[quote]dnlcdstn wrote:
For every bit of privacy I have to give up, I expect more and more transparency into the fed, cfl, and other agencies that are basically above the law. [/quote]
No one is above the law. That’s a founding principle here. The problem is our government has wrapped itself in a climate of secrecy, where everything is classified and “need to know”, so internal politics keeps whistle blowers down, and the narcissists employed therein think they’re making the world safe doing it.
In any case, don’t give up any privacy. Government works for us. Demand transparency.
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
cfl?
I know you’re not talking about the Canadian Football League lol.
But if you had to know what the CIA, and other operations were doing it would ‘compromise national security’(sarcasm)[/quote]
Council on Foreign Relations
I agree some things can not and should not be disclosed. However, there are organizations who make decisions and those decisions make an impact on our lives. There are just too many positions that have so much power that they can change people’s lives without their consent. I don’t know I’m just a speck on the radar.
Oh ok, I thought you might’ve meant CFR, but I thought I’d ask just in case.
I don’t know if this is correct or not, but I thought it was illegal for politicians to meet in private, and isn’t that what the CFR is composed of?
More of the same from govt. Use our tax dollars to spy on us and tax us further. All the while briefcases stuffed with millions of dollars are handed to heads of corrupt foreign govts.
Where can we escape to if things get far worse? Seriously. Switzerland? Just something I’ve been pondering.
I have a buddy who is a drone tech. Their capabilities are amazing, and scary.
Only a society of total surveillance has a chance at surviving. It is all too apparent that freedom will lead to our destruction. Now that Wikileaks has shown that Al-Qaeda has a nuke, there is simply no room for freedom. Freedom was a luxury we can no longer afford.
We simply have to give up the notion that you, I, or anyone is entitled to a private life. It is simply too risky to allow privacy such as we are used to. Between biological weapons and nuclear weapons, freedom is just too risky.
What good is freedom is we are all dead?
“There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time. But at any rate they could plug in your wire whenever they wanted to. You had to liveâ??did live, from habit that became instinctâ??in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized.”
[quote]Spartiates wrote:
I find the opinions in this thread concerning.[/quote]
I think I know where you are going with that and I agree to an extent.
That said, the amount of surveillance being conducted on the US population is staggering, most of it done by corporate entities. It can then easily be retrieved with a subpoena. Think of how much information your social media postings, google searches, ATM statements, cell phone records, EZ pass records, discount shopper cards etc. can provide about your life patterns and you will see what I mean.
That is not idol speculation on my part or tin foil hat stuff. I’ve seen it with my own eyes in my professional life.
Oh, and the use of drones for domestic law enforcement(something I know a thing or two about) are very concerning. They should be restricted to extreme, tactical situations…maybe even requiring an emergency order from a judge.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
It is simply too risky to allow privacy such as we are used to. [/quote]
Our anointed leaders would be excluded from such privations, right?[/quote]
No. Members of the Inner Party are watched even more closely. Do you think someone like Ben Bernanke isn’t watched like a bug under a magnifying glass, for ex?
I think it was Hegel who said that absolute freedom comes when we become one with the State. Orwell ‘borrowed’ that and depicted freedom as when one becomes ‘the Party’.
