To Those Who'd Surrender Liberty to Obtain Security...

[OneAngryDemocrat]

We're all waiting for you to post your nude photos, accompanied by your names, addresses, and social security numbers.

Walk the walk if you willing to talk the talk.

You ain't got nothing to hide, after all.

If not, shut up and sit down.

[Buzz Clik]

1. You're accusing the NSA of identity theft?

[Callmecrazy]

79. Hang on a minute...

OK, I'm ready.
This is getting good.
LET THE KNIFE FIGHT BEGIN!

[spin]

80. I never thought of that but let's assume that sometime in the future ...

some true asshole is running this nation and wishes to make life difficult for those who oppose him.

WOW!!!

[giftedgirl77]

2. This is just nonsense.

Last I checked the Gov., which is definitely not someone trying to make some silly point already has my SSN, address, birthday, what my annual income is, & who I'm employed by.

Knowing that this data has already been gathered by the IRS just kind of makes your point redundant & lacks logic.

[OneAngryDemocrat]

3. Bullshit...

Paying your taxes is a CIVIC DUTY.

Letting the NSA know what porn sites you visit is not.

You obviously need didn't pay attention in civics class.

[giftedgirl77]

15. How do you go from providing our personal

info to this site, which is what you asked for to the NSA knowing what porn site you go to?

News flash the NSA doesn't give a shit about anyones porn habits unless child porn is involved & that's the FBI's jurisdiction.

Once again a government entity already has every possible aspect of my personal information & if you think they now want everything to include your porn traffic your dilusional.

[OneAngryDemocrat]

18. NEWSFLASH:

You don't know that.

You're God-damn guessing.

What I know for a fact is that ALL of the FISA judges were appointed (not elected) by conservative Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts, and that conservatives don't do SHIT that ain't politically motivated.

NOTHING.

I also know that our government has a long and ignoble history of spying for political purposes solely to destroy political enemies (MLK Jr, Watergate, protest group infiltration).

Don't tell me what the NSA cares or does not care about.

Pay more attention to what I care about, and those who oppose this crap.

[giftedgirl77]

25. So now I'm not paying enough attention

to what's going on because I think your concern over the NSA looking at your porn activity is nonsense. There was just another "scandal" regarding the gov spying on political enemies that was completely debunked & determined to be bullshit.

There is no doubt that the NSA is pulling metadata (which has been completely legal since the 70s) & may be storing other data but to assume they are monitoring your daily habits is absurd. Apparently all laws have gone completely out the window & Tyranny has taken over.

No, I'm not going to take what a person that has 100% libertarian beliefs, that has released partial data that is being released through another libertarian in a fashion only to suit their purpose as the holy grail of information.

There is plenty of info out there about FISA, FISC, & the FISCOR to make educated decisions. I'm not jumping on that bandwagon.

[gholtron]

33. If you don't want the NSA knowing that you view porn online

Then don't view porn online. And YOU don't have a clue if the FISA judges are granting warrants without viewing probable cause. Unless you sit there and hear every request then YOU are just guessing.

[OneAngryDemocrat]

46. It is NOT a Guess that Intelligence has Historically Been Gathered for Political Purposes

...here in the US, and recently.

That's factual.

But thanx for playing.

[MH1]

19. seriously, though, WHY would the NSA care what porn sites you visit?

Maybe if it's child porn, in which case they'd turn it over to the FBI, but you're not going to get a lot of sympathy on that one.

Now, they could be VERY interested in aggregated data that tells them what are the most popular porn sites, because, you know, well, lots of guys like to know those things for some odd reason. What you're personally checking out? For what reason would they want to know that?

[OneAngryDemocrat]

21. Why Would the FBI Care About MLK Jr's Infidelities?

Or why would the Committee to Re-Elect the President care about a filing cabinet in a DC hotel room?

Make a better case.

[MH1]

28. So you're really a national figure of some sort, hanging out at DU

because you have nothing better to do?

Or you expect that some day you WILL be a national figure like MLK or the President?

And, lessee. If you are unfaithful in your marriage in the Internet age (and worried about what will happen when you get caught), you have bigger problems than the NSA. Unless your wife/hubby/partner is comatose. In which case it doesn't matter much and I express my deepest condolences.

[OneAngryDemocrat]

35. Oh... So 'National Figures' Have Rights You and I Do Not, Now?

Another pathetic cop-out.

What 'RIGHTS' would those be?

[backscatter712]

45. Blackmail purposes.

Anyone running for public office could be scrutinized this way, then get mysterious phone calls in the middle of the night saying "Vote this way, or we'll expose your scheissporn fetish!"

[HappyMe]

4. What?

That doesn't make any fucking sense.

It seems to me that you are promoting identity theft.

[OneAngryDemocrat]

5. What are YOU hiding, 'HappyMe'?

Hmmmm...

You trusted an unelected high school drop out whom you had never heard of.

Someone you now want locked up for treason.

You can certainly trust me.

[HappyMe]

6. LOL!

You first, dearie.......



Nice edit there.

I do not have to trust anyone. Not you, not Snowden, not any of my neighbors. I personally don't give a crap what happens to Snowden.

[OneAngryDemocrat]

7. I'm Not Wiling...

I'm not willing to trade a measure of liberty for a measure of security, friend.

Check and mate.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

8. I think she just proved your point.

[OneAngryDemocrat]

9. I'm not sure...

I am not sure what she's saying... And I'm not sure she does, ether.

She's either agreeing with me and being argumentative, or... something a lot more surreal.

The NSA is stealing identities, HappyMe.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

10. You could be right in that, she doesn't realize what she just said. Nonetheless -

prove it, she did.

It was kinda funny, actually - in an ironic sort of way.

[OneAngryDemocrat]

11. :)

Yea.

It went over my head for a second, too. Thanks for pointing it out. I'm slow on the uptake, but usually pretty good after that.

[HappyMe]

13. Really?

So I assume you have closed all checking accounts, credit cards, given up your smart phone and land line if you have it?

[OneAngryDemocrat]

16. Why Would You Assume That is the Only Option?

Bend over and take it or retreat from society?

That's ALL you see as possibilities?

No, 'new legislation'?

No, 'better oversight'?

Sheesh. Be more creative!

[HappyMe]

20. Oh kind sir,

have mercy! I'm just a girl that doesn't know what I'm talking about!

[OneAngryDemocrat]

22. Well, at Least You're Honest...

But there's lots of guys who don't know squat, either, so don't you let it bother that pretty little head of yours.

[HappyMe]

23. I believe you are one of those guys

that don't have squat in their pretty little heads.

I'm off to MIRT. Trolls are far more interesting.

[HappyMe]

12. So what is it you are

actually doing about this other than posting here?


I now assume, this is where I "sit down and shut up"? As a woman, I find that shit offensive. Doesn't telling me to do so violate my right to freedom of speech?

[OneAngryDemocrat]

14. I didn't asume you were a lady...

...but you didn't correct Tuesday Afternoon, so I went with it.

My "Sit down and shut up" comment was in the original post, way up there at the top, and unless you are giving me powers of omniscience which I don't have, I couldn't possibly know who would respond, male or female.

So you go right ahead and be offended.

Anyways... in regards to your question.

My Congresswoman is on board standing against warrantless NSA surveillance.

All I can do is ask folks, here, to put a bug up their own representative's ass and get this fixed.

That's what this thread is: A Bug up Everyone's Ass.

Mission Accomplished.

[MH1]

17. If the NSA has nude photos of me, they didn't come from me.

Now that rat bf* I had a few decades ago who brought his camera into the bathroom without permission .... hey if that's all they got, fine by me! (I was skinnier, and obviously younger then. )

* very quickly ex-bf, of course.

[Silent3]

24. How would posting nude photos of oneself increase one's security?

I get what you're trying to do, but the analogy is a poor analogy.

Whether it's right or wrong to give up some privacy (not necessarily the same thing as, but related to, liberty) for increased security, you'd have to have challenged someone who's OK with the NSA to post something that, if everyone in the country also posted the same thing, would provide some possible net increase in public safety.

People posting the information you ask for would only demonstrate that they completely devalue privacy, to the point that they don't have to get a single thing in return for breaching their own privacy.

[OneAngryDemocrat]

27. How Would the NSA's Access to Those Photos Make us Safe?

Hmm...

[Silent3]

31. It wouldn't... which is why your challenge doesn't make sense.

Whereas it's at least conceivable that the NSA's access to phone records, email, etc., might uncover terrorist plots and other dangers. I don't personally believe that the blanket spying is at all justified -- we need to get back to much more minimal, much less invasive techniques with greater oversight and accountability -- but your OP doesn't address that very well.

[OneAngryDemocrat]

34. But My Followup Comments Do Address Solutions...

Post #16.

Thanx for playing.

We're probably not far apart on the matter.

But there IS blanket spying going on, and not enough folks bitching about it.

[Silent3]

39. Yes, post #16 does address solutions...

...but none of that makes the gambit you pose in your OP make much sense.

You're attempting to create a false equivalence between (A) a person not valuing privacy at all, being happy for anyone and everyone to have their most personal information, with no need for receiving anything of value in return, and (B), rightly or wrongly trusting a governmental agency to selectively use personal information for, as such a person would hope, more good than harm.

[OneAngryDemocrat]

49. False Equivalency? Aren't You Reading the Responses?

LOL!

[Silent3]

60. Something in the responses to this thread...

...shows it's a non-false equivalency?

If there's something else that you mean, can you just say it outright, not just put on a show of how shocked/amused/derisive you are that someone isn't going along with you, isn't seeing it just as you see it?

[OneAngryDemocrat]

61. The Thread is Full of Responses...

The entire thread is filled with responses with folks completely happy to keep things how they are, without knowing a damn thing about any of it. They are defending the status quo without knowing what the status quo is.

You can't have anything BUT an argument based on false equivalencies in that situation.

That tact has been used (again and again) by someone who either doesn't have an expectation of privacy, or doesn't care, and has opted to mock those who do.

That's not a debate tactic, either.

Well, I - for one - do have an expectation of privacy, and I do care.

[Silent3]

64. How things are, bad as they are, is simply not equivalent to posting nude pictures...

...of yourself along with your name, address, and SS# on the internet for everyone, in the NSA and not in the NSA, to see.

You can't have anything BUT an argument based on false equivalencies in that situation.

So, um, you're being forced into using an unreasonable argument, because, what, other people are too complacent and only by going over the top can you shake them out of their complacency?

[OneAngryDemocrat]

66. It Most Certainly IS...

It certainly is if that is what the NSA is data mining from US citizens (without a warrant) who had an expectation of privacy.

Equivalent?

IT'S IDENTICAL.

[Silent3]

71. Did I miss the part where Snowden revealed that the NSA had nude pictures of everyone?

Just on that alone (your stunning ARGUMENT BY CAPITALIZATION aside) breaks any possible equivalency, especially for anyone who has never had any nude photos taken, or if so, never sent one to someone else by electronically interceptable means.

Some people might be especially shy or uncomfortable with public nudity in a way that's very different than they'd feel about other breaches of personal privacy. You don't have the authority to declare that everyone else has to consider nudity the moral equivalent of all other privacy issues, lest they become inconsistent or hypocritical.

As for posting one's name, address, and Social Security number together -- that's a huge invitation to fraud and identity theft that is much larger than any risk of the government, and a few employers and other businesses, having that same information. Can government, employers, and businesses abuse that information? Of course. But giving that information to more people, completely openly in a public forum, can only increase that risk.

Risks do have varying magnitude, you know. It's not inconsistency or hypocrisy to accept one level of risk while not gladly inviting a higher level of risk, especially for no real or perceived benefit.

If you refuse to acknowledge any difference in the level of risk between the government knowing your name, address, and Social Security number, then you are the one who's incurring a consistency and/or hypocrisy penalty if you don't immediately start demanding an end to the IRS and the Social Security Administration.

[OneAngryDemocrat]

72. Yes. You Did Miss That Part...

Or at least the NSA has ALL of the nude photos of folks who emailed them to their partners or prospective partners. And of course, each and everyone of those folks had an expectation of privacy when the sent those photos.

Or most did, anyways.

You are an apologist for evil people.

I blame your parents.

"If you refuse..."

You bore me, troll.

[Silent3]

73. So apparently unless someone gets just as mad as you, in just the same way you do...

...accepting all of the same equivalencies you promote to express your anger, they become "an apologist for evil people". Simplistic binary thinking much?

I saw your post about anger, and that's what this really comes down for, doesn't it? How sensible what you're saying doesn't matter, whether it expresses your anger or not is what matters most to you. You won't back down from even the most irrational argument if it expresses your precious anger.

[OneAngryDemocrat]

74. A Claim does Not Reality Make

I see nothing irrational about demanding the NSA to back down.

Your claim that it is irrational is founded on fluff.

We survived the Third Reich without needing to peek in on what the NSA is collecting today - and I hardly think that Al Qaeda is any kind of existential threat today that the Nazis were, then.

Perhaps you do.

THAT'S irrational.

[Silent3]

75. Please point out where I claim "that it is irrational is founded on fluff"...

... (I'm assuming "that" refers to the NSA overstepping reasonable bounds) or where I say that I don't want the NSA to back down.

It would appear that in your need to be angry, and have everyone know you're angry, that you just don't have time to deal with trifles like making sense or differentiating between each of the individuals disagreeing with something you've said, so you've just lumped me and my words in together with some other fight you're having.

[OneAngryDemocrat]

78. Maybe - If so, My Apologies....

I wanted to bring the trolls out, and by God they came out.

I'm writing two-three responses a minute.

I have never seen DU like this. It's totally nuts.

"Fuck the Constitution!"

"I define myself as American 'cause I was born here!"

Lame shit. A right-wingers' stereotypical meme on liberalism.

Damn shame.

Not a flag waving patriot anywhere to be seen.

[backscatter712]

65. I talked to my friend who works for the NSA...

Don't worry, I'll make you safe! Giggity-giggity-goo!

[Orrex]

26. Do lock your car when you park it in a bad section of town?

Then surely you must hate liberty.



Makes as much sense as whatever it is you're talking about.

[MH1]

29. This is one of the funnest threads I've participated in, in a while.

Unfortunately I have to go get some work done.

[OneAngryDemocrat]

30. You're Not Suggesting the NSA is...

You are not suggesting that the NSA is rifling through my glove box, are you?

Because that is what you just said.

This is a complaint against what our government is doing.

I can call the cops and have someone breaking into my car ARRESTED.

I am floored at some of the silly analogies folks are bringing up to justify this garbage.

They're really stupid.

[Orrex]

32. You accept the need to forfeit liberty when appropriate

Unless you drive your car at 90 mph through a residential neighborhood, or do you obey the laws that restrict your liberty in this regard?

How can you justify surrendering your liberty for the sake of a little safety (i.e., security)?

[OneAngryDemocrat]

36. Again, Another Silly Analogy...

One after another.

My Fourth Amendment rights are not being infringed when following the rules of the road.

And you know it.

You invented out of whole clothe a response that would distract from the legitimate complaint concerning lost Constitutional RIGHTS to concentrate on the PRIVILEGE of driving.

Get serious.

That crap works on kids, or storm troopers looking for missing droids on Tattooine.

[Orrex]

41. Golly! You're so angry at the wrong people!

Since you're happy to use analogies that suit you but reject analogies that show you're full of baloney, I'll break it down simply:




Are there any laws that you do choose to obey?

If not, well, then you have bigger problems than looking like a raging blowhard on an internet forum.

If so, then how can you tolerate this forfeiture of personal liberty for the sake of security?

[OneAngryDemocrat]

42. Again, More Nonsense...

Let me break it down to YOU:

You were taught this in school, but apparently you didn't retain it.

You are conflating your natural rights with both our constitutional rights and the privileges we have as citizens.

You're doing it either intentionally, or out of ignorance. I am not a mind-reader, so I have no idea which.

Our Constitutional Republic is a balancing act between the Constitutional RIGHTS of the individual and the whims of mob rules democracy.

Our natural rights are those which we retain as human beings: procreation, self defense, et cetera. The right to own property is a natural right. We have extended the natural right to own property to society as a whole, too.

The mob (represented by a government for and by the people) can pass any law they so choose - so long as that law does not impinge upon the Constitutional RIGHTS reserved for the individual.

You are not free to drive on a road that is not yours. I am not free to drive on a road that is not mine.

You own a road? Drive 90 mph all day long.

Driving on a road that society built, however, dictates that we must follow the rules society imposed for it's use, or the PRIVILEGE of that use is revoked.

You are - with this bizarre series of questions of yours - claiming that I am somehow limiting your freedom when I forbid you to walk into my house and shit on my kitchen floor.

Such is not the case.

I am exercising MY rights as a property owner by hitting you over the head with a baseball bat and as a citizen by following that up with call to the cops.

Neither yours nor my freedom or liberty is being curtailed when I obey one of society's laws.

Welcome to civilization, and the social compact, Mr. Barbarian.

[Orrex]

51. There are no natural rights

Rights are social conventions and can be easily taken away. If you dispute this, then you know nothing of how the world works.


It's amazing that you get so violent and angry about a post on an anonymous internet forum, as if you will impress anyone by telling us how high on the tree you can piss. Bully for you and your stepladder, I say.


Look, if it'll make you feel better and will make you less likely to kill someone with a baseball bat, I'm willing to pretend that your argument is cogent and reasonable. It isn't, but I'm willing to pretend, because that's how the social compact works.


Go on with your bad self.

[OneAngryDemocrat]

54. Duh!

"Rights are social conventions and can be easily taken away."

Which is why we fight for them, huckster.

Obviously, self-absorption is your thing.

And that's a right worth fighting for, too.

You've chosen your hill, I've chosen mine.

[Orrex]

56. Well, at least you appear to have put down the baseball bat

[truedelphi]

76. It sounds liek you re agreeing with OneAngryDemocrat, and they

Don't realize it...

[treestar]

55. But your liberty is being given up in the name of safety

So it's a matter of where to draw the line.

But I see you don't want to discuss that, and so anyone who does discuss that, you wish to dismiss as those who would give up all liberty for a little temporary safety.

[OneAngryDemocrat]

58. Not at All.

I've made that clear.

Perhaps you should read the entire thread before staking out territory.

I've said where the line is drawn now is unacceptable.

But I offered solutions.

Read post #16, for example.

[In_The_Wind]

37. Nude photos from which decade?

[OneAngryDemocrat]

38. What Are You Hiding 'In The Wind'?

Hmmm...

[In_The_Wind]

40. It's already 86° inside today ... nothing.

Since I packed away my camera

[Whisp]

43. Why don't you shut up and sit down. Nice talk there.

We never had that liberty you are talking about anyway. It's always been a scam and I believe the President is trying to make right some wrongs, and what does he get for it? Bunch of squawling gimme gimme right nows.

It's childish to think that the U.S. (or most any other country actually) is some kind of bastion of liberty and freedom. That's just naive beyond ridiculous and it's used against you.

[OneAngryDemocrat]

47. Then Why are you Here?

If it's all for show?

[Whisp]

48. what do you mean 'here'.

in my country, on this earth?

makes no sense, your question.

[OneAngryDemocrat]

52. If We're Pawns...

Why pretend we are not and post on DU?

[Whisp]

63. still makes no sense to me.

I like the cooking and baking forum and the gaming forum. and a few others.

There is a neat new recipe in C&B, Pawns with Prawns. yum. And, in the Gaming Group you can find some good chess games to play on your computer.

That's why I'm here mostly.

Does that pass your 'test'?

lolz.

[OneAngryDemocrat]

68. No. It Doesn't.

Of course it doesn't make sense to you.

You're a human spoon stirring the pot.

And that's all you are.

Number of Star members ignoring Whisp: 69
Number of Star members blocking mail from Whisp (including members ignoring): 70

You have a great day cooking prawns, now.

[Whisp]

44. Here's a nude picture of me descending a staircase.

I hate my ankles!

[leftstreet]

50. Oh. You wax

[treestar]

53. Here's the actual quote

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

This was written by Franklin, sometime shortly before February 17, 1775 as part of his notes for a proposition at the Pennsylvania Assembly, as published in Memoirs of the life and writings of Benjamin Franklin (1818). A variant of this was published as:

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

This was used as a motto on the title page of An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania. (1759); the book was published by Franklin; its author was Richard Jackson, but Franklin did claim responsibility for some small excerpts that were used in it.

What is the "essential liberty" that the government not having this metadata?

It is a matter of balance. As usual the Hair on Fire Brigade can't do balancing.

[OneAngryDemocrat]

57. We Can Start...

With ALL of the FISA judges being appointed by one political appointee, conservative Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts.

We can follow that up with everything that conservatives have done for the last 16 years devolving into the destruction of their political opponents.

And we can top it off with a historical record of government wiretapping MLK Jr.s telephone followed up by blackmail, the Watergate break-in, and the infiltration of peaceful protest groups and the arrest of peaceful protesters.

Need more?

If you are asking have Americans been harmed yet by the NSA's data sweep, I think that's an unanswered question that needs to be definitively answered on a semi-regular basis, rather than simply ignored.

DO YOU TRUST ROBERTS?

If so, WHY?

[treestar]

62. Why do you insinuate that "trusting Roberts" must mean something sinister

Roberts has duly joined the court and it is not the powers or Roberts himself but those of the CJ. There is nothing inherently wrong with entrusting this to the CJ and it's the law right now.

The FISA was passed in order to put some checks on the POTUS, who had total power before that, completely to do whatever he wanted!

But no one is discussing any changes to the FISA. It's all "you must support all leakers or you are an authoritarian who would give up your liberties for safety!"

[OneAngryDemocrat]

67. You ask a lot of questions - but answer none.

I didn't ask if he was qualified.

I didn't ask if he was appointed properly.

I asked, "Do you trust Roberts?"

If so, we have nothing further to discuss.

He is a conservative and a Bush appointee.

You want to wave pom-poms for both, bully for you.

I see no reason why the FISA judges can't be vetted and confirmed the same way other Federal judges are.

It fact, it's a no-brainer.

I have no reason to trust anything that any Republican has done for the last 16 years, to include Roberts.

NONE.

If you do that's your business, and good luck to you.

You deserve what ever disappointments come your way.

[treestar]

69. Angry is a good moniker

The FISA says the chief justices picks the FISA court judges. You are not even willing to discuss what might be wrong or even right about that! Or what would be better. You're already discussing me and how evil I am for disagreeing with you - no, how evil I am for looking for more information on the subject rather than jumping on your bandwagon!

I deserve calmer people to discuss politics with. People willing to consider both sides of the issue rather than making a knee jerk uninformed call, never backing off on it and doubling down no matter what comes out, and then just calling those who want to question, let alone disagree, names, and wishing ill upon them.

[OneAngryDemocrat]

70. Anger is a Great Motivator...

Anger is a great motivator.

Trust is not.

Trust makes you sit on your ass playing mind games with people who you think are worried about shit they shouldn't be worried about.

Anger, on the other hand, is why shit gets done. Arguably, it is the only reason shit gets done.

I see no reason why the FISA judges can't be vetted and confirmed the same way other Federal judges are.

It fact, it's a no-brainer. Thanx for asking.

You have a great day, friend.

[Zorra]

59. Exactly. They claim that there should be no expectation of privacy. nt

[cantbeserious]

77. I Have The Popcorn Ready For The Show - Who's First From The "I Got Nothing To Hide Crowd"

eom