and other carriers, it's time to go back a few years to listen to Obama's words. Of course, it should be noted that he forgot to start his comments with the words "Unless I'm President":
and other carriers, it's time to go back a few years to listen to Obama's words. Of course, it should be noted that he forgot to start his comments with the words "Unless I'm President":
"Ninety feet between home plate and first base may be the closest man has ever come to perfection." - Red Smith
Ya but, that is sooooo 2007.
Plus, it was wrong because the "R's" where doing it, but now that the "D's" are doing it makes everything just fine...unless you're an "R".
I hope I don't have to turn in my conservative card, but this doesn't bother me much. It's basically data mining and there's lots of oversight.
I think people are up in arms about this because of the AP and IRS scandals and the Obama team's apparent fondness for "The Chicago Way." But data mining under then supervision of the courts and Congress is something very different and I think it keeps us safer.
I did have to laugh at O's reference in the video clip to "illegal wiretapping." Such smooth demagoguery.
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery
"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats
“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”
--John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell
You havemuch more faith in govt assurances than do I. Govt promising to "police" itself is tantamount to the fox soberly, gravely promising to guard the chickencoop.
It is my opinion that if something is possible then the govt is doing it. Right or wrong. Institutions within the govt do not struggle with morality or other ambiguities.
"You can whip me. You can beat me, and you can kill me. Just don't bore me."
This is Obama earlier today. In this clip he comments that "you can't have 100% security and also then have 100% privacy and zero inconvenience". My response is to quote Franklin: "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."Originally Posted by LA Ute
Chad is right. Trusting the government is foolish.
"Ninety feet between home plate and first base may be the closest man has ever come to perfection." - Red Smith
I'm not saying that, because I don't think this (as I understand them) involve any surrender of liberty. The FISA courts are run pretty tightly and overseen carefully. You'd need all three branches of government to conspire in order to have abuses.
If this program has stopped a major terrorist attack on the USA, as Rep. Mike Rogers says it has (he's a conservative Republican), then it seems to me a good argument can be made that it is worthwhile. I don't want to be trying to tell a man whose kids were killed by terrorists that I feel terrible for him, but we needed to make sure we didn't give up any liberty and I hope he understands.
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery
"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats
“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”
--John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell
Ben Franklin was a smart dude, but could he have anticipated the world as it is now?
Cell phones
internet
air travel
compact high powered explosives
Nuclear weapons
cross boarder travel (increased by the nth degree)
Are privacy and convenience essential liberties? What small liberties have we already given up as a matter of security that we deem as normal now?
“To me there is no dishonor in being wrong and learning. There is dishonor in willful ignorance and there is dishonor in disrespect.” James Hatch, former Navy Seal and current Yale student.
This data mining didn't do much good in Boston.
I'm not saying that I would look father in the eyes who lost kids that we don't need to give up liberties, but I wouldn't tell him that I'm okay with giving up liberties. I'd just tell him that I was sorry for his loss and nothing more.
He may not have been able to know what we have today as far as technology is concerned, but if he were alive to day, I honestly believe that he'd feel exactly the same way as he did in his day.
As for liberties already given up, how do you feel about the TSA? Yeah, that was Bush and I was against it then, but is anyone happy we have it?
"Ninety feet between home plate and first base may be the closest man has ever come to perfection." - Red Smith
Regarding the Franklin quote, I don't really think we're giving up any "essential" liberty, and I think we're receiving much more than "a little, temporary safety." People love throwing out that quote for every single security measure without recognizing that every safety measure we have in society, including every security measure that everyone considers essential (like having police) involves giving up liberty.
I'm sympathetic to your point of view (you know that) but I just don't see what liberties we are giving up here. By going through the metal detector at the airport we are submitting to a search. It's a pain and I do it knowing I am giving up some liberty, but I do it anyway hoping I'll be safer.
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery
"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats
“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”
--John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell
NOW you are talking like a true anarchist!
"You can whip me. You can beat me, and you can kill me. Just don't bore me."
All you cell phone data are belong to us.
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery
"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats
“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”
--John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell
Don't worry. We know how to find you...and your little dog too!
"You can whip me. You can beat me, and you can kill me. Just don't bore me."
In honor of Garth and Chad:
OBAMAVERIZON-560x600.jpg
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery
"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats
“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”
--John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell
And here's one for you, LA
"Ninety feet between home plate and first base may be the closest man has ever come to perfection." - Red Smith
That Franklin chesnut is up there with the Jefferson quote that every generation needs a (bloody) revolution, or something like that.
I just saw a friend on facebook state that he would rather die at the hands of a terrorist than live in a country with compromised personal liberties. Really? You'd rather die than have big brother mining your emails and texts? Sometimes people say completely illogical things just to make a point.
Now to be clear, I don't like where this is headed. But given the choice of two extremes I'll go with survival over privacy.
As an Econ student at the U in the 1980s, we were told by one of our professors that because we were enrolled in his course we would likely be tagged by the FBI as potential problems, because he had been deemed a threat to national security because of his views. (This was the Cold War and he was quite critical of Capitalism).
He never got into trouble, I never heard of any trouble, in fact I was hired by the FAA later.
Now that I work in IT, I have access to a LOT of data, email, etc, but I simply don't have the time, interest or need to look at it.
I would imagine the NSA uses sophisticated algorithms to comb through unimaginable amounts of data looking for warning signs. Trust me, looking at peoples' email or where they go web surfing gets uninteresting, exceptionally fast. (I've had to do that in HR cases - it's just penetratingly boring work.)
This is really much ado about nothing, in my opinion. A lot of the same people who are dragging Obama through the mud on this issue are the same folks who would be in favor of profiling muslims.
Had the government been able to stop Tim McVeigh before he killed 167 people due to his extremism, I would have thought that would be a good thing.
Having spoken directly to several of the 'techie' guys the Feds have, they can't do what many think they can.
They just don't have the manpower or time to track things specifically and directly.
I sort of sit in the middle on this. Not sure I like it or hate it.
I will say, having had to do it a couple times on people reported to be missing and endangered, tracking cell phones is much cooler on TV than in the real world
Wait...you mean the tech folks can't immediately find the location of who they're looking for and track him in real time with a little red or blue dot on a google-type map of the city?Having spoken directly to several of the 'techie' guys the Feds have, they can't do what many think they can.
They just don't have the manpower or time to track things specifically and directly.
I sort of sit in the middle on this. Not sure I like it or hate it.
I will say, having had to do it a couple times on people reported to be missing and endangered, tracking cell phones is much cooler on TV than in the real world
"Ninety feet between home plate and first base may be the closest man has ever come to perfection." - Red Smith
Haha. Not even close.
You've just ruined NCIS for me. Now, I won't be able to watch without thinking it's fake.Haha. Not even close.
"Ninety feet between home plate and first base may be the closest man has ever come to perfection." - Red Smith
McGee is a hacker....
Bit of a read, but I enjoyed it.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...the-world.html
"You can whip me. You can beat me, and you can kill me. Just don't bore me."
The NSA leaker has stepped forward: http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/09/politi...-leak-identity
Interestingly, he cites Daniel Manning as a kind of hero and is attempting to find asylum in Hong Kong, which now is under the control of Beijing.
It appears we've found bi-partisanship, on both sides of this general issue. Republicans joining Democrats and Obama defending the need to be on guard against threats, and different Democrats and Republicans together in outrage against the notion their government has access to their private data.
Once the dust settles from this revelation, we may see proposals to narrow the deficit by making this data (or subsets) available to corporations for large sums of money, as a kind of ultimate marketing database.
Who lines up on which side of that debate would be revealing, me thinks.
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery
"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats
“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”
--John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell
I think the difference is that one you are saying, "Yes, I want to fly so I'll submit to these rules..." The other is monitoring simple existence. And as mentioned by others, we give up liberties all of the time for security such as submitting to police when requested, etc, but there are lines drawn and rules in place to protect the citizen.
What Ma'ake said is correct too, people are remarkably uninteresting. If you don't believe that spend some time on Facebook, but there is little motivation to monitor you or me. However, we are operating under the assumption of things being hunky dory now.
(A quick aside: We talk about security issues with this info, but with the government having all of this data, what keeps them from mining and intimidating people with other political views as they seek reelection, etc. Or reselling this info to marketers? Or even worse, realtors?)
My issue with all of this is there seems to be no real checks or balances, and just a 'trust us, this is for your good' mentality. It very well may be, but those sort of things can change quickly. I mentioned on uf.n that I think that since we are a representative democracy, that we should appoint expert representatives from each state (I suggested two appointed and one elected) charged specifically with monitoring these efforts. They could help determine thresholds that would trigger more monitoring and action, how data is monitored and stored (data storage and the risks of that is another discussion for another day) etc. This would be their sole purpose and hopefully operate like a judge keeping them separate from the power and corruption that is possible with our current elected officials.
Different times call for different measures, but the pattern has been established centuries ago, and we should have better checks and balances in place.
I'm starting to come around to the "this bothers me" point of view. Here's an interesting op-ed by Glenn Reynolds:
http://m.usatoday.com/article/news/2405991
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery
"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats
“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”
--John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell
Well said. Mr. Reynolds did a good job of summarizing my thoughts and feelings on it. What is sad to me is how apathetic many of the left are to the encroachments into personal liberties and government abuse when their guy is in power. If all the scandals outlined in the beginning were done under Bush they would be screaming...and the Republicans could then be just as apathetic. Time for people to wake up and realize what the common problem is with abuses under Bush (Warrantless wire tapping, Patriot Act, etc.) and abuses under Obama (NSA, IRS, Sebelius, DOJ, Fast and Furious, Benghazi, etc.): too much government.
"The best way to obtain truth and wisdom is not to ask from books, but to go to God in prayer, and obtain divine teaching."
Joseph Smith, Jr.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote