FFS! What NEXT!?!?!?!?

[snowman]

Come on you Americans - Explain to the rest of the world how you can tolerate a president even MORE corrupt than Nixon?

 

George's latest wheez is right out of Tom Clancy - Allowing the NSA to spy on any and all US Citizens' phone calls and e-mails in the name of 'the war on terrorism' (which also bought you that other wizard jape - Imprisonment without trial).

 

I must admit to times when I'm ashamed of the acts our Government carry out in the name of 'The British people', but at least our politicians have the balls to stand up to Blair.

 

Isn't there something in the constitution about overthrowing illegal, corrupt and unfair government over there? If so, what are you waiting for? For him to grow horns and cloven feet, rape your sister and eat your children?

 

Maybe there's something good on TV, preventing you...

 

Cheers.

 

PS http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4538286.stm in case you've not heard about it...

[Sledge]

It's times like this I wish I'd read 1984 in the 6th form library, instead of getting into the Sherlock Holmes stories. I'm sure there's some comparisons there.

 

[HaVoC]

If you're not doing anything wrong, then who gives a flying f*** anyway?

[Sledge]

So very much not the point.

 

[cadetrichards]

Move along, nothing to see here.

[HaVoC]

Because...?

 

To keep it simple, there are 'good people' (most of us), and there are 'bad people' (the terrorists, see).

 

The bad people are mixing in with the good people.

 

In order to find out who and where the bad people are, you need to keep an eye on EVERYBODY.

 

The people who keep an eye on everybody are still good people, and are not bothered with what other good people do.

 

If you are a good person, then why worry?

[elrey]

That's correct Sledge. I'd explain it in more detail, but there are armed agents standing behind me and reading all my posts.

[Sledge]

If we have to sacrifice the freedoms we are defending, then what is the point of fighting terrorists? We may as well hand over power to Bin Laden and have done with it.

 

[HaVoC]

Freedom to what, though? What freedoms are you losing?

 

The people monitoring emails will only read ones flagged by the system (there aren't enough people to read every email, obviously).

 

Ones pertaining to how hard you shagged your sister last Sunday, and how guilty you feel, are NOT going to get flagged by the system, and no-one cares anyway.

 

The FBI are not going to send you an email saying "Haha, you shagged your sister, you're a sick f***!" and then arrest you.

[snowman]

mmmm - So WHO decides who are the good people and the bad...? Who decides if you ARE doing something wrong? We're all airsofters - Potential gun criminals - Should WE be monitored by the state?

 

Robert Mugabe does this - Is that OK? No? Ah!!!!

 

It's actually illegal, too, but as it's the President, it's OK?

 

What ARE we trying to defend FROM terrorists if not our freedoms?

 

The freedom NOT to be spied upon being one of those...

 

Cheers.

[Sledge]

Exactly. One of the things people have *fruitcage* died for is the right of normal folk to do say what they want, without someone hanging over their shoulder.

 

[HaVoC]

Are you doing anything illegal?

 

No?

 

Then you're not doing anything wrong, are you...

 

Exactly. One of the things people have *fruitcage* died for is the right of normal folk to do say what they want, without someone hanging over their shoulder.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In the current climate, more people are going to have to die if there isn't someone 'hanging over your shoulder', mainly because they're not hanging over your shoulder.

[Nickel0001]

I'll support you HaVoC.

 

If using these measures can save lives then I can't disagree with it.

[cadetrichards]

Hmm.... Two conflicting theories here. I can see HaVoC's point of view. If your good, you won't get punished anyway, but you would not want someone seeing what you are doing, it may not be bad but quite embarrassing. For example, looking at pornography, it is not strictly wrong, but you still don't tell everyone you watch it.

Besides, this whole thing could become corrupt. You don't want to be stalked by someone in the NSA.

 

 

Our theory = win

[Sledge]

Then you're not doing anything wrong, are you...

In the current climate, more people are going to have to die if there isn't someone 'hanging over your shoulder', mainly because they're not hanging over your shoulder.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You know what? I'd rather die than live in a society that spies on everyone. If the cost of freedom is to lose your freedom, how are you free?

 

[HaVoC]

Most people at the NSA will look at porn, too - they don't care, and that stuff isn't going to get flagged by the system anyway (unless it's illegal, in which case, you're doing something wrong anyway).

 

Sledge, I ask again, what freedoms are you losing?

[joeking27]

If we're not doing anything wrong, why are they wanting to look at our emails and phone calls?

[Sledge]

Me? None. This is happening in the US. They are losing the freedom to speak as they wish without being illegally monitored.

 

[HaVoC]

*sigh*

 

There is a bucket in front of you, with 100 white beads in it, and 1 black bead.

 

How do you pick out the black bead?

 

Trial and error - pick out ALL THE BEADS you can until you get the right one.

 

Same principal works here - there are 'bad people' hiding in among the 'good people', so you need to look at EVERYONE until you get a lead guiding you to the 'bad people'.

[cadetrichards]

Most people at the NSA will look at porn, too - they don't care, and that stuff isn't going to get flagged by the system anyway (unless it's illegal, in which case, you're doing something wrong anyway).

 

Sledge, I ask again, what freedoms are you losing?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Note: Porn was just an example.

 

but FFS, it is just privacy.

 

Would an NSA agent want others to know he was looking at porn? Don't you think he would be embarrassed?

 

 

EDIT: HaVoC, was a black bead used in this case for any particular reason?

[HaVoC]

If the other people don't care, then it doesn't matter.

 

You are NOT going to get targeted because you look at porn, unless it is illegal porn (e.g. child porn).

 

If you look at normal porn, it won't get flagged, and the massive liklihood is that no-one will ever know anyway.

 

There aren't enough people to look at everything, only the things that are flagged as dodgy.

[Full Metal Jacket]

This 'System' intrigues me.

[Sledge]

*sigh*

 

There is a bucket in front of you, with 100 white beads in it, and 1 black bead.

 

How do you pick out the black bead?

 

Trial and error - pick out ALL THE BEADS you can until you get the right one.

 

Same principal works here - there are 'bad people' hiding in among the 'good people', so you need to look at EVERYONE until you get a lead guiding you to the 'bad people'.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No. That is not how our justice system is supposed to work. Innocent until proven guilty. That means, the people responsible for protecting us are supposed to find evidence WITHOUT breaking the law and violating the rights of those they swore to protect.

 

[Diemaco]

You say Presedent Bush. But I doubt he is actually reading all the e-mails and what-not himself. I am with Havoc on this one

[HaVoC]

There aren't enough people to read everything, therefore there will be a central computer system monitoring the stuff they want to monitor (e.g. emails).

 

When certain keywords appear, the computer will flag the email as 'to be looked at', and then it will be looked at in greater detail by a person.

 

The thing is 99.9999% of emails will pass through without flagging anything anyway.

 

No. That is not how our justice system is supposed to work. Innocent until proven guilty. That means, the people responsible for protecting us are supposed to find evidence WITHOUT breaking the law and violating the rights of those they swore to protect.

So you'd wait for the bad people to do something bad, with an evidence trail you can follow, before you can spot them and pick them up?

 

In an age of dirty bombs, biological and chemical threats, that seems a more dangerous way of doing things than scanning people's emails.