This is all just a further argument for a smaller government.

Hey man, if you've got nothing to hide you've got nothing to worry about.

justincredible;1840227 wrote:Hey man, if you've got nothing to hide you've got nothing to worry about.

I mean, you really don't. The tinfoil hatz sometimes crack me up.

Unless you have, or plan to have some real influence, no one gives a shit about you (except, hopefully, family and friends). Maybe if you're a professional protestor you might hit the radar

gut;1840234 wrote:I mean, you really don't. The tinfoil hatz sometimes crack me up.

Unless you have, or plan to have some real influence, no one gives a shit about you (except, hopefully, family and friends). Maybe if you're a professional protestor you might hit the radar

Agreed. Everyone should just sit down, shut up, and let the government do what's best for us. It's for our safety, after all. Don't bother trying to persuade others that the government is completely out of line here. If you're actually effective and start gaining a following you'll end up disappeared or blackmailed to STFU.

I disagree. Everyone has something to hide. Even if it's not illegal activity, a simple audio clip like the Trump "grab her by the pu**y" clip could derail a professional or political career. If we have devices like TV's with the capability of recording anything said in a house, who is to say the same isn't done with your smart phone, tablet, computer, etc.

Big government power and having be hidden under the scope of "national security" is the perfect cover to ensure that you can, in-theory, own any individual person should they break ranks or threaten to do something you don't want done.

justincredible;1840237 wrote:Agreed. Everyone should just sit down, shut up, and let the government do what's best for us. It's for our safety, after all. Don't bother trying to persuade others that the government is completely out of line here. If you're actually effective and start gaining a following you'll end up disappeared or blackmailed to STFU.

That's a huge leap. But if you ever lost family or friends in a terrorist attack, at least you could sleep well at night knowing the govt can't read your posts about patio furniture on an anonymous message board.

Seems pretty obvious to me one position is rational and the other is not. You all seem like a bunch of "get off my lawn" technophobes that don't believe law enforcement can evolve responsibly.

like_that;1840224 wrote:This is all just a further argument for a smaller government.

Exactly. It's uncontrolled power. And in ways, even the companies they are using are powerless to stop it.

You have local law enforcement using drones now to enforce civil laws.

It's a slow erosion of our rights to free speech, privacy, etc...and it's done in a subtle manner.

gut;1840241 wrote:That's a huge leap. But if you ever lost family or friends in a terrorist attack, at least you could sleep well at night knowing the govt can't read your posts about patio furniture on an anonymous message board.

Seems pretty obvious to me one position is rational and the other is not. You all seem like a bunch of "get off my lawn" technophobes that don't believe law enforcement can evolve responsibly.

So you don't think the government could/would use this power to control opposition? Nice appeal to emotion, by the way.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

gut;1840234 wrote:I mean, you really don't. The tinfoil hatz sometimes crack me up.

Unless you have, or plan to have some real influence, no one gives a shit about you (except, hopefully, family and friends). Maybe if you're a professional protestor you might hit the radar

gut;1840241 wrote:That's a huge leap. But if you ever lost family or friends in a terrorist attack, at least you could sleep well at night knowing the govt can't read your posts about patio furniture on an anonymous message board.

Seems pretty obvious to me one position is rational and the other is not. You all seem like a bunch of "get off my lawn" technophobes that don't believe law enforcement can evolve responsibly.

This x100

justincredible;1840245 wrote:The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Until probable cause to search the house of a drug lord is due to a tip-off from a secretly recorded conversation by an Amazon Echo in his kitchen. Not defending being a drug lord but it's a slippery slope. I'm less concerned it's going to be used in a sinister manner against the common citizen, but more of a strong-arm tactic to control the masses.

This is i post in code

They won't use it to knock down doors of drug lords...they'll use it as blackmail to contain anyone challenging their power though.

justincredible;1840245 wrote:The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Where did you find this? The Communist Manifesto or Mein Kampf?

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

bases_loaded;1840264 wrote:They won't use it to knock down doors of drug lords...they'll use it as blackmail to contain anyone challenging their power though.

Exactly. That was my point. We have no checks and balances on how it's used, and whenever the government has approval for use in a certain way, it's fair game. It's like a drug. Once it's approved, it's fair game to be prescribed for just about anything.

gut;1840241 wrote:That's a huge leap. But if you ever lost family or friends in a terrorist attack, at least you could sleep well at night knowing the govt can't read your posts about patio furniture on an anonymous message board.

Seems pretty obvious to me one position is rational and the other is not. You all seem like a bunch of "get off my lawn" technophobes that don't believe law enforcement can evolve responsibly.

The terrorist card? Really? My wife is more likely to kill me than a terrorist, time to spy on her, for my safety.

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

The odds of dying in a plane crash is extremely low. We should just remove all safety measures on an airline. The "terrorism" argument is a valid one if you believe that the mechanism that allows them (even if they are 1 in 1 million) into the country isn't benefiting the greater good.

Azubuike24;1840278 wrote:The odds of dying in a plane crash is extremely low. We should just remove all safety measures on an airline. The "terrorism" argument is a valid one if you believe that the mechanism that allows them (even if they are 1 in 1 million) into the country isn't benefiting the greater good.

When I go to an airport, I consent to my bags being checked. I know what is going on.

When I purchase an Android phone or a TV, I dont consent to the Government having the ability to spy on me for my safety.

Not the same thing.

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

We're on the same side here. Which is why regardless of your political position, if any of this is even remotely true, it should piss you off.

Once government has its foot in any door, nothing will stop it ever again and it will just snowball.

Azubuike24;1840273 wrote:Exactly. That was my point. We have no checks and balances on how it's used.

That is absolutely, patently false.

Wolves of Babylon;1840275 wrote:My wife is more likely to kill me than a terrorist, time to spy on her, for my safety.

A couple thousand people murdered from domestic violence EVERY YEAR might agree, if they were still here to do so.

justincredible;1840245 wrote:... against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated

The key word is "unreasonable". That's not a blanket statement against technological means. Don't take issue with the abilities, take issue with the checks and balances.

The govt is also capable of blowing up my house, among other things....yet no one wets their pants over fear of a missile coming down their chimney.

gut;1840437 wrote:That is absolutely, patently false.

How so? The CIA is allowed to have the technology for "international espionage" yet when it's possible that they are using it domestically, there's nothing to prevent it. If/when they get caught with their pants down, they can always relate it back to being "related to international threats" and furthermore, they have dirt on every single person of power or influence in the country, and thus, nobody with any influence speaks out about it. It's a protected racket and the common citizen is always in the dark.

I should be allowed to do anything I want in my own home and it's on law enforcement to legitimately enforce the laws the old-fashioned way. Not by using my smart phone, computer, tablet, television, refrigerator, etc...to catch me. If they are going to use those, there needs to be a search warrant laid out exactly how and when they are being used. Anything short of that is unconstitutional.

Surprised gut is taking this stance honestly. I always took him as having a Libertarian leaning mindset.

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk