these laws provide the infrastructur to spy and control the people, even if the goverment right now is not evil and 99.99% of the people are not affected, the infrastructur stays.
And someday if the goverment changes they could use this infrastructur for really bad things.
imagine Hitler had this infrastructur to spy on people.
the end of internet privacy
-
jessejames
- mnml mmbr
- Posts: 414
- Joined: Sun Dec 10, 2006 1:38 am
- Location: windblown
- Contact:
Re: the end of internet privacy
A law similar in scope to this one will eventually get passed no matter what the citizens say. The "war on terror" has evolved to a point where cybersecurity is at the forefront. There is a fine line between individual privacy and protection from threats. All these bills coming up are attempting to find that line. Something must be done. So everyone can count on something like this getting passed. Corporations are on board because they will be granted immunity from the feds.
Please note that I am not stating an opinion on these bills.
Sure, for most people, they're not doing anything wrong and therefore "have nothing to hide" but that's not the point, is it?
The point is individual liberty.
OK, so you don't care about liberty? Care about this then...
The feds have keywords that, when examined, will highlight the individual that wrote them. As long as you don't write those keywords, you won't be under investigation. Just google who has been under FBI investigation and you can find a list of many people of influence; politicians, musicians, activists, movie stars and freedom fighters.
People are also flagged for visiting certain websites, such as those that contain "terrorist" propoganda.
The question becomes, who is a terrorist and what is a freedom fighter? This next question is very important. Can terrorism be measured in a morally relativistic manner? Really ask yourself that question. Think about the guy in Norway that murdered the labor party youth.
To some Muslims, those that WE consider terrorists may not be considered to be by them. To some Scandinavians, Brevik may not be considered a terrorist but to others he is.
My point here is that our world is changing as we become more "globally liberal." There may come a time when YOU and I are not allowed to practice religion openly because it is offensive to others. Certain compromises must be made in order to ensure that our new societies stay cohesive. Two options really. Embrace it or fight it.
So for those that don't see these bills/laws as a big deal because you have "nothing to hide," yes right now you may not have anything to hide. But what happens when the individual rights you take for granted right now get taken away from you in the interest of society? What if you become labeled as a terrorist supporter because any open practice of religion gets outlawed because it's too inflammatory?
So this definition of terrorism becomes very loose. Our world could get to a point where nationalism/religion becomes terrorism. So think about this. Let's say you are against multiculturalism and visit websites that are militia/nationalist oriented. You can now be on a list.
Globalism is on a train. A train called "get on board or get the fck off." This idea of the erosion of personal liberty for the benefit of society is a tenent of globalism.
Please note that I am not stating an opinion on these bills.
Sure, for most people, they're not doing anything wrong and therefore "have nothing to hide" but that's not the point, is it?
The point is individual liberty.
OK, so you don't care about liberty? Care about this then...
The feds have keywords that, when examined, will highlight the individual that wrote them. As long as you don't write those keywords, you won't be under investigation. Just google who has been under FBI investigation and you can find a list of many people of influence; politicians, musicians, activists, movie stars and freedom fighters.
People are also flagged for visiting certain websites, such as those that contain "terrorist" propoganda.
The question becomes, who is a terrorist and what is a freedom fighter? This next question is very important. Can terrorism be measured in a morally relativistic manner? Really ask yourself that question. Think about the guy in Norway that murdered the labor party youth.
To some Muslims, those that WE consider terrorists may not be considered to be by them. To some Scandinavians, Brevik may not be considered a terrorist but to others he is.
My point here is that our world is changing as we become more "globally liberal." There may come a time when YOU and I are not allowed to practice religion openly because it is offensive to others. Certain compromises must be made in order to ensure that our new societies stay cohesive. Two options really. Embrace it or fight it.
So for those that don't see these bills/laws as a big deal because you have "nothing to hide," yes right now you may not have anything to hide. But what happens when the individual rights you take for granted right now get taken away from you in the interest of society? What if you become labeled as a terrorist supporter because any open practice of religion gets outlawed because it's too inflammatory?
So this definition of terrorism becomes very loose. Our world could get to a point where nationalism/religion becomes terrorism. So think about this. Let's say you are against multiculturalism and visit websites that are militia/nationalist oriented. You can now be on a list.
Globalism is on a train. A train called "get on board or get the fck off." This idea of the erosion of personal liberty for the benefit of society is a tenent of globalism.
Last edited by jessejames on Fri Apr 20, 2012 9:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: the end of internet privacy
Clearly explained, guys. Thanks!
Let's not forget: what and how we're living is consequence of a past, not only individually, but collectively. To be more specific, over the current subject: what's a system? A structure, and this structure is made of laws, and, sadly, now at least, we depend on this structure. Past laws approval, past decisions made over things we may didn't knew: make the current system, AND, maybe, what and how we're living is not what and how we should be living. It's survival our only purpose, or we're here for something else? Imagine.
This entire topic could be closed for being subversive!
DISCRETE DICTATORSHIP!
Let's not forget: what and how we're living is consequence of a past, not only individually, but collectively. To be more specific, over the current subject: what's a system? A structure, and this structure is made of laws, and, sadly, now at least, we depend on this structure. Past laws approval, past decisions made over things we may didn't knew: make the current system, AND, maybe, what and how we're living is not what and how we should be living. It's survival our only purpose, or we're here for something else? Imagine.
This entire topic could be closed for being subversive!
DISCRETE DICTATORSHIP!
Hi.
Re: the end of internet privacy
Aye, everything does seem quite vague, which is sinister, I suppose.