A rant...
-
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.
-
-
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.
True enough but that is no reason to enhance their ability to do so.
-
@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”.
-
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.
-
@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, 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.
-
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.
-
@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.
