FBI wants records kept of Web sites visited

an ideal human being has nothing to hide

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgweed
If we were all forced to have an electronic monitor embedded under our skin, this too would help the FBI track down "child molesters"---and anyone else they decide to look into.

That's true. But that would be an extreme measure that would be universally rejected. And rightly so. But the proposal about the web by the FBI is certainly not nearly as extreme, and may, on examination, be reasonable. Your argument, comparing the FBI proposal, with forcing us to have monitors, and concluding that because the second is unacceptable, so it the first, is a variation on the straw-man fallacy.

Protecting your own at any expense to others will not bring you security nor peace, because that will make you a danger to others, who may just end up doing the same thing.

Isnt that how the whole terrorism thing started? Hum...

An ideal human being has nothing to hide from other ideal human beings.

Does the FBI, or the United States government, now consist of ideal human beings?

(Excuse the late followup, but the thread as a whole has only just now come to my attention because someone has posted to it today.)

---------- Post added 02-14-2010 at 07:30 PM ----------

Surely that is not the structure of the argument.

The FBI says, "We want to monitor everything everybody does on the whole of the World Wide Web all the time so that we can catch (a) terrorists, (b) child molesters, (c) anybody we want to ... oh, what a giveaway!"

(You may ignore (c), and even (a), for the sake of strict logic.)

jgweed says, "If the need to catch bad people is a sufficient reason for the United States government to be allowed to keep the entire [Web-using] population of the world under surveillance at all times, then it follows that the implanting of electronic monitors would also be justified."

To that argument, one can object such a that forcible implanting of monitors would be an invasion of privacy, indeed a physical assault, in a way which the mere monitoring of Web traffic is not; and perhaps that is the objection you meant to make.

But jgweed's argument does not merely set up a straw man. It points out that the need for (a) security or (b) law enforcement or (c) total world domination (you may ignore that bit) does not of itself justify constant intrusive surveillance of the entire world population, because the harm done to individual privacy is not even being taken into account. There must be a weighing of pros and cons. The image of implanted electronic monitors is just a metaphor, but a rather good one, for us all having our privacy constantly eroded like this.

jgweed is not arguing against the proposal as such. He is arguing against the justification given for the proposal, saying that it is inadequate - which it is.

When you consider commercial interests know our every move , every interest we may show , so they may target their customers more successfully, this worry you have is outdated . You have no secrets , we are listed, monitored, controlled.

Hmmm,

Ideally, I'd think it OK for providers to keep long lists of traffic. But I'd want those subject to law enforcement, homeland security and other "protection" agencies for their just, respectful, loyal and prudent use (and then, only under compelling circumstances) by responsible, conscientious individuals.

The problem is: Would it be used only for these noble purposes? And only by respectful and thoughtful individuals? To this, I'd answer "Hell No. Even under the best conditions there is a risk for misuse, control, criminalizing and unjust-incrimination that would go beyond what I see as "noble and responsible".

So then the question becomes: Is what we're likely to lose (privacy and other risks associated with such a situation) worth what we might gain (security, safety and more evidence to get the bad guys)? What happens when something's criminalized (or otherwise disproportionately-incriminates us)? Is it still worth it?

Our answer is dependent upon our fears, priorities and principles.

If they wished to react to my defensive action then that is escalation but the fear of that would not stop me. I know, no action is worse than any certain action. Bullies dont turn away because of my inactivity. Terrorist dont act out of logic but they do fear retribution.

No weapon is used only for good but tell me one weapon that man has the ability to control. The web can be seen as a weapon, no one can control its ability. Terrorist and paedophiles use it against us why not use it against them?

But perhaps the fear or rather, caution, should stop you. I believe its worth to consider the possibility of that a defensive action that is an offensive action against someone else may put you in even more danger than you would be if you had not taken a defensive action.

I disagree with your opinion about terrorists. The fact that their objectives are stupid and unproductive doesnt means that they are incapable and cowardly. The grand objective of a human never has any logical justification... how to justify the desire for happiness, for instance?

We already do, the web is used for everything.

This could not be me, I was learnt to take the battle to my enemy not to sit and wait for him. Its not defensive its aggressive.

I dont think its a good idea to have enemies, but its your choice.

I dont choose to have enemies they choose me. Are paedophiles your enemy ?

it is very funny to me now to hear about how to track people and what they are doing. there was a time they could track cell phone users and their messages and now you can buy a cheap cell phone and use it and throw it away and who is going to track anyone that way? favorite and necessary tool of terrorists. not to mention you can buy guns at a 'gunshow' and they can not be traced to the buyer. concealed weapons are now legal and if a business does not want people to carry guns they have to post a sign prohibitting guns.

i couldnt believe my eyes when i went to the library and saw a sign 'no guns' along with the 'no smoking' sign. i notice there is no sign on public transportation.

as i see it, any attempts at trying to track people and what they are doing rather than making it easier to stop, deter or capture criminals is going to do nothing else but limit the confidentiality and anonymity of innocent people.

by the way is this only happening in america?

Salima, you wouldn't believe the gun laws recently passed in Tennessee.

A law was passed allowing those with "handgun carrying permits" to carry their guns (openly or concealed) in public parks, shopping malls and restaurants.

So this Village Idiot who is fast becoming a local legend, no one can figure out if he's trying to demonstrate the absurdity of these laws or if he's insane, goes to our local tree huggers' public wildlife, nature trail park dressed like an extra in "Rambo" (camouflage, red bandana, etc), wearing an ammo-belt and over-sized holster slung over his back, from which he "playfully" removes and starts slinging around some type of AK-47 which had been modified to meet the technical standards for "legal hand gun".

The park rangers did a felony take-down on the guy, then called the local police, who, after checking the modifications on the AK-47 and measuring its barrel (which was less than 1/2" below the maximum), determined the man was not breaking the law. The park rangers had to let him go and roam the park, understandably causing many to exit the park. And now the Idiot is suing the park rangers for illegal detainment!

That's only one of many outrageous stunts the Idiot has pulled lately. The pro-gun people, some of whom also work in law enforcement, are, understandably, livid. To get the pro-gun perspective on this guy, I joined a "gun" forum. There was no dispute on the forum that any competent law enforcement officer would have acted as the park rangers did. What they can't understand is how our new gun laws allow Idiot to keep getting away with these stunts and terrifying the public, just because, Idiot says, it's his "2nd amendment right".

On the other hand, a nearby chief of police, with a stellar record, took a leave of absence to fight in Iraq, where he served well and was decorated. When he returned, he had trouble sleeping at first, was diagnosed with mild PTSD, treated for a brief time, and then was cleared by TWO eminent psychiatrists at Vanderbilt University Medical Center to return to his former job.

But he can't return to his old job. The new law says that if a person has ever been treated for any type of addiction or mental disorder, he can never be issued a "handgun carrying permit".

The world's turned upside down...

rebecca

So Rebecca, what exactly has this guy done wrong? You might not like his antics, but what has he done wrong? Or are you not concerned with what he has done, but instead, what he MIGHT do? Convicting him of something he might do? Just because he might be a nut, doesn't mean he will hurt someone. Does he have the ability to? Yeah, but so does every person on this planet. So if you want to start convicting people of things they "might" do, how about tossing yourself into jail too if you are wanting him to be there. Unless you can actually find something he has done wrong, it is better to not make up a crime where none exists.

For me this talk of guns in public place is like saying whose in the nut house and whose outside? Cos I cant tell the damned difference. Freedom to scare the pants of your neighbour, what a law. God bless, save, America.

You get shot by the police in the UK even if it looks like a gun and I'm O so glad about that. No one should legitimately be allowed to carry a gun in a public place.

You know where else this happened? Germany pre ww2. Shortly before Hitler came into power, Germany had passed laws forbidding private ownership of firearms. So when the time came to round up all the Jews, they had nothing to use to protect themselves from the SS. Had private ownership of guns not be denied, this would have been very hard for the SS to pull off.

You can try to debate me but there is one country in all of Europe in which Hitler said would be insane to invade. One little tiny country out of all of Europe. Which one? Switzerland. But why? Because they have the most wide spread publicly owned firearm system and a majority are trained in how to shoot too. Knowing this, it would have made the country incredibly difficult to invade. Having home field advantage and a public that is well armed is suicide and Hitler knew that, so he avoided invading. You can say I am full of crap if you want, it is historically documented as I have pointed out here. Hitler wrote about it personally on several occasions and outlined pretty much what I have stated here. So refute it if you want.

The founders of the US constitution understood this premise well. That governments eventually will oppress the people and take away the rights of it's citizens. To prevent this from happening, the framers knew that the people would need a way to protect their rights, and that protection is the second amendment. It has nothing to do with hunting, and it has nothing to do with protecting your farm from native Americans. It had nothing to do with protecting the colonists from British invasions. It has everything to do with the government infringing on the rights of the American people.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground. This is so because those who gain positions of power tend always to extend the bounds of it. Power must always be constrained or limited else it will increase to the level that it will be despotic."

An outdated ideology that is not even true in fact. France has always had a gun culture , that did not stop Hitler invading France. Switzerland bank rolled Hitlers war so why should he invade the bankers. The Nordic countries carry guns and they had Hitler invade also. So your notion that it would deter invasion is not a very good argument.

Why should you be allowed to carry a gun in public, what purpose does it serve?

Im not saying you have to remove them altogether but strict control of ownership and not openly display them in public is not exactly infringing on your rights as much as it is on others freedoms to not be intimidated.

For me this talk of guns in public place is like saying whose in the nut house and whose outside? Cos I cant tell the damned difference. Freedom to scare the pants of your neighbour, what a law. God bless, save, America.

You get shot by the police in the UK even if it looks like a gun and I'm O so glad about that. No one should legitimately be allowed to carry a gun in a public place.

This same principal works on a smaller scale. On an individual level. Sure there will still be nut cases who you really wouldn't want to allow to have a gun, but you have to be fair. The fairness comes with them. If they aren't causing any problems, then what's the harm? But people don't honestly look at it that way. Instead they play this game of "what could happen" and convinct people of crimes they have not even commited yet, simply because they feel that they "might" do something harmful. As far as I am concerned, it is truely bad when we assume someone will commit a crime they have not done. It is far more dangerous to assume guilt than it is to wait until they have done something worthy of that guilt.

It is absurd that they place officers above the level of citizens. That someone one of their own is worthy of more attention than the average person. All because they refuse to allow people to defend themselves. I say if the police are over worked and strained, why not let the people protect themselves? Train everyone, hell you allow anyone and everyone to drive a car, surely we can provide gun safty courses and classes on proper respect and use of firearms. You are not forced to own one, but a poluation that is well trained is a peaceful one. Just look at Switzerland.

One again the facts dont bare out your argument. Carrying guns does not stop crime, in fact it can escalate the occurrence of violent crime. I dont want to get into statical battles but guns kill Americans in their thousands. Something that does not happen when they are criminalized.

Locally we have had youngsters get shot for brandishing an air rifle. It sends a message, no guns in private hands, in public view. Try pointing an umbrella at a policeman , pretending it was a gun. If you intend it to be classified as weapon then thats what it is.