I do think its an important issue. While we havent heard anything directly impacting firearms issues yet, it points to a mindset that if no one notices their rights are being violated, it didnt really happen. Sort of like being a criminal. Sounds a lot like stereotypical politics in Illinois. Doesnt make me feel real good about the judgement of the powers that be when they only seem unhappy that they got caught.
Mikeb, in that question, you have summed up what is wrong with you. You learn that our government was secretly monitoring telephone calls of American citizens and may be continuing to collect data on all manner of communications between Americans, all of it being done without any suspicion beyond the vague suggestion that someone might be doing something, and you wonder if this is a real problem?
The fact that you can't immediately see this as a real problem is an illustration of why we can never trust you or your goals. If you care this little about freedom, about rights, about American values, nothing that you propose can be any good.
I'm not convinced it's the big problem everyone is making it out to be. Before this they had databases of car owners. They had databases of telephone company customers. This is just an advancement of that type of information gathering.
I agree it's open to abuse, but what isn't? With this information available, when someone IS suspected of being a terrorist or a sex-slavery operator, the authorities can quickly investigate.
I don't see it as much more objectionable than any of the other police and government powers.
Such naivete! This isn't analogous to databases of telephone customers. This is information that their computer can use to form a day by day picture of everyone's movement. You spent this long in the vicinity of that bookstore. You went to this church. You stopped by these gun shops after getting paid Friday. Etc. etc. It's as if they've put a GPS tracker on everyone--something that still requires a warrant to do.
They make a big deal that this is all just organized by number, not name, but they dump all of this information into databases to be cross checked, which means that that database will match this data with the credit card data, the credit bureau data, etc. etc. etc. so that they can pull up your life at the click of a button.
Sure, if they're marginally competent enough to actually get onto the case of a real terrorist or sex slaver, this may help them take the person down. Of course, it's also likely to help them ruin the life of any innocent person that accidentally falls into their sights.
Wake the fuck up man! Obama even had a problem with this power before he himself wielded it. Back then, all of you progressives were decrying Bush's violations of privacy, but Obama has made W look like a Piker. It's sad when I miss Bush because at least with him in the Democrats would be opposing these things.
No more objectionable than any other police or government powers--there you go. All power of the government deserves objection and limitation. There are times when government power is necessary, but if we don't object frequently, that power will get out of hand.
More specifically to this case, I want law enforcement to have to work hard. Exercising government power to convict and punish someone should never be easy. That should be especially true about fishing expeditions, which is what this NSA business is.
Mike, you say the government already has high level information, sob they might as well get more detailed. You say they already have everyone's phone numbers, so they might as well know who you are calling. You say they already know who has a driver's license, so does that mean they should know where you go (as Tennesseean aptly pointed out)? Or take the phone calls a level of detail lower: they know who you are calling, so why not know what you are saying? Obama used this as a defenses- that they aren't taking it a level deeper. When does it get too deep for you? Notice, you are not rationalizing this as parallel analogies- you rationalize one level of intrusion for deeper intrusion,
Greg said, "I want law enforcement to have to work hard. "
You mean like they had to work so hard before 9/11? I know you're not a 9/11 Truther, so you'd rather another one of those happens, or one a hundred times worse, than to give up the privacy of whom you call on the phone?
I want the government to know if that inconspicuous looking couple down the block is calling a cave in Afghanistan 25 times a month or if that Adam Lanza wannabe is trying to buy guns and ammo on the internet.
"How do you figure they can know that kind of thing from a list of my phone calls?"
Mike, They're pulling down all metadata on each number. When your phone shows you how many bars you have, it's showing you the strength of it's connection to surrounding towers. This gives them location traces that are part of this metadata. All they have to do is link your name to the number--not hard when they're also pulling credit card data, and all sorts of other data--and they have location data, at least for your calls, but also for the rest of your travels on a given day.
There's also the matter of smartphones with GPS enabled, constantly sharing the GPS location with various sites they contact so that triangulation isn't even needed.
"I want the government to know if that inconspicuous looking couple down the block is calling a cave in Afghanistan 25 times a month or if that Adam Lanza wannabe is trying to buy guns and ammo on the internet."
And so not only do you not have a problem with the monitoring of which numbers call other numbers, but you want to grab content so that you can see that person X was looking at gun sites, and you want to be able to cross reference that with the person's private medical records.
You accuse me of paranoia, and then you suggest an Even Greater invasion of privacy.
You should just stop asking questions about how we turn back tyranny, and calling invasions of privacy like this tyranny. This short post of yours in reply to Greg is an apology for such tyranny.
So long as the government is keeping you safe and preventing another 9/11, You're cool with some serious violations of your privacy--one of your more fundamental rights.
If this is your attitude, then please just stay on your side of the pond, and consider changing to British citizenship, or that of some other country that now, sadly, values safety over freedom. I'm not telling you to Get Out, I'm telling you to consider a place where you can be as safe as you like. Otherwise, here, we will fight as hard as we can not to see this place keep sliding into the pit it has been, giving up one freedom after another.
Mikeb, law enforcement didn't fail to stop 9/11 from a lack of evidence. Part of the failure was inattention to the evidence that was available. But I'd rather have the risk of terrorist attacks that will happen regardless of whatever the government does to "keep us safe" than to live in a police state.
It's that simple. A police state can't keep us safe. In fact, while it offers the illusion of safety, the reality would be a level of terror much deeper than what the worst member of al-Qaeda or the craziest young man can inspire. Give me a free society that accepts the danger of freedom.
Hey--wait a second, Mikeb. Don't you have a history of accusing gun rights advocates of being obsessively fixated on gun rights, and gun rights only, at the expense of other rights?
Now we state our objections to infringement on other rights, and you don't like that, either. We who refuse to worship at the altar of all-powerful government just can't do anything right in your eyes, can we?
If by "one-issue voter" you mean someone who cares primarily about preserving basic rights and freedom, then yes, we're one-issue voters. Speaking for myself, I want to see the first principle of government action be to consider freedom in all things.
Greg, it's quite possible that the government thugs you fear so much have already prevented a number of attacks much worse than 9/11.
I seriously doubt you'll be living in a police state even with all the encroaching violations of your privacy. But, I'm not worried about you, you can take care of yourself. You'll know when they've gone too far, right?
I would think that the sooner you stop saying anything, the more intelligent you'll appear.
Oh, and for whatever concern this is of yours, I generally vote Libertarian. I do so because libertarian political philosophy is closely aligned with my own beliefs on not only gun rights, but on most other important issues, as well, including the rejection of a warlike foreign policy, the rejection of the "war on drugs," the condemnation of a government that spies on its own citizens while claiming it does so to keep us "safe," etc.
Doesn't really fit your preferred narrative, does it?
If I was a single issue voter on the issue of guns, I'd bee cool with Lindsey Graham. As is, I think he's a tyrannical, cowardly little fuckwit and that his opposition to gun control is a silly fluke in the grand scheme of his character.
But then again, I must be lying to you and myself, and I must really love him, because obviously you MUST be right about my motivations.
"What do you think about that data collection scandal? Is that a real problem? Is it a particular problem for gun-rights activists?" Were those questions asked in all seriousness? Yes, it is a real problem, at least for those with due regard for their freedom, regardless of whether they are "gun rights activists" or not. If you really don't see it as a real problem, let me suggest that failure is indicative of a lack of such due regard on your part.
"So long as the government is keeping you safe and preventing another 9/11, You're cool with some serious violations of your privacy--one of your more fundamental rights."
Yes. Although I wouldn't say I'm cool with it, but I accept it as a part of doing business in today's world. The naivete is on your part to think they haven't already been doing this shit all along.
I know they have been doing this and worse. That doesn't change the fact that I think it's Unconstitutional and that I prefer to fight these tactics and protect my rights.
He's not "breaking your balls." He and I and others are trying to find out if there's anything the government might do that you would oppose, other than, as Tennessean pointed out, the death penalty. We take a principled stand that government power must be limited, even when it's doing what we want it to do. You seem to be happy with any measure of government power, so long as it's aimed the way you desire. Here's a caution for you, though: What happens when you merrily give government more and more power because it's doing your whims, but then the people in charge decide to shift all that power in a direction you don't like?
That's why we want limited government. We know that it can do what we call good today, but it can just as easily do something to an equal degree in what we see as the wrong direction tomorrow.
Glad to speak up, Kurt. And to Mikeb, no, it's not because he's on my side. It really is because I'd like to know if you'd oppose anything the government does in the name of safety.
I do think its an important issue. While we havent heard anything directly impacting firearms issues yet, it points to a mindset that if no one notices their rights are being violated, it didnt really happen. Sort of like being a criminal. Sounds a lot like stereotypical politics in Illinois.
ReplyDeleteDoesnt make me feel real good about the judgement of the powers that be when they only seem unhappy that they got caught.
How is the 2A going to protect us from this type of encroaching tyranny?
DeleteIs that a real problem?
ReplyDeleteMikeb, in that question, you have summed up what is wrong with you. You learn that our government was secretly monitoring telephone calls of American citizens and may be continuing to collect data on all manner of communications between Americans, all of it being done without any suspicion beyond the vague suggestion that someone might be doing something, and you wonder if this is a real problem?
The fact that you can't immediately see this as a real problem is an illustration of why we can never trust you or your goals. If you care this little about freedom, about rights, about American values, nothing that you propose can be any good.
Bravo, Greg.
DeleteI'm not convinced it's the big problem everyone is making it out to be. Before this they had databases of car owners. They had databases of telephone company customers. This is just an advancement of that type of information gathering.
DeleteI agree it's open to abuse, but what isn't? With this information available, when someone IS suspected of being a terrorist or a sex-slavery operator, the authorities can quickly investigate.
I don't see it as much more objectionable than any of the other police and government powers.
Such naivete! This isn't analogous to databases of telephone customers. This is information that their computer can use to form a day by day picture of everyone's movement. You spent this long in the vicinity of that bookstore. You went to this church. You stopped by these gun shops after getting paid Friday. Etc. etc. It's as if they've put a GPS tracker on everyone--something that still requires a warrant to do.
DeleteThey make a big deal that this is all just organized by number, not name, but they dump all of this information into databases to be cross checked, which means that that database will match this data with the credit card data, the credit bureau data, etc. etc. etc. so that they can pull up your life at the click of a button.
Sure, if they're marginally competent enough to actually get onto the case of a real terrorist or sex slaver, this may help them take the person down. Of course, it's also likely to help them ruin the life of any innocent person that accidentally falls into their sights.
Wake the fuck up man! Obama even had a problem with this power before he himself wielded it. Back then, all of you progressives were decrying Bush's violations of privacy, but Obama has made W look like a Piker. It's sad when I miss Bush because at least with him in the Democrats would be opposing these things.
No more objectionable than any other police or government powers--there you go. All power of the government deserves objection and limitation. There are times when government power is necessary, but if we don't object frequently, that power will get out of hand.
DeleteMore specifically to this case, I want law enforcement to have to work hard. Exercising government power to convict and punish someone should never be easy. That should be especially true about fishing expeditions, which is what this NSA business is.
You certainly are a good, docile little subject, Mikeb. Congratulations.
DeleteMike, you say the government already has high level information, sob they might as well get more detailed. You say they already have everyone's phone numbers, so they might as well know who you are calling. You say they already know who has a driver's license, so does that mean they should know where you go (as Tennesseean aptly pointed out)? Or take the phone calls a level of detail lower: they know who you are calling, so why not know what you are saying? Obama used this as a defenses- that they aren't taking it a level deeper. When does it get too deep for you? Notice, you are not rationalizing this as parallel analogies- you rationalize one level of intrusion for deeper intrusion,
Delete"You spent this long in the vicinity of that bookstore. You went to this church. You stopped by these gun shops after getting paid Friday. Etc."
DeleteHow do you figure they can know that kind of thing from a list of my phone calls?
You're sounding a bit paranoid, don't you think?
Greg said, "I want law enforcement to have to work hard. "
DeleteYou mean like they had to work so hard before 9/11? I know you're not a 9/11 Truther, so you'd rather another one of those happens, or one a hundred times worse, than to give up the privacy of whom you call on the phone?
I want the government to know if that inconspicuous looking couple down the block is calling a cave in Afghanistan 25 times a month or if that Adam Lanza wannabe is trying to buy guns and ammo on the internet.
"How do you figure they can know that kind of thing from a list of my phone calls?"
DeleteMike, They're pulling down all metadata on each number. When your phone shows you how many bars you have, it's showing you the strength of it's connection to surrounding towers. This gives them location traces that are part of this metadata. All they have to do is link your name to the number--not hard when they're also pulling credit card data, and all sorts of other data--and they have location data, at least for your calls, but also for the rest of your travels on a given day.
There's also the matter of smartphones with GPS enabled, constantly sharing the GPS location with various sites they contact so that triangulation isn't even needed.
"I want the government to know if that inconspicuous looking couple down the block is calling a cave in Afghanistan 25 times a month or if that Adam Lanza wannabe is trying to buy guns and ammo on the internet."
DeleteAnd so not only do you not have a problem with the monitoring of which numbers call other numbers, but you want to grab content so that you can see that person X was looking at gun sites, and you want to be able to cross reference that with the person's private medical records.
You accuse me of paranoia, and then you suggest an Even Greater invasion of privacy.
You should just stop asking questions about how we turn back tyranny, and calling invasions of privacy like this tyranny. This short post of yours in reply to Greg is an apology for such tyranny.
So long as the government is keeping you safe and preventing another 9/11, You're cool with some serious violations of your privacy--one of your more fundamental rights.
If this is your attitude, then please just stay on your side of the pond, and consider changing to British citizenship, or that of some other country that now, sadly, values safety over freedom. I'm not telling you to Get Out, I'm telling you to consider a place where you can be as safe as you like. Otherwise, here, we will fight as hard as we can not to see this place keep sliding into the pit it has been, giving up one freedom after another.
Mikeb, law enforcement didn't fail to stop 9/11 from a lack of evidence. Part of the failure was inattention to the evidence that was available. But I'd rather have the risk of terrorist attacks that will happen regardless of whatever the government does to "keep us safe" than to live in a police state.
DeleteIt's that simple. A police state can't keep us safe. In fact, while it offers the illusion of safety, the reality would be a level of terror much deeper than what the worst member of al-Qaeda or the craziest young man can inspire. Give me a free society that accepts the danger of freedom.
Hey--wait a second, Mikeb. Don't you have a history of accusing gun rights advocates of being obsessively fixated on gun rights, and gun rights only, at the expense of other rights?
DeleteNow we state our objections to infringement on other rights, and you don't like that, either. We who refuse to worship at the altar of all-powerful government just can't do anything right in your eyes, can we?
What I said is you're one-issue voters. Of course you deny it, but ... what can I say?
DeleteIf by "one-issue voter" you mean someone who cares primarily about preserving basic rights and freedom, then yes, we're one-issue voters. Speaking for myself, I want to see the first principle of government action be to consider freedom in all things.
DeleteGreg, it's quite possible that the government thugs you fear so much have already prevented a number of attacks much worse than 9/11.
DeleteI seriously doubt you'll be living in a police state even with all the encroaching violations of your privacy. But, I'm not worried about you, you can take care of yourself. You'll know when they've gone too far, right?
Of course you deny it, but . . .
Delete"Of course [I] deny" loathsome, despicable lies, indeed.
... what can I say?
I would think that the sooner you stop saying anything, the more intelligent you'll appear.
Oh, and for whatever concern this is of yours, I generally vote Libertarian. I do so because libertarian political philosophy is closely aligned with my own beliefs on not only gun rights, but on most other important issues, as well, including the rejection of a warlike foreign policy, the rejection of the "war on drugs," the condemnation of a government that spies on its own citizens while claiming it does so to keep us "safe," etc.
Doesn't really fit your preferred narrative, does it?
If I was a single issue voter on the issue of guns, I'd bee cool with Lindsey Graham. As is, I think he's a tyrannical, cowardly little fuckwit and that his opposition to gun control is a silly fluke in the grand scheme of his character.
DeleteBut then again, I must be lying to you and myself, and I must really love him, because obviously you MUST be right about my motivations.
"What do you think about that data collection scandal? Is that a real problem? Is it a particular problem for gun-rights activists?" Were those questions asked in all seriousness? Yes, it is a real problem, at least for those with due regard for their freedom, regardless of whether they are "gun rights activists" or not. If you really don't see it as a real problem, let me suggest that failure is indicative of a lack of such due regard on your part.
ReplyDelete"So long as the government is keeping you safe and preventing another 9/11, You're cool with some serious violations of your privacy--one of your more fundamental rights."
ReplyDeleteYes. Although I wouldn't say I'm cool with it, but I accept it as a part of doing business in today's world. The naivete is on your part to think they haven't already been doing this shit all along.
I would love to be edified about the distinction you make between what it means to be "cool with" something, and what it means to "accept" it.
DeleteI'm not sure, Mikeb, that I can think of any government power, aside from capital punishment, that you aren't "cool with."
I know they have been doing this and worse. That doesn't change the fact that I think it's Unconstitutional and that I prefer to fight these tactics and protect my rights.
DeleteBy "accept it" I mean accept it with grave concerns for the abuse potential but in recognition of the fact that it's necessary for our security.
DeleteBy " being cool with it," I would be enthusiastically and unreservedly accepting of it.
Kurt, stop breaking my balls with the nit picking shit, please.
He's not "breaking your balls." He and I and others are trying to find out if there's anything the government might do that you would oppose, other than, as Tennessean pointed out, the death penalty. We take a principled stand that government power must be limited, even when it's doing what we want it to do. You seem to be happy with any measure of government power, so long as it's aimed the way you desire. Here's a caution for you, though: What happens when you merrily give government more and more power because it's doing your whims, but then the people in charge decide to shift all that power in a direction you don't like?
DeleteThat's why we want limited government. We know that it can do what we call good today, but it can just as easily do something to an equal degree in what we see as the wrong direction tomorrow.
Thanks, Greg.
DeleteGlad to speak up, Kurt. And to Mikeb, no, it's not because he's on my side. It really is because I'd like to know if you'd oppose anything the government does in the name of safety.
Delete