Snowdon is a dummy

@Walter Hinteler,

I'm just thinking about these "misguided folks". That would include the judges of our Federal Constitutional Court (see for instance 1 BvR 370/07, 1 BvR 595/07)

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
Not anywhere, Walter...although well-meaning, but misguided folk like you will continue to clamor for it. Luckily for civilization...you will lose that fight...and the sooner the better for us all.

Interesting. So you consider our constitution to be against civilisation.

And it would be - in consequence - better if we ... revolt against it. Perhaps we really should become a fiefdom of the USA.
As said: interesting.

If your constitution considers personal privacy to be paramount...then "YES" I do consider it to be a blot on civilization.

The only way "civilization" succeeds, Walter, is if everyone in the group agrees to surrender significant portions of individual privacy. That is how families, clans, tribes, towns, cities, and states got started...and it is the way they will continue to flourish.

I'm glad you find it interesting.

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

I'm just thinking about these "misguided folks". That would include the judges of our Federal Constitutional Court (see for instance 1 BvR 370/07, 1 BvR 595/07)

Yup...if they are ruling that individual privacy is paramount...they are included in the group I consider "well-meaning, but misguided folk.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Yup...if they are ruling that individual privacy is paramount...they are included in the group I consider "well-meaning, but misguided folk.

It would be funny, if the Constitutional Court ruled against the constitution. If you call that "misguided", I think such to be somehow quite queer, but perhaps such is a sweet deal all around in your country.

(This basic right can may be interfered with only pursuant to a law, according to our Basic Law.)

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
Yup...if they are ruling that individual privacy is paramount...they are included in the group I consider "well-meaning, but misguided folk.
It would be funny, if the Constitutional Court ruled against the constitution. If you call that "misguided", I think such to be somehow quite queer, but perhaps such is a sweet deal all around in your country.

(This basic right can may be interfered with only pursuant to a law, according to our Basic Law.)

Giving you my opinion, Walter...as you are giving me yours.

Personal privacy is damn near a thing of the past...and anyone making a big deal of it right now is, IN MY OPINION, on the wrong track.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Giving you my opinion, Walter...as you are giving me yours.

Personal privacy is damn near a thing of the past...and anyone making a big deal of it right now is, IN MY OPINION, on the wrong track.

Thanks for your comment on our constitution - I didn't give an "opinion" but referred to our constitution (Basic Law).

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
Giving you my opinion, Walter...as you are giving me yours.

Personal privacy is damn near a thing of the past...and anyone making a big deal of it right now is, IN MY OPINION, on the wrong track.
Thanks for your comment on our constitution - I didn't give an "opinion" but referred to our constitution (Basic Law).

Actually...you gave several opinions.

I thank you for them.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

You should thank my professors for constitutional law Wink

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

You seem a very interesting person with an interesting career you used to have.

I think this spying stuff is like a Pandora's Box, it is already opened and would be very hard to shut it again.

3 Replies

@revelette2,

Quote:

I think this spying stuff is like a Pandora's Box, it is already opened and would be very hard to shut it again.

Not at all as the very same technology that now allowed for massive spying can be used to made massive spying impossible and that fact is why you see such people as the CIA and FBI directors now crying about the net going "dark" on them and asking congress to enacted unenforceable laws to prevent that from happening.

As far as say cloud storage for example is concern all that would be needed to be done is to put into place software where the only the customers hold their encrypted keys and no information leave for the clouds that is not encrypted before leaving the customers computers.

Microsoft or google or dropbox would not be able to turn over to any government anything but data that look like random numbers as they would not have the keys.

1 Reply

@revelette2,

revelette2 wrote:

I think this spying stuff is like a Pandora's Box, it is already opened and would be very hard to shut it again.

I think countries like China, Romania and Germany have done a pretty good job on decreasing the spying on their citizens over the past few decades. I don't think spying there has stopped completely but it's not as widespread and definitely not as accepted by their citizens.

Odd to see US posters who think it's an unavoidable, or even desirable, direction for their governments to go. All through the 1950's, 60's and 70's those other countries' practices were denounced as bad/evil/communist etc etc.

2 Replies

@BillRM,

I find it interesting that some people would give up on privacy because 'everybody does it.' As for the internet, there are many solutions to protect privacy. I do my banking by the internet, pay my bills, and get cash transferred to my bank account by the internet. Even bank employees can't access my account without my permission.

It's secure; they can create security into any link in the same way they create access.

0 Replies

@revelette2,

Personal privacy and individual freedoms are the primary things that humans gave up in order for what we now call "civilization" to erupt. With each new increment of civilization...from small bands, to clans, to tribes, to towns, to cities, to states...

...the amount of personal privacy and individual freedom that had to go increased.

That is the way it has always been...it is the way it will go in the future.

At some point, people will look at us with all this concern for personal privacy and individual freedoms as savages essentially encouraging the wilderness.

We won't see it...the growth will be slow. And it will be painful as most growth is.

But it is my opinion that the planet and humanity (if humanity continues to exist) will all be the better for it...no matter what some of the commentators here in A2K think.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

"Security" and "liberty" (aka 'human rights') aren't fundamentally opposed.

To quote Sir David Omand, a former British spy chief, one of Robert Hannigan’s predecessors:

Quote:

"Democratic legitimacy demands that, where new methods of intelligence gathering and use are to be introduced, they should be on a firm legal basis and rest on parliamentary and public understanding of what is involved, even if the operational details of the sources and methods used must sometimes remain secret."

Source

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

"Security" and "liberty" (aka 'human rights') aren't fundamentally opposed.

And I have never said they are.

The loss of personal privacy and individual freedoms are about a great deal more than security, Walter. They are part of the natural process of civilization that has been going on for a very long time.

Quote:

To quote Sir David Omand, a former British spy chief, one of Robert Hannigan’s predecessors:

Quote:
"Democratic legitimacy demands that, where new methods of intelligence gathering and use are to be introduced, they should be on a firm legal basis and rest on parliamentary and public understanding of what is involved, even if the operational details of the sources and methods used must sometimes remain secret."
Source

Quote all the people you want to quote, Walter. At the end of the day though...there will be less personal privacy and less individual liberties tomorrow...and less the day after that.

And all that eventually will be seen as a good thing for society and humanity...and the people moaning and groaning about it will be seen as folk who were trying to maintain the savagery.

Cannot prove that...just an opinion. A blind guess if you will.

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

I do not see it as desirable or undesirable. I simply see it as hard to stop as the reason for doing it has not changed. Germany and Canada and other countries do the same for the same reasons.

Exclusive
Snowden document shows Canada set up spy posts for NSA

1 Reply

@revelette2,

Quote:

I do not see it as desirable or undesirable.

I am happy you have no problem with the heads of the intelligence communities having databases that is a wonderful source of blackmail information to our elected leaders but worthless as far as any terrorist threats and all pay for by the taxpayers.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

there will be less personal privacy and less individual liberties tomorrow...and less the day after that. And all that eventually will be seen as a good thing for society and humanity...and the people moaning and groaning about it will be seen as folk who were trying to maintain the savagery.

And they will get a fair trial for it.

0 Replies

Fair trial ... just wondering, if this only in the UK may be questioned, because there's a routine interception of legally privileged communications between lawyers and their clients by the intelligence agencies: UK intelligence agencies spying on lawyers in sensitive security cases.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

I hadn't thought of that. So much for fair trials... And free markets, and democracy... All this for what?

Osama Ben Laden and co are winning their war against the West, with our help, by undermining our democracies bit by bit.

0 Replies

Snowdon is a dummy

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know