A rant...
-
wrote on 26 May 2020, 17:53 last edited by xenon
Really disliking the quiet passing of internet history becoming subject to surveillance.
Was on a video call with my dad yesterday and a song was playing in the background. He told me to turn it off because he's foreign (Canada) and called me in the U.S. (A little context, my dad is the most straight arrow, afraid of breaking-the-law type of guy you'll meet)
Now without getting too deep into the history of Indian music - North Indian music (which is the more dominant influence in things like Bollywood music) was very strongly shaped by the Mughal court (16th century Islamic hegemons in India). So naturally - some "classical" type Indian songs use Islamic terms and metaphors.
Now - back to the rant. We're not muslim and obv don't have anything to hide. But my dad isn't technically wrong. If the government has an algorithm set up to digitally listen for certain terms - it could be triggered.
I'm a pretty "don't tread on me type of guy" so I was very dismissive of him, and I don't think it's an appreciable risk. But it really irked me that I couldn't shoot his crackpot worries down completely.
-
wrote on 26 May 2020, 18:08 last edited by
When it was brought to our attention that both past administrations effectively destroyed the concept of privacy with the most comprehensive domestic surveillance programs the world has ever seen, all the right could do was rant about how treasonous the whistleblower was. And today these are the same jackasses who rant about privacy concerns over a contact tracing app. Hilarious.
-
wrote on 26 May 2020, 18:17 last edited by
My attitude about government surveillance remains unchanged. I fully expect to go to my grave without the issue appearing in the top 10 things I think the government might do to affect my life or the country in general adversely.
-
wrote on 26 May 2020, 18:47 last edited by
Given the whole Mueller affair, what exactly makes you think it is a crackpot worry?
-
wrote on 26 May 2020, 18:54 last edited by
I don't think it's a crackpot worry. I think it's an admirable principled worry whose practical significance to average joes is overrated. But I could be wrong.
-
I don't think it's a crackpot worry. I think it's an admirable principled worry whose practical significance to average joes is overrated. But I could be wrong.
wrote on 26 May 2020, 20:37 last edited byI don't think it's a crackpot worry. I think it's an admirable principled worry whose practical significance to average joes is overrated. But I could be wrong.
It's not ever going to be a problem for most of us, but that's not the point. The problem is that if you have any dealings with feds or law enforcement, now or in the future, the deck is horribly stacked against you.
-
I don't think it's a crackpot worry. I think it's an admirable principled worry whose practical significance to average joes is overrated. But I could be wrong.
It's not ever going to be a problem for most of us, but that's not the point. The problem is that if you have any dealings with feds or law enforcement, now or in the future, the deck is horribly stacked against you.
wrote on 26 May 2020, 21:48 last edited by@Aqua-Letifer gets it in one.
-
I don't think it's a crackpot worry. I think it's an admirable principled worry whose practical significance to average joes is overrated. But I could be wrong.
It's not ever going to be a problem for most of us, but that's not the point. The problem is that if you have any dealings with feds or law enforcement, now or in the future, the deck is horribly stacked against you.
wrote on 26 May 2020, 21:53 last edited by@Aqua-Letifer said in A rant...:
I don't think it's a crackpot worry. I think it's an admirable principled worry whose practical significance to average joes is overrated. But I could be wrong.
It's not ever going to be a problem for most of us, but that's not the point. The problem is that if you have any dealings with feds or law enforcement, now or in the future, the deck is horribly stacked against you.
And in favor of the 328,200,000 people they represent.
-
wrote on 26 May 2020, 22:33 last edited by Jolly
And yet...
We've had some of the worst FISA abuse ever, but some of you seem not to be upset at all.
It's all part of the same thing...
-
wrote on 26 May 2020, 22:46 last edited by
Exactly. It's the fruit of that same poisonous tree. Anyone who thinks this won't be used against them should it be expedient or advantageous to do so is dreaming.
-
wrote on 26 May 2020, 23:39 last edited by Horace
The question is not whether The Man will stomp you if you get in its way, it's whether these privacy violations will substantially increase the rate or chance of the screwing. That is what I am skeptical of. There has never been any point in the history of civilization where you would not get screwed if the establishment wants to screw with you. It does after all have the monopoly on legal violence.
-
And yet...
We've had some of the worst FISA abuse ever, but some of you seem not to be upset at all.
It's all part of the same thing...
wrote on 27 May 2020, 00:31 last edited by -
The question is not whether The Man will stomp you if you get in its way, it's whether these privacy violations will substantially increase the rate or chance of the screwing. That is what I am skeptical of. There has never been any point in the history of civilization where you would not get screwed if the establishment wants to screw with you. It does after all have the monopoly on legal violence.
wrote on 27 May 2020, 00:33 last edited byThe question is not whether The Man will stomp you if you get in its way, it's whether these privacy violations will substantially increase the rate or chance of the screwing. That is what I am skeptical of. There has never been any point in the history of civilization where you would not get screwed if the establishment wants to screw with you. It does after all have the monopoly on legal violence.
True enough but that is no reason to enhance their ability to do so.
-
I don't think it's a crackpot worry. I think it's an admirable principled worry whose practical significance to average joes is overrated. But I could be wrong.
It's not ever going to be a problem for most of us, but that's not the point. The problem is that if you have any dealings with feds or law enforcement, now or in the future, the deck is horribly stacked against you.
wrote on 27 May 2020, 00:35 last edited by@Aqua-Letifer said in A rant...:
I don't think it's a crackpot worry. I think it's an admirable principled worry whose practical significance to average joes is overrated. But I could be wrong.
It's not ever going to be a problem for most of us, but that's not the point. The problem is that if you have any dealings with feds or law enforcement, now or in the future, the deck is horribly stacked against you.
Show me the man and I will show you the crime. We’ve seen a lot of that over the last few years, look at all the “evidence”, and just how bad it’s been at times. It’s the number 1 political thing to do and the go to tool for Russiagate, impeachment, Kavanaugh etc... just shows you the data doesn’t even have to be very good.
Took down Christie even with “Bridgegate”.
-
wrote on 27 May 2020, 00:39 last edited by
The Kavanaugh hearings. They had no evidence. Zero. None. It's not that they couldn't convince a grand jury, there wasn't even a trial. Ford's friends didn't even back her. And look how close it came.
Now imagine what they can do with your entire digital history. They can paint any story they want.
-
The Kavanaugh hearings. They had no evidence. Zero. None. It's not that they couldn't convince a grand jury, there wasn't even a trial. Ford's friends didn't even back her. And look how close it came.
Now imagine what they can do with your entire digital history. They can paint any story they want.
wrote on 27 May 2020, 00:50 last edited by xenon@Aqua-Letifer said in A rant...:
Now imagine what they can do with your entire digital history. They can paint any story they want.
This is what gets me. I've been curious lots of unsavory things: how hate groups talk among members, radical communities, jihadists, etc.
I already self-censor though, because I don't want those bytes coming into my house.
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in A rant...:
Now imagine what they can do with your entire digital history. They can paint any story they want.
This is what gets me. I've been curious lots of unsavory things: how hate groups talk among members, radical communities, jihadists, etc.
I already self-censor though, because I don't want those bytes coming into my house.
wrote on 27 May 2020, 00:53 last edited by@Aqua-Letifer said in A rant...:
Now imagine what they can do with your entire digital history. They can paint any story they want.
This is what gets me. I've been curious lots of unsavory things: how hate groups talk among members, radical communities, jihadists, etc.
I already self-censor, because I don't want those bits coming into my house.
Good luck. How upstanding is your 7-eleven guy (or insert the acquaintance of your choice here)? If they want to put the screws on you now, in 2020, you've not a snowball's chance in hell. With that much data, even completely made up shit sounds fully believable.
-
wrote on 27 May 2020, 02:45 last edited by
-
wrote on 27 May 2020, 19:12 last edited by
I’m getting pretty encouraged here:
Notice this is a blanket statement against surveillance, not caveated by “bad warrants”, “political justification”, etc.
He’s saying the whole shebang is bad. Most congress folk won’t agree - but Trump was also able to push forward criminal justice reform and get Repubs to switch their vote.
I’m sure it’s a shitshow getting a message cobbled together in Congress on this.
Excited to see where this goes.
-
I’m getting pretty encouraged here:
Notice this is a blanket statement against surveillance, not caveated by “bad warrants”, “political justification”, etc.
He’s saying the whole shebang is bad. Most congress folk won’t agree - but Trump was also able to push forward criminal justice reform and get Repubs to switch their vote.
I’m sure it’s a shitshow getting a message cobbled together in Congress on this.
Excited to see where this goes.
wrote on 27 May 2020, 20:45 last edited by@xenon I agree. Both of those things would be good to curtail in our government.
But, it isn't going to happen.
I certainly do not agree that it was the "greatest political, criminal and subversive scandal in the the history of USA". How fucking ridiculous.
If laws were broken, then get a grand jury to determine and prosecute those who broke those laws, in a court of law, with a jury of their peers. If they are found guilty, sentence them according to the law.
