Maybe not you, but that's what the whole argument boils down to. Or at least most of the arguments here. We should pull up the last couple of threads regarding gun violence.
Some people here strongly believe that the nanny state of the government is going to make lives better for everyone. Give the government access to our phones. Let the government dictate if we can smoke in our own homes. Allow the government to restrict our travel. On and on and on...
Does anyone on here believe the government should be able to access our phones without a warrant? From the discussions I've been following, those who have been siding with the government in the Apple case believe that access should only be granted with a warrant (which is what I believe as well). Personally, I don't see why everything you have, even your own intimate body cavities, can be legally searched with the proper warrant, but not your iPhone.
heyjude said upthread that she was on the government's side in the apple case, which is what started this whole sidetrack conversation. Now whether she believes that there needs to be a warrant or not, I don't know. Considering that many of the conversations and articles posted say that giving the government a backdoor approach to the iphones just gives them a means of data-gathering without a warrant, then I think your argument is a moot point. Hell, we have sheriff offices with drones out there gathering cell phone information without a warrant. Routinely. And no one is doing a damn thing about it.
You have two things going on, what the government SAYS they're going to do, and what they HAVE been doing - which is gathering personal information without a warrant under the Patriot Act.
Does anyone on here believe the government should be able to access our phones without a warrant? From the discussions I've been following, those who have been siding with the government in the Apple case believe that access should only be granted with a warrant (which is what I believe as well). Personally, I don't see why everything you have, even your own intimate body cavities, can be legally searched with the proper warrant, but not your iPhone.
heyjude said upthread that she was on the government's side in the apple case, which is what started this whole sidetrack conversation. Now whether she believes that there needs to be a warrant or not, I don't know. Considering that many of the conversations and articles posted say that giving the government a backdoor approach to the iphones just gives them a means of data-gathering without a warrant, then I think your argument is a moot point. Hell, we have sheriff offices with drones out there gathering cell phone information without a warrant. Routinely. And no one is doing a damn thing about it.
You have two things going on, what the government SAYS they're going to do, and what they HAVE been doing - which is gathering personal information without a warrant under the Patriot Act.
All of this. I'm just going to ditto Pixy from here on out. Plus I need to since I'm heading out to multiple meetings. Carry on.
Does anyone on here believe the government should be able to access our phones without a warrant? From the discussions I've been following, those who have been siding with the government in the Apple case believe that access should only be granted with a warrant (which is what I believe as well). Personally, I don't see why everything you have, even your own intimate body cavities, can be legally searched with the proper warrant, but not your iPhone.Â
heyjude said upthread that she was on the government's side in the apple case, which is what started this whole sidetrack conversation. Now whether she believes that there needs to be a warrant or not, I don't know. Considering that many of the conversations and articles posted say that giving the government a backdoor approach to the iphones just gives them a means of data-gathering without a warrant, then I think your argument is a moot point. Hell, we have sheriff offices with drones out there gathering cell phone information without a warrant. Routinely. And no one is doing a damn thing about it.
You have two things going on, what the government SAYS they're going to do, and what they HAVE been doing - which is gathering personal information without a warrant under the Patriot Act.
Of course proper due process. As I said in the prior thread.
I agree with this too. None of it will eliminate terrorism, but it could certainly decrease support for it and the willingness of locals to aid and shield terrorists. And honestly, I think that this is part of why we have fewer issues here in the US with communities that are hotbeds of terrorism - Muslim immigrants in the US are much better integrated into society. Not all of that is for reasons that are under our control, of course, but overall I think the US does a better job of this than most European countries.
I honestly agree with this. If you truly integrate you see people as human beings while celebrating your differences.Then maybe we can stop all this senseless violence. I wonder how the US does a better job . Thoughts anyone?
I guess this is off topic now but that video of people coming off the subway train with the little girl crying/screaming is the just gut-wrenching. Those poor people.
heyjude said upthread that she was on the government's side in the apple case, which is what started this whole sidetrack conversation. Now whether she believes that there needs to be a warrant or not, I don't know. Considering that many of the conversations and articles posted say that giving the government a backdoor approach to the iphones just gives them a means of data-gathering without a warrant, then I think your argument is a moot point. Hell, we have sheriff offices with drones out there gathering cell phone information without a warrant. Routinely. And no one is doing a damn thing about it.
You have two things going on, what the government SAYS they're going to do, and what they HAVE been doing - which is gathering personal information without a warrant under the Patriot Act.
Of course proper due process. As I said in the prior thread.
Do you believe that the government has shown a willingness to adhere to proper due process in the past recent history? Keeping in mind the instances that I mentioned above.
I can't remember where, but I know I have been at a few airports where you had to get your luggage scanned before entering the airport. I think that is what is going to start happening everywhere. I actually thought about it when I was going through O'Hare a few days ago. We are all packed in the security line and everyone with a large carry on bag. I was thinking it would be a great place for an attack.
But won't there always be this problem? If you move the security checkpoint to outside the airport, then there will be a big line of people (with both carry-on and checked luggage) there. I understand the instinct to try to expand the security perimeter, but the security check will always be a chokepoint. The only way to fix it is to drastically expand the number of security lanes to minimize lines.
Maybe? I don't know. There wasn't where I have seen it before, but maybe they were smaller airports. I can't really remember where I have seen it done this way. That would be helpful if I could remember. It wasn't a full on security check like you do inside. It was more of a quick scan your bags kind of thing. My guess is that something is going to have to be done, but I don't know the right answer.
There are aspects of both the multiculturalist and assimilationist approaches that are valuable. The multicultural acceptance of diversity and the assimilationist resolve to treat everyone as citizens, not as bearers of specific racial or cultural histories, are both welcome. And there are aspects of both that are damaging – the multiculturalist tendency to place minorities into ethnic and cultural boxes, the assimilationist attempt to create a common identity by institutionalising the differences of groups deemed not to belong.
An ideal policy would marry the beneficial aspects of the two approaches – celebrating diversity while treating everyone as citizens, rather than as simply belonging to particular communities. In practice, though, Britain and France have both institutionalised the more damaging features – Britain placing minorities into ethnic and cultural boxes, France attempting to create a common identity by treating those of North African origin as the Other. The consequence has been that in both Britain and France societies have become more fractured and tribal. And in both nations a space has been opened up for Islamism to grow.
Post by NewOrleans on Mar 22, 2016 11:55:51 GMT -5
If anyone cares, Ted Cruz called for policing and securing Muslim neighborhoods in the US. (you know, like the suburbs?) Speaking of nanny state and racists.
If anyone cares, Ted Cruz called for policing and securing Muslim neighborhoods in the US. (you know, like the suburbs?) Speaking of nanny state and racists.
If anyone cares, Ted Cruz called for policing and securing Muslim neighborhoods in the US. (you know, like the suburbs?) Speaking of nanny state and racists.
So is Trump. Except he started off with I WAS RIGHT ABOUT TERRORISM NEENER NEENER.
If anyone cares, Ted Cruz called for policing and securing Muslim neighborhoods in the US. (you know, like the suburbs?) Speaking of nanny state and racists.
If anyone cares, Ted Cruz called for policing and securing Muslim neighborhoods in the US. (you know, like the suburbs?) Speaking of nanny state and racists.
Fuck him, if Cruz and Trump had their way, we would have holding detentions all over again. Do we learn nothing from history?
Of course proper due process. As I said in the prior thread.
Do you believe that the government has shown a willingness to adhere to proper due process in the past recent history? Keeping in mind the instances that I mentioned above.
No definitely not. We wouldn't have an entire collection of 4th amendment cases if the government (i.e. law enforcement) didn't push the boundaries of 4th amendment law. But the 4th is kinda vague. What is a search? What is unreasonable? It's an amendment designed to keep judges employed for centuries especially as technology changes.
If anyone cares, Ted Cruz called for policing and securing Muslim neighborhoods in the US. (you know, like the suburbs?) Speaking of nanny state and racists.
And Trump calls for something beyond water boarding.
Where did I say anything? I said freedoms. No, I do not think we should because then what do we get? We are forced to give up things to feel safer on planes and they still have items taken on. We are forced to go through xray machines. The government tries to infringe on us by chipping away at our freedoms on a regular basis (thank you continued Patriot Act). At what cost? I refuse to live in fear and we have oversight on police. We do not have the same with the government. I am not trying to be helpful with a one liner, but I will also not give in to fear and not fight back against the thought(s) that oh, Apple should just do x because the government is totes trustworthy. No. That is my line. I do NOT believe the government will stop at one person. They show time and again they can not be trusted. But, if you, or others, are okay with that then I can't stop that thought, but I sure as hell will rail against it.
So do you think we should not go through any security in airports? I don't understand what you are saying here.
Security? Yes, we should. Scanners? Nope. Shoes off? Nope. You (general) keep allowing and being ok with the gov doing whatever under the guise of it keeping us safe and what is left?
I guess this is off topic now but that video of people coming off the subway train with the little girl crying/screaming is the just gut-wrenching. Those poor people.
I will share in that since I just saw it. And all the strollers. God.
If anyone cares, Ted Cruz called for policing and securing Muslim neighborhoods in the US. (you know, like the suburbs?) Speaking of nanny state and racists.
What does this even mean? I live in a neighborhood with a large Muslim population. What are they expecting to find? It is just a normal neighborhood. It isn't as if there are large groups of people standing around planning terrorist attacks.
So do you think we should not go through any security in airports? I don't understand what you are saying here.
Security? Yes, we should. Scanners? Nope. Shoes off? Nope. You (general) keep allowing and being ok with the gov doing whatever under the guise of it keeping us safe and what is left?
I feel like there are two things going on here. First, security theater that doesn't actually work or make anyone safer. For example, the naked scanners and the shoe rules. I think we are all against meaningless, ineffective security measures, except for the contractors making big bucks off of selling those machines.
The second is what we're willing to give up for actual safety. This one is much harder, partly because it's harder to draw a direct connection between security measure A and prevented attack B. It's not like 24 where you have a clear-cut scenario that this guy has imminent information that you have to get in five minutes in order to prevent an attack. Plus a lot of that is kept secret and we never know about it - we rarely hear about the many intelligence successes and the attacks thwarted, we only hear about the terrible failures like today. But for the things that we actually know do work, how far are we willing to take those?
And depending on where you draw the line, you have to accept that you're making sacrifices either way. Are you willing to accept your phone data being available for the government to access with a warrant (and opening up the possibility that they could illegally access it without a warrant) if it means you can safely travel on airplanes? Are you willing to accept the small but real possibility that your child or spouse or parent could be blown up on the way to school or work in exchange for keeping your data secret and inaccessible?
It's always going to be a trade-off. You can't have full freedom AND full security.
In what world is this something God would do? What all-powerful, all-seeing, all-knowing God needs you to do this? If God wanted people dead, could He not do that Himself?
I don't really want to know the answer these people will give because it will make me rage. It's just me being mad and venting.
Security? Yes, we should. Scanners? Nope. Shoes off? Nope. You (general) keep allowing and being ok with the gov doing whatever under the guise of it keeping us safe and what is left?
I feel like there are two things going on here. First, security theater that doesn't actually work or make anyone safer. For example, the naked scanners and the shoe rules. I think we are all against meaningless, ineffective security measures, except for the contractors making big bucks off of selling those machines.
The second is what we're willing to give up for actual safety. This one is much harder, partly because it's harder to draw a direct connection between security measure A and prevented attack B. It's not like 24 where you have a clear-cut scenario that this guy has imminent information that you have to get in five minutes in order to prevent an attack. Plus a lot of that is kept secret and we never know about it - we rarely hear about the many intelligence successes and the attacks thwarted, we only hear about the terrible failures like today. But for the things that we actually know do work, how far are we willing to take those?
And depending on where you draw the line, you have to accept that you're making sacrifices either way. Are you willing to accept your phone data being available for the government to access with a warrant (and opening up the possibility that they could illegally access it without a warrant) if it means you can safely travel on airplanes? Are you willing to accept the small but real possibility that your child or spouse or parent could be blown up on the way to school or work in exchange for keeping your data secret and inaccessible?
It's always going to be a trade-off. You can't have full freedom AND full security.
That is a fool's argument, imo---Of course I don't want anything, but it's a BIG if in taking away liberties on the slim possibility something awful can happen. I like my rights.
You will NEVER get full security. Ever. It's an illusion, sadly, and I think that is where we won't agree here.
It's always going to be a trade-off. You can't have full freedom AND full security.
You can't have full security and any freedom. The only way to achieve full security is to have a totalitarian full lockdown with microchips implanted. Even then science fiction tells us that there would be ways around that.
And depending on where you draw the line, you have to accept that you're making sacrifices either way. Are you willing to accept your phone data being available for the government to access with a warrant (and opening up the possibility that they could illegally access it without a warrant) if it means you can safely travel on airplanes? Are you willing to accept the small but real possibility that your child or spouse or parent could be blown up on the way to school or work in exchange for keeping your data secret and inaccessible?
Do you get into your car every day and drive your kids, even though you know that you might get into a car wreck once you hit the road? Because that is more likely than a terrorist attack.