Because what I do with my dick is my business only.

Well, there's two routes here

1. I don't like someone breathing down my neck, neither do most people. Whether it's some asshole or the government I should get to tell them to fuck off.

2. This one is a bit more long term, but cutting away privacy and the government having access to whatever information on an individual to the point of learning what they jerk their gerkin to allows them to find and deal with potential threats to their regime. *Dons foil hat*

Guys, this is Dustin we're talking about.


I'll just let Glenn Greenwald explain to everyone why this is bullshit:

"...the people that say that, that privacy isn't really important, they don't actually believe it. And the way that you know that they don't actually believe it, is that while they say with their words "privacy doesn't matter," with their actions they take all kinds of steps to safeguard their privacy. They put passwords on their email and their social media accounts, they put locks on their bedroom and bathroom doors. All steps designed to prevent other people from entering what they consider their private realm and knowing what it is that they don't want other people to know."

"The reason is that when were in a state where we can be monitored or can be watched, our behavior changes dramatically. ...Mass surveillance creates a prison in the mind that is a much more subtle, though much more effective, means of fostering compliance with social norms or with social orthodoxy, and is much more effective than brute force could ever be."

Quote from: Kupo on November 17, 2014, 09:25:45 AM

Guys, this is Dustin we're talking about.

Spoiler

I'll just let Glenn Greenwald explain to everyone why this is bullshit:

Quote

"...the people that say that, that privacy isn't really important, they don't actually believe it. And the way that you know that they don't actually believe it, is that while they say with their words "privacy doesn't matter," with their actions they take all kinds of steps to safeguard their privacy. They put passwords on their email and their social media accounts, they put locks on their bedroom and bathroom doors. All steps designed to prevent other people from entering what they consider their private realm and knowing what it is that they don't want other people to know."

Quote

"The reason is that when were in a state where we can be monitored or can be watched, our behavior changes dramatically. ...Mass surveillance creates a prison in the mind that is a much more subtle, though much more effective, means of fostering compliance with social norms or with social orthodoxy, and is much more effective than brute force could ever be."

Those are just ideological arguments. They're just not practical or applicable to anything. It would be nice if we didn't have any poverty, but distributing out the wealth is only going to ruin the economy. It would be nice if we didn't have death panels in hospitals, but you have to prioritize patients and save the children before the old people.

Don't like the feeling of being watched? Get used to it. This is possibly the most effective tool to combat terrorism and if you were aware of the threats that are being prevented because of the monitoring you wouldn't be so uncomfortable right now.

Not even worth a reply.

You can pretty much apply that to any government agency or program. "I don't agree with x because I don't trust them." If this is simply a matter of trust then there's no real logical argument to be had.

You have a point, but it's a tenuous one. I don't much trust the Interstate Commerce Committee or the CIA much, either, but I'd rather focus my attention on the misdeeds of the NSA or, in my case, the GCHQ because of their relative impact in comparison to other governmental programmes.

Because these arguments could be used for both sides. I actually see it as an accomplishment that they've narrowed down the list of suspects so far that one in two of the people on the list are connected to terrorism.

Again, you don't seem to understand exactly how the system works. The U.S. government only places people on this list that they have an interest in, they aren't filtering names through and hoping they're connected to terrorism. Ordinarily, the system would work where people would be placed onto the list by virtue of having a connection with terrorism in the first place.

The second argument is just the same, I see it as a strong intelligence and counterterrorism tactic. The implication goes no further than to say they wouldn't turn a blind eye to look at your porn habits if you've done something illegal.

I could qualify radicals as "people who aren't terrorists". Like the Metropolitan Police asked for citizens to report information relating to anarchists.