SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:
The FBI's Rap Back program is quietly transforming the way employers conduct background checks. While routine background checks provide employers with a one-time "snapshot" of their employee's past criminal history, employers enrolled in federal and state Rap Back programs receive ongoing, real-time notifications and updates about their employees' run-ins with law enforcement, including arrests at protests and charges that do not end up in convictions. ("Rap" is an acronym for Record of Arrest and Prosecution; "Back" is short for background.) Testifying before Congress about the program in 2015, FBI Director James Comey explained some limits of regular background checks: "People are clean when they first go in, then they get in trouble five years down the road [and] never tell the daycare about this."
A majority of states already have their own databases that they use for background checks and have accessed in-state Rap Back programs since at least 2007; states and agencies now partnering with the federal government will be entering their data into the FBI's Next Generation Identification (NGI) database. The NGI database, widely considered to be the world's largest biometric database, allows federal and state agencies to search more than 70 million civil fingerprints submitted for background checks alongside over 50 million prints submitted for criminal purposes. In July 2015, Utah became the first state to join the federal Rap Back program. Last April, aviation workers at Dallas-Ft. Worth Airport and Boston Logan International Airport began participating in a federal Rap Back pilot program for aviation employees. Two weeks ago, Texas submitted its first request to the federal criminal Rap Back system.
Rap Back has been advertised by the FBI as an effort to target individuals in "positions of trust," such as those who work with children, the elderly, and the disabled. According to a Rap Back spokesperson, however, there are no formal limits as to "which populations of individuals can be enrolled in the Rap Back Service." Civil liberties advocates fear that under Trump's administration the program will grow with serious consequences for employee privacy, accuracy of records, and fair employment practices.
Rap Back Privacy Impact Assessment
-- submitted from IRC
(Score: 1, Troll) by linkdude64 on Wednesday February 08 2017, @06:39PM
I'll raise my hand, here.
We have guns. Lots of guns. Trump wants us to have more, Big Brother wanted his constituents to have less.
Ask yourself this question: Could all of the gun owners in your city overwhelm your local police force with sheer quantity of firepower? If yes, you and your neighbors hold the Veto power.
It is the mind-bent liberals who want this Great and Final equalizer taken away from the populace. It is their desire to prostrate themselves at the mercy of the State, which they allegedly hate so much, yet want to limitlessly empower.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Thexalon on Wednesday February 08 2017, @07:17PM
I'm not so sure Trump is as positive about citizens having guns as you think. For example, he said this:
* "The big thing that we're missing here is that people have to report when they see somebody. This man was pretty much unhinged. It was the gun store that did report him when he went in to buy all sorts of body armor and other things. They reported him to law enforcement, and, very sadly, nothing was done. It could have been prevented." - June 19, 2016 So he seems to want reports of buying up lots of ammo and other supplies.
* "We have to have a watch list, but we have the laws already on the books as far as Second Amendment for guns, if people are on a watch list or people are sick, this is already covered in the legislation that we already have, ... If somebody is on a watch list and an enemy of state and we know it's an enemy of state, I would keep them away, absolutely." Nov 22, 2015 So that means that if the government puts you on a completely secret terror watch list with secret evidence that you cannot confront, you can't buy guns either.
* "I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record." - July 2, 2000
That's based on a complete fantasy that is very popular among the "rah rah Second Amendment" crowd. And the reason that's a fantasy is that while you might be able to beat your local police force, while you were doing that the mayor called the governor who called in the National Guard, and your AR-15's (never mind your handguns and other smaller arms) do approximately jack squat against their tanks, artillery, drones, helicopters, etc. And both the cops and the National Guard are more disciplined and more organized than your mob of armed citizens. Plus, on top of that, you're incorrectly assuming that the entire population takes your side rather than the side of the government.
Actually, the most liberal major candidate in the 2016 election, Bernie Sanders, was attacked because he wasn't all that interested in taking away anybody's guns if they weren't proven to be completely dangerously nuts first in a court of law. And the left wing still quite happily rallied around him. Also, the only actual law that Obama passed relating to guns loosened restrictions. So that to me would be pretty strong evidence that liberals don't in fact want to take your guns.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by tibman on Wednesday February 08 2017, @07:31PM
Just to poke at your statement a bit. The US Military has been fighting asymmetric battles against people with "jack squat" for the last 15+ years. Creativity goes a long way to overcome a sophistication. Also, i should point out that the National Guard is practically a "mob of armed civilians". I completely agree with you that the entire population is unlikely to fall into one faction. Honestly, i doubt we'll ever see a division of government and people so strong that one tries to destroy the other. It's fun theory-craft though, if you're into that.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday February 08 2017, @07:49PM
Honestly, i doubt we'll ever see a division of government and people so strong that one tries to destroy the other.
That's the other aspect of the ritual, to always describe extermination of one side as the only possible outcome of power. Never consider any other effect of power.
Infinitely more likely is some cop thinking to himself "I could shoot that citizen... but there's probably three snipers on their side waiting for that and I'd rather go home alive today" "My boss said go in shooting on this no knock 'warrant' which is actually an execution, but I'd rather go home alive..." "I can go into that neighborhood at night alive, but will I come out alive?" that kind of thinking leads to a loss of cop power. That's where its really at.
Depending on your local demographics only 5% to 95% of police are corrupt, and the good cops aren't a problem anyway.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Wednesday February 08 2017, @08:54PM
Define "good cop", if you assert that a "good cop" willingly working for a police state isn't a problem. I don't think you mean "I only followed orders", because when the orders are wrong, that person is definitely a problem.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 4, Funny) by VLM on Wednesday February 08 2017, @09:44PM
Although its kind of circular a good cop is the kind the snipers don't shoot because he's not in the subset of the worst of the cops, which is a positive feedback loop in several senses of the term.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Thursday February 09 2017, @03:06AM
Actually, a substantial portion of the National Guard has served in combat in Iraq or Afghanistan. And they have established command-and-control, standardized weapons, basic boot camp training, all of which a disorganized group of random rebels lack.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by tibman on Thursday February 09 2017, @02:53PM
Compared to the US Army, the National Guard are a mob of armed civilians :P oooh, burn
After the Army, i did the National Guard thing for a few years and even deployed with them : )
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Thursday February 09 2017, @04:44PM
Point being, if I had to bet between a Guard unit that's served a combat tour in Iraq and a group of disorganized civilians approximately the same size as the Guard unit with guns, I'd bet on the Guard.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by tibman on Thursday February 09 2017, @07:50PM
Me too : )
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by linkdude64 on Wednesday February 08 2017, @08:22PM
"So he seems to want reports of buying up lots of ammo and other supplies."
Of suspicious individuals. What is a suspicious individual? Somebody who is deemed suspicious by the community. In a conservative area of Saudi Arabia, a white woman walking around in a bikini top and jean shorts would be considered "suspicous" or highly conspicuous at the very least. You are abandoning your common sense.
"completely secret terror watch list"
Yes, those are counter to freedom, and an unfortunate reality - but unfortunately the only solution would be to step back our technology to an age where surveillance was not possible. We cannot have both Freedom and Society. Are you advocating we abandon civilization in the name of Freedom? Or are you dealing in absolutes to make a petty and unrealistic argument based on a utopian standard?
The idea is that if we vet "extremely" there will not be as many suspicious individuals in the country to begin with. Suspcious meaning - taking regular trips to saudi arabia, posting on ISIS-sympathetic facebook groups, etc.
"That's based on a complete fantasy that is very popular among the "rah rah Second Amendment" crowd."
I guess when the full on US Military - never mind the National Guard - was facing off against insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan, that they were fighting against insurgents with laser weapons or something? They had a hell of a time fighting guys in sandals with 50 year old poorly-maintained SKSs, and casualties were still a daily occurrence. Urban warfare is NOT simple. To counter your point, half of the "preppers" in this country are better equipped and trained than your average soldier, nevermind police officer, who have one of the highest rates of obesity of any occupation in the US.
To nearly quote you: On top of that, you're incorrectly assuming that the entire military, police force, and national guard takes the government's side rather than the citizens' side. If the order was given by Trump to disarm citizens en masse, I do wonder how many of the "southern rednecks" in uniform would mindlessly comply. Do you really think they would?
"the most liberal major candidate in the 2016 election, Bernie Sanders, was attacked because he wasn't all that interested in taking away anybody's guns "
This statement is so self-contradictory it is embarrasing to have to point it out, but you may be on the edge of an epiphany.
You yourself say that liberals attacked Sanders because he wasn't interested in taking anybody's guns. You then use this sentence which establishes that liberals wanted guns taken as a foundation for the pinnacle of your entire comment, "So that to me would be pretty strong evidence that liberals don't in fact want to take your guns." Want me to re-phrase?
1) You assert liberals chastised Sanders for not wanting guns taken. I remember this happening as well.
2) This expressed desire by liberals to have guns taken is - you assert - proof that liberals do not want guns taken.
Dunk your head in a bucket of ice water and wake the fuck up. You are heavily double-thinking, and I *guarantee* that this is not an isolated instance of double-think being injected into your brain. Your arguments are all regurgiated. You need to look at your brain like you look at a compromised machine.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday February 08 2017, @09:48PM
We cannot have both Freedom and Society.
False dichotomy. You seem to have created an alternative definition of "society" so that it and freedom are mutually exclusive; it's highly dishonest. Additionally, you're the one who seems to be advocating for a 'utopia', as you refuse to accept tragedies in the name of freedom. I, however, am perfectly happy taking risks in the name of freedom. It seems comical that you supposedly support (probably not very strongly, based on what you've said) the freedom for individuals to own guns, but then spew some authoritarian garbage about secret terror watch lists being an unfortunate reality. Are you one of those fools who claims to support the second amendment but doesn't care much about other rights? To me, a society without freedom is an uncivilized society that should not exist. I'd advise you to move to North Korea if you want an authoritarian society so badly.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 09 2017, @03:54AM
I think he meant system instead of society.
(Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Thursday February 09 2017, @08:12PM
"False dichotomy. You seem to have created an alternative definition"
You are 0%-F-on-your-English-midterm incorrect, and that is as meaningfully as I can put it.
freedom
[free-duh m]
noun
2.
exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc.
society
[suh-sahy-i-tee]
noun, plural societies.
1.
an organized[emphasis mine] group of persons associated together for religious, benevolent, cultural, scientific, political, patriotic, or other purposes.
The definition of Freedom is having no boundaries, the definition of society is living within boundaries - whether you accept these definitions or not is irrelevant. That is why they are called definitions.
It being a Law that we are required to treat people equally is a restriction on the restriction of Freedom. "Sophistry!" You cry? Law is how I would respond - and it is a Good law! Still, Law is a restriction of Freedom and Society requires Law. This was my statement. This is what you disagreed with so fervently, and what other fools flocked to support you in contesting. The rest of your comment is simply ill-conceived. "a society without freedom is an uncivilized society" A Society without Freedom, and you typed that with not a hint of irony?
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday February 09 2017, @10:31PM
You are 0%-F-on-your-English-midterm incorrect, and that is as meaningfully as I can put it.
The fact of the matter is that there are different kinds of freedom (freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc.), so when you say "We cannot have both Freedom and Society." right after saying that secret terrorist watch lists are an "unfortunate reality", you're going to look like an authoritarian to a number of people. No amount of cherrypicking definition games will change that.
whether you accept these definitions or not is irrelevant.
I think it's time for you to accept that a single word can have multiple meanings and that a phrase can be interpreted differently depending on the context it's used in. I have zero interest in playing your disingenuous games.
Here's what you said: "Yes, those are counter to freedom, and an unfortunate reality - but unfortunately the only solution would be to step back our technology to an age where surveillance was not possible. We cannot have both Freedom and Society. Are you advocating we abandon civilization in the name of Freedom? Or are you dealing in absolutes to make a petty and unrealistic argument based on a utopian standard?" So what does all of that mean, exactly? Are you supporting secret terrorist watch lists there? It looks an awful lot like a false dichotomy to me, but is it? Why are you asking him if he wants to abandon all of civilization in the name of "freedom" (which you conveniently picked an extremely broad definition of) when you quoted something about secret terrorist watch lists? It seems like you started talking extremely broadly (if your reply to me can be believed) instead of speaking specifically about the matter at hand.
At best, if you were indeed using those definitions of "freedom" and "society", then it was just a useless observation thrown into your post that could easily be confused as meaning something else entirely.
(Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Friday February 10 2017, @08:22PM
"look authoritarian to a number of people. Cherrypicking"
And who gets to choose what the definiton of "authoritarian" is in the context of this conversation? I hope you see the irony.
What you call "cherrypicking" in regards to conversation, is paralled by what I call "mental masturbation" on Thexalon's part in regards to this specific debate. A governed technological society that is secret-surveillance free would, at the very minimum, require two things: 100% libre software that has no vulnerabilites and, ultimately, people that have no desire for greater power. Am I "authoritarian" for acknowledging that centrally-controlled secret surveillance has been occuring as long as there has been society? Troll, at the very least, apparently. When a stranger comes to visit the isolated tribal village, the chieftain (authoritarian), if he and his people are to survive much longer, will post a watch. "Infringement! Profiling! Racist! No representation!" The truest insult is what my response to such types of comments is: "Useless."
"It seems like you started talking extremely broadly instead of speaking specifically about the matter at hand."
As I see it - please submit corrections - my statement applies both broadly, and specifically, to the exact topic at hand. The dismissal of historical perspective in Thexalon's formation of his opinion is what I see, specifically, as the problem. The problem which leads to the symptom of his argument that secret surveillance "needs to go" as it will never "go" so long as we have society. I speak in extremes because that is ultimately the result. Just as eco-systems are connected in a web, so are technologies - for better and for worse. If you truly want a "surveillance free existence for everyone", how much are you willing to sacrifice, is the question that I posed. If you look at history, you will find that you would have to sacrifice literally everything down to society itself until you reach a point where things are "surveillance free." Is it still such a false dichotomy?
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Friday February 10 2017, @10:27PM
I hope you see the irony.
I do not. No matter how many definition games are played, they're not ironic, relevant, or interesting.
A governed technological society that is secret-surveillance free
Is that what he's arguing for, or is he just arguing against specific abuses of power? Secret terrorist watch lists that you can be added to without due process and that restrict what you're able to do are a terrible idea and a violation of the Constitution. I'm just trying to find the part where he says that spies shouldn't exist whatsoever, or something similar. The problem isn't the mere existence of surveillance, but that much of the surveillance the government is doing violates basic human rights and the highest law of the land.
(Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Saturday February 11 2017, @09:28AM
"they're not ironic, relevant, or interesting."
Word selection and usage reveals the assumptions we make in conversation, whether you value that or not. Clearly, you do not - moving right along.
"Is that what he's arguing for, or is he just arguing against specific abuses of power?"
He is arguing against secret watch lists (and presumably, other societal/governmental violations of human rights), but I submit that this is like arguing for the creation of a coin with only one side.
"much of the surveillance the government is doing violates basic human rights."
The very existence of society itself does as well, history has proven. Or can you name a single advanced society which did not violate "basic human rights" for some people? I wager you cannot. This is my point. Society cannot be perfect, yet you argue that it should be by way of saying, "Society shouldn't violate our rights/secretly watch people!" which would require perfection, and then you to call my "word games" useless. The irony is becoming irritable.
I wish it didn't need to happen, and don't argue that it violates the Constitution, I simply argue that the practice has always happened in the United States at some level (electronically, beginning in the 1920s) and that the practice is here to stay - an "unfortunate reality" - and that the practice will exist at large far beyond the lifetime of this country. If you dispute that, I have nothing else to say. If I am "authortarian" for saying so, then so be it.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Saturday February 11 2017, @08:58PM
Word selection and usage reveals the assumptions we make in conversation
It seems you've realized it.
He is arguing against secret watch lists (and presumably, other societal/governmental violations of human rights), but I submit that this is like arguing for the creation of a coin with only one side.
So you don't think it's going to go away completely. But the question is whether or not we can reduce the scope of the problem. Many of society's problems that have been solved or at least greatly reduced would have remained if people just threw their hands up and gave up.
The very existence of society itself does as well, history has proven.
In the instances where it actually does do so, yes, and this conversation is supposed to be about one such instance. Of course, even if you had anarchy, there's still a possibility of someone violating your rights. The existence of such a possibility is not interesting.
You seem to like pointing out the obvious as if it's profound and insightful. Wow, there's a possibility that your rights could be violated. Amazing!
Society shouldn't violate our rights/secretly watch people!"
No one said that they can't secretly watch people, but if they do so, they must follow the Constitution. Another problem is that these lists (such as the no-fly list) actually punish people without due process.
which would require perfection
That doesn't follow. Prove it. How would solving one issue require all-around perfection? Would starvation cease to exist without unconstitutional surveillance? Would other problems cease to exist? If not, then society would be far from perfect. You also don't seem to understand that we can also greatly reduce the problem and not necessarily solve it 100%.
And you seem to be using the nirvana fallacy here. No one mentioned anything about perfection, yet you continuously assert without evidence that fixing certain problems would require society to be absolutely perfect.
The irony is becoming irritable.
Enough of this "irony" nonsense. Your sense is irony is completely broken. That's extremely ironic!
If I am "authortarian" for saying so, then so be it.
Defeatists are almost as bad, being useful idiots and all. How ironical! How ironical!
Your obsession with perfection is a waste of time.
(Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Saturday February 11 2017, @10:50PM
"But the question is whether or not we can reduce the scope of the problem."
Not meaningfully. It is already not necessary for the US to directly or indirectly spy on citizens. They can simply request information from Telecoms that are already stored for advertising purposes. "Okay, so pass a law banning govt. and telecoms from talking." Okay, now they will just start asking Five Eyes for the data that they've collected. If you disagree with this reality, you disagree.
"You seem to like pointing out the obvious as if it's profound and insightful."
I am only stating the obvious because I am under the impression that you do not already factor in those facts into your arguments.
"Would starvation cease to exist without unconstitutional surveillance?"
Funny question, because the answer is probably yes. I'm sure you'll tell me if I'm wrong, but AFAIK, the root of all societal demand - at any level - for surveillance, whether it is constitutional or not, is the human desire for the illusion of security. Keeping an eye on a potential threat is a self preservation instinct. I am sure you would agree to this obvious statement.
So, for the demand for surveillance to disappear (as any surveillance will eventually become "unconstitutional"), the only thing that could lead to that would be the removal, or great reduction, of our instinctual desire for tribal security, which would probably unify the planet and end economic wars, which are really what cause starvation.
So I really do see the answer as a plausible "yes", unless you somehow believe an "effect" can be removed without nullifying its original "cause" which is ironically what hoping for a meaningful reduction in surveillance at this point in time and technology seems to suggest.
"useful idiots"
Better than a useless one, I would say. Are you jealous?
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Sunday February 12 2017, @01:45AM
Not meaningfully. It is already not necessary for the US to directly or indirectly spy on citizens. They can simply request information from Telecoms that are already stored for advertising purposes. "Okay, so pass a law banning govt. and telecoms from talking." Okay, now they will just start asking Five Eyes for the data that they've collected.
It doesn't matter who they ask, because it's unconstitutional anyway. The only question is how to force them to follow the Constitution.
Can we meaningfully stop the government from taking our guns?
If you disagree with this reality, you disagree.
Another brilliant observation.
I am only stating the obvious because I am under the impression that you do not already factor in those facts into your arguments.
You seem to be under many incorrect impressions.
Most of your arguments seem to boil down to you saying that it's impossible to fix or mitigate a problem while not providing any evidence that it's actually impossible outside of saying that the problem has persisted for a very long time. Plenty of problems that persisted for a long time were eventually fixed or at least mitigated, including slavery and murder. There are also underlying causes of racism, but we've still managed to reduce the problem in a lot of places.
I have no idea if we will be able to fix these problems, but there is a difference between saying 'I don't know what will happen in the future.' and 'It's impossible.'
So, for the demand for surveillance to disappear (as any surveillance will eventually become "unconstitutional")
Not sure why you put "unconstitutional" in quotes. I also don't see any inherent reason that any surveillance will eventually become unconstitutional. If the government gets a valid warrant to conduct specific surveillance upon a specific person, will that specific act of surveillance eventually become unconstitutional? Because there are plenty of examples where that hasn't happened, so clearly it's possible to have constitutional surveillance. We have to reduce instances where the government violates the Constitution.
the only thing that could lead to that would be the removal, or great reduction, of our instinctual desire for tribal security
Wow!
Better than a useless one, I would say. Are you jealous?
At least a useless idiot has principles and the willingness to act on them. How ironic.
(Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Sunday February 12 2017, @04:56PM
"The only question is how to force them to follow the Constitution."
I'll throw a "Brilliant observation" back at you, because you are so fond of them.
"Can we meaningfully stop the government from taking our guns?"
Your comparison very obviously suffers from the same conflict that file sharing vs. digital restriction management does.
"There is a difference between saying 'I don't know what will happen in the future.' and 'It's impossible.'"
I can't deny this is a correct statement; I do not actually know if human nature will change in the future, I only have the past to go from.
"Not sure why you put "unconstitutional" in quotes."
That was only a technicality because I was referring exclusively to future societies where people are "guaranteed" some right to privacy, and because their social contracts may not be referred to as Constitutions.
"I also don't see any inherent reason that any surveillance will eventually become unconstitutional. "
Please let me re-phrase your statement to check if I am interpreting it correctly. This how I read it: "I don't see any inherent reason that people and governments will eventually abuse their power if given it."
If it were inherent that governments always follow their own laws, and if it were impossible for there to be a two-class court system (poor and famous/political), and if it were impossible for people to become corrupt, you would be 100% right.
"At least a useless idiot has principles and the willingness to act on them"
Uselessly, that is. If only your irony were truly ferrous and could be profitably mined, us useful idiots will need lots of re-bar when we're building the Wall.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday February 13 2017, @12:08AM
Your comparison very obviously suffers from the same conflict that file sharing vs. digital restriction management does.
But can we?
This how I read it: "I don't see any inherent reason that people and governments will eventually abuse their power if given it."
Clearly you're not interpreting it correctly. I was referring to individual instances of surveillance. If it's possible to have constitutional surveillance, then it's clearly not all-or-nothing. We can't stop all abuses, but I see absolutely no reason why we can't reduce them, perhaps even substantially.
Uselessly, that is.
Not always, no. At least there is a possibility of change. You, however, will never accomplish anything because you do not try and instead simply declare change as impossible. You're only useful to those in power, and are a detriment to people who actually desire freedom. Congratulations on being "useful", then.
(Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Tuesday February 14 2017, @07:06PM
"But can we?"
Not as I see it, no. Even were they to take physical guns from willing lemmings, 3D printed guns and CAD files for gun parts are already a thing, and are already widely distributed in the channels which would utilize them without hesitation.
"I see absolutely no reason why we can't reduce them, perhaps even substantially."
"correctly"
Differently. I finally understand that you're talking specifically about reduction in enforcement resulting from said surveillance, and not reduction in surveillance itself, which is what I'm talking about.
"Secret Watch lists" are what I'm saying will never go away, not "secret watch lists that are so exclusive .000001% of the populace is ever impeded by them." Which are the no-fly lists and the like. Those could go away completely very easily, by tying enforcement's hands, but these are not massive lists in the first place.
The only way to make those enforcement lists even more specific (increasing "perceived" freedom) would be to enable govt to spy even more heavily on the lists' potential members - field agents following them and their relatives home, for instance, to gather more evidence, rather than simply using names, browsing history, or travel records to form a profile. That would be self-defeating, however. I do wonder if you have ever previously considered that a system automatically placing people on a no-fly list and getting it clearly wrong is actually a sign that less surveillance than necessary to do a "good job" is taking place?
Yes, there are mistakes where a clearly patriotic couple named their baby "Osama 'Death To America' bin Laden" and so a 2 year old ends up on the list, but they are around 5ppm errors which is half-decent for such a huge bureaucracy IMO. To expect much more from government is optimistic, without total abolishment of their ability to enforce, I mean. Certainly would be difficult to legislate - "You have to know, without investigating, whether or not you have sufficient basis for a warrant."
"Congratulations on being "useful", then."
Thank you. Moving on with my life in the face of what is, to my mind, an undeniable truth, is worthy of congratulations. For a short while I was very concerned with mass surveillance. I have found a happy medium.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Thexalon on Thursday February 09 2017, @02:54AM
In other words, somebody that somebody else in town doesn't like, for whatever reason. This sounds an awful lot like "This oppression won't be targeting me and mine, so that makes it OK."
It is not the only solution. By your logic, because it was possible to have a Stasi in East Germany, the Stasi was just plain swell.
No, I didn't. I said Sanders was attacked for it, but not that those attacks were coming from liberals. The attacks in question actually came from the more authoritarian wings of the Democratic Party, the same sort that like to pal around with Henry Kissinger planning the US's military takeover of the world, which is not the same group of people as "liberals".
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Thursday February 09 2017, @07:51PM
"This sounds an awful lot like "This oppression won't be targeting me and mine, so that makes it OK.""
I am talking about pragmatic reality, and you continue to compare my evidence-supported basis of the world not ever being a perfect place to your idealized vision of society.
"It is not the only solution."
OK, name a single other one that is actually realistic. I hope you realize that all of recorded human history disagrees with you. Spies and surveillance date back millenia, and you are a fool to think people have intrinsically changed since then.
Let me guess: Your proposed system (if you have even taken the time to develop one, which I highly doubt) will rely on people who seek power and influence to have the types of character qualities that are polar opposites to ones typically found in people who seek power and influence. Or let me guess, "A socialist system where there are no borders." Or, "We won't give ourselves this power, and everyone (Iran, Russia, China) will get warm fuzzies inside, and feel so inspired by our deliberate degeneration that they will find it in their hearts to disarm, too!"
I will say it again, in vain hope get it through to you: I am talking about reality. You are comparing this reality to your fantasy, and you think yourself insightful (as do other Liberals, apparently) for stating that flawed reality is less desirable than perfect fantasy. Of course bigotry fucking sucks, but 100% guarantee (again, evidence-supported statement Source: All of recorded human history) it will always exist as long as people are allowed to have differing opinions.
" I said Sanders was attacked for it, but not that those attacks were coming from liberals."
I knew you would make this argument, but also knew if I rebutted prematurely, that you would cry "strawman."
You are grasping at straws. "the more authoritarian wings of the Democratic Party" is a ridiculous statement to make. You think liberal California and New York have the laws they do because a minority of Democratic voters support these policies? Yet again, objective reality does not align with your statements.
The Burden of Proof now rests with you: If you can prove to me that the voters in Liberal states do NOT support restrictive gun laws, please do so. I have the entire populations of California and New York to disprove your claims. Where is your evidence?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 08 2017, @07:44PM
Guns? GUNS...?
Good luck with you pew-pew stick when they come at you with an MRAP [wikipedia.org] which your friendly police department managed to pick up for a good price at a surplus sale managed by the DoD.
And when you do manage to 'overpower' your local police department, your elected representatives will be super-quick to call in the national guard which has even more toys to fuck you in the ass with.
If you have any illusion that you can fight the Government of the Day, then I've got a bridge to sell you.
It's staggering how people keep thinking that guns will keep you safe.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 08 2017, @09:18PM
Yes. Guns.
Were we to go there - and we are not there despite people's opinions IMVHO, and I am not advocating we go there.... I do NOT need to take out an MRAP. I would need to take out a mayor. Or a Senator or five. If said person is stupid enough... and they are... that is a capability for guns and maybe a small action squad.
Or I may need to shoot you and a few others in a random shooting to convince the populace that their po-pos and National Guards can't keep the populace safe. Again, a matter for guns.
If I NEED to take out an MRAP...... I have my foreign relations officers talk to Mexico and persuade Enrique Nieto that the best way to get Trump to stop talking about a wall is to set me up with some RPG-29s that I'll use on the Canadian border. Or convince Bashar Assad of the same. Before I can get them to listen to me.... I'd better prove that I have enough small arms to support my anti-armor infantry members.
So don't knock the capabilities of an armed populace.
Again, all of that would be how I'd handle things as a small unit commander if I ever needed to, and I do NOT. And oh, by the way..... that's not much more than what the CIA did for teh Afghans before the Taliban tallied our bananas. (You guys do the fighting, we'll give you the additional weps you need to topple your government.)
It amazes me that the terminally stupid who've likely never had military service think that an armed populace in revolt would stop at needing guns or that more things couldn't be procured if things ever got that dire. But that's OK. Let the cops fuck you in the ass. I've got my pew-pew sticks and apparently you don't.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday February 09 2017, @12:38AM
Imagination fail. Gorbachev time, most of the East European countries got rid of their communist regimes without guns. Why? The police/army are living in the same country
Maybe the "competitive mindset" of USian may fuck up the initial stages, but non-violent revolutions are possible to some extent
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 08 2017, @09:21PM
Speaking as a veteran who fought in Iraq, and whos primary job was finding and removing roadside bombs made by people living 50 years in the past, I am seriously surprised at how many people underestimate an insurgency. I am also seriously surprised at the number of people who think the government could get even half of the armed forces to fire on other Americans. I actually remember that subject coming up and essentially everyone said they would disobey that order. I would not be surprised to see entire units defecting to the insurgency.
The rank and file military is NOT corrupt in the same way that cops are. Soldiers see civilians as people to be protected, where cops see them as enemies. We did everything in our power to protect even "nonallied noncombatants" from the roadside bombs that were put in on routes not used generally by the allied forces, meaning the real target was other civilians. Try not to ascribe the tendency of cops to the military.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 09 2017, @05:37AM
LOL. That is because the idiots with the guns are (and will be) the deluded enforcement wing of Big Brother/Thinkpol. If the powers that be weren't 100% sure of that, the gun control would have started in earnest decades ago. Gun owners won't be overwhelming local police governments, National Guard, or U.S. Military, they will be goosestepping right alongside them, forcibly putting down the little guy.
Watch and see how that plays out if/when actual freedom fighters/leftists (instead of the typical alt-right, fascist, religious fundamentalists) start stockpiling weapons and ammo and engaging in militant rhetoric.
The trigger happy goons quite ironically believe they are The Brotherhood, but they are actually the unwitting dupes of The Party.
Doubleplusgood.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Thursday February 09 2017, @02:41PM
We don't have to "watch and see", because that sort of thing has happened before. The result is invariably a strong crackdown on the part of the FBI. This is true whether you're talking about the Weathermen, the Black Panthers, or the Symbionese Liberation Army.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by dry on Thursday February 09 2017, @06:07AM
Gun owners are as likely to be supporting the police (state) as not. The government will round up the undesirables, Muslims, Blacks, Queers and other undesirables. Do you really think the average gun owner is going to protect the right of Muslims to practice their religion?
If nothing else it'll be war between the various gun owners as the government continues to play divide and conquer.
(Score: 2) by Kromagv0 on Thursday February 09 2017, @02:39PM
Do you really think the average gun owner is going to protect the right of Muslims to practice their religion?
Maybe. I remember that after the election hearing that gun sales were up but not because it was your typical "conservative" types panic buying just in case but because the typical "liberal" types were buying to protect themselves just in case. Depending on if it continues you may see that there would be a large contingent of gun owners who would.
For example one of my cousins' wife decided that she needed a gun, both him and her are huge liberals, after the election. Being the only one in my generation in the family who hunts she came and asked me what kind of gun she should get, the typical question from someone who has no gun experience. My response is always is what do you want it for when I get asked this. After a long discussion about it to get them informed they could at least go and make an informed decision. I pointed them to a local gun shop that has a range and will rent different guns so you can try them. As someone who is a responsible gun owner of several different firearms I also walked them though how to go about getting proper training on handling and using them, how to store them safely and securely (they were shocked that mine are in a huge heavy fireproof safe bolted to the poured concrete basement floor), and just general information. Some other things that seemed surprising to them was that I didn't recommend anything that I own as she was looking for a personal protection weapon and while I have one mine is for protection from things like bears where you want a big powerful round like a .44 mag, .454 casull, or .500 winchester mag which is not what she needed so I recommended something that shoots .38 special and to go try a bunch of different guns that shoot it and find one she is comfortable handling, if she couldn't find one she liked in that caliber I suggested looking at 9mm instead.
Do I think that she would be one of the people out protecting the undesirables with her firearm, maybe. Would I, I don't actually know. Do I think she would take other actions to protect the rights of undesirables, absolutely. Would I, yes absolutely.
T-Shirts and bumper stickers [zazzle.com] to offend someone
(Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Thursday February 09 2017, @08:24PM
You are an upstanding citizen. Thank you.