posted on Nov, 20 2013 @ 04:35 PM
What bothers me even more than the actual information is the fact that the information doesn't exist in the real world. No finger prints, no dna, no
trace evidence of any kind- just the words on the computer screen vs the words coming out of the mouth of the accused. And they keep saying that if
you aren't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about. Doesn't that strongly imply that everyone who is accused must be guilty?
Generally speaking, if there is any room to accuse you of anything, there is also room for you to be proven innocent. For example, if a police
informant says he saw me buying crack at the corner of 1st and A streets, i can always go find a surveillance camera or a shop keeper in that area
that can prove I walked right by that corner without talking to any crack dealers.
If the computers say they I ordered crack on silk road, not only are there no other witnesses, i can't even cross examine the witness against me,
because its a machine- its lights that come on in the pattern a person told them to- it has no actual knowledge or understanding of anything it
alleges against you.
So what happens when the NSA has a problem with a journalist, and tells their computer to say that a journalist had stolen NSA files on the thumb
drive he uses for pirated movies? The computer says he is guilty, the judge issuing the arrest warrant can't tell the difference between a computer
lying and a computer telling the truth, there's nothing else to examine.
We're basically on our way to presuming omniscience on the part of the authorities, which places them beyond question. And if you do question them,
their computer can say that you're a pervert and your opposition to the authorities is forever tainted whether you are guilty or not- no need for a
victim, no need for a witness, no need for anything illegal in your possession, just a line of text on a screen that nobody can investigate any
further, and you're done.