Snowdon is a dummy

@Walter Hinteler,

Quote:

Whatever Snowden is - he created some big trouble for US's relation to their "targeted" enemies allies in Europe.

Come on most of those nations was secretly trading such information with the US and the UK have almost as large of a date gathering set up as the US on all traffic going by way of the internet.

The people of those nations have reasons like we do to be unhappy with their own nations as well at the US.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

The real question is, do you want that much privacy, or would you rather they catch people who plan to harm you?

Yes. I want my privacy. (If I didn't, it would be against the constitution of my country.)

I want people who do harm to others to get caught as well.

I'm not sure, who from the EU or what citizens of what European want to us nuclear weapons against, or you or others. But those should be caught as well.

2 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

The question is "how much privacy?" You don't even want "data collection?"

If so, why?

1 Reply

I only today noticed that in the US-media it is "U.S. journalist Glenn Greenwald, who broke the story of the spy program after obtaining documents from Snowden".
We usually don't know the nationality of a journalist (nor has anyone interest in such) but refer to paper who published the report, here: The Guardian.

I wonder, why his religion isn't mentioned - if he was 'Moslem', it certainly had happened.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

The question is "how much privacy?" You don't even want "data collection?"

If so, why?

I don't want data collections ... without my consent.
The reason, as said, is quite simple: it is my constitutional right.
A second reason is quite simple, too: we had had two governments, who collected data. Both times with a terrible end (the first was really murderous for millions)

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

How is collecting numerical data an intrusion into your privacy?

Market research does that all the time; every time you use your credit card.

Credit companies collect private spending data to determine your credit score.

These are private data. Have you complained to them that it's against the constitution without your consent?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Did you not read the post? The perpetrators of those two crimes were known to police, but they didn't act because of too much data. This amount of indiscriminate surveillance actually hampers those people whose job it is to keep us safe.

2 Replies

@izzythepush,

I believe there are weaknesses in any surveillance techniques used by humans. Nothing is perfect, but the opposite of not doing surveillance seems to be another extreme of incompetence.

It seems to me common sense that most developed countries with the technological advances would use everything in their power to try to keep their citizens safe.

I believe the value of keeping us safe is more important than data gathering if they're not listening to private conversations or reading every transmission of communication of every private citizen. That would be logistically impossible any ways.

Do you understand how much security goes into each flight of an airplane?

I prefer to feel safe than let terrorists the freedom to get on any plane.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

The difference is it that either I agreed with that (and be it only by using such cards).
If credit card companies would collect my private spending data, it would be illegal and a criminal act. (They have access to my debt-repaying data, but even for that I have to sign ... and can get, who looked and why someone looked at those data)

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Even after you sign your receipt, they keep track of your spending (habits).

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

... and if they share it with anybody besides me and without my consent (or a judge's decision), the face prison up to one year.

2 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Quote:

Yes. I want my privacy. (If I didn't, it would be against the constitution of my country.)

???

What is that supposed to mean?

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

So, if a judge allows it, you will accept it, because? It's still against your constitution.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

Did you not read the post? The perpetrators of those two crimes were known to police, but they didn't act because of too much data. This amount of indiscriminate surveillance actually hampers those people whose job it is to keep us safe.

I say again, Izzy:

You are correct. Only people who are actually going to attack us...or commit terroristic acts should be targeted.

Don't you agree???

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

I mean, I sometimes can't avoid that my data is collected.
For instance, flying to the USA: they know all about me now including everything from addresses to meal preferences. And compare it with previous flights.

They'll have noticed that I once changed a flight and went via Washington (sic!!!) instead using one of the NY airports as done before. And that I only have eaten chicken or vegetarian (sic!!! sic!!!). And the last time, we stayed next to the Kirtland airbase, months before I drove around White Sands Missile Range ... ... ...

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

I've formulated that sentence indeed not understandable.

I just wanted to say that it is my constitutional right.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

No. Because "a basic right may be restricted by or pursuant to a law".

And since there are laws regarding a search, I have to submit to it, if the legal procedure had been done correctly.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

You really fail to understand the point if you're being so flippant. There are limited resources, people looking through indiscriminate amounts of data can't be following up on leads or looking at places where terrorists normally hang out.

2 Replies

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

You really fail to understand the point if you're being so flippant. There are limited resources, people looking through indiscriminate amounts of data can't be following up on leads or looking at places where terrorists normally hang out.

I am NOT failing to understand the point...and I am not being flippant.

There ARE limited resources...and I agree with you that YOU, for instance, and I, for another instance, ought not to be targeted.

And neither should anyone else who is not intent on committing terroristic activities.

The only people who should be targeted...are people who are going to commit terroristic activities.

I am agreeing with you.

You should be agreeing with me.

Do you agree that the only people who should be targeted are people who are going to commit terroristic activities?

2 Replies

@izzythepush,

It's also a case of barking up the wrong tree, as is the case with Mark Kennedy.

Quote:

He lived a double life as Mark Kennedy of the Metropolitan Police and as Mark Stone, green activist, based in Nottingham.

Danny Chivers, who was one of the six defendants in the failed case, said Mr Kennedy was not just an observer, but an agent provocateur.

"We're not talking about someone sitting at the back of the meeting taking notes - he was in the thick of it."

Mr Kennedy would disappear for extended periods, saying he had to visit his "brother" in the US.

In October 2010, Mr Kennedy was confronted by some of the activists after they found documents which revealed his true identity.

He admitted he had been a Met Police officer and had infiltrated their organisations, before then disappearing.

Speaking about the Ratcliffe-on-Soar protest, Mr Chivers said: "Mark Stone was involved in organising this for months - they could have stopped it at the start."

Instead, Mr Chivers said the police officer helped recruit as many people as possible.

He also drove a reconnaissance party to the power station in his van and then hired a truck for the main protest, Mr Chivers added.

The activists' plan was to try to shut down the coal-fired power station for a few days as a protest against global warming.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12148753

Kennedy's behaviour was highly questionable from the start, he even fathered a child whilst undercover. The target was a non violent green group who were intent on committing nothing more criminal than trespass.

Putting Kennedy's agent provocateur actions to one side, he wasn't available to stop the 7/7 bombers.

0 Replies

Snowdon is a dummy

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know