Individual privacy is under threat in the United States and across the European Union as governments introduce sweeping surveillance and information-gathering measures in the name of security and controlling borders, an international rights group has said in a report.


And remember - if you stand up for privacy and the right to be secure in your person, papers and effects then you're a terrorist!

Just like Thomas Jefferson....

It strikes me as odd.... when the US spends 50% of the world's total arms expenditure, other NATO countries another 25% that's durrr 75% of all the tanks, planes and bullets in the world, in what we might assume "reasonably safe hands", why our governments are instigating such violations to our rights.

It's not like we have anything to fear in our homes, is it?

I appreciate there are a lot of desperately poor folk trying to get into North America, Europe and Aus/NZ so some form of ID may be required but still the measures taken seen a bit over the top.

The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil Constitution, are worth defending at all hazards; and it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors: they purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood, and transmitted them to us with care and diligence. It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men. ~Samuel Adams

Dems have especially been complicit in this.
Its all part of the Liberal Big Nanny state plan they seem to love so much.
We do need to give up some privacy to stay free, but, the dems want to take it too far.
And of course they are posed to nominate the biggest socialism pusher since Germany in 1936...
Of course they will find some way to make this all Bush's fault.
/Ex-dem, never going back.

Cue Ron Paul fans...

/oh wait, that's me.
//Beware the NAU!

hillary4real: /Ex-dem, never going back.

NO one here believes that, or the rest of the things you say.

Alphax: NO one here believes that, or the rest of the things you say.

The trolls, don't feed them.

In the same vein as those citing Founding Fathers, I'm struck by the same thought that I often have these days: I wonder how the US as well as the media and the world would react to a modern day equivalent of the Boston Tea Party.

Any thoughts?

The current media would mention the boston tea party on page E28.

ProdigalSigh: In the same vein as those citing Founding Fathers, I'm struck by the same thought that I often have these days: I wonder how the US as well as the media and the world would react to a modern day equivalent of the Boston Tea Party.

Any thoughts?

they'd drop in an airborne brigade to stop that nonsense.

YARRR, a Pirate's life for me!

I'd like to refresh the tree of liberty with the blood of a few tyrants. One in particular.

ProdigalSigh: In the same vein as those citing Founding Fathers, I'm struck by the same thought that I often have these days: I wonder how the US as well as the media and the world would react to a modern day equivalent of the Boston Tea Party.

Any thoughts?

to be similar, you would need a large corporation or industry with a large cache of something somewhere close to a defiant group of people. maybe someone emptying the national oil reserve or burning down a large warehouse full of RIAA-protected CD's, and anything similar to that would probably cause alot of doors to be kicked in and alot of accusations of the perpetrators being terrorists, so it would be very implausible for a modern day BTP to happen.

The director quoted in the article said don't worry, in a few years privacy will become a political issue. By the time your soccer security moms and the other scared shiitless people wake up to the fact of no privacy it will be too late to do anything. FUKK BUSH and all the other rich elitist assholes.

Xxplosiv: to be similar, you would need a large corporation or industry with a large cache of something somewhere close to a defiant group of people. maybe someone emptying the national oil reserve or burning down a large warehouse full of RIAA-protected CD's, and anything similar to that would probably cause alot of doors to be kicked in and alot of accusations of the perpetrators being terrorists, so it would be very implausible for a modern day BTP to happen.

You could always organize a couple of hacker types and have them steal sensitive corporate information and dump it onto myspace or something.

ProdigalSigh: In the same vein as those citing Founding Fathers, I'm struck by the same thought that I often have these days: I wonder how the US as well as the media and the world would react to a modern day equivalent of the Boston Tea Party.

Any thoughts?

Something like that has been looking more and more like a great idea to me lately. Anything really to get things changing around here. Especially in the case of a Huckabee, Giuliani, or Clinton presidency- in descending order of worst-case scenarios, IMO.

Xxplosiv: to be similar, you would need etc, etc...

I was thinking the purging of a telecom server room, or at least the data within one. Fight Club already did Credit Cards, so it'd be hard not to be a rip off.

Another interesting thing is the Native American garb used in the original, modern day equivalences...

Good makings for at least a short story here.

ProdigalSigh: In the same vein as those citing Founding Fathers, I'm struck by the same thought that I often have these days: I wonder how the US as well as the media and the world would react to a modern day equivalent of the Boston Tea Party.

Any thoughts?

The perps would be vilified and slandered. It would end up like the Branch Dividian standoff in Waco.

/it's time for another revolution

"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."

IOKIARDI

Rowr^^

"Individual privacy is under threat in the United States and across the European Union", says group that includes Wayne Madsen and Noam Chomsky as Board Members.

steevmit: It strikes me as odd.... when the US spends 50% of the world's total arms expenditure, other NATO countries another 25% that's durrr 75% of all the tanks, planes and bullets in the world, in what we might assume "reasonably safe hands", why our governments are instigating such violations to our rights.

It's ignorance like this, not apathy, which endangers our security. Do you honestly believe that the Chinese, Russians or even Indians pay as much per armored vehicle or fighter aircraft as we or the Europeans do? Of course not. The cost of living isn't nearly as high in either of those nations. Total expenditure in nominal terms is meaningless; your efforts to disarm the United States dishonest if not the work of fifth columnist.

ScubaDude1960: The perps would be vilified and slandered. It would end up like the Branch Dividian standoff in Waco.

I'm not so sure, to remain true to the idea behind it, the act would have to remain largely symbolic, part of me thinks that the whole thing would be largely ignored by everybody.

In the recent past we've had untold numbers of widely attended protests and I can't remember the last one that got major press coverage or sparked any serious debate. I agree with the sentiment though, they'd either be called terrorists or kooks.

HappyDaddy: "Individual privacy is under threat in the United States and across the European Union", says group that includes Wayne Madsen and Noam Chomsky as Board Members.

1)Have proof to back up those assertions?
2)If not DIAF,fascist.

HappyDaddy: says group that includes Wayne Madsen and Noam Chomsky as Board Members.

HURRRR PERSON I DON'T LIKE SAY THING I DISAGREE

idsfa
*big "OBVIOUS" gif*

That's very impressive. I admire it.

HappyDaddy: "Individual privacy is under threat in the United States and across the European Union", says group that includes Wayne Madsen and Noam Chomsky as Board Members.

And?

How about this headline:

"The Sun will rise in the East, and set in the West tommorrow", claims a group that includes Noam Chomsky among it's membership.

or this one:

"Water is wet, the sky is blue, fire burns, and trees are made of wood", says group that includes Noam Chomsky as a board member.

Which of those three headlines do you wish to take issue with?

General Zang: HappyDaddy: "Individual privacy is under threat in the United States and across the European Union", says group that includes Wayne Madsen and Noam Chomsky as Board Members.

And?

How about this headline:

"The Sun will rise in the East, and set in the West tommorrow", claims a group that includes Noam Chomsky among it's membership.

or this one:

"Water is wet, the sky is blue, fire burns, and trees are made of wood", says group that includes Noam Chomsky as a board member.

Which of those three headlines do you wish to take issue with?

Not that I am agreeing with the other guy here, but nice straw man.

Comrade438: It's ignorance like this, not apathy, which endangers our security. Do you honestly believe that the Chinese, Russians or even Indians pay as much per armored vehicle or fighter aircraft as we or the Europeans do? Of course not. The cost of living isn't nearly as high in either of those nations. Total expenditure in nominal terms is meaningless; your efforts to disarm the United States dishonest if not the work of fifth columnist.

I agree, they may not pay as much per piece of hardware but then the quality they have will be so much more inferior. Have you seen the state of the Russian nuclear subs or bombers? My point is, when the West spends so much more than everyone else put together why should we be so worried.

steevmit: I agree, they may not pay as much per piece of hardware but then the quality they have will be so much more inferior. Have you seen the state of the Russian nuclear subs or bombers? My point is, when the West spends so much more than everyone else put together why should we be so worried.

A bit old, but the three powers I mentioned are not stagnant:

The plan envisages the deployment of 34 new silo-based Topol-M missiles and control units, as well as an additional 50 such missiles mounted on mobile launchers by 2015; Russia so far has deployed more than 40 silo-based Topol-Ms.

...

As part of the plan, the navy will commission 31 new ships, including eightnooclear submarines carrying intercontinental ballistic missiles, Ivanov said.

It would be a waste of money for them to survey my normal avg occasionally boring life, then it would be to invest their resources into a better cause. But then again we are talking about wasting money and the US government.

hillary4real: Dems have especially been complicit in this.
Its all part of the Liberal Big Nanny state plan they seem to love so much.
We do need to give up some privacy to stay free, but, the dems want to take it too far.
And of course they are posed to nominate the biggest socialism pusher since Germany in 1936...
Of course they will find some way to make this all Bush's fault.
/Ex-dem, never going back.

What? You think the Republicans are any better on this than the Democrats? Oh wait you're a Godwin troll.

You were ok until that whole give up privacy to stay free bit. Then the Godwin thing pushed it waayyy over the top.

2/10

Poor execution
Bad strawman
Way too obvious Godwin
Chessy Bush tie-in
Crappy finish

You can do better... can't you?

jpawlikowski: ProdigalSigh: In the same vein as those citing Founding Fathers, I'm struck by the same thought that I often have these days: I wonder how the US as well as the media and the world would react to a modern day equivalent of the Boston Tea Party.

Any thoughts?

Something like that has been looking more and more like a great idea to me lately. Anything really to get things changing around here. Especially in the case of a Huckabee, Giuliani, or Clinton presidency- in descending order of worst-case scenarios, IMO.

No, you can trust me. Jesus is the only eye in the sky that I need. ;)

Nope. I believe every word in the Constitution ought to be upheld, even that uneasy one about the right to keep and bear arms. I want the right to say whatever I please and worship whatever I want; if that means Christian Identity members get to keep bazookas under their beds and the ATFE have to have legal warrants to intercede, so be it.

The rapidly eroding Constitution has been of great concern to me and the only real reason I support the ACLU. I've been so open about my contempt for the present governmental system and my firm belief in the need for immediate and violent overthrow, I'm surprised I'm still here. Although that could easily change at any time, I'm sure.

Dems have especially been complicit in this.
Its all part of the Liberal Big Nanny state plan they seem to love so much.
We do need to give up some privacy to stay free, but, the dems want to take it too far.
And of course they are posed to nominate the biggest socialism pusher since Germany in 1936...
Of course they will find some way to make this all Bush's fault.
/Ex-dem, never going back.

When you say 'of course' twice in two lines, it shows you sat there for like ten minutes composing a troll of all things, then you didn't even re-read it.

I don't like the ellipsis. Just say Hitler.

Textbook inversion of popular controversy. I suppose trolling isn't exactly composing a symphony.

7/10, but I still don't want to argue. The issue you picked is too old and too obvious.

manwithplanx said:

Not that I am agreeing with the other guy here, but nice straw man.

I think you misunderstand what "strawman" means.

Basically, I was calling the other guy out on his refusal to acknowledge easily visible facts which are common knowledge... simply because he has some hate-on against Noam Chomsky.

We're living in late 2007... soon to be 2008. Anyone who says that "individual privacy is under threat in the United States and the European Union" at this late date, might as well be saying "water is wet, and fire burns".

It's as obvious as the nose on someone's face.

Heck, even the submitter said the same darn thing in his headline.

And yet, Mr. Other Guy, chooses to publically dispute obvious things... ...and cites the identity of the teller-of-obvious-things as the reason for dispute.

How you found a "strawman" in all of that, is beyond me.

Comrade438: steevmit: I agree, they may not pay as much per piece of hardware but then the quality they have will be so much more inferior. Have you seen the state of the Russian nuclear subs or bombers? My point is, when the West spends so much more than everyone else put together why should we be so worried.

A bit old, but the three powers I mentioned are not stagnant:

The plan envisages the deployment of 34 new silo-based Topol-M missiles and control units, as well as an additional 50 such missiles mounted on mobile launchers by 2015; Russia so far has deployed more than 40 silo-based Topol-Ms.

...

As part of the plan, the navy will commission 31 new ships, including eightnooclear submarines carrying intercontinental ballistic missiles, Ivanov said.

You've gotta be kidding me; that crap is about as realistic as the Russian Moon Base, its pure propaganda for the Russian domestic audience. Its nothing new though - if you read the US intelligence estimates of the USSR from ~1987 or so, it sounded like the Red Horde was 2 steps from overrunning us right until the 11th hour; all the while, the reality was the Soviet military was falling apart. The USSR put up a strong front, and the CIA and US military were more than willing to parrot it in order to justify their budgets.

But please Comrade438, continue with your ridiculous scare-mongering and spewing of the "traitor" label. I need a good laugh tonight.

m2313: 1)Have proof to back up those assertions?
2)If not DIAF,fascist.

Fark off. (new window)

spamdog: HURRRR PERSON I DON'T LIKE SAY THING I DISAGREE

Did I say I disagreed? Why no, I didn't. I merely supplied some information that might reflect on the credibility of the sponsoring organization. Some may find Madsen and Chomsky's association a boost to its credibility. Others, not so much.

People are very concerned about the federal government violating their privacy which is why they are eager as can be to turn all medical care over to the federal government.

General Zang: manwithplanx said:

Not that I am agreeing with the other guy here, but nice straw man.

I think you misunderstand what "strawman" means.

Basically, I was calling the other guy out on his refusal to acknowledge easily visible facts which are common knowledge... simply because he has some hate-on against Noam Chomsky.

We're living in late 2007... soon to be 2008. Anyone who says that "individual privacy is under threat in the United States and the European Union" at this late date, might as well be saying "water is wet, and fire burns".

It's as obvious as the nose on someone's face.

Heck, even the submitter said the same darn thing in his headline.

And yet, Mr. Other Guy, chooses to publically dispute obvious things... ...and cites the identity of the teller-of-obvious-things as the reason for dispute.

How you found a "strawman" in all of that, is beyond me.

I find a strawman in all that because the original person said that he didn't trust the claim because that one guy was on the board. You made it out that his claim was that any claim made by a board that included Chomsky and gave 2 other things that no one could possibly disagree with just because Chomsky was on the board. Thereby defeating his supposed position of "Any board with Chomsky on it that makes a decision might be faulty." Which obviously wasn't his point.

HappyDaddy: m2313: 1)Have proof to back up those assertions?
2)If not DIAF,fascist.

Fark off. (new window)



I will, because you had proof.You sure seem awfully pissed from just one question though.

And of course, most people are mistaken: privacy is not under "threat," the wrongheaded notion that it is possible to hide under the 1st or 4th Amendments is.

Ultimately, security trumps privacy, and what most of you have problems accepting is that only the guilty would be affected by this policy.

Most Americans are law-abiding, and want nothing to do with "terrorism," but unfortunately our enemies know how to use our legal system to their advantage, which is why these unfortunate but necessary changes in policy arise.

No, until we make some major strides in the War on Terror and we no longer have to face the threat of another Al-Qaeda led attack, this is only the beginning.

m2313: 2)If not DIAF,fascist.

As I said, fark off.

(It isn't necessary to be pissed to tell someone to fark off, merely that they deserve to be told to fark off)

HappyDaddy: m2313: 2)If not DIAF,fascist.

As I said, fark off.

(It isn't necessary to be pissed to tell someone to fark off, merely that they deserve to be told to fark off)

Notice the phrasing
The point was supposed to be if you didn't have proof then I could call you a fascist with the same amount of proof.It was supposed to show you your own logic in the event you didn't have proof.
Have a good day.