SOPA 2

[Gfted1]

Looks like you guys will have to go back to snail mail.

[Bartimaeus]

So you boys are  telling me that if there was a hidden camera in your house that was filming surreptitiously everything you did, including intimacy with a partner, you would consider this the same type of invasion of your privacy as someone reading your emails ?

Yes. Different, but at very least potentially equal, and possibly worse.

One is a gross invasion into my physical privacy and property - the other into my private thoughts and communications. There's so much you might want to keep private, even if not illegal, that could be used against you. An out of context joke, sensitive photos, crazy ideas on an off day that might get you labeled as a nutter - or even insane thoughts that you know to usually keep to yourself that you mentioned to a friend in private one time, half-seriously. There's good reason I don't post all the thoughts that pop into my head for all the world to see - the situation is precisely the same in regards to what I communicate privately instead of publicly. I value my privacy greatly, but I am at the mercy of the people I socialize with - a risk that I personally risk and accept, as it's more or less directly within my control - and, unfortunately in this internet age, additionally the powers that be...and I would rather everyone remain in control of their own privacy as much as possible, not some government agency run by actors beyond my and everyone else's influence.

 

Both transgressions can easily outstrip the other, depending on the person and circumstances. I doubt nudists, for example, would be bothered as much by having their hobby or occupation (or whatever - does it look like I know anything about nudists? ) recorded. It would, of course, depend upon the person in question...but I'm sure there are at least a few - on the other hand, they might consider their personal diary absolutely sacred. None of it is any business except to those explicitly privy.

 

P.S. The way you framed your "question" feels rather insulting - probably because you loaded your end of the argument while downplaying mine, and made it into more of a statement than a question. Can't say I particularly care for it.

Edited December 14, 2014 by Bartimaeus

[BruceVC]

 

So you boys are  telling me that if there was a hidden camera in your house that was filming surreptitiously everything you did, including intimacy with a partner, you would consider this the same type of invasion of your privacy as someone reading your emails ?

Yes. Different, but at very least potentially equal, and possibly worse.

One is a gross invasion into my physical privacy and property - the other into my private thoughts and communications. There's so much you might want to keep private, even if not illegal, that could be used against you. An out of context joke, sensitive photos, crazy ideas on an off day that might get you labeled as a nutter - or even insane thoughts that you know to usually keep to yourself that you mentioned to a friend in private one time, half-seriously. There's good reason I don't post all the thoughts that pop into my head for all the world to see - the situation is precisely the same in regards to what I communicate privately instead of publicly. I value my privacy greatly, but I am at the mercy of the people I trust and fraternize with - a risk that I personally risk and accept, as it's more or less directly within my control - and, unfortunately in this internet age, additionally the powers that be...and I would rather everyone remain in control of their own privacy as much as possible, not some government agency run by actors beyond my and everyone else's influence.

 

Both transgressions can easily outstrip the other, depending on the person and circumstances. I doubt nudists, for example, would be bothered as much by having their hobby or occupation (or whatever - does it look like I know anything about nudists? ) recorded. It would, of course, depend upon the person in question...but I'm sure there are at least a few - on the other hand, they might consider their personaly diary absolutely sacred. None of it is any business except to those explicitly privy.

 

P.S. The way you framed your "question" feels rather insulting - probably because you loaded your end of the argument while downplaying mine, and made it into more of a statement than a question. Can't say I particularly care for it.

 

 

Ouch, so my question was loaded...sorry Barti...that wasn't my intention  

 

I feel sometimes my posts are misunderstood on these forums, I wonder how I can get my point  more clear?

 

I would assume my perspective is obvious, I'm not malicious by nature yet sometimes that seems to be response I get ?

[Bartimaeus]

[off-topic]

 

It's not *malice* I ever detect from your posts...but rather...something else. The way you constantly seem to use questions instead of statements when it's usually the latter you're making... In limited amounts, it makes you seem more reasonable - like you're not completely sure of what you're saying, and you're open to corrections and clarifications. But you do it all the time, and you're generally a pretty strong-headed individual - not that there's anything wrong with that...just that it feels at odds with the way you talk, and it's post after post that you do it.  The whole "overstate my side of the argument while simplifying and redefining my opponent's" doesn't much help either, haha.

That is at least some of my impression, anyways, . We're usually at odds in regards to opinions and beliefs, but it's more often the way you talk to me and others that actually gets under my skin, since you're usually pretty reasonable in most other ways, even if still strong in what you think. Sorry!

 

[/off-topic]

Edited December 14, 2014 by Bartimaeus

[Mr. Magniloquent]

Okay, I see your concern. You are concerned with your privacy being infringed on. Makes sense, its not the fact you have something to hide or not hide...its more the principle

It's more about than just the principle. Do I have anything illegal to hide when I change clothes within my own home? No, but that doesn't mean I don't highly value my right to privacy in doing so for other reasons.

 

This is a very good point but I could possibly counter it by asking you if you really consider  someone observing your nudity in the space of your own home, which is an egregious invasion of a persons privacy IMO, to someone being able to read your emails? Are they really the same thing....for me the obvious difference is that one is a physical invasion of privacy and the other is more electronic invasion of your thoughts and communication ?

 

How much money is in your bank account? Give me your medical records to browse through. Show me what you look like naked. Confess to me your deepest anxieties. Tell me the secrets you hold in greatest confidence. You do not own yourself. I am your Master. I am privy to everything you own, think, and are because you are my property. In knowing everything you own, are, communicate, and think, I have to tools to both control you and destroy you if need be. Now return to rejoicing your chains, Slave.

 

Cordially,

 

The US Government

[Marcvs Caesar]

 

So you boys are  telling me that if there was a hidden camera in your house that was filming surreptitiously everything you did, including intimacy with a partner, you would consider this the same type of invasion of your privacy as someone reading your emails ?

 

 

What's the problem with someone seeing you being intimate with a partner? Will that harm you somehow?

Information gathered from, for example, your emails however can be used against you in one form or another.

Edited December 15, 2014 by Marcvs Caesar

[BruceVC]

[off-topic]

 

It's not *malice* I ever detect from your posts...but rather...something else. The way you constantly seem to use questions instead of statements when it's usually the latter you're making... In limited amounts, it makes you seem more reasonable - like you're not completely sure of what you're saying, and you're open to corrections and clarifications. But you do it all the time, and you're generally a pretty strong-headed individual - not that there's anything wrong with that...just that it feels at odds with the way you talk, and it's post after post that you do it.  The whole "overstate my side of the argument while simplifying and redefining my opponent's" doesn't much help either, haha.

 

That is at least some of my impression, anyways, . We're usually at odds in regards to opinions and beliefs, but it's more often the way you talk to me and others that actually gets under my skin, since you're usually pretty reasonable in most other ways, even if still strong in what you think. Sorry!

 

[/off-topic]

Thanks for the feedback Barti, I appreciate the constructive criticism. I just don't believe it, you are misunderstanding my intentions and I always accept I may be wrong in debates, it just doesn't often happen...so you can't blame me for simplifying my opponents argument when its wrong

[Guard Dog]

 

 

 

http://thehill.com/policy/technology/226752-gop-rep-attempted-late-bid-to-kill-spy-bill

 

The US government now has effectively unlimited access to our communications.

 

Just to be clear,  because I'm obviously not American, now that  the US government  can monitor your communications why is this such a contentious point?

 

Are you worried people will suddenly just get arrested for no reason? What are you worried about ?

 

Well, let's see Bruce. In the last 6 years this administration has asked local police to take particular notice of people with pro-life or other religious freedom message bumper stickers. They have marked out veterans, the people who I'd argue love the country the most as likely terrorists, all while refusing benefits to victims of actual terrorism. They have "weaponized" the IRS into their own private thought police by using them to persecute people who participate in unapproved political activity. They asserted it would be ok for the President to order the summary execution of American citizens using drones. They set up a website where citizens could report people who were speaking ill of the affordable care act. They have admitted they are already monitoring every e-mail and phone conversation. Now they want a peek in our private internet use.

 

 

What could possibly go wrong with that huh? Fat chance Obama will veto this. The words freedom and liberty do not exist in that despicable little man's vocabulary. I don't know what kind of country these people want to turn us into but it will look nothing like the one I served and lived my whole life in. The best we can hope for is this trend continues will be benevolent despotism. But I think Americans will wake up one day in the years ahead and realize they are living in Orwell's Oceania.

 

But I won't be here to see it. They will have to kill me .

 

 

But GB wasn't the support for this bill bipartisan? So you have even been betrayed  by your own side....also if Republicans supported it  as well can it really be so bad ?

 

What in all my posting history gave you the notion I was a republican? No sir, far from it. I am a dues paying, card carrying member of the US Libertarian Party. I've often said the only thing I hate more than a republican is a democrat. Although I do line up and vote republican from time to time it is usually to vote against a democrat rather than supporting the merits of a republican candidate.

 

I wasn't always this way. I once worked for a republican congressional candidate. I also once worked for the Florida Republican Party. The truth is though they are less "anti-freedom" for want of a better term than the Democrats they are still all for big and intrusive government. As long as they get to be in charge of it.

[Valsuelm]

What in all my posting history gave you the notion I was a republican?

 

 

He's polarized. To most of the people who identify themselves as left/right or democrat/republican if you're not on their team you must be on the other.

 

Also not very observant as you have the fact that you're a libertarian in your sig. But observation skills are one of the things those stuck in that polarized paradigm lack to a large degree. So par for the course here.

[Guard Dog]

I wouldn't get down on Bruce too much Val, he's a good sort. Plus he doesn't spend s lot of time in the US so he's not expected to know every detail of the local politics. Heck I consider myself pretty well informed on the rest of the world and I couldn't give more than the broad stokes on the politics on any nation other than the US

[Volourn]

"I wouldn't get down on Bruce too much Val, he's a good sort."

 

No, he isn't. Yiou shouldn't blatantly lie like this. Guard Dog is a good sort even at times when I disagree with him. But, even when I agree with Bruce, he's not a good sort..

 

Anyways, SOPA is evil. Plain and simple.

[BruceVC]

I wouldn't get down on Bruce too much Val, he's a good sort. Plus he doesn't spend s lot of time in the US so he's not expected to know every detail of the local politics. Heck I consider myself pretty well informed on the rest of the world and I couldn't give more than the broad stokes on the politics on any nation other than the US

 

Yes that is an accurate post, also you have voted Republican in the past as you mentioned so I thought you were more Republican than Democrat

[Blarghagh]

 

I'd rather have someone see me naked than reading my personal e-mails, if it's about the value difference.

 

So you boys are  telling me that if there was a hidden camera in your house that was filming surreptitiously everything you did, including intimacy with a partner, you would consider this the same type of invasion of your privacy as someone reading your emails ?

 

 

Hold on, what? You just added a bunch of qualifiers that weren't in your original post. You just took your relatively simple example and made it a lot more complicated. That's not how it works.

[BruceVC]

 

 

I'd rather have someone see me naked than reading my personal e-mails, if it's about the value difference.

 

So you boys are  telling me that if there was a hidden camera in your house that was filming surreptitiously everything you did, including intimacy with a partner, you would consider this the same type of invasion of your privacy as someone reading your emails ?

 

 

Hold on, what? You just added a bunch of qualifiers that weren't in your original post. You just took your relatively simple example and made it a lot more complicated. That's not how it works.

 

 

But I expect you to use your common sense when it comes to a probable outcome or what someone is alluding to

 

If there is a hidden camera in your house that I mentioned is also invading your privacy surly the corollary of this is the camera is in your room and then obviously it would be filming everything you normally do in  your room ? So how did I make the scenario more complicated?

 

Where did you imagine the camera would be ?

[HoonDing]

Actually, it's about ethics in video games journalism.

[Gfted1]

Canadian Spies Monitor Millions of International File Downloads Daily

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

Okay, I see your concern. You are concerned with your privacy being infringed on. Makes sense, its not the fact you have something to hide or not hide...its more the principle

 

 

Well, actually, no, not even that.

 

Question: why are we told we should give spy agencies access to our private communications? Answer usually is "because this can prevent acts of terror". Thing is, it's bull****. The US Census says there are around 300 million people living in the USA. No matter how big and well-funded your spy organization, you simply can't sift through all communications manually; you have to use some kind of algorithm to narrow your search down to possible suspects.

 

Now, let's go paranoid and say there are currently about 1000 terrorist on US soil who are actively planning to commit atrocities, and include clues regarding these plans in their electronic communications. Since there are around 300 million people living in the USA, this means a 0.00033 base rate of terrorists in the population.

 

Let's assume that the algorithm the intelligence community uses is very good - it identifies 40% of all possible terrorists (giving us an accuracy rate of 0.4, which, considering that the terrorists presumably try to conceal their intent, is more than fair), and only has a misidentification rate of 0,01% (0,001, note that this is still 30000 people, far above the 400 terrorists the algorithm will correctly identify).

 

When, using Bayes' theorem, we calculate the conditional probability of a person being correctly flagged as terrorist by the system, even with our fairly generous starting assumptions, we only get a p=0.0132, a whopping <2% chance of being correct. This is, obviously, useless for identifying terrorists.

 

But okay, let's be more generous and allow for a 70% accuracy rate. This pretty much assumes that the terrorists are idiots, and/or the NSA programmers are supergeniuses, but let's just roll with it. This would give us a p=0.0228, which is still only correct in less than 2,5% of the cases. Which is still useless.

 

Even if we go completely sci-fi and assume a 90% identification rate, with only a 0,001% misidentification rate, the chances of The Machine our algorithm being correct when it barfs up a name is still only 23,08%, well below the odds of a coin toss, and hence, given that it spits out around 4000 suspects, useless.

 

 

Conclusion: the idea that mass surveillance will ever be an efficient tool in identifying terrorists strongly hinges on an irrealistically huge percentage of the population being terrorists. Which is absurd.

[Valsuelm]

It's not about catching terrorists boogie men . That's just how it's sold.

 

Absurd indeed.

Edited January 29, 2015 by Valsuelm