Obama just passed that "spy on u cyber criminalz" bill.

[Kuya]

Yes, that wasn't the best of examples. I was arguing about the extremes (not that wiretapping wasn't out of control), i.e. the regular imprisonment (not jailing) of anyone that the police deem suspicious for no apparent reason.



I agree completely with this; yes, it can easily go down that hill, but in my personal opinion (and based on other scenarios unrelated but not dissimilar to this), I very strongly doubt that the public has anything to fear (omg my torrents, etc.).

My argument is not simply that it can. Let me reiterate. My argument rests on two basic points. One, that there exist a precedent, where institutions established for security are at odds with rights (freedom). This has already been seen with the wire tapping issue, and i would ask you to read the fourth circuit court of appeals opinions on the Hamdi v. Rumsfeld case to see that there already exists a precedent where the president has the power to declare a US citizen an "enemy combatant" and denied habeas corpus rights; with that i'm trying to say that security institutions, including the very executive, constantly fight over or against rights, i use this to say that this can happen with the cyber security measures.

My second point, which i use to say that it will happen, is based on political theory, and as i've explained already, that theory rests on the idea that all bureaucratic institutions function much like private bodies or interest groups. They seek to expand and obtain more power, for the reasons i've mentioned in a previous post. As they expand and gain more power, they not only gain more fields in which to use their power, they want, or better put, find it in their interests that events happen where their services are most needed. What i mean with that is, the National Security institution benefits when people feel they are in danger and desire its services, they, in this case, are willing to do just what requiring security requires them to do, limit rights. In this case, when an institution which has security as its primary goal expands, it gains more power to do its job, which is to secure security, but security is often at odds with rights (freedom). Another example, the executive is also a body with its own interests, and it has grown exponentially since the 30s. As it has grown it has been able to use the notion of national security to expand its power, and in a sense, limits rights.

To summarize, i'm not just saying that it can happen, that this new cyber czar will come into conflict with rights, i'm saying that it will happen. It is a bureaucratic institution and it will grow, and as it grows so does its power to limit rights in the name of security, the precedents show this, and the fact that it is a government institution means that its growth is inevitable unless consciously limited by outside forces.

If anyone wants to argue that this won't happen with certainty, then they'd have to show me how this new institution is exempt from what i've just explained or how the theory is wrong.

[Gregorio]

Kuya is right. It doesn't matter how rare or isolated an instance of government sponsored and condoned intrustion upon freedom is. If it can happen to someone, it can happen to anyone.

[archibaldcrane]

Kuya, you are suggesting that no government body has ever taken action to restrict the things it can do, and that they will necessarily only act to increase their own power.

This is not the case.

[Kuya]

Kuya, you are suggesting that no government body has ever taken action to restrict the things it can do, and that they will necessarily only act to increase their own power.

This is not the case.

You're going to have to tell me what a government body means to you, because the US government is a very segmented body, and is well known for its easy access to lobbying and the varying independence in the, mostly executive, bureaucratic organizations. For starters, not once has a president ever worked to limit his own power.

Bush? He actually kept a Clinton decision to stop mining in a specific area because stopping it would have involved arguing that the president had no such power, and that was not in the executive's interests, even if it is ideologically contradictory. Obama is no exception, he has used the same arguments that Bush used in terms of national security for both the wire tapping case and for denying habeas corpus in Bagram, presumably because going against these Bush decisions would mean diminishing the power of the executive, and no president has ever done that.

[guartz]

Kuya, you are suggesting that no government body has ever taken action to restrict the things it can do, and that they will necessarily only act to increase their own power.

This is not the case.

I'd have to agree with Kuya, governments grow. Although there might be a government body that successfully stalled itself. However, that's a moot point considering that 99.9% of governments on this planet claim more authority every decade.

[guartz]

Anyway, this is chomsky's take on this:

the atrocities of 9-11 serve as a dramatic reminder of what has long been understood: the rich and powerful no longer are assured the near monopoly of violence that has largely prevailed throughout history; and with modern technology, the prospects are horrendous indeed.
-Hegemony or survival, page 208

[Conformity]

one of my friends, we call him the bootywatcher, he keeps all his cp on a truecrypt drive and he access his cp on freenet and tor so I think he is smart about his cp.

[SephYuyX]

one of my friends, we call him the bootywatcher, he keeps all his cp on a truecrypt drive and he access his cp on freenet and tor so I think he is smart about his cp.

He told you he has CP, thusly is not smart about it.

[Athas]

You people need to real the legislation, you don't even know what you're arguing for or against. Stop letting the media interpret it for you and read the act yourself, seriously. The act has nothing to do with stealing property, spying or anything of that sort.

lock topic plz kthxbai

[Dimmauk]

You people need to real the legislation, you don't even know what you're arguing for or against. Stop letting the media interpret it for you and read the act yourself, seriously. The act has nothing to do with stealing property, spying or anything of that sort.

This.

Did anyone even watch the Obama's speech on this topic?

[Pikarya]

If you have CP. But the President didn't see it. Did it really happen?

[Conformity]

He told you he has CP, thusly is not smart about it.

lol he publicly admitted once that he likes child porn in front of a girl he was dating and three of his friends. We don't really care, we all kinda expected it.

[Celeste]

Oh noes, they are gonna arrest me for downloading Naruto.

[Senoska]

Pretty much everyone around me knows I like loli >_> My desktop is covered in loli wallpapers, I draw the shit in my text books, its my screen name on a bunch of programs, joke about it all the time, etc.

On an unrelated note, I keep ALL porn on a hidden truecrypt partition as well. My password is a random set of 35+ characters that were "randomly" generated with 10+ keyfiles.

You're not getting in my shit.

Mainly because if I ever gotta send my pc into anyone, they don't need to be seeing my porn. I also keep all my website and client information in that same folder so it kind of has a cover I guess.

edit:

Oh noes, they are gonna arrest me for downloading Naruto.

They probably should. What a shitty show. BELIEVE IT!

[Celeste]

Pretty much everyone around me knows I like loli >_> My desktop is covered in loli wallpapers, I draw the shit in my text books, its my screen name on a bunch of programs, joke about it all the time, etc.

On an unrelated note, I keep ALL porn on a hidden truecrypt partition as well. My password is a random set of 35+ characters that were "randomly" generated with 10+ keyfiles.

You're not getting in my shit.

Mainly because if I ever gotta send my pc into anyone, they don't need to be seeing my porn. I also keep all my website and client information in that same folder so it kind of has a cover I guess.

edit:



They probably should. What a shitty show. BELIEVE IT!

Meh, it's not that bad..

[Senoska]

Except it is? BELIEVE IT!

BELIEVE IT!
DABATTA YO!

or what ever the fuck.

[Celeste]

Except it is? BELIEVE IT!

BELIEVE IT!
DABATTA YO!

or what ever the fuck.

Fuck this. I'm putting my Naruto on a truecrypt partition to avoid this bullshit! Believe it, Obama!

[Demosthenes11]

newfag : 4chan as loli : world

cancer

[archibaldcrane]

Kuya, would you consider Obama saying "we don't fucking torture" to be limiting his own power, considering he could've continued Bush's policies without legal repercussions?

Or is that a sideways "well he's limiting other parts of government, not his own power, so it doesn't count"?

[Kuya]

Kuya, would you consider Obama saying "we don't fucking torture" to be limiting his own power, considering he could've continued Bush's policies without legal repercussions?

Or is that a sideways "well he's limiting other parts of government, not his own power, so it doesn't count"?

I can't tell if you're serious with that. The ability to be able to do something unlawful stems from the president's ability to issue orders which, because they are made under an argument of national security, can be completely censored from scrutiny. This was never done. Furthermore, it just takes another president who is willing to torture for it to happen without a hitch, because the systems for doing so are still in place.

Let me make an image for you in terms of this torture thing you brought up. The current president has refused to use his weapon, but he never once gave it up.

edit: let me make this clear to you since you don't seem to believe me. No president, ever, has rejected a power belonging to the president. Ever. You can look it up if you still insist on rejecting what i say.