Surveillence of Citizens Is ALWAYS Aimed at Crushing Dissent

[Tsing Tao]

Quote from futurecurrents:

Oh really? So there were terrorists both domestic and foreign that successfully caused thousands of casualties? I'd like to hear about them. I also would like see examples of the internet being used by these terrorists. I'll be waiting for these examples.

The spying of the past 500 years (which is the point of the thread) didn't always have to do with terrorists. War time, fear, etc, all of these were reasons spying programs were put in place. But there were massive casualty events far greater in magnitude to 9/11 throughout history, all which could have arguably been avoided with "spying". Terrorists using the internet doesn't have anything to do with governments trying to spy on their citizens. If there was an internet during Stalin's time, he'd have been spying on it back then.

The point the OP was trying to make is that governments use any method of spying in order to curb the rights and privacy of their citizens - all in the name of supposedly protecting them.

Too bad you missed that.

 

[jem]

either the blackmailer or the groups flowing money into their leadership accounts.

the mostly dirty bastards sell out americans to special interests almost every time there is a clash.

its why we need campaign finance reform and term limits.

eventually the blackmail vote will lose out and then congress will just be our crooks again.

Quote from WaveStrider:

This was the logic chain in some bar talk - someone please take the opposite side of the argument so both sides are represented (you know who you are )

1) Politics is dirty, therefore...
2) Successful politicians are dirty (the logic of playing in a shit sty doesn't leave you smelling like a rose).
3) Politicians (among others) are people with power who have dirty shit to hide.
4) Congress is spied on (I think Sen. Sanders asked this question), so their personal dirty laundry is known and makes them vulnenable to blackmail.
5) You vote for a representative, but a representative that is blackmailed represents the blackmailer with his votes, not you/the constituents.
6) Democratic Republic is broken.

 

[Lucrum]

In 2010, millions of American tea-party constitutionalists, to include the GOP's Christian base, united in a remarkable grass-roots effort to rein in our unbridled federal government and return it to its expressly limited constitutional confines. As a result, an unprecedented number of counter-constitutionalist lawmakers (read: liberal Democrats) were swept from office.

The Obama administration wasn't going to take this lying down. Whether it was by tacit approval or via direct order remains largely immaterial. The president quickly and unlawfully politicized the Internal Revenue Service, using it as a weapon against his political enemies. In an explosive scandal that continues to grow, the Obama IRS was caught - smoking gun in hand - intentionally targeting conservative and Christian organizations and individuals for harassment, intimidation and, ultimately, for political destruction...


- See more at: http://cnsnews.com/commentary/j-mat...y-and-permanently-muzzle#sthash.eAK3uLCh.dpuf

 

[BSAM]

THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT YOUR FRIEND.

 

[BSAM]

Quote from jem:

great point.

many of the protections in the US Constitution are there to protect us from the govt workers and politicians.

Too bad the fox is guarding the hen house.

 

[futurecurrents]

Quote from Tsing Tao:

The spying of the past 500 years (which is the point of the thread) didn't always have to do with terrorists. War time, fear, etc, all of these were reasons spying programs were put in place. But there were massive casualty events far greater in magnitude to 9/11 throughout history, all which could have arguably been avoided with "spying". Terrorists using the internet doesn't have anything to do with governments trying to spy on their citizens. If there was an internet during Stalin's time, he'd have been spying on it back then.

The point the OP was trying to make is that governments use any method of spying in order to curb the rights and privacy of their citizens - all in the name of supposedly protecting them.

Too bad you missed that.

That's what I thought, you have no examples of terrorists causing thousands of casualties before 9/11 or them using the internet for their communications, because there was no internet. This new tool that can be used by them must be used by the authorities also to counter them.

And the idea that today's USA can be compared to old Russia or any number of other tyrannical govts of the past is absurd as is the idea that spying is ALWAYS used to crush dissent or limit freedoms or that the reason for these programs is to crush dissent and limit freedoms.

That's not to say that there is no potential for abuse, and indeed there has been. Fortunately there are brave people with a conscience within the system that speak out about these abuses. Like Manning and Snowden. Let's hope that there are always people like them. Perfect secrecy is dangerous.

 

[Tsing Tao]

Quote from futurecurrents:

That's what I thought, you have no examples of terrorists causing thousands of casualties before 9/11 or them using the internet for their communications, because there was no internet. This new tool that can be used by them must be used by the authorities also to counter them.

But I never said I had. The OP said this:

Quote from Banjo:

500 Years of History Shows that Mass Spying Is Always Aimed at Crushing Dissent

It’s Never to Protect Us From Bad Guys

I said this:

Quote from Tsing Tao:

No, there were just any number of atrocities out there just as bad in the last few hundred years.

Had nothing to do with terrorists or the internet. Simply had to do with the fact that governments have used the data they steal to go after their population. Do try to keep up, lad.

Quote from futurecurrents:


And the idea that today's USA can be compared to old Russia or any number of other tyrannical govts of the past is absurd as is the idea that spying is ALWAYS used to crush dissent or limit freedoms or that the reason for these programs is to crush dissent and limit freedoms.

Why is it absurd? Because you say it is?

Quote from futurecurrents:


That's not to say that there is no potential for abuse, and indeed there has been. Fortunately there are brave people with a conscience within the system that speak out about these abuses. Like Manning and Snowden. Let's hope that there are always people like them. Perfect secrecy is dangerous.

Can't disagree with any of the last part.