I'm not worried about my privacy at all because I've done nothing wrong. - Citizenfour (2014) Discussion

[–] ixusillwrath 9 years ago

So what you're saying is, I should give you all my secrets because I hypothetically believe there's no danger in that?

Do you realize what you just said condemns Mr. Snowden? If you were the US, he just stole your login & password and sold it to Russia.

reply

[–] Good-Will 9 years ago

Yes, I realise that, but you're avoiding the question that I asked.

So send me a PM with your email login details and we'll see what happens, yes?

Unless you find that might result in something bad happening then what do you have to hide?

If the opposite of Love is indifference, what's the opposite of Hate?

reply

[–] ixusillwrath 9 years ago

I'd rather not if it's all the same to you. But if I did just don't sell it to the country known for the most authoritarian secret police in history. They're probably not benevolent custodians.

reply

[–] Good-Will 9 years ago

They're probably not benevolent custodians.

Ay, and there's the rub.
After watching this documentary and probably reading the news reports about the police arresting/beating up innocent civilians based upon the information they received from the "Intelligence" services, then do you think that the US government is a benevolent custodian of all your private information?

If the opposite of Love is indifference, what's the opposite of Hate?

reply

[–] ixusillwrath 9 years ago

It's my government, I helped elect them. Within their scope of duties is to protect us from enemies foreign and domestic. If they never looked inside the borders for trouble they'll never find it when it exists.

You're proposing something that would make men like Timothy McVeigh limitless in their ability to carry out terrible acts. Considering they have their hands full of potential threats, I'm not in the least worried they'll be tapping my phone out of the 500 million cellphones in the country. Not enough manpower to even monitor the actual threats.

Taking that ability from their hands and giving it to Russia, who has its own interests that are hostile towards OUR elected government and nation, is presenting your throat.

If Snowden was a 'hero' he would have given the information to CNN and kept the debate in-house. He lost all claim to that when he took it upon himself to ally with a foreign power.

If anything positive did occur, it's that China didn't want him around as political baggage, which at least gives a semblance of trying to maintain a positive working relationship with the US. Russia, on the other hand, LOVES their new stooge and doesn't hesitate to poke the Eagle at every opportunity they are afforded.

This is exactly why Bradley Manning is in prison as we speak. No one private citizen can take it upon themselves to decide for everyone what the government can and cannot do. That is taking ALL of our ballots cast and ripping them to shreds. As someone who has served in the military, he was completely free to take his problems up with his chain of command. Julian Assange is not a rung on that ladder.

Also, cite where people are being 'beat up and detained' by government thugs using illegally obtained information. Infowars is not a valid source. As far as whoever's in Gitmo? There lies the possibility that although you don't know why they are there, someone who should know does know why they are there. I imagine it's quite a task to end up in a military prison for being Arabic on a Friday night.

reply

[–] Good-Will 9 years ago

I realise that you're smart and I quite like you, but let's stick to the question in point.

Do you think that the US government is a benevolent custodian of all your private information?

That's requires a binary answer.

Yes or no?

If the opposite of Love is indifference, what's the opposite of Hate?

reply

[–] ixusillwrath 9 years ago

Not really binary. There can be rogue elements within our government who don't uphold their integrity when handling other people's information. Actually, I consider Edward Snowden and Bradley Manning PRIME cases of that trust being violated. But I also don't assume that every time I order a cheeseburger there's something foul happening in the kitchen.

I would say yes, I do believe that my own government is benevolent towards its people and can be trusted to monitor our society. They've already been tracking you for decades with your social security number, driver's license, taxes, municipal and state police, FBI, etc. But truth be told, the vast, vast majority of that is simply a file so that if you ever do become a problem they can access it. Not so that they can thumb through them on their down time like a voyeur.

I actually DO take some issue with the information being gathered by the NSA specifically, in the sense that their jurisdiction is outwards while the FBI's jurisdiction is domestic. But this appears to be little more than departmental cooperation than an upheaval of individual liberty.

Consider also the amount of staffing required to moniter ALL of EVERYONE's information. It's nonsensical to think that could ever be done. If you think every text you've ever sent and every email you've sent has been monitored or even archived you'd be dead wrong. At the peak of East Germany's power, upwards of 20% of their entire population was tasked to internal monitoring and they still couldn't quell dissent or watch literally everyone. The sheer bureaucracy of it has massive diminishing returns at that level.

So, if it must be a yes or a no answer, I will say yes.

As an addendum, I will add that the strongest counter you have to government malfeasance is your ballot. If elections aren't engaging the populace, it is giving its power away. There are indeed countless bad eggs (by my approximation) littering congress and the senate who could have all been remedied by a people who take part in the democratic process. Keep that in mind and spread that idea if you want to maintain the social contract. I, for one, consent to being governed, but I would very much like it if we could spend more time rotating out the old guard and less time acting like babies every time political discourse occurs between your peers. There are a lot of politicians that get a wrinkle on their dick every time someone says "CAN WE NOT TALK ABOUT POLITICS PLEASE!"

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Hasjtracker 9 years ago

It's my government, I helped elect them.

Are you responsible for them?

Can "we" blame you for our privacy being tainted/attacked?

reply

[–] Laserseightoclockdayone 9 years ago

You can blame whoever you want. This isn't Russia or China, we don't throw you in jail or seize your media outlet for saying it. Yes, this is the same guy you quoted, new account.

reply

[–] VBeretta 9 years ago

> It's my government, I helped elect them.

The donations given for campaigning - the big ones - elected your government, not you.

reply

[–] Joshieboyucla 8 years ago

"It's my government, I helped elect them."

To whoever writes something as naive as that, everything that comes after that sentence is not worth reading.

Sounds like the typical citizen of the US who believes everything he is told on the news blindly. I know it's tough to think for oneself, but these are dire times and we must LEARN how to think beyond the mediocre level that public education provided us with.

.;*We Live Inside A Dream*;.

reply

[–] JimmyPSX 9 years ago

I have my money and identity to hide from you...I don't think the NSA is gonna open up lines of credit in my name

reply

[–] rjbmuse 9 years ago

Boy, are you confused. You already pay to have someone in the US access all of your private info, and then share it with his corporate buddies.

reply

[–] Madeline5 9 years ago

"I'm not in the least worried they'll be tapping my phone out of the 500 million cellphones in the country."

But they are, regardless of whatever your opinion is about it.

"Not enough manpower to even monitor the actual threats."

True, that's why they are housing all of it in that huge repository where they are setting up more and more of the "machines" that will be capable of analyzing or mining the data. Machines will create profiles for them, and hence...the Red Flags, calling attention to whomever, to be watched. And if no citizen today being spied and mined generates a red flag, that of you or me, or your friends and family (and you know kids, they do the darnedest things), perhaps tomorrow or in ten years the political power in charge with different whims and fancies will formulate other various data-sets to create different profile criteria to generate their red flags.

It's all there, in place to use, abuse, and act upon, since there is no judicial oversight. It's happening....right now and will be there for future use, according to the whims of whoever is in charge.

Pandora's box.

reply

[–] Strazdamonas 9 years ago

"Not enough manpower to even monitor the actual threats."

Computers have a lot of manpower that doubles yearly.

---------------------------------------------
Applied Science? All science is applied. Eventually.

reply

[–] gacaviale 9 years ago

Seems to me like the corporate buddies have first dibs.

reply

[–] fede_4488 9 years ago

People who use that argument should be sent to North Korea

reply

[–] peterquennell 9 years ago

Great posts above by ixusillwrath. The OP sounds seriously paranoid and should get a better grip on reality.

As a great article in the Daily Beast explained Snowden etc can not point to a single person who was actually harmed by the US collecting metadata.

Meanwhile the US and its corporations are seeing wave after wave of cyber attacks and thefts from China, North Korea, and so on. With the US largely hamstrung to stop them.

reply

[–] jesusofjonesboro 9 years ago

With the US largely hamstrung to stop them.

That statement is nonsense. The barriers to stopping "cyber attacks" are more technical than political.

jj

reply

[–] peterquennell 9 years ago

I didnt say whether it was political or technical.

I see you posting all over this area of IMDB seemingly desperate to blunt US capacity either way.

I guess you dont post in your own name because of that big check from North Korea...

reply

[–] Nobody-27 9 years ago

How 'bout this true story:

In Canada, where they do the same thing as here, RCMP got a jingle that in one telephone conversation a woman was heard using words: "Terrorists", "Bomb" and "Blast". They promptly figured out who she was and paid her a visit.
Luckily, this was in Canada where things are a bit more civilized and after following her and finally approaching her, they learned that she was talking about her kids birthday party where kids had a "blast" and where the cake was the "bomb" and that kids were "terrorizing" her...

But, when IQ of investigators is not high enough to connect these dots, no one knows what is possible; actually all those innocents who were water boarded know.

reply

[–] ixusillwrath 9 years ago

That sounds like the 'true' story about the US Naval vessel and the Canadian lighthouse which is, actually, complete BS.

reply

[–] JimmyPSX 9 years ago

that did not happen unless you provide a link preferably not from conspiracydudes.com

reply

[–] GMonhey 9 years ago

The argement is fair, but what this really is is the infancy of a police state. Thats where the real fear should be.
Do I have to give it to you?

reply

[–] HereItIsYourMomentOfZen 9 years ago

but what this really is is the infancy of a police state

I would say that is an understatement.

reply

[–] Korios 9 years ago

The United States and the UK are at least at a preteen police state level, with puberty approaching very fast. If the governments have their way and force installation of NSA and GCHQ backdoors in encryption protocols (just like the NSA already did with a feature of RSA, who they actually paid millions to install their backdoor in) the puberty stage -and wet dream of all the NSAs, Mossads, GCHQs etc of the world- will be reached. The next stage after that can only be full-blown big brothery orwellianism, aka police state adulthood and maturity.

People like ixusillwrath most likely would have no problem with a world like 1984, as long as they are safe and they are naive enough to think that the sole purpose of the security agencies of their government is to protect them; because, you know, why would these "patriots" ever do things like industrial espionage to allow the american companies to have a competitive advantage, right? Why would they do that? (supreme naivete..)

Fanboy : a person who does not think while watching.

reply

[–] GMonhey 9 years ago

I thought it was hilarious one of the msgs exchanged between Snowden and Laura was about a program the NSA loves because the UK allows them to run it all day vs. in the US where it's not allowed.

Do I have to give it to you?

reply

[–] Korios 9 years ago

Yes, the Tempora project (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempora).
A variation of it was explored in the TV mini series The Honourable Woman (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3021686), with Maggie Gyllenhaal. A very well written and produced TV show.

Fanboy : a person who does not think while watching.

reply

[–] ixusillwrath 9 years ago

Nice slippery slope argument there. Surveillance =/= oppression. If you think dash cams on police cars or wire tapping constitutes an Orwellian dystopia you're a goddamn idiot.

reply

[–] DreTam2000 9 years ago

I love dash cams on police cars; they help us catch crooked cops or officers in the act of violating civilians.

I'm not a control freak, I just like things my way

reply

[–] ciprianl 9 years ago

I have found two interesting passages in Aristotle's Politics, Book V:

In all well-attempered governments there is nothing which should be more jealously maintained than the spirit of obedience to law, more especially in small matters; for transgression creeps in unperceived and at last ruins the state, just as the constant recurrence of small expenses in time eats up a fortune. The change does not take place all at once, and therefore is not observed; the mind is deceived, as in the fallacy which says that "if each part is little, then the whole is little." And this is true in one way, but not in another, for the whole and the all are not little, although they are made up of littles.

A tyrant should also endeavour to know what each of his subjects says or does, and should employ spies, like the "female detectives" at Syracuse, and the eavesdroppers whom Hiero was in the habit of sending to any place of resort or meeting; for the fear of informers prevents people from speaking their minds, and if they do, they are more easily found out.

Please don't tell me that Aristotle was also a goddamn idiot.

reply

[–] Laserseightoclockdayone 9 years ago

I don't have to, Bertrand Russell will here https://tigerpapers.wordpress.com/2012/03/08/bertrand-russell-on-plato-and-aristotle/

I'll take my philosophy from someone with a little more foundation to build on, thanks.

reply

[–] rjbmuse 9 years ago

Yep. Point well made!

reply

[–] LloytronUK 9 years ago

What's interesting is that loss of privacy isn't the argument here. It is about the abuse of power.

In theory, if this power is handled responsibly, then if you are innocent, then you should have nothing to worry about. Government's should represent their people and as such should be accountable and responsible for their actions, by the people.

Do we believe that this power has been and will be yielded responsibly? I'd wager not. (And there goes a little alarm bell against my name)

reply

[–] JimmyPSX 9 years ago

I'll send you copies of all my e-mails, but ain't giving a private citizen my logins and passwords some of which I use for my bank accounts and credit card accounts...I'm not worried about the government stealing my meager savings but someone like you I definitely am

I'll send you my texts too

difference is I'm more comfortable with my info being in a massive file dump in some random facility in Utah than being in the hands of a random individual...the stuff in there I have no fear of the government doing anything with...but you? Yeah you're more dangerous to me

reply

[–] Good-Will 9 years ago

I'm more comfortable with my info being in a massive file dump in some random facility in Utah than being in the hands of a random individual

Understandable.
So if you gave that access to your best friend, then would that be OK with you?
That wouldn't be a random individual, so yes or no?

If the opposite of Love is indifference, what's the opposite of Hate?

reply

[–] Nobody-27 9 years ago

Something you and many others don't understand is that your data is not only in a "massive file dump" but also in the hands of a random individual. You do know that it is people working in those facilities, and not robots, right?

reply