Cameron Accuses Internet Companies Of Giving Terrorists Safe Haven 183
An anonymous reader writes with this snippet from The Guardian: "Internet companies are allowing their networks to be used to plot "murder and mayhem", David Cameron has said in response to the official inquiry into the intelligence agencies' actions ahead of the killing of Lee Rigby. He demanded that internet companies live up to their social responsibilities to report potential terror threats and said there was no reason for such firms to be willing to cooperate with state agencies over child abuse but not over combatting terrorism. His comments to the House of Commons came after the parliamentary intelligence and security committee concluded that the brutal murder of Rigby could have been prevented if an internet company had passed on an online exchange in which one of the killers expressed "in the most graphic terms" his intention to carry out an Islamist jihadi attack.
Also ban cars (Score:5, Funny)
Because of all the horrific deaths that have occurred just today.
Oh, and think of the children.
Re:Also ban cars (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, the rhetoric for this week's episode of "Theresa May had an idea" has been particularly silly.
The statistics trotted out over the past week or so make for interesting, if depressing, reading.
For example, the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, a very senior officer with counter-terrorism responsibilities, says they've been prevented on average one terrorist attack per year but so far this year it's been 4-5 already [bbc.co.uk]. (It's not clear whether this was in the specific context of "lone wolf" attacks, though.)
Just hours apart from that, we have Theresa May herself saying that almost 40 major terrorist attacks have been foiled since the 7/7 bombings [reuters.com], giving an average of about four per year. This means, she says, that the UK is facing the biggest terrorism threat in its history, which might be surprising to anyone who was around during the worst of the troubles with the IRA not so long ago. There are plenty of scary messages played over the PA system when you go through any major London railway station these days, but not frequent closures due to actual bomb threats and the like.
Also on Monday, there was a statement from Met Police Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley citing 271 arrests resulting from counter-terrorism investigations so far this year [yahoo.com]. Their Commissioner seemed to be implying in the above statement that all of these had led to charges, too. What they don't seem to have mentioned anywhere in this week's PR campaign is how many such arrests ultimately lead to convictions, nor how many of those convictions (or the arrests or charges themselves) are actually for terrorism offences.
The combined budget for our security services reportedly remains somewhere around the £2B mark, not counting additional funding for counter-terrorism units within other organisations such as the police.
In other news, in 2013 (the last full year for which stats are available) there were 1,713 people killed on our roads, and a further 21,657 seriously injured, not to mention damage to the economy estimated in the £15-30B range as a result of the disruption due to incidents on the road. Would anyone like to guess what's been happening to the annual road safety publicity budget in recent years [telegraph.co.uk]?
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder how 'terrorist attack' is defined? It may just be that a lot more crimes are being classed as terrorism now, or that increasing enforcement effort results in a lot more half-baked schemes getting high-profile arrests, when they otherwise wouldn't have gone anywhere.
Re: (Score:2)
Like how the Boston bombers got charged with using a "weapon of mass destruction."
Re: (Score:2)
Also ban school buses [punchpin.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Normalize your data and use rates, or GTFO
Re: (Score:3)
David Cameron is an asshole. He'd completely ruin the internet for everyone, permanently, and i
Re: (Score:2)
Cameron is a coward. He said it himself - he doesn't want to be remembered as the PM on who's watch there was a terrorist incident and hadn't given in to every demand for new powers from the security services. His vanity is apparently more important to him than abstract concepts like privacy and freedom.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Banning air would be a better solution.
I can get behind that!
Let's let Cameron test this ban out first. We can give him 24 hours.
Then we'll ask him if he still thinks the ban's a good idea.
Re:Also ban cars (Score:5, Insightful)
Slippery slope is not automatically a fallacy. In fact, history is full of slippery slopes where the government wants the power to do something, and then abuses it for other purposes as well. People who point this out are typically shouted down for supposedly using a "slippery slope" argument by those who are ignorant of history. There is absolutely no question that the government will continue expanding its power and using it in ways no one could ever dream of if we don't put a stop to it.
In fact, the slippery slope is already happening. First it was "for the children," now it's "to stop the terrorists." You'd have to be completely blind not to see it.
Don't let them take away your rights. Freedom is more important than any safety they can offer you.
Re: (Score:2)
Slippery slope is not automatically a fallacy
No, of course not, but I think we all need to keep our cool about these issues, which are unfortunately real. Not addressing them because of 'freedom ...' or 'privacy' is just another slippery slope; so we need to strike a balance between the measures we put into place, so we don't slide down either slope.
There are many, serious issues the threaten us today - terrorism and organised pedofiles are just two of them; other, current issues are things like people traficking and police corruption - one could go o
Re: (Score:2)
There are many, serious issues the threaten us today - terrorism and organised pedofiles are just two of them; other, current issues are things like people traficking
Haha, are you serious? Statistically, that is simply false. Completely false. You should be more afraid of getting in a car.
Also, what are "organized pedophiles"? Don't tell me you're confusing pedophiles with child molesters. A pedophile is simply someone with a sexual attraction to prepubescent children; they are not necessarily rapists, and don't necessarily even look at child porn.
Not addressing them because of 'freedom ...' or 'privacy' is just another slippery slope
No, it's called having basic principles. The principle that our fundamental liberties are more important than security. Life
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm, you have replyed to my posts before, and as usual, you don't seem to understand the concept of engaging in a discussion - and you are probably going to counter this statement with a flat out denial (as always) and claim that this is 'ad hominem' etc. Sigh.
> There are many, serious issues the threaten us today - terrorism and organised pedofiles are just two of them; other, current issues are things like people traficking
Haha, are you serious? Statistically, that is simply false. Completely false. You should be more afraid of getting in a car.
Yes, I am serious. Driving a car is something you chose to do, and if you are afraid of taking that (calculated) risk, you can opt not to use a car. I see that you talk about 'principles' later on, but apparently you don't give a toss about innocent people being killed by ISIS fighters, children being sexually exploited by organised gangs, or people being trafficked into slavery? Because you don't feel personally threatened? Don't give me your bullshit about 'principles' - you don't know what you are talking about.
Also, what are "organized pedophiles"? Don't tell me you're confusing pedophiles with child molesters. A pedophile is simply someone with a sexual attraction to prepubescent children; they are not necessarily rapists, and don't necessarily even look at child porn.
It is not what you think, but what you do that makes the difference. Anybody can sometimes wish to kill another person - that doesn't make you a murderer, if you control your impulse. Any man can look at a beautiful girl and think of her in a way cont
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm, you have replyed to my posts before, and as usual, you don't seem to understand the concept of engaging in a discussion - and you are probably going to counter this statement with a flat out denial (as always) and claim that this is 'ad hominem' etc. Sigh.
Predicting that I'm going to disagree with you isn't too difficult, especially when you say things that are factually incorrect.
a pedophile, however, does not control his impulses
Bullshit right off the bat. A pedophile is simply someone with a sexual attraction to prepubescent children. The clinical definition does *not* say they are rapists, and it does *not* say they lack the ability to control their impulses. You made that up based on what you've been indoctrinated to believe, by people who are either just as ignorant as you, or wish to take advantage of
Re: (Score:2)
In fact the current snooping laws have already been massively abused, when the government swore that they wouldn't be because of "checks and balances". Police used RIPA to get journalist's phone records, to find out who their sources in the Plebgate scandal were. Not even investigating a crime, just protecting their own image and trying to keep themselves out of jail (the police tried to smear a politician with lies, and then lied to investigators about it, and then lied to the press about it, and were then
Re: (Score:2)
Naming fallacies eliminates a class of mistakes so that more of our limited intelligence and attention-span can be applied to the actual discussion.
No, no it's not. You are demonstrating the same ignorance for logic that you claim others lack with this statement. Your are attempting to claim that your accusation of fallacy will somehow defend the original fallacy, and it does not.
Cameron's arguments are an appeal to emotion. His particular appeal is so common that we have given a name to it (as we have historically done with the several common appeals), called "save the children". This person points out another appeal to emotion, based on what is "
Re: (Score:3)
More importantly, don't let them take away your rights for safety they _can't_ offer you.
I'm not sure I'd say that's more important. People need to realize that, even if the safety they offer is real, fundamental liberties are more important.
Re: (Score:2)
And yet you provided no argument at all ...
Re:Also ban cars (Score:5, Interesting)
Slippery slopesters you two.
Actually, it's the argument from exaggeration, I think there's a better name for it, but I haven't formally studied logical fallacies. I didn't formally study to learn to read, either. Instead, I read stuff. I can't diagram a sentence for you, because I don't care and because we spent maybe one day on that in my entire school career, IIRC, with no homework. I can tell you when a sentence is broken, and usually suggest multiple ways to fix it. And I can tell you when logic is broken, and suggest that someone fuck off :)
The point of making the extreme example (a form of hyperbole) is to illustrate a point — where do you stop sliding down the slippery slope? Because history tells us that mission scope tends to creep, and that like any organization law enforcement agencies tend to acquire power when possible and give it up only at gunpoint. Oh, sorry, that was more hyperbole. I imagine you're crying into your Kix now.
Re: (Score:1)
Argumentum ad Absurdum.
Re: (Score:2)
No silly rabbit. Kix are for kids.
Re: (Score:3)
This begs the question, would any true Scotsman set foot on a slippery slope?
There. Three logical fallacies in one.
Re: (Score:2)
Make that a Nazi Scotsman.
Any advance on four?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Also ban cars (Score:2)
We can't have a slippery slope due to health and safety legislation.
Re:Also ban cars (Score:5, Funny)
learn how to argue valid points
Given that Cameron is arguing that we should take another step down the slope, your claim that their claim of a slippery slope is invalid is invalid.
Re:Also ban cars (Score:4, Interesting)
learn how to argue valid points
Given that Cameron is arguing that we should take another step down the slope, your claim that their claim of a slippery slope is invalid is invalid.
Here's why it's a fallacy.
Cameron is just trying to detract from his growing unpopularity with statements like this. Tony Abbott in Australia did the same thing, a huge police operation across 3 cities arresting 17 people made big headlines on the same day he released very unpopular policies... Obvious the policies were buried under the HUGE ANTI-TERROR ARRESTS on the front page.
Of the 17 people arrested in these raids, 16 were released without charge, the remaining person had a fine for a weapons misdemeanour (unsecured ammunition).
So people thinking this is a huge slippery slope are reading too far into it, it's just a politician trying some hand waiving to distract from growing voter dissatisfaction.
Keys to the kingdom ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Here we go, those two plus fighting copyright infringement are the magic keys to the kingdom. The fascists and despots can use those pretty much anywhere to bypass all laws and protections.
If we don't stop the copyright-infringing terrorist pedophiles the world will end, so as a result, we can get access to everything just to be safe.
The scary thing is these guys either don't understand, or don't care, about how much they're undermining the rest of the law and society. Instead they figure the surveillance state is necessary to protect us from the bad guys.
Sorry, but the governments are becoming the bad guys and the threat to our freedoms. And they don't care.
Face it, the terrorists effectively won, and destroyed our freedoms, and now our own societies are pretty much turning on themselves.
Re:Keys to the kingdom ... (Score:4, Insightful)
The scary thing is these guys either don't understand, or don't care, about how much they're undermining the rest of the law and society.
Sure they care. They care a lot. They just don't care in the way that you care. They care about whether their efforts to maintain the status quo succeed. That's it. But undermining the law is very much part and parcel of that maintenance. The people running our countries are career criminals and if the law were to catch up with them, they would be in trouble. They must continually erode the law, or they will be labeled as what they are. Thieves, crooks, con artists, frauds.
Re: (Score:1)
"Dad, I have decided that I want to be a criminal"
"Public of private sector? I recommend public, they don't get caught as quickly."
Re:Keys to the kingdom ... (Score:5, Interesting)
The scary thing is these guys either don't understand, or don't care, about how much they're undermining the rest of the law and society.
Sure they care. They care a lot. They just don't care in the way that you care. They care about whether their efforts to maintain the status quo succeed. That's it. But undermining the law is very much part and parcel of that maintenance. The people running our countries are career criminals and if the law were to catch up with them, they would be in trouble. They must continually erode the law, or they will be labeled as what they are. Thieves, crooks, con artists, frauds.
This article [independent.co.uk] tells you all you need you know about the establishment's reaction. From TFA:
"The report also reveals that the two killers had been investigated seven times by different agencies and that MI5 cancelled surveillance of one of the murderers, Michael Adebolajo, just a month before the attack."
But the report then concludes that MI5 (and the other security services) are blameless and it's all the fault of some Internet company. Simultaneously whitewashing the security services failure and justifying (in their minds) further cranking up of mass surveillance.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, I think politicians like this care about three things:
1) Getting Re-elected. Unfortunately, they have found that scaring people ("terrorists are hiding behind your chair RIGHT NOW!!!!") is a good way to shut down people's critical thinking skills (or what rudimentary ones some people have). When people are scared, they look for an immediate solut
Re: (Score:2)
All of your "three things" reduce to number 2 - get power. Money and reelections are just part of the Power equation.
It can be reduced even further - all politicians are in the business because they like telling other people what to do. For your own good, of course. Really, trust me - it's for your own good....
Re:Keys to the kingdom ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Today:
"There's no reason for such firms to be willing to cooperate with state agencies over child abuse but not over combating terrorism"
Tomorrow:
"There's no reason for such firms to be willing to cooperate with state agencies over terrorism but not over combating organized crime"
[etc]
Soon enough:
"There's no reason for such firms to be willing to cooperate with state agencies over petty theft but not over combating traffic violations"
Re:Keys to the kingdom ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Eventually:
"There's no reason for such firms to be willing to cooperate with state agencies over traffic violations, but not over locating individuals who criticize the government".
The scope creep of these things is the biggest problem.
Many terrorism related provisions were implemented, and at the time we were told "oh, don't worry, we won't abuse this, this is purely for terrorism".
And now look at where we are. Parallel construction anybody? You know, where the police have a manual of perjury and how to violate your legal rights by pretending they found you through other means, and then actively conspire to conceal the truth from the legal system.
These things will always get abused over time. So the only real way to stop that is not allow them in the first place.
Joesph McCarthy would have loved all of this stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
We will never know because the second a Judge inquires about parallel construction the states claims the state secrets privilege to block any investigation. They've got all the angles covered which is why this is so frustrating.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Aaah, complete and total ignorance of not only history, but the present. Slippery slopes are not automatically fallacies. The idea that the government uses powers it said it would only use for X for things other than X is just a historical fact. For instance, as the guy's comment above yours mentioned, parallel construction.
Stop being ignorant. At least pay attention to the present.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd agree with you if it weren't for the fact that measures put in place to combat terrorism have been abused before [google.co.uk].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So to me it makes reasonable sense for a firm to help end Child abuse but not give the same help for fighting 'Terrorism'.
No, it doesn't. Neither makes sense. The "Save the children!" panic is just another way to manipulate gullible fools into giving up everyone's freedom and privacy.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Instead they figure the surveillance state is necessary to protect us from the bad guys.
Us?
To these people, "us" are not on the same category as "them".
If burning a hundred citizens per day on an altar assured Cameron unlimited power, the killings would start tomorrow in the early morning.
Re: (Score:1)
In a fascist society, the democratically elected government controls the corporations, not the other way around.
If only we had a fascist government... shovel these tyrannous oligarchs and their toadies and sycophants and sympathizers into some gas chambers... we'd have society fixed up in no time.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:And this is why... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I think you know this but sometimes it's a bit hard to read tone on the internet.
HSBC processed transactions for Iran in Europe, at a time when the USA had not successfully forced Iranian sanctions onto the EU and thus they were entirely legal.
The USA did not like this one bit, because Congress had a 'fuck Iran at any cost' mentality that extended to trying to make US sanctions global. And one way they did that is by prosecuting or threatening to prosecute American employees of international banks for trans
Ask the phone companies to monitor all calls too (Score:1)
What's his point? Are internet companies supposed to be monitoring everything? They are supposed to be responsive when the authorities request it with a suitably justified warrant. I can't see any reason to go beyond that. And if law enforcementcan't justify the invasion of privacy with a warrant then they shouldn't be given a blank cheque to monitor any and everything.
As helpful and entertaining as it would be to have them monitor legislators 24/7 for the mere possibility of criminal activity, I wouldn
Terrorists!? (Score:2)
This is the most irresponsible and inconsiderate answer on this important topic.
Terrorists? Seriously? What about child molesters? What kind of monster would hide the safe havens for child molesters behind the cover of terrorism?
Cameron has revealed himself as either a pedo or incompetent to fight online child pornography.
Total Packet Inspection (Score:5, Insightful)
Some have pointed out the explicit invocation of the slippery slope, but it is worse than that.
His comments to the House of Commons came after the parliamentary intelligence and security committee concluded that the brutal murder of Rigby could have been prevented if an internet company had passed on an online exchange in which one of the killers expressed "in the most graphic terms" his intention to carry out an Islamist jihadi attack.
This is not the same as blocking access to child porn sites. He is calling for the content of all packets to be inspected for unapproved speech.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, in retrospect most people who end up doing something violent or otherwise alarming end up having made some choice remarks at some point before doing so. However, that's only significant because you've deliberately selected a population of scary violent subjects. Guess what, dumbass? You'll see a lot of very creative and endlessly vitriolic chatter from people too lazy to do much more than press the buttons on the remote cont
In English slang... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
...Cameron can best be described as a right pratt...
And Farage as a far right pratt
Re: (Score:2)
Somehow, that doesn't seem like it goes nearly far enough.
So, I don't know, some form of rhyming slang ... rhymes with "stunt" or "hydrant" maybe? Maybe "flashest"?
Good work there, boys. (Score:5, Insightful)
His comments to the House of Commons came after the parliamentary intelligence and security committee concluded that the brutal murder of Rigby could have been prevented if an internet company had passed on an online exchange in which one of the killers expressed "in the most graphic terms" his intention to carry out an Islamist jihadi attack.
It's a good thing that there has never, ever in the history of communication been an incident where anyone expressed in graphic terms their intention to carry out something that they weren't actually going to do.
Re: (Score:1)
Praising the agencies as silent heros, he nevertheless admitted there had been errors by the agencies since both of Rigby’s murderers, Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale, had been known to the security services for some time.
So, they were being watched, to some extent. According to the article, one was being watched more than the other, but the one who made the comments on some US-based service was the one they were watching less.
However, he admitted there was legal uncertainty about the d
Hindsight, Hindsight, Hindsight. (Score:2)
Only who ae the terrorists (Score:1)
your terrorist is my freedom fighter
Re: (Score:2)
your terrorist is my freedom fighter
Wow! That has to be fantastic! Almost everybody is fighting for your freedom!
Its even worse than that (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
England should immediately ban people from communicating with one another in any way, shape, manor or form. No talking, no writing, no sign language, no winks, nods, frowns or smiles.
No facial expression allowed, because the terrorists might win!!!
They need mandatory unisex berkas with built in sound proofing. That's how to protect western values of freedom, by wrapping everyone up in a shroud and making them shut the fuck up. That will show those radical scum they can't push Eng
Re: (Score:2)
I believe a great many criminal acts get discussed on the streets on London. What is Boris Johnstone and the London councils doing about it, or are they providing a self haven for these people?
Why do I hear John Hurt's voice.... (Score:1)
UK providing safe haven? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
In other words ... (Score:3)
... "our snooping methods suck."
Re: (Score:2)
What is it they want the internet companies to do that they are not? Maybe I'm dense, but I'm not clear what he believes they failed to do.
Cameron, who are you trying to fool? (Score:2)
Do you really think your voters are so stupid? Do you really think they still believe your bull about "protection from terrrrrists"? Or do you even drink your own cool aid?
Tell me, do you think we're stupid, or are you? And bluntly, it's not a false dichotomy. There are really only these two options.
Responsibility starts at the very top (Score:2)
How come Cameron, being the PM and all, not be held fully responsible for his inability to prevent UK resident to perpetrate terrorist acts on the very sole he's in charge of? After all, he's the one with intelligence services and such, stampeding the privacy of the very people that elected him. Would all this just mean that he violated fundamental rights of the British people to no avail?
David Cameron is a two fisted wanker (Score:3)
you know who the real terrorists were? Bush & Cheney, Rumsfeld & Rice, and their manservant Tony Blair. Waging an illegal and immoral war against the sovereign nation of Iraq, they bombed innocent civilians and encouraged the spread of terrorism which did not exist under the iron fist of Saddam Hussein. by ignoring history and not understanding the dangers of a power vacuum, they fucked up the middle east and made all of us less safe.
so David Cameron, shut your pie hole.
Cameron needs to open source all MP/Lords lives (Score:1)
He who lives by the lack of privacy, should have none.
Oh, shut up, for God's sake. (Score:2)
You can also use telephones to arrange contract killings. Let's ban them.
On second thought, maybe we could use our phones and internet servers to get rid of annoying politicians.
On behalf of the UK... (Score:4, Informative)
... please accept my apologies. We can't seem to get anyone elected to lead our nation who has any knowledge or experience of anything other than backstabbing, deceit, and bluster. I hope it goes without saying that we know this fool Cameron knows absolutely nothing about software, and cares absolutely nothing about human rights - no matter how much hot air he emits about them.
Re: (Score:2)
In mitigation, I should mention that he did go to school at Eton.
Re: (Score:3)
I can assure you he does care and he has promised to remove them (I wish I was joking).
Conservatives promise to scrap Human Rights Act after next election [theguardian.com]
because they can (Score:3)
Imagine the amount of mayhem being tacitly supported by makers of paper and pens.
Politicians think they are right to demand control of behavior because it is, theoretically possible. They don't seem to appreciate that their model for the online world is flawed: it's not like physical space, compact and easily policed. The net is a communication medium, which can no more be policed than paper, phones or *air* can be cleaned of mayhem...
Bear Witness (Score:1)
"Get a great job..." (Score:2)
"...reading every comment ever made on all of the Internet fora and passing along potential terrierist threats to the government!"
Exactly how does the idjit Cameron think an ISP is supposed to do this? Doesn't your vaunted government capture of everything that transpires on the Internet work any more?
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly how does the idjit Cameron think an ISP is supposed to do this?
It's easy: pass a law. Whether it's actually possible or practical is irrelevant; he'll have already earned his political brownie points.
see: The Politician's Fallacy.
Political tactic these days? (Score:3)
It seems like a number of politicians these days have this strategy of boldly saying things that don't stand up to scrutiny, but as long as they say them confidently enough and call you a traitor for disagreeing, it mostly works.
He demanded that internet companies live up to their social responsibilities
I would argue that the "social responsibility" he proposes does not exist. Why do ISPs supposedly have to manage access to content hosted in other countries? Why can't they just be "pipes"? If people want to see offensive things, I say fucking let them. (And see also the multitudinous posts above about how anything can be used for evil.)
to report potential terror threats
Oh, so of course they need to be reading our communications all the time looking for sarcastic comments they can nail us to the wall over. Great.
and said there was no reason for such firms to be willing to cooperate with state agencies over child abuse but not over combatting terrorism.
Oh look, when we* fold for one thing we get called traitors for not supporting, they immediately snowball it into another thing and feed us the same line. I assume by "child abuse" he actually means "child porn," even the kind that is animated and in no way hurts any actual children. And that, y'know, are already covered under non-invasive laws anyway.
The greater threat to democracy these days is our own politicians, rather than anything the terrorists can do to us. Seems like half our own fucking representatives don't even believe in democracy as anything other than a vehicle to get themselves more power and money.
*Okay, yes, it's the U.K. but I'm sure the U.S. government would love to do the same thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I realized after I posted that those 2 sentences were rather at odds with each other. I meant, non-animated ones are already criminalized for possession so I really don't see why they need to filter/track/snoop at the ISP level as well.
Elections coming: Cameron is blame shifting (Score:2)
Anybody familiar with Cameron's abysmal record, especially when it comes to countering terrorism, knows that Cameron is desperately trying to shift the blame away from his own incompetence.
Like "Congress shall make no law ..." (Score:4, Insightful)
That sentence ought to end right there.
Re: (Score:2)
If they can use all powerful tools expressly against what the tools were approved for use against, then future wielders of said tools have carte blanche ability to decide that what you did yesterday is now a threat to the state.
The US *currently* has 30 states of emergency in effect linky [washingtonpost.com]. One still in effect from the 70s!
Freedom also means freedom from gov't intrusion, which is
Re: (Score:2)
You may wonder why the president needs to declare a state of emergency to deal with what appears to be fairly routine instances of corruption in far-flung corners of the world. Korte notes that Congress provides little oversight on emergency declarations, even through it's mandated to do so by law. In an era when tussles over executive power are a near-daily occurrence, this is a strange incongruity.
"What the National Emergencies Act does is like a toggle switch, and when the president flips it, he gets new powers. It's like a magic wand. and there are very few constraints about how he turns it on," said Kim Lane Scheppele, a Princeton professor interviewed by Korte.
Oh, so it's like Chancellor Palpatine back in the Star Wars prequels. Only this is IRL. Nice.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Safety and security ARE more important than "freedom".
Simply incorrect. If you believe that way, then move to North Korea.
I, however, want privacy, free speech, and other fundamental rights. I recognize that a life without these things is not a life worth living.
I prefer the "freedom" from poverty and the "freedom" not to be shot or blown up over the "freedom" to google for explosive recipes or extremist ideologies, thank you very much.
You seem to be completely and utterly ignorant of history. That is, ignorant of the millions of abuses of government power throughout history. The US's surveillance is already being used for parallel construction and spying on love interests. Police routinely abuse innocent people. But I'm sure that th
Re: (Score:2)
Safety and security ARE more important than "freedom".
Simply incorrect. If you believe that way, then move to North Korea.
Why do you think North Korea is the epitome of safety and security?
I dare say, you dont know what either of these terms mean if you think they apply to North Korea.
Re: (Score:2)
Who said that I do? That fool wants to give the government pretty much unlimited power, and you'll just end up with something like North Korea, or police state lite. Why not just skip the whole process and move to North Korea to see what his nonsense will get him? He seems to think that the people in the government are perfect angels, but history shows otherwise.
That was my point.
Re: (Score:2)
Try going without food for a couple of days and spending a couple of winter nights in a shop doorway. You won't be talking so tough then, kid.
Re: (Score:2)
Problems:
1) "If you were in a different situation than you are now, you would think differently!" does not debunk a single one of my statements; it's a non sequitur.
2) You can't possibly know what I would think in such a situation unless you claim to be psychic, but then I'm going to need to see some proof.
3) Lamenting the fact that you have no food to eat is not mutually exclusive with believing that freedom of speech, privacy, and other fundamental rights are monumentally important. You can, in fact, do b
Re: (Score:2)
You said a life without freedom is not worth living. I suggest that if you actually had to make that choice, you might not be as tough as you try to sound. On balance of probability it's likely, or there'd be a lot fewer oppressed people and a lot more dead ones.
Now go out and play on your bike, keyboard ninja.
Re: (Score:2)
You said a life without freedom is not worth living.
Correct. A life devoid of freedom simply isn't worth living; that would be a police state. Everyone has a responsibility to fight back against that.
I suggest that if you actually had to make that choice, you might not be as tough as you try to sound.
I refer you back to my reply, as it's still a silly response to what I said. It doesn't debunk anything, and you're not psychic.
On balance of probability it's likely, or there'd be a lot fewer oppressed people and a lot more dead ones.
You speak to an individual, not a collective.
Now go out and play on your bike, keyboard ninja.
Go argue with cold fjord instead of people who actually care about freedom, keyboard ninja.
Re: (Score:2)
We don't need nazi ideology, holocaust deniers or other dangerous propaganda and we're all the better off for it.
We also don't *need* comments like yours. In fact, I think we'd be better off if you moved to North Korea.
We're way more free than stupid yankees because we don't have to worry about being fired from our jobs or being bankrupted by medical bills.
Freedom from government harassment is *not* the same as being free from random thugs (though the government can certainly act like thugs). The government is supposed to be of the people, by the people, and for the people, so when the government harasses you or infringes upon your basic liberties (in this case, *everyone's* liberties), that is far worse than if some random criminal were to harm you.
Keep your "freedom" to get shot and live under a bridge, redneck.
Keep
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
TIA (Score:1)
To trick people into thinking they don't already have access.
People behave differently when they know they are being watched.
Re: (Score:2)
He's complaining that they won't censor anti-Semitic media and that makes him an anti-Semite?
Re: (Score:2)
If one man murders another in the street, is it terrorism?
If it is intentionally done to draw attention to some political issue and/or carries an explicit political message, then sure.
What distinguishes terrorism is one's ultimate goal, not the means or the scale of the crime.