Would You Sacrifice Your Privacy for National Security?

[Obdurate]

Don't worry Gracie, I always read your posts for what they are. You're like my mom figure away from mom. Er, I mean that in a good way of course. So anyways, onto COMPLETELY BASHING YOUR OPINION AND INSULTING YOU AS A PERSON now:

seems more important to you than having empathy for the personal human experience I was opening up about and sharing with everyone.

I don't think enough people have enough empathy/consideration for the human experience/emotions, during debates/arguments.

I often see "emotion based logic" or "emotion based rhetoric" or whatever the hell it is people like to call it being insulted here and elsewhere, but the difference between just arguing and not getting through to someone and arguing and actually getting through to someone has tons to do with emotion, both using it and understanding it. And having a little bit of emotional inspiration is nothing to be ashamed of. And yeah, before someone says it, I understand that people can act irrationally when they're too emotional, but that's not really my point. I'm going off on a tangent here, but I've wanted to say that for a while.

I think all people with half a heart would like to know that if their own family member were in law enforcement that their family member would have more tools and resources than the criminals had and that they were protected as well as possible and given all the advantages that they could possibly have in order to do their jobs and then return home safely to their families at the end of the day. That is all I was saying, plain and simple. Thinking this way does not equate to me wanting something that leads to a fascist police state, it equates to me wanting my family to be safe. All people want this. No one is going to enjoy any freedoms or liberties if they are dead.

When you first mentioned family as cops, I felt conflicted. It's one of those things I constantly argue with myself over. I'm opposed to authority, meaning in an ideal society authority is unnecessary as we can take care of ourselves, as a community. But some cops (don't feel like I'm dissin' your family by saying cops instead of police officers or something, it's like... a 4 letter word and it's easy to type lol) do feel like they're helping, and maybe they because of the current system we have set up, but I don't like anybody having control over anothers life. Meaning, I'm all for what Minor said about there being potential to abuse powers but I see where you're coming from Gracie cuz cops are people, first and foremost, and figures of the law second. That's why being an extremist -- and I'm not one, I could be classified as a radical though, there's a difference -- doesn't work. It doesn't pay enough attention to humanity and way too much to what people would call logic.

I only really feel this strongly about it because being an anarchist, you often see lots of 'KILL COPS' attitudes, in both talking to people and in bands I like (such as Leftover Crack).

What the fuck's my point? I don't want to make this too long but now I feel like I'm not explaining myself enough.

Anyways, moral of the story is... the song Old Snake from MGS4 is awesome.

 

[Tim]

Its hard to argue that it doesnt make American safer, it most definitely does.

Actually there is a very good argument that it does not make us safer... Before the attack we had actionable intelligence on the hijackers. 9/11 could have been prevented if law enforcement had enough personnel to go through the information already in their possession. This was with thousands of pieces of information to sift through. Now imagine having to pour through billions of pieces of information.

The patriot act took the focus off of gathering specific information and moved it towards blanket sweeps of information gathering. This does nothing but create volumes of information that could not possibly be looked over with any sort of detail.

Now don't get me wrong, I don't put the blame on anyone for not preventing 9/11. You can't always figure out the pieces of the puzzle (intel) and stop something like 9/11... this is why too much generalized information is actually a bad thing. The good intel just gets lost in the mix.

 

[Hans]

Actually there is a very good argument that it does not make us safer... Before the attack we had actionable intelligence on the hijackers. 9/11 could have been prevented if law enforcement had enough personnel to go through the information already in their possession. This was with thousands of pieces of information to sift through. Now imagine having to pour through billions of pieces of information.

The patriot act took the focus off of gathering specific information and moved it towards blanket sweeps of information gathering. This does nothing but create volumes of information that could not possibly be looked over with any sort of detail.

Now don't get me wrong, I don't put the blame on anyone for not preventing 9/11. You can't always figure out the pieces of the puzzle (intel) and stop something like 9/11... this is why too much generalized information is actually a bad thing. The good intel just gets lost in the mix.

I see your point, but I still am inclined to disagree. You can create filters, profiles, to specifiy more valueable information. Im sure they do that also, but I doubt they'd flaunt around something of that nature.

 

[GraceAbounds]

Thanks Obdurate. I totally got what you were saying (good post) and thanks for taking the time to know my spirit to understand what I was getting at.

 

[Minor Axis]

Wow, what a way to stretch what I was saying and run off into left field. From your response it doesn't even seem like you really read and absorbed what I posted at all. On top of that, your response attempts to put words in my mouth and then clumps me into a way of thinking of which is not my own. Your desire to be right about I don't know what, as I haven't even stated a strong stance in this thread at all, seems more important to you than having empathy for the personal human experience I was opening up about and sharing with everyone.

Maybe I did misread what you were saying. If so my apologies. This thread involves giving up civil liberties for national security. When you talk about giving tools to authorities, I assume those tools involve giving more power to authorities, things such as warrant-less wire taps. Those types of things alarm me and maybe I over reached.

 

[GraceAbounds]

Appreciate it Minor. And yeah, I don't have answers for the OP. I understand each side of the argument. It seems like a no win situation to me. I don't know how far is too far? I just don't know. I agree with you that it is a slippery slope, to which I am not fond of.