"Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother."
When did this debate take place. They still act as if it is only the metadata being collected and there is no mention of the NSA employees who were spying in on their love interests.
.. unless you are talking about warrantless spying in foreign countries, which is obviously what the NSA does and isn't the least bit controversial in the legal sense.
My wife's cousin met a guy in the military at the airport when she went to the US and when she came back to Australia, he somehow tracked her down because he liked her. This was around 2005-2006 and back then I thought the US was headed for a civil war and told her to which she must have relayed that to him and he became abusive towards her and eventually cut ties with her. It's hypocrisy. In saying they do it to stop such and such, they are doing the exact things they claim to being trying to prevent. If they know all, why can't they catch high profile pedophiles and child traffickers? They only focus on the people near the bottom to deflect the spotlight being shone on them.
Buy a personal firearm, take it to the range and practice, protect your family, and show no fear. That's how you fight terrorism. Not bending over for the NSA.
This debate only takes the view of american citizens, it does not question the fact that the NSA spies on innocent citizens in every country around the world. There are no laws that seem to protect the rights of innocent foreign nationals. The second question that isn't really answered is how can we be sure that the "checks and balances" referred to by those in defence of the motion happen behind closed doors. We have no guarantee that these checks and balances happen or are even sufficient.
And, why should I logically concern myself with the morality of my government spying over the citizens or governments of other nations? If anything, it is their JOB to be aware of what potential enemies may be plotting and I will not apologize for caution and necessity.
54:40 There is a good alternative. If an individual is suspected of being involved in a threat against national security, then based on that suspicion you investigate them and collect the relevant information to obtain a warrant to arrest the individual.
I think people will naturally be against such programs regardless their merits. The government is really in a tough spot, since it has determined that it can't discuss any specifics about the threats.
I love how the author of the Patriot Act pleads ignorant of what the unintended consequences would be. What a divorce from reality. The problem with the world today is well intentioned but stupid people.
Being non US Citizen just have to say find it offencive its OK to monitor everybody else exept US Citizens... ofcourse most counties have similar rules but ofcourse work with the NSA so it does become legal to monitor everybody on Earth. The "Make Us Safe" argument is silly.In the end its number of Lifes saved /$ , u say you cant put a price on Life but does happen all the time. So to make people safe it is propably better to make furniture less prone to fall since thats a real danger of getting killed and who fears furniture?Would say this is No 1 a Money issue to many Contractors etc making Money "like big banks" and in the US Money=Political Power.Also a perfect business model.... the proof of its working is that not more shit happens....If something happens we lack reasources and Money and have legal restraints and we cant tell you what we do...It does put a lot of trust and reasources in anynomous hands, normaly if something can get abused it will happen given time.Would say... to Quote Margarate Thatcher... (first and last time) Look at the echonomy as your household echonomy... dont spend more than you can afford...Who the hell put "terrorist threat" in once monthly budget,,,Also the US nearly spend as much on military as the rest of the World, you piss of a major part of the World AND will propably hurt Silicon valley buy snooping on foreigners... who wants to store data in the US....EU are about to put down new fiber to Brazil just to bypass the US...Still in the public debate you Always seem to be afraid of somebody invading you or kill you (in the meantime you kill each other to the number of 4 times 9/11 each year thru guns...) does not realy seem healthy...(propably low number since its ilegal for goverment Agencys to accumulate the data...)Put your Money in to education, raise min vage and get some vacation like the rest of the World...Hopefully u relax if drugs gets legalised... :)Just a thought...
+Jonas Ryder I didn't read your whole comment because it was hella long, but I do want to say something about your offence with countries surveilling foreign data. The country surveilling can give a rats anus about what you do outside the country. They only care about threats to their country itself. You could be doing a drug trade in your country for all they care as long as there is no intention to bring it to their country. The worst they would do is tip off the other country of the threat, but I imagine this wouldn't happen very often. The country itself has no jurisdiction (and most likely never will) and therefore shouldn't be a concern to those outside said country.
Wow. John Donvan, you really let me down on this one. It appears that you are sympathetic with the "for" side on this one. Of course, everyone has an opinion on this, right or wrong. Most of your pointed questions were directed at the "against" side, however.
Trading liberty in return for security. Never ends well for the peasant class.
"if you give them the rules they will follow those rules" the government isn't run by angels, Baker.
do thet believe scotty and i aew
do they believe scotty and i are terrorists
"Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother."
If privacy is lost, then forget about safety. So the question itself is not properly addressed.
When did this debate take place. They still act as if it is only the metadata being collected and there is no mention of the NSA employees who were spying in on their love interests.
It is only metadata being collected intentionally without a warrant. There hasn't been evidence to the contrary.
.. unless you are talking about warrantless spying in foreign countries, which is obviously what the NSA does and isn't the least bit controversial in the legal sense.
My wife's cousin met a guy in the military at the airport when she went to the US and when she came back to Australia, he somehow tracked her down because he liked her. This was around 2005-2006 and back then I thought the US was headed for a civil war and told her to which she must have relayed that to him and he became abusive towards her and eventually cut ties with her. It's hypocrisy. In saying they do it to stop such and such, they are doing the exact things they claim to being trying to prevent. If they know all, why can't they catch high profile pedophiles and child traffickers? They only focus on the people near the bottom to deflect the spotlight being shone on them.
That is a VERY small space and if I were speaking oh lawd would my hands and voice be shaking
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."
Buy a personal firearm, take it to the range and practice, protect your family, and show no fear. That's how you fight terrorism. Not bending over for the NSA.
"unintentional lie" is some kind of newspeak...
Transparency and privacy for the sake of safety. So, where is freedom, democracy and free of fear in the land of the free?
This debate only takes the view of american citizens, it does not question the fact that the NSA spies on innocent citizens in every country around the world. There are no laws that seem to protect the rights of innocent foreign nationals. The second question that isn't really answered is how can we be sure that the "checks and balances" referred to by those in defence of the motion happen behind closed doors. We have no guarantee that these checks and balances happen or are even sufficient.
And, why should I logically concern myself with the morality of my government spying over the citizens or governments of other nations? If anything, it is their JOB to be aware of what potential enemies may be plotting and I will not apologize for caution and necessity.
54:40 There is a good alternative. If an individual is suspected of being involved in a threat against national security, then based on that suspicion you investigate them and collect the relevant information to obtain a warrant to arrest the individual.
I think people will naturally be against such programs regardless their merits. The government is really in a tough spot, since it has determined that it can't discuss any specifics about the threats.
The description is wrong. It should be "The NSA collects data on billions of phone call RECORDS and internet communication RECORDS per day."
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty."
-Benjamin Franklin
I love how the author of the Patriot Act pleads ignorant of what the unintended consequences would be. What a divorce from reality.
The problem with the world today is well intentioned but stupid people.
Maybe the NSA does follow the rules,.. maybe... but their hundreds of thousands of contractors certainly do not.
wow I never even knew about this until I got the assessment from my class and started to listen to it, it blows my mind, I'm AGENST this act😑
+Ellie Baca I am glad you stated your opinion AGENST it
why is the viewing quality low for this debate?
this host is a sympathizer with those for the motion, unbalanced representation.
Should have got Snowden on
Men!
Old white men!
Being non US Citizen just have to say find it offencive its OK to monitor everybody else exept US Citizens... ofcourse most counties have similar rules but ofcourse work with the NSA so it does become legal to monitor everybody on Earth. The "Make Us Safe" argument is silly.In the end its number of Lifes saved /$ , u say you cant put a price on Life but does happen all the time. So to make people safe it is propably better to make furniture less prone to fall since thats a real danger of getting killed and who fears furniture?Would say this is No 1 a Money issue to many Contractors etc making Money "like big banks" and in the US Money=Political Power.Also a perfect business model.... the proof of its working is that not more shit happens....If something happens we lack reasources and Money and have legal restraints and we cant tell you what we do...It does put a lot of trust and reasources in anynomous hands, normaly if something can get abused it will happen given time.Would say... to Quote Margarate Thatcher... (first and last time) Look at the echonomy as your household echonomy... dont spend more than you can afford...Who the hell put "terrorist threat" in once monthly budget,,,Also the US nearly spend as much on military as the rest of the World, you piss of a major part of the World AND will propably hurt Silicon valley buy snooping on foreigners... who wants to store data in the US....EU are about to put down new fiber to Brazil just to bypass the US...Still in the public debate you Always seem to be afraid of somebody invading you or kill you (in the meantime you kill each other to the number of 4 times 9/11 each year thru guns...) does not realy seem healthy...(propably low number since its ilegal for goverment Agencys to accumulate the data...)Put your Money in to education, raise min vage and get some vacation like the rest of the World...Hopefully u relax if drugs gets legalised... :)Just a thought...
+Jonas Ryder I didn't read your whole comment because it was hella long, but I do want to say something about your offence with countries surveilling foreign data. The country surveilling can give a rats anus about what you do outside the country. They only care about threats to their country itself. You could be doing a drug trade in your country for all they care as long as there is no intention to bring it to their country. The worst they would do is tip off the other country of the threat, but I imagine this wouldn't happen very often. The country itself has no jurisdiction (and most likely never will) and therefore shouldn't be a concern to those outside said country.
Wow. John Donvan, you really let me down on this one. It appears that you are sympathetic with the "for" side on this one. Of course, everyone has an opinion on this, right or wrong. Most of your pointed questions were directed at the "against" side, however.
+theycallmemrshaggs I don't think it was that he was biased toward the for side. The against side just said more things that needed to be clarified.
😂😂😂 you guys are sick jokers?