Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Real Problem: Privacy or Bad Laws?

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 9 2014 @ 09:45 AM
link   
With the NSA's spying revealed. An interesting question popped into my head.


What's really the problem here?

Is it the fear of our privacy being violated?

Or

Is it the fear of having the government prosecute us for "bad laws" that are more harm to society than good?

What I'm mainly asking is. Would anyone care about privacy, if nothing that didn't harm other people was illegal or taboo? If society and government was 100% social libertarian. If only theft, rape, assault, murder, and the other universally agreed upon crimes are illegal. Would anyone care about government type spying?




posted on Mar, 9 2014 @ 09:57 AM
link   
Governments .. Corporations .. busybodies of any sort have neither the need nor right to monitor anyone nor to invade peoples privacy in any way shape or form .. period .. end of.



posted on Mar, 9 2014 @ 10:02 AM
link   
Yes people would care. There are just things nobody else has any business knowing or seeing.



posted on Mar, 9 2014 @ 10:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Expat888
 


Real intellegent debate....



posted on Mar, 9 2014 @ 10:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Mr Headshot
 


I don't mean your bedroom photographed.

I mean the present day NSA type stuff.



posted on Mar, 9 2014 @ 10:13 AM
link   
The problem is privacy being violated, period. Privacy is a human right. Having an eye watching you 24/7 is an abominable form of oppression. The perfect way to stamp out the individual. Being constantly worried about their public image all day long would surely drive people insane.



posted on Mar, 9 2014 @ 10:36 AM
link   
reply to post by ArtemisE
 


I see this a lot, it is very similar to the argument against PGP back in the day: "I have nothing to hide so why should I use encryption?"

The answer back then was: "Then why do you send letters in envelopes instead of on postcards which are cheaper?"

It isn't the surveillance itself that is the primary concern to constitutionalists but, the potential circumvention of the 4th amendment.

If there were none but rational laws (a big debate in and of itself, granted) then technically no since the proliferation of surveillance is ubiquitous and certainly not limited to the state anyway. If the state followed the 4th amendment then no one would be prosecuted for any crime the evidence of which was not specifically authorized and gathered for a particular criminal case.
edit on 9-3-2014 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2014 @ 10:56 AM
link   
Am I the only one who thinks the surveillance might be something spiritual? That the entire outer world you perceive might be a kind of simulation and that surveillance exists for enlightenment purposes; to make you fearful and to wake you up. This is the logo of a surveillance agency:

media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...

a similar symbol is found on some churches:

www.yinsikt.se...

In Kabbalah they say something like everything that exists outside of oneself is God. But who are "other forum members" then? And what is the Internet? And what is politics?
edit on 04331Sun, 09 Mar 2014 11:04:24 -0500201424pAmerica/Chicago2014-03-09T11:04:24-05:0031 by introspectionist because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2014 @ 10:58 AM
link   
The problem with government gathering information about it's citizens is that government, no matter how well intentioned, cannot be trusted with too much power. Information is, at it's core, power. The reason I say this is that when government gains too much power, the people in it tend to push the envelope of that power to the point that said envelope bursts all over the place.

For example, take the "Comstock Laws" of the late 1800's into the early 1900's. The basis was something that most people, at the time, would agree to. There were certain things considered by the public at large, to be obscene and should not be allowed to be posted through the postal systems. Now, at that time, it was legal to mail a child somewhere so things were way different than they are today. The important thing to remember is that most people voted for these regulations in the interest of "public decency".

Along comes Anthony Comstock, postal inspector and the person that the laws are collectively named for today. His position was not an elected one but an appointed one. The position wasn't even appointed by the President but by the postmaster general. Anthony Comstock took the laws into hand and strove to impose his personal beliefs about morality upon the entire country, mostly because most of the mail at that time went through only a few locations. New York primarily. Many people were thrown in jail for violation of the decency laws or charged to pay hefty fines, not by the court but by the postal service, and they had little to no recourse.

Eventually, the public backlash ousted Comstock and serveral court cases came to the supreme court which found the enforcement, not the laws themselves, to be unconstitutional. Many of these laws are still on the books to this day.

The point of this post is that you can't trust that those in power will always follow their own laws. There are always Anthony Comstocks in government ready to become drunk on power and impose their will upon others and we must guard against that.



posted on Mar, 9 2014 @ 11:07 AM
link   
reply to post by ArtemisE
 


Flip the question a little.

If they aren't doing anything harmful or illegal, why should the Government care if the people know what they are doing?

Why should it be illegal for me to monitor the communications of my elected representatives? I'd like to know every detail about their dealings with lobbyists. I want to know what goes on during secret committee meetings.

Why do they have secret laws and secret courts? Shouldn't the people be allowed to know what the laws are and how they are applied in the courts? What are they hiding?

It seems the government wants information to be a one way street.



posted on Mar, 9 2014 @ 11:32 AM
link   
reply to post by ArtemisE
 

It's a good chicken and egg question... the bad laws wouldn't be there unless the government was doing something they wanted to hide. CYA, and criminalize normal.



posted on Mar, 9 2014 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by soontide
 


Good post!

Have you read 1984 and Brave New World? Especially Brave New World is in my thoughts. I have been thinking about what science leads to. I think about the human psychology in combination with ever more advanced science and technology. The people in power are probably just like us in a way. The same qualities exist in every human being. I have also been reading about Kabbalah. All of this has made me think that a 1984/Brave New World society actually is inevitable. But what's perhaps more controversial, that it's actually good. It is a stage in the human evolution that must be passed through. It is a stepping stone towards a spiritual life. This picture is in a book about Kabbalah, where the author talks about the stages of human evolution:

www.kabbalah.info... st_of_the_wisdom_of_kabalah_chapter_4_mending_adam_to_achieve_perfection/the_pyramid/kabbalah_for_beginners_figure_8/1126215-1-eng-GB/kabbalah_for_beg inners_figure_8.jpg

The dark and evil stage of 1984/Brave New World is probably the borderline between "speaking" and "spiritual".

That's what I've been thinking but I don't know.

edit: I can't get the link to work. It's the picture on this page:

www.kabbalah.info.../eng/content/view/full/58946&main
edit on 42331Sun, 09 Mar 2014 11:42:37 -0500201437pAmerica/Chicago2014-03-09T11:42:37-05:0031 by introspectionist because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2014 @ 12:01 PM
link   
reply to post by ArtemisE
 


With all the things out there today about Privacy makes really wonder why all these things came to life.

Why does Face Book upgrades what to have control of your Web Cam, microphone ect.

Why does the IRS keep track of what Party you belong to?

Why do employers look up your Face Book account to determine if your qualified to be hired?

Why do we have internet add on's (Spy ware/ Malware) to make it easier for them to sell things to us.

Why is that if you need to take out a loan the banks want your left arm and first child before they consider anything (patriot Act)

Why does the Credit Bureau track every place you lived and what loans or purchase you made?

Why does the EPA/ DNR need to know if your a hunter/ fisher / trapper ect.

Why is it that Credit Card Companies keep records of all your purchase for years?

Why is it that they want to develop a TV that has a built in camera? want to watch us watch a show (Really)

Why is it your cell phones and cars have GPS on them? Or how about that stupid Insurance Plug in thing( it really don't work, example Friend had one, got stuck in the snow and had 93 incidents on it, he called and complained)

We are a society that is just getting used to people looking at everything that we do, they are controlling us right now and we don't even know it. Point being how many of you were at a stop light with that camera and the light was red for 5 minutes but no one was on the street but you, why did you not just stop and go....because of the camera.

We have not been in control of many things in our lives, we are a society that lives by spying and a society that lives by stupid signs.



posted on Mar, 9 2014 @ 12:30 PM
link   
I don't know why anyone would even question why this is bad...have you heard of the "Miranda Warning"?...."anything you say, can and will be used against you in a court of law"....this warning is given every time someone is arrested. and they "do use", ANYTHING YOU SAY, against you. people are serving prison terms based on circumstantial evidence, there are people that lie on the witness stand, both civilians and government employees. let's not forget the difference between unethical and illegal, you can already be detained for "suspicious behavior" and held in jail for 72 hours legally in most states. and here's the "Innocence project"...www.innocenceproject.org... DNA samples have exonerated hundreds of people that have been jailed for years. you have local judges that fine and jail people in small towns for mere traffic citations, or simple misdemeanors. you have prosecutors that are trying to make a name for themselves politically that have hid, or even falsified, evidence to ratchet up their conviction rate. you have corporations that will lie in court about people that do not agree with them, or attempt to sue them. I could go on, but spying on every communique, of every citizen, is a recipe for societal disaster.



posted on Mar, 9 2014 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by jimmyx
 


You make the first amendment sound like a trap. Hell you just made the b.o.r sound like a damn trap.
edit on 9-3-2014 by Nephalim because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2014 @ 12:58 PM
link   

ArtemisE


With the NSA's spying revealed. An interesting question popped into my head.


What's really the problem here?

Is it the fear of our privacy being violated?

Or

Is it the fear of having the government prosecute us for "bad laws" that are more harm to society than good?

What I'm mainly asking is. Would anyone care about privacy, if nothing that didn't harm other people was illegal or taboo? If society and government was 100% social libertarian. If only theft, rape, assault, murder, and the other universally agreed upon crimes are illegal. Would anyone care about government type spying?


You're kidding, right?

There are things I'd like to talk to my husband and family about on the phone, in an email, with a text, etc., that it's just nobody else's business. I don't want anyone else "listening" in, not because I have anything to hide but because those conversations are personal and no one else's business.

I could give you examples, but they're none of your business. Suffice it to say. I'd blush to have everyone hearing them because they should be kept inside the intimate range of my personal communications. It's enormously violating to find out that some random stranger somewhere is monitoring that stuff. What makes them think they need to know all that minutiae?

No one would ever make that kind of thing I'm thinking of illegal. It's just not something you generally speak of where strangers are listening because it's personal.



posted on Mar, 9 2014 @ 02:42 PM
link   
When I was a little girl I was spied on by a peeping tom bastard neighbor.

I have never gotten over that and this is why the spying bothers me so much. I have a problem with some of the more idiotic laws sure but my real problem is my privacy. It is those moments we have to ourselves that we are able to decide who we are, what we will become, or do etc... People define themselves by exercising power over their own information. A free country does not ask people to answer for the choices they make whe they are suppossed to be private. This is why Alec Baldwin's phone rants don't bother me at all.

I can handle camers in stores, around large cities even on traffic lights but I can't take being spied on in my home.

Privacy to be ourselves, to say what we want, to write what we want to pick our nose even without being watched is important to our mental health. We won't ever be ourselves with fear or retaliation or judgements guiding us through our lifes. Remember Winston? We would become a society literally full of bleeding ulcers. No thanks! If someone is doing something illegal, get a warrant and take it from there but this blanket system they have now is wrong.

It's why I don't understand the Socialist Liberals. They make the case that a big god in the sky who judges and watches us always us is creepy and wrong, and then they make the case for the government to be that exact same judge? looney tunes all of them.

This has got to stop, period. If you were not invited into my home then get the frack
out.
edit on 9-3-2014 by brandiwine14 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2014 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by ArtemisE
 


There are things nobody has any business knowing. The amount of stuff that can be infered from simple analytic data is still a lot.



posted on Mar, 9 2014 @ 08:37 PM
link   
reply to post by ArtemisE
 


Everyone acts differently when they think they are alone. Isn't it a right to be alone. Its not safe to scratch your bum in private anymore, someone might be watching.



posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 05:46 AM
link   
reply to post by ArtemisE
 

Why hasn't anyone insisted on a law specific to privacy? One that reads something like this:
Privacy is a basic human right. No entity has the right to invade anyone's privacy. Anyone found in violation of this law shall be stripped of their citizenship and all benefits thereof. If a corporation is found to be in violation of this law, all employees drawing a salary equal to or greater than half the median annual household income are complicit. You will leave this country within the next six hours or be executed. If you choose to leave, you will leave naked. You may walk into an adjacent country if they are willing to accept you within the time constraints, or you may swim from the beach.

So simple.

Decades ago I found myself in the Middle East. I frequented a convenience store close to where I was living. One day I saw a wallet left carelessly on the counter. I pointed it out to the clerk who nodded at me in acknowledgement. It was there the next day, and everyday, untouched ... for a week at least. When it disappeared, I laughed and asked if the owner had finally come back for it. I was told a mullah had secured it. Now, why do you think it sat there untouched for so long?

In Muslim countries where Sharia Law is practiced, taking something which does not belong to you results in the removal of your right hand. Might seem harsh, but it makes the point here. If you want something to stop happening, you must define what it is you want stopped and a penalty harsh enough to ensure: 1. That everyone knows what not to do. 2. Nobody wants that punishment to happen to them. OBTW, there's another law that fits this one like a glove (or a sock depending on your perspective). Anyone who seeks to avoid punishment loses a foot as well. I think this was to keep people from running ... but I'm not an expert on their law either. You don't have to be when the consequences are so harsh. Everyone knows the difference between right and wrong. Do no wrong ... and there's nothing to fear except the liar. Liars get their tongues yanked out of their mouths and sliced off. Oh yeah ... and it's not a crime to lie to a non-Muslim. LOL

Now I get it that people are upset about the NSA. You want that curbed ... a good start would be to limit the employment of anyone holding a position of trust or responsibility to either a Soldier or a Civil Servant ... no more GDd contractors. Those assigned to such position must be subject to an annual polygraph examination ... miss (or fail) your exam and you're fired. Can't get on the exam schedule ... no more clearance. I will guarantee you this ... almost nothing (comparatively) the government does afterwards would be classified.

You think it's bad now. You think that facility they're throwing up in the desert is only about 'data storage'? Everything you're concerned about is almost to the point of being fully automated. A computer is going to identify threats and print out a report with virtually no human hand touching it until a target has been identified. You might even think I'm kidding, but you're already a day late and a dollar short to stop it at this point. There's no law I'm aware of which prohibits the automated collection and processing of information on you. There's no law prohibiting a person (corporations included in that definition) from ratting you out. Go and look.

You folks who worry about the government having access to this information have shot way over the mark. It's not the government you should be worried about, it's the collection apparatus and the aggregation process. The corporation and people you know hold all of this information in an unclassified format. The government only gets it when the corporation wants to turn it over ... or when they're ordered to by the court/law. Sure, it's the government that holds the stick ... but it's the corporation who holds the leash.

Limit the size of government, and intelligence resources you keep on the payroll will have to busy themselves exclusively with the foreign threat. Require corporate reforms for the rest of it. Again, unfortunately, it's too late. Corporate financing now drives the political process, and it's going to take violence to wrest that power away from TPTB.






top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join