WTF ... IS WTF!?
We are a collective of people who believe in freedom of speech, the rights of individuals, and free pancakes! We share our lives, struggles, frustrations, successes, joys, and prescribe to our own special brand of humor and insanity. If you are looking for a great place to hang out, make new friends, find new nemeses, and just be yourself, WTF.com is your new home.

Fringe A Cop May Be Following You Everywhere

RebelBuddha

Rey de Currumpaw
10,782
5,440
487
(CNN) -- The crackdown on protesters after the police shot and killed Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, highlighted that more and more, police departments possess sophisticated weapons and equipment originally designed for the battlefield. Federal anti-terrorism funding is a major driver of this trend, but once police departments have this equipment they use it -- even if it's not against terrorists.

What few people understand is that police increasingly make use of sophisticated surveillance equipment as well. NSA-style mass surveillance technologies are making it possible for local police departments to gather information on each and every one of us, on a scale never before been possible.

One key area in which the government is amassing large pools of data is location tracking, particularly of automobiles. You might think that location data isn't sensitive. After all, when you're out in public other people can see you. But that's not the right way to think about it. 

Most Americans drive everywhere. Most can't go to a therapist, a church, a gun range, a bar, or a casino without driving. And when all of that information about where we go is amassed into a large database stored by a government agency and held for months, or years, that's a sensitive collection of information. History has shown that once the government has access to massive pools of data, it's just a matter of time before it's abused -- for political retribution, or even simple voyeurism.

An important driver of this trend toward mass surveillance of Americans' movements is the automatic license plate reader. They sound innocuous -- and if they were used in a limited and appropriate manner, they would be innocuous. These devices snap a photo of every passing license plate. 

In New York, police in cars equipped with plate readers drove by mosques to record each attendee -- a major burden on the freedom of religion that many of us hold dear. In the UK, the police put the plate number of activist John Catt, in his late 80s, on a hot list because he'd attended a large number of lawful protests. (He was known to sketch the protesters.)

Federal funds are being spent to push this equipment out across the country, a process that often bypasses the role that traditional elected representatives once played because the police no longer need funds from the city council. And the technology is more powerful year over year as the cost of computer processing plummets and storing data becomes a trivial matter. The presumption has flipped. Police departments once asked themselves: Why keep this data? But now data storage is so cheap that they ask: Why not keep it?

One of the most pernicious aspects of how police departments have adopted surveillance technologies—which is really deciding how much privacy people should enjoy—has been the lack of public debate or even knowledge that these technologies are being adopted. Because police departments can get funding from the federal government, often there is no need to involve local legislative bodies, let alone the public, in the process.

Sometimes this lack of notice has led to a backlash. In Seattle, the mayor instructed the police department to terminate its drone program and return the drones to the vendor after the public learned that the drones had been acquired. 

The public wants in on the debate about surveillance—and democratic values suggest that we ought to have this opportunity. But in the main, we know far too little about which cities and towns around the country are using powerful surveillance technologies. The time to fix this is now.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/06/opinion/crump-police-surveillance/index.html?hpt=op_t1
=============================
Just want to be clear that I realize that this is clearly an Opinion piece. Its not perfect... but its a viewpoint not often found on CNN. Thought that made it worth sharing.

People are talking about a Populist revolt you know.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions: Spaced Man and skroo'd

Stryker989

Hoodrat
25
14
7
I'm probably going to have a lot of people disagree with me, but I'm one of those people that doesn't disagree with the police becoming more militarized and having all this surveillance capability. I was one of the people that thought that what Snowden did was completely wrong. And I have no problem with the NSA doing what they do. I honestly don't understand it when someone acts surprised after finding out the NSA spies on citizens. People should've suspected it before and Snowden's "leak" shouldn't be anything new.

In my opinion, if the NSA, police agencies, etc want to use their surveillance capabilities, so be it. Maybe the NSA and the local police agency have information on my whereabouts and phone calls or whatever else stored somewhere. I don't care. I've done nothing to make them take an interest into knowing that information about me. They may have the info, but I HIGHLY doubt they've had any reason to analyze it. If they ever do have a good reason, then go for it. If I've done something wrong enough to make law enforcement question my activities, I'm probably to blame for whatever it is I've done. If not, they'll figure it out soon enough and stop looking at my information to move onto more important matters rather than continue to listen to my phone calls with my girlfriend or read my boring-ass emails to my professors about the next homework assignment.

As I stated, I'm sure plenty of people will disagree. No problem, I don't mean to make anyone mad. I'm open for discussion.
 
  • 2Like
  • 1Agree
Reactions: Rook, jujubee and ib4

RebelBuddha

Rey de Currumpaw
10,782
5,440
487
As I stated, I'm sure plenty of people will disagree. No problem, I don't mean to make anyone mad. I'm open for discussion.
I kind of understand where you're coming from. Its the whole... evidence only hurts bad people sort of argument.

The only question I think I could ask that might make you think differently is: "Who gets to determine what is right and wrong in a society that has no rule of law and authoritarian power?"
 
  • 1Like
  • 1Agree
Reactions: skroo'd and ib4

ib4

Error
Staff
1,888
2,853
257
I kind of understand where you're coming from. Its the whole... evidence only hurts bad people sort of argument.

The only question I think I could ask that might make you think differently is: "Who gets to determine what is right and wrong in a society that has no rule of law and authoritarian power?"
I see where you are coming from too @Stryker989 ....BUT, there's a 'crime-to-agency' hierarchy, and it's being ignored.

But I'm where Budhha is....our founding fathers spent a lot of time making the 'balance of power' to ensure that no one person(s) had too much power. You know what their biggest fear was? It was because they knew that any one person(s) with too much power would UNDOUBTEDLY ABUSE IT. I'm innocent too, I'm not worried about cops spying on me, or being militarized 'just-in-case'. What I am worried about is being completely incapable for fighting for my rights and beliefs in the event of a revolt. Give too much power to the government and the citizen is no better than a fucking slave. Like I've said before, I don't think there is one massive, active conspiracy to control citizens....but I do think there are people in powers that have that belief...and the more of them that come to be, here and there, the more there is a chance of those types, and their ideas, grouping together, and taking what they want from the citizen. In the founding of our country, wealthy and educated people, had their traditions in their societies. They also felt the average person wasn't capable of making decisions in regards to the well being of a country. You don't think they've passed that mindset with their 'traditions' on to each and every new politician for the most part that comes along?

The local law enforcement agency from town, to city is one sector, and should only be limited to what they originally were put in place for. To protect local citizens from local crimes that have disturbed the peace. LAST TIME I CHECKED - all the federal agencies were created to protect the U.S from greater crimes beyond the immediate, local environment in part with investigators. The only group that should exist to take care of a large threat that is not detrimental to national security is SWAT. The only people who should be spying on me 'just-in-case' are federal branches. Not your local JOE-SHMOE cornfed, clean history individual who got through his department tests to make it to the academy, who could honestly be not much better at decision making than anyone the fuck else. (I say cornfed because cops who speak with ignorance and sound illiterate, yet ride their high horse of power, irritate me to an entirely different level.)

Police agencies have no business "spying" on local citizens. THEY WORK FOR US, they should be treating us with respect, manners, and greetings, because they took on the job to protect US; not speak to me with a chip on their shoulder, or speak to me like, "Im a cop, I have plan to kill everyone I come in contact with". Our taxes pay those fucks, and for the past 4 decades (according to older folks i talk to and a tad in my own experience even while in complete obedience) cops talk with power in the sense that citizens are inferior to them....WHAT THE FUCK? Switch gears, 2 Weeks ago I was walking away from an ATM at 7 a.m, just finished my workout, I turn around and there's a cop waiting for the ATM just looking at me. I'm walking past him and I say, somewhat darting my words at him, but still with appreciation, "Well Good Morning to you officer!". He was caught of guard and responded with a weak, "oh, uh...good morning". I got into the car and inside my head, every Marine voice I ever experienced yelling at me went off in my head, "HELLO NASTY?!?! WHERE THE FUCK IS THE DAILY GREETING??!?! YOU TOO GOOD FOR YOUR 'AVERAGE' CITIZEN?!?" Point being, there was a time when law enforcement almost acted like customer service, and had a limitation of power....In my opinion, thats kinda what the fuck they are, and where they should be.

Police agencies have no point in being militarized or having the power and resources to spy. The Federal entity was empowered with agencies that are meant to take action in the event that national security is comprismised. If there's a big enough issue locally where the cops need to militarize, STOP, call the fucking National Guard, we pay taxes for that shit to existt. My neighbor plotting a bombing? Call the fucking FBI, thats what we pay them for.
 
Last edited:
  • 1LOL
  • 1Like
Reactions: skroo'd and RebelBuddha

RebelBuddha

Rey de Currumpaw
10,782
5,440
487
Switch gears, 2 Weeks ago I was walking away from an ATM at 7 a.m, just finished my workout, I turn around and there's a cop waiting for the ATM just looking at me. I'm walking past him and I say, somewhat darting my words at him, but still with appreciation, "Well Good Morning to you officer!". He was caught of guard and responded with a weak, "oh, uh...good morning". I got into the car and inside my head, every Marine voice I ever experienced yelling at me went off in my head, "HELLO NASTY?!?! WHERE THE FUCK IS THE DAILY GREETING??!?! YOU TOO GOOD FOR YOUR 'AVERAGE' CITIZEN?!?"
You didn't even give him one of those really fast "Youregaysir" to make it sound like a sloppy "Good day sir"? Come on mighty Teufel. LOL
 
  • 3LOL
Reactions: Fÿn, skroo'd and ib4

ib4

Error
Staff
1,888
2,853
257
haha! To be honest, that's probably going to be my next greeting to one of these guys!
 

jujubee

~what it is~
Premium
7,281
5,979
237
Hm, kudos to her creds but this felt like it lacked the bite of an overall aerial view if she wanted to come in on surveillance, this is a gummer, put out there kind of matter-of-factly in a setting you can seriously go to town with your passion. Op eds are notoriously candid and pointed and let their hair down, forgetting the rules the other guys have to play by, I get there and I'm ready to grapple.:D

No offense, keep 'em coming, any you see, I'm always encouraged by anything like this that isn't relegated to the back of the bus and I have seen quite a bit of it but often handled just like this, sometimes better.

It's just my opinion but it's cool it comes from a lady with her background.
 

MisterFister

There's a very good chance that I don't care.
3,320
4,965
257
I'm probably going to have a lot of people disagree with me, but I'm one of those people that doesn't disagree with the police becoming more militarized and having all this surveillance capability. I was one of the people that thought that what Snowden did was completely wrong. And I have no problem with the NSA doing what they do. I honestly don't understand it when someone acts surprised after finding out the NSA spies on citizens. People should've suspected it before and Snowden's "leak" shouldn't be anything new.

In my opinion, if the NSA, police agencies, etc want to use their surveillance capabilities, so be it. Maybe the NSA and the local police agency have information on my whereabouts and phone calls or whatever else stored somewhere. I don't care. I've done nothing to make them take an interest into knowing that information about me. They may have the info, but I HIGHLY doubt they've had any reason to analyze it. If they ever do have a good reason, then go for it. If I've done something wrong enough to make law enforcement question my activities, I'm probably to blame for whatever it is I've done. If not, they'll figure it out soon enough and stop looking at my information to move onto more important matters rather than continue to listen to my phone calls with my girlfriend or read my boring-ass emails to my professors about the next homework assignment.

As I stated, I'm sure plenty of people will disagree. No problem, I don't mean to make anyone mad. I'm open for discussion.
I won't throw in too much opinion such as how you absolutely terrify me so I think we should just stick to the facts. Would you be willing to break this post down a little bit into more specifics? What I mean is you kind of pepper everything with feelings. Please tell me more about where the rubber hits the road.

What Snowden did was wrong. What did he do wrong? What ought the law read which you would write to define this wrong? What ought his punishment be?

Which specific amendments to the constitution do you believe ought to be officially rescinded? You've already erased the 4th, 5th, 9th and 10th. Are there any more? The Snowden case meanders into the 1st. Would you add that to the list?
 
  • 2Like
Reactions: Fÿn and ib4

Fÿn

Always black
1,401
1,506
352
I look at all of this as an outsider, and when I hear news regarding this whole subject/problem, it's about the police turning into an army, about the debate on gun control showing up here and there as a response to any noticeable incident including firepower, and about the USA citizens being under the magnifying glass at all times.

It seems to have gotten worse since the NSA information came out, because they didn't stop, no sir, they embraced their shit and continue to do so without giving a fuck.

What I see from outside is a plan. This is something planned, something created with decades in mind, starting in 9/11 or before.
Now, don't mind the theory about the towers being brought down by the government, even if you don't believe that, it was the greatest excuse to start all of this.
This looks like "1984" coming to life. I know it sounds exaggerated, but what if this continues at this pace for a decade?
- Absurd police equipment/technology/firepower capabilities. Also, RebelBuddha listed all the different groups like SWAT, FBI, CIA in another post, and those were an awful lot, why so many?
- Information about any citizen, everything they read, where they go, what they do, even what porn they watch, what they think

Absolute information makes for absolute control.
No revolt will happen without the authorities knowing about it beforehand, unless the ones behind it use ink and paper and nothing else to communicate with each other.
Gun control, the government trying to take firepower away from the population.
Military police makes it possible for the army to be away doing their thing, they are not needed anymore in case serious riots ever happen.

That's what I see, well, what we see from outside the USA, anybody following the news and the preoccupations of the civilians regarding these subjects sees that.
 

MisterFister

There's a very good chance that I don't care.
3,320
4,965
257
This looks like "1984" coming to life..
I see a lot of the mechanics of Orwell coming to fruition but what is much more pernicious is Huxley. For example, you don't see Orwell in Styker's post. You see Huxley and that's why I deemed it "terrifying".
 
  • 1Agree
Reactions: Fÿn

Fÿn

Always black
1,401
1,506
352
I see a lot of the mechanics of Orwell coming to fruition but what is much more pernicious is Huxley. For example, you don't see Orwell in Styker's post. You see Huxley and that's why I deemed it "terrifying".
I see Huxley too, but I believe we are still far from a Brave New World happening, while Orwell thoughts looks a lot closer to materialization
 

MisterFister

There's a very good chance that I don't care.
3,320
4,965
257
I see Huxley too, but I believe we are still far from a Brave New World happening, while Orwell thoughts looks a lot closer to materialization
As @RebelBuddha said, the following is the if you're not doing anything wrong you have nothing to worry about argument. I hear it all the time and its straight up Huxley.


I'm probably going to have a lot of people disagree with me, but I'm one of those people that doesn't disagree with the police becoming more militarized
More militarized. So, he accepts the position that the police have become militarized but more importantly he doesn't offer any tangible line which ought not be crossed. More militarized until? Where does his comfort become discomfort? He leaves it open ended. Just more. And more. And more. With only those who are taking or creating the 'more' granted the decision on where 'more' takes us. This is dereliction of duty at best.


and having all this surveillance capability.
He agrees with something he has absolutely no knowledge of. He hasn't a clue what "all this surveillance capability" means yet he blindly supports it.


I was one of the people that thought that what Snowden did was completely wrong.
Snowden didn't do anything. He is in the process of doing something. If you think he isn't holding back information (which I would assume he thinks would help him when shit hits the fan) I got news for ya. There is no way that Snowden blew his load. He created an action and knew it would create a reaction. We still don't fully know what that reaction is. It would be interesting to learn what he thinks about men like Ellsberg or Manning.

And I have no problem with the NSA doing what they do
He has no problem with an outfit doing what it does without even an inkling of an idea what's being done. Does this sound reasonable?

I honestly don't understand it when someone acts surprised after finding out the NSA spies on citizens.
Prior to Snowden people speculated that some nefarious stuff was going on and those same speculators were relegated to the Tin-Foil Hat Kook Crowd. Minimizing Snowden's confirmation is simple spin.

People should've suspected it before and Snowden's "leak" shouldn't be anything new.
Read that again. People DID suspect it and they were "conspiracy theorists". The bigger point is things change quite significantly between suspecting something is happening and solid confirmation that something is happening. He's tactfully minimizing the subject by saying 'you should have known that anyway'. Its creative and sometimes it works but c'mon...its complete bullshit misdirection.

I've done nothing to make them take an interest into knowing that information about me.
This is a self-defense mechanism.You can read a lot about these kinds of emotions from those who lived under things like Stasi or Pol Pot's secret police. You HAVE to convince yourself that you're innocent, unremarkable, neutral or even invisible. If you don't you'll drive yourself mad.



They may have the info, but I HIGHLY doubt they've had any reason to analyze it. If they ever do have a good reason, then go for it. If I've done something wrong enough to make law enforcement question my activities, I'm probably to blame for whatever it is I've done. If not, they'll figure it out soon enough and stop looking at my information to move onto more important matters rather than continue to listen to my phone calls with my girlfriend or read my boring-ass emails to my professors about the next homework assignment.

As I stated, I'm sure plenty of people will disagree. No problem, I don't mean to make anyone mad. I'm open for discussion.
The rest is just......Wow.
 
  • 1Agree
Reactions: RebelBuddha

RebelBuddha

Rey de Currumpaw
10,782
5,440
487
As @RebelBuddha said, the following is the if you're not doing anything wrong you have nothing to worry about argument. I hear it all the time and its straight up Huxley.




More militarized. So, he accepts the position that the police have become militarized but more importantly he doesn't offer any tangible line which ought not be crossed. More militarized until? Where does his comfort become discomfort? He leaves it open ended. Just more. And more. And more. With only those who are taking or creating the 'more' granted the decision on where 'more' takes us. This is dereliction of duty at best.




He agrees with something he has absolutely no knowledge of. He hasn't a clue what "all this surveillance capability" means yet he blindly supports it.




Snowden didn't do anything. He is in the process of doing something. If you think he isn't holding back information (which I would assume he thinks would help him when shit hits the fan) I got news for ya. There is no way that Snowden blew his load. He created an action and knew it would create a reaction. We still don't fully know what that reaction is. It would be interesting to learn what he thinks about men like Ellsberg or Manning.



He has no problem with an outfit doing what it does without even an inkling of an idea what's being done. Does this sound reasonable?



Prior to Snowden people speculated that some nefarious stuff was going on and those same speculators were relegated to the Tin-Foil Hat Kook Crowd. Minimizing Snowden's confirmation is simple spin.



Read that again. People DID suspect it and they were "conspiracy theorists". The bigger point is things change quite significantly between suspecting something is happening and solid confirmation that something is happening. He's tactfully minimizing the subject by saying 'you should have known that anyway'. Its creative and sometimes it works but c'mon...its complete bullshit misdirection.



This is a self-defense mechanism.You can read a lot about these kinds of emotions from those who lived under things like Stasi or Pol Pot's secret police. You HAVE to convince yourself that you're innocent, unremarkable, neutral or even invisible. If you don't you'll drive yourself mad.





The rest is just......Wow.

You should seriously contribute to the blog brah!! You have a lot of good stuff to say.
 

MisterFister

There's a very good chance that I don't care.
3,320
4,965
257
I'll try to put something together. I don't have a problem with blogs but by nature they really don't lead to interaction which is really what I prefer. I want someone to give me a perspective I might not have seen or an opinion I might not have considered. In the forum format everyone is free to say 'hey Fucko, you're wrong and this is why". I like that.

Something I've been thinking about lately is the difficulty found in thinking free. I'm sure you know what I mean by that. Maybe I'll write something on that topic.
 

jujubee

~what it is~
Premium
7,281
5,979
237
As @RebelBuddha said, the following is the if you're not doing anything wrong you have nothing to worry about argument. I hear it all the time and its straight up Huxley.




More militarized. So, he accepts the position that the police have become militarized but more importantly he doesn't offer any tangible line which ought not be crossed. More militarized until? Where does his comfort become discomfort? He leaves it open ended. Just more. And more. And more. With only those who are taking or creating the 'more' granted the decision on where 'more' takes us. This is dereliction of duty at best.




He agrees with something he has absolutely no knowledge of. He hasn't a clue what "all this surveillance capability" means yet he blindly supports it.




Snowden didn't do anything. He is in the process of doing something. If you think he isn't holding back information (which I would assume he thinks would help him when shit hits the fan) I got news for ya. There is no way that Snowden blew his load. He created an action and knew it would create a reaction. We still don't fully know what that reaction is. It would be interesting to learn what he thinks about men like Ellsberg or Manning.



He has no problem with an outfit doing what it does without even an inkling of an idea what's being done. Does this sound reasonable?



Prior to Snowden people speculated that some nefarious stuff was going on and those same speculators were relegated to the Tin-Foil Hat Kook Crowd. Minimizing Snowden's confirmation is simple spin.



Read that again. People DID suspect it and they were "conspiracy theorists". The bigger point is things change quite significantly between suspecting something is happening and solid confirmation that something is happening. He's tactfully minimizing the subject by saying 'you should have known that anyway'. Its creative and sometimes it works but c'mon...its complete bullshit misdirection.



This is a self-defense mechanism.You can read a lot about these kinds of emotions from those who lived under things like Stasi or Pol Pot's secret police. You HAVE to convince yourself that you're innocent, unremarkable, neutral or even invisible. If you don't you'll drive yourself mad.





The rest is just......Wow.
I'm sure your own politics were fully realized by twenty. C'mon, he joined the conversation, before we bludgeon him, you could give him the tiniest chance to breathe 'n catch up or at least cite/document yourself better so he isn't having to figure where you're coming from so much, geesh.

Speaking of free thinkers, what he did, going against the general grain going here should always meet a welcome audience, there's the irony.

No offense meant and I'm not coddling so watch it, Fucko, I'm not one to do that, but he's a kid in the face of all this; I just thought when they don't return to begin to form any other idea with the seed of any new information they might be open to, at least later, where's the fun in that?:/

*P.S. I'm glad you'd consider even trying anything with a blog, bonus.

On topic, speaking of surveillance, I read the other night that in the face of alll this ok'd to sight in our every movement and thought--and there is a lot, including new technologies like this one in development--it's illegal for us in all these incidences to record our LEO. Ha, I saw an officer cite as much on that website I recently posted, called 'COPS', or whatever, and that was news to me. I find it hard to believe.
 

MisterFister

There's a very good chance that I don't care.
3,320
4,965
257
I'm sure your own politics were fully realized by twenty. C'mon, he joined the conversation, before we bludgeon him, you could give him the tiniest chance to breathe 'n catch up or at least cite/document yourself better so he isn't having to figure where you're coming from so much, geesh.
I cite shit and I'm told I link dump. I don't cite shit and I'm called lazy. Fucking can't win around here! ;)

In terms of tone I'll never apologize. This guy is one of two things. He's either a troll or he's my enemy. Its as simple as that.
 
  • 1Like
  • 1LOL
Reactions: jujubee and RebelBuddha

BrIONwoshMunky

EVERYBODY LOVE EVERYBODY!
Staff
9,898
4,317
537
I'm probably going to have a lot of people disagree with me, but I'm one of those people that doesn't disagree with the police becoming more militarized and having all this surveillance capability. I was one of the people that thought that what Snowden did was completely wrong. And I have no problem with the NSA doing what they do. I honestly don't understand it when someone acts surprised after finding out the NSA spies on citizens. People should've suspected it before and Snowden's "leak" shouldn't be anything new.

In my opinion, if the NSA, police agencies, etc want to use their surveillance capabilities, so be it. Maybe the NSA and the local police agency have information on my whereabouts and phone calls or whatever else stored somewhere. I don't care. I've done nothing to make them take an interest into knowing that information about me. They may have the info, but I HIGHLY doubt they've had any reason to analyze it. If they ever do have a good reason, then go for it. If I've done something wrong enough to make law enforcement question my activities, I'm probably to blame for whatever it is I've done. If not, they'll figure it out soon enough and stop looking at my information to move onto more important matters rather than continue to listen to my phone calls with my girlfriend or read my boring-ass emails to my professors about the next homework assignment.

As I stated, I'm sure plenty of people will disagree. No problem, I don't mean to make anyone mad. I'm open for discussion.
In my opinion, if you wouldn't let the cops sit outside your bedroom window and look in 24/7, then you shouldn't be okay with them monitoring every form of traffic and way of communication that exists at all times without an express warrant allowing it with due process, available to the public for review.

It's the whole "who watches the watchers" IMHO. No, I'm not doing anything bad, but why do you need to verify that? They have to prove I'm guilty, I don't have to prove my innocence. I'd also rather see 20 murderers walk free than an innocent in prison.

Just because one person or a group of people don't want to access or excercise their rights doesn't mean mine should then be infringed, denied, or truncated. Some idjit in a cubicle going through my financials, porn habits, and listening to long distance phone calls is NOT keeping me safe, and it's not keeping you safe. I would be willing to speculate, that if you looked at the statistics, you'd find that if the money spent on 'defense' was instead spend on education, healthcare, and infrastructure upgrades, more lives would be saved than we currently save watching for Ze Germans Communists 'terrorists'.

If all of this surveillance shit actually worked, we'd be hearing about it at every turn, simply as justification and a huge "We told you so". But no, there's this black hole that keeps sucking in information with little to no real-world return.

While I don't agree with the blanket surveillance, I don't think the cops should run around waving flags, flashlights, and batons at a populace armed with their own AR's and AK's. I also don't think they need grenade launchers, M-60's, .50 BMG's and MRAP's to do their jobs either.
 

Stryker989

Hoodrat
25
14
7
I'm sure your own politics were fully realized by twenty. C'mon, he joined the conversation, before we bludgeon him, you could give him the tiniest chance to breathe 'n catch up or at least cite/document yourself better so he isn't having to figure where you're coming from so much, geesh.
Speaking of free thinkers, what he did, going against the general grain going here should always meet a welcome audience, there's the irony.
I thank you for standing up for the fact that I posted that.
In terms of tone I'll never apologize. This guy is one of two things. He's either a troll or he's my enemy. Its as simple as that.
I assure you I'm not a troll, and viewing me as an enemy really doesn't encourage discussion, however wrong you feel I am.

I will openly admit that I have always been kind of torn on this issue, and I feel like I have too little information from both sides. I do see many of your points which I will address in the next post, so please try to view me as someone trying to simply see the other point of view. I have my opinions, but I mean no personal attack or to offend anyone else. Just felt like I should state this before continuing.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: jujubee

Stryker989

Hoodrat
25
14
7
The only question I think I could ask that might make you think differently is: "Who gets to determine what is right and wrong in a society that has no rule of law and authoritarian power?"
A valid point.

What Snowden did was wrong. What did he do wrong? What ought the law read which you would write to define this wrong? What ought his punishment be?

Which specific amendments to the constitution do you believe ought to be officially rescinded? You've already erased the 4th, 5th, 9th and 10th. Are there any more? The Snowden case meanders into the 1st. Would you add that to the list?
I agree, I should've elaborated but I didn't know the discussion would get as detailed as this. It's the internet, I wasn't sure what to expect.
What I think Snowden did wrong was to leak information that he had agreed not to release. He signed a contract with the government not to release classified information, a contract which he broke. I don't have any idea of a punishment, I'm not sure what the precedent is on this at the moment.
4th and 5th amendments: Possibly, yes. I do see how they could be violated. I'm not really up to date on debates about those so I'm just confused as to each side.
9th and 10th: Explain, because I'm not sure what you mean exactly.
1st: I disagree. Freedom of speech exists, yes, but it doesn't mean anyone can say anything they want, including Snowden.

More militarized. So, he accepts the position that the police have become militarized but more importantly he doesn't offer any tangible line which ought not be crossed. More militarized until? Where does his comfort become discomfort? He leaves it open ended. Just more. And more. And more. With only those who are taking or creating the 'more' granted the decision on where 'more' takes us. This is dereliction of duty at best.
He agrees with something he has absolutely no knowledge of. He hasn't a clue what "all this surveillance capability" means yet he blindly supports it.
Snowden didn't do anything. He is in the process of doing something. If you think he isn't holding back information (which I would assume he thinks would help him when shit hits the fan) I got news for ya. There is no way that Snowden blew his load. He created an action and knew it would create a reaction. We still don't fully know what that reaction is. It would be interesting to learn what he thinks about men like Ellsberg or Manning.
He has no problem with an outfit doing what it does without even an inkling of an idea what's being done. Does this sound reasonable?
Prior to Snowden people speculated that some nefarious stuff was going on and those same speculators were relegated to the Tin-Foil Hat Kook Crowd. Minimizing Snowden's confirmation is simple spin.
Read that again. People DID suspect it and they were "conspiracy theorists". The bigger point is things change quite significantly between suspecting something is happening and solid confirmation that something is happening. He's tactfully minimizing the subject by saying 'you should have known that anyway'. Its creative and sometimes it works but c'mon...its complete bullshit misdirection.
This is a self-defense mechanism.You can read a lot about these kinds of emotions from those who lived under things like Stasi or Pol Pot's secret police. You HAVE to convince yourself that you're innocent, unremarkable, neutral or even invisible. If you don't you'll drive yourself mad.
The rest is just......Wow.
No I didn't draw a line as to where militarization ends, but that didn't imply there is no line in my mind. I meant more militarized as in militarization to an extent is acceptable in my mind. No grenade launchers aren't needed, nor are RPGs or tanks. Many military tools are not needed by police. However, it isn't all bad. A police department near where I lived received a military Humvee, which could be considered militarization, which some people got pissed off about. The department needed a vehicle but didn't have much money, so a free Humvee was welcome.
"All this surveillance" was a poorly chosen phrase referring to the surveillance mentioned in the first post, not literally all surveillance. Of course I don't know everything they have, and maybe I oppose some of the capabilities I'm not aware of them having.
"Doing what they do" was a similar case of lazy wording, where I meant their data-collection on civilians.
As for conspiracy theorists, yes maybe some people called them conspiracy theorists. I didn't. I figured the NSA had these capabilities and used them. I was under the assumption most people knew they did this, and I was pointing it out. Maybe most people didn't assume the same, in which case my point (not intended to misdirect) was wrong to make.
Not much response to the self-defense statement, I'll have to read up on what you said. (Don't take that as me thinking you're lying, I'm not)
 

MisterFister

There's a very good chance that I don't care.
3,320
4,965
257
viewing me as an enemy really doesn't encourage discussion, however wrong you feel I am..
You think I sit around and talk about the virtue found in not stealing other people's stuff with a guy who's in the process of robbing me? I'm not building any strawmen nor is this ad hominem. I hope you'll understand that the things you say and the opinions you offer are a direct attack on that which I hold most dear; that being freedom. Active participation in the mechanisms which reduce or suspend this freedom is supposed to be met with deference? Some things aren't up for debate, friend. A shackle disguised as a bracelet is still a shackle.

,
so please try to view me as someone trying to simply see the other point of view.
Please feel free to pen novels on the virtues found in enslaving your neighbor but don't bother expecting purchase with idiots like me. There is none to be had...I can assure you.



I have my opinions, but I mean no personal attack or to offend anyone else. Just felt like I should state this before continuing.
This is so weird to me. People seem more offended by someone telling them that they smell like the business end of a soybean auger than they are by someone espousing actual slavery, theft and kidnapping. Blows my mind.
 
  • 1LOL
Reactions: RebelBuddha