General Discussion

alc

(1,151 posts)

25. you need to mention "doesn't work"?

Thu Jun 6, 2013, 02:15 PM

Jun 2013

seems like the ends are at least part of the issue for some people.

I feel that blanket government surveillance of a large portion of the citizens without specific cause is per se evil (and do not qualify that depending on results).

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

71 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Does anyone think that these phone record grabs keep us safer? [View all] cali Jun 2013 OP

Lindsey Graham does. ForgoTheConsequence Jun 2013 #1

yeah, I had the same thought. cali Jun 2013 #3

just think about hope and change markiv Jun 2013 #2

Ah...The Priests of the Temple of Poindexter. Nice. DisgustipatedinCA Jun 2013 #9

i wondered if anyone would catch that nt markiv Jun 2013 #15

Any terrorist would use a prepaid phone and change numbers frequently BlueStreak Jun 2013 #4

That's what I think too.. LeftInTX Jun 2013 #49

yep. they're called burners. frylock Jun 2013 #66

Want to place any bets which will come first? BlueStreak Jun 2013 #68

they could alc Jun 2013 #5

Regardless of party ... Fantastic Anarchist Jun 2013 #30

We don't know, so anything any of says would be a guess. geek tragedy Jun 2013 #6

just like torture? the ends justify the means alc Jun 2013 #11

Torture is much worse than this==it's a per se evil that doesn't work. nt geek tragedy Jun 2013 #19

you need to mention "doesn't work"? alc Jun 2013 #25

it makes the analysis much easier. nt geek tragedy Jun 2013 #26

You mean it makes the "trains run on time." Fantastic Anarchist Jun 2013 #32

no,virtually every government policy aimed at stopping terorist attacks geek tragedy Jun 2013 #36

You're neglecting future costs. Fantastic Anarchist Jun 2013 #39

not really. those all get weighed. nt geek tragedy Jun 2013 #41

Really? Fantastic Anarchist Jun 2013 #43

there are long term consequences to allowing torture too. geek tragedy Jun 2013 #44

I'm not defending torture. Fantastic Anarchist Jun 2013 #46

What are we disagreeing over? nt geek tragedy Jun 2013 #47

You defend this policy. Fantastic Anarchist Jun 2013 #48

not really defending it. I don't get the outburst of outrage, though. geek tragedy Jun 2013 #50

Never be resigned when your rights are on the line. Fantastic Anarchist Jun 2013 #51

eh, the real privacy threat is non-governmental geek tragedy Jun 2013 #57

In this case, I make no distinction between the state and private entities. Fantastic Anarchist Jun 2013 #65

Torture has benefits Fumesucker Jun 2013 #67

This has the potential to be much worse ... Fantastic Anarchist Jun 2013 #31

NO. I'd much prefer they follow a trail and subpoena individual phone records as needed. kestrel91316 Jun 2013 #7

Is this maybe more about keeping the secret machinations of the national security state indepat Jun 2013 #8

Nope, it's just power for powers sake. Puzzledtraveller Jun 2013 #10

Didn't there used to be something called the Fourth Amendment? Comrade Grumpy Jun 2013 #12

only people with something to hide need the 4th amendment markiv Jun 2013 #13

Silly person LadyHawkAZ Jun 2013 #16

you're not allowed to say that markiv Jun 2013 #20

Uh oh LadyHawkAZ Jun 2013 #22

Pleeeeeeeez Fantastic Anarchist Jun 2013 #34

Yep. 2A. You don't regularly hear people calling the first amendment 1A or, say, the the fourth Dark n Stormy Knight Jun 2013 #37

The problem is the bastards claim it doesn't apply to "virtual space owned by others".... cascadiance Jun 2013 #28

The Fourth Amendment does not apply in this situation. It is settled law from 1979 hack89 Jun 2013 #58

Nope and I never have thought so. Solly Mack Jun 2013 #14

It's not even close to fascism. randome Jun 2013 #17

'and not monitoring of voice communications.' markiv Jun 2013 #21

Of course they wouldn't. randome Jun 2013 #23

Reading some of the brief on cases challenging it treestar Jun 2013 #71

I'm not seeing the fascism part hootinholler Jun 2013 #18

"The shepherd always tries to persuade the sheep that their interests and his own are the same." Tierra_y_Libertad Jun 2013 #24

No, not one bit...nt joeybee12 Jun 2013 #27

Will a categorical "FUCK NO!" do, Cali? Fantastic Anarchist Jun 2013 #29

Not me... davekriss Jun 2013 #33

No. I'm not convinced that's the purpose. n/t whatchamacallit Jun 2013 #35

Fifty years from now, discussions of government overreach will go like this... backscatter712 Jun 2013 #38

How can it hurt? yends21012 Jun 2013 #40

Your new masters will reward you well for your loyalty. Nuclear Unicorn Jun 2013 #52

Think drone signature strikes. They friggin' blew people up who, based on what they could see from GoneFishin Jun 2013 #55

I honestly think they're testing us to see LuvNewcastle Jun 2013 #42

No... WillyT Jun 2013 #45

I have absolutely no idea!!!!!!!!!!!! LeftInTX Jun 2013 #53

I think it was on a Rachel Maddow or Keith Olbermann show fasttense Jun 2013 #54

The GOP is already playing that trump. Savannahmann Jun 2013 #60

Better question warrprayer Jun 2013 #56

About as safe as interning Japanese-Americans did in WWII. Tierra_y_Libertad Jun 2013 #59

I'm not convinced that this is being used primarily to fight "terrorists". Marr Jun 2013 #61

I don't know and I don't think most people know. Skidmore Jun 2013 #62

No they don't make us safer. It is pure fascism and I hate this shit. MadrasT Jun 2013 #63

No, and I don't think that's the point. JoeyT Jun 2013 #64

Nope... Don't think these phone record grabs keep us safer? midnight Jun 2013 #69

We don't know. treestar Jun 2013 #70