Beware GOP: Millennials Don’t Like What We’re Hearing

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
Further said:
Ya Denny, you and I have totally different worlds of privacy. I just can't spend my life paranoid about the govt knowing my banking habits, even if you are correct and it could one day lead to a negative outcome.

It seems to me, there was a day when one could live in total secrecy, but with ever passing year, due to technology, that type of life becomes more of an impossibility. I don't want them reading my emails, or recording my calls, but at some point we live in a nation of 300,000,000 people, and we spend a lot of our lives in a digital world. For many reasons this world is going go be known. Oh well. It might not be perfect, but I'm not giving up the benefits of the digital world.
Click to expand...

I'm in the same boat. I can't give up technology. I have come to peace with the knowledge that big brother is watching.
 
Further said:
Ya Denny, you and I have totally different worlds of privacy. I just can't spend my life paranoid about the govt knowing my banking habits, even if you are correct and it could one day lead to a negative outcome.

It seems to me, there was a day when one could live in total secrecy, but with ever passing year, due to technology, that type of life becomes more of an impossibility. I don't want them reading my emails, or recording my calls, but at some point we live in a nation of 300,000,000 people, and we spend a lot of our lives in a digital world. For many reasons this world is going go be known. Oh well. It might not be perfect, but I'm not giving up the benefits of the digital world.
Click to expand...

An email between you and me should be between you and me. If the government thinks we're plotting a crime, they should get a warrant and then can read the email.

300,000,000 or 6B people, it doesn't matter. The constitution gives us a right to privacy FROM THE GOVERNMENT.

What problem do you have with requiring the government to get a warrant? If they don't need warrants, they can arrest people for no reason. As long as they're not arresting barfo, he doesn't give a shit. The funny thing is they will arrest him and I won't give a shit.
 
Denny Crane said:
An email between you and me should be between you and me. If the government thinks we're plotting a crime, they should get a warrant and then can read the email.

300,000,000 or 6B people, it doesn't matter. The constitution gives us a right to privacy FROM THE GOVERNMENT.

What problem do you have with requiring the government to get a warrant? If they don't need warrants, they can arrest people for no reason. As long as they're not arresting barfo, he doesn't give a shit. The funny thing is they will arrest him and I won't give a shit.
Click to expand...

I'll take that risk.

barfo
 
Denny Crane said:
An email between you and me should be between you and me. If the government thinks we're plotting a crime, they should get a warrant and then can read the email.

300,000,000 or 6B people, it doesn't matter. The constitution gives us a right to privacy FROM THE GOVERNMENT.

What problem do you have with requiring the government to get a warrant? If they don't need warrants, they can arrest people for no reason. As long as they're not arresting barfo, he doesn't give a shit. The funny thing is they will arrest him and I won't give a shit.
Click to expand...

I don't have a problem with that, you are young back and forth between email, which I agree with you on, and banking, which it think you are starting to get paranoid over.

I want total privacy, but in today's world that's just not realistic. The question is, how much makes sense and how much is over the line. The mail seems like a private correspondence, which the govt should need a warrant or. But the banking stuff is all part of a grander system of money shuffling that I don't think requires the same expectation of total privacy. I would still like the info kept under electronic lock and key, mainly to protect against theft, but I don't worry if the govt knows I bought sports car, or butter, or porn, or anything legal. And if you want to buy illegal there are ways, but it's not govt charge to make that easy as possible.

I understand you care about this not from a paranoid state worrying about them breaking down your door today, but worried they will have the means and lack of resistance in the future, and that admirable. It's just not how I choose to live. It could screw us down the line, but I love having banking on my iPhone, at atm's, at physical branches, on my computer and to some degree at ever Safeway and McDonald's the world over. The more we accept companies having access to our info, the more govt will have access too.
 
Further said:
I don't have a problem with that, you are young back and forth between email, which I agree with you on, and banking, which it think you are starting to get paranoid over.

I want total privacy, but in today's world that's just not realistic. The question is, how much makes sense and how much is over the line. The mail seems like a private correspondence, which the govt should need a warrant or. But the banking stuff is all part of a grander system of money shuffling that I don't think requires the same expectation of total privacy. I would still like the info kept under electronic lock and key, mainly to protect against theft, but I don't worry if the govt knows I bought sports car, or butter, or porn, or anything legal. And if you want to buy illegal there are ways, but it's not govt charge to make that easy as possible.

I understand you care about this not from a paranoid state worrying about them breaking down your door today, but worried they will have the means and lack of resistance in the future, and that admirable. It's just not how I choose to live. It could screw us down the line, but I love having banking on my iPhone, at atm's, at physical branches, on my computer and to some degree at ever Safeway and McDonald's the world over. The more we accept companies having access to our info, the more govt will have access too.
Click to expand...

My issue isn't with banking using an iPhone. It's the government demanding access to you records without a warrant.

If Yahoo! has some info you volunteered and Google has some, neither has every bit of data about you. Neither has you phone call logs or banking records. Neither can charge you with crimes or bust down your door at 3AM.

You also get to see their privacy policies and have recourse in the courts if they go beyond what you agree to with them.

You can't be intellectually honest and pick and choose which govt. invasion of privacy is good and which is bad. They're both bad for the exact same reasons.
 
It's not picking which is good and bad, it's saying I'm going to worry once they cross a red line. The emails for example crossed that line. Im not saying you are wrong, just that I'm not going to fret over what I see as benign for the most part.

It's interesting but some futurists say we will shortly have zero privacy and that already our youngest are much more comfortable with reduced privacy. When I was a teenager I put a lock on my bedroom door and tried very hard to keep my personal world hidden from any non-friends. Today, apparently kids are much more open, sharing everything online with a click. Futurists suggest we will shortly all be wearing recording devices all the time, like a google glass on steroids. Want to know what you were doing at 4:18 last Sunday, you could recall that with multiple readouts, video, audio, gps..... I'm not saying I want that it kind of sounds intrusive, but at that time privacy will really start to slip. Then, a few years later we will be recording thoughts, and at that point things get real hairy.
 
Further said:
It's not picking which is good and bad, it's saying I'm going to worry once they cross a red line. The emails for example crossed that line. Im not saying you are wrong, just that I'm not going to fret over what I see as benign for the most part.

It's interesting but some futurists say we will shortly have zero privacy and that already our youngest are much more comfortable with reduced privacy. When I was a teenager I put a lock on my bedroom door and tried very hard to keep my personal world hidden from any non-friends. Today, apparently kids are much more open, sharing everything online with a click. Futurists suggest we will shortly all be wearing recording devices all the time, like a google glass on steroids. Want to know what you were doing at 4:18 last Sunday, you could recall that with multiple readouts, video, audio, gps..... I'm not saying I want that it kind of sounds intrusive, but at that time privacy will really start to slip. Then, a few years later we will be recording thoughts, and at that point things get real hairy.
Click to expand...

All that is fine. The futurist stuff.

Nobody makes you post on twitter or Facebook. Or wear a google glass on steroids.

It's even great that YOU can recall what you were doing at 4:18.

What's not ok is the government knowing what you were doing at 4:18. Unless the get a warrant, or have a person follow you around in public.

Why should the government spy on the people at all?

If you want to volunteer information to Big Brother, go for it.

Without a right to privacy, government can force abortions on women or deny them. They can force you to take medical treatment you don't want. They can require you to put up a webcam so they can watch you inside your house, and at will.

I cannot think of one good thing that comes from giving up our privacy rights, only very bad things.

Sure, the first SWAT team that was used sparingly never bothered anyone and maybe made us feel safer. As long as they stay out of your neighborhood these days, all is great, right?

That's how government works.
 
Denny Crane said:
You can't be intellectually honest and pick and choose which govt. invasion of privacy is good and which is bad. They're both bad for the exact same reasons.
Click to expand...

You are confusing intellectual honesty with ideological purity.

barfo
 
Denny Crane said:
No I am not.
Click to expand...

Yes you are. But you can't tell, because you suffer from ILS.

Internet Libertarian Syndrome.

Someday we'll find a cure.

barfo
 
barfo said:
Yes you are. But you can't tell, because you suffer from ILS.

Internet Libertarian Syndrome.

Someday we'll find a cure.

barfo
Click to expand...

No I'm not. Massive government spying on the population who've committed no crimes is massive government spying on the population who've committed no crimes, whether it's financial, regulatory, or just watching everything else you do.

In barfoland, all the spying is fine. No power the government grabs from the people is a bad thing!
 
Denny Crane said:
No I'm not. Massive government spying on the population who've committed no crimes is massive government spying on the population who've committed no crimes, whether it's financial, regulatory, or just watching everything else you do.

In barfoland, all the spying is fine. No power the government grabs from the people is a bad thing!
Click to expand...

No you don't. Your position is that no loss of privacy is acceptable. My position is that, like almost everything else in non-libertarian-land, there are shades of grey to this issue.

Don't assign me an extremist position, I don't have one here. You are the one with the all-or-nothing position.

barfo
 
My position is that GOVERNMENT should respect our privacy. The only thing that makes it "grey" is how your sphincter twitches when you consider how much abuse the government programs will cause.

It is an extreme position to support violations of the bill of rights. These aren't even questionable.

We are entitled to be secure in our persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, and no warrant shall be issued without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

They have to name the individuals and specific places and things AND get a warrant. Everyone and everything is exactly what is outlawed.

No, barfo, my position is not extreme. I say they should get a warrant for each person they want to spy on and only upon probable cause.

The bill of rights applies to the government, not to the private sector. Period.
 
barfo said:
No you don't. Your position is that no loss of privacy is acceptable. My position is that, like almost everything else in non-libertarian-land, there are shades of grey to this issue.

Don't assign me an extremist position, I don't have one here. You are the one with the all-or-nothing position.

barfo
Click to expand...


Expecting the Constitution be followed is not extreme. Expecting the Constitution to be violated is ... ah, exasperating.
 
Denny Crane said:
My position is that GOVERNMENT should respect our privacy. The only thing that makes it "grey" is how your sphincter twitches when you consider how much abuse the government programs will cause.

It is an extreme position to support violations of the bill of rights. These aren't even questionable.

We are entitled to be secure in our persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, and no warrant shall be issued without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

They have to name the individuals and specific places and things AND get a warrant. Everyone and everything is exactly what is outlawed.

No, barfo, my position is not extreme. I say they should get a warrant for each person they want to spy on and only upon probable cause.

The bill of rights applies to the government, not to the private sector. Period.
Click to expand...

In this thread, you've freaked out about the government knowing when you withdraw cash from the bank, what you eat, your electricity bill, and what your salary is. That seems pretty extreme to me.

Can we get a rant about the census?

But YPMV: Your paranoia may vary.

barfo
 
Barfo wants this:

img_9972.jpg


Denny wants this:

Google500KmilesLexus.jpg
 
Both are pictures of a total surveillance state... it's just that one is also selling your personal information to companies in China.
 
BlazerCaravan said:
Both are pictures of a total surveillance state... it's just that one is also selling your personal information to companies in China.
Click to expand...

Google doesn't have your checkbook register or phone logs, etc.

Edit: nobody's forcing you to use google. Don't!
 
Who cares about the Republicans? They should go the way of the Whigs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top