42
   

Snowdon is a dummy

 
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Sat 24 May, 2014 07:38 am
@Moment-in-Time,
Moment-in-Time wrote:
A true whistle blower would have stayed and faced the music and be judged by his peers.
[...]
I am loyal to my country and its people....as most people are. I would not deliberately hurt the land of my birth by telling the world its scrects; ... .[...]
Do you have an idea, why and how many people fled from the German Democratic Republic to the West?
Moment-in-Time
 
  1  
Sat 24 May, 2014 07:46 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Quote:
Moment-in-Time wrote:
A true whistle blower would have stayed and faced the music and be judged by his peers.

I am loyal to my country and its people....as most people are. I would not deliberately hurt the land of my birth by telling the world its scrects; ...


Quote:
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Do you have an idea, why and how many people fled from the German Democratic Republic to the West?


Please....feel free to elaborate.
Moment-in-Time
 
  1  
Sat 24 May, 2014 07:48 am
@Moment-in-Time,
Walter, I have to go grocery shopping. Will get back to you later.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Sat 24 May, 2014 08:01 am
@Moment-in-Time,
Many of those who fled were "whistleblowers". And didn't want to go to prison.

They weren't loyal to their country (of birth).
And this is one of the reasons why it isn't (legally) expected from us, too. [Besides in football Wink ].
Those, who have to make an oath of office (or similar) don't do like during the Nazi but swear "to uphold and defend the Basic Law and the laws (of the Federation)". And that's what I did, in various positions.


I'm not sure, if Snowden really knew what he did when leaving the USA and finally ending in Russia. And I don't know what his initial intentions were ... if there were any.
From an US point of view, he certainly has to be put on trial.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Sat 24 May, 2014 08:05 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:

I don't know the reason why Frank keeps saying privacy is becoming obsolete.

Facebook, other social websites, shopping cards etc - that's me who decides about privacy, what I accept.

Internet chatter monitored by the government because it's responsible? Then, what is the difference to phone calls, written letters, private conversations?

It is done, no doubt. Here, there, everywhere. But in a known "open sphere".
I think that privacy is a human right.
At least where I live.


The "right" to happiness is a human right, Walter....but that does not mean that everyone is happy.

If you do not see that privacy is going the way of the dinosaur...you must have your eyes and ears blocked.

Revelette mentioned several of the reasons.

Not sure where you live...but if it is what we would call a "city"...you are being watched in ways that boggle the mind.

And as I said, in my opinion, this "loss of privacy" will one day (soon) be regarded as a great boon to humankind.



Walter Hinteler
 
  3  
Sat 24 May, 2014 08:19 am
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:
Not sure where you live...but if it is what we would call a "city"...you are being watched in ways that boggle the mind.
I live in Germany.
And the relatively few cameras we've got on open/public spaces are only there due to the fact that courts allowed it and they are within the legal framework. (Different on private grounds)

My town is rather small for Americans - 70,000 inhabitants. ("Speed traps", mobile as well as stationary, are published by the police in advance.)
Walter Hinteler
 
  3  
Sat 24 May, 2014 08:39 am
@Walter Hinteler,
I've just looked it up again:
- you can use video on your private ground, if you post a sign about it and don't store the data longer "than for the purpose the camera has been installed".
- on public grounds, it's regulated by data protection and privacy laws = hard to be done. (For instance, our town council wanted to install cameras in a tunnel because of the graffiti in the renovated/new built area: already blocked before it went to the court by the town's own legal department.)
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Sat 24 May, 2014 08:43 am
@revelette2,
revelette2 wrote:
And I think congress should get off it's tuff and close down gitmo and either try the prisoners or let them go back to their home countries if there is not enough evidence to try them.

If anyone ever deprives us of our right to detain unlawful combatants, we get to kill all the unlawful combatants before we release them.
revelette2
 
  1  
Sat 24 May, 2014 08:43 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Quote:
Facebook, other social websites, shopping cards etc - that's me who decides about privacy, what I accept


Not really, you voluntarily put your information on those things, but from there it is anybody's guess what happens to it in the form of cookies and other tracking devices used by businesses or just nosey people in general and/or the government. I mean the things people give away on facebook regularly amazes me, we posts pictures of our kids for anyone to see and think it is safe because we are posting to our 2000 friends. The same with our money transactions, we really don't know what happens to it from there, all you can do is try your best to keep it safe or don't use the internet to buy things. But then even in stores when we use our credit cards, it is tracked, everything is tracked.

Quote:
Internet chatter monitored by the government because it's responsible? Then, what is the difference to phone calls, written letters, private conversations?


The government needs to keep up with internet chatter because that is one way we know for sure terrorist have communicated in the pasts. There might be a way separate the good guys from the bad guys and only keep with that chatter, but if there is, I don't know it. There is a difference between phone calls and the rest you mentioned, and as far as I know, data is only stored and kept and only when they have reason and it goes through the secret court do they open it. It seems reasonable to me, not sure really what they are going to change. I haven't really read up on it.





revelette2
 
  1  
Sat 24 May, 2014 08:45 am
@oralloy,
Quote:
If anyone ever deprives us of our right to detain unlawful combatants, we get to kill all the unlawful combatants before we release them.


I would imagine that would be a relief to those who have been in prison all these years.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Sat 24 May, 2014 08:50 am
@revelette2,
revelette2 wrote:
Not really, you voluntarily put your information on those things, but from there it is anybody's guess what happens to it in the form of cookies and other tracking devices used by businesses or just nosey people in general and/or the government. I mean the things people give away on facebook regularly amazes me, we posts pictures of our kids for anyone to see and think it is safe because we are posting to our 2000 friends.
Well, that's what I want: when I post something here or on facebook or any other website - it is more or less open.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Sat 24 May, 2014 08:57 am
@revelette2,
revelette2 wrote:
The government needs to keep up with internet chatter because that is one way we know for sure terrorist have communicated in the pasts.
And before the internet, they used phones and before that written letters ...
That certainly is what any counter-espionage agency did and does in any country.

But the argument is a bit ... flat.
There might be "homegrown domestic terrorists", those, who didn't act until now. And they would use the internet, too. To avoid such, any communication should be surveilled.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Sat 24 May, 2014 09:03 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
Not sure where you live...but if it is what we would call a "city"...you are being watched in ways that boggle the mind.
I live in Germany.
And the relatively few cameras we've got on open/public spaces are only there due to the fact that courts allowed it and they are within the legal framework. (Different on private grounds)

My town is rather small for Americans - 70,000 inhabitants. ("Speed traps", mobile as well as stationary, are published by the police in advance.)


The town I live in is also of approximately 70,000 population, Walter.

I suspect there are a lot more in the way of cameras in your open/public spaces than you are acknowledging right now...just as there are in our open/public spaces.

Damn near every person in the town carries a device capable of taking photos; movies; and recording speech.

There are, I will acknowledge, very few of the kinds of cameras and other devices one would find in cities larger than ours. In New York City, for instance, one is under almost constant scrutiny...by cameras installed by the city...and by business owners.

Privacy...in all areas...is less than it was yesterday...and will be even less tomorrow.

Fight it if you want.

I think it is something that ought to be embraced.
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Sat 24 May, 2014 09:13 am
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:
I suspect there are a lot more in the way of cameras in your open/public spaces than you are acknowledging right now...just as there are in our open/public spaces.
You are wrong - or, we would be the only place in all Germany where such happened.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Sat 24 May, 2014 09:20 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
I suspect there are a lot more in the way of cameras in your open/public spaces than you are acknowledging right now...just as there are in our open/public spaces.
You are wrong - or, we would be the only place in all Germany where such happened.


You folk do not carry devices that can take pictures and record movies?

C'mon!
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  3  
Sat 24 May, 2014 09:21 am
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:
Damn near every person in the town carries a device capable of taking photos; movies; and recording speech.
The only time I've ever got problems taking photos in a public space was ... in the USA: once, when I wanted to to take a photo of a steel band playing at night on Union Square. The other, when I wanted to take a photo of Penny in front of a Cambridge policeman on a motorbike. (Union Square was quite scary - since then, I changed my 'photo-taking-tactics' in the USA.)
Moment-in-Time
 
  1  
Sat 24 May, 2014 09:56 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Quote:
The only time I've ever got problems taking photos in a public space was ... in the USA: once, when I wanted to to take a photo of a steel band playing at night on Union Square. The other, when I wanted to take a photo of Penny in front of a Cambridge policeman on a motorbike. (Union Square was quite scary - since then, I changed my 'photo-taking-tactics' in the USA.)


I have never experienced a problem with my smartphone picture taking. When not in my car, merely walking, my camera is in my hand or bag. Perhaps you were acting nervously in front of the policeman!! Very Happy Just kidding. Cannot imagine why you encountered opposition of any sort unless you were unknowingly invading someone's personal space. Cameras are accepted everywhere similarly to people speaking on their phones endlessly.
Walter Hinteler
 
  3  
Sat 24 May, 2014 10:13 am
@Moment-in-Time,
That was in more pre-smartphone times (2005/6), and I'm usually carrying a couple of lenses with me.
(But I think that the steelband in New York was illegal, and the policeman was there because Clinton passed that road)
Moment-in-Time
 
  1  
Sat 24 May, 2014 10:40 am
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:

Privacy...in all areas...is less than it was yesterday...and will be even less tomorrow.

Fight it if you want.

I think it is something that ought to be embraced.


Your entire post is right on target, Frank Apisa, but especially your above statement. Cameras are everywhere....as we drive, street corners, at the ATM! If it had not been for cameras at the Boston Marathon bombings on April 15, 2013, we would not have been able to identify the terrorists so quickly. Americans familiarity with old privacy as we once knew it is fading and in its stead is a new normal of privacy. There is nothing that can be done to reverse this trend, at least, not at this time, because the technology is in its babyhood. We live in such an unpredictably violent world, and installing cameras everywhere appear the best the government can come up with to combat such, even if it's only after the fact.

I do not embrace an invasion of my privacy, but there's little I can do to prevent this scientific new industry from knowing much about me.....in such a society, one sometimes have to give up something precious. There are cookies wherever I go on the Internet. The other day I was searching the net for an unusual tiny air-conditioner for an exceedingly small window in my extra small living room. I did not find one to meet my window measurements, but an hour later, very tiny ACs were advertised wherever I went on the web.
Moment-in-Time
 
  1  
Sat 24 May, 2014 10:45 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Quote:

That was in more pre-smartphone times (2005/6), and I'm usually carrying a couple of lenses with me.
(But I think that the steelband in New York was illegal, and the policeman was there because Clinton passed that road)


Ah, now I understand, Walter. Extra precaution is always taken when presidents are scheduled to come a certain route.....unable to comment on the "steelband."
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Snowdon is a dummy
  3. » Page 365
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 01/08/2025 at 02:35:19