Page 15 of 15 FirstFirst ... 5131415
Results 141 to 150 of 150

Thread: Retiring NSA chief doesn't understand why people hate the NSA

  1. #141
    Sage
    OldWorldOrder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    10-12-15 @ 12:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,820

    Re: Retiring NSA chief doesn't understand why people hate the NSA

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Yes, and I congratulated you on the one instance you actually backed up your claim. In case you missed it, kudos. Those kudos are for you because you proved a point that one time. Good job
    Fantastic! You're learning!

    It says that not numerated in the Bill of Rights and not prohibited to the States is reserved by the States and the People. It doesn't need to say "privacy". Privacy rights are also derived from the 4th amendment that protects persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. It's clear to anyone who has successfully completed rudimentary English.
    So anyone can claim any right they want under the 9th, that's a very creative reading of it! The right to have a steak dinner every night is covered in the 9th Amendment guys!

    Or like how you have no idea what the Bill of Rights says.
    I know it doesn't have the word in privacy in it. And you said I was wrong about that. Hmmm. Ikari, does it have the word privacy in it? Yes or no. Okay then. Sit down.
    The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected.
    -GK Chesterton

  2. #142
    Whoa, daddy!
    MadLib's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Upstate New York
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,224

    Re: Retiring NSA chief doesn't understand why people hate the NSA

    Quote Originally Posted by OldWorldOrder View Post
    I don't think we can "assume" anything does. If they wanted to say it, they could've. But they didn't. The 9th Amendment isn't something where you can just say "Oh, I think it should be a right and oh! Hey, look! The 9th Amendment says other rights are covered so it looks like the Constitution is on my side!" That's incredibly intellectually dishonest.
    It's even more dishonest to suggest that the Ninth Amendment doesn't guarantee anything at all by using reductio ad absurdum until it is rendered meaningless. We are creatures endowed with rational judgment; it should be obvious to anyone that privacy - a right that we embrace instinctively as well as culturally - would be implicitly protected by the Ninth Amendment, while something that doesn't constitute a right of the people but an obligation on the part of the government (such as a steak dinner) would not.


    Regardless, yelling fire in a crowded theater violates free speech. Yet we find it allowable.
    That's because falsely yelling fire presents a credible and quantifiable harm to society, and so it's obvious that the government should prevent it. This holds true for privacy as well - I'm perfectly fine with reading the electronic data of a suspected domestic terrorist or a mob boss, provided all of the legalisms have been adhered to. But that still doesn't mean the government can do anything and violate any right in the name of security.


    Collection of metadata without analysis (viewing) is what this is all about. Analysis requires a warrant.
    That creates a tricky fine line. Does collection of the metadata, even without viewing it, qualify as an unwarranted and unreasonable search or seizure of someone's digital property? I think it does.


    The point is that governments are always going to be seeking to have power of technology. Is that bad? What happens when individuals have the power of technology over governments? Can you imagine?
    I have nothing wrong with the government developing powerful strains of malware or making new technological devices that ordinary citizens cannot access, because there's a world of difference between maintaining a monopoly on the use of force and essentially subjugating the citizenry with that monopoly.
    Last edited by MadLib; 04-06-14 at 03:13 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by ecofarm View Post
    Hah. If someone put me in their sig, I'd never know. I have sigs off.

  3. #143
    Sage
    OldWorldOrder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    10-12-15 @ 12:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,820

    Re: Retiring NSA chief doesn't understand why people hate the NSA

    Quote Originally Posted by MadLib View Post
    It's even more dishonest to suggest that the Ninth Amendment doesn't guarantee anything at all by using reductio ad absurdum until it is rendered meaningless. We are creatures endowed with rational judgment; it should be obvious to anyone that privacy - a right that we embrace instinctively as well as culturally - would be implicitly protected by the Ninth Amendment, while something that doesn't constitute a right of the people but an obligation on the part of the government (such as a steak dinner) would not.
    We're not going to agree on this. You're saying the 9th Amendment covers what you'd like it to cover, and are falling back on saying it's obvious that it should cover what you think it should cover...so obvious the word wasn't even mentioned in the Constitution. Simply: I don't agree.

    That's because falsely yelling fire presents a credible and quantifiable harm to society, and so it's obvious that the government should prevent it.
    Well it wasn't "obvious" until the early 20th century, when that famous quote that we're paraphrasing was made with regards to the Sedition Act. But regardless, we're about to agree:

    This holds true for privacy as well - I'm perfectly fine with reading the electronic data of a suspected domestic terrorist or a mob boss, provided all of the legalisms have been adhered to. But that still doesn't mean the government can do anything and violate any right in the name of security.
    And I never said otherwise. I just don't find NSA storing metadata to be a violation.

    That creates a tricky fine line. Does collection of the metadata, even without viewing it, qualify as an unwarranted and unreasonable search or seizure of someone's digital property? I think it does.
    So what is Verizon doing, exactly, when they store their records of you using their network?

    I have nothing wrong with the government developing powerful strains of malware or making new technological devices that ordinary citizens cannot access, because there's a world of difference between maintaining a monopoly on the use of force and essentially subjugating the citizenry with that monopoly.
    I don't think there's any subjugation. Regardless, I wouldn't want a form of communication to exist that couldn't be hacked/accessed in the right situation.
    The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected.
    -GK Chesterton

  4. #144
    Resident Martian ;)
    PirateMk1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    9,922

    Re: Retiring NSA chief doesn't understand why people hate the NSA

    Quote Originally Posted by OldWorldOrder View Post
    Since I work for government intelligence, I'm not being lazy. I'm actually doing it. It is dangerous. But I do it for you: you're welcome.
    That, friend is a bald faced lie if I ever heard one. You DON'T do your job for anyone but yourself. I don't have a problem spying on OTHER nations, that's part and parcel. What I do have a problem with is spying on our own county. The Cap said it best in his latest movie we need to tear our organizations down and start over. We have gone well beyond routine intelligence gathering of foreign entities. Its time to clean house.
    Semper Fidelis, Semper Liber.
    I spit at lots of people through my computer screen. Not only does it "teach them a lesson" but it keeps the screen clean and shiny.
    Stolen fair and square from the Capt. Courtesey himself.

  5. #145
    Sage
    OldWorldOrder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    10-12-15 @ 12:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,820

    Re: Retiring NSA chief doesn't understand why people hate the NSA

    Quote Originally Posted by PirateMk1 View Post
    That, friend is a bald faced lie if I ever heard one. You DON'T do your job for anyone but yourself. I don't have a problem spying on OTHER nations, that's part and parcel. What I do have a problem with is spying on our own county. The Cap said it best in his latest movie we need to tear our organizations down and start over. We have gone well beyond routine intelligence gathering of foreign entities. Its time to clean house.
    Yeah, I was mocking him. I don't give a **** about it, I like the fun of the job. But anyway no, no one is spying on you.
    The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected.
    -GK Chesterton

  6. #146
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,319

    Re: Retiring NSA chief doesn't understand why people hate the NSA

    Quote Originally Posted by katsung47 View Post
    [FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3][COLOR=#000000]

    He doesn't know that people think he did a peeper's job.
    I don't understand it, either; The NSA is only following orders it recieved from a higher authority in the Exeutive Branch.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  7. #147
    Resident Martian ;)
    PirateMk1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    9,922

    Re: Retiring NSA chief doesn't understand why people hate the NSA

    Quote Originally Posted by OldWorldOrder View Post
    Yeah, I was mocking him. I don't give a **** about it, I like the fun of the job. But anyway no, no one is spying on you.
    I have difficult time believing that US citizens are not being surveyed, after what I abuses I have seen first hand, and the various leaks revealing other abuses. Sorry but I am standing pat on the need to clean house thoroughly.
    Semper Fidelis, Semper Liber.
    I spit at lots of people through my computer screen. Not only does it "teach them a lesson" but it keeps the screen clean and shiny.
    Stolen fair and square from the Capt. Courtesey himself.

  8. #148
    Whoa, daddy!
    MadLib's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Upstate New York
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,224

    Re: Retiring NSA chief doesn't understand why people hate the NSA

    Quote Originally Posted by OldWorldOrder View Post
    We're not going to agree on this. You're saying the 9th Amendment covers what you'd like it to cover, and are falling back on saying it's obvious that it should cover what you think it should cover...so obvious the word wasn't even mentioned in the Constitution. Simply: I don't agree.
    I'm going to keep on pressing this, because I think it is one of the most important aspects of any discussion of civil liberties in general. The Founders were the children of a time period in which it was believed that humans are fundamentally rational beings capable of determining their own interests and rights. The Founders (and the Federalists especially) feared that enumerating rights in a bill would implicitly give the government the right to infringe upon and restrict all of the other rights that were forgotten. Thus, the Ninth Amendment. The "steak dinner" reduction of the right that you put forth doesn't apply at all. It's an absurd exaggeration that no one actually believes, it does not fit in at all with what the authors of the BoR believed in, and it carries with it an expansion of the federal government rather than a limitation of it.

    Do you not see how your reductio ad absurdum effectively makes the Ninth Amendment meaningless?

    So what is Verizon doing, exactly, when they store their records of you using their network?
    They are providing us a service, and in doing so keep records of what happens (and thus have the right to view it, although it'd be nice if they'd be more honest about it). And as you said before, they'd probably chuck the data anyway.


    I don't think there's any subjugation. Regardless, I wouldn't want a form of communication to exist that couldn't be hacked/accessed in the right situation.
    I see a huge distinction between being able to access private information and already having it within grasp. The former implies that the government has the right to obtain information when necessary, while the latter implies that the government having private digital information should a given and that it is effectively up to the government whether or not they may arbitrarily analyze it.
    Quote Originally Posted by ecofarm View Post
    Hah. If someone put me in their sig, I'd never know. I have sigs off.

  9. #149
    Sage
    OldWorldOrder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    10-12-15 @ 12:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,820

    Re: Retiring NSA chief doesn't understand why people hate the NSA

    Quote Originally Posted by MadLib View Post
    I'm going to keep on pressing this, because I think it is one of the most important aspects of any discussion of civil liberties in general. The Founders were the children of a time period in which it was believed that humans are fundamentally rational beings capable of determining their own interests and rights. The Founders (and the Federalists especially) feared that enumerating rights in a bill would implicitly give the government the right to infringe upon and restrict all of the other rights that were forgotten. Thus, the Ninth Amendment. The "steak dinner" reduction of the right that you put forth doesn't apply at all. It's an absurd exaggeration that no one actually believes, it does not fit in at all with what the authors of the BoR believed in, and it carries with it an expansion of the federal government rather than a limitation of it.

    Do you not see how your reductio ad absurdum effectively makes the Ninth Amendment meaningless?
    That's funny, because I do find it to be particularly meaningless. Nothing more than a platitude. I can see how you see it as a stick, though, so say "Well...the 9th Amendment covers that...". I just don't agree. And I absolutely don't agree someone can just point to that in a discussion and say "See? It is a right!"

    They are providing us a service, and in doing so keep records of what happens (and thus have the right to view it, although it'd be nice if they'd be more honest about it). And as you said before, they'd probably chuck the data anyway.
    They do after awhile. When you find the next shoebomber (or whatever) though, you'd really want more than just the last two months of communications. Should they be lost forever? I don't see a reasonable argument why they should be.

    I see a huge distinction between being able to access private information and already having it within grasp. The former implies that the government has the right to obtain information when necessary, while the latter implies that the government having private digital information should a given and that it is effectively up to the government whether or not they may arbitrarily analyze it.
    In this context, I don't really. Getting access is getting access. Just win, baby.
    The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected.
    -GK Chesterton

  10. #150
    Whoa, daddy!
    MadLib's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Upstate New York
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,224

    Re: Retiring NSA chief doesn't understand why people hate the NSA

    Quote Originally Posted by OldWorldOrder View Post
    That's funny, because I do find it to be particularly meaningless. Nothing more than a platitude.
    If you think it means nothing and protects nothing already, than from what standpoint can you argue that it's an unfounded assumption to say that the Ninth protects privacy?

    I can see how you see it as a stick, though, so say "Well...the 9th Amendment covers that...". I just don't agree. And I absolutely don't agree someone can just point to that in a discussion and say "See? It is a right!"
    I don't either, but as I said, the almost universal acknowledgement of privacy as a right as well as the beliefs of the founders make it a reasonable guess. And if we got that wrong, so what? It's not like the Founders would have thought it idiotic to assume that the Ninth covers privacy.


    They do after awhile. When you find the next shoebomber (or whatever) though, you'd really want more than just the last two months of communications. Should they be lost forever? I don't see a reasonable argument why they should be.
    I actually wouldn't mind a law mandating that communications companies (Verizon, et al.) keep hold of such data for at least a year, but as I said, it's different when the government already has it within their possession. Whether or not that is an overreach is entirely subjective, and I don't think we're likely to reach an agreement on that anytime soon.
    Quote Originally Posted by ecofarm View Post
    Hah. If someone put me in their sig, I'd never know. I have sigs off.

Page 15 of 15 FirstFirst ... 5131415

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •