about every agency that doesn't need it and generally being cavalier with it, I couldn't hold them responsible and have any right of redress.

caitlyn -> RE: US. Security or paranoia? (1/31/2007 9:01:59 AM)
Did this happen to you?

meatcleaver -> RE: US. Security or paranoia? (1/31/2007 9:06:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: caitlyn Did this happen to you? No but several people have had their bank accounts accessed which was why the debate ended up in the European Parliament which government ministers would have prefered to avoid.

caitlyn -> RE: US. Security or paranoia? (1/31/2007 9:08:07 AM)
So, the best you and fargle can do, is hypothetical examples. I'm wondering who is looking paranoid here. [;)]

MasterKalif -> RE: US. Security or paranoia? (1/31/2007 9:10:44 AM)
meatcleaver, that is strange....I do not recall the US government asking me for bank numbers....in any case it is a pain to have to list in order the countries you have visited in the last ten years...I mean c'mon, luckily I remember where I travelled to the year before.

meatcleaver -> RE: US. Security or paranoia? (1/31/2007 9:11:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterKalif As such, the US government to bolster popular support that the nation is "at war" by "terrorists" (who could be anyone although mostly al-qaida), is able to instill fear in their citizens, and just creates more bureaucracy and feds more anti-americanism arouns the world, such as with the fingerprints taking, as it was instituted in Brazil only for Americans (funnyily enough, Americans did not like that), and smaller unimportant countries like Bolivia are smacking visa's for Americans travelling there (this is very counterproductive for a small, impovireshed country like that)....all in all the terrorists will keep coming and the ones who always suffer are innocent people, mostly American citizens. Actually that is a good point, if countries reciprocate such action and make Americans jump through the same hoops, maybe Americans will then complain to their government about the indignity of being treated like a terrorist.

meatcleaver -> RE: US. Security or paranoia? (1/31/2007 9:15:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: caitlyn So, the best you and fargle can do, is hypothetical examples. I'm wondering who is looking paranoid here. [;)] It is not a hypothetical example. It is the actual accessing of people's bank accounts in the US and the actual deseminating of private information to all US agencies. The agreement between the US and the EU was that only Border Control shall have access to the agreed private material. This is patently not the case.

caitlyn -> RE: US. Security or paranoia? (1/31/2007 9:20:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver Actually that is a good point, if countries reciprocate such action and make Americans jump through the same hoops, maybe Americans will then complain to their government about the indignity of being treated like a terrorist. I think it more likely that most Americans wouldn't spend the time to piss and moan about other countries. Chances are good they would just go someplace else, or just stay at home. Lots to see and do here ... lucky us! (except for for that wire tapping fargle thing) [;)]

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125