Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Can the FBI turn on the web cams of linux users?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by ACiD View Post
    By definition if you are extremely worried about NSAs interest in you, I certainly don't want anything to do with you. That makes you suspicious as hell also in my eyes

    If NSA combing through my e-mails may prevent one terrorist attack from happening, I say go for it. As long as its the government antiterrorism use and not any malicious party that might leak my info to the wrong hands as I do have high level business secrets etc. on my e-mails.

    The problem is that once you start to think the government as your enemy it pretty much stops any possibility to succesfully participate in the social or business life. You'd have to stop reporting taxes, using credit cards and whatnot
    Where does it end then?

    Now they may only want to comb your emails. But if you let them, next they want to comb through your house, your clothes, and before you know it, you're getting anal probed every other tuesday because terrorists, and we all have to bend over or the terrorists win...

    It's amazing, how some people who otherwise seem rational, seem to have this off-switch in their brain that activates with the mere mention of the word "terrorists". Excuse me, why are you reading my emails? Terrorists. Oh, that's ok then! Why are you listening to my phone calls? Why are you going through my underwear drawer? Terrorists. Oh, never mind then, carry on! Hope you catch those bastards!

    Anything and everything can apparently be justified with "terrorists". Any violation of privacy, any erosion of basic human rights, all can be shitcanned with appeal to terrorism. And that to me is scarier than any terrorist threat could ever be.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by dee. View Post
      All laws are man-made, as in: written by human beings. There is no written law on this world that wasn't written by fallible human beings. Therefore, all written laws are fallible.
      There is no point in going further in this discussion because you do not believe there is a supreme moral law given by God. You do have a "god", it's just not the God I worship, the God in the Bible, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit.

      I completely understand if these things are lost on you, or like you said ... "irrelevant".

      Good luck with your own morals (or lack thereof).

      We can now get back to the topic at hand - Linux

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by curaga View Post
        This is the main part where we disagree. I believe the right to privacy is absolute, and nobody has the right to decide that according to their morals, someone doesn't deserve privacy.
        Good luck to you then, just as I said to 'dee'. If you view anything as being outside of a moral context, then everything you said is true as far as you can see it, and I doubt any amount of arguing here is going to change you, dee's or anyone likeminded.

        Back on topic now - Linux.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by MartinN View Post
          Good luck to you then, just as I said to 'dee'. If you view anything as being outside of a moral context, then everything you said is true as far as you can see it, and I doubt any amount of arguing here is going to change you, dee's or anyone likeminded.

          Back on topic now - Linux.
          Your cristchian moral context aside, where do you find your inspiration to trust NSA, or any other organization or government? And this is absolute trust we are talking about.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by reCAPTCHA View Post
            Your cristchian moral context aside, where do you find your inspiration to trust NSA, or any other organization or government? And this is absolute trust we are talking about.
            First, there is no "moral context aside" - that's a self-deluding statement.

            To answer your question, I find my inspiration to trust the NSA in the same place where I find inspiration to trust you, precisely because my moral context implies I must trust you with my life, even though I don't know you.

            *edited*

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by MartinN View Post
              First, there is no "moral context aside" - that's a self-deluding statement.

              To answer your question, I find my inspiration to trust the NSA in the same place where I find inspiration to trust you, precisely because my moral context implies I must trust you with my life, even though I don't know you.

              *edited*
              Ok then trust me, you should not trust people you don't know very, very well, especially organizations who serve power hungry people, who own/control corporations, which (is this not obvious.) exploit 80% of this globe, so that lucky cotton picker in Africa has to work one year to earn 50$. Yes one year salary.

              I really don't know why have I typed this.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by dee. View Post
                Where does it end then?

                Now they may only want to comb your emails. But if you let them, next they want to comb through your house, your clothes, and before you know it, you're getting anal probed every other tuesday because terrorists, and we all have to bend over or the terrorists win...
                The NSA has no juristiction in my country so I doubt that. But on airports you're already subjected to a total comb through and sometimes even anal probes so whats new there? I'm a frequent flyer so I could almost say that I get probed every tuesday, luckily not anally

                It's amazing, how some people who otherwise seem rational, seem to have this off-switch in their brain that activates with the mere mention of the word "terrorists". Excuse me, why are you reading my emails? Terrorists. Oh, that's ok then! Why are you listening to my phone calls? Why are you going through my underwear drawer? Terrorists. Oh, never mind then, carry on! Hope you catch those bastards!

                Anything and everything can apparently be justified with "terrorists". Any violation of privacy, any erosion of basic human rights, all can be shitcanned with appeal to terrorism. And that to me is scarier than any terrorist threat could ever be.
                So what you're saying that your love letter to person x is so important and confidential that when your loved one dies in a terrorist bombing which was initiated by an e-mail conversation with the local sleeper cell, one that could be prevented simply by monitoring that traffic, you say oh well. At least nobody ever siphoned my love letter automatically for keywords. Tough luck, you can always find a new lover right? No biggie.

                The traffic screening can REALLY save a Boeing 747 worth of peoples lives. Is your love letter more important than their lives? Rest assured, of the 100 000 000 000 000+ messages they monitor, NOBODY is going to read your silly confessions to your partner unless youre attempting to do harm to others.
                Last edited by ACiD; 12-27-2013, 08:15 AM.

                Comment


                • #68
                  The problem with moral absolutism with God as the source of morals is that it would appear that God's own morals have changed. If we look at the old testament, the laws and morals that appear there are drastically different than what is seen in the new testament.

                  If you believe that Jesus freed us from sacrificing animals to God, then Jesus is a moral relativist.

                  Originally posted by ACiD View Post
                  The traffic screening can REALLY save a Boeing 747 worth of peoples lives. Is your love letter more important than their lives?
                  The problem here is with statistics. You are more likely to die from a regular plane crash than a terrorism-induced one. But you are far more likely to be killed by yourself or another driver that is using dangerously worn or underinflated tires. And yet there aren't any privacy-invading laws about that.

                  Terrorism is by definition scarier to most people, but reactionary laws to it are mostly ineffective. Guerrilla warfare won't be stopped by laws. I'm not saying we shouldn't do anything, but to sacrifice our freedom as Americans is absurd.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by cbgoding View Post
                    The problem here is with statistics. You are more likely to die from a regular plane crash than a terrorism-induced one. But you are far more likely to be killed by yourself or another driver that is using dangerously worn or underinflated tires. And yet there aren't any privacy-invading laws about that.

                    Terrorism is by definition scarier to most people, but reactionary laws to it are mostly ineffective. Guerrilla warfare won't be stopped by laws. I'm not saying we shouldn't do anything, but to sacrifice our freedom as Americans is absurd.
                    Do you honestly think a single Israeli passenger would get off their country alive if nothing was done to stop the terrorist attacks? Your logic fails. The only reason we are not dying more commonly to attacks are exactly these counter measures that you seem to detest. The majority of counter terrorism happens behind the scenes and out of public. There are no real life Jack Bauers running around and blowing cars up lol.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by ACiD View Post
                      Do you honestly think a single Israeli passenger would get off their country alive if nothing was done to stop the terrorist attacks?
                      You seem to have missed this line:

                      Originally posted by cbgoding View Post
                      I'm not saying we shouldn't do anything
                      And thus you're arguing against a point that I did not make.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X