Weren't the UK and Germany complicit in this whole NSA spying thing?

I can't judge anyone elses system but I do know that the Dutch one is nicely democratic.

It has it's flaws but it does tend to work and it does represent the people.

We have tons of political parties. People can and have started all sorts of parties for any demographic. Usually the ones that get the most votes are christian, liberal and socialist parties and that nicely represents the people. It has never happened in our history that one party has gotten enough votes to hold a majority of the house, which would be 76 seats. So we always have to form coalitions of parties that did well in the elections.

These coalitions can and do break apart at times, ending the reign of that particular government. An example of why a government could fall would be an irreconcilable difference in beliefs on how to handle an issue between these ruling parties, or a scandal.

Best of all in my eyes is that our head of state is not elected but is a monarch and I know I'm strange and old fashioned in this, especially for someone who is a socialist like me as we tend to be republican. But this is because I truly believe that it's the best device to safeguard our nation. You see, it's not a popularity contest. People don't get to be head of state because they are powerhungry or do well on camera but they are chosen by accident of birth. I truly believe that the worst idea ever to run a nation is to put someone there who really wants the job. In my opinion it's better to have someone who is aware from an early age he will eventually be head of state and is very aware of that they only get to be there through the grace of the people.

If royals mess up too much, well these days it won't be guillotine time but they will be out of a cushy job.

It also provides stability in that a head of state lasts a generation and stands above and is not affiliated with any political party.

I must note that our king is not like your president. His responsibilities are mostly ceremonial and diplomatic and he holds no real, official, political power. His opinion does matter of course and because of that our royals tend to be reserved about their personal opinion.

So that's how we do it, for now. Many people these days are republicans so that may change.

-This has been an announcement of the Dutch propaganda channel. We hope you enjoy your gouda cheese, thank you and goodnight. -

Not trying to nitpick, but the usage 'opposing religion' is the wrong way of looking at it. Considering that there are Muslim men and women who is serving, have served, and have died while under the U.S. military. Just saying

That'll teach them to use proxies when searching for sensitive stuff. Like kitchen supplies and camping equipment

And this is why i keep saying 9/11 was a bigger win for the bad guys than they could have ever dreamed of.

It really was, broke the spirit of America.

I tend to agree that for 6 times they mess up, they probably get a few right. It's their job to try and protect us, and if that means stepping on a few toes then that's what it might take.

Now, having said that, maybe they should do a little deeper background before going in and searching people's homes. THAT is a gross invasion of privacy, and doesn't need to happen. Searching emails is too big a harm, same with Internet search watching, but to go into someone's house is not right in anyway.

Well fix it then!

You're a can-do people, you went to the moon.

What they're doing was illegal in our country only a few decades ago and is illegal in many other countries. Like I said before: I can stop all terrorism and crime in the world, but it comes at an impossibly high cost. What is being done right now has already passed any reasonable level on the cost-benefit scale of security-privacy.

Yeah, because it's totally impossible for the things people do do in their own personal life to come out causing their real life to be ruined... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army%E2%80%93McCarthy_hearings http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_blacklist

Only because they wanted to beat USSR, after USSR beat them with the first satellite and the first man in space

A broken military clock is right half as many times as a broken civilian one. That's like, deep, or something.

That actually helps my argument by laying out the foundations for a system based on some reductions of freedom rather than absolutely none, so thanks.

The problem is that people are clinging to the idea that what they do online is private. It is not. They believe that they are anonymous. They are not. Just ask the members of Lulzsec (or whatever their name was). What you do on the internet is the same as what you do off of it. Emails are still somewhat protected because mail is somewhat protected. But if I went into the library and asked the librarian for a book on how to make explosives and directions to the White House, I would totally be answering questions to the FBI by the end of the day. The same is true of websearches. The only thing that is really new here is the governments capacity to actually monitor these things. It is the same principle.

Yeah, if you want to twist it that way. Rather, it's saying we've already gone too far.

The word "essential" is key in Benjamin Franklin's famous quote. Not every liberty is essential. For example, it's not essential I be able to go wherever I please (tresspassing), but freedom of speech is essential. Online anonymity and freedom of speech go hand-in-hand.


I'd be surprised highly if you got in trouble for getting books on explosives from the library. There are many books on explosives in public libraries. Hell, information on building nuclear bombs can be found in highschool textbooks.

This is an automated witch-hunt. The general public always loses in a witch-hunt. The only ones who win are the ones hunting because they can do all sorts of obscene things in the name of capturing witches. In the past it was evil communist soviet spies. Today it's terrorist. Tomorrow it could be you.

Doesn't seem like a fantastic use of their time, is all I'm going to say. I'm going to leave now because this is very clearly a thread where I'm going to be hearing a lot about how the government is always watching me.

Amen.

"Essential" is indeed the crux of the argument, but I do not buy that anomymity is essential to free speech. The press has been operating freely (at least from overt government control - corporate control is another issue beyond the scope of this discussion) for a very long time. It is hardly anonymous.

Also, essential does not quite mean the same as it did in Franklin's time. These days it means necessary, but he could have been using it as saying the very core nature of liberty rather than its more superfluous elements. In which case, free speech would not really qualify, because it is not an unlimited freedom.

It has happened before. I do not recall the specifics off the top of my head, however. It has also been abused before. It is true that you can never sit back and assume that the government is working in your best interests; you do need to keep an eye on it.

How do you feel about the culmination of the recent FBI online operation that released over a hundred people from sixual slavery in the US, many of them children. I would say the general public won there.

Part of being an advlt is knowing that no matter what you do there are going to be bad people out there and you need to do something about them. To not try to combat them is to be tacitly complicit in what they do. Sometimes there are real witches.

I am not, however, advocating giving the government cart blanche in the name of security. These things do need to be done above-board, so it is good that the public is aware of these things. That way we can make sure these things are being done within the bounds of the law, which they currently are. That is why the scandal has not blown up way larger than it currently is - this is unpopular, but currently legal. It has yet to be challenged to find out whether it is constitutional. Then the real discussion begins.

What then ill have to change my plans for world domination, well we need to think of something else to do tonight Pinky.

zoik-narf!

Libraries are required to turn over the list of books that their members check out, if asked, if they have them on hand. However, the loophole is that the library is not required to keep records of the books that are checked out, so once the book is returned, most libraries delete the records now. If you want an organization that defends the freedom to read what you want, it's the Libraries.

Haha, you didn't seriously did you? You do realize the press only is able to publish many of their stories because of the fact that they can keep their sources anonymous, right?

And now you're purposefully twisting words.

It's happened before, but only when someone's already being put under surveillence. Not Joe from down the street.

The fact of the automated wide-swooping nature of these searches is what makes them so frightening. It's equivelent to Joseph McCarthy holding a trial for every citizen of the USA.

That's such a loaded statement I'm not even going to dare touch it. Needless to say, this argument has been made many times before you.

By definition there is no real witches.

Actually, as I said, they're only within the bounds of the law because they've altered the laws. PRISM was a violation of international treaties and various countries are looking into it. the UK's http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jun/16/gchq-intercepted-communications-g20-summits was also a huge violation of international treaties.

So no, they aren't really operating within the law. Pretty much everything being done was illegal two decades ago in the USA.

Why should I go to the library when my Kindle is so much more convenient? It is not as if Amazon would just delete 1984 of my Kindle or something.......

Oo interesting point.

Digital information is controllable information in that it can be deleted at whim.

:Looks lovingly at his wall-o-books:

See:

Dr David Kelly

The Rainbow Warrior

Ballets roses

The media child abuse rings

Dunblane's rather lackadaisical policemen

28 day detention

Hilsborough

Closed trials

requirement to prove innocence in abuse cases

The Irish Magdalene laundries

The majority of which barely raised an eyebrow for a very long time in their respective countries.

Anonymous sources is not the same as anonymous speakers.

Actually, I am untwisting words by trying to understand them in their original context rather than a modern paradigm. But this argument is pedantic, and more damningly, silly, so let us drop it.

Give me some time to dig up sources. If I remember to.

EDIT: Man, there are a lot of search results about people arrested for overdue library books.

It is very easy to scream McCarthyism, but very difficult to say where a line between reasonable law enforcement ends and government oppression begins. Some people still don't think the US has any business snooping in to any of their business, legitimate warrant or no. To them reasonable search and seizure does not exist. Clearly society cannot operate on that level. The internet has enhanced the ease and safety of propagating crime exponentially, so the government, in order to maintain civil society, must have tools to operate under this new paradigm. This topic goes way beyond terrorism, but also touches on things like drug enforcement and human trafficking. But they still need a court order to do these things, which means that this can be legally challenged in the event of a trial, and that makes it not McCarthyism right off the bat.

It is pretty hard to argue with, isn't it. It is kinda like bringing up McCarthy, no?

Oh, sure, if you want to be literal about it.

That is a complicated area. Further complicated in that some of the countries crying loudest about this were probably complicit in it, in some way. Like Germany. Treaties really aren't the same thing as laws, anyway. They are more like actual guidelines, if you follow my drift.

For those of you who thinks that these automated systems actually work in your favor to protect people and AREN'T witch hunts, please allow me to introduce you to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_rate_fallacy.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8153539.stm.

The fact is, by any reasonable definition, the automated systems in place do more harm than good by a very wide margin.

ummm, yeah, they kinda are. The only difference is one is printed by a third, unaffiliated party. This is why both freedom of speech and press are listed as protected under the same ammendment, rather than being separate.

But the tools are broken and real bad guys encrypt. The FBI has confiscated many laptops from known terrorists and other bad guys and they're http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/06/28/brazil_banker_crypto_lock_out/.

It's actually very easy to argue with, it's just that doing so would break about 20 different forum rules and 3 social rules. I've had happy discussions on the matter with people I know won't care about the rules being broken off of these forums, but never would I dare on here.

Actually, in the USA, treaties are laws. It's the only type of law that the President by himself can sign into action and must be enforced by the government. Nice try though.

Your introduction of the fallacy is fallacious for several reasons. The biggest is that terrorists are not tried in batches, they are tried as individuals, so the test's accuracy in their individual case is not changed. The odds of a single coin flip do not change based on other coin flips done. The odds of a specific result within a set may change, but there is still a 50% probability of heads when you actually flip the coin. Secondly, people are not convicted on suspicion, or single pieces of evidence. Further evidence has to be found which will lead to the exoneration of the false positives, and probably some of the real positives, too.

Look, let's not forget that basically everything you do (EDIT: on the internet, but real life is trying to get there, too) is monitored, collated, and sold by corporations, and that, in my opinion, is what you should be really worried about.